IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v101y2025i335p421-455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

By How Much Is ‘Women's Work’ Undervalued in the Economy?

Author

Listed:
  • Leonora Risse

Abstract

This paper investigates the extent to which ‘women's work’ – that is, work that societal norms assign to women – is systematically undervalued in the economy. Analysis of 2021 data for Australia detects that average hourly wage rates are 9.9 per cent lower in female‐concentrated occupations compared with male‐concentrated occupations, and 3.8 per cent lower in female‐concentrated industries compared with male‐concentrated industries. Looking at unpaid work that is invisible in national accounts, analysis of time use data finds that 55 per cent of women's labour contribution to the economy is in the form of unpaid work and care, compared with 31 per cent of men's. Adding unpaid work and care to paid work, and adjusting for the undervaluation of female‐concentrated jobs and the male wage premium, sees women's share of total labour input expand from 36.8 per cent to 50.5 per cent. These findings are informative across a range of practical applications, including equitable wage settings, the division of household assets, and measurements of productivity. The relegation of this topic of inquiry as a specialist ‘feminist issue’ constitutes a structural gender bias within the economics discipline: ‘women's work’ needs to be fully recognised and valued as a core component of the economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonora Risse, 2025. "By How Much Is ‘Women's Work’ Undervalued in the Economy?," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 101(335), pages 421-455, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:101:y:2025:i:335:p:421-455
    DOI: 10.1111/1475-4932.70012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4932.70012
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1475-4932.70012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:101:y:2025:i:335:p:421-455. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.