Women’s contribution in development: Rhetoric versus Practice

President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, in statements made on Women’s Day which fell on March 8, emphasised the role women play within the socio- economic spheres of the nation. The underlying message of the statements is very clear: Women are considered “equal partners” because they play a pivotal role in Sri Lanka’s development and their efforts must be harnessed and channelled towards sustainable development. However even a cursory review of the status of women in Sri Lanka paints a rather negative picture, whether it is regarding their economic engagement or their participation in civic and political arenas – spheres that both statements highlighted.

Sri Lanka has continuously been held as the role model for its South Asian counterparts on education, literacy and maternal health and at present, is the only country in South Asia to have closed the health and survival gender gap. But these indicators, while praiseworthy, have not necessarily translated into solid progression of women in the economic or social spheres. Rather disturbingly, women in Sri Lanka appear to be regressing while the rest of South Asia, particularly Bangladesh is increasing its female labour force participation. As the World Bank pointed out recently, women in Sri Lanka appear to be retreating from the labour force, rather than engaging in some form of economic activity.

The female labour force participation rate which has remained traditionally low, is making few strides and has continued to remain around 36 per cent through the third quarter of 2017, compared to 73 per cent for men. Notably though, while the employment rate among women remains high, a more troubling element has also been highlighted. According to the 2017 Global Gender Gap Report, the gender wage gap in Sri Lanka has widened, specifically the wages paid for similar work, resulting in Sri Lanka falling down the ranks behind Bangladesh, the Maldives and India.

For a country where the majority of the population constitutes women, the lack of opportunities to engage in a livelihood activity carries major repercussions, especially for women-headed households and those recovering from the effects of the civil war and natural disasters. Perhaps in response to the notion that persistent cultural norms place the woman within the household assigning her the primary responsibility of care giving for children and the elderly, the government has striven to “catch up” by offering flexible hours and planning to introduce affordable day care centres to attract women to the workforce. But how well these policy decisions are being implemented and whether such efforts would even be adequate to facilitate the entry of women into the labour force is not yet clear. On the other hand, the exist- ent wage gap raises additional concerns. Not only are women opting not to join the labour force, but for those already in the workforce, their work is not adequately compensated. For women juggling multiple roles of caregiving and economic engagement, of which the former is rarely recognised, the inability to earn an equal wage for similar work de-incentivises them from seeking work.

CEPA’s own research, on female migrant workers and women engaged in the fisheries sector, indicates that where women are currently finding work or engaging in livelihoods, government policies, rather than promoting and safeguarding the women’s livelihoods, are instead leaving women behind. For example, there is concern that women are being sidelined in the draft Fisheries and Aquaculture policy. The fact that women maintain a considerable presence in the largely male-dominated industry must be given due recognition and their specific needs and concerns addressed. Successive governments have also sought to prevent women from migrating for work overseas, introducing restrictions that have effectively pushed women to seek irregular methods to leave the country for work overseas. Unfortunately, in both these instances, rather than extending support to these women workers, state policies are increasingly posing a threat to their chosen form of work. On the other hand, where the government has introduced livelihood support mechanisms at the community level, the general complaint raised by women is that government officials do not visit the communities, leaving women unaware of the programmes being implemented. Political influence and favouritism therefore, are then seen as ways in which such services are provided to a select number of women.

This inability, on the part of successive governments, to understand the ways and means in which women engage in some form of livelihood activity is therefore, quite troubling, especially given the urgency to ensure women have adequate access to engage in economic activities. Recognising women as equal partners in progress is not enough, especially if there is no clear understanding of the difficulties women encounter in engaging in the labour force and the policy frameworks that should ideally facilitate such participation is lacking. Unless these basic concerns, along with the more complex issues of the gender wage gap and mechanisms to help balance caregiving and work responsibilities are addressed, Sri Lankan women will continue to be under- represented or remain outside the labour force.