• Verité Research Senior Research Analyst Sumini Siyambalapitiya discusses key findings of latest study titled “Costs of Doing a Job for Urban Women in Sri Lanka”

BY Kiara Warnasuriya  Verité Research; an independent think tank that provides strategic analysis for Asia in the areas of economics, politics, law, and media, recently published a study on the “Costs of Doing a Job for Urban Women in Sri Lanka” exploring how cost factors affect the choice of women entering or exiting the labour force in Sri Lanka. The study revolved around three categories of working-age women – currently employed, previously employed, or never employed – from the Western Province. These women were sampled through focus group discussions and a detailed survey questionnaire. This study was authored by Verité Research’s Research Director Subhashini Abeysinghe, CEO Nishan de Mel, Senior Research Analyst Sumini Siyambalapitiya, Research Analyst Mihindu Perera, and Senior Research Analyst Ashvin Perera. In an interview with The Morning, Sumini Siyambalapitiya spoke of what inspired the team to explore such an angle, the interesting insights gained during this research, and their views on the costs obstructing women entering the labour force and compelling them to leave the same. Following are excerpts from the interview: Other than the previously observed factors contributing to low Female Labour Force Participation (FLFP), such as labour market discrimination, the lack of childcare services, and sociocultural gender norms, what made you look at the cost-prohibitive angle? When we talk about FLFP, we’re always talking about the benefits of getting more women into the Labour Force, but generally there is a lack of nuance in understanding that while it is great to get women into the labour force, it must be acknowledged that women have certain constraints. For example, Sri Lankan society is very reliant on the unpaid labour of women, such as the need for women to be the primary caregivers in the home.  Recognising that, we thought it would be interesting to assign a number to that. We know that words like “double burden” have power, it revolutionises our understanding of the unpaid labour that women perform. Similarly, numbers have power too and we thought that to be able to quantify the cost that women bear would be interesting too. In your publication you speak about monetary and non-monetary costs that women have to bear. What are these costs specifically? In terms of monetary costs, these are the standard costs involved in any job like transport, clothing, and rent in certain situations. These are general, neutral costs that men have to bear as well, but there is a gender component even in monetary costs. For example, if your job is within walking distance or if you need to take the bus; women may not always choose that option due to safety concerns. Sri Lanka’s sexual harassment rate in transport is extremely high. Many of these seemingly innocuous decisions are also very much “gender choices”, so in terms of material costs, they are also very different. There are two components in terms of non-monetary costs; we have emotional/psychological costs and physical costs. Part of this comes from the double burden where they wake up early in the morning around 4-5 a.m. and take care of their husband’s and children’s needs, put in eight hours of work, come back home, and take care of children. We tried to quantify that physical and psychological burden. It’s not as comprehensive, and it is extremely hard to capture all non-monetary costs but we thought this was a good first step in trying to capture a few of the many costs that women bear. Do you think that these costs are unique to women as opposed to men? I don’t want to generalise and say that they are strictly exclusive to women, but predominantly women do bear these burdens. Again, it is not applicable to all women, and neither do women alone bear these costs, but as a group, women do tend to be the primary caregivers.  This costing framework, however, can be applicable to single parents whether male or female and it can apply to a wide group of people. The idea behind it is though, that these labour market decisions are not as straightforward as we think they are. What patriarchal expectations, as you have mentioned in your publication, are you specifically referring to, that stand in the way of women joining the labour force? One key expectation is the idea of women as wives and mothers. There is a seemingly rather prevalent idea of what a woman’s place in society is, even amongst spouses. Looking at the pipeline of FLFP, one can see that women left the labour force at either marriage or childbirth. It’s very interesting how ingrained these ideas are in women because they are also unwilling to leave their kids at daycares in fear of what others would say about it.  The idea that the responsibility to take care of children is primarily on the mother and never a discussion of shared responsibility, the idea of being a good mother, good wife complicates their decision to participate in the labour force. Sometimes women will say it’s a joint decision between spouses because they don’t want to reveal that they are being forced by their spouse. In some cases it is a preference shaped by reality; if they really do want to stay home and take care of kids it is still definitely shaped by the consequences society has for them. Your study showed that all three categories of women saw the value in being employed and referred to ‘nidahasa’. What does that tell you? It shows that there is a benefit to being in the labour force, the idea of “nidahasa” is very interesting, because the literal translation is “freedom”. But what they meant was having their personhood without guilt, going out with friends and networking. When you are removed from the labour market, you’re almost removed from society, which is what they felt; a loss in connectivity. It was particularly significant for women who had left work. Do you think there is responsibility on women in higher corporate positions to help women facing this issue? Absolutely, but I don’t think it’s fair to always put the responsibility on other women to build that pipeline. It’s a shared responsibility across policymakers and corporations to contribute to that kind of sustainable change.  It’s certainly great, but through the networking we have done as a result of this research paper, we realised that corporates often only rely on women who succeed despite the odds to help everybody else. I would think it's not a fair ask because that’s also unpaid labour on their part.  When you say sustainable change, what actions or solutions on the part of policymakers, even the Government, would contribute to it? The key is identifying actionable solutions. We’ve really tried to advocate the idea of “Return to Work Programmes”, because one thing that constrains and really creates high costs is the way that the work day is structured. A nine-to-five system does not work, given the other labour that women perform.  “Return to Work” is a standard model and has been successful in India, where they helped bring back over 10,000 women to the labour force. It’s mainstreaming working from home, flexible hours, and helping women with career breaks facilitate that transition back. Mainstreaming policies and creating structures like this is one solution. Childcare is a huge issue because Sri Lanka does not have a good childcare programme at all. Nothing is regulated. In the last few years, we have seen bigger corporates taking steps to offer employees sponsored child care, but it’s accessible to a small portion of the population and offered only by a small number of corporate entities.  Pushing for better accreditation, better standards, and from the Government’s side – subsidising child care is a good first step in terms of where we can go and how we can start to really give women the choice. We always talk about choice but it is never really a woman’s choice unless they start from an even playing field. Your statistics show that the costs women bear are higher than their earnings. Are you then advocating for higher pay for women? Absolutely, I think the conversation around pay should be taken seriously not just for women but across the board. Sri Lanka in general has an issue with pay and we hope that this is a catalyst to start conversations in terms of how we define fair pay which is beyond a gender conversation. What is really important is the acknowledgement of these costs from a gender perspective, and that it is not sustainable. A follow-up that we’d like to do is the same for men to compare, but acknowledging that there are gendered costs is the key component to this conversation. Seeing as your study was done last year and in view of the prevailing economic crisis, do you think the situation for women has become better or worse? It has become significantly worse. Our study was done at the end of last year and costs have increased significantly since then. Our sample was focused on primarily low-income women with a median income of Rs. 25,000. Income has not increased with the same elasticity as inflation and cost of living, our findings show that for every Rs. 100 they earn, their cost is Rs. 160, therefore the gap has become much larger. The numbers just signify what women are earning and what it costs them to actually earn that money. What legislative measures are you pushing for to equalise the situation? A lot of it also relies on change in other areas. Better public transport, even though that doesn’t sound like it relates, but better transportation will directly bring down costs. Maternity leave benefits is something which Verité has been advocating for over five years. Even though women’s maternity leave entitlement is standard, it’s entirely upon the employer to bear that cost. In many countries that cost is borne by the Government itself, and that’s something that brings down discriminatory practices around women’s employment. Our national childcare policy was drawn up around 2015 by the Ministry of Women and Child Affairs, but even though it has been drafted it hasn’t been implemented. That’s one thing we’d like to see, especially given that child care is one of the biggest inhibitors for women. Women in the labour force rely on unpaid labour of family members just to enable them to participate, meaning the loss of the same forces them to leave the labour force. Creating affordable, quality childcare options is a big part of the solution. Part-time labour laws, part-time work, flexible working, and remote working are also a big part of the solution to help women safely participate in the labour force. Were there women who expressed that sexual harassment stood in the way of working? It didn’t come out explicitly, given that our focus group discussions were a smaller sample of the entire sampling that we did. But it was interesting that it was often part of the decision-making of spouses regarding their safety. Do these barriers affect the younger or older group of women? We sampled women between ages 20-50, it was a very similar response that we received from all of them. But what was interesting was that the older women who had left the labour force when they had young children and returned when they got older seemed to feel like they shouldn’t have left in the first place.  Those years they lost had put them behind their male peers, so when they returned, they were somewhat stagnant. Now that they’re back, they were better able to articulate the costs they experienced, and the expectations placed upon them as a mother and wife in a more comprehensive sense. What do you think of the recent dress code policy issued by the Government allowing people to come in suitable attire to work? It's certainly a progressive step, clothing is a very gendered thing because women, even without a dress-code policy, face this expectation where they have to look nice. Clothing like the saree is a gendered cost that women have to bear, so it is a progressive step, but holistically, we have a long way to go in terms of whether it will actually materialise.  Policymaking is one thing and implementation is another in terms of change in culture of accepting it and how it’s tied to respect and how one is viewed in a workplace. Policy change is welcome but as to whether it changes the culture within the public sector offices is a broader conversation, so we are yet to see how it plays out. What do you think of teachers not being given the same privilege? It is not a fair policy as male teachers don’t have any similar dress code. It is beyond my position to comment on it, but strictly viewing it as a policy that has any real benefit in terms of a job role, there is no logic to the enforcement of this policy. A uniform does not have any consequence on your ability to perform. It does place a cost burden, both material and psychological, where you have to meet this standard to be considered a good teacher. Following Covid-19 and the lockdowns, how did working from home improve or worsen the situation for women? Work from home gave women flexibility and time to consider flexible working options. Among women in our focus group discussions, we found that many women had the time to think of entrepreneurial ideas, such as running a salon, or starting a baking/cooking business, where they still had the opportunity to network with society and have financial independence.  Secondly, by spouses spending more time at home, they were able to see the workload a woman has to bear while at home. Many women commented on how their spouses helped with more household responsibilities. I hope it is something that is sustained beyond lockdown. It is interesting that it has been a catalyst for conversations on what spousal dynamics look like.