Paying for unpaid housework

In a village in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, a woman receives a small but regular sum every month – not a salary, because she has no formal job, but an unconditional cash transfer from the government.

Premila Bhalavi says the money covers her son’s medicine, vegetables and school fees. The sum, 1,500 rupees ($16:£12), may be modest, but its effect – a predictable income, a sense of control and a taste of independence – is anything but.

His story is becoming more and more common. Across India, 118 million adult women in 12 states now receive unconditional cash transfers from their governments, making India the site of one of the world’s largest and least studied social policy experiments.

Long accustomed to subsidizing grain, fuel and rural jobs, India has stumbled upon something more radical: paying adult women simply because they support the household, bear the burden of unpaid care and form a constituency too large to ignore.

Eligibility filters vary: age thresholds, income limits and exclusions for families with government employees, taxpayers or owners of cars or large land.

“Unconditional cash transfers demonstrate a significant expansion of Indian state welfare schemes in favor of women,” said Prabha Kotiswaran, professor of law and social law. justice from King’s College London, told the BBC.

Transfers range from 1,000 to 2,500 rupees ($12 to $30) per month – meager sums, representing around 5 to 12 percent of household income, but regular. With 300 million women now having bank accounts, transfers have become administratively simple.

Women generally spending money to meet household and family needs: children’s education, groceries, cooking gas, medical and emergency expenses, repayment of small debts and occasional personal items like gold or small comforts.

What distinguishes India from Mexico, Brazil or Indonesia – countries with large conditional cash transfer programs – is the absence of conditions: the money arrives whether or not a child goes to school or whether a household falls below the poverty line.

Goa was the first state to launch an unconditional cash transfer program for women in 2013. The phenomenon accelerated just before the pandemic in 2020, when northeast Assam rolled out a program for vulnerable women. Since then, these transfers have transformed into real political weight.

The recent wave of unconditional cash transfers targets adult women, with some states recognizing their unpaid domestic and care work. Tamil Nadu considers its payments a “entitlement subsidy,” while West Bengal’s program similarly recognizes women’s unpaid contributions.

In other states, recognition is implicit: policymakers expect women to use transfers for household and family well-being, experts say.

This focus on women’s economic role has also shaped policy: in 2021, Tamil actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan promised “wages for housewives.” (Her new party lost.) By 2024, promises of women-focused cash transfers helped political parties in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Odisha, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh win.

In the recent elections in Bihar, the political power of cash transfers was clearly demonstrated. In the weeks before the vote in the country’s poorest state, the government transferred 10,000 rupees ($112; £85) to 7.5 million women’s bank accounts as part of a livelihood generation programme. Women voted in greater numbers than men, which determined the outcome of the vote.

Critics called it blatant vote buying, but the result was clear: Women helped the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition win a landslide victory. Many believe this cash infusion is a reminder of how financial support can be used as political leverage.

Yet Bihar is only one part of a much bigger picture. Across India, unconditional cash transfers regularly reach tens of millions of women.

Maharashtra alone promises benefits to 25 million women; The Odisha project reaches 71% of its female voters.

In some political circles, these projects are ridiculed as vote-buying giveaways. They also put pressure on public finances: 12 states are expected to spend about $18 billion on such payments this fiscal year. A report from think tank PRS Legislative Research notes that half of these states face revenue shortfalls – this occurs when a state borrows to pay for regular expenses without creating assets.

But many say they also reflect a slow recognition of what Indian feminists have argued for decades: the economic value of unpaid domestic and care work.

In India, women spent almost five hours a day on this type of work in 2024, more than three times the time spent by men, according to the latest Time Use Survey. This unbalanced burden helps explain women’s stubbornly low labor force participation in India. Cash transfers, at least, recognize the imbalance, experts say.

Do they work?

The evidence is still thin but instructive. A 2025 study in Maharashtra found that 30% of eligible women did not register – sometimes due to documentation problems, sometimes out of a sense of self-sufficiency. But of those who did, almost all controlled their own bank accounts.

A 2023 survey in West Bengal found that 90% of people managed their accounts themselves and 86% decided how to spend their money. Most used it for food, education, and medical expenses; not very transformative, but the regularity offered security and a sense of action.

More detailed work by Professor Kotiswaran and colleagues shows mixed results.

In Assam, most women spent their money on essentials; many appreciate the dignity it confers, but few associate it with recognition of unpaid work, and most would still prefer paid jobs.

In Tamil Nadu, women who receive money speak of peace of mind, reduced marital conflict and newfound confidence – a rare social dividend. In Karnataka, beneficiaries reported eating better, having more say in household decisions, and wanting higher payments.

Yet only a small group viewed this system as compensation for unpaid care work; the mail had not traveled. Despite this, women said the money allowed them to question politicians and handle emergencies. In all studies, the majority of women had full control over money.

“Evidence shows that cash transfers are extremely useful in enabling women to meet their own immediate needs and those of their household. They also restore dignity to women who otherwise are financially dependent on their husbands for even minor expenses,” explains Professor Kotiswaran.

Importantly, none of the surveys show that money discourages women from seeking paid work or entrenching gender roles – the two big feminist fears, according to a report by Professor Kotiswaran in collaboration with Gale Andrew and Madhusree Jana.

They also did not reduce women’s unpaid work load, the researchers found. However, they strengthen financial autonomy and modestly strengthen negotiating power. They are neither a panacea nor a poison: they are useful but limited tools, operating in a patriarchal society where cash alone cannot repair structural inequalities.

And then?

Emerging research offers clear guidance.

Eligibility rules should be simplified, particularly for women carrying out heavy unpaid care work. Transfers must remain unconditional and independent of marital status.

But messages need to emphasize women’s rights and the value of unpaid work, and financial literacy efforts need to be deepened, researchers say. And cash transfers cannot replace employment opportunities; many women say that what they really want is paid work and respect that lasts.

“If transfers are accompanied by messages about recognizing women’s unpaid work, they could potentially disrupt the gender division of labor when paid employment opportunities become available,” says Professor Kotiswaran.

India’s quiet money transfer revolution is still in its early stages. But it already shows that small, regular sums – paid directly to women – can shift power in subtle and meaningful ways.

Whether this becomes a path to empowerment or simply a new form of political patronage will depend on what India chooses to build around money.