In many developing countries, the lion’s share of unpaid household work —cooking, cleaning, caregiving —falls squarely on women’s shoulders. Despite its vital role in sustaining families and economic functioning, this unpaid labor remains largely invisible in economic statistics. In India, majority women dedicate over 7 hours per day to these household tasks. This reality creates a tough dilemma: should women invest extra hours in household duties or seek paid work outside home?

When climate shocks strike, demand for unpaid household labor intensifies which influences their paid labor force participation. It might seem obvious that women would sacrifice paid work in response to increased unpaid responsibilities. However, the reality is more complex: women may either lose their jobs or become time poor as they seek additional income during crises. The connection between climate shocks and women’s time use unfolds through three key channels: damage to environmental resources, health of children and elderly, and dwindling household income. All these factors contribute to a rise in women’s time poverty. 

Kerala, a southwestern coastal state in India, is highly vulnerable to climate shocks. In August 2019, heavy rainfall led to severe flooding. Despite being a climate hotspot, Kerala is known for its robust economic development and 100% literacy. Government relief packages are readily available to support affected communities. After the August floods, my research shows that married women’s overall unpaid household labor increased by 12 hours per week: domestic labor rose by 10 hours per week and care work escalated by nearly 18 hours per week. Simultaneously, flood shocks led to a 4-hour increase in married women’s paid labor force participation—nearly 7 hours per week in employment and about 1 hour more spent seeking paid opportunities. 

In contrast, Bihar, located in eastern India, grapples with both climate vulnerability and economic hardships. Gender disparity is stark: only 4—6% of women participate in workforce compared to 60% of men. Following heavy rains and flash floods in late September, my study reveals that married women’s unpaid household labor increased by 10 hours per week: domestic work grew by 10 hours per week and care work rose by 9 hours per week. Moreover, married women’s time spent in paid labor force increased by 5.5 hours per week after the floods—4.8 hours per week from paid employment and 1.4 hours per week from seeking new opportunities. 

It is important to note that while climate shocks may increase paid labor force participation, this should not be interpreted as positive development for women’s economic empowerment. The rise in unpaid household labor often far exceeds the increase in paid labor. In fact, women entering the workforce is primarily a coping mechanism in response to these shocks and many find work in informal sectors. Furthermore, my findings highlight how climate shocks, particularly, floods, worsen “double burden” of labor for women. They are left with negligible amounts of time for leisure and self-care activities after floods. Balancing unpaid and paid work can lead to increased stress, anxiety and depression. 

Several factors influence the relationship between climate shocks and women’s time poverty. Accessibility to time-saving household technologies also mitigates the impact of climate shocks on women’s time poverty. In both Kerala and Bihar, the presence of time saving assets such as mechanized cleaning and efficient cooking fuel reduced unpaid labor hours and increased women’s paid labor force participation. For example, my research indicates that married women in Bihar with access to these time-saving assets experienced a rise in unpaid labor by only 7 hours per week after floods. On the contrary, those without any time-saving assets faced an increase of nearly 21 hours per week in unpaid work. I found similar results in case of paid labor force participation as well. In Bihar, presence of time saving assets rose women’s paid labor by 6 hours per week while it increased only 4 hours per week for women without access to any of time saving assets. 

Moreover, social hierarchies such as caste system further compounds the nexus of climate shock and women’s time poverty. Though women coming from upper and lower caste households increased their unpaid labor force by comparable hours per week, those coming from upper caste households increased their paid labor force participation unlike their lower caste households. This could be attributable to their geographical location. Typically, most of the lower caste women reside in rural areas. In my study, rural married women experienced an increase in unpaid labor by 7—13 hours per week while urban women saw an increase of 3—10 hours per week. Conversely, urban women are more likely to improve their paid labor force participation unlike the rural women since climate-sensitive sector like agriculture is main sources of living in rural areas. In Kerala, urban women increased their paid work by 6 hours per week whereas rural women reduced their participation by nearly 2 hours per week. 

To address the disproportionate burden of unpaid labor on women, policymakers must take decisive action. Strategies should include enhancing access to affordable childcare, promoting flexible work arrangements, and implementing gender-responsive disaster management frameworks. Investments that target the root causes of gender inequality are essential for fostering transformative change. Recognizing the unequal distribution of unpaid labor is vital for macroeconomic growth. When women are predominantly engaged in low-productivity tasks, economic potential is stifled, and synergies between male and female workforces are lost. Promoting flexible work arrangements, improving access to childcare, and establishing community support systems can significantly alleviate the strain on women, paving the way for a more equitable and prosperous future.

________________________________________________________

Link to Jheelum Sarkar’s other Publication:

https://journals.tplondon.com/md/article/view/3177