When we think of what drives economic growth, we often hear about investment, innovation, labor productivity, or trade. Rarely, if ever, do we hear about unpaid care work—the cooking, cleaning, childcare, elder care, and emotional labor that keeps households and societies running. Yet behind every productive worker is someone providing care, often unpaid, unrecognized, and disproportionately done by women.

In standard macroeconomic analysis, social reproduction or care provisioning is generally not included as a contributor to growth. This omission helped catalyze a research agenda starting 1990s, as economists highlighted the importance of making unpaid care work—essential to sustaining labor and building human capabilities—visible in macroeconomic frameworks. The two well-known Special Issues (1995 and 2000) of World Development on Gendering Macroeconomics had set up the stage for expanding the role of gender and care work in macroeconomics. Feminist economists argue that ignoring this labor produces an incomplete and biased understanding of the economy, while public policies built on that blind spot risk disproportionately harming women, especially low-income women, and undermining long-term well-being. Over the past two decades, this body of research has reshaped the conversation, pushing care work to the center of debates on gender equity and growth.

A major milestone came in 2011, when Elissa Braunstein, Irene van Staveren, and Daniele Tavani integrated care and social reproduction into a macroeconomic growth model.  Their work demonstrated that how care is distributed among women, men, the state, and the market—and the state’s caring tendencies to invest in human capacities—has profound consequences for economic outcomes. In other words, the way societies organize and value care is not peripheral to the economy; it shapes it. They identify four distinct care regimes:

1. Mutual: Strong public investment and shared household care support both women’s work and human development, allowing growth and social reproduction to reinforce each other
2. Time Squeeze: Weak public support leaves households overstretched, so even when women work more, time pressures undermine long-term growth.
3. Wage Squeeze: Limited care services and underinvestment slow growth, though women’s increased employment still helps build human capacities.
4. Exploitation: Minimal state support pushes care burdens onto women, driving growth through their unpaid or underpaid labor and eroding human capacities.

A series of empirical studies in this tradition focusing on cross-county analysis show that countries in the mutual regime, with stronger care investments and greater gender equality, tend to experience more stable and inclusive economic growth. Building on this work, I extend the analysis to the subnational level, examining U.S. states to draw more targeted policy insights that reflect specific geographic contexts and institutional conditions.

Although the U.S. shares a national policy framework, states differ widely in childcare systems, labor markets, social programs, and public investment. Using two composite measures—care demand and care supply—states can be classified into the four care regimes. The scores rely on data on unpaid care time, social spending, wage of care workers, licensed childcare slots, generosity of welfare programs, and public capital spending.  What is important to uncover is how the care regimes shape the links between women’s labor force participation (WLFP) and economic growth.

More Labor Market Participation Isn’t Always Better—Unless Care Is Supported

What happens when more women enter the labor force? The answer depends on the care regime. Findings for the U.S. states shows that the mutual regime, characterized by gender-equal care within household, strong support of care from public and market sectors, and pro-human capacity building tendency of states, is compatible with increase in economic growth. In fact, states characterized by the mutual regime experience higher level of economic growth on average compared to states that belong to the exploitative, wage-squeeze or time-squeeze regimes. Moreover, the mutual regime exhibits a positive relationship between WLFP and per-capita economic capita growth rate. Yet only about 20% of states fall into this category, which suggests that there is substantial room to promote gender-equitable, care-supportive growth in the remaining states. Simply increasing women’s employment is not enough; without adequate care support, growth can deepen inequality, as seen in exploitative or time-squeeze regimes. What it takes to achieve high economic growth or the cost of economic growth in terms of gender equality and human development is crucial and needs to be integrated in macroeconomic policy making.

Policy Implications: A State-Level Agenda for Inclusive Growth

The U.S. lags behind many developed countries in maternal health, paid family leave, and affordable childcare.  By understanding which regime a state falls into, policymakers can better target investments and reforms that support both gender equity and economic performance. For instance, expanding investment in public childcare infrastructure and services could be one immediate policy action in exploitative and time squeeze regimes. This would require federal investment along with policy initiatives at the state level that prioritize care-sector development and ease out procedural and logistical hurdles to availing care services.  In addition, state paid parental leave laws and care-supportive workplace policies can also enhance gender-equitable sharing of childcare, help develop children’s capacities, and increase women’s labor force participation.

Redefining Economic Success

What we need is a broader shift in how we understand growth—one that values well-being, not just expanding Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A truly inclusive economy recognizes both paid and unpaid work, especially the care that sustains individuals, communities, and markets. In the U.S. and globally, sustainable and gender-just growth will depend on how we organize and share care—at home, in workplaces, and through public policy. The path to achieving economic growth must be judged not only by how much we grow, but by how we grow and who that growth serves.  Economic progress will remain a partial story until care provisioning is finally recognized as central to it.

---

Author’s Note: This blog is based on original research examining the relationship between care regimes, women’s labor force participation, and economic growth across U.S. states. It draws on insights from feminist economics and contributes to a growing field that is rethinking the foundations of gender and macroeconomic analysis

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.