The Impact of Neoliberal Policies on Gender and Sustainability

The relationship between economic development and environmental protection has become increasingly complex in recent decades. As global attention shifts toward addressing climate change and ecological degradation, many solutions proposed by governments and international organizations remain firmly rooted in market-based approaches. This raises a critical question: can the same economic system that created environmental problems provide the solutions we need, and what does this mean for gender equality within sustainability efforts?

Understanding neoliberalism and its influence on sustainable development 🔗

Neoliberalism emerged as the dominant economic ideology in the 1980s, emphasizing free markets, minimal government intervention, and the privatization of public services. Within this framework, environmental problems became viewed primarily as market failures that could be corrected through market-based instruments rather than requiring fundamental changes to economic structures.

This approach shaped how sustainable development unfolded globally. The 1987 Brundtland Report introduced sustainable development as meeting present needs without compromising future generations. However, this concept was quickly integrated into neoliberal frameworks, emphasizing that economic growth and environmental protection could be achieved simultaneously through market mechanisms.

The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 further embedded these principles into global environmental governance. Rather than questioning whether unlimited economic growth was compatible with planetary boundaries, the dominant discourse promoted trade liberalization and market expansion as paths to environmental protection. This created what researchers call the “green growth” paradigm, suggesting that economies could continue expanding while becoming more environmentally sustainable.

How market-based solutions shape sustainability discourse 🔗

Under neoliberal environmentalism, nature itself becomes commodified. Forests are valued for their carbon storage capacity, wetlands for their water filtration services, and biodiversity for its potential pharmaceutical applications. This approach views nature primarily through its instrumental value to humans rather than recognizing its intrinsic worth.

Market-based instruments have become central to climate action. Carbon trading schemes, payment for ecosystem services, and carbon border adjustments all attempt to assign monetary values to environmental resources and create markets for their exchange. While these mechanisms can sometimes drive positive change, they fundamentally rely on the assumption that markets can accurately value and protect natural systems.

The limitations become apparent when examining outcomes. Despite decades of market-based environmental policies, global greenhouse gas emissions continue rising, biodiversity loss accelerates, and ecological systems face unprecedented pressure. The neoliberal economic system operates on an “infinite planet” model that assumes economic growth can continue indefinitely, contradicting ecological research showing that natural systems have clear limits.

Feminist critiques of neoliberal sustainability approaches 🔗

Feminist scholars have identified significant problems with how neoliberal policies intersect with gender equality in sustainability contexts. These critiques focus on how market-driven solutions often marginalize women and reinforce existing inequalities.

The invisibility of care work and social reproduction 🔗

One fundamental critique centers on how neoliberal economics excludes unpaid care work from its calculations. Social reproductive work, primarily performed by women, remains unrecognized in measures like GDP, despite being essential for all economic activity. This exclusion reflects a broader pattern where sustainability initiatives prioritize market productivity over the social foundations that enable human wellbeing.

When women enter the formal labor market, their unpaid care responsibilities do not disappear. Instead, these tasks are often transferred to other women, frequently from marginalized communities or developing countries, creating what researchers call global care chains. Care work becomes commodified and segregated along gender and racial lines, reinforcing hierarchies rather than addressing them.

Reinforcing gendered divisions of labor 🔗

Neoliberal sustainability policies frequently reinforce traditional gender roles, particularly in the Global South. Women in rural communities bear disproportionate responsibility for water collection, subsistence farming, and managing natural resources. When climate change or environmental degradation intensifies these challenges, women’s workloads increase without corresponding support or recognition.

Development agencies and corporations have adopted “smart economics” frameworks that frame investing in women as beneficial for economic growth. While this might increase women’s access to some resources, it treats gender equality as an instrument for economic efficiency rather than a fundamental right. Women become valued primarily for their economic potential, not as rights-holders deserving dignity and autonomy.

Individual responsibility versus structural change 🔗

Neoliberal feminism emphasizes individual achievement and personal responsibility, encouraging women to succeed within existing power structures rather than challenging systemic inequalities. This approach places the burden of change on individual women making “correct” choices, obscuring how political and economic structures create and maintain gender disparities.

Similarly, sustainability efforts often focus on individual consumer choices, green products, or corporate social responsibility rather than addressing the fundamental drivers of environmental destruction. This mirrors how neoliberal feminism individualizes gender inequality, making structural critique and collective action more difficult.

Alternative approaches beyond market solutions 🔗

Recognizing the limitations of neoliberal approaches, researchers and activists have developed alternative frameworks that center gender equality and ecological sustainability together.

Feminist political economy of sustainability 🔗

This approach emphasizes that sustainability cannot be achieved without addressing power imbalances, particularly those affecting women and marginalized communities. Rather than treating gender equality as something to be achieved through market mechanisms, feminist political economy recognizes it as essential for developing truly sustainable systems.

This perspective examines how social relations, including gender, shape both environmental degradation and potential solutions. It calls for policies that ensure all people, regardless of gender, have access to resources needed for dignified lives while protecting planetary systems for future generations.

Degrowth and care-centered economies 🔗

The degrowth movement challenges the assumption that economic growth must continue indefinitely. Instead, it proposes deliberately reducing production and consumption in wealthy nations to create ecological space and address inequalities. Degrowth scholarship highlights the importance of reorganizing care work and building structures that provide equitable forms of sustainability.

Central to degrowth thinking is recognizing that care work, currently undervalued and gendered, should become foundational to economic organization. A care-centered economy would distribute care responsibilities equally and organize society around sustaining life rather than maximizing profit. This represents a fundamental shift from treating nature and care as resources to exploit toward recognizing them as essential to human and ecological flourishing.

Just sustainability and collective action 🔗

Just sustainability frameworks emphasize that environmental protection cannot be separated from social justice. These approaches prioritize the needs and voices of marginalized groups, including women, indigenous peoples, and rural communities who often bear the brunt of environmental degradation while contributing least to it.

Rather than relying solely on market mechanisms, just sustainability advocates for collective action, structural changes, and democratized decision-making processes. This includes ensuring that those most affected by environmental and climate policies have meaningful participation in creating solutions.

Moving forward: what needs to change 🔗

Transforming sustainability efforts requires moving beyond the neoliberal assumption that markets can solve environmental problems. This means fundamentally rethinking how we value nature, care work, and human wellbeing.

Governments and international institutions must adopt policies that recognize ecological limits and prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term economic growth. This includes stronger regulations on resource extraction, progressive taxation on polluters, and investments in public services that support both environmental protection and gender equality.

We need economic systems that recognize and value care work, ensure its equitable distribution across genders, and provide adequate support for caregivers. Social factors must be considered concurrently with environmental factors, rather than subordinated to economic concerns.

Most importantly, achieving genuine sustainability requires addressing the power structures that drive both environmental destruction and gender inequality. This means challenging the dominance of corporate interests in policymaking, strengthening democratic participation, and centering the perspectives of those most affected by environmental and economic injustice.

What do you think? How can we create economic systems that value both ecological health and gender equality? What role should markets play, if any, in addressing environmental challenges while promoting social justice?

References

1. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15804
2. https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/port.html
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7613825/
4. https://brocku.ca/unesco-chair/2022/07/03/neoliberalism-and-the-economic-beliefs-that-took-the-world-beyond-sustainability/
5. https://h2020.genderaction.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/GENDERACTION_Gender-and-Sustainability_An-International-Research-Review.pdf
6. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/degrowth-a-path-to-transformative-solutions-for-socioecological-sustainability/F885F1CCD7156341E7DB7EF65F595A31
7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2025.2567495
8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0038026120938289
9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.573424/full
10. https://greattransition.org/publication/the-degrowth-alternative
11. https://www.scielo.br/j/csc/a/Nh35MPKLj9m3Gf6WkBNBZWQ/?lang=en