Women’s Unpaid Work in the Household: Valuing Invisible Labor

Every morning, millions of women wake up before the rest of the household. They cook breakfast, prepare children for school, make sure the elderly are cared for, and keep the home running – all before stepping into a paid job, or instead of one. This labor is real, skilled, and economically significant. Yet it doesn’t show up in any paycheck, and for the most part, it doesn’t show up in any national economic statistic either. Women’s unpaid work in the household is one of the most consequential and systematically overlooked contributions in the global economy.

What counts as women’s household work? 🔗

Women’s unpaid household labor spans a wide range of tasks: cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, grocery shopping, childcare, eldercare, nursing sick family members, and managing the overall logistics of home life. These are not passive or low-skill activities – they require time, knowledge, physical effort, and constant attention.

The scale of this work is substantial. According to UN Women, women globally perform at least two and a half times more unpaid household and care work than men. In the APEC region, women spend an average of over four hours daily on unpaid care and domestic work, nearly three times as much as men. This gap is even starker in lower-income countries, where the absence of public services and basic infrastructure – clean water, reliable electricity, transport – means women spend additional hours on tasks like collecting fuel and water.

The COVID-19 pandemic made this burden visibly worse. Research by UN Women across 16 countries found that women’s weekly childcare hours rose more steeply than men’s after pandemic restrictions began. Before the pandemic, women were already spending about 26 hours per week on childcare alone – and that number climbed further, leaving the average woman spending nearly the equivalent of a full-time job on unpaid care each week.

The economic backbone nobody credits 🔗

Unpaid household work is not just a private family matter – it is a structural pillar of the broader economy. When women manage the household, they enable other family members, typically male partners, to participate fully in paid employment. This is not a coincidence; it is a mechanism.

As the Center for American Progress notes, women’s housework and unpaid family care directly supports men’s labor force participation – when women in different-sex couples absorb this labor, it frees their partners’ time to engage in income-generating work. Scholar-activist Silvia Federici captured this logic sharply: male participation in industrial or formal economic production would be impossible without women’s uncompensated labor at home. Without someone tending to the children and the home, the male factory labourer would not have the time or energy to fulfill the so-called breadwinner role.

Beyond individual households, this labor subsidizes the state. Women’s unpaid care work fills gaps left by underfunded public services – eldercare, early childhood support, health monitoring, disability care. Where governments do not provide these services, or provide them inadequately, households absorb the cost. And within households, women absorb most of it.

The monetary scale is striking. The ILO estimates the total value of unpaid care and domestic work globally at as much as 9 percent of global GDP – approximately USD 11 trillion – with women contributing around 6.6 percent of that GDP figure compared to men’s 2.4 percent. In Canada, Statistics Canada calculated the value of unpaid household work at over 37 percent of nominal GDP in 2019 – larger than the combined contribution of the manufacturing, wholesale, and retail sectors.

The cost to women themselves 🔗

The economic contribution of women’s unpaid work comes with a direct personal cost. The time women spend on household labor is time not spent on paid work, skills development, rest, or personal advancement. The IMF has identified this as an economic inefficiency: by channeling women into low-productivity domestic tasks rather than the formal labor market, the economy misallocates human resources, reduces productivity, and constrains overall growth. The gender gap in unpaid work, the IMF argues, is not just unfair – it is economically inefficient.

Women who take on more unpaid work tend to work fewer hours in paid jobs, accept lower-wage part-time positions, or exit the workforce altogether – especially after having children. This directly affects their lifetime earnings, retirement savings, and economic independence. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research has documented how the unequal distribution of unpaid work limits women’s career choices and erodes their economic security over their entire life course.

Recognizing the value: the case for counting domestic labor 🔗

For decades, feminist economists have argued that excluding unpaid household work from national economic statistics is not a neutral technical decision – it is a political one with gendered consequences.

The framework that governs how countries measure their economies is the System of National Accounts (SNA), which underpins the calculation of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since its origins in the 1940s, the SNA has been limited to activities that involve market transactions – goods and services that are bought and sold. Unpaid household labor, by definition, has no price tag, so it falls outside the production boundary. The result is that GDP renders women’s domestic work economically invisible.

This was not inevitable. When the GDP methodology was being developed in the 1940s, a young economist named Phyllis Deane – hired to apply national accounting methods in British colonial territories in present-day Malawi and Zambia – argued that excluding unpaid household labor from GDP was a fundamental error. Her warnings were not heeded. Decades later, economist Marilyn Waring’s landmark 1988 book If Women Counted brought the issue into wider public debate, arguing that GDP’s conceptual architecture was designed around the world men occupied and observed – and simply did not reflect the reality of women’s economic lives.

How economists try to measure it 🔗

Two main methods are used to estimate the monetary value of unpaid domestic labor. The replacement cost method calculates what it would cost to hire someone at market wages to perform each task – paying a childcare worker’s rate for time spent on childcare, a cleaner’s rate for housework, a cook’s rate for meal preparation. The opportunity cost method calculates the wages a person forgoes by doing unpaid work instead of paid work, incorporating the full range of market wages.

Both methods confirm that the value is enormous. Research from Australia puts the total value of unpaid household labor at approximately AUD 688 billion – roughly one-third of GDP – with the majority contributed by women. In the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis calculated that the dollar value of women’s unpaid work in 2018 was equal to 86 percent of all economic activity recorded in the state of New York.

Globally, the ILO estimates that more than 16 billion hours are devoted to unpaid domestic and care work every day – work that would constitute a substantial share of global GDP if compensated at a fair market rate. Some national estimates place it as high as 40 percent of GDP using conservative calculations.

The case for satellite accounts 🔗

The most widely supported policy approach is the development of household satellite accounts – supplementary statistics that sit alongside conventional GDP figures and estimate the value of unpaid household production without replacing existing national accounts. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has already developed such an account. Scholars and international bodies have increasingly advocated for making these accounts standard practice across all countries, so that policy decisions reflect the full scope of a nation’s economic activity.

Feminist scholars, including Nancy Folbre of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, argue that making this data visible and consistent would provide a more accurate picture of living standards, help explain the gender pay gap, and clarify women’s lower labor force participation rates. Without these statistics, policies designed to address poverty, labor markets, and social welfare are working from an incomplete map.

The gendered nature of domestic labor: norms, not nature 🔗

One of the most persistent misconceptions about women’s domestic labor is that it is a natural outgrowth of biological difference or personal preference. The data tells a different story. The division of household labor is shaped primarily by cultural norms – deeply held social beliefs about what kinds of work are appropriate for men and women – and by the absence of policies that might redistribute that burden more equitably.

Research shows that even in households where women earn as much as or more than their male partners, they continue to perform a disproportionate share of domestic work. This behavior – sometimes described as “doing gender” – reflects the social pressure to conform to expected roles even when material circumstances do not require it. In other words, domestic labor is not distributed based purely on who has more time or fewer paid work hours. It is distributed based on who society defines as responsible for the home.

In more traditional cultural contexts, particularly in lower-income countries or communities with rigid gender norms, this imbalance deepens further. Women are expected to manage the entire domestic sphere regardless of their own employment status, educational level, or income. The cultural framing of domestic work as inherently “women’s work” functions as an invisible constraint – one that no individual woman can easily escape on her own.

Parenthood and the divergence 🔗

The gendered allocation of domestic labor becomes most pronounced after the birth of a first child. Studies consistently show that women invest more time in domestic work and reduce their market work hours after becoming parents, while men’s behavior changes far less. Employers compound the problem by viewing mothers as less reliable or committed, while fathers are often seen as more responsible – reinforcing a cycle where women have fewer career incentives to reduce domestic labor and more social pressure to absorb it.

This pattern is not random. Research in feminist economics has established that gender norms and couples’ preferences for social conformity actively distort labor supply decisions – pushing women toward more domestic work and less market work even when their economic contribution to the household is comparable to their partner’s.

What policy needs to do 🔗

Changing the distribution of unpaid domestic labor requires more than individual behavioral shifts. It requires structural intervention at the policy level. Several evidence-based approaches have demonstrated real impact.

Paid and equal parental leave is one of the most direct tools available. When parental leave policies reserve a non-transferable portion for fathers – as Iceland’s nine-month policy does, earmarking three months specifically for each parent – fathers are more likely to take on caregiving early, which establishes more equitable habits within households going forward. The IMF has identified greater parity in parental leave as a key lever for redistributing unpaid work and raising women’s labor force participation.

Investment in public care infrastructure – affordable childcare, eldercare services, and social protection systems – directly reduces the volume of unpaid work that falls on households, and therefore on women. Access to clean water, electricity, and efficient cooking infrastructure in developing countries has been shown to substantially reduce the hours women spend on domestic labor, as demonstrated by studies in Mexico and Brazil where improved utilities helped increase female labor force participation.

Statistical recognition through household satellite accounts is essential for evidence-based policymaking. When unpaid work is counted and reported alongside GDP, it becomes part of the policy conversation. Governments can no longer design social programs, tax systems, or labor policies as if this work did not exist – or as if its costs were not borne disproportionately by women.

Legal frameworks also matter. The 2021 ruling by a Beijing court ordering a husband to compensate his wife for domestic labor performed during their five-year marriage – enabled by China’s updated marriage law – is a rare but significant example of legal systems beginning to assign formal economic value to unpaid household work. Such frameworks, as the World Economic Forum noted, signal that domestic labor has monetary worth and that its unequal distribution has real economic consequences for the women who bear it.

Visibility is the first step toward equity 🔗

Women’s unpaid work in the household is not supplementary to the economy – it is foundational to it. It sustains families, enables paid labor markets to function, fills gaps in public services, and produces the next generation of workers. The fact that it goes uncounted and uncompensated is not a technical oversight; it is the product of cultural assumptions about whose work counts and whose doesn’t.

Recognizing the value of this labor – in national statistics, in legal frameworks, in social policy – is not just a matter of fairness to individual women. It is a precondition for designing economies that work more accurately, more efficiently, and more equitably. As the ILO has concluded, measuring unpaid domestic and care work is now considered an essential component of understanding both labor markets and gender-based inequality. The data is available. The methodology exists. The question that remains is whether the political will exists to act on it.

What do you think? If women’s unpaid household labor were officially included in a country’s GDP measurement, how might that change the way governments design social welfare and labor policies? And should the redistribution of domestic work between men and women primarily be addressed through cultural change, government policy, or both – and why?

References

1. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/csw61/redistribute-unpaid-work
2. https://www.apec.org/publications/2022/03/unpaid-care-and-domestic-work-counting-the-costs
3. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/12/covid-women-workload-domestic-caring/
4. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/unequal-division-labor/
5. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/06/women-s-unpaid-work-must-be-included-in-gdp-calculations-lessons-from-history/
6. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220317/dq220317b-eng.htm
7. https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2019/10/15/blog-the-economic-cost-of-devaluing-women-work
8. https://iwpr.org/providing-unpaid-household-and-care-work-in-the-united-states-uncovering-inequality/
9. https://theconversation.com/womens-unpaid-work-must-be-included-in-gdp-calculations-lessons-from-history-98110
10. https://theconversation.com/unpaid-womens-work-is-worth-427-billion-new-research-shows-see-how-much-your-unpaid-labour-is-worth-267860
11. https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2020/03/calculating-the-value-of-womens-unpaid-work/
12. https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/unpaid-work/measuring-unpaid-domestic-and-care-work/
13. https://www.bea.gov/help/faq/1297
14. https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/unpaid-chores-economy
15. https://commons.trincoll.edu/economicsofgender/2023/12/12/gender-dynamics-and-the-division-of-household-labor/
16. https://commons.trincoll.edu/economicsofgender/2023/12/11/unpacking-household-duties-how-education-and-career-influence-gender-roles-at-home/
17. https://commons.trincoll.edu/economicsofgender/category/fall23/divlabor/
18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537121000798