The Feminist Case for Universal Basic Income

Universal Basic Income — the proposal that every citizen receive a regular, unconditional cash payment from the state — is typically discussed in economic terms. It is a solution to automation, to inequality, to the failures of means-tested welfare systems. But there is a feminist case for UBI that is at least as compelling as the economic one: a basic income could fundamentally reshape the power dynamics that keep women economically dependent, financially vulnerable, and trapped in relationships and labor arrangements they cannot afford to leave.

"Money is not just income. It is the ability to say no — to a boss, to a husband, to a system that treats your labor as worthless."

The Feminization of Poverty

Women are disproportionately poor in every country on earth. In India, the **female labour force participation rate** has declined to around 25% — among the lowest in the world. Women who do work are concentrated in informal, low-paid, and precarious employment: domestic work, garment manufacturing, agricultural labor, and street vending. They earn less than men for equivalent work, they have no access to social security, and they bear the additional burden of unpaid care work — cooking, cleaning, childcare, elder care — that the economy depends on but does not compensate.

This economic vulnerability is not a natural condition. It is produced by a system that assumes women will be supported by men — fathers, husbands, sons — and designs economic policy accordingly. Social security systems are tied to formal employment. Tax systems assume male breadwinners. Property laws distribute assets along gendered lines. The result is a world in which women's economic security is contingent on their relationships with men — and in which leaving those relationships, whether through divorce, widowhood, or choice, means falling into poverty.

**UBI** addresses this problem at its root. By providing every citizen with a basic income regardless of employment status, marital status, or social position, UBI decouples economic security from the structures that currently disadvantage women. A woman who receives a basic income does not need to stay in an abusive marriage to avoid homelessness. She does not need to accept exploitative employment to feed her children. She has the economic foundation to make choices — about work, about relationships, about her own life — that are currently foreclosed by poverty.

Unpaid Care Work

The most significant feminist argument for UBI concerns **unpaid care work** — the cooking, cleaning, childcare, and elder care that is overwhelmingly performed by women and overwhelmingly uncompensated. The International Labour Organization estimates that unpaid care work is equivalent to $10.8 trillion annually — roughly 9% of global GDP. Women perform 76% of this work globally, and in India, the figure is higher.

Current economic systems treat unpaid care work as invisible. It does not appear in GDP calculations. It is not compensated through wages or social security contributions. It does not count toward pension eligibility. Women who spend decades raising children and caring for elderly parents have no economic security in old age — because the work they did was defined as "not work."

UBI would not compensate women for past unpaid care work. But it would provide a measure of economic security that is currently unavailable to women who perform this work. A basic income would recognize — in cash, if not in rhetoric — that care work is valuable and that the people who perform it deserve economic independence.

Critics argue that UBI could reinforce the gendered division of care work by providing women with an income that makes it "easier" to stay home. But this argument misunderstands the nature of the choice. Women do not perform unpaid care work because they prefer it to paid employment. They perform it because the alternatives — expensive childcare, inflexible employment, social stigma — make paid employment impossible. UBI does not eliminate these barriers, but it provides a financial floor that makes it possible to negotiate them from a position of relative strength.

"We have always worked. We just have never been paid. UBI does not pay us for the past. It gives us the power to demand payment for the future."

The Political Economy of UBI

The feminist case for UBI is not just about individual women. It is about the political economy of care. When women's unpaid labor is treated as invisible, the state and the private sector are freed from the responsibility of supporting it. Employers do not need to provide flexible working conditions or parental leave because women will cover the gaps with unpaid labor. Governments do not need to fund childcare because families will absorb the costs privately — through women's time.

UBI changes this equation. By providing a basic income that is independent of employment, UBI makes the cost of care work visible. If women withdraw from the unpaid care economy to pursue employment (as they would be more able to do with a basic income), the gap in care must be filled — by men, by the state, or by the market. Each of these options produces a more equitable distribution of care responsibilities than the current system, in which women absorb the costs invisibly.

**Guy Standing**, a economist who has studied UBI extensively, argues that basic income is "a feminist policy" because it recognizes the value of unpaid work and provides a foundation for women's economic autonomy. **Rutger Bregman**, in his book *Utopia for Realists*, makes a similar case: UBI is not a luxury for wealthy countries but a necessity for societies that claim to value gender equality.

Pilot Programs and Evidence

UBI pilot programs around the world have produced evidence that supports the feminist case. In **Finland**, a two-year basic income experiment found that recipients reported improved well-being, reduced stress, and greater confidence in their ability to find employment. Women in the program were more likely to take time for education and training — investments in human capital that current welfare systems penalize.

In **Kenya**, the **GiveDirectly** UBI experiment has found that cash transfers to women lead to increased investment in children's education, improved nutrition, and greater economic activity. Women who received unconditional cash were more likely to start small businesses, invest in agricultural inputs, and make decisions about household spending — suggesting that cash transfers shift power dynamics within households.

In **India**, a UBI pilot conducted by the **Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research** and UNICEF found that unconditional cash transfers led to improved nutrition, school attendance, and women's economic participation, with no reduction in work effort. The pilot demonstrated that basic income does not create dependency — it creates agency.

The Objections and the Response

Critics of UBI raise several objections: it is too expensive, it will reduce work incentives, and it will replace more targeted social programs. Each of these objections can be addressed. Cost can be funded through progressive taxation, redirection of existing subsidies, and efficiency gains from eliminating means-tested bureaucracies. Work incentives are not significantly reduced by basic income — pilot programs consistently show that recipients continue to work, often in better-paying and more productive employment. And UBI need not replace targeted programs — it can complement them, providing a floor of economic security while targeted programs address specific needs.

The deepest objection, however, is political. UBI challenges the fundamental assumption of capitalist economies: that work is the basis of social membership and economic rights. For women, this assumption has always been exclusionary — because the work that sustains society is not always the work that the market compensates. UBI is a feminist policy because it refuses this exclusion. It says that every person — regardless of employment, regardless of marital status, regardless of whether their labor is visible to the market — deserves the material foundation of a dignified life.

That is not a radical claim. It is a minimum.