Brief 9 United States

Brief 9

By Rania Antonopoulos & Taun Toay1

Preamble

This series of briefs entitled The crisis’ impact on women’s rights, published by the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), includes sub-regional perspectives on the

impacts seen to date of the current crisis on women and women’s rights as well as those likely to come. These sub-regional analyses are a key input from women activists and analysts to inform development debates and decisions that are being made to respond to the crisis. The series also includes a cross-regional and global analysis.

We know that women are at the center of the fallout from the current crisis, which itself combines interlocking crises: a global economic recession, the devastating effects of climate change, and a deepening food and energy crisis. All of this is compounding the increasing poverty and inequality in different parts of the world, as well as the impacts of the HIV and AIDS pandemic. At the same time, traditional power relations among international players are shifting, the so-called ‘middle income countries’ with the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) assuming greater power (Brazil and China have become creditors of the United States, and important investors in the International Monetary Fund, and all of them hold some of the most important sources of reserves of the world). The current situation, a result of aggressive free-market capitalism pursued in the past decades, calls into sharp question dominant—and even many of the so-called alternative—models for development. The crisis is not new for

1 Rania Antonopoulos is a Research Scholar and Director of the Gender Equality and the Economy program at the Levy Econom-ics Institute; Taun Toay is a Research Analyst at the Levy Economics Institute.

The crisis’ impact on women’s rights: sub-regional perspectives

Impact of the Crisis on Women in the United States of America

2

The Systemic crisis’ impact on women: sub regional perspectives

most of the developing countries that have struggled with crises in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and beginning of 2000’s. This crisis, however, reached global proportions when it impacted hegemonic economies and their role in global arenas and put in evidence the interconnectedness of the diverse realities of countries in this globalized world.

This systemic crisis poses a huge challenge for governments, donors and every development practitioner, activist and policy-maker to reinvent the system in the long term, and reduce the negative impacts in the short and medium terms. In this sense, as many have said, the crisis also represents a historic opportunity to be bold, creative and attempt to right the wrongs of neoliberal development. As the crisis is now a driving force behind many development choices and processes (from the global to the local), and will shape approaches to development for years to come, the role of women and gender equality as a central goal must not be further overlooked. This is not simply because women are among those most negatively impacted by these crises, but also because they are key development players in most communities around the world, as well as relevant and vital actors in proposing effective approaches to mitigate the impacts of the crisis and expand the fulfillment of human rights, environmental sustainability and development commitments around the world. The exclusion of women, gender equality and women’s rights as central to these processes is unacceptable and should be used as an indicator of the seriousness of proposed responses.

In preparation for the United Nations (UN) High Level Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development (New York from June 24th to 26th 2009), several women’s rights groups expressed their concerns about the impacts of the crisis on women’s lives2 and their rights and the limitations of the actual responses to the crisis implemented or proposed so far. The Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development, of which AWID is a member, has been very active and committed to promoting the UN’s pivotal role as the legitimate space to address the crisis from a truly inclusive multilateral perspective.3

AWID is committed to engaging with and supporting collective initiatives to influence this process, as well as building alliances with actors from other social movements. Solutions that have been defined by the same actors who produced this financial and economic meltdown are unacceptable. Responses to the crisis must emerge from broad processes where both government and civil society engage in dialogue that is both enriching and makes decision-making more responsive to people’s needs and the fulfillment of human rights. Both civil society and governments from all countries of the world, including low-income countries, should be central actors included in this global policy dialogue process. Multilateral venues under the UN are the most inclusive and balanced spaces existing in the international system, and the only spaces with clear mechanisms for the participation of developing countries and civil society actors.

2 See the statement: The G20 committed to save the global economy at the cost of women, November 17, 2008, 11th AWID International Forum, from http://www.awid.org/eng/Enjeux-et-Analyses/Library/LE-G20-DECIDE-A-SAUVER-L-ECONOMIE-MONDIALE-AUX-DEPENS-DES-FEMMES/(language)/eng-GB3 Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development, Statement from the Second Women’s Consultation convened by the WWG on FfD in New York from April 24-26, 2009 from http://www.awid.org/eng/About-AWID/AWID-News/A-call-for-struc-tural-sustainable-gender-equitable-and-rights-based-responses-to-the-global-financial-and-economic-crisis

3

Impact of the Crisis on Women in the United States of America

Whatever the proposals and responses that emerge from such high level processes - they must be informed by analysis on how these trends are playing out in communities and how the impacts are differentiated among women and men and across different sectors. Allocation of resources for these responses must also be implemented in a way that takes into account the gender dynamics at play, and ensures that key social development sectors, such as health or education, are not the ones to be defunded for the sake of economic growth and financial stability. The very social development achievements that have been made in the last two decades, as limited as they are, are currently at stake, if the focus of responses to the crisis is only economic growth and a return to ‘business as usual’. In this sense, women’s rights and gender equality commitments made by governments and other actors, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the 1995 Beijing Platform of Action, the Millennium Development Goals must not be trade-offs in the definition of responses to the crisis.

It is in that spirit, that the authors of the briefs included in this series accepted the challenge to explore answers to the following questions:

• Considering the diversity of situations in which women live, what are the main challenges for women in your sub-region in the context of the current crisis? • Can you identify concrete actions or initiatives (responses to the crisis) that have already had either negative and/or positive impacts on women’s lives?• Are women’s groups in your region experiencing increased discrimination as a direct or indirect result of the financial crisis? • If stimulus packages are not inclusive of human rights and gender equality perspectives then are there any alternatives so that these packages are reshaped in order to include gender and rights dimensions?• If the governments of the region/sub region (or regional bodies) have not set up any stimulus packages or measures yet: what do you expect will be the impact of not tackling the crisis in a timely way at the national and regional level?• What are potential future impacts on women in your region in the context of a global recession? Which are the most outstanding weaknesses of the region in regards to the economic crisis?• The UN Stiglitz Commission4 and the G20 are trying to identify international initiatives to reduce the impact of the crisis on development. Do you think these global initiatives consider challenges confronted by women, and how to help women in your region face the crisis?

The sub-regional analyses presented in this Series are an initial attempt to contribute to identifying challenges, potential responses and proposals from a women’s rights perspective, that builds on the different realities and impacts the crisis is having on different regions of the world. The analyses also aim to contribute to grounding responses to the crisis in gender equality and women’s rights and promoting a profound transformation for a more inclusive and democratic international system. Various regions raised common areas of concern that reflect common challenges for women’s rights around the world.

4 See the Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development Statements on the Stiglitz Commission from http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/Women-s-Working-Group-on-FFD-Contributions-to-the-Stiglitz-Commission/(language)/eng-GB and the Stiglitz Recommendations from http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=cfr

4

The Systemic crisis’ impact on women: sub regional perspectives

A lack of gender equality perspectives in the stimulus packages or policy responses to the crisis at the national level seems to be commonplace, as well as how women are particularly affected because of their strong participation in the informal economy, and the non-recognition of their unpaid and reproductive work, as well as the high levels of discrimination and inequality they face. Amongst other important issues raised, these common findings call for a new understanding of the role of the state and how it affects women in particular through the care economy (in relation to the key reproductive roles that women play which sustain the current economic system at their peril), but also in terms of advancing the decent work agenda. When the role of the state was reduced, several of the social functions previously performed by the state - healthcare, caretaking and education - were absorbed by women across regions, usually in addition to their paid work. Thus, women have disproportionately shouldered the burden of the consequences of state reduction, particularly as they relate to the fulfillment of economic and social rights (such as housing, health and education).5

If a post-neoliberalism era is emerging, the new international system should build on community, national, regional and global experiences of development actors, and on historic women’s rights agendas. These longstanding struggles should be reinterpreted and communicated broadly to promote alternative thinking around responses to the crisis.

Today we call for holistic responses to the systemic crisis. In doing so, our own efforts (amongst women’s movements and organizations) for building alternative discourses and influencing the international system must be grounded in different kinds of knowledge (informal and formal). Our alternative discourse should also be based on a holistic/cross-cutting approach, ensuring full space for the voices of the most excluded groups.6

Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID)

5 HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE STRATEGY MEETING: To follow-up efforts on Aid Effectiveness, gender equality and the impact of the crisis on women, 6-7 August 2009, New York, Edited by Cecilia Alemany (AWID).6 HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE STRATEGY MEETING: To follow-up efforts on Aid Effectiveness, gender equality and the impact of the crisis on women, 6-7 August 2009, New York, Edited by Cecilia Alemany (AWID).

Copyright ©Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), October, 2009Authors: Rania Antonopoulos & Taun Toay

Coordination: Cecilia AlemanyEdition: Natalie Raaber and Rochelle Jones

Proof- Reading: Karen Murray Production: Michele Knab

Graphic design and layout: Miriam Amaro (sicdos.org.mx)

5

Impact of the Crisis on Women in the United States of America

1. Introduction

As the impact of the financial crisis contin-ues to reverberate across the world, countries in the South and the North are incurring im-mense human and economic costs. Indepen-dently of whether individual nations share in the responsibility of setting off this disaster, pre-existing inequalities have not allowed all countries to engage in equal levels of reme-diation. Timely enactment of countercyclical policies7 and social protection measures are being afforded by some, while other coun-tries are condemned to bear the heavy price without much to cushion them. For countries in a weaker position, the language in the G20 meetings and documents coming out of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has, unfor-tunately, not been followed up by action.

This asymmetry, rooted in differential power and “voice” at the global level, is also observed within countries. In the United States, the sub-ject of this brief, the most vulnerable among the victims of the crisis, the poor and the vast majority of the unemployed, have gotten very little remediation compared to the perpetra-tors of the crisis. While certain measures have been taken by the Obama administration to buttress states’ unemployment insurance and federal medical transfer payments, few mea-sures address the lowest income groups. The harsh reality in America remains one of se-vere reductions in social services and rising hunger (Nord et. al. 2009).

The latest official data reveal that from 2007 to 2008 alone, an additional 2.5 million joined the ranks of the poor for a total of 39.8 million – the highest number in the last decade. The increase in poverty, strongly tied to employ-ment loss, has continued through 2009 when official unemployment in the US stood at 10 percent or 15.3 million unemployed persons. A more accurate and disquieting picture emerges when we add 9.4 million who work part-time jobs because they could not find full-time jobs or faced cutbacks in hours by

their employers, and the 2.5 million who have been looking for a job in the past year, even though they did not look in the past month (BLS 2010). A conservative estimate brings the job deficit to over 22-25 million. Parts of the country, and in particular underprivileged communities, face unemployment rates ex-ceeding 25 percent; for single mothers the rate is 13 percent while for African American and Latino workers unemployment is 16 and 13 percent respectively and youth unemploy-ment is about 27 percent (ibid).

For the government to enact social policies that protect the most vulnerable and provide job opportunities that reach those that need them most, it has to have a clear picture of how the overall burdens that render individu-als vulnerable are distributed. Otherwise, it runs the risk of reinforcing existing inequali-ties, and to a large degree, this would be the opposite of the mandate on which President Obama was elected.

Unlike the highly feminized export-oriented sectors that are suffering the brunt of the cri-sis in many developing nations, such indus-tries do not fit the gender demographics of employment in the United States. Rather, the greatest vulnerability among females in the United States is in domestic service work, health care and home-based care. Ironically, these are the same industries expected to comprise the bulk of growth for female em-ployment in the coming decades and have largely weathered the crisis with some resil-ience (BLS 2009).

There is, however, a hidden dimension in the world of women’s work, especially for the mar-ginally employed or disinfrancised women, when social services and consumption are cut during times of crisis (Emmett 2009). In-evitabley, women and girls bear the burden of

7 Government policies aimed to counter the direction of a particular economic cycle, in order to minimize potential neg-ative impacts (i.e. stimulus spending during a recession).

6

The Systemic crisis’ impact on women: sub regional perspectives

the added time devoted to providing unpaid social reproduction work as the household is forced to shift consumption patterns (Opiyo et al., 2008; Picchio, 2003; Elson, 2000). These are the very areas that are absent from the dialogue surrounding policy responses, yet, they have far reaching implications for house-holds and livelihoods.

2. The Response to Date

Recognizing that market forces alone could not address the rapid loss of jobs since 2007, the Obama administration has engaged in ex-pansionary fiscal policy, notably in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. In addition to the American Re-covery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) passed in February 2009, President Obama called for a job summit, and followed with a job creation proposal. Also, last December in Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives passed a bill, the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010, which includes appropriations for the extension of term limits for unemployment benefits, infrastructure (mainly highways and public transit), and public sector jobs (mainly in education). While these are welcomed ef-forts, more is needed to address those who have joined the ranks of the unemployed or remain outside of the labor force.

What is urgently needed at this juncture is identification of useful work projects that have the potential of massive public job creation and spending allocation commensurate with the scale of the problem at hand. Direct job creation so far has come in the form of in-vesting in physical infrastructure and green energy, industries that are largely male domi-nated. Few efforts to date address the plight of women in this crisis, a demographic that is in great need of policy consideration.

3. Poverty and Unemployment: an overview of the world of women in America

Using data at the onset of the financial cri-sis, in 2007, over half of the 37 million Ameri-cans living in poverty were women (Zarcharia et. al., forthcoming). Furthermore, women in America are lagging behind women in other developed countries with the gap in poverty rates between men and women among the highest in the Western world. This feminiza-tion of poverty holds across race, skill-level, and educational attainment. Female poverty reaches particulary disturbing levels among black and Hispanic populations. Recent data shows that 26.5 percent of African-American women are poor compared to 22.3 percent of African- American men; 23.6 percent of Hispanic women are poor compared to 19.6 percent of Hispanic men (BLS 2010). This sits atop mounting job losses that are dispropor-tionately impacting the poorest women, epe-cially female headed households and single mothers (Figure 1).

When it comes to poverty, there are also impor-tant age demographics to consider between women and men. Between 18 and 24 years of age, 20.6 percent of women are poor compared to 14.0 percent of men. The gap narrows, but never closes, throughout adult life, and it more than doubles during the elderly years (Figure 2). Furthermore, while education reduces the poverty rate dramatically it does little to narrow the gender gap in pay (Table 1).

Table 1: Poverty Rates by Sex and Education (percent)

Both Male Female sexes

All education levels 13.2 12 14.4No high school diploma 23.5 20.5 26.6High school, no college 12.6 10.6 14.7Some college, less than 4 year degree 9.4 7.7 10.94 year degree or higher 4.1 3.5 4.6Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Sur-

vey, 2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

7

Impact of the Crisis on Women in the United States of America

Figure 1

Note: Figures for women who maintain families are not seasonally adjusted.Source: BLS, Household Data: http://www.bls.gov/

Figure 2 Note: Author’s calculations. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Monthly Unemployment Rates by Marital Status (Seasonally Adjusted)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Dec

ember

200

7

Janua

ry 2

008

Feb

ruar

y 2008

Mar

ch 2

008

April

2008

May

200

8

June

200

8

July

2008

Augu

st 20

08

Sep

tem

ber 2

008

Oct

ober

200

8

Nove

mber

200

8

Dec

ember

200

8

Janua

ry 2

009

Feb

ruar

y 2009

Mar

ch 2

009

April

2009

May

200

9

June

200

9

July

2009

Augu

st 20

09

Sep

tem

ber 2

009

Oct

ober

200

9

Nove

mber

200

9

Dec

ember

200

9

Per

cen

t

Total

Married men

Married women

Single mothers

Poverty Rates by Sex and Age

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

U

nder

5 ye

ars

5

to 1

7 year

s

1

8 to 2

4 ye

ars

2

5 to 3

4 ye

ars

3

5 to 4

4 ye

ars

4

5 to 5

4 ye

ars

5

5 to 5

9 ye

ars

6

0 to 6

4 ye

ars

6

5 to 7

4 ye

ars

7

5 yea

rs an

d ove

r

Per

cen

t

Male Female

Monthly Unemployment Rates by Marital Status (Seasonally Adjusted)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Dec

ember

200

7

Janua

ry 2

008

Feb

ruar

y 2008

Mar

ch 2

008

April

2008

May

200

8

June

200

8

July

2008

Augu

st 20

08

Sep

tem

ber 2

008

Oct

ober

200

8

Nove

mber

200

8

Dec

ember

200

8

Janua

ry 2

009

Feb

ruar

y 2009

Mar

ch 2

009

April

2009

May

200

9

June

200

9

July

2009

Augu

st 20

09

Sep

tem

ber 2

009

Oct

ober

200

9

Nove

mber

200

9

Dec

ember

200

9

Per

cen

t

Total

Married men

Married women

Single mothers

Poverty Rates by Sex and Age

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

U

nder

5 ye

ars

5

to 1

7 year

s

1

8 to 2

4 ye

ars

2

5 to 3

4 ye

ars

3

5 to 4

4 ye

ars

4

5 to 5

4 ye

ars

5

5 to 5

9 ye

ars

6

0 to 6

4 ye

ars

6

5 to 7

4 ye

ars

7

5 yea

rs an

d ove

r

Per

cen

t

Male Female

8

The Systemic crisis’ impact on women: sub regional perspectives

Women face higher levels of poverty for a number of inter-related reasons, including in-dustry clustering, unpaid work burdens and outright discrimination. Nearly half (43 per-cent) of the 29.6 million employed women in the United States in 2007 were clustered in just twenty occupational categories, earning $27,383 on average (Cawthorne 2008). The well-documented pay gap between men and women across industries is further testament to discrimination toward women.

These trends highlight the need for policies to directly target women. Unfortunately, much of the recovery funds to date have been de-voted to the aformentioned male-dominated sectors as well as tax credits that favor mar-ried, working women. While the provisions in ARRA for the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit expanded the number of qualifying families, they are a fraction of the spending devoted to infrastructure. There is the added dimension of women who are not part of, or are marginally attached to, the labor force not having access to the fiscal incen-tives and unemployment insurance that com-prised a large amount of the government’s response. In short, the response thus far has focused strictly on the marketized segments of the economy where women are underrep-resented.

The production of the necessities of life does take place within markets, but not exclusively. Much of what is needed is actually produced through unpaid work, an area outside the strict boundaries of marketized transactions. While this market focus is even more problem-atic for developing countries, a great deal of unpaid and informal work exists in the United States. Unpaid work activities include routine household maintenance work, such as cook-ing, cleaning, shopping, doing the laundry, caring for children and other daily tasks. The time spent on such activities can be thought of as a ‘subsidy’ to the economy, as a transfer or a ‘gift’ (Folbre, 1994) from one institution – the household/family – to the market and the

state (Folbre, 2006; Budlender, 2004). It has been argued that without unpaid work and the services it provides, wages would need to be higher to allow the population to purchase these services in the market, or the public sector would have to provide them. It has also been suggested that it is women’s unpaid work that increases to fill the gaps, particu-larly during times of crisis when income and public goods decrease (Opiyo et al., 2008; Picchio, 2003; Elson, 2000).

4. Supporting the Social Sector – an illustration

In light of these unpaid and informal work con-siderations, policies should aim to incorporate such subsidies into recession responses. As joblessness and poverty are closely linked, public job creation has been used periodical-ly by many countries as a policy intervention (Antonopoulos, 2007) to ameliorate the dire consequences and social ills that accompany them. In such cases, the government assumes the role of the ‘employer of last resort’, creat-ing minimum-wage jobs for the unemployed in projects that create and maintain physical infrastructure, such as roads and public sec-tor assets. While such policies can be traced back centuries in certain countries, the United States has the relatively recent experience of job creation through the New Deal and its ef-forts to mitigate the effects of the Great De-pression.

Such experiences highlight that the recovery need not be marked by job-less growth, espe-cially if “invisible” jobs are drawn into the for-mal sector through stimulus funds. Given that many women are on the fringes of the labor force (either outside of the formal sector or underemployed), stimulus packages should include elements that expand employment for women. One potential area for such expan-sion is in the social sector, as women are often relegated to such work by default.

9

Impact of the Crisis on Women in the United States of America

A Levy Institute simulation of spending a mere $50 billion on projects that enhance the social infrastructure of care provisioning finds that funds spent on the social sector, namely that of home-based care and early childhood de-velopment, goes much further in creating jobs than funds spent on infrastructure or green energy (Table 2). Such spending has the dual advantage of providing relief to women and skills that can translate into formal employ-ment post-crisis. The Bureau for Labor Statis-tics (2009) predicts that home based direct care will be one of the fastest growing occu-pations in the next decade as the population grows older and lives longer.

As Table 2 illustrates, two-thirds of new jobs for a social sector program are in low-skill ser-vice jobs, i.e. childcare providers, and home health aides. These are jobs that women have a better chance of obtaining. While this ex-

Table 2 Job creation due to an additional expenditure of $1 million dollars

Green Infrastructure Social Energy* Care

Number of jobs created 17* 11 24

Distribution of jobs created by level of education High School or less 8 8 16Some college 5 1 4College Grad 4 2 3Total 17 11 24

Sources: Levy Institute Microsimulation Model (LIMM). See Zacharias, Masterson, and Kim (2009) for details.Note:* for job creation in Green Energy we use Pollin, Heintz, and Garrett- Peltier (2009a, 2009b). the num-bers presented here for the green energy sector must be read with caution as they include an induced job effect from multiplier effects in the economy which in-flates the number of jobs directly created.

ample is merely illustrative, it is important to stress that the coverage expansion should not come at the cost of quality of service. Pairing with existing community networks and home-care providers could help to formalize training and ensure service delivery meets accepted standards of quality. Nonetheless, the figures are instructive in highlighting one sector that is employment intensive and targets, albeit in-directly, women.

5. Final Thoughts

As discussed, much of the stimulus in the United States is aimed at unemployment in-surance and infrastructure, both areas that underaddress women. One clear policy based on the Levy Institute simulations is to inject stimulus funds into the social sector, providing a greater number of jobs to a highly feminized sector.

What should be taking place to ease the plight of women is to buttress and expand the social services that are currently being cut in states’ attempts to meet balanced budget requir-ments. Furthermore, while certain tax incen-tives to households with children exist, few target women directly. Single-mother rebates and income transfers offer potential stabiliz-ing mechanisms to households that are tradi-tionally among the most vulnerable.

Finally, while migrant issues are always politi-cally delicate in the United States, there are a host of reforms that could assist sectors with notable levels of female migrant employment. While a discussion on the merits of various al-ternatives is beyond the scope of this paper, this is an issue of particular importance when discussing the informal and unpaid segments of society.

Periods of economic upheavals are always destabilizing and, as such, outcomes are un-certain. At this juncture we are therefore faced with both a great danger and a great oppor-

10

The Systemic crisis’ impact on women: sub regional perspectives

tunity. The great danger is that “recovery” ef-forts (and funds) will favor those in positions of strength, reinforcing existing inequalities. The opportunity, on the other hand, lies in the

fact that leadership and bold policy action may emerge that could reduce inequalities, including between men and women, leading to a path of transformative possibilities.

References

Antonopoulos, Rania. 2009. “Promoting Gender Equality through Stimulus Packages and Public Job Creation.” Public Policy Brief No. 101. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute. May.

________.2007. The right to a job, the right types of projects. Working Paper, No 516. New York, The Levy Econom-ics Institute.

________. 2008. The Unpaid Care Work-Paid Work Connection. Working Paper, No 541. New York, The Levy Eco-nomics Institute

Antonopoulos, Rania, and Kijong Kim. 2008. “Impact of Employment Guarantee Program on Gender Equality and Pro-Poor Economic Development in South Africa: Scaling up the Expanded Public Works Program.” Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and UNDP. Available at: http://www.levy.org/pubs/UNDP-Levy/EGS.html

Budlender, Debrah. 2004. Why Should We Care About Unpaid Care Work? Harare, Zimbabwe, United Nations Development Fund for Women, Regional Office for Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean States.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2009. “Table 6. The 30 occupations with the largest employment growth, 2008-18,” Research and News Release. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t06.htm (accessed January 17, 2009)

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2010. The Employment Situation – December 2009. United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. January.

Cawthorne, Alexandra. 2008. The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty. Center for American Progress.

Elson, Diane. 2000. Progress of the World’s Women 2000. UNIFEM Biennial Report. New York, United Nations Development Fund for Women.

Emmett, Bethan. 2009. “Paying the Price for the Economic Crisis,” Oxfam International Discussion Paper. Oxfam International: Geneva.

Folbre, Nancy. 1994. Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structure of Constraint. New York, Routledge

________. 2006. Measuring care: gender, empowerment, and the care economy. Journal of Human Development. Vol. 7 (2): pp. 183-199.

MetLife. 1999. “The MetLife Juggling Act Study: Balancing Caregiving with Work and theCosts Involved.” Westport, CT: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

11

Impact of the Crisis on Women in the United States of America

Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews and Steven Carlson. 2009. Household Food Security in the United States, 2008. Economic Research Report 83. United States Department of Agriculure: Washington D.C.

Opiyo, Pamella, Takashi Yamano and T.S. Jayne. 2008. HIV/AIDS and home-based health care. International Journal for Equity in Health, Vol. 7 (8): available at http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/pdf/1475-9276-7-8.pdf (Accessed: 12-01-09).

Picchio, Antonella. 2003. Unpaid Work and the Economy: A Gender Analysis of the Standards of Living. London, Routledge.

Pollin, Robert, James Heintz, and Heidi Garrett-Peltier. 2009a. “Green Prosperity: How Clean-Energy Policies Can Fight Poverty and Raising Living Standards in the United States.” Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Pollin, Robert, James Heintz, and Heidi Garrett-Peltier. 2009b. “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy: How the economic stimulus program and new legislation can boost U.S. economic growth and employ-ment.” Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Zacharias, Ajit, Thomas Masterson and Kijo ng Kim. 2009. “Who Gains from President Obama’s Stimulus Package and How Much? Special Report, Levy Economics Instistute: Annandale-on-Hudson.

Zacharias, Ajit, Rania Antonopoulos, Thomas Masterson and Kijong Kim. Forthcoming. “Gains from Social Sector Stimulus.” Levy Economics Instistute: Annandale-on-Hudson.

Brief 1 Latin America

Social and Gender Impacts

of the Economic Crisis.

By Alma Espino & Norma Sanchís

SUBREGIONAL BRIEFS

The crisis’ impact on women’s rights: sub-regional perspectives

Brief 2 Caribbean

The Impact of the Crisis on Women

in the Caribbean.

By Rhoda Reddock & Juliana S. Foster

Brief 3 Asia

The Impact of the Crisis on Women

in Developing Asia.

By Jayati Ghosh

Brief 4 Pacific Islands

The Impact of Crisis on Pacific

Island Women: A Snapshot.

By Karanina Sumeo

Brief 5 Central Asia

The Impact of the Global Crisis

on Women in Central Asia.

By Nurgul Djanaeva

Brief 6 Western Africa

The Global Financial Crisis and Women

in West Africa: Developing Impacts and

the Implications of Policy Responses.

By Dzodzi Tsikata

Brief 7 Western Europe

The Impact of the Crisis

on Women in West Europe.

By Wendy Harcourt

Brief 8 Eastern Europe

The Impact of the Crisis on Women

in Central and Eastern Europe.

By Ewa Charkiewicz

Brief 9 United States of America

Impact of the Crisis on Women

in the United States of America.

By Rania Antonopoulos and Taun Toay

Brief 10 Eastern Africa

The Impact of the Crisis on Women

in Eastern Africa.

By Zo Randriamaro