ALTHOUGH THE GLOBAL economy has largely recovered since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, lingering socio-economic impacts of the pandemic are still largely felt by low-income communities. With increasing costs of living in post-pandemic conditions, these families are feeling the brunt more than ever. These effects are particularly prominent for women and children in low-income households.

Many women were among the first to feel the impact when the economy shut down during the pandemic. In Penang, many of them worked in the retail and hospitality sectors as well as in domestic work—fields characterised by limited job security, minimal benefits along with inadequate and unequal pay. These job insecurities persist, and it is undeniable that female-headed households often face greater challenges compared to male-headed households.

In a study conducted by UNICEF and Penang Institute, it was found that a higher percentage of female household heads had exited the labour force even though they were facing the challenges of high costs of living.[1] Some were due to the loss of employment, while 16.1% left the labour force due to family responsibilities. Only 66.9% of female household heads remained employed throughout the survey period, while a larger percentage of male household heads (88.6%) managed to maintain steady employment.

This disparity was corroborated by an odds ratio analysis, which indicated that female heads were 64% less likely to be employed. Such findings suggest that men are able to withstand employment turbulence better than women, and that systemic inequalities in the labour market disproportionately affect women. These inequalities were likely intensified by other factors such as gender pay gaps, the lack of affordable childcare options, and socio-cultural expectations around domestic work and family responsibilities. Furthermore, the study also found unemployment to be a critical risk factor for households falling into the bottom 1%. As such, higher unemployment rates among female household heads imply that these women were more likely to fall within the lowest household income percentile.

Female-headed households were also found to have lower levels of social protection. In the survey, 46.6% of female heads of households lacked any form of social or labour protection. The proportion of those with access to EPF (Employee Provident Fund) or pension schemes was also lower compared to their male counterparts. This was further compounded by the findings that female household heads were less likely to hold full-time employment, hence suffering less social or labour protection.

Full-time homemakers were even less socially protected. Although the government has set up social protection policies for homemakers such as i-Suri,[2] the contribution remains voluntary, and not all homemakers have registered for the scheme.[3] Therefore, there is still a strong need to implement more targeted social safety nets to ensure that female-led households are able to weather economic storms.

In comparison to male household heads, female household heads also self-reported poorer standards of living, with more of them reporting “bad” or “very bad” living standards. The percentage of women who were somewhat satisfied with their standards of living were 10 percentage points lower than their male counterparts. A higher proportion of female household heads also indicated declining standards of living within the survey period. An odds ratio analysis further confirmed this observation, finding that female household heads were 42% less likely to be satisfied with their standard of living than male household heads.

Finance: Men- vs. Women-led Households

Women-led households were also found to be less financially secure. More than 70% of these deemed their monthly household income to be insufficient, with 26.6% stating that their income was significantly insufficient. Overall, less than one third of female-headed households felt financially secure. At the same time, 40.2% of male-headed households felt that their income was sufficient to maintain household expenses.

The level of savings was equally precarious for women-headed households. A worrying 75% of female household heads indicated that they had no savings and were living hand-to-mouth, day by day. Those who had savings of up to 10% of their monthly income were a mere 24%. Although the majority of male-headed households also reported that they had no savings, the percentage of those with at least 10% of savings were higher than their female counterparts. Female household heads also expressed a higher level of concern about household savings, with this worry increasing further in households with young children.

Moreover, the double burden of work and family responsibilities often disproportionately fall upon women. As previously noted, 16.1% of female household heads chose to drop out of the labour force because of family responsibilities. In contrast, none of the male household heads took up family duties at the expense of their employment. It must be noted that caregiving responsibilities do not lessen if women remain in the workforce.

Within female-headed households, it was found that care work was taken up by female household members, with nearly half of female household heads (49.5%) assuming the duty themselves. Additionally, female household members were also the primary caretaker for 70% of male-headed households. As such, it is evident that women are still expected to take care of household chores and family wellbeing, even if they hold full-time jobs. This has led to women mostly bearing the mental burden of caretaker fatigue, particularly if the household had children and elderly or disabled family members that needed care. The stress levels are likely even greater for women who are the sole providers of their households, even more so for single mothers.

Is There Security for Their Future?

Female household heads expressed significantly higher levels of concern about their households’ future compared to male household heads. Furthermore, this level of worry among female heads of households increased notably over a six-month period. On the other hand, male household heads were four times more likely to feel positive about their households’ future. Increasing costs of living, financial constraints and caregiving responsibilities ranked high as the main sources of worry for female household heads.

The challenges faced by female household heads in low income families are often compounded by the disadvantages mentioned above. Therefore, there exists a critical need for action to better support them. A comprehensive approach, beginning with government policies that fully support training and upskilling for women to improve their employment prospects, is required. In addition, social safety nets for female household heads and homemakers need to be strengthened to offer them greater security. Finally, there must be universal access to affordable childcare, specifically for low-income female-headed households. This would help alleviate caregiving burdens, allowing them to participate in the workforce and improve their economic stability and financial independence.

Footnotes:

[1] UNICEF and Penang Institute. (2023). Families on the Edge, Penang, retrieved from https://penanginstitute.org/publications/reports-and-papers/unicef-penang-institute-families-on-the-edge-final-report/

[2] i-Suri is a voluntary contribution programme for women registered in the National Poverty Data Bank (eKasih) including housewives, widows, single mothers and single women.

[3] The Malaysian Reserve (2023). 489,780 housewives registered under i-Suri, retrieved from https://themalaysianreserve.com/2023/05/23/489780- housewives-registered-under-i-suri/