Unfolding unpaid domestic work in India: women's constraints, choices, and career

The paper examines unpaid domestic work in India, a critical but largely invisible component of economic activity. Despite efforts since the 1960s by feminist and mainstream economists to recognize household labor as work, women’s unpaid domestic contributions remain undervalued and excluded from national accounts and policy. India’s female labor force participation is low and declining, with many women moving into domestic duties. The study seeks to understand: what unpaid domestic work is and its magnitude; why women are engaged in it; and whether this is a result of decision, choice, or constraint. It situates the analysis within India’s socio-economic context where social norms, caste, religion, education, wealth, and inadequate public provisioning shape women’s time allocation and labor market participation. The purpose is to map the scale of women’s unpaid work and identify determinants influencing their domestic work status, highlighting implications for policy and gender equality.

The paper reviews theoretical and empirical perspectives on unpaid work. Classical and neoclassical economics traditionally excluded unpaid household labor from production boundaries and national income (e.g., Kuznets). Feminist economists (Benston; Dalla Costa & James; Oakley) and later household production models (Mincer; Becker) argued domestic activities are work with opportunity costs, contributing to division of labor and being separable/outsourcable, motivating recognition, reduction, and redistribution (the “Triple R”) of unpaid work (Elson). SDG Target 5.4 calls for recognizing and valuing unpaid care via public services, infrastructure, social protection, and shared responsibility. However, neoliberal policies often fail to account for unpaid work, exacerbating gender inequalities. The paper frames unpaid domestic work as shaped by Constraints (patriarchal social/religious norms), Choices (failures of state/market provisioning like water, energy, transport, childcare), and Career (low opportunity costs due to limited decent paid jobs). Intersectionality in India—caste, religion, class—mediates women’s roles, with legal and normative barriers restricting paid work. Poor public provisioning increases women’s unpaid time. The review underscores the need to Recognize, Reduce, and Redistribute unpaid work and connects unpaid care burdens to labor market outcomes and gendered institutions.

Concepts/definitions: Unpaid domestic work comprises household maintenance (cooking, cleaning, shopping), care of household members (children, elderly, sick, disabled), and voluntary services to other households/community. In India’s statistical system, such activities are classified as Non-SNA/Extended SNA (ESNA) work and typically invisible in national accounts. NSSO coding identifies: paid work (self-employed, employer, regular salaried, casual wage), unpaid home-based work (unpaid helper in household enterprise), and unpaid domestic work (codes 92: domestic duties only; 93: domestic duties plus free collection/household-use production). Data: Microdata from National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) Employment and Unemployment Surveys (Schedule 10) for rounds: 50th (1993–94), 55th (1999–2000), 61st (2004–05), and 68th (2011–12). The analysis focuses on women aged 15+ engaged in domestic duties under codes 92 and 93. Follow-up modules record specific unpaid activities (e.g., water collection, firewood collection, preparing cow dung cakes, sewing/tailoring, free tutoring, garden maintenance, poultry/dairy). Measures: Shares of women (15+) in (i) paid work; (ii) unpaid home-based work (unpaid helper in HH enterprise); and (iii) unpaid domestic work (codes 92/93) at national and state levels, and by socio-economic and demographic strata (age groups, education, technical education, caste, religion, wealth quintiles via MPCE, landholding size, household employment type, rural/urban, and region). Statistical analysis: Binary logistic regression models estimate the likelihood of a woman being primarily engaged in unpaid domestic work (dependent variable: 1 = domestic duties, 0 = paid work). Independent variables include sector (rural/urban), age groups, education levels, technical education, religion, caste, wealth quintile, landholding size, household employment type, and region. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals are reported for each survey round to assess temporal dynamics. Descriptive analyses provide trends and distributions (1993–94 to 2011–12).

• Magnitude and trends: Between 1993–94 and 2011–12, the proportion of women engaged in unpaid domestic work increased from 48.8% to 60.9% (a 12.2 percentage point rise), while women’s paid work participation declined by 11.1 percentage points. In 2011–12, urban women’s unpaid domestic participation was 63.7% vs 59.7% in rural areas.
• Age patterns: Unpaid domestic work prevalence is highest among women aged 25–34, aligning with marriage and childbearing years. The share of women required to spend most of their time on domestic duties (MTDD) rose to 91.9% in 2011–12 (from 86.9% in 1993–94); for ages 25–34 it reached 94.1% in 2011–12.
• Education and skills: In 2011–12, 60.6% of illiterate women were in unpaid domestic work. Notably, even among women with intermediary and graduate education, unpaid domestic work participation was high (e.g., 57.8% at intermediary+; urban: 62.1% intermediary and 56.8% graduate). Women with technical education are substantially less likely to be in unpaid domestic work (logit OR for no technical education ~4–5 across rounds).
• Social groups and religion: Muslim women have higher odds of being unpaid domestic workers than Hindu women (e.g., OR ~1.79 in 2011–12). Christian women show lower odds (OR ~0.82). Caste patterns show higher likelihoods among OBC and “Others” relative to ST/SC in several rounds.
• Wealth and landholding: Engagement in unpaid domestic work is pronounced at both ends of the wealth distribution (poorest and richest quintiles) and increases with land size; odds rise with larger landholdings (e.g., >4 ha OR ~2.09 in 2011–12; rising to ~3.50 in earlier rounds).
• Household employment type: Higher unpaid domestic work among women in self-employed households (e.g., 62.1% in 2011–12) and elevated odds for some non-regular categories; patterns vary by round.
• Regional disparities: The eastern region shows the highest likelihood of unpaid domestic work (e.g., OR ~3.96 in 2011–12), followed by central and northern regions; southern region used as reference exhibits lower prevalence. State-level increases are pervasive, with particularly high levels in Bihar (e.g., 81.5% in 2011–12).
• Reasons for MTDD: In 2011–12, 61.3% cited “no other member to carry out domestic duties,” 15.3% “social/religious constraints,” 8.8% “cannot afford hired help,” and 14.6% “other reasons.”
• Nature of unpaid tasks: Despite overall declines over time in some specified unpaid activities, rural-urban gaps remain large. In 2011–12 rural vs urban: free firewood collection (43.5% vs 5.3%), preparing cow dung cakes (41.1% vs 4.6%), bringing water from outside premises (30.5% vs 9.6%). Sewing/tailoring remains common (27.6% rural, 23.6% urban). These patterns reflect inadequate public provisioning (energy, water) and reinforce time burdens. Overall, the intensity of unpaid domestic work is higher among women with lower education and lower wealth, but dichotomies persist with elevated unpaid engagement also among higher social classes and larger landholdings. Findings align with the tripartite drivers: Constraints, Choices, and Career (low opportunity cost).

The findings show unpaid domestic work’s scale and distribution are shaped by intertwined household, market, state, and societal factors. The observed rise in women’s unpaid domestic work alongside declining paid work underscores how limited decent employment opportunities, patriarchal norms, and inadequate public services constrain women’s choices. High unpaid engagement among reproductive-age women, the unresponsiveness of labor markets to formal education without technical skills, and strong associations with religion, caste, and region highlight intersectional drivers. The heavy rural burdens in fuel and water collection expose state provisioning gaps that increase women’s time poverty, impeding labor force participation and reinforcing gendered divisions of labor. Logistic regression results corroborate these patterns, indicating higher odds for women lacking technical education, for certain social/religious groups, with larger landholdings, and in regions with weaker socio-economic infrastructure. Addressing the research questions, the study demonstrates that unpaid domestic work is substantial and growing; it persists due to constraints (norms), limited choices (infrastructure and services), and career trade-offs (low opportunity cost of unpaid work given poor job prospects). Policy relevance lies in implementing the Recognize–Reduce–Redistribute framework, improving public provisioning (water, energy, transport, childcare), promoting skill-aligned employment (especially technical/vocational training), and transforming social norms to rebalance household labor and enable women’s paid work participation.

The study quantifies the magnitude and evolution of women’s unpaid domestic work in India and identifies key determinants driving women’s unpaid status. Unpaid domestic work has increased markedly from 1993–94 to 2011–12, coinciding with declines in women’s paid work participation. Determinants include age (particularly 25–34 and 60+), education and technical skills (with lack of technical education strongly associated with unpaid status), religion and caste, wealth and landholding, household employment type, and region. The overarching drivers are: Constraints (patriarchal social/religious norms), Choices (insufficient state/market provisioning of essential services), and Career (low opportunity cost of unpaid vs paid work). The paper advocates a holistic, multi-level strategy—across household, state, market, and society—to shift women from unpaid to paid status. This includes implementing a Three R approach in practice (recognition, reduction, and redistribution), and, as proposed by the authors, removing constraints, creating better choices through adequate provisioning, and improving career opportunities (including technical/vocational education and decent jobs). Enhancing public infrastructure (water, sanitation, energy, transport, childcare), investing in girls’ and women’s education and skills, encouraging labor demand for women, and transforming social norms are essential to reduce women’s unpaid work and promote gender-equitable economic participation.