The experiment of paying more than 100 million women to work as housewives (and the results it shows)

Remittances range from 1,000 to 2,500 rupees ($12 to $30) per month, modest amounts that represent about 5 to 12 percent of family income, and are received regularly.

Since 300 million women now have bank accounts, transfers have been made administratively easier.

Women typically spend money on household and family needs: children’s education, groceries, cooking gas, medical expenses and emergencies, payment of small debts, and occasionally personal items such as jewelry or small luxuries.

What sets India apart from Mexico, Brazil or Indonesia – countries with large, conditional cash transfer programs – is the lack of conditions: the money arrives regardless of whether a child goes to school or whether a family lives below the poverty line.

In 2013, Goa became the first state to introduce an unconditional cash transfer program for women.

The phenomenon gained momentum just before the pandemic in 2020 when Assam introduced a program for vulnerable women in the northeast of the country. Since then, these transfers have become an unstoppable force in politics.

The latest wave of unconditional cash transfers targets adult women, with some states recognizing their unpaid care and domestic work.

Tamil Nadu presents its payments as an “entitlement subsidy,” while West Bengal’s program also recognizes unpaid contributions from women.

In other states, recognition is implicit: politicians expect women to use the transfers for the well-being of home and family, say experts.

This focus on women’s economic role has also influenced politics: in 2021, actor and politician Kamal Haasan from the state of Tamil Nadu promised “wages for housewives” (though his fledgling party later lost).

By 2024, promises of targeted cash transfers to women contributed to political party victories in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Odisha, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh.

The recent elections in Bihar clearly demonstrated the political power of cash transfers.

In the weeks before the election in the country’s poorest state, the government transferred 10,000 rupees ($112) to the bank accounts of 7.5 million women as part of a livelihood program.

Women voted more often than men and had a decisive influence on the outcome.

Critics called it blatant vote buying, but the result was clear: women helped the Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition to a landslide victory.

Many believe this cash injection was a reminder of how financial support can be used as political leverage.

However, Bihar is only one part of a much larger picture.

Across India, unconditional cash transfers regularly reach tens of millions of women.

Maharashtra alone promises benefits for 25 million women; Odisha’s program reaches 71% of its women voters.

These programs have been criticized in some political circles because they put a strain on state finances: Twelve states plan to spend around $18 billion on these payments this fiscal year.

A report from think tank PRS Legislative Research finds that half of these states face revenue shortfalls, which occur when a state takes on debt to pay regular expenses without generating assets.

But many argue that they also reflect a belated recognition of what Indian feminists have been defending for decades: the economic value of unpaid domestic and care work.

According to the latest time use survey, women in India spent nearly five hours a day on this type of work in 2024, more than 7.6 times the time spent by men.

This disproportionate burden explains the persistently low labor force participation of women in India.

At least cash transfers take this imbalance into account, experts say.

And do they work? The evidence is still sparse, but revealing.

A 2025 study from Maharashtra found that 30% of eligible women did not register, sometimes due to documentation issues, sometimes out of a sense of self-reliance.

But of those who did, almost all controlled their own bank accounts.

A 2023 survey in West Bengal found that 90% of women personally managed their accounts and 86% decided how to spend the money.

The majority used it for food, education, and medical expenses; Although it was not transformative, the regularity offered them security and a sense of autonomy.

A more detailed study by Kotiswaran and colleagues shows mixed results.

In the state of Assam, most women spent money on basic needs; Many appreciated the dignity it gave them, but few associated it with the recognition of unpaid work, and most still preferred paid employment.

In Tamil Nadu, women who received the money spoke of peace of mind, reduced marital conflict and renewed self-confidence, a rare social benefit.

In Karnataka, beneficiaries reported eating better, having more influence in household decisions and wanting higher payments.

However, only a small proportion saw the program as compensation for unpaid care work; The message hadn’t arrived.

Still, women said the money allowed them to question politicians and deal with emergencies.

In all studies, the majority of women had complete control over money.

“There is evidence that cash transfers are enormously helpful for women to meet their own immediate needs and those of their household. They also restore the dignity of women who are otherwise financially dependent on their husbands for every small expense,” says Kotiswaran.

According to a report by Kotiswaran with Gale Andrew and Madhusree Jana, none of the surveys find evidence that money discourages women from seeking paid work or that it reinforces gender roles, the two great fears of feminists.

According to the researchers, they also did not reduce women’s unpaid workload.

However, they increase financial autonomy and, to a certain extent, bargaining power.

They are neither a panacea nor a poison: they are useful but limited tools that work in a patriarchal society where money alone cannot eliminate structural inequalities.

New research results provide clear evidence.

The eligibility rules should be simplified, particularly for women who perform intensive unpaid care work.

Transfers must be unconditional and independent of marital status.

However, messages should emphasize women’s rights and the value of unpaid work, and financial education efforts should be increased, according to the researchers.

Furthermore, cash transfers cannot replace employment opportunities; Many women say that what they really want is a paying job and lasting respect.

“If transfers are combined with messages that recognize women’s unpaid work, they could change the gender division of labor when opportunities for paid employment arise,” says Kotiswaran.

India’s quiet cash transfer revolution is still in its infancy.

However, it already shows that small, regular amounts paid directly to women can change power dynamics in subtle but significant ways.

Whether this becomes a path to self-determination or simply a new form of political patronage depends on what India wants to build on the basis of this money.

Subscribe here Subscribe to our new newsletter to receive a selection of our best content of the week every Friday.

And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download and activate the latest version.