Growing up in a traditional Muslim family in Keralam taught Lekha S Chakraborty the meaning of gender budgeting. As an economist, she made it the core subject of her research, winning global recognition. Her latest work, “Gender Budgeting: That Fire in My Belly”, in a Routledge anthology, drew appreciation from Janet Yellen, former US treasury secretary and federal reserve chair, for connecting lived experience with economic analysis. Excerpts from an interview:You grew up in Keralam, a state considered relatively progressive on women’s education and social development. What do you remember about gender roles in your childhood?
- Kerala is indeed ahead of other Indian states in human development. I was born the daughter of an Isro space engineer but lived differently: Abandoned. Had I been born in any other state of India, grown up abandoned by my father when I was three and my younger brother had just been born, in a traditional Muslim family, I am not sure how my childhood would have been, or what my mother would have gone through. Her trauma would have been far greater elsewhere.
- Left with two young children and almost nothing, she decided to educate us both equally and stay in the city with her job rather than return to her maternal home. She built everything from zero. As a child I saw no clear gender role; school and home felt egalitarian. Yet mobility after sunset was severely restricted. Living near Kowdiar Palace in Trivandrum, even nearby Kovalam beach was declared “far.” We never went. After dark our world closed. Later, in my twenties I realised high education and earnings potential had not erased unequal power relations or the expectation that an educated daughter must still “adjust” in marriage across caste and class.
Why is gender budgeting crucial for India?
- Gender discrimination begins “before birth”. Amartya Sen highlighted “missing” women — those who would be alive had they been born male — because of neglect in nutrition and healthcare. Their numbers exceed all men killed in the two world wars combined. Economists cannot remain numb to this reality. Women’s labour-force participation lags their education levels. Much work is unpaid or informal and asset ownership is skewed. This is an efficiency loss. Public investment in health, education, childcare, safety and property rights expands effective labour supply and raises returns on existing human capital. Gender budgeting makes those choices visible and accountable.
Kerala has high female literacy and educational attainment, yet women’s labour-force participation and earnings remain a concern. Why?
- Education raises capabilities but does not dismantle norms that assign unpaid care almost exclusively to women or restrict mobility and occupational choice. High private costs of entry barriers keep many educated women out or force them to exit. The result is underutilized human capital — high potential, lower realisation. Where are our efficient girls?
At what point does education stop translating into empowerment?
- When complementary institutions such as care services, enforceable property rights, financial inclusion and flexible labour markets are missing. In Kerala those gaps still persist. Without public investment that lowers the private cost of combining work and family, further workforce withdrawal is likely just as demographic pressures rise.
Is gender budgeting in Kerala real?
- Yes, it is real in process and resources. Its institutionalisation in 2008, dedicated statements and rising allocations are real. Yet stronger fiscal-incidence analysis, better data and tighter links between budgeted and actual spending are still needed.
What happens to gender equality when govts squeeze spending on health, education, nutrition, childcare and social protection?
- Fiscal consolidation should not be through mindless expenditure compression. Cuts fall disproportionately on women and children, who rely more on public provision.
How must gender budgeting evolve?
- It must prioritise infrastructure, digital and green spending; improve measurement of unpaid care in national accounts; embed a gender lens in fiscal rules and intergovernmental transfers with disaggregated outcome indicators; and adapt to ageing, climate risks, AI and technological change.
What gives you optimism, and what worries you most?
- Optimism comes from steady institutionalisation: gender budgeting moving into core public financial management and better data and recognition that ignoring half the population’s constraints is inefficient. What worries me is the risk that fiscal austerity could reverse hard-won human development gains.
Disclaimer: Views expressed above are the author’s own.