1.1 Background of the Study

The pursuit of sustainable development represents one of the most critical challenges of the 21st century, encompassing three interconnected dimensions: environmental protection, economic growth, and social equity. Within this framework, gender equality has emerged as both a standalone goal (Sustainable Development Goal 5) and a cross-cutting imperative that permeates all aspects of sustainable development (Agarwal, 2018; Elson, 2017; Fukuda-Parr, 2016). The United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development explicitly acknowledges this interconnection, positioning gender equality as fundamental to addressing global challenges ranging from poverty eradication to climate action.

The concept of inclusive welfare extends beyond traditional social protection systems to encompass holistic approaches ensuring that all members of society—particularly women and marginalized groups—can participate in and benefit from development processes (Aspalter, 2019; Bali Swain &Ranganathan, 2021). Despite global commitments to gender equality, progress remains unacceptably slow. At current rates, it would take approximately 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to achieve equal representation in workplace leadership positions, and 47 years to attain equal representation in national parliaments (Benería et al., 2016). These disparities not only violate fundamental human rights but also impede sustainable development across all dimensions.

The historical trajectory of gender equality within global development frameworks has evolved significantly, from the establishment of the Commission on the Status of Women in 1946 to the landmark Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995. The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 marked a transformative shift by not only dedicating SDG 5 to achieving gender equality but also incorporating gender-specific targets across other goals (Dugarova, 2018). This integrated approach recognizes that gender equality serves as a catalyst with multiplier effects across the SDGs, with each goal depending on the full participation and empowerment of women and girls.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Despite decades of international commitments, significant gender disparities persist across economic, social, and political spheres worldwide. Women and girls continue to face systematic disadvantages that limit their life chances and fundamental human rights. Current projections indicate that over 342 million women and girls will live in extreme poverty by 2030, representing a stark failure of existing welfare systems and development paradigms (United Nations Women, 2022). The structural nature of these inequalities creates negative effects that ripple across economic growth, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability, ultimately undermining global development goals.

The central problem investigated in this study is the persistent disconnect between policy commitments to gender equality and the lived realities of women experiencing welfare systems. While considerable scholarship has examined gender inequality through quantitative indicators (Kabeer, 2016; Razavi, 2016), significant gaps remain in understanding how welfare systems themselves may inadvertently reproduce or exacerbate gender inequalities through their design, implementation, and underlying assumptions. Specifically, three critical gaps emerge from the existing literature:

First, most welfare analyses adopt gender-blind approaches that fail to examine how seemingly neutral policies produce gendered outcomes (Elson, 2017). Second, existing research predominantly focuses on either macroeconomic indicators or individual-level experiences without adequately bridging these levels of analysis (Morgan et al., 2020). Third, limited attention has been paid to how intersecting social factors—including class, geography, and age—shape women's differential experiences of welfare systems (Chant, 2016).

This study addresses these gaps by examining how prevailing welfare paradigms and implementation practices undermine the achievement of gender equality and inclusive welfare, and how alternative approaches might foster more sustainable and equitable development pathways.

1.3 Research Questions and Objectives

The research addresses the following questions:

1. How do gendered experiences of inequality inform the design and implementation of welfare systems?
2. What role do welfare state regimes play in mitigating or reinforcing gender-based inequalities?
3. How can inclusive welfare policies promote gender equality and sustainable development?

The primary objectives of this study are:

• To analyze the manifestations of gender inequality within welfare systems and their implications for sustainable development
• To identify transformative pathways for building inclusive welfare systems that advance gender equality
• To examine how intersecting social factors shape gender-specific barriers and opportunities within welfare systems
• To propose a comprehensive framework for implementing gender-responsive strategies across economic, social, and political domains

1.4 Significance of the Study

This research offers timely contributions to both academic discourse and policy practice in gender and sustainable development. As the world approaches the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals, this study provides critical insights into the implementation gaps that persist despite global commitments. The findings hold particular relevance for policymakers, development practitioners, and gender equality advocates seeking to accelerate progress toward SDG 5 and other interrelated goals.

The study's emphasis on qualitative methodologies addresses a significant gap in current approaches to gender data, which often privilege quantitative indicators at the expense of capturing lived experiences, perceptions, and contextual factors that shape gender inequality. By centering women's voices and experiences, this research expands the methodological toolkit available for understanding and addressing gender disparities in development contexts.

Furthermore, the practical significance of this research lies in identifying specific leverage points for intervention at multiple levels—from family relationships to national policies. By examining how welfare systems can either reinforce or transform gender inequalities, the research provides evidence-based guidance for policy innovation. The findings are particularly relevant for designing more effective interventions that address the structural drivers of gender inequality rather than merely treating symptoms.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding Gender and Welfare

The relationship between gender equality and welfare systems has been theorized through multiple complementary frameworks. Esping-Andersen's (1990) seminal welfare regime typology, while groundbreaking in comparing how different welfare states decommodify labor, has been extensively critiqued for its gender blindness (Bambra, 2006; Ferragina&Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011). Feminist scholars have demonstrated that welfare regimes produce systematically different outcomes for women and men because they interact with gendered divisions of labor, care responsibilities, and power relations within households and labor markets.

Lewis's (1992) concept of the "male breadwinner model" provided an important corrective by analyzing how welfare states are premised on assumptions about family structures and gender roles. This framework distinguishes between strong, moderate, and weak breadwinner states based on the extent to which policies support or undermine women's economic independence. Subsequent research has extended this analysis to examine how welfare states address unpaid care work, with Orloff (1993) introducing the concept of "access to the means of maintaining a household without marriage" as a crucial dimension of gender equality.

More recently, social production function theory has offered insights into how individuals pursue universal goals of well-being through culturally constrained means (Lindenberg, 2013). Within this framework, gender norms operate as cultural constraints that shape women's and men's differential access to resources and opportunities for achieving well-being. This theoretical perspective is particularly valuable for understanding how welfare systems can either reinforce or challenge these constraints.

2.2 Gender Inequality and Sustainable Development: The Nexus

The sustainable development framework explicitly recognizes gender equality as both an end in itself and a means for achieving other development goals. Research has documented multiple pathways through which gender inequality undermines sustainable development outcomes. In the economic domain, gender gaps in labor force participation, wages, and entrepreneurship are estimated to cost the global economy approximately 15% of GDP (Elborgh-Woytek et al., 2013). In the social domain, children's educational attainment, health outcomes, and nutrition are consistently associated with mothers' education and decision-making power (Kabeer, 2016).

Environmental sustainability is similarly linked to gender equality. Research on natural resource management demonstrates that women's participation in community governance leads to more sustainable outcomes and more equitable benefit distribution (Agarwal, 2009). Conversely, climate change impacts are experienced differentially, with women facing heightened vulnerabilities due to existing inequalities in access to resources, information, and decision-making processes (Leal Filho et al., 2022).

Critical scholars have nevertheless cautioned against instrumentalist approaches that value gender equality primarily for its contributions to other development goals rather than as a fundamental human right (Esquivel, 2016; Fukuda-Parr, 2016). Such approaches risk promoting narrow forms of women's empowerment that serve economic growth agendas while leaving underlying power structures intact.

2.3 Unpaid Care Work and Welfare State Design

Unpaid care work represents a critical nexus between gender inequality and welfare systems. Globally, women perform approximately 76.2% of total hours of unpaid care work, with time-use surveys consistently showing that women spend 2–5 times more hours on domestic and care work than men (ILO, 2018). This unequal distribution has profound implications for women's ability to participate in paid employment, access social protection, and exercise political voice.

Feminist economists have developed the "3R framework" (Recognize, Reduce, Redistribute) for addressing unpaid care work in policy design (Elson, 2017). Recognition entails measuring and valuing care work in national accounts and policy frameworks. Reduction involves investing in care infrastructure and services that decrease the time and effort required for care tasks. Redistribution requires promoting more equal sharing of care responsibilities between women and men and between households and the state.

Welfare systems have historically failed to address unpaid care work adequately. Social insurance programs typically assume continuous formal employment, disadvantaging women whose care responsibilities lead to interrupted careers and part-time work (Razavi, 2016). Social assistance programs increasingly incorporate conditionalities requiring participation in training or employment, often without accompanying investments in care services that would make such participation feasible for women with care responsibilities.

2.4 Digital Inclusion as an Emerging Frontier

The rapid digitalization of welfare services and economic opportunities has created new dimensions of gender inequality. While digital technologies offer potential for more efficient and accessible service delivery, research documents persistent gender gaps in digital access, skills, and usage (Hilbert, 2011). In low- and middle-income countries, women are 20% less likely than men to own a smartphone and 33% less likely to use mobile internet (GSMA, 2021).

These digital gender inequalities intersect with and compound existing welfare access barriers. As governments increasingly move social protection programs online, women with limited digital literacy or access face heightened exclusion risks. Research on digital welfare states has documented how administrative burden is transferred from states to citizens through digital systems, with particularly severe impacts on already marginalized populations (Schou&Hjelholt, 2018).

2.5 Gaps in Existing Literature

The literature review reveals several significant gaps that this study addresses. First, while considerable research examines either macroeconomic gender inequalities or individual-level experiences, limited work bridges these levels to understand how welfare systems as institutional arrangements shape gendered outcomes (Morgan et al., 2020). Second, existing studies tend to focus on either the Global North or specific developing country contexts, with insufficient attention to cross-contextual learning about gender-transformative welfare design. Third, scholarship on welfare regimes and gender has predominantly employed quantitative methodologies, limiting understanding of the mechanisms through which welfare systems produce gendered effects in everyday life. Fourth, emerging issues such as digital inclusion and its intersection with welfare access remain underexplored in gender and development literature. This study addresses these gaps through qualitative inquiry that centers lived experience while attending to institutional structures and policy frameworks.

3.1 Research Design

This study employed a qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach to explore the complex interrelationships between gender, inequality, and sustainable development. Qualitative methodology is particularly suited to this investigation as it provides the depth and nuance necessary to understand social phenomena from the perspective of those experiencing them (Creswell &Poth, 2018). The research follows a constructivist paradigm, recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed and seeking to understand the multiple perspectives that different stakeholders bring to issues of inclusive welfare and gender equality.

The phenomenological orientation was specifically selected for its capacity to center the lived experiences of women and the meanings they attribute to those experiences, providing insights often missing from purely quantitative approaches. This orientation facilitates understanding of how welfare systems are experienced, interpreted, and navigated by those they are designed to serve, as well as how policy actors understand their roles in shaping these systems.

The research design incorporated elements of feminist methodology by prioritizing women's voices, challenging power hierarchies in the research process, and focusing on gender as a critical axis of analysis (Hesse-Biber, 2014). This methodological stance informed all aspects of the research, from question formulation through data collection and interpretation.

3.2 Study Setting and Context

The research was conducted in Ethiopia, a country characterized by significant gender disparities and ongoing welfare system development. Ethiopia provides an instructive case for examining gender and welfare dynamics due to its rapid economic growth alongside persistent gender inequalities, its implementation of flagship social protection programs including the Productive Safety Net Programme, and its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals framework. Within Ethiopia, the study was conducted in three sites selected to capture diversity in terms of urban/peri-urban/rural location, livelihood systems, and accessibility to welfare services.

3.3 Sampling Strategy

The study utilized a purposive sampling strategy to identify participants who could provide rich insights based on their expertise or lived experiences with gender inequality and welfare systems. The sampling approach sought maximum variation to capture diverse perspectives across sectors, geographic contexts, and social positions (Patton, 2015).

Table 1: Participant Demographics

Participants were selected based on predetermined criteria, including: (1) for women welfare recipients, direct experience with at least one welfare program in the preceding three years; (2) for policy stakeholders, professional involvement in welfare policy design or implementation for at least two years; and (3) willingness to participate and provide informed consent. The sample size of 50 participants was determined based on the principle of data saturation, whereby data collection continues until no new substantive information is acquired (Guest et al., 2006). Recruitment continued until theoretical saturation was reached—the point at which additional interviews no longer yielded new insights or themes related to the research questions.

3.4 Data Collection Methods

A multi-method qualitative approach was employed to ensure triangulation and a comprehensive understanding of gender inequality and welfare access. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 participants, exploring their experiences across family, education, work, healthcare, and social welfare. Lasting 50–90 minutes, these interviews were conducted in Amharic or Afan Oromo by trained researchers, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim for thorough analysis.

Six focus group discussions were held with women welfare recipients, community leaders, and service providers, facilitating peer dialogue on shared experiences. Each group of 6–8 participants met for 90–120 minutes, using participatory techniques like ranking exercises and scenario analysis to encourage collective sense-making. Complementing these, document analysis examined 28 national policy documents from 2015–2023, including social protection frameworks and gender strategies, to identify assumptions about gender roles and policy responses.

Participatory visual methods further enriched the data by capturing aspirations difficult to verbalize. Inspired by innovative development research (Guillemin & Drew, 2010), participants created drawings depicting visions of inclusive welfare and gender equality, serving as discussion prompts and offering deeper insight into participants' values.

Table 2: Data Collection Methods and Sources

3

.5 Data Analysis

Data analysis employed a systematic thematic framework method (Gale et al., 2013), beginning with familiarization where researchers immersed themselves in transcripts, recordings, and field notes while documenting preliminary observations. An initial coding framework was subsequently developed, integrating a priori concepts from existing theoretical models—including the 3R framework for unpaid care work and welfare regime typologies—with emergent themes identified during familiarization. This framework was refined collaboratively through team discussion and preliminary application.

Using NVivo 12 software, the finalized framework was systematically applied across the entire dataset, allowing new codes to emerge inductively during indexing. Data were then charted thematically, synthesizing information from diverse participants into organized charts that preserved contextual nuances and illustrated the spectrum of perspectives on each theme. The final stage involved mapping and interpretation, analyzing these charts to identify patterns, relationships, and overarching narratives. This process included comparing findings across participant groups, data sources, and research sites to reveal convergent and divergent patterns, with deliberate attention to contradictory cases to ensure findings captured the phenomenon's complexity.

Trustworthiness was enhanced through triangulation across multiple data sources and methods. Member checking enabled participants to validate summary findings against their lived experiences, while peer debriefing sessions with gender and development researchers provided critical external scrutiny, strengthening analytical rigor.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

The research received ethical approval from the Arsi University Institutional Review Board (Protocol Number: AU/IRB/023/2022). All participants provided informed consent after receiving detailed information about the research purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and their rights to withdraw at any time without consequence. Special attention was given to ensuring that consent processes were accessible to participants with limited literacy, including through oral consent procedures where appropriate.

Given the sensitive nature of discussing gender inequality and potential experiences of discrimination or violence, particular care was taken to protect participant wellbeing. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in private settings chosen by participants. Referral information for support services was available should participants experience distress. All data were anonymized through pseudonyms, with identifying information stored separately from transcripts. Data security was maintained through encrypted storage and restricted access.

The research also attended to ethical considerations beyond individual consent, including ensuring that the research process itself did not reinforce power hierarchies or extractive relationships. This involved compensating participants for their time, sharing preliminary findings with community members, and framing the research as a collaborative effort to generate knowledge that could support advocacy for more inclusive welfare systems.

The analysis revealed four central themes illuminating the relationship between gender inequality, welfare systems, and pathways to inclusive development: (1) the welfare paradox of system presence alongside gendered exclusion; (2) the unrecognized burden of unpaid care work; (3) the digital divide as a new frontier of inequality; and (4) women's agency and collective action as catalysts for change. Each theme is presented below with illustrative quotations from participants.

4.1 The Welfare Paradox: System Presence and Gendered Exclusion

Participants consistently described a paradox wherein welfare systems were officially present and accessible but practically exclusionary for many women. This paradox manifested through multiple mechanisms that systematically disadvantaged women in their interactions with welfare programs.

Administrative barriers emerged as a significant hurdle, particularly for women with limited formal education, mobility constraints, or care responsibilities. Complex documentation requirements, frequent office visits, and opaque procedures created what one participant described as a "bureaucratic maze" that many women could not navigate:

"I had to visit the office three times to complete the application because each time they would tell me I was missing a different document. With three children to care for and no one to leave them with, each trip was a major struggle. The fourth time, I just gave up." (Female participant, peri-urban area, age 32)

The burden of these administrative requirements fell disproportionately on women due to their time poverty from care responsibilities and their lower average literacy and formal education levels. Several women described being forced to rely on male relatives or informal intermediaries to complete applications, creating dependency relationships and potential for exploitation.

Program design features that appeared gender-neutral in principle produced gendered effects in practice. Work requirements attached to welfare benefits, for example, assumed availability for full-time employment without recognizing care responsibilities. Training programs scheduled during school hours might seem accessible but failed women whose care responsibilities extended beyond school hours or who needed to care for preschool children:

"The program expected me to attend daily training for six weeks, but who would care for my children? My husband works away from home, and I have no family nearby. The program officers said I should find someone, but I couldn't afford to pay for care." (Female participant, rural area, age 28)

Informational exclusion compounded these barriers. Women reported limited awareness of available programs, eligibility criteria, and application procedures. This information gap was attributed to multiple factors, including women's more restricted social networks, limited access to media and information sources, and the tendency for program information to be disseminated through male-dominated community structures:

"I heard there was help available for women like me, but I didn't know where to go or who to ask. The men in the village talk about these things when they gather, but women don't usually go to those meetings." (Female participant, rural area, age 45)

Table 3: Gendered Barriers to Welfare Access

4.2 The Unrecognized Burden of Unpaid Care Work

The most pervasive theme across all data sources was the immense, invisible burden of unpaid care work and its systematic exclusion from welfare and economic frameworks. Women described daily routines consumed by domestic labor and caregiving, which left them with little to no time for paid work, education, or civic engagement. This chronic time poverty meant women consistently worked longer total hours than men, yet their contributions went unrecognized. Men’s involvement in household tasks remained minimal and conditional, reinforcing the gendered division of labor.

The consequences of this time poverty extended far beyond economics, severely limiting women’s opportunities for rest, social connection, and personal growth. Even when welfare programs offered beneficial services like skills training, care responsibilities often made participation impossible. Furthermore, welfare systems themselves perpetuated this invisibility by designing eligibility criteria that required documented employment history, automatically disadvantaging those with care-disrupted careers. Benefit levels, calculated for individuals rather than households, failed to account for the true costs of supporting children, elderly relatives, or disabled family members.

This cycle of inequality was also reproduced across generations, as girls were socialized into caregiving roles from early childhood. Expected to assist with domestic tasks after school, girls saw their time for education and play diminish, while boys remained exempt from such duties. This early differentiation cemented patterns that persisted into adulthood, ensuring the cycle of unpaid care work and systemic neglect continued unabated.

4.3 The Digital Divide as a New Frontier of Inequality

The promise of increased efficiency through the digitalization of welfare services has, for many women, created new and profound forms of exclusion that deepen existing gender inequalities. While designed as modern innovations, these digital systems often function as additional barriers for women who lack access, skills, or the freedom to use technology independently. Rather than streamlining support, the shift online has, in many cases, made vital services harder to reach for those who need them most.

Access remains a fundamental hurdle. Women, particularly those in rural areas and older demographics, consistently report lower rates of personal smartphone ownership and reliable internet connectivity compared to men. Even in households with a device, access is not guaranteed. Male family members often prioritize their own use, and some impose restrictions on women's technology use, reinforcing power imbalances. One participant’s experience illustrates this common reality: "My husband has a smartphone, but he takes it to work with him. Even when it's home, he doesn't like me using it because he says I might break it or waste data."

Furthermore, even when physical access is possible, a significant skills and confidence gap prevents many women from navigating digital portals independently. The complexity of passwords, online forms, and system troubleshooting creates anxiety and a sense of shame, forcing reliance on younger, often male, relatives. This dependence not only compromises privacy but also creates an ongoing barrier, as one woman explained: "When they said I had to apply online, I didn't know what to do. I had to ask my nephew... and I felt ashamed... Now every time there's an update, I have to bother him again." This dynamic is compounded by system designs that assume users have stable connectivity, modern devices, and digital fluency—assumptions that are misaligned with the realities of many women's lives, particularly those whose phone usage is monitored by family members.

Ultimately, digital exclusion does not exist in a vacuum; it intersects with and amplifies existing geographical, administrative, and informational barriers. The result is a system that, despite its intentions, can push the most vulnerable women further from the support they need. As one policy stakeholder candidly admitted, "We thought digitization would make services more accessible, but we didn't adequately consider the digital divide. In some ways, we've made it harder for the women who most need these services to access them."

4.4 Women's Agency and Collective Action as Catalysts

Despite the significant barriers documented, participants illuminated crucial pathways through which women exercise agency and collectively work toward more inclusive welfare systems. These insights reveal transformative possibilities that challenge the narrative of women as passive recipients of inadequate services. Through both individual strategies and organized collective action, women demonstrate resourcefulness in navigating exclusionary structures while actively reshaping them.

At the individual level, women described sophisticated strategies for navigating fragmented systems. They formed informal neighborhood networks to share critical information about available programs and application processes. They pooled limited resources to cover transportation costs to distant service centers and accompanied each other to appointments. As one 47-year-old urban participant explained: "We women in this neighborhood have a group. When one of us learns something about available programs or how to apply, we share with others. We accompany each other to the office so we don't have to go alone." While these strategies cannot address structural barriers alone, they demonstrate women's active engagement in shaping their own welfare outcomes.

More formal collective action emerged as a powerful mechanism for systemic change. Women's associations, savings groups, and advocacy organizations successfully pressured for policy reforms, improved service delivery, and greater institutional accountability. These structures served multiple functions: mutual support, amplifying women's voices, developing leadership skills, and creating pressure for responsiveness. A 39-year-old peri-urban participant captured this transformation: "When we organized as a women's association, suddenly the officials started listening. Alone, I was just one woman complaining. Together, we were a force they couldn't ignore."

The transformative potential extended beyond immediate policy gains. Through participation, women developed confidence, political consciousness, and organizational skills that challenged harmful gender norms. As a 44-year-old rural participant reflected: "Before joining this group, I never thought I could speak in front of officials or challenge what they said. Now I'm not afraid. I know my rights, and I know how to demand them."

Notably, the research documented concrete cases where policy responded positively to women's collective advocacy, including representation quotas, simplified procedures, and women-friendly service hours, demonstrating that systemic change becomes possible when women's voices are organized and amplified.

5.1 Interpreting Findings in Light of Research Questions

The findings illuminate the three research questions guiding this study, revealing complex dynamics in the relationship between gender inequality, welfare systems, and sustainable development. By examining participant experiences, the research uncovers fundamental disconnects between policy assumptions and lived realities, while also charting pathways toward more inclusive approaches.

Research Question 1 examined how gendered experiences of inequality inform welfare system design and implementation. The findings demonstrate a fundamental disconnect between women's lived experiences and the assumptions embedded in welfare systems. Participants' accounts of administrative burdens, unrecognized care work, and digital exclusion reveal that systems are designed based on implicit male norms—assuming users with time flexibility, literacy, digital access, and freedom from care responsibilities. This research extends feminist critiques of welfare state theory by documenting specific mechanisms through which gender-blind design produces gendered outcomes in everyday implementation. The welfare paradox identified—system presence alongside practical exclusion—resonates with scholarship on administrative burden while extending that literature by demonstrating how such burden is systematically gendered. Women face compounded barriers due to the intersection of welfare requirements with gendered divisions of labor, with time poverty from unpaid care work making them disproportionately vulnerable to administrative burdens.

Research Question 2 explored what role welfare state regimes play in mitigating or reinforcing gender-based inequalities. The findings suggest that welfare systems in this context operate primarily to mitigate poverty symptoms while leaving underlying gender inequalities intact—and in some cases, reinforcing them. This pattern aligns with critiques of "feminization of poverty" approaches that target women as recipients without addressing structural drivers of inequality. When programs impose work requirements without providing care services, they effectively penalize women for fulfilling socially prescribed care roles. The research also illuminates how welfare systems interact with multiple inequality dimensions beyond gender. Location, age, education level, and household structure intersected to shape differential experiences, underscoring the importance of intersectional analysis for understanding welfare outcomes and designing inclusive systems.

Research Question 3 considered how inclusive welfare policies might promote gender equality and sustainable development. The findings point toward several pathways for inclusive design. First, recognizing and accommodating unpaid care work emerges as foundational—not merely for program accessibility but for building systems that support both immediate poverty reduction and long-term human development. Second, addressing the digital divide as a gender equality issue is critical as welfare systems increasingly move online; without deliberate attention to women's digital inclusion, digitization risks creating new exclusion forms. Third, supporting women's collective action emerges as crucial for systemic change. The finding that organized women secured policy changes suggests that inclusive welfare requires not only better-designed programs but also stronger mechanisms for women's voice and accountability.

5.2 Connecting Findings to Sustainable Development

The findings have significant implications for understanding and advancing sustainable development. The documented barriers to welfare access—administrative burdens, unrecognized care work, digital exclusion—directly undermine progress toward multiple SDGs. SDG 1 (No Poverty) is compromised when welfare programs fail to reach those most in need. SDG 4 (Quality Education) is undermined when girls' care responsibilities limit educational participation. SDG 5 (Gender Equality) is contradicted when welfare systems reinforce rather than challenge gender inequalities. SDG 8 (Decent Work) is impeded when women's care burdens limit their labor force participation.

Conversely, the pathways identified through this research—recognizing care work, addressing digital divides, supporting collective action—represent leverage points for accelerating progress across multiple SDGs. This multiplier effect aligns with scholarship positioning gender equality as an "accelerator" for sustainable development (Dugarova, 2018). The research suggests, however, that realizing this accelerator potential requires moving beyond gender-sensitive approaches (which accommodate existing gender differences) to gender-transformative approaches (which actively challenge and change unequal gender relations).

5.3 Contribution to Theory

This study makes several theoretical contributions. First, it demonstrates the value of integrating social production function theory with feminist welfare state analysis to understand how institutional arrangements shape gendered capabilities and well-being. By examining how welfare systems interact with culturally constrained pursuit of well-being, the research illuminates mechanisms through which gender inequality is reproduced or potentially transformed.

Second, the study extends welfare regime theory by examining how welfare systems in a developing country context address—or fail to address—intersecting inequalities. This contributes to ongoing efforts to expand welfare state analysis beyond its original OECD focus and to incorporate gender as a central analytical category (Aspalter, 2019; Ferragina&Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011).

Third, the research contributes to feminist economics by providing empirical grounding for theoretical arguments about unpaid care work. The detailed accounts of how care responsibilities shape women's interactions with welfare systems illustrate the mechanisms through which the unequal distribution of care work produces and reproduces economic inequality.

5.4 Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, while the qualitative approach provided depth and nuance, it limits generalizability. Future research could complement these findings with larger-scale quantitative studies examining the prevalence and distribution of the barriers identified. Second, the study focused on a single country context; comparative research across different welfare regimes and development contexts would illuminate how contextual factors shape the dynamics identified. Third, while the research identified promising pathways for inclusive welfare, it could not assess the effectiveness of specific interventions. Experimental or quasi-experimental studies testing gender-transformative welfare innovations would provide valuable evidence for policy design. Fourth, the study focused primarily on women's experiences; future research should examine men's perspectives and experiences, particularly regarding care work redistribution and engagement in gender equality initiatives.

6.1 Conclusion

This research has illuminated the complex interplay between gender inequality, welfare systems, and sustainable development. The findings demonstrate that gender inequality is systematically produced and reinforced through multiple mechanisms operating at different socioecological levels—from family interactions through institutional structures to policy frameworks. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for developing effective interventions that address root causes rather than merely symptoms.

The study makes several key contributions. First, it documents the "welfare paradox"—the phenomenon of system presence alongside practical exclusion—and demonstrates its gendered dimensions. Second, it provides empirical grounding for understanding how unpaid care work shapes women's interactions with welfare systems and how current designs fail to recognize or accommodate this reality. Third, it identifies digital exclusion as an emerging frontier of gender inequality in welfare access. Fourth, it illuminates women's agency and collective action as critical resources for transformative change.

The research concludes that achieving inclusive welfare and sustainable development requires a fundamental paradigm shift from gender-neutral to gender-transformative approaches. This entails: (1) recognizing, reducing, and redistributing unpaid care work as a central welfare objective; (2) ensuring equitable access to digital and economic resources; (3) actively promoting women's participation in governance and decision-making; and (4) supporting women's collective action as a driver of systemic change.

As the world approaches the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals, this research affirms that achieving the transformative promise of the agenda requires placing gender equality at the center of development efforts. Incremental reforms within existing paradigms will prove insufficient; what is needed is fundamental transformation of the systems and structures that produce and reproduce gender inequality.

6.2 Recommendations

Based on the research findings, a comprehensive suite of recommendations is proposed to advance gender equality and foster inclusive welfare. These recommendations are structured across policy, institutional, and community levels, recognizing that sustainable change requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses structural barriers, institutional practices, and social norms simultaneously.

6.2.1 Policy Recommendations

The first and most critical policy imperative is the implementation of gender-transformative social protection systems. Rather than merely addressing symptoms of inequality, such systems actively work to dismantle the underlying structural causes. This requires a fundamental shift in how welfare programs are designed and delivered. Governments must conduct comprehensive gender audits of all existing social protection programs to identify and eliminate embedded biases. Beyond analysis, concrete mechanisms must be embedded within welfare systems to address the material basis of gender inequality. This includes providing childcare allowances or direct childcare support as an integral component of welfare programs, ensuring that care responsibilities do not preclude economic participation. Pension reforms are equally urgent; they must be restructured to close the persistent gender pension gap by formally crediting years spent on unpaid care work, thereby recognizing care as a societal contribution. Furthermore, establishing equitable maternity and paternity benefits is essential to encourage shared care responsibility from the outset of parenthood, while valuing formal care experience as relevant work experience for skills training eligibility can open new economic pathways for women.

Closely related is the necessity to explicitly recognize and redistribute unpaid care work, which remains a primary axis of gender inequality. This recognition must move beyond rhetoric and be embedded in tangible investments in care infrastructure and services, such as accessible childcare facilities, comprehensive elder care programs, and the promotion of labor-saving technologies that reduce the time burden of domestic work. The very design of public programs must accommodate care responsibilities through flexible schedules for services, appointments, and training programs. To underpin these efforts, the measurement of unpaid care work must be systematically integrated into national statistics and policy frameworks, making its contribution to the economy visible. This structural shift must be supported by a cultural transformation, achieved through public awareness campaigns that actively challenge and reshape gendered care norms, complemented by integrating care work recognition into educational curricula from an early age.

In an increasingly digital world, addressing digital inclusion must be treated as a core gender equality priority. The digital divide is not merely a technological gap but a social and economic one that exacerbates existing inequalities. Policy interventions must therefore include targeted programs to improve women's digital literacy and ensure equitable access to technology. However, access alone is insufficient; the design of welfare digital platforms must be inclusive, accounting for diverse user capabilities and ensuring that the digitization of services does not become a barrier. This necessitates maintaining multiple access channels—including digital, in-person, and phone-based options—to prevent the exclusion of those with limited digital skills or access. Such efforts must also confront the social norms that restrict women's technology use in many communities. To be truly inclusive, digital systems and content must be available in local languages and designed to be navigable by users with limited literacy, ensuring that no one is left behind in the digital transition.

Finally, gender equality must be mainstreamed across all policy sectors, moving beyond its treatment as a standalone issue. This requires a whole-of-government approach where gender analysis and objectives are integrated into every policy area, from climate action to infrastructure development. A critical tool for this is the implementation of gender-responsive budgeting, which involves tracking and analyzing budget allocations to ensure they are effectively advancing gender equality. All major policy initiatives should be subject to mandatory gender impact assessments to anticipate and mitigate potential adverse effects on different groups of women and men. To build the institutional capacity for this work, gender expertise must be present within all government ministries, supported by the development of robust gender-disaggregated data systems that can inform and refine evidence-based policy design.

6.2.2 Institutional Recommendations

Beyond policy content, the institutions responsible for implementation must be strengthened. This begins with reinforcing legal frameworks and accountability mechanisms to ensure women can exercise their rights in practice. Accelerating legal reforms to eliminate discriminatory laws is a foundational step, particularly in areas such as land ownership, inheritance, and family law. However, rights on paper are insufficient without accessible justice systems. This requires establishing robust legal aid services and creating independent oversight bodies with the power to monitor and enforce government commitments to gender equality. These monitoring and evaluation frameworks must themselves be transformed by developing and utilizing gender-sensitive indicators that can capture substantive changes in women's lives.

Promoting women's leadership and representation is another crucial institutional imperative. To accelerate women's political participation, temporary special measures, including gender quotas for both elected and appointed positions, are necessary to overcome historical disadvantages and structural barriers. These measures must be complemented by leadership training and mentorship programs that build a pipeline of women leaders. Furthermore, it is essential to actively address and eliminate harassment and discrimination within political spaces, creating safe and enabling environments for women's participation. Supporting women's organizations and networks is vital, as they are key actors in building women's political agency. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure women's meaningful participation in all policy design processes, moving beyond tokenism to genuine influence.

Institutions must also be responsible for developing gender-responsive public services. This requires a paradigm shift in service delivery, designing services with women's specific needs and lived experiences at the forefront. Conducting gender impact assessments of major public infrastructure projects, for example, can reveal how design choices affect women's safety, mobility, and access. Service delivery itself can be made more accessible by establishing women-friendly hours and locations, and by providing comprehensive training for all service providers in gender sensitivity and cultural competence. Establishing accessible and safe feedback mechanisms allows women to report issues and influence service improvements, while proactively addressing safety concerns at service delivery locations is fundamental to ensuring that services are not only available but also truly accessible.

6.2.3 Community and Civil Society Recommendations

Sustainable change also requires action at the community level and the strengthening of civil society. A key recommendation is to actively support women's collective action by recognizing and strengthening women's organizing. This involves providing sustained, flexible funding for women's rights organizations, which are often under-resourced yet at the forefront of driving change. Creating formal and informal platforms for women's voices in policy processes ensures that grassroots perspectives inform decision-making. Supporting grassroots women's groups and networks, documenting and sharing successful advocacy strategies, and building coalitions across diverse women's organizations and movements are all essential for building collective power and achieving systemic change.

Engaging men and boys as allies in the struggle for gender equality is equally critical for transforming deeply ingrained gender relations. This requires developing targeted programs that engage men and boys in questioning harmful masculinities and exploring the benefits of more equitable relationships. Such programs should actively promote shared care responsibilities within families and communities. Integrating gender equality content into educational curricula at all levels can help shape more equitable attitudes from a young age. Media campaigns can play a powerful role in modeling positive masculinities and showcasing diverse ways of being a man, while creating community dialogue platforms provides safe spaces for open discussion and reflection on gender norms.

Finally, promoting gender-transformative education is fundamental to addressing gender stereotypes at their source. This involves a thorough review of curricula at all levels to identify and revise gender bias, ensuring that what is taught promotes equality. Training teachers in gender-responsive pedagogy equips them to create inclusive classrooms and challenge stereotypes among their students. A safe learning environment is a prerequisite for this work, meaning that school-related gender-based violence must be actively addressed and prevented. Educational systems should actively encourage girls' participation in STEM fields while simultaneously encouraging boys' participation in care-related fields and the arts, broadening horizons for all. Engaging parents in discussions about gender-equitable education ensures that the messages received at school are reinforced at home, creating a more consistent and supportive environment for all children.

1. Agarwal, B. (2009). Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women's participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics, 68(11), 2785–2799.
2. Agarwal, B. (2018). Gender equality, food security and the sustainable development goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 34, 26–32.
3. Aspalter, C. (2019). Welfare regime analysis: 30 years in the making. International Social Work, 62(1), 76–88.
4. Bali Swain, R., &Ranganathan, S. (2021). Modeling interlinkages between sustainable development goals using network analysis. World Development, 138, 105136.
5. Bambra, C. (2006). Decommodification and the worlds of welfare revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 73–80.
6. Benería, L., Berik, G., &Floro, M. (2016). Gender, development and globalization: Economics as if all people mattered (2nd ed.). Routledge.
7. Böhnke, P. (2008). Are the poor socially integrated? The link between poverty and social support in different welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(2), 133–150.
8. Bourgault, S., Balinga, M., Ndiaye, A., &Ringle, K. (2021). Gender-based violence and environment linkages. International Union for Conservation of Nature.
9. Brodkin, E. Z., &Majmundar, M. (2010). Administrative exclusion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 827–848.
10. Chant, S. (2016). Women, girls and world poverty: Empowerment, equality or essentialism? International Development Planning Review, 38(1), 1–24.
11. Cislaghi, B., &Heise, L. (2020). Gender equality and sustainable development: A cross-cutting approach.
12. In A. Coles, L. Gray, & J. Momsen (Eds.), Routledge handbook of gender and development.Routledge.
13. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
14. Creswell, J. W., &Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
15. Dugarova, E. (2018). Gender equality as an accelerator for achieving the SDGs. Elborgh-Woytek, K., Newiak, M., Kochhar, K., Fabrizio, S., Kpodar, K., Wingender, P., Clements, B., & Schwartz, G. (2013). Women, work, and the economy: Macroeconomic gains from gender equity. International Monetary Fund.
16. Elson, D. (2017). Recognize, reduce, and redistribute unpaid care work: How to close the gender gap. New Labor Forum, 26(2), 52–61.
17. Esquivel, V. (2016). Power and the sustainable development goals: A feminist analysis. Gender & Development, 24(1), 9–23.
18. Ferragina, E., &Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2011). Welfare regime debate: Past, present, futures? Policy & Politics, 39(4), 583–611.
19. Fukuda-Parr, S. (2016). From the millennium development goals to the sustainable development goals: Shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender & Development, 24(1), 43–52.
20. Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 117.
21. Gammage, S. (2019).The SDGs and feminist movement building. Gender & Development, 27(2), 231–247.
22. Goetz, A. M. (2007). Gender justice, citizenship and entitlements: Core concepts, central debates and new directions for research. In M. Mukhopadhyay& N. Singh (Eds.), Gender justice, citizenship and development (pp. 15–57).Zubaan.
23. (2021). The mobile gender gap report 2021. GSMA.
24. Guillemin, M., & Drew, S. (2010). Questions of process in participant-generated visual methodologies. Visual Studies, 25(2), 175–188.
25. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
26. Hesse-Biber, S. N. (Ed.). (2014). Feminist research practice: A primer (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
27. Hilbert, M. (2011). Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries?
28. A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Women's Studies International Forum, 34(6), 479–489.
29. Hirsu, L., Quezada-Reyes, Z., &Hashemi, L. (2019). SDG 5 and the global governance of gender equality. Third World Quarterly, 40(4), 619–639.
30. International Labour Organization. (2018). Care work and care jobs for the future of decent work. ILO.
31. Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal. Gender & Development, 13(1), 13–24.
32. Kabeer, N. (2016). Gender equality, economic growth, and women's agency: The "endless variety" and "monotonous similarity" of patriarchal constraints. Feminist Economics, 22(1), 295–321.
33. Leal Filho, W., Kovaleva, M., Tsani, S., Tircă, D. M., Shiel, C., Dinis, M. A. P., &Nicolau, M. (2022). The impact of climate change on gender equality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 331, 129996.
34. Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159–173.
35. Lindenberg, S. (2013). Social rationality, self-regulation, and well-being: The regulatory significance of
36. needs, goals, and the self. In R. Wittek, T. A. B. Snijders, & V. Nee (Eds.), The handbook of rational choice social research (pp. 72–112). Stanford University Press.
37. Morgan, R., Ayiasi, R. M., Barman, D., Buzuzi, S., Ssemugabo, C., & George, A. S. (2020). A patchwork
38. approach to gender equality weakens the SDGs: Time for cross-cutting action. Global Health Promotion, 27(2), 6–10.
39. Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303–328.
40. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
41. Pearson, R. (2019). A feminist analysis of the Sustainable Development Goals: A decade of lost opportunity? Gender & Development, 27(2), 195–208.
42. Razavi, S. (2016). The 2030 Agenda: Challenges of implementation to attain gender equality and women's rights. Gender & Development, 24(1), 25–41.
43. Schou, J., &Hjelholt, M. (2018).Digitalization and public sector transformations. Palgrave Macmillan.
44. Tarrow, S. G. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
45. True, J. (2012). The political economy of violence against women.Oxford University Press.
46. United Nations Women. (2015). Gender equality and the sustainable development goals: A key agenda for implementation. UN Women.
47. United Nations Women. (2022). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The gender snapshot 2022. UN Women.