# 2 Gender Dimensions in Fiscal Policy

Early studies investigating the differential impacts of fiscal policy across sex and gender<sup>5</sup> looked at the expenditure or tax sides of fiscal policy in isolation. For example, Selden and Wasylenko (1995), Demery (1996), Sahn and Younger (2000), and Pritchett and Filmer (1999) examined the incidence of education and health expenditures separately for men and women using a sample of 57 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) from 41 countries. Glick, Saha, and Younger (2004) developed a more systematic attempt to “engender” benefit incidence analysis, examining gender gaps in benefits from health, education, and infrastructure (water supply, electricity, and roads).<sup>6</sup> Using household survey data from Bulgaria, Ghana, Jamaica, Madagascar, Mauritania, Pakistan, Peru, Uganda, and Viet Nam, they calculated the share of benefits as the proportion of males/females in any given quintile that benefit from a particular public service in these sectors and documented large gender gaps in access to these services.

Grown and Valodia (2010) investigated the differential burden of taxes across genders via household types.<sup>7</sup> For example, households might have male, female, or joint income earners; or male or female adult majorities; or younger- or older-age dependents (or both). Tax incidence<sup>8</sup> is estimated and compared across the different household types and across the post-tax expenditure distribution. More recently, Komatsu and others (2021) used sociological, cultural, and institutional information regarding the role of women in agricultural production in Ethiopia to better illuminate why a statutorily _neutral_ agricultural income tax and rural land use fee nonetheless created larger economic burdens for households distinguished by having female agricultural landowners.

Greenspun (2019) used the Grown and Valodia (2010) household categories but brought both the expenditure and tax sides together within the CEQ assessment FIA framework.<sup>9</sup> The CEQ assessment architecture is fully generalizable to any social, economic, or fiscal context. More recently, Ambel, Wondigmagegn, and Yonis (2022) estimated the differential impacts of fiscal policy within a CEQ assessment framework for Ethiopia.

The approaches described above capture certain aspects of gender relations at the household level: it is the household that is classified according to type, and it is across households of different types that the incidence of fiscal policy is compared. Estimating a complete intrahousehold distribution of benefits or burdens from fiscal policy requires fine-grained individual data which is often not available. The reason is neoclassical economic

> 5. Sex refers to the biological differences that characterize males and females, while gender is the social construction of male and female identity based on biological differences (see page 5). 6. More recent work looking at the differential impact of benefits or transfers created from public expenditure includes Aziz, Gemmell, and Laws (2013) for New Zealand; Doorley and Keane (2020) for Ireland and the United Kingdom; and Garcia-Peña (2019) for Barbados.

> 7. Grown and Valodia (2010) piloted the proposed methodology in eight countries: South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Morocco, India, Mexico, Argentina, and the UK.

> 8. Incidence is measured as cumulative taxes paid as a share of post-tax household expenditure. Other studies estimating the differential inci- dence of direct tax regimes include Doorley and Keane (2020) for Ireland and the UK; Aziz, Gemmell, and Laws (2013) for New Zealand; Lahey (2017) for Australia; Garcia-Peña (2019) for Barbados; Rossignolo (2018) and Rodriguez-Enriquez and Aguila (2017) for Argentina; and Bakker and Philipps (2018) for Canada. Other studies estimating the differential incidence of indirect taxes include Garcia-Peña (2019) for Barbados; Vijil (2017) for Nicaragua; Casale (2012) for South Africa; Fragoso and Gonzales (2010) for Mexico; and Bucheli and Olivieri (2013) for Uruguay.

> 9. Greenspun (2019) covered five Latin American countries.

4