situation is potentially dire, especially in service sectors, where most women are employed in urban areas. Gender-related dynamics mainly drive these results. The significant pay gap and employment rate of women results in a lower contribution to sector value-added. Further, lower productivity than men also makes women a less favorable substitute for other production factors (i.e., male labor or capital). Eventually, women could become easily substitutable with other factors of production during the time of crisis.

However, women in rural areas will be less affected as they work mainly in agriculture. Female-owned farms other than those producing food crops will be affected less. The advantage of women in agriculture is not because their farms are more productive but mainly due to their low reliance on modern inputs. As imports are squeezed, inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides will become inaccessible. The latter will have a higher impact on male-owned farms, making women relatively better-off. But such an effect will not make women farmers better-off compared to baseline. The disadvantage of female-owned food crop farms is their higher labor intensity.

The COVID-19 pandemic has notably impacted the income of households, particularly female-headed households, who earn their main livelihood from enterprise income. Business closure due to COVID-19 and lack of customers (which could be partially attributed to the pandemic) are the most widely reported reasons both by male and female-headed households for loss in enterprise income. Results from the phone survey provide evidence that a disproportionate share of female-headed households has incurred losses from enterprise income. This is not unexpected. Although women own 57 percent of the non-farm enterprises, they make 77 percent less profit than male-owned enterprises. Female entrepreneurs, on average, have a lower level of education and have less access to electricity, running water, machinery, or telephone for their business.

Increases in food price and illness of income-earning members (both in rural and urban areas) and job loss and business closure (more in urban areas) are the most reported shocks by households. While both male and female-headed households are using common coping strategies during the pandemic, female-headed households in rural and urban areas were significantly more reliant on aid from family and friends and less on savings or credit sale of assets. Even in urban areas, where the most widely used coping strategy for any type of shock is to draw on savings (49 percent), a smaller proportion of female-headed households relied on savings during the survey period.

Our CGE simulation-based results assumed that COVID-19 would not trigger the impact channels beyond 2020. By the end of 2020, we know that impact channels could be longer-lasting into 2021, and our CGE simulation-based negative impacts could be stronger and longer. As our results show, much of these gendered economic impacts are due to pre-existing gender dynamics in labor structure. It is imperative to recognize the heterogeneity in women’s livelihoods to identify affected households and individuals and design policy responses accordingly. Gender-sensitive policy responses can help alleviate the economic stresses for women across various sectors and help Chad build back stronger from potential economic damage.

18