# **1. Introduction**

Taxes and transfers—the fiscal system—may have differential impacts on the welfare of different groups of individuals within a society. The system could, e.g., affect the welfare of men and women differently due to implicit as well as explicit gender biases (Stotsky1996). Explicit provisions in the tax and transfer system that are outright discriminatory and tend to be rooted in patriarchal traditions could treat men and women inequitably. Though explicit bias against women in the tax code is not common, implicit bias can occur when taxes have different effects on men and women due to differences in their social or economic responsibilities (Stotsky 1996; Barnett and Grown 2004).

Implicit gender biases can be found in labor market participation, consumption patterns, asset ownership, and access to social services (Grown and Valodia 2010). For example, gender differences in labor market participation could affect how women pay personal income taxes (PIT) and their access to the rights and benefits often tied to formal employment (Doorley and Keane 2020; Grown and Valodia 2010). Women’s participation in the labor market tends to be discontinuous: they are more likely to have seasonal and part-time jobs, do most of the unpaid work in a family business, and are disproportionately represented in the informal sector (Grown and Valodia 2010; Pimkina and De La Flor 2020; Verick 2018). Consumption taxes like value added taxes (VAT) and excises could disproportionately affect women if they add to the cost of goods and services used by women, or if exemptions are not applied to products usually purchased by women (Stewart 2018; <mark>Lahey 2018).</mark> Gender differences in access to social services could have differential effects on how men and women benefit. For example, where parents do not enroll girls in school, for whatever reason, societal roles would lower the impact of education benefits for women. Girls receive less education if household dynamics make them drop out of school earlier than boys; spending more on education would not necessarily correct this inequity. Government spending on health and education could also have different effects on men and women due to the gender division of labor in production and social reproduction (Johannes and Noula 2011; Enríquez and Elson 2012 **;** Stewart 2018). Difficulty in accessing social services (due to income as well as mobility, norms, information or other barriers), user fees for public services (e.g., for hospital visits), and informal taxes on accessing public goods could have more impact on girls and women than on boys and men <mark>(Enríquez and Elson 2012).</mark> Different fiscal policies are proposed to address gender inequality through opportunities and the advancement of women in areas such as education, health, and economic empowerment (Kolovich 2018; Stewart 2018). Governments can integrate gender analysis into fiscal systems by ensuring that the systems contain neither explicit nor implicit negative bias; are responsive in meeting the needs and priorities of both men and women and males and females; or are transformative by contributing to shifts in and transformation of gender roles and power dynamics (Aziz, Norman, and Athene 2016). However, evidence to support this policy position is sparse. A comprehensive review of several gendered fiscal incidence studies found that most focus on measuring gender equity in government spending on education and health but neglect to assess the combined effect of both taxes and transfers (Greenspun and Lustig 2013). Although the few studies to date provide useful insights into the degree, if any, of gender equity implied by specific taxes and transfers or 2