The cost of being a Sri Lankan woman

Originally appeared on Daily FT, Economy Next

By Nishtha Chadha

This year’s International Women’s Day theme is #EachforEqual - a concept grounded in the idea of ‘Collective Individualism’. Collective Individualism is the idea that each of us is part of one whole. Our individual actions, conversations, behaviours and mindsets go beyond the confines of our individual lives, and can have a significant impact on our larger society. Collectively, we have the capacity to create a gender equal world. 

Gender equality in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka still has a significant way to go when it comes to gender equality. The Global Gender Gap Report 2020 ranks Sri Lanka 102 out of 153 countries in the gender equality index. Women’s economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment and political empowerment are major areas of concern, and only seem to be getting worse.

In 2006, Sri Lanka ranked 13th on the same gender gap index. In other words, over the last 14 years, the country has dropped 89 places on the index. Today, women are twice as likely as men to be unemployed, and barely 9% of Sri Lankan firms have women in top managerial positions. Only 5% of Sri Lanka’s parliament is made up of female representatives. 

Gender equality is not just a women’s issue, but a business issue. The World Bank Vice President for South Asia Region, Hartwig Schafer, has stated that Sri Lanka specifically could grow its economy by as much as 20 percent in the long-run by closing its gender gap in the workforce. Increasing women’s labour force participation can improve productivity by not only adding more people to the workforce, but also by enhancing diversity of thought in the workplace. 

So, why aren’t Sri Lankan women achieving their full potential?
A recent publication by the World Bank ‘Getting to Work : Unlocking Women’s Potential in Sri Lanka’s Labor Force (Vol. 2)’, cites that cultural norms continue to be a pervasive barrier to increasing women’s labour force participation in Sri Lanka. Entrenched with gender stereotypes, these cultural norms have direct implications on women’s educational pursuits, career longevity, and ability to participate in decision-making roles. What’s important to understand about cultural norms, however, is that they do not exist in a vacuum. Gender stereotypes which limit a woman’s ability to access education and economic opportunities. 

One example of these discriminatory policies are the exorbitant taxes on menstrual hygiene products in Sri Lanka. Access to safe and affordable menstrual hygiene products remains somewhat of a luxury for many Sri Lankan women. A leading contributor to the unaffordability of these products in Sri Lanka, is the taxes levied on imported items. 

Sanitary napkins and tampons are taxed under the HS code 96190010 and the import tariff levied on these products is 52%. Until September 2018, the tax on sanitary napkins was 101.2%. The components of this structure were Gen Duty (30%) + VAT (15%) + PAL (7.5%) + NBT (2%) and CESS (30% or Rs.300/kg). In September 2018, following social media outrage against the exorbitant tax, the CESS component of this tax was repealed by the Minister of Finance. Yet, despite the removal of the CESS levy, sanitary napkins and tampons continue to remain unaffordable and out of reach for the vast majority of Sri Lankan women. 

The average woman has her period for around 5 days and will use 4 pads a day. Under the previous taxation scheme, this would cost her LKR 520 a month.  The estimated average monthly household income of the households in the poorest 20% in Sri Lanka is LKR 14,840. To these households, the monthly cost of menstrual hygiene products would therefore make up 3.5% of their expenses. In comparison, the percentage of expenditure of this income category on clothing is around 4.4%.

The impact of unaffordability

The high cost of menstrual hygiene products in Sri Lanka has direct implications on girls’ education, health and employment. 

According to a 2015 analysis of 720 adolescent girls and 282 female teachers in Kalutara district, 60% of parents refuse to send their girls to school during periods of menstruation. Moreover, in a survey of adolescent Sri Lankan girls, slightly more than a third claimed to miss school because of menstruation. When asked to explain why, 68% to 81% cited pain and physical discomfort and 23% to 40% cited fear of staining clothes. 

Inaccessibility of menstrual hygiene products also results in the use of makeshift, unhygienic replacements, which have direct implications on menstrual hygiene management (MHM). Poor MHM can result in serious reproductive tract infections. A study on cervical cancer risk factors in India, has found a direct link between the use of cloth during menstruation (a common substitute for sanitary napkins) and the development of cervical cancer; the second-most common type of cancer among Sri Lankan women today. 

The unaffordability of menstrual hygiene products is proven to have direct consequences on women’s participation in the labor force. A study on apparel sector workers in Bangladesh found that providing subsidized menstrual hygiene products resulted in a drop in absenteeism of female workers and an increase in overall productivity. 

Slashing taxes for gender equality

Internationally, repeals on menstrual hygiene product taxation are becoming increasingly common due to their proliferation of gender inequality and the resulting unaffordability of essential care items, commonly known as ‘period poverty’. Kenya was the first country to abolish sales tax for menstrual products in 2004 and countries including Australia, Canada, India, Ireland and Malaysia have all followed suit in recent years.

If Sri Lankans are serious about creating an equal platform for women and girls to achieve their full potential, ‘Collective Individualism’ is certainly the key. Gender equality can no longer be just a ‘women’s issue’. It’s an ‘everyone issue’. Each and every Sri Lankan has a responsibility to demand real action from their policymakers, to promote gender-sensitive policies and abolish taxes like this, which actively limit a woman’s ability to achieve her full potential. 

By reducing the rates of taxation, the cost of importing sanitary napkins and tampons will simultaneously decrease and stimulate competition in the industry, further driving prices down and encouraging innovation. The conventional argument in favour of import tariffs is the protection of the local industry. However, in Sri Lanka, sanitary napkin exports only contribute a mere Rs. 25.16 million, or 0.001%, to total exports. 

Increased market competition would also incentivise local manufacturers to innovate better quality products and ensure their prices remain competitive for consumers. Other common concerns pertaining to the issue of low quality products potentially flooding the Sri Lankan market if taxation is reduced are unlikely to materialise, since quality standards are already imposed by the Sri Lankan government on imported products under SLS 111.

If menstrual hygiene products are made more affordable it is likely that more Sri Lankan women will be able to uptake their use, allowing them to attend more school days, work more consistently and, by extension, access more opportunities. Moreover, with more products entering the market, women will have expanded consumer agency, allowing them to purchase products that address their specific needs without being economically burdened for it. This would remove a significant barrier to women's empowerment and create a wide-scale positive impact on closing Sri Lanka’s present gender gap. 

Gender equality can only be achieved when we begin dismantling the structures that disadvantage our most vulnerable counterparts. Abolishing Sri Lanka’s menstrual tax may just be one small step towards achieving this. The Advocata Institute has launched an online campaign titled ‘the costs of being a woman’, which highlights taxes that disproportionately affect women. With every discriminatory tax and policy that is abolished, the collective impact could be transformative. 

That is what #EachforEqual is about - sharing the responsibility to create a more equal world for each and every one of us. 

Are Sri Lanka’s women really free to work?

In this weekly column on The Sunday Morning Business titled “The Coordination Problem”, the scholars and fellows associated with Advocata attempt to explore issues around economics, public policy, the institutions that govern them and their impact on our lives and society.

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Dhananath Fernando

Around 20 years ago as I recollect, there was a discussion on Sri Lankan radio about whether it was fair for women to wear trousers or jeans. This was a topic of conversation that was raised at a time when a female president led the country; a country that had produced the first female Prime Minister in the world.

When I was at Colombo University, the topic “Should women wear trousers?” was assigned for a debate during the ragging period. Though we have seen some progress on this topic, the manner in which we, as a society, treat women has not changed drastically.

Walking in the shoes of women is a difficult concept to consider as a man. Today, we can see women voicing out multiple social and economic issues that they have faced. As men, we should be using our privilege to give women a wider platform and have them at the forefront in driving social and economic development.

Women in Sri Lanka are unfortunately often expected to carry the brunt of the care burden, regardless of whether they also engage in paid labour or not. However, what many do not realise is that this is a twofold struggle. Women not only have to balance all this work, but also endure the emotional toll that comes with it. Generally, they find themselves shouldering the logistical burden of co-ordinating and delegating any tasks that they do not take on themselves. This burden is already an unreasonable expectation. Women’s domestic labour should in fact be classified as an unpaid business. However, we are only adding to this problem via high tariffs on items such as LP gas cookers and washing machines. Most women are limited by their domestic labour, and the degree of freedom and choice that they have outside of this often depends completely on the affordability of tools that ease their burden.

The worrying fact is that our economic policy is what limits the freedom of women in many cases. At my previous office, my colleague used to celebrate her mother’s birthday for a week and her celebration was simple each year. She would bring home food for dinner for a week so that her mother would not have to cook dinner during that birthday week. I asked her: “How is not allowing your mom to cook for a week a treat?” She replied: “If you know how painful it is to run a kitchen every day you will realise what a good treat it is to take rest for a week.” I realised that she was absolutely right. Sri Lankan women are giving up their paid jobs in order to take on the domestic burden of their households.

It is no surprise that Sri Lanka’s female labour force participation declined from 41% to 36% from 2010 to 2016 when our economic policy is doing its part to keep women out of the labour force.

The fundamental question we have to ask here is whether our women have truly been given the freedom of choice, or whether this choice is hindered by our policy and social ecosystems. If women wish to choose a career outside of their home, do they actually have the ability to make that choice? This should be a basic right. The conversation on economic rights needs to go hand in hand with that of social rights. How have we set our economic parameters? Let’s take a look at our tariff policy and how it impacts the lives of Sri Lankan women.

High tariffs on household electronics

It was saddening to see the amount of household durables that most Sri Lankan women who work in the Middle East buy at airport duty-free shops. It is a clear indication of the high tax applied on daily household durables such as washing machines and cookers.

Are we not restricting women’s freedom by making these household durables unaffordable for them? According to data by the Department of Census and Statistics, only 20% of all Sri Lankan households use a washing machine. Washing machines might not be within budget for the rest of the 80% of households, but high tariffs are definitely a reason why the numbers of those using washing machines are so low. The time saved from washing clothes could have easily been used for paid external work, limiting the domestic burden that tends to fall on women. This same rationale applies to other household durables such as refrigerators and cookers.

High tariffs on sanitary and childcare products

Another category that is making life more difficult for a woman is unfair taxes on sanitary napkins and baby diapers. As childcare within a household generally falls on women, both of these goods are essential items that need to be purchased. Regarding taxation on sanitary napkins, Advocata’s strong punchline said it all: “‘I love having my period and paying tax on it,’ said no woman ever.” According to research by Advocata, a woman spends approximately Rs. 600 every month, and Sri Lanka has about 4.2 million menstruating women. While the tariffs on sanitary napkins have been reduced, they are still around 52%. It should not be hard for us to walk the talk of empowering women by bringing down the tariff rates on such simple matters. Can we be proud to say, as a country, that we have a 52% tariff rate on our menstruating women?

Surprisingly, baby diapers are also taxed at 52%. This is a double whammy on women. Caring for an infant requires spending a significant amount of time washing kids’ clothes and making them comfortable. Having diapers which are unaffordable is just another hindrance.

I do not have the luxury of space in this column to elaborate further on how we are making women’s basic needs expensive and limiting their freedom; we cannot be proud of the situation that the women in our country are in. They continue to be held to unreasonable expectations, including shouldering the domestic burden within a household. We need to work towards alleviating both the social and economic pressures that women are under. Women deserve the freedom of choice. Women have the ability to engage in paid work if they want to. We need to ensure that women also have an equal opportunity to choose paid work if they want to. So this will be yet another Women’s Day without true freedom for women.