Gender-sensitive social protection: A critical component of the COVID-19 response in low- and middle-income countries

T o grapple with the unfolding economic crisis triggered by COVID-19, governments are increasingly turning to social protection to mitigate against widespread economic downturn and to support vulnerable populations through times of health risk and economic scarcity. According to the World Bank, as of April 17, 133 countries1 had adapted or introduced approximately 564 social protection initiatives.2 Understandably, the primary concern of these social protection responses has been to provide rapid economic assistance; gender considerations have not been at the forefront. This is unsurprising, as most existing social protection programs in lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) are either gender-blind or gender-neutral at best.3 However, such programs may inadvertently exacerbate gender inequalities.4 In the context of the COVID-19 response, this is particularly worrying, given that the pandemic is likely to pose or intensify different risks for men and women, including potentially widening existing gender inequalities.5 Examples of risks include health risks (e.g., high risk of infection due to larger shares of women in the global health workforce, reproductive health risks, and maternal mortality due to overburdened health systems); loss of jobs and livelihoods (e.g., economic impacts are likely to be more severe for informal workers and women already earning comparatively less than men); increased, disproportionate burden of care among women; and protection risks for women and girls (e.g., increased school drop-outs, pregnancy, and early marriage among adolescent girls; increased risk of gender-based violence).6 Men and women are also likely to respond to or benefit from social protection mitigation measures in different ways. Thus gender considerations in the social protection response to COVID-19 are important, given both intrinsic concerns for the holistic well-being of populations and the fact that longer-term economic development in LMICs is closely linked to women’s empowerment.7 Excellent resources with general guidance for responding to COVID-19 through social protection have already been released.8 However, more concerted efforts are needed to take gender inequalities into account. Designing gender-sensitive programming can be complex even in settings with strong social protection systems, and doing so is made more challenging by fast-moving timelines and COVID-19 mitigation approaches that complicate delivery and challenge the functioning of social protection systems. However, there are also relatively simple design and implementation adaptations that can make social protection systems more gender-responsive. SUMMARY