What does "economic freedom" actually mean for women?

We tend to think of freedom in political terms: the right to vote, to speak, to move. But the more immediate constraint in most women’s daily lives is economic. If you cannot earn your own income, own property, or support yourself outside a marriage or family arrangement, your formal rights remain largely theoretical. The threat of destitution is itself a form of control.

Economic freedom, then, is the practical ability to work where you choose, earn what your labour is worth, and leave situations that are bad for you — because you have the means to do so. It is the difference between having options and having none.

In India, the sharpest illustration of this is land. Women make up 73% of rural agricultural workers but own only 12.8% of land holdings. This matters beyond the obvious. Land is the primary collateral for formal credit. A woman without a title cannot access institutional loans on the same terms as men and falls back on informal moneylenders who charge significantly higher rates. And a woman whose name does not appear on a land record is not recognised as a farmer under government schemes. No subsidies. No crop insurance. No institutional support that male farmers receive as a matter of course. She works the land. The state does not see her.

Financial access tells a similar story. The share of women with bank accounts rose from 35% in 2011 to around 89% by 2024, a remarkable shift. But having an account and using it independently are different things. The Global Findex survey found that 42% of women account holders had inactive accounts, compared to 30% of men. The account exists; the financial agency often does not.

This framing changes how we should evaluate any law or programme aimed at women. The relevant question is not: does it express concern for women? It is: does it expand or contract their real capacity to participate in economic life on their own terms? A law that prevents women from working in certain jobs, or makes hiring them significantly more expensive, reduces economic freedom regardless of its intention. And a scheme that substitutes state transfers for earned income does not dissolve dependence. It relocates it.