Breaking down the question
This is a short-note question asking you to explain the concept of the feminization of poverty. At 10 marks you must define the term precisely, identify the processes that produce it, and illustrate it in the Indian and global context, before offering a brief evaluative note.
The concept refers to the disproportionate and rising representation of women among the poor, and to the specifically gendered character of their deprivation. A strong answer treats poverty as more than income — as unequal access to resources, capabilities and security.
How to approach it
Open with the origin of the term, attributed to Diana Pearce, and a clear definition. Then explain the mechanisms — the gendered division of labour, wage discrimination, the rise of female-headed households, unequal intra-household distribution, and weaker property and asset rights.
Bring in Amartya Sen's capability and entitlement approach to show that female poverty is a deprivation of capabilities, not merely of income. Illustrate with Indian evidence and close with a short critical reflection.
Model answer
The feminization of poverty refers to the phenomenon whereby women constitute a disproportionate and growing share of the world's poor, and whereby poverty itself bears a distinctly gendered form. The term is generally traced to Diana Pearce, who in the late 1970s observed that poverty was increasingly concentrated among women, particularly those heading households alone.
Several interlocking processes drive it. The gendered division of labour confines much of women's work to the unpaid domestic sphere or to low-paid, insecure and informal employment, so that women earn less and accumulate fewer assets. Wage discrimination and occupational segregation deepen this gap. The growth of female-headed households — through widowhood, desertion, divorce or male migration — leaves many women as sole providers without the support of a second earner, exposing them acutely to poverty.
Poverty within households is also unequally shared. Intra-household inequality means women and girls may receive less food, healthcare and education even in families not classed as poor, a point sharpened by Amartya Sen's work on entitlements and on the "missing women" of Asia. Sen's capability approach reframes the issue: women's poverty is best understood as a deprivation of capabilities — the freedom to be educated, healthy, mobile and economically secure — rather than merely a shortfall of income. Weak inheritance and property rights, and limited control over land and credit, further entrench female disadvantage.
In India the pattern is visible in women's lower literacy and workforce participation, their concentration in informal and home-based work, adverse sex ratios in some regions, and the vulnerability of widows and single women. Where women do own or control assets, outcomes for the whole household — child nutrition, schooling, health — tend to improve, which is why microcredit and women-focused welfare schemes have been promoted.
Critically, the concept has been questioned for sometimes resting on thin longitudinal data and for the assumption that female-headed households are always poorer. Yet its core insight endures: poverty is gendered in its causes, distribution and consequences, and cannot be measured or addressed as though households were internally equal.
Examiner's perspective
Even as a short note the answer must do more than paraphrase the phrase. The examiner looks for a crisp definition, the attribution to Pearce, and a set of clearly named mechanisms — the gendered division of labour, female-headed households and intra-household inequality.
Invoking Sen's capability and entitlement framework signals conceptual depth and shifts the answer beyond an income-only view. Indian illustration grounds it, and a brief critical line shows balance. Concept-led structure, correct attribution and British spelling secure the higher band.