Can Bangladesh Afford to Limit Women’s Work?
By Nafew Ahmed
In recent months, during political rallies and election campaigning, senior leaders of the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami have spoken about introducing special limits on women’s work. Among the ideas mentioned were proposals to determine women’s working hours and even to fix a five-hour workday so that family responsibilities remain their main priority.
Bangladesh is already a country where it is difficult for many women to work outside the home. Social pressure is constant. A woman who steps out to earn often faces judgment before she even reaches her workplace. Employers frequently see women as complicated workers because of maternity leave, menstruation, or assumptions about physical weakness. Inside workplaces, discrimination and harassment are common realities. These barriers already affect hiring, wages, and promotion. In such an environment, even a political signal about limiting women’s work can quietly shape behavior. It can influence employers before any formal rule is passed.
According to the country’s Bureau of Statistics, women make up just over 80 million people, nearly half of the total population. Yet their presence in the labor force remains far lower than men. World Bank’s data for 2024 show female labor force participation at about 44 percent, compared to more than 80 percent for men. This gap matters. When half the population is not fully participating in economic activity, the country’s productive capacity remains below its potential.
Women’s work is concentrated in a few key sectors. Many women work in agriculture, often unpaid or underpaid within family enterprises. The ready-made garment (RMG) sector remains the largest source of formal employment for women. In the past, women made up close to 80 percent of garment workers. More recent estimates suggest their share has declined to around two-thirds. Even so, the sector continues to rely heavily on female labor.
Get Masthead Journal’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The garment industry is not only important for women’s employment. It is the backbone of Bangladesh’s export economy. Over the past three decades, the country’s economic growth has been closely tied to garment production. In 2024, export earnings from RMG were roughly 38 billion dollars. This sector alone accounts for four-fifths of total export earnings. Any policy that affects women in this sector does not remain limited to households. It reaches foreign exchange reserves, investor confidence, and overall macroeconomic stability.
At the household level, women’s income is often decisive. Data on income and expenses show that many families operate with very narrow margins. A woman’s wage may determine whether there is enough food on the table, whether rent is paid on time, whether a child remains in school, or whether medicine is purchased when someone falls sick. Cutting working hours reduces earnings directly. Reduced earnings increase the risk of debt, malnutrition, and school dropouts.
There are also long-term effects. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research has linked women’s employment in garments with delayed marriage, lower fertility, and greater investment in daughters’ education. Bangladesh’s fertility rate has already fallen below replacement level. As the population ages, continued female participation in the labor force will become even more important for sustaining growth.
The fiscal impact is also crucial. Bangladesh has a narrow tax base. Working women contribute to both income tax and consumption tax revenues. Data from the National Board of Revenue indicate that although women are fewer in number among income tax filers, their share of total individual income tax payments is proportionally significant. If women’s earnings fall, government revenue from both income and spending declines as well.
Recent labor force trends already raise concern. Reports from the Business and Human Rights Centre indicate that between 2023 and 2024, Bangladesh lost around 1.7 million workers, with women accounting for most of this decline. The female workforce is already unstable. Additional restrictions would add pressure to an already fragile situation.
If working hours in the garment sector were reduced by several hours per day, factories would face lower output unless they hired more workers or increased shifts. That would raise costs. Reduced output would threaten export contracts worth billions of dollars. Lower exports mean lower foreign exchange earnings. Investors, both domestic and foreign, would see political uncertainty around women’s work as a structural risk and shift orders elsewhere.
Supporters of such limitations may argue that they are meant to protect families or preserve social values. Women indeed do most unpaid care work. It is also true that many workplaces remain unsafe. But reducing paid work does not reduce unpaid burdens. It simply removes income. Workplace safety can be improved through the enforcement of labor laws, stronger inspections, and better facilities. Excluding women from full participation weakens both families and the broader economy.
Bangladesh’s economic success was built by opening doors, not closing them. Women entered factories in large numbers and helped transform the country’s export sector. Limiting their participation, whether directly through law or indirectly through political messaging, may be presented as protection. From an economic perspective, however, it reduces output, weakens households, narrows the tax base, and increases uncertainty. In a country where women represent half the population and form a central pillar of export production, restricting their work is not a minor cultural adjustment. It is a costly economic mistake.
