Deepening and widening the gap: The impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on gender and racial inequalities in Brazil

Abstract

Shaped by inconsistent policy decisions, the COVID‐19 pandemic in Brazil has made structural gender and racial inequalities more acute. Black and low‐income women are overburdened with unpaid domestic work, increased domestic violence, and more vulnerable due to informal and exploitative working regimes. These structural aspects are intensifying, since the pandemic has broadened inequalities at the intersection of gender, race, labor market, and social class. We examine pre‐ and during pandemic inequalities on three dimensions: (a) unpaid domestic and care work, (b) women's labor market participation, and (c) domestic violence. We link the care diamond model and racial stratification forwarding a feminist perspective by examining how the interlocking of race and gender in Brazil renders different socioeconomic dynamics to the detriment of Black and low‐income women. Based on this evidence, we stress that a more equal future requires a better social protection and policies targeting the articulation of gender, race, and class.

1. INTRODUCTION

Since February 2020, the world has been facing the multidimensionality of the COVID‐19 pandemic. It exposes preexisting social fractures and inequalities with heavier impacts in developing countries: as the virus reached the Global South, concerns regarding the dominance of informal work, crowded living conditions, and the precarity of health and social systems have risen to the forefront. In highly unequal societies, such as in Brazil, the pandemic exacerbates structural disparities derived from the intersections of gender, racial, and social class. As others within the field of feminist economics, we claim gender inequality is being exacerbated by the pandemic in several countries and across different dimensions (Kabeer, 2020; Kabeer et al., 2021). More saliently, it is overburdening women due to unequal distribution of unpaid domestic and care work and is the lack of recognition for social reproduction (Collins et al., 2020; Özkazanç‐Pan & Pullen, 2020; Thomason & Macias‐Alonso, 2020).

In Brazil, preexisting labor market inequalities and patterns of job loss resulting and/or enhanced by the pandemic are outlined by the intersection of gender, race, C class, and informal work (Oliveira & Emídio, 2021). At the core of this exacerbation lies a long history of inequality, racism, and gender violence (Carneiro, 2011; González, 1981). This renders women of color, especially in low‐income groups, the main demographic in vulnerable and overburdened occupations and enduring heavier job loss (Faria, 2020). On March 17, 2020, a Black ¹ woman who worked selling sweets in a bus station in Rio de Janeiro died suspected of having COVID‐19. On March 19, 2020, a Black woman domestic worker died of COVID‐19, contracted from her employers who were quarantined in Rio de Janeiro after visiting Italy. These were among the first registered deaths from COVID‐19 in Brazil. These women were mothers, had underlying conditions, occupied lower echelons of the labor market, and lived in precarious households. These two cases convey the vulnerability of women whose lives are shaped by inequalities anchored at the intersection of gender, racial, and social class, family arrangements, and participation in the labor market.

Pioneer work brought to light the gendered and racial unequal effects of the pandemic in Brazil (Fares et al., 2021; SOF, 2020). We further this field by showing that these trends are the extension and exacerbation of historical structural gender and racial inequalities by utilizing two analytical tools from a feminist perspective. Firstly, we use Razavi's (2007) diamond care inspired by Folbre (2006) model to explore the sexual division of unpaid domestic and care work, its effect on women's labor market participation, families, and income. We forward this model by showing how, in Brazil, care and domestic work is performed unequally according to the intersection of gender and race. Secondly, we use Duffy's (2005) approach on racial stratification to explore women's formal and informal work regarding domestic work, the biggest employer of Black women, along the lines of racial difference. Both perspectives illuminate the specificities of gender and racial inequalities among women across different dimensions of social life pre‐ and during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Our first section explores the pre‐pandemic configuration of unpaid domestic and care work: labor market participation, with a focus on domestic work and gender violence. Subsequently, we examine how, amid the unfolding of the pandemic, inequalities within these dimensions have widened and deepened since more women are being affected and disparities are becoming more severe. We contribute to a feminist perspective by showing that in Brazil care is intertwined and shaped by other forms of inequality (Razavi, 2007), which are reproduced by labor market dynamics (Duffy, 2005). Moreover, we showcase that in the current social configuration of the country, the links between market and non‐market spheres are overburdening those more vulnerable. Thus, to overcome the pandemic's social and economic aftermath, we emphasize the role of public policies that recognize intersectionality and the diversity of women (Branicki, 2020; González, 2020; Kabeer et al., 2021).

2. UNDERSTANDING THE CRISIS FROM A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE

Coming from a feminist perspective, we consider men and women occupy asymmetrical positions of power (Bidegain et al., 2020, p. 211). Gender inequalities structure the labor force, outlining and reproducing feminized working niches while guaranteeing the functioning of the economy through unpaid and unrecognized care and domestic work (Folbre, 2020; Kabeer et al., 2021; Mills, 2003). Since gender inequalities are structural and historic, the pandemic has impacted women in a heavier way (Branicki, 2020; Heintz et al., 2021; Kabeer et al., 2021, pp. 3, 13). This is a consequence of their prominent participation in hard‐hit sectors, an unprecedented workload in the feminized health and care sector, and the exacerbation of the unequal distribution of work and of domestic violence (CWGL, 2021; Kabeer, 2020).

The gendered structure of the labor force is revealed by current numbers and rates. The ILO has reported a significant decrease in working hours and unemployment among women globally, the most pronounced in the Americas among young, self‐employed, and low‐paid workers, signaling an uneven recovery (2021, pp. 2–3, 20). Sectors mostly occupied by women—hospitality, retail, services—across the world have experienced the most severe losses. Also, 70% of women are those working in healthcare and social services, being exposed to increased working hours and a higher risk of infection (ILO, 2021).

Amid the pandemic, the Global South faces specific challenges: the significant presence of women in informal working arrangement, women withdrawing from the labor force, a stronger dependence on welfare, compromised autonomy (Bidegain et al., 2020, pp. 215–217), and restricted government capacity and international support (CWGL, 2021, pp. 11–15, 21; Kabeer et al., 2021, p. 19). These facts substantiate that gender relations function as a system of dominance shaped by articulations of race, social class, ethnicity, family arrangements, living and work conditions, germane to understanding inequalities in developing countries (Bidegain et al., 2020; Mills, 2003). In accordance with this, long‐term racial and gender inequalities in Brazil have been reshaped and enhanced by the pandemic according to social class, regions, and dependence on social support (Bahn et al., 2020, p. 698; Oliveira & Alloatti, 2021). In the country, women are overrepresented among single parents, head of households, and caregivers. Simultaneously, they are the main group in part‐time and informal work to accommodate the double burden (UN Women, 2020b; WHO, 2019).

We utilize two theoretical perspectives to examine inequalities around race and gender among Brazilian women, pre‐ and during the pandemic. Firstly, Razavi's care diamond model  (2007) contemplates four dimensions: the family/household, markets, the public sector, and the not‐for‐profit sector. The model allows and enriches a feminist analysis by identifying the diversity of sites in which welfare is produced in Brazil and how decisions taken by society and governments privilege some forms of provision over others. By showing how care is addressed along the lines of race, gender, and social class, we expose it is inextricably intertwined with other structures of inequality (Razavi, 2007, pp. iii, 20). We further the diamond care model by showing the intra‐gender disparity resulting from intersectionality; consequently, we convey the diversity of the crisis' effects among women.

Secondly, to address racial stratification, we follow Duffy (2005) by exploring labor market dynamics in (re) producing inequality as they are “interlocking systems of gender and racial oppression [that] concentrate women and people of color in occupations that are lower paying and lower status” (p. 71). We examine the racialization and segmentation that put Black and low‐income women in more precarious working positions as part of a hierarchy of individuals and activities in Brazil. They are allocated in the “back‐room” (Duffy, 2005, p. 72), hidden from public acknowledgment and neglected by legal regulation. By articulating Razavi's model and Duffy's perspective on the Brazilian case, we contribute to a feminist perspective by making the connections between market and non‐market spheres visible. Specifically, we show the socioeconomic structure that (re) produce low wages and poor working conditions of those providing paid and unpaid care and domestic work. As indicated by Duffy (2005, p. 67), it concerns a feminist perspective to identify and understand the concentration of women, specially of color, in low‐wage occupations. Thus, we shed light on the value of care and its components as well as strategies deployed by women in their diversity, questioning a homogenized gaze upon women's situation.

Long before the pandemic, Sueli Carneiro and Leila González developed a feminist perspective to analyze the Brazilian history of working relations and inequality addressing the intersection of gender, race, and social class. According to them, gender and racial inequalities have been historically concealed by political narratives claiming racial harmony as the base of the nation. González (2020) offers the concept Amefricanidade (combining America, Africa, Latin, and Ladino) to stress the long‐term denial of Black roots in Brazil as a key part of systemic racism. For Carneiro (2020), structural racism contributes to the Brazilian capitalist order by benefiting the wealthy White class and privileging White individuals within the poor. On the intersection of race and gender, González (1981) and Carneiro (2011) point out the division and exclusion of material, working, and living conditions among Black and White women and men. As Duffy (2005) in the United States, Carneiro (2011) and González (2020) scrutinize the myth of the feminine fragility as racially biased, because Black women were never considered as such being historically deprived of recognition vis‐à‐vis White women.

As the COVID‐19 pandemic unfolded, domestic gender violence increased because of confinement, social distancing, and lockdowns (CWGL, 2021; UN Women, 2020c; UNDP, 2020; WHO, 2020). In Brazil, social distancing measures were inconsistent and lacked institutional support. Domestic violence in the country is strongly shaped by social and economic dimensions; therefore, women of color and women in low‐income groups were more exposed by the poor execution of these measures. Additionally, they depend on the public health and social assistance system for reproductive rights and family support. The system became structurally deficient and with limited capacity due to consecutive years of austerity (Oliveira & Alloatti, 2021; Oliveira et al., 2020) toppled with the pandemic. This has impacted market and non‐market spheres exposing the crucial role of women (Bidegain et al., 2020; Heintz et al., 2021), but also how vulnerability varies strongly according to race and social class. Our analysis shows the intersectional impact of the pandemic that exacerbates a long history of inequality, racism, and gender violence.

3. GENDER AND RACIAL INEQUALITIES AS STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS IN BRAZIL

Brazil presents prominent intersectional inequalities among women before the pandemic. As preexisting features, Black and low‐income women predominate in the informal market and are more vulnerable to high levels of domestic violence and femicide, which put them under extreme pressure in public and private realms (Carneiro, 2011; Carneiro, 2020; Dweck et al., 2020; SOF, 2020). While the former calls our attention to precarious working conditions, such as job loss, unpaid domestic, and care work (Oliveira & Emídio, 2021), the latter refers to increased pressure in family budgeting, struggle to sustain the household, and heightened domestic violence (Bidegain et al., 2020; Oliveira et al., 2020). The two cases in our introduction illustrate intersectionality and express how extreme the decision of not working is even during a health crisis. While the first case shows firsthand the severe need of informal workers who must earn income daily, the second case conveys the disregard toward domestic workers, even in formal arrangements.

3.1. Division of unpaid domestic and care work in Brazil

One of the dimensions of Razavi's care diamond model is the private realm: the household or the family. Thus, a first step in our analysis is to characterize this space in Brazil in terms of how care and domestic work is being undertaken and by whom. In line with our theoretical discussion, gender relations outline the sex division of unpaid domestic and care work in the country in clear detriment of women (Table 1). Between men and women, there is a difference of 11% points in the declared rate of caring for others and 14% points regarding unpaid domestic work (for 2019). Women spend 10 h more than men in unpaid domestic and care work per week, and those unemployed spend 6 h more per week (IBGE, 2020b). Thus, in Brazil, data shows women are the main providers of unpaid care and domestic work, which has a direct impact in their engagement in paid employment and consequently, in their economic autonomy and emancipation.

TABLE 1.

Unpaid domestic and care work among men and women according to gender and race (percentage and hours) (Brazil, 2019)

	Percentage which declared taking performing unpaid care work (same household or not) (rate)	Percentage which declared performing unpaid domestic work (rate)	Weekly hours dedicated to unpaid domestic and care work
Men	25.9	78.6	11.0
White	25.2	80.4	‐
Preto	27.8	80.9	‐
Pardo	26.1	76.5	‐
Employed	‐	‐	10.4
Unemployed	‐	‐	12.1
Women	36.8	92.1	21.4
White	33.5	91.5	‐
Preta	39.6	94.1	‐
Parda	39.3	92.3	‐
Employed	‐	‐	18.5
Unemployed	‐	‐	24.0
Entire population of 14 years old and more	31.6	85.7	16.8

Source: PNAD Contínua, IBGE (2020a). Created by the authors.

Although the overburden of women is general, there is a significant difference along the lines of gender, race, and labor market participation. In 2018, the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) reported that 28.2% of employed women were in part‐time jobs (compared to 14.1% of men). Yet, 31.1% of employed Black women were working part‐time compared to 25% of employed White women. Women vis‐à‐vis men are more prone to work part‐time to conciliate double burden, still the impact is heavier on Black women, which hampers their participation in the labor market (CWGL, 2021; IBGE, 2018). They are inserted more precariously, earn lower incomes while working more hours having higher total working time than for men, while their total income is lower.

While gender inequality around unpaid care and domestic work characterizes the family/household dimension in Brazil, affecting women's labor market participation and contributing to informal or limited working regimes, the interlocking of gender and race in Brazil conveys the heavier impacts on Black women. The latter are overrepresented in low‐income groups, reproducing structural unequal positions (Carneiro, 2020; Duffy, 2005). It is in this interlocking that we identify the stratification of women within the private realm and in the labor market. The interaction between the family and the state dimensions in providing care is different depending on race which also informs labor market participation. Brazilian Black and low‐income women strongly depend on the public system, especially for childcare, meals, and social assistance centers. The retrenchment of public spending in the last years has decreased their assistance to families (Oliveira & Alloatti, 2021); therefore, increasing the share of care assumed by families/households.

In this context, we highlight the Programa Bolsa Família (PBF), a conditional cash‐transfer program that by 2016 served 13.8 million Brazilian families, the poorest 25% of the population (Bartholo, 2016). The PBF was legally required to prefer women as recipients of benefits seeking to support children's development. It has provided partial economic independence for women, taken families out of poverty, improved children's health conditions, and school attendance. However, as put by Razavi (2007, p. 24), the conditioning of benefits reinforces the provision of care from family members, frequently the mothers, strengthening specific family configurations and absolving other sectors. This award‐winning program was discontinued in late 2021.

3.2. Labor market participation according to gender and race

As other countries in the Global South, Brazil shows a recurrent “activation” and “deactivation” of women's occupation depending on the economic situation (Bidegain et al., 2020). In recent years, although increasing, women's participation rate in the workforce remained around 20% points lower than men's between 2017 and 2019 (Table 2). Women's unemployment rate, however, remained around 3% points higher than men's. Simultaneously, it is considerably higher for Pretos and Pardos (Black). Informality rates are not significantly different between women and men (Table 3). Yet, between White and Pretos and Pardos, there is 10%–14% points of difference, respectively. Women's participation in the labor market is particularly precarious due to the double burden and this synergy of activation and deactivation. We examine formality and informality in further detail to better qualify the interaction between gender and race.

TABLE 2.

Estimated participation, unemployment, and informality rates by gender, color/race, and total (Brazil, 2017–2019)

		Gender		Skin color or race			Total
		Women	Men	White	Preto	Pardo
Estimated participation rate in the national workforce	2017	52.47	72.02	62.69	65.42	60.24	61.78
	2018	52.76	71.54	62.33	64.77	60.45	61.69
	2019	53.10	71.60	62.78	65.53	60.26	61.87
Estimated unemployment rate	2017	13.43	10.48	9.48	14.48	13.56	11.79
	2018	13.45	10.07	9.20	14.54	13.31	11.59
	2019	13.05	9.23	8.67	13.49	12.59	10.95
Estimated informality rate a	2017	40.47	39.83	32.65	43.78	47.08	40.11
	2018	40.94	40.26	33.23	43.85	47.30	40.65
	2019	41.27	40.60	33.55	44.66	47.36	40.89

^a Informality rate: proportion of employed population without a formal contract, unregistered self‐employed, employers with up to one employee (unregistered) and auxiliary family workers.

Source: Welle (2020). Created by the authors.

TABLE 3.

Occupied people of 14 years old and above by sex, skin color, or race, according to position in occupation (Brazil, 2018, absolute values for groups of 1000 people and percentages)

	Total		Gender				Skin color or race
	Total	% of total	Total	% of total	Total	% of total	Total	% of total	Total	% of total
			Women		Men		White		Black
Formal work	54,039	58.5	23,593	58.4	30,446	58.6	27,286	65.4	26,123	52.7
Formal wage earner	34,128	37.0	14,002	34.7	20,126	38.8	16,408	39.3	17,360	35.0
Formal domestic worker	1738	1.9	1557	3.9	181	0.3	631	1.5	1084	2.2
Self‐employed (contributing to the social security system)	7137	7.7	2547	6.3	4590	8.8	4205	10.1	2836	5.7
Employer (contributing to the social security system)	3137	3.4	1032	2.6	2105	4.1	2159	5.2	911	1.8
Informal work	38,294	41.5	16,802	41.6	21,492	41.4	14,423	34.6	23,438	47.3
Informal wage earner	14,034	15.2	5250	13.0	8784	16.9	5289	12.7	8594	17.3
Informal domestic worker	4495	4.9	4420	10.9	276	0.5	1484	3.6	2971	6.0
Self‐employed (not contributing to the social security system)	16,288	17.6	5628	13.9	1066	2.1	6039	14.5	10,066	20.3
Employer (contributing to the social security system)	1347	1.5	357	0.9	991	1.9	714	1.7	607	1.2
Auxiliary family worker a	2129	2.3	1347	3.3	781	1.5	897	2.2	1200	2.4
Total	92,333	100	40,395	100	51,938	100	41,709	100	49,561	100

^a Person that helps or support a family member in an economic activity without receiving retribution and/or not contributing to the social security system.

Source: PNAD Contínua  (2018). IBGE. Created by the authors.

In Brazil, women are overrepresented in domestic work, especially in informal arrangements: 10.9% of occupied women are in informal domestic work and 3.9% of occupied women in formal domestic work (while for men this respective rate is 0.5% and 0.3%). Black individuals are almost double that of Whites in this niche. Women and Black people predominate in working niches characterized by informality. At the intersection of gender and race, we find Black women predominate in more precarious, unstable, and disadvantaged conditions.

The structure of the labor force in domestic work conveys a racial segmentation as pointed out by Carneiro (2020): structural racism privileges White individuals in the low echelons of the labor market; thus, we call attention to the intra‐gender segmentation around race. While performing the same activity, women of color show higher rates of informality compared to White women and men of color. This renders the former particularly vulnerable, subjected to a volatile labor force demand, informal jobs, and juggling with double burden.

Gender and racial differences are clear in real average income in Brazilian Reais ² especially when considering formal and informal work (Table 4). We stress that Black women earn significantly less compared to other groups and are overrepresented in informal domestic work; activity that reports the lowest income. In the case of these women, this precariousness conflates with previously described domestic and family arrangements that make them prone to seek these occupations.

TABLE 4.

Real average monthly income from main work usually received by people of 14 years pf age or older, according to categories, in Brazilian reais (Brazil, 2018)

Gender/skin color or race	Total	Formal work	Informal work	Informal employment	Informal domestic worker
White men	3138	3874	2202	1914	1104
Black men	1762	2308	1236	1091	928
White women	2379	2872	1633	1758	862
Black women	1349	1848	940	1125	672

Source: PNAD Contínua  (2018). IBGE. Created by the authors.

Analyzing the difference in income, another gender difference arises regarding education and labor market participation. In Brazil, 23.5% of women over 25 years of age had a higher education degree compared to 20.7% of men in the same age range and a higher net school attendance (73.5 for women and 63.2 for men) (IBGE, 2018). From a gender perspective, access to education does not necessarily mean higher wages. Marilane Teixeira (2013) argues that due to the glass ceiling phenomenon, the higher the access to education, the wider the gender wage gap: As education levels increase, so does the disparity in income between men and women.

In Brazil, domestic and care work are shaped by reminiscences of slavery and traditional gender roles, being one of the largest employment sectors for Black women in the country (Carneiro, 2011; González, 2020). According to Luana Pinheiro et al. (2019, p. 12), in 2018, 6.2 million people were domestic workers, approximately 92% of them were women; also, of the 4 million Black people, 3.9 are Black women. In other words, Black women represent 62% of the national total of domestic workers in Brazil. In accordance with our analysis, Pinheiro et al. (2019, pp. 35–36) also show that White women earn more than Blacks, mostly for being formally employed, but also when it comes to informal arrangements. In sum, Black women receive less money across all occupations when compared to White women (and men) and are overrepresented in informal domestic work and activity that reports the lowest income of all.

The history of domestic work regulations (from 1991 to 2013) is marked by the “[female] domestic workers amendment.” ³ Currently, those registered by their employers are considered formal workers, ⁴ but informality is still highly frequent. Coinciding with the economic crisis started in 2015, the number of domestic workers has increased, but the share of formal workers has decreased (IBGE, 2017). In the first quarter of 2017, 31.5% of domestic workers were registered. For the same period of 2018 and 2019, registered domestic workers were 30%. In the first trimester of 2020, only 27.5% were registered (PNADC & IBGE, 2020a). This activity has also become more flexible, registering, by 2018, 30% of the total female domestic workers as self‐employed ⁵ (Pinheiro et al., 2019).

Duffy (2005) explains racial stratification of women in domestic and care work with the notion of “back room.” The latter refers to the social positioning of Black women performing specific tasks that are hidden from the public perception of this activity. We argue that in Brazil, Black women are also allocated in a “back room,” yet the lack of recognition derives primarily from its invisibility, as the intersection of gender and race evokes imaginaries of servitude of Black people and feminized activities (Pinheiro et al., 2019). It reinforces the perception of domestic work not being “a real job,” but rather the given role of Black women. The lack of efficacy in regulations of domestic work is also a key aspect in concealing Black women's precariousness in this working niche. Moreover, this invisibility reproduces racial stratification since White women, who earn more, can afford outsourcing domestic and care work due to Black women's low salaries.

From a feminist perspective, the question of how care and domestic work is undertaken and by whom sheds light on how gender relations structure the public and private realms. In a disadvantaged economic position in Brazil, women support—alone—an expressive number of families. In 2010, the national census registered 9.2 million families led by single parents and 87.4% led by women (IBGE, 2020d). The number of households led by women has grown steadily to the amount of 32.1 million by 2018. Women, especially Black, are increasingly becoming the family's sole economic support, while earning less and progressively participating more in informal and flexible arrangements.

3.3. Domestic violence as part of the history of gender relations in Brazil

Women's structural vulnerability in Brazil also requires to be explained by a history of domestic violence (Segato, 2016). The fight against domestic violence achieved its epitome with the law 11.340/2006, popularly known as “Lei Maria da Penha.” ⁶ This law instituted violence against women as a heinous crime, establishing social and health assistance for victims. Still, according to IPEA and Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública (FBSP) (2019), in 2017, Brazil registered that 13 women were killed per day, with an annual total of 4936 cases. Between 2007 and 2017, the national rate of femicide increased to 20.7%, especially between 2016 and 2017, as other violent crimes diminished. Regarding femicide, of the total of women killed between 2007 and 2017, 28.5% were murdered inside their home. In 2017, more than 221,000 women reported domestic aggression to the police. There is also a racial dimension to femicide: Black women were 66% of the total women murdered in 2017.

To explain domestic violence and femicide as structural inequalities, we reiterate the role of the state and the progressive contraction of primary spending since 2015 (Dweck et al., 2020; Oliveira & Alloatti, 2021). Between 2014 and 2019, there was a decrease in real terms of 75% of resources destined to policies, to fight gender violence (INESC, 2020, p. 156).

While the previously mentioned PBF reduced poverty and increased women's empowerment and autonomy (Bartholo, 2016; Mariano & Carloto, 2009), it has been discontinued in 2021, simultaneously other supporting interventions also suffered budget cuts (CDVM, 2020, p. 167). For example, shelters for women fleeing from domestic violence were included in the federal budget in 2014; but since 2017, the execution and spending have been extremely scarce (INESC, 2020, p. 161). In 2019, zero resources have been used from the R$ 20 million available for the construction of shelters (CDVM, 2020, p. 166). This disservice regarding violence against women leads us to speak of a “state‐sanctioned violence against women” (Sanders‐McDonagh et al., 2016), since simultaneously an increase of 7.3% of femicides were registered in the country comparing 2019 to 2018 (CDVM, 2020, p. 166).

As explained by Razavi (2007, p. 20), if the State does not provide for care arrangements, it signals other institutions to assume the responsibility. The lack of institutional support intensifies inequality among men and women and differently among women in their diversity. Austerity policies in recent years have compromised severely previous achievements in welfare, food security, gender equality, and poverty eradication (Oliveira & Alloatti, 2021; Rossi et al., 2018). We have shown that gender relations structure the domestic sphere—family/household dimension—in detriment of women, increasing their predominance in part‐time, flexible, and informal jobs to accommodate the double burden.

We forward this model by showing that the articulation of dimensions that configure the provision of care depends not only on the country, but most importantly on the intersection of gender and race. In the Brazilian case, Black women in low‐income groups are heavily disadvantaged. It is in the interlocking of gender and race that we identify the factors of their heavier share of unpaid domestic work and a more precarious labor market participation. Adapting Duffy's (2005) analysis on racial stratification, we illustrate that the lack of regulation connected to informality and lower income of domestic work characterizes and reproduces intra‐gender disparity in Brazil. Lastly, Black women in low‐income groups are more exposed to domestic violence and have a stronger dependence on public services, which have been considerably dismantled in the last years.

4. GENDER AND RACIAL INEQUALITIES IN BRAZIL AMID THE PANDEMIC

Nassif‐Pires et al. (2021) claim for a multidimensional analysis to explain the pandemic's severity in Brazil, focusing on previous social vulnerabilities. They argue that (i) the most vulnerable are prone to infection due to the need to work and poor living conditions; (ii) precarious healthcare and comorbidities follow race and income disparities; and (iii) job and income loss affect disproportionately self‐employed, low‐skilled, and informal workers. We undertake the authors' analysis and complement it by claim that the managing of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Brazil amplified existing intersectional inequalities beyond health.

A first instance on how inequalities have exacerbated refers to measures (not) taken to support the most vulnerable population during these times. Bolsonaro's administration has resisted social distancing, divulging campaigns against it such as the “Brazil cannot stop” (Uol, 2020). The same administration argues that discussing gender and racial disparities is “gender ideology” and “reverse racism” (Fares et al., 2021). In late March 2020, the Congress pushed for a Basic Emergency Income of three installments of R$ 600 for informal workers and the vulnerable population, having it approved by April 2020. By mid‐June 2020, payments were delayed and crowding was frequent at banks. In August 2020, the government decided two extra installments would follow. By then, around a third of the Brazilian population qualified to receive the benefit (66.9 million). By September 2020, the government extended the benefit until the end of the year but cut its value by half. From late 2021, its coverage was further reduced as it substituted the previously mentioned PBF.

A second aspect indicates racial inequalities in the public health care system. Carneiro (2020) explains that the health system in Brazil ignores racial differences, especially around Black women, as a form of historic and systemic racism (Santos et al., 2020). The myth of racial democracy justifies not registering patients' race, which hides the pandemic's impact on specific groups (Garcia, 2020). The first national epidemiological reports on COVID‐19 did not consider race/skin color as a variable. Therefore, little information exists on its effect on the Black population despite the importance of social, living, and health vulnerabilities (Santos et al., 2020). Moreover, this produces unequal treatment, paucity of information, and obstructs intersectional examination. Official forms only included race/color after public pressure, yet they are frequently left blank (Santos et al., 2020).

4.1. Division of unpaid domestic and care work amid the pandemic

As part of the Brazilian economy, we showed that unequal distribution of unpaid and domestic work preceded the pandemic. This inequality has been aggravated by the closing of daycare centers and schools in Brazil. As in many other countries, without institutions supporting social reproduction, unpaid domestic and care work has significantly increased among women (Özkazanç‐Pan & Pullen, 2020). On this point, we highlight the importance of the intersection of race and gender in defining the resources women possess to deal with the crisis.

Moreover, these institutions provide at least one meal per day, an important contribution for low‐income households. Therefore, Black women and families, who are the biggest share of low‐income groups, are experiencing an overload of work and psychological pressure regarding budgeting, continuing working, caring, and avoiding infecting their loved ones. According to the Sempre Viva Organização Feminista (SOF, 2020), 50% of Brazilian women started “taking care of someone” during the pandemic, 72% stated having increased time spent on monitoring or acting as a companion for someone, and 41% declared to work longer hours with the same compensation.

We have shown that Black women from low‐income groups are overrepresented among informal workers who are being more severely hit by the pandemic, especially by the abrupt suspension of income and the lack of support networks. Among these women, unregulated, unpaid, and informal support in care and domestic chores is crucial, conveying the importance of a not‐for‐profit dimension in providing care. The SOF (2020, p. 16) shows that Black women represented 61% of those who depend on this type of exchanges and support, mostly provided by family and friends. This exhibits the heterogeneity of strategies these women deploy and the importance of informal care arrangements to secure their income.

These findings indicate that social distancing has eroded social networks that assist working women with caring for children and the elderly (Kabeer et al., 2021, p. 10; SOF, 2020). The absence of policies or support in this regard conveys the lack of acknowledgment of unpaid domestic and care work and those who perform it. By using the diamond model, we identify the inaction of the state in providing or supporting care arrangements, which increases pressure on other spheres. Therefore, it amplifies intra‐gender inequalities in detriment of women who are in extreme need to work and cannot pay for care services.

We restate that the distribution of care according to the diamond model follows the intersection of race, gender, and labor market participation in Brazil. The absence of the state's support in providing for care has different impacts among women. While women with resources, mostly White and with formal jobs, outsource care by hiring other women, for many Black women and those in low‐income groups, the public and non‐for‐profit dimension holds a key role in their capacity of working. Razavi (2007) describes the non‐for‐profit as charity, religious institutions, and community, particularly in developing countries. In the Brazilian case, the not‐for‐profit dimension is not a network that is activated in moments of need, but the main source of support for care and domestic work on a regular basis; therefore, a precondition for these women to continue working and sustaining their families.

4.2. The pandemic's effect in the labor market

A salient gendered effect of the pandemic is a decrease in women's participation in the labor market, diminishing their economic autonomy (Bidegain et al., 2020; CWGL, 2021; UN Women, 2020a). Barbosa and Souza (2020) show that economically active women, before the pandemic, transitioned to inactivity by March 2020 at a higher rate than men, in a pattern also outlined by race (Kabeer, 2020). Adding to trends in other countries (Collins et al., 2020; Thomason & Macias‐Alonso, 2020), in Brazil the biggest drop in labor market participation rate is among women with children up to 10 years old, who are likely to face more difficulties to go back to work in the current context. Within this demographic, White women have been less affected (Barbosa et al., 2020), conveying the previous explained racial stratification reproducing privilege among those with the resources to outsource care and domestic work (Kabeer et al., 2021, p. 9).

In May 2020, the IBGE started a household survey, named “PNAD Covid‐19” (IBGE, 2020d), that shows an increase of people outside the labor force during the pandemic, which “masked” the increase in unemployment. The May–July trimester of 2020 shows three crucial phenomena. Firstly, the amount of people occupied reached a historic low in Brazilian history (since 2012): 82 million people, contrasting with the maximum of 94.1 million in November–January 2020 (IBGE, 2020c). Secondly, the population in the workforce also dropped to 95.15 million people from the maximum of 106.4 million (November–January 2020). Thirdly, the amount of people outside the workforce reached a record of 78.9 million. During the pandemic, informality was reduced as occupations in the sector were eliminated at a higher rate than in the formal sector. In May–July of 2019, 41.7% of the occupied population was in the informal sector (a historical record), the same trimester of 2020 shows a rate of 37.4%.

The apparent reduction in informality masks the destruction of income sources for the poorer. These data align with Latin America (Bidegain et al., 2020; UN Women, 2020a) in which women are exiting the labor force and showing a lower return to work due to the sectors in which they participated. The resultant gender inequality within the labor force reproduces disparities around economic autonomy, compromising equitable recovery.

In Brazil, the number of people employed in domestic work was 4.6 million in May–July 2020, the lowest in the series since 2012, because of social distancing (IBGE, 2020c). Comparing the trimesters of May–July in 2019 and 2020, a 26.9% decrease in employment occurred. As per the previous section, Black women who are mostly employed in this sector, especially informally, have significantly suffered these dynamics. We reiterate public perceptions around domestic work and who performs it, which influenced policies taken (and not taken) amid the pandemic. An example was the state of Pará, a historically impoverished region with a high concentration of Black population. Pará had 10 cities entering full lockdown on May 7, 2020. The day before, the mayor of Belém (the capital with a population of 1.48 million) declared domestic workers essential, creating a great pressure for them to continue working.

4.3. Domestic violence as a part of the pandemic

In times of crisis, tensions and conflicts with male partners or other family members arise (Kabeer et al., 2021). Social distancing, living conditions, job‐loss, and bigger consumption of alcohol contribute greatly to gender violence. Restrictions on mobility leave ample space for abusers while isolation deteriorates support networks. As a result, major cities in Brazil, such as São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, have experienced an increase in domestic violence since early 2020. In Rio de Janeiro, reports of domestic violence have increased around 50% (Oliveira et al., 2020), while shelters in São Paulo received victims only for 48 h. A progressively deteriorated and overwhelmed public health system in Brazil has hardly guaranteed women's and girls' health and reproductive rights, crucial to their autonomy over their body and life.

The most complete research on violence during the pandemic in Brazil was conducted by the FBSP (2020). The first part of this report includes data from six states in different regions. It shows that the number of Urgency Protective Measures (UPM) (a measure taken by a judge to protect a woman from domestic violence) in three states (Pará, Acre, and São Paulo) decreased when comparing April of 2019 and 2020. UPMs dropped 32.9% in Pará, 67.7% in Acre, and 31.5% in São Paulo. Since the woman's presence is required to file a UPM and/or to report violence, social distancing explains the drop in police reports. However, calls to 190 (the police number) have increased in places where data is available. Comparing March in 2019 and 2020, there was a growth of 2.1% in calls regarding domestic violence in Acre and 44.9% in São Paulo.

The FBSP (2020) included mentions of domestic disturbances by third parties on Twitter, as a complementary measure. The research found a 431% increase in mentions of domestic disturbances by neighbors on Twitter nationwide between February and April 2020. From the first trimester of 2019 to the first trimester of 2020, all six states showed an increase in femicides; among them we highlight Mato Grosso from 11 to 22 (100% increase), Pará from 7 to 20 (185.7% increase), Rio Grande do Sul from 15 to 26 (73.3%), and São Paulo from 39 to 49 (25.6%). Despite the reduction in reported cases, the growth in femicides indicates domestic gender violence has risen in Brazil.

As we mentioned, domestic violence is a structural phenomenon in Brazil rooted in the history of gender relations and varying across social class. Middle‐class women might have economic resources to better deal with physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. For low‐income women, especially in the informal sector and poor households, this situation is more extreme. We reiterate this class division is along the lines of the explained racial stratification. Women of color are frequently the decision makers over family budgeting and care work; therefore they are facing unprecedented stress, isolation, weakened mental health, and higher violence from partners (Bahn et al., 2020; Kabeer et al., 2021, p. 15).

5. FINAL REMARKS

The two cases that inaugurated our paper convey general characteristics of Black women in vulnerable working conditions in Brazil, portraying the intersections of gender, race, social class, and working regimes. Our analysis showed firstly that these intersectional inequalities are long term and functional to the country's economic and social structure. Moreover, it exhibits racial intra‐gender inequalities since in Brazil gender and race are organized in (and organize) roles rooted in hierarchies of power and unequal position among women. Black women in low‐income groups have their lives outlined by informality, daily income earning, single‐headed families, and a strong dependence on institutional and governmental support.

We utilized Razavi's (2007) care diamond to explore the Brazilian case in how the dimensions of family/household, state, markets, and not‐for‐profit act in providing and supporting unpaid care and domestic work. We forward this model with concrete evidence from Brazil pre‐ and during the pandemic. We showed how the interaction of these dimensions respond differently according to an intra‐gender racial stratification. For women with resources and formal jobs, most of them White, the provision of care and domestic work comes from the market dimension, turning to the state dimension in the recovery phase of the pandemic. For those in low‐income groups and informal jobs, in which Black women are overrepresented, the state provision has been compromised in the last years, giving place to a key role of the not‐for‐profit dimension as a precondition for maintaining their jobs.

We adapted Duffy's (2005) depiction of Black women in the “back room” of the care and domestic sector to depict domestic work in Brazil. Specific to the country, we use the “back room” as a form of invisibility product of intra‐gender racial dynamics. The invisibility refers to the disregard of domestic and care work as a key factor in social reproduction, but also to the lack of acknowledgment of the conditions in which women of color participate in this niche. In line with international studies, we have shown that domestic violence has increased during the pandemic, exacerbating a long‐term history of gender violence in the country. This phenomenon also unfolds along the lines of racial differences among women, rendering Black women in low‐income groups more exposed and vulnerable.

Our use of both theoretical elements contributes to a feminist perspective in two main ways. Firstly, it expands the work and comprehension of the bridges and dynamics between the paid and unpaid spheres (Duffy, 2005, p. 70) identifying and defending the importance of unpaid care and domestic work in the social and economic configuration of modern societies. Secondly, we undertook the challenge that a feminist analysis of complex problems “cannot be built on the experiences of one particular group of women” (Duffy, 2005, p. 79). Consequently, we emphasized the need to questioning a homogenized gaze on Brazilian women. We do this by examining the interlocking of race and gender in the (re) production of forms of oppression and advancing in addressing inequality and policies that include and follow racial and social class stratification.

We identify the country's response to the pandemic as what Branicki (2020, p. 878) calls a rationalist approach to crisis management, omitting preexisting inequality and ignoring gender relations and care in daily life working decisions. The Brazilian Federal Government has adopted an austerity approach toward welfare and gender equality and lacks gender‐specific measures to counterbalance the effects of the pandemic. The latter are increasing the vulnerability of Black women in low‐income groups, especially on the provision of care, labor market participation, and gender violence. As Carneiro (2011) points out, there is a need for a new agenda of feminist movements acknowledging and denouncing racial inequalities.

Asking how care is structured is extremely important in times of changing policies and new caring practices are being put into place (Razavi, 2007, p. 19). For the Brazilian case, we make three points: (1) With high levels of informality, an efficient social protection network cannot be limited to the formal labor market; (2) the Basic Emergency Income and the PBF could be forerunners of a permanent type of basic income program as a gender policy. It must, however, be guaranteed constitutionally and be connected to social policies within a human rights frame (CWGL, 2021; UN Women, 2020a); (3) Gender and racial inequalities must be addressed while shaping fiscal policy (taxing and spending) and specific policies are to be implemented during and after the pandemic to counterbalance its effect in the short, mid, and long‐term. Thus, we echo Kabeer et al. (2021, p. 17) and the CWGL (2021) on the key role of feminist economics in questioning governments. We have shown that disregarding gender and racial inequalities is reproducing structural disparities in Brazil; therefore, if not attended, the pandemic's effects will thwart economic and social recovery as well as general well‐being (Bahn et al., 2020).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or any other institution to which the author(s) are affiliated.

Biographies

Magali Natalia Alloatti (she/her/hers). Consultant for the IOM Brazil, research fellow at the State Observatory for Migrations in Santa Catarina (Brazil), and Officer for political relations at the Embassy of Canada (Brazil). Conducted postdoctoral studies as a DAAD CAPES fellow at Hamburg University and at the State University of Santa Catarina. Lectured at Bielefeld University, Karlstad University, among others. Has a PhD in Sociology from the Federal University of Santa Catarina in collaboration with University of California Los Angeles. Her Master is in Political Sociology from Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina and has a BA in Sociology from the National University of LItoral (UNL) in Argentina, was an exchange student at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. Currently, is a member of the IAFFE paper selection committee (2021–2024) and Migration Research Hub IMISCOE.

Ana Luiza Matos de Oliveira (she/her/hers). Associate Economic Affairs Officer at ECLAC's subregional office in Mexico City. Has a PhD in Economic Development from Unicamp, with a research internship at the Zakir Husain Center for Educational Studies (Jawaharlal Nehru University) and at the Lateinamerika‐Institut (LAI – Freie Universität Berlin). Has a Master in Economic Development from Unicamp, with an internship at the Université de Genève. Holds a Higher Diploma in Latin American and Caribbean Social Thought from CLACSO. Has a BA in Economics from the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), and was an exchange student at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Currently co‐editor of WEA Commentaries and member of the IAFFE membership committee (2020–2022).

Alloatti, Magali Natalia , and Matos de Oliveira Ana Luíza. 2023. “Deepening and Widening the Gap: The Impacts of the COVID‐19 Pandemic on Gender and Racial Inequalities in Brazil.” Gender, Work & Organization: 30(1), 329–344. 10.1111/gwao.12909.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.