Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance

Sbongile Jeanetty Marcia Nhlapho; Lungile Prudence Zondi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance

Sbongile Jeanetty Marcia Nhlapho^*

, Lungile Prudence Zondi

Published in Innovation (Volume 6, Issue 4)

Received: 11 September 2025 Accepted: 29 October 2025 Published: 11 December 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Gendered poverty remains one of the most pressing socio-economic challenges of the 21st century, disproportionately affecting women and exacerbating global inequalities. Often conceptualized as the "feminization of poverty," this phenomenon highlights the ways in which structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women's access to education, employment, land, and financial resources. Women’s overrepresentation in informal, insecure, and low-paying work, coupled with the disproportionate burden of unpaid care responsibilities, further entrenches cycles of economic vulnerability. Intersectionality deepens these inequalities, as women’s experiences of poverty are mediated by race, class, geography, and other social identities. The consequences of gendered poverty extend beyond individual women to household welfare, national productivity, and the achievement of global development goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study employs Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory and uses a qualitative methodology. Addressing gendered poverty requires a multidimensional approach that goes beyond income redistribution to include structural reforms, gender-responsive social protection, and the recognition of women as key agents of development. This paper critically examines gendered poverty as both a scourge and a catalyst of women’s socio-economic hindrance, highlighting its causes, impacts, and implications for inclusive development. Gendered poverty, limited land access, and indigenous knowledge systems intersect to marginalize the socio-economic empowerment of women. This study critically examines globally how structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women’s access to education, employment, land for food security, and financial resources, reinforcing cycles of economic vulnerability. Indigenous knowledge, while culturally significant, often legitimizes practices that marginalize women, particularly regarding land ownership and decision-making, further entrenching inequality. Employing Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory, this qualitative study highlights the compounded impact of poverty, land deprivation, and exclusionary cultural practices on women’s livelihoods, household welfare, and community development. Findings emphasize the need for the Gender Commission to regulate the application of indigenous knowledge to prevent the marginalization of rural women and enhance their socio-economic agency, including rural women in innovative strategies to enable their participation in land ownership and effectively embark on agricultural activities. By situating local challenges within global development frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this study contributes to debates on gender, poverty, and empowerment, offering evidence-based recommendations for inclusive socio-economic transformation.

Published in	Innovation (Volume 6, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17
Page(s)	191-207
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Gendered Poverty, Feminization of Poverty, Socio-economic Inequality, Women’s Empowerment, Intersectionality, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Gender Equality

References

[1]	Ben Haman, O. (2025). Women and intersectional barriers in social exclusion. Women’s Studies International Forum, 112, 103142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2025.103142
[2]	Benschop, M. (2004). Women’s right to land and property. In Women in Human Settlements Development: Challenges and Opportunities (Commission on Sustainable Development 2004).
[3]	Boyce, J. K., Narayan, D., & White, H. (2005). Land reform as a strategy for poverty reduction. World Development, 33(1), 1-19.
[4]	Brady, D. (2009). Rich democracies, poor people: How politics explain poverty. Oxford University Press.
[5]	Brynard, P. A. (2011). Policies and poverty in Southern Africa. African Journal of Public Affairs, 4(1), 148-159.
[6]	Chant, S. (2016). Women, girls and world poverty: Empowerment, equality or essentialism? International Development Planning Review, 38(1), 1-24.
[7]	Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
[8]	Commission for Gender Equality. (2017). Traditional leadership and gender equality: A critical analysis of the role of traditional leaders in promoting gender equality in South Africa. https://www.cge.org.za
[9]	Commission for Gender Equality. (2024, August 20). Women have fewer rights over land ownership than men in rural South Africa, study finds. Mail & Guardian. https://mg.co.za/news/2024-08-20-women-have-fewer-rights-over-land-ownership-than-men-in-rural-south-africa-study-finds/
[10]	Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. (1979). United Nations Treaty Series, 1249, 13. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw
[11]	Cornwall, A. (2007). Gender, participation and the politics of difference. IDS Bulletin, 38(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2007.tb00301.x
[12]	Dancer, H. (2013). Land ownership and women’s empowerment: Evidence from rural South Africa. Journal of Development Studies, 49(10), 1353-1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2013.813383
[13]	Doss, C. R. (2006). Analyzing technology adoption using microstudies: The case of women and land rights. Agricultural Economics, 35(1), 1-14.
[14]	Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). The state of food and agriculture 2010-2011: Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf
[15]	Goetz, A. M., & Gupta, R. S. (1996). Who takes the credit? Gender, power, and control over loan use in rural credit programs in Bangladesh. World Development, 24(1), 45-63.
[16]	Haggblade, S., Hazell, P., & Reardon, T. (2010). The rural non-farm economy: Prospects for growth and poverty reduction. World Development, 38(10), 1429-1441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.06.008
[17]	Hall, R., & Ntsebeza, L. (2007). Democratic decentralisation and traditional authorities in South Africa: The case of land reform. HSRC Press.
[18]	International Fund for Agricultural Development. (2020). Rural women and the COVID-19 crisis: Impacts and policy responses. IFAD. https://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/-/publication/rural-women-and-the-covid-19-crisis
[19]	Deere, C. D., & Doss, C. R. (2006). The gender asset gap: What do we know and why does it matter? Feminist Economics, 12(1-2), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700500508061
[20]	Deininger, K., & Byerlee, D. (2011). The rise of large farms in land abundant countries: Do they have a future? World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8597-8
[21]	Deininger, K., & Mpuga, P. (2005). Does greater accountability improve the quality of public service delivery? Evidence from Uganda. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3516. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3516
[22]	FAO. (2020). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020: Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. FAO. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9692en
[23]	Farnworth, C. R., & Colverson, K. E. (2015). Gender and agricultural innovation: A review of concepts and evidence. Agricultural Systems, 138, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.05.002
[24]	FAO. (2011). Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i2050e/i2050e.pdf
[25]	Jayne, T. S., & Muyanga, M. (2012). Land constraints in Kenya’s densely populated rural areas: Implications for food policy and institutional reform. Journal of African Economies, 21(AERC Supplement 2), ii62-ii95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejr044
[26]	Meinzen-Dick, R., Behrman, J., Menon, P., & Quisumbing, A. (2014). Gender: A key dimension linking agricultural programs to improved nutrition and health. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01325. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896298453_07
[27]	Mudege, N. N., & Findeis, J. L. (2009). Gendered land rights and the adoption of agricultural technology in Mozambique. World Development, 37(1), 146-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.03.004
[28]	Quisumbing, A. R., & Maluccio, J. A. (2003). Resources at marriage and intrahousehold allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(3), 283-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.t01-1-00059
[29]	Rubin, D. M., & Manfre, C. (2017). Engendering agricultural extension services. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 2(1), 1-20.
[30]	World Bank. (2012). World development report 2012: Gender equality and development. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8866-2
[31]	Doss, C., Kovarik, C., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., & van den Bold, M. (2015). Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa: Myths versus reality. Agricultural Economics, 46(3), 403-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12171
[32]	FAO. (2019). The state of food and agriculture 2019: Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf
[33]	Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A. R., Behrman, J. A., Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Wilde, V., Noordeloos, M., … & Doss, C. (2011). Engendering agricultural research, development, and extension. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01092. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292223
[34]	Peterman, A., Behrman, J., & Quisumbing, A. (2010). A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00972. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896291820
[35]	Quisumbing, A. R., & Pandolfelli, L. (2010). Promising approaches to address the needs of poor female farmers: Resources, constraints, and interventions. World Development, 38(4), 581-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.10.006
[36]	Ragasa, C., & Berhane, G. (2019). Gender and institutional dimensions of agricultural technology adoption: A review. Agricultural Economics, 50(1), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12538
[37]	Shiferaw, B., & Holden, S. (2001). Farm-level adoption of improved soil conservation measures in the Ethiopian highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa. Environmental Management, 27(6), 815-828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010203
[38]	Saito, K., Mekonnen, H., & Spurling, D. (1994). Raising the productivity of women farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Discussion Paper 230. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/946511468739975083
[39]	World Bank. (2017). Women, business and the law 2017: Getting to equal. World Bank Group. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1066-3
[40]	Doss, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., & Theis, S. (2018). Women in agriculture: Four myths. Global Food Security, 16, 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.001
[41]	Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21.
[42]	Flick, U. (2002). Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
[43]	Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
[44]	FAO. (2004). State of food insecurity in the world: Monitoring progress toward World Food Summit and Millennium Development Goals. Rome, Italy: FAO.
[45]	FAO. (2012). Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
[46]	Forman, J., & Damschroder, L. (2008). Qualitative content analysis. In Empirical research for bioethics: A primer (pp. 39-62). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Publishing.
[47]	Fortmann, L. (1998). Why women’s property rights matter. Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley.
[48]	Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416.
[49]	Gasa, N. (2007). Women in South African history. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
[50]	Genu, T. R. (2024). The socio-economic impact of land reform on women’s rights to access land in South Africa [Master’s thesis, University of the Western Cape]. University of the Western Cape Institutional Repository. https://uwcscholar.uwc.ac.za/items/7c147a5f-fa1f-4044-988d-64ef1126dd6a
[51]	Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.
[52]	Greenpeace Africa. (2025). 6 African women shaping climate conversations. https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/blogs/50598/6-african-women-shaping-the-climate-conversation
[53]	Gunewardena, N. (2009). Pathologizing poverty: Structural forces versus personal deficit theories in the feminization of poverty. Journal of Educational Controversy, 4(1), 1-11.
[54]	Haslanger, S. (2017). Gender and social construction. In Applied ethics: A multicultural approach (pp. 299-516).
[55]	Hassim, S. (2006). Women’s organizations and democracy in South Africa: Contesting authority. University of Wisconsin Press.
[56]	Hendriks, S. (2013). Food security in South Africa: Status quo and policy imperatives. Agrekon, 52(2), 1-24.
[57]	Hills, J. (2015). Addressing gender quotas in South Africa: Women empowerment and gender equality legislation. Deakin Law Review, 20, 153-165.
[58]	Hlahla, S., Simatele, M. D., Hill, T., & Mabhaudhi, T. (2022). Climate-urban nexus: A study of vulnerable women in urban areas of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14(3), 933-948. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0180.1.
[59]	ILO. (2018). Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical picture (3rd ed.). Geneva: International Labour Organization.
[60]	Jacobs, S., et al. (2011). Gender differences in asset rights in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. International Center for Research on Women.
[61]	Jordan, G. (2004). The causes of poverty: Cultural vs. structural — Can there be a synthesis? Springer, 18-34.
[62]	Kabeer, N. (2015). Gender, poverty, and inequality: A brief history of feminist contributions in the field of international development. Gender & Development, 23(2), 189-205.
[63]	Katz, E., & Chamorro, A. (2003). The gender gap in access to land. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[64]	Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[65]	Maguranyanga, M. (2022). The role of traditional leaders in land administration in Bushbuckridge Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province [Master’s research report, University of the Witwatersrand]. https://hdl.handle.net/10539/34146
[66]	Maluleke, M. J. (2012). Culture, tradition, custom, law and gender equality. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal (PELJ), 15(1), 2-22.* http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1727-37812012000100001
[67]	Meer, S. (Ed.). (1997). Women, land and authority: Perspectives from South Africa. David Philip Publishers; Oxfam UK/Ireland.
[68]	Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
[69]	Muthuki, J. (2006). Challenging patriarchy: A critical study of women’s subordination in African religion [Doctoral dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal].
[70]	Ncapayi, F. (2020). The role of traditional leaders in land administration in South Africa: A case study of KwaZulu-Natal Province [Master’s thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal].
[71]	United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
[72]	United Nations. (2020). The world’s women: Trends and statistics. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/worldswomen/documents/WW2020_v0_20241016.pdf
[73]	Walker, C. (2003). Piety in the sky? Gender policy and land reform in South Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1-2), 113-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0366.00053
[74]	Walker, C. (2015). The impact of the Rural Development Framework on the socio-economic development of women: A Thaba Nchu case study [Master’s thesis, University of Pretoria]. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/50765
[75]	Wilschut, A., & Hulbert, R. (1998). Land reform and gender: The Latin American experience (FAO Land Tenure Studies No. 3). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/3/w7414e/w7414e00.htm
[76]	World Bank. (2021). South Africa Economic Update: Inequality trends and factors. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/southafrica/publication/south-africa-economic-updateinequality-trends-and-factors
[77]	World Bank. (2024). The gendered burden of water collection in Sub-Saharan Africa. https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2024/03/13/gendered-burden-of-water-collection-in-afe-afw-sub-saharan-africa
[78]	World Economic Forum. (2021). Global Gender Gap Report 2021. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
[79]	World Economic Forum. (2021). The Global Risk Report 2021. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-global-risks-report-2021/
[80]	Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
[81]	Zondi, L. P., & Magwaza, M. (2023). Women taking agency through feminized migration patterns and remittances: Socio-economic experiences of migrant street vendors, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Advances in Anthropology, 13(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.4236/aa.2023.131003
[82]	Zondo, W. B. (2025). The South African traditional communities and women for rural democracy and land rights: Traditional governance and land administration. African Journal on Land Policy and Geospatial Sciences, 8(1), 214-228. https://doi.org/10.48346/IMIST.PRSM/ajlp-gs.v8i1.54616
[83]	South African Human Rights Commission. (2018). Living in poverty statistics. Retrieved from https://www.sahrc.org.za/index.php/sahrc-media/news/item/1443-how-can-sa-redress-the-stark-divide-between-rich-and-poor
[84]	Njieassam, E. E. (2019). Gender Inequality and Land Rights: The Situation of Indigenous Women in Cameroon. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 22, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2019/v22i0a4907
[85]	Ngubane, S. (2025, June 9). KZN chiefs deny women land [News article]. Farmer’s Weekly. https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/agri-news/south-africa/kzn-chiefs-deny-women-land/
[86]	Bradley, H. (1998). Gender and Power in the Workplace: Analysing the Impact of Economic Change. London: Red Globe Press.
[87]	NDA & CSDA. (2019, October). Poverty, inequality and social exclusion in South Africa: A systematic assessment of how key policies, strategies and flagship programmes address poverty, inequality and equity issues. National Development Agency.
[88]	Nissanke, M., & Thorbecke, E. (Eds.). (2010). The Poor under Globalization in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Oxford University Press.
[89]	Sezirahiga, Y. (2021). Women’s right to inheritance before the succession law in Rwanda. Rwanda Law Journal, 3(1), 1-15. https://www.rwandalawjournal.ac.rw/frontend/article/23/
[90]	Deere, C. D. (2001). Gender, land, and livelihoods in rural Latin America: A perspective from the 1990s. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 28(3), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150108438639
[91]	Commission for Gender Equality. (n.d.). Challenges faced by women at the rural areas in obtaining their 50% share of the immovable property after divorce. Retrieved from https://cge.org.za/challenges-faced-by-women-at-the-rural-areas-in-obtaining-their-50-share-of-the-immovable-property-after-divorce
[92]	Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
[93]	Fourie, E. (2021). Social protection instruments and women workers in the informal economy: A Southern African perspective. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 24, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a8890
[94]	Rural Women’s Assembly. (2025, March 24). We must do more to break barriers for rural women farmers and address the deeply rooted structural inequalities. African Union. Retrieved from https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20250324/we-must-do-more-break-barriers-rural-women-farmers-and-address-deeply-
[95]	Agency for International Development (USAID). (2018). Land tenure and property rights: Women's empowerment. Retrieved from https://www.usaid.gov/land-tenure
[96]	International Development (USAID). (2013). Land tenure and property rights: Women's empowerment. Retrieved from https://www.usaid.gov/land-tenure
[97]	Fransman, T., & Yu, D. (2019). Multidimensional poverty in South Africa in 2001-16. Development Southern Africa, 36(1), 50-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1469971
[98]	Chimbi, J. (2023). Electrifying cooking: Decarbonizing Africa's electricity grid towards net zero. Global Issues. Retrieved from https://www.globalissues.org/news/2023/12/05/35475
[99]	World Health Organization. (2024, March 22). Sanitation. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sanitation

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Nhlapho, S. J. M., Zondi, L. P. (2025). Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance. Innovation, 6(4), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Nhlapho, S. J. M.; Zondi, L. P. Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance. Innovation. 2025, 6(4), 191-207. doi: 10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Nhlapho SJM, Zondi LP. Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance. Innovation. 2025;6(4):191-207. doi: 10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17,
  author = {Sbongile Jeanetty Marcia Nhlapho and Lungile Prudence Zondi},
  title = {Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance},
  journal = {Innovation},
  volume = {6},
  number = {4},
  pages = {191-207},
  doi = {10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.innov.20250604.17},
  abstract = {Gendered poverty remains one of the most pressing socio-economic challenges of the 21st century, disproportionately affecting women and exacerbating global inequalities. Often conceptualized as the "feminization of poverty," this phenomenon highlights the ways in which structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women's access to education, employment, land, and financial resources. Women’s overrepresentation in informal, insecure, and low-paying work, coupled with the disproportionate burden of unpaid care responsibilities, further entrenches cycles of economic vulnerability. Intersectionality deepens these inequalities, as women’s experiences of poverty are mediated by race, class, geography, and other social identities. The consequences of gendered poverty extend beyond individual women to household welfare, national productivity, and the achievement of global development goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study employs Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory and uses a qualitative methodology. Addressing gendered poverty requires a multidimensional approach that goes beyond income redistribution to include structural reforms, gender-responsive social protection, and the recognition of women as key agents of development. This paper critically examines gendered poverty as both a scourge and a catalyst of women’s socio-economic hindrance, highlighting its causes, impacts, and implications for inclusive development. Gendered poverty, limited land access, and indigenous knowledge systems intersect to marginalize the socio-economic empowerment of women. This study critically examines globally how structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women’s access to education, employment, land for food security, and financial resources, reinforcing cycles of economic vulnerability. Indigenous knowledge, while culturally significant, often legitimizes practices that marginalize women, particularly regarding land ownership and decision-making, further entrenching inequality. Employing Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory, this qualitative study highlights the compounded impact of poverty, land deprivation, and exclusionary cultural practices on women’s livelihoods, household welfare, and community development. Findings emphasize the need for the Gender Commission to regulate the application of indigenous knowledge to prevent the marginalization of rural women and enhance their socio-economic agency, including rural women in innovative strategies to enable their participation in land ownership and effectively embark on agricultural activities. By situating local challenges within global development frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this study contributes to debates on gender, poverty, and empowerment, offering evidence-based recommendations for inclusive socio-economic transformation.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance
AU  - Sbongile Jeanetty Marcia Nhlapho
AU  - Lungile Prudence Zondi
Y1  - 2025/12/11
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17
T2  - Innovation
JF  - Innovation
JO  - Innovation
SP  - 191
EP  - 207
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2994-7138
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17
AB  - Gendered poverty remains one of the most pressing socio-economic challenges of the 21st century, disproportionately affecting women and exacerbating global inequalities. Often conceptualized as the "feminization of poverty," this phenomenon highlights the ways in which structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women's access to education, employment, land, and financial resources. Women’s overrepresentation in informal, insecure, and low-paying work, coupled with the disproportionate burden of unpaid care responsibilities, further entrenches cycles of economic vulnerability. Intersectionality deepens these inequalities, as women’s experiences of poverty are mediated by race, class, geography, and other social identities. The consequences of gendered poverty extend beyond individual women to household welfare, national productivity, and the achievement of global development goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study employs Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory and uses a qualitative methodology. Addressing gendered poverty requires a multidimensional approach that goes beyond income redistribution to include structural reforms, gender-responsive social protection, and the recognition of women as key agents of development. This paper critically examines gendered poverty as both a scourge and a catalyst of women’s socio-economic hindrance, highlighting its causes, impacts, and implications for inclusive development. Gendered poverty, limited land access, and indigenous knowledge systems intersect to marginalize the socio-economic empowerment of women. This study critically examines globally how structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women’s access to education, employment, land for food security, and financial resources, reinforcing cycles of economic vulnerability. Indigenous knowledge, while culturally significant, often legitimizes practices that marginalize women, particularly regarding land ownership and decision-making, further entrenching inequality. Employing Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory, this qualitative study highlights the compounded impact of poverty, land deprivation, and exclusionary cultural practices on women’s livelihoods, household welfare, and community development. Findings emphasize the need for the Gender Commission to regulate the application of indigenous knowledge to prevent the marginalization of rural women and enhance their socio-economic agency, including rural women in innovative strategies to enable their participation in land ownership and effectively embark on agricultural activities. By situating local challenges within global development frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this study contributes to debates on gender, poverty, and empowerment, offering evidence-based recommendations for inclusive socio-economic transformation.
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sbongile Jeanetty Marcia Nhlapho

Employment Policies Branch, Employment Relations Department, Human Capital Unit, Durban, South Africa

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0050-5710
Lungile Prudence Zondi

School of Social Sciences, University of Kwazulu Natal, Durban, South Africa

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5201-1129

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Nhlapho, S. J. M., Zondi, L. P. (2025). Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance. Innovation, 6(4), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Nhlapho, S. J. M.; Zondi, L. P. Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance. Innovation. 2025, 6(4), 191-207. doi: 10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Nhlapho SJM, Zondi LP. Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance. Innovation. 2025;6(4):191-207. doi: 10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17,
  author = {Sbongile Jeanetty Marcia Nhlapho and Lungile Prudence Zondi},
  title = {Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance},
  journal = {Innovation},
  volume = {6},
  number = {4},
  pages = {191-207},
  doi = {10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.innov.20250604.17},
  abstract = {Gendered poverty remains one of the most pressing socio-economic challenges of the 21st century, disproportionately affecting women and exacerbating global inequalities. Often conceptualized as the "feminization of poverty," this phenomenon highlights the ways in which structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women's access to education, employment, land, and financial resources. Women’s overrepresentation in informal, insecure, and low-paying work, coupled with the disproportionate burden of unpaid care responsibilities, further entrenches cycles of economic vulnerability. Intersectionality deepens these inequalities, as women’s experiences of poverty are mediated by race, class, geography, and other social identities. The consequences of gendered poverty extend beyond individual women to household welfare, national productivity, and the achievement of global development goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study employs Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory and uses a qualitative methodology. Addressing gendered poverty requires a multidimensional approach that goes beyond income redistribution to include structural reforms, gender-responsive social protection, and the recognition of women as key agents of development. This paper critically examines gendered poverty as both a scourge and a catalyst of women’s socio-economic hindrance, highlighting its causes, impacts, and implications for inclusive development. Gendered poverty, limited land access, and indigenous knowledge systems intersect to marginalize the socio-economic empowerment of women. This study critically examines globally how structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women’s access to education, employment, land for food security, and financial resources, reinforcing cycles of economic vulnerability. Indigenous knowledge, while culturally significant, often legitimizes practices that marginalize women, particularly regarding land ownership and decision-making, further entrenching inequality. Employing Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory, this qualitative study highlights the compounded impact of poverty, land deprivation, and exclusionary cultural practices on women’s livelihoods, household welfare, and community development. Findings emphasize the need for the Gender Commission to regulate the application of indigenous knowledge to prevent the marginalization of rural women and enhance their socio-economic agency, including rural women in innovative strategies to enable their participation in land ownership and effectively embark on agricultural activities. By situating local challenges within global development frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this study contributes to debates on gender, poverty, and empowerment, offering evidence-based recommendations for inclusive socio-economic transformation.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Gendered Poverty as a Scourge and Catalyst to Women Socio-economic Hindrance
AU  - Sbongile Jeanetty Marcia Nhlapho
AU  - Lungile Prudence Zondi
Y1  - 2025/12/11
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17
T2  - Innovation
JF  - Innovation
JO  - Innovation
SP  - 191
EP  - 207
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2994-7138
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.innov.20250604.17
AB  - Gendered poverty remains one of the most pressing socio-economic challenges of the 21st century, disproportionately affecting women and exacerbating global inequalities. Often conceptualized as the "feminization of poverty," this phenomenon highlights the ways in which structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women's access to education, employment, land, and financial resources. Women’s overrepresentation in informal, insecure, and low-paying work, coupled with the disproportionate burden of unpaid care responsibilities, further entrenches cycles of economic vulnerability. Intersectionality deepens these inequalities, as women’s experiences of poverty are mediated by race, class, geography, and other social identities. The consequences of gendered poverty extend beyond individual women to household welfare, national productivity, and the achievement of global development goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study employs Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory and uses a qualitative methodology. Addressing gendered poverty requires a multidimensional approach that goes beyond income redistribution to include structural reforms, gender-responsive social protection, and the recognition of women as key agents of development. This paper critically examines gendered poverty as both a scourge and a catalyst of women’s socio-economic hindrance, highlighting its causes, impacts, and implications for inclusive development. Gendered poverty, limited land access, and indigenous knowledge systems intersect to marginalize the socio-economic empowerment of women. This study critically examines globally how structural discrimination, patriarchal norms, and institutional barriers restrict women’s access to education, employment, land for food security, and financial resources, reinforcing cycles of economic vulnerability. Indigenous knowledge, while culturally significant, often legitimizes practices that marginalize women, particularly regarding land ownership and decision-making, further entrenching inequality. Employing Structuration theory and Black Feminist theory, this qualitative study highlights the compounded impact of poverty, land deprivation, and exclusionary cultural practices on women’s livelihoods, household welfare, and community development. Findings emphasize the need for the Gender Commission to regulate the application of indigenous knowledge to prevent the marginalization of rural women and enhance their socio-economic agency, including rural women in innovative strategies to enable their participation in land ownership and effectively embark on agricultural activities. By situating local challenges within global development frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this study contributes to debates on gender, poverty, and empowerment, offering evidence-based recommendations for inclusive socio-economic transformation.
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download