The invisible hand isn't gender-neutral: Why free markets still undervalue women's work

The invisible hand might still guide the market, but we have to make sure it's not pushing women to the margins.

- AAKASH DEV

When Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand in The Wealth of Nations (1776), he probably didn't imagine that two and a half centuries later, we'd still be debating who that hand serves, and who it leaves behind.

Smith believed that self-interest, operating freely through the market, would guide us toward collective prosperity. But there's a blind spot in this elegant theory: it never fully accounted for the people, especially women, whose work keeps the entire system afloat, but rarely gets counted as productive.

In today's India, the invisible hand remains blind to the economic contributions of women, particularly in unpaid care work, informal labour, and gendered wage disparities.

India ranks 131st out of 148 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index 2025, with just 40.7% parity in economic participation—one of the worst globally.

This starkly highlights how deeply markets continue to undervalue women's work.

Nowhere is this more evident than in India, where the economy continues to ride on the back of invisible labour, most of it done by women.

From preparing meals and raising children to caring for the elderly, women perform work that is absolutely essential to households and society, but because it doesn't generate profits or pass through a market transaction, it's often excluded from what we call the economy.

LABOUR, VALUES AND GENDER BIAS

In The Wealth of Nations, Smith posits that wealth stems from productive labour and the efficient allocation of resources through self-interest and competition.