IMF Economic Review

, Volume 66, Issue 4, pp 763–793 | Cite as

Globalization and Social Change: Gender-Specific Effects of Trade Liberalization in Indonesia

  • Krisztina Kis-KatosEmail author
  • Janneke Pieters
  • Robert Sparrow
Research Article


We analyze the gender-specific effects of trade liberalization on participation in market work, domestic duties, and marriage rates in Indonesia. We show that female work participation increased and participation in domestic duties declined in regions that were more exposed to input tariff reductions. The effects of output tariff reductions were much less pronounced, and we find little impacts on men. Among the potential channels, we find that reductions in input tariffs led to a relative expansion of more female-intensive sectors as well as a decrease in sectoral gender segregation, especially among the low skilled. Liberalization also led to delayed marriage among both sexes and reduced fertility among less educated women.



We thank Arjun S. Bedi, Michael Grimm, Stephan Klasen, Günther Schulze, seminar participants at the University of Antwerp, the University of Bielefeld, the University of Freiburg, Erasmus University Rotterdam and conference participants at the Annual International Conference of the Research Group on Development Economics in Heidelberg 2016, the Labor Economy Conference in Budapest 2016, the IMF conference on Gender and Macroeconomics 2017, the Nordic Conference in Development Economics in Gothenburg 2017, and the ETSG conference in Florence 2017 for useful comments. We would also like to thank two anonymous referees and a co-editor for their helpful comments and suggestions. Janneke Pieters gratefully acknowledges financial support for this work under the Growth and Economic Opportunities for Women (GrOW) initiative. GrOW is a multi-funder partnership with the UK Government Department for International Development, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of IDRC or its Board of Governors.

Supplementary material

41308_2018_65_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)


  1. Alatas, V., and L. Cameron. 2008. The impact of minimum wages on employment in a low-income country: A Quasi-natural experiment in Indonesia. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 61 (2): 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiti, M., and L. Cameron. 2012. Trade liberalization and the wage skill premium: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of International Economics 87 (2): 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amiti, M., and J. Konings. 2007. Trade liberalization, intermediate inputs and productivity: Evidence from Indonesia. American Economic Review 97 (5): 1611–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Autor, D., D. Dorn, and G. Hanson. 2017. When work disappears: Manufacturing decline and the Falling marriage-market value of men. Unpublished manuscript, July 2017.Google Scholar
  5. Basri, M.C. 2001. The political economy of manufacturing protection in Indonesia, 1975–1995. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  6. Basri, M.C., and H. Hill. 1996. The political economy of manufacturing protection in LDCs: An Indonesian case study. Oxford Development Studies 24 (3): 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, G.S. 1957. The economics of discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, G.S. 1981. A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ben Yahmed, S., and P. Bombarda. 2017. Gender, informal employment and trade liberalization in Mexico, Unpublished manuscript, December 2017.Google Scholar
  10. Black, S.E., and E. Brainerd. 2004. Importing equality? The impact of globalization on gender discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 57 (4): 540–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blau, F.D., L.M. Kahn, and J. Waldfogel. 2000. Understanding young women’s marriage decisions: the role of labor and marriage market conditions. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 53 (4): 624–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boler, E. A., B. Javorcik, and K.H. Ulltveit-Moe. 2017. Working across time zones: Exporters and the gender wage gap. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  13. Borrowman, M., and S. Klasen. 2017. Drivers of gendered occupational and sectoral segregation in developing Countries. Courant Research Centre: Poverty, Equity and Growth—Discussion Papers 222.Google Scholar
  14. BPS. 1989. National Indonesia Contraceptive Prevalence Survey 1987. Jakarta: Statistics Indonesia (BPS).Google Scholar
  15. BPS. 2013. Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey 2012. Statistics Indonesia (BPS) and Macro International: Calverton, Maryland.Google Scholar
  16. Cameron, L. A., D. Contreras-Suarez, E. Pye. 2015. Gender Inequality in Indonesia. A Report prepared in collaboration with the Australian-Indonesian Partnership for Economic Governance and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
  17. Do, Q.T., A.A. Levchenko, and C. Raddatz. 2016. Comparative advantage, international trade, and fertility. Journal of Development Economics 119: 48–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan, O.D., and B. Duncan. 1955. A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review 20 (2): 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaddis, I., and J. Pieters. 2017. The gendered labor market impacts of trade liberalization: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Human Resources 52 (2): 457–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galor, O., and D.N. Weil. 1996. The gender gap. Fertility and Growth, American Economic Review 86 (3): 374–387.Google Scholar
  21. Goldberg, P.K., and N. Pavcnik. 2007. Distributional effects of globalization in developing countries. Journal of Economic Literature 45 (1): 39–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardjono, J., N. Akhmadi, and S. Sumarto. 2010. Poverty and social protection in Indonesia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heath, R., and A.M. Mobarak. 2015. Manufacturing growth and the lives of Bangladeshi women. Journal of Development Economics 115: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirata, G., and R.R. Soares. (2016). Competition and the racial wage gap: Testing Becker’s model of employer discrimination. IZA Discussion Paper 9764.Google Scholar
  25. Jensen, R. 2012. Do labor market opportunities affect young women’s work and family decisions: Experimental evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics 127 (2): 753–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Juhn, C., G. Ujhelyi, and C. Villegas-Sanchez. 2014. Men, women, and machines: How trade impacts gender inequality. Journal of Development Economics 106: 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller, W., and H. Utar. 2018. Globalization, gender, and the family. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  28. Kis-Katos, K., and R. Sparrow. 2011. Child labor and trade liberalization in Indonesia. Journal of Human Resources 46 (4): 722–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kis-Katos, K., and R. Sparrow. 2015. Poverty, labor markets and trade liberalization in Indonesia. Journal of Development Economics 117: 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kovak, B.K. 2013. Regional effects of trade reform: What is the correct measure of liberalization? American Economic Review 103 (5): 1960–1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meñezes-Filho, N.A., and M.A. Muendler. 2011. Labor reallocation in response to trade reform. NBER Working Paper 17372, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  32. Priebe, J. 2010. Child costs and the causal effect of fertility on female labor supply: An Investigation for Indonesia 1993–2008. Courant Research Centre—Poverty, Equity and Growth Discussion Papers, 45.
  33. Sauré, P., and H. Zoabi. 2014. International trade, the gender wage gap and female labor force participation. Journal of Development Economics 111: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shaner, S., and S. Das. 2016. Female labor force participation in Asia: Indonesia country study. Economics Working Paper 474, Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  35. Topalova, P. 2010. Factor immobility and regional impacts of trade liberalization: Evidence on Poverty from India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 (4): 1–41.Google Scholar
  36. Wacziarg, R., and J. Wallack. 2004. Trade liberalization and intersectoral labor movements. Journal of International Economics 64 (2): 411–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. WTO. 1998. Trade policy review Indonesia. Geneva: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar

Data Sources

  1. CPI. 1998. Consumer price index (CPI). Jakarta: Statistics Department, Bank of Indonesia.Google Scholar
  2. Input-Output Table. 1990. Tabel Input-Output Indonesia 1990. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Indonesia.Google Scholar
  3. Podes. 1993. Pendataan Potensi Desa 1993. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Indonesia.Google Scholar
  4. Population Census. 1990. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Indonesia, Jakarta. Accessed through: Minnesota Population Center, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, International: Version 7.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2018.
  5. Shapefile Indonesia. 2014. Data SHP Seluruh Indonesia, Info-Geospasial Indonesia, Latest access on July 30, 2018.
  6. Susenas. 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002. Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002, Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), Indonesia Jakarta.Google Scholar
  7. UNCTAD-TRAINS. 2009. UNCTAD Trade Analysis Information System, The World Bank,, latest access on July 30, 2018.

Copyright information

© International Monetary Fund 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krisztina Kis-Katos
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • Janneke Pieters
    • 2
    • 5
  • Robert Sparrow
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Wageningen UniversityWageningenNetherlands
  3. 3.Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamNetherlands
  4. 4.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  5. 5.IZA Institute of Labor EconomicsBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations