As we envision a gender-just global economy, we find ourselves at a crucial political conjuncture in this phase of neoliberal globalization. Feminists must confront the market-driven logic of dominant multilateral institutions, while recognizing a new wave of multilateral alignments that exclude traditional superpowers. The expansion of the G7 into the G20 and BRICS beyond the original five (5) members signals shifting multipolarity. Moreover, international cooperation has moved from negotiating free trade agreements to forging more ambitious projects for economic partnerships.
Yet these realignments have scarcely devised ways to integrate women’s full range of work—paid and unpaid—into policy frameworks. Industrialization, thus far, has confined women to a small number of industries and occupations. Within global supply chains—from electronics to cut flowers to call centers—women are frequently labeled low-skilled, earn the lowest wages, and work in places where organizing for collective bargaining is extremely difficult. At home and in their communities, women’s care work remains undervalued, despite its vital contribution to human development. The conjuncture calls for strategic maneuvering amid these global realignments to facilitate a transformation towards a gender-just economy.
Geopolitics before Liberation Day
Global macroeconomic imbalances have been on the international agenda since the United Nations began discussions for the First UN Conference on Financing for Development, held in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002. At this conference, developing countries sought coordinated action on macroeconomic policies, focusing particularly on the actions of systemically significant countries. These calls reflected dissatisfaction with the Washington Consensus that was amplified by vigorous anti-globalization protests around the world.
By 2011, after a decade of stalling, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Doha Development Round ended. The US began negotiations on the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) as part of then-President Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia, while China countered by negotiating a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), using the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Agreement as the foundation for what will be the largest economic trading bloc in the world.
In 2013, China announced the Belt and Road Initiative, deepening economic ties across Asia and beyond. A decade later, in 2023, China launched the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilizations Initiative that together capture its vision of a global order valuing sovereignty, non-interference, and opposition to unilateral actions.
By the time the United States of América (USA) withdrew from the TPP, China and the ASEAN had already consolidated their strategic position in the global economy. RCEP, signed by all fifteen (15) parties in 2022, catapulted the ASEAN into a major convening power amply demonstrated by its swift organization of the ASEAN-China-Gulf Cooperation Council Summit within two months of “Liberation Day.”
A Nascent Parallel International Financial Architecture
Trade flows are inseparable from the international financial architecture. Tariff policies must account for exchange rate movements, which in turn depend on the demand for US dollars and the policy decisions of the Federal Reserve reacting to US economic performance. In addition, the demand for the US dollar is deeply linked to global monetary dynamics.
In this multi-polar world, Bretton Woods Institutions remain dominant despite decades of reform efforts. But parallel structures are emerging.
The BRICS National Development Bank (NDB) and the China Development Bank (CDB) represent early steps, though their combined capitalization of US$162 billion is only half of the World Bank’s US$323 billion.
While the US dollar remains the preferred currency for international transactions, its share of global reserves fell from 72 per cent in 1999 to 58 per cent in 2024, mostly reflecting a diversification of Central Bank portfolios to include non-traditional currencies, such as the Canadian and Australian dollars, in addition to the euro and gold.
Within BRICS, the use of national currencies has grown. About two-thirds of intra-BRICS trade uses national currencies, and 25 per cent of BRICS NDB operations do the same. To facilitate these transactions, BRICS is developing its own international payments system called BRICS Pay.
Finally, China has been actively building an international payments architecture: a cross-border payments systems (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System or CIPS) that facilitates payments using the RMB (US$99 billion worth of business daily); the extension of currency swap lines to more than 40 countries totaling about US$500 billion; and, the creation of a central bank digital currency (e-CNY), currently piloted in twenty-nine (29) provinces. Together, these mechanisms facilitate the use of the CNY for international payments, as a source of liquidity, and for everyday transactions, including for tourists in China.
Defensive, perhaps?
As an alternate path for financing sustainable development, established institutions have raised concerns. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) sees potential threats of monetary instability as the world moves toward “geoeconomic fragmentation,” referring to the rise of unilateral trade barriers and the decentralization of capital flows oversight. The IMF had hoped to secure its role as the primary regulator of international capital flows, including on external debt, through endorsements from the United Nations.
The Europeans are also concerned. The European Stability Mechanism worries about the disruption and accompanying volatility during times of political turmoil, of investment flows to and from non-aligned countries. An estimated one-third of euro-area sovereign debt is held as reserves by these non-aligned countries, which could be a source of vulnerability. The European Central Bank is closely monitoring these developments alongside the European Systemic Risk Board.
Where’s the policy space for women?
Evolving economic partnerships prioritize digital and green economies—AI, semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries, and renewable energy—but these are not the sectors where women predominate.
Despite their place in global value chains, women workers—especially in textiles, garments, and agriculture—demonstrate high productivity, even compared against industrialized countries. Yet they often live in low-income countries where this productivity has not translated into economic transformation or improved livelihoods.
Losing a major export market because of unilateral trade policy will be devastating. One estimate—based on initial reciprocal tariffs proposals—projected job losses of up to 380,000, mainly in Bangladesh and Cambodia. Such uncertainty undermines the bargaining power of workers' organizations and labor unions.
Women’s work also includes paid and unpaid care work, even while participating in export production. In Bangladesh, the government has recognized the value of unpaid care, but it is unclear how—or whether—export or industrial policies will incorporate this recognition. Many governments similarly recognize care work’s importance yet fail to reshape trade and macroeconomic policies accordingly.
Climate impacts add another dimension. Madagascar, vulnerable to new tariffs, illustrates how shifts in export crop prices—such as vanilla—can affect food security and forest conservation. Research showed that when vanilla prices drop, farmers reduce forest clearing while expanding food production. Women and younger farmers were more likely to prioritize crop diversity, regardless of the price of vanilla or the presence of conservation cash incentives, showing that trade shocks can have complex ecological and social consequences.
Strategies for Transformation
Visions of a gender-just economic future require ambitious alternatives that confront geopolitical realignments head-on. Policies and proposals must account for the complexities of various transmission channels, going beyond employment and income effects to include the well-being of people and the planet. Similarly, economic partnerships must demonstrate that these new directions enable countries to go “beyond GDP,” addressing intergenerational inequalities highlighted by climate change alongside the enduring challenges of social justice. Feminist movements must now contend with the emerging parallel international financial architecture, proposing systemic alternatives while holding governments accountable for women’s human rights. After all, these are the geopolitical parameters that define the economic terrain on which women must make fundamental life choices.