By Irma Nugrahanti
In the field of feminist economics, cost extends beyond mere budgetary figures, market prices, or GDP metrics. It encompasses the often-invisible labour of social reproduction, the psychological stress of systemic inequality, and the burdens imposed by institutional delay, all of which disproportionately fall upon women due to patriarchal norms and power structures. The cost of waiting for justice is not only a metaphor, it is a multi-dimensional burden, shaped by gender, class, and geography. When the state neglects to deliver timely justice due to deferred reform, fiscal austerity, or inaction, the gap is not left unfilled. It is disproportionately absorbed by women through unpaid care work, informal labour, and social repair.
Drawing from the feminist justice framework outlined by UN Women, the cost of waiting can be analysed as gendered across all four dimensions: the invisibility of women’s labour (recognition), the systematic inequality of fiscal and social responsibilities (redistribution), the exclusion of women from decision-making processes that create those responsibilities (representation), and the persistent lack of remedies for harm accrued over time (reparation). These dynamics are not abstract; they are reflected in everyday governance, particularly through fiscal choices that decide which services are protected, which interests are prioritised, which harms are prevented, and which burdens are shifted.
Indonesia: Fiscal Choices and Gendered Cost
The 2025 nationwide protests in Indonesia illustrate an example of this gendered cost. The movement was ignited by the government’s fiscal choices, including a remarkable 250% increase in property taxes and the widely criticised decision to increase parliamentarians’ salaries during severe economic times. This was further exacerbated by the tragic death of a motorbike taxi driver, Affan Kurniawan, who had been run over by a tactical vehicle at a protest outside of the House of Representatives. The aftermath involved heightened mobilization, which included women’s organizations convening outside of parliament and explicitly connecting protest repression to broader patterns of injustice. Budget cuts to public services, when followed by significant high-profile expenditures, can create a perception of asymmetric sacrifice. This is because citizens are required to endure austerity while elitist interests are protected. In this setting, the political cost of waiting for justice becomes a democratic issue. When accountability claims about budget misallocation, state violence, and corruption are deferred or not addressed, civic space might shrink. The gendered costs of democratic engagement are further increased by the structural obstacles that women face in gaining political voice and representation. When they do participate, whether through public criticism or protest, they may face additional risks, such as stigma and harassment.
In spite of the protests, Indonesia’s fiscal decisions have remained to entail severe gendered implications. The government’s decision to join the U.S. Board of Peace, which required a donation of around US$1 billion (about IDR 17 trillion), is a notable example. This cost will likely be funded by the state budget and will present a significant opportunity cost as the contribution has been estimated to be around 500 times Indonesia’s ASEAN contribution and 66 times its most recent UN contribution. This would impose a heavy financial obligation on Indonesian taxpayers to fund Gaza’s post-conflict rehabilitation, mostly caused by Israel and the United States. Given the recent budget cuts that have reduced funding for social protection, healthcare, education, regional transfer, ministry budgets related to public services, and disaster preparedness and response, the decision is paradoxical. With this high-profile commitment and budget deduction in public services, the costs are shifted into households as unpaid care work, disproportionately performed by women. Therefore, this austerity measure is, in practice, gendered.
The significant 2026 budget cuts for Basarnas (National Search and Rescue Agency), BNPB (National Disaster Management Agency), and BMKG (The Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics Agency) would jeopardize the nation’s early warning systems for earthquakes, tsunamis, and severe weather phenomena. This poses significant risks as Indonesia is located on the Ring of Fire, one of the most disaster-prone regions on earth. Women, who are often the first responders and caretakers during disasters, are compelled to fill the gap with their own labor and safety when early warning systems fail, rescue efforts are underfunded, and post-disaster recovery is slow. From a feminist economist lens, this scenario reflects risk transfer, where households become first responders when public systems are diminished. Within households, women are often expected to do the unpaid emergency management, such as coordinating water, food, care for children and elderly, and providing emotional support.
Another example of a care paradox is Indonesia’s flagship free nutritious school meals program (often referred to as MBG). In 2025, MBG received an allocation of IDR 71 trillion, and it increased significantly to IDR 335 trillion in 2026, establishing it as a primary spending priority of the nation. In principle, MBG is a care program, however in practice, the program encountered challenges with delivery capacity, including insufficient kitchen facilities, and has been linked to food poisoning incidents impacting thousands of children. When the state expands care services without adequately financing the necessary infrastructure, oversight, and accountability to ensure safety and sustainability, the remaining responsibilities are shifted to households and communities. As a result, women bear a disproportionate share of the time, coordination, and risk associated with providing care, particularly when children are sick. From a feminist economics standpoint, these fiscal decisions are not gender-neutral. When public services and protections are inadequately provided, the costs are often shifted into the social reproduction realm, where women’s unpaid time, labour, and bodily abilities are utilized to maintain daily stability, which frequently results in depletion.
Global Comparisons
The phenomenon of waiting for justice is global. When government institutions, humanitarian systems, or courts are unable to provide timely protection, women bear the brunt of the distributional costs associated with response delay.
Brazil offers an illustration of the gendered cost of institutional delay. Institutional data reporting on domestic violence cases reveals a substantial backlog of pending cases. The CNJ and UNDP report highlights that at the end of 2024, there were 1,297,142 pending domestic violence cases, in addition to over one million new domestic violence cases filed that year. Although according to The Brazilian Federal Constitution, Article 5, the state is obligated to provide full and free legal aid for those unable to afford it, which primarily handled by the Public Defender’s Office (Defensoria Pública), the access is limited as there is a shortage of public defenders. This means women seeking justice for domestic violence in Brazil under the Maria da Penha Law face substantial court backlogs in domestic violence cases, leaving them in legal limbo for years and hindering their economic independence.
The weakening of legal protections for women in Afghanistan has resulted in an absence where justice is not only postponed, but essentially eradicated, forcing women into a condition of continual vulnerability. The new penal code under Taliban authority indicate very lenient sanctions for domestic violence, such as brief incarceration for spousal abuse, along with other limitations that restrict women’s mobility and access to safety. In these situations, waiting for justice is often a lethal demand by telling women to suffer violence without reliable means of protection while still being expected to manage households in times of crisis.
In Gaza, the complete destruction of social and legal infrastructure renders waiting for justice equivalent to a fight for fundamental survival, as the systems for reparation and representation are deliberately dismantled. UNFPA reports have consistently highlighted that crisis in Gaza results in significant maternal and reproductive health concern, including malnutrition in pregnant women and increased vulnerability for newborns. In this context, waiting is not a passive activity; it is ongoing unpaid work under severe constraints.
The Price Tag of Justice
Collectively, these examples highlight a feminist economics argument that justice is not just a judicial verdict but a framework of institutional capacities that dictate the allocation of risks and responsibilities. Waiting for justice extends beyond courtrooms and investigations; it also pertains to whether the nation provides funding for prevention, protection, and care. When accountability is postponed and preventive systems are inadequately financed, the costs of delay are not eliminated; rather, they are transferred to the social reproduction sphere where households, particularly women, pay for them through unpaid care, informal labour, and the depletion of time, health, and economic security. The entire framework of feminist justice must thus be addressed in order for a justice agenda to be considered credible. This includes recognising gendered harms and invisible labour, reallocating funds for care infrastructure, ensuring equal access for representation in political and fiscal decision-making, and providing timely reparations through harm compensation and commitment of non-repetition. Lastly, as the arguments demonstrate, the cost of waiting for justice does not disappear. It is simply transferred discreetly and systematically into the women least capable of refusing it.
Irma Nugrahanti is a scholar-practitioner who specialises in finance and program management, policy advocacy, resource mobilization, and GEDSI (Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion). She is currently a PhD researcher at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), analysing the intersection of gender, climate change, and public finance management, with a particular focus on gender-responsive climate budgeting at national and subnational levels. A recipient of six scholarships and fellowship awards, Irma holds a postgraduate degree in Accounting and Finance from the University of Manchester, complemented by professional certifications in Local Economic Development, Management, Data Analysis, and Communications.
Image: Bagir Bahana on Unsplash
Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of the EADI Debating Development Blog or the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes