In Conversation: Girija Borker & Ieda Matavelli on gender, education, and labor

Despite decades of progress, gender gaps in education and labor markets persist worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Understanding what drives these gaps and how policy can address them has become a growing focus in development economics.

In a recent conversation, two participants in EGC’s Kuznets Visitors Program – Ieda Matavelli, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of New South Wales, and Girija Borker, a research economist at the World Bank – discussed how their work sheds light on these challenges. From research on masculinity norms in Brazil to field experiments on women’s safety in public spaces in India, the conversation highlights how gender dynamics influence economic behavior – and how evidence can help policymakers expand economic opportunities for both women and men.

How did each of you come to focus on gender in your research as economists?

Ieda Matavelli: Growing up in Brazil, I always paid attention to inequalities. My interest in gender norms started with my brother; our mom always told me to do chores, but she wouldn’t ask him. I’d say: if he doesn’t do it, why should I? Now I study how norms constrain women’s and men’s behaviors – how they emerge, persist, and affect economic outcomes and gender gaps.

Girija Borker: Growing up in India, I was exposed to deep gender inequalities in everyday life. Girls are told what to do from an early age, while boys have much greater freedom. Those experiences really shaped my research, which focuses on women’s mobility constraints.

Why do gender gaps matter for development?

Borker: There have been massive gains in recent decades, particularly in education. But gender gaps persist. By not tapping into women’s potential, we are losing out: when women thrive, their children and communities thrive, and their economies thrive as well. Closing these gaps means unlocking productivity gains that are being left on the table.

Matavelli: Despite improvements in women’s schooling, why do labor market gaps persist? We often focus on getting women into STEM but rarely ask why men avoid female-dominated fields. There is also debate about deaths of despair and why men are more likely to perpetuate violence. Globally, around 90% of homicides are by men. Some point to biological factors, but norms also shape expectations about men’s behavior: vulnerability is often discouraged, while aggressive emotions are socially accepted.

Ieda, why did you decide to focus on masculinity norms, and what has your research found?

Matavelli: Economists have extensively studied gender role norms and their impacts on women’s outcomes, but less work studies masculinity norms. One challenge is measurement: many surveys focus on norms between men and women, but not norms between men on status, jobs, emotions, and behavior. In a recent study we asked: how might masculinity norms predict or impact economic, political, and health outcomes? We collected data through face-to-face and online surveys with 120,000 participants across 70 countries. Using a metric from psychology, we show that men who adhere to these norms work more, are more competitive, and sort into traditionally masculine occupations. We surveyed women and found similar patterns, likely because women are asked to “lean in.”

We find that stronger adherence to masculinity norms is linked to worse mental health and greater support for anti-democratic values. At the country level, it is linked with larger GDP. Much remains unknown, but it is important to bring these norms into the conversation.

Where do masculinity norms come from, and why do they persist?

Matavelli: Our global evidence suggests that people do not strongly endorse masculinity norms privately, but they believe others do – with particularly large misperceptions in Latin America. In another project, I ran an experiment with teenagers at 25 schools in Rio de Janeiro, where masculinity norms are linked to violence in favelas dominated by gangs. I find that teenagers systematically overestimate others’ endorsement of these norms. They rarely discuss these topics, expecting awkward conversations. This creates a belief trap: the norms persist because they don’t talk and by not talking they don’t update their views.

Girija, what led you to study women’s mobility in cities, and what have you found?

Borker: During my PhD, I studied how safety in public spaces affects women’s college choices in India. The data show that women enroll in lower-quality colleges than equally high-achieving men, even within the colleges they were admitted to. Why does this happen? Harassment is common for Indian women, and I nearly declined my own top college admission because I was afraid of the commute. I suspected safety mattered, but it’s difficult to measure and harassment often goes unreported.

I developed a new approach to measuring perceived safety and surveyed students at Delhi University, one of India’s top universities. The results were stark: to gain even a small increase in perceived safety, women were willing to trade a top 20% college for one in the bottom 50%, sacrificing as much as 20% in future earnings relative to equally qualified men. Broader evidence suggests this is a global challenge: safety concerns shape where women travel, when they travel, how they travel, and who they travel with.

What does the evidence suggest about addressing these challenges?

Borker: For another project, we partnered with the Hyderabad City Police, which had launched patrols at harassment hotspots. We designed an RCT across 350 locations to test how the visibility of policing affects harassment and women’s mobility. We found that uniformed patrols reduced “severe” harassment – groping, grabbing, and assault – by 27% and made women less likely to avoid those locations, whereas plainclothes policing had no effects. Since our results, there has been a push towards uniformed patrols.  

We also examined why uniformed patrols did not reduce “mild” harassment like staring, whistling, and catcalling, which accounts for about 70% of incidents. In a lab-in-the-field experiment, many officers said it was harder to identify and not worth penalizing – while officers with more progressive views on women’s mobility performed better. Many police officers care; they often just lack the tools and training to respond effectively.

That led us to Bihar, where we worked with the police to deliver a 24-36 hour expressive arts training on soft and technical skills for responding to gender-based violence – how to serve women better, address victim blaming, and build empathy. Officers improved significantly, and when actors posed as victims to test behavior change, trained officers responded more effectively. We are now working with India’s Ministry of Home Affairs and other states to scale the training.

What are some of the methodological challenges in your research?

Matavelli: Survey design is critical. I spend a lot of time in the field piloting questions with participants and adapting them to context. Many measures of norms come from psychology, but they have limits – most were developed in Western settings, and about 70% of studies on masculinity are conducted in the United States. Context matters for measurement: in parts of the Middle East, men commonly walk holding hands, while elsewhere that carries stigma.

Girija, what lessons have you drawn from working at the intersection of research and policy at the World Bank?

Borker: Investing in safer public spaces can improve women’s mobility. It is also important to invest in data systems to measure what works and what doesn’t, since policies like women-only transit options can have unintended consequences. More promising policies include fare subsidies, training for drivers and conductors, and better training for police.

But evidence is only the beginning. Publishing a paper isn’t the end if you want to shape policy – it’s about translating evidence into policy design and testing solutions through a trial-and-adapt approach. That requires sharing research early and regularly, in ways that policymakers can understand and implement. Being close to the field is also important. Spending time on the ground – building trust, training staff, getting constant feedback – leads to stronger research and policy impact.

Ieda, what does your research suggest about how norms shift?

Matavelli: Changing norms is hard, and there are debates about whether it’s ethical. But correcting misperceptions may be a promising avenue: if people overestimate what others believe, information or communication interventions can help close that gap without imposing new norms. In Brazil, I tested a 15-minute discussion with teenagers. It didn’t produce behavioral changes, but students were eager to talk about masculinity and felt heard. Some evidence suggests misperceptions grow with age, which points to the importance of working with young people early.

More broadly, debates about a “crisis of masculinity,” backlash to women’s empowerment, and shifts like declining manufacturing and its effects on men’s identity all highlight the importance of these questions. As norms around work and relationships evolve, there are important consequences on areas like dating markets, marriage markets, declining fertility, and even political polarization. We want both women and men to thrive; understanding the role that norms play is an important piece of that puzzle.

How has your experience in the Kuznets Visitors Program been?

Matavelli: Yale is such a vibrant environment. I’ve enjoyed meeting researchers, making new connections, and talking with PhD students about where the field is going. It’s also been great to finally meet my coauthor Mayara Felix, who’s also Brazilian, after three years of working together online.

Borker: It’s been amazing. At the World Bank there are many rich policy discussions but fewer opportunities for deep academic feedback, so presenting work here and interacting with faculty and students has been incredible. It feels like being back in grad school, surrounded with exciting ideas and conversations.