Framing gender in Pakistan’s digital policies: a critical examination through capabilities and decolonial feminist lenses

The digitalization of the economy has had a significant impact on work, labor relations and the overall economy. Digital technologies, including digital labor, digital platforms and mobile technologies have created new industries and employment opportunities and can empower women and girls to participate in the digital economy and access economic opportunities (Chernyakov and Chernyakova, 2018). However, not everyone is equitably benefitting from the digital economy, and existing inequalities for women, youth and those without adequate digital connectivity are being exacerbated, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The gender digital divide is a significant issue in the global south, with women and girls having limited access to digital technologies, digital literacy and participation in the digital economy (Antonio and Tuffley, 2014; Vartanova and Gladkova, 2019). Pakistan has a significant population of women, making up nearly half of its total population (Iqbal et al., 2012). For equal representation of women in economic activities, it is essential to create a supportive environment (Bushell, 2008), which is a crucial component of the country’s 12th Five-Year Plan (2018–23). The inclusion of women in the economy has a major impact on the country’s growth, competitiveness, and overall economy (Klasen and Lamanna, 2009), and is in line with Pakistan’s commitments to gender equality and women’s human rights through international agreements such as Agenda 2030, the UN Convention on CEDAW (1966) and the Beijing Platform for Action (1995).

Despite these commitments, Pakistan has consistently ranked amongst the bottom two countries on the Global Gender Index for the past decade according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap reports (Hausmann et al., 2012), falling from 151st to 153rd in 2021 and ranking 178th on the Gender Development Index out of 181 countries. The latest population census showed a 57% increase from the 1998 census, with 106.45 million males, 101.31 million females and 10,418 transgenders. A majority of the population (64.6%) resides in rural or suburban areas, while 36.4% live in urban areas.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that existing policies and discussions regarding gendered digital inclusion have fallen short in effectively addressing the obstacles faced by women in accessing and participating in the digital economy (Arroyo, 2020; Martínez-Cantos, 2017; Pawluczuk et al., 2021). These policies often assume a direct correlation between digital literacy and economic factors such as education and financial inclusion, while disregarding the intricate local power structures, including caste, class and religion, that can influence socio-economic mobility and shape the diverse experiences of women (Jamil, 2021).

We adopt the “Problematization” methodology used by (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011; Clapis et al., 2018; Marshall, 2006) to analyze the assumptions underlying the policies and advocate for a context-sensitive approach to policymaking that considers the local systems of power, as well as the diversity of experiences among women in digital inclusion. We call for a nuanced approach to policymaking that takes into account the complex and interrelated factors that contribute to the problematization of the gender gap in digital inclusion especially an approach that acknowledges the colonial histories, shaping our understanding of development and modernity. By complementing capabilities approach with decolonial feminism (Manning, 2018; Singh et al., 2021; Lugones, 2010), we aim to understand the underlying assumptions, discourses and ideologies that shape the framing of gender gap in the digital inclusion in Pakistan. We examine the ways in which gender, colonialism, capabilities, the digital economy and neo-liberalism intersect to constitute this “problem” through the analysis of policy documents. The methodology will involve reading policy documents as “active agents” in shaping the social world, as opposed to merely being information repositories. The study also analyzes the specific epistemic techniques used to produce knowledge on the gender gap in digital inclusion.

This study challenges dominant narratives and contribute to the development of more inclusive policies. The potential implications and contributions of this study in effective policy formulation regarding gender parity in digital inclusion are both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, this study expands the capabilities approach by integrating intersectionality and decoloniality as central elements in assessing progress. It asserts that Categories of intersectionality must be drawn from local contexts rather than being imposed a priori, ensuring that the unique experiences of marginalized women are fully acknowledged. This research also contributes to feminist decolonialism by critically examining how colonial legacies and neoliberal development models shape digital inclusion policies. Using the problematization method, we uncover how gender-related issues are framed within policy discourses, revealing the underlying assumptions that perpetuate exclusionary practices. This study highlights the necessity of challenging dominant Global North perspectives that often disregard the complexities of intersectional vulnerabilities in the Global South, particularly for women in digital spaces. By doing so, we confront essentialist representations of indigenous and marginalized women that are prevalent in current policy discourse (Cayli Messina, 2022; Arora, 2022).

In terms of practical contributions, this research provides actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners aiming to promote gender parity in the digital economy. It identifies structural barriers – such as algorithmic biases, socio-cultural constraints and inequitable access to digital resources – that disproportionately affect women. We propose the need to develop a contextually informed approach to policymaking and evaluation that not only prioritizes the assessment of inequalities at local levels, including cultural perceptions and practices (Jamal et al., 2022), among other factors. Our recommendations highlight the need for policies that go beyond providing access to digital technologies, focusing instead on real empowerment and opportunity for marginalized women.

The upcoming section of this paper delves into the theoretical foundations of the study, elucidating the theories within the context of gender framing pertaining to digital policies in Pakistan. Thereafter, we trace back the prominent themes surrounding gender-based digital inclusion found in existing literature, leading into a detailed examination of the study’s methodology. Following the methodology, we present the derived themes from the documents, accompanied by pertinent quotations extracted from the policy documents. Ultimately, the paper concludes with a comprehensive discussion and conclusive findings.

We adopt a dual theoretical lens of capabilities perspective complemented by postcolonial framework, for an in depth and nuanced analysis. The capabilities approach is particularly relevant in the context of national-level policymaking, as it focuses on evaluating individuals’ ability to exercise fundamental freedoms and agency, particularly in marginalized communities. In Pakistan, where gender disparities in digital inclusion intersect with broader societal inequalities, the capabilities approach offers a robust framework to assess how national policies expand or constrain women’s freedoms in participating in the digital economy. As Nussbaum (1999) notes, the capabilities approach is valuable for intra-cultural evaluation of constitutional rights and freedoms, which are directly influenced by national-level policy frameworks. The capability lens provides new insights by moving beyond the traditional focus on access to technology or digital literacy. It examines whether women have the actual freedom to use digital tools meaningfully within their socio-cultural and economic contexts. Previous studies have often focused narrowly on access to technology, overlooking how national policies affect women’s ability to convert that access into real opportunities. While the capabilities approach is widely recognized for its emphasis on safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms, we extend this analysis by focusing on how local power dynamics affect women’s access to these rights in Pakistan. It allows us to scrutinize the structural factors, such as caste, class and patriarchy, that influence whether women can fully participate in the digital economy. This approach also provides a deeper understanding of the agency, autonomy and empowerment that digital inclusion policies should aim to promote. A national-level capability lens is essential here because digital inclusion policies operate within broader, systemic socio-economic frameworks that cannot be isolated to individual or organizational contexts alone. Moreover, they play a critical role in either reinforcing or challenging these entrenched inequalities. In addition to the capabilities approach, our theoretical foundation is rooted in decolonial feminism. This dual lens is critical for examining how colonial legacies and modern neoliberal policies continue to marginalize women in the Global South, especially in the digital economy. By integrating these approaches, we critically evaluate not only the gender gaps in digital inclusion but also the historical and structural forces that shape these disparities.

Decolonial feminism is a context-specific approach that centers on the experiences and perspectives of women in the Global South and aims to challenge the neoliberal and colonial policies of power and oppression that have shaped their lives (Lugones, 2010). At its core, decolonial feminism seeks to empower women in the Global South by recognizing and accepting women’s agency and intersectionality, and by providing them with the tools and resources to claim their respectful space in dominant structures of power.

A decolonial feminist perspective provides us with an opportunity to challenge the portrayal of “third world women” and the frameworks rooted in euro-patriarchy, while critically examining power dynamics in policy development and community engagement (Deepak, 2014). Similarly, scholars such as Jamal et al. (2022) have argued that the majority of development policies and programs tend to favor the policy frameworks of the Global North without question. The attempts by policymakers and development professionals from the Global North to “rescue” women from the Global South, portraying them as in need of emancipation and saving, can be disrupted through the application of decolonial feminist frameworks (Deepak, 2014; Zerbe Enns et al., 2021). Decolonial feminism challenges the prevailing power structures that have long marginalized women in the Global South. Decolonial feminism challenges the power structures – rooted in colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy and capitalism – that have historically marginalized women in the Global South. It enables us to question not only the policies framed by the Global North but also the local elites who adopt Western-centric frameworks in the digital policy domain. By applying a decolonial feminist lens, we critique both the internal and external forces that shape the portrayal of women as “oppressed” and devoid of agency, challenging the saviorism narrative in development policies. When used in exploration of policies around digital parity, a decolonial feminist theoretical framework emerges as a vital and introspective tool, providing scholars, activists and policymakers with an invaluable opportunity to reevaluate the contributions and agency of women in the Global South. Within this process, it has the capacity to challenge prevailing notions of coloniality, modernity, capitalism and patriarchy, shedding light on their impact (Manning, 2021).

Moreover, adopting a decolonial feminist approach enables us to cultivate empathy toward the social and economic obstacles encountered by women in the Global South. Through this lens, we have gained insights into how policymakers in Pakistan have portrayed and addressed the gender gap. By integrating both approaches, we can discern how particular problem formulations and proposed solutions are validated, and how they align with underlying assumptions, discourses and ideologies.

Individual faith, priorities and the faith of significant others, as well as cultural and social norms of a society, can be considered determinants of identity that need to be preserved while advocating for digital inclusion and gender parity (Nyhagen and Halsaa, 2016). These factors play a significant role in shaping an individual’s experiences and perspectives, and it is important to take them into account when developing policies and programs aimed at promoting digital inclusion and gender parity (Sander and Keller, 2021). Drawing from the capabilities approach, intersectionality is crucial in understanding how various aspects of identity, such as race, gender, religion and culture, interact to shape an individual’s ability to exercise agency and access digital resources (Mullings and Mukherjee, 2018). By applying this approach, we emphasize that digital inclusion policies must consider these intersecting identities to expand freedoms and address the structural inequalities faced by marginalized groups. Moreover, in the context of decolonial scholarship, recognition is often discussed as a key dimension of identity preservation (Mullings and Mukherjee, 2018). Fraser (1999) define Recognition as acknowledgement and validation of an individual’s or group’s identity, history and culture by society and the dominant cultural and political forces. In line with the capabilities approach, gender parity in digital inclusion must recognize the diverse experiences of women, acknowledging how race, ethnicity, religion, class and culture influence their opportunities and freedoms. By integrating decolonial feminist perspectives, we problematize the assumptions within digital inclusion policies, which often neglect these intersectional dimensions and fail to address the deeper structural barriers. Mapedza et al. (2023) assert that one dimension of recognition is the unique challenges and barriers faced by women in accessing and using digital technologies, while another dimension is acknowledging the ways in which digital technologies are used to reinforce existing power imbalances and perpetuate existing inequalities. By acknowledging these challenges and working to address them, it is critical to promote digital inclusion and gender parity in a way that is sensitive to the diverse experiences and identities of women.

According to decolonial perspective, the lack of recognition of the power and agency of women and girls results in real harm, as it perpetuates a demeaning and contemptible image of them. Deepak (2014) argue that this can have negative impacts on their self-esteem, sense of identity and ability to participate fully in society. Neoliberal frameworks often reduce indigenous identities to essentialist categories, which limits the agency of women and girls in shaping the digital landscape. By applying a decolonial feminist and problematization approach, we interrogate these narratives and emphasize the need for a more inclusive theoretical framing that recognizes the capabilities and contributions of marginalized women within the digital economy. Sander and Keller (2021) also observe that this approach ignores the ways in which colonial power structures, including globalization and modernization, have shaped the development of digital technologies and the experiences of aboriginal people in relation to digital inclusion.

The Extant literature highlights the challenges and intersectional vulnerabilities faced by women workers in the digital economy. The research of Anwar and Graham (2020) based on interviews with women in several African countries reveals that the global policy narrative surrounding digital work oversimplifies the difficulties women face, such as increased work intensity, lack of flexibility and negative physical and psychological implications. (Majid and Mustafa, 2022) further demonstrate how socio-cultural norms, through a capabilities lens, restrict women’s ability to translate digital skills into meaningful opportunities. This underscores the importance of adopting a contextualized problematization approach to challenge the existing power structures and promote gender parity in the digital space.

Research conducted in India by Tandon and Sekharan (2022), and in Mexico and China by Kwan (2002), underscores that women choosing flexible work hours on digital platforms often face penalties from algorithms, resulting in a loss of clients. These studies highlight how algorithmic design reinforces gender biases, a critical insight from both the capabilities and decolonial feminist frameworks. Problematizing the underlying assumptions within digital platforms allows us to uncover how these systems contribute to the precarity and marginalization of women workers. Similarly, Rodríguez-Modroño et al.'s (2022) examination of home care workers in Brazil reveals the ways in which algorithmic control and penalization can curtail workers’ autonomy.

(Sibiya and du Toit, 2022) research in South Africa highlights the misclassification of workers as self-employed or contractual by digital platforms, leading to the denial of basic rights, decent work conditions and labor protection. Women working in male-dominated sectors like ride hailing and delivery face double discrimination, as seen in Micha’s research in Argentina on ride hailing platforms. Tandon and Sekharan (2022), (Sibiya and du Toit, 2022) research on beauty work, domestic work and ride hailing in India and South Africa, respectively, demonstrate how digital platform work is gendered and precarious, denying workers the opportunity to upskill, organize or register complaints.

Given the intersectional vulnerabilities, gendered precarity present in Pakistan’s digital landscape, this study uses a context-sensitive and decolonial approach to problematize the assumptions and beliefs surrounding the gender gap. The problematization approach, as developed by Carol Bacchi (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016) is a robust method for analyzing policies that focuses on understanding how policy problems are constructed and in policy texts. This method involves systematically identifying the language and techniques used by policymakers to frame the gender gap as a problem requiring intervention. This approach asserts that policies do not simply address pre-existing, immutable “problems,” but rather construct these “problems” in specific ways that reflect underlying assumptions (Dixit and Banday, 2022). The approaches and strategies adopted to address these perceived “problems” offer insights into what is construed as the fundamental “problem” at hand (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). This approach allows us to uncover the underlying assumptions and biases present in these policies and to critically evaluate their implications.

By invoking the first two steps of the problematization approach, we analyze how the gender gap is framed as a “problem” and what “solutions” are proposed in policy documents (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). This analysis focuses on the specific epistemic techniques used to construct knowledge about gender inclusion in digital policies. In the first step, we identify how the gender gap is represented in digital policy documents as a “problem.” In the second step, we examine the underlying presuppositions that inform this representation?

To accomplish these objectives, we identify policy documents from various multilateral organizations concerned with gender gap and digital inclusion in Pakistan. We select ten policy documents from the last five to six years as sources of knowledge production (Dixit and Banday, 2022). This selection ensures relevance to current policy discourse. We analyze these documents to understand how they shape social interactions, policies and subjectivity. Additionally, we contextualize the policy problem by understanding its historical and political context, including the actors and interests involved in its formulation and development.

In this study, we treat policy documents as active participants that shape social realities. We approached the analysis of these documents by first identifying statements related to the “problems” or “solutions” of the digital gender gap (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). Our theoretical framework was then used to guide our analysis of the assumptions present in these policies. This framework drew from scholarship on neoliberalism and temporalities to explore how gender, colonialism, the digital economy and capabilities intersect in framing the gender gap as a “problem” within policy documents.

By reading the reports through our theoretical framework, we identify the epistemic techniques used to legitimize particular articulation of the “problem” and “solution” of the gender gap (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). Our analysis reveals the underlying assumptions and biases in these policies, enabling a critical evaluation of their implications (Dixit and Banday, 2022).

Through the problematization approach, we critically examine the foundation of the epistemic “zero point” that shapes how countries in the global South are perceived in terms of development. By engaging with decolonial critiques of modernity, we expose how the digital user from the “Global South” is often portrayed as a subject in need of intervention, reinforcing narratives of backwardness. We challenge the scientific knowledge that perpetuates universalistic notions through economic indicators, which frequently obscure the disempowerment of those deemed to be falling short (Dixit and Banday, 2022). By doing so, we can empower those who have been left behind and strive toward a more equitable world for all. This process involves retracing our steps from the commonly accepted standpoint of the epistemic zero point, decolonizing the indicators of development and redefining our understanding of progress and empowerment.

The policy documents we analyzed are listed in Table 1.

The idea of a “digital gender divide” has been hatched from its universalist definition referring to the gender-based disparities in access to, and utilization of information and communication technologies (ICTs). This concept is derived from a report by UN Women in 2005. However, when trying to create a universal framework (Tonetto, 2019) for analyzing the framing of gender gap in the digital access, the attempt results in unintended consequences. These frameworks, imposed by dominant powers, reflect their values, perspectives and interests and may not be suitable or relevant for the host societies. For instance, the digital policy of Pakistan states:

This document leaves the concept of “gender” unproblematized. The goal of increasing the number of females in the digital workforce is presented as an issue of equal rights and is deemed necessary for the economy. The reports recognize that gender equality is critical to ensure the full-scale contribution of both men and women to the society and the economy. However, the focus on economic growth, diversity and rights implies the application of a universalist capabilities approach in the formulation of developmental policies (Tonetto, 2019). This approach narrows down the contingency of women empowerment and enabling environment merely on the provision of material and institutional support. For example, the document of digital policy states:

Increase the use of internet by at least 300% amongst Women and Persons with Disabilities before 2025, by increasing volume of internet by at least 50% within same price range as that of a normal user (National-Broadband-Policy, 2021).

These policies aspire to champion equal rights for women and eliminate hindrances that impede women’s complete engagement in the digital economy, drawing inspiration from the definitions and ideas put forth in Eurocentric policy discourse (OECD 2018, 102). The underlying belief is that digitalization is the key to ensuring women’s inclusion in the digital workforce, which is seen as a means of empowering them. However, this viewpoint overlooks the fact that mere access to digital tools and resources does not automatically lead to empowerment (Rani et al., 2022). It can be discerned from the following excerpts from the policy documents:

“Promote the use of ICT technology among women and girls for their empowerment and to bridge the digital divide” (Digital-Pakistan-Policy, 2021):

“Strengthen international cooperation in the area of access to ICT and active participation of women and girls in the digital society” (Digital-Pakistan-Policy, 2021).

“To provide legal protection to women and girls to encourage online participation” (Digital-Pakistan-Policy, 2021)

The taken for granted assumption that simply providing women with access to these resources is enough to achieve empowerment is problematic and oversimplified. This understanding ignores the complexities and intersections that can impact the ability to effectively use these resources. Empowerment is not just a matter of access, but rather a process that requires a deeper understanding of the barriers that exist due to social inequalities such as caste, religion and class (Rani et al., 2022). These systemic inequalities restrict women’s capabilities and cannot be resolved through digital inclusion alone. Tackling the digital gender gap necessitates concurrent efforts to address the structures of inequality that sustain social institutions rooted in caste, religion and ethnic disparities, which in turn hinder women from attaining essential capabilities.

In the same vein, the gig economy has been touted as a solution for women seeking flexible work options. The idea is that freelance and on-demand jobs, which do not require a physical workspace and offer flexible schedules, would provide a way for women to enter the workforce without the burden of traditional 9–5 jobs and the additional workload of unpaid care work at home. In the context of capabilities approach, the provision of flexible work opportunities is assumed as a means of empowering women to enter the workforce and realize their capabilities. Platform-based work is seen as a steppingstone from informal income generation to formal employment, with digital tools and services playing a role by offering information access, essential resources, flexible working options, networks and financial inclusion. For example,

“To empower the women and encourage them to start or resume their careers as freelancers” (National-Freelancing-Facilitation-Policy, 2021).

“It is proposed to emphasize promoting training and work from home enablement for women and girls across the country” (National-Freelancing-Facilitation-Policy, 2021):

This document disregards the unique situations and perspectives prevailing in Pakistan. Women in Pakistan not only face the burden of unpaid household work, but also devote just as much time to their gig jobs indiscriminately as being demanded from their male counterparts (Bögenhold and Naz, 2022). Despite the fact that gig economy companies have anti-discrimination policies in their terms of use, they still facilitate discrimination by offering ways to filter service providers based on gender (Rawoof et al., 2021). Flexibility, which is often touted as a benefit of gig economy work, is transformed into a means of justifying women’s engagement in double shifts, who are expected to balance both their workplace responsibilities and household duties (Bögenhold and Naz, 2022). The gig economy model is also characterized by job insecurity and precarity, leading to exploitative working conditions for vulnerable populations such as marginalized women from lower castes and/or far-flung areas, and women facing pregnancy hardships (Bögenhold and Naz, 2022). This generic portrayal of “women” fails to consider the intersectionality inherent in this precarious situation. Women from remote regions, lower caste backgrounds and ethnic minorities may encounter more pronounced challenges in terms of job discovery and access, even within the gig economy framework.

The National Gender Policy Framework, 2022 in 2022 makes a mention of the intersections of social positions, but it lacks any reference to caste, race and ethnicity, which can play a significant role in shaping a woman’s experiences. The intersections of geography, class, disability, occupation and age are acknowledged, but it does not take into consideration the added challenges faced by women from rural areas, lower castes, and ethnic minorities:

These intersections can greatly impact a woman’s education, employment and access to resources and justice system, as demonstrated by Irudayam et al. (2014). Thus, the generalized representation of “women” fails to encompass the intricacies of precarity experienced by these marginalized communities.

The GB SDGs Support Unit built a good partnership with Agha Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP), Social Welfare Department, Women Development Directorate (WDD) and National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) and held several awareness raising activities on gender-based violence with these organizations (SDG-Annual-Report, 2021).

Besides the above meager consideration of intersectionality, the policy documents regarding gender parity in digital inclusion lack this critical aspect. The lack of access to digital resources and social inequality are perpetuated by power dynamics such as caste, religion, social class, ethnicity and militarized occupation. The concept of intersectionality is disregarded in this scenario, and instead the category of women is split into trivial binary comparisons, such as rural vs urban, young vs old and married vs unmarried, to compare the experiences of different groups of women. This lack of consideration has significant consequences. For example, women from rural areas, marginalized castes and ethnic minorities are often at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing jobs, even if they have digital skills. Only a third of females have access to formal education and the female literacy rate is lower in rural areas, with limited labor force participation compared to men (Jalal-ud-Din and Khan, 2008). Socio-cultural norms that restrict female mobility also limit their access to public facilities and business opportunities. The lack of education, combined with limited interaction with the wider society, also prevent women from accessing information related to health and hygiene as well as business opportunities (Mumtaz and Salway, 2005). It can be discerned from the following excerpts from different policy documents:

“Ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups such as women, youth, and minorities in the field of ICTs.” (Balochistan-Digital-Policy, 2021).

“Facilitate and encourage the training of women and marginalized groups in the IT sector to reduce unemployment and also utilize this largely untapped human resource.” (Balochistan-Digital-Policy, 2021).

“ICT for youth, minorities, women and people with special needs.” (Balochistan-Digital-Policy, 2021):

The discussions about the digital gender gap frequently ignore the socio-cultural and politico-economic factors that contribute to the disparity. These factors are acknowledged in relation to developing countries and are portrayed as cultural and normative barriers to women’s participation in the digital economy. The assumption is that developed countries have already overcome these types of social barriers. For instance:

This is also evident in the “The multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder Ehsaas Strategy” which only mentions social conventions as obstacles for women in Pakistan (The multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder Ehsaas Strategy; Government of Pakistan, 2020). The absence of a comprehensive analysis of socio-cultural and politico-economic factors in the context of gender parity in digital inclusion has led to the obscuring of critical issues such as caste, religion, ethnicity and social class among others. This results in lower-caste women being denied specialized and directed assistance, educational prospects and employment openings, and the absence of acknowledgment of caste-based oppression.

Policies that excessively focus on Western-style solutions, such as providing access to technology and literacy, promoting diversity in the workplace and treating women as a monolithic group, risk overlooking the underlying inequalities that contribute to the digital gender gap. This approach shifts the responsibility for overcoming socio-cultural and politico-economic barriers to individual women and downplays the significance of power structures and their intersectional effects (Jamil, 2021). This glorification of personal initiative and downplay of structural inequalities is a form of trivializing power dynamics, as seen in the use of language that emphasizes individual confidence and aspirations. For instance:

The prevailing belief regarding the digital gender gap is that it is caused by women’s lack of awareness, confidence or information, and can be fixed through policy initiatives. These neoliberal solutions often depict systemic governance issues as individual problems (Grävingholt, 2022) and assume that empowering individuals will allow them to take advantage of digital opportunities. Empowerment is thought to be equivalent to entrepreneurial behavior, but this perspective is problematic. According to Nussbaum (1999), the emphasis should revolve around capabilities to enhance one’s quality of life, which should be considered constitutional values upheld by governments and policymaking. However, by putting the responsibility for empowerment solely on individuals, the root causes of inequality and vulnerability are ignored. This individualized responsibility for empowerment can be seen in the Punjab digital policy document (Punjab-Digital-Policy, 2021), which views digital technologies as a means of increasing women’s quality of life and creditworthiness through access to resources:

“Encourage local banks to introduce credit schemes for startups and local IT industry” (Punjab-Digital-Policy, 2021).

This model of governance based on the neoliberal idea of human capital is problematic, as it evaluates quality of life and empowerment solely on financial parameters of the like of creditworthiness (Bowsher, 2019). This emphasis reinforces the idea of homo-economicus, where individuals are considered indiscriminately as rational decision-makers and are judged based on their ability to generate economic value (Bowsher, 2019). However, the evaluation of creditworthiness is not an accurate reflection of an individual’s human capital and decision-making regarding funding, trust and reputation are therefore flawed (Bowsher, 2019). This is especially relevant in communities facing oppressive systems, such as caste and ethnic marginalization, where trust functions differently and it is difficult for individuals to establish creditworthiness (Christiaens, 2019).

In conclusion, the relationship between capabilities and neoliberalism plays a significant role in shaping policies and knowledge about the digital gender gap. Both capabilities approach and neoliberalism promote the idea of individual autonomy and agency, positioning individuals as capable of making choices and shaping the environment in which they exist. Capabilities approach posits that a specific developmental trajectory and universal human abilities can be established across cultural contexts. On the other hand, neoliberalism asserts that individuals can achieve self-actualization by embracing market rationality in all aspects of their lives. Nevertheless, the belief in a universal developmental path and the application of market rationality overlooks the influence of local socio-cultural and politico-economic systems, and the existence of alternative development paths (Christiaens, 2019).

Data and statistics play a crucial role in our understanding of the world, providing a basis for evidence-based decision-making and policymaking. However, the use of data and statistics can also be used to legitimize false claims, creating a façade of accuracy and objectivity (Couldry and Mejias, 2019). The use of data and statistics in legitimizing false claims is a critical issue that requires analysis (Ricaurte, 2019). The indicators used in these claims are usually derived from the Western knowledge paradigm, built upon particular conceptions of development, entrepreneurship, empowerment and digital work (Arora-Jonsson, 2023). In the policy documents, statistics and numerical data are used to establish the elevated standing of developed/Western nations in economic metrics.

This analysis has revealed the foundational rationale by which these claims to knowledge legitimacy are formulated.

Incorporating temporality into the data framework can lead to the creation of notions about progress or backwardness over time. Temporal relationships are established by comparing the present with the past, often in the context of particular notions of “progress” (Garín Rodríguez, 2023). This concept of “developed versus developing” in the discourse of modernity can perpetuate colonial perspectives on development, progress and modernity, particularly in relation to the gender gap in digital inclusion. This way of looking at time reinforce colonial power dynamics by allowing the imposition of Western-centric policies and frameworks on “developing” nations, cultures and societies, ignoring their unique challenges and disregarding the agency of individuals and communities within these nations (Garín Rodríguez, 2023).

In the context of Pakistan, with its diverse ethnic, cultural and geographic landscape, and strong religious values and world views, it is crucial to critically examine the use of temporality in development discourse. Instead of accepting the notion of a single linear progression toward modernity, it is important to acknowledge the existence of multiple perspectives and ways of understanding modernity. For instance:

These classifications, such as “developed” and “developing,” are frequently invoked to generate stories of temporal progression, where it is assumed that the West has already attained “development” while the rest of the world still lags, based on criteria largely established by the West. Within this narrative, it is suggested that the digital economy can serve as a fast-track for women from these countries toward development. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the lack of consideration for intersectionality, as these narratives overlook the unique challenges and experiences of women belonging to multiple marginalized categories:

The passage implies a belief that knowledge and practices tend to exclusively emanate from the developed Western nations to the rest of the world, which is often considered underdeveloped. This portrayal positions the West as an all-encompassing stronghold of modernity and development, while characterizing other regions as falling behind. This perspective leads to placing the rest of the world’s modernity and development as dependent on adopting the “scientific” knowledge of the West. However, this unidirectional view may not fully reflect the reality in countries like Pakistan, with its diverse religious world view, values, ethnicity, culture and geography. The idea of the developing world needing to catch up with the developed West to achieve development and empower women is a commonly held belief. This leads to the creation of a monolithic view of time, where the successes and experiences of the global South are considered residual and unclear, and their successes are disregarded while the shortcomings of the North are left unproblematized. According to de Sousa Santos et al. (2016) this type of vision is constitutive of the world-system and perpetuates the marginalization and exploitation of the global South:

It raises questions about the gaps and contradictions in reasoning, as the gender based unequal representation in the global North remains unproblematized, despite their purported superior performance. To address this, decolonial thinking is needed to challenge the hierarchical dominance of Western models of knowledge production and practices, and analyze the local, situated power relations that shape specific gendered dynamics (Garín Rodríguez, 2023).

The epistemic arrogance, which presumes the supremacy of Western knowledge systems while undervaluing other forms of knowledge is perpetuated by the misuse of data and statistics (Ricaurte, 2019). These assertions are validated through references to data, which are presented as objective, neutral and unproblematic indicators of reality, when in reality they are shaped by social and political processes (Ricaurte, 2019). This reductionist approach is influenced by eugenical statistics popularized by Sir Ronald Fisher, who used it to legitimize false claims of superior and inferior traits in individuals and groups (Rao, 1992). Unfortunately, Fisher’s controversial work has had a lasting impact on the way in which statistics and data are used to support arguments and inform policy decisions. The oversimplification of complex social issues through the use of data and statistics, as well as the manipulation and misuse of data, has significant implications for the policy discourse on gender disparities in digital inclusion (Heilmann, 2021). The legacy of Fisher’s psychographic biases highlights the importance of critical examination of data and statistics in the context of the political, social and economic conditions in which they are produced (Pasek et al., 2019).

The misuse of data and statistics often involves the manipulation of data to meet certain assumptions and expectations, resulting in oversimplification, misinterpretation and skewed results (Ricaurte, 2019). These assumptions and manipulations can occur at various stages of the data collection and analysis process. For example, the choice of data sources and indicators, the manipulation of data to meet assumptions of randomness and normality, the cleaning of data to remove outliers and the choice of sample populations can all contribute to the production of biased and misleading results (Heilmann, 2021). The embedding of legitimizing logics in policy documents, based on manipulated data and statistics, results in the perpetuation of misconceptions about gender parity, leading to misinformed and ineffective policies (Case, 2021). This, in turn, has the potential to further perpetuate existing inequalities and perpetuate the systemic barriers that prevent gender parity in the digital world. It is imperative to critically analyze the use of data and statistics in policymaking and to question the underlying assumptions and manipulations used in their production (Case, 2021).

A substantial number of reports falsely legitimize the superiority of Western countries through selective and biased use of numbers and statistics in economic indicators. These figures play a crucial role in the politics of categorization, which categorizes and ranks countries based on hierarchy (Heilmann, 2021). By referencing digital metrics, these reports frame Africa and Asia as regions with deficiencies in gender equality and development, while only highlighting the digital proficiency of the global North, thereby attributing the problem as primarily concatenated with the “developing” world. This approach is problematic as it assumes the superiority and finality of Western-centric ideas of progress, empowerment and modernity in the choice of indicators and indices used to inform policymaking. For instance:

The reports make two problematic assumptions. First, they equate digital inclusion with empowerment for women, neglecting other forms of local empowerment in the global South. The perspective of empowerment through social capital, local networks and household dynamics highlights the interconnected and nuanced ways in which individuals and communities gain power and agency. This approach recognizes the importance of considering factors beyond access to digital technologies, such as community support systems and relationships, in understanding empowerment. On the other hand, the perspective of empowerment through digital access focuses solely on the number of individuals who have access to digital technologies, ignoring the many other important factors that contribute to empowerment. This narrow focus on digital access can lead to oversimplifications and a failure to understand the full picture of empowerment in marginalized communities.

Second, the reports take the surveys as the conclusive source for quantifying the participation of women in the digital economy, ignoring the significant number of women doing “ghost work” who are not counted as digital workers. The UN Women (2019) report raises this issue and highlights the large, undervalued and underpaid “invisible” female workforce in low-income countries. The report calls for a re-focus on addressing the gendered masculine norms in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and technological fields, rather than only measuring the number of women-owned business or access to digital technologies. For instance:

This paper presents two key arguments concerning policymaking and the digital gender gap. First, while policies aligned with capabilities approaches aim to enhance accessibility to resources and measure their impact on women’s agency and quality of life, they often leave sociocultural-political norms unproblematized. The capabilities approach traditionally focuses on defining universal capabilities and the factors necessary to enable them, assuming that local contexts should not hinder progress. However, such policies frequently overlook the reality that empowerment is not solely an individual-level phenomenon. For marginalized individuals in local contexts influenced by factors such as caste, religion and class, even basic capabilities can be challenging to attain (Sander and Keller, 2021). Moreover, intersectionality is crucial in analyzing how various axes of marginality – such as caste, class, religion and disability – intersect to shape the experiences of women differently. Integrating intersectionality into digital gender gap policymaking means recognizing and restructuring redistribution programs that address these intersecting levels of disadvantage. This highlights the importance of a context-sensitive approach where categories of intersectionality are drawn from the local context rather than presumed a priori.

Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that gender is embedded in technology itself, and the digital revolution occurs within patriarchal institutions that perpetuate structural gender inequalities (Vartanova and Gladkova, 2019). Studies have shown that technology is not gender-neutral and can be gendered in various ways. Gender identities and technology are co-constructed through collective and individual acts of interpretation, forming a dynamic relational process (Majid and Mustafa, 2022). Neo-liberal scholarship depicts Indigenous identities as essentialist dichotomies that hinder gender parity in digital inclusion (Mapedza et al., 2023). These essentialist perspectives fail to acknowledge the dynamic roles that women and girls play across social, political and individual spheres.

This study advocates for a decolonial perspective to address the material consequences and economic implications of gender-based discrimination. Intersectionality, rooted in decolonial thought, challenges the structures of neoliberal feminism that emphasize individualism and market-driven solutions while neglecting the broader socio-political and economic systems that perpetuate gendered inequalities. By recognizing these complexities, we aim to foster a more inclusive digital landscape that addresses the intersecting forms of discrimination women face in the Global South.

Moreover, we assert that the bastions of knowledge and influence that mold definitions, indicators and gauges of progress in policymaking are deeply entrenched in colonial assumptions concerning advancement, modernity and rationality in line with the proposition of Couldry and Mejias, (2019). These assumptions might have emanated from knowledge systems rooted in the global North, neglecting the perspectives and wisdom borne from the global South. Consequently, as noted by Dixit and Banday (2022), a perpetual cycle of colonial knowledge production ensues, relegating developing countries and specific women within these nations to a purported state of backwardness. The categories and relevance of capabilities need to be formulated through local knowledge systems, providing equal epistemic credibility to the worldviews of the Global South. This shift requires a transformation in how data is produced and made meaningful, recognizing that the current framework reinforces a cycle of colonial knowledge production that marginalizes the contributions of women in the Global South (Dixit and Banday, 2022).

This study offers several key contributions. First, it expands the capabilities approach by integrating intersectionality and decoloniality as central to the framework for assessing progress in digital inclusion. We argue that true empowerment in the digital space requires recognizing the multiple axes of marginality – such as caste, class, religion and disability – and ensuring that redistribution programs address these layers of disadvantage. Our study emphasizes that categories of intersectionality must be drawn from local contexts, acknowledging the unique experiences of marginalized women.

Second, this research contributes to feminist decolonialism by exposing how colonial legacies and neoliberal development models shape digital inclusion policies. Our application of the problematization method reveals how gender-related issues are framed within policy discourses, providing insights into the underlying assumptions that perpetuate exclusionary practices. This study highlights the necessity of challenging dominant Global North narratives that overlook the complexities of intersectional vulnerabilities in the Global South, particularly for women in digital spaces. In doing so, we challenge the essentialist representations of indigenous and marginalized women that permeate current policy discourse.

Finally, this research offers practical insights for policymakers and practitioners aiming to promote gender parity in the digital economy. By identifying the structural barriers faced by women – such as algorithmic biases, socio-cultural constraints and inequitable access to digital resources – we provide actionable recommendations to create more inclusive digital policies. These recommendations emphasize the importance of context-sensitive approaches that account for the intersecting dimensions of identity, such as race, class and gender, and highlight the need for policies that go beyond access to focus on real empowerment and opportunity. We highlight the necessity of restructuring redistribution programs and revising data production processes to recognize local knowledge systems. We provide a roadmap for creating digital policies that go beyond mere access and promote genuine empowerment.

The implications of this study are significant for both policymaking and the broader understanding of digital inclusion. First, it calls for a paradigm shift in how progress is measured, urging policymakers to move away from frameworks rooted in Global North assumptions and instead develop metrics informed by local knowledge systems. This involves recognizing the diverse intersectional experiences of women and ensuring that capabilities are defined in ways that resonate with the realities of marginalized groups in the Global South. Second, the study emphasizes the need for context-sensitive policymaking that takes into account the local systems of power, including caste, religion, class and disability. Policymakers must challenge the epistemic arrogance that positions the Global South as a passive recipient of knowledge and instead acknowledge its capacity to generate valuable insights for defining progress and gender equity. Finally, this research highlights the importance of transforming data production and analysis to ensure that digital inclusion policies reflect the complexity of intersectional marginalities. By reshaping the way data is produced and used, we can foster a more equitable and inclusive digital economy that moves beyond market-driven, neoliberal solutions and promotes systemic change.