In a world facing interconnected crises, there is an urgent need for collaborative approaches that combine the strengths of feminist economics and development studies. A DSA roundtable brought together the International Association for Feminist Economics and development studies practitioners to explore synergies between their contemporary scholarships and practices in addressing debates around how the field of development can be made fit for purpose today.

Feminist economics, with its emphasis on equity, care, and the reimagining of economic structures, aligns powerfully with the interdisciplinary perspectives of development studies concerned with power, marginalisation and social transformation. Together, these fields can mount powerful critiques to orthodoxies in thought and practice, and create transformative frameworks in/for development. DSA President Uma Kambhampati spoke at the roundtable.

Development studies and feminist approaches progressed in tandem in the 1970s. Prior to this, development focused on macroeconomic growth with the belief that benefits would “trickle down.” But this assumption proved flawed because these large-scale theories were inappropriate to study persistent inequalities – economic, social, regional, and political -which were common across developing countries.

This prompted a shift in development thinking: first, from macro to micro-level analyses; and second, from economics alone to other disciplines better equipped to address power imbalances and inequalities. It also accompanied by a growing focus on women’s roles in development, driven by feminist scholarship like Esther Boserup’s pioneering work and the Women in Development (WID) framework.

During this period, there were increasing concerns about GDP as a measure of economic outcomes, which gained momentum within development with the capability framework set up by Sen. These laid the foundation for the Human Development Index, which formally expanded development measures beyond income to include education and health.

With increasing focus on inequalities, gender inequality soon became central to development policy. The original WID approach sought to integrate women into development processes but didn’t challenge underlying power structures. Feminist scholars critiqued this limitation, arguing for a more radical lens that interrogated patriarchy and capitalism. This gave rise to the Women and Development (WAD) framework, which emphasised both paid and unpaid labor, especially the undervalued domestic and subsistence work performed by women. Over time, attention shifted from women alone to gendered social relations. The Gender and Development (GAD) approach emphasised power dynamics and how gender, class, race, ethnicity, and other identities intersect to shape development outcomes. This shift was institutionalised through gender mainstreaming, introduced at the 1985 Nairobi Conference and formalised at the 1995 Beijing Conference.

By the 2000 launch of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), feminist insights were embedded in development thinking. The MDGs addressed not just income, health, and education but also women’s empowerment [environmental sustainability and global cooperation]. Still, the MDGs were criticised for being too narrow. Broader consultation for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) brought hitherto neglected issues – like unpaid care work and violence against women- into the mainstream. Importantly, the SDGs applied to all countries, moving away from the notion of development as relating to “others out there.”

Feminist economics (FE) and development studies (DS) share key critiques of mainstream economics, especially its neglect of power relations and of unmonetised work. For FE, the latter meant domestic and care labor; for DS, the informal, subsistence, and household economies. Both disciplines examine how power imbalances—across individuals, regions, and groups—affect outcomes. While FE initially focused on gender, it has evolved to include intersectional inequalities. DS has always examined a wide array of inequalities: across class, race, caste, religion, and more.

Both FE and DS have long studied how inequalities of income and power are created and sustained. This makes their tools invaluable in today’s world of polycrisis – economic, environmental, technological, and political.

But new complexities demand new thinking. We can no longer treat “developing countries” as a single block. Within-country inequalities are now as critical as those between countries. In India or Pakistan, the elite may live lives comparable to the wealthy in London or New York. Conversely, growing segments of the population in the UK, US, and Europe feel economically excluded – leading to the political disenchantment widely visible today. Adrian Wood foresaw this in the 1990s when he warned of globalisation’s uneven impacts.

Technology, especially AI, adds urgency. It’s unclear if AI will follow historical patterns of technological change, but early signs suggest it may exacerbate wealth concentration. The rise of tech elites has already intensified inequality and this is likely to sharpen with current changes in AI, which might further concentrate resources in the hands of the owners of technology. Both FE and DS have experience challenging power structures and must now interrogate how new technologies shape labor markets, resource access, and societal well-being.

Meanwhile, the global development narrative has shifted, with countries like South Korea, China, and India making rapid progress and pushing the focus from “developing” countries to development everywhere. The SDGs reflect this shift.

Finally, both FE and DS must grapple with decolonisation. Many problems that development studies seek to address stem from colonial histories. The DSA and others have increasingly emphasised this, urging critical reflection on whose knowledge counts. In feminist economics, there’s also concern about the North-South scholarly divide and the need to amplify voices from the Global South.

Feminist approaches have deeply influenced development studies by challenging assumptions, introducing intersectional and power-sensitive analyses, and changing what counts as development. In return, development studies’ macro- and meso-level insights enrich feminist scholarship. As crises deepen and inequalities widen, the combined analytical tools of feminist economics and development studies are more relevant than ever.

The DSA welcomes membership and enquiries from economists, either within our study groups or the DSA2026 conference.