Economic Marginalization and Pink-collar Crime

By Mohd Mehndi*

January 17, 2026

Imagine a single mother in Mumbai’s slums scraping by on informal sector wages, her children hungry amid soaring rents, while in the U.S., similar women turn to check fraud for survival yet across India, Latin America, and beyond, it’s this poverty trapped women, not greedy executives, who increasingly commit “Pink-collar” crimes out of sheer necessity. This global feminization of poverty thrusts women into low wage traps, amplifying economic marginalization and financial desperation.

Feminization of poverty:

The term “feminization of poverty” states the increasing prevalence of poverty among women compared to men, often due to systematic inequalities and other cultural barriers. In many societies, including India, women disproportionately bear the brunt of poverty due to limited access to resources like education, healthcare and etc. Women dominate lower socioeconomic tiers worldwide due to persistent gender wage gaps and lack of benefits. In India, female labour force participation hovers around 35-37%, with over 94% in informal, low pay jobs lacking security or healthcare, per recent surveys. Globally, women ear roughly 77-82% of men’s wages, compounded by unpaid care work that limits full time employment. This segregation into “Pink-collar” roles like retail or domestic work perpetuates cycles of vulnerability, especially for India’s rural women facing climate shocks and limited credit access.

Data sources of feminization of poverty:

• National family health survey (NHFS-5, 2019-21): Reveals that 94% of Indian women in informal jobs are with no benefit; female headed households show higher multidimensional poverty indices.

• Periodic labour force survey (PLFS, 2023-24): Female LFPR at 37%, with wages 20-30% below men’s and 80% rural women are indulge in low pay agricultural activities.

• NITI Aayog multidimensional poverty index (2023): 16.4% of women are in poverty when compared with lower male rates, emphasizing health and education deprivations.

Economic marginalization theory:

Economic marginalization theory suggests that female criminality is not necessarily a product of liberation or equality, but rather a response to financial distress and systemic exclusion. As women increasingly become the primary breadwinners, evidenced by the fact that head 80% of impoverished households in the U.S. and a growing number of single parent homes in India legal income streams are failing to keep pace with economic demands. In India, a stark gender gap persists where Female Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) stands at only 35.1% compared to 76.4% for men, with women earning a mere 18% of total labour income. This systemic disparity, coupled with rising divorce rates, forces many women into “survival crimes” or welfare fraud as they struggle to stay above the poverty line.

“Pink-collar” crime:

“Pink-collar” crime refers to non-violent financial offences, such as embezzlement or fraud, committed by women typically employed in lower to mid-level service role. Unlike white collar crime, which is often associated with affluent men driven by professional greed, pink-collar crimes are frequently motivated by a need for family stability and economic survival.

Despite its distinct socioeconomic roots, precise global comparisons remain difficult because many countries, including India, do not officially track these offenses as a separate category, instead grouping them under broader economic crimes.

Difference between pink-collar crime, white-collar crime and blue-collar crime:

Feature	Pink-collar crime	White/Blue-collar crime
Typical perpetrator	Women in low to mid-level services.	High ranking officials or the unemployed.
Nature of act	Non- violent, internal financial manipulation.	Often physical or complex.
Examples	Embezzlement, small scale theft.	Money laundering, drug offenses.
Common motive	Family stability, survival.	Maintenance of status, passion or immediate need.
Level of planning	Moderate, often involves exploiting routine access.	Meticulous, opportunistic.
visibility	Low; hidden within standard service.	Shielded by corporate structures or physical evidence.
Detection rate	Very low as often dismissed as “clerical error.”	Low/high as depends upon level of crime.

The Drivers: why women offend such crimes:

I. The “survival” factor: These crimes are unique in its frequent link to the “feminization of poverty.” Research suggests many women involved in these crimes view themselves as “good people” in impossible financial situations rather than career criminals.

II. “Other” oriented: Unlike crimes the pink-collar crime is often done with the purpose of relational responsibilities like covering rent to avoid eviction, or buying basic necessities that the wage cannot cover.

III. Limited opportunity structure: The pink-collar workers have access to funds but lack the systemic power of executives, their crimes are usually small scale and repetitive. They don’t have “cushion” of high salaries or investments, so when a life crisis hits such as a divorce, a sick relative or a jo loss in the family the perpetrators are forced to make this this illegal utility theft as it seems the viable survival strategy.

IV. The “Trust” paradox: These perpetrators are often in position of high trust as they handle petty cash or payroll but low pay, creating both the motive and opportunity.

Challenges in addressing feminization of poverty:

I. Gender bias in policy implementation: While numerous policies and welfare schemes aim to uplift women, the implementation process is often riddled with gender biases. For instance, local authorities may prioritize male beneficiaries or lack the awareness to effective target women. This undermines the potential impact of these programs, leaving many marginalized women without access to necessary resources and support.

II. Lack of gender disaggregated data: The absence of comprehensive gender data hampers the ability to design, monitor, and evaluate policies that address women’s unique challenges.

III. deficient social safety nets: Social safety nets like pensions benefits or maternity leaves are often inaccessible to women specially in rural areas. These nets during economic downturns or life events push them further into poverty leading to commit such crime.

IV. Social stigma: Although the opportunities are available but the social or cultural stigma often discourage women from seeking such employment. The basic expectations of “caregiving” role are preventing the women to participate in such workforces.

Addressing feminization of poverty:

I. Gender responsive budgeting: To tackle bias in policy implementation, governments should adopt gender responsive budgeting (GRB) as it’ll ensure the allocation of funds is explicitly analyzed through gender lens by conducting regular “gender audits” of local authorities to ensure resources are reaching women.

II. Investing in gender disaggregated digital infrastructure: the government may deploy tracking systems that require se disaggregated data for every public service interaction. This will allow the policy makers to see exactly where women are falling through the cracks in real time.

III. Expanding portable social security: since many women work in the informal or rural sectors, traditional employer like pension benefits don’t reach that that easily. The government may take an initiative of creating a universal portable social security account that are linked to the individuals, not the employer. This will ensure that if a woman moves, changes a job, her benefits remain intact and accessible regardless of her location.

IV. Formalizing the “Care Economy”: the social stigma around women working is often rooted in the heavy burden of unpaid care work. By professionalizing this sector, the government can turn a “barrier” into an “opportunity”. Funded childcare centers and elderly care facilities and reduce the “care penalty” for women.

Conclusion:

“While the white-collar criminal steals to buy a second home, the “pink-collar” criminal often steals to keep the first one survives”. Ultimately, “pink-collar” crime must be recognized not as a trend of individual moral failing, but as a symptom of systemic economic fragility. Until the gap between the “feminization of poverty” and the “care economy” is bridged through gender responsive budgeting and portable social security, women will continue to be forced into the shadow economy of survival crimes. Addressing this requires a paradigm shift, viewing female economic empowerment not merely as a social ideal, but as a critical intervention for legal and financial stability on a global scale.