Making Public Policy Work for Women: Lessons from Sri Lanka’s COVID-19 Response

One night during the pandemic, Nishanthi, a garment factory worker living in a boarding house in Katunayake, was suddenly told by military officers to pack her belongings and leave with the other women. There were 54 of them in the boarding house. Earlier that day, two of her fellow boarders had tested positive for COVID-19. “We thought it was just an awareness meeting,” she recalled. “Then they told us to pack clothes for three days and warned us not to resist or leave, as military officers had surrounded the building. Two of our friends fainted from the shock.” Nishanthi and the others were first taken to Veyangoda and later transferred to the Kalutara Teaching School for quarantine. She eventually tested positive and spent 24 days in isolation.

For women like Nishanthi, quarantine brought added burdens. In the early stages of the pandemic, many quarantine centres lacked privacy, separate spaces, or even basic facilities to manage menstruation. These gaps made an already stressful and frightening experience even harder for women. Nishanthi’s experience serves as a reminder that public policy, particularly during a crisis, must reflect the diverse realities that women and men face. Public policy plays a crucial role in solving social problems and improving lives. However, to make a real difference, it must be timely, inclusive, and responsive to the specific needs of different groups, ensuring that no one is left behind.

This is particularly true during times of crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t just threaten health; it disrupted jobs, social relationships, and the daily lives of people. But the impact wasn’t the same for everyone. Women, in particular, were hit hard, and they were disproportionately represented in industries most affected by COVID-19, such as food service, retail, and entertainment, while also taking on increased caregiving responsibilities at home. These added pressures made life even harder and increased existing inequalities that women already faced. In Sri Lanka, women in the export-oriented apparel sector experienced many of these same pressures.

In response to the crisis, the Sri Lankan government acted quickly, introducing various public health and economic recovery measures. But were these policies truly inclusive? Did they consider women’s lived experiences? Were women meaningfully involved in shaping the response? To explore these questions, the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka (IPS) conducted a study examining how gender was considered—or overlooked—in Sri Lanka’s pandemic response. Nishanthi’s story is just one of many that emerged through this research. Drawing from interviews with a range of stakeholders, the study identified key lessons for more inclusive and equitable policymaking in the future.

What We Found

• Gaps in understanding gender needs. Many decision-makers acknowledged the importance of making policies that respond to the different needs of men and women. But not everyone saw it as essential. Some felt that Sri Lanka had already achieved enough gender equality and didn’t see the need for special attention to women’s issues during the pandemic. This view overlooked the real struggles many women faced and showed a lack of awareness about how crises can deepen existing inequalities.

• Women were involved—but not always heard. It was a positive step to see women included in policy discussions during the pandemic. However, our study found that their actual influence was limited. Because decisions were mostly made through a centralised and top-down process, especially at the start of the crisis, women’s voices didn’t always reach those at the top and often weren’t acted upon.

• Women’s specific needs were overlooked in implementation. Even when policies were aimed at protecting everyone, the actual rollout often ignored women’s unique challenges. For example, early in the pandemic, quarantine centres often lacked facilities such as menstrual hygiene supplies and safety measures for women. As one official shared, “Women facing menstruation had significant challenges… Personal space was lacking as everyone shared dormitories, and all facilities were communal.” These gaps made the experience even more stressful for women. If a gender-responsive strategy had been incorporated into policy development from the outset, these situations could have been better anticipated and mitigated. Resource limitation was a substantial barrier to setting up such facilities, restricting the support available to women during the pandemic and further intensifying the challenges they encountered.

The Path Ahead for Gender-Responsive Policymaking

• Awareness creation. Raising awareness about the importance of including gender perspectives at every stage of policymaking is a vital first step toward meaningful change. This means challenging long-standing gender biases and helping decision-makers see how inequality can lead to different outcomes for men and women, especially during times of crisis. Awareness can be strengthened through targeted campaigns, engaging educational efforts, and hands-on training. But awareness alone is not enough. Real progress requires action: collecting and using gender-sensitive data, updating outdated policy frameworks, and committing resources to ensure policies truly respond to the needs of all genders.

• Move beyond symbolic participation. Having women participate in policy discussion forums is a great step, but it is also important that they have the authority and independence to genuinely influence decisions. When women are only part of symbolic gestures, it does not lead to real change. To create meaningful progress, we should adopt a well-rounded approach that includes addressing gender socialisation, supporting career growth, ensuring fair pay, promoting work-life balance, and providing mentoring opportunities. These efforts are key to empowering women and fostering genuine leadership in the workplace. We must also work to recognise and overcome the barriers that prevent women from engaging fully in decision-making. These obstacles include deep-rooted male-dominated ideas, limited representation, structural and cultural challenges, a scarcity of role models, restrictive leadership styles, and the invisible glass ceiling that keeps women from reaching the highest leadership roles.

• Invest in preparedness—with women in mind. During COVID-19, many gender-sensitive solutions—like separate facilities in quarantine centres—were overlooked, often due to budget constraints. But failing to plan for women’s needs can make a crisis even worse. Future pandemic preparedness plans should include sustainable funding to support gender-responsive measures. These investments won’t just help women—they will improve the resilience and fairness of our entire public health system.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed critical gaps in how policies are made and who they serve. Women face distinct challenges that are too often ignored in national responses. To build resilient and equitable public health systems, we must start by listening to women, valuing their experiences, and including them meaningfully in policymaking. True gender-responsive policymaking is not just about fairness, it’s about designing smarter, more inclusive policies that work for everyone.

This blog is based on the study on ‘A Participatory Study on Improving the Pandemic Policy Responses to Reduce Adverse Health Effects on Women Workers in the Export-Oriented Apparel Industry of Sri Lanka’ carried out by the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka with the National Planning Department of Sri Lanka, and the University of Ottawa, Canada. The study is funded under Women’s Health and Economic Empowerment for a COVID-19 Recovery that is Inclusive, Sustainable and Equitable (Women RISE), an initiative of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.