Reducing or Reproducing Inequality? A Critical Analysis of the Gender and Sustainability through Problematizing Digital Policies in India
Article Sidebar
Issue Vol. 21 No. 2 (2026)
-
An Evaluation of the Convergence of Six Different Environmental Sustainable Development Goals in OECD Countries
Idris Yagmur, Sakiru Adebola Solarin , Mustafa Kocaoğlu , Halit Buluthan Çetintaş1-14
-
Empowering Women for Sustainable Economic Recovery: Optimizing Natural Resource Markets for Environmental Efficiency in the USA
Muhammad Khalid Anser, Helmi Ali Mkaouar, Jameel Ahmad Khader, Alaa Shoukry, Wasfi Yengui, Khalid Zaman15-40
-
Knowledge-Based Economic Growth: Strategies for Integrating Digital Transformation in Developing Economies
Xingyuan Sun, Jize Liu41-53
-
Social Capital and its Influence on Community Resilience and Local Governance Capacity
Lin Ji, Xi Cheng, Savetbek Abdrasulov54-62
-
Comparing the Foreign Policy Identities of the United States of America and the European Union in Climate Communications and National Narratives
Olena Shevchenko, Iuliia Tsyrfa, Mykhailo Goncharenko, Svitlana Palii, Dmytro Podolchuk63-77
-
Management of Chinese Energy Sector for the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy: Legislative Gaps and Emerging Judicial Trends
Naixin Hu, Qian Wu78-92
-
Sustainable Budgeting and Climate Adaptation Finance: Optimizing Public Expenditures Amid Intensifying Climate Crisis
George Abuselidze93-104
-
Eco-feminist Ethics: A Sustainable Approach to the Environmental Crisis
Dipti Khatua, Ajit Kumar Behura, Purnima Lenka105-114
-
Sustainable Energy Transition, Energy Efficiency and Labor Market Dynamics: An Empirical Assessment of SDG 7 and SDG 8
Hongxia Zhang, Chuks Kingsley Okogor, Uche Benson Okogor, Abdifatah Ahmed Ali Afyare115-138
-
Reducing or Reproducing Inequality? A Critical Analysis of the Gender and Sustainability through Problematizing Digital Policies in India
Sanjana Santra, Kishore Kumar, Nilanjan Chattopadhyay139-151
-
Pricing, Green Investment and Job Carbon Quality in Eight Leading Energy-Transitioning Economies: Implications for Employment, Health, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Hongyun Kuang, Qian Xiao, Ye Wu152-167
-
Green Jobs in the Energy Transition among the Eight Largest Economies: Assessing Employment Quality in Renewable Energy Supply Chains
Jianhua Zheng168-185
-
Exploring Dynamic Pathways of Green Technology Innovation Efficiency in Provincial Regions of China
Juan Tan, Jinyu Wei186-198
-
Green Finance and Human Health Outcomes: The Role of Public Renewable Energy Investment in China, India and Selected Economies
Dechun Wang, Hao Ding199-223
-
Sustainable Development in Climate Change: A Systematic Literatur Review
Dewi Risnawati, Sry Reski Mulka, Dea Rizki Amanda224-238
-
Harmonizing Human Dignity and Economic Progress: The Evolution of Labour Rights in the Global Architecture of Sustainable Development
Yuriy Kyrylov, Nataliia Cherevko239-247
-
Maṣlaḥah Mursalah and Environmental Sustainability: An Islamic Jurisprudential Perspective
Anthony Le Duc248-257
-
Green recovery, Low-Carbon Economy and Sustainable Development in BRICS Economies
Xiaoning Sun, Sha Fu258-283
-
Effective Management of Tourist Destinations to Minimize Negative Impacts on the Environment and Cultural Heritage
Zegeng Сhen, Shimin Fu284-297
-
Coherence between Human and Sustainable Development: a DP2-Based Assessment
Oksana Liashenko, Olena Mykhailovska, Anastasiia Duka, Oleksandr Dluhopolskyi298-326
-
Alternative Asset Diversification for ESG Investments: Evidence from G7 Countries Under Economic and Geopolitical Crises
Halilibrahim Gökgöz, Aamir Aijaz Syed, Fadhila Hamza, Ahmed Jeribi
-
Artificial Intelligence in Global Libraries: Pathways and Policies for Sustainable Development
Shuang Zheng, Qianbai Dai , Rabiu Abubakar347-360
-
Financial Inclusion, Energy Access, and Poverty Reduction in BRICS Plus Economies
Xiaowan Xu361-392
-
Resilience as a Key Feature of Smart Cities Supporting Sustainable Urban Development
Magdalena Kisała393-402
Archives
-
Vol. 21 No. 2
2026-07-01 24
-
Vol. 21 No. 1
2026-01-10 21
-
Vol. 20 No. 2
2025-07-10 20
-
Vol. 20 No. 1
2025-01-10 22
-
Vol. 19 No. 2
2024-07-01 24
-
Vol. 19 No. 1
2024-01-08 27
-
Vol. 18 No. 2
2023-07-10 25
-
Vol. 18 No. 1
2023-01-01 25
-
Vol. 17 No. 2
2022-07-04 26
-
Vol. 17 No. 1
2022-01-03 28
Main Article Content
Authors
Abstract
This study critically examines India’s Gender Digital Divide (GDD) through Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be?’ (WPR) framework, exploring how digital inclusion initiatives, framed around empowerment narratives and sustainability agendas reinforcing systemic inequalities. Moving beyond access-driven metrics and data-driven analytics, the evaluation shows how policy discourses privileged technocratic solutions and neoliberal logics, which may marginalise grassroots innovations, silence alternative framings and overlook intersectional realities of women’s digital exclusion in developing economies. The study highlights contradictions in sustainability narratives discovering a plurality of sustainability definitions, where digital inclusion is promoted as a solution, but fails to address deeper inequalities for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a complex socioeconomic context. The findings contribute directly to the advancement of policymaking strategies for SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) specifically as it deals with the gendered inequalities in digital governance to promote strategies for advocating socially responsive and globally sustainable policy design.
Keywords:
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
- 4 - Quality education
- 5 - Gender equality
- 10 - Reduced inequality
- 16 - Peace, justice and strong institutions
References
1. ANCHETA-ARRABAL A., PULIDO-MONTES C., CARVAJAL-MARDONES V., 2021, Gender digital divide and education in Latin America: A literature review, Education Sciences, 11(12): 804, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120804
2. ARCHIBALD T., 2020, What’s the problem represented to be? Problem definition critique as a tool for evaluative thinking, American Journal of Evaluation, 41(1): 6–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018824043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018824043
3. ARORA P., 2019, The Next Billion Users: Digital Life Beyond the West, International Sociology, 35(2): 231–234, https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920906759a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920906759a
4. BACCHI C., 1999, Women, Policy and Politics: the Construction of Policy Problems, SAGE Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217887
5. BACCHI C., 2000, Policy as discourse: what does it mean? where does it get us?, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1): 45-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300050005493
6. BACCHI C., 2009, Analysing Policy, Pearson Higher Education AU.
7. BACCHI C., 2012, Why study problematizations? Making politics visible, Open Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 1-8.
8. BACCHI C. 2017, Policies as gendering practices: re-viewing categorical distinctions. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 38(1), 20-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1198207
9. BACCHI C., 2019, WPR and Feminism, https://carolbacchi.com/2019/09/01/wpr-and-feminism (16.05.2025).
10. BALA S., SINGHAL P., 2018, Gender digital divide in India: a case of inter-regional analysis of Uttar Pra-desh, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(2): 173-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-07-2017-0046
11. BLÜHDORN I., 2023, Recreational experientialism at ‘the abyss’: Rethinking the sustainability crisis and experi-mental politics, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 19(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2155439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2155439
12. BOTELHO F H., 2021, Accessibility to digital technology: Virtual barriers, real opportunities, Assistive Technology, 33(sup1): 27–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2021.1945705
13. BOYER R H W., PETERSON N D., ARORA P., CALDWELL K., 2016, Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward, Sustainability, 8(9): 878, https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090878. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090878
14. CHARMAZ K., 2017, The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry, Qualitative inquiry, 23(1): 34-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105
15. CHRISTENSEN G., 2024, Three concepts of power: Foucault, Bourdieu, and Habermas, Power and Education, 16(2): 182-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438231187129
16. COULDRY N., MEJIAS U A., 2019, Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary sub-ject, Television & New Media, 20(4): 336-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632
17. CRENSHAW K., 1992, Race, Gender, and Sexual Harassment, 65 S. CAL. L. REV. 1467.
18. CRENSHAW K., 2015. Why intersectionality can’t wait, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/ (17.05.2025).
19. D’IGNAZIO C., KLEIN L F., 2020, Data Feminism, MIT Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11805.001.0001
20. DIXIT A., BANDAY M U L., 2022, Problematising the digital gender gap: invoking decoloniality and intersection-ality for inclusive policymaking, Gender & Development, 30(3): 437-457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2022.2117930
21. DOMAŃSKA A., ŻUKOWSKA B., ZAJKOWSKI R., 2019, Sustainable development versus gender gap – do wom-en matter?, Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development, 14(2): 129–142, https://ph.pollub.pl/index.php/preko/article/view/5087.
22. DUTTA P., DAS A., 2025, Gender digital divide in India: A capability and social justice approach analy-sis, Handbook of Social Justice in the Global South: 320-332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803921150.00031
23. EUBANKS V., 2018, Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor, St. Martin’s Press, New York, http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v1i0.1386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v1i0.1386
24. ESCOBAR A., 2015, Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: a preliminary conversation, Sustainability Sci-ence, 10(3): 451-462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0297-5
25. FAIRCLOUGH N., 1992b. Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis, Discourse Soc, 3: 193–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004
26. FOUCAULT M., 1980, Truth and power, Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977, ed. Gordon C., Random House, New York: 109-133.
27. FOUCAULT M., 1982, The subject and power, Critical inquiry, 8(4): 777-795. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/448181
28. FRASER G., 2020, Foucault, governmentality theory and ‘neoliberal community development’, Community Devel-opment Journal, 55(3): 437-451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsy049
29. FUCHS C., 2021, Critical social theory and sustainable development: The role of class, capitalism and domination in a dialectical analysis of un/sustainability, Foundations of Critical Theory, Routledge: 131-155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003199182-7
30. GEORGIOU M., 2023, Being Human in Digital Cities, John Wiley & Sons.
31. GRAY M L., SURI S., 2019, Ghost Work: How to stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, New York.
32. GURUMURTHY A., CHAMI N., 2021, Towards a global digital constitutionalism: A radical new agenda for UN75, Development, 64: 29–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-021-00287-z
33. HEACOCK M., KELLY C B., ASANTE K A., BIRNBAUM L S., BERGMAN Å L., BRUNÉ M N., BUKA I., CAR-PENTER D O., CHEN A., HUO X., KAMEL M., 2016, E-waste and harm to vulnerable populations: a growing global problem, Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(5): 550-555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509699
34. HILBERT M., 2011, Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typi-cal case of lies, damned lies, and statistics, Women’s Studies International Forum, 34(6): 479–489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001
35. HOFSTEDE G., 2011, Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
36. HUGÉ J., WAAS T., DAHDOUH-GUEBAS F., KOEDAM N., BLOCK T., 2013, A discourse-analytical perspective on sustainability assessment: interpreting sustainable development in practice, Sustainability science, (8): 187-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0184-2
37. KATES R W., PARRIS T M., LEISEROWITZ A., 2005, What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3): 8-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.47.5.C2
38. KERRAS H., SÁNCHEZ-NAVARRO J L., LÓPEZ-BECERRA E I., DE-MIGUEL GOMEZ M D., 2020, The impact of the gender digital divide on sustainable development: comparative analysis between the European Union and the Maghreb, Sustainability, 12(8): 3347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083347
39. KRANZBERG M., 1986, Technological Education, Technological Style, San Francisco.
40. KLEINE D., 2013, Technologies of Choice? ICTs, Development, and the Capabilities Approach, MIT Press, Cam-bridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9061.001.0001
41. LEGGETT W., 2014, The politics of behaviour change: Nudge, Neoliberalism and the State, Policy & Poli-tics, 42(1): 3-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655576
42. LEWIS D., 2018, The myopic Foucauldian gaze: discourse, knowledge and the authoritarian peace, Knowledge and Expertise in International Interventions, Routledge: 118-140.
43. LORENZINI D., 2023, Foucault, Governmentality, and the Techniques of the Self, Handbook on governmentality, eds. Walters W., Tazzioli M., Edward Elgar Publishing: 22-37.
44. MACKENZIE D., 1984, Marx and the Machine, Technology and culture, 25(3): 473-502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3104202
45. MILAN S., TRERÉ E., 2020, The Rise of the Data Poor: The COVID-19 Pandemic Seen From the Margins, Social Media+ Society: 6(3), 2056305120948233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120948233
46. MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 2020, Pradhan Mantri Gramin Digital Saksharta Abhiyan (PMGDISHA), https://www.pmgdisha.in (14.05.2025).
47. MOHANTY C T., 2003, Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity, Duke University Press, Durham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822384649
48. MONRO S., WALL S S., WOOD K., 2024, Intersex equality, diversity and inclusion and social policy: Silences, absences, and erasures in Ireland and the UK, Critical Social Policy, 44(1): 3-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183231175055
49. MYYRY S., SIIVONEN P., 2024, Depoliticized and decontextualized equality promotion in the gender equality planning of Finnish comprehensive schools, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy: 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2403158
50. OECD., 2018, Bridging the Digital Gender Divide: Include, Upskill, Innovate, https://www.oecd.org/internet/bridging-the-digital-gender-divide.pdf (05.05.2025).
51. O’HAGAN A., 2020, Introduction. «A critical practice of thinking otherwise»: Bacchi, gender and public policy analysis, Feminismo/s, 35: 13-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14198/fem.2020.35.01
52. OTTEMO A., BERGE M., Silfver E., 2020, Contextualizing technology: Between gender pluralization and class reproduction, Science Education, 104(4): 693-713.
53. PAYNE S., 2014, Constructing the gendered body? A critical discourse analysis of gender equality schemes in the health sector in England, Current Sociology, 62(7): 956-974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114531968
54. PEARCE K E., Rice R E., 2013, Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and personal computer Internet users, Journal of Communication, 63(4): 721–744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12045
55. PENG B., 2022, Digital leadership: State governance in the era of digital technology, Cultures of Science, 5(4): 210–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2096608321989835
56. RANCHORDÁS S., 2022, Connected but still excluded? Digital exclusion beyond internet access, The Cambridge Handbook of Information Technology, Life Sciences and Human Rights, eds. Ienca M., Stefanini E, Pollicino O., Andorno R., Liguori L., Cambridge University Press: 244-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108775038.020
57. RAO S., 2018, Digital Culture and Gender in India: Diffusion, Differentiation and Defiance, Routledge, London.
58. REINHARZ S., DAVIDMAN L., 1992, Feminist Methods in Social Research, Oxford University Press.
59. RIEMANN M., 2023, Studying problematizations: The value of Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be? (WPR) methodology for IR, Alternatives, 48(2): 151-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754231155763
60. RISMAN B J., DAVIS G., 2013, From sex roles to gender structure, Current Sociology, 61(5-6): 733-755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479315
61. Robinson L, Cotten S R, Ono H, Quan-Haase A, Mesch G, Chen W, Schulz J, Hale T M and Stern M J (2015) Digi-tal inequalities and why they matter, Information, Communication & Society, 18(5): 569–582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
62. RUGGI L O., DUVVURY N., 2023, Shattered glass piling at the bottom: The ‘problem’ with gender equality policy for higher education, Critical Social Policy, 43(3), 469-491. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183221119717
63. RYDIN Y., 2021, Discourse, knowledge and governmentality: The influence of Foucault, Theory In Planning Re-search: 149-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6568-1_8
64. SHEPHERD L J., 2015, Constructing civil society: Gender, power and legitimacy in United Nations peacebuilding discourse, European Journal of International Relations, 21(4): 887-910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115569319
65. SINDAKIS S., SHOWKAT G., 2024, The digital revolution in India: bridging the gap in rural technology adop-tion, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1): 29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00380-w
66. SINGH S., SINGH R., 2022, Economic imperatives of evolving national digital policy: A call for a modern industri-al policy framework in India, The International Trade Journal, 36(6): 572-593,
67. SOLDATIC K., St. Guillaume L., 2022, Social Suffering in The Neoliberal Age: State Power, Logics and Re-sistance, Routledge.
68. SONNE V L., 2025, Digital revolution and the gender divide: factors affecting mobile phone use in In-dia, Information, Communication & Society, 28(3): 471-491. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2420034
69. SOVACOOL B K., 2019, Toxic transitions in the lifecycle externalities of a digital society: The complex afterlives of electronic waste in Ghana, Resources Policy, 64, 101459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101459
70. SPIVAK G.C., 2010, Appendix: Can the subaltern speak? From Marxism and the interpretation of history, Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of An Idea, ed. Morris R.C., Columbia University Press, New York: 237–291.
71. MAHARANA S., 2025, The spectrum of sustainability: why environmental sustainability matters most, Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development, 20(2), 1-10, https://doi.org/10.35784/preko.7806. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35784/preko.7806
72. SWYNGEDOUW E., 2010, Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition, Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values: 185-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8_11
73. TAYLOR L., BROEDERS D., 2015, In the name of development: Power, profit and the datafication of the global south, Geoforum, 64: 229-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.002
74. UN WOMEN., 2020, Women and the Digital Economy: Bridging the Gender Gap in Digital Access and Skills, https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-economy (25.04.2025).
75. UNCTAD., 2024, Digital Economy Report 2024: Shaping an environmentally sustainable and inclusive digital future, UNCTAD/DER/2024, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/der2024_en.pdf (25.04.2025).
76. USMAN F O., KESS-MOMOH A J., IBEH C V., ELUFIOYE A.E., ILOJIANYA V I., OYEYEMI O P., 2024, Entre-preneurial innovations and trends: A global review: Examining emerging trends, challenges, and opportunities in the field of entrepreneurship, with a focus on how technology and globalization are shaping new business ventures, International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 11(1): 552–569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.11.1.0079
77. VAN DIJK T A., 1993, Principles of critical discourse analysis, Discourse & Society, 4(2): 249-283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
78. VAN DIJK J., 2020, The Digital Divide. John Wiley & Sons.
79. VAN DIJK J., 2017, Digital divide: Impact of access, The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, (1): 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0043
80. WAJCMAN J., 2004, TechnoFeminism, Polity Press, Cambridge.
81. WORLD BANK., 2016, World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016 (01.05.2025).
82. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM., 2019, Global Competitiveness Report 2019, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf
83. WYCHE S., OLSON J., 2018, Gender, mobile, and mobile internet| Kenyan women’s rural realities, mobile internet access, and ‘Africa rising,’ Information Technologies & International Development, 14, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323759506_Kenyan_women's_rural_realities_mobile_Internet_access_and_Africa_Rising.
Article Details
Abstract views: 11

