Tariffs are changed at the stroke of a legislator's pen
For decades, the 'pink tax' has served as a shorthand for the economic burdens women bear simply by virtue of their gender — but a sweeping study of global trade policy complicates that story in an unexpected direction. Researchers at King's College London, examining tariff schedules across 152 WTO member nations, found that men's clothing has historically faced higher import duties than women's, a pattern rooted in a nearly century-old classification system that formally divides clothing by gender. The deeper irony is not merely who pays more, but that governments retain the power to eliminate these distinctions entirely — and have chosen, quietly, not to.
- A widely accepted narrative about gender-based pricing discrimination is being challenged by hard data from global trade records spanning nearly three decades.
- Among the minority of countries that do apply different tariffs by gender, men's clothing has historically carried the heavier duty — a finding that inverts common assumptions about who bears the cost of gendered commerce.
- The tension is sharpening: since 1996, the tariff advantage for men's goods has been eroding while the burden on women's clothing has grown, suggesting the landscape may soon flip entirely.
- Extreme outliers — Angola, Barbados, and the United States among them — distort the global average and reveal just how dramatically governments can discriminate when they choose to.
- The mechanism enabling all of this is a 1931 League of Nations product classification that splits clothing by gender, and researchers are calling for its removal or formal scrutiny through WTO policy review.
The 'pink tax' — the notion that women routinely pay more for comparable goods — has become a fixture of gender equity discourse. But research published in Global Policy by Dr. James Scott of King's College London tells a more complicated story, at least where government tariffs on imported clothing are concerned.
Scott examined tariff schedules from 81 countries in the mid-1990s and later expanded his analysis to 152 WTO members in 2022. The headline finding: roughly four-fifths of countries apply identical tariffs to men's and women's clothing. Among the fifth that do differentiate, the average duty falls more heavily on men's items — a counterintuitive result that cuts against the pink tax narrative.
Yet the trend lines tell a different story. Since the mid-1990s, the number of countries using discriminatory tariffs has declined, but the direction of that discrimination has shifted. The historical advantage for men's goods is shrinking, while the tariff disadvantage for women's clothing is growing — raising the possibility that the pattern could fully reverse.
Outlier nations amplify the distortion. Angola briefly imposed tariffs 30 percentage points higher on men's clothing before reversing course. Barbados has applied differences as large as 40 percentage points on specific items. These cases are not the norm, but they illustrate the scale of discrimination that is possible when governments choose to act.
At the root of the issue is the Harmonized System, a near-universal global trade classification dating to 1931 League of Nations agreements, which formally divides clothing into men's and women's categories. Scott argues this gendered split is what makes discriminatory tariffs structurally possible. His proposed remedies — removing the gender distinction from the classification system, or embedding gender discrimination analysis into the WTO's Trade Policy Review Mechanism — are technically achievable. That they haven't been pursued, he suggests, reveals the gap between governments' stated commitments to gender equity and their actual trade policy choices.
The "pink tax"—the idea that women pay more for everyday goods—has become a familiar complaint in conversations about gender inequality. But when researchers at King's College London examined how governments actually tax imported clothing, they found something that upends that narrative, at least when it comes to tariffs. Men's clothing, it turns out, typically faces higher import duties than women's clothing across most of the world.
Dr. James Scott analyzed tariff schedules from 81 countries in 1996 and 1997, then expanded the study to cover 152 World Trade Organization members in 2022. The findings, published in Global Policy, reveal a more complicated picture than the pink tax myth suggests. About four-fifths of countries apply identical tariffs to men's and women's clothing items. Among the remaining fifth that do differentiate, the average tariff burden falls more heavily on men's goods. It's a counterintuitive result that challenges assumptions about where gender-based pricing discrimination actually occurs in global trade.
Yet the story doesn't end there. While the overall number of countries using discriminatory tariffs has declined since the mid-1990s, the direction of that discrimination has begun to shift. The tariff advantage men's clothing once enjoyed—higher duties on men's items—has been shrinking. At the same time, the tariff disadvantage facing women's clothing has grown significantly. The trend suggests that if current patterns continue, the traditional advantage for men's goods could reverse entirely.
The picture is further distorted by a handful of outlier nations that impose extreme tariff differences. Angola briefly applied tariffs 30 percentage points higher on men's clothing in 2022, a policy it has since reversed. Barbados has implemented differences as large as 40 percentage points on specific items, favoring one gender or the other depending on the product. The United States also contributes to the skewed overall average. These outliers don't represent the global norm, but they do demonstrate that when countries choose to discriminate through tariffs, they can do so dramatically.
The root of the problem lies in a classification system that has been in place for nearly a century. The Harmonized System, a nearly universal product classification used across global trade, splits clothing into distinct men's and women's categories. This division traces back to 1931 League of Nations agreements. That gendered split, Scott argues, is what enables discriminatory tariffs in the first place. Without a formal distinction between men's and women's clothing in the classification system, governments would have far less ability to impose different duties on comparable items.
Scott's solution is straightforward but would require international coordination: remove the gender split from the Harmonized System classification altogether, or integrate gender discrimination analysis into the WTO's Trade Policy Review Mechanism, which examines how member nations conduct their trade policies. The researcher is blunt about what the current state of affairs reveals. "Tariffs are changed at the stroke of a legislator's pen," Scott notes. "That states do not eliminate these differences is an indictment of claims to take gender discrimination seriously in trade policy." In other words, if governments truly cared about gender equity in trade, they could eliminate these tariff distinctions tomorrow. The fact that they haven't suggests the commitment to gender equality in trade policy remains more rhetorical than real.
Citações Notáveis
That states do not eliminate these differences is an indictment of claims to take gender discrimination seriously in trade policy— Dr. James Scott, King's College London
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
So if men's clothing faces higher tariffs overall, doesn't that mean women actually have it better in trade?
Not quite. The study shows that most countries—about 80 percent—don't discriminate at all. Among those that do, men's items have historically faced higher duties. But that advantage is eroding fast, and women's clothing is increasingly being hit with higher tariffs.
Why would that shift be happening?
The study doesn't explain the mechanism, but you can imagine it. Trade policy changes constantly. Countries adjust tariffs for economic or political reasons. The fact that the direction is reversing suggests the old pattern isn't locked in place.
And those outlier countries—Angola, Barbados—are they just being arbitrary?
They might be. Or they might be protecting domestic industries. If a country has a strong men's clothing manufacturing sector, it might raise tariffs on imported men's items to shield local producers. The gender split in the classification system gives them a tool to do that.
So the real problem is the classification system itself?
Exactly. It dates back to 1931. As long as the system treats men's and women's clothing as separate categories, governments can impose different tariffs on them. Remove that distinction, and the ability to discriminate largely disappears.
But why haven't they removed it?
That's Scott's point. They could. It would take political will. The fact that they haven't suggests gender equity in trade isn't actually a priority, despite what trade officials say publicly.