“When women do better, economies do better.”
Economic systems have long rested on the assumption of consistent productivity and rational decision-making models that overlook the physiological realities of nearly half the workforce. Menstruation, a recurring biological cycle, influences concentration, planning and risk tolerance. Menstruation now is not only a health concern but a biological rhythm with measurable economic impact. Yet, it remains largely absent from mainstream economic discourse. This gap is especially striking given that it aligns with the theory of biological foundations of economic preferences, which holds that decision-making is not static or purely rational, instead responsive to internal physiological states. As a result understanding these shifts isn’t about linking hormones to stereotypes but about identifying consistent, trackable patterns in how people behave economically across their menstrual cycle.
At the onset of the menstrual cycle, lowered energy and diminished mood often heighten present bias which pulls towards immediate reward over long-term benefits, resulting in more impulsive spending and reduced attention to future planning. In longitudinal tracking of women’s daily habits, Saad and Stenström observed this tendency in the form of comfort-oriented purchase during low-energy days. As the follicular phase begins, energy and optimism rise, creating conditions that may gradually foster goal orientation yet potentially contributing to the development of planning fallacy; a bias in which individuals overestimate their future capacity for action which translates into overambitious commitments that exceeds one’s actual resources. The same dataset recorded a spike in appearance-related activities, possibly reflecting an emerging tendency toward overcommitment. Furthermore, ovulation marks a surge in sociability and assertiveness that may progressively influence behavior in ways consistent with overconfidence bias. Finally, in the luteal phase, physical discomfort and heightened emotional sensitivity strengthen loss aversion, prompting unplanned or excessive spending as a form of short-term material relief.
Beyond these cognitive shifts, menstruation intersects with structural issues that deepen its economic impact. Period poverty can be defined as the lack of access to safe and hygienic menstrual products, inadequate sanitation facilities, and limited menstrual hygiene education. This forces missed workdays or school attendance, stigma delays, medical help and underdiagnosed conditions for years, eroding productivity and earnings. Patterns across the menstrual cycle are consistent, measurable and economically relevant; yet remain largely unaccounted for in public policy, institutional planning and workforce design. These patterns don’t exist in isolation; they ride alongside hormonal shifts that shape spending, untreated reproductivity and menstrual health issues, which quietly drains productivity in the absence of supportive policies. Menstrual health issues like endometriosis alone affects 190 million people globally which still remains under-researched, with limited treatment options and no cure. Besides, data showcases women approximately spend 25% more time in poor health than men. The result is a substantial care gap and an equally substantial market failure. McKinsey estimates that closing this health gap could unlock over $250 billion in economic value.
Additionally, data from Health Services Union (HSU) and The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC) in Australia reported that 1 in 8 employees have taken leave due to menstrual or reproductive health issues, but the reality is different. A 2025 study by ABC and Western Sydney University found that nearly 70% of employees experiencing severe menstrual symptoms did not take leave, instead remained at work which resulted in presenteeism, diminished performance, and long-term burnout. The International Labour Organization warns that such presenteeism can cost economies more than absenteeism itself, representing a hidden multi-billion-dollar drag on GDP. That’s why concepts like “reproductive/menstrual leave” shouldn’t be viewed as luxury perks; they’re practical responses to structural blind spots. Spain’s paid-leave law shows how legal rights can be paired with clear clinical guidance and normalisation efforts. However, legislation alone does not guarantee change. Japan's labour laws guarantee menstrual leave, but even then only 0.9% eligible women used it as of 2020. Researchers note that without cultural change, standalone leave policies may backfire by reinforcing stigma or discrimination against women. Even traits like cooperation that are central to team dynamics and institutional productivity, have been shown to fluctuate across the menstrual cycle.
Policy solutions need a multi-level approach. Even at the workplace, fixes include flexible hours/ remote options, short paid rest breaks, quiet recovery spaces to tackle the immediate drivers of lost output which is identified in large presenteeism studies. At the health systems level, targeted R&D, improved insurance coverage and integrating menstrual health into primary care guidelines can close the diagnostic gap for high-burden conditions like endometriosis, PMDD are urgent and implementing such has both health and economic payoffs. The macroeconomic stakes are just as clear. Addressing PMS alone could generate an estimated $115 billion annually in economic gains. The Mckinsey Health report calculated that every $1 invested in women’s health yields $3 in return in economic growth. With broader investments in women’s health, treatment access and workplace accommodations could boost global GDP by $1 trillion per year by 2040.
But this isn’t just about money. If it were, we would have paid attention by now. This is a long overdue recognition that menstrual and reproductive health are foundational to the economic system. We’ve spent decades engineering policy around a fictional worker; one who doesn’t bleed, break down or burn out. That model is collapsing. What replaces it should be an adaptive system that acknowledges productivity not as a constant but as resilience. As Saad and Stenström note, these patterns aren’t random and offer practical recommendations in the form of simple tools like cycle-aware financial alerts that can help individuals anticipate shifts in behavior in order to make better choices. This is a small example of a larger truth; one where breaking the silence around menstruation isn’t a social gesture but an economic reform.
Rujula Joshi
