Question

This format should allow you more time to think about your answer. The length of your answers should range from 2-4 paragraphs, depending on the complexity of the question. Remember to use the readings and your class notes to answer the questions. Use citations/quotes and then go on to interpret and explain the quote in your own words.

Contemporary feminist economics arose, in part, from a recognition that current economic statistics are misleading.Marilyn Waring, Who’s Counting, in particular pointed out the bias.Describe Waring’s contribution to feminist economics.Go on to explain the feminist critique of neoclassical economic theory.

Answer 1

Marilyn Waring helped pioneer the feminist critique of mainstream economics for ignoring the unpaid work that women do even though this is essential for sustaining economies. Her best-selling book If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1989) explored what would have to change in economic statistics and economic policy to make what women do really count. For instance, time use studies would need to be conducted on a regular basis to reveal the time spent on unpaid as well as paid work. The measure of economic output of a country, the Gross Domestic Product, would need to be expanded to include the output of unpaid work. The impact of economic policies would need to be evaluated in terms of their impact on unpaid as well as paid work. This edited collection of essays shows how scholars, activists and students in many countries have been inspired by Waring’s work, and discusses how far the field she helped to create has evolved in the twenty-five years since her book was published.

Beyond the Marxist analysis, neoclassical feminist theories mainly deal with questions of women’s labour-market participationand their wage income. Neoclassical economics focuses on the results of individual maximization decisions and evaluations carried out according to the marginal principle as well as criteria of efficiency (Haidinger and Knittler 2014, 55–57). In such a framework, the exclusion of women from the labour market could be regarded as inefficient and as reducing welfare, since not all persons capable of working participate in the labour market (e.g. Harriet Taylor Mill already in 1851, in Haidinger and Knittler 2014, 18–21 or currently Maier 2004, 33). Explanations of the increased labour-market participation of women point to better education, higher productivity in households due to machines, lower birth rates and higher labour demand especially in the service sector (Knapp, 2002). The lower wages that women receive on the labour market are explained in terms of their concentration in certain sectors, for example, in the service sector, and their lower investment in human capital because of potentially taking care of the children. While neoclassical economics developed those explanations, feminist economists emphasise that the described patterns heavily depend on the institutional framework, for example, social role models of families and women, which are socially negotiated rather than a result of a market process (Maier 2004, 29).

While feminist economists who are working in the neoclassical tradition would describe the scarcity of resources as a central economic problem, most feminist economists see power relations as a central force driving social and economic dynamics. Besides gender inequalities, other power relations are also analyzed: for example, those that relate to ethnic or social backgrounds. The common analysis of different forms of inequality (race, class, gender) and their interrelatedness is called intersectionality (cf.. Vinz 2011). In this context, it needs to be emphasized that the category women is not homogeneous since women have different backgrounds and different experiences. This means that, for instance, class or other forms of discrimination need to be taken into account as well (Mader and Schultheiss 2011, 411).

Constructivist feminist economists emphasize the social construction of gender attributes and consequently question those attributes. This does not mean that the latter do not have any material consequences: gender is a central regulating principle of the economy and society. Hence, socially produced gender notions significantly shape behaviour, role models, decisions and economic inequalities. This is also related to feminist economics' critique of the neoclassical concept of the homo economicus according to which humans are rational, independent individuals with fixed preferences (compare Habermann 2008). Even if some feminist economists who work in the neoclassical tradition use the construct of a rational, utility-maximizing individual with fixed preferences, most feminist economists expose the problems with the concept. They argue that individuals cannot be considered as detached from the social context, which significantly influences their identity. Decisions depend on the household structure, the economic background, social expectations as well as on the care work, that is carried out besides the wage labour.

A prominent example of the gender blindness of economic theory is Gary Becker's approach New Home Economics, one of the few neoclassic analysis which accounts for housework. In his analysis, decisions in a family on who works are taken on a rational basis (e.g. on who has the higher income). The theory biologically attributes ‘comparative reproductive advantages’ (Ça?lar 2009, 224, own translation) to women, according to which women tend to do the domestic and men the wage labour. Also, decisions are taken by an altruistic (male) head of the family, while diverging preferences or repercussions are not analyzed (Ferber 2003). Pujol argues that the image of women of neoclassical economics is similar to the one of the founding fathers, like Pigou, Jevons, Edgeworth or Marshall, which describes women as housewives, mothers, married, dependent on the husband, and as being irrational and unproductive (Pujol 1995, 17f.)

A further central criticism of feminist economics addresses the neoclassical conception of the individual, the homo economicus(compare Habermann 2008), who acts rationally and is utility maximizing on the market and represents a male, white subject. In contrast, feminist economic sees individuals as embedded in social and economic structures, which determine their (im)possibility for action. Furthermore, the concept of the homo economicus assumes the existence of an irrational, female and emotional (among other characteristics) other, who is assigned to the ‘female’, or the so-called ‘private’ sphere. A further point of departure for critique by feminist economics is the division between the spheres of the market and the household. On the market, productive (male) actions take place; in the ‘private’ sphere, unproductive (female) activities occur. First, this perspective marks unpaid activities as unproductive and as not generating value. Second, it neglects the role of reproductive activities in the production process. This also has consequences for macroeconomic aggregates, since those activities are not accounted for in national accounts. This is the reason why, for feminist economics, indicators such as the GDP are not suited for measuring wealth.