May 3, 2011 - parable about how two countries can benefit by each specializing in produc- ing one good, and relying on trade to provide them with a second ...
Rethinking Development and Globalization: Insights from Feminist Economics Nelson, Julie A., 1956The Good Society, Volume 14, Number 3, 2005, pp. 58-62 (Article) Published by Penn State University Press DOI: 10.1353/gso.2006.0010
For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/gso/summary/v014/14.3nelson.html
Access Provided by Bangladesh University of Professionals at 05/03/11 6:38AM GMT
F E AT U R E D A R T I C L E S
Rethinking Development and Globalization: Insights from Feminist Economics Julie A. Nelson Neoliberal economics, “free market” rhetoric, and the policy agents maximize utility or profit. Markets are assumed to be perprescriptions of the Washington Consensus are currently pressfectly competitive, with numerous buyers and sellers. Given these ing towards a radical restructuring of the global economy. Many and a number of other assumptions, the First Fundamental questions have been raised about these policies by people conTheorem of Welfare Economics “shows” that a competitive market cerned with some of the negative effects on human well-being equilibrium outcome cannot be improved upon. With the perfectly that have been observed. Decreases in health and employment competitive economy set up as an ideal, then, government “interrelated to the imposition of Structural Adjustment Programs ference” in economies tends to be condemned as leading to ineffi(SAPs) on poor countries, global instability resulting from preciency. Graduate students in economics study the core model in cipitous international capital flows, and the possibility of a “race great mathematical detail. Undergraduates are presented with simto the bottom” in national labor and pler versions. They learn about “gains environmental standards have many from trade” from an uncomplicated Partly, the [feminist] critiques grew observers very worried. Feminist econparable about how two countries can out of dissatisfaction with the mainomists have noted that the problems benefit by each specializing in producstream treatment of “women’s caused by cuts in social services often ing one good, and relying on trade to issues.” Women’s traditional work in dictated by SAPs have often fallen provide them with a second good. Not families, for example, was (and genmost heavily on women (Bakker, all neoclassical economists are rabid erally still is) not counted as con1994; Çagatay, Elson and Grown, neoliberals, and some economic tributing to national economic well1996; Elson, 1991). research creates more scope for governbeing because it does not pass More work needs to be done on the ment action by tweaking the assumpthrough markets. The traditional effects of such policies, in detail and in tions of the core model. Yet the image of division of labor between husbands context, and on the design of specific a smoothly functioning perfectly comand wives had been modeled as a alternatives. This essay, however, takes petitive market economy is still the case of optimizing free choice. on a more abstract, but also in many touchstone of “scientific” economics. Analogous to the case of nations ways more basic, question. Why is it The intellectual roots of this image who presumably gain from specializthat such policies continue to hold such go back to Adam Smith’s assertion that ing and trading, the free choice to sway, on not only a political but also an the “invisible hand” of the market sysspecialize in breadwinner/homeintellectual level? Why have alternatem will automatically cause individumaker roles was presumed to create tive approaches received so little als’ pursuit of self-interest to serve the in-house “gains from trade.” acceptance? This essay describes how social good. John Stuart Mill cona feminist-theory-informed view of tributed the idea that the “science” of economics can provide intellectual economics should be modeled on the resources for questioning the hegemony of neoliberal visions axiomatic-deductive model of geometry. Mill also proposed that of development and globalization and for building better people, in their economic roles, could be thought of as interested alternatives. only in wealth. David Ricardo came up with the parable about two countries gaining from trade.1 A Feminist Critique of Economics This Classical economic image became “Neo” in the late 19th century as Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, and others realized they At the core of neoliberal thinking lies the belief that free trade, could mathematically formalize the image of the self-regulating privatization, and unfettered capital flows are required in order to system. By adapting models from Newtonian physics, calculus unloose competitive market forces. These forces, in turn, are precould apparently be as easily applied to economic issues as it presumed to guarantee a one-way ride towards greater efficiency, viously had been applied to the design of machinery. During the prosperity, and economic growth. This belief gets its intellectual 20th century, the appeal of the smooth mathematical models of justification from the core model of contemporary Neoclassical optimizing decisions became so great that mainstream economics economics. In the core model, rational, autonomous, self-interested 58
The Good Society, Volume 14, No. 3, 2005
·
Copyright © 2005 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
R E T H I N K I N G D E V E L O P M E N T A N D G L O B A L I Z AT I O N left behind its classical definition based on “wealth” and turned into the “science of choice.” The standard textbook definition of the field today is that economics studies how people make choices, in the face of unlimited wants and scarce resources. Feminist critiques of Neoclassical economics began to gather steam during the late 1980s.2 Partly, the critiques grew out of dissatisfaction with the mainstream treatment of “women’s issues.” Women’s traditional work in families, for example, was (and generally still is) not counted as contributing to national economic well-being because it does not pass through markets. The traditional division of labor between husbands and wives had been modeled as a case of optimizing free choice. Analogous to the case of nations who presumably gain from specializing and trading, the free choice to specialize in breadwinner/homemaker roles was presumed to create in-house “gains from trade.” Women economists interested in studying labor market discrimination often found their interests dismissed, because sex discrimination was not supposed to exist. In perfectly competitive markets, the core model implies, non-discriminating firms will hire the cheaper productive women, have lower costs, and therefore drive any discriminating firm out of business. Women (and a few men) with a modicum of feminist sensibility found these dismissive explanations outrageous. Partly, as well, the feminist critiques in economics rode on the coattails of 1980s feminist research on the history of science (Harding, 1986; Keller, 1985). As put by Sandra Harding, Mind vs. nature and the body, reason vs. emotion and social commitment, subject vs. object and objectivity vs. subjectivity, the abstract and the general vs. the concrete and particular – in each case we are told that the former must dominate the latter lest human life be overwhelmed by irrational and alien forces, forces symbolized in science as the feminine. All these dichotomies play important roles in the intellectual structures of science, and all appear to be associated both historically and in contemporary psyches with distinctively masculine sexual and gender identity projects. (1986, 25)
The power of these intellectual prejudices has been all too clear to those of us who studied mainstream economics. The domain of economics has been defined around markets, efficiency, and competition. Families, equity, and cooperation have been shunted to the side. Economists have put high value on mathematical methods that they believe lead to precision and generality, while they look down on other methods which they believe lead only to vagueness and mere concreteness. “Economic man” has been assumed to be autonomous, selfinterested, rational and to be, in essence, a mind that simply prefers to have some goods and services, and prefers some goods and services over others. Aspects of humanity concerned with dependency, concern for others, emotions and actual bodily needs
for food, shelter, and care are cast into shadow. In each case, the favored side carries a masculine-associated gender connotation, while the marginalized side carries a feminine-associated gender connotation. While mainstream economists have taken this gender-slanted definition of the field as defining scientific “rigor,” feminist economists have noted that what they really reflect is masculinist bias. If science is, in fact, a process of free, open, and methodical inquiry, then the dogmas created by allegiance to a particular — and highly artificial — image of what economics should be like are obstacles, not aids. The answer to this bias is not, however, to simply turn the tables and adopt the feminine-associated aspects instead. Rather, the key is to get past the dualistic and hierarchical habits of thinking that give contrasts such as “reason vs. emotion” or “generality vs. concreteness” their power. We are, in fact, rational and emotional beings. As scholars, we should value not only precision and generality in our studies but also characteristics like richness, fullness, concreteness, and applicability — values hidden by the merely dualistic contrasts listed above (Nelson, 1996).
Application to Neoliberalism How can feminist economics aid in rethinking development and globalization? First and most obviously, many feminists have questioned the “growth in Gross Domestic Product” definition of development. Feminists raise objections because GDP neglects household production, and because the traditional hyperfocusing of economists on this mathematically-measurable variable has caused a gross neglect of the roles of customs, power differentials, institutions, and innovations in development dynamics. But, perhaps most importantly of all, GDP is a poor indicator of sustainable advancement in human well-being. Many feminist economists have rejected the choice-theory definition of economics in favor of a definition in terms of “provisioning,” or how societies organize themselves to create the means for human survival and flourishing (Nelson, 1996; Benería, 2003). Amartya Sen’s focus on “capabilities” has been adopted by many as a more satisfactory development goal — or at least as a good starting point for discussion (Agarwal, Humphries, Robeyns, 2003; Nelson, 2004) Ecological concerns have also played a role in feminist economic thought (Perkins, 1997). Feminist analysis can also be applied to the neoliberal prescriptions of free trade and privatization. The model that “shows” that free trade is good emphasizes choice, efficiency, and markets, and is created from thought-experiment manipulation of abstract logic. Observation of real-world concrete situations has been conspicuously lacking. The “gains from trade” parable is about how each country chooses its production and consumption levels, and how free markets lead to efficiency in production and consumption. The parable can be illustrated with Volume 14, Number 3, 2005
59
F E AT U R E D A R T I C L E S graphs and mathematics: the result looks clean and elegant. These are characteristics, as we have discussed, that are highly valued within the profession. What is left out in the parable? Many things are, among which are questions of history, constraints, institutions, distribution, power, fairness, interdependence, needs, vulnerability, and actual observation of real-world results over time. While neoliberals tell less developed countries that they should open their markets in order to advance, for example, the evidence suggests otherwise. Historically, countries that underwent bursts of industrialization — including not only the U.S. and U.K, but also post WWII industrializers such as Taiwan and South Korea — generally did so under regimes of high government involvement and tariff protection of infant industries (Amsden, 2001). Among contemporary economies, the relation between openness to trade and speed of growth is far from clear (Rodrik, 1997). Feminist analysis of biases in the creation of economic knowledge can help point out that — “scientific”-looking models to the contrary — mainstream Neoclassical development and international economics is an Emperor who has no clothes. Many other critics have also pointed this out, but feminist analysis adds another dimension. Feminist economics explains how the allegiance to a particular style of reasoning is deeply rooted, historically and psychologically, in gender-related ideology. In this sense, feminist thought assists in a radical questioning of the model of neoliberal globalization.
levels of resource use. It, too, generates pressures to externalize costs and to pollute … Nor is this because all corporate leaders personally lack concern for the environment; it is because of the logic of the system: Business executives must take care of business — or they will be out of business!... The logic and dynamics of the capitalist system are such that companies must cut costs if they are to withstand competition … If a company willingly spends money on a pollution reduction problem — and then raises its prices to cover the cost, it risks finding its market share reduced by a less conscientious rival firm. (Alperovitz, 1995, 3)
What can a feminist-informed analysis of dualistic ways of thinking say about this? The intellectual roots of such a view go back to Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Jürgen Habermas. Marx wrote about the presumably inherent dynamics of capitalist accumulation. Weber characterized the economy as an “iron cage.” Habermas distinguished between a “lifeworld” of communication, subjectivity, mutuality, and responsibility and a “system” arena driven by unconscious, objectifying forces. The message from these scholars is clear: a capitalist economy cannot, by its inherent nature be a realm of responsibility and authentic human relations. Any one who tries to resist the inexorable forces of capitalism — such as a business executive who would like to act out of concern for the environment (as discussed in the above quote) — Application to “Anti-Globalization” will presumably simply be crushed by the steamroller of competitive market pressure. So far, the content of this essay may not be surprising, given But haven’t we just heard this story? This is also how the that I have been invited to write it for a journal that expresses Neoclassicals explain why sex discrimination cannot exist. A dissatisfaction with “current versions of … democratic capitalcompany that refuses to hire a producism” and aims to help in creating an tive female will find that a less preju“eventual restructuring of real world Feminist insights also offer a diced firm will hire her, lower its costs, political-economic systems” (see very significant critique of certain and gain market share at the first comcover). I believe, however — and here “anti-globalization” views. pany’s expense, they say. Perfect comI must emphasize that I do not purport petition means that nothing — whether to represent all feminist economists, well-intentioned or prejudicial — can but only a feminist-informed view — that feminist insights also come between a firm and its profit! offer a very significant critique of certain “anti-globalization” The reason the story is repeated by both Neoclassical and the views. “anti” tribes is that the two tribes share a common historical root. By “anti-globalization” I mean here the idea that the globalizHabermas, for example, explicitly traces the source of his theory ing capitalist economy is an impersonal and (at least very nearly) of “system” back to Adam Smith (1981, 173, 402). Both sides inexorable machine, totally driven by its own laws and logic, and share the belief that the economy is a massive machine, and that inherently opposed to “good society” goals such as equity and it is populated by creatures who are, by the nature of the system, ecological sustainability. I can quote a distinguished contributor forced to act in autonomous, rational, and self-interested ways. to this journal, for example, to give the flavor of this view: Real human life is — dualistically — split off from the inhuman, tough world of economics, and assumed to happen in some other We all know that capitalism as an economic system has certain — more personal, softer, and perhaps therefore more “feminine” basic properties: its profit-maximizing imperatives make it dependent upon continued expansion and continually greater — realm of experience. 60
The Good Society
R E T H I N K I N G D E V E L O P M E N T A N D G L O B A L I Z AT I O N I think feminists should beg to differ. The experience of being enterprises. Both sides, because of their common belief in the female in a contemporary economy calls into question the abstract mechanical economy envisioned by Smith, are blind to the posimage of the economy as a machine. For one thing, economies are sibility — and necessity — of deliberative, responsible action highly gendered and discrimination does exist, in violation of the within contemporary economies. image of inexorable competitive pressures. While competition is “Anti-globalizers,” like neoliberals, could benefit from study fierce in certain parts of the global economy (for example, in the of actual economies. Within feminist economics, for example, a subcontracting of apparel assembly), the number of researchers have looked at idea that competition disciplines corpothe effect of corporate expansion into Within feminist economics, for rate behavior has generally been very the global South, especially when the example, a number of researchers much overstated. A business that faces firms primarily employ women. have looked at the effect of corpoenough competitive “slack” that it can Ideologically speaking, one should rate expansion into the global South, pay its CEO in the multi-millions could either praise this phenomenon as openespecially when the firms primarily clearly afford, instead, to improve working up women’s “choices” and “opporemploy women. Ideologically speaking conditions in its Caribbean factories tunities” or condemn it as another ing, one should either praise this or pre-treat the waste it puts into a river. example of corporate “global reach.” phenomenon as opening up women’s The economy is looser than the rigid Non-ideologically speaking, on the “choices” and “opportunities” or “iron cage” image implies. There is, other hand, one finds — not surpriscondemn it as another example of therefore, space for actual human ethical ingly — that the effects on women’s corporate “global reach.” Nondecision-making — for good or ill. well-being can be positive, negative, or ideologically speaking, on the other Another point that feminist econoeven both at the same time (e.g., hand, one finds — not surprisingly mists can make is that consideration of Kabeer 2004). And, as with much in — that the effects on women’s welltraditionally female occupations such as life, the devil is often in the details. being can be positive, negative, or teaching and nursing directly challenge Conclusion even both at the same time. And, as the notion that participants in the money with much in life, the devil is often economy are “only in it for the money.” Feminist economics suggests that at in the details. I believe that this insight can be taken least some of the power of neoliberal further. If workers such as nurses and thinking comes from the way its teachers look to their jobs for emotional, domain, methods and assumptions folcreative, and interpersonal fulfillment, isn’t it also so unlikely that low a particularly masculine-biased image of “scientific” workers and managers in other sorts of jobs might value the social research, which takes Newtonian mechanics as its model. My connections and opportunities to make meaningful contributions own interpretation of feminist insights leads me to believe that that their jobs might create? the weakness of many proposed alternatives to neoliberal globIf we start thinking this way about business, worker, and manalization can be traced to adoption of the same mechanical agerial behavior, the dualistic wall between the “inhuman” capmetaphor for capitalism. The hegemony of neoliberal thinking italist economic system and the “humane” lifeworld starts to does need to be challenged on the a priori grounds that it, in fact, break down. Contemporary economies can be recognized as lacks any actual intellectual validity. Even more, however, we complex human organizations, and places in which norms and need hands-on, empirical, and detailed research concerning the ethics matter (Nelson, 2003, 2005). effects of various policies and strategies of development and What this means for the critique of neoliberal globalization is globalization, and creative thinking about how social and envithat we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath ronmental responsibility can be fostered within evolving, conwater. Ideologies on either side blind us to the real institutions temporary economic institutions. and outcomes that surround us. Neoliberals explain away any observations of human suffering created by their policies by the Julie A. Nelson, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Associate at the excuse that these are merely “transition costs” on the way to a Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts brighter future. “Anti-globalization” prescriptions tend — when University. they are not exceedingly pessimistic — to be similarly utopian. Many “anti-globalization” theorists can only envision deliverReferences ance as arising from concession of corporate control to a purely wise and benevolent (?) state apparatus, or devolution of all ecoAgarwal, B., J. Humphries, and I. Robeyns. 2003. A special issue nomic activity into small worker- and community-owned on Amartya Sen’s work and ideas. Feminist Economics 9(2,3). Volume 14, Number 3, 2005
61
F E AT U R E D A R T I C L E S Alperovitz, Gar. 1995. “Sustainability and the System Problem,” The Good Society, 5(3). Amsden, Alice. 2001. The Rise of “the Rest”: Challenges to the West from Late-Industrializing Economies. New York: Oxford University Press. Bakker, Isabella (ed.) 1994. The Strategic Silence: Gender and Economic Policy. London: Zed Books. Benería, Lourdes. 2003. Gender, Globalization, and Development: Economics as if All People Mattered. NY: Routledge. Çagatay, Nilufer, Diane Elson and Caren Grown. 1996. “Introduction,” special issue on Gender, Adjustment and Macroeconomics, World Development, 23 (11), November: 1827–1938. Elson, Diane (ed.). 1991. Male Bias in the Development Process. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Ferber, Marianne A. and Julie A. Nelson. 2003. Feminist Economics Today: Beyond Economic Man. University of Chicago Press. Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Kabeer, Naila. 2004. Globalization, Labor Standards, and Women’s Rights: Dilemmas of Collective (In)action in an Interdependent World. Feminist Economics 10(1): 3–25. Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflection on Gender and Science. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. Meagher, Gabrielle and Julie A. Nelson. 2004. Survey Article: Feminism in the Dismal Science. Journal of Political Philosophy 12(1):102–126.
62
The Good Society
Nelson, Julie A. 1996. Feminism, Objectivity, and Economics. London: Routledge. _____. 2003. “Separative and Soluble Firms: Androcentric Bias and Business Ethics.” In M. A. Ferber and J. A. Nelson, eds., Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, University of Chicago Press: 81–99. _____. 2004. “Freedom, Reason, and More: Feminist Economics and Human Development,” Journal of Human Development 5(3): 309–333. _____. 2006. Economics for Humans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Forthcoming, August. Perkins, E., ed. 1997. Women, Ecology and Economics. Special issue of Ecological Economics, 20 (2). Rodrik, Dani. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC, 1997.
Endnotes 1. I am not, of course, attempting a full exposition of the (often richer and more complex) thought of these writers within this short essay. What is important for my purpose here is pointing out what has been carried on from their thought. 2. What I call “feminist economics” in this short essay cannot come close to describing the breadth and variety of the field. For a more detailed description and history of feminist economics see surveys such as Meagher and Nelson (2004) or Ferber and Nelson (2003), or issues of the journal Feminist Economics.
