Rethinking Development and Globalization: Insights from Feminist Economics PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236759707 Rethinking Development and Globalization: Insights from Feminist Economics Article in The Good Society · January 2005 DOI: 10.1353/gso.2006.0010 CITATIONS...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236759707 Rethinking Development and Globalization: Insights from Feminist Economics Article in The Good Society · January 2005 DOI: 10.1353/gso.2006.0010 CITATIONS READS 11 148 1 author: Julie Nelson University of Massachusetts Boston 234 PUBLICATIONS 3,701 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Economics for the Anthropocene View project All content following this page was uploaded by Julie Nelson on 15 February 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Rethinking Development and Globalization: Insights from Feminist Economics Nelson, Julie A., 1956- The 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 per- prescriptions of the Washington Consensus are currently press- fectly 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 con- Theorem 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 “inter- related 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 pre- ciency. 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 sim- to 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 econ- parable about how two countries can out of dissatisfaction with the main- omists have noted that the problems benefit by each specializing in produc- stream treatment of “women’s caused by cuts in social services often ing one good, and relying on trade to dictated by SAPs have often fallen issues.” Women’s traditional work in provide them with a second good. Not most heavily on women (Bakker, families, for example, was (and gen- all neoclassical economists are rabid 1994; Çagatay, Elson and Grown, erally still is) not counted as con- neoliberals, and some economic 1996; Elson, 1991). tributing to national economic well- research creates more scope for govern- More work needs to be done on the being because it does not pass ment action by tweaking the assump- effects of such policies, in detail and in through markets. The traditional tions of the core model. Yet the image of context, and on the design of specific division of labor between husbands a smoothly functioning perfectly com- alternatives. This essay, however, takes and wives had been modeled as a petitive market economy is still the on a more abstract, but also in many case of optimizing free choice. touchstone of “scientific” economics. ways more basic, question. Why is it Analogous to the case of nations The intellectual roots of this image that such policies continue to hold such who presumably gain from specializ- go back to Adam Smith’s assertion that sway, on not only a political but also an ing and trading, the free choice to the “invisible hand” of the market sys- intellectual level? Why have alterna- specialize in breadwinner/home- tem will automatically cause individu- tive approaches received so little maker roles was presumed to create als’ pursuit of self-interest to serve the acceptance? This essay describes how in-house “gains from trade.” social good. John Stuart Mill con- a 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 At the core of neoliberal thinking lies the belief that free trade, century as Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, and others realized they privatization, and unfettered capital flows are required in order to could mathematically formalize the image of the self-regulating unloose competitive market forces. These forces, in turn, are pre- system. By adapting models from Newtonian physics, calculus sumed to guarantee a one-way ride towards greater efficiency, could apparently be as easily applied to economic issues as it pre- prosperity, and economic growth. This belief gets its intellectual viously had been applied to the design of machinery. During the justification from the core model of contemporary Neoclassical 20th century, the appeal of the smooth mathematical models of economics. In the core model, rational, autonomous, self-interested optimizing decisions became so great that mainstream economics 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 for food, shelter, and care are cast into shadow. In each case, the into the “science of choice.” The standard textbook definition of favored side carries a masculine-associated gender connotation, the field today is that economics studies how people make while the marginalized side carries a feminine-associated gender choices, in the face of unlimited wants and scarce resources. connotation. While mainstream economists have taken this gen- Feminist critiques of Neoclassical economics began to gather der-slanted definition of the field as defining scientific “rigor,” steam during the late 1980s.2 Partly, the critiques grew out of dis- feminist economists have noted that what they really reflect is satisfaction with the mainstream treatment of “women’s issues.” masculinist bias. If science is, in fact, a process of free, open, and Women’s traditional work in families, for example, was (and gen- methodical inquiry, then the dogmas created by allegiance to a erally still is) not counted as contributing to national economic particular — and highly artificial — image of what economics well-being because it does not pass through markets. The tradi- should be like are obstacles, not aids. tional division of labor between husbands and wives had been The answer to this bias is not, however, to simply turn the modeled as a case of optimizing free choice. Analogous to the tables and adopt the feminine-associated aspects instead. Rather, case of nations who presumably gain from specializing and trad- the key is to get past the dualistic and hierarchical habits of ing, the free choice to specialize in breadwinner/homemaker roles thinking that give contrasts such as “reason vs. emotion” or was presumed to create in-house “gains from trade.” Women “generality vs. concreteness” their power. We are, in fact, economists interested in studying labor market discrimination rational and emotional beings. As scholars, we should value not often found their interests dismissed, because sex discrimination only precision and generality in our studies but also characteris- was not supposed to exist. In perfectly competitive markets, the tics like richness, fullness, concreteness, and applicability — core model implies, non-discriminating firms will hire the values hidden by the merely dualistic contrasts listed above cheaper productive women, have lower costs, and therefore drive (Nelson, 1996). any discriminating firm out of business. Women (and a few men) with a modicum of feminist sensibility found these dismissive Application to Neoliberalism explanations outrageous. How can feminist economics aid in rethinking development Partly, as well, the feminist critiques in economics rode on the and globalization? First and most obviously, many feminists have coattails of 1980s feminist research on the history of science questioned the “growth in Gross Domestic Product” definition of (Harding, 1986; Keller, 1985). As put by Sandra Harding, development. Feminists raise objections because GDP neglects household production, and because the traditional hyperfocusing Mind vs. nature and the body, reason vs. emotion and social of economists on this mathematically-measurable variable has commitment, subject vs. object and objectivity vs. subjectiv- caused a gross neglect of the roles of customs, power differen- ity, the abstract and the general vs. the concrete and particular tials, institutions, and innovations in development dynamics. But, – in each case we are told that the former must dominate the perhaps most importantly of all, GDP is a poor indicator of sus- latter lest human life be overwhelmed by irrational and alien tainable advancement in human well-being. Many feminist econ- forces, forces symbolized in science as the feminine. All these dichotomies play important roles in the intellectual structures omists have rejected the choice-theory definition of economics in of science, and all appear to be associated both historically favor of a definition in terms of “provisioning,” or how societies and in contemporary psyches with distinctively masculine organize themselves to create the means for human survival and sexual and gender identity projects. (1986, 25) flourishing (Nelson, 1996; Benería, 2003). Amartya Sen’s focus on “capabilities” has been adopted by many as a more satisfac- The power of these intellectual prejudices has been all too tory development goal — or at least as a good starting point for clear to those of us who studied mainstream economics. discussion (Agarwal, Humphries, Robeyns, 2003; Nelson, 2004) The domain of economics has been defined around markets, Ecological concerns have also played a role in feminist economic efficiency, and competition. Families, equity, and cooperation thought (Perkins, 1997). have been shunted to the side. Economists have put high value Feminist analysis can also be applied to the neoliberal pre- on mathematical methods that they believe lead to precision and scriptions of free trade and privatization. The model that generality, while they look down on other methods which they “shows” that free trade is good emphasizes choice, efficiency, believe lead only to vagueness and mere concreteness. and markets, and is created from thought-experiment manipula- “Economic man” has been assumed to be autonomous, self- tion of abstract logic. Observation of real-world concrete situa- interested, rational and to be, in essence, a mind that simply tions has been conspicuously lacking. The “gains from trade” prefers to have some goods and services, and prefers some goods parable is about how each country chooses its production and and services over others. Aspects of humanity concerned with consumption levels, and how free markets lead to efficiency in dependency, concern for others, emotions and actual bodily needs 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. levels of resource use. It, too, generates pressures to external- These are characteristics, as we have discussed, that are highly ize costs and to pollute … Nor is this because all corporate valued within the profession. leaders personally lack concern for the environment; it is What is left out in the parable? Many things are, among which because of the logic of the system: Business executives must take care of business — or they will be out of business!... are questions of history, constraints, institutions, distribution, power, fairness, interdependence, needs, vulnerability, and The logic and dynamics of the capitalist system are such that actual observation of real-world results over time. While neolib- companies must cut costs if they are to withstand competition erals tell less developed countries that they should open their … If a company willingly spends money on a pollution reduc- markets in order to advance, for example, the evidence suggests tion problem — and then raises its prices to cover the cost, it otherwise. Historically, countries that underwent bursts of indus- risks finding its market share reduced by a less conscientious trialization — including not only the U.S. and U.K, but also post rival firm. WWII industrializers such as Taiwan and South Korea — gener- (Alperovitz, 1995, 3) ally did so under regimes of high government involvement and tariff protection of infant industries (Amsden, 2001). Among What can a feminist-informed analysis of dualistic ways of contemporary economies, the relation between openness to trade thinking say about this? and speed of growth is far from clear (Rodrik, 1997). The intellectual roots of such a view go back to Karl Marx, Feminist analysis of biases in the creation of economic Max Weber, and Jürgen Habermas. Marx wrote about the pre- knowledge can help point out that — “scientific”-looking mod- sumably inherent dynamics of capitalist accumulation. Weber els to the contrary — mainstream Neoclassical development and characterized the economy as an “iron cage.” Habermas distin- international economics is an Emperor who has no clothes. guished between a “lifeworld” of communication, subjectivity, Many other critics have also pointed this out, but feminist analy- mutuality, and responsibility and a “system” arena driven by sis adds another dimension. Feminist economics explains how unconscious, objectifying forces. The message from these schol- the allegiance to a particular style of reasoning is deeply rooted, ars is clear: a capitalist economy cannot, by its inherent nature historically and psychologically, in gender-related ideology. In be a realm of responsibility and authentic human relations. Any this sense, feminist thought assists in a radical questioning of the one who tries to resist the inexorable forces of capitalism — model of neoliberal globalization. such as a business executive who would like to act out of con- cern for the environment (as discussed in the above quote) — Application to “Anti-Globalization” will presumably simply be crushed by the steamroller of compet- So far, the content of this essay may not be surprising, given itive market pressure. that I have been invited to write it for a journal that expresses But haven’t we just heard this story? This is also how the dissatisfaction with “current versions of … democratic capital- Neoclassicals explain why sex discrimination cannot exist. A ism” and aims to help in creating an company that refuses to hire a produc- “eventual restructuring of real world tive female will find that a less preju- 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 com- cover). I believe, however — and here “anti-globalization” views. pany’s expense, they say. Perfect com- I must emphasize that I do not purport to represent all feminist economists, petition means that nothing — whether but only a feminist-informed view — that feminist insights also well-intentioned or prejudicial — can offer a very significant critique of certain “anti-globalization” come between a firm and its profit! views. The reason the story is repeated by both Neoclassical and the By “anti-globalization” I mean here the idea that the globaliz- “anti” tribes is that the two tribes share a common historical root. ing capitalist economy is an impersonal and (at least very nearly) Habermas, for example, explicitly traces the source of his theory inexorable machine, totally driven by its own laws and logic, and of “system” back to Adam Smith (1981, 173, 402). Both sides inherently opposed to “good society” goals such as equity and share the belief that the economy is a massive machine, and that ecological sustainability. I can quote a distinguished contributor it is populated by creatures who are, by the nature of the system, to this journal, for example, to give the flavor of this view: forced to act in autonomous, rational, and self-interested ways. Real human life is — dualistically — split off from the inhuman, We all know that capitalism as an economic system has certain tough world of economics, and assumed to happen in some other basic properties: its profit-maximizing imperatives make it — more personal, softer, and perhaps therefore more “feminine” 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 pos- image 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 corpo- the effect of corporate expansion into rate behavior has generally been very Within feminist economics, for the global South, especially when the much overstated. A business that faces example, a number of researchers firms primarily employ women. enough competitive “slack” that it can have looked at the effect of corpo- Ideologically speaking, one should pay its CEO in the multi-millions could rate expansion into the global South, either praise this phenomenon as open- clearly afford, instead, to improve work- especially when the firms primarily ing up women’s “choices” and “oppor- ing conditions in its Caribbean factories employ women. Ideologically speak- tunities” or condemn it as another or pre-treat the waste it puts into a river. ing, one should either praise this example of corporate “global reach.” The economy is looser than the rigid phenomenon as opening up women’s Non-ideologically speaking, on the “iron cage” image implies. There is, “choices” and “opportunities” or other hand, one finds — not surpris- therefore, space for actual human ethical condemn it as another example of ingly — that the effects on women’s decision-making — for good or ill. corporate “global reach.” Non- well-being can be positive, negative, or Another point that feminist econo- ideologically speaking, on the other even both at the same time (e.g., mists can make is that consideration of hand, one finds — not surprisingly Kabeer 2004). And, as with much in traditionally female occupations such as — that the effects on women’s well- life, the devil is often in the details. teaching and nursing directly challenge being can be positive, negative, or even both at the same time. And, as Conclusion the notion that participants in the money economy are “only in it for the money.” with much in life, the devil is often Feminist economics suggests that at I believe that this insight can be taken in the details. 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 fol- creative, 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 glob- If we start thinking this way about business, worker, and man- alization can be traced to adoption of the same mechanical agerial behavior, the dualistic wall between the “inhuman” cap- metaphor 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 envi- that we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath ronmental responsibility can be fostered within evolving, con- water. 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 deliver- References ance as arising from concession of corporate control to a purely wise and benevolent (?) state apparatus, or devolution of all eco- Agarwal, 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,” Nelson, Julie A. 1996. Feminism, Objectivity, and Economics. The Good Society, 5(3). London: Routledge. Amsden, Alice. 2001. The Rise of “the Rest”: Challenges to the _____. 2003. “Separative and Soluble Firms: Androcentric Bias West from Late-Industrializing Economies. New York: Oxford and Business Ethics.” In M. A. Ferber and J. A. Nelson, eds., University Press. Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, Bakker, Isabella (ed.) 1994. The Strategic Silence: Gender and University of Chicago Press: 81–99. Economic Policy. London: Zed Books. _____. 2004. “Freedom, Reason, and More: Feminist Economics Benería, Lourdes. 2003. Gender, Globalization, and Development: and Human Development,” Journal of Human Development 5(3): Economics as if All People Mattered. NY: Routledge. 309–333. Çagatay, Nilufer, Diane Elson and Caren Grown. 1996. _____. 2006. Economics for Humans. Chicago: University of “Introduction,” special issue on Gender, Adjustment and Macroe- Chicago Press. Forthcoming, August. conomics, World Development, 23 (11), November: 1827–1938. Perkins, E., ed. 1997. Women, Ecology and Economics. Special Elson, Diane (ed.). 1991. Male Bias in the Development Process. issue of Ecological Economics, 20 (2). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Rodrik, Dani. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Institute Ferber, Marianne A. and Julie A. Nelson. 2003. Feminist for International Economics, Washington, DC, 1997. Economics Today: Beyond Economic Man. University of Chicago Press. Endnotes Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist 1. I am not, of course, attempting a full exposition of the (often Reason. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. richer and more complex) thought of these writers within this short Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. essay. What is important for my purpose here is pointing out what Ithaca: Cornell University Press. has been carried on from their thought. Kabeer, Naila. 2004. Globalization, Labor Standards, and 2. What I call “feminist economics” in this short essay cannot Women’s Rights: Dilemmas of Collective (In)action in an come close to describing the breadth and variety of the field. For a Interdependent World. Feminist Economics 10(1): 3–25. more detailed description and history of feminist economics see sur- Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflection on Gender and Science. veys such as Meagher and Nelson (2004) or Ferber and Nelson New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. (2003), or issues of the journal Feminist Economics. 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 View publication stats