Doc

Summary: This paper addresses the feminist perspective in economy and the significance of gender relations governing the allocation of resources at household, market and state levels. Gender is a complex category using economic structure, symbols and identities to express culturally and socially constructed differences between men and women. Decision on who is to generate income outside family and how the family income is to be allocated are strongly gender structured and based on power relations. They greatly influence not only the relations within households and enterprises, but also market relations and the state’s economic policy, and thus the total economic and social development of any national economy.

Key words: gender methodology and indicators, household resource economy

Feminist methodology and gender indicators – definition and methodology

The entire economic science is about answering the key question: how limited resources are distributed, allocated and used by people in economy not only at global level but also at macro- (national) level, meso- (sectoral and local community level) and micro-levels (household, company, individual). Despite the pronounced absence of people at the level of macroeconomic theory and measurement, economic science is built on assumptions of rational individuals and natural reproduction, according to which women’s work is infinitely elastic, and the belief that all factors are relatively equally mobile.

The analysis of economy in a feminist sense is based on understanding unequal power relations between men and women and the need to transform the current power relations towards gender equality. Feminist economics identifies gender inequalities within economy, defines gender objectives for economic policy and develops gender indicator necessary to observe how gender objectives are being achieved. Feminist economy redefines economy from the viewpoint of gender as an analytic category and its relation to other identity categories such as racial, class and gender orientation, comprising and demonstrating the governing hierarchies and privileges in economic and social systems.

Gender affects economy, but economy also affects gender relations – such as different positions of men and women on labour market – labour market segregation makes it less efficient, and is based on the gender assumption of ‘appropriate’ jobs for women. Using gender as an analytic category, one considers inequalities that occur between men and women in the private and public spheres of their action. Gender inequalities between men and women stem from their different social roles and unequal power relations (such as work invested in care).

Feminist economics is a scientific and theoretic discipline approaching economic issues from a wider social and political standpoint. It enhances all existing theoretical approaches to economy (neo-classical, post-Keynesian, neo-institutional) with political, interdisciplinary, philosophical approach to economy, demonstrating that the lack of gender analysis is related to male interpretation of science as a whole.

Feminist critique of methodological individualism and other key assumptions of economics is a challenge to market economic paradigm. The economic assumption of a rational and genderless economic agent implies an assumption of traditional gender roles, racial, class and national hierarchies and thus a privileged male agent. Feminist economics investigates the ways in which theoretic concepts of economics are gendered, and how gendered concepts and theories help in the distribution of power relations and status.

The feminist perspective (Barker, Drucilla, and Edith Kuiper, 2003, pp.1-18, Bina Agarwal, ed., 2004, pp. 1-2, Bina Agarwal, 2004, pp. 2-6, Dian Elson 2004, pp. 6-9) simultaneously offers a theoretical and ethical position. In the ontological sense, feminist economics starts from the position that events and experiences rather than objects are the basic factors of reality in an imperfect and evolving world whose main determinants are time and changes. Objectivity does not exist, as each one of us comprises a component of reality with our own positions (Amartya Sen’s ‘positional objectivity’). Ethical attitudes (such as the elimination of discrimination and human rights, equality of people and nations) are, thus an integral part of economic analysis and evaluation. Outside statistical mathematical and economist reasoning, there is a multitude of explanations conceptualising economy as an integral part of cultural power relations and changes in line with ethic and democratic principles. In feminist economics, human welfare is the measure of success, and housework and care work are included in the economic analysis and evaluation of an economy’s performances. Accordingly, the key areas of feminist, but increasingly of traditional economic analysis as well are: market, state and household.

Feminist economics is focussed on a variety of approaches in economic analysis (problem-oriented approach):

1. Structuralist approach identifies and analyses gender as an economic phenomenon through structures, symbolism and identity;

2. Empirical approach identifies measurable gender inequalities by gathering and analysing primary and secondary data;

3. Political approach analyses possible policies aimed at improving economic positions of women and girls (such as the impact of fiscal policy on women).

Gender is expressed in economy and society (Sandra Harding) in three ways, through:

1. Economic structures: segregated markets, discrimination in wages, labour division etc expressed in economic variables, institutions, policies and models;

2. Symbols: femininity vs. masculinity, job characteristics, paid vs. unpaid work, mathematical vs. verbal explanation;

3. Identity expressed in preferences, rationality, beliefs and metaphors.

Gender indicators in feminist economic analysis

Gender sensitive indicators contribute to the visibility of women’s position and the dimensions of gender inequalities in economy and society. Gender indicators offer a possibility of comparing various accomplishments of various development actors over time and various relationships established between gender inequality and economic growth, economic and social development (Tables on GDI and GEM, Human Development Report 2004: 310 –330, Rekha Mehra and Sarah Gammage, 1999: 533- 550). Alternative gender indicators focus on measuring human dimensions of development in terms of evaluating choices and opportunities which women and men face, their freedom and dignity, self-respect and respect for others, and which greatly surpass their incomes – an example of feminisation of poverty (Durbin Elizabeth, 1999: 104- 108, Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko, 1999: 99-104).

The lack of indices of economic and social growth and gender inequalities, their insufficient disaggregation and gender sensibility is one of the key manifestations of the problem i.e. situation in Serbia (Sanja Ćopić, 2001: 11-37, Marija Lukić, 2002: 2- 8, Marija Lukić i Slađana Jovanović, 2002, Tatjana Đurić Kuzmanovic, 2002: 49- 65).

Household economics – a feminist view of intra-household resource allocation

Economics processes occur in two key spheres of human activity. The private sphere comprises production for domestic purposes, whereas the public sphere comprises production for exchange and accumulation.

What is a household and why is it significant? Household is a social institution. It is in the household that specific relationship patterns between units as biological and social beings are established. These relationship patterns are based on various gender ideologies – socially constructed roles – whereby men and women are defined differently in relation to one another. Gender is therefore the basis for their material and social inequality.

Three forms of reproduction occur simultaneously in a household: biological, labour and social. Reproduction occurs within a household through: consumption of goods, childcare, clothing maintenance, providing accommodation, maintaining hygiene and cleanliness, and providing care for household members, and wider to persons outside the household.

Household reproduction requires resource allocation. Women’s labour predominates in the processes of providing these biologically and socially required services. Resource allocation occurring within a household is a prerequisite for resource allocation occurring through the market.

The unitary model of intra-household resource allocation

According to the unitary model (Gary Becker), the intra-household allocation of work is based on comparative advantages of all household members based on which their work is allocated between the household and the market. Maximising the household welfare is a result of intra-household gender division of labour based on the decision of the male household member. Abandoning the assumption of the male ‘benevolent dictator’ who makes all the key decisions in the household, leads to the domain of intrahousehold conflicts and inequalities resolved through various co-operative and uncooperative models or negotiation models (World Bank, 2001: 147-180; Appendix of World Bank, 2001: 307-312).

The feminist critique of unitary model

Feminist critique of unitary models (Blau F, Ferber M and Winkler, A, 1998: 31-75) refers to the critique of: the concept of household itself; the concept of individual preferences, the logic of competition; the concept of gender homogenous work and identity; unitary production function of the household. Feminist economists approach household as a social institution, meaning that our preferences in the household are not formed independently, but rather as a result of numerous social factors, various lexicographical preferences, demonstration effects and income levels. Our choices are socially constructed and determined, and therefore our behaviour can surpass our individually formed preferences. The logic of competition and contest cannot be fully transferred onto the household situation. Our decisions regarding supply and demand are inseparably interlocked, and cannot be separated theoretically or empirically.

Men and women have different approach to intrahousehold resources, approach reflecting their asymmetrical gender identities, so that consequently the production opportunities that they face are different. Households have a gender specific production function within which the production factors cannot be easily substituted by one another, both within and outside the household. Work can be differentiated on the basis of gender, age and status – gender relations are socially constructed and reflect the structure of household and asymmetrical gender identities of household members. The assumption of intra-household resource allocation is problematic, because in many cases men and women do not share resources, but rather have different approaches to different resources and thereby different types of income, resulting in gender specific consumption patterns. The common utility function is often fictitious, being based on the assumption that some household members will altruistically submit their individual tastes and preferences to the needs of household

Care economy

Women are largely absent from economics, both as researchers and the subject of economic research. The situation is the same in terms of economic evaluation of domestic, traditionally women’s work. Therefore the huge significance of feminist economic analysis of the quantitative and qualitative significance of unpaid work in economy.

Care economy is the allocation of scarce resources (mostly work) contributing to the welfare of others, within and outside household (Susan Himmelweit, 1999: 27- 38, Folbre Nancy, 1995: 73-92 Lourdes Beneria, 1999: 287 -309). Care work comprises specific activities such as child care, providing for others’ needs without expected reciprocation and without remuneration. Similar are the concepts of family work and unpaid work. The most common motives of care providers are altruism, expectation of long-term reciprocation, or obligation and responsibility.

Moral values cannot be bought or sold on the market. On the other hand, the positive external effects of care are that while providing care we learn values such as trust, loyalty, responsibility and reputation that reduce transaction costs on the market as well (e.g. asymmetric information). In a negative sense, the values of care can be abused (when somebody wants to be educated but is expected to care for a family member).

Dimensioning care is complex. Intuitively, however, it is possible to draw a boundary between care as unpaid work and leisure activity (the teacup story). Somewhere between making and drinking tea is a demarcation line: it is the context that makes a difference. The dimensions of the economy of care are illustrated by the fact that globally, out of the total (paid and unpaid) hours worked, men take up 47% and women 53% (HDI, UNDP, 1995). In other words, ¾ of total men’s hours worked is paid work, compared to 2/3 of women’s total hours worked that are paid. It is estimated that the financial value of unpaid work is 70% of global GNP (HDI, UNDP, 1995).

Feminist redefinition of economics as a science dealing with the allocation of scarce resources, therefore, refers to three interlocked key economic domains: market (exchange relations), state (redistribution relations) and care economy (gift relations).

Macro economy – the market and a State as engendered institutions

The experiences of structural adaptation of global economy in the 1980’s, globalisation and transition processes, have confirmed the deterioration of the position of women in many aspects of human development. Such a situation has resulted in a growing interest of feminist economists in investigating the interdependence of macro economy, gender and development. The general conclusion of the feminist analysis of the above mentioned processes was that the deterioration of women’s economic and social position is the result of their minor influence on the decisions shaping their lives, in relation to men.

The neo-liberal approach to economic development and economic policy, based on methodological individualism, ‘naturalness’ of the market and the rational economic actor, was profoundly shaken by events and trends occurring in the global economy (Asian economic crisis, liberalisation of global trade and the Washington Consensus). The issues of social policy (Joseph Stiglitz, 2002 : 23-52) thus reach the focus of the debate on desirable macroeconomic policy. With their analysis, feminist economists have disclosed the ways in which gender inequalities occur in domains such as trade, financial services, and international labour division.

Feminist economists have exposed the popular myths (FENN Seminar Report, 2002: 35 - 62) occurring in the context of globalisation:

- That exploiting women is better than excluding them from the development process;

- That women working in export oriented industries are in privileged position;

- That globalisation and the development of information and communication; technologies will facilitate access to information for women;

- That privatising social services leads to the increase in their efficiency;

- That macroeconomic policy must be evaluated by market criteria.

The effect of the market relies on the effect of social and institutional norms reflecting asymmetrical power relations based on the interdependence of the categories of gender, race and class. The market and a State are institutions comprised of formal rules, conventions and informal codes of conduct limiting human autonomy. These institutions have a gender dimension reflecting and influencing the institutional context.

Markets are gendered (Lourdes Beneria, 2003: 63-90), as the purchases and sales on the market are bound by gender relations and the changing constructions of gender identities.

Capital, land and goods are also gendered, because what happens in the family in terms of time and resource allocation influences how a household is included into the factor and commodity markets.

The role of state is important in the development process, but state macroeconomic policy does not necessarily have to be a neo-liberal one. Moreover, neo-liberal policy is often inefficient in the realisation of macroeconomic goals. What is necessary today is a macroeconomic policy that is gender sensitive (Nilufer Cagatay, 2003: 22-41, Ingrid Palmer, 2003: 42-87). For example, the aim of a balanced budget, or the reduction of its deficit/sufficit does not be have to be achieved only by focussing on cost cuts. An alternative to it may be an increase in state revenue, or redistribution of state revenue within the budget itself. Namely, among the budget expenditures, items supported by strong political interests, such as defence budget, tend to decrease less than it is the case, for instance, with costs aimed at satisfying the interests of the poor and women.

The experiences of globalisation and transition in Serbia

The subordinate position of women is analysed in the context of directed non-development and patriarchal society (Tatjana Đurić Kuzmanović, 2002). One defines directed non-development as a process occurring in Serbia in the nineties, i.e. a process of institutional, state discouragement of economic and social development in Serbia. In other words, the state took measures to prevent transition (for example, the privatisation in the early nineties and subsequent revalorisation of already privatised capital, with a simultaneous rapid process of bottom-up conversion of socially-owned capital into private hands).

The subordinate position of women dates back to the socialist era. In short, the socialist state proclaimed a humanisation of gender relations and gender equality. Accordingly, women were supposed to be at the same time participants in the process of socialist economy as a whole equally with men, as well as educators and carers of future generations. In reality, patriarchal gender regimes dominated women’s lives inside the household, and gender inequalities remained present both in the private and public spheres of women’s lives. Women were more commonly employed in poorly paid industries (such as textile) or services. Gender-based wage difference for the same quality and quantity of work occurred both in apparent and latent forms: compared to men, women received 15% lower salaries or when the salary was the same, they were given jobs below their education levels.

Such women’s position was added to by the austere nineties. Serbian Socialist government was refusing transition, while simultaneously dragging the country through dramatic economic and social changes and wars. These dramatic changes had their synthetic expression in a sharp rise in poverty among the population, even higher that the social price of transition paid by other countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Women in Serbia experienced the painful consequences of the government’s nationalist and sexist policies. Women were favoured as mothers and carers, but hindered in expressing their own total potentials. Patriarchal social relations and sexism were a basis on which women were represented as symbols of nationalist polity. It was a context which one terms state-supported gender discrimination against women. This context was rooted in the lack of specific non-violent culture and decomposition of the society as a consequence of all above mentioned.

Passing the Law on Employment and Law on Privatisation (2001) inaugurated the beginning of the transition of our current economic system towards an economy with an integral marked comprised of factors (work and capital) and final products. Transitional changes and privatisation have lead to further growth of unemployment among women, primarily as a result of confluence of two opposed trends: fall in the demand for women’s work and rise in the supply of female labour.

The arguments above speak in favour of a need to redefine state policy in terms of gender, i.e. to focus the state’s attitude towards gender first towards the economic aspect of gendering so as to consider the costs and benefits contained in gender as a category. To promote gender equalities during the period of transition and privatisation of Serbian economy, the state must provide an adequate answer to at least these key questions:

- How much does it cost when a woman really earns as much as a man?

- How expensive is it not to take in consideration women’s leadership and total potential?

The key question is how economic policy car be reformulated so as to benefit women, and whether economic policy can be reformulated at all, in view of women’s multiple roles and social construction of their lives. Significant gender sensitive questions to be posed in the process of economic restructuring, which are usually neglected, refer to intrahousehold labour division, gender segregation of labour market and social gender costs (health, safety, violence). The analysis of gender relations should therefore include: the market (where, due to women’s labour invested in reproduction, a woman does not enter with the same resources and mobility as a man), and expert approach to the state policy and the budget.

Literature:

1. ----- ‘Myths and Working Group Discussions’ in: FENN Seminar Report, 2002, Gender Tools for the Development. A Feminist Economics Perspective on Globalisation, The Hague: Institute of Social Studies, 2002, pp. 35-62

2. Amartja Sen, ‘Aktivnost žena i društvene promene’ u: Razvoj kao sloboda, Beograd, Filip Višnjić, 2002, str.227 - 242

3. Amartja Sen, ‘Uvod: Razvoj kao sloboda’ u: Razvoj kao sloboda, Beograd, Filip Višnjić, 2002, str.19 – 28

4. Appendix 4 of World Bank, Engendering Development: Through Gender Equalitz in Rights, Resources and Voice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 307 –312

5. Barker, Drucilla, and Edith Kuiper, ‘Introduction: Sketching the Contours of a Feminist Philosophy of Economics’, in Drucilla Barker and Edith Kuiper, (eds.) Toward a Feminist Philosophy of Economics. London: Routledge, 2003, pp.1-18

6. Bina Agarwal, ‘Challenging Mainstream Economics: Effectivenes, Relevance and Responsibility’, IAFFE Newsletter, 14(3), 2004, pp. 2-6

7. Bina Agarwal, ed. ‘Feminist Economics as a Challenge to Mainstream Economics?’ IAFFE Newsletter, 14(3), 2004, pp. 1-2

8. Blau F, Ferber M and Winkler, A, ‘The family as an Economic Unit’, in The Economics of Women, Men and Work, 3^rd edition, Saddle River, New Jerse: Prentice Hall, 1998, pp. 31-75,

9. Dian Elson, ‘Feminist economics Challenges Mainstream Macroeconomics’ IAFFE Newsletter, 14(3), 2004, pp. 6-9

10. Durbin Elizabeth, ‘Towards a Gendered Human Poverty Measure’, Feminist Economics 5(2) 1999: 105 - 108

11. Folbre, Nancy,’ Holding Hands at Midnight: the Paradox of Caring Labour’, Feminist Economics 1 (1), 1995, pp.73-92.

12. Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko, ‘What Does Feminization of Poverty Mean? Isn’t Just Lack of Income’, Feminist Economics 5 (2), 1999, pp. 99-104.

13. Harding, Sandra, ‘Can Feminist Though Make Economic more Objective?’ Feminist Economics 1 (1) 1995, pp.7-32

14. Ingrid Palmer, 'Macro-economics and Gender: Options for their Integration into a State Agenda', in: Martha Gutierrez (ed.), Macro-Economics. Making Gender Matter. Concepts, Policies and Institutional Change in Developing Countries, London, New York: Zed Books, GTZ, 2003, pp. 42-87

15. Isabella Bakker, The Strategic Silence. Gender and Economic Policy, London, Ottawa: Zed Books and The North-South Institute, 1988

16. Joseph Stiglitz, ‘Broken Promises’ in: Globalization and Its Discontents, London: Allen Lane and Penguin Books, 2002, pp. 23- 52

17. Lourdes Beneria, ‘Markets, Globalization and Gender’ in: Gender, Development and Globalization. Economisc as if All People Mattered, New York and London: Routledge, 2003, pp. 63 – 90

18. Lourdes Beneria, 'The Enduring Debate over Unpaid Labour', International Labour review, 138 (3), 1999, pp. 287 -309

19. Marija Lukić i Slađana Jovanović, Konkurentnost žena sa decom na tržištu rada, Beograd: Glas razlike, 2002

20. Marija Lukić, ‘Ekonomski položaj žena 1990 – 2002’ u: Ekonomski ravnopravne, Beograd: Glas razlike, 2002, str. 2-8

21. Marilyn Waring, If Women Counted. A new Feminist Economics, London: Macmillan, 1989

22. Nilufer Cagatay, 'Engendering Macro-economics', in: Martha Gutierrez (ed.), Macro-Economics. Making Gender Matter. Concepts, Policies and Institutional Change in Developing Countries, London, New York: Zed Books, GTZ, 2003, pp. 22-41,

23. Rekha Mehra i Sarah Gammage, ‘Trends, Countertrends, and Gaps in Women Employment’, World Development, 27(3) 1999: 533- 550

24. Richard Swedberg, ‘Gary S. Becker’ in Economics and Sociology, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990, pp. 27-60

25. Sanja Ćopić, ‘Položaj i uloga žene u društvu’, u: Ljiljana Dobrosavljević Grujić (ur.) Žene u Srbiji. Da li smo diskriminisane? Beograd: Sekcija žena UGS ‘Nezavisnost’ i ICFTU CEE Women’s Network, 2001, str. 11-37

26. Susan Himmelweit, ‘Caring Labour’ in Annals of the American Academz of Political and Social Science, 561 (0), 1999: 27- 38

27. Tables on GDI and GEM. 2004, in Human Development Report 2004, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 217- 237,

28. Tatjana Djurić Kuzmanović, 2001, Ekonomika Jugoslavije. Ekonomika razvoja i tranzicije, Novi Sad: Alef

29. Tatjana Djuric Kuzmanovic, Rodnost i razvoj u Srbiji – od dirigovanog nerazvoja do tranzicije, dvojezično (Gender and Development in Serbia – From Directed Non-development to Transition), Novi Sad: Budućnost i Ženske studije i istraživanja, 2002, str.49 – 65

30. World Bank, Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources and Voice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 147- 180