ECONOMICS IN QUESTION: A WOMEN’S PERSPECTIVE

WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN

ALLIANCE DE RECHERCHE IREF/RELAIS-FEMMES

ECONOMICS IN QUESTION:

A WOMEN'S PERSPECTIVE

“The World March of Woman began thousands of years ago. We have come a long way and have yet to reach our destination. Less than a century ago—a mere blip in history—women had no identity, no professional, civil, political, or social status. Throughout the ages and around the planet women's underclass status was never cause for concern because the domination of one sex over the other was camouflaged—attractively and practically—by love, the need to reproduce the species and family obligation. Today the oppressor of women is neoliberalism, globalization, sub-contracting, open markets, unbridled capitalism, performance, excellence, and deregulation.”

(Québec writer Hélène Pedneault, “Manifeste pour la Marche mondiale des Femmes au Québec,” October 2000)

Discussion paper submitted to the World March of Women's working group on feminist economic alternatives

January 2004

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2

Goal of this document

Our bias

Building alliances

The World March Of Women and the economy: how should we continue the work we have begun?

In the context of current globalization

1 FEMINISM AS THE PRINCIPAL REFERENCE 5

Multiple and diverse feminist perspectives

An area of convergence: the critique of patriarchy

Revisit the WMW's conception of systems of oppression

Distancing ourselves from essentialism

2 WHY AND HOW TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE DOMINANT

ECONOMIC DISCOURSE? 7

What are we referring to?

Why call into question the dominant economic discourse?

How to level radical criticism?

3 WOMEN'S WORK: THE INVISIBLE HEART OF THE ECONOMY 11

What exactly is reproductive work?

Productive work: what is the state of the gender-based division of labour?

Women's initiatives to change work

Can women change the place of work in everyday life?

4 HOW CAN WOMEN CONTRIBUTE TO THINKING DIFFERENTLY

ABOUT WEALTH?

13

CONCLUSION

ECONOMICS IN QUESTION:

A WOMEN'S PERSPECTIVE

INTRODUCTION

Goal of this paper

The World March of Women (WMW) formed a working group to develop “feminist economic alternatives.” Before we can do this we must begin with some analytical work: the deconstruction, or radical critique of the dominant economic discourse from a feminist perspective. This is the goal of our paper. We will not discuss alternatives at this time; that will be the subject of a later paper.

This paper aims to serve as a tool to contribute to and guide the thinking and discussions of the working group. More precisely, it aims to identify key questions to spark discussions in the working group and to subsequently present to the international network. The questions are of different orders: some are theoretical while others are more political or strategic in nature. It is for the members of the working group to decide whether they are the right questions, if they are properly formulated, or if questions are missing.

Our bias

This text is heavily influenced by its origins: North American Québec feminist researchers and activists who are for the most part Caucasian and French-speaking. Needless to say, our references to two colloquia and other documentary sources are far from being representative of the whole range of economic theorizing from a woman's perspective! Thus, we clearly acknowledge and assume our bias. This paper will have relevance at the international level only to the extent that women representing other feminist analyses and feminist researchers and activists from other countries and cultures respond and add to it.

Building alliances

This work has been inspired by the desire to construct alliances between World March of Women activists and feminist researchers from all disciplines, in particular feminist economists. A rich body of work is constantly being produced by researchers criticizing the dominant economic model and proposing alternative theory and practice; however, the process does not always include dialogue with grass-roots activists, or if so, only in a sporadic and unsystematic manner.

The condition of women throughout the world increasingly calls for both an ideological and practical response, and allying with feminist researchers constitutes an important strategy for the women's movement.

The World March of Women and the economy: how should we continue the work we have begun?

The position of the WMW is based on two affirmations: “At the global level, the WMW wishes to break definitively with neoliberal capitalism and patriarchy” (WMW, 1999). This stand was, among other things, a response to the heartfelt plea of a Filipina feminist during the first international meeting of the March in 1998: “No more structural adjustments—we want structural transformation.” More than describe the consequences, it was important to address the structural causes of poverty and violence against women.

The World March of Women therefore proposed a range of demands concerning poverty and violence against women, but without much discussion or analysis about what motivated this critical stance. The demands were formulated in 1998 in a specific context and since then they have been the subject of debate and reflection. Women have criticized the poverty demands in particular because they do not sufficiently reflect a feminist economic perspective.

In addition, almost all the poverty demands (Tobin tax, debt cancellation for Third World countries, etc.) mirror the positions taken by alternative globalization social movements. Certainly, feminists are active in these movements, but without necessarily integrating a feminist perspective. Our solution was to simply try to inject feminist content into the demands. This was problematic, given the fact that we want to think about and transform the economy with women and from women's point of view.

These observations, together with the WMW's activities in the global arena, in particular its involvement in the World Social Forum since 2001 and its increasingly close ties with the alternative globalization movement (which is also committed to transforming the economy), gave rise to a more urgent question: how do we approach the economy from a feminist perspective? This concern led in two directions: what is our critique of the dominant economics and what economic alternatives can we propose from a feminist perspective?

In the context of current globalization

The WMW has developed positions on globalization that emphasize the negative impact of this political and economic process on women (WMW 2000). Meanwhile, feminist authors (Hirata, 2003) urge us to take into account the paradoxical aspects of globalization, rather than cling to a single viewpoint that refuses to acknowledge this situation. For example:

These paradoxes accentuate the contradictions between women in the global North and women in the global South, contradictions which, among other things, are illustrated by immigration and are clearly linked to international prostitution and sex trafficking networks.

The same analyses reveal areas of convergence, for example:

QUESTION: How should the WMW incorporate these paradoxes and convergences in its analysis of globalization?

The WMW developed a critical position regarding the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF); specifically, in the context of its meeting with the leaders of these institutions (WMW, 2000), an analysis based on women's equality rights within the globalization process. The leaders of these two bodies were quick to affirm their commitment to women's equality, citing as evidence the fact that their anti-poverty programs take gender into account and feature measures specifically addressed to women.

While obtaining equality would certainly constitute a major gain for women, feminist analysts have shown the dangers of this demand when it is appropriated by international financial institutions: “Women's equality is not accorded solely on the basis of their right to dignity and their place in the human family, but also because of the usefulness of equality in terms of how it can serve the common interest . . . The meaning of `woman' is fluid, varying from the individual to wife, mother, and `social' mother” (Mestrum, 2003: 39).

QUESTION: How can the WMW draw on this critical feminist discourse, both in its analytical work on globalization and its strategies for participating in the major international forums?

1 FEMINISM AS THE PRINCIPAL REFERENCE

1.1. Multiple and diverse feminist perspectives

In writing this paper, we intended to begin by affirming that feminism, as a political choice and theory, constitutes the principal reference point for a critique of the economy. But it's not as simple as that, because feminism comprises diverse and often diverging theoretical and political tendencies. For example, the economic vision will vary greatly depending on whether one is a liberal and egalitarian feminist, a Marxist or socialist feminist, or a radical or radical materialist feminist (CDAFQ and Relais-Femmes, 1997). Furthermore, when the particular situations of Black, Indigenous, or lesbian women are taken into consideration, the universal “we” (associated with white women from the global North, etc.) ceases to be and we are faced with the necessity of another critical assessment of the dominant economic model.

Similarly, when we describe ourselves as having a feminist economic perspective on mainstream—neoclassical or orthodox—economics, we refer here too to a variety of heterodox theories that feminist economists both draw on and critique (Morel, Rose, Mendel, 2003a): Keynesianism, Marxism, institutionalism, regulationism, evolutionism, Polanyism, etc.

Also, there is the work that has emerged out of ecological feminism, which examines the relationship between women's work and ecology (Perkins, 1996); the Women and Economy Workshop of the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World, that has studied women's economic initiatives in different countries (Sabourin and Belleau); and the thinking on the solidarity, participative, ecological, daily life, gift “economies,” etc.

These references are only the tip of the iceberg. It is therefore impossible in this paper to describe the totality of the critical production and reflect all its richness.

QUESTION: Should the WMW adopt all these perspectives? Should it focus on a few of them to critically review the March's demands? How do we choose among them?

1.2. An area of convergence: the critique of patriarchy as an independent political, economic, social and cultural system that oppresses women

A major contribution of all the feminist critiques of mainstream economic thought and the dominant economic system (neoliberal capitalism and also the communist and socialist regimes of various eras) is the revelation of patriarchy as an independent system that:

1.3. Revisit the WMW's conception of systems of oppression based on gender, class and race

The Advocacy Guide of the World March of Women contains a definition of the target of our demands: neoliberal capitalism, patriarchy and how they mutually reinforce and intersect with each other. This analysis takes gender and class into consideration but:

QUESTION: Should the WMW redefine its position, taking into account gender, class and race?

1.4. Distancing ourselves from essentialism

Essentialist feminists believe in the existence of an inherently benign feminine essence contained in women's genes that could serve as the basis for constructing an economic model. This tendency is hotly contested by feminists of other persuasions: there is no female `nature,' only cultural and social power relationships between women and men that cross social classes, geographic boundaries, etc. Women's historical position of institutionalized social inferiority is what gives them the ability to bring another perspective to economics. “There is no `woman's' way of thinking about economics. The diversity of women's experience and situations places them in a position to contest the instrumental character of capitalist economic rationality” (Lamoureux, 2003 c).

QUESTION: What position should the WMW take regarding essentialism?

2 WHY AND HOW TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE DOMINANT ECONOMIC DISCOURSE

What are we referring to?

The “dominant economy” and the “dominant economic discourse” is not exactly the same thing. We can criticize economic systems (capitalism, socialism, etc.) and we can criticize the dominant discourse underlying the system of production and reproduction. It is the dominant discourse we are referring to here.

What hides behind the dominant economy? What is the theoretical basis of capitalism? It is a single school of thought, the neoclassical school, which is presented as the only true science of economics. Some of its characteristics are as follows:

• A discourse situated in time: The dominant economic discourse does not come out of the blue; it has very precise historical roots (anchored in time and resulting from a balance of power—not genetically predetermined or due to the “nature of things”). It started to be developed in the late 19th century and gradually became the sole reference in economics. It is presented as the science, not as a historical construct.

• A discourse based on dogma deemed irrefutable (Morel, 2003 a; Rose, 2003 a; Mendel, 2003 a). The dominant discourse has its own “absolute truths” that pollute even the most critical minds. The media echo these truths, thereby bestowing on them the gloss of legitimacy. The universities transmit them uncritically. Here are some of them:

• A discourse advocated very largely by men. The Chicago Boys, IMF economists, bankers, etc.

Why call into question the dominant economic discourse?

Because it constitutes:

Women have their own reasons for attacking this dominant economic theory since the neoclassical school:

How to level radical criticism at the dominant economic discourse?

Many theoretical and practical feminist writings are the basis on which we can deconstruct the dominant discourse and glimpse a new way of thinking about the economy. There are more ways than one of doing this. Some approaches are more deductive (go from theory to practice) and others are more inductive (start from women's lives and economic practices to build one or more theories). Still others will focus on sectors or themes (gender-based evaluations of social policies, budgets, welfare state programs, employment, etc.).

These are some avenues to explore (bearing in mind that they are not all of the same kind; some are theoretical, others political, strategic or methodological).

Starting from the affirmation of rights and looking at the question of women's poverty differently

This political stand is not recent in the feminist movement. It is by affirming the right to equality that feminists are undermining one of the cornerstones of neoclassical theory, based on the appropriation, by the father, the husband, the boss and the State, of women's productive and reproductive work.

This position fits in with the contemporary concern over the concept of entitlement, defined as “the totality of things a person can have by virtue of his rights (Sen, 1984). Sen's concept of entitlement thus includes both production and distribution and includes legally sanctioned claims upon fellow citizens via both market transactions and the state” (Elson, 2001).

A lot of the World March of Women's energy has gone into finding evidence to prove that women are the poorest of the poor at all levels, in all cultures, in all societies, regardless of political regime.

An approach based on the concept of social rights is a powerful political tool. “… for one thing, it changes the interpretation of poverty. Instead of putting the emphasis on material lack, the approach focuses on institutions. Analysis based on social rights shows how individuals have or do not have access to goods and other resources, depending, among other things, on their socio-economic position, the balance of power, their purchasing power, etc…. Basing the analysis on a lack of social rights is a way of emphasizing prior conditions” (Mendel, 2003 a: 21).

A rights approach allows us to consider poverty “much more as a political problem than an economic one” and to see that “if something is lacking in poverty, it is above all freedom, as Sen correctly pointed out…. Freedom is found in citizenship, not only in the transfer of material resources, although the latter is necessary.” Further, “a promising strategy where citizenship is concerned insists on rights rather than needs” (Lamoureux, 2003 b).

The political viewpoint affirming the priority of rights, all rights (civil, political, social, economic and cultural), runs throughout feminist writings on trade in general and trade agreements in particular.

Deconstructing the male, or dominant, discourse

Feminists have extensively criticized the sexist nature of science, including the fields of cognition, philosophy, rhetoric and linguistics, since “scientific knowledge was generally socially constructed to fit a particular image of masculinity…. The strength of the idea that masculine science is `good' is based on an overall cultural association of masculinity with superiority and femininity with inferiority; in other words, it is based on a dualist mental link between worth (superior/inferior) and gender specificity (masculine/feminine).” (Nelson, 1998: 46)

This also holds true in economics, “where matters that have always been of greater concern to women—marriage and family, for example—were placed on the social side of the barrier” (Nelson, 1998) and not on the economic side, thereby establishing the compartmentalization of things economic and social, a dogma of the dominant discourse. To put forth an alternative presupposes thinking of human beings not as isolated, disembodied economic agents but as having a “human identity comprising both autonomy and dependence, individual and relational ties, reason and emotion… and organizing in complex social relationships…. A model human being who interacts both with others and with nature would certainly be a better starting point” (Nelson, 1998).

Appropriating the subversive potential of heterodox economic theories

While not consecrating heterodox economic theories, feminism can make a major contribution to “revive the credibility of [such] theories as models to explain economic facts and to continue the exercise in `cross-fertilization' [of these theories] to reuse and reformulate existing methods and concepts on the basis of women's life experience” (Morel, 2003 a). It is a question of gleaning women's beliefs, values, practices and convictions to draw up a different theoretical framework. “The radical nature of heterodox economic discourse lies in its ability to create an alternative theoretical framework to neoclassical theory and to propose knowledge seeking, methodological tools and theoretical concepts that are radically different, in nature and content, from those of the dominant economy.”

Adopting another methodology

Millions of women around the world produce experience-based knowledge every day (Belleau, 2000). Such knowledge shows up paradoxes, contradictions and paths leading to change. “Does not the day-to-day reality experienced by women, by families, reveal both the shortcomings of the neoclassical economic model and the outline of another analytical approach that takes this reality as its starting point?” We should favour “a more anthropological, ethnographic and historical approach allowing us to raise questions dismissed in the neoclassical model” (Mendell, 2003 a: 17).

This methodological position overlaps to some extent with writings by feminists who believe that theoretical elaboration should start with the core of the patriarchal mode of production and the gender-based division of labour: work in the household. “Feminist ecological economic models view the economy as a complex of individual, family, community and other interrelationships which each have economic and ecological significance. Absolutely central to feminist ecological economics—like most feminist economics in general—is the primacy of the work which takes place in the household. Different terms have arisen: Julie Nelson calls this work `provisioning', Diane Lee-Smith `subsistence', Vandana Shiva `sustenance', Maren Jochimsen and Ulrike Knobloch `caring activities'” (Perkins, 1996).

Exploring new avenues

Other feminists question the primacy given to the market as the regulator of the economy. They think the dramatic effects of the dominant economy on women are actually due to market mechanisms. They explore the prospect of a society without a market, instead of a free-market economy, and the replacement of trade or the market by gifts.

The gift economy raises many questions (risk of essentialism, lack of realism, exploitation by the liberal State, which wants to offload social responsibilities on communities and women, etc.). Without presenting the idea as a panacea, should we not explore how to build an economy that is not based on scarcity but on redistributive justice instead?

3 WOMEN'S WORK: THE INVISIBLE HEART OF THE ECONOMY

A number of feminists have cast a critical eye on productive and reproductive work (they attach importance not only to paid work but also to unpaid, unrecognized work by women). They have brought to light the gender-based division of labour in these two areas, thereby breaking away from the dominant economic discourse, which makes women's work invisible. Women's work is what one feminist calls the “invisible heart of the economy” (Folbre, 2001: 21).

There appears to be consensus among feminist researchers on the following points (Eichler, 1993 a: 121):

3.1. What exactly is reproductive work?

Unpaid reproductive work refers to motherhood, child rearing, doing household chores, caring for elderly or vulnerable people, activities related to the democratic functioning of local, regional or identity-based communities, etc.

The monetary economy is based on these unpaid activities. “In the absence of production and biological and social reproduction, a paid work force would not exist” (Eichler, 2003 a: 122). This is an observation ignored in the dominant economic discourse.

Taking into account reproductive work presupposes implementing measures, programs and policies. Now, “when it comes to drawing up policy, the question we should answer is not who does what proportion of housework but who profits from the work done?” (Eichler, 2003 a: 127). C. Delphy answers this question by saying, men and men only! “For a long time, I have set the theory of `profit for the class of men' against the theory of `profit for capitalism.' In other words, housework is not a disparate sum of individual relations but the effect of a mode of production, the patriarchal or domestic mode of production. And what exactly is the patriarchal mode of production? It is the extortion, by the head of the family, of free work from the members of his family” (Delphy, 2003: 52).

Having noted the persistence of unequal sharing of housework (despite women's legal gains with respect to equality, their entry in the job market, etc.), Delphy's position leads her to a radical questioning of the role of the social protection system (health insurance and retirement), taxation and social security benefits in maintaining patriarchy. She urges the feminist movement to be bold enough to say, “… men have too much—or at least more than their share,” and to advocate “a system whereby men who didn't do their share would be penalized financially. (Delphy, 2003: 70).

QUESTION: How can the World March of Women's analysis take into account women's reproductive work? What would the impact be on drawing up demands?

3.2 Productive work: what is the state of the gender-based division of labour?

Feminists have studied paid work extensively. Pressure by feminist movements has meant that gender-based analysis is spreading around the world in all sectors of production, both private and public.

One observation remains, and that is the universal persistence of the gender-based division of labour. “We do see a diversity in the implementation of work force management policies in the findings of our international comparative studies. However, most striking are the persistence, continuation and similarities in the division of labour between men and women in countries that are very different in terms of their position in the international division of labour and their level of economic and technological development” (Hirata, 1993).

QUESTION: How can the World March of Women's analysis take into account this situation that is common to women?

3.3 Women's initiatives to change work and the relations between production and reproduction

The Women and Economy Workshop, part of the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World (Sabourin and Belleau, 2001), analyzed some economic initiatives run by women. These are called plural practices in that they are rooted in specific contexts and are not presented as universal solutions to the problem of employment. These projects reflect some women's attempts to work in other ways. (See http://women.socioeco.org/)

3.4. Can women change the place of work in everyday life?

Feminists have many demands where balancing work and family are concerned. Work, however, “is not the only human activity basic to life. It must be balanced with other human activities that are just as basic: family, friendship and love activities that lead individuals to other kinds of dynamics, other kinds of ties and ways of socializing; political activities in the sense of taking part in determining daily living conditions and the common good; cultural activities for their own sake—all without charge. This direction presupposes an economy and policies that will ensure that both women and men can balance these activities” (Méda, 2000).

QUESTION: How can the World March of Women's analysis take into account the balancing of different activities during “social time”?

4 HOW CAN WOMEN CONTRIBUTE TO THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT WEALTH?

“The concept of wealth is all too often limited to individual or collective accumulation of money and material goods. Non-material and non-monetary wealth also exists, for example, social ties, interpersonal relations and individual abilities. Given their position in the patriarchal economy, founded on the gender-based division of labour, women have become experts in the production of social ties and development of individual abilities in others. This type of production is often invisible; it is granted marginal importance or not considered a priority…. If we take seriously women's many experiences in production, exchange and consumption—experiences occurring in different economic fields, whether they are visible or invisible, paid or unpaid, recorded or not—it is very likely that the definitions of wealth and work will be broader and more complex” (Belleau, 2003).

How then can we have this type of production included in the world's wealth, since it is hidden in the dominant economic discourse? One way advocated by feminists is to contest some of the indicators used to measure the soundness of countries' economies, for example the gross domestic product (GDP). Feminists have criticized the sexist, reductionist and false nature of this indicator (which, for example, omits the harmful effects of production such as pollution) and have proposed new indices of wealth.

One field of application has been to integrate a gender perspective in government budgets: “Gender equality is being addressed through a wide range of gender budget initiatives in both developed and developing countries, some organized by women outside government and some by women inside government. (Budlender, 2000, 2001) These have been particularly concerned to ensure that male breadwinner bias and commodification bias in government budgets are identified and eliminated; and that budget processes are made more accountable to women, especially poor women” (Elson, 2001: 16).

QUESTION: These vantage points open up many prospects for analysis, discussion and, subsequently, the drafting of new demands. How can the WMW take them into account?

CONCLUSION

This is only a draft document that will be reworked after the WMW working group on feminist economic alternatives holds its first discussions. We are therefore entering a process of reflection and collective production.

The questions raised are complex, vast—and exciting!

The fact that the WMW intends to (re)examine the feminist critique of the dominant economy and the dominant economic discourse is very bad news for all the Chicago Boys on the planet!

This paper was written by Lorraine Guay, assisted by Josée Belleau. The advisory committee was composed of Margie Mendell, professor at Concordia University's School for Community and Public Affairs, Nancy Burrows, of the World March of Women's International Secretariat and Lyne Kurtzman, of IREF/Relais-Femmes.

The present text drew on activities organized by the Réseau féministe de chercheures et d'intervenantes pour un renouvellement des théories et des pratiques économiques et politiques pour la redistribution de la richesse (Feminist network of researchers and practitioners working for the renewal of economic theory and practice on wealth redistribution), particularly the workshop entitled Women's economic security: feminist critiques of the dominant economic discourse and new avenues for social policy, held on October 3-4, 2003, in Québec City, and the international colloquium, L'Accès des femmes à l'économie à l'heure de l'intégration des Amériques : quelle économie ? (Women's access to the economy at the time of the integration of the Americas: what economy?), held on April 23-26, 2003, in Montréal, and organized jointly by the Réseau féministe and the Alliance de recherche IREF/Relais-Femmes

Orthodox: “conforming to established doctrine, especially in religion.”

Heterodox: “contrary to or different from an acknowledged standard, a traditional form, or an established religion.”

It is impossible to summarize all these economic theories and their variations here.

In the early 1970s, the University of Chicago became the main intellectual bastion of hard-nosed neoliberalism under the leadership of economist Milton Friedman and his followers; they were known as the Chicago Boys. Friedman was economic advisor to Nixon, Reagan and Pinochet.

One question to ask is whether the WMW wants to get involved in this kind of theoretical work and if so, in what way?

- 14 -