Feminist Economics

Caroline Sweetman

Feminist economists argue for the primary importance of unpaid

work in sustaining the activities of the paid economy. This paper
argues that orthodox economics fails to capture the costs and values
attached to unpaid productive and reproductive work, much of which
is undertaken by women. Where women enter the paid economy as
workers, this devaluation of their skills is reflected in their low wages
and low bargaining power. When conventional analysis informs
policy-making, impacts on the unpaid, reproductive sphere are
ignored. The paper gives several examples of how, by failing to
recognise this, economic policies may exacerbate poverty and conflict
within households ultimately undermining both gender equity and
development. The challenge is to develop and mainstream analytical
tools that reflect the different economic contributions that men and
women make. This depends in turn on wider efforts to recognise
gender equity as a key instrument in economic development, as well
as an intrinsic good.

This background paper was written as a contribution to the development of From Poverty
to Power: How Active Citizens and Effective States Can Change the World, Oxfam
International 2008. It is published in order to share widely the results of commissioned
research and programme experience. The views it expresses are those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect those of Oxfam International or its affiliate organisations.
Feminist economists criticise their more orthodox colleagues for confining themselves to studying the
paid economy of markets, prices and buying and selling. By so doing, they ignore differences
between the work which women and men do, and the contribution that each type of work makes to
society. The fact that women and men do different kinds of work springs from a combination of
natural difference (women give birth and breastfeed!) and social norms and institutions. Feminist
economists highlight the different value attributed by society to the work of women and men, and
argue that this is both an outcome and a driver of systematic bias against women in society. This bias
is transmitted through a variety of institutions, such as the family, markets (labour, finance) and the
state.

How good is orthodox economics at representing these concerns? Not very. Homo Economicus is
nominally asexual, but inhabits a very male world of paid work and priced leisure. He resembles
Oscar Wildes definition of a cynic as a man who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing.

Feminist economic analysis starts by arguing that unpaid work does, in fact, carry a price in terms of
womens time and energy. Unpaid work goes unrecognised in national accounts, yet subsidises the
formal paid work which gets counted. The unpaid work that women traditionally do includes work
which takes place within the home - including activities such as childcare, fetching fuel wood and
water, and preparing food. All this work has to be done each day if the formal economy is to continue
running - women literally reproduce the human race. In addition, women also have a massive and
once again uncounted - role in unpaid productive work cultivating the food their families eat, and
contributing to cottage industries where the earnings go to their menfolk. None of these activities
show up in conventional economic analyses; hence, the value of the work, and the workers, is ignored.
Amartya Sen pointed out that womens contribution to the family livelihood is perceived to be smaller
than it actually is, due to stereotypes of men as the chief or sole breadwinner 1 . This gap between real
and perceived contribution perpetuates inequality between women and men, because it
fundamentally weakens womens bargaining power in marriage and the family.

All this has huge implications for international development policy, as well as womens rights. During
the lost decade of the 1980s, feminist economists argued that the blindness of conventional
economists to womens unpaid work was very convenient. It enabled the international institutions
that imposed structural adjustment policies on developing countries to ignore the true suffering of
women, men and families due to cutbacks in state provision of essential services. Backs to the wall,
women struggled and just about succeeded in replacing these services and keeping families afloat. 2

Another issue that mainstream economists appear to be conveniently blind to is the way in which
gender stereotypes about work maximise the profits of the companies, which employ women as their
workforce of choice. In the family, women are primarily seen as carers, while men are seen as
economic providers. These stereotypes lead to women who go out to offices or factories typically
being paid less than men do for work demanding an equivalent level of skills. Women are to be found
predominantly doing jobs that draw on the skills needed for tasks in the home and do not challenge
gender stereotypes about their roles in the family. Examples of womens work include teaching,
nursing, cookery, sewing, and looking after male bosses as administrators and secretaries.

Feminist economists charge conventional economic thought with underpinning late capitalism by
ignoring these facts. Employers of female workforces benefit hugely from manipulating gender
stereotypes about womens work and mens work. The occupations associated with caring are
notoriously underpaid, but this is only the start. Since much housework and childcare is, by
definition, repetitive, women have to develop high levels of tolerance for this. Hence, women are a
perfect workforce for employment on assembly lines in new industries. While assembly line work in
industries like electronics may be repetitive, it also demands high levels of manual dexterity and
concentration. Economists Diane Elson and Ruth Pearson have argued that, for this type of work,
women workers in Mexican maquiladoras draw on skills, which they learned as little girls at home.

Feminist Economics 1
From Poverty to Power www.fp2p.org
The fact that they come into factories apparently already trained for such work leads to employers
dismissing the skills needed as natural to women. And this provides a very convenient excuse for
employers to keep wages low. 3

Employers also benefit from gender stereotypes about women and work in another way. Womens
low wages, and insecure and exploitative working conditions, attract less public concern than they
would do for men, because of the widespread belief that womens work is not really needed by their
families. Women, the belief goes, only work outside the home for pin money. The public reasons that
perhaps they are bored by being at home all the time; whatever the reason for a woman seeking a
little job, it is not desperate financial necessity. Womens real work, after all, is in the home, and any
wages they earn outside do not need to cover the costs of family life. Surely all women have fathers,
husbands and sons, who earn family wages, to support them?

The reality is that an increasing number of households are completely reliant on womens earnings.
Heavy industries that typically employed men are in the decline, while there is a boom in light
industries and services. With this shift has come widespread male unemployment and an increasing
number of women are responsible for earning the main wage or the only wage in their household.
In many ways, this is very positive for women, both as individuals, and collectively, as it challenges
assumptions about what they can contribute to families and, ultimately, to wider society. 4 Yet the
conditions of this work are often appalling. Employers can afford to be complacent about women
challenging them on this, too. Research suggests that the reliance of whole families on womens
wages, coupled with their primary role as carers, turns many women into a singularly biddable
workforce. Women cannot afford to risk family livelihoods by embarking on union activity.

Feminist economists point to the costs to human wellbeing of ignoring all these dynamics. In the short
term, the crisis caused by changes in the roles of women and men often creates a backlash against
individual women. Mens inability to find alternative employment which fulfills their vision of
themselves as real men often leads to increased violence against women and children within the
home. Conventional economics fails to makes the links between the economic and the social. Hence,
the relationship between high returns to business on the one hand, and poverty and violence at
household level on the other, remains invisible in the economic debate.

Feminist economic analysis has serious implications for all interested in development with equality. It
highlights the need for women and men to become aware that their beliefs about women, men,
and gender relations are often not consistent with reality. Individuals who can no longer conform to
the norms they have grown up with about gender relations are placed under huge stress both
economically and socially. A desire to conform in the face of changes in the labour market harms
peoples ability to survive by limiting the ways in which they respond. If women can suddenly get
waged employment then men might take on more caring work at home if they are free from fears
about losing status and what the neighbours might say. In reality, women often end up doing a
double shift while men become depressed and violent.

Feminist economists have also shown the importance of recognising differences between women and
men in terms of what they consume and in terms of family well being. Compared to men, women
choose to spend a higher proportion of their income on goods such as education and health care that
enhance the well being and capabilities of their children. Research from many different contexts in
both the developing and the developed world shows a correlation between women controlling
money and improved child health. 5 In comparison, men are likely to spend a higher proportion of
income on themselves for example, on beer. However, men are also more likely than women to
choose to invest money in longer-term enterprises including small businesses, which do not bring
immediate benefits to the family. Stereotypes about different male and female roles and
responsibilities allow men to be more detached than women from the challenge of putting food on the
table each night.

Feminist Economics 2
From Poverty to Power www.fp2p.org
These responsibilities also present challenges to economic analysis, which eulogises small-scale loans
to women as a magic bullet against poverty. It is argued that experience shows women to be efficient
in repaying loans that are invested in successful small enterprises. Yet social pressure on women is
often behind the loan repayments and the money is often scraped together at the expense of family
food and school fees, rather than taken from profits from thriving businesses. 6 The vast majority of
women choose business activities, which resemble caring work within the home so as not to threaten
men and which can be done alongside childcare. Their businesses also typically require few
resources at the start, and lack sophisticated marketing chains. 7 Women entrepreneurs are much less
likely to be successful, partly because of the businesses they choose, but also partly because women
seem to be more risk averse than men. This is likely to be because of their role as primary carers for
families. 8

The fact that conventional economists appear to be blind to all these issues is, at the very least, a
problem for women and for society at large. As illustrated above, gender inequality is both
unacceptable in itself, and is a driver of poverty and inequality.

More women than men are poor, illiterate, and otherwise disadvantaged, and by ignoring gender
issues, economists may exacerbate problems, increasing pressure on the state. Policies blind to gender
issues inadvertently increase conflict in families by forcing women and men to challenge profoundly
important norms about who and what they are. These take a toll not only on the individuals
concerned, but also on the public purse. Violence against women perpetuates and increases poverty,
presenting governments and international development agencies with greater numbers of people to
support through welfare and associated services. For example, domestic violence or the fear of it
prevents women from taking up livelihood opportunities ranging from factory work to beer brewing
in the informal sector. It also affects womens involvement in development initiatives. 9 It puts
pressure on health services by increasing the number of women presenting with injuries caused by
violence. Domestic violence also decreases the likelihood that couples will accept family planning. 10
Wife abuse has also been linked to decreased nutritional status in children, 11 due to womens
decreased chances of controlling income. This sets up a range of challenges for the health and
education of future generations.

On the other hand, understanding gender differences can lead to decreased demand on services. It
also leads better policy design, and provides solutions. Three examples are described.

Agriculture
In many sub-Saharan African countries, trade liberalisation has stimulated the production of cash
crops, while increasing import competition for producers of food crops. Women have generally been
adversely affected since they are usually small farmers engaged in the production of food crops, with
little control over cash crops. In general, women are slower than men to take advantage of new
opportunities that emerge because of their relative disadvantages in gaining access to credit, new
technologies and marketing networks, for example. 12 In households in which womens bargaining
power is weak, men may decide to use their power to force women to increase time spent in cash crop
production, while retaining control over the higher income that results. This potentially has a very bad
effect on family nutrition, since women have less time available to grow food crops. Even if husbands
let them take some cash crops for household use, families cannot live on the sugar, coffee or chocolate
grown for export. Ultimately, the only way around this is for women to cut back on sleep and
essential tasks. Women have challenged this chain of events by deliberately working inefficiently on
male-controlled fields, calling into question assumptions on the part of international institutions that
smallholders are more efficient than large-scale agricultural enterprises because of using family
labour. 13

Feminist Economics 3
From Poverty to Power www.fp2p.org
Taxation
Shifting the burden of taxes from income taxes to sales taxes, which is currently the trend in many
developing countries shifts the tax burden from men to women for several reasons. First, this is
because most wage earners that pay taxes are male, while most consumers of essential items are
female. 14 Secondly, sales tax shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor the majority of whom are
women. There are also gender issues in relation to income tax, and blindness to these leads to policy
failure. For example, tax allowances for families are often channeled via men, as household heads
yet the benefits do not necessarily get passed on to women consumers. And local taxes which impact
on people working informally for example, rental paid to councils on market stalls impact
disproportionately on women since they are the majority of workers in the informal sector. 15

Public Spending
Cuts in government spending on health and education are likely to create hidden costs to the
economy in other areas, such as increasing the burden on women in looking after sick relatives, or in
undermining girls education when families react to the introduction of user fees by withdrawing
daughters from school. These policies affect national economies in that they affect both the amount of
time women can spend earning income, and the quality of all the work they do, both at home and at
work, while suffering from chronic fatigue. They also militate against women in poverty taking up
positions of political leadership, and hence set up a vicious circle of policy formulation, which is blind
to gender issues.

The gender impact of trade promotion in Lesotho

Trade liberalisation has led to the rapid growth of the garment industry in Lesotho, opening up new
employment opportunities for young women in this extremely poor country. Women in the country
have taken up these opportunities with alacrity due to mass male retrenchment from unskilled
minework in South Africa, which began in the mid-1980s and gathered pace as apartheid ended. A
study of women workers in these factories looked at the relationship between the working conditions
and their capacity to care for their children. The major obstacle mothers faced were long and
inflexible work hours, between 10 and 12 hours a day during the week and up to 10 hours a day at
weekends. During periods when hours were even longer, women reported never seeing their children
awake. They were allowed no time off to care for, or get medical care for, their children. They were
required to produce a medical certificate when getting care for themselves, although their wages
were deducted for the time. Some women therefore avoided both pre-natal and post-natal clinics,
putting their own health as well as that of their children at risk. Economic need and low wages meant
that most mothers had returned to work one week after giving birth, thus limiting or stopping
breastfeeding. They also had difficulty in meeting the new expenses related to motherhood. Infant
formula is expensive, so often their infants received severely diluted milk and/or sugar solutions.
Their low wages also limited their choice of paid caregivers, relying on unpaid relatives, who were
usually very young or much older. 16

What needs to change

The tools of economics need to be changed so that they reflect gender differences. That means either
replacing or complementing conventional indicators like GDP with others that capture both paid and
unpaid activities. However, counting the hidden economy poses significant technical, measurement
and valuation problems. 17 John Ralston Saul has argued: We are in desperate need of a reformulation
of the idea of growth It is difficult to imagine how we might escape our ongoing economic crisis
unless we can reconsider [its] nature By reconsideration, I mean that we must attempt to draw back
far enough to see where value lies in society 18

Progress has been made in developing indicators, which give a picture of the impact of policy on
social equality, and on gender equality in particular. The UN Human Development Index (HDI) and
Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) together paint a picture of gender relations at national level.

Feminist Economics 4
From Poverty to Power www.fp2p.org
However one key indicator is missing, which feminists require for any analysis of the impact of
national development strategies: time-use. 19

In many countries, political pressure has resulted in more priority being given to assessing the gender
impact of any likely policy reforms on, for example, womens income or the burden of unpaid work.

In many countries, civil society groups and governments have developed gender budget monitoring
as a way to assess and influence the gender impact of government spending. 20

Whether such efforts prosper will depend on the power of combining the instrumental arguments for
gender equity, (i.e. that it produces a more efficient and prosperous economy) with the intrinsic
arguments for equal rights for women. In many countries and communities, they confront deep-
seated resistance in attitudes and beliefs about womens proper role in society. However, the global
spread of womens rights and universal suffrage show just how fast social attitudes are changing,
transforming political and economic structures as they do so.

References
Ahmed, S M, and Chowdhury, M, Micro-Credit and Emotional Well-being: Experience of Poor Rural
Women from Matlab, Bangladesh, in World Development Vol. 29 No. 11, pp.1957-1966.

Bruce J. Homes Divided in World Development Vol. 17 No 7, 1989.

Carillo, R. Battered Dreams. Violence Against Women as an Obstacle to Development, New York 1992.

aatay, N, and Ertrk, K. (2004), Gender and globalization: a macroeconomic perspective ILO, May
2004.

de Ruyter van Steveninck, M.A. and de Groot, A.W. (1998), Gender and economic development, The
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands 1998.

Elson, D, (1991), Male Bias In the Development Process, University of Manchester: Manchester

Elson, D, and Pearson, R, (1981), The Subordination of Women and the Internationalisation of Factory
Production, in Young, K (ed), Of Marriage and the Market: Womens Subordination in International
Perspective, CSE Books: London

Goffee, R, and Scase, R, (1985), Women in Charge. The Experience of Female Entrepreneurs, George Allen
and Unwin: London.

Heise, L, Moore, K, and Toubia, N. (1995), Sexual coercion and reproductive health: a focus on research,
New York, New York, Population Council.

Johnson, D, and Sender, J, (2004), Searching for a Weapon of Mass Production in Rural Africa:
Unconvincing Arguments for Land Reform', Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol.4 Nos. 1 & 2

Heyzer, N, (1981), Women, Subsistence and the Informal Sector: Towards a Framework of Analysis, IDS
Discussion Paper 163, Institute of Development Studies: Brighton

Kabeer, N, (2000), The Power to Choose, Verso: London and New York.

Feminist Economics 5
From Poverty to Power www.fp2p.org
Rao, Vijayemdra and Bloch (1993), Wife-beating, Its Causes and Its Implications for Nutrition Allocations to
Children: An Economic and Anthropological Case-Study of a Rural South-Indian Community, University of
Michigan, Population Studies Center, Research Report No. 93-298, Ann Arbor

Sen, A, (1990), Gender and Co-Operative Conflicts, in Tinker, I, (ed), Persistent Inequalities, Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
Van Staveren, I, (2001), 'Gender Biases in Finance' in Gender and Development Vol. 9 no 1.

Waring, M, (2003), 'Counting for Something! Recognising Women's Contribution to the Global
Economy Through Alternative Accounting Systems', in Gender and Development Vol. 11, No 1.

UNIFEM, Women, Work and Poverty, 2005. Reference cited is N. Sekhamane, Impact of Urban
Livelihoods on Womens Caregiving Behaviours, Household Food Security and Nutrition of Children
in Lesotho: A Community Case Study, unpublished masters dissertation, School of Development
Studies, University of KwaZulu Natal, 2004.

Oxfam International June 2008

This paper was written by Caroline Sweetman in August 2006. It is one of a series
written to inform the development of the Oxfam International publication From
Poverty to Power: How Active Citizens and Effective States Can Change the World,
Oxfam International 2008.

Caroline Sweetman is Editor Gender & Development journal, Oxfam GB.

The paper may be used free of charge for the purposes of education and research,
provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that
all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying
in other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or
adaptation, permission must be secured. Email [email protected]

For further information on the issues raised in this paper, please email
[email protected]

Notes
1
Sen, A, (1990), Gender and Co-Operative Conflicts, in Tinker, I, (ed), Persistent Inequalities, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
2
Elson, D, (1991), Male Bias In the Development Process, University of Manchester: Manchester
3
Elson, D, and Pearson, R, (1981), The Subordination of Women and the Internationalisation of Factory Production, in Young,
K (ed), Of Marriage and the Market: Womens Subordination in International Perspective, CSE Books: London
4
Kabeer, N, (2000), The Power to Choose, Verso: London and New York.
5
Bruce J. Homes Divided in World Development Vol. 17 No 7, 1989.
6
Ahmed, S M, and Chowdhury, M, Micro-Credit and Emotional Well-being: Experience of Poor Rural Women from Matlab,
Bangladesh, in World Development Vol. 29 No. 11, pp.1957-1966.
7
Heyzer, N, (1981), Women, Subsistence and the Informal Sector: Towards a Framework of Analysis, IDS Discussion Paper
163, Institute of Development Studies: Brighton
8
Goffee, R, and Scase, R, (1985), Women in Charge. The Experience of Female Entrepreneurs, George Allen and Unwin:
London.
9
Carillo, R. Battered Dreams. Violence Against Women as an Obstacle to Development, New York 1992.
10
Heise, L, Moore, K, and Toubia, N. (1995), Sexual coercion and reproductive health: a focus on research, New York, New
York, Population Council.
11
Rao, Vijayemdra and Bloch (1993), Wife-beating, Its Causes and Its Implications for Nutrition Allocations to Children: An
Economic and Anthropological Case-Study of a Rural South-Indian Community, University of Michigan, Population Studies
Center, Research Report No. 93-298, Ann Arbor.
12
aatay, N, and Ertrk, K. (2004), Gender and globalization: a macroeconomic perspective ILO, May 2004.
13
Johnson, D, and Sender, J, (2004), Searching for a Weapon of Mass Production in Rural Africa: Unconvincing Arguments for
Land Reform', Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol.4 Nos. 1 & 2
14
De Ruyter van Steveninck, M.A. and de Groot, A.W. (1998), Gender and economic development, The Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands 1998.

Feminist Economics 6
From Poverty to Power www.fp2p.org
15
Van Staveren, I, (2001), 'Gender Biases in Finance' in Gender and Development Vol. 9 no 1, pp. 9-17.
16
UNIFEM, Women, Work and Poverty, 2005, pp 30-31. Reference cited is N. Sekhamane, Impact of Urban Livelihoods on
Womens Caregiving Behaviours, Household Food Security and Nutrition of Children in Lesotho: A Community Case Study,
unpublished masters dissertation, School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu Natal, 2004
17
Waring, M, (2003), 'Counting for Something! Recognising Women's Contribution to the Global Economy Through Alternative
Accounting Systems', in Gender and Development Vol. 11, No 1, pp. 35-43.
18
Op. cit.
19
Op. cit.
20
See http://www.idrc.ca/gender-budgets/.

Feminist Economics 7
From Poverty to Power www.fp2p.org