Feminist Economics: Theoretical and Political Dimensions: A - C and L G - M

Feminist Economics: Theoretical and
Political Dimensions
By Astrid Agenjo-Calderón* and Lina Gálvez-Muñoz†
Abstract. Feminist economics is a school of economic thought and

political action that gained important visibility during the 1990s,
although its origins can be dated back to the mid-19th century. Since
then, feminist economics has developed its own concepts, analytical
frameworks, and methodologies. With gender as a central category, it
seeks a more integral and humane comprehension of the economy
and of the processes of inclusion and exclusion taking place in it. In
addition, feminist economics has grown into a political practice that
aims at improving the functioning of the economic system so that all
people can have access to a dignified life on the basis of equality. This
article presents a general systematization of these theoretical and
political dimensions, particularly focusing on the critique of the
neoclassical paradigm and its political correlates. We connect the
epistemological, methodological, and conceptual contributions of
feminist economics, as well as its propositions for transformative
action, to specific debates on economic issues, such as the ecological
emergency, crisis and austerity, the commodification of life, and the
liberalization of trade.
Introduction
Mainstream research agendas in law, economics, and political science

usually treat the premises of neoclassical economics as universal and
indisputable truths. They regard the free market and competition as
guarantees of both efficiency and productivity, a good reason for this
model to prevail over any other, both in academia and in political
*Lecturer at the Department of Economics, Quantitative Methods, and Economic

History, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville (Spain). She specializes in feminist
economics. Email: cmagecal@upo.es
†
Professor of History and Economic Institutions and Gender Studies, Pablo de Olavide
University, Seville (Spain). Email: lgalvez@upo.es
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 1 (January, 2019).
DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12264
© 2019 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.
138 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
institutions. These arguments are often based on extremely complex

and technical discourses and methodologies that make it difficult for
nonspecialists to participate in the discussion and offer alternative
views. Researchers outside the mainstream lack the platforms to com-
municate and/or disseminate competing views and a solid commu-
nity or power structure to support them. This is true even after the
2008 economic and financial crisis, with its devastating social effects,
opened a window of opportunity for the reevaluation and criticism of
neoclassical economic principles and the development of an alterna-
tive research agenda based on the principles of equality and solidarity.
This article explores the critique and alternative propositions put
forward by feminist economics (FE), which is one of the most import-
ant schools of thought in opposition to the fundamentals of neoclas-
sical economics. FE attracted interest in many cultural and political
circles after the last crisis. However, it is often unclear what FE is
about, or else it is discussed only partially and not rigorously. As ex-
pressed by Benería (2018: 50):
Is it an alternative to the predominant economic system? Is it a radical

proposition regarding gender equality that, in addition, suggests overcom-
ing capitalism? Or does it refer, above all, to the dismantling of patriarchy?
Does it represent liberal or left-wing feminism? To what extent does it
incorporate our concerns about social inequalities or the environment?1
In this article, we will try to answer some of these questions.

Feminist economics is not a single body of ideas, but a “range of
stances” (“abanico de posicionamientos”) (Carrasco 2014: 25). Those
stances meet in their common understanding of the economy as a
method of “social provisioning” (Nelson 1993, 1996; Jennings 1993;
Bakker and Gill 2003; Power 2004, 2013). They also place gender as
a central category of analysis. On the one hand, FE is a theoretical
and empirical framework that challenges the androcentric foundations
of the main school within the discipline as well as the principles of
certain unorthodox schools that keep alive a “short-sighted produc-
tivism” (Picchio 2009: 28). The centrality that the fulfillment of social
needs has for FE implies a questioning of those approaches that con-
tinue to focus on market performance, growth, or production. Those
Feminist Economics 139
goals make invisible the processes and resources that are essential for
the social reproduction of life and are not mediated by monetary valu-
ations. Thus, the general objective of FE is to transcend a reductionist,
biased, and hierarchical vision and to create new economic concepts
that place people’s daily life in the center. On the other hand, FE is
an ethical-political framework for social transformation and for the
construction of an economy that functions on the basis of justice and
equality. For this purpose, we suggest specific and immediate actions
(in politics, firms, and households) as well as alternative long-term
goals.
The following sections explore these two dimensions: theoretical
and practical. In order to establish the context, the second section
briefly reviews the origins and evolution of feminist economics as a
school of thought and action. The third section addresses the theoret-
ical dimension and includes FE’s critique of neoclassical assumptions
and of neoclassical analyses concerned with the “gender issue,” as
well as some of the contributions FE has made to this field. The fourth
section examines the political dimension, paying particular attention
to the implications of the neoliberal model for economic policies and
its impact on gender (in)equality and introducing various feminist
proposals for action. Finally, the last section presents the conclusions
and outlines of some future challenges for feminisms in general and
FE in particular.
Brief Historical Review
The term “feminist economics” was first used at the beginning of

the 1990s, although the economic analysis of the many inequalities
between women and men started much earlier and adopted vari-
ous forms. As shown by feminist studies carried out by specialists
in the history of economic thought, the concern about the situation
of women in the economic sphere was already evident in the 17th
and 18th centuries (Pujol 1992; Gardiner 1997; Folbre 2011). However,
economic issues only became prominent during the 19th century and
the first decades of the 20th century, within the framework of the first
wave of feminism, when women’s claims of inequality became more
explicit in relation to labor issues, property rights, and inheritance
laws. Some of the key authors of that period were Jane Marcet, Harriet
Taylor, and Millicent Fawcett of the classical British school; Charlotte
Perkins Gilman on labor economics; Mary Paley Marshall and Clara
E. Collet of the neoclassical school; Beatrice Webb on the ethics of
economic models; Margaret G. Reid on family economy; and Anna
Wheeler and Rosa Luxemburg on socialist thought.
For orthodox Marxism, the issue of women was an important topic
from the beginning, although a subordinated one. Neoclassical eco-
nomics dealt with women’s participation in the labor market, human
capital, and the division of domestic work since the 1950s (Benería
2018). Some decades later, during the second wave of feminism (1960s
and 1970s), some crucial progress was made on feminist theorization
under the slogan “the personal is political.” This had a major impact
on all social sciences. Also during those decades, a fundamental crisis
took place within modern science as a consequence of acknowledging
the epistemological relevance of the historical and social perspective
(Hodgson 2007). This had a particular influence on economic sociol-
ogy and other heterodox economic schools (Nelson 2010; Dequech
2008; Bögenhold 2010). These two theoretical trends (both in fem-
inism and economics) had a clear effect on the takeoff of FE as a
separate school of thought, which subsequently developed an import-
ant methodological, conceptual, and empirical body of work. In this
“awakening,” the need to increase criticism of neoclassical economics
was also a driving force. Neoclassical economics had taken a growing
interest in family analysis after the development of human capital
theory and new family economics. Those two developments legit-
imated gender inequalities inherent in the sexual division of labor.
Intense critique of labor economics was also undertaken in cru-
cial debates on, for example, “comparable worth” and “pay equity”
and in challenges to androcentric prejudices found in the main
neoclassical hypotheses (Mangum 1988; Ferber and Nelson 1993;
Nelson 1996).
Gradually, FE began to gain prominence. Some important mile-
stones were the creation in 1992 of the International Association for
Feminist Economics (IAFEE) and the publication of seminal contri-
butions like Conceptualizing the Labor Force: The Underestimation
of Women’s Economic Activities (Benería 1981), If Women Counted
(Waring 1990), Beyond Economic Man (Ferber and Nelson 1993), and
the first volume of the journal Feminist Economics in 1995. However,
all this had little influence on the teaching and research activities in
economics departments. Instead, FE developed in parallel with the
main school within the discipline. Cronin (2010: 1475) describes the
enforced insularity of all forms of heterodox economics:
Heterodox economics is in part defined by exclusion from orthodox cir-

cles, and there is an understandable tendency for heterodox economists
to engage primarily with each other outside these circles.
In the case of FE, this exclusion may be even more evident, as proved
by the poor dissemination of feminist economic ideas beyond its
immediate confines. This, however, has not hindered FE from devel-
oping significant methodological and epistemological critiques and
from becoming one of the schools most clearly opposing the prop-
ositions, approaches, and results of neoclassical economics. These
critiques have also defined an increasing number of new topics and
methods, opened FE to non-Anglo-Saxon sources and references, and
broadened the geographical and historical scope of the field. This
expansion of FE has given shape to a broad variety of approaches
from a heterogeneous mix of different economic schools (Marxist,
radical, post-Keynesian, institutionalist, and ecological) and feminist
perspectives (liberal, radical, Marxist, ecofeminist, and decolonizing).
It has thus become a wide and inclusive frame of reference that is not
only acceptable but highly desirable because it bestows richness and
versatility on the debates.
Within this diversity, it is possible to identify several starting points
common to all the approaches, according to what Power (2004, 2013)
and Benería, Berik, and Floro (2016) have called “methodological con-
vergence.” These key points are:
• a more integral comprehension of the processes that support

life and social provision, as well as of the processes of inclusion
and exclusion, and an understanding of gender as a fundamental
category;
• the need to value unpaid domestic work and care-giving;
• the use of human well-being as a measure of economic success;

• the implementation of intersectional analysis, taking into consid-
eration the different social layers that define people’s lives and
identities;
• the belief in the importance of social action and in the need to
incorporate ethical judgments in economic analysis.
As mentioned before, FE can also be considered a political prac-

tice, which not only brings to light the inequalities generated by the
global functioning of the economy, but seeks their transformation and
the development of new scenarios where people will have access to a
dignified life in conditions of justice and equality. We will now delve
into this double dimension.
The Theoretical Dimension:

Criticism of the Neoclassical Economics Paradigm
In this work we use the term “neoclassical paradigm” to refer to the

current main school of economic thought. It has a major influence on
academia (teaching and research), political debate, and even on peo-
ple’s “common sense,” through its well-designed and well-financed
legitimizing discourse about what is “good” for the economy and for
society. This paradigm comprises multiple approaches developed over
a long period (Dequech 2008). However, given our objectives, we
will not examine those approaches in detail, but will point out some
of their common features in order to highlight some central feminist
critiques of the school.
Feminist Critiques of the Neoclassical Paradigm
Among the common features of the neoclassical paradigm, it is possi-

ble to mention the following ones:
• a mechanistic and determinist epistemology rooted in method-

ological individualism;
• the artificial creation of an autonomous realm in which economic
relationships are separated from nature and social relationships;
• the concept of optimizing rationality, based on individual inter-

ests and on the separation of ends and means; and
• the imposition of growth and progress as the ultimate objectives
and universal principles of social evolution.
According to this perspective, society will automatically achieve

harmony and economic balance among its members provided that
individuals are allowed to selfishly pursue their maximum benefit
through exchange and competition in the free market. In fact, the
ultimate purpose of neoclassical thought is to understand the prob-
lems related to choice and exchange occurring in these organized
and impersonal markets, especially those concerning individual well-
being (utility) or the achievement of maximum profitability. With
regard to methodology, it is based on the elaboration of formal mod-
els that aim at representing those economic processes in a simplified
way, abstracting from human behavior in order to develop mathemat-
ical representations that make it possible to establish causal relations
among different variables and make predictions. A clear example of
this abstraction is the figure of homo economicus (the representative
agent). We will now analyze the general critiques that FE has made of
this way of understanding the economy.
First of all, feminist economics makes a fundamental critique of
the logic of self-interest. This logic has been glorified throughout the
history of economic thought without taking into consideration that
markets, which are socially constructed, depend on values contrary
to selfish interest, such as civility, trust, and the acceptance of laws.
In fact, market societies have never been purely guided by markets
because they have always rested on the social reproduction of citizens
and workers within the family, thanks to the unpaid domestic labor
and care work that social reproduction implies. In addition, from a
gender perspective, selfish interest has been historically considered
“appropriate” behavior only for men. Women have been assigned al-
truistic behavior, which is ultimately what allowed them to maintain
social reproduction. For instance, Jevons and Marshall emphasized
self-interest over group interest, but excluded women from the compe-
tition because, should they participate in it, they might abandon their
moral obligations towards their families (Folbre 2011). Self-interest is
also applied to the sexual sphere, where lust—essential for popula-

tion growth and family formation processes—has been reserved for
men. Folbre (2011) also argues that this selfishness-altruism polarity
has determined the very way in which markets and households have
been structured. It also shapes the pattern of what is and is not work,
which is linked to the sexual division of labor (Gálvez 2016).
It is necessary to point out that questioning self-interest does not
mean that FE is against the idea of the individual or, more specifi-
cally, against the need for autonomy. What FE does question is the
concept of “independence,” because life is always life in common:
people need each other and need care at all stages of their lives,
and especially at certain moments of the life cycle. This takes us to a
fundamental critique of homo economicus, defined as a self-sufficient,
selfish, and rational individual, who is active, has perfectly defined
preferences, is not influenced by society, and interacts on the basis
of self-interest in an ideal market where prices are the only necessary
means of communication. This agent is faced with unlimited desires
and limited resources and is always successful in optimizing his/her
choices. This figure is used as a universal metaphor of the human
being, even if its qualities are those that our culture traditionally as-
sociates with hegemonic masculinity, while it lacks everything that is
traditionally associated with femininity: feeling, body, dependence,
community, abnegation, tenderness, nature, unpredictability, passivity,
and connection (Marçal 2016). In other words, this figure symbolizes
the privileged subject of the dominant economic system (white, bour-
geois, male, adult, heterosexual, with no functional diversity, urban,
and Western), transforming the rest of the population into the “other.”
More specifically, it is an effective way to exclude women as politi-
cal-economic subjects.
The insistence on this agent’s preferences and free choices has
very clear gender connotations that may aggravate the discrimina-
tion women suffer in various spheres—what feminist philosophy has
called the “patriarchy of consent” (Puleo 2000). Free choice is a myth
not only because information is imperfect, but especially because not
everyone has the same freedom of agency when it comes to choos-
ing, given that it is limited by material preconditions and determined
by differentiated socialization processes (Nussbaum and Sen 1993).
Ultimately, people’s real opportunities are defined by their different

and unequal positions, which make them enter the market in very
different ways and make their preferences adaptive (Elster 1983). In
other words, values, norms, and preferences are not given, and it is
possible to explore how they coevolve in different economic contexts
in time. The capabilities approach—inspired by the propositions of
Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum and revised by FE authors such
as Ingrid Robeyns (2003)—is a crucial input because it focuses on the
conditions that make it possible for people to be effective in doing and
being. It represents a critical response to the neoclassical approach,
which is based on the economy of well-being. It also critiques any
position that is focused only on income and expenditure, according to
the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.
With regard to the neoclassical method, feminist economics consid-
ers it rigid and axiomatic and argues that it narrows the possibilities
of the object of study. Obviously, mathematical formalization is not a
problem in itself. The problem is that, in order to use it, these models
transform ideas about human behavior into axioms, omitting relevant
social details on the pretext of “looking at what really matters.” The
process of abstraction is understood as a full guarantee of objectivity
and scientific validity. FE argues that this method is by no means “pris-
tine.” From the statement of the hypothesis, through the measurement
and valuation of the data, to the analysis of contrasts, all stages are
strongly influenced by preexisting value judgments, social context,
and the ideology of the subject in charge of the study. Therefore, the
production of knowledge is neither objective nor neutral, but biased
and value-laden. In addition, concepts built on methodological indi-
vidualism are stratagems of exclusion, which avoid the use of qualita-
tive methodologies and contact with other disciplines.
The Inclusion of Women in Neoclassical Analysis: “Add Women and Stir”
In the last few decades, we have witnessed the development of a

new form of “economic imperialism” (Lazear 2000). It has transferred
neoclassical fundamentals to multiple spheres of social analysis in the
belief that certain basic terms, such as opportunity cost, maximizing
behavior, stable preferences, and market balance, may, with slight
changes, be used to understand all forms of human behavior. There

have been attempts to address economic inequalities between men
and women from this perspective, although androcentric prejudices
have remained unaltered and have even been reinforced through the
inclusion of women via an assimilation strategy known in feminist
literature as “add women and stir” (Harding 1986; Hewitson 1999).
There are two basic types of neoclassical analyses addressing gen-
der issues, according to Harding (1986): “equity studies,” which con-
sider the absence or underrepresentation of women economists, and
“feminist empiricism,” which treats women as objects of study. With
regard to this second field, research on women’s economic position
has come to occupy a relevant position, given the growing participa-
tion of women in the labor market and the greater importance given
to laws promoting equal opportunities.
One of the first contributions to the second field was the “new fam-
ily economics,” developed by Gary Becker in the 1970s, together with
human capital theory. Becker’s contributions necessarily led to an em-
phasis on the relevance of family decisions and to an acknowledg-
ment of domestic work when explaining labor supply models (Becker
1981). From this perspective, investments in human capital made by
individuals are necessarily preceded by investments made by their
communities (mainly through public investment in education) and
their families. However, families were analyzed as individuals who,
just like homo economicus, seek their self-interest outside the house-
hold, while they behave altruistically inside to reduce the possibility
of conflict. New family economics took on these ideas, together with
some notions on specialization and comparative advantage borrowed
from international trade theory. The family was thus transformed into
an economic unit that makes rational decisions seeking its self-inter-
est in the most efficient way. Every member specializes in activities in
which they have a comparative advantage: men in the labor market,
women in unpaid domestic work and care for family members.
Becker’s model of gendered specialization was then used to ra-
tionalize and legitimize discrimination against women in the labor
force. If women had lower salaries than men, this was due to the fact
that they had invested less in human capital (education and experi-
ence). Obviously, women’s lower salaries reduced their differentiated
opportunity cost (of not working for money income) in relation

to men, and made their decision to specialize in unpaid domestic
and care work seem rational. The argument was, therefore, circular:
women earned less because they were specialized in domestic work,
and they specialized in domestic work because they earned less in the
market. The sexual division of labor was thus scientifically justified by
failing to consider two important factors: 1) it was a completely static
approach that ignored long-term changes in the needs of people and
families, and 2) it imposed a penalty, in terms of loss of autonomy,
on people who specialized in domestic work should the harmonious
family unit split up (Blau, Ferber, and Winkler 2001). This Beckerian
“voluntary” discrimination model later evolved towards statistical dis-
crimination models in contexts of imperfect or asymmetric informa-
tion, but the androcentric assumptions remained intact, hindering
any progress in the ultimate comprehension of gender discrimination
( Jacobsen 1994; Humphries 1995). It is precisely this androcentrism
that FE has tried to break with, creating substantial epistemological,
methodological, and political fractures.
Feminist Economics and its Commitment to Redefine Economic Activity
The expansion of the object of study in economics has been one of

the main contributions of feminist economics to theoretical analysis
and economic policy. In contrast to the reductionist neoclassical view,
feminist propositions are committed to a wider perspective on the
economy that places people’s lives at the center. In this broader view,
there is no abstract homo economicus. Instead, people are relational
subjects determined by their gender, race/ethnicity, social class, and
migration status. This view of the economy facilitates studying human
beings in relation to the world and to nature, taking into consideration
their childhood, old age, bodily needs, and relationships, the impor-
tance of social norms or power reproduction mechanisms, as well as
the multiplicity of existing economic motives (self-interest, but also
altruism, compassion, solidarity, responsibility, and coercion). More
specifically, FE aims at widening the concept of economics to include
all processes concerned with the generation and distribution of
resources that allow fulfilling people’s needs (Humphries and Rubery
1995; Nelson 1996; Picchio 2003; Backker and Gill 2003; Gálvez 2016).
Economics can be understood in part as the science of “social pro-
visioning” (Jo 2011). But it is also a discipline focused on the decon-
struction of the androcentric bias of many neoclassical approaches
with a systemic commitment to gender analysis and its hierarchical
implications (Peterson 2005). Following the classical distinction made
by Harding (1986), these proposals differ from feminist empiricism
and come closer to feminist, postmodern, and postcolonial theories.
This shift is in consonance with the central premise, formulated by
Braidotti and Butler (1997: 44), that “just slotting women in, without
changing the rules of the game, would indeed be mere reification of
existing social conditions of inequality.” Thus, when feminists rede-
fine the concept of work to include unpaid domestic and care work,
this is an essential strategic move because the characteristics of this
kind of work explain, to a large extent, the vulnerability of those car-
rying it out (Gálvez 2016).
The economy is thus understood as a circuit that integrates multi-
ple forms of work and economic agents, as well as multiple spheres
of activity (markets, the state, households, and social and community
networks). The ultimate goal is for economic thought to include the
interrelation of processes that enable life to continue—in human, so-
cial, and ecological terms—and, through it, to create decent living
standards for the population (Carrasco 2014). Well-being is identified
as the yardstick to measure success in economic functioning (Benería,
Berik, and Floro 2016). If, according to this perspective, the economic
system is considered as a whole, it is easy to perceive the gender
tensions across it. On the one hand, there is a separation and unequal
valuation of the public-production and private-domestic-reproduction
spaces, linked to the sexual division of labor, which masculinizes the
former and feminizes the latter. On the other hand, the nuclear family
and the breadwinner/housewife model are microconstructions that
reflect the macrostructural division. Feminist historiography shows us
that these normative and discursive models, even if previously present
in Europe, were exacerbated and institutionalized during the era of
industrialization, gaining legal and scientific recognition. This was part
of a far-reaching political operation that implied transferring care work
to the families (and, within them, to women), with the consequent
devaluation of women’s work and their exclusion from citizenship.

However, these models were never fully implemented because many
men could not or would not play the breadwinner role, and women’s
work, whether paid or unpaid, was essential to keep up the living
standards of the population (Carbonell, Gálvez, and Rodríguez 2014).
In order to analyze these structures, the role of households and
of the unpaid work developed in them is a key point. Households
function as the last stage in the readjustment of the economic system.
Households manage relationships between daily life and the market
and between the state and the community. Those relationships con-
cern the provision of goods and services, their consumption, and the
care provided in the different spheres (Razavi 2007; Gálvez 2016).
Following Picchio (2003), we can summarize the main functions of
unpaid work within households as follows:
1. Extending income from a monetary value to a standard of

living. Better living standards are achieved by complementing
the goods and services obtained outside the household with
others produced inside the household and by devoting some
time to acquiring, transforming, adapting, and maintaining them.
2. Expanding the extended standard of living into a condition of
well-being. The complement to those goods and services is not
casual, but responds to the specific needs of the household mem-
bers and pays attention to their immaterial needs so that they have
access to multidimensional well-being.
3. Selecting the working population. Members of the household who
enter the market are selected, prepared for it, and cared for at
home.
In order to obtain further and better data on these multiple functions,

several actions are possible. Among them are: conducting time-use
surveys to reformulate indicators measuring economic activity; intro-
ducing satellite accounts in national accounting systems to calculate
the monetary value of unpaid domestic and care work; and develop-
ing non-androcentric indicators of work and well-being, for example,
to measure poverty not only in terms of income, but in terms of time
use2 (Bardasi and Wodon 2006).
Feminist economics challenges the nuclear family model. It points

out that domestic units are diverse and dynamic and not always har-
monious. Negotiations take place within the household on the use
and control of its resources and the distribution of work, time, and
responsibilities. Those variables are determined by power relation-
ships, mostly depending on age and gender. Therefore, it is possi-
ble to say that households function under “cooperative conflict” (Sen
1990; Agarwal 1997).
In summary, when FE tries to understand the various dimensions of
gender inequality in the economy, it does not limit itself to introduc-
ing gender as just another “variable” to be taken into account in the
analysis. It is not enough to disaggregate data by sex. Instead, it estab-
lishes gender as a central category, as a lens that allows examining the
heteropatriarchal aspects of the economic system and of economic
theory. From this point of view, it is possible to observe that gender is
a defining element of the global functioning of the economy through
structures of “acknowledgement, redistribution, and representation”
(Fraser 2013). Nevertheless, reflection on gender injustices must nec-
essarily be linked to an intersectional vision because the theoretical
and political dimensions of gender are as well connected to vari-
ous axes of social stratification. Those intersections help understand
how people have differentiated access and control over resources and
power, are unequally affected by their economic circumstances, and
use different capabilities in reacting to them. Taking this into consid-
eration, it is clear that regulations and policies can never be “neutral”
from the point of view of gender. Their design will certainly affect—
whether positively or negatively—women’s disadvantage or men’s
privilege. In order to understand this differentiated impact, let us now
analyze various economic policies implemented under the umbrella
of the neoclassical approach.
The Political Dimension: Transformation of the Economy
We will now focus on the political correlates of neoclassical econom-

ics, which can be framed within the larger structure of neoliberalism,
and on feminist propositions for social transformation.
The Neoliberal Correlates
Following Harvey (2005), we understand neoliberalism as a theory of

political-economic practices that affirms that the best way to advance
human well-being is to avoid restrictions on the free development of
entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework
characterized by the transfer of public assets into private monopolies,
reduced public spending on education and healthcare, deregulation
of capital markets and foreign investment, and free trade. In other
words, social well-being is maximized when the scope and frequency
of commercial transactions are maximized. For this reason, all human
actions are drawn to the realm of the market. Using a phrase coined
by Joseph Schumpter (1942), neoliberalization has involved a distinct
process of “creative destruction” of the preexisting institutional frame-
works and powers (challenging even the traditional forms of state
sovereignty). It is understood that the role of the state is to create and
preserve the proper institutional framework for the development of
commercial practices (liberalization, deregulation, privatization), but
that it should not go beyond that.
Neoliberalism values market exchange as an ethical ideal in itself
that can serve as a guide for all human actions and replace all previous
ethical beliefs, emphasizing contractual relations established within
the market (Harvey 2005). As a result, creative destruction affects the
division of labor, social relationships, social protection, technologi-
cal combinations, ways of life and thinking, reproductive activities,
bonds with the earth, and matters of the heart. The ecological, eco-
nomic, social, cultural, and political consequences of this dominant
market-centered ethics have clear implications for the transforming
role of feminist economics.
We will now present this reading in its various dimensions, to-
gether with feminist calls for action in several domains. This action
should allow progress to be made in the transformation of the neo-
classical model in the short term with measures to fulfill present needs
and desires. It should also open a path to develop new logics and
dynamics that would promote other kinds of life that are both possi-
ble and good.
Feminist Views on the Global Ecological Emergency
Feminist economics argues that traditional economic thought has

historically ignored gender issues by disregarding or underestimat-
ing women’s lives and work. Mainstream economics also places
humans outside and above nature, seeing it as a “free” resource
that can be exploited without restrictions (Mellor 1997). This biased
vision hampers conventional economics from addressing rigorously
the factors that have taken humanity from preindustrial times to the
current state of ecological overshoot, which is caused by unsustain-
able patterns of extraction, consumption, and discharge of efflu-
ents. Such processes as global warming, loss of biodiversity, and
resource depletion are evidence of this overshoot, to which only
partial and insufficient answers are being given. In the neoliberal
model of indiscriminate trade openness, commodification of all nat-
ural resources, destruction of peasantry and indigenous cultures,
and cancellation of food security and food self-sufficiency poli-
cies, all solutions are designed from an eco-efficiency perspective
in which short-term interests still prevail in green and competitive
economies (Carpintero 2013). By contrast, the transitions proposed
by ecological and feminist economics show respect for the natural
cycles of the ecosystems and concern for the general well-being of
fairer and more democratic societies (Perkins and Kuiper 2005). The
goal of an eco-feminist transition is a system of resource production,
consumption, and redistribution that operates within ecological and
climatic boundaries, and a change in people’s imagery, value sys-
tems, and symbologies that develop sustainable life patterns by tak-
ing into account real ecological conditions. FE gives rise to debates
and analyses on various topics, such as: the characteristics of the
present economy that have caused the crisis; the difficulties and
contradictions inherent in the transition process; the possibilities for
collaborative consumption; the myth of technological salvation; the
importance of territorial planning and of the individual’s insertion
into the community; and the necessary change in people’s subjectiv-
ities (Bauhardt 2014).
Feminist Views on the Economic Crisis and

on Adjustment and Austerity Programs
FE has identified various types of bias in neoliberal economic politics

and their corresponding impacts on women:
• The deflationary bias. When market activity is kept below its po-
tential, the first ones to be expelled from it are women, who are
then consigned to unpaid work.
• The privatizing bias. When the private sector is promoted over
the public sector, the amount of unpaid or ill-paid care work
increases.
• The breadwinner bias. Neoliberal policies reinforce the tradi-
tional distribution of roles of male breadwinner and female
caregiver.
• The risk bias.The individualization of risk affects women in a
particularly negative way by reducing social support in case of
accidents or misfortune.
• The credit bias. Financialization, by exacerbating the asymmetry
between debtors and creditors, has a markedly negative impact
on women.
• The knowledge bias. When economic interests determine the
forms of knowledge taught in universities, neoliberal policies are
legitimized.
(Elson 2002; Young, Bakker, and Elson 2011; Gálvez and Torres
2009)
The structural adjustment measures of the 1980s in Latin America,

Africa, and Asia and the austerity policies implemented after the last
great economic crisis in Europe are clear manifestations of those
biases (Benería, Berik, and Floro 2016). On paper, the basic objective
of austerity measures is the correction of macroeconomic imbalances
to lower inflation and reduce budget deficits and current account
imbalances. In practice, however, neoliberal measures increase pov-
erty rates and lead to increasing income inequality, low growth of
real salaries, escalating family indebtedness, and intensification of
unpaid work (Elson 2002). These aspects reveal connivance between
patriarchal and capitalist structures; this is why they have a major

gender impact.
Feminist economics has also deconstructed dominant narratives
of the European crisis and the austerity measures of the last decade.
It has examined the financial and production consequences of aus-
terity and their connections with social reproduction (Gálvez 2013;
Rai and Waylen 2013). FE highlights the role of households—and
the women within them—as the units that actually bear the bur-
den of economic adjustments. On the one hand, neoliberal manage-
ment implies the dismantling of the welfare state and the subsequent
transfer of resources from the state to private capital in education,
healthcare, and social protection—services that are basic to a guar-
antee of some progress toward equality. This dismantling also entails
the eradication of spaces for collective deliberation and negotiation
and the loss of social control over political decisions. On the other
hand, neoliberalism reinforces the private sphere in two ways: 1)
commodification and financialization of daily life gives more power
to markets (as explained below), and 2) households are forced to
handle greater responsibility with whatever (private) resources they
have available, by modifying or reducing their consumption or de-
veloping “survival strategies” (Pérez Orozco 2014). These strategies
are privatized in households and made invisible, as no policies are
made out of them. But they are performed by particular subjects.
Women, in their intersection with specific class, race, migration sta-
tus, and age positions, are the ones who take on the role of home
protector, guarantor of the household savings, and party responsible
for family well-being (Bassel and Emejulu 2017). This capacity to
cope is not idealized by FE; the purpose is to politicize it. In sum-
mary, from a feminist perspective, the great recession is not only
an economic crisis, but a crisis of social reproduction, which has
intensified the precariousness of life and individualized its risks. It is
also a care crisis in the sense that the need for care is increasingly
fulfilled in the market by those who can pay for it or precariously
dealt with by those who cannot.
Faced with the neoliberal management of the crisis, FE does not
have a consensus on how to respond, but it has multiple proposals
enriching one another:
• A reversal of austerity policies.

• Progressive fiscal reform that incorporated gender criteria (such
as a family model that treats equally male breadwinners and
female caregivers.
• A fight against fiscal fraud.
• Restoration of public resources to reverse cutbacks in the welfare
state and enlarge it to include people who have been excluded
until now, ending women’s second-class citizenship.
• Development of benefits and services that have historically been
provided by unpaid work, such as preschool education and care
for dependent people.
• Defense of the commons, the limiting of which is part of a new
attempt to accumulate by dispossessing others (Caffentzis and
Federici 2014).
• Gender-sensitive budgets that take into consideration impacts on
gender issues and the well-being of different social groups.
One example of these proposals is the so-called F Plan (Elson

2015). It was conceived as more than a simple economic approach to
growth and employment creation. With its focus on building a caring
and sustainable economy for people and the planet, the plan defines
a framework for understanding the impact of the financial crisis on
three interacting spheres: finances, production, and reproduction.
It proposes an economy based on mutual support and respect for
human rights, as well as being oriented toward the wider and inclu-
sive objective of improving well-being to reduce inequality, not only
today, but also for future generations.
Feminist Views on the Privatization and Commodification of Intimate Life
Feminist economics strongly resists the expansion of the neolib-

eral development model and the commodification of intimate life. It
denounces the logic of profit permeating such areas as affections, sex,
care, and biological reproduction, as we will now explain.
Affectivity is becoming increasingly important in production pro-
cesses for various reasons. First, the workplace has mobilized the
affections to increase productivity with quality circles, team work,
promotion of creativity, and enhancement of communication abilities.

Second, in parallel to the care crisis, affective work has emerged as
an economic sector in itself, with a multiplication of firms that “take
care” of the citizen according to the logic of commodification. Third,
production and objects on sale are becoming immaterial, affections
and experiences are becoming commodities. Fourth, firms are de-
veloping loyalty management mechanisms to build long-lasting and
trustful relationships between firms and clients. Fifth, in a complex en-
vironment, mediated by new technologies, firms present themselves
as necessary mediators to manage and guide new social relationships
in the creation of value (Alfama, Bona, and Callén 2005).
Neoliberalism seeks to secure the loyalty of “accomplice sub-
jectivities” through the commodification of a new “femininity mys-
tique” that, in the name of female empowerment and free choice,
restores a profitable and essentialized ideal of womanhood in the
form of a feminized, glamorized, and commodified neo-traditional-
ism (Martínez, Gálvez, and Solano 2018). Its best showcase is found
in the media and in pop culture (with artists such as Beyoncé or
Kim Kardashian). They advertise a chic (post)feminism that maintains
women in sexist socioeconomic roles and commercially exploits an
accessible lifestyle.
Another example is that of the increasing commodification of
the erotic and sexual sphere (Bettio, Della Giusta, and Di Tommaso
2017). This is a topic of historical and sometimes irreconcilable femi-
nist debate. Two dimensions of individual agency are central: agency
as an engine of personal empowerment, and agency as an element
that legitimizes the myth of free choice. The specific debate on the
sexual sphere often gets stuck in a strict freedom/exploitation di-
chotomy, between those who demand that sexual work be regulated
and those who stand for the abolition of sexual work. The literature
of feminist economics enters these debates through the following
topics:
• the different types of exchange in sexual work (contractual, rela-

tional, survival-oriented, gender-based);
• the role of stigma;
• the abilities, emotions, and risks involved in it;
• the continuity/discontinuity between different types of sex-

based exchanges (marriage and sexual work, sexual work and
pornography);
• power negotiations and information asymmetries regarding sex-
ual work and human trafficking;
• the role of clients;
• migration and human trafficking;
• labor force migration, sexual tourism, and sexual harassment;
• market segmentation and the role of technology;
• politics of representation among sexual workers and clients;
• the commodification of women’s bodies and social tolerance.
In the sphere of care, commodification is a growing phenomenon

(Gálvez 2016). Some choose the strategy of transforming care into pro-
fessionalized jobs, linked to the expansion of the welfare state. Others
place their trust in collective forms of care work through mutual sup-
port and reciprocity networks. Those networks remove care-giving
from the hands of women in households, but still they fail to associate
it with a salary. There have been historical proposals to pay a salary to
domestic workers and to provide a basic income, but they have been
contested by feminists because they do not break with the feminiza-
tion of care work. Some are calling for care policies that guarantee a
multidimensional right to care: 1) the right to receive care and 2) the
right to choose whether to give it or not, and under what conditions.
This claim includes wider processes, such as the establishment of
national care systems (as in Uruguay) and more specific ones like
the demand for equal and nontransferable birth and adoption leaves.
Those leaves would replace the current discriminatory and insuffi-
cient systems that provide maternity and paternity leave. The right
to care comes with claims concerning the labor rights of household
employees, with special attention given to immigrant workers.
Other aspects increasingly discussed by FE are bioeconomies and
the commodification of biological reproduction (Lafuente 2017).
Current practices treat reproductive problems as individual issues and
as a search for private solutions after the reproduction process has
been broken up in stages and each of those stages has been exter-
nalized. This has led to an increase in commercial practices related
to assisted reproduction techniques. Those practices can be divided

into two categories: 1) egg “donation” and surrogacy, which involve
the transfer of the reproductive capacity or the participation of third
persons in the production of human embryos, gestation, or deliv-
ery, and 2) designer babies, whereby eggs, sperm, and embryos can
be modified and selected, at a morphological or genetic level. In a
neoliberal framework, private markets have emerged that allow some
parents to select the characteristics of their offspring. This, however,
entails two problems. First, the model is built on global inequalities
that stratify access to reproduction markets. With few exceptions, the
lower classes will be the ones getting pregnant or becoming donors,
while the upper classes will be able to afford motherhood and father-
hood. Second, if the logic of regulation follows the current path, em-
ployment in reproduction markets will be feminized and undervalued
from a social and monetary point of view.
Feminist Views on Trade Liberalization
Feminist movements are also fighting against the reemergence of free

trade agreements: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP), the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
in Europe, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific Partnership between countries on both sides of the
Pacific Ocean. This new wave of trade liberalization favors the reartic-
ulation of capitalism in the 21st century on the basis of a new “global
economic constitution” (Pérez Orozco 2017). It is a constitution that
guarantees that everything becomes merchandise by greatly wid-
ening the definition of international trade. It identifies the interests
of business corporations as the maximum legal good—as exempli-
fied by instruments of investment security, regulatory convergence
bodies, and courts of arbitration—and the supreme political subject,
even above peoples’ sovereignty. This is how a “self-regulated global
market” is created (Pérez Orozco 2017). It has a key impact on key
socioeconomic sectors, such as public services, agriculture, and man-
ufacturing, because it reinforces privatization and hyper-segmenta-
tion processes and exerts pressure on the invisible dimensions of the
socioeconomic system.
When analyzing the impact on employment, it is important to pay

attention to “gendered production networks.” According to Kabeer
(2004), those networks coincide with:
• the relocation of manufacturing and work-intensive services to

poorer economies;
• the development of certain export-oriented activities constituted
as feminized trade;
• the care crisis and international migration movements at a global
level (reorganizing global care chains).
These processes, particularly the last one, are related to the care defi-
cit that has been caused by the expansion in education, the outsourc-
ing of the economy, and important changes in attitude, in parallel
with women’s participation in employment in Western countries.
Feminist Views on Women’s Economic Autonomy
Feminism has historically encouraged women to have autonomy and

to design their own life projects, independent of their origins and
families. This is something that calls for discourse based on individ-
ual rights and ownership of one’s body as the only way to guarantee
women’s rights and demystify altruism, which has traditionally been
associated with femininity.
Women’s incorporation in higher education and in the labor market
has been an essential factor. Labor rights and union struggle, including
the fight against direct and indirect discrimination in the labor mar-
ket, and, with increasing strength, the fight for the right to reconcile
labor and family life, which has questioned the idea of the “care-free
worker,” have also been fundamental factors in the historical feminist
quest. Along the way, feminism has flirted with the cultural changes
of the neoliberal period, a game that has proved undesirably use-
ful, because the neoliberal model has created a context of increasing
precariousness and commodification of life (Fraser 2013). Women’s
integration in the labor market has not implied automatic liberation,
even if, from a historical and comparative perspective, it has served
to challenge rather than consolidate patriarchal structures (Benería,
Berik, and Floro 2016). Many of the current debates are connected
with the historical discussion on the relationship between patriarchy,
capitalism, feminism, and workers’ struggle.
With regard to non-salary incomes, FE demands the dismantling
of the myth of the democratization of finance that has led to finan-
cialization and to the attempt to infuse women with an entrepre-
neurial identity through neoliberal discourse, such as “display your
own creativity” or “be your own boss.” The promotion of microcredits
has been the spearhead of this attack, which was violently directed
against women, and presented as both a magical recipe to overcome
poverty for those on the periphery and an escape route for those
at the center. But people who were thus activated could not find a
job afterwards (Pérez Orozco 2014). Microcredits have been harshly
criticized for becoming a mechanism to channel into the formal fi-
nancial structure monetary sums that had previously been outside
(Feiner and Barker 2006). They have increased women’s work over-
load, considering that they are carrying out both paid and unpaid
work. They have vitiated women’s support and solidarity networks
by making everyone responsible for everyone within the group. They
have neutralized criticism of strong gender discrimination within the
labor market. Jain and Elson (2011) identified a fundamental credit
bias linked to women’s growing but unfavorable participation in the
financial markets: women are almost always debtors, instead of cred-
itors, and they are at a clear disadvantage. The overrepresentation of
African-American and older women among the victims of subprime
mortgages has been denounced by, among others, Gálvez and Torres
(2009).
A social and solidarity economy is also presented as an alternative
to women’s economic autonomy. It develops markets that are not
profit-driven, but are based instead on the principles of solidarity,
common good, reproduction, self-management, the priority of col-
lective well-being, and reorganizing work according to its social con-
tent. However, a specific effort is required reduce the sexual division
of labor and to socialize and revalue care. A social and solidarity
economy is also associated with the creation of community exchange
spaces, such as barter and time banks, and it is actually a response to
neoliberal commodification strategies (Del Moral 2012).
Final Reflections
In brief, the critiques and proposals of feminist economics can be

summarized as follows:
1. The dominant understanding of the economy is determined

by patriarchal epistemology and by a historically based social
construction that is organized according to the main power
relationships. This is reflected in the basic androcentric bias
of economic discourse.
2. A feminist break with the dominant conception of the economy is
proposed. This break will affect criteria for validating knowledge,
subject-object relationships, and the purpose of the study of “eco-
nomics.” This break will also make visible what is deemed “non-
economic” and thus has been made invisible.
3. Feminist economics also requires an epistemological break from
the understanding of gender as a simple “variable” in economic
analyses. Gender should be understood as a central category in the
analysis and, consequently, as a defining element of the global
functioning of the economy. For this purpose, it is necessary to
introduce a vision of gender at the intersection of multiple power
and inequality axes, such as class, race, ethnicity, age, and func-
tional diversity.
4. From this double break, it will be possible to build new concepts
around the very notions of economy and well-being and to move
towards a reduced emphasis in economic analysis on markets and
an increased focus on living standards and social provisioning.
5. This widened perspective on the economy and on gender calls for
new transdisciplinary methodologies adapted to the new object of
study through the establishment of partial and contextualized
points of view. Feminist economics rejects that opposite approach
in which methodology has determined what is relevant to study.
6. The objective of defining this new object of study and implement-
ing this new methodology is not only analytical. It also implies an
ethical-political commitment that opposes inequalities and that
favors a debate on the kind of life we human beings want to live,
the coexistence model we want to develop, and the way we can
organize our life in common to build a future where realism can be

combined with justice in recognition and access.
There are new challenges on the horizon that feminisms in general

and FE in particular need to confront: the new technologies and the
changes that the fourth industrial revolution may impose on the way we
relate to work and employment, as well as the changes this will bring to
our lives and to political participation; new consumption patterns and
the formation of identities according to the new mystique of femininity;
the interrelation of gender with women’s roles as employees, carers,
consumers, and agents of political change; increasing inequality among
women and the problem of building feminist collective agency; and the
need for multiculturalism in contrast with the universal narrative. Faced
with these new scenarios, it is necessary to create spaces for dissidence
and political courage, and to contradict the limited and limiting com-
mon sense that says that everything fair and good is impossible.
Acknowledgments
This article has been funded by the project “Children and Wellbeing:
Indicators and Bases for the Development of Public Policies from a
Capabilities Approach” (IBC) (2012 SEJ2727, financed by the Regional
Government Junta de Andalucía, Spain) and the project “Crisis in
Employment and Transformations in Gender Inequalities: Time Use
Analysis” (CSO2014-58378-R funded by the Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness, Spain).
Notes
1. Text is authors’ translation of the original: ¿Se trata de una alternativa al

sistema económico predominante? ¿De una proposición radical en cuanto a la
igualdad de género que además propone la superación del capitalismo? ¿O se
refiere sobre todo a la eliminación del patriarcado? ¿Representa un feminismo
liberal o un feminismo de izquierdas? ¿Hasta qué punto incorpora nuestras
preocupaciones por las desigualdades sociales o por el medio ambiente?
2. “The focus on time use as an indicator of poverty builds on the argu-
ment that invisible work demands significant time, and, when combined with
participation in paid work, makes for very long days, with limited free, or
leisure time” (Walker 2013: 60).
References
Agarwal, Bina. (1997). “Bargaining and Gender Relations within and Beyond
the Household.” Feminist Economics 3(10): 1–51.
Alfama, Eva, Yan Bona, and Blanca Callén. (2005). “La virtualización de la
afectividad.” Athenea Digital 7: 1–17.
Bakker, Isabella, and Stephen Gill. (2003). Power, Production and Social
Reproduction. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bardasi, Elena, and Quentin Wodon. (2006). “Measuring Time Poverty and
Analysing its Determinants: Concepts and Application to Guinea.”
Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon 10(12): 1–7.
Bassel, Leah, and Akwugu Emejulu. (2017). Minority Women and Austerity.
Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Bauhardt, Christine. (2014). “Solutions to the Crisis? The Green New Deal,
Degrowth, and the Solidarity Economy.” Ecological Economics 102: 60–68.
Becker, Gary. (1981). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Benería, Lourdes. (1981). “Conceptualizing the Labor Force: The
Underestimation of Women’s Economic Activities.” Journal of
Development Studies 17(3): 10–28.
. (2018). “¿Qué es la economía feminista?” Alternativas Económicas
57: 50–51.
Benería, Lourdes, Gunseli Berik, and Maria Floro. (2016). Gender, Development
and Globalization. New York: Routledge.
Bettio, Francesca, Marina Della Giusta, and Maria Laura Di Tommaso. (2017).
“Sex Work and Trafficking: Moving Beyond Dichotomies.” Feminist
Economics 23(3): 1–22.
Blau, Francine, Marianne Ferber, and Anne Winkler. (2001). The Economics of
Women, Men and Work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bögenhold, Dieter. (2010). “From Heterodoxy to Orthodoxy and Vice Versa:
Economics and Social Sciences in the Division of Academic Work.”
American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69(5): 1566–1590.
Braidotti, Rosi, and Judith Butler. (1997). “Feminism by Another Name.
Interview.” In Feminism Meets Queer Theory. Eds. E. Weed and
N. Schorpp, pp. 31–67. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Caffentzis, George, and Silvia Federici. (2014). “Commons Against and
Beyond Capitalism.” Community Development Journal 49(1): 92–105.
Carbonell, Montserrat, Lina Gálvez, and Paula Rodríguez. (2014). “Género y
cuidados: respuestas sociales e institucionales al surgimiento de la so-
ciedad de mercado en el contexto europeo.” Áreas Revista Internacional
de Ciencias Sociales 33: 17–33.
Carpintero, Oscar. (2013). “When Heterodoxy Becomes Orthodoxy: Ecological
Economics in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics.” American
Journal of Economics and Sociology 72(5): 1287–1314.
Carrasco, Cristina. (2014). Con voz propia. La economía feminista como

apuesta teórica y política. Madrid: Viento Sur.
Cronin, Bruce. (2010). “The Diffusion of Heterodox Economics.” American
Journal of Economics and Sociology 69(5): 1475–1494.
Del Moral, Lucia. (2012). “Sobre la necesaria reorganización social de los
tiempos: políticas de tiempo, espacios económicos alternativos y biene-
star.” Papeles de relaciones ecosociales y cambio global 119: 77–91.
Dequech, David. (2008). “Neoclassical, Mainstream, Orthodox, and Heterodox
Economics.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 30(2): 279–302.
Elson, Diane. (2002). “International Financial Architecture: A View from the
Kitchen.” Politica Femina 11(1): 26–37.
. (2015). “Plan F: Feminist Plan for a Caring and Sustainable Economy.”
Globalizations 13(6): 919–992.
Elster, Jon. (1983). Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Feiner, Susan, and Drucilla Barker. (2006). “Microcredit and Women’s
Poverty.” Dollars & Sense. Real World Economics 268: 2189–2210.
Ferber, Marianne, and Julie Nelson, eds. (1993). Beyond Economic Man.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Folbre, Nancy. (2011). Greed, Lust and Gender. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fraser, Nancy. (2013). Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism
to Neoliberal Crisis. London, New York: Verso.
Gálvez, Lina. (2013). “Una lectura feminista del austericidio.” Revista de
Economía Crítica 15 (1): 80–110.
. (2016). La Economía de los cuidados. Sevilla: De Culturas.
Gálvez, Lina, and Juan Torres. (2009). Desiguales. Madrid: Icaria.
Gardiner, Jean. (1997). Gender, Care, and Economics. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Harding, Sandra. (1986). Feminism and Methodology: Social Sciences Issues.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Harvey, David. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hewitson, Gillian. (1999). Feminist Economics: Interrogating the Masculinity
of Rational Economic Man. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Hodgson, Geoffrey. (2007). “The Problem of Historical Specificity.” In
Economics and Social Sciences. Boundaries, Interaction and Integration.
Eds. S. Ioannides and N. Klauss, pp. 112–138. Cheltenham, UK: Edgard
Elgar.
Humphries, Jane. (1995). Gender and Economics. Aldershot, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Humphries, Jane, and Jull Rubery. (1995). The Economics of Equal
Opportunities. Manchester, England: Equal Opportunities Commission.
Jacobsen, Joyce. (1994). The Economics of Gender. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jain, Devaki, and Diane Elson. (2011). Harvesting Feminist Knowledge for
Public Policy. Ottawa: SAGE.
Jennings, Ann L. (1993). “Public or Private? Institutional Economics and
Feminism.” In Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics.
Eds. Marianne Ferber and Julie Nelson, pp. 111–130. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Jo, Tae-Hee. (2011). “Social Provisioning Process and Socio-Economic
Modeling.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70(5):
1094–1116.
Kabeer, Naila. (2004). “Globalization, Labor Standards, and Women’s Rights:
Dilemmas of Collective (In)action in an Interdependent World.” Feminist
Economics 10(1): 3–35.
Lafuente, Sara. (2017). “Egg Donation in the Making: Gender, Selection
and (In) Visibilities in the Spanish Bioeconomy of Reproduction.” In
Bioeconomies. Eds. V. Pavone and J. Goven, pp. 253–277. London:
Palgrave Macmillan Cham.
Lazear, Edward P. (2000). “Economic Imperialism.” Quarterly Journal of
Economics 115(1): 99–146.
Mangum, Stephen. (1988). “The Male-Female Comparable Worth Debate:
Alternative Economics Perspectives on an Issue That Cuts Across the
Social Sciences.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 47(2):
129–256.
Marçal, Katrine. (2016). ¿Quién le hacía la cena a Adam Smith? Una historia
de las mujeres y la economía. Barcelona: Penguin Random House.
Martínez, Laura, Lina Gálvez, and Angela Solano. (2018). “Neoliberalism Goes
Pop and Purple: Postfeminist Empowerment from Beyoncé to Mad Max.”
Journal of Popular Culture 51(2): 399–420.
Mellor, Mary. (1997). Feminism and Ecology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nelson, Julie. (1993). “The Study of Choice or the Study of Provisioning?
Gender and the Definition of Economics.” In Beyond Economic Man:
Feminist Theory and Economics. Eds. Marianne Ferber and Julie Nelson,
pp. 23–36. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. (1996). Feminism, Objectivity and Economics. London: Routledge.
. (2010). “Sociology, Economics, and Gender.” American Journal of
Economics and Sociology 69(4): 1127–1154.
Nussbaum, Martha, and Amartya Sen, eds. (1993). The Quality of Life. Oxford:
United Nations University.
Perez-Orozco, Amaia. (2014). Subversión feminista de la economía. Madrid:
Traficantes de Sueños.
. (2017). Aprendizajes de las resistencias feministas latinoamericanas
a los Tratados de Comercio e Inversión. Basauri: OMAL.
Perkins, Ellie, and Edith Kuiper. (2005). “Explorations: Feminist Ecological
Economics.” Feminist Economics 11(3): 107–150.
Peterson, Spike V. (2005). “How (the Meaning of) Gender Matters in Political
Economy.” New Political Economy 10(4): 499–521.
Picchio, Antonella, ed. (2003). Unpaid Work and the Economy: Standards of
Living in a Gender Perspective. London: Routledge.
. (2009). “Condiciones de vida: Perspectivas, análisis económico y
políticas públicas.” Revista de Economía Crítica 7 (1): 27–54.
Power, Marilyn. (2004). “Social Provisioning as a Starting Point for Feminist
Economics.” Feminist Economics 10(3): 3–19.
. (2013). “A Social Provisioning Approach to Gender and Economic
Life.” In Handbook of Research on Gender an Economic Life. Eds.
Deborah M. Figart and Tonia Warnecke, pp. 7–17. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Pujol, Michèle. (1992). Feminism and Anti-Feminism in Early Economic
Thought. London: Edward Elgar.
Puleo, Alicia. (2000). Filosofía, Género y pensamiento crítico. Valladolid:
Universidad de Valladolid.
Rai, Shirin, and Georgina Waylen, eds. (2013). New Frontiers in Feminist
Political Economy. London: Routledge.
Razavi, Shara. (2007). The Political and Social Economy of Care in a
Development Context. Geneva: UN Research Institute for Social
Development, Gender and Development, Programme Paper Number 3.
Robeyns, Ingrid. (2003). “Sen’s Capability Approach and Gender Inequality:
Selecting Relevant Capabilities.” Feminist Economics 9(2–3): 61–92.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New
York: Harper and Brothers.
Sen, Amartya. (1990). “Gender and Cooperative Conflicts.” In Persistent
Inequalities; Women and World Development. Ed. I. Tinker, pp. 123–149.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, Julian. (2013). “Time Poverty, Gender and Well-Being: Lessons from
the Kyrgyz Swiss Swedish Health Programme.” Development in Practice
23(1): 57–68.
Waring, Marilyn. (1990). If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. San
Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers.
Young, Brigitte, Isabella Bakker, and Diane Elson, eds. (2011). Questioning
Financial Governance from a Feminist Perspective. London, New York:
Routledge.

Feminist Economics: Theoretical and Political Dimensions: A - C and L G - M

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Feminist Economics: Theoretical and Political Dimensions: A - C and L G - M

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Feminist Economics: Theoretical and

Abstract. Feminist economics is a school of economic thought and

Mainstream research agendas in law, economics, and political science

*Lecturer at the Department of Economics, Quantitative Methods, and Economic

institutions. These arguments are often based on extremely complex

Is it an alternative to the predominant economic system? Is it a radical

In this article, we will try to answer some of these questions.

Brief Historical Review

The term “feminist economics” was first used at the beginning of

Heterodox economics is in part defined by exclusion from orthodox cir-

• a more integral comprehension of the processes that support

• the use of human well-being as a measure of economic success;

As mentioned before, FE can also be considered a political prac-

The Theoretical Dimension:

In this work we use the term “neoclassical paradigm” to refer to the

Feminist Critiques of the Neoclassical Paradigm

Among the common features of the neoclassical paradigm, it is possi-

• a mechanistic and determinist epistemology rooted in method-

• the concept of optimizing rationality, based on individual inter-

According to this perspective, society will automatically achieve

also applied to the sexual sphere, where lust—essential for popula-

Ultimately, people’s real opportunities are defined by their different

The Inclusion of Women in Neoclassical Analysis: “Add Women and Stir”

In the last few decades, we have witnessed the development of a

changes, be used to understand all forms of human behavior. There

opportunity cost (of not working for money income) in relation

Feminist Economics and its Commitment to Redefine Economic Activity

The expansion of the object of study in economics has been one of

devaluation of women’s work and their exclusion from citizenship.

1. Extending income from a monetary value to a standard of

In order to obtain further and better data on these multiple functions,

Feminist economics challenges the nuclear family model. It points

The Political Dimension: Transformation of the Economy

We will now focus on the political correlates of neoclassical econom-

The Neoliberal Correlates

Following Harvey (2005), we understand neoliberalism as a theory of

Feminist Views on the Global Ecological Emergency

Feminist economics argues that traditional economic thought has

Feminist Views on the Economic Crisis and

FE has identified various types of bias in neoliberal economic politics

The structural adjustment measures of the 1980s in Latin America,

patriarchal and capitalist structures; this is why they have a major

• A reversal of austerity policies.

One example of these proposals is the so-called F Plan (Elson

Feminist Views on the Privatization and Commodification of Intimate Life

Feminist economics strongly resists the expansion of the neolib-

promotion of creativity, and enhancement of communication abilities.

• the different types of exchange in sexual work (contractual, rela-

• the continuity/discontinuity between different types of sex-

In the sphere of care, commodification is a growing phenomenon

to assisted reproduction techniques. Those practices can be divided

Feminist Views on Trade Liberalization

Feminist movements are also fighting against the reemergence of free

When analyzing the impact on employment, it is important to pay

• the relocation of manufacturing and work-intensive services to

Feminist Views on Women’s Economic Autonomy

Feminism has historically encouraged women to have autonomy and

In brief, the critiques and proposals of feminist economics can be

1. The dominant understanding of the economy is determined

organize our life in common to build a future where realism can be

There are new challenges on the horizon that feminisms in general

1. Text is authors’ translation of the original: ¿Se trata de una alternativa al

Carrasco, Cristina. (2014). Con voz propia. La economía feminista como