Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KEYWORDS
Neoclassical economics, social reproduction, unpaid labor, gender economics
JEL Codes: B130, B220, J30
INTRODUCTION
Neoclassical economics is defined by its reliance on rational choice theory (Barker et al.
2004), and was largely established by white, male economists who were greatly influenced by
Victorian ideology. The biased and discriminatory roots of neoclassical economics have led to
inefficient and fallible analyses that overlook both the intersectionality of economic actors and
the non-market variables that influence the economy. Furthermore, these biased roots create a
disproportionate burden of labor for women and adds to the barriers women must overcome to
escape this burden. Contemporary application of Neoclassical theory and analysis, then, leads to
inequitable, incomplete and counterproductive policy making. Victorian ideology defined
women by their domestic capacities and ability to bear children. This domestic role, which
included social reproduction, was considered unproductive, and categorized as leisure time.
Leisure time includes time and production not exchanged for wages through the market,
including recreational activities, activities that produce goods and services not traded, and
activities that are a combination of the previous two types, such as childcare.
Because womens unpaid work is labeled as leisure time, it rendered invisible, as it exists
outside the sphere of the market (Waring 1988). This causes its productive value to be
overlooked. This view, based on the heteronormative family wage system, or ideology of
domesticity, in which the male was the patriarchal authority and breadwinner, led the economists
to view household labor as womens work. Today, due to the influence of androcentric roots,
contemporary economic analysis still excludes womens work (Nelson 1996: 32-33, 60-62).
John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher, political theorist, and economist, observed these
androcentric roots and Victorian ideology. In his essay, The Subjection of Women, written in
1869, Mill noted the oppression of women and the devaluation of their productive contributions.
All women, he observed, are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their
ideal of character is very opposite to that of men; not self-will, and government by self-control,
but submission, and yielding to the control of others. [I]t is their nature to live for others.
(Schneir 1972:168). This biased view of women and the belief that it was their nature to live for
others caused the influential neoclassical economists to label certain laborious activities as
womens work. These activities were viewed as natural duties rather than productive work.
Soon after Mills Subjection of Women was published, Alfred Marshall published
Principles of Economics in 1890. In Book IV of Principles, Marshall supported the Victorian
notion that women had an innate place in the home rather than the work place. Citing the human
capital theory, he claimed that by taking on the role of caregivers, women would forgo market
labor, yielding marginal benefits that would outweigh marginal costs. Marshall argued that this
would enhance the environment in which male workers and their children live, adding to their
character and ability. It would be womens duty to support their husbands and children, and to
devote their time to investing in the human capital of their husbands, the male labor force, and
their children, the future labor force and caregivers (Pujol 1992). Marshall theorized that
womens participation in the labor force, conversely, would be detrimental as it tempts them to
neglect their duty of building a true home and investing their efforts in the personal capital of
their childrens character and abilities (Pujol 1992:126). Though his view embraces the biased,
Victorian opinion of the time, it also acknowledges the productive and essential economic role of
so-called womens work. He unknowingly demonstrated the productive and fruitful
consequences of non-market activity or unpaid labor; thus, countering the unproductive view of
womens work and upholding the indirect ability of non-market activity or leisure time to
contribute to economic growth.
Women must consider the opportunity cost (Investopedia.com 2013) of foregoing unpaid
housework in order to procure paid market work. Vandana Shiva posits that poverty is subjective
in definition and is culturally conceived. According to Shiva,
Culturally perceived poverty is not necessarily real material poverty: subsistence
economies that satisfy basic needs through self-provisioning are not poor in the sense of
deprivation. Yet the ideology of development declares them to be so because they neither
participate overwhelmingly in the market economy nor consume commodities produced
for and distributed through the market, even though they might be satisfying those basic
needs through self-provisioning mechanisms. Subsistence, as culturally perceived
poverty, does not necessarily imply a low material quality of life. On the contrary,
millets, for example, are nutritionally superior to processed foods, houses built with local
materials rather than concrete are better adapted to the local climate and ecology, natural
fibres are generally preferable to synthetic ones and often more affordable.
Development, as a culturally biased process destroys wholesome and sustainable
lifestyles and instead creates real material poverty, or misery, by denying the means of
survival through the diversion of resources to resource-intensive commodity production.
(Mies et al 1993:72).
For some, the opportunity cost of turning toward market work can mean deprivation poverty
due to the costs of goods and services, such as foodstuffs and paid household help. Doing a costbenefit analysis, these women may find that subsistence agriculture and household work, such as
childcare, are the better alternative to market work in order to provide for their family. Choosing
subsistence poverty over deprivation poverty would be viewed as irrational by neoclassical
economists, but is a real dilemma in many developing countries.
Furthermore, many urban employment opportunities, seen as productive work, are
environmentally degrading. Switching from subsistence farming to market labor will require the
purchase of foodstuffs from industrialized farms, which can be contaminated with carcinogens;
thus, environmental and health costs can be incurred by turning to the market (Living, 2010).
Conversely, industrialized farms create social costs, or negative externalities, through the use of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Only about 5% to 10% of all cancers are inherited through
genes. Sporadic mutations cause most cases of cancer; environmental factors generally are
associated with these mutations (American Cancer Society, 2013). This affects both those that
purchase these contaminated crops and those that live near these industrialized farms that incur
diseases and other health issues from the pollution.
in market labor and the wife specialize in household labor, more market and nonmarket output
will be produced, a comparative advantage of the nuclear family; thus, non- market labor can
increase productivity, and therefore should be considered productive. There is, additionally,
societal discrimination of occupational choice, which decreases the benefit of women entering
the market place. Because of lack of equity, women and men can be equally productive yet men
receive higher wages than women; thus, women may be receiving a lower rate of return on
human capital investments, such as education, than men. Because of this, women may be more
likely to invest in human capital that has high non-market return, an irrational choice according
to neoclassical analysis, as individuals opt to undertake unproductive and unpaid labor.
Occupational segregation is economically wasteful as it excludes women from a majority of
occupations, wasting human resources and reducing the ability of economies to adjust to changes
(Jacobsen 1998).
The informal sector can account for up to 42% of GDP in Africa (Barker et al 2004:118119), and is therefore essential for economic growth and development in many regions. This
sector includes the production and consumption of goods and services not facilitated through the
market place. Micro-Enterprises are small, informal firms that employ less than 10 employees.
These firms do not have to adhere to government-mandated regulations or pay taxes, and are
established with minimal funds, typically contributed as gifts by family members, rather than
through loans.
that economic agents hold masculine or male traits while those that bare traits of Homo
Reciprocans are at home performing their natural duties. Homo Reciprocans offers a contrasting
set of characteristic to Homo Economicus, allowing a wider range of potential traits. People are
not strictly masculine or feminine, and thus economic actors must be viewed as heterogeneous in
order to improve economic analyses.
CONCLUSION
The economic consequences of patriarchy have led to the application of bourgeois
Victorian values, labeling certain work as womens work; thus, skewing economic analysis,
and leading to the marginalization of women. These neoliberal policies (Barker et al 2004:116)
have lead to the disproportionate burden of unpaid labor, the feminization of poverty,
occupational segregation, and unequal pay and rate of return on human capital investment.
Neoclassical economics overlooks non-market variables as well as the multiple identities or
intersectionality of sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and nationality of economic actors.
Neoclassical economists also assumed that ones biological sex was equivalent to ones socially
constructed gender; assuming all men resided purely on the masculine end of the gender
spectrum, and women inhabited the feminine end.
By expanding the character traits of these economic actors to include masculine and
feminine traits, and understanding that the complexities of these persons will influence their
decision-making, a more thorough understanding can be achieved. Examining productivity,
moreover, beyond the scope of market-orientation will yield more just and wholesome decisionmaking and policies. The execution of economic growth and development could also be more
accurately studied and promoted with a more holistic view of the economy. It is imperative, then,
that economic analyses incorporate non-market factors, and expand the understanding of
rationality to include various actions of economic agents that are intersectional and which are
influenced by both market and non-market variables. It is also necessary that a gender analysis
be conducted of economic theories, mitigating inequity and inaccurate analyses; breaking this
vicious cycle sustained by androcentric roots and their contemporary application.
REFERENCES
American Cancer Society. 2013. Heredity and Cancer.
<http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/geneticsandcancer/heredity-and-cancer>.
Barker, D. K., and Feiner, S. (2004). Liberating Economics: Feminist Perspectives on
Families, Work, and Globalization. The University of Michigan Press.
Bergeron, Suzanne. (2001). "Book Review: Feminist Economics: Interrogating the Masculinity
of Rational Economic Man." Review of Radical Political Economics 33: 495-508.
Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary. "Economy."
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/economy>.
Economic Glossary. (2008). "Economic Definition of Leisure."
<http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/leisure>.
Enke, S. (1968). "On the Economics of Leisure." Journal of Economic Issues 2.4: 437-440.
Evers, B. (2003). "Broadening the Foundations of Macro-economic Models Through a
Gender Approach: New Developments." Macro-Economics: Making Gender Matter. Ed.
Gutierrez, M., Fehr, Ernst, and Gachter, S. (1998).New York: Zed Books, n.d. 4-22.
10
11