DOCSLIB.ORG

Econ 771.001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ECON 771: Political Economy of Race and Gender Spring 2018 Dr. Elissa Braunstein Department of Economics, Colorado State University [email protected] Office: C327 Clark Office hours: T 1:00 – 2:00 (or by appointment) Overview I define political economy as “the study of the impact of group identity and collective conflict on the organization of economic activity and its consequences.” Political economy traditions tend to focus on class as a source of identity and group conflict. In this course, we will expand that focus to incorporate other sources of group membership, giving you a broad background in economic approaches to inequality and identity based on race/ethnicity and gender. We will focus primarily on the neoclassical, Marxian political economy and feminist literatures. In addition to learning more about the relationship between group membership and economic structures, we will use the prisms of race and gender to better understand and critique various approaches to economic analysis. And while much of the literature focuses on the U.S. context, I will try to broaden the discussion as often as possible, and encourage students to do the same. I welcome students from other social science disciplines. Although we will cover some advanced material that may be difficult for those who have not completed graduate economics courses, the emphasis will be on the main points, rather than the technical detail. The syllabus includes both required readings (*starred) and supplemental readings/sections as I wanted to give you a more complete sense of the literature if you are interested in looking further into a particular topic. You can access electronic copies of most of the required readings through the library. In other cases, I’ll have electronic copies of the readings available on RamCT. The syllabus is provisional, and though I have a rough idea of how much time we will take for each section, I expect to do a lot of planning and negotiating as we move along. Papers, Exam and Evaluation I will base your grade on three main components. 1. Class (40%) • Reaction papers or discussion leadership (20%). Two “reaction” papers to the assigned readings to be shared with other students and me at least one day before class discussion of the readings. These are relatively informal, low-stakes papers reflecting on the material, 3-5 pages in length. We will try to distribute responsibility for these so that all of the assigned readings are covered. Each one will count for 10% of your final grade. Alternatively, in lieu of writing something up you take on facilitating discussion that day – just let me know. • Class participation (10%). I will begin every class with some comments on the readings, but most of the class session will be devoted to group discussion of the readings. Every student is required to participate actively in class by coming prepared to discuss the assigned material. Participation will be 10% of your final grade. • An addition to the syllabus (10%). There is a lot of material and subjects that I haven’t yet incorporated. And while that can be said of any course, I am particularly interested in areas that you feel are important to represent. In this assignment you will craft a new section (or sub-section) for the syllabus, including at least five readings (and indicating which should be required). I’ll also ask you to present a short overview of the section to the rest of us during the last couple of weeks of class. Due April 26. 1 2. Critical literature review or research paper (30%) You have two choices for the third paper: (1) a critical literature review, or (2) a research paper. For the critical literature review, you should go into more detail on a reading that is not required, providing a critical analysis that links it to the assigned reading and to questions raised in class. The research paper option is pretty wide open – it just has to be related to the subject matter of the course and okayed with me beforehand. The paper should be no longer than 15 pages, including references and will be due Thursday, May 4. Each student will also make a 15 minute presentation of their papers during the last couple of class sessions. 3. Take home final (30%) I’ll distribute a list of questions the last day of class. It will be due Monday, May 7 at noon. Class Policies Accommodation of If you are a student who needs any special accommodations in this class, please let students with disabilities me know about those needs in a timely way. A verifying memo from the office of Resources for Disabled Students may be required before accommodation is provided. Academic integrity Any evidence of academic dishonesty, including plagiarism or cheating on exams, will be penalized with a failing grade for the course and passed on to the Office of Student Affairs for investigation and possible disciplinary action. Reading List I. Introduction to Feminist Economics (2 weeks) Badgett, M. V. Lee. 1997. “Gender, Sexuality, and Sexual Orientation: All in the Feminist Family?.” In Gender and political economy: Incorporating diversity into theory and policy. N.Y. and London: Armonk, pp. 61-77. Drucilla Barker and Edith Kuiper (eds.) 2003. Toward a Feminist Philosophy of Economics. New York: Routledge. *Lourdes Benería. 1995. “Toward a Greater Integration of Gender in Economics.” World Development 23(11): 1839-50. Barbara Bergmann. 1986. The Economic Emergence of Women. New York: Basic Books. Robert Dimand, Evenlyn Forget and Chris Nyland. 2004. “Gender in Classical Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(1): 229-240. *Marianne Ferber and Julie Nelson (eds.) 1993. Beyond Economic Man. Feminist Theory and Economics. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Introduction & chs. 1 & 2 (pp. 1-53) & ch. 4 (69-93). Marianne Ferber and Julie Nelson (eds.) 2003. Feminist Economics Today. Beyond Economic Man. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. *Hartmann, Heidi I. 1979. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union.” Capital & Class 3(2): 1-33. Ann Mari May. 2002. “The Feminist Challenge to Economics.” Challenge 45(6): 45-69. *Leslie McCall. 2005. “The complexity of intersectionality.” Signs 30(3): 1771-1800. *Nancy Folbre. 1994. Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of Constraint. London and New York: Routledge. Ch 1, “Feminist Theory and Political Economy,” pp. 15-50. *Lisa Saunders and William Darity, Jr. 2003. “Feminist Theory and Racial Economic Inequality,” in Marianne Ferber and Julie Nelson (eds.) Feminist Economics Today. Beyond Economic Man. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 101-114. Jane Humphries (ed.) 1995. Gender and Economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar. Julie Nelson. 1996. Feminism, Objectivity and Economics. London and New York: Routledge. II. Individuals and Groups (4 weeks) A. Methodological Individualism, Preferences, & False Consciousness (1 week) George Akerlof. 1991. “Procrastination and Obedience.” The American Economic Review 81(2) 1-19. 2 *Gary Becker. 1996. Accounting for Tastes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Ch. 11, “Norms and the Formation of Preferences.” *Samuel Bowles. 1998. “Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions.” Journal of Economic Literature 36(1): 75-111. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. 2000. “Walraisan Economics in Retrospect.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4): 1411-1439. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. 1993. “The Revenge of Homo Economicus: Contested Exchange and the Revival of Political Economy.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(1): 83-102. Geoffrey Hodgson. 2010. “Choice, Habit and Evolution.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 20(1): 1-18. *Kuran, Timur. 1998. “Social mechanisms of dissonance reduction,” in Peter Hedström and Richard Swedberg (Eds.), Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147-71. Available online. *Amartya Sen. 1977. “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6(4): 317-344. B. Group Identity (1 week) *George A. Akerlof and Rachel E. Kranton. 2000. “Economics and Identity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(3): 715-753. Alan Carling. 1991. “Ethnic Formation,” in Social Division. New York: Verso, pp. 315-345. *William Darity, Jr., Patrick Mason and James Stewart. 2006. “The economics of identity: The origin and persistence of racial identity norms.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 60: 283-305. W.E.B. Du Bois. 1971. The Seventh Son: The Thought and Writings of W.E.B. Dubois. Edited with an introduction by Julius. New York: Random House. Hanming Fang and Glenn Loury. 2005. “ ‘Dysfunctional Identites’ Can Be Rational.” American Economic Review 95(2): 104-111. Jayadev, Arjun and Sanjay Reddy. 2009. “Inequalities between Groups: Theory and Empirics.” World Development 39(2): 159-173. Glenn Loury. 1987. “Why Should We Care About Group Inequality,” in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jr. Jeffrey Paul and John Ahrens (eds.) Equal Opportunity. New York: Basil Blackwell. *David Roediger. 1991. The Wages of Whiteness. Race and the Making of the American Working Class. London: Verso, “On Autobiography and Theory: An Introduction,” pp. 3-17. C. Group Conflict & Collective Action (1 week) Alesina, Alberto, Reza Baqir and William Easterly. 1999. “Public goods and ethnic divisions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(4): 1243-1284. *Choi, Jung-Kyoo and Samuel Bowles. 2007. “The Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War.” Science. 318(5850): 636-640. Diamond, Jared. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton. *Nancy Folbre. 1994. Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of Constraint. London and New York: Routledge. Ch 2, “Collective Action and Structures of Constraint,” pp. 51-90. *Russel Hardin. 1995. One for All. The Logic of Group Conflict.
Recommended publications
  • Barbara, the Market, and the State Nancy Folbre

    Barbara, the Market, and the State Nancy Folbre

    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Economics Department Faculty Publications Series Economics 1998 Barbara, the Market, and the State Nancy Folbre Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_faculty_pubs Part of the Economic Theory Commons Recommended Citation Folbre, Nancy, "Barbara, the Market, and the State" (1998). Feminist Economics. 106. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_faculty_pubs/106 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Department Faculty Publications Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. B ARBARA, THE M ARKET, AND THE STATE Nancy Folbre ABSTRACT Some re ections, in poetry and prose, on Barbara Bergmann’s contributions to economic theory. KEYWORDS Bergmann, discrimination, child care, feminist theory A FAIRY TALE People say that, once upon a time, there was an emperor, Fond of silks and satins, vain to a fault, fearful that his naked parts Did not measure up, who employed many a tailor to construct A wondrous wardrobe that could make him look greater than he was. Yet he also wanted to seem good and kind and true because His authority rested on the consent of those he ruled. The emperor’s objective function, economists would describe As positive and decreasing in all Z goods related to his own appearance And consumption; picture an indifference curve describing combinations Of virtue and privilege that would equally suit; equilibrium depends On the relative price of both, the noble budget line, and hence, It matters that honesty is by far the most expensive good.
  • Ecological and Feminist Economics: an Interview with Julie A. Nelson Julie A

    Ecological and Feminist Economics: an Interview with Julie A. Nelson Julie A

    real-world economics review, issue no. 91 subscribe for free INTERVIEW Ecological and feminist economics: an interview with Julie A. Nelson Julie A. Nelson and Jamie Morgan [University of Massachusetts, Boston and Tufts University, MA. USA; Leeds Becket University, UK] Copyright: Julie A. Nelson and Jamie Morgan, 2020 You may post comments on this paper at https://rwer.wordpress.com/comments-on-rwer-issue-no-91/ Julie A. Nelson is Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Boston and Senior Research Fellow at the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University. Over the last 30 years and more she has established herself as a highly respected voice on many aspects of economics, most notably social and environmental policy, ethics, feminism and economics. Her work often has a methodological frame of reference, though she also has a longstanding record in applied economics (initially micro) and worked for the World Bank and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics early in her career. She is the author or co- editor of such well-known books as Economics for Humans (Nelson, 2018) and Beyond Economic Man (Ferber and Nelson, 1993).1 Her published work spans the mainstream- heterodox divide (for example, American Economic Review, Ecological Economics and Cambridge Journal of Economics). Moreover, her collaborative work on various textbooks has shown a laudable commitment to pluralism and the transformation of the curriculum and pedagogy of economics (for example, Goodwin et al., 2019). She was the 2019 President of the Association for Social Economics and is the editor of the Economics and Business Ethics section of the Journal of Business Ethics.
  • Kranton Duke University

    Kranton Duke University

    The Devil is in the Details – Implications of Samuel Bowles’ The Moral Economy for economics and policy research October 13 2017 Rachel Kranton Duke University The Moral Economy by Samuel Bowles should be required reading by all graduate students in economics. Indeed, all economists should buy a copy and read it. The book is a stunning, critical discussion of the interplay between economic incentives and preferences. It challenges basic premises of economic theory and questions policy recommendations based on these theories. The book proposes the path forward: designing policy that combines incentives and moral appeals. And, therefore, like such as book should, The Moral Economy leaves us with much work to do. The Moral Economy concerns individual choices and economic policy, particularly microeconomic policies with goals to enhance the collective good. The book takes aim at laws, policies, and business practices that are based on the classic Homo economicus model of individual choice. The book first argues in great detail that policies that follow from the Homo economicus paradigm can backfire. While most economists would now recognize that people are not purely selfish and self-interested, The Moral Economy goes one step further. Incentives can amplify the selfishness of individuals. People might act in more self-interested ways in a system based on incentives and rewards than they would in the absence of such inducements. The Moral Economy warns economists to be especially wary of incentives because social norms, like norms of trust and honesty, are critical to economic activity. The danger is not only of incentives backfiring in a single instance; monetary incentives can generally erode ethical and moral codes and social motivations people can have towards each other.
  • Will Look Primarily for Reasons Families Changed, and Why They Appear To

    Will Look Primarily for Reasons Families Changed, and Why They Appear To

    The Growing Differences in Family Structure: What Do We Know? Where Do We Look for Answers? By David T. Ellwood and Christopher Jencks John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University August 2001 This paper was prepared as part of the New Inequality Program supported by the Russell Sage Foundation. The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous support for this initiative. Eric Wanner provided helpful comments. Thank you to Elisabeth Welty, Chris Wimer, and David Harding for their excellent research work and thoughtful suggestions and to Seth Kirshenbaum for his careful editing and fine assistance. The Growing Differences in Family Structure: What Do We Know? Where Do We Look for Answers? By David T. Ellwood and Christopher Jencks The rapid changes in family structure in the United States over the past 40 years have unquestionably contributed to growing family income inequality. One mechanism is quite well known. The growth of single parenthood tends to raise poverty and lower family incomes if for no other reason than more children are being supported by only one potential earner who is usually a woman. What is far less well known is the fact that single parenthood has grown quite differently by the level of maternal education. For a women aged 25-34 in the bottom third of the education distribution, the odds of being a single parent has risen from 7% in the mid 1960s to nearly 20% today. For a comparably aged woman in the top third of education, the odds have barely changed from the 5% figure of the 1960s. In spite of a few high profile celebrity cases, single parenthood remains rare for this educated group.
  • Behavioral Economics As Applied to Firms: a Primer1

    Behavioral Economics As Applied to Firms: a Primer1

    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Behavioral economics as applied to firms: a primer Armstrong, Mark and Huck, Steffen University College London (UCL) January 2010 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20356/ MPRA Paper No. 20356, posted 02 Feb 2010 03:16 UTC Behavioral Economics as Applied to Firms: A Primer1 Mark Armstrong and Steffen Huck Department of Economics University College London January 2010 Abstract We discuss the literatures on behavioral economics, bounded rationality and experimental economics as they apply to firm behavior in markets. Topics discussed include the impact of imitative and satisficing behavior by firms, outcomes when managers care about their position relative to peers, the benefits of employing managers whose objective diverges from profit-maximization (including managers who are overconfident or base pricing decisions on sunk costs), the impact of social preferences on the ability to collude, and the incentive for profit-maximizing firms to mimic irrational behavior. 1. Introduction In recent years there has been a good deal of research investigating how poor or non-standard decision making by consumers might affect market outcomes. In much of this work, the assumption is that firms are fully rational and aim to maximize their profits (and sometimes they do this by exploiting the behavioral biases of consumers). Some of this work points to situations where there is a role for policy which protects consumers from their own failings and from exploitative firms.2 In this article we focus instead on non-standard approaches to firm behavior. Consumers are kept in the background, and are present merely to generate in some fashion a demand curve for the firms' products.
  • Unconditional Basic Income

    Unconditional Basic Income

    Interrogations #3, Sociology 929, Week 4, February 13, 2018 Unconditional Basic Income 1. Wendy Does basic income undermine access to necessary public goods? Based on the state of public services in the United States, combined with political dynamics on the local, state, and federal levels, I worry that if UBI is implemented in the United States, the program will take on a much more libertarian character. This problem is addressed in OCAP’s paper, “Basic Income: Progressive Dreams Meet Neoliberal Realities,” as well as Barbara Bergmann’s chapter in Redesigning Distribution, “A Swedish- Style Welfare State or Basic Income: Which should have priority?” UBI has already been discussed as a policy to advance the libertarian objective of abolishing most public services like education, healthcare, housing, and transportation (see a series of essays from the Cato Institute: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian- case-basic-income-guarantee). As it stands in the United States, many public institutions are already weak, underfunded, and inefficient. Without a concerted effort to improve these institutions, the provision of a UBI could possibly allow many individuals to turn to private services- whether it is enrolling in a private school instead of a public school, finding a private healthcare service instead of going to the VA, or taking Ubers instead of buses and subways. Rather than moving towards socialism, the UBI could instead fuel the encroachment of capitalism on the goods we consider to be basic and necessary to everyday survival. Furthermore, I believe the tradeoff Bergmann sets up, between funding public services and funding the UBI will play a large role in some localities.
  • Gender Differences*

    Gender Differences*

    PERFORMANCE INCOMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENTS: GENDER DIFFERENCES* URI GNEEZY MURIEL NIEDERLE ALDO RUSTICHINI Eventhough the provision of equal opportunities for men and women has beena priorityin manycountries, large gender differences prevail in competitive high-rankingpositions. Suggested explanations include discrimination and dif- ferencesin preferencesand human capital. In this paper we present experimental evidencein support of anadditionalfactor: women may be lesseffective than men incompetitive environments, even if they are able to perform similarly in non- competitiveenvironments. In a laboratoryexperiment we observe, as we increase thecompetitiveness of theenvironment, a signicant increasein performancefor men,but not for women. This results in a signicant gendergap inperformance intournaments, while there is no gap whenparticipants are paid according to piecerate. This effect is stronger when women have to compete against men than insingle-sex competitive environments: this suggests that women may be ableto performin competitiveenvironments per se. I. INTRODUCTION Allocationsacross genders of high prole jobs remain largely favorableto men, and area majorfactor in thegender gap in earnings.For example, Bertrand and Hallock[2001] found that only2.5 percentof the vehighestpaid executivesin alargedata setof U.S.rmsare women (for areviewon genderdifferences in wages,see Blau and Kahn [2000]). Thenumerous attempts to explain this fact can beclassi ed intotwo broad categories.The rstexplanation restson gender differences in abilities and pref- erencesand hencein occupationalself-selection [Polachek 1981]. Thesecond class ofexplanations relatesto discrimination in the workplace,which leads todifferential treatmentof men and womenwith equal preferencesand abilities [Black and Strahan 2001; Goldin and Rouse2000; Wennerås and Wold1997]. In this paper wepropose and experimentallytest an addi- tional explanation:women may be less effective than menin competitiveenvironments.
  • The Millennium Breach the American Dilemma, Richer and Poorer

    The Millennium Breach the American Dilemma, Richer and Poorer

    The Millennium Breach The American Dilemma, Richer and Poorer In Commemoration of the Thirtieth Anniversary of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders Executive Summary Second Edition, 1998 The Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation and The Corporation for What Works "Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal." On March 1, 1968, in the wake of riots in Detroit and Newark, and with more riots soon to come after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, that was the conclusion of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders—the Kerner Riot Commission, named after its chair, then-governor of Illinois Otto Kerner. Thirty years to the day, on March 1, 1998, the Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation released an update of the Kerner Commission. This is the second edition to the update. The original Commission concentrated on African-Americans and inner cities. To provide continuity, much of this update is similarly focused. At the same time, the report is sensitive to rapidly expanding disparities in income and wealth that are class-based, embraces all inner city minorities in poverty, and respects today's more complex, multicultural diversity—particularly the growing proportions of Hispanics and Asian- Americans in urban areas. The report tries to answer these questions: • What happened over the last thirty years? What are the facts on which to build an inner city policy for the new millennium? • What policy doesn't work? • What policy works? • What is the cost of replicating what works to scale and how can it be financed? • What are the major political obstacles against replicating to scale? • What is the political feasibility of a policy based on what works? • What political alliance is needed to generate political will? What Are The Facts? The Kerner Commission proposed remedies to racial, spatial and economic disparity.
  • A Feminist Critique of the Neoclassical Theory of the Family

    A Feminist Critique of the Neoclassical Theory of the Family

    Chapter 1 8 Karine S. Moe A Feminist Critique of with Equal Employment Opportunity laws. Hersch surveys the relevant laws that prohibit employment discrimination. Connecting economics and the legal context, she uses noteworthy cases to illustrate the arguments employed in the courtroom to the Neoclassical Theory of establish a legal finding of discrimination. the Family Love, commitment, work. The essays in this book illustrate how economics can lead to a better understanding of the balancing act in women's lives. The authors help Marianne A. Berber beginner readers of economics to understand how economics can be applied to realms outside of the marketplace. The essays also challenge more advanced readers to think critically about how women connect the domain of family and care to the domain of labor market work. Gary Becker's A Treatise on the family (1981) was published about 20 years ago, a culmination of much of his previous work.1 It has remained the centerpiece of neo- REFERENCES classical economic theory of the family ever since, and Becker has widely, albeit not entirely accurately, been considered "the father" of what is also widely referred to as Becker, Gary. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2 Bergmann, Barbara R. 1995. "Becker's Theory of the Family: Preposterous Conclusions." the "new home economics." Actually, the honor of pioneering research on and Feminist Economics I: 141-50. analysis of the household as an economic unit properly belongs mainly to Margaret Hersch, Joni and Leslie S. Stratton. 1994. "Housework, Wages, and the Division of Reid (1934), who in turn gave a great deal of credit to Hazel Kyrk, her teacher and 3 Housework Time for Employed Spouses." American Economic Review 84:120-5.
  • Underclass": Confronting America's Enduring Apartheid

    Underclass": Confronting America's Enduring Apartheid

    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1995 Integrating the "Underclass": Confronting America's Enduring Apartheid Olatunde C.A. Johnson Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Olatunde C. Johnson, Integrating the "Underclass": Confronting America's Enduring Apartheid, 47 STAN. L. REV. 787 (1995). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2207 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK NOTE Integrating the "Underclass": Confronting America's Enduring Apartheid Olati Johnson* AMERICAN APARTHEID: SEGREGATION AND THE MAKING OF THE UNDERCLASS. By Douglas S. Masseyt & Nancy A. Denton.t Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 1993. 292 pp. $14.95. Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton's American Apartheid argues that housing integration has inappropriatelydisappeared from the nationalagenda and is critical to remedying the problems of the so-called "underclass." Re- viewer Olati Johnson praises the authors' refusal to dichotomize race and class and the roles both play in creatingand maintaininghousing segregation. However, she argues, Massey and Dentonfail to examine critically either the concept of the underclass or the integration ideology they espouse. Specifi- cally, she contends, the authorsfail to confront the limits of integration strate- gies in providing affordable housing or combating the problem of tokenism.
  • The Enduring Debate Over Unpaid Labour

    The Enduring Debate Over Unpaid Labour

    TheInternational enduring Labour debate Review, over unpaid Vol. 138 labour (1999), No. 3 287 The enduring debate over unpaid labour Lourdes BENERÍA * onceptual and theoretical norms are at the root of statistical biases leading C to the underestimation of women’s work in labour force and national accounting statistics. Initially viewed as a way of making women’s work more visible, the effort to account for women’s work has gradually evolved to in- clude all unpaid work by whomever it is performed (men, women, children). The evolution of this effort illustrates how the questions raised by feminists have a relevance transcending feminism and challenging basic tenets in conven- tional economic thinking. Ester Boserup, in her classic 1970 book, Woman’s role in economic devel- opment, pointed out that “the subsistence activities usually omitted in the statis- tics of production and income are largely women’s work” (Boserup, 1970, p. 163). She was a pioneer in emphasizing the time-consuming character of these activities which, in rural economies, include physically demanding tasks such as fetching wood and carrying water as well as food production and the “crude processing of basic foods”. Even earlier, Margaret Reid, in her 1934 book, Economics of household production, expressed concern about the exclusion of domestic production from national income accounts and designed a method to estimate the value of home- based work. Then, from the late 1960s, the international women’s movement prepared the ground for a new look at the estimation of women’s economic activities. The issue was then seen as symbolizing society’s undervaluation of women and of their contribution to social well-being.
  • A Response to Robert Allen LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Accepted Version

    A Response to Robert Allen LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Accepted Version

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Research Online Losing the thread: a response to Robert Allen LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/102559/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Humphries, Jane and Schneider, Benjamin (2019) Losing the thread: a response to Robert Allen. Economic History Review. ISSN 0013-0117 (In Press) Reuse Items deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item. [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ Losing the Thread: A Response to Robert Allen† Jane Humphries‡ and Benjamin Schneider§ Abstract In our earlier paper we used archival and printed primary sources to construct the first long- run wage series for hand spinning in early modern Britain. Our evidence challenged Robert Allen’s claim that spinners were part of the ‘High Wage Economy’, which he sees as motivating invention, innovation, and mechanisation in the spinning section of the textile industry. We respond to Allen’s subsequent criticism of our argument, sources and methods, and his presentation of alternative evidence. Allen contends that we have understated both the earnings and associated productivity of hand spinners by focussing on part-time and low- quality workers.