The Road to Feminist Ecological Economics

A critical examination of the academic discipline of economics.

This is the first in a series of three blog posts, where I will attempt to locate some of the underlying causes for planetary degradation from an academic point of view. Firstly, I will examine the effect the study of economics has had on the development of capitalism and the justification of the eternal growth narrative. I will deconstruct the structures that support the study of economics and assess what is useful in trying to build a new perception of the wider economy. The next blog will introduce ecofeminism and Environmentalism of the Poor, which have a more direct approach than most fields of economics in examining the lives of people, in particular people who are typically left out of consideration by mainstream economists. Lastly, I will propose that we should move forward with a framework for feminist ecological economics, which is built upon a more inclusive foundation, which allows for growth scepticism and the consideration of planetary boundaries.

Economics

Why is economics so important in our society? And why are challenges to its core principles often dismissed as irrational?

It is important to note, that within the discipline of economics rationality, objectivity, and neutrality are held in high regard, even if they are very difficult to apply to real life. In this blog post, I will attempt to deconstruct the discipline of “economics'' to understand how it got its elevated status in higher education and society at large. Personally, I have always been sceptical at best at economics, especially when my teachers would class it as a science when it is social science on par with international relations, political economy, politics, and sociology. Yet, seemingly due to the love of rationality, hard-to-apply models and formulas economics is often regarded as a subject of higher status than the other disciplines (Patterson & Fosse, 2015). 

What are the main types of economics and how are they different? 

Within mainstream economics, we have two major schools which are umbrella terms for many other strands of economics. Firstly, we have Orthodox economics, which is often the one taught at Ivy League and Russel Group universities. It encompasses the ideologies of Adam Smith, the author of the seminal text The Wealth of Nations and generally considered the father of the discipline. Orthodox economics is concerned with the scarcity of resources, the division of labour and the specialisation of production (Hayes, 2021). The ideas are largely based on the notion that the individual consumer is a rational being, who will only invest, save, or consume when it is financially viable to do so. It does not consider the vast segments of society, who are not able to save, invest or consume beyond what would sustain them. It is important to remember the context in which Adam Smith was writing, which was at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when his target audience was the people who could afford his books and indeed read them (Ibid.). These were the beginnings of the capitalist classes, the landed aristocracy, and other wealthy people, who liked the ideas of rationality, individual choice, and the accumulation of wealth as a result of said choice and rationality (Smith, 1991). This line of thinking became increasingly complicated over the next 245 years, ever-changing and developing with each new generation of economists. One of the main critiques, which I find important to stress in regard to Orthodox economics, is that it is very difficult, or indeed impossible to apply the concept of homo-economicus, the rational consumer, who makes all his decisions based on a purely utilitarian approach, on how he can get the best outcome for his money. He will look at the interest rate and determine whether it is feasible to save, consume or invest (Samuelson, 1938, p. 61). This is a type of “rationality” that only wealthy people have, with financial advisors and many other resources at their disposal. However, this elevation of the rational consumer makes it very easy to explain the poverty of the working classes as a result of their own laziness.

Lastly, the orthodox school of economics is based on scarcity and the allocation of resources. This narrative combined with that of homo-economicus, further legitimises the inequality in society. There are only few resources to go around, and it is up to the individual to maximise his own wealth.

Heterodox economics differs from orthodox economics in that it rejects the notion of the rational consumer and the notion of scarcity. This can make heterodox economics seem more human and indeed it gives much more attention to the people who are not able to consider the interest rate every time they make a purchase or decide to take their savings out of the bank. The most famous heterodox economist is John M. Keynes. He published his seminal text The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936 (Keynes, 2018). His main contribution, while working for the British government as a civil servant, in the wake of the 1928 Great Depression, was investing in public infrastructure to create jobs (Barnier, 2020; Nolen, 2021). Creating jobs gives the working class more money and since they do not earn enough to save, they will spend it and the money will circulate in the economy which is known as the multiplier effect (Beattie, 2018). The school of heterodox economics has, like the orthodox school, also become increasingly complicated as new economists contribute to the production of knowledge. The central critique of heterodox economics, while it does have a greater understanding of the life of ordinary working people, still fails to address the needs of women and people of minority backgrounds (Rubery, 2005, p. 3). One of the big points in heterodox economics is banks establishing the creditworthiness of people wishing to borrow. However, there is no recognition of the inherent bias against women, people of colour and women of colour, who are routinely discriminated against when applying for loans or financing. 

Ultimately, both strands of economics rely on continued growth and expansion for capitalism to reproduce. While heterodox economics, in principle, attempts to ensure wage increases along with the rate of growth to ensure fairer conditions for workers, it still relies on the continued exploitation of workers to generate profit for the capitalists they work for (Barmes & Boait, 2020). It needs the same basic capitalist structures which orthodox economics depend on, and as such they are not too different. The study of economics has helped organise societies into manageable segments and can also help us understand how things are going. Are people starving, how can we redistribute some of the wealth and what is the source of this inequality? These questions could also be addressed through the study of the economy.

Heteronormativity and the reproduction of the status quo.

As we saw in the section above, while economics can efficiently be used to understand society, it lacks depth. This lack of depth has led to a structural erasure of the identities which are not white, male, and middle class (Rubery, 2005). When it comes to the place of women in economics, we are often relegated to an invisible sphere of care work or perceived as men. The problem with the invisiblising of the care sector is that the work that is being done by women across the globe ensures that life can go on and be sustained. However due to the way capitalist societies are set up, care work gets very little attention and women often find themselves in very precarious employment and financial situations (Rubery, 2011, p. 666).

The study of economics has been so foundational in shaping the capitalist structures, which have contributed to the degradation of the planet. While I think it is important and useful to study economics, to gain an understanding of how the system, we live in and importantly understand how it was created. Feminist economics attempts to bring women into the fold and visibilise the work done by women in the so-called “private sphere” of the economy. By creating a framework where care is at the centre of the economy, it becomes impossible to ignore or overlook the vital role care plays in the running of our modern economy.

With a lens of feminist economics, it can be tempting to calculate how much money women would make, if they were performing the care work in a market setting, however, the palpable danger of this is that women’s labour has always been undervalued in a capitalist economy (Schmitt et al., 2018). This means that even when we do the calculation to see what women are theoretically owed for their unpaid labour, on an individual level, it is likely to still be a wage which falls below a living wage, as we see reflected in the wages of caring personnel across the capitalist world. There is also a potential danger in seeking to commodify care work altogether, as it could further entrench patriarchal gender norms in society and limit women’s access to the workforce and public life (Polanyi, 2001; Schmitt et al., 2018). It is also important to note that the reproduction and performance of gender, which is dictated by rigid binaries, are underpinned by a gender essentialist notion of cohesion between people who are born into certain bodies (Archambault, 1993). The capitalist state is dependent on the internalisation of this understanding of gender, for social reproduction to continue and to secure the social hierarchy.

We need a feminist economics which is more intersectional, inclusive and is not afraid to divert from the beaten track of heterodox economics. Feminist economics is not necessarily trying to dismantle capitalism or the growth paradigm but trying to visibilise the role of women and give their experiences more validity. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the traditional field of economics, with orthodox and heterodox economics, has a multitude of drawbacks, which can pose a real challenge to creating real change. However, understanding where these strands of academia come from and the historical context in which they emerged, can help us develop new strands of thought regarding the wider economy, beyond monetary and fiscal policies, and contribute to creating a more human brand of economics. Feminist economics takes the first steps in attempting this but often falls short in this endeavour. By trying to remain palatable to the status quo, it often adopts similar language, which has contributed to organising the gender hierarchies we experience today. To further the study of the economy, which can help us plan for a more sustainable future, we need a more intersectional approach. We need to include the voices and lived experiences of those who have previously not had access to be considered in academia. In the next blog post, I will explore ecofeminism and Environmentalism of the Poor, to explore what insights these disciplines can contribute to develop a roadmap to a more sustainable future.

Bibliography

• Archambault, A. (1993) A Critique of Ecofeminism. CANADIAN WOMAN STUDIESILES CAHIERS DE LA FEMME, 13 (3), p. 4.
• Barmes, D. & Boait, F. (2020) The Tragedy of Growth [Online]. London: Positive Money. Available from: <www.positivemoney.org>.
• Barnier, B. (2020) Keynesian Economics [Online]. Investopedia. Available from: <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp> [Accessed 15 July 2021].
• Beattie, A. (2018) What Is the Keynesian Multiplier? [Online]. Investopedia. Available from: <https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/keynesian-multiplier.asp> [Accessed 15 July 2021].
• Hayes, A. (2021) Adam Smith and ‘The Wealth of Nations’ [Online]. Investopedia. Available from: <https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/> [Accessed 15 July 2021].
• Keynes, J. M. (2018) The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Cambridge: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Nolen, J. L. (2021) John Maynard Keynes | Biography, Theory, Economics, Books, & Facts [Online]. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available from: <https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Maynard-Keynes> [Accessed 16 July 2021].
• Patterson, O. & Fosse, E. (2015) Overreliance on the Pseudo-Science of Economics [Online]. New York Times. Available from: <https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/09/are-economists-overrated/overreliance-on-the-pseudo-science-of-economics> [Accessed 15 July 2021].
• Rubery, J. (2005) REFLECTIONS ON GENDER MAINSTREAMING: AN EXAMPLE OF FEMINIST ECONOMICS IN ACTION? Feminist Economics [Online], 11 (3) November, pp. 1–26. Available from: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13545700500300876> [Accessed 16 July 2021].
• Rubery, J. (2011) Reconstruction amid Deconstruction: Or Why We Need More of the Social in European Social Models. Work Employment Society, 25 (4) December, pp. 658–674.
• Samuelson, P. A. (1938) A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer’s Behaviour. Economica [Online], 5 (17), pp. 61–71. Available from: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2548836> [Accessed 16 July 2021].
• Schmitt, S., Mutz, G. & Erbe, B. (2018) Care Economies—Feminist Contributions and Debates in Economic Theory. Österreich Z Soziol, 43, pp. 7–18.
• Smith, A. (1991) The Wealth of Nations - An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - PDF Drive [Online]. New York: Prometheus Books. Available from: <http://www.pdfdrive.com/the-wealth-of-nations-an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations-d158436790.html> [Accessed 11 July 2021].