Advertisement

Epistemology of Feminist Economics

  • Zofia Łapniewska
Chapter

Abstract

Feminist economics broadly refers to the application of a feminist lens to both the discipline and subject of economics. It is explicitly interdisciplinary, and encompasses debates about the narrow range of mainstream economic methods and researched areas, to questioning how economics values the reproductive sector, to examinations of economic epistemology and methodology. This chapter provides a brief overview of how feminist economics critiques established theory, methodology and policy approaches and how it aims to produce gender-aware theory, especially in defining economic activity. It argues for a reality check on how people actually live their lives as relational, vulnerable and interdependent beings and the urgency of rethinking of mainstream economic approaches.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to express sincere gratitude to Sara Cantillon for encouraging me to write this chapter, for drafting its initial structure and for discussing it at various stages. I am also grateful to Kirstin Mertlitsch for her continuous philosophical inspiration and feedback, and Stefan Łapniewski for his linguistic support.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A., & Shiller, R. J. (2009). Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anand, P., Hunter, G., & Smith, R. (2005). Capabilities and well-being: Evidence based on the sen-nussbaum approach to welfare. Social Indicators Research, 74, 9–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-6518-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality: What can be done? London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, D. K. (2003). Emancipatory for whom? A comment on critical realism. Feminist Economics, 9(1), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700110059270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. New York: Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  6. Benería, L. (2003). Gender, development, and globalization: Economics as if people mattered. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bibler, S., & Zuckerman, E. (2013). The World Bank and women’s unpaid care work in select sub-Saharan African countries. Retrieved from http://www.genderaction.org/carereport.pdfGoogle Scholar
  8. Blank, R. M. (1993). What should mainstream economists learn from feminist theory? In M. A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics (pp. 133–143). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bordo, S. R. (1987). The flight to objectivity: Essays on cartesianism & culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bordo, S. R. (2002). Selections from ‘The flight to objectivity’. In G. Lloyd (Ed.), Feminism and history of philosophy (pp. 82–97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boulding, K. (1986). What went wrong with economics? The American Economist, 30(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braidotti, R. (2006). The ethics of becoming imperceptible. In C. Boundas (Ed.), Deleuze and philosophy (pp. 133–159). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Budlender, D., & Sharp, R. (1998). How to do a gender-sensitive budget analysis: Contemporary research and practice. Canaberra: Commonwealth Secretariat and Australian Agency for International Development.Google Scholar
  14. Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Code, L. (1996). What is natural about epistemology naturalized? American Philosophical Quarterly, 33(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  18. Deleuze, G. (2006). Two regimes of madness: Texts and interviews 1975–1995. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  19. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Duffy, M. (2011). Making care count: A century of gender, race, and paid care work. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs, 11(2), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1086/494229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ehrenreich, B., & Hochschild, A. R. (Eds.). (2004). Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy. New York: Holt Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  23. Elson, D. (1998). Integrating gender issues into national budgetary policies and procedures: Some policy options. Journal of International Development, 10, 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(1998110)10:7<929::AID-JID563>3.0.CO;2-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Esplen, E. (2009). Gender and care cutting edge pack—Overview report. BRIDGE. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
  25. Ferber, M. A. (1995). The study of economics: A feminist critique. The American Economic Review, 85(2), 357–361.Google Scholar
  26. Fisher, B., & Tronto, J. C. (1990). Toward a feminist theory of caring. In E. Abel & M. Nelson (Eds.), Circles of care: Work and identity in women’s lives (pp. 35–62). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Folbre, N. (1994). Who pays for the kids? Gender and the structures of constraint. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodwin, N., Nelson, J. A., Ackerman, F., & Weisskopf, T. (2005). Microeconomics in context. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Hannsgen, G., & Papadimitriou, D. B. (2009). Lessons from the new deal: Did the new deal prolong or worsen the great depression? Working Paper 581. The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection.Google Scholar
  30. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Harding, S. (1995a). Can feminist thought make economics more objective? Feminist Economics, 1(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/714042212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harding, S. (1995b). Bon voyage: Navigating through the contemporary epistemological landscape. Feminist Economics, 1(3), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/714042254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harding, S. (1999). The case for strategic realism: A response to lawson. Feminist Economics, 5(3), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/135457099337842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hekman, S. (1990). Gender and knowledge: Elements of a postmodern feminism. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hill Collins, P. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Hobbes, T. (2010 [1651]). Leviathan (Revised ed., A. P. Martinich & B. Battiste, Eds.). Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  39. Jayaratne, T. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences: Current feminist issues and practical strategies. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 44–57). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Jennings, A. L. (1993). Public or private? Institutional economics and feminism. In M. A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics (pp. 111–130). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kalecki, M. (1933). Próba teorii koniunktury. Warszawa: Instytut Badania Koniunktur i Cen.Google Scholar
  43. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  45. Kosinski, M., Wang, Y., Lakkaraju, H., & Leskove, J. (2016). Mining big data to extract patterns and predict real-life outcomes. Psychological Methods, 21(4), 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laurence, L. (1999). Domestic abuse. In J. Peterson & M. Lewis (Eds.), The elgar companion to feminist economics (pp. 121–126). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  47. Lloyd, G. (1979). The man of reason. Metaphilosophy, 10(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1979.tb00062.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lloyd, G. (1984). The man of reason: ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in Western philosophy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Longino, H. (1993). Subjects, power and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (thinking gender) (pp. 101–120). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Macdonald, M. (1995). Feminist economics: From theory to research. The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’Economique, 28(1), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/136027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McCloskey, D. N. (1993). Some consequences of a conjective economics. In M. A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics (pp. 69–93). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nelson, J. A. (1993). The study of choice or the study of provisioning? Gender and the definition of economics. In M. A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics (pp. 23–36). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Nelson, J. A. (1996a, June 28). The masculine mindset of economic analysis. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(42), B3.Google Scholar
  55. Nelson, J. A. (1996b). Feminism, objectivity and economics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Nelson, J. A. (2008). Feminist economics. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (Vol. 3, pp. 282–285). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Nelson, J. A. (2013). Would women leaders have prevented the global financial crisis? Teaching critical thinking by questioning a question. Economics Faculty Publication Series, 40. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umb.edu/econ_faculty_pubs/40
  58. Nelson, J. A., & Goodwin, N. (2005). Teaching ecological and feminist economics in the principles course. GDAE Working Paper 05-05. Teaching Ecological and Feminist Economics. Medford: Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University.Google Scholar
  59. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Phillips, J. (2007). Care. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  62. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  63. Plato. (1993). The symposium. In W. S. Cobb (Ed.), The symposium and the phaedrus: Plato’s erotic dialogues (pp. 11–60). Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  64. Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Power, M. (2004). Social provisioning as a starting point for feminist economics. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Rochelau, D. (1995). Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. The Professional Geographer, 47(4), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1995.00458.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Romero, J. (2013). Where are the women? Econ Focus. Second Quarter 2013, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.Google Scholar
  69. Schneider, G., & Shackelford, J. (2001). Economics standards and lists: Proposed antidotes for feminist economists. Feminist Economics, 7(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700110059243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Seiz, J. (1995). Epistemology and the tasks of feminist economics. Feminist Economics, 1(3), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/714042252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sen, A. K. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026184 Google Scholar
  72. Sen, A. K. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. K. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Social Watch. (2015a). The basic capabilities index. Retrieved from http://www.socialwatch.org/node/9376
  74. Social Watch. (2015b). Social watch: G8 countries have not met their promises. Retrieved from http://www.socialwatch.org/sites/default/files/ICB_2007_eng/SocialWatch_NewsRelease.pdf
  75. Stagoll, C. (2005). Becoming. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary (pp. 21–22). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Starr, M. A. (2014). Qualitative and mixed-methods research in economics: Surprising growth, promising future. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(2), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Strassmann, D. (1999). Feminist economics. In J. Peterson & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Elgar companion to feminist economics (pp. 360–373). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  78. Strober, M. H. (2003). The application of mainstream economics constructs to education: A feminist analysis. In M. A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Feminist economics today: Beyond economic man (pp. 135–156). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Toussaint, E. (2012). A glance in the rear view mirror: Neoliberal ideology from its origins to the present. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
  80. Tronto, J. C. (1987). Beyond gender difference to a theory of care. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12(4), 644–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tronto, J. C. (1995). Care as a basis for radical political judgements. Hypatia, 10(2), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb01376.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ungerson, C. (1995). Gender, cash and informal care: European perspectives and dilemmas. Journal of Social Policy, 24(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727940002451X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Van Staveren, I. (2010). Feminist economics, setting out the parameters. In C. Bauhardt & G. Caglar (Eds.), Feministische Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (pp. 18–48). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  84. Vyas, S., Mbwambo, J., & Heise, L. (2015). Women’s paid work and intimate partner violence: Insights from Tanzania. Feminist Economics, 21(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2014.935796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Waring, M. (1988). If women counted: A new feminist economics. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zofia Łapniewska
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Economics, Finance and ManagementJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations