Feminist Economics Today: Beyond Economic Man

Citation

Aerni, L. (2005), "Feminist Economics Today: Beyond Economic Man", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 383-384. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290510587060

Feminist Economics Today, edited by Marianne Ferber and Julie Nelson, is a new edition of their 1993 book, Beyond Economic Man. Ten years after its beginnings, Ferber and Nelson along with other contributors, provide an evaluation of feminist economics as a field of study. This book explores the connections between feminist scholarship and the discipline of economics, celebrates how “feminist economics has grown into a field of its own,”(p. vii) and assesses relevant improvements in economic practice. This edition is quite different with seven of eight essays being new material.

Feminist economists define economics as centered around the provisioning of human life rather than the standard definition: choice given scarcity and unlimited wants. In the Preface and Introduction, the editors discuss how few women there still are in economics and praise the organizations that have developed in this field, most notably the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE), IAFFE Europe, and the journal Feminist Economics. Ferber and Nelson analyze the impact of feminist economics on mainstream neoclassical thought as evidenced by case studies, citations of explicitly feminist economic writings, discussions of feminist economic topics in principles texts, and surveys of economics departments.

The first three essays are analyses of economists' assumptions of autonomous, narrowly self‐interested actors. England's revised essay builds on her criticism of three basic economic assumptions: interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible, tastes are exogenous, and selfishness operates in markets but not in families. England searches for a nondichotomous model whereby work done in both families and markets may involve altruistic and narrowly self‐interested motives. She assesses bargaining models, models of endogenous tastes, and the feminist economics of care. England and Folbre's essay “Contracting for care” applies contract theory to caring labor, whether implicit as in parenting or explicit as in paid nursing, and then discusses problems with contracting: missing or incomplete markets, monitoring and enforcement problems, and issues with endogenous preferences. Nelson's essay moves from a discussion of families arguing that an alternative model to the current either/or approach “individuals‐in‐relationship” can also be applied to firms.

Saunders and Darity investigate the crossovers between racism and sexism arguing that feminist and anti‐racist scholars have much in common and “can mutually benefit by recognizing and applying, wherever possible, the basic principle that economic outcomes differ within and across racial groups in gender‐specific ways and within and across gender groups in race‐specific ways.” (p. 113) Beneria's excellent essay on “Economic rationality and globalization,” is a rewrite of an earlier piece published in Feminist Economics Journal. She uses a quote attributed to westerners in the Asian financial crisis, “Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell,” (p. 118) as a springboard for analyzing the impact of development and global markets on women.

Strober applies feminist economics to education. Neoclassical economics intersects with education in nonproductive and narrowing ways primarily because the goals for education are so different. Strober argues that feminist economics is more appropriate and uses it to make a persuasive argument about why “choice” will not work to improve public schools. This is followed by an autobiographical essay by two self‐defined neoclassical economists, Blank and Reimers, who focus on the ways in which feminist economics have contributed to the better design of policies, such as family leave. They give examples of how being feminist influenced their choice of topics, presentation of their work, and their professional roles. The final essay by Charusheela and Zein‐Elabdin offers a post‐colonial critique of modernism and feminist thought especially as it is applied to the idea of development.

The original book, Beyond Economic Man (BEM), drove research in the field and was important in the thinking of many feminist economists. A large component of the original is a justification for feminism in economics and an attempt to define terms. Blank, who wrote a challenge in that book, criticized the work because it did not present or produce “a persuasive and usable model of feminist economics.” (p. 137, BEM).

In Feminist Economics Today it is clear how far feminist economics has come; there are, indeed, many usable and persuasive models of feminist economics. The new edition takes much of what was in the BEM for granted, including alternative feminist definitions of economics, and there is little justification of feminism in economics. As befits a book that is assessing a ten‐year‐old project, some of these essays are more literature review and critique than model presentation. I highly recommend this book. It is a great overview for feminist economists as well as for economists who are not familiar with the field.