Search results

In the 1970s and 1980s, studies of the unpaid household and family labor of upper-class women linked this labor to class reproduction. In recent years, however, the topic of class has dropped out of analyses of unpaid labor, and such labor has been ignored in recent studies of elites. In this chapter, drawing primarily on 18 in-depth interviews with wealthy New York stay-at-home mothers, we look at what elite women’s unpaid labor consists of, highlighting previously untheorized consumption and lifestyle work; ask what it reproduces; and analyze how women themselves interpret and represent it. In the current historical moment, elite women face not only the cultural expectation that they will work for pay, but also the prominence of meritocracy as a mechanism of class legitimation in a diversified upper class. In this context, we argue, elite women’s unpaid labor serves to reproduce “meritocratic” dispositions of children rather than closed, homogenous elite communities, as identified in previous studies. Our respondents struggle to frame their activities as legitimate and productive work. In doing so, they not only resist longstanding stereotypes of “ladies who lunch” but also seek to justify and normalize their own class privileges, thus reproducing the same hegemonic discourses of work and worth that stigmatize their unpaid work.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the dynamics of women labor considering their unpaid work status. The intention is to understand the precise meaning of unpaid work and its magnitudes and trends in India. This study explores the causes of women to be engaged in unpaid work and the reason behind the non-reduction of unpaid labor as prophesied by the standard theories of economic development. Furthermore, this study aims to examine the nexus of the work status of women and its impact on poverty to give possible recommendations for promoting faster and more inclusive growth of the Indian economy.

For addressing the above-mentioned issues, this study has used the data of 50th, 55th, 61st and 68th surveys conducted from 1993–1994 to 2011–2012 by National Sample Survey Office. In the first stage of analysis, the magnitude of unpaid work by women has been estimated. Subsequently, the relative contributions of socio-economic and demographics on the work status of women (paid and unpaid) in India have been assessed by using logistic regression model. In the second stage, the level of poverty among paid and unpaid women has been measured by using poverty estimation methodology. Furthermore, the incidence of poverty among unpaid women has been decomposed, and the contribution of socio-economic predictors has been measured.

The study reveals that the participation of women in paid activities has been consistently declined. During the study period, it is observed that the amount of unpaid work activities of women has significantly increased. Moreover, the increase of unpaid activities is more intense for those women who are less educated, marginalized and belong to the poorer household.

The key contributions of this study are to underpin the issue of low and declining participation of female labor force in India as well as to understand the dynamics of changing work status (paid to unpaid) of females in the neo-liberal development framework. Furthermore, this study explores the consequences of the increase in unpaid work on poverty, which has not been the focus of previous studies.

This article aims to discuss the effects of unpaid reproductive labour on labour productivity and production. We make use of a Marxist approach, recognising in its method and categories the necessary and adequate tools in order to disclose reality. Capitalism is regarded as patriarchal, and patriarchy as a set of social relations that dominate women and women’s labour-power for the benefit of men and capital. We argue that unpaid reproductive labour involves both class and gender struggles, which affect in a contradictory manner the capitalist accumulation process. Such assertion is reached by using an analytical instrument (based on linear algebra) developed in order to observe the impact that an insufficient fulfilment of the workers’ necessities has on labour productivity and production.

This chapter argues that the Marxian theory of exploitation underlies the concepts of surplus and deficit industries that appear in Sraffa’s (1960) Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. This is seen from archival research of the unpublished papers of Piero Sraffa housed at the Wren Library, Trinity College, University of Cambridge. There it is shown that the origin of these concepts lies in the Marxian theory of exploitation that Sraffa developed regarding the notion of the ‘pool of profits’ the Italian economist utilized over a 14-year period from 1942 to 1956. The chapter engages in an extensive textual study of the archival evidence and then presents a simple analytical model of these relations.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how parental migration due to poverty affects a child’s education and human capital formation through changes in the child’s supply of unpaid labour.

The paper uses a small open overlapping generations model where the parent migrates for the family’s subsistence and that the child has to give up a part of education to do the housework during the parent’s absence.

The paper finds that given the level of the human capital, reducing the child’s burden of housework and promoting parental migration to high-wage countries do not necessarily raise the amount of child’s education. The paper also finds a possible underdevelopment trap in the dynamic context.

Unlike previous studies on child labour, this paper focuses on unpaid labour, whose share is actually larger than that of paid labour. Even if paid labour is available, children cannot re-allocate their time from doing the housework to the market work; so the author cannot disregard this observation. Investigation into the dynamics of human capital formation under such child labour is new.

A dominant belief is that the continuing encroachment of the market economy into everyday life is inevitable, unstoppable and irreversible. Over the past decade, however, a small stream of thought has started to question this commercialization thesis. This paper seeks to contribute to this emergent body of thought by developing a “whole economy” approach for capturing the multifarious economic practices in community economies and then applying this to an English locality.

A survey conducted of the economic practices used by 120 households in a North Nottinghamshire locality in the UK is reported here, comprising face‐to‐face interviews in an affluent, middle‐ranking and deprived neighborhood.

This reveals the limited commercialization of everyday life and the persistence of a multitude of economic practices in all neighborhood‐types. Participation rates in all economic practices (except one‐to‐one unpaid work and “off‐the‐radar” unpaid work) are higher in relatively affluent populations. Uneven development is marked by affluent populations that are “work busy”, engaging in a diverse spectrum of economic practices conducted more commonly out of choice, and disadvantaged populations that are more “work deprived”, conducting a narrower array of activities usually out of necessity.

This snapshot survey only displays that commercialization is not hegemonic. It does not display whether there is a shift towards commercialization.

Recognition of the limited encroachment of the market opens up the future to alternative possibilities beyond an inevitable commercialization of everyday life, intimating that the future will be characterized by the continuing persistence of multifarious economic practices rather than market hegemony.

The paper provides evidence from a western nation of the limited commercialization of daily life.

Looks at the historical positioning of housework as unpaid and questions the correctness of this idea. States that there is a fundamental theoretical error in defining housework as unpaid as market concepts are being applied to non‐market work. Continues to distinguish between the two markets considering the features of both, outlining the gender differences and the recent changes in the twentieth century.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the choice of employment sector for women is driven by the structure of the labour market or determined by the household socioeconomic condition.

Data for the study were drawn from the National Sample Survey 68th round (2011–2012). The sector of employment was assessed through females’ participation as an unpaid labour, employer/own account worker, informal wage worker, formal wage worker and unemployed. A multinomial logit model was used to examine the factors that determine the sector of employment.

Although education increases formal employment among women, most of them are unemployed or entering into informal employment. It indicates that the labour market has not been able to integrate educated women into formal employment.

Increase in female education accompanied by a slow growth of employment creates the challenge to accommodate the educated and skilled women in formal employment.

This study examines the factors determining the sectoral participation of employment to assess the responses of the current labour market for the females, especially educated females who have not been adequately addressed. The findings of the study have significant implications for formulating appropriate labour market policies for the educated female labour force.

The aim of this paper is to move beyond the market/non‐market divide and to recognise the plurality of labour practices in societies by adopting a variant of what Glucksmann calls “a total social organisation of labour” approach.

To transcend the conventional depiction of separate market and non‐market spheres, this paper adopts a total social organisation of labour approach which recognises a multiplicity of labour practices existing on a spectrum from market to non‐market practices crosscut by another spectrum from wholly monetised to wholly non‐monetised practices. This conceptual lens is employed to analyse the results of 861 face‐to‐face interviews on the labour practices used in affluent and deprived urban and rural English localities.

The outcome is to reveal the multifarious labour practices in these English localities along with how both work cultures and the nature of individual labour practices vary socio‐spatially. While affluent and rural populations draw more on an array of market‐oriented and monetised labour practices, deprived populations and urban localities are found to rely more on a range of non‐market and non‐monetised labour practices, and all labour practices are more likely to be conducted out of necessity in deprived and urban populations and out of choice in affluent and rural populations.

The paper only provides a snapshot survey. It does not show the changes taking place over time.

It reveals how it is mistaken to privilege the development of labour practices in the formal market economy and displays the feasibility of, and possibilities for, alternative futures beyond market hegemony.

The paper transcends the market/non‐market dualism and proposes an alternative conceptual framework to capture the multifarious labour practices in societies.

The sociology of childhood is fraught with problems, not least those centred on the idea, notion or concept of ‘childhood’, and in particular, the issue of how to define, distinguish and identify ‘childhood’ for sociological purposes. The study, analysis and understanding of childhood hinge upon how ‘childhood’ is defined, either explicitly or implicitly, one problem being the plethora of quite diverse approaches in both popular and sociological discourses. While there cannot be a correct definition of ‘childhood’, there can be a best definition, such as for sociological purposes, those of making sense of ‘childhood’ in particular and of social life, relationships and experience in general.