Sara Cantillon et al., "Feminist Political Economy: A Global Perspective" (Agenda, 2023)
32:05 Share

Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently, I asked Mint Mobile's legal team if big wireless companies are allowed to raise prices due to inflation. They said yes. And then when I asked if raising prices technically violates those onerous two-year contracts, they said, what the f*** are you talking about, you insane Hollywood a**hole?

So to recap, we're cutting the price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront for three months plus taxes and fees. Promote it for new customers for a limited time. Unlimited more than 40 gigabytes per month. Slows. Full terms at mintmobile.com.

This episode is brought to you by GE Healthcare.

Welcome to the new books network.

Welcome everyone. This is a new episode of the New Books Network. My name is Sarah Fogelsheimer and I'm your host today. This episode will discuss the recently published book Feminist Political Economy, A Global Perspective, written by Sarah Cantillon, Sarah Stefano and Odile Marquette and published by Agenda Publishing in 2023. Sarah Stefano and Sarah Cantillon are senior researchers based in the UK and Odile Marquette is a senior researcher based in South Africa.

They have brought together incredible work from all around the world and written a book that asks questions about gender, work and development and answers them by focusing on power relations and politics. It is a very much needed conceptualization of an underrepresented string in political economy that has been growing in the past decade. Today, I'm joined by Odile Marquette and Sade Stefano to talk about the book. Hello, everyone. I'm very excited to be here.

Before diving into your book, it's a tradition at the New Books Network to present yourself and your work. So I would love to hear more about yourselves, how you got into the academia and how you ended up writing this book together. Thank you for the introduction, Sira. I'm Rodil Mathet. Like you mentioned, I'm based in South Africa at the University of South Africa. I work in the Graduate School of Business Leadership.

And so, yeah, I got into this project through an invitation from Sarah. And how did I get into academia?

I think I always wanted to be a teacher. I was always a teacher at heart, but I didn't want to teach scholars. And that's sort of how I became interested in academia and coming from a family where we have no academics. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that you do more than just teach in academia, which is great because I like working on a variety of things. And so my work generally also revolves around labour. So...

I would call myself a labor economist, but my interest is more in unpaid labor rather than paid labor or how the two sort of interact with one another. And so, yeah, that's just a little bit about me. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Yes. And yeah, it's my pleasure to be here. My name is Sara Stefano. I am a senior lecturer in economics at the University of London.

I work in the fields of development economics and feminist political economy. My background is in economics, but since my PhD I have been working very much across disciplines. First with anthropology and then very much across the social sciences, which I think is a feature of political economy more generally and to a feminist political economy more specifically.

Yes, how did I get into this book? The short story is that Agenda Publishing, which is a publisher of the book, had an interest in publishing a textbook on feminist economics or feminist political economy. And this was an idea discussed with Diane Elson and Sarah Cantillon, who are

are basically the two coordinators of a stream for Agenda called, I think, Gender and the Economy. And then Sarah was interested in taking this idea forward, but she felt that it was a little bit too much to do this by herself.

And so speaking to, you know, people in the field and in particular to Naila Kabir, Naila then, you know, told Sarah, oh, I know, you know, somebody who might be interested. And so we were put in touch. So Naila Kabir, who is, you know, quite a well-known feminist economist and political economist, is the sort of matchmaker of this book.

And so Sarah and I were put in touch and a little bit later we called Odile to join our group to write the book. That's so interesting. Thank you so much for sharing this. I would like to start now with the topic of the household. So you write about within household inequalities, which contrasts the common approach in political economy, which often looks at between household inequalities.

And I'm interested in what insights did a feminist perspective bring to this? Yeah, so this is an important question. And I think, you know, like maybe I want to start by saying a few words about where the focus on between household inequalities comes from.

So I think, you know, that one reason is that the vast majority of survey data, in particular household survey data that is used for socioeconomic analysis, are based basically on exactly this household survey that take the household as the unit of analysis. Right.

And that means that the data on individuals within households up to some time ago was actually quite scarce, particularly when we're talking about reliable data. But of course, this is not only a methodological or a data collection issue. The thing is that this practice of data

Taking the household as a unit of analysis, so without trying to understand what happens within the household, comes from a specific theorization and understanding of the household that I think at the origins comes from mainstream economic theory.

from the 1980s and 1990s. So this was a time that microeconomic theory moving beyond the analysis of market activities, so-called, and looking into non-market activities, which would be what happens within the household, the processes of allocation of resources and decision-making at the household level.

So this was quite a shift in itself, but the way in which this was done was effectively through an extension of the standard economics toolkit to this area of so-called non-market activities. And that led to the understanding of the household as a unit fundamentally governed by altruism.

and characterized by a rational sexual division of labor. And this comes primarily from the work by Gary Becker and then others who have followed that tradition.

And it is important to mention this because I think it is precisely this kind of theorizing called the New Housland economics that triggered a very strong feminist response. And the response, in fact, was not only from feminist economists, but also from feminist anthropologists, for example. And in the 1990s especially, there was a proliferation of both conceptual and empirical literature

showing that the household is actually a much more complex unit or institution and that, you know, theorization that came from neoclassical economic theory was not good enough.

And in fact, you know, what was very important from a feminist perspective is that the household is a cycle reproduction of inequalities, in particular gender inequalities. And feminists strongly challenged the naturalization of women's domestic labor, effectively.

And so, you know, I there is a lot of foundational work in this area to name a few key authors. I would say Bridget Locklin, Denise Candioti, Jane Geyer, Pauline Peters and Mayla Kabir.

And, you know, if we take it all together, I think this literature leads us to a characterization from a feminist perspective of the household that is based on three characteristics. The first is that households are internally fragmented, particularly along the lines of gender and age.

They also have elusive boundaries, so they're not self-contained units, but they are embedded into a broader socio-economic context and there are external relations that also matter. And they also change over time through their own developmental cycle. So this is something that is in our book.

And just to conclude this, I want to say that this feminist scholarship was so influential in challenging the mainstream economic theorization of the household that one practical implication is that now for some time,

The exercises of data collection in larger scale household surveys have changed and they're based on interviewing not only the household head, who often happens to be a man, but they're based on interviewing multiple, if not all, adult members of the household.

And this is to catch different needs, different outcomes for individual household members in terms of income, consumption, decision making, employment and well-being. Yes, that's super interesting and very important as well.

I think building on this, you have in the book next to the chapter of within household inequalities also individual chapters on care, on social production and even the household alone. So why is it necessary to make this distinction?

Right, so maybe let me start by saying something about social reproduction and care and then I'll come to the household and why we wanted to have three different chapters on these three themes.

So social reproduction is a concept that originates in the 1970s and it is clearly rooted in Marxist and socialist feminism. So it is an interdisciplinary concept but it has this particular theoretical grounding in Marxist feminist thinking in particular.

And I think we can say that its fortunes and misfortunes have mirrored a little bit what happened with Marxist thinking more generally. So after, you know, quite a lot of scholarly and scientific

activism or scholarly activity sorry in activism in the 1970s and 80s the concept was you know like in this kind of approaches so we're sidelined in the 1990s and early 2000s

But recently, I think, more or less in the last decade, social reproduction feminism is making a powerful comeback. There is a lot of emerging scholarship that is taking the concept forward in multiple ways. And I think this reflects a re-emerging general dissatisfaction with the dominant socioeconomic system we have.

and in particular the neoliberal era of capitalism. And so there is a re-engagement with this concept. On the other hand, care starts being prominent in the feminist literature a little bit later, so in the early 1990s. And

Even for care, you know, the concept is used across different disciplines, philosophies, other work by John Tronto, for example, but also geography, economics, environmental studies and so forth.

And differently from social reproduction, it's not rooted necessarily in one particular theoretical approach. So it's a little bit more eclectic. And the way in which the concept comes across in different disciplines denotes, I mean, it has some differences. Yeah.

But it became, I think, a dominant concept in the feminist literature from the 1990s onwards, maybe particularly in the English-speaking world, but possibly also beyond. And this is something that, you know, I'm not entirely certain about. So now...

the revival of social reproduction feminism is raising some questions around what is social reproduction, what is care, how are these two concepts related? And of course, a lot could be said about this. I'm not going to go there, first of all, because it's not really in our book. But second, I also think maybe it's a little bit beyond the scope of this conversation and it's not strictly necessary to answer your question.

But what the book revealed to us, and this happened inductively and somewhat unintentionally, if you want, is that, okay, a decision was made that we were going to have two separate chapters on social reproduction care because it felt that there was a lot to be said on these two concepts. So they deserved two different chapters. And then what happened was that...

Sarah Cantillon drafted the chapter on care and I drafted the chapter on social reproduction. And what emerged very interestingly is that, in fact, not only in our chapters, but in the literature on social reproduction and care, I think most definitions of these two concepts are strikingly similar. So what is social reproduction? What is care?

is basically the totality of work, whether unpaid or paid, and practices, social practices, cultural practices that are needed for the regeneration of life and society. And so, you know, effectively this is the same when we think about care and social reproduction, not in all, but in most definitions of these two concepts.

However, the fact that we drafted these two different chapters separately also revealed that the two concepts speak to different places, so to speak, right? So they have been used in order to intervene in different areas of feminist thinking. So just to name perhaps a few differences...

One particular in feminist economics and feminist political economy, care is a relational concept. So there is a carer and a cared for. This does not apply to social reproduction. A second difference is that the care literature has been traditionally stronger in relation to making policy recommendations. So it has been more interested in affecting policy change.

And this is not the same for the social reproduction literature, which has been not very much engaged with policy, but more engaged maybe with politics and more radical transformations of how societies take care of social reproduction.

And particularly the contemporary version of the social reproduction literature is more concerned with intersecting inequalities. The care literature, I think, less so, so far at least. So...

Just to conclude this, so why did we need another chapter on the household wealth? Because even if it is true that there is a lot of feminist literature that looks at care and social reproduction in households, you know, predominantly or even exclusively...

In fact, the definitions of social reproduction and care exceed the household. So, you know, we need to think about the importance of the reproductive sectors, of education, of health care, of social care in our society, but also the importance of communities.

which of course, you know, varies by context. But, you know, I think a focus on the household is very fundamental, but insufficient in order to catch the totality of social reproduction and care. And I think that this was very much illustrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, where in many countries across the world, people were forced into their households to

And this exposed the fact that much as the household is a key institution for social reproduction and care, it is certainly not sufficient on its own to perform all of the social reproduction and care that is needed. So I'm going to leave it there.

And with Monday.com, work is just easier.

Monday.com for whatever you run. Go to Monday.com to learn more. Fever, cough, congestion. When the symptoms keep coming, but you've got to keep going, you can rely on Mucinex Fast Max All-in-One. Just one dose of Mucinex Fast Max All-in-One relieves up to nine cold and flu symptoms, helping you get on with your day.

Need cold and flu relief? Get Mucinex Fast Max All-in-One and Dunn Relief. It's comeback season. Use as directed. How about some fresh out-of-the-oven gingerbread, bright snowdrop, fresh Iowa pine, and cool peppermint to put you in the holiday cleaning spirit? Made with goodness, not a lot of nonsense. Mrs. Meyers. See what good can grow. Visit mrsmeyers.com today.

Yes, yeah, that's very interesting and very insightful. Thank you so much. I would like to zoom out now from the household level to a global perspective on political economy and development, as you also have in your book title.

And your book stands as an introduction into the necessary feminist perspectives when we are studying and discussing welfare regimes, poverty, but also economic measurements such as GDP. So Odile, can you explain how you connect these topics to feminist perspectives and why feminist approach is so relevant?

Thank you for the question. So the book provides feminist perspectives on a variety of different topics. And also the way in which it's done depends on the topic understudy. So the topics that are in the book also while researched areas in other schools of thought. And so in a dialogue with these schools, most notably mainstream economics,

We introduce conceptual and theoretical frameworks developed by feminist scholars, as well as provide empirical evidence, also provided by feminist scholars to challenge these dominant views of the economy, and also to sort of introduce alternative ways of thinking about some of the topics that are in the book.

This is sort of necessary for a variety of reasons, some of which are outlined in the first chapter of the book. So taking a feminist approach gives us an opportunity to

to do things quite differently. So, for instance, mainstream approaches underplay the existence of social hierarchies in the economy. That's a point that we make in the first chapter. So, related to this, feminist perspectives encourages us to draw on the work of other disciplines, as Sita has also mentioned, some of which are better tools to help us understand the social elements within our economies.

In addition to this, the household and family as invisibilized economic institutions are also then brought into the fold. And it also encourages intersectional approaches and then the use of the diabolicity of methodological approaches. So without some of these, our understanding of contemporary inequalities remain quite limited. And so with these discussions and the evidence,

these also then often inform policy design and outcomes. And these are some of the very material outcomes which many feminist scholars also try to demonstrate through their work. And I think that sort of speaks to the element of why this is necessary. So not just for theoretical exercise, but also thinking more broadly about these topics and who reads it, essentially.

Yes, very interesting. And I believe your book is also very special because it's a collection of usually separated research areas in feminist political economy as well. So as I mentioned before, you use a global perspective on issues that are often studied on a local level as well.

So I'm interested in what issues or questions arose during your research but also writing process.

Yeah, thanks for that. So yeah, it's interesting that you use the word separated because bringing it all together was quite challenging. So not only thinking through how the individual chapters themselves fit together and how we organize them in the book, but also thinking about the ideas presented within the chapters themselves.

So we didn't and couldn't possibly seek out to produce an exhaustive resource for this book. So deciding which ideas were most pertinent to prevent on the various topics was quite challenging.

And as feminist political economy allows us to draw on so many resources, both within and outside the economic discipline, part of the challenge was also deciding which aspects of the topics were most pertinent to a student's understanding when they essentially use the book. And also thinking through the departure point of the writing process.

So as we outline in the book, this is a resource for students who are a little bit advanced in their studies. So we did need to make an assumption about the basic level of understanding of the concepts the readers would have when they did pick up the book. Then there are, of course, also questions around what was included and what was excluded. So the book discusses a few key themes, but there are also many others which could have potentially been included.

I think one pertinent topic we have right now is understanding economies in conflicted areas and particularly feminist perspectives on how we think through how these economies function and continue to exist.

And there are also, of course, a few other topics, but we also aim to provide a somewhat coherent product to the reader on a limited number of topics, given that we also consider approaches both from the global north and the global south. So, yeah. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Maybe before we finish now, I would love to know what your plans are after you've written this book.

So what are your current projects? Should I go again?

Yeah, so obviously as an academic, there's always a million things to work on. But I think one of the main things that I am working on at the moment is a few articles on time-use data in a variety of global South countries. So there are a lot of surveys coming out right now. So I'm sort of taking advantage of that and also looking forward to the light diaries, which the ILO is introducing into some labour force surveys.

I really hope that we'll start like popularizing the use of time use data. And so that's sort of one of the main things I'm looking into in the sort of short term. Very interesting. Thank you. And Sarah?

Yeah, that's great, Odile. And yeah, time use data, by the way, is, you know, the type of survey data that allows for a gender kind of analysis that is often not allowed, particularly when it comes to unpaid activities through other survey data. So that's great to hear, Odile. As for me, I mean, you know,

Let's say that there were some floating ideas about potentially adding some chapters to the book. And, you know, Odile mentioned, I think, a very important area that has to do with conflict issues.

and the feminist perspectives on it but also for some reasons I mean to be honest I don't have a very good explanation but I you know part of my work is in the field of food for example and there is a lot of very interesting feminist literature on food and nutrition which

but we don't have such chapter in the book. So, you know, there's nothing concrete and, uh, I'm not making any promises. So, but, uh, um, it could be that perhaps at some point in the future, we might have an extended version of this book with some new chapters included in it. Um,

Otherwise, yes. So basically I am trying to revive my food-related research and I am keen on trying to make a link between food and social reproduction because I think very intuitively food is a very important component of social reproduction. But so far there is really very little literature and research that makes this connection explicit. And so this is something that I think I will try to do

in the foreseeable future. Thank you so much. This is very, very interesting. Also exciting to hear that maybe there will be a new book soon or later. And unfortunately, we've used all of our time now. But thank you so much for your profound and thoughtful answers, giving us an insight into your new book. I wish you all the best.

This was a podcast in the New Books Network about the book Feminist Political Economy, A Global Perspective, published by Agenda Publishing in 2023. I'm your host, Sarah Fogelsanger, and I hope you join us next time again.