The history of the emergence of the branch called Feminist Economics in the 1970s lies in two important processes. First, the entrance of women’s studies in academia after the Second Wave of Feminism and its subsequent effect on economists, especially women economists, played a significant role in changing how economic theory has been approached (Becchio, 2020, p 123). Second, the need for an alternative to neoclassical, Marxist, and institutional economics’ way of dealing with gender issues was greatly felt. Since then, there has been work done on defining, understanding, and differentiating feminist economics by scholars. However, the task of defining feminist political economics remains a less worked-on area within the discipline.

Sara Cantillon, Odile Mackett, and Sara Stevano’s (2023) book Feminist Political Economy A Global Perspective (published by Agenda Pub)is a much-needed book that explains the intersections of feminist economics, political economy, international political economy, gender, and development. The book defines feminist political economy as a branch that resides in the field of interdisciplinary political economy (p 4). However, political economy has been historically gender-blind. A feminist political economy approach, rather than “adding” women or gender analysis, focuses on how gender is embedded in all economic and social relations. Cantillon, Mackett, and Stevano identify four key features that distinguish a feminist political economy (FPE) approach (p 6). First, it has a broader conceptual framework than mainstream political economy and economics, including realms of the household, the family, the community, and social reproduction. Second, FPE analyses how gender inequalities, inseparable from class and race inequalities, are fundamental to the operation of both the current capitalist and previous economic systems. An FPE approach acknowledges that patriarchal and capitalist relations are important in maintaining discrimination against women. Third, FPE employs a plurality of methodologies. The use of a feminist methodology in economics has been an important discussion, with a focus on reflexive and mixed methods. Finally, the FPE approach is an intersectional analysis that looks at how different systems of power and access to power interact.

The book is divided into 11 chapters, each providing an overview of topics pertinent to feminist political economy. The book pays significant attention to both the Global North and the Global South, along with discussions on how the COVID-19 pandemic has played a role in changing the dynamics of the feminist political economy. The second chapter looks at the global division of labour and how new challenges emerged for female workers as well as workers from marginalized groups in the neoliberal era. Three broad changes in employment can be identified in the aftermath of the neoliberal era. First, the participation of males in the labour force began declining in both the developed as well as the developing world (Barrientos et al, 2004). The main reason behind this was the fall in male employment in the manufacturing sector in the developed countries and a fall in public employment in the developing countries (Cantillon et al, 2024). Second, the percentage of women in the labour force increased in all regions of the world, except sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia, where it was already high (Barrientos et al, 2004). This along with a fall in male employment led to the shrinking of the gap in male and female labour force participation levels. Finally, the distribution of the female labour force changed along with the global division of labour. Agriculture remained the most important source of employment for women in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa but the female labour force in agriculture saw a fall or remained static. In East and Southeast Asia, the share of female employment in manufacturing increased.  It was this process of the global division of labour that saw the United Nations declare that “industrialization in the context of globalization is as much female-led as export-led” (UN, 1999; 9). In the present era of globalizing financialised era of capitalism, manufacturing work has been relocated to low-wage regions and women are recruited into paid workforce with state and corporate disinvestment from social welfare (Bhattacharya, 2017). For instance, the shift of women’s labour from farm to factory was seen to be at the heart of the South Korean growth story, with the male-female gender gap being one of the keys to the success of its industrialization (Amsden, 1989).

Chapters 3, 4, and 5 focus on social reproduction, care work, and the household, hence, looking at how “women’s work” can be understood and how the household is an important domain in understanding women’s work. As financialized capitalism has reduced real wages and raised the number of hours of paid work per household needed to support a family, care work has been transferred to others, leading to a “care gap”. Migrant workers from poorer countries or rural areas from poorer regions take on reproductive and care labour, forming a “global care chain”. Unwaged physical, emotional, and care labour that occur within the household are important for the functioning of the global political economy.

Chapters 6 and 7 focus on inequalities within the household and in the labour market. Chapter 8 looks at issues of gender and welfare states. Chapter 9, titled “Feminization of Poverty”, outlines the various connotations behind the phrase. The chapter raises important points on whether the rise of female-headed households can be seen as evidence of feminization of poverty. The chapter also looks at how understanding poverty needs a feminist perspective. Historically, there has been a tendency to reduce gender to poverty, seeing anti-poverty programmes as the harbinger of improving the position of women (O’Laughlin, 1998). However, in the Global South, such poverty alleviation programmes do not address the fundamental gender differences within the household. Finally, chapter 10 covers economic crises and chapter 11 looks at the importance and limitations of GDP as a measure. The last two chapters point out the consequences of continuing with traditional economic approaches in times of crisis and prosperity.

The book is an important introduction to feminist political economy for beginners as well as for advanced scholars working on the discipline. Barker and Feiner (2004) in their important text Liberating Economics wrote that “all economic research dealing with women or gender is not feminist economics.” They also added that “economic analyses, which are distinctively “feminist” are not only, and not necessarily, about women.” A feminist political economy approach, based on such lines, can be understood as critically understanding political economy from a feminist lens, but not excluding race, caste, and class. Feminist Economics A Global Perspective makes this point clearer in the text.     

References:

Amsden, A.H. (1989). Asia’s Next Giant South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barker, D.K. and Feiner, S.F. (2004). Liberating Economics Feminist Perspectives on Families, Work, and Globalization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Barrientos, S., Kabeer, N., and Hossain, N. (2004). The Gender Dimensions of Globalization of Production. Working Paper 17. Geneva: ILO.

Becchio, G. (2020). A History of Feminist and Gender Economics. London and New York: Routledge.

Bhattacharya, T. (2017). “Introduction.” In Bhattacharya, T. (Ed.) Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression. London, New York: Pluto Press.

O’Laughlin, B. (1998). “Missing Men? The Debate over Rural Poverty and Women-Headed Households in Southern Africa.” Journal of Peasant Studies, 25(2): 1-48. 

***

Ritwika Patgiri is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Economics of the South Asian University (SAU), New Delhi.