Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success

Abstract

This essay is a comment on“The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics”by Frances Woolley, which appeared in Feminist Economics, Vol. 11, No. 3, November 2005.

This contribution comments on Frances Woolley's recent Feminist Economics article, “The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics.” It points to two avenues through which Woolley's article could have better illuminated the extent of Feminist Economics' scholarly relationship with the communities of both heterodox and mainstream economists: first, she omits several important heterodox economic journals in her study, and second, she could have offered a more critical evaluation of mainstream journals and economists relative to Feminist Economics and feminist economists. This paper uses citation data drawn from ten heterodox and ten mainstream journals to identify and build on these gaps.     

Reassessing welfare reform data: a response to cherry

Abstract

This is a response to Robert Cherry's comment on the article, “Welfare as We [Don't] Know It: A Review and Feminist Critique of Welfare Reform Research” that appeared in the 10(2) issue of Feminist Economics. This response argues that while some combination of welfare reform, the booming economy in the late 1990s, and changes in economic policy all worked together to decrease caseloads and increase employment rates among welfare leavers, these are incomplete measures of the impact of welfare reform on the lives of lone mothers. This paper also argues that the effects of welfare reform on lone mothers are more mixed than Cherry acknowledges. This paper concludes that when one holistically examines low-income lone mothers' lives, it is premature to declare welfare reform a success.     

Reply to Frederic Lee's Comment on “The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics”

Abstract

This essay is a response to “A Comment on the Citation Impact of Feminist Economics,” by Frederic Lee, which appears in this issue ofFeminist Economics.

Frederic Lee's comment is a valuable addition to our understanding of the intellectual interactions between feminist economics and other schools of heterodox thought, and demonstrates how much can be learned by studying citation patterns.     

Political economy and the closet: heteronormativity in feminist economics

Abstract

Returning to a question raised by M. V. Lee Badgett in the first issue of Feminist Economics, this paper traces the persistence of heteronormativity in feminist economics to assumptions that kinship is organized around conjugal bonds. These assumptions let “the family” stand automatically for a husband, wife, and their children. “Heteronormativity” is not a synonym for heterosexual privilege, but rather names tacit conceptions about what is socially normal, conceptions that make it possible to think of heterosexuals or homosexuals as essential categories of people. Critique of heteronormativity makes visible a pattern of state repression that makes proper citizens by opposing them to improper ones, a process that simultaneously shapes gender, sexuality, citizenship, and race. Such critique opens the opportunity to better understand gender, integrate scholarship on lesbians and gays, link gender analysis more directly to racializing processes, and reopen the category of heterosexuality.     

SEN ON FREEDOM AND GENDER JUSTICE

Abstract

This comment on the special double issue of Feminist Economics on Amartya Sen's work discusses a number of themes and evaluates certain criticisms and claims in the volume. Sen's work involves a complex differentiation of distinct aspects of freedom. This differentiation is relevant to a number of criticisms. It is particularly helpful in evaluating various claims about Sen's focus on and the adequacy of his account of freedom. The article also considers claims about Sen's neglect of issues relating to interdependence and agency. To the degree that it is argued that some of these claims and criticisms can be addressed within Sen's conceptual framework, this article constitutes a qualified defense of his work. However, it does not claim that Sen's framework addresses all the criticisms that are leveled at it in the volume. Possible themes for future research are also briefly discussed.     

Adding links,adding persons,and adding structures: Using Sen's frameworks

Abstract

This essay is a comment on “Sen on Freedom and Gender Justice,” by Mozaffar Qizilbash, which appeared in Feminist Economics Volume 11, Number 3, November 2005.

Building on the 2003 double special issue of Feminist Economics entitled “Amartya Sen's Work and Ideas,” this paper responds to the review essay by Mozaffar Qizilbash. It identifies and illustrates various possible evaluations of a theoretical system, including that it has acknowledged strengths, unrecognized strengths, remediable gaps or failings, or structural faults. The paper then looks at Sen's system as a theoretical basis for “human development”– in particular in relation to personhood, emotions, and psychological interdependence – and argues that it points in directions required for economic and social analysis, including towards theories of care, but is not itself a sufficient treatment. The paper suggests deepening Sen's system by connecting to other important languages of analysis concerning the structuring of attitudes, emotions, felt well-being, public reasoning, and politics.     

Imagining Economics Otherwise: Encounters with Identity/Difference

How can theoretical criticisms to economics introduced by feminist economists be addressed empirically? Feminist scholars outside economics have spent considerable time debating appropriate methods and have often argued that interactive, situated research is more appropriate for answering feminist concerns. By telling the stories of three Palestinian women, I provide examples where qualitative research can enhance and even challenge quantitative research. I argue that our understanding of concepts such as power, individualism and preference formation will be enhanced by the use of qualitative methods and that feminist economists should be among those questioning the narrow definition of acceptable evidence articulated by mainstream economists.     

Assessing welfare reform data: a comment on christopher

Abstract

This paper responds to Karen Christopher's recent Feminist Economics paper that posits that welfare leavers did not benefit much financially during the Clinton-era economic boom. On the contrary, this paper finds that child poverty rates declined dramatically as did material hardships while the situation worsened for only a very small share of mothers. These benefits came as a result of welfare reform rather than simply an outgrowth of the booming economy that enabled a greater share of welfare leavers to find employment and gain sizeable transfer payments compared to the pre-reform time period.     

Feminist Ecological Economics and Sustainability

Synopsis New developments in feminist ecological economics and ecofeminist economics are contributing to the search for theories and policy approaches to move economies toward sustainability. This paper summarizes work by ecofeminists and feminist ecological economists which is relevant to the sustainability challenge and its implications for the discipline of economics. Both democracy and lower material throughputs are generally seen as basic principles of economic sustainability. Feminist theorists and feminist ecological economists offer many important insights into the conundrum of how to make a democratic and equity-enhancing transition to an economy based on less material throughput. These flow from feminist research on unpaid work and caring labor, provisioning, development, valuation, social reproduction, non-monetized exchange relationships, local economies, redistribution, citizenship, equity-enhancing political institutions, and labor time, as well as creative modeling approaches and activism-based theorizing.      

Citations of Most Often Cited Economists: Do Scholarly Books Matter More than Quality Journals?

This paper empirically investigates the determinants of citations based on the publication of the top 100 most often cited economists. The effects of publication age and author fame on subsequent citations are found to be positive and significant. Citations are also significantly affected by popular subfields in economics. However, journal quality measures, such as impact factors, download statistics and top‐4 elite journals, have insignificant effects on citations. In contrast, the citation effect of scholarly books is positive and significant, and its impact is even greater than those of journal quality measures.     

Standing on the shoulder of giants: the aspect of free-riding in RePEc rankings

Research papers in economics (RePEc) rankings have become a well-established source of information about actual and perceived academic performance of institutions, academic fields and their authors. One essential ingredient is the impact factors calculated in RePEc which differ from the standard ones. RePEc reports the ratio of the cumulative citations of all articles of a journal and the number of listed items. The continuously updated RePEc impact factors account for the whole journal and citation history. This approach gives rise to a potential free-riding of authors who profit from journal ranking established in the past. In this article, we demonstrate how the rankings of economists change if one calculates yearly impact factors. The distribution of gains and losses is most pronounced among middle-field ranked authors while the top group shows relative persistence.     

The citation field of evolutionary economics

Evolutionary economics has developed into an academic field of its own, institutionalized around, amongst others, the Journal of Evolutionary Economics (JEE). This paper analyzes the way and extent to which evolutionary economics has become an interdisciplinary journal, as its aim was: a journal that is indispensable in the exchange of expert knowledge on topics and using approaches that relate naturally with it. Analyzing citation data for the relevant academic field for the Journal of Evolutionary Economics, we use insights from scientometrics and social network analysis to find that, indeed, the JEE is a central player in this interdisciplinary field aiming mostly at understanding technological and regional dynamics. It does not, however, link firmly with the natural sciences (including biology) nor to management sciences, entrepreneurship, and organization studies. Another journal that could be perceived to have evolutionary acumen, the Journal of Economic Issues, does relate to heterodox economics journals and is relatively more involved in discussing issues of firm and industry organization. The JEE seems most keen to develop theoretical insights.     

INTRODUCTION / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN US UNIVERSITIES AND THE WORLD / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN UK UNIVERSITIES / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN CHINA'S UNIVERSITIES

Abstract

These Explorations, by eight authors from Canada, China, the US, and the UK, examine the current status of women in economics (with an eye mainly toward their status in the academic branch of the profession). The four sections of the work analyze results of surveys that show the distribution of academic positions among women economists in universities in Canada, the UK, the US, and China. The work also provides a short history of the development of committees and groups interested in furthering the status of women in the economics profession and suggests ways to improve the efforts of such groups and the status of women economists.     

Epistemology and the tasks of feminist economics

This paper examines the implications of current epistemological debates for the work of feminist economists. Feminist economists must acknowledge (in accordance with recent developments in the study of science) that (a) inquirers can never be certain whether claims about the world are true; (b) scientific inquiry is permeated with “internal” and “external” values; and (c) beliefs are affected by inquirers' social locations. But feminists should not, it argues, embrace the “relativist” stance of some postmodern thinkers, or reject the ideal of “truth,” or argue that beliefs are strictly determined by inquirers' identities and interests. It seeks to outline an epistemological “middle ground” for feminist economics, between the extremes of exaggerated claims of certainty and a disempowering relativism.     

On being an equal opportunity journal

In this paper I argue that Maggie Coleman's paper, “On Being An Equal Opportunity Hire: A Personal Reminiscence” and papers like it should be published in Feminist Economics because they articulate clearly the complexities of gender, class, and power relations which inform discussions in economics as well as in other disciplines.     

A brief history of cliometrics and the evolving view of the industrial revolution

Abstract

Over the past century and a half, economists have differed on methodology, interpretation, and explanation of the causes, consequences, and proper approach to understanding the historical period commonly referred to as the Industrial Revolution. The impact of the methodological debate over the role of theory and history in economics, and the growth of cliometrics on the ways in which we think about and analyze the Industrial Revolution have been primary factors in this debate. This article uses the rise of cliometrics as a lens through which to view the intellectual history of economists’ views of the Industrial Revolution. It is not in itself an attempt to explain the causes or consequences of the Industrial Revolution, but rather, an overview of the evolution of the approaches that economists have used to define what constituted the Industrial Revolution, when it occurred, and how to explain its causes and why it occurred when and where it did.     

Social Provisioning as a Starting Point for Feminist Economics

The past decade has seen a proliferation of writing by feminist economists. Feminist economists are not identified with one particular economic paradigm, yet some common methodological points seem to be emerging. I propose making these starting points more explicit so that they can be examined, critiqued, and built upon. I use the term “social provisioning” to describe this emerging methodology. Its five main components are: incorporation of caring and unpaid labor as fundamental economic activities; use of well-being as a measure of economic success; analysis of economic, political, and social processes and power relations; inclusion of ethical goals and values as an intrinsic part of the analysis; and interrogation of differences by class, race-ethnicity, and other factors. The paper then provides brief illustrations of the use of this methodology in analyses of US welfare reform, gender and development, and feminist ecological economics.     

Women and Retirement Pensions: A Research Review

Abstract

The links between women's caring work and access to economic resources are particularly critical in the context of widespread public policy debates about retirement and pensions, many of which neglect care as a key issue for analysis. However, among feminist economists it is widely recognized that women's patterns of care provision have adverse implications for their access to economic resources in later life. The feminist economics literature examines many of the interactions between women's caring roles and their access to resources, particularly women's capacity to access economic resources through publicly mandated or regulated pension schemes. This article reviews research that places women's patterns of work and care at the center of analyses of retirement pension policy in an effort to provide a summary of research on gender and pensions policy and to contrast the extent to which differing institutional and policy frameworks accommodate women's caring roles.     

The Ethics of Intergenerational Distribution: Reply and Response to John E. Roemer

Recent concerns among economists over global climate change have given rise to an uneven literature on intergenerational welfare economics. Environmental & Resource Economics in its March 2011 issue published a paper by the political philosopher John E. Roemer that contains not only errors of interpretation of what others have written, but also misunderstandings of settled matters. I respond and reply to Roemer by re-exploring the foundations of intergenerational welfare economics. I show that ethical pluralism gives rise to a very different framework for thinking about the subject than the one Roemer presents in his paper. Moreover, his dismissal of much of what welfare economists write on such concepts as social discount rates has as its source an utterly narrow view of the contexts in which economic evaluation is undertaken in the contemporary world.     

The old versus the new institutionalism

Marianne Ferber, a 75 year old professor emerita at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, has been a central figure in developing both the literature and the institutions of feminist economics. She was one of the first and most effective scholars to challenge Gary Becker's analysis of the economics of the family. Her textbook, The Economics of Women, Men and Work , co-authored with Francine Blau and Anne Winkler, is the standard for courses on women in the economy. Her 400 page annotated bibliography, Women and Work, Paid and Unpaid , published in 1987, is the definitive source on economic research on women's work published up to that point. Her anthology, Beyond Economic Man: feminist theory and economics , co-edited with Julie Nelson, is the first to pull together the exciting new work being done by people who have an explicitly feminist perspective on economics. She was a member of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession in the 1970s, a founding member of the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE) and for 1995 and 1996 served as IAFFE's president. This interview was conducted in January 1998.