Between a rock and a soft place: Ecological and feminist economics in policy debates

The field of ecological economics includes both economic analysis on the one hand, and discussions of normative values and visions for society, on the other. Using feminist insights into cultural beliefs about the relative “hardness” and “softness” of these two sides, this essay discusses how ecological economists can use this unique “between” space in order to better inform policy. The current crisis of global climate change, it is argued, requires that economists move beyond modeling and measurement, while ecological thinkers need to re-examine beliefs about markets and profit.     

Organizational culture and work–life integration: A barrier to employees’ respite?

Abstract

The management of work–life boundaries is portrayed in the literature as being a matter of individual choice. Accordingly, organizational influence has been underestimated. The first objective of this article is therefore to determine whether an organizational culture of integration (e.g. expectations about taking work home) can influence individuals’ ability to act on their personal preference for segmentation. The second objective is to determine whether a mismatch between culture and personal preferences can influence the emotional state of employees and, if so, in what way. A study of 243 employees showed that the perception of an organizational culture of integration reduced the effect of preference for segmentation on employees’ ability to detach themselves from work during rest periods. Further, a path analysis highlighted a moderated mediation, indicating that preference for segmentation was associated with reduced emotional exhaustion in employees by promoting a high level of psychological detachment, and this reduction was even stronger among those who perceived a weak culture of integration in their organization. This study proposes that jointly with individual preference for segmentation or integration, the norms and expectations of an organization have considerable influence on employees’ ability to detach and recover during non-work time.     

Not-So-Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking

Based on a growing body of experimental and other studies, two recent economics survey articles claim to find “strong evidence” that women are “fundamental[ly]” more risk-averse than men. Yet, much of the literature fails to clearly distinguish between differences that hold at the individual level (categorical differences between men and women) and patterns that appear only at the aggregate level (statistically detectable differences in men's and women's distributions, such as different means). There is a resulting problem of possible misinterpretation, as well as a dearth of appropriate attention to substantive significance. Additionally, one of the two surveys suffers from problems of statistical validity, possibly due to confirmation bias. Applying appropriate, expanded statistical techniques to the same data, this study finds substantial similarity and overlap between the distributions of men and women in risk taking, and a difference in means that is not substantively large.     

The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: the case of economics,gender, and risk aversion

Behavioral research has revealed how normal human cognitive processes can tend to lead us astray. But do these affect economic researchers, ourselves? This article explores the consequences of stereotyping and confirmation bias using a sample of published articles from the economics literature on gender and risk aversion. The results demonstrate that the supposedly ‘robust’ claim that ‘women are more risk averse than men’ is far less empirically supported than has been claimed. The questions of how these cognitive biases arise and why they have such power are discussed, and methodological practices that may help to attenuate these biases are outlined.     

Adolescents' sustainability concerns and reasons for not consuming sustainably

Many consumers report being concerned about sustainability but they do not necessarily consume in a sustainable manner. Understanding why this occurs is vital to encouraging sustainable consumption practices. Understanding the phenomenon in relation to adolescents is particularly important. In addition to being a significant segment of current consumers, adolescents are learning consumption habits and preferences that they will carry into adulthood. This research contributes to the domain by fulfilling two research objectives. The first objective was to develop and use a scale for measuring adolescents' sustainability concerns (ASC). The second objective was to identify and examine adolescents' reasons for not consuming sustainably. The research used a three‐stage multi‐method design that included small group interviews and two online surveys with adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. The ASC scale that we produced identifies 14 key sustainability concerns across the dimensions of environment, well‐being and society. The reasons for not consuming sustainably varied across these dimensions. For example, the most frequently reported reasons in the environmental dimension included cost and convenience whereas peer pressure and hedonic preferences were the dominant reasons for well‐being. More broadly, three groups of reasons for unsustainable consumption emerged. These included (i) limited application of sustainability concerns across consumption; (ii) deviating from concerns due to competing priorities; and (iii) limiting or eliminating personal responsibility. The contributions of this research have theoretical, methodological and practical implications for consumer researchers, social marketers and policy makers.