{"id":407,"date":"2019-03-08T14:01:29","date_gmt":"2019-03-08T14:01:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/?p=407"},"modified":"2019-03-08T14:09:14","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T14:09:14","slug":"should-we-be-combatting-sexism-to-stimulate-economic-growth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/2019\/03\/08\/should-we-be-combatting-sexism-to-stimulate-economic-growth\/","title":{"rendered":"Should we be combatting sexism to stimulate economic growth?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Christine Lagarde at a meeting in Brazil.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This\u00a0post\u00a0was\u00a0originally\u00a0written\u00a0for\u00a0‘Le\u00a0Monde\u00a0Diplomatique’<\/a>\u00a0by\u00a0Meenakshi\u00a0Krishnan\u00a0of\u00a0IDS\u00a0and\u00a0 Prof.\u00a0Ben\u00a0Selwyn\u00a0of\u00a0Sussex\u00a0Global.\u00a0We\u00a0include\u00a0it\u00a0here\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0debut\u00a0post\u00a0in\u00a0March’s\u00a0‘Experiences\u00a0in Diversity’\u00a0theme.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the run-up to International Women\u2019s Day, it was good to see Christine Lagarde highlight the problems of sexism in the global economy. Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since 2011, argues that combatting sexism<\/a> and bringing more women into the workplace could raise economic growth in some countries by as much as 35%. Greater gender empowerment through changes in state laws and tax accounting contributes to \u2018higher growth, a reduction in inequality, an improvement in the strength of the economy and a more diversified, export-focused country\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women are now living longer than men in all parts of the world. Over half a billion women have joined the world\u2019s labour force over the last 30 years, and gender gaps in primary education have closed in almost all countries<\/a>. But there\u2019s still a long way to go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lagarde\u2019s emphasis on combatting sexism is a welcome intervention in public debates. It is refreshing compared to the world\u2019s most powerful politician\u2019s attitudes to women<\/a>. Yet her message is surprisingly narrow, and in some ways contributes to reproducing sexist attitudes; moreover, there is no sense of where the resources to combat sexism will come from. She is not arguing that the IMF, or World Bank, or core economy states should finance the worldwide re-education of men and boys in feminist principles. Of course, changes to the law are necessary. But so too is an extensive roll-out of pro-women education. This would cost money, and since the 2008 world economic crisis, many states across the global south have economised on their social spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There is an element here of shifting the task of gender equality onto states with limited resources, rather than identifying potential sources of funds from which to underpin more far-reaching transformations. Such funds do exist, and could be accessed by just and effective taxation<\/a> of trans-national corporations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Read also C\u00e9cile Andrzejewski, \u201c<\/em>Women do the heavy lifting<\/em><\/a>\u201d, Le Monde diplomatique, January 2018.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The strategy of combatting sexism to boost economic growth seeks modifications to, rather than a transformation of, a system that is itself rooted in fundamental gender inequality. It is an excellent example of gender mainstreaming. On the one hand, it incorporates into public discourse previously radical demands for equality by women\u2019s movements; on the other, it makes these demands compatible with prevailing economic relations \u2014 in particular those associated with industrialisation and economic growth. This is so in at least three ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the burden of familial care \u2014 which is mostly unpaid and predominantly carried out by women \u2014 contributes to gender inequalities across all spheres of society. Lagarde does not acknowledge that it represents a mega subsidy to the global economy. In fact, the value of women\u2019s unpaid care work is estimated at $10 trillion \u2014 43 times the annual turnover of Apple<\/a>. The world\u2019s expanding labour force is, in part, a product of this vast quantity of unpaid reproductive work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, the IMF\u2019s economic stabilisation programmes have contributed to the worsening of women\u2019s conditions in many indebted countries. Across Latin America between the 1980s and 2000s, women played the role of \u2018shock absorbers\u2019 of neoliberal restructuring, by undertaking more<\/a> low paid work and unpaid domestic work. Increasing numbers of women entered formal and informal labour markets in response to falling real incomes of male workers combined with cuts to social welfare provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly, much of women\u2019s work across the global south occurs within a dynamic of immiserating growth \u2014 where economic gains for a small minority are predicated upon workers\u2019 privation. From the garment factories producing Spice Girls T-shirts where women earn 35 pence<\/a> an hour, to much of the global food supply chain, to electronics assembly factories across Asia, women workers\u2019 wages are often insufficient to maintain themselves and their families. They resort to various strategies \u2014 from extensive and health-damaging overtime, to taking on other jobs or relying upon extended families or producing their own food \u2014 all to make ends meet for their families<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the context of widespread political prejudice, Christine Lagarde\u2019s arguments about the need to combat sexism are important. But they conceal as much as they reveal. They seek to adjust, rather than fundamentally transform a world economy rooted in gender discrimination. The kinds of transformations generating real gender equality and women\u2019s empowerment require much greater shifts in wealth and power towards the working women of the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meenakshi Krishnan is a doctoral researcher at Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the University of Sussex, and works on issues of women\u2019s workforce participation, unpaid care work, family friendly work policies and social protection. Benjamin Selwyn is professor of International Development in the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, and author of The Struggle for Development (<\/em>Wiley<\/em><\/a>, 2017).<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This\u00a0post\u00a0was\u00a0originally\u00a0written\u00a0for\u00a0‘Le\u00a0Monde\u00a0Diplomatique’\u00a0by\u00a0Meenakshi\u00a0Krishnan\u00a0of\u00a0IDS\u00a0and\u00a0 Prof.\u00a0Ben\u00a0Selwyn\u00a0of\u00a0Sussex\u00a0Global.\u00a0We\u00a0include\u00a0it\u00a0here\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0debut\u00a0post\u00a0in\u00a0March’s\u00a0‘Experiences\u00a0in Diversity’\u00a0theme.\u00a0 In the run-up to International Women\u2019s Day, it was good to see Christine Lagarde highlight the problems of sexism in the global economy. Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since 2011, argues that combatting sexism and bringing…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=407"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":418,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407\/revisions\/418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}