Feminist Economics: Theoretical and Political Dimensions

• Author: Astrid Agenjo‐Calderón,Lina Gálvez‐Muñoz
• Date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12264
• Published date: 01 January 2019

Feminist Economics: Theoretical and

Political Dimensions

By Astrid Agenjo-CAlderón* and linA gálvez-Muñoz†

AbstrACt. Feminist economics is a school of economic thought and

political action that gained important visibility during the 1990s,

although its origins can be dated back to the mid-19th century. Since

then, feminist economics has developed its own concepts, analytical

frameworks, and methodologies. With gender as a central category, it

seeks a more integral and humane comprehension of the economy

and of the processes of inclusion and exclusion taking place in it. In

addition, feminist economics has grown into a political practice that

aims at improving the functioning of the economic system so that all

people can have access to a dignified life on the basis of equality. This

article presents a general systematization of these theoretical and

political dimensions, particularly focusing on the critique of the

neoclassical paradigm and its political correlates. We connect the

epistemological, methodological, and conceptual contributions of

feminist economics, as well as its propositions for transformative

action, to specific debates on economic issues, such as the ecological

emergency, crisis and austerity, the commodification of life, and the

liberalization of trade.

Introduct ion

Mainstream research agendas in law, economics, and political science

usually treat the premises of neoclassical economics as universal and

indisputable truths. They regard the free market and competition as

guarantees of both efficiency and productivity, a good reason for this

model to prevail over any other, both in academia and in political

American Jour nal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Janua ry, 2019).

DOI: 10 .1111/ajes.122 64

© 2019 American Journa l of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

*Lecturer at the Department of Economics, Quantitative Methods, and Economic

History, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville (Spain). She specializes in feminist

economics. Email: cmagecal@upo.es

†Professor of History and Economic Institutions and Gender Studies, Pablo de Olavide

University, Seville (Spain). Email: lgalvez@upo.es

138 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

institutions. These arguments are often based on extremely complex

and technical discourses and methodologies that make it difficult for

nonspecialists to participate in the discussion and offer alternative

views. Researchers outside the mainstream lack the platforms to com-

municate and/or disseminate competing views and a solid commu-

nity or power structure to support them. This is true even after the

2008 economic and financial crisis, with its devastating social effects,

opened a window of opportunity for the reevaluation and criticism of

neoclassical economic principles and the development of an alterna-

tive research agenda based on the principles of equality and solidarity.

This article explores the critique and alternative propositions put

forward by feminist economics (FE), which is one of the most import-

ant schools of thought in opposition to the fundamentals of neoclas-

sical economics. FE attracted interest in many cultural and political

circles after the last crisis. However, it is often unclear what FE is

about, or else it is discussed only partially and not rigorously. As ex-

pressed by Benería (2018: 50):

Is it an alternative to the predomin ant economic system? Is it a radical

proposition regarding gender equality t hat, in addition, suggests overcom-

ing capitalism? Or does it refer, above all, to the dismant ling of patriarchy?

Does it represent liberal or left-wing femin ism? To what extent does it

incorporate our concerns about socia l inequalities or the environme nt?1

In this article, we will tr y to answer some of these questions.

Feminist economics is not a single body of ideas, but a “range of

stances” (“abanico de posicionamientos”) (Carrasco 2014: 25). Those

stances meet in their common understanding of the economy as a

method of “social provisioning” (Nelson 1993, 1996; Jennings 1993;

Bakker and Gill 2003; Power 2004, 2013). They also place gender as

a central category of analysis. On the one hand, FE is a theoretical

and empirical framework that challenges the androcentric foundations

of the main school within the discipline as well as the principles of

certain unorthodox schools that keep alive a “short-sighted produc-

tivism” (Picchio 2009: 28). The centrality that the fulfillment of social

needs has for FE implies a questioning of those approaches that con-

tinue to focus on market performance, growth, or production. Those