Feminising Economics

Ever wondered, how even after decades of ‘scientific’ study of economics and ‘scientific’ application of development policy, gender equity remains a fairytale? Contrary to the aspirations of modern economic science, development policies, both through international and domestic agencies, have only led to a feminisation of poverty as proportionately more women tend to fall below the poverty line. This may have something to do with patriarchal mindsets within the discipline of economics itself. 

So far, only one woman (in 2009) has won the Nobel Prize in Economics. The rest -- 74 Nobel Laureates -- are all men. Only three women have won the Clark Bates Medal, the first among them winning the prize in 2007.The other 65 winners of this prize are men. Mark Blaug’s popular compendium of leading economists in the 20th Century, Who’s Who in Economics, features only 31 women and 1,000 men. Of the top 100 contemporary economists registered on IDEAS-RePEc global database, women are a significant minority. The works of economist-historians such as McClowsky and Dimond, have shown that not only are women’s contributions to economics underplayed by men -- women economists do not even find space in footnotes. 

Consider for example, the work of the unorthodox economist Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Her book Women and Economics, published as early as 1898, was a formidable first, in raising both pressing questions of gender inequality as well as in attempting a framework within which to answer them. A radical activist, who at that time was fighting for universal suffrage, Gilman analysed the issues of marriage, child-birth, gender-based wage gap and education. More importantly, her entire framework was founded upon Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution. At that same time, sociologist Thornstein Veblen debated with her, and pioneered similar ideas. Gilman’s ground-breaking contributions were picked up Veblen, only to be forgotten by his followers. Veblen, today, is known as the father of evolutionary economics; Gilman is long forgotten.

Even the classics are no different. John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy and On Liberty have influenced a generation of economists and politicians. He did admit, elsewhere, that his work was inspired by the works of Harriet Taylor Mill, his wife. She published little in her own name but always contributed significantly to Mill’s work. Mill himself claimed her to be the joint author of his work. Yet, there is a difference between admitting so privately and asserting the fact publicly. Although Mill contributed to the feminist cause and held her in highest intellectual regard, such realities have not permeated down the history of economic thought. 

Veblen and Mill never got a Nobel for their work, but they would have, if it had been instituted at that time. It took another famous American economist, Gary S Becker, to complete this tragedy. As leader of the New Home Economics research programme, in the 1960s, Becker found himself relying on the previous works of three economists: Elizabeth Hoyt, Hazel Kyrk, and Margaret Reid. This body of work, spanning 50 years, suddenly found a new lease of life. Though New Home Economics was later marred by sexist and offensive conclusions, Becker won the Nobel in 1972. It took a man to introduce the work of women who did pioneering work in issues related to women. 

Even more depressing is the case of Joan Robinson whose work is acknowledged – grudgingly -- by even her most ardent critics. The Library of Economics and Liberty, says she was “arguably the only woman born before 1930 who can be considered a great economist”. She was a student of Keynes, colleague of and professor to Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and our very own ex-Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh! If regular women are given the beti-behen-mata identity, then Robinson could lay claim to special student-colleague-professor identity. She was never considered an authority, in her own right, and was consequently never given the Nobel. Not only that, she was given full professorship only after 28 years of teaching. 

Some might say, 'Oh this is Western Culture! India never underplays the contributions of its women economists!' But then consider how many students know about Krishna Bhardwaj, who founded the famous Centre for Economic Studies and Planning (CESP) at JNU. Indian public has appreciated Jagdish Bhagwati, Amartya Sen and Prabhat Patnaik, but have they appreciated the works of stalwarts like Devaki Jain, Utsa Patnaik (ironically Prabhat Patnaik’s wife), or Bina Aggarwal, Jayati Ghosh, Sudha Narayan or Reetika Khera . All of them are cutting edge professionals. 

Others can say that this distortion is not merely limited to economics but equally applies to other disciplines as well. One of the more important yet subtle messages of the TV series Cosmos: a Space-Time Odyssey was that the contributions of women have been underplayed even in the natural sciences. Take for instance, the case of the geologist, Marie Tharp who discovered the Atlantic rift valley that verified Continental Drift theory. Her name is not even mentioned on the “Continental Drift” Wikipedia page. Henrietta Leavitt told us how we could use luminosity to gauge inter-galactic distances, while Cecilia Payne let us find the temperature of stars by looking at their spectrum. Their names have disappeared from the mainstream body of work. So – yes – that Marie Curie got two Nobels, does not balance the suppression of many other women scientists. 

However, it would be safe to say, that male understanding of the social world is worse than male understanding of the physical world. The promises of classical liberalism -- political and economic freedom -- will continue to be denied, if social science remains gender blind. So, more than natural science, it is social science that needs to introspect. 

Male gatekeepers to journal publications, academic posts and to the flow of ideas around the subject of gender have successfully undermined the scholarship of women. If the structure of gender, either in the workspace or in the family, is to be tackled by economic theory, we must recognise the contributions of women economists. We must demand that the discipline no longer keeps such issues outside its core research agenda. When dealing with issues of gender, graduate students must come up with a better response than chanting the old mantra of “privatisation, liberalisation, globalisation.” Or else the discipline of economics will continue to be perceived as an apology for conservative patriarchy rather than an as an emancipatory science.

The author is a student of Economics at Presidency University in Kolkata