上英文了：
Feminist Economics: An Introduction
by Emily Satterthwaite
In virtually every intellectual discipline, the post-modernist question, "how can we know what we claim to know?" has generated heated debate. Various critical social constructionist, feminist and interpretive perspectives maintain that the supposed objectivity of the scientific method itself is permeated with value judgments and the expression of power relations. Interestingly, economics, a social science comparable to the hard sciences because of its calculative and empirical characteristics, is the last of the social sciences to enter into dialogue with its feminist critics. What are the issues in this debate? In the field of economics, models of how individuals allocate scarce resources are formulated on the basis of empirical observations and are valid insofar as they describe the "real world." Simply put, the feminist critique holds that mainstream models do not accurately describe women''s experiences. Feminists question mainstream neoclassical economic assumptions and challenge the conceptual underpinnings of conventional economic "knowledge."
The emergence of feminist economics lagged behind that of related critical perspectives in the social sciences for several reasons, perhaps primarily because relatively fewer women work in the field of economics than in other social sciences. As more women have entered the profession, however, organizations and forums for discussion specific to women''s issues have been established. These groups ensure that, under the umbrella of feminist economics, women economists will have support networks which will facilitate their incorporation into academia and the dissemination of their ideas.
The notion of a feminist economic perspective is a relatively new development which became formalized at about the same time that the issue of gender in the natural sciences came to the fore. In 1990, the Committee on the Status of Women convened for the first time at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association. At this first session, Professor Diana Strassmann of Rice University and fellow economist Jean Shackelford of Bucknell distributed a sign-up list for those interested in feminist economics. The International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE), of which Shackelford was the first president, was developed by those whose names appeared on this list. In addition to this formal organization, Strassmann recognized the need for a publication of feminist economic thought in order to "stimulate dialogue and debate on feminist economic perspectives among diverse scholars worldwide." 1 In May 1995, the first issue of Feminist Economics, the official journal of the GAFFE, was published. Strassmann, who edits the publication, states, "We created the journal so there would be a place where it would be possible to publish articles of a format not normally accepted by other more traditional journals. Other kinds of theorizing may take different forms, and if you have to conform to a certain model of theorization, you can''t express certain ideas. 2 When asked what sparked their interest in a feminist perspective on economics, Strassmann among others emphasize their dissatisfaction with what they perceive to be an absence of women''s perspectives in the teaching and discussion of economics. Strassmann cites an experience during her first semester as a graduate student at Harvard University when a professor "argued forcefully in a series of seminars that the marriage tax was both efficient and equitable." 3 Strassmann, disagreeing with the professor about the implications of his mathematical model of intergenerational equity for children of married couples, later began to think that perhaps the reason that her male instructor was so adamant about the conclusions of his model was because his wife, who had a Ph.D. in economics herself, stayed at home with their children. 4
Rebecca Blank, a professor of Economics at Northwestern University, does not consider herself perceived as a feminist economist, but views feminist economics favorably. 5 Echoing some of the sentiments expressed by Strassmann and others, Blank maintains that it is "hard to be a woman in economics and not at some time feel isolated. Being an economist has certainly raised my feminist awareness." 6 In order to make the discipline a more friendly place for women, Blank has chaired the Committee on the Status of Women at the American Economic Association, which organizes mentoring programs for young women economists and works on establishing female role models within the field.
What are feminist economists writing about, now that they have gained some recognition within the mainstream economics intellectual community? The behavioral model of mainstream neoclassical economics assumes that individuals, self-interested by nature, attempt to efficiently allocate scarce resources in order to maximize their happiness. Feminist economics challenges many of the corollary values of this model. For example, those adhering to the feminist credo question whether maximum efficiency necessarily brings about maximum happiness; whether maldistribution of resources is a more pertinent problem than actual scarcity; and whether individuals'' utility functions are as truly independent from one another as neoclassicists maintain. 7
Feminist economics raises these and other basic questions in order to determine whether the "facts" and assumptions presented by mainstream economists, most of whom have been male, accurately describe the world as it is seen from multiple perspectives. The feminist critique of how neoclassical economics conceptualizes group situations extends to a reconsideration of the university settings in which economic thought has been carried out. Feminist economists argue that the notion of the intellectual community as a perfect marketplace where "the best ideas bubble to the top...untainted by partial interests or exclusionary practices" 8 must be modified. Instead, feminist economists, regardless of gender, hold that the economic theories selected in the marketplace only represent the "truth" insofar as their models mirror the reality of sometimes irreducible personal situations. Just as each individual''s reality is unique, there is no economic truth - truth can at best be represented by the average of the aggregate individual truths. Does this relativistic stance call for a radical reorientation of the discipline of economics?
Feminists claim that by using such explanatory tools as scarcity, selfishness and competition rather than abundance, cooperation and altruism, neoclassicists do not address significant motivations for human economic behavior. Two examples illustrate this critique. First, feminist economists point out that the relation between the perception of scarcity and previous expectations of abundance has not been critically examined. Mainstream economics assumes that supply and demand exist independently and determine equilibrium output when analzyed together. This notion, however, ignores the fact that late capitalist phenomena such as advertising can manipulate demand, thereby creating a state of scarcity that does not fit neoclassical models. Marketers of designer cosmetics, for example, will portray their products as "necessary" for a healthy and young-looking face and body.
Second, feminist economics maintains that neoclassical economics is incorrect in its assumption that all individuals will consistently act selfishly and competitively. The feminist position holds that people are intelligent enough to realize that cooperation can often generate the best possible combination of resources, and that economists must complicate their views of human rationality to take into account situations in which collective enterprise is likely to reap a greater benefit than individual effort. One of the most commonly cited contexts for altruistic behavior is the family. Traditionally, mothers'' actions in particular do not seem to fit the model of rational self-interest.
The issue of altruism in the family has been addressed by the conservative economist and Nobel-laureate Gary Becker. His account is premised on each family acting as an economic unit, with its actions being dictated by a single rational agent (typically, the male breadwinner), who optimally allocates resources among family members. Becker, in effect, proposes a tenet which is opposite to that which holds in the marketplace: the rational agent in the family is perfectly altruistic. Although Becker''s theory of the family takes into account the notion of altruistic behavior, feminists doubt his model is an accurate one because it fails to tally with women''s collective experience. They point to studies that demonstrate that women throughout the world are short-changed within the family on a systematic basis: in times of famine, women suffer more from malnutrition than men and, on average, women receive less of the household income without the compensation of greater leisure time. 9 Feminists view these harsh realities as proof that perfect altruism within the family is anything but universal.
What, then, is the feminist position on altruism and its effects on distribution in the family? There are many different vantage points that feminist economists may take, but they usually challenge the idea that the family is a single economic actor which makes decisions as if it had a single utility function. They are quick to point out that the conceptualization of the family as a single unit violates one of the core assumptions of neoclassical economics: the individual, whatever his or her social situation and constraints, is an autonomous decision-maker. Instead, feminists view household decision-making as a bargaining situation in which power relations play themselves out and, in the words of economist Rebecca Blank, a "negotiated outcome" is achieved. Feminist economists offer alternative models of family decision-making that depend on asymmetries between men''s and women''s labor supply which arise from differences in wage rates and preferences for leisure and which, in turn, may depend on the existence of children. 10
Another element of some feminist models includes something called a "threshold," which, in one instance, might be defined as:
The maximum amount of untidiness, dirty dishes and so on that [each member of the household] can tolerate. Small variations in the thresholds of family members can lead to large differences in the amount of housework performed. 11
Feminist economists introduce the concept of a threshold to explain actions which are not premised on some impossible or ideal expression of altruism but yet do not wholly conform to what might be expected of a fully rational agent. In this way, the issue of resource allocation in the family is addressed without assuming absolute altruism, which is viewed by feminists to be as psychologically unrealistic as absolute selfishness.
The political dimension of feminist economics is revealed when the implications of broadening economic models to incorporate women''s realities are fully expressed. As models are refined and women''s economic position within the family or the marketplace is taken more into account, the reasons for women''s perpetual second-class economic position can be properly understood and policies to rectify the nearly global welfare imbalance between men and women can be more thoughtfully considered. To the extent that feminist economics achieves the goal of improving the welfare of women as a class, it will have achieved the goals of many of its proponents.
In order to evaluate the validity of the feminist critique, it is necessary to ascertain the extent to which the assumptions of mainstream economics do not apply to women. To the extent that neoclassical economics does not explain the behavior of a huge segment of the population, and, some would say, fundamentally misconstrues the human subject, feminist economics must be taken seriously even if it is unable to offer more complete models than currently exist. Historically, the economic intellectual community has not taken challenges to existing models seriously until a viable alternative model has been formulated. Feminist critiques have not been given much credence because satisfactory alternative models are difficult to establish under feminist analysis. After all, the crux of the feminist critique is that knowledge is not an abstract universality, but rather that it is situation-dependent. If such a position is accepted, then any alternative model that feminists might offer would remain open to their own charge that the vantage point of the observer had biased her or his conclusions.
This paradox may, however, be the hidden message of the critique. By recognizing that all models are incomplete and by striving to include the experiences of those who are currently marginalized or even excluded from the intellectual marketplace in which economic models are judged, perhaps economic models can be improved so that they reflect more than the realities of the white men who made them.
Endnotes
_____________________
1Stated purpose of Feminist Economics and call for submissions, sent to author by Professor Diana Strassmann, 23 October 1995.
2 Author''s interview with Professor Diana Strassmann, 22 October 1995.
3 Strassmann, Diana L. "Stories of Economics," History of Political Economy, (1993: vol. 25, no. 1, p. 159).
4Author''s interview with Strassmann.
5Author''s interview with Professor Rebecca Blank, 21 October 1995.
6Ibid.
7Strober, Myra H. "Rethinking Economics Through a Feminist Lens," American Economic Review, (1993: vol. 84, no. 2, p. 143).
8Strassmann, Diana L. "Stories of Economics," History of Political Economy, (1993: vol. 25, no. 1, p.149).
9Wooley, F.R. "The feminist challenge to neoclassical economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, (1993: vol. 17, p. 487).
10Ibid. p. 494.
11Ibid. The threshold component is part of Torunn Bragstad''s 1989 model.
Feminist Economics: An Introduction
by Emily Satterthwaite
In virtually every intellectual discipline, the post-modernist question, "how can we know what we claim to know?" has generated heated debate. Various critical social constructionist, feminist and interpretive perspectives maintain that the supposed objectivity of the scientific method itself is permeated with value judgments and the expression of power relations. Interestingly, economics, a social science comparable to the hard sciences because of its calculative and empirical characteristics, is the last of the social sciences to enter into dialogue with its feminist critics. What are the issues in this debate? In the field of economics, models of how individuals allocate scarce resources are formulated on the basis of empirical observations and are valid insofar as they describe the "real world." Simply put, the feminist critique holds that mainstream models do not accurately describe women''s experiences. Feminists question mainstream neoclassical economic assumptions and challenge the conceptual underpinnings of conventional economic "knowledge."
The emergence of feminist economics lagged behind that of related critical perspectives in the social sciences for several reasons, perhaps primarily because relatively fewer women work in the field of economics than in other social sciences. As more women have entered the profession, however, organizations and forums for discussion specific to women''s issues have been established. These groups ensure that, under the umbrella of feminist economics, women economists will have support networks which will facilitate their incorporation into academia and the dissemination of their ideas.
The notion of a feminist economic perspective is a relatively new development which became formalized at about the same time that the issue of gender in the natural sciences came to the fore. In 1990, the Committee on the Status of Women convened for the first time at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association. At this first session, Professor Diana Strassmann of Rice University and fellow economist Jean Shackelford of Bucknell distributed a sign-up list for those interested in feminist economics. The International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE), of which Shackelford was the first president, was developed by those whose names appeared on this list. In addition to this formal organization, Strassmann recognized the need for a publication of feminist economic thought in order to "stimulate dialogue and debate on feminist economic perspectives among diverse scholars worldwide." 1 In May 1995, the first issue of Feminist Economics, the official journal of the GAFFE, was published. Strassmann, who edits the publication, states, "We created the journal so there would be a place where it would be possible to publish articles of a format not normally accepted by other more traditional journals. Other kinds of theorizing may take different forms, and if you have to conform to a certain model of theorization, you can''t express certain ideas. 2 When asked what sparked their interest in a feminist perspective on economics, Strassmann among others emphasize their dissatisfaction with what they perceive to be an absence of women''s perspectives in the teaching and discussion of economics. Strassmann cites an experience during her first semester as a graduate student at Harvard University when a professor "argued forcefully in a series of seminars that the marriage tax was both efficient and equitable." 3 Strassmann, disagreeing with the professor about the implications of his mathematical model of intergenerational equity for children of married couples, later began to think that perhaps the reason that her male instructor was so adamant about the conclusions of his model was because his wife, who had a Ph.D. in economics herself, stayed at home with their children. 4
Rebecca Blank, a professor of Economics at Northwestern University, does not consider herself perceived as a feminist economist, but views feminist economics favorably. 5 Echoing some of the sentiments expressed by Strassmann and others, Blank maintains that it is "hard to be a woman in economics and not at some time feel isolated. Being an economist has certainly raised my feminist awareness." 6 In order to make the discipline a more friendly place for women, Blank has chaired the Committee on the Status of Women at the American Economic Association, which organizes mentoring programs for young women economists and works on establishing female role models within the field.
What are feminist economists writing about, now that they have gained some recognition within the mainstream economics intellectual community? The behavioral model of mainstream neoclassical economics assumes that individuals, self-interested by nature, attempt to efficiently allocate scarce resources in order to maximize their happiness. Feminist economics challenges many of the corollary values of this model. For example, those adhering to the feminist credo question whether maximum efficiency necessarily brings about maximum happiness; whether maldistribution of resources is a more pertinent problem than actual scarcity; and whether individuals'' utility functions are as truly independent from one another as neoclassicists maintain. 7
Feminist economics raises these and other basic questions in order to determine whether the "facts" and assumptions presented by mainstream economists, most of whom have been male, accurately describe the world as it is seen from multiple perspectives. The feminist critique of how neoclassical economics conceptualizes group situations extends to a reconsideration of the university settings in which economic thought has been carried out. Feminist economists argue that the notion of the intellectual community as a perfect marketplace where "the best ideas bubble to the top...untainted by partial interests or exclusionary practices" 8 must be modified. Instead, feminist economists, regardless of gender, hold that the economic theories selected in the marketplace only represent the "truth" insofar as their models mirror the reality of sometimes irreducible personal situations. Just as each individual''s reality is unique, there is no economic truth - truth can at best be represented by the average of the aggregate individual truths. Does this relativistic stance call for a radical reorientation of the discipline of economics?
Feminists claim that by using such explanatory tools as scarcity, selfishness and competition rather than abundance, cooperation and altruism, neoclassicists do not address significant motivations for human economic behavior. Two examples illustrate this critique. First, feminist economists point out that the relation between the perception of scarcity and previous expectations of abundance has not been critically examined. Mainstream economics assumes that supply and demand exist independently and determine equilibrium output when analzyed together. This notion, however, ignores the fact that late capitalist phenomena such as advertising can manipulate demand, thereby creating a state of scarcity that does not fit neoclassical models. Marketers of designer cosmetics, for example, will portray their products as "necessary" for a healthy and young-looking face and body.
Second, feminist economics maintains that neoclassical economics is incorrect in its assumption that all individuals will consistently act selfishly and competitively. The feminist position holds that people are intelligent enough to realize that cooperation can often generate the best possible combination of resources, and that economists must complicate their views of human rationality to take into account situations in which collective enterprise is likely to reap a greater benefit than individual effort. One of the most commonly cited contexts for altruistic behavior is the family. Traditionally, mothers'' actions in particular do not seem to fit the model of rational self-interest.
The issue of altruism in the family has been addressed by the conservative economist and Nobel-laureate Gary Becker. His account is premised on each family acting as an economic unit, with its actions being dictated by a single rational agent (typically, the male breadwinner), who optimally allocates resources among family members. Becker, in effect, proposes a tenet which is opposite to that which holds in the marketplace: the rational agent in the family is perfectly altruistic. Although Becker''s theory of the family takes into account the notion of altruistic behavior, feminists doubt his model is an accurate one because it fails to tally with women''s collective experience. They point to studies that demonstrate that women throughout the world are short-changed within the family on a systematic basis: in times of famine, women suffer more from malnutrition than men and, on average, women receive less of the household income without the compensation of greater leisure time. 9 Feminists view these harsh realities as proof that perfect altruism within the family is anything but universal.
What, then, is the feminist position on altruism and its effects on distribution in the family? There are many different vantage points that feminist economists may take, but they usually challenge the idea that the family is a single economic actor which makes decisions as if it had a single utility function. They are quick to point out that the conceptualization of the family as a single unit violates one of the core assumptions of neoclassical economics: the individual, whatever his or her social situation and constraints, is an autonomous decision-maker. Instead, feminists view household decision-making as a bargaining situation in which power relations play themselves out and, in the words of economist Rebecca Blank, a "negotiated outcome" is achieved. Feminist economists offer alternative models of family decision-making that depend on asymmetries between men''s and women''s labor supply which arise from differences in wage rates and preferences for leisure and which, in turn, may depend on the existence of children. 10
Another element of some feminist models includes something called a "threshold," which, in one instance, might be defined as:
The maximum amount of untidiness, dirty dishes and so on that [each member of the household] can tolerate. Small variations in the thresholds of family members can lead to large differences in the amount of housework performed. 11
Feminist economists introduce the concept of a threshold to explain actions which are not premised on some impossible or ideal expression of altruism but yet do not wholly conform to what might be expected of a fully rational agent. In this way, the issue of resource allocation in the family is addressed without assuming absolute altruism, which is viewed by feminists to be as psychologically unrealistic as absolute selfishness.
The political dimension of feminist economics is revealed when the implications of broadening economic models to incorporate women''s realities are fully expressed. As models are refined and women''s economic position within the family or the marketplace is taken more into account, the reasons for women''s perpetual second-class economic position can be properly understood and policies to rectify the nearly global welfare imbalance between men and women can be more thoughtfully considered. To the extent that feminist economics achieves the goal of improving the welfare of women as a class, it will have achieved the goals of many of its proponents.
In order to evaluate the validity of the feminist critique, it is necessary to ascertain the extent to which the assumptions of mainstream economics do not apply to women. To the extent that neoclassical economics does not explain the behavior of a huge segment of the population, and, some would say, fundamentally misconstrues the human subject, feminist economics must be taken seriously even if it is unable to offer more complete models than currently exist. Historically, the economic intellectual community has not taken challenges to existing models seriously until a viable alternative model has been formulated. Feminist critiques have not been given much credence because satisfactory alternative models are difficult to establish under feminist analysis. After all, the crux of the feminist critique is that knowledge is not an abstract universality, but rather that it is situation-dependent. If such a position is accepted, then any alternative model that feminists might offer would remain open to their own charge that the vantage point of the observer had biased her or his conclusions.
This paradox may, however, be the hidden message of the critique. By recognizing that all models are incomplete and by striving to include the experiences of those who are currently marginalized or even excluded from the intellectual marketplace in which economic models are judged, perhaps economic models can be improved so that they reflect more than the realities of the white men who made them.
Endnotes
_____________________
1Stated purpose of Feminist Economics and call for submissions, sent to author by Professor Diana Strassmann, 23 October 1995.
2 Author''s interview with Professor Diana Strassmann, 22 October 1995.
3 Strassmann, Diana L. "Stories of Economics," History of Political Economy, (1993: vol. 25, no. 1, p. 159).
4Author''s interview with Strassmann.
5Author''s interview with Professor Rebecca Blank, 21 October 1995.
6Ibid.
7Strober, Myra H. "Rethinking Economics Through a Feminist Lens," American Economic Review, (1993: vol. 84, no. 2, p. 143).
8Strassmann, Diana L. "Stories of Economics," History of Political Economy, (1993: vol. 25, no. 1, p.149).
9Wooley, F.R. "The feminist challenge to neoclassical economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, (1993: vol. 17, p. 487).
10Ibid. p. 494.
11Ibid. The threshold component is part of Torunn Bragstad''s 1989 model.
