Mainstream Economics & Gender | Feminist Economics Part 5

"It's kind of interesting that society still tolerates us economists, when we've made so many major errors."

In this fifth and final lecture in the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s “Feminist Economics” series, Professor Jayati Ghosh explores some of the shortcomings of mainstream economics.

Heavily reliant on unrealistic assumptions and stylized models, mainstream economics has a narrow approach which often descends into trivial pursuits. Mainstream models tend to propose policies which are are not very relevant and sometimes even pernicious. Economics remains a male-dominated profession concentrated in the Global North, limiting its outlook. Prof. Ghosh urges economics to expand its scope and vision, and outlines several areas where economic policy can and should be adjusted to incorporate a gender-perspective and better address the particular challenges of developing countries. This includes incorporating into general economic policy consideration of relational time, counter-cyclical macroeconomic policy, reforming taxation regimes, and ensuring price stability of necessities and food security, which are areas that especially affect women. Prof. Ghosh also proposes micro policies beneficial to women, like reforming banking regulations and laws to enable financial inclusion, unionization, and the minimum wage. Prof. Ghosh finally considers the "Green New Deal", and proposes to expand it to a "Multi-colored New Deal" to address a wider range of inequalities. Gender equality is not only good in itself, but also essential for the long-term viability of societies and economies.

Credits: Jayati Ghosh, Matthew Kulvicki, Nick Alpha, Gonçalo Fonseca, Kurt Semm

[smerina]

Amazing series 🙌🙌🙌🙌 In awe of Jayati Mam and the team. I want to seriously appreciate the Editing team for the wonderful division of the lectures. The fonts to the background score everything was on point 🙌👍👍 Thank you to the team for making this masterpiece. We are forever fortunate and grateful 🙏💖

[isatousarr]

Mainstream economics has often been critiqued for its limited consideration of gender dynamics and the unequal impact economic systems have on different genders. Traditional economic models frequently overlook the unpaid labor that women contribute, such as caregiving and domestic work, which sustains the economy but is not reflected in GDP calculations or valued in policy-making. This oversight perpetuates economic inequality and reinforces gender biases.

Feminist economics offers a corrective perspective by challenging the assumptions of mainstream economic thought and emphasizing how gender inequality shapes economic outcomes. It seeks to highlight the systemic barriers that prevent equal participation and opportunity for all genders. This approach advocates for recognizing and addressing the value of unpaid work, considering the intersectionality of gender with race, class, and other social factors, and restructuring economic policies to create a more equitable society.

Feminist economics also critiques the predominant focus of traditional economics on efficiency and profit maximization at the expense of social welfare and well-being. By integrating perspectives that prioritize care, community, and social justice, feminist economics aims to reshape economic goals to reflect a more holistic and inclusive view of human needs.

For meaningful progress, it is essential that mainstream economic theories evolve to incorporate these feminist insights. This would involve rethinking policies to better support work-life balance, provide fair wages, and ensure opportunities for all, regardless of gender. Only by valuing and incorporating diverse perspectives can economics truly serve as a tool for creating a just and equitable society.

[stephen_pfrimmer]

Someone once said that economics is (or should be) a subcategory of ecology. Thank you NET and Professor Ghosh.

[sudanesbp]

Great!!! excellent speech, perspective, great truths. We have a lot to change and fight for our presence and perspective on the world, development, economy and life.

[badomaji]

Excellent. An eye-opener for many facets of the economy that under-addressed.

[niranjanamaheswari]

The same thing I had wondered in my sessions of history of economic thought and I believed that they are so designed so as to take problems of capitalist class and push it on to working-class (educated employee, unskilled, men or women) but my professor was not ready to have a discussion on such topic which are vague according to her.
But I respect u a lot, this small session are so encouraging, and teaches us to be bold enough to raise voice of what u think and u have observed and yes major Nobel prize winner are Whites sadly so called educated who are teaching other to be educated themselves are uneducated (high biased, prejudiced, racist in nature reflects clearly ..)

[stface]

"We need to fix this the inequality in the profession", so how they are going to do it? They would exclude capable men or they would force women to study economics? That's the only way to "fix" the inequility in economics profession, I hope this desire for "fixing" things never reach the striper profession.

[khaimgulkovich]

You should make Your homework: "The Arrogance of Humanism" by David W. Ehrenfeld (1981).

[claudiaochoacruz]

Great viewpoint about the arrogance of economist!!!

[FletchforFreedom]

What absolute incompetence. The empirical data on comparative advantage (which doesn't require perfect anything) is literally unanimous. It isn't a model; it's so empirically proven that no competent economist argues otherwise (which is why this dimwit argues otherwise). Of course, anyone suggesting that expertise (which is concentrated) is somehow problematic because it is not diverse (particularly given that good economists come form a wide variety of people ... that go where the expertise is concentrated).

One of the great things about actual economics is that it yields outcomes that are consistent regardless of the gender, race or cultural background of anyone. Part of the problem with the presenter's claims is that it blames economic thinking for things that are outside the purview of economics, such as whether someone chooses to engage in work time, leisure time or relational time. the only economic question involved is how to meet the needs of the worker to give that worker more choice (demonstrably the free unhindered market - which has been solely responsible for the improvements achieved in pay, working conditions and prosperity). She also assumes (contrary to fact) that government social spending - the opposed of suppose "austerity" measures - is economically beneficial (in any country, economy or culture). She makes a fair point about taxation being regressive (missing that corporate taxes are completely so) but fails to connect the need for taxation to the spending she argues against cutting. She is not a competent economist; she's an ideologue. The "finance doesn't support the economy" myth is so utterly stupid as to render any economic claim on her part immediately subject to dismissal.

She is correct about the memory whole for people like Chomsky and Wolff and other socialists when they praised Venezuela and Chile and other inevitable disasters, but that's not the point she's making. And she makes absurd claims about world poverty which has fallen to record lows. And the minimum wage has never resulted in anything but disemployment, which is why the great majority of economists (across the world) would never raise it and nearly half of us would abolish it outright. The research is literally overwhelming on this point. And the science does not support the claim of increased major natural disasters - quite the opposite is the case.


This is simply dreadful.

[AudioPervert]

The common housewife is missing ... After all this verbiage is done 👎🏽🕳️