Jevons Theory of Womens Employment - Essay Example

? An Analysis of Jevons’ Theory of Women’s Employment Essay Introduction The first two descriptions, that every woman is married or is to be married, and its direct implication that they are economically dependent on men, traditionally influence neoclassical accounts of women’s employment. This forms the basis for challenging women’s participation in the workforce or for declining to respect this participation. Being dependent and supported, women do not have to enter the labor force. The interests they may have, especially for employment opportunities and increased wages, can be and have been considered unimportant. On the contrary, men’s participation in the labor market has never been challenged by proponents of the neoclassical tradition. Such assumptions push economists to view women as dependent beings. This essay discusses Jevons’s theory of women’s employment, and the inherent flaws of his arguments. Overview According to Pigou, the primary basis of women’s work is the labor earnings of their husband. Likewise, Becker argues that women look for employment because of a ‘household decision’ (as cited in Gupta, 2000). The question is, does the decision to look for employment a personal choice of women? Apparently such an assumption prevents one from wondering why women keep on working when their salaries are very unreasonable; such a decision may reveal an unproductive use of their capabilities; and women are prohibited by market forces to maximize benefits or returns to their personal investment (e.g. education). The participation of women in the labor market is not viewed as a positive input to economic progress; it is rather seen as creating unfavorable outcomes for household work and national interest. Edgeworth cautioned that a huge population of women in the labor market would lead to “depression or debacle of industry”, a “debacle, ultimately ruinous alike to wealth and family life” (Kuiper & Sap, 1995, 19). However, one of the most fervent critics of women’s employment is William Stanley Jevons. He warns about the effect of employment on the household responsibilities of women and on rates of infant mortality. Paradoxically, the solutions to such dilemmas identified by the so-called ‘free market’ economists are largely influenced by draconian involvement in current labor market situations. Edgeworth supported the strengthening of barriers to women’s employment, and Marshall backed up the Factory Acts. Jevons was harsher, supporting the legalization of the total omission of mothers of children aged three and below from factories (Kuiper & Sap, 1995, 19-20). Likewise, where Pigou supported state involvement to remedy market malfunction in the employment sector, women were openly excluded. Specifically, Jevons argued that mothers of young children should be prohibited from working in factories, a rule which is thought to guarantee that children’s right and welfare were safeguarded. In 1882 Jevons called this subject matter ‘the employment of child-bearing women away from home’ as “the most important question touching the relation of the State to labor which remains unsolved” (Peart, 1996, 143). Because the participation of these women in the labor market discarded infants to “that scourge of infant life, the dirty fungus-bearing bottle” (Peart, 1996, 143), it was obvious that comprehensive policy was needed. The ills related to oppressive policy were in this case ‘overbalance[d]’ by the ‘infanticide’ that arose from unhindered action (Ege & Igersheim, 2011, 97): The objection may no doubt be made, that the exclusion of childbearing women from works in public factories would be a new and extreme case of interference with the natural liberty of the individual… But I venture to maintain that all these supposed natural entities, principles, rules, theories, axioms, and the like, are at the best but presumptions or probabilities of good. There is, on the whole, a certain considerably probability that individuals will find out for themselves the best paths in life, and will be eventually the best citizens when left at liberty to choose their own course. But surely probability is rebutted or destroyed by contrary certainty. Jevons was either against legally granting minimum wages for female workers or against minimum wages similar to that of men. He does not support a policy of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Jevons’s condemnation of women’s participation in the labor market coincided with his support for strengthening men’s special access to job opportunities and increased male earnings in order for all men to take home a ‘family wage’. These suggestions, if approved and put into practice, would have eliminated what he thought was the primary basis for women’s involvement in the labor market: their desire to earn supplementary ‘family wage’. Jevons is supported by other neoclassical economies. Since the publication of the influential work of Mincer, the emphasis has been on the employment of married women (Ege & Igersheim, 2011, 998-100). The major issue has been the reason married women are in the workforce, and not the correct wage rate, working conditions, or use of their capabilities. Thus, women’s involvement in the labor force is considered problematic, their attitude toward human capital investment abnormal. Hence, according to Barker and Kuiper (2003), the New Home Economics is a justification for women’s expertise in household duties and reproduction in place of waged employment. Flaws of Jevons’s Theory Jevons’s theory of women’s employment denies the presence of women who are self-sufficient and are not dependent on men. His theory is a serious misconception. The real situation of women is very different from the picture given by Jevons and other neoclassical economists. In 19th- and 20th-century England, a huge number of women were and stayed single, and among those who chose a married life, economic support from their husbands was quite upsetting (Peart, 1996). Women, single or married, took part in the labor market in huge numbers. This evidence was cited and raised by feminists who frequently used them as a justification for women’s economic autonomy: access to employment opportunities, equal pay, high-paying jobs, and education. Eleanor Rathbone criticized Jevons’s theory of family wage as an insufficient means of support for families, and moreover, as a totally useless means of income sharing (Kuiper & Sap, 1995). The subject matter of the level to which women were self-sufficient was fiercely debated and the focus of conflicting empirical findings. Feminist scholars who talked about matters of women’s employment offered substantial evidence and study to disprove the arguments and normative logic of Jevons. Economic scholars like Ivy Pinchbeck, Alice Clark, Edith Abbott, and Georgina Hill studied the contribution and economic input of women, from the medieval period to the latter part of the 19th century (Kuiper & Sap, 1995). The research group of George Shann, Cecile Matheson, and Edward Cadbury generated a comprehensive sociological investigation of employed women in the early 20th century (Gupta, 2000). Without a doubt, these studies strongly disproved Jevons’ theory of women’s employment. These scholars thoroughly studied the unbroken productive contribution of women--single or married-- their self-sufficiency, and their contribution to the family wage and the economy. Ada Heather-Bigg, in her article published in the Economic Journal, asserted that it was not the involvement of women in the labor force, but their earnings from waged employment, which was intolerable to Jevons and other adversaries of women’s work. She strongly argued that women’s hard work was of no importance to Jevons, but his concern about women’s access to economic autonomy was, to cite her vibrant statement, “the veriest scooped-out, sheet-draped turnip that ever made a village dolt take to his heels and run” (Kuiper & Sap, 1995, 21). Feminists talking about women’s work emphasized the importance of women’s work as a source of financial sustenance for themselves and their dependents, thus questioning Jevons’ arguments. They claimed and systematically showed that there was no such thing as women’s full dependence on men, that the income of men were inadequate to support their dependents, and that women are an important source of financial support for the family. From these arguments emerge major disputes to several of the justifications for current labor market circumstances. Feminists viewed Jevons’s theory as extremely biased. They condemn him for defending the ‘dominance’ of men over certain jobs and the right of employers to take advantage of women’s work by offering female workers unreasonably low wages. The family wage doctrine was also criticized as a defense of male advantage, of men’s access to better employment opportunities, and to an income whether or not they are married or not. Moreover, it justified their authority in the home. Jevons’s suggestions to exclude women from the labor market were criticized by feminists as a way of marginalizing and dispossessing women, of discouraging their attempts to mobilize, and as an inducement to employers to take advantage of women’s status in the labor market. Theories about the importance of individual or personal choice as regards women’s work can be classified within two incompatible paradigms. First are neoclassical economists, like Jevons, who believe that a traditional gender-based labor differentiation is the most reasonable, and thus productive, in so far as the family is involved. Second, there are social scientists who claim that individual decisions are more important in establishing women’s employment behavior and opportunities (Hanlon, 2012). Using ‘human capital’ models, Jevons has claimed that women’s ‘decision’ to focus on household duties and men’s ‘decision’ to focus on employment are economically efficient in so far as the family is involved (Peart, 1996). He believes that since women are prone to leave work because of their domestic duties, it is not economically rational for them to use their skills in waged employment, and this assumption will be manifested in their work experiences. Jevons also believes that the family will, as a rational agent, act in order to take full advantage of its utility. Nevertheless, within the family, Jevons believes that drives of unselfishness dominate, unlike in the competitive nature of paid work. Hence, families will behave in a way that takes full advantage of the utility of the eldest provider (Peart, 1996). Hence, Jevons and other neoclassical economists claim that choices with regard to the distribution of paid employment and household work between men and women are determined by the principles of rational maximization that profit the family in general (Ege & Igersheim, 2011). However, these arguments did not go unchallenged. Feminist economists, particularly, have launched a broad and firm criticism of Jevons’s arguments. The actual generosity or unselfishness of the male provider has been challenged, and a great deal of attention has been paid to the restrictions on decisions as regards the form and extent of work carried out within the household, which may involve ‘asymmetric property rights, other institutional rules, social norms, or individual bargaining power’ (Davis, Evans, & Lorber, 2006, 255). Basically speaking, the feminist analysis of Jevons’s theory of women’s employment focuses on the embedded limitations on rational decision-making. Several social thinkers have claimed that modern societies are becoming more and more dominated by individual choice or self-autonomy. Catherine Hakim (2004) has asserted that current changes in women’s work reveal this somewhat new ability of women to decide for themselves. She believes that women’s employment behavior differs from that of men because of the decisions made by various kinds of women. She introduces three kinds of women, namely, adaptives or drifters, work-centered, and home-centered. Adaptive women try to deal with their work and family priorities all at once; work-centered women are career oriented; and home-centered women are family oriented. According to Hakim (2004), these differences between male and female can be largely explained by biology, specifically, difference in levels of testosterone. Hakim recognizes that the employment behavior of modern women are an outcome of their individual decisions rather than any limitations emanating from the quality of employment or other structural forces: “self-classification as a primary earner or as a secondary earner is determined by chosen identities rather than imposed by external circumstance of particular jobs” (Davis et al., 2006, 255). Moreover, Hakim declares that individual choices should be the key determinant of policymaking: “policymaking becomes more complex… as policymakers need to make allowance for at least three distinct household work strategies” (Davis et al., 2006, 255). Such arguments definitely run counter to Jevons’s ultraconservative view of women’s employment. There are some similarities between Hakim’s model and that of Simon Duncan and his team, who have stressed the importance of ‘moral rationalities’ in determining employment choices of mothers. The team’s investigation in Britain distinguished three general classifications of ‘gendered moral rationalities’ among the populations they examined: mother/worker integral, primarily worker, and primarily mother. White mothers have a tendency to fall within the primarily worker-primarily mother range, concentrating mostly within the category of primarily mother (Kollind & Peterson, 2003, 54). On the contrary, Afro-Caribbean mothers have a greater tendency to be in full-time jobs and to adopt a mother-worker integral position. In other words, they believe that being employed is a characteristic of a ‘good mother’ and their employment provides a good example for their children. Duncan and his team observe that because contemporary policies of Britain are derived from the principle of an ‘adult worker’ paradigm—the belief that every adult, as well as mothers, will gain from waged employment—these policies bear a ‘rationality mistake’ (Kollind & Peterson, 2003, 54-55). Within this perspective, Duncan and his team are against Jevons’s theory of rational, self-centered decision-making. They argue that women who see themselves as family-oriented or primarily mothers will not participate in the labor market even if it is economically rational for them to do so. Reflection I definitely disagree with Jevons’s view of women’s employment. Beliefs about what is right, and individual choices as regards certain combinations of domestic and market duties, should determine women’s employment patterns and household preferences. Women’s employment should not be determined by whether they are married or not, or whether they have dependents to support. As shown by the arguments of feminist economists, particularly Hakim, women are not static; there are different types of women which consequently influence women’s employment patterns. Women nowadays make personal choices whether to enter paid employment or stay at home and perform their household duties. The traditional view of women, as primarily mothers, is no longer applicable today. In reality, most women try to attain some form of balance between household duties and paid employment. How this balance is attained will rely partly on individual decisions, but additionally, on an array of other aspects, such as geographical and occupation limitations, the framework of social policy, and the general structural and cultural standards (Peterson & Lewis, 1999) as regards ‘appropriate’ employment and family patterns. I definitely believe that gender is socially constructed. Although there are biological differences between women and men, as argued by Jevons and other neoclassical economists, these are not the basis of our view of gender. Instead, gender develops from cultural or societal perceptions of gender. Being socially constructed, gender justifies power imbalance in family units. Because gender is socially constructed, historical and social perspectives are integral in understanding the experiences of women, which is clearly lacking in Jevons’s analysis of women’s employment. There is no such thing as a traditional family type, just like what Jevons is claiming. It is unreasonable to argue that a specific family type is best, particularly when that family type is derived from a male-dominated family framework. Instead, a diversity of family types should be taken into consideration and that the strong and weak points of each should be examined. I believe that the concept of ‘family’, as Jevons sees it, is a falsehood. Jevons’s ultimately failed to employ research methods that are value-free. Basically speaking, analysis should identify the stereotypes and values that are inherent among scholars and every member of the society. Hence, scholars should recognize and deal with the social biases or perceptions that influence their work. It is not possible to examine families or women’s employment with the impartiality that is normally the claim of economists like Jevons. In addition, families should not be examined as entire entities. This excessive emphasis on the family unit leads to those who are powerless in families being taken for granted or overwhelmed by the beliefs and judgments of those who have power. Instead, analysis must concentrate on certain experiences of every member of the family. Only through emphasis on family members’ personal experience can we really understand oppressive patterns that are present in family units. In Jevons’s world, the wellbeing of families and women is believed to be a by-product of his actions and decisions: his distributive decisions, his financial objectives, his productivity, his wages, his privileges, and his employment. The lack of security and wellbeing of families and women is generally attributed by Jevons to women’s perverted effort to become self-sufficient or enter paid employment. But the truth is women’s experiences are a unified entirety. In their homes, workplaces, the values of culture, the state, and the economy come together in personified actions. At times working together, at times incompatible, these personified values are consistently entwined into the foundation of women’s lives. Jointly, whether conflicting or compatible, these are lives situated in a bigger, consolidated social pattern. In spite of the prevailing falsehood of gendered spaces, as espoused by Jevons, women and their families cannot simply ignore the effect of the demands generated by market-based forces on household work. The operations of the political economy influence opportunities for women and other members of the family simply due to the fact that it offers or denies sufficient access to financial security. The political economy, as a social phenomenon, establishes limits within which society’s sense of morality and socially accepted social and individual obligations are formed (Peterson & Lewis, 1999). As argued by Iris Young, subjugation and repression in moden society does not assume the form of explicit intimidation, but is “embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules” (Albrecht, 2004, 141). Conclusions The fundamental argument of Jevons about women’s employment was definitely a failure. It is a failure, partly, because it presumed that a political economy influenced by a socially created model of patriarchy would be sufficient to the relational, physical or financial needs of family units. It is a failure because, by valuing the dominance of self-centered, competitive economic behavior, it freed men from the obligation to purposely think about the moralities and aspects required to support women and their families. It is a failure because it did not challenge the influence of gender bias on economic success. Created by the unchallenged rules, stereotypes, and standards that haveb benefited men, Jevons’s theory offers a self-asserting but harsh perception of women’s employment. By examining the details of Jevons’s arguments it becomes apparent that his perception of women forms the basis female oppression in the workplace. References Albrecht, G. (2004). Hitting Home: Feminist Ethics, Women’s Work, and the Betrayal of ‘Family Values’. UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Barker, D. & Kuiper, E. (2003). Toward a feminist philosophy of economics. New York: Routledge. Davis, K., Evans, M., & Lorber, J. (2006). Handbook of Gender and Women’s Studies. London: Sage. Ege, R. & Igersheim, H. (2011). Freedom and Happiness in Economic Thought and Philosophy: From Clash To Reconciliation. New York: Routledge. Gupta, M. (2000). Economic Participation of Women. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. Hakim, C. (2004). Key Issues in Women’s Work: Female Diversity and the Polarization of Women’s Employment. London: Routledge. Hanlon, N. (2012). Masculinities, Care and Equality: Identity and Nurture in Men’s Lives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kollind, A. & Peterson, A. (2003). Thoughts on family, gender, generation, and class. Sweden: Goteborg University. Kuiper, E. & Sap, J. (1995). Out of the Margin: Feminist Perspectives on Economic Theory. New York: Routledge. Peart, S. (1996). The Economics of W.S. Jevons. London: Routledge. Peterson, J. & Lewis, M. (1999). The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More