This week we are reading “Counting for nothing” a feminist analysis of the women’s place in the economic world by Marilyn Waring, a woman that made history in her political career in New Zealand; she had the courage to take a stand and challenge the government over the issue of “Nuclear free New Zealand” bringing down the same government. What is different in this book from other feminist ones is the critique to the economic system that develops through both a feminist and ecological perspective.
Denouncing the patriarchal nature of Economics at page 3 she writes; “Those who are making the decisions are men, and those values which are excluded from the determination are those of our environment, and of women and children. ” In her work, she isolates the gender bias that exists in the current system of calculating national wealth, observing that women are considered “non-producers” so they cannot expect to gain from the distribution of benefits that flow from production. Issues like nuclear warfare, environmental conservation, and poverty are likewise excluded from the calculation of value in traditional economic theory.
Perhaps, safe drinking water counts for nothing. A pollution-free environment counts for nothing. As a result, public policy, determined by these same accounting processes, inevitably overlooks the importance of the environment and of half the world’s population (Waring, p. 1-3). Waring argues that monetary value needs to be attributed to unpaid work, naming the productive and reproductive role of women, in order to make this work visible, to influence policies and concepts, and to question values.
She aims to the recognition of the significance of the environment and the labor contributions of women. Waring explains economics in an accessible way for the laity. UNSNA (definition by World Bank system of National Accounts) United Nations System of National Accounts a statistical framework that provides a comprehensive, consistent and flexible set of macroeconomic accounts for policymaking, analysis and research purposes. UNSNA view of Waring UNSNA uses neoclassical economic tools.
The determination of income and wealth is based only on wage labor in the market place and on the monetary value of property. It is an essential tool of the male economic system. It is biased with severe invisibility of women and women’s work and dismissal of the environment. Waring’s argument is that Countries define their important numbers consisting in GDP, GNP, Consumer Price Index, unemployment rate and other market parameters, from research surveys and censuses.
All these numbers create the National Accounts, but there are “gray areas” built into their core concepts like the “productive boundary” a divider between the activities that count as work and those that do not, therefore monetary values must be attributed to these activities, paid or unpaid. Under capitalist economy, these areas become instruments of oppression and are manipulated in order to devaluate women’s work. The manipulation perpetrated by the National Accounts is in hiding women’s labor.
Is this a conscious strategy of male statisticians and politician to exploit women? Is it just embedded in the imperialistic production for unlimited profit of capitalism? The process is universal; it occurs in both, developed countries and third world countries. I agree with Waring that women’s contribution to society must be valued, although I see a problem in integrating women’s labor and the environment into our standard economic model. Yes, we might be dealing with fraudulent accountants “fixing” the books, in order to deny a wage to women!
But, let’s not forget that the system as it is, cannot easily be empirically criticized for creating inequality, what needs to be stressed is that capitalism is fuelled by inequality, if we had equal rights in meeting basic needs, the economic system would be voided of its power. If we correct the National accounts to include the environment and women, the result would be just the spread of capitalist values to new areas legitimizing what has happened before and perpetrating business as usual, therefore I do not consider it a solution.
The ugliness of capitalism actually shows that attributing monetary values to commodities (life included) can increase how much some lives are worth but it will decrease the worthiness of others in a cold calculus of dividing people worth of life from those not worth because not productive. As an example, we can consider the writings of Poku, Nana K. , “The political economy of AIDS in Africa” The World Bank, formal sponsor of UN/AIDS, is charged with funding strategies to alleviate poverty and to reduce HIV infectivity in developing countries.
Yet, concerning the pandemic, “if the only effect of AIDS were to reduce the population growth rate in developing countries, it would increase the growth rate of per capita income in any plausible economic model”. Moreover, the Bank has developed the idea of “disability-adjusted life year” to measure the number of years lost to illness and death. By this calculation, reported the Washington Post, “a country that spent US $1,000 a year to save the life of someone earning US $500 a year would suffer a net economic loss. ” This is the capitalistic logic of monetary values!
Waring writes on pages xlv and xlvi: in 1998 there was a clash at the World Bank regarding a $2. 6 billion, 1,600-kilometer pipeline from Chad through the Camerooon to the Gulf of Guinea. The economists were swearing that the pipeline would double the size of Chad’s economy within ten years, whereas the environmentalists were arguing that rather it would endanger the survival of the black rhino in the Deng Deng forest, and seriously disrupt the lives of pygmy tribes in Cameroon. As Waring points out, “there is simply no way to transform the lifestyles of pygmy tribes, or the endangered black rhino into commodities.
What Waring justly suggests instead of merely adding women’s economic worth to the pre-existing models, is a more thorough overhaul of these models, “triangulating” the data with non-monetary assessments of environmental worth and data from time-use studies. This would give a more accurate accounting of how productively people spend their time and whether national economies are actually producing or depleting resources: “In this transparent picture of reality, the range of knowledge and expertise across disciplines can be brought to the policy process. Economics no longer has us by the throat.
Politicians will be required to exercise transparent judgments and find no simplistic and cowardly retreat behind growth-rate indices. ” (p. xlviii) Through chapters 7-9, “The Value of Death”, “A Value on Your Time” and “The Eye of the Beholder” Waring describes how capitalist development often means that “In the old days we were poor but there was plenty of food. Now, we have money but nothing to eat. ” (Dona Ettelvina, a Mayan villager (p. 194). In fact, what economists say is good for the economy is not necessarily, what we would see as being good for the people trapped in that economy,
Waring’s focus is the way in which gender is built into the capitalist class structure, and she does a very good job exploring this. Her overview deals with militarism, pollution, rural women’s labor, reproductive technologies, breastfeeding, diet, the sex trade, development. She ties all of these different issues together, supporting that they are all integrated into our economic system “in a way which heightens the exploitation of women by keeping their exploitation invisible and off the books”.
To eliminate this invisibility we need to understand the lies of capitalism in order to be able to reveal the exploitation embedded in it. “In the late twentieth century, the greater number of the casualties and victims of war are not the military but civilians – that is, overwhelmingly, women and children. In the late twentieth century, the greater number of casualties and victims of the market are not the workers but the “economically inactive” – that is, overwhelmingly, women and children. ” (p. 146)
Waring’s strategy involves demanding that women’s unpaid labor is included on national censuses, that environmental damage and military production are included as negative growth rather than counted in the same way as socially useful work and production, and that waiting for this action women should refuse to answer the census questions as they are told. Would this really end Patriarchy? She claims that this rectification of the National Accounts is a tactical necessity because “the women in elected and bureaucratic office would be empowered in their lobbying and work. nd the information would empower the powerless to change governments, leaders, and the nature of economic power. ” (p. 231).
Although, while men rule women, it is difficult to imagine change, and—the principle proposed is valuable, I do not believe that the “powerless” could be empowered by their oppressors, just by being included as labor value in the National Accounts statistics. We need to change the system! Even if this implies mass rebellion, it is by mass movements, historical processes and balanced forces that change can happen, an inclusion in the system of National Accounts is not enough!
Moreover, it includes the risk of perpetrating the capitalistic system! Waring’s message seems to reveal that the world economic system can become post-patriarchal and respectful of the environment, without the intervention of an anti-capitalist revolution; I agree with Waring view of the need for gender equality, but not with this main message. I believe the intention is right, the strategy is insufficient. The urgencies about a possible humankind extinction demand for drastic social change!
