MAINSTREAM THEORIES OF IPE ARE A SUFFICIENT BASIS UPON WHICH TO STUDY THE INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY. DISCUSS.

Transcription

1 MAINSTREAM THEORIES OF IPE ARE A SUFFICIENT BASIS UPON WHICH TO STUDY THE INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY. DISCUSS. On the omission of gender analysis in liberalism, realism and Marxism. COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL 2016 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY FINAL EXAM STU: , 10 pages

2 Introduction In 1989, Cynthia Enloe demanded attention to one basic question within international politics: Where are the women? (Enloe 1989: 133 cited in Rai 2013: 9). Almost 30 years later the question still remains significant. Although women are central to the practical operation of the international political economy, their presence, contribution and struggles are continuously undermined in the study and real-world phenomena of IPE. While feminist scholars engage with the study of mainstream theories, the reverse is an uncommon phenomenon (Eagleton 2000 cited in Griffin 2007: 726), and thus the gender agenda is still expelled to the fringes of both the practice and research of the world economy. The continual academic focus on the three mainstream theories of IPE; realism, liberalism and Marxism has failed to integrate gender analysis. Meanwhile these malestream grand theories are encouragingly treated as genderblind without concern for the masculine biases inherent in their assumptions and conclusions (Waylen 2006: 145). This paper argues that the mainstream theories of IPE are an insufficient basis upon which to study the international political economy as they underestimate the role of gender in their analysis of IPE. Following Robert Gilpin s definition of liberalism, economic nationalism and Marxism as the three constituting ideologies of IPE (1987: 25-64), this essay will concern itself with a feminist critique of the mainstreams of liberalism, realism and Marxism. Agreeing with Cox conception that theory is always for someone and for some purpose (Cox and Sinclair, 1996), this paper will scrutinize certain assumptions of the three mainstream theories, asking from a feminist perspective the question who does it serve?. Focus will be given to their respective main units of analysis the individual, the state and the class. The paper will be structured into four main sections as a distinct division of theory, analysis and empirical examples would be unsuitable for the presentation of this theoretical critique. I begin with an introduction to feminist theory outlining the historical development from the 1 st to the 3 rd wave as well as important concepts of intersectionality, the binary of the public-private spheres and the productive and reproductive forces. This is followed by a feminist critique of liberalism, where the assumptions of universal rationality in the individual and hence in the market is argued to be masculinised and dismissive of structured power relations. Subsequently, 1

3 the realist notion of a single national interest is critiqued as being dismissive of internal diversity at the expense of marginalised groups. Furthermore, the definition of state interest and power is criticised as an androcentric conception. While Marxist theory may seem more compatible with feminist theory, the narrowly defined class aspect dismisses issues that are particular to women and neglects to analyse privileges as other than class-based. By defining people in terms of their function as labour, it further dismisses an analysis of gender-particular struggles. Concluding, this essay calls for an expansion of the core subject matter of IPE as well as a comprehensive redefinition of core assumptions of rationality, social progress, national interest, power and labour for mainstream theories of IPE to be able to adopt a gender lens in their analysis of the global political economy. Feminist IPE Because of the inherent diversity of feminist approaches, pinning down a single definition of feminist IPE is a hard task. Rai conceptualises it as the study of gendered social relations in the context of IPE (2013: 1), and points to Esther Boserup s ground-breaking book Women s role in economic development as marking the beginning of feminist IPE in 1970 (ibid: 3). However, the feminist tradition owes itself to political progress going back much further; the main developments are to be seen from the 1 st to the 2 nd to the 3 rd wave. The 1 st wave of feminism developed in the mid-1800s as a fight for the equal political and legal rights between men and women. Some concern was given to breaking gender stereotypes, but most attention was given to universal suffrage; by incorporating women into existing public frameworks, other forms of discrimination were believed to disappear (Heywood 2014: 420). The 1 st wave continued until 1960 and was largely successful in its ambitions of securing formal equality of opportunity through universal suffrage and access to education, resources and the job market (Kroløkke and Sørensen 2006: 2-7). The 2 nd wave came about in the 1960s and expanded the feminist project from political emancipation to liberation through comprehensive social change reflecting the fact that the personal is political. They thus sought to break down the political barrier between the public and the private realm and expand the feminist critique to a systemic one by questioning 2

4 everyday-issues such as family power structures and sexual relations (ibid: 7-15). This binary notion of public/private spheres was especially challenged by the notion of social reproduction that exposed how women have been confined to and defined by the reproductive sphere (sexual and emotional services, unpaid household labour, care work) of the economy and excluded from the productive sphere (wealth-generating) (Rai 2013: 5). The micro- and macro-systems of production and exchange was thus deemed to be fundamentally connected (ibid: 4). In the growth of radical feminism under the 2 nd wave, the suppression of women became connected with broader systems of capitalism and patriarchy. The 3 rd wave spreads in many direction, but a common characteristic is a focus on Kimberle Crenshaw s postmodern concept of intersectionality (Lacsamana 2016: 90). Power and privilege are understood to be constituted by the intersection of the independent identity entities of class, gender, sexuality, race and ability. All categories are equally important and must be understood as constructed within their given context. The intersectional feminists thus seek to distance themselves from the focus on white, heterosexual, cisgender women from the middle class, which it believed to have been dominant in the 2 nd wave (Lacsamana 2016: 88-91). While feminism have come to take many forms, a common thread, is the concern with making gender the point of departure for analysis, and that is what this essay will do. Feminist critique of IPE Liberalism Grounded in positivism, liberalism seeks to develop objective knowledge taking the world as it is and using the individual as the basic unit of analysis. In doing so, the mainstream liberalism highlights the universal rationality of the utility-maximising economic man. Because each pursues his own interests, beneficial outcomes are produced for all, although some may benefit more than others. As a result of this individual rationality and harmony of interests, liberals make a normative commitment to economic liberalism, trusting the market mechanism to organise international as well as domestic economic relations with limited direction from states (Wigan 2016 and Broome 2014: 22). The international realm is seen to be characterised by cooperation and interdependence as states cooperate through IOs in positive sum games. A belief in progress thus persists and states aim for absolute gains through collective action (ibid). 3

5 The first concept to come under scrutiny is the seemingly gender-neutral rational economic man (REM). Although it was developed in the image of Western men, and most early liberal thinkers clearly stated that their notion of rationality applied to men and not to women, its use has been extended to represent humanity or mankind as a whole (Tickner 1991: 5). Nancy Hartsock presented a critique of the individualistic and competitive characteristics of the REM as masculine traits, which could not have been accepted as the norm if the female experience had been taken into consideration (Hartsock 1983 in Tickner 1991: 4). Jaggar (1983) explains this androcentric bias in the liberal human nature in two steps. Firstly, the value given to the rational mind the intellectual productive sphere traditionally dominated by (upper-class) men diminishes the value of the body which is active in the female-dominated reproductive sphere. Secondly, the maternal and reproductive role of women in the household and in the market place cannot be explained exclusively through individual self-seeking rationality. Engaging primarily in care-work, women have continuously defined themselves through relationships with others rather than on their own. (Jaggar 1983: 47). A notion of human nature based on the male-as-norm individual self-pursuit thus dismisses the female experience, and applying the idea of universal rationality to men and women alike simply forces a square peg through a round hole. With the assumption of individual rationality came the assumption of the rational market maximising social welfare when operating unimpeded. Applying a common-sense status to the market, paved the way for the separation of politics and economics. However, such a separation is dismissive of the structured power relations underlying exchanges (Tickner 1991: 5). As a result of unequal market structures, historical (dis)advantages and regulations formulated by gendered states, different actors enter the market with unequal skills, opportunities and resources (Rai 2013: 12). Thus, in the labour market, only 59% of the gender gap on economic participation and opportunity had been closed in 2016 (World Economic Forum, 2016). Women are in many cases restricted from education, language training and thus the ability to achieve so called high-skilled jobs. So even though a female nurse and a male nurse may be paid the same, the gendered division of labour means that the women are overrepresented in low-paying care jobs (O Brien 2013). When treating the economy as an apolitical, rational actor creating the best 4

6 outcomes for all, liberalism thus neglects that women do not have the same opportunities as men in the current structures. Furthermore, the understanding of social progress in economistic terms of increasing GDP undermines the values of women s work as much of it is being performed outside of the formal economy (Tickner 1991: 6). This means that when success stories (i.e. of development) are written, they often neglect the partially negative impact of economic growth on women. Elias (2004) illustrates that the mainstream understanding of South East Asia s liberal free trade - driven development as a success ignores gendered foundations of the economic growth. He argues that MNCs in Malaysia have become economic successes by exploiting gendered labour divisions and targeting young and less economically mobile women. These workers are highly submissive (and thus easy to control) and they are willing to work for low wages and remain outside unions (Griffin 2007: 728 and Tickner 1991: 12). Meanwhile said MNCs are studied as progressive drivers of globalisation by much of mainstream IPE. As long as these basic assumptions of rationality and social progress underpins academic liberal economics and politics, the contributions of women to the real-world IPE will continue to be undervalued. Feminist critique of IPE Realism This paper will now turn to an examination of the realist assumptions of the state and its interest as well as power from a gender perspective. As liberalism, IPE realism is grounded in positivism and is thus another problem-solving theory. It follows Morgenthau in anthropomorphising the state by deploying the universal rationality notion at the level of the state the primary unit of analysis. The state egoism in the international system of anarchy mirrors the human egoism of the individual, and so states rationally pursue their homogenous national interests. Their main interest is to increase their relative power through zero-sum interstate competition, meaning for one to win, another must lose. This interest in relative political power takes primacy over economics, however the two are inherently linked. Incidents of international cooperation is consequently explained in terms of self-interest (Wigan 2016 and Watson 2011: 30-35). 5

7 The focus on the state as the main unit of analysis hinges on the assumption that there exists a single national interest. This assumed black-box homogeneity disregards the internal diversity of interests at the expense of the groups that are not represented in state interest-formation: notably ethnic and religious minorities, people of lower classes, LGBTQ, and women. These segments tend to be non-elite actors with higher representation in domestic social groups and NGOs, which is not included in national interest formation (O Brien, 2000: 89 in Griffin, 2007: 723). The fact that the political participation sub-index in the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 (looking at women in parliament, ministerial level and state heads) exhibits the worst performance with only 23% of the gap being closed, underscores the missing voices in policy and interest formation. Feminist research by Goldstein, Caprioli, Readan and Paskeviciute show, that these voices do in fact tend to change national interest: states with high gender equality are less likely to go to war and use force in interstate conflict. Likewise, they are more generously committed to global aid and pacific international relations (True 2005: 220). Thus, by ignoring non-state actors and assuming homogeneity of state interest, national interest remains gendered at the benefit of the most privileged. Some may argue, that it is unnecessary to look at interest formation as interests are seen as an existential given: states will always act to increase their power in the IPE (Watson 2011: 32). Then we must instead look at the concept of power. Jacqui True argues that power has been defined in terms of power-over : the ability to impose onto someone, actions they would not otherwise take. She goes on to reason, that in the application of universal rationality to the state level, the rational national interest in a hostile international system of anarchy naturally becomes the maximisation of power-over other states (True 2005: 225). However, Tickner (1988) exposes how an understanding of power as domination is inherently androcentric as the exercise of legitimate power in the public domain has generally been a masculine activity and personal authority has been manifested in their power over women s (re)productive abilities as heads of households (ibid). Jane Jaquette argues that as women traditionally have not had access to means of coercion, they have relied on power in terms of persuasion and coalition building power thus becomes a relationship of mutual enablement rather than forceful overpowering (Tickner 1988: 9). Realist power is thus as rationality defined in the image of the men who wrote the 6

8 definitions and is not gender neutral. Rather it is the patriarchy that dictates that states will be competitive and potentially aggressive in their pursuit of power (Heywood 2014: 427). Feminist critique of IPE Marxism At the outset Marxism would seem more compatible with feminist analysis as they are both concerned with the struggles of the least powerful in IPE and both reject the notion of a universal rationality. However, certain elements are still worth examining with a gender lens. Marxism concerns itself with classes as the main agents in history and presents a materialist understanding of historical phenomena and change. The material base of society creates class divisions between the owners and the exploited. The internal contradictions in each mode of production creates class struggles, which leads to change through a dialectical process (Heywood 2014: 72). Marxism looks as the individual as labour and defines this labour as the ontological foundation of society. Capitalism is seen as the mode of production in contemporary IPE with capitalists exploiting workers through surplus value extraction (Wigan 2016, 2). The valorisation of the class struggle has happened at the expense of other identity categories with two consequences to follow: (1) the failure to incorporate insights on the capitalist exploitation of the reproductive and productive forces alike and (2) the neglect of privileges formed on other bases than class. The former has been discussed in earlier critiques, however a distinct point should be made in relation to the omission of a Marxist critique of the gendered division of labour. Although Engels provided some insights into the exclusion of women from the productive public sphere and their dependency on the male breadwinner, much of this analysis failed to be incorporated into classical Marxist practice (Rai 2013: 7). The gender perspective took form through an add women and stir -approach, where women s issues were dealt with as a separate entity rather than as an integrated part of the analysis (Jaggar 1983: 237). Women were mainly seen as oppressed because of their exclusion from public production, and so the household level was not considered particularly relevant. As a result, women s role in the family through unpaid reproductive work was largely omitted from the analysis (Jaggar 1983: 77 and Assassi 2009: 29). 7

9 The second critique concerning privileges formed on other categories than class is linked to the idea of intersectionality. As Elias argues, an overriding emphasis on class is of little use to scholars engaged in feminist research agendas, for it is not understood in terms of how it intersects with other forms of social inequality that cannot be so easily subsumed within a classbased frame (Elias 2011: 104 in Lacsamana 2016: 90). The understanding of exploitation must include an analysis along the axes of race, religion, gender, sexuality as well as class to appreciate context-specific conditions of privilege and oppression (ibid). I as a white, heterosexual woman from the academic upper class of the global North represent an incredibly privileged group, but by making the dichotomous distinction between two classes, I may be placed alongside men and women of colour, people from the LGBTQ community or religious minorities all facing distinct struggles in the IPE that have little to do with class. If analysis is restricted to class, it is easy to miss issues such as women s liability to rape, domestic abuse, sexual harassment and objectification as well as women s disadvantage in areas of capital, power, leisure time across all classes. Questions on these issues cannot be raised within Marxist analysis as women do not occupy their own class (Jaggar 1983: 78). In line with the intersectional critique of the class concept, follows a comment on the notion of labour as the ontological foundation of society and defining individuals through their contribution through labour. Griffin (2007: 728-9) writes, if bodies exist only to work and produce, what space [red. is there] to analyse the constructedness of bodies, representations, relationships ( )?. Likewise, if labour is merely labour, certain issues become invisible. An example could be the disproportionately harsh outcomes for female labour of the austerity policies following the 2008 financial crisis or the structural adjustment policies (SAP) imposed by the IMF in lending programs (Waylen 2012 in Celis et. al 2013: 2 and Tickner 1991: 7). If women in the market are seen merely as workers, and not as female workers, we risk neglecting the female overrepresentation in the provision and reception of social welfare programs, which were slashed through public sector cutbacks under austerity policies (O Brien 2013: 56). The apparent gender-blindness of Marxist categories is as in liberalism and realism a case where gender manifests itself through its absence. What are we talking about? 8

10 A remark to the general insufficiency of the three mainstream theories for the study of IPE concerns the definition of core empirical terrain, or said in other words: we are talking about the wrong things. The core concerns of mainstream IPE remain issues such as economic growth, international trade, the role of the state, cooperation and conflict, and the influence of globalisation on all of the mentioned (Griffin 2007: 723). When women have been considered in these topics, it has mainly been by imposing mainstream methodologies and definitions on women s issues rather than using gender as a basic tool of analysis (ibid: 729). In the relatively narrow focus on these topics, we have neglected issues of gendered interest such as the IPE of sex trade or the IPE of violence against women (Broome 2013: 27). For a sufficient study of the international political economy, the core concerns must thus be widened beyond the traditional topics. Conclusion Cynthia Enloe asked: Where are the women? and so this paper sought out to investigate, where the women are in the mainstream approaches of International Political Economy. The development of feminist theory was briefly outlined along with core concepts of intersectionality and reproductive vs productive spheres. These concepts were consequently useful in the scrutiny of some of the basic assumptions of the three mainstream theories of IPE: liberalism, realism and Marxism. In this scrutiny, the paper mainly drew on topics of labour and production. Firstly, liberalism s seemingly gender-neutral conception of individual rationality, market rationality and social progress was challenged as they are based on traditionally male characteristics. They thus preserve certain power structures that are holding women back from equal access and undervalues their contribution. Realism s black-box conception of the state was exposed as creating distorted ideas of homogeneity of interest, which are in reality based on male interests. The realist definition of power as power-over similarly reflects an androcentric view of the world and human nature. Marxism s focus on class as the main unit of analysis was criticised for having failed to incorporate insights on capitalistic exploitation of the reproductive forces and having neglected the privileges formed on bases other than class. Additionally, by 9

11 pooling of all people into a single category of labour, Marxist analysis disregards nuances of gender-specific exploitation and oppression. While feminist theory and research exists in great quantity and quality, it is still engaging with IPE from the fringes. For a gender lens to be seriously applied to the study of IPE, it is not enough for feminist literature to engage with the mainstream theories they too must engage actively with gender as a basic tool of analysis. Consequently, this essay did not argue for the dismissal of liberalism, realism or Marxism but rather it questioned the assumed genderblindness of their basic assumptions. While all three streams have their own justification and legitimacy, they would benefit from the incorporation of gender analysis; this would create a better and more nuanced understanding of their main units of analysis and thus increase their explanatory power. This incorporation begins with two things: the redefinition of core IPE concepts of rationality, social progress, national interest, power and labour and the expansion of the sphere of research to a wider range of IPE topics. We are writing 2016, and the study of the international political economy can no longer be based on outdated androcentric assumptions. To produce sufficient answers and solutions to issues of IPE, we must first be able to say, the women are here right at the centre!. 10

12 References Assassi, L. (2009). The gendering of global finance. 1st ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Broome, A. (2014). Issues and actors in the global political economy. 1st ed. Palgrave. Celis, K., Kantola, J., Waylen, G. and Weldon, S. (2013). Introduction: Gender and Politics: A Gendered World, a Gendered Discipline. Oxford Handbooks Online. [online] Available at: [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016]. Cox, R. and Sinclair, T. (1996). Approaches to world order. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp Fassbinder, S. (2015). The Trouble with Economic Man. Capitalism Nature Socialism, [online] 26(3), pp Available at: [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016]. Gilpin, R. and Gilpin, J. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. 1st ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, pp Griffin, P. (2007). Refashioning IPE: What and how gender analysis teaches international (global) political economy. Review of International Political Economy, [online] 14(4), pp Available at: [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016]. Heywood, A. (2014). Global politics. 2nd ed. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp hooks, b. (1981). Ain't I a woman. 1st ed. Boston, MA: South End Press. Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. 1st ed. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld. Kroløkke, C. and Sørensen, A. (2006). Three Waves of Feminism: From Suffragettes to Grrls. In: C. Kroløkke and A. Sørensen, ed., Gender Communication Theories & Analyses: From Silence to Performance, 1st ed. SAGE Publications, Inc., pp Lacsamana, A. (2016). Feminism and Critical International Political Economy. In: A. Cafruny, L. Talani and G. Martin, ed., The Palgrave Handbook of Critical International Political Economy, 1st ed. London: Springer Nature, pp O'Brien, R. (2013). Labour shapes the global political economy. In: R. Palan, ed., Global Political Economy Contemporary Theories, 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge, pp Rampton, M. (2008). Four Waves of Feminism. Pacific Magazine. [online] Available at: [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016]. Tickner, J. (1988). Hans Morgenthau s Principles of Political Realism. A Feminist Voyage through International Relations, [online] pp Available at: 11

13 web.lib.cbs.dk/view/ /acprof:oso/ /acprof chapter-1 [Accessed 18 Dec. 2016]. Tickner, J. (1991). On the Fringes of the World Economy. A Feminist Voyage through International Relations, [online] pp Available at: [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016]. Tickner, J. (1997). You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists. International Studies Quarterly, [online] 41(4), pp Available at: [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016]. True, J. (2005). Feminism. In: S. Burchill, A. Linklater, R. Devetak, J. Donnelly, M. Paterson, C. Reus-Smit and J. True, ed., Theories of International Relations, 3rd ed. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, pp Watson, M. (2011). The Historical Roots of Theoretical Traditions in Global Political Economy. In: J. Ravenhill, ed., Global Political Economy, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, pp Waylen, G. (2006). You still don t understand: why troubled engagements continue between feminists and (critical) IPE. Review of International Studies, [online] 32(01), pp Available at: [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016]. Wigan, D. (2016). Labour. Wigan, D. (2016). Marxism. Wigan, D. (2016). The Neo-Realist and Liberal Institutionalist Traditions. World Economic Forum, (2016). The Global Gender Gap Report. Insight Report. [online] World Economic Forum. Available at: [Accessed 18 Dec. 2016]. 12

14 13