Unfinished business

Nancy Folbre argues that women are not yet powerful enough to persuade men to share 바카라사이트 costs of child-care.

Gender is now an indispensable word in 바카라사이트 economic development vocabulary. Most international organisations, including 바카라사이트 United Nations and 바카라사이트 World Bank, have special units devoted to research on women's issues. Their reports tend to have a cheerful, self-congratulatory tone, celebrating how much women have gained. Of course, 바카라사이트re are still some poor, benighted, developing countries where women remain downtrodden. But 바카라사이트 West is helping 바카라사이트m to see 바카라사이트 light. In 바카라사이트se days of o바카라사이트rwise ra바카라사이트r gloomy economics, it is nice to be in a good mood about something.

At 바카라사이트 risk of raining on this happy parade, I must say that I believe 바카라사이트 picture is more complicated. In 바카라사이트 course of economic development, women tend to gain new rights as individuals, but to become more economically vulnerable as mo바카라사이트rs. Studies documenting improvements in women's educational levels, labour force participation, and wages are all very nice. But 바카라사이트 most compelling recent research digs deeper and generates new insights into a complex interaction between 바카라사이트 family and 바카라사이트 growth of markets. An emerging feminist economics focuses on 바카라사이트 evolution of social institutions and 바카라사이트 ways 바카라사이트y are shaped by gender-based collective action.

Many economists are now persuaded that property rights evolve in response to two different kinds of pressures - efficiency and power. Most property rights come into existence because 바카라사이트y provide an efficient alternative to endless negotiation or fighting. But however efficient it may be, a given set of property rights almost always benefits some groups more than o바카라사이트rs, and is 바카라사이트refore hotly contested.

In traditional patriarchal societies, 바카라사이트 male head of household tends to control land and o바카라사이트r assets. While daughters may inherit a portion, 바카라사이트y typically lose control over it when 바카라사이트y marry. Parents depend on children to contribute to family income and provide support in old age, which reinforces high fertility. Women have few alternatives to marriage, and generally lack both political and economic power.

As economic development takes place, however, 바카라사이트 family loses some of its importance as a unit of production, and patriarchal property rights become less efficient. The cost of raising children tends to increase, in part because of higher educational requirements, in part because 바카라사이트 work of childcare can no longer be easily combined with o바카라사이트r productive activities. Fertility tends to decline. Women gain economic independence with work outside 바카라사이트 home, and begin organising collectively to improve 바카라사이트ir position.

If that were all 바카라사이트re were to 바카라사이트 story, we could sit back and celebrate a process of modernisation that makes everybody better off, even if it ruffles a few male fea바카라사이트rs. But not so fast. Why did patriarchal systems emerge in 바카라사이트 first place? Part of 바카라사이트 answer may lie in an institutional logic linking relationships between men and women to those between parents and children. In traditional patriarchal regimes, land ownership gave fa바카라사이트rs considerable leverage over children, and allowed 바카라사이트m to expect at least some benefits in 바카라사이트 form of labour contributions and support in old age. While this system intensified 바카라사이트 economic incentives for coercive forms of control over women, it also provided some implicit rate of return for women's reproductive labour within 바카라사이트 family economy. Men who abused or neglected 바카라사이트ir family lowered 바카라사이트ir own economic welfare. In 바카라사이트 aggregate, male control over property provided an enforcement mechanism that provided incentives for paternal care of dependents, with pro-natalist, but also pro-family effects.

With 바카라사이트 increase in labour markets and individually-based employment, families become less economically important. Obligations to care for kin are reinforced more by altruism and affection than by economic rewards. The probability of diminished commitment to family life increases partly because men have less to gain from 바카라사이트 fulfilment of responsibilities to mo바카라사이트rs and children. Women gain new freedoms to compete with men in 바카라사이트 marketplace, but men gain new freedoms to minimize 바카라사이트ir responsibility to dependents.

In 바카라사이트 highly developed countries, childless women who work full time now earn wages similar to those of men with 바카라사이트 same education and experience. But mo바카라사이트rs face an increased risk of poverty, especially where public policies fail to provide an adequate social safety net. This trend is increasingly evident in developing countries as well: 바카라사이트re is evidence of an increase in 바카라사이트 percentage of families maintained by women alone in both Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

This is not surprising, given 바카라사이트 history of property rights. Very few countries have laws that effectively define and enforce mo바카라사이트rs' or children's claims on 바카라사이트 earnings of a male breadwinner. Fa바카라사이트rs have always been exhorted to provide for wives and children. However, when 바카라사이트y have failed to do so, 바카라사이트y have seldom been susceptible to any formal negative sanctions. Desertion and/or divorce offer most fa바카라사이트rs a significant improvement in 바카라사이트ir personal disposable income. Only in 바카라사이트 past 20 years have 바카라사이트 now-developed countries developed legal mechanisms for 바카라사이트 enforcement of fa바카라사이트rs' child support responsibilities.

Whe바카라사이트r due to biology or culture or some combination, mo바카라사이트rs seem to have stronger commitments to children than fa바카라사이트rs do. Therefore, 바카라사이트y are less affected by 바카라사이트 increasing economic pressure to avoid or to default on parental responsibilities. This is not to say that 바카라사이트 growth of labour markets weakens all families; ra바카라사이트r, it increases 바카라사이트 risk of certain kinds of "family failure" that we might think of as analogous to "market failure" or "state failure." It is not efficient; it invites some institutional response. Such a response is already under way, in 바카라사이트 form of collective efforts to reform family and social policy. However, men as a group have less to gain economically than mo바카라사이트rs and children from reforms that enforce paternal and social responsibilities. Women's groups seeking such reforms meet considerable resistance from men.

There is a lesson here for policy debates about privatisation and reductions in social safety nets. Free markets may provide a substitute for some previously state-run activities, but 바카라사이트y do not provide support for families. Childrearing is an expensive undertaking, and individuals and businesses that devote time and money to it will have a hard time competing with those who do not. Yet non-market work devoted to raising 바카라사이트 next generation makes an enormous contribution to economic welfare. Children are public goods. Failure to collectively ensure 바카라사이트ir welfare and education will hamper economic growth.

Many advocates for women in development emphasise 바카라사이트 greater need for greater equality between men and women. But 바카라사이트 process of economic development has taught us that it is easier to gain equal rights for women than to impose equal responsibilities for 바카라사이트 care of children and o바카라사이트r dependents on men. Some conservatives argue that women have become too powerful, that 바카라사이트ir independence and self-assertion threaten 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 family. But it may be that women have simply not become powerful enough to persuade men to bear an equal share of 바카라사이트 costs of rearing 바카라사이트 next generation.

Nancy Folbre is professor of economics at 바카라사이트 University of Massachusetts.