Conference Agenda

Though feminists economists encourage methodological plurality, quantitative methods and econometrics have overtaken the discipline in recent years. While feminist economists have widely eluded infusing qualitative research into economics, they are uniquely positioned within gender studies to theorize around quantitative feminist methods. Many feminist scholars have demonstrated reasons to be concerned about the increasingly strong foothold of quantitative methods, and others have provided thoughtful criticisms of specific quantitative measurements and survey questions. However, few have engaged with the question of making econometric methods more feminist, just as the distinction between mainstream micro-econometrics and feminist econometrics has become increasingly blurred. Drawing upon insights from queer methods, intersectional approaches, and feminist economics, this paper sets forth specific guidelines for making econometric analysis more feminist.

For decades, gender scholars have challenged conceptual frameworks of the social world that depict gender as an individual-level characteristic, a role that is learned early in life and (re-)produced largely within the separate sphere of the family. When gender is instead conceptualized as a dynamic and multi-level source of social stratification, the family no longer be treated as separate from the political economy. Analogies which liken societies to biological organisms progressing through similar stages of development with long periods of social stasis are no longer tenable. Feminist epistemologists have challenged assumptions of social problems that are “out there” waiting to be discovered and addressed, rather than constructed by influential social actors who see the world in a particular way. In problematising the idea that there can ever be a thing as “just description”, these insights raise important ethical questions about the impact – both representationally and materially – of the way research on social problems is carried out. I contend that research in feminist economics has not yet sufficiently engaged with or incorporated these profoundly important contributions and insights. The uncritical acceptance of the kinds of the questions that are worth asking and the methods that are most appropriate - and rigorous - is a serious impediment to feminist projects. By drawing attention to the ways that much of what can be found in our collective disciplinary toolbox implicitly reproduces earlier, problematic frameworks, my aim is to show how a truly feminist methodology in economics requires greater attention to theory and greater attention to the gaps between theoretical and methodological innovation. My use of the word “extraordinary” in the title takes it meaning from Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Rather than contribute to the normal science of the discipline, this paper is a plea for feminist economists to embark on the kind of extraordinary science that challenges, and eventually shifts, the paradigm of mainstream economics.

Based on a 2022 survey of authors who published in two journals (Feminist Economics (2003-2022) and Review of Economics of the Household (2003-2022)) and two journal special issues or compilations entitled “gender economics/gender and economics” (Oxford Review of Economic Policy (2020) and The Economic Journal (2017-2019)), we examine how authors who identify their scholarship as “feminist” characterize their work. Our sample comprises 61.3 percent of survey respondents who either use a feminist economics perspective or identify their research as feminist and have given useable responses to the question “What are the distinguishing features of your research that make it feminist?” This feminist sample characterizes their research in terms of five themes: 1) Gender is incorporated as a lens that views the economy as a gendered structure where gender norms and inequalities shape economic opportunities and outcomes; 2) Attention to agency and process is part of feminist economics inquiry; 3) Explicit ethical judgments, namely feminist values, shape and motivate research; 4) Provisioning activities include emphasis on or attention to care work; 5) Attention to intersectionality is a distinct feature of feminist economics scholarship. Most feminist economists in our sample are hyphenated feminist economists and most use critical and heterodox approaches to economics. We examine whether school of thought makes a difference in emphasis on these distinguishing features.

Feminist economists have defined patriarchal structures, institutions and values as key determinants of the gendered division labour (productive and reproductive work).This paper proposes a first exercise in the design and application of two different measures of patriarchy for Italy, using a combination of information from census-like microdata and value surveys' data at regional level.

We compute a patriarchy index, incorporating a range of variables related to familial behaviour, power relations and access to formal labor markets, and an index of patriarchal ideology that identifies values, attitudes and conscious or unconscious beliefs held by individuals regarding gender roles and gender relations.

The comparison of the two indexes at regional level allows us to identify

Italian regions with different degrees of patriarchy and look at relevant factors behind patriarchy, to provide a space for debates on policy proposals useful to achieve gender and social justice, in a feminist perspective.