The Challenges Facing Social Economists in the Twenty-First Century: A Feminist Perspective

Abstract

It is goal of this paper to discuss connections between social economic feminism in process to make a constructive contribution to future development of social economics by explicating challenges feminism poses for social economics. In this context it is important to emphasize that neither social economics nor feminism is considered here to be homogenous theories, but that there are different strands in each. This paper will, therefore, start in first two sections by providing brief summaries of broad commonalities between different strands of each - i.e., themes that account for one being considered feminist other social economics. In part three similarities between social economic thinking feminist thinking will be discussed. The last part is devoted to discussion of feminist challenges to social economics. Common Themes in Social Economics In discussing evolution of social economics in America, Bill Waters emphasizes two phases in history of social economics. The first phase can b identified as orthodox phase spanning period 1941-1965. This phase was dominated by Thomas F. Divine who accepted orthodoxy's positive versus normativ dichotomy in definition of economics. According to Waters, Divine saw economics as consisting of a theoretical part, which deals with positive thus ethically neutral inquiry, a second part that concerns economic policy thus action rather than theory. It was only in this second non-theoretical policy dimension that economics deals with ethical issues (Waters, 1990). The second phase of evolution of social economics started around 1965, it was in this stage that social economics its journal Review of Social Economy opened up to a plurality of perspectives. Waters identifies several reasons for this change in direction, first of which is particularly relevant for feminist concerns: First, as new editor in 1965 I expressed interest in two approaches: theory of social economics--inquiry into the very principles that shape economic--and social architecture--the strategy of reform efficacy of plans for best system (Waters, 1965, p. 115). Both of these are inimical t mainstream economists: first because practitioners of science do not find i necessary to investigate basic principles of their paradigm, second, social architecture, because while economic scientists describe, analyze, apply their discipline they are not involved, qua scientists, in strategy o reforming science. Here was a not-so-subtle commitment to Review to (1) a reconstructive (solidarist) approach (2) a sociopolitical inquiry (Waters 1990, p. 98). Waters identifies five different strands of social economics that became predominant in second phase--solidarist, institutionalist, neo-Marxist, neo-Kantian (or deontological), resources economics (Waters, 1990, p. 99). Despite their differences, they share several commonalities that make it possible to consider social economics--to publish in same journal to carry on a constructive, though at times heated, conversation. Waters claims that what to make ideologically diverse pieces compatible was a common, personally humanistic base. For instance, institutionalist and neo-Marxist articles in Review tended to be more humanistic than their deterministic counterparts published elsewhere (Waters, 1990, p. 99). William Dugger points to three specific commonalities between different strands of social economics, namely, their value directedness, their ameliorative nature, their holistic perspective (Dugger, forthcoming 1994). According to Dugger, all social economists reject normative/positive distinction of orthodox theory are value-directed in sense that they se it as their responsibility to make explicit values that have helped them choose what problems to investigate what solutions to advocate. …