At one level my PhD thesis (in Political Economy at Adelaide University) was about national accounting and what we mean by “the economy”. At another level it was an attempt to draw together insights from feminist, socialist and green political economy (with a postmodern, or at least a post-positivist, epistemological base) to inform an alternative political economy. I don’t know that it really resolved the issues it posed, but it was solid research and analysis which in another life or another person’s hands might have had a different fate.
The PhD is now very out of date (2000), but it remains a touchstone for my (hopefully further evolved) thinking. That said, at twenty years distance I am interested in how far down the quantitative road I have gone away from the more radical critiques.
Summary
This PhD thesis critiques the official definition and measurement of the economy found in the national accounts and asks feminist, green and socialist questions about “the Australian economy”. The historical analysis and epistemological theory of the thesis suggests that the national accounts defined ‘economy’ is a reification of neoclassical and Keynesian theory. Given this, the interrogation of exactly what it is meant by ‘the economy’ is an important step in the development of an alternative political economy.
Feminists began this interrogation by critiquing the line drawn in the national accounts between production (“the economy”) and that which is not production (ie. not part of “the economy”). This line excludes and renders invisible most non-market production (eg. household production). However household labour is not like market production and the attempts to extend the definition and measure of the economy (in Marxism as well as in orthodox accounting) have also been critiqued by feminists. Yet this creates an impasse. To include non-market production in the main definition and measure of the economy is to hide much of its difference from market work, but to focus on its difference is to render it again outside of the view of mainstream economics.
There are similar tensions in green debates as attempts to revise national accounts for environmental costs and ecological sustainability have been criticised as inappropriate and anthropocentric. These parallels are important, but the thesis pursues the feminist arguments, asking what would work look like if we took what women actually did (rather than the market) as a starting point.
The analysis of emotional labour and ‘gendered work’ suggests not simply that there are other tasks (’emotional’/caring labours) which are not included in market based definitions of work, but that work is fundamentally sexualised and embodied: and hence the products of work can not be entirely alienated for sale in the market. This cuts across the official definition of production, but also suggests that any attempt to measure work and production is flawed because it is premised on the separation of product from producer.
However this does not resolve the impasse confronting a feminist informed economics. Thus the thesis begins to explore the possibility of defining and measuring the economy in such a way as to highlight rather than hide the difference of women’s work. This can be done by seeing the economy as a hologram: a metaphor which emphasises that what can be seen in the economy is standpoint dependent. But with a hologram, the dependence on standpoint, and the existence of other perspectives, is highlighted, not hidden.
This hologramatic approach is opposed to the official accounts’ monodimensional definitions and measures which insist that all labour should be accounted for (in the same way) in a measure of the economy. This official approach goes back to neoclassical economics and the nexus it establishes between work, production, welfare, the market and the economy. Thus, advancing an alternative definition and measure of the economy requires breaking this neoclassical nexus and recognising different types of labour and economic activity.
Anwar Shaikh and E Ahmet Tonak’s modern Marxian accounts are based on a classification of four different types of economic activity: production (narrowly defined), distribution/exchange, social maintenance, and personal consumption – the first three of which constitute different types of labour. Despite very different theoretical perspectives, this restricted definition of ‘production’ is similar to that used in the transaction cost literature and accounting.
While I reject the larger theoretical frameworks of both Marxian and transaction cost accounting, these restricted definitions of production do allow for a more consistent comparison of market and non-market production. Estimates made using a more restricted definition of production show that non-market production makes an even greater contribution to the economy than the extended (neoclassical) accounts suggest.
A very different approach to breaking the neoclassical nexus is contained in the “green” attempts to measure economic welfare. In accounting for defensive expenditures, environmental costs and resource depletion, these accounts recognise that not all economic activity is ‘productive’ of welfare. This makes a politically important critique of economic growth, although the indexes remain largely gender-blind and would be improved by recognising the (Marxian) distinction between production and exchange/transaction activity. When suitably revised, the Australian measure of economic welfare – the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) gives a view of the economy which is different to the original GPI – as well as being radically different from the official accounts’ story of economic growth.
These green and Marxian analyses and estimates are very different approaches to defining and measuring the economy, and quite different again to the approaches focused on emotional labour which eschew measurement altogether. Yet in important ways, they are all informed by feminist, green and socialist political economy and all serve to break the neoclassical nexus. The different starting points of each approach offer different insights into “the economy”, but unlike the neoclassical standpoint, they do so in a way which allows other possibilities to be seen and pursued.
Table of Contents
List Of Tables
List Of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Acknowledgments
Introduction: The Official Story and the Unofficial Thesis
Production
Different Official Definitions
Outline of Thesis
SECTION 1: IN THE MARKET FOR A DEFINITION
Chapter 1: The Unofficial History of the Official Story
The History of “Production”
The Neoclassical Moment
The Keynesian Moment
Epistemology
Epistemological Standpoints
Conclusion
Chapter 2: The In/visibility of Women’s Work in ‘The Economy’
Feminist Arguments
Valuing Women’s Work
Australian Estimates
Market Centrism
Conclusion
Chapter 3: Feminist Debates about Accounting for Women’s Work
Problems with the Extended Accounts
Time Based Alternatives
Household Time Use and the Politics of Measurement
Socialist Feminist Parallels
Domestic Labour Debate
Post Domestic Labour Debate Formulations
Conclusion
Interlude: Environmental Parallels
Defensive Expenditures and Environmental Costs
GDP as a Welfare Measure
Resource Depletion/Sustainability
Measurements
Critiques of Valuation
Conclusion
SECTION 2: CROSSROADS – EMOTIONAL LABOUR
Chapter 4: Emotional and Embodied Labour
Household emotional labour
Emotional Labour in Paid Work
Differences, Definitions and Critiques
Importance of the Analysis
Standpoint
The Problem of Emotional Labour Revisited
More Than Commodity Production
Difference From Commodity Production
Conclusion
Chapter 5: Measuring the Hologram (and the Neoclassical Impasse)
Problems in Measuring Emotional Labour
The Impasse
The ‘Value’ of Emotional Labour
The Neoclassical Nexus
SECTION 3: BREAKING THE NEOCLASSICAL NEXUS
Chapter 6: Breaking the Nexus I: A Restricted Definition of Production
Feminist Concerns
Marxian Definitions
Transaction Costs
Emotional Labour
Problems in Transaction Cost and Marxian Frameworks
What is the Purpose of Accounts?
Consistent Comparison
Making Women’s Work Visible
Conclusion
Chapter 6a: Empirical Estimates of ‘Production’
Existing Estimates
Market Production
Defining Non-Production Activities
Estimating Market Production (Narrowly Defined)
Household Production
Defining Non-Production Activities
Estimating Household Production (Narrowly Defined)
Combined Results
Chapter 7: Breaking the Nexus II: Economic Welfare Definitions
Economic Welfare Indicators
Results and Implications
Critiques
Gendered Inequality
Wider Issues
Recognising Different Labour – Exchange Labour
Potential for Revised Measures
Chapter 7a: Revising the Estimates of Economic Welfare
Gendered Inequality Adjustments
Estimates and Results
Other Structural Adjustments
Exchange Costs Adjustments
Estimates and Results
SECTION 4: CONCLUSION AND FOUNDATIONS
Conclusion
Appendix 1: Data for Restricted Product Estimates
Appendix 2: Further Data and Methodological Issues in the GPI
Revisions
Gender Wage Gap
Why an Index?
The Data
The Index
Exchange Expenditures
Changes in ABS Industry Classifications
Calculation & Raw Data