Extra: Giandomenica Becchio on Feminist Economics

In her interview on The Great Antidote podcast, Giandomenica Becchio, a professor of economics and the history of economic thought at the University of Torino, answered the opening question (“What is the most important thing that people my age or in my generation should know that we don't?”) by saying that gender equality doesn’t just happen. Young people should understand that progress toward gender equality is the result of a fight for change.

(You can listen to the episode here.)

Gen Z aren’t the only ones who need to be convinced. An idea tempts many classical liberals: as long as we champion the right institutions and the free exchange of ideas we don’t need to fight for specific issues. Let markets work and they will discourage discrimination because it is inefficient or expensive. Tl;dr: Discrimination leaves $20 bills on the sidewalk.

But Becchio is right—good institutions and healthy debates are not enough. Markets can't eliminate deep-seated discrimination. Patriarchy existed before capitalism and exists still. The question of gender equality—whether women are or should be treated as equal to men, and how to do it—is primarily political. To reduce discrimination, people have to work against it. 

Becchio is quick to point out that the “traditional” division of labour, with women working in the home and men working outside of it, is inefficient as well as unfair. Becchio isn’t the first to recognize that inefficiency isn’t enough to eliminate injustice. 

Adam Smith observed in 1776 that slavery is an inefficient form of labour. But he didn’t think that would eliminate slavery. Smith believed that domination was something people were willing to pay for despite its higher cost—essentially, it’s a luxury good. If people value a social hierarchy, they will pay for it. 

It helps to remember what markets do. They don’t deliver what’s best. They deliver what consumers want as efficiently as producers can manage. If enough people want to pay for social hierarchy, markets will direct resources towards that end. 

Biases can also affect economic data. Sellgren mentions (time stamp 10:29) that GDP does not account for the unpaid labour women tend to do. This omission led Soviet planners—all men—to require women to participate in the formal economy without making changes to relieve the burden of household labour. Women were further discriminated against in the Soviet workforce when they were funnelled into “care” jobs that were lower-paid because of discriminatory assumptions about whether women are motivated by competition or monetary concerns. (time stamp 11:45)

Finally, discrimination can shade how we look at the data we have. 

Becchio recounts (time stamp 22:21) how, in the 1990s, Gary Becker argued that the division of labour as it occurred in households was efficient, using data to make his case. Under this framing, it could have been hard to see inequality and not just the result of freely made choices. Feminist economics had to emerge to explain why that was wrong. 

Becchio mentions changes in data, like measuring labour in hours rather than money value to capture work that is not traditionally remunerated. She also summarizes the attempt to understand barriers in an economy by looking at it across many dimensions to understand it better. These include the gender labour gap, gender wage gap, gender education gap, and gender entrepreneurship gap. We can see from the history of feminist economics that discrimination can sustain itself if people don’t step up.

Becchio believes that feminist economics can help us understand the problem, but the push for change has to be more socially driven. One example is breaking down the assumption that mothers have to be the primary caregivers whose work should be most flexible to accommodate raising children. 

Sellgren mentions two friends: one wants to be a stay-at-home dad, but wants to keep it a secret, and another wants to be a stay-at-home mom but worries that it would send the wrong message to her kids and her community. (time stamp 45:00)

Mothers are intimately familiar with the feeling that every choice available about whether or how much to work with kids invites criticism. (Not to mention every other choice about raising kids.) The desire not to have that public attention pointed at all parents is understandable. Sellgren’s friends’ dilemmas illustrate how overwhelming it can feel to fight inequality.

Those who want to address inequality can take a cue from feminist economists. We can learn how inequality doesn’t always look the same. That there are many dimensions to the problem implies that there are many ways to contribute to change. 

Individuals have to both change their behaviour and understand how norms and institutions affect incentives. Someone who wants to be a stay-at-home dad can understand that the gender labour gap, gender wage gap, and gender entrepreneurship gap are all affected by expectations about parental roles. Advocating for a world where stay-at-home dads are as accepted as stay-at-home moms contributes to a shift in the expectations of parenting and work, while also destigmatizing individual choices.

Understanding that the problem is multidimensional can also help relieve pressure on a mom who wants to stay home with her kids. The many ways she can participate in social and economic change toward gender equality mean there’s lots she can do beyond putting herself in the workforce as an example for her children. For instance, she can help instill in her kids an appreciation that the care work that she does is valuable and is work worthy of understanding, and she can highlight the products, services, and public success of women. 

At some point, a liberal economy, one concerned with liberty and equal individuals, requires liberal people. Feminist economics, as presented by Becchio, is a great illustration of why.

Another Great Antidote Podcast: Sarah Skwire on Pro-Market Literature and Feminism

Where to start reading about women in the classical liberal tradition? (Jayme Lemke knows)