From an analysis of participatory freedoms to one of power relations and forms of oppression.
Development expressed in terms of economic growth has been criticized by many strands of heterodox economics, although this criticism is not uniform and coherent. In this paper, feminist approaches to development will be analyzed along with the human development paradigm, built upon Amartya Sen’s concept of development as freedom. As will be explored, the two approaches share the critique of growth-centred development but diverge in their conceptualization of nature and structural power relations within capitalism. Further, their methods of analysis seem in contrast, with the human development approach focusing on freedoms of the individual, while Marxist feminist economics examining groups and processes. The paper will start with an overview of Sen’s capabilities approach to development and continue with social reproduction theory and ecofeminism’s analysis of systemic oppression and power relations.
Sen’s capabilities approach and the concept of Human Development
Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen conceptualizes development as a process of expanding people’s function and capabilities, namely human freedoms. The substantive freedoms a person can enjoy depend on political and civil rights, as well as social and economic arrangements (Sen, 2001). The main development objective is removing the obstacles to what a person can do or be in her life - these being medical problems, poor education, civil, political, and economic unfreedoms (Fukuda-Parr, 2003). Substantial freedoms are fundamental to the process of development for two reasons. The evaluative reason, meaning they are constitutive of development and progress is assessed based on their enhancement. The effectiveness reason, whereby they are interconnected and mutually reinforcing so that people’s free agency represents the engine of development. In this sense, expansion of freedom constitutes both the primary end and the fundamental means of development (Sen, 2001).
The human development paradigm proposes itself as an alternative to the neoliberal conception of development. Hence, it is worthwhile to compare their features to deeply understand the concept of human development. The neoliberal approach explains well-being in terms of utility and assesses development progress based on economic growth. It is often questioned whether political freedom or education opportunities could contribute to development. Following Sen’s capabilities approach, such a query would have no logic since fundamental freedoms, such as political participation, basic health care, and education, are constituent elements of development (Sen, 2001). In this regard, the leading criteria for evaluating development progress would be the equality and justice of the outcomes. In terms of measurement tools, the neoliberal paradigm would favour averages and aggregate measures of economic activity, while the human development approach would consider human outcomes and distributional measures (Fukuda-Parr, 2003). These views of development diverge further in their ideas of human agency. The neoliberal paradigm conceptualizes individuals as means towards economic growth. Conversely, the human development paradigm considers people as active agents of change - either through individual or collective action, they can exercise their participatory freedoms and change social norms and policies, as well as promote human rights.
As mentioned before, Sen’s capabilities approach refers to political freedom along with access to education and health care as constituent components of development. Particular attention is also reserved for economic freedom. The freedom to enter the markets and interchange, as well as the freedom of labour contract, as opposed to slavery, have basic roles in social living (Sen, 2001). According to this approach, markets should be analyzed through this lens, with a focus on their effects on economic growth and equity. Although persistent economic exclusions of parts of society should be analysed and alternative views of development welcomed. In Sen’s view, it represents “a broader and more inclusive perspective on markets than is frequently invoked in either defending or chastising the market mechanism.” As will be analyzed below, this particular aspect of the human development paradigm represents the main point of divergence with the feminist approaches to development - especially the strand considered here, which expands Marx’s critical analysis of capitalism.
Another noteworthy aspect of this approach is the little analytical space dedicated to nature and environmental sustainability. Throughout history, development as a concept has been used for justifying exploitative behaviour with regard to nature. Since the consequences of these ongoing activities jeopardize human freedoms of all kinds, a wider discussion about people’s relationship with nature would be expected. The capabilities approach considers this relation part of the customs and social norms that individuals can change through their participatory freedoms, i.e. actively participating in political processes and social institutions (Sen, 2001). Nonetheless, environmental sustainability does not seem to be a constituent element of development, at least not explicitly. From this perspective as well, feminist approaches differ from the human development view, as they conceptualize exploitative relations with nature as fundamental and distinctive features of the capitalist system.
Social Reproduction: a Marxist feminist perspective
The understanding of the economy has been limited to the sphere of production for a long time. Every human activity that is not productive labour for the market has been analytically denied in both economic research and policymaking (Bhattacharya, 2017). This aspect is reflected in early academic research concerning women’s role in economic development. For instance, Boserup (1970) examines the gendered division of labour and colonialism’s effects on women in subsistence economies. This analysis focused on the sphere of production ignoring women’s role in social reproduction, which is at the core of their subordination (Beneria and Sen, 1981). Social reproduction theory, therefore, tries to challenge a long-time limited perception of the economic system.
Following the methodological approach of Marx’s study of the commodity, it favours the analysis of processes rather than visible facts. In particular, it analyses the complex social processes and human relations that sustain the reproduction of labour power as integral parts of the capitalist system (Bhattacharya, 2017). It focuses on all the daily communitarian and familial activities that maintain and reproduce life - these include the provision of food, clothing, and shelter, care work, education, health care, pensions, etc. Academic research prevalent in industrialized societies focused especially on unpaid domestic work within the family, analyzing how this is linked with the market by both what it purchases and what it provides, namely labour power exchanged for a wage (Beneria and Sen, 1981). Since domestic unpaid work is performed mostly by women, such an analytical framework allows one to fully identify the roots of women’s oppression and the patriarchal structures within capitalism.
Embracing historical materialism typical of Marx’s methodological approach, social reproduction theory reminds us that the spheres of production (public) and social reproduction (private) are “particular historical forms of appearance in which capitalism as a process posits itself” (Bhattacharya, 2017). This distinction indeed differs according to the society’s stage of economic transformation. In subsistence economies, domestic work and agricultural activities are closely linked to the point that it is difficult drawing a line between them. Contrarily, in advanced capitalist economies, the wage becomes the source of subsistence and a large proportion of housework becomes commodified. Industrial and urban societies are marked by a clear separation between domestic and commodity production, as well as increasingly isolated domestic work (Beneria and Sen, 1981). In this regard, Nancy Fraser (2017) refers to a crisis of care that capitalist economies have been experiencing during the last few decades. Since production processes are functional to the accumulation of capital, rather than the social development of labour, unlimited accumulation is destabilizing the reproductive functions of society (Bhattacharya, 2017). The resolution for such a systemic crisis would inevitably require a structural reinvention of the social order tackling inherent injustices and the gender order (Fraser, 2017). A holistic understanding of human labour and a focus on the concrete historical reality allow this theoretical framework to examine not only gender injustice but also racial oppression and class exploitation. Further, these are analyzed as relational to and determined by capitalist production (Bhattacharya, 2017).
Ecofeminism and the commons
Ecofeminism is another critical perspective of development that shares a similar analytical framework with social reproduction theory. According to this literature, there are historical and cultural parallels between the oppression of women and the exploitation of nature (Aguinaga et al, 2013). For instance, Mies (2001) argues that economic sciences have failed not only to recognize the role of social reproduction and subsistence activities but have also concealed the role of nature as a free supplier of resources. In this sense, they have not acknowledged the preconditions that make capitalist accumulation possible. As a consequence, they have failed to evaluate the social and environmental costs of the very process of development, as well as identify an appropriate indicator of human well-being (Mies and Bennholdt-Thomsen, 2001). The approach considered here is therefore critical of a growth-based economic system and advance proposals for a social order based on common goods and community solidarity, which overcomes the antagonism between labour and nature and prioritizes local economies instead of global markets (Mies and Bennholdt-Thomsen, 2001). Similarly, Federici (2011, 2014) analyses the commons as “the seeds of society” overcoming the idea of state and private property as “mutually exclusive and exhaustive”. She analyses the conditions under which the principle of the commons can be the base of an anti-capitalist program - these being overturning gender architecture and social division of labour, along with transforming our everyday life.
Conclusion
The contributions by Amartya Sen and feminist scholars on alternative views of development are of paramount importance. Both Marxist feminist perspectives and Sen’s capabilities approach seem to share an extensive critique of growth-centered development. Although their methodological approaches diverge. The human development perspective focuses on the freedoms of the individual, while feminist approaches to development analyze groups and processes. These different methods of analysis are reflected in their distinct interpretations of structural power relations within capitalism. The human development approach seems to rely on the market mechanism for promoting development, recognizing, however, some limitations. On the other hand, both social reproduction theory and ecofeminist perspectives analyze the capitalist system denouncing its inherent logic of exploitation and oppression. Another significant comparative aspect is the analytical space dedicated to the conceptualization of nature and human relationships with nature. Sen’s perspective does not seem to recognize environmental sustainability as a constituent element of human development, while ecofeminism builds its whole analysis upon human exploitative and extractive behaviour towards nature. Feminist perspectives recognize the history of colonialism and extractivism that is profoundly linked with the conventional concept of development. As a consequence, the resolutions proposed are much more radical, transformative, and compelling - these include reconceptualization of nature and reinvention of daily life, reconstruction of power relations between state, market, and society, and elimination of forms of injustice, oppression, and exploitation. In other words, a social order built upon community solidarity and respect for nature.
Bibliography
Aguinaga, M., Lang, M., Mokrani, D., & Santillana, A. (2013). Development critiques and alternatives: a feminist perspective. Beyond development: Alternative visions from Latin America, 41-60.
Beneria, L., & Sen, G. (1981). Accumulation, reproduction, and" women's role in economic development": Boserup revisited. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 7(2), 279-298.
Bhattacharya, T. (2017). Social reproduction theory: Remapping class, recentering oppression.
Boserup, E. (1970). Woman's role in economic development. Earthscan Publication.
Federici, S. (2011). Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. na.
Federici, S., & Caffentzis, G. (2014). Commons against and beyond capitalism. Community
Development Journal, 49(suppl_1), i92-i105.
Fraser, N. (2017). Crisis of Care? On the Social-Reproductive Contradictions of Contemporary Capitalism in T. Bhattacharya (Eds) Social reproduction theory: Remapping class, recentering oppression.
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2003). The human development paradigm: operationalizing Sen's ideas on capabilities. Feminist economics, 9(2-3), 301-317.
Mies, M., & Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. (2001). Defending, reclaiming and reinventing the commons. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 22(4), 997-1023.
Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford Paperbacks.
Wilson, K. (2015). Towards a radical re‐appropriation: Gender, development and neoliberal feminism. Development and Change, 46(4), 803-832.
Sara is completing an MSc. in Development Economics from SOAS University. She tweets at @ssarariccio and can be reached on sarariccio2512@gmail.com
Comments