THE RELATIONSHIP OF PATRIARCHY AND CAPITALISM: THE ‘WIN-WIN’ SCENARIO RECONSIDERED

Yıl 2013, Sayı: 12, 193 - 214, 09.07.2015

Ece Kocabıçak

Öz

What are the impacts of capitalism on women’s oppression? Does capitalist development diminish gender inequality in developing countries? Do women’s autonomy, health and well-being rise together with an increase in women’s employment? Leading names of feminist economics argue that successful capitalist development and diminishing gender inequality within society can go hand in hand. They assume that the main reason why the win-win scenario has failed thus far is the laissez faire economy, so they emphasise the proactive role of state and international institutions with respect to manage the direction of social transformation through economy. In this paper, I will scrutinise the arguments that defend the possibility of the win-win scenario. Such an attempt is important in terms of analysing the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism, especially under the current global conjuncture where a feminist response to the 2007-08 crisis is required. I argue that in emphasising the win-win scenario, these studies oversimplify the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism. They assume that capitalism drives changes in patriarchy in a way which reduces either rising or falling gender inequality to a simple effect of different kinds of capitalist development. This paper is structured in three sections: In the first section I will review the literature that champions the possibility of the win-win scenario. In the second section I will provide a critical assessment of their conceptual framework and examine the political consequences of those problems. In the last section, I will stress the key features of an alternative conceptual framework. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Capitalist Development, Post-Washington Consensus, Gender Inequality, Patriarchy

PATRİYARKA VE KAPİTALİZM İLİŞKİSİ: “KAZAN-KAZAN” SENARYOSU YENİDEN DÜŞÜNÜLÜRKEN

Öz

Kapitalizm, kadının toplumdaki ezilmişliğini nasıl etkiler? Kapitalist kalkınma toplumsal cinsiyet temelindeki eşitsizliği azaltır mı? Kadın istihdamının artması, kadınların bağımsızlığını, sağlığını ve daha iyi şartlar altında yaşamalarını da beraberinde getirir mi? Feminist ekonomistlerin önde gelen isimleri, sürdürülebilir kapitalist kalkınma ile toplumsal cinsiyet temelindeki eşitsizliğin azalmasını birbirine koşut iki olgu olarak ‘kazan-kazan’ senaryosu adı altında tanımlar. Onlara göre şimdiye dek kazan-kazan senaryosunun hayata geçirilemeyişinin nedeni aslen neoliberal prensipler temelinde işleyen ekonomidir. Devlet ve uluslararası kuruluşlar, doğru politikalar çerçevesinde aktif bir rol üstlendiği takdirde ekonomi aracılığı ile toplumsal dönüşüme müdahil olunabilir ve patriyarka zayıflatılabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı kazan-kazan senaryosunun mümkün olduğunu savunan tezleri eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla yeniden ele almaktır. Özellikle 2007-08 krizi sonrası döneme ilişkin olarak feminist bir yaklaşıma ihtiyaç duyulduğu günümüz koşullarında, kazan-kazan senaryosunu yeniden değerlendirmek bu açıdan önemli bir gereksinimdir. Kazan-kazan senaryosunun mümkün olduğunu savunan tezlerin kapitalizm ile patriyarka arasındaki karşılıklı ilişkiyi, kapitalizmin patriyarkayı belirlediği tek yönlü bir ilişkiye indirgeyerek basitleştirdiklerini savunuyorum. Söz konusu tezler, farklı kapitalist kalkınma stratejilerine bağlı olarak, kapitalizmin toplumsal cinsiyet temelindeki eşitsizliği arttırdığı ya da azalttığını savunmakta, böylelikle devlet ve uluslararası kuruluşların aktif müdahelesini kazan-kazan hedefine ulaşmada ön koşul olarak görmekte. Bu çalışma kapsamında öncelikle söz konusu tezlerin kısa bir özetini sunacağım. Ardından ortaklaştıkları kavramsal çerçeveye ait teorik problemleri açıklayıp, teorik problemlerin yol açtığı politik sorunlara değineceğim. Son olarakta tarihsel maddecilik temelinde yeniden inşa edilmesi gerektiğine inandığım yeni bir kavramsal çerçevenin köşe taşlarına değineceğim.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kapitalist Kalkınma, Washington Sonrası Mutabakat, Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği, Patriyarka, Feminizm, Tarihsel Maddecilik

Kaynakça

• ACAR SAVRAN, G. 2012. Düzenlenmis Patriyarkanın Otesine Bakmak (Be- yond the regulated patriarchy). Feminist Politika. Istanbul: Sosyalist Feminist Kolektif.
• BENERIA, L. 1999. Globalization, Gender And The Davos Man. Feminist Eco- nomics, 5, 61-83.
• BENERIA, L. 2000. Globalization and gender - Introduction. FEMINIST ECO- NOMICS, 6, VII-XVIII.
• BENERIA, L. 2007a. Gender and the social construction of the markets. In: EL- SON, D., VAN STAVEREN, I., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. (eds.) The Feminist Economics of Trade. London New York: Routledge.
• BENERIA, L. 2007b. The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. FEMINIST ECONOMICS, 13, 132-137.
• BENERIA, L. & BISNATH, S. 2004. Global tensions : challenges and opportu- nities in the world economy, New York, Routledge.
• BERIK, G. 2000. Mature Export-Led Growth and Gender Wage Inequality in Taiwan. Feminist Economics, 6, 1- 26.
• BERIK, G. 2007. Mature export-led growth and gender wage inequality in Ta- iwan. In: ELSON, D., VAN STAVEREN, I., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. (eds.) The Feminist Economics of Trade. London New York: Routledge.
• BERIK, G., VAN DER MEULEN RODGERS, Y. & SEGUINO, S. 2009. Femi- nist Economics of Inequality, Development, and Growth. Feminist Econo- mics, 15, 1-33.
• BRAVERMAN, H. 1975. Labor and monopoly capital; the degradation of work in the twentieth century, New York,, Monthly Review Press.
• BRAVERMAN, H. 1976. Two comments. Monthly Review, 28, 119- 124.
• CAGATAY, N. & OZLER, S. 1995. Feminization of the labor force: The effects of long-term development and structural adjustment. World Development, 23, 1883-1894.
• CARR, M., CHEN, M. A. & TATE, J. 2000. Globalization and Home-Based Wor- kers. Feminist Economics, 6, 123- 142.
• CHIBBER, V. 2007. Capitalism and the State. Brecht Forum program at the New York Marxist School. New York: pdxjustice Media Productions.
• COCKBURN, C. 1985. Machinery of dominance : women, men, and technical know-how, London ; Dover, N.H., Pluto Press.
• COCKBURN, C. 1991. Brothers : male dominance and technological change, London, Pluto.
• DELPHY, C. & LEONARD, D. 1992. Familiar exploitation : a new analysis of marriage in contemporary Western societies, Cambridge, Mass, Polity Press.
• EISENSTEIN, H. 2009. Feminism seduced : how global elites used women’s labor and ideas to exploit the world, Boulder, Colo., Paradigm Publishers.
• ELSON, D. 2004. Human rights and corporate profits: The UN global compact- part of the solution or part of the problem? In: BENERIA, L. & BISNATH, S. (eds.) Global tensions : challenges and opportunities in the world economy. New York, London: Routledge.
• ELSON, D. 2006. Women’s right and engendering development. In: KUIPER, E. & BARKER, D. K. (eds.) Feminist economics and the world bank: History, theory and policy. London New York: Routledge.
• ELSON, D. 2011. Gender and the global economic crisis in developing countries: a framework for analysis. In: PEARSON, R. & SWEETMAN, C. (eds.) Gen- der and the Economic Crisis. UK: Oxfam GB.
• ELSON, D., CAGATAY, N. & GROWN, C. 1995. Introduction. World Develop- ment, 23, 1827- 1836.
• ELSON, D., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. 2000. Introduction. World Develop- ment, 28, 1145-1156.
• ELSON, D., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. 2007a. Introduction: Why a feminist economics of trade? In: ELSON, D., VAN STAVEREN, I., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. (eds.) The Feminist Economics of Trade. London
• New York: Routledge.
• ELSON, D., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. 2007b. Mainstream, heterodox and feminist trade theory. In: ELSON, D., VAN STAVEREN, I., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. (eds.) The Feminist Economics of Trade. London New York: Routledge.
• ELSON, D. & R., P. 1981. ‘Nimble Fingers Make Cheap Workers’: An Analysis of Women’s Employment in Third World Export Manufacturing. Feminist Re- view, 87-107.
• ELSON, D. & WARNECKE, T. 2011. IMF policies and gender orders: the case of the poverty reduction and growth facility. In: YOUNG, B., BAKKER, I. & ELSON, D. (eds.) Questioning financial governance from a feminist perspec- tive. USA, Canada: Routledge.
• ENGELS, F. 1972. The origin of the family, private property and the state, New York, International.
• ERTURK, K. & CAGATAY, N. 1995. Macroeconomic consequences of cyclical and secular changes in feminization: An experiment at gendered macromode- ling. World Development, 23, 1969-1977.
• FOLBRE, N. 1994. Who pays for the kids?: Gender and the structures of cons- traint, London and New York, Routledge.
• FOLBRE, N. 2008. Valuing children: Rethinking the economics of the family, USA, Harward University Press.
• FOLBRE, N. & NELSON, A. J. 2000. For love or money. Or both? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 123- 140.
• FUSSELL, E. 2000. Making labour flexible: The recomposition of Tijuana’s Ma- quiladora female labour force. Feminist Economics, 6.
• GARDINER, J. 2000. Domestic labor revisited: a Feminist critique of Marxist economics. In: HIMMELWEIT, S. (ed.) Inside the Household from Labor to Care. MacMillan Press Ltd.
• GRAMSCI, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, London,, Lawrence & Wishart.
• HARTMANN, H. I. 1981. Summary and responce: Continuing the discussion. In: SARGENT, L. (ed.) The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism. London: Pluto.
• HOLZ, H. H., PINKUS, T. & ABENDROTH, W. 1974. Conversations with Lu- kacs, London, The Merlin Press.
• KONGAR, E. 2007. Importing equality or exporting jobs? Competition and gen- der wage and employment differentials in US manufacturing. In: D., E., VAN STAVEREN, I., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. (eds.) The Feminist Econo- mics of Trade. London New York.
• LUKACS, G. 1971. History and class consciousness; studies in Marxist dialec- tics, London, Merlin Press.
• MAIER, F. 2011. Macroeconomic regimes in OECD countries and the interrela- tion with gender orders. In: YOUNG, B., BAKKER, I. & ELSON, D. (eds.) Questioning Financial Governance from a Feminist Perspective. USA, Cana- da: Routledge.
• MARX, K. 1976. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (vol I), England, Pen- guin Books.
• MIES, M., BENNHOLDT-THOMSEN, V. & WERLHOF, C. V. 1988. Women : the last colony, London ; Atlantic Highlands, N.J., Zed Books.
• MILBERG, K. 2007. Gender segregation and gender bias in manufacturing trade expansion: Revisiting the “Wood Asymmetry”. In: D., E., VAN STAVEREN, I., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. (eds.) The Feminist Economics of Trade. London New York: Routledge.
• MOHANTY, C. T. 2008. Sınır tanımayan feminizm: Teoriyi sömürgeleştirmekten kurtarmak, dayanışmayı örmek, İstanbul, Boğaziçi üniversitesi yayınevi.
• PEARSON, R. & SWEETMAN, C. 2011. Gender and the Economic Crisis, Practical Action.
• SEGUINO, S. 2000a. Accounting for Gender in Asian Economic Growth. Femi- nist Economics, 6, 27- 58.
• SEGUINO, S. 2000b. Gender Inequality and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Analysis. World Development, 28, 1211-1230.
• SEGUINO, S. 2011. The global economic crisis, its gender and ethnic impli- cations and policy responses. In: PEARSON, R. & SWEETMAN, C. (eds.) Gender and the Economic Crisis. UK: Oxfam GB.
• SEGUINO, S. & GROWN, C. 2007. Gender equity and globalisation: Macroe- conomic policy for developing countries. In: ELSON, D., VAN STAVEREN, I., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. (eds.) The Feminist Economics of Trade. London New York: Routledge.
• THE FAWCETT SOCIETY. 2010. The budget, the comprehensive spending re- view and women [Online]. Available: http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index. asp?PageID=1171 [Accessed 6 December 2010].
• VAN STAVEREN, I. 2007. Gender indicators for monitoring trade agreements. In: ELSON, D., VAN STAVEREN, I., GROWN, C. & CAGATAY, N. (eds.) The Feminist Economics of Trade. London New York: Routledge.
• WALBY, S. 1986. Patriarchy at work, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
• WALBY, S. 1990. Theorizing patriarchy, Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, MA, B. Blackwell.
• WALBY, S. 1997. Gender transformations, London ; New York, Routledge.
• WALBY, S. 2009. Globalisation and inequalities: Complexity and contested mo- dernities, London, Sage Publications Ltd.
• WALBY, S. 2011. The future of feminism, Cambridge, Polity.
• WOOD, E. M. 1981. The separation of the economic and the political in capita- lism. New Left Review, 127.
• WOOD, E. M. 1991. The pristine culture of capitalism : a historical essay on old regimes and modern states, London ; New York, Verso.
• YOUNG, B., BAKKER, I. & ELSON, D. 2011a. Introduction. In: YOUNG, B., BAKKER, I. & ELSON, D. (eds.) Questioning Financial Governance from a Feminist Perspective. USA, Canada: Routledge.
• YOUNG, B., BAKKER, I. & ELSON, D. 2011b. Questioning financial gover- nance from a feminist perspective, London, Routledge.