Implicit in the conceptual frameworks underpinning economic policymaking of recent years in Latin America and the Caribbean are a complex and largely hidden range of assumptions about what the economy actually is, and about what it is for. Whether the question at hand is how best to calibrate fiscal, monetary, exchange rate or international trade policies, or whether the argument is over the different sources of comparative or competitive advantage, debates about economic policy tend to overlook the degree to which policies, instruments and methods of economic decision-making are linked inextricably to the lived experiences of human beings.
Economic policies have profound consequences for social reproduction—all those activities and processes by which we directly and indirectly maintain ourselves, both materially and psychologically. These activities include the rearing and care of children, caring for the elderly and other dependent family members and nurturing active members of the labor force on a daily basis.
Social reproduction has traditionally taken place within the family and community, guided primarily by the work of women. With the advent of welfare state programs over the last century, some aspects of social reproduction have been assumed by the state, albeit to differing degrees in different countries. The result has been greater material and psychological stability for households and growing opportunities for women to become more integrated into formal labor markets and into economic activity external to the household.
Structural adjustment policies implemented from the 1980s onward, however, have chipped away at the public provision of services. As budget cuts and privatization programs unravel the remnants of social services in many developing countries, much of the responsibility for social reproduction is being shunted back to the household. More often than not, that responsibility falls into the laps of women—the same women who over the past generation or so had integrated themselves into the broader economy.
Macroeconomic policy is critical for shaping and determining national priorities and spending on the social areas of education, health, housing and infrastructure. In turn, these areas are especially critical for social reproduction, the promotion of the social and economic advancement of women, and successful poverty eradication programs.
Economic policy helps to shape and reshape men and women’s allocation of time to different activities, and conditions their access to the essential services necessary for social reproduction. Typically, however, and especially in developing countries, economic policy is oriented to external considerations and ignores subnational realities or the repercussions of national level policies for labor and product markets and for households. Nor do these policies take into account the nature of relationships between men and women as these pertain to access and control over resources and income. Instead, as López Montaño laments, macro-level (national) policy is frequently implemented without heed to the linkages at the micro-level (household).
When macroeconomic policy is designed and implemented without concern for its direct and indirect effects on the incomes of citizens—especially those with limited incomes who depend on both wages and government benefits—the likelihood of socially regressive outcomes is magnified. This is particularly so because the critical role of social reproduction for both the formal and informal economy is disregarded.
What sorts of effects do policy variables have on social infrastructure such as childcare and housing? And how might adverse effects be avoided from the outset? These are the kinds of questions that have too frequently been ignored in the planning phases that result in restrictive macroeconomic policy measures. The classic recipe for stabilization advocated by the Washington Consensus includes such measures as cuts in government spending, the imposition or increase of taxes on consumer goods and sharp increases in already high interest rates. All of these instruments have a pronouncedly negative effect on social equity, because they directly undermine the cash income of poor households.
When such policies entail changes in pensions and other social transfers, they erode secondary incomes as well. But that is not all, for restrictive policies often bring about the deterioration of public infrastructure such as roads, electricity, sanitation, health care and educational facilities that cannot be maintained properly due to tight budgets. The resulting deterioration may undermine productivity of sectors that depend on these social goods for generating income. And, particularly for poor families, these policies may intensify care-giving burdens at the same time that they erode both primary and secondary incomes.
The availability of sound public and private infrastructure for individuals, households, families and businesses is critical for enabling them to function effectively and to develop their capabilities. Adequate social supports (like childcare and early childhood support social services) and physical infrastructure (like water, electricity, land and housing), give individuals and families a solid base from which to undertake the process of securing sustainable livelihoods. Macroeconomic policies and performance influence and shape these variables in ways that cannot be overlooked or dismissed as secondary issues by responsible policymakers.
In the context of gender, this is especially urgent since women in most economies have less access than men to economic and social resources—land, credit and training, for example—meaning that poverty concerns prove to be overlaid with gender inequality. In fact, inequality in existing systems of resource allocation means that women have greater need for specific types of goods and services. These needs are not supplied sufficiently in compensation for women’s contribution to economic activity, regardless of whether this work entails their multiple roles as care-givers in the household and community, as workers and knowledge providers or as entrepreneurs in both the formal and informal sectors of the economy.
“Women,” in the words of development economist Gita Sen, “stand at the crossroads between production and reproduction, between economic activity and the care of human beings, between economic growth and human development.” And it is women “who suffer most when the two spheres meet at cross-purposes.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mariama Williams is an adjunct associate at the Center of Concern in Washington, D.C. and a co-research coordinator on the political economy of globalization for Development Alternatives With Women for a New Era (DAWN). She is author of Gender and Trade, Gender Mainstreaming in the Multilateral Trading System (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2003).
