The Gendered Dynamics of Globalization

“It cannot be argued that [economic] globalization is natural and inevitable, and produces general progress for all.” Evelyn Hu-DeHart (2003, p. 253)



Where we’ve been
Since coming back from Reading Week, we’ve been discussing women’s role in the global economy. We started by watching the documentary Who’s Counting?, which focused on feminist economist Marilyn Waring’s explorations into how the global economic system really works. Through a number of examples, she argues that the global economic system as we know it (i.e., founded on capitalist markets, consumerism, natural disasters, violent conflict, and the military-industrial complex) is man-made, the result of very deliberate public policy choices about the value (or not) of certain things and activities. And, as Burn makes clear in chapters 5, 6 and 7, it is the majority of the world’s women who are invariably most negatively affected by all this. Feminist theorist Evelyn Hu-Dehart makes a similar argument in her article that you’ll read for Tuesday.

After watching Who’s Counting?, we moved on to a discussion of women and work. Our focus was not only on the problems that women face in the formal labor sector (such as sexual harassment, the gender wage gap, and the glass ceiling, to name just a few), but also on the fact that all over the world, women work at jobs (such as caretaking and homemaking) that don’t even count as “work.” And, statistically speaking, women around the world work harder and longer at both paid and unpaid labour than men do. This is called the LEISURE GAP: men have more leisure time than women globally. The problem is, though, that the global economy as we know it would, quite literally, cease to function if women didn’t do a good portion of their 60-90 hours of “work” per week for free (for more on this, review Burn, ch. 5).

So, the point is that definitions of what counts as “work” need to be altered. This has been a major feminist critique of “development” projects since about the mid-1970s (review Burn, ch. 6). But despite specific policy recommendations by feminists and other social justice-oriented theorists and activists, “development” projects remain largely inattentive to women’s contributions beyond those in the FORMAL SECTOR that can be measured using the man-made rules of the global economic system. The result of this (as Waring and others that you’ve been reading have argued) is that most of the stuff women do doesn’t “count” as “productive” in the global economic system. This includes: childbearing and caretaking, elder care, sustainable farming, political activism and/or volunteer work, cleaning, gathering food and water, cooking, primary health care of family and community members, and so forth. And since this work comprises the majority of work that takes place in the world, most of the world’s work, which happens to be done by women, isn’t considered important and, thus, is not integrated into formal assessments of the health and wealth of a country.

The link to economic globalization
None of this is good. Yet, this is the basis of the global economy, which is currently being driven by the processes and rules of ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION. As Pyle (2001, pp. 66-67) points out, ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION involves four major components:

1. There has been an increased emphasis on the role and power of the consumer-oriented market-place (i.e., who buys what, why, and where).

2. Because of this, countries around the world have intentionally adopted an export-oriented approach to production, focusing on making stuff to sell to others, elsewhere; this has meant moving away from making/producing stuff for and to ensure the health and well-being of their own citizens.

3. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have created layers of labour ranging from the corporation itself to subcontractors to homebased workers.

4. Structural adjustment policies (SAPs) have been implemented since the 1970s as a condition of granting “development” loans to countries, and these SAPs require governments, as a condition of their “development” loan from the IMF or World Bank, to radically restructure their economies to conform to rules and regulations of capitalism.

These four components of ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION have collectively caused the gap between rich people and poor people in most countries to widen and has actually served to increase the number of poor people in the world, most of whom are women. According Anderson and Cavanaugh (1999, p. 27), as a result of economic globalization, “the wealth of the world’s 200 richest people is greater than the combined incomes of the poorest 41 percent of humanity.” And that was more than 10 years ago. A lot has happened since then, including the ramping up of the military-industrial complex as a result of the events of September 11, 2001 and the resultant “war on terror,” which is also wreaking havoc in the lives’ of people who were already suffering the effects of economic globalization, but that’s a topic for another course.



In class last Thursday, I discussed the money flow in conventional “development” projects:

Donor country (usually located in the First World) --> IMF or World Bank --> In the form of a high-interest loan to the “developing” Third World country

It is the last part of this money flow that I want to focus on in our discussion on Tuesday, because “development” projects fuel economic globalization through SAPs (see #4 above and Burn, p. 153). But the material effects of SAPs on peoples’ lives in “developing” countries are in complete opposition to the goals and spirit of “development” as a word in the dictionary that suggests “progress,” forward movement, and “growth.” Rather, conventional “development” projects rooted in SAPs cause the very circumstances that most negatively affect women globally—and men, too, but differently—within the context of ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION. This is the key to understanding the concepts and issues of this course.

As I discussed last time we met, for reasons having to do with former colonies becoming new countries and the waging of the Cold War between the capitalist/democratic countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, including the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain) and the communist countries of the Warsaw Pact (including the Soviet Union, East Germany and most of Eastern Europe), conventional “development” projects have been implemented by the First World in the Third World since just after World War II. Yet feminist economists and development theorists have argued for more than thirty years that they don’t work. But, as you read in Burn’s chapter on women’s role (or lack thereof) in “development” projects, they continue to be implemented using basically the same unchanging definitions, rules, and policies—despite the alternatives such as GAD and WED that have been suggested by feminist development theorists.

How does economic globalization affect women?
The largely negative effects of economic globalization, which is the foundation for the entire global economy at this current historical moment, have meant particular consequences for women globally. And this is what I want us to focus on when next we meet on Tuesday. What are the gendered dynamics and consequences of globalization, and what do “development” projects have to do with these dynamics and consequences? Use Worksheet #10 to help you start thinking about the answers to these questions.

Another part of this conversation that we need also to keep in mind, too, is that although globalization has been largely negative for the majority of the world’s people, some (usually white, privileged) people have benefitted extraordinarily from economic globalization in a variety of ways, and women are no exception. For example, as Whalen (2002) points out, the “CHEAP LABOUR” of women in domestic work as nannies and maids enables (usually white, privileged) First World women to seek fulfilling employment in the formal labour sector because their child-care and homemaking responsibilities are being taken care of. Similarly, the sheer number of choices available to (usually white, privileged) First World women at the mall is made possible by the exploitation of women’s “CHEAP LABOUR” in garment and electronics factories in Export Processing Zones (EPZs) throughout the Third World.

Are there viable alternatives?
The answer, quite simply, is yes. It’s all about making the invisible visible! And that’s what we’ll be discussing on Thursday, March 17th.



Be patient with yourself!
As I’ve been saying, this stuff is really complicated. When students sign up for a course called “Issues for Women Globally,” they usually don’t expect to be discussing the global economic system. But the way that system works and how it (usually negatively) affects women around the world is at the heart of understanding all the other issues that we’ve been reading and talking about all semester, from religious fundamentalism’s role in government health care policies to the lack of access to education and health care, to the obstacles that prevent women from participating in formal politics.

That being said, I’ll remind you again to be patient with yourself as you work your way through this week’s materials. You’ll understand some things and not others, but you should be sure to claim your own education (Rich 1977) by asking questions about the things you don’t understand. Come to my office hours, make an appointment, or stop by during the Coffee Chat at Starbucks on Tuesday, March 22nd. That time is for you to ask questions or chat about anything you’d like, so come on by!