Susan Feiner, host. Welcome everyone. Today I have the great pleasure of hosting a conversation between Women’s Studies (applause) and Economics (clap, clap, clap).

SF: “well, we can see how the audience feels.” (laughter)

SF: “WS, what’s on your mind today? Any pressing questions for Economics?”

WS: Well, we have such a hard time with the economics department on our campus. WS and Economics are never on the same side of any issues. It’s hard for me to imagine that Economics would have much to say that would be of use to Women’s Studies.

Economics: “Thank you for that lead WS. Many of us in the discipline are critical of the conservative, business-can-do-no-wrong attitude of the economics profession. There are a couple of things that need explaining on this front. First, in the late 1960s and continuing through today, Business Schools have seen huge growth. In many cases—especially at the larger second and third tier public comprehensive universities—the Business Schools absorbed the economics departments, and over time the economists hired reflected the intellectual interests of the business professions. This has caused long term intellectual damage to economics because the liberal arts/economics connections are so much weaker. This trend also tends to stifle the range of ideas taught in economics, both to graduates and undergraduates. Colleagues Sarah Stookey and Kenneth Ehrensal have done some fine research on this.”

“The second really important point is that economics very easily slides over into apologetics for the status quo, an almost religious justification for the existing distribution of wealth and power. This is especially the case when an economics program has no Left, critical faculty. And that would be most economics departments.”
WS: “That makes a lot of sense. Isn’t this an example of Sandra Harding’s point about ‘weak objectivity?’ And this also fits into the Women’s Studies critique of knowledge construction more generally. Doing economics from the perspective of dominant social interests produces results that confirm the existing social structure.

E: “Exactly.”

WS: “Basically you’re saying that economists’ professional training ensures that they are “socialized” to a world view in which markets are right and government intervention is wrong? Whatever outcomes we observe in the world are the result of individual choices?”

E: That’s right. This makes the connection to women’s studies all the more important. Economics is really out of it these days. The phrase “faith based” comes to mind. So discrimination—against women, people of color, religious groups, anyone really—is basically defined out of existence. For many economists the observed reality of greater poverty among women and people of color is simply explained: these groups are either less productive than white males, they choose more poorly paid professions, or they engage in other behaviors which undercut their labor market rewards.”

WS: Unbelievable. There are actually economists out there who think there’s no such thing as discrimination because the market will compete it away. I’ve heard that before, but I didn’t think anyone actually believed this nonsense.

E: Sad but true. And if you don’t believe me, grab any introductory economics text.

jump to the next post to read more about feminist fiscal policy