| VOLUME 138, NUMBER 3 | 1999/3 |
|
SPECIAL ISSUE: WOMEN, GENDER AND WORK (Part I) By any measure there have been far-reaching developments in the world of work this century. An enormous increase in the labour force has resulted from the multiplication of the world's population and a doubling of life expectancy; a dramatic reduction in the material content of national product has freed the vast majority of workers, especially men, from heavy and dangerous physical labour; the general spread of democratic institutions has given a voice to people, including in the workplace; women have entered the regular labour market in astounding numbers. One might even cite the doctrine of self-determination which, though enunciated at the end of the First World War (when the ILO itself was established), not only has a pervasive influence on the creation and development of nation states but also arguably a parallel effect on the world of work. The International Labour Review has, in the past few years, taken up some of the key developments in the form of special issues - on competitiveness, equity and skills; employment policy in the global economy; the nature and future of work; labour rights, human rights; and, on the occasion of the ILR's 75th anniversary, a major retrospective. So it is now fitting that, to close the century, the ILR turn to an examination of women, gender and work. While several articles have been published on particular questions, such as occupational segregation and wage differences by sex, there has not been any systematic coverage of the field in the ILR, so this special issue is long overdue. It is timely to take stock of what developments have occurred as the employment of women approaches that of men, and now there is a substantial volume of data disaggregated by sex that can be drawn upon. But it is also necessary to probe some of the outstanding questions that affect the roles of both men and women and the nature of the family, to reflect on the use of legislation to advance gender equity, and to determine whether there is progress or regression. To attempt an exploration of these questions the ILR will be focusing on this theme for two consecutive issues, the last two of the century. The first (1999/3) will concentrate on analyses of the underlying questions and debates, the second (1999/4) on the empirical bases for judging relative positions and trends, with legal questions taken up in both. Human capabilities The first question which must be addressed is that of the objective. There are many specific indicators available, often competing as measures of progress or deterioration in gender equity (such as equal pay for work of equal value), or of negatives to avoid (such as discrimination and sexual harassment). But it is difficult to find any useful formulation of gender equity as an end state to which society aspires. Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics in a department of philosophy, takes up that challenge here. In her article, "Women and work: The capabilities approach", Nussbaum starts with human dignity and the idea it incorporates of equal worth - of rich and poor, rural and urban, female and male. The freedom and opportunity that equal worth implies are widely violated on grounds of sex, and many existing value systems deny liberty of choice, let alone access to the resources that would make choice possible. She sets out to define a cross-cultural norm that is relevant and appropriate for all persons. In view of the limitations of alternatives, such as those based on resource allocation or preferences alone, there is a powerful case for applying what, following Amartya Sen, has come to be known as a capabilities approach. Its great strength comes from the importance it gives to enabling a person to function to the full extent of her or his human capability. Each person is a bearer of value. A list of the elements necessary for "truly human functioning" across cultures can be constructed. Nussbaum suggests it include life, bodily health and integrity, human senses, emotion, reason, affiliation, play … She argues that "the basic intuition from which the capability approach begins, in the political arena, is that human abilities exert a moral claim that they be developed." Not to do so "gives us a sense of waste and tragedy". But it is essential to remember that "capability, not functioning, is the appropriate political goal". The liberties she advocates are not only instrumental; they are also of intrinsic value. While close to those of human rights they arguably offer additional clarity of definition, motivation and goals, and the language in which they are expressed is not derived from a particular cultural tradition. As she explains, we need fulfilment of both human rights and human capabilities. For women, "their unequal failure in capability is a problem of justice." Affirmative action There are of course difficulties in defining justice and acceptable means of achieving it. A particular form is affirmative action, "an extension of the notion of equality of opportunity and non-discrimination", as Jane Hodges-Aeberhard explains. While there are continuing debates surrounding policies of affirmative action in some countries, democratically-elected governments continue to adopt legislation supporting it as a means of countering discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex. In her article, "Affirmative action in employment: Recent court approaches to a difficult concept", she describes the differing outcomes that have emerged from courts even as they confront similar facts. By reviewing recent court decisions in a number of countries, especially the United States, South Africa and Europe, she demonstrates that the application of the law often lacks the coherence and effectiveness that are expected of such an important instrument for opposing discrimination. The resulting confusion in the jurisprudence is cause for concern - both for victims of discrimination and for policy-makers responsible for eliminating discrimination. Hodges-Aeberhard, a senior ILO specialist in international labour standards and labour law, argues that consideration of a new normative initiative to provide greater clarity would be timely. Labour statistics Few people realize how critical statistics are to the allocation of resources, policy formulation and legislation. Phenomena - and people - that are not counted or measured are quite easily ignored. Data on individual and group characteristics are preconditions for supportive policies. When plans for national censuses are set (every ten years or so) there sometimes is a debate on labels and categories1 - precisely because of their importance in the subsequent formulation of national policy - but then attention wanes and those not covered are forgotten. Since the collection of good national data is expensive, that which is not deemed a top priority is often counted poorly. Women and the work they do are frequently neglected - and are surely undercounted - despite decades of effort on the part of those who are concerned about the distortion that results. In "Gender issues in labour statistics", Adriana Mata Greenwood, a statistician in the ILO, explains that "to serve users, labour statistics need to reflect reality as closely as possible". However, since statistical categories reflect what are perceived to be the "core" employment and unemployment situations, in which men dominate, and women are often found in "other" work situations, the neglect of women's work is pernicious. As she points out, the "systematic under-reporting and misrepresentation of women's contribution to the economy … perpetuate a vicious circle of inequality between men and women". 1 This, and the tendency for definitions to be changed along with political priorities, was discussed by Carolyn Shaw Bell in "Data on race, ethnicity and gender: Caveats for the user", International Labour Review, Vol. 135 (1996), No. 5, pp. 583-602. Underlying the imbalance in statistics is a problem in the popular perception of what is work. Myths that serve to undervalue certain activities do untold damage: society as a whole loses out when only market valuation matters.2 There are a number of areas she suggests be better covered in labour statistics so they can reveal the real nature of an economy's productive work. Among these are intermittent and other forms of under-employment, informal-sector work, non-market work activities and unpaid work in general. One might add the distribution and control of the gains from work. As science continues to reveal ways far beyond the visible biological in which men and women differ, it becomes even more of an imperative to measure accurately their respective work activities so that sensible policies can be designed and destructive ones avoided. Mata Greenwood presents a clear and constructive overview of changes that deserve support. Given the ILO's key role in guiding the definition of categories for the collection and presentation of national statistics across the globe,3 the benefits could be great indeed. 2 This subject was explored in a special issue of the International Labour Review - "Perspectives on the nature and future of work" (Vol. 135 (1996), No. 6); see, in particular, the articles by Dominique Méda, "New perspectives on work as value" and by Raymond Le Guidec, "Decline and resurgence of unremunerated work". 3 The role is explained by Patrick Bollé in a perspective, "Innovations in labour statistics" in the International Labour Review, Vol 138 (1999), No. 1, pp. 67-82. Unpaid labour The most glaring problem of under-valuation concerns unpaid work, most of which is, not incidentally, done by women. Attempts to improve its measurement and thereby its perceived value have been under way for decades, but little of the result has been incorporated into national labour statistics or the national product. There is purposive resistance, but also indifference and ignorance. Lourdes Benería, a professor of city and regional planning and once an ILO official, explains what progress has been made and the contending arguments in "The enduring debate over unpaid labour". Work in the subsistence and informal sectors, domestic and voluntary work are all seriously undercounted. There are critics who argue that it would be a waste of resources to gather more accurate statistics, or that such work is too qualitatively different, or that the effort is theoretically misguided. The problem derives from the way in which "work" is generally defined. As Benería points out, underlying that is the fundamental question of what is value and of value to society. And she gives further impetus to those who believe in a fairer valuation of women's work - and men's. Care giving One of the most critical forms of unpaid work is care giving. It has a fundamental impact on people's well-being and thus transcends the specific value of other forms of productive, reproductive and volunteer work. If its value were to be fully attributed it would surely be expensive. Lee Badgett and Nancy Folbre examine the relationship between caring labour, social norms and economic outcomes in their article, "Assigning care: Gender norms and economic outcomes". Care is given both freely and through the market. One could argue that care services are mediated by the market and that care giving is formally voluntary. But that would imply accepting the preeminence of those spheres and underplay the gender norms that assign all forms of care largely to women. In the view of Badgett and Folbre, the Marxist tradition and Weberian scholarship would assimilate care giving to unalienated labour, located in the family and community and outside the modern market sphere; in a capitalist system, it exists in both spheres, and both forms fall largely to women. The social norms which define women's greater responsibility for providing both remunerated and unpaid care are not, they argue, benign; nor can that responsibility be explained, as neoclassical economics might do, as simple altruism. Not biological determinism, nor culture, offer acceptable answers either. "Feminist theory emphasizes the coercive dimensions of social norms of masculinity and femininity, describing norms as important elements of gendered structures of constraint." The authors argue that "men as a group have much to gain by encouraging women's caring propensities" - in what amounts to socially imposed altruism. In their view it is time to challenge occupational stereotypes,4 difficult as that process is. The authors argue that resistance results from the cost: "Men are reluctant to assume responsibilities that will lower their market income, just as they are reluctant to enter caring occupations that pay less than most male jobs." Yet norms of masculinity and femininity are being contested, and alternative social contracts are possible. This article should provoke a relevant debate. 4 On which they appropriately cite Richard Anker, Gender and jobs: Sex segregation of occupations in the world, ILO, Geneva, 1998. Books This issue of the ILR closes with a books section that, as usual, offers critical reviews and notes as well as information on new ILO publications. But it highlights books by whomever published that are pertinent to the theme of this special issue - women, gender and work. Among those are an exploration of the impact of financial and economic crises on working women, published by the ICFTU and discussed at a world conference; a "landmark" analysis of unequal pay for women and men, based on a wealth of detailed data well used; a thorough examination of occupational segregation by sex; an overview of the professional life and publications of Ester Boserup; an anthology on race, gender and economic inequality concerning ethnic minorities; a study of women's labour in Asian economies; an anthology on gender and employment in India; and a report on gender and the informal sector from the WCL. These are complemented by reviews or notes concerning transition economies, especially Hungary and Albania; the role of labour market institutions in job creation; agricultural productivity; and negotiating flexibility. Independent advisers to the ILR have joined ILO staff in providing particularly rich observations on recent publications. |
For further information, please contact: International Labour Review, ILO, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland - at Tel: +41.22.799.7903 or Fax: +41.22.799.6117 or +41.22.798.8685 or E-mail: revue@ilo.org