IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v17y1993i4p485-500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Feminist Challenge to Neoclassical Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Woolley, Frances R

Abstract

This paper describes a feminist research agenda within economics, how some of the research priorities have been accommodated within neoclassical economics, and how others fundamentally challenge the neoclassical economic paradigm. There are three major challenges to neoclassical economics raised by feminists. First, women are invisible in much economic analysis and this situation needs to be remedied. Second, tests may be affected by educational, social, and economic institutions. We need a feminist model of endogenous preferences and to incorporate the endogeneity of preferences into welfare economic analysis and policy recommendations. Finally, institutional structures matter and deserve careful analysis. (c) 1993 Academic Press, Inc. Copyright 1993 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Woolley, Frances R, 1993. "The Feminist Challenge to Neoclassical Economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 17(4), pages 485-500, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:17:y:1993:i:4:p:485-500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Choudhuri, Pallavi & Desai, Sonalde, 2020. "Gender inequalities and household fuel choice in India," MPRA Paper 110340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Sierminska, Eva & Frick, Joachim R. & Grabka, Markus M., 2008. "Examining the Gender Wealth Gap in Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 3573, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Chakraborty, Lekha S, 2003. "Gender Based Analysis (GBA) in Canada: What Can Sectoral Ministries do in India?," MPRA Paper 86748, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2018.
    4. Martha MacDonald, 1998. "Gender and Social Security Policy: Pitfalls and Possibilities," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25.
    5. Mónica Guillén Royo, 2003. "Hacia una revisión crítica del análisis neoclásico del consumo: una alternativa basada en las necesidades," Revista de Economía Crítica, Asociación de Economía Crítica, vol. 1, pages 95-111.
    6. Jane Hall, 1997. ""Unorthodox, troublesome, dangerous and disobedient": a feminist perspective on health economics, CHERE Discussion Paper No 33," Discussion Papers 33, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    7. Markus Grabka & Jan Marcus & Eva Sierminska, 2015. "Wealth distribution within couples," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 459-486, September.
    8. Lucie Schmidt & Purvi Sevak, 2006. "Gender, Marriage, And Asset Accumulation In The United States," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1-2), pages 139-166.
    9. Banu Ozkazanc‐Pan & Alison Pullen, 2021. "Reimagining value: A feminist commentary in the midst of the COVID‐19 pandemic," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 1-7, January.
    10. Shelley Phipps, "undated". "Economics and Well-Being of Canadian Children," Canadian International Labour Network Working Papers 35, McMaster University.
    11. GRABKA Markus & MARCUS Jan & SIERMINSKA Eva, 2013. "Wealth distribution within couples and financial decision making," LISER Working Paper Series 2013-02, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    12. Elke Holst & Anne Busch, 2009. "Der "Gender Pay Gap" in Führungspositionen der Privatwirtschaft in Deutschland," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 169, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    13. Puja Guha & Annapurna Neti & Roshni Lobo, 2022. "Merging the public and private spheres of women's work: Narratives from women street food vendors during Covid‐19 crisis," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 1935-1951, November.
    14. Austen, Siobhan & Kalsi, Jaslin Kaur & Mavisakalyan, Astghik, 2022. "Retirement and the distribution of intra-household wellbeing," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 23(C).
    15. Muneera Al-Qahtani & Mariem Fekih Zguir & Ibrahim Ari & Muammer Koç, 2022. "Female Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Economy and Development—Challenges, Drivers, and Suggested Policies for Resource-Rich Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-39, October.
    16. Ellen Mutari & Deborah Figart & Marilyn Power, 2001. "Implicit Wage Theories in Equal Pay Debates in the United States," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 23-52.
    17. Shelley Phipps & Peter Burton & Lars Osberg, 2001. "Time as a Source of Inequality Within Marriage: Are Husbands More Satisfied With Time for Themselves than Wives?," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21.
    18. Gillian Hewitson, 2001. "A Survey of Feminist Economics," Working Papers 2001.01, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    19. Choudhuri, Pallavi & Desai, Sonalde, 2021. "Lack of access to clean fuel and piped water and children’s educational outcomes in rural India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    20. Shelley A. Phipps & Peter S. Burton, 1996. "Collective Models of Family Behaviour: Implications for Economic Policy," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 22(2), pages 129-143, June.
    21. Chantal Remery & Richard J. Petts & Joop Schippers & Mara A. Yerkes, 2022. "Gender and employment: Recalibrating women's position in work, organizations, and society in times of COVID‐19," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 1927-1934, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:17:y:1993:i:4:p:485-500. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.