IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/sscijp/v20y2017i1p95-105..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Womenomics, ‘Equality’ and Abe’s Neo-liberal Strategy to Make Japanese Women Shine

Author

Listed:
  • Emma DALTON

Abstract

By international measurements, Japan fares poorly on gender equality. With the second largest gender pay gap and the worst record for women’s political representation among OECD countries, Japanese women have limited access to positions of power and influence. The government has begun to address these inequalities with a raft of policies that attempt to bridge these chronic gender gaps, with the recent policies of the Abe administration being referred to as ‘womenomics’. Heralded by many as an important step in the right direction, womenomics has also been criticised as a misguided co-optation of feminism. This Survey discusses the implications of the ‘long-working-hours’ culture on gender equality policies and the implementation of womenomics within a climate of neo-liberal management practices justified through chronic economic stagnation. Far from the empowering outcomes it rhetorically espouses, this evaluation suggests that womenomics is further exacerbating the bipolarisation of Japanese women into two groups: a small elite minority capable of assimilating to masculinised working patterns versus the vast majority of women ghettoized into insecure underpaid ‘non-regular’ work that denies access to crucial benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma DALTON, 2017. "Womenomics, ‘Equality’ and Abe’s Neo-liberal Strategy to Make Japanese Women Shine," Social Science Japan Journal, University of Tokyo and Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 95-105.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:sscijp:v:20:y:2017:i:1:p:95-105.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ssjj/jyw043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:sscijp:v:20:y:2017:i:1:p:95-105.. 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/ssjj .

    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.