In a world that for the past four decades has followed a neoliberal
economic and political model, we face a bleak reality of economic
crises, spiraling inequality and an unprecedented environmental crisis.
One of the things that has changed is the workplace, where work
conditions have come to restrict our freedom and compromise our
well-being, often not allowing us to develop our human abilities in the
way we see fit. This paper will focus on a neglected aspect of
neoliberalism that, as I will argue, contributes to this problem: the
orientation of the core values of neoliberalism.
In the first two parts of the paper, I will lay out the basic tenets
of neoliberalism and argue that the value system of neoliberalism as an
ordering principle of the social system is structured on what can be
characterized as ‘male’ values, e.g., competitiveness, autonomy and
pursuit of individual success. In the next (third) section, I will
discuss how, beyond its other consequences, neoliberalism has changed
the workplace leading to a fragmentation of the labour experience where
the lived reality of the majority is very different from that of the
elite few and the burdens lifted from some towards a life of more
opportunity and freedom are placed on the shoulders of others leading to
increased inequality and a decreased quality of life. In the two
sections after that, I will address this problem based on the
capabilities approach and the ethics of care and will conclude by
arguing that to reverse this state of affairs, a fundamental shift in
our values is required, which goes beyond just implementing policies and
changing wage relations.
Neoliberalism
Though the term neoliberalism is notoriously hard to pin down, at its
core lies the idea that an unregulated market economy is the best way to
achieve individual freedom, justice and economic growth (Parekh &
Wilcox, 2020). The central idea is that market self-regulation through
the introduction of free trade policies increases opportunities for
innovation, prosperity, and trade for businesses and individuals.
In the welfare state capitalism of the post-war era, many governments
tried to reduce inequalities by nationalizing public utilities and
introducing social welfare policies. On their part, workers unionized
and achieved increases in wages (Judt, 2010). However, with the shift to
neoliberal economics that aims to make the private sector more efficient
and profitable, social spending was reduced, tax reductions for large
business owners were introduced, trade unions were rendered effectively
powerless, and deregulation and privatization of public assets were
encouraged and promoted (Harvey, 2005).
Neoliberalism can also be identified with political conservatism, and
though it draws on ideas rooted in 18th century liberalism,
where equality and autonomy are the highest ideals, these ideals are,
arguably, misunderstood by proponents of the neoliberal approach. Still,
the core of traditional liberal economic thought lies in the foundations
of neoliberalism. Firstly, people should be as free from government
interference as possible in order to be able to pursue their interests,
and secondly, the free individual who transacts voluntarily with other
free individuals remains the proper unit of analysis. One thing that
distinguishes neoliberalism from liberalism, however, is that its scope
is much broader, applying to areas that were not traditionally
considered part of the economic domain, like healthcare and education.
This ties to another aspect of neoliberalism which is that the state
increasingly offloads responsibilities to families, in the sense that
what families can provide, possibly through more work, the state does
not need to provide. In the case of education in the US, for example,
students depend on their families for opportunities, which not only
compromises their autonomy (if parents pay for college, they have a say
in what and where you study) but also sustains existing inequalities. In
the context of care work, this has contributed to the care crisis with
care becoming privatized and commodified and social welfare being
minimized, leaving families and communities to shoulder the burden of
care in one way or another (Fraser, 2016). In this state of what Harvey
(2005) calls the commodification of everything under
neoliberalism, the market-based rationale of competition becomes the
organizing principle for all spheres of social life as well as the
guiding principle in the allocation of all goods, including labour and
the labourer himself. One’s labour, as well as the lived experience of
the worker, has instrumental value only insofar as it affects the
commodity produced.
However, despite the fact that the neoliberal narrative is supposed
to fall back on economic liberalism, this is not exactly the case. In
fact, the type of labour market that Adam Smith envisioned when he
proposed the free-market economy was one where the power of individual
agents was equal. This is a fundamental tenet of competition theory: no
one should be able to control the market (or the rules that regulate it)
on their own. Instead, competition occurs in markets that are regulated
by a set of rules respected by equal competing agents. So, though
neoliberalism strongly promotes the idea of a diminished state role in
unregulated markets in which competition rules and opportunities abound,
the truth is that markets are regulated and operate within set
parameters. The real question, therefore, is what these regulations and
parameters are, who sets them, and who ultimately gains from them. This
is something that Adam Smith understood very well because he recognized
that class differences lead to power differences, which in turn lead to
rules that favor wealthy capitalists. As he put it, ‘the masters
combine’, and this gives rise to a
significantly different labour market from the level playing field that
the neoliberal narrative suggests.
More recently, Hyman (2001) has argued that the ‘visible hand’ that
today moves marketization and takes apart social regulation are powerful
multinational corporations. Indeed, one can go as far as to say that
neoliberalism is not about free markets but, rather, about the free
reign of capital, and a key feature of monopoly capitalism is lobbying
to change the rules and to reduce the powers of those in charge of
making sure the rules are observed. Thatcher, one of the most (in)famous
proponents of neoliberalism who is renowned for her deregulating of the
financial industry and for rendering trade unions powerless, said that
“there is no such thing as society. There are men and women and children
and there are families” thus essentially putting forward the picture of
the citizen as an individual consumer who is part of a society made up
of bounded, atomized individuals (Littler, 2017). The view expressed by
Thatcher is the key break with the classical tradition, where free
markets were conceived as existing within the context of a society whose
rules were prioritized and followed.
One can also argue that neoliberalism has not increased competition
but has reduced it and has created a new breed of entrepreneur: one who
sets up a company with the aim that it will be bought out by one of the
giants. The company has become a commodity, and the entrepreneur has
been separated from his creation. That is, part of what neoliberalism
has done is to ensure that there are fewer rules and that no agency in
reality has the power to enforce them –you cannot reconcile today’s
market giants like Facebook, Amazon, and Walmart with traditional
competition theory. Indeed, it has even been suggested that restoring
power and wealth to the elite is the reason why neoliberalism emerged
(Harvey, 2005).
The values of neoliberalism
It has been argued that neoliberalism does not have a set of
identifiable central values that it puts forward. Vallier (2021), for
instance, argues that Friedman does not advocate for any particular
ethos because, since no one knows what makes up a good life,
this is something that each person should pursue on their own. This
sounds like Mill’s (1978) liberal and very progressive idea of
‘experiments in living’, according to which we should be open to
different forms of life to see what diverse choices in life can
contribute to society. However, identifying this view with Friedman’s
reductionist and individualist ideas would be a mistake.
Within the framework of neoliberalism, the acquisition of goods is
linked to social status and wealth, and these, in turn, are tied to
success. Even though the neoliberal narrative is not always presented in
monetary terms directly, it is alternatively presented in terms of
self-actualization: we can all be the best versions of ourselves through
personal initiative, drive, and a strong work ethic. Everyone has the
chance to move up the social ladder; all we have to do is go for it, and
the best one will win. This is why stories like that of the rise to fame
and fortune of professional basketball player Giannis Antetokoumpo are
favourites –he is a purported counterexample to anyone who says that
opportunity does not exist or is not equal for everyone. If he could
make it with everything working against him, then anyone can, and so if
you are poor, it is your fault. Like Nike’s imperative, there is no
excuse: Just Do It.
The values of neoliberalism may also initially appear gender-neutral,
but they are not. Under neoliberalism, success is correlated with the
values of individualism, autonomy, competitiveness, and excellence. The
traits of neoliberal agents, who are seen as autonomous and
self-contained entities distinct from rival individuals, also reflect
these values. These, however, are the kinds of traits that have
historically been connected to masculinity.
Stereotypically, while women and femininity are connected to
subjectivity, passivity, dependence, intuitiveness, and weakness, men
are seen as autonomous, objective, decisive, knowledgeable and strong
(Lloyd, 1984; Kimmel et al., 2005). The idea of man as a provider and a
rational decision-maker is also part of the ideal of masculinity, since
women have historically been viewed as creatures of emotion rather than
reason (Lloyd, 1984; Rooney, 1991). These connections are not, of
course, exclusive to neoliberalism, but the significance of the
masculine foundations of the neoliberal conception of the agent is
twofold. First, by internalizing such ideas, we are led to a particular
view of human interaction that has material consequences in terms of how
we think it is natural to interact with each other, but also in terms of
how we structure our institutions and policies. Second, conceiving
agents in this way disregards or downplays the reality faced by many,
even most, people worldwide.
Obviously, seeing the different genders as monolithic groups
reinforces sexist beliefs since, as there is no one way to be a man,
there is no one way to be a woman either. Nonetheless, each of us is a
part of a web of practices and relations that, in some sense, mold our
ways of being. For instance, the way our societies are currently
structured, and to a large extent have been historically structured, women’s lives frequently
put them in a position that result in different gender roles and
behavioural inclinations. Even though men sometimes contribute, women
are the ones expected to care for children, people in need, and the
elderly, and to maintain households and social ties (Fraser, 2016). We
thus participate in activities that require empathy, cooperation, and
selflessness because of our social role as caregivers, and, as a result,
we frequently concentrate on practical matters, interpersonal
relationships, and the greater good. We are therefore more likely to
view the world in this way. That is not to say that gender norms cannot
be broken but this is the reality for many women around the world for
whom it is unlikely that the notion that people are fundamentally
autonomous and self-serving, as the neoliberal narrative wants us to
believe, will be plausible. In this sense, the neoliberal view seems to
ignore or overlook the life of those who depend on, or have duties to
care for others. Moreover, seeing human interaction in terms of
individualism, competition and independence can lead to inequalities
because it becomes easy to objectify other people and develop a
distorted sense of responsibility (Williams, 1993). If the goal of
neoliberalism is to promote equality, liberty, and autonomy, however,
then these ideals should apply to everyone, and, ultimately, this
becomes a question of inclusivity and, also, power.
Talking of power immediately leads us to patriarchy, and patriarchy
promotes what I have called ‘masculine values’, so there is a very real
sense in which neoliberalism and patriarchy are linked. Federici (2014)
has put forward a historical argument proposing that the emerging
capitalist class during the transition to capitalism needed to put women
in the margins of real (paid) work in order to control the conditions of
reproduction of the working class, which means that women had to be
policed in many ways, because without the reproduction of the
working-class, accumulation of wealth on the part of capitalists is not
possible. Maria Mies (1982; 2022) has argued that capitalism is a form
of patriarchy and that unpaid labour and the ‘housewifization’ of women
were necessary conditions for the capital accumulation required by
capitalism. Historically, masculine traits were reserved for men while
women had to remain at home. The wife working at home allowed the man of
the house to be the wage labourer making the housewife’s (unpaid) work
an integral cog in the capitalist machine. This relation between
production and reproduction is retained in the male breadwinner model
and its connection to the sexual division of labour and the ensuing
unequal pay, part-time work, broken career paths, unpaid labour in the
home and domestic violence that it meant for women (Pascall, 2008).
With neoliberalism, however, these values come to underlie all human
interaction and are thus also introduced in the workplace, which women
are increasingly encouraged, and often required, to join. In this sense,
women must now also embody these values, though in many ways, they are
still policed as to how much, where, and how they are allowed to exhibit
them (Manne, 2018). The division of labour that kept women at home is
now replaced by the neoliberal requirement to get both men and women
into wage work, changing what Mies sees as a fixed relation of man, the
paid producer, and woman, the (unpaid) housewife. Today women are not
only breadwinners (and workers) but also sometimes the sole breadwinners
in a household (Wang et al., 2013; Crompton, 1999). However, as
we shall see, these neoliberal changes come at a cost in how workers
experience their work life and also in how it affects families.
Neoliberalism in the workplace
With the emphasis on profit maximisation and efficiency and a focus
on male values, changing employment practices under neoliberalism have
changed work relationships, workplace power balances, and people’s lived
experience in the workplace dramatically.
To begin with, there is increasingly an expectation worldwide for
workers to overwork, meaning that they will frequently work overtime
without being compensated for the additional time they put in, or they
will be expected to work much harder and under much more pressure during
their regular work hours (Telford & Briggs, 2022; Murray, 2020;
Mayer & Noiseux, 2015). Performance targets and quotas have been
introduced as performance indicators that must be met, and in certain
industries, workers are even required to wear performance devices
(Telford & Briggs, 2022; Moore & Joyce, 2020). If workers fail
to satisfy these expectations, they risk losing their jobs (Bloodworth,
2019). The result is that working additional hours or accepting the
status quo of putting extra effort during regular business hours has
become the norm and, as such, a requirement for continued employment,
which increases employment insecurity and is, arguably, a form of worker
exploitation (Bloodworth, 2019; Mayer & Noiseux, 2015; Moore &
Joyce, 2020).
Moreover, in the neoliberal framework, guidelines and directives are
developed by managers and technocrats rather than by experts on the job,
frequently going against common sense and preventing the actual experts
from taking independent initiative when difficult situations arise.
Previously, there was more collaboration between management and staff
and more meaningful involvement of employees to address questions and
issues that arose in the workplace daily. Employees feel more powerless
as a result, and this is an example of how the impact of neoliberalism
is now being felt in domains that were not previously part of the
economic sphere, affecting both the lived experience of work and the
quality of work. One instance, familiar to the author, is the education
sector, where the weight of increased paperwork and bureaucracy,
administrative responsibilities and roles placed on teachers outside of
their regular duties, coupled with the expectation that academics have a
scholarly impact, have made matters unnecessarily complicated and
detracts from the essence of what the work should be about: the work
teachers do with their students, and time for research, among other
things. At the same time, the commodification of education alters the
nature of the student-teacher relationship –the student becomes the
service user to whom the teacher must cater, thus further imposing
additional demands on the latter’s time and labour.
To add to this is the emergence and constant expansion of the
so-called gig economy where regular employees are replaced by
independent contractors. Corporations present such jobs as opportunities
to work flexible hours unconstrained by a 9-5 schedule, ‘to be your own
boss’, and to maintain a good work-life balance. However, this
friendly-worker rhetoric is hollow: these jobs usually come with
precarious contracts, no benefits, no workplace protection, no paid time
off for holidays, sick leave, etc., and are often low-paying, meaning
that workers end up working multiple jobs. This is essentially a way for
a company to reduce expenses while lowering its risk and liability at
the expense of workers whose labour is completely devalued. The gig
economy overwhelmingly employs young, un-skilled workers, often from
migrant or other disadvantaged backgrounds, who work long hours alone,
remain invisible and have no real prospects.
The changing labour conditions under neoliberalism take their toll on
workers’ wellbeing. When you are constantly monitored or constantly
expected to be available and productive, the workplace becomes highly
competitive, and the pressure is immense and can be exhausting.
Empirical research shows that this has led to an increase in physical
and psychological distress, including increased levels of stress,
anxiety, feelings of burnout and loss of control, and depression
(Cederstrom & Fleming, 2012; Murray, 2020; Telford & Briggs,
2022). The excessive work hours that diminish the time available to
socialise and relax, the negative work environment, and exhausting
workloads also affect the balance between work and private life,
affecting the time spent with partners and family as well as the quality
of these relationships (Telford & Briggs, 2022; Murray, 2020;
Fleming, 2019). In this sense, employees build their personal lives
around their work life and their employers, rather than the other way
around. To add to this, the culture of competitiveness requires that you
portray yourself in the best light possible, but this has as a
consequence that vulnerabilities must often be hidden from employers. As
a consequence, people who have particular needs (e.g., mental health
issues) often conceal them in the workplace so as not to compromise
employability. The insensitivity to the self-esteem and dignity of the
most vulnerable groups means that their needs go unmet, thus putting
them at a further disadvantage in the workplace (Bal, 2017).
Another factor that is not often addressed is how the job market is
linked to the housing market, and thus to the real estate market. In the
neoliberal market, authorities have shifted from a logic of providing
affordable housing to a logic of competition and competing
attractiveness between cities. This leads to policies that exacerbate
gentrification by unregulated development, no regulation of rental
prices, etc. making spatial factors another element that affects
inequalities of opportunity (Wolff & de-Shalit, 2023). For instance,
public transport services are often not reliable in poor areas or areas
in which minorities predominantly live because they are not very
profitable for the companies that manage them. This makes it more
difficult for people from these areas to reach their jobs easily or to
have access to job opportunities (Pritchard et al., 2019). Also, when
transport is difficult, unaffordable, time-consuming and access to it is
difficult, people with disabilities are affected because transport is
vital for access to work, putting this group at an additional
disadvantage (Wolff & Shalit, 2023).
The basic argument of neoliberalism is that markets can regulate
themselves in ways that governments cannot do and that if markets are
free from government intervention, the emerging capitalism is the
natural form for societies to take. In this sense, markets allow things
to develop naturally, and whatever inequalities and hierarchies emerge
can be seen as the natural outcome of those natural processes. The
narrative is that a self-regulating market ensures meritocracy: we can
all succeed if we put in enough effort, everyone gets what they deserve,
and failure (just as success) is individualised. The price of freedom is
responsibility, and ultimately, poverty is seen as a personal and moral
fault. This, in turn, immediately pitches us against each other –to be
better, stronger, more creative and more productive than those around
us, thus creating new forms of social division (Littler, 2017). In
addition, whenever we limit competition (through taxation, by
re-establishing unions, by protecting the environment, etc.) that is
seen as a limit to liberty (Parekh & Wilcox, 2020).
However, portraying the world as a level playing field that offers
equal opportunity to whoever grabs it ignores the complexity of human
life and capitalism, the structural inequalities that pervade it, the
hierarchies that exist, and, ultimately, the interplay of economic and
political power (Dosi et al., 2020). It also ignores that where you
start from has an enormous effect on how far you can go, regardless of
your degree of talent or how much you work (McNamee & Miller, 2009;
Blanden et al., 2004; Bukodi et al., 2015). In fact, research shows that
meritocracy does not exist in today’s society and that, in the end, the
vast majority of those who can reap the benefits of this system are the
ones who are best prepared as a result of their privilege (Littler,
2013; 2017). In other words, naturalising the forces of the market and
politics obscures the existence of systemic advantage and disadvantage
and the many ways in which privilege –such as education, inheritance,
and class– works. Similarly, talking of merit abstractly ignores its
relation to gender, race, and class and the fact that it is a concept
that has historically been used to privilege the already privileged,
mostly wealthy white males (Littler, 2017). Opportunity is not the same
for everyone, and much of success is not about natural endowment or the
natural way things work but about circumstances: people have different
abilities, live in dissimilar conditions, have different mothers, meet
diverse people along the way, etc.
In the end, upon closer inspection of the complexities of the labour
market, it becomes clear that neoliberal policies disproportionally
impact the most vulnerable members of society, have led to crises
(Stiglitz, 2002; Dosi & Virgillito, 2019; Ostry et al., 2016) and
have resulted in the global wealth disparity between the rich and the
poor, which is larger today than it ever has been since the Gilded Age
in the US and Victorian era in the UK (Dorling, 2014). In neoliberalism,
people with families and ambitions, who have pride and dignity, are
treated like machines. Their work is turned into a quantifiable metric
of numbers, they are not meaningfully involved in important aspects of
their work that affect them, and they only have instrumental value
insofar as they produce goods or services. Ultimately, there is a
contradiction at the heart of neoliberalism. Friedman (2017) claimed
that central to his theory was freedom, but it becomes apparent that to
be competitive and survive in this system, agents must serve a market
that dehumanises them and compromises their dignity.
They thus have to compromise their individual freedom, which is a
basic value in the neoliberal narrative. Friedman’s freedom is for the
big capitalists, not for the workers.
The Capabilities Approach
If we want to change things for the better, we need to move beyond
the idea that there are no alternatives to the neoliberalist model of
capitalism and beyond false dilemmas of the kind that it is either the
neoliberal model or a turn to the Marxist left and work towards a new
paradigm. Instead of passively accepting the essentially exploitative
conditions in the workplace that make us feel powerless, we need to
think differently from neoliberalism’s distorted view of work and human
wellbeing. This requires a shift of emphasis from markets, productivity
and individualism to an emphasis on the individual’s intrinsic worth,
their responsibility towards others and people’s right to have a genuine
opportunity to thrive. We also need to reconsider what success amounts
to. The aim of a democratic society is human flourishing and people
being free to pursue goals that are important to them, not efficiency
and profit. So, measuring success narrowly in terms of the accumulation
of wealth as we do in the business world will simply not do.
Such a way of thinking can be found in Amartya Sen’s and Martha
Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. At the centre of this view
are three main concepts: functionings, capabilities, and substantive
freedom. Functionings are the different things that are important to a
person’s life, states of ‘being and doing’, like having shelter or
getting married. A capability is a person’s actual ability to accomplish
the functions that she values, and substantive freedom is the genuine
chance one has to live the life that one values and has reason to value
(Sen, 1999). The core idea of the capabilities approach is that measures
of well-being should be based on an individual’s ability to access the
goods that are essential for his flourishing instead of on wealth
accumulation of per capita GNP. This is because a country’s economic
growth does not always translate into an improvement in the general
standard of living of its citizens, and this also means that simply
securing rights for people on paper is insufficient. Often, through no
fault of our own, due to our different circumstances, we differ in our
capacity to transform resources into functioning, and this leads to
inequalities. Examples could be conventions that prevent women from
going to school, women internalising the roles that are imposed upon
them by a patriarchal society, or the inability to move freely because
of physical disability that prevents one from accomplishing one’s goals
(Sen, 2002). So, for people to be in a position where they can
materially exercise their rights, we need to address the possible
obstacles that may impede a person from doing so (Nussbaum, 2000, p.
227). Therefore, in a just society social policy should be geared
towards giving people access to resources that allow them to pursue the
life that they value and have chosen (Sen, 2002).. This, in turn,
implies that whatever costs might be involved in seizing an opportunity
must be reasonable for the agent to bear, and it must be reasonable for
us to expect the agent to seize this opportunity (Wolff & de-Shalit,
2007).
Through the notions of capabilities, functionings, and substantive
freedom, this account recognises that our circumstances, and thus our
needs, vary, but also that we value and want different things. In this
sense, the capabilities approach may appear to support neoliberal
individualist attitudes. Nevertheless, that is untrue because, at the
same time, it acknowledges that a person’s capabilities are shaped by
multiple elements –such as their immediate social context and
relationships, like their family and their community and its policies,
as well as their global context, which includes things like the
consequences of climate change. This perspective, therefore, has a
multifaceted nature, even though it focuses on the individual,
considering how one’s environment shapes one’s capabilities. One could
say that in this sense, there is a move from traditionally ‘male’ values
to more ‘feminine’ ones. The capabilities approach also considers human
diversity since it allows individuals to place value on things other
than the accumulation of goods, economic efficiency or profit. For
instance, whereas a working mother might prioritise flexibility, a
disabled person may prioritise autonomy (Burchardt, 2004; Yerkes et al.,
2017).
Returning to Giannis Antetokoumpo, though no one can deny his work
ethic, he also has an extraordinary talent, and without that, luck and
support from his community (as he always stresses), he might still have
been a stateless, undocumented immigrant in Greece (because though
markets are allowed to flow freely under neoliberalism, labour is not).
So his story does not show that we can all make it if we only work
enough, but only that people have different access to opportunities for
reasons that are beyond their control, like their level of talent, the
community they are surrounded by, or the place of origin of their
parents. This lack of ability to convert resources to functionings
through no fault of one’s own is important to keep in mind when we
evaluate the welfare of underprivileged groups like illegal immigrants,
people with disabilities, or women, but also when it comes to individual
differences within the same group.
To apply the capabilities approach to work relations, we need to see
what it is that we want people to be capable of when it comes to work.
Clearly, at the subsistence level, one wants to be able to put food on
the table, but once we move beyond that, other things become important.
One wants a paycheck that one can live off with dignity, a schedule that
allows one to pursue interests other than work, and a certain stability.
To be satisfied, people also need to feel seen and valued and, if
possible, perform meaningful work. Of course, life is not perfect, and
not all jobs in a lifetime will fulfil all these criteria, but one
should not be expected to work one’s entire life without them.
The capabilities approach focuses on the quality of life that an
individual can actually achieve, and, as such, it focuses on questions
like whether one can have meaningful work that allows him to sustain
himself and his family and that allows him to be satisfied and develop
through his work. Both Sen and Nussbaum acknowledge that work is
important for the well-being of individuals beyond just financial
reasons; it has subjective significance, it is a vehicle of self-worth
and empowerment. It also has value because work is rewarding when it
allows or helps you to grow, and personal development has intrinsic
value. Ultimately, the core of the capabilities approach is that people
should have the capabilities to be free to choose what they want to be
and do. Therefore, a system that makes workers have to choose between
making enough money to support their families and having time to give
their families the care and attention necessary is unacceptable. A
holistic approach requires that we find a way to allow us to do both
without having to choose which of the two to compromise.
To do this, we also need to recognise that work is not limited to
paid labour but includes unpaid activities that must be part of our
assessment of people’s well-being. Nussbaum lists the ability to play
and enjoy recreational activities as an essential element of human life.
Women who work the ‘second shift’ may lack the energy to play or may
want to play but lack the time (Nussbaum, 2000). As a result, they lose
out on the chance to be part of the life of their community, a community
that can also give them a chance to grow personally and professionally.
Being deprived of the opportunity to be part of a community deprives you
of a social network and, thus social capital, and this makes social
mobility even more difficult (Wolff & de-Shalit, 2023). In this way,
poverty can also be non-monetary, referring to the lack of certain
fundamental capabilities that limit one’s opportunities (Sen, 2002). One
example is time poverty: if one works two jobs and is exhausted, or if
one’s commute is very long, that leaves no time for leisure and blocks
access to certain goods (Wolff & de-Shalit, 2023). Low salaries
obviously compromise the functioning of affiliation because they do not
allow you to go out or enjoy cultural activities, and it also makes
finding a partner more difficult. Even to enjoy free recreational
activities, you need to have time, so people working double shifts,
night shifts or low paying jobs that start early in the morning do not
have the luxury to enjoy leisure time (Wolff & de-Shalit, 2023).
Resources are therefore important, but they are only valuable as means
to desired functionings that need to not only be available but also
affordable, meaning that their importance lies in how they enable
capabilities.
When Nussbaum discusses capabilities, she refers to the sense of
control, bodily health and integrity, the ability to play, and the
possibility of affiliation. The ability to interact, coexist, and act
for others is necessary for the latter. Legally speaking, this means
that employees must have the ability and right to act collectively when
it serves their best interests. Without this possibility, employers
possess immense power over workers who, alone, are often confronted with
job offers and conditions that they must either accept or remain without
a job. For governments to counterbalance the power of the wage relations
system, markets must include mechanisms that protect those with less
bargaining power (Dukes & Streeck, 2023). These can include welfare
reforms, setting up unions and the right to collective bargaining and
can be made to apply even to those working in the gig economy. Even
though markets have changed, and it may not be possible to work one or
two jobs for one’s entire life as people often did in the past –or, if
it is, it may not be an option that the younger generations value –
people still expect fair compensation and stable working condition at
the jobs they hold (Dukes & Streeck, 2023). At the workplace, the
functioning of affiliation translates to having the time and space to
engage in productive interactions with coworkers (Dukes & Streeck,
2023). Laws must also be in place to protect worker’s physical and
mental health. These include laws establishing equality in the
workplace, protecting workers from sexual harassment and exploitation
but also laws that establish limits on work hours so that individuals
have time to relax, socialise, build a family and properly take care of
their loved ones. When it comes to spatial factors that affect the
capacity of affiliation, Wolff and de-Shalit (2023) discuss ways to make
transport easier. Making cities bicycle-friendly by securing easy and
safe riding and storage of bikes is one suggestion, subsidised transport
is another. Such measures not only allow people access to work
(especially for people in poorer areas away from the city centre) but
also increase their ability for social networking by saving them
time.
What the neoliberal perspective tends to ignore is that a working
relationship like all relationships is bilateral and requires limits and
boundaries. Once this is considered, to remain true to the liberal idea
of equality of opportunity, limits on certain things are required, as
well as institutional support for widely shared opportunity. It thus
becomes evident why certain measures that by neoliberal standards are
restrictions on freedom are required to uphold the fundamental
principles on which neoliberalism was founded and to ensure that
everyone has access to opportunities and freedoms. Enacting laws to
safeguard the environment, for example, is vital because a healthy
environment is essential to securing the capabilities of people, not
only today but in the future as well (as the destruction of the
environment becomes what Wolff and de-Shalit (2007) call a corrosive
disadvantage) and trade unions are necessary to secure living wages
that are necessary for the achievement of functionings –after all, you
cannot be free if your voice is silenced. By establishing such limits,
we are, of course limiting the freedom of employers to impose any work
conditions they want with the rationale that they maximise profit, but
we are doing so with an ultimate goal in mind: protecting the freedom of
workers to prioritise their interests without being forced to make
impossible and dehumanising choices. As such, we are protecting
substantive human freedom.
People have aspirations, they want to grow, and for that,
opportunities are required, including opportunities for people to help
themselves. Efficiency-driven thinking creates a competitive environment
for both individuals and groups, and this leads to a world where there
is little sense of community, belonging, and interdependence, making it
harder to collaborate and cooperate. However, we are not independent
from others and being part of a community is essential to our
well-being. As in the case of the environment, we are all part of an
economic and social ecosystem, and this ecosystem needs to be
strengthened by re-building a sense of community that allows people to
flourish and democracy to work. This relates to neoliberalism’s break
from a tradition wherein agents were conceived as working within a whole
–within a society that sets the rules of the game. In contrast, when
‘there is no such thing as society’ but only individuals, agents decide
on rules in a social and moral vacuum, which can lead to a loss of
identity and polarization. The key point is to allow people
who feel currently disconnected from their work to find dignity and
purpose in it again. For this, social policies and restructuring wage
relations are important, but they will not suffice. We also need a new
model of human interaction in addition to a more realistic view of the
opportunity landscape to restore what has been lost from society and
fortify social bonds. A way to do this is to prioritise the more
accurate yet conventionally more ‘feminine’, relational understanding of
humans as interdependent and interconnected rather than privileging the
traditionally ‘masculine’ idea of man as distinct, autonomous and in
competition with others. The ethics of care allows us to do just
that.
The Ethics of Care
Care ethics prioritises our responsibilities to others and advocates
that care should be at the centre of our thinking about how to live. It
is an approach that brings the disconnected, self-interested and
independent agent into the real world (Gilligan, 1982), where caring is
understood as
a species activity that includes everything that we do to maintain,
continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as
possible. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our
environment, all of which we seek to interweave in a complex,
life-sustaining web (Fisher & Tronto, 1991, p. 40).
In contrast to traditional ethical theories of the 18th and 19th
centuries, which understood human interaction in terms of reason and
autonomy and required us to think in terms of formal relations that were
abstract rather than in terms of the realities of life in the world,
care ethics recognises that humans are emotional and social beings whose
lives are intricately connected to, and dependent upon, the lives of
others.
Care ethics is sometimes regarded as a ‘feminine’ or feminist ethic
since, historically, women have been the ones primarily responsible for
providing care. However, since at some point in our lives, everyone is
taken care of and is called to take care of others, it can also be
viewed as a theory based on a universal experience. Our existence is not
only intertwined with the existence of others but also dependent on
others. Yet our ethical and economic theories downplay or ignore this
common experience, equating the characteristics of their ideal agent
with the stereotypical traits of the ‘ideal male’. In the context of
neoliberalism and the internalisation of ‘male values’, caring for one
another has thus been largely pushed aside (Rottenberg, 2018). Care
ethics requires that we bring it back while not expecting the same or
equal input from everyone but only that each contributes to the degree
that is appropriate to his or her context. This is because, just as with
the capabilities approach, according to which it would be a mistake to
assign the same capabilities to everyone, central to care ethics is the
idea that not all people are equal in their abilities and that people
make choices in the background of inequality. It is, therefore, crucial
to keep in mind that people live in contexts that to a large degree
influence their capabilities, so requiring that all parties engage in
the same way is unjust.
The shift towards an ethics of care thus reminds us that we are
dependent creatures that need care to flourish. It also calls our
attention to moral concerns that transcend the market but have a
significant impact on the lives of real people, such as those related to
children, disability, housework, etc. Instead of celebrating
independence, pathologising dependence, and focusing on economic growth
and individuality –the pillars of neoliberalism– care ethics focuses on
our inevitable interdependence (Tronto, 1993; 2013). It also frowns upon
the neoliberal tendency to increasingly offload the responsibility of
care from the state to individuals.
This contrasts with the distinction made within neoliberalism between
the market and the family. This distinction is misleading because,
firstly, today, both men and women work, and so the family is an
institution of the labour market. Second, since childcare (re)produces
the human capital needed to maintain the system, the family is a
necessary element of the market, and housework is necessary for the
process of capital accumulation (Federici, 1975; Longino, 1993; Malos,
1975; Mies, 2022). This underlies the ‘social contradiction’ inherent in
capitalism that Nancy Fraser (2016) has argued grounds a crisis
tendency: social reproduction is necessary to support production, and
thus the socioeconomic system, but the socioeconomic structure
undermines the very social reproduction on which it depends. More
importantly, within this dichotomy, paid labour (and thus work done in
the ‘masculine’ public sphere) is prioritised since production is
calculated based on financially remunerated labour. As social
reproduction theorists have emphasized, although domestic labour
contributes to the economy and maintains labour power, it is excluded
because it is not compensated, making those who perform it invisible and
disadvantaged (Longino, 1993; Federici, 2004).
This is nowhere clearer than in the domestic care sector. The deeply
ingrained prejudice that some jobs are inherently worth less because of
the types of people who do them (women, people of colour, immigrants) is
ironic, of course, because care work is becoming more important due to
today’s ageing populations and the current care crisis. While this
invisible work that we depend on and take for granted is viewed as
unskilled, it is very difficult, occasionally dangerous, physically and
emotionally taxing, and cannot be automated. In the end, the resulting
commodification of care leads to further inequalities. Firstly, because
women predominantly take up domestic labour since unpaid care work is
usually considered to be women’s responsibility, and paid work is men’s
responsibility. Secondly, because to fill the ‘care gap’ non-whites
increasingly take on paid domestic work that whites do not want and,
thirdly, because people in developing countries tend to take on jobs
that people in developed countries reject while transferring their
caring responsibilities to poorer individuals extending the global care
chains (Fraser, 2016). Ultimately, the dichotomy between
the market and the family results in a distortion of the picture of
labour in society and, as a result, leads to inadequate policies towards
the invisible work that is done and the invisible people who do it
(Longino, 1993; Malos, 1975; Mies, 2022).
In terms of social policies, for the workplace to expand people’s
capabilities and afford genuine growth opportunities and for groups that
have been largely ignored within the neoliberal framework to be
protected, we need to prioritise social care and focus on human
connections. This means that we need policies that acknowledge that
people are entitled to care and that address the care that different
people need (Held, 2007; Nussbaum, 2000; Kittay, 2021). Such policies
will have to include provision, regulation, and funding by the
government for various forms of care work (including the rights of
domestic workers and migrants) and social services, free daycare,
flexible working arrangements, improved child support policies,
healthcare etc. (Nussbaum, 2000a; Held, 2007). Wolff and de-Shalit
(2023) also propose night care for the children of parents who work at
night (bakers, truck drivers, nurses, etc.) –a measure that they rightly
observe is rarely discussed in social policy. Caring relations also have
a spatial factor that must not be neglected. For instance, when parents
have to drive their kids to school every day, this can make it difficult
(e.g., because of unpredictable traffic) to arrive at work on time every
day, thus causing problems at work. Because this responsibility often
falls on women, this can also make them look less reliable and keep them
back from advancing in their work (Wolff & de-Shalit, 2023). A shift
in gender roles could change that, making men also share this burden,
but there is also the alternative of placing schools closer to places in
the city occupied by young families or placing daycare centers close to
where parents work. This would slow things down, increasing worker’s
quality of life while also fostering a sense of community (Wolff &
de-Shalit, 2023).
Ultimately, however, to achieve genuine change, a shift in values is
required. For many, the problem at the core of the sexual division of
labour is due to determinants like the breadwinner model or women’s
housewifization. Therefore, in such views, what ultimately has to change
are wage relationships, over and above the value system that underpins
these practices. But this puts the cart before the horse when it comes
to the problems that arise at the workplace under neoliberalism that
this paper discusses. For example, with the decline of the breadwinner
model, policies for working parents focus on keeping children longer at
school in order to make it easier for parents to work. But this is not
making work family-friendly, it is the opposite, it makes families
employment-friendly. Similarly, getting women out of the role of the
housewife, though incredibly important, puts women in the workforce
(with all that ensues from that). In both cases, despite changes in wage
relationships, what is being promoted is one set of values over another
and what we are in effect doing is restructuring the family around a
double breadwinner model which remains a male-oriented one when it comes
to its underlying values. However, these changes have not made the
labour experience better for people, and despite the changing wage
relations, people’s views about gender relations persist (Medved, 2016;
Parker & Stepler, 2017). In other words, the requirement (and need)
to include women in the labour force in the competitive and
individualistic framework of neoliberalism can be seen as a way to
maintain the dominance of male values in a modernised form. It is
important, therefore, to remember that promoting social care is not a
full-proof strategy for the simple reason that precisely because of
deeply ingrained gendered patterns of care, women may rely more on such
policies than men, even if the policies are gender-neutral. This can
lead to reinforcing traditional gender roles and widening the gender gap
(Blair & Posmanick, 2023; Thomas, 2021).
In this sense, the new status quo of neoliberalism suggests that the
(male) breadwinner model, or Meis’ housewifization, is not the only
source of the problems that arise in the world of work characteristic of
neoliberalism. This is not to say that such determinants have not played
a role historically in leading up to the current status quo, but it is
to say that capitalism is incredibly self-reforming, and so even moving
beyond such wage relations, the problems facing work conditions (for
everyone, not just women) under neoliberalism persist. This is because
the system always remains oriented towards the same male values and
enhances their scope. In the end, change requires shifting gender norms
so that our policies and institutions allow for values other than the
traditionally ‘masculine’ ones and that, for instance, the assumption
that women’s lives should become similar to men’s lives is not what we
mean by ‘gender equality.’ When it comes to supporting parents,
subsidising childcare to enable people to work is one option, but
another, which is in line with the argument made in this paper, is to
provide them with resources that allow them to choose what best suits
their lives. So, instead of bringing women’s lives closer to men’s, we
could introduce options that bring men’s lives closer to women’s, keeping in mind that at the end of
the day, what is needed is a realignment of values that will allow us to
reclaim aspects of our life and work that we have currently lost or are
in the process of losing.
Conclusion
Neoliberalism promised individual freedom, growth and prosperity for
all. What it has delivered instead is inequality and precarity. To
achieve a change of the status quo, we need to acknowledge that we are
all part of a community and that work is one of the forces that connects
us to that community. In turn, through the community, our work allows us
to grow and advance. Our policies must reflect the fact that people do
not only have instrumental value but also intrinsic worth and must allow
for dignity in the workplace and beyond, all in a manner that is
socially (and environmentally) sustainable.
In this paper, I have argued that to do this, we need to move beyond
the typically ‘masculine’ ways of relating to one another promoted by
neoliberalism, and embrace traits, skills and abilities that have
traditionally been perceived as more feminine. I have
centred my approach on the notion of capabilities and care and have
argued that an alternative to promoting a culture of employment is to
move beyond a logic of market-based efficiency and develop policies that
promote social arrangements that would increase people’s substantive
freedom –something that requires people having the option to choose the
kind of life, and work pattern, they value without having to compromise
too much in the process. More importantly, what I have proposed is that
the problem is ultimately a problem of deeply ingrained values that
persist despite the changes in wage relations in the past two centuries
and that these values are what ultimately needs to change in order for
things to take a turn to the better. Besides proposing certain policies
and the direction that we must change towards, I have not answered the
question of how this shift will take place. If I am right in this, the
shift required will ultimately have to run much deeper than merely at
the level of social policy.
References
Bal, Matthijs (2017). Dignity in the workplace. New theoretical perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55245-3
Blair, Peter Q. and Posmanick, Benjamin (2023, August 23). Why Did Gender Wage Convergence in the United States Stall? Research Briefs in Economic Policy, No. 346. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4594787
Blanden, Jo; Goodman, Alissa; Gregg, Paul & Machin, Stephen (2004). Changes in Intergenerational Mobility in Britain. In Miles Corak (Ed.) Generational Income Mobility in North America and Europe (pp. 122–146). Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492549.007
Bloodworth, James (2019). Hired: Undercover in Low-wage Britain. Atlantic Books.
Bukodi, Erzsébet; Goldthorpe, John H.; Waller, Lorraine & Kuha, Jouni (2015). The Mobility Problem in Britain: New Findings from the Analysis of Birth Cohort Data. British Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12096
Burchardt, Tania (2004). Capabilities and Disability: The Capabilities Framework and the Social Model of Disability. Disability & Society, 19(7), 735–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759042000284213
Cederstrom, Carl & Fleming, Peter (2012). Dead Man Working. Zero Books.
Crompton, Rosemary (1999). Restructuring gender relations and employment: the decline of the male breadwinner. Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198294696.001.0001
Dorling, Danny (2014). Inequality and the 1%. Verso.
Dosi, Giovanni & Virgillito, Maria Enrico (2019). Whither the evolution of the contemporary social fabric? New technologies and old socio-economic trends. International Labour Review, 158(4), 593-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12145
Dosi, Giovanni, Fanti, Lucrezia & Virgillito, Maria Enrica (2020). Unequal societies in usual times, unjust societies in pandemic ones. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 47, 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-020-00173-8
Dukes, Ruth & Streeck, Wolfgang (2023). Labour law after neoliberalism? Journal of Law and Society, 50, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12423
Federici, Silvia (1975). Wages Against Housework. In Ellen Malos (Ed.), The Politics of Housework (pp. 187-194). The New Clarion.
Federici, Silvia (2004). Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation. Autonomedia.
Fisher, Berenice and Tronto, Joan C. (1991). Toward a Feminist Theory of Care. In Emily Abel and Margaret Nelson (Eds.).Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives (pp. 36-54). University of New York Press.
Fleming, Peter (2019). The Worst Is Yet to Come: A Post-capitalist Survival Guide. Repeater Books.
Fraser, Nancy (2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, 100, 99-117.
Friedman, Milton (2017). The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom. In Robert Leeson and Charles Palm (Eds.). Milton Friedman on Freedom: Selections from the Collected Works of Milton Friedman. (pp.17-34) Stanford University.
Gilligan, Carol (1982). In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University.
Harvey, David (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001
Held, Virginia (2007). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325911.003.0020
Hyman, Richard (2001). European integration and industrial relations. A case of variable geometry? Antipode, 33(3), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00194
Judt, Tony (2010). Post War: A History of Europe since 1945. Vintage Books.
Kimmel, Michael; Hearn, Jeff & Connell, Raewyn W. (Eds.) (2005). The Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Sage.
Kittay, Eva (2021). Becoming a Humbler Philosopher: My Life in Philosophy as a Woman. In E. Vintiadis (Ed.). Philosophy by Women: 22 Philosophers reflect on philosophy and its values (pp. 103-111). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003025719-15
Littler, Jo (2013). Meritocracy as plutocracy: The marketising of ‘Equality’ under neoliberalism. New Formations, 80, 52–72. https://doi.org/10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013
Littler, Jo (2017). Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power, and Myths of Mobility. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315712802
Lloyd, Genevieve (1984). The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy. University of Minnesota.
Longino, Helen E. (1993). Economics for Whom? In Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson (Eds.). Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics (pp. 158-168). University of Chicago.
Malos, Ellen (Ed.). (1975). The Politics of Housework. The New Clarion.
Manne, Kate (2018). Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190604981.001.0001
Mayer, Stéphanie & Noiseux, Yanick (2015). Organizing at Walmart: Lessons from Quebec’s women. Global Labour Journal, 6(1), 4–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.15173/glj.v6i1.2455
McNamee, Stephen J., & Miller, Robert K. (2009). The Meritocracy Myth. Rowman & Littlefield.
Medved, Caryn E. (2016). The new female breadwinner: discursively doing and undoing gender relations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 44(3), 236-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2016.1192286
Mies, Maria (1982). The Lace Makers of Narsapur. Zed.
Mies, Maria (2022). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. Bloomsbury.
Mill, John Stuart (1978). On liberty. Hackett Publishing Company.
Moore, Phoebe V. & Joyce, Simon (2020). Black box or hidden abode? The expansion and exposure of platform work managerialism. Review of International Political Economy, 27(4), 926–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1627569
Murray, Nic (2020). Burnout Britain: Overwork in an age of unemployment. Compass, October. https://www.compassonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Burnout-Britain-overwork-in-an-age-of-unemployment.pdf
Nussbaum, Martha (2000). Women’s Capabilities and Social Justice. Journal of Human Development, 1(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195112108.001.0001
Nussbaum, Martha (2000a). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach [Mujer y Desarrollo Humano: El Enfoque de Capacidades]. Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841286
Ostry, Jonathan D.; Loungani, Prakash & Furceri, Davide (2016). Neoliberalism: Oversold? Finance & Development, 53(2), 38-41.
Parekh, Serena & Wilcox, Shelley (2020). Feminist Perspectives on Globalization. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-globalization/#WhaGlo
Parker, Kim & Stepler, Renee (2017). Americans see men as the financial providers, even as women’s contributions grow. Pew Research Center.
Pascall, Gillian (2008). Gender and New Labour: after the male breadwinner model? In Tony Maltby, Patricia Kennett, Kirstein Rummery (Eds). Social Policy Review 20 (pp. 215-240). Bristol University.
Pritchard, John P., Tomasiello, Diego Bogado; Giannotti, Mariana & Geurs, Karst (2019). Potential Impacts of Bike-and-Ride on Job Accessibility and Spatial Equity in São Paulo, Brazil. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 121, 368–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.01.022
Rooney, Phyllis (1991). Gendered Reason: Sex Metaphor and Conceptions of Reason. Hypatia, 6(2), 77-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1991.tb01394.x
Rottenberg, Catherine (2018). Neoliberalism has led to a crisis in care- and we urgently need to solve it. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/neoliberalism-has-led-to-a-crisis-in-care-and-we-urgently-need-to-solve-it-107920
Sen, Amartya K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University.
Sen, Amartya K. (2002). Rationality and Freedom. Harvard University.
Smith, Adam (1976). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In Roy Harold Campbell and Andrew S. Skinner (Eds.), The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, Volume 1. Oxford University.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. Norton.
Telford, Luke & Briggs, Daniel (2022). Targets and overwork: Neoliberalism and the Maximization of profitability from the workplace. Capital and Class, 46(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/03098168211022208
Tronto, Joan C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge.
Tronto, Joan C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice. New York University.
Vallier, Kevin (2021). Neoliberalism. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/
Wang, Wendy, Parker, Kim & Taylor, Paul (2013). Breadwinner Moms. Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends.
Williams, Rhonda M. (1993). Race, Deconstruction, and the Emergent Agenda of Feminist Economic Theory. In Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson (Eds.), Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics. University of Chicago.
Wolff, Jonathan & de-Shalit, Avner (2007). Disadvantage. Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278268.001.0001
Wolff, Jonathan & de-Shalit, Avner (2023). City of Equals. Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198894735.001.0001
Yerkes, Mara A.; Martin, Bill; Rose, Judy & Baxter, Janeen (2017). An Unsettled Bargain? Mothers’ Perceptions of Justice and Fairness in Paid Work. Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 476–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317696361
