Women are not babysitters for the economy

in COVID-19
  • 020420 Julie Smith

    Julie Smith

    Australian National University

    Dr Smith is an honorary associate professor and an ARC Future Fellow at the Research School of Population Health at ANU. She is also a Fellow at the Crawford School of Public Policy's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute. Much of Julie's research has focused on the economics of breastfeeding and regulation of markets in mothers’ milk. She was previously a senior economist in the Australian and New Zealand treasuries, Commonwealth Departments of Finance, Environment, and Prime Minister and Cabinet, and in the Parliamentary Library Research Service.

republish

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

COVID-19:

There are lively discussions going on about the gendered impacts of coronavirus and how so much policy tends to be male-centric. It might not be intentional, but the problem with unconscious bias is it doesn’t see what it doesn’t want to know.



The current crisis has brought to the forefront the size and importance of the unpaid labour market  to the economy, for example. But Julie Smith argues that the current gender-blind approach to economic management is “like driving a car with the windows all frosted up apart from a small clear space in the windscreen”. It is, she points out, a “disastrously narrow view of where we are going”.


There has been spirited debate about what the government should be doing, and how quickly it should be doing it, in response to the unprecedented health and economic crisis from COVID 19.

At the centre of debate is closure of schools and childcare as we are urged – or required – to work at home. Meanwhile female dominated professions at the forefront of the crisis – health care workers, teachers, and childcare providers - are struggling with the dilemmas of their now hazardous work environments. As a frustrated West Australian teacher recently wrote in a local news outlet: “I usually love teaching, but right now I hate the fact that I am a teacher”.

Teachers are not babysitters for the economy. Keep schools open and [we] are exposed to high-risk behaviours by a beautiful bunch of guileless innocents.

“We are not babysitters for the economy. You keep the schools open, and I find myself in the unenviable position of being exposed to high-risk behaviours by a beautiful bunch of guileless innocents.”

In her frustration, the anonymous WA teacher captured the essence of a critical economic problem that is being ignored. So far, the response has focused on the market economy, including the unquestionable importance of quickly redressing the gaps in our social security system for those without paid employment.

020420 shutterstock 1018135207 1

Women’s unpaid care and domestic work is a crucial economic buffer.

Yet the letter from Anonymous highlights that the non-market production of households, including women’s unpaid care and domestic work, is now a crucial economic buffer. A feminist economic perspective on responses to economic disruptions brought by COVID 19 may reveal new ways of thinking about the problem, and how we might better respond to protect health, productivity and well-being.

The first thing is to recognise that the market is only one part of the economy. Broadly speaking, GDP is the value of all goods and services bought and sold. Nevertheless, statisticians estimate that in normal times around half of all economic activity is unpaid (and therefore uncounted) production by households.

Statisticians estimate that in normal times around half of all economic activity is unpaid (and therefore uncounted) production by households.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics calculated in 2014 that the value of household production was $416 billion to $586 billion – or between 41.6% to 58.7% of GDP. Experts also recognise that during times of market instability, such as the 1930s depression and the 2007-08 global financial crisis, home production was an important buffer for living standards. This is because when incomes drop, more goods and services are produced and exchanged through social and family networks (think for example of eggs, vegetables, haircuts, childcare) rather than being purchased.

Conventional wisdom of managers during the current crisis of ‘home working’ seems to be that a 20-30% ‘productivity loss’ is to be accepted as normal. This perspective is understandable for employers, but unforgivable for governments when market childcare and education services are operating at much reduced capacity, and the locus of this economic activity has shifted dramatically into homes.

020420 shutterstock 618703736

A 20-30% ‘productivity loss’ accepted as normal from people working from home.

This example illustrates how production and productivity moves between the household and market sector but is only measured and recognised when it is paid for. This is hardly a 20% drop in productivity when around half these schoolchildren are now being cared for the non-market household sector.

An economic study conducted at OECD Statistics in 2017 revealed the macroeconomic magnitude of such effects. OECD economists estimated that for countries such as the UK and the US, GDP growth had been exaggerated by around 0.5-1.8 percentage points percentage points a year since the 1970s because the increased use of paid childcare services had been counted in GDP as more economic productivity, rather than as a shift of unpaid work from home to the market economy – a reallocation rather than increase in economic activity.

So far the government has increased employment benefits, and ramped-up loans, subsidies and tax breaks to businesses in response to the economic crisis befalling us. The Australia Institute’s Richard Dennis and others have suggested that the government should invest in long-term infrastructure, like it did in the Great Depression.

020420 shutterstock 638267161

Big infrastructure as a strategy to rebuild the economy is gender biased.

But I take issue with the idea that the best investment projects around are building things like roads and houses. The strategy is not only old school, it’s gender biased. It’s men who benefit from these strategies, treating women as babysitters for the economy.

The coming months present a rare opportunity to rethink productivity and economic wellbeing, including redesigning our social security systems and economic institutions. 

For better or worse, radical reaction and fundamental change could be on the way, but it may not be a quick or smooth road. An upside is that coming months present a rare opportunity to rethink productivity and economic wellbeing, including redesigning our social security systems and economic institutions so they work better for society and the environment, and are fairer to women.

Now is the time to make major investments in such systems and institutions.

How can we promote more equal sharing of unpaid domestic and care work between men and women at this time? Can the closing of restaurants ultimately reduce food miles and increase healthy eating, including by subsidising home and community food gardens?

What about investments in low-emission individualised (instead of mass) public transport? Or building more small-scale community meeting places and venues instead of multi-billion-dollar sports stadiums or in community-based birthing centres and maternity hospitals so women have options about where and how they give birth.

The current gender-blind approach to economic management is like driving a car with the windows all frosted up apart from a small clear space in the windscreen.

Why is it that we only ever think of subsidies to big corporations for creating building and construction jobs with such stimulatory economic strategies? More creative strategies could look at ways to restructure the economy to be more people and environmentally friendly and generate jobs for women as well as the usual army of unskilled labourers and wealthy developers and construction industry barons.

The current gender-blind approach to economic management is like driving a car with the windows all frosted up apart from a small clear space in the windscreen. It’s a scenario familiar to many Canberrans where policy is being made as winter approaches but is a disastrously narrow view of where we are going.

Post your comment

Comments

  • Julie Smith 15/04/2020 12:18pm (3 months ago)

    Acknowledging the unpaid contribution to welbeing has become particularly important in the COVID 19 context. But it has been an unaddressed policy issue for a long time. For example some years ago Dr Lyn Craig proposed that access to concessionally taxed superannuation be conditional on demonstrating lifetime commitment to unpaid and/or voluntary work. After all, getting access to concessionally taxed (i.e. publicly subsidised) superannuation is conditional on making paid workforce contributions which is why high income males are the main beneficiaries. I wrote about this,and its relation to Australia's miserly paid maternity leave system in Smith, J 2007, 'Time use among new mothers, the economic value of unpaid work and gender aspects of superannuation tax concessions', Australian Journal of Labour Economics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 99-114.
    This issue is also well covered in the open access book on Australia's taxation and social security system, edited by Professor Miranda Stewart, in which I have a chapter on the 'wage earner welfare state' and its evolution, strengths and weaknesses. https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/tax-social-policy-and-gender

  • eva cox 03/04/2020 5:22pm (3 months ago)

    Were some acknowledgement of unpaid contributions, not just by women were recognised via a Universal Social Dividend, it could start a debate about unpaid contributions to social well being, It would also cover fireys and creatives and other contributions that enhanced social well being , and be taxable but not means tested. Those who contributed nothing unpaid would be the bludgers, not those of us that did!

  • Marian Sawer 03/04/2020 1:32pm (3 months ago)

    Yes, stimulus spending on small-scale community meeting places please and community libraries perhaps? How wonderful it would be to get local post offices again, serving as a shopfront for government services.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments