This paper draws on the ‘new wars’ literature and global political economy research to explore how feminists and other critical analysts might investigate linkages between, and the gendering of, licit and illicit informal activities in relation to transnational financing of new wars. The paper considers the interdependence (co-constitution) of reproductive, productive and virtual economies, and aims to illuminate the intersection of race, gender, and economic inequalities (within and among states) as structural features of neoliberal globalization. Finally, the paper develops an analytical framing of coping, combat and criminal informal economies, which overlap and interact but entail distinctive sets of actors, motivations, and activities. A brief description of each economy is followed by suggesting how it is gendered and how this might inform feminist theory/practice in relation to war.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
I am not engaging debates about how war is defined or insisting that ‘new wars’ displace all other forms. Indeed, they manifest conditions all too reminiscent, for example, of earlier colonial and imperialist wars. Rather, I want to explore here points raised by those who posit a ‘new’ modality of warfare and to consider how a failure to recognize its distinctiveness compromises our ability to analyse and effectively respond to war in a globalized context. Others variously characterize changing conditions of war as ‘low-intensity conflict’, civil war, unconventional warfare, and post-modern war.
I understand globalization as large-scale processes occurring today at an accelerated pace (due to information and communication technologies) and with extremely uneven effects (due to continuing and new inequalities). Critics of neoliberalism characterize its policies as follows: deregulation has permitted the hyper-mobility of (‘foot-loose’) capital, induced phenomenal growth in crisis-prone financial markets, and increased the power of private and corporate capital interests – at the expense of public goods, democratic accountability, and societal well-being. Liberalization is selectively implemented: powerful states engage in protectionism, while developing countries have limited control over protecting domestic industries, goods produced, and the jobs provided. Privatization has entailed loss of nationalized industries in developing economies and a decrease in public sector employment and provision of social services worldwide. The results of restructuring are complex, uneven, and controversial. While economic growth is the objective and has been realized in some areas and sectors, evidence increasingly suggests expanding inequalities – indeed a polarization – of goods, wealth, and well-being within and between nations.
This synopsis draws from Kaldor, (2001: 6–12). Her book offers a rich overview and is more nuanced than my summary suggests.
‘Cosmopolitanism’ for Kaldor refers ‘both to a positive political vision, embracing tolerance, multiculturalism, civility and democracy, and to a more legalistic respect for certain overriding universal principles which should guide political communities at various levels, including the global level’ (2001: 115–116).
I refer to ‘economies’ in a Foucauldian sense: as mutually constituted (therefore coexisting and interactive) systemic sites through and across which power operates. These sites include socio-cultural processes of self-formation and cultural socialization that underpin identities and their political implications. The subjective, conceptual, and cultural dimensions of these sites are understood as inextricable from (mutually constituted by) material conditions, social practices, and institutional structures.
A fourth trend involves globalization's dependence on ICTs specific to the late twentieth century. I argue elsewhere (Peterson, 2003, 2006) that the unprecedented fusion of culture and economy – of virtual and material dimensions – afforded by ICTs exposes to a unique extent and in new developments the importance of adopting interpretive/post-structuralist/post-modernist lenses. Please note that throughout this paper, I use slashes between words to indicate similarity rather than contrast.
To forestall misunderstanding, I am specifically not arguing for the primacy of ‘women's oppression’ or the reduction of culture, race/ethnicity and class to sex/gender relations. Rather, I am arguing that gender is a historically contingent structural feature of social relations, that the subordination of women is not reducible to other structural oppressions (or vice versa) and that the dichotomy of gender underpins – as the devalourization of the feminine naturalizes – hierarchies of culture, race/ethnicity, class, and geopolitical ‘difference.’
The Pugh et al. volume refers to ‘combat, shadow and coping economies’ (2004: 8). For my research purposes I have modified the terms. I use ‘criminal’ rather than ‘shadow’ to more explicitly distinguish the illicit character of that economy, and my reference to the ‘coping’ economy is more inclusive, encompassing aspects of social reproduction that most authors ignore.
Andreas, P. (2003) ‘Redrawing the line: borders and security in the twenty-first century’ International Security, Vol. 28, No. 2: 78–111.
Andreas, P. (2004) ‘Illicit international political economy: the clandestine side of globalization’ Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 11, No. 3: 631–652.
Andreas, P. and Price, R. (2001) ‘From war fighting to crime fighting: transforming the American national security state’ International Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 3: 31–52.
Bakker, I. and Gill, S. (2003) editors, Power, Production and Social Reproduction: Human In/security in the Global Political Economy, Houndsmill, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ballentine, K. and Sherman, J. (2003) editors, The Political Economy of Armed Conflict: Beyond Greed and Grievance, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Beneria, L. (2003) Gender, Development and Globalization: Economics as if People Mattered, New York: Routledge.
Boutwell, J. and Klare, M.T. (1999) editors, Light Weapons and Civil Conflict: Controlling the Tools of Violence, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brah, A. (2002) ‘Global mobilities, local predicaments: globalization and the critical imagination’ Feminist Review, Vol. 70: 30–45.
Brah, A. and Phoenix, A. (2004) ‘Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality’ Journal of International Women's Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3: 75–86.
Brown, W. (1997) ‘The impossibility of women's studies’ Differences, Vol. 9, No. 3: 79–101.
Çaǧatay, N ., Elson, D . and Grown, C. (1995) editors, ‘Special issue: gender, adjustment and macroeconomics’ World Development, Vol. 23, No. 11 (November).
Chowdhry, G. and Nair, S. (2002) editors, Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class, New York: Routledge.
Collins, P.H. (1998) ‘It's all in the family: intersections of gender, race, and nation’ Hypatia, Vol. 13, No. 3: 62–82.
Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’ Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43: 1241–1299.
Duffield, M. (2001) Global Governance and New Wars, London: Zed Books.
Eisenstein, Z.R. (2007) Sexual Decoys: Gender, Race and War in Imperial Democracy, London: Zed Press; New York: Palgrave.
Enloe, C. (2004) The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Friman, R. and Andreas, P. (1999) editors, The Illicit Global Economy and State Power, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Goodhand, J. (2004) ‘Afghanistan in Central Asia’ in Pugh, M. and Cooper, N. (2004) editors, War Economies in a Regional Context: Challenges of Transformation, Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, 45–89.
Grown, C.,, Elson, D. and Çaǧatay N . (2000) editors, ‘Special issue: growth, trade, finance, and gender inequality’ World Development, Vol. 28, No. 7 (July).
Jung, D. (2003) editor, Shadow Globalization, Ethnic Conflicts and New Wars: A Political Economy of Intra-State War, London: Routledge.
Kaldor, M. (2001) New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Le Billon, P., Sherman, J. and Hartwell, M. (2002) Controlling Resource Flows to Civil Wars: A Review and Analysis of Current Policies and Legal Instruments. Rockefeller Foundation Conference Report. Bellagio, Italy.
McCall, L. (2005) ‘The complexity of intersectionality’ Signs, Vol. 30, No. 3: 1771–1800.
Mohanty, C.T. (2003) Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity, Durham: Duke University Press.
Naim, M. (2003) ‘The five wars of globalization’ Foreign Policy, Vol. 134: 29–37.
Naylor, R.T. (2002) Wages of Crime: Black Markets, Illegal Finance, and the Underground Economy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Peterson, V.S. (2003) A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive, and Virtual Economies, London and New York: Routledge.
Peterson, V.S. (2005) ‘How (the meaning of) gender matters in political economy’ New Political Economy, Vol. 10, No. 4: 499–521.
Peterson, V.S. (2006) ‘Getting real: the necessity of poststructuralism in global political economy’ in de Goede, M. (2006) editor, International Political Economy and Poststructural Politics, London: Palgrave International Political Economy Series, 119–138.
Pugh, M., Cooper, N. and Goodhand, J. (2004) War Economies in a Regional Context: Challenges of Transformation, Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner.
Rai, S.M. (2002) Gender and the Political Economy of Development, Cambridge: Polity.
Ruggiero, V. (2000) Crime and Markets, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
The Economist (1999) Black Hole, 28 August.
United Nations Development Program (1995) Human Development Report 1995, New York: Oxford University Press.
About this article
Cite this article
Peterson, V. ‘new wars’ and gendered economies. Fem Rev 88, 7–20 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fr.9400377
- global political economy
- shadow economies
- illicit international political economy
- new wars
- gendered conflicts
- gendered economies