Advertisement

Comparative European Politics

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 745–761 | Cite as

Making sense of austerity: the gendered ideas of European economic policy

  • Muireann O’Dwyer
Winner of the CEP/CES-GPE 2018 Early Career Scholar Prize

Abstract

This paper focuses on the role of gender in the generation of coherence and legitimacy of austerity, as applied in the European Union. It examines the rhetorical defences of austerity and unpacks the gendered nature of the reforms that austerity programmes required. The absence of gender-sensitive analysis in policy making is an absence that is essential to both the coherence and the legitimacy of austerity. The findings from this discourse analysis are a direct contribution to the project of understanding austerity as an ideological and political phenomenon. This project has, thus far, excluded such considerations. This analysis shows the, often contradictory, roles that gender plays in the discourse of austerity, highlighting the need for research that appreciates the need for such nuances. It also shows how gender plays a role in the key economic arguments for austerity, in particular that of the fiscal multiplier and those surrounding labour market reforms. As austerity in the European Union is normalised and adjusted in coming years, these findings will continue to be relevant until the debates over austerity take gender seriously.

Keywords

Gender Austerity European Economic Governance Discourse analysis Legitimacy 

References

  1. Allon, F. 2014. The feminisation of finance: Gender, labour and the limits of inclusion. Australian Feminist Studies 29: 12–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annesley, C., and A. Scheele. 2011. Gender, capitalism and economic Crisis: Impact and responses. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 19: 335–347.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2011.610604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonopoulos, R., K. Kim, T. Masterson, A. Zacharias. 2010. Investing in care: A strategy for effective and equitable job creation (Economics Working Paper Archive No. wp_610). Levy Economics Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Bakker, I. 1994. The strategic silence: Gender and economic policy. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  5. Ban, C. 2015. Austerity versus stimulus? Understanding fiscal policy change at the International Monetary Fund since the Great Recession. Governance 28: 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartl, M. 2017. Contesting austerity: On the limits of EU knowledge governance. Journal of Law and Society 44: 150–168.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bettio, F. 2013. The impact of the economic crisis on the situation of women and men and on gender equality policies: Synthesis report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  8. Blanchard, O.J., and D. Leigh. 2014. Learning about fiscal multipliers from growth forecast errors. IMF Economic Review 62: 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanchard, O.J., and D. Leigh. 2013. Growth forecast errors and fiscal multipliers. The American Economic Review 103: 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blyth, M. 2013. Austerity: The history of a dangerous idea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bramall, R. 2013. The cultural politics of austerity: Past and present in austere times. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruff, I., and S. Wöhl. 2016. Constitutionalizing austerity, disciplining the household. In Scandalous economics: Gender and the politics of financial crises, ed. A.A. Hozic and J. True. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Buti, M., N. Carnot. 2013. The debate on fiscal policy in Europe: Beyond the austerity myth. ECFIN Economic Brief 20.Google Scholar
  14. Cavaghan, R. 2017. The gender politics of EU economic policy: Policy shifts and contestations before and after the crisis. In Gender and the economic crisis in Europe, ed. J. Kantola and E. Lombardo, 49–71. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clauwaert, S. 2015. The country specific recommendations (CSRs) in the social field. An overview and comparison. Update including the CSRs 2015-2016. Background Analysis No 2015.03. ETUI.Google Scholar
  16. Commission, E. 2014. Country specific reports.Google Scholar
  17. Connell, R. 2006. Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of public sector worksites. Public Administration Review 66: 837–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dellepiane-Avellaneda, S. 2015. The political power of economic ideas: The case of ‘expansionary fiscal contractions’. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 17: 391–418.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliott, L. 2016. Austerity policies do more harm than good, IMF study concludes. The Guardian, May 27. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-policies-do-more-harm-than-good-imf-study-concludes.
  20. Elomaki, A. 2012. The price of austerity: The impact on women’s rights and gender equality in Europe. European Women’s Lobby. http://womenlobby.org/spip.php.
  21. Elson, D. 2004. Engendering government budgets in the context of globalization(s). International Feminist Journal of Politics 6: 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elson, D. 1999. Labor markets as gendered institutions: Equality, efficiency and empowerment issues. World Development 27: 611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elson, D. 1991. Male bias in macro-economics: The case of structural adjustment. In Male bias in the development process 164–190.Google Scholar
  24. Emejulu, A., and L. Bassel. 2017. Whose crisis counts? Minority women, austerity and activism in France and Britain. In Gender and the economic crisis in Europe, ed. J. Kantola and E. Lombardo, 185–208. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. European Parliament. 2013. REPORT on the impact of the economic crisis on gender equality and women’s rights—A7-0048/2013 [WWW Document]. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2013-0048+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed 5 June 2017.
  26. Ferber, M.A., and J.A. Nelson. 2009. Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Guerrina, R. 2017. Gendering European economic narratives: Assessing the costs of the crisis to gender equality. In Gender and the economic crisis in Europe, ed. J. Kantola and E. Lombardo, 95–115. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Helgadóttir, O. 2016. The Bocconi boys go to Brussels: Italian economic ideas, professional networks and European austerity. Journal of European Public Policy 23: 392–409.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1106573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hopkin, J., and B. Rosamond. 2017. Post-truth politics, bullshit and bad ideas: ‘Deficit fetishism’ in the UK. New Political Economy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757.Google Scholar
  30. Juncker, J.C., D. Tusk, J. Dijsselbloem, M. Draghi, and M. Schulz. 2015. Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union. Five Presidents’ Report. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  31. Kantola, J., and E. Lombardo. 2017. Gender and the economic crisis in Europe: Politics, institutions and intersectionality. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karamessini, M., and J. Rubery. 2013. Women and austerity: The economic crisis and the future for gender equality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Krugman, P. 2013. How the case for austerity has crumbled [WWW Document]. The New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/06/06/how-case-austerity-has-crumbled/. Accessed 16 May 2017.
  34. Matthijs, M., and M. Blyth. 2018. When is it rational to learn the wrong lessons? Technocratic authority, social learning, and Euro fragility. Perspectives on Politics 16: 110–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Dwyer, M. 2017. Gendering Ideational Political Economy in the European Union. Presented at the ECPG, Lausanne.Google Scholar
  36. O’Dwyer, M. 2016. The role of gender norms in the construction of the EU Economic Sphere. Presented at IAFFE Annual Conference, Galway.Google Scholar
  37. Perrons, D. 2017. Gender and inequality: Austerity and alternatives. Intereconomics 52: 28–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-017-0639-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perrons, D. 2015. Gendering the inequality debate. Gender & Development 23: 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rubery, J. 2015a. Austerity, the public sector and the threat to gender equality—Geary Lecture 2014. The Economic and Social Review 46: 1–27.Google Scholar
  40. Rubery, J. 2015b. Austerity and the future for gender equality in Europe. ILR Review 68: 715–741.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793915588892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sassen, S. 2000. Women’s burden: Counter-geographies of globalization and the feminization of survival. Journal of International Affairs 53: 503–524.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, V. 2016a. The resilience of ‘bad ideas’ in eurozone crisis discourse (even as rival ideas inform changing practices). In The 23rd International Conference of Europeanists. Ces.Google Scholar
  43. Schmidt, V. 2016b. Reinterpreting the rules ‘by stealth’ in times of crisis: A discursive institutionalist analysis of the European Central Bank and the European Commission. West European Politics 39: 1032–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1186389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmidt, V.A., and M. Thatcher. 2014. Why are neoliberal ideas so resilient in Europe’s political economy? Critical Policy Studies 8: 340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schuberth, H., and B. Young. 2011. The role of gender in governance of the financial sector. Questioning Financial Governance from a Feminist Perspective 9: 132.Google Scholar
  46. Spangenberg, U., A. Gunnarsson, and M. Schratzenstaller. 2017. Gender equality and taxation in the European Union. Study for the FEMM Committee. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  47. Standing, G. 1999. Global feminization through flexible labor: A theme revisited. World Development 27: 583–602.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00151-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stiglitz, J.E., 2016. The Euro: How a Common Currency Threatens the Future of Europe. WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  49. Strolovitch, D.Z. 2013. Of Mancessions and Hecoveries: Race, gender, and the political construction of economic crises and recoveries. Perspectives on Politics 11: 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walby, S. 2015. Crisis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Weiner, E., H. MacRae. 2014. The persistent invisibility of gender in EU policy: Introduction. Weiner, Elaine and Heather MacRae (2014):‘The persistent invisibility of gender in EU policy: Introduction’. In Weiner, Elaine and Heather MacRae eds. The persistent invisibility of gender in EU policy. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), Special.Google Scholar
  52. Wren-Lewis, S. 2016. A general theory of austerity. BSG Working Paper Series. Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politics and International StudiesUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations