Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Economics reproduces itself as a [white] man's field through resistance to demographic and epistemic diversity. Although some resistance is expressed by anonymous individuals, they are neither the sole nor the primary source. Resistance is internal to the discipline; it is structural. It is present in the vertical organization of the profession, the seemingly neutral forms of evaluation that institutionalize gender bias, and the marginalization of certain topics and critical perspectives. Because resistance is structural, even if individuals do not discriminate, the discipline will remain resistant to diversity.
The conceptualization of work as paid employment alone reflects gender ideology and plays a key role in the devalorization of unpaid work—those who do it and research about it. Concepts and methods from feminist political economy link the orthodox conceptualization of work, and the value system underpinning it, to the experiences of women economists between 1970 and the present. I find that economics remains a "man's field" through structural resistance to women economists, through interpreting women's economic activities as marginal to the "real business" of economics, and by delegitimizing feminist research about those activities. The delegitimization of feminists' paid work as economists functionally devalues women's unpaid work in economic thought. Because economic thought is influential outside the economics discipline, the delegitimization of feminist economic research devalues women's unpaid work outside the discipline as well.
Efforts to "fix" structural resistance to diversity without addressing the devalorization of the gendered work required to reproduce people are likely to have limited impacts. They may contribute to demographic diversity, but demographic diversity will not automatically translate into theoretical diversity in a discipline that marginalizes critical thought. Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts should ensure that nonwhite and nonmen economists have pathways to advancement with scope for academic freedom. This is especially necessary when their intellectual contributions challenge the value systems and the unequal power relations that economic orthodoxy reinforces.

This article offers an analysis of seven articles from the Review of Radical Political Economics' series "What 'Radical' Means in the 21st Century." Without reference to feminism, the authors' definitions of "radical" hinge critically on insight from feminist radical political economy. Instead of feminist radical political economy fitting under a broader body of political economy that coheres around radicalism, it is in feminist insight that radical political economy finds roots: according to the series' authors, it is what makes radical political economy radical. Yet although the Union for Radical Political Economics hosted the development of the building blocks of feminist theory in economics between 1968 and 1991, feminist contributions remain largely unacknowledged. I offer strategies for repositioning feminism not as a side project but as a critical source of insight for radical political economy. JEL Classification: B54, B51, B24

Employment and health inequities are inextricably linked, which has been illustrated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Essential workers, who are predominately racial and ethnic minorities, have disproportionately been infected, hospitalized, and died from Covid-19. Low-wage women workers have lost jobs and health insurance coverage at higher rates than men during the pandemic, while elderly, disabled, and pregnant workers have often been denied accommodations that would protect them from the workplace exposure of Covid-19. Although federal, state, and local government and public health officials have acknowledged that social conditions, such as housing and education, limit an individual's ability to be healthy, they have failed to make the connection between employment and health inequities. This two day symposium entitled, Health Inequities and Employment: The Continued Struggle for Justice, will convene workers, scholars, lawyers, and community advocates to not only highlight the connection between employment and health inequities, but also to create a plan for utilizing public health, civil rights, and employment laws to address health inequities. This event is co-sponsored by the Saint Louis University Law Journal, the Wefel Center for Employment Law, and the Institute for Healing Justice and Equity. The proceedings will be published in the Saint Louis University Law Journal. ; https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj_wefel_symposia/1000/thumbnail.jpg

In the South, people living with HIV experience worse health outcomes than in other geographic regions, likely due to regional political, structural, and socioeconomic factors. We describe the neighborhoods of women (n=1,800) living with and without HIV in the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS), a cohort with Southern sites in Chapel Hill, NC; Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL; Jackson, MS; and Miami, FL; and non-Southern sites in Brooklyn, NY; Bronx, NY; Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; and Chicago, IL. In 2014, participants' addresses were geocoded and matched to several administrative data sources. There were a number of differences between the neighborhood contexts of Southern and non-Southern WIHS participants. Southern states had the lowest income eligibility thresholds for family Medicaid, and consequently higher proportions of uninsured individuals. Modeled proportions of income devoted to transportation were much higher in Southern neighborhoods (Location Affordability Index of 28–39% compared to 16–23% in non-Southern sites), and fewer participants lived in counties where hospitals reported providing HIV care (55% of GA, 63% of NC, and 76% of AL participants lived in a county with a hospital that provided HIV care, compared to >90% at all other sites). Finally, the states with the highest adult incarceration rates were all in the South (per 100,000 residents: AL 820, MS 788, GA 686, FL 644). Many Southern states opted not to expand Medicaid, invest little in transportation infrastructure, and have staggering rates of incarceration. Resolution of racial and geographic disparities in HIV health outcomes will require addressing these structural barriers.