ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

The Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction:
Understanding their Linkages
Maria S. FLORO*

This paper explores the interconnections between the crisis of care, thedeepening ecological crisis and growth and accumulation processes. They are
critical challenges that mainstream economics fail to comprehensively address,
thus resulting in growing tensions between the incessant pursuit of economic
growth and material consumption on one hand and the ability of societies tocare for their people and for the ecosystems upon which they live. The paperargues that the crucial interdependence between the market economy and thecare/reproductive economy and between the entire human (economic) systemand the ecosystems must be recognized in economic thinking and policymaking.
Building on the work of several feminist economists and ecological economists,
it demonstrates that an obsessive preoccupation with material economic
growth in the economic paradigm not only undermines the care requirementsof human maintenance, social reproduction and the sustainability of the ecosystem, but also actively contributes to crisis creation and intensiﬁcation. The paper also examines the impacts of rising inequality on the care economy and carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Finally, it provides some building blocks fordeveloping a new economic paradigm that lead to gender-sensitive and environmentally-aware economic policies.

Keywords：crisis of care, ecological crisis, gender, inequality, economic growth.

“Reproduction is always mediated via others: it lives only by subjugating the “other” without destroying it at the same time… using it without (1) exhausting it.” (Brie 2009, p. 17)

Introduction: Pursuit of Economic Growth and the Evolving Crises of Care
The world today faces serious challenges that go beyond the ﬁnancial crises that have gripped
both developed and developing countries in the last few decades. These concerns have to do with the* I am grateful to the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation for its support in writing this paper. I would like to thank Henning Melber, Mariko
Adachi of Ochanomizu University and the participants of the 2009 seminar in Uppsala, Sweden and the 2011 public forum in Tokyo, Japanfor their comments and suggestions. This paper also beneﬁted from conversations with Lourdes Beneria, Metta Sparre, Peter Soderbaum,
Marina Durano, Diane Elson, Barbara Bergmann, Thomas Hungerford, John Willoughby, Radhika Balakrishnan and Mary Hansen.

13Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

evolving crises of care and environmental degradation. They are critical dimensions of life that mainstream economics has failed to address and in so doing, has promoted economic policies and development strategies which for the most part, have ignored the long-range eﬀects on human maintenance,social reproduction and the sustainability of the ecosystem. As a result, there are growing tensions
between the incessant pursuit of (market) economic growth to meet ever-expanding material consumption on the one hand, and the ability of societies to care for their people and for the ecosystems
upon which they live, on the other. Such tensions are being manifested in the crises of care at varied
scales and levels: some are of a magnitude that is potentially immense; others involve selective disturbances and severe disruptions that undermine the sustenance and quality of life of particular groupsof people or species.
The evolving crisis of care for people has to do with the growing imbalances within and acrosssocieties with respect to access to care and subsistence necessities as well as the articulated hierarchy in the economics paradigm that biases the use of resources towards meeting the requirements ofmarket production over those of social reproduction. Social reproduction involves the maintenance ofand provisioning for human life as well as to the enhancement of capabilities of people as workers, citizens, and stewards of this planet. It involves the undertaking of reproductive or “care” activities thataﬀect the well-being of both current and future generations such as food preparation, domestic work,
subsistence production, childcare, care for the sick and elderly, collection of fuel and water, etc., which
are mainly performed using unpaid labor in the household. They are largely not counted in the Systems of National Accounts (SNA) and conventional social and economic indicators; hence they remain“invisible” in most macroeconomic models, ignored in standard cost-beneﬁt analyses, and outside thepurview of policymakers. 2 The crisis of care is experienced in small and large scales and at localized
as well as broader levels in the forms of (a) feeble support to meet adequately the needs of the sick,young, elderly or disabled, (b) chronic stress and long work hours of primary caregivers, as well as (c)stunted lives and everyday struggles to ﬁght hunger, disease, etc.
Similarly, the world is witnessing climate destabilization and increasing fragility of the ecosystemthat are closely tied with the rapid consumption (i.e. burning) of fossil fuels and other human activities
which have led to active carbon buildup in the atmosphere (Lohmann, 2006; Parry et al., 2007). The
world is already witnessing the likely consequences of climate change in terms of reduced agricultural productivity, more frequent heat waves, stronger storms and more weather-related damage, more
intense ﬂooding and droughts, water crises, increased biodiversity loss, and adverse health impacts
due to recent warming and precipitation trends.
This paper explores the interconnection between the crisis of care and the deepening ecologicalcrisis. It argues that there is a crucial interdependence between the market economy and the reproductive economy and between the entire human (economic) system and the ecosystems that must be
urgently addressed. Building on the extensive work of feminist economists and ecological economists,
it demonstrates that an obsessive preoccupation with material economic growth in the economic paradigm inadequately addresses the care requirements of human maintenance and social reproduction

14

ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

and that of the ecosystem, and instead, actively contributes to crisis creation and intensiﬁcation. The
paper also evaluates whether the mainstream economic solution of having “more and better markets”
can adequately address these crises. Finally, it provides an alternative framework based on feminist
economics and ecological economics approaches, for developing a new economic paradigm to comprehensively address the dual crises of care.

Interdependence of Economic Growth, Social Reproduction and Ecosystems
Over the past few decades, feminist and ecological economists along with the science communityand grassroots advocacy groups have brought attention to the vital importance of understanding thesocial content of economic actions and policies, and the crucial interconnection between human economic activities and the state of our ecosystem (Cagatay and Elson, 2000; Howarth and Norgaard,
1993; Nelson, 2011; Hahnel, 2011; Soderbaum, 2008; Costanza et al., 2001; Gitay, Suárez, Watson andDokken, 2002; Parry et al., 2007; Sheeran, 2011; Bergmann, 2011). An overarching ﬁxation on (market)
economic growth and the concomitant fetish consumer culture, alongside rising inequality and demographic changes, have put stresses on the delivery of quality care and on the carrying capacity andresilience of our ecosystem. Yet the ecosystem and unpaid care labor provide services that are indispensable to the operation and functioning of the market economy. Economic policies, for the mostpart, have ignored the ecological dimensions of the material productive activities they promote andthe care requirements for the reproduction of labor, assuming that any issue or consequence would
either take care of itself or could be dealt with through market adjustments, for example through thedevelopment of more eﬃcient technologies or of specialized care service markets. The type of economic growth generally pursued worldwide has not only increased the stresses put upon the earthʼs
resource base but also on care labor capacity, which are wrongly perceived to be of inﬁnite supply.
The preoccupation of the dominant economic paradigm on material output growth has also led to thepersistent failure of development processes to reduce inequalities and to deal with the rapid erosionof the diversity and resilience of the life-support ecosystems.
The general proposition that economic growth beneﬁts everyone including the poor and womenis premised on the idea that development of markets and increased market participation lead to more
opportunities, higher incomes, thus empowering them both economically and socially, especially as
consumers who meet their needs and satisfy wants. Economic growth also is assumed to lead to higher quality of life, albeit fewer, children since higher earnings increase access to education and healthservices, better nutrition and so forth. Additionally, economists argue that economic growth is good,or is going to be beneﬁcial for the environment. This is based on the notion that when a country has
attained a suﬃciently high standard of living, people will give greater attention to environmental issues, leading to environmental regulation and new institutions that help protect the environment.
Such a view has been justiﬁed by the claim that there exists a positive relationship between per capita income and some measures of environmental quality.

15

Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

To be sure, a signiﬁcant component of economic growth has been beneﬁcial in terms of leading tolonger life expectancies, decline in infant and child mortality rates, development of green technologies
that reduce consumption of fossil fuels and associated carbon emissions, etc. On the other hand, there
are aspects of market production activities contributing to economic growth, which are “superﬂuous,”
feed into the “conspicuous material consumption,” and have accelerated the consumption of fossil fuels
and the absorption of labor and natural resources. This has raised a basic question regarding the relationship between human well-being and (material) growth (Ackerman et al., 1997; Hahnel, 2011; Soderbaum, 2008). 3 Put in another way, can we improve the quality of life and attain prosperity without incessant pursuit of economic growth (Bergmann, 2011)?
At the same time, cultural and social norms have evolved alongside capitalist development andthe expansion of markets, strongly deﬁning the way that individuals behave, and households, markets,
governments and businesses operate. Social and cultural norms often present solutions to problems of
uncertainty, such as future demand for commodities and provision of care services in the future. For
example, economic prosperity, social standing, and well-being, which serve as “raisons dʼetre” for maximizing proﬁts, working harder and earning more, are deﬁned by higher material consumption̶themore commodities one consumes, the better-oﬀ the person, household, community, or country. A socialized belief of the existence of potential vertical mobility often accompanies the incessant demand
for social status goods. And “the greater is the income and wealth inequality, the greater is theamount that must be consumed by everyone beneath the wealthiest to maintain or improve their relative status” (Wisman, 2011, p. 10). These social beliefs are nothing new; they were in fact pointed out
by Thorstein Veblen in the late nineteenth century. They are further reinforced by modern economic
theories that promote the fallacious belief that, even when one is above the poverty line and has suﬃcient means to pay for emergencies, higher levels of income still contribute to increasing well-being(Lane, 1997; Hahnel, 2011). Not surprisingly, as people become more aﬄuent, in the United States andChina for example, the more rapid is the increase in resource use and associated emissions (Schandl
and West, 2010).
Gender norms, which are embedded in households, markets and community functions, haveshaped the roles of women and men and their relation to one another. By perpetuating certain beliefs
regarding women and menʼs traits and ascribed roles, gender becomes a stratiﬁer of economic and social life in the way that class, race, religion and ethnicity have become (Cagatay, Elson and Grown,1995). Gender norms help address the coordination problem in social reproduction by providing thebasis for a fundamental division of labor in societies̶the division between productive and reproductive activities. To be sure, these socially ascribed roles are continually challenged by social and economic changes as well as by political and legal reforms. The evolving character of gender roles
amidst these changes is not linear; the interplay of forces that inﬂuence gender norms can pull theprocess towards competing paths. In some cases, there is advancement towards gender equality
while in others, there has been a backlash and a movement towards more traditional roles.
Still, an enduring pattern tends to persist. As women increasingly engage in productive activities16

ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

and become income earners, they (or at least the majority of them) continue to perform their sociallyascribed gender role of being primarily responsible for reproductive activities; that is, as household
managers and care providers. Although there is evidence in time-use studies of several countries that
men have increasingly taken on more household chores, the bulk of unpaid care work performed athome and in the community still falls on women. This situation inevitably creates stresses and growing tensions, as workers, particularly women, try to balance old and new roles. They experience thesestrains in caring for their households, in their search for jobs and participation in the labor market, inaccessing credit, technology and assets even as they continue to perform their socially ascribed roles.
The inability to successfully combine paid and household labor has left many women disenfranchisedand disempowered (Floro and Meurs, 2009). Instead of replacing time in household care work withtime in paid work, and shifting compensating amounts of reproductive work to men, women tend tolengthen their total work time at the expense of leisure and sleep. In some cases, they perform two
or more work activities simultaneously in order to cope with the time pressure. The work burden isheightened even more during periods of economic downturn and crises, cutbacks in government expenditures, and ﬁscal austerity measures.

Market Economy and Social Reproduction
There are important linkages between the market economy and the care economy that require
scrutiny and attention if we want to understand and address the evolving crisis of care of people. We
start by deﬁning the sphere of economic inquiry around the concept of the provisioning of human lifethat feminist economists have used (Cagatay, Elson and Grown, 1995; Nelson, 1993). It emphasizes
those goods and services that people need in order to survive and to develop their capabilities, for example food, health care, childcare, care for the sick and elderly, education, water, sanitation, housing
and means of transport. There are two productive systems that provide them; namely, the market
economy and the non-market (or reproductive) economy that take place in households and communities. The link between them is multi-faceted. First, the labor time spent in growing food for subsistence, gathering fuel and water, childcare, sick and elder care and performing domestic chores is codetermined with paid, market work time. Thus, reproductive or care work time directly affectindividualsʼ labor market options as well as their time spent in the labor market.
Second, unpaid (care) labor time also aﬀects the rate at which labor in paid work is rewarded
since the so-called monetized opportunity costs are small in the case of unpaid, household work.
Third, care or reproductive activities such as domestic chores, fuel and water gathering, subsistence
production and care work in the household are crucial to the production of the labor force, generationof knowledge and overall social reproduction. As Nancy Folbre (2008: 24‒25) puts it: “Children growup to become workers, entrepreneurs, innovators as well as taxpayers, and the older generation is not
the only group that benefits from their existence… The benefits are realized by all consumers ofcommodities, whether they have raised children or not.” Put in another way, those household mem-17

Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

bers that perform the unpaid work of daily domestic chores and caring activities assume important
costs of producing the labor force and social fabric.
Fourth, there are complementarities and substitutions between market-purchased goods and services purchased and the non-marketed goods and services produced with unpaid labor. Market-produced goods and services (vegetables, ﬂour, soap, tools, etc.) are inputs in the household production ofmeals, clean clothes, etc. Households that can aﬀord them also make use of purchased goods and services (e.g. restaurant meals, house cleaning, laundry service and daycare centers) as substitutes forhousehold production, thereby reducing the unpaid labor time demanded of the household members.
Finally, the boundaries of the market production and non-market production systems are inﬂuenced by economic policies and budgetary decisions which determine public provisioning of services
ranging from childcare to healthcare to education, etc. Government policies that stimulate economic
growth via market liberalization and privatization induce shifts in the use of labor and other resources from the non-market economy to the market economy. This pattern of economic growth, however,does not necessarily reduce the demand for household production of goods and services. For instance,
the adoption of neoliberal policies since the 1980s has led to the erosion and cutting back of education,
health, social protection and other social expenditures, thereby increasing the demand for and burdenof the reproductive work performed by women. Tax cuts for the rich have helped keep the luxury
goods industry contributing to economic growth. 4 Attempts to balance the demands of market workand the unpaid work in household maintenance and social reproduction have led to long working
hours and chronic stress, especially for many women.
Governments are also involved in the process of social reproduction, albeit in varied degrees andforms. State subsidies and support of clean water supply, sanitation, schools and healthcare, daycare
services, pensions, food stamps, unemployment compensation, social protection, etc aﬀect the mannerin which care needs are met across various constituencies. The push towards global market integration, market liberalization and privatization of basic services over the last few decades has led to thegradual decline in taxation and a shift of public resources in support of increasing ﬁrm or businesscompetitiveness, leading to divestment in services and programs in support of the care economy andsocial reproduction. Recent trends towards privatization of many elements of social reproduction haveboth promoted the growth of markets providing such services. Paradoxically, this has been accompanied by the increase in demand for unpaid care work, particularly among those who can ill aﬀord
more market purchases. This has created sharp distinctions between wealthy and poor households interms of how the care requirements of human maintenance and social reproduction are met.
It must be noted that economic growth has been uneven with several countries undergoing economic stagnation or low growth over a long period now, and others experiencing economic ﬂuctuations that include bouts of downturn and recovery as predicted by business cycles. The gains from
economic growth are unevenly distributed across sectors, among households, and between men andwomen, as with the costs of economic downturns and crises. The economic divide between developed
and developing countries continues to persist with a small group of countries remaining at the top of18

ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

the world income distribution; only a few countries that started out poor have joined that high-income
group (UN 2011). This divide also exists within countries across income and social groups. Global economic prosperity in other words has increased, without giving everyone access to the beneﬁts.
These widening income and wealth disparities have created diverse types of “care arrangements”
and have shifted the distribution of caregivers across social classes and even national boundaries. As
Razavi and Staab (2011, p. 17) point out, “demographic variables alone do not determine care needs
and burdens. Rather they are ﬁltered through social, cultural and economic factors which shape what
is considered to be suﬃcient or considered ʻgood care.ʼ” The adequacy and quality of care received bypeople within the same country can be very diﬀerent, which helps to perpetuate and even exacerbate
the imbalances in the process of social reproduction.
For instance, hiring domestic workers or paid caregivers, typically women, is a common solution
for middle and upper income families in developing and developed countries (Razavi, 2007, Beneria2010). The need to balance household and market work is therefore mediated by the seemingly abundant supply of women willing to work even for low wages. Throughout Latin America, for example,
domestic workers account for approximately 17 percent of employed women. They are about 9 percent of all employed women in South Africa, about 9.5 per cent in the Philippines, and are found in 1
out of every 2 Kenyan homes (ILO, 2007). Domestic workers have therefore served as substitute caregivers and helped compensate for the lack of collective support from family members. These domestic workers are predominantly women, often from poor communities, rural areas, ethnic and racial minorities, or immigrants.
For the working poor and low-income households, however, hiring domestic help is simply unaffordable, and these households are often compelled to engage their children in both paid and unpaid
domestic work to enable the family to meet its survival needs. In many countries, it is typically girls
who are removed from school to care for younger children and accomplish domestic tasks, thus contributing to household survival at the expense of long-term education and employment opportunities(Floro and Meurs, 2009). These trends enable the persistence of gender inequalities in future generations.
Those poor families with no (other) child carer at hand cope by leaving the sick, elderly or children home alone or by taking at least their children to work with them. For example, in Indonesia, 40
percent of working women care for their children while working (Kamerman, 2000; Addati and Cassirer, 2008). In Nairobi, 54 percent of poor mothers were found to bring their babies to work, whereas
85 percent of better-oﬀ mothers had house-girls (Lakati et al., 2002).
Oftentimes, it is the primary caregiver in the household who migrates to the cities or to anothercountry to work as domestic helpers, nannies, nursing home aides, etc., whose own dependents areleft behind with other relatives. This leads to a reconﬁguration of the division of labor among household members, requiring other female members to take on the responsibility for care. The migrationof care workers of various types represents a form of reallocation of care labor from rural to urban
areas, from the global South to the North countries, and from lower-income to higher-income house-

19Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

holds. The long-term social and welfare implications have yet to be fully understood, and many ofthese consequences cannot be neatly measured nor adequately evaluated in monetary terms.
Income inequality has therefore generated a solution for the increased need for care to those whohave the private means to hire the domestic workers, nursing aides or use day care centers and nursing homes. For many women in poor and low-income households, however, their migration from therural to urban areas, or from their own to the medium and high-income countries, has brought about
the formation of transnational families who have to solve their own care needs (Beneria, 2010).
Widening inequality is also creating gaps in various aspects of human development across theworld, which, although narrowing, remains substantial. The demographic transition from high to low
death and birth rate regimes constitutes one of the most remarkable aspects of development. Largegains in life expectancy by more than 17 years since 1970 have occurred in many parts of the developing world. For some countries including Chile and Malaysia, mortality rates have dropped to about
60 percent what they were 30 years ago (UNDP, 2010, p. 31). Even in Sub-Saharan Africa, life expectancy is more than eight years longer than in 1970. The positive implications in terms of advancementof human welfare are obvious and immediately clear.
A key driver to this increase in life expectancy is the substantial decline in infant mortality by 59
per 1,000 live births in developing countries, almost four times the decline of 16 per 1,000 in developed
countries (WHO, 2008). However there are huge health gaps across the world population, with eighttimes more infant deaths per 1,000 live births in developing countries than in developed countries(UNICEF, 2008). The general decline in mortality rates has been accompanied by fertility declines inmany parts of the world. Overall, the total fertility rate of the developing world dropped from 6.0
births per woman in the late 1960s to 2.9 births in 2000‒2005 (United Nations, 2007). 5 The decline infertility rates has been most rapid in Asia, North Africa, and Latin America regions. Sub-Saharan Africa also experienced signiﬁcant declines despite its lagging development (Bongaarts, 2008).
There are two important caveats to the above demographic trends that impact (a) the level ofcare and forms of care arrangements utilized for social reproduction, and (b) the level of natural resources usage especially fossil fuels. First, the averages presented in the preceding paragraphs hide
wide variations in the levels and trends of infant mortality rates and fertility rates between as well as
within countries. Second, fertility rates in a growing number of both developed and developing countries are moving toward levels below replacement.
There have been dramatic reversals in 19 countries (home to about 6 percent of the worldʼs people) that experienced declines in life expectancy in the past two decades (UN HDR, 2010). In ninecountries, life expectancy fell below 1970 levels: six in Africa (the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) and three in the former Soviet Union (Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine). 6 In the most aﬀected countries, life expectancy is now below
51 years; in Lesotho it stands at 46̶similar to that in England before the Industrial Revolution (UNDP,
2010, p. 32). In the case of the transition economies, the decline was due to the increase in mortality
rates after welfare programs had been reduced or eliminated and social services were privatized.

20ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

A study of 24 developing countries found widening gaps in child mortality between the extremesof the wealth distribution in 11 countries, narrowing gaps in only 3 and persistent gaps in the rest
(UNICEF, 2008). In the developed countries, recent increases in life expectancy have beneﬁted people
who are wealthier and more educated. Overall, according to the 2008 UNICEF report, the gaps inhealth between high and low-income groups remain large, especially in developing countries. Infantmortality, for example, is far more frequent among the poorest households across all regions. In the
Arab States, East Asia and the Paciﬁc, and Latin America and the Caribbean, infant mortality roughly
doubles in the bottom ﬁfth of the income distribution.
A number of high-income and middle-income countries have experienced fertility declines solarge that their populations are far below replacement-level fertility. Total fertility rates estimates in2010 are as low as 1.4 children per woman in Italy, Spain, Germany, and 1.3 for Japan and Russia. 7
None of the industrialized countries is above the fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman that is needed to replace the population at a constant level. Only the United States, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland, and France have fertility rates above 1.9 children per woman. Hong Kong has
the lowest fertility rate in the world at 1.0 child per woman. Birth rates in South Korea and Singapore
are also at historic lows, with 1.21 and 1.28 children per mother respectively.
The net eﬀect of declining fertility on social reproduction is not so clear-cut. On one hand, lower
fertility reduces the care demands of young dependents, tends to improve the household access tohealth services and education and, more generally, expands opportunities to escape poverty. But it
also poses serious, longer-term problems such as declining labor supply, and fewer taxpayers to fundpensions and social security programs, health services and so on, at a time when the elderly population need them due to longer life expectancies.

Interdependence of the Ecosystem and Human Systems
The scope of economic inquiry used in feminist economics is incomplete however. It fails to recognize the important linkages between human systems and the ecosystem of which they are part.
Care for people encompasses intergenerational issues concerning relationships and commitments between the current generation and future generations, which inevitably involves the sustainability of
our ecosystems. Care provided in households involves commitment that has moral and distributional
dimensions. Parents and mothers in particular pay much of the unpaid labor costs of raising the next
generation (Folbre, 2008). A longer term horizon involving a series of future generations requires amuch more visceral perception of the multi-level interdependence of life however and the moral responsibility it requires is profound for as Nelson (2011) pointed out, future generations cannot give us
anything in return for actions we may take out of our concern with their well-being (p. 18). It involves
commitment and requires a reexamination of our relations to the totality of the ecosystem in whichhuman systems are deeply embedded. At the same time, there is a need to examine in more depth
the gendered dimensions of environmental sustainability proposals and collective actions such as pro-21

Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

vided by Agarwal (2007).
Societies and governmentsʼ response to the needs of social reproduction and of maintaining thesustainability of our ecosystem have been uneven and, to a large extent, slow, particularly in allocating resources, even as both the demand for care services and the imperative to address pressing environmental concerns including climate change have increased. The reluctance of policymakers to value non-market work and hence, the goods and services provided by the reproductive economy
creates an illusion that the extraction and use of natural resources serve the primary purpose of providing inputs to market production. The absent recognition of these services in mainstream economic
analyses and models tends to bias their results and recommendations in favor of commercialization ofagricultural land over subsistence production and smallholder farming, dam construction over livelihoods and cultural heritage of indigenous communities, road widening ports, export processing zones,
and highway construction over development of public transport, health centers and better sanitation.
Similarly, the predominance of GDP growth as the key indicator for assessing the “health” of theeconomy creates barriers towards reallocation of resources from market (material) production use tothat of reproduction since such transfers reduce market output, at least in the short run. The heightened demand and increasingly constrained access to natural resources for survival has created social
tensions between groups, communities, and countries especially on access to water, arable land andeven fossil fuels like oil. Conﬂicts over resources exist among and within units of every scale. At thesmallest unit of analysis, even within households, men and women may have diﬀerent, and occasionally conﬂicting, rather than complementary resource use. In this sense, gender, as with economic powerand social strata, determines relative access to resources.
The processes of market production and social reproduction̶that is the way societies organize
themselves to provide for the sustenance and ﬂourishing of life̶substantially aﬀect the carrying capacity of our ecosystem in varied ways. On one hand, declining fertility is perceived to be generally
beneﬁcial both to the sustainability of the ecosystem and its diversity as it reduces the growth of population size dependent on natural resources. It also reduces womenʼs specialization in reproduction by
reducing the care demands.
But the eﬀect of declining fertility tends to be dominated by the more dramatic growth in percapita material consumption brought about by the growing aﬄuence of the upper classes alongsidemassive investments in physical infrastructure and increased productive capacity of industry. The
study by Schandl and West (2010) on resource use in the Asia-Paciﬁc region demonstrates the important linkages between materials use, climate change and Asian economic growth. The study showsthat rising per capita incomes contributed more strongly to growing material use than did population
growth. There is still a considerable range of uncertainty about global warming, the potential impactsof toxic chemicals, etc., and one cannot predict the possible outcomes with any degree of accuracy.
However, there is growing evidence provided by the science community that increasing accumulationof stocks of waste and pollutants is associated with human activity, and has both localized short-termcosts (for example sulfur, particulates, and fecal coliforms) and long-term and more dispersed costs

22ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

(such as CO2 emission). The resulting adverse climatic conditions provide feedback eﬀects to the lives
and livelihoods of millions of people throughout the world by creating dramatic changes in the form oflong droughts, regular and extreme flooding, typhoons and hurricanes, and mounting soil erosion.
These adverse climate conditions have already aﬀected biodiversity, destroyed factories, livelihoods,
infrastructure, shelters, etc. and have made it harder to grow the supply of food necessary to meetsubsistence needs. There are signs that relations within households and communities are strained by
the stress of the eﬀects of coping with environmental degradation and climate change.
Climate change is likely to make the water situation even more critical. Drier areas will be more
prone to drought and humid/wetter areas more prone to ﬂooding (Lohmann, 2006; Houghton et al.,
2001; Asian Development Bank, 2009; Field and Raupach, 2004). As access to food, water, and otherresources becomes more strained, the number of refugees from ﬁerce competition over scarce resources and natural disasters has risen and so too the potential for more conﬂicts and civil wars, exacerbating the crisis of social reproduction in many parts of the world today.
The worst eﬀects of these adverse climate changes are being felt in the poorer areas and countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. They are likely to take on the brunt of natural disasters. Severe and prolonged drought has also aﬀected parts of Australia, Latin America and theUnited States as with the Sahel and East Africa, while many parts of Western Africa and Asia areexperiencing record ﬂoods, where tens of thousands have perished and production of food crops, particularly rice, a basic food staple and source of livelihood for many, has been severely impacted. Risingseas and typhoons have already displaced several million people in South Asia, with India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Indonesia experiencing the worst eﬀects (Asian Development Bank, 2009).
As early as 2008, Asian global warming has been predicted to likely cause declines in rice yield potential by up to 50% on average by 2100.
Less is known however regarding the gender dimensions of the ecological crises, which have implications not only on the well-being of women and men in the current generation but also our collective ability to care and provide for future generations. While no one will deny the importance of sustainability of ecosystems, there is much disagreement and even denial about the need to substantiallychange our economic way of thinking, our decision making processes, actions and behavior.
The “health” of our ecosystem is a signiﬁcant factor that shapes communitiesʼ and regionsʼ vulnerability to shocks and risks as well as their capacity to respond. The poor are more vulnerable thanother segments of the population; they are more likely to be exposed to sickness from polluted environments and they have fewer resources and instruments to cope.

Dominant Economic Paradigm: Looking at a Mirage?
Dominant economic thinking, that is, the neoclassical economic paradigm, has undoubtedly maintained the preoccupation of policy makers and governments with promoting GDP growth and socialized the materialist consumer culture. There is, now, an extensive literature in feminist economics as23

Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

well as ecological economics that provides a strong critique of the dominant economic models andtheories that serve as foundations for policy formulation and that inﬂuence the interaction between(market) production and reproduction processes, and the speed of natural resource extraction andmanner of use. 8 Their work have challenged deﬁnitions, modiﬁed analytical tools and expanded ourunderstanding by confronting and dealing with the diﬀerent forms of exclusions of ecological and caredimensions from most economic discourses as well as the inextricable embeddedness of the market
economy within a broader economy of human provisioning, and the latter in the ecosystems of ourplanet.
Although each body of knowledge focused on distinct vital concerns and involve a diversity of approaches, there are common ﬂaws and weaknesses of neoclassical economics in the ecological economicsʼ and feminist economicsʼ critique that are worth mentioning in this paper. First, they perceive
the use of selﬁsh, rational individuals as the starting point to address the central coordination problem
in every society as problematic (England, 1993; Nelson and Ferber, 2003; Nelson, 2011). The utilitarianconcept of proﬁt maximization and “homo economicus” is viewed to operate in a timeless and spaceless world, taking no note of the social setting (e.g. cultural and gender norms) or the speciﬁc characteristics of space and territories (long gestation of renewable resources, limits to non-renewable resources, importance of biodiversity). Further, economic theory rests upon additional assumptions thatare not made explicit: the underlying belief (a) in the order of species (humans rule), (b) in the “objectiveness” of social hierarchy (unfettered markets operate on “one-dollar, one-vote” and hence the interests of the wealthy prevail; purchased resources and goods are valued much more than those provided without pay), and (c) in the supremacy of markets over other institutions that coordinate actions.
Secondly, the dominant economic thinking fosters the use of analytical tools and methods thatidolize market mechanisms and have “culturally masculine” attributes such as autonomy, abstraction,and logic, which have become the deﬁning characteristics of the economics discipline. Topics such as
unpaid work, non-market production, and caregiving as well as characteristics of connection are considered “feminine” and largely marginalized (Ferber and Nelson, 2003). The mainstream economic paradigm makes use of the principles of Pareto optimality and Pareto eﬃciency in the construction of microeconomic and macroeconomic models. They socialize and direct government actions and socializes
peopleʼs attention to these criteria, with little regard to the social and ecological contexts and consequences. Further, as Taleb (2010) notes, mainstream economics have successfully distracted people
away from uncertainty, nonlinearities and size of the consequences, in the short as well as longer
term. The assumptions used in seeking for Pareto eﬃcient solutions or outcomes involve externalizing
the ecological and social spillovers, pushing them into the “non-market” sphere and hence are asserted
as being exogenous in optimization behavior. Pareto eﬃciency uses the criterion of not doing something for your own beneﬁt if it makes another person worse oﬀ (Nelson, 2011). In so doing, it helps
preserve the “status-quo” and renders the issues of economic and social inequalities including genderinequality irrelevant.
Conventional economic analysis typically requires some form of economic valuation in order to24

ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

conduct cost-beneﬁt analysis. A valuation method is required for those resources or inputs provided
without pay. For instance, measuring and quantifying the value of a natural resource or unpaid caring
and domestic work are done through the use of shadow prices, opportunity costs and replacement
methods, contingent valuation, etc. Ecological economists and feminist economists argue that such valuation methods are dependent on the context and the market is not an appropriate context in which
to determine the value of ecological services and caring labor (Hahnel, 2011; Himmelweit, 1995). They
question the premises behind the current methods of valuation since they conceptually link ecologicalservices, natural resources, and unpaid caring work to market production of goods and services andpaid labor time. Economists applying cost-beneﬁt analysis methods, say, on environmental impact assessments or on allocation of time between paid (market) work and unpaid (domestic) work, often get
preoccupied in determining shadow prices and discount rates and in predicting the expected lifetime(monetary) beneﬁts or earnings. Such an approach essentially follows the priorities of the market tobegin with. (Goldschmidt-Clermont and Pagnossin Aligasakis, 1995; Nelson, 2011; Anderson, 1993; Howarth and Norgaard, 2003; Ozkaynak, Devine and Rigby, 2003). 9 Moreover, as Hahnel (2011) correctly
points out, the cost-beneﬁt analysis, perceived by mainstream economists as the rational and objective
method of making choices including choices on time use or social choices about the environment, is inappropriate “when compensation is unlikely to rectify inequities, when people have rights, and whenpower differentials bias estimates of costs and benefits… when benefits are hard to quantify, andwhen the consequences of improbable outcomes are very large…” (p. 11).
Several feminist economists have also raised serious theoretical and methodological concerns regarding the conceptualization and valuation method of unpaid caring and domestic work. Himmelweit(1995), for instance, points to the distinctive aspect of the caring activities that include relational aspects which makes it qualitatively diﬀerent from market work. Moreover, there is an implicit bias in
the valuation process as pointed out by Beneria (2003): “When lower-income women participate in thepaid labor market, either their workload increases or the standards in home-produced goods andchildcare need to be lowered” (p. 159). Such concerns highlight the basic question of how to measure
human well-being, health of the ecosystem and the contributions made by ecosystems, habitats, andunpaid caring labor that are outside the market economy.
Third, markets in general are considered in the dominant economic paradigm to be dynamic andable to create solutions to address the crises including the crisis of care and environmental crisis.
Shortages in care services, food crises, and environmental problems for example can be dealt with by
the market (price) allocative mechanism, which is considered a powerful device for discovering new
solutions to problems that arise in the course of economic growth. The creation of a market for tradable CO2 emissions to deal with climate change is one example. Another example is the promotion ofmarket institutions that allocate childcare and elderly care services on the basis of oneʼs ability andwillingness to pay.
Technological change, particularly the development of green technologies, is often seen as a moderating factor allowing for reductions in resource use and mitigation of climate change through im-

25

Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

proved eﬃciency in resource use. For example, if oil reserves are continually depleted, this will leadto an increase in oil prices, which eventually leads to development of new consumer products such as
hybrid and electric cars. Similarly, as life expectancy increases, the demand for elderly care in developed countries has led to surges in migration of domestic and healthcare workers from the developing countries and development of recruitment agencies. Economic ﬂuctuations and social stresses simply trigger a set of actions such as development of new technologies as well as discovery andutilization of new resources in which dimensions of natural (fossil, land, forests) resources and care labor that were previously of little interest now become (potentially) valuable resources to be tappedand incorporated into the accumulation process.
Similarly, technological change is expected to modify gender roles due to development of laborsaving household appliances as well as to changes in economic incentives and relative prices that leadto increased womenʼs participation in the labor market, higher earnings and, hence, improved well-being. The development of labor-intensive technologies during periods of export-oriented industrialization in developing countries for instance has led to the increase in demand for womenʼs labor in export production. For example, the share of women workers substantially increased in the 1970ʼs andeighties in countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia where the manufacturingsector has been heavily oriented towards exports. In fact, women provide the bulk of labor in the
manufactured export sector.
A number of ecological economists and feminist economists view the belief that technologicalchange, including development of “green technologies” will suﬃciently address the emerging crises ofcare to be misplaced. They also see that so-called market solutions mitigate the problems (for some)only in the short-run and, on the whole, tend to postpone the crises, which eventually leads to discontinuities, major disruptions and even collapses, for example the disappearance of communities and extinction of species. Market forces by themselves do not address the distributional imbalances createdby the interplay of social norms, demographic change, economic growth and capital accumulation processes. While they have propelled the growth of material prosperity, they fail to distribute the gains
as well as the costs of that prosperity. Wealth distribution aﬀects the ability of persons to meet theirsubsistence and care needs. It aﬀects their capacity to manage resources sustainably as well. Both social and economic inequalities are likely to continue aﬀecting the demands on the ecosystem and conﬂicts among individuals, groups, communities, etc (Wisman, 2011).
Paradoxically, hunger and food insecurity aﬄict many millions in various parts of the world, amid
abundance and even food waste in other parts. It highlights the distributional consequences of income
inequality, which undermine the ability of vulnerable groups for meeting subsistence needs. The availability of relatively cheap hired domestic and care workers enables middle and upper class families,
including those in industrialized and Middle-East countries, to enlist a market solution to their elderly,
sick and childcare problems. These care and domestic service workers, predominantly women fromrural areas or from the global South, tend to leave their own dependents behind in networks of family(unpaid) caregivers, thus enabling them to work unencumbered for long hours and to reduce the cost26

ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

of their labor. Current trends in family structures and household division of labor including an increase in non-marriage and divorce, and the paid and unpaid (double) work burden of women, are exacerbating inequalities in well-being between women and men as well as outcomes among children(the future generation). Human systems and ecological systems may be able to tolerate such imbalances up to a certain point before behavior and decisions collectively create a shift from one steadystate to another, one which is not what we want.

Seeking a Way Forward
The dual crises of care for people and care for the environment alert us to the real meaning ofsustainability and the serious choices that governments and society as a whole need to grapple with.
Addressing these crises will require a far-reaching, systemic change in societyʼs values and consumer
behavior, in the way businesses, farms, energy, transport, trade, etc. are organized, in the way markets
operate and policies are formulated. They will also require a new way of thinking about economic systems, basically a fundamental change in the way economic concerns and problems are perceived andhow they should be addressed. Drawing from the insights of feminist economists and ecological economists including Nelson (2011), Hahnel (2011), Agarwal (2007), Beneria (2003) and Bergmann (2011), I explore in the following section whatʼs required in transforming the current way of economic thinking.
A good starting point is to recognize the crucial interdependence of the productive (market) system and the reproductive economy, and that of the human system and ecosystem. This interdependence operates at multiple levels and involves dynamic feedback loops. They are complex, multi-dimensional and non-linear, and we only have bounded knowledge about these causal chains, the natureof the eﬀects and their magnitude. Their unpredictability and complexity should not be excuses, however, for integrating the true cost of maintaining the resilience of the ecosystem and of raising thenext generation and valuing their future contributions in economic analyses, policy formulation andassessments. This would need a new economic paradigm that incorporates both feminist economistsʼ
and ecological economistsʼ concerns and that provides a shared understanding of the natural resource
and care labor constraints in meeting the needs of societies and the inseparability of the services provided by the ecosystem with the well-being of present and future generations.
Secondly, this new economic thinking must integrate the role of risk and presence of uncertainty
in outcomes, no matter the type of intervention or form of change in behavior. For instance, the challenge to prevailing unequal gender relations can raise dissonance and conﬂict, or it can be accepted or
unopposed. Economic processes, demographic change as well as economic and legal reforms that confront prevailing gender norms, that is, what it means to be a woman as well as what it means to be a
man in the household, in the community at large and as market participants may lead to strong opposition and even a backlash, or they may be uncontested. Greater nuance is clearly required in addressing ecological crises as well, where the nature of our interdependence with future generations israther diﬀerent from the interdependence within the current generation involving care (exchange) re-27

Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

lations across gender, class, and national boundaries.
Ultimately, the solutions that address the crises of care and ecological sustainability demand fromacademics, policymakers and the rest of society “a recognition of common humanity and substantive
responsibilities for care” that has more to do with commitment than with simply altruism or selﬂessness. (Nelson, 2011, p. 20). It requires a radical shift from the culture of individualism to one of cooperation. A new framework and way of thinking is thus required to reduce the ʻcomplacent irresponsibilityʼ to our global society and to future generations.
Such a framework also recognizes the limits to organization that is driven by competition and incessant pursuit of material prosperity. Baland et al. (2007) demonstrate that cooperation often requires
collective action at the local, national and global level at a scale that many people have never before
attempted. The story of the rational, self-interested individual shies away from the notion of cooperation and in fact may even ﬁnd this to be detrimental. Indeed, coordination problems and associatedcosts abound, making such an eﬀort challenging. But collective actions are required if we have to address these evolving crises of care. These involve coordinated eﬀorts between governments, households, communities and businesses to adequately address the provisioning of care for children, thesick and disabled, elderly, as well as able-bodied adults, without making women necessarily specialize
in reproductive activities.
A new economic thinking requires re-framing economic questions or inquiry in terms of provisioning for human life and environmental sustainability. It involves developing a framework for reallocation of resources and provisioning of socialized support for care, as well as the equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men. It also requires the integration of the costs for raising thenext generation along with the costs of maintaining the resilience and carrying capacity of the environment in economic theories, models and methodologies. It demands economic reasoning and development of analytical tools that provide a deeper understanding of the gendered, distributional andecological dimensions of economic options, choices and decisions including economic policies. Such aframework requires a better understanding of decision making processes where a more collective
rather than individualistic perspective is taken (Baland et al., 2007; Costanza et al., 2001). This new
way of economic thinking can provide a clear plan for transition to renewable energy, for development of a green economy (Hahnel 2011), for government actions in support of care provisioning, promotion of collective actions among communities and businesses based on a shared responsibility forsocial reproduction and care of the environment, and governmental and inter-governmental actions toprevent ecological damage. Such a new economic paradigm can humbly serve as an instrument for
promoting agroecology and organic farming, collective consumption, jobs and prosperity without (orlimited)growth, and the “new Industrial Revolution” that Broad and Cavanagh (2011), Hahnel (2011),
Bergmann (2011) and Nicholas Stern (2011) respectively speak of, and for changing household and ﬁrm
behavior, government priorities, and societiesʼ value systems, habits and norms, which the dual crisesof care urgently demand.

28

ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

(Maria S. FLORO, Associate Professor, Department of Economics,
American University, Washington, DC.)

Notes
1
2

Italics are that of the author.
Only collection of fuel and water and subsistence production are included as part of the SNA production activities. Theseare poorly captured by labor force and household survey questionnaires however.

3

See further discussion of this point in Travers and Richardson (1993), Ackerman et al (1997), and Gough (1994).

4

As Wisman (2011) points out, the wealthy beneﬁts the most from continuing environmental destruction and thus tends togravitates towards political and economic doctrines that are supportive of their self-interest (p. 29). Not surprisingly, politics
in the US and in other countries is increasingly dominated by people in the higher income strata.

5

The twentieth-century decrease in fertility in high-income countries has been explained by a number of factors as cited inFeyrer et al (2008). These are: a) increase in the demand for human capital, which increased the desire of parents to produceʼhigh quality or educatedʼ children, b) increase in income which increased the opportunity cost of womenʼs time, c) increase in
womenʼs labor force participation, d) decline in infant and child mortality rates and e) the availability of effective
contraception for women.

6

A major factor in these declines in Africa is the HIV epidemic. Since the 1980s AIDS has slashed life expectancy inSouthern Africa, where adult HIV prevalence rates still exceed 15 percent (UNDP 2010).

7
8

Based on http://unstats.un.org/ and UN Population Division 2011
The list of such studies are too many to all mention here. See: Cagatay, Elson and Grown (1995, 2000), Beneria (2003),
Ferber and Nelson (2003), Bergmann (2011), Folbre (2008), Agarwal (2007), Hahnel (2011), Broad and Cavanagh (2011),
Lohmann (2006), Soderbaum (2005), Sheeran (2011), Costanza et al (2001), Wisman (2011), Brie (2009), to name a few.

9

The main methods for valuing environmental impact utilized in environmental economics include: (1) the current costs ofabating or controlling emission, assuming that an equilibrium exists; (2) current costs of mitigation, assuming that they are an
appropriate measure of environmental damage; and (3) social costs of environmental damage using either the travel cost
method, hedonic or surrogate pricing, and contingent valuation. The value of unpaid labor time makes use of the monetary
value of the good produced, the wage of a hired workerʼs, or the earnings that the person performing unpaid care work could
receive in the market.

References
Addati, Laura and Naomi Cassirer (2008). “Equal Sharing of Responsibilities between Women and Men including Caregiving in
the Context of HIV-AIDS,” ILO Paper Prepared for the Expert Group Meeting on ILO, Geneva.
Ackerman, Frank, et al. (eds.) (1997).

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Agarwal, Bina (2007). “Gender Inequality, Cooperation and Environmental Sustainability” in Jean-Marie Baland, Pranab Bardhan
and Samuel Bowles (eds.),

Russell Sage Foundation andPrinceton University Press, pp. 274-314.
Anderson, Elizabeth (1993).

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Arrow, Kenneth et al. (1995). “Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment,”
Asian Development Bank (2009).

Vol. 268, April, pp. 520-521.
Asian Development

Bank, Manila.
Baland, Jean-Marie and Jean-Philippe Platteau (2007) “Collective Action on the Commons: The Role of Inequality” in Jean-Marie
Baland, Pranab Bardhan and Samuel Bowles (eds),

Russell Sage

Foundation and Princeton University Press, pp. 10-36.

29

Maria S. FLOROThe Crises of Environment and Social Reproduction: Understanding their Linkages

Bergmann, Barbara (2011).

Unpublished paper, American University Department of

Economics, Washington, D.C.
Beneria, Lourdes (2003).

Routledge, New York and London.

Beneria, Lourdes (2010). “Keynote Address: Globalization, Womenʼs Work, and Care Needs: The Urgency of Reconciliation
Policies,”

Vol. 88.

Bongaarts, John (2008). “Fertility Transition in Developing Countries, Progress or Stagnation,”Vol.

39, No. 2, pp.105-110.
Brie, Michael (2009). “Post-Neoliberalism: A Beginning Debate,”

No. 51, January 2009, pp. 15-33.

Broad, Robin and John Cavanaugh (2011). “Can Danilo Atilano Feed the World?”
Cagatay, N., D. Elson, and C. Grown (1995). “Introduction,”

Winter Issue, pp. 56-60.
Special Issue on Gender, Adjustment andMacroeconomics, 23 (11), pp.1,827-1,836.
Carney, Judith, and Michael Watts, (1990). “Manufacturing Dissent: Work, Gender and the Politics of Meaning in a PeasantSociety,”60 (2), pp. 207-241.

Carrasco, Cristina and Marius Dominguez (2011). “Family Strategies for Meeting Care and Domestic Work Needs: Evidence
from Spain,”Vol.12, No. 4, pp. 150-188.

Costanza, Robert et al. (2001).

Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

Elson, Diane and Nilufer Ça atay (2000). “The Social Content of Macroeconomic Policies,”

28 (7), July, pp.

1,347-1,364.
England, Paula (1993). “The Separate Self: Androcentric Bias in Neoclassical Assumptions” in Marianne Ferber and Julie Nelson(eds),

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 37-53.

Ferber, Marianne and Julie Nelson (eds) (2003).

University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.
Feyrer, J., Sacerdote, B., and Stern, A. (2008). “Will the stork return to Europe and Japan? Understanding Fertility within
Developed Nations,”

22 (3): 3-22. doi:10.1257/jep.22.3.3.

Field, C. B. and M. R. Raupach (eds) (2004).
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Floro, Maria and Mieke Meurs (2009).

Dialogue on Globalization Occasional

Papers, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and International Labour Organization, Geneva, No. 43, May.
Folbre, Nancy (2008).

Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Gitay, H., A Suárez, R. Watson, D. Dokken (2002).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland.
Goldschmidt-Clermont, Luisella and Elisabeth Pagnossin-Aligasakis (1995).
United Nations Development Programme Working Paper, New York.
Gough, Ian (1994). “Economic Institutions and the Satisfaction of Human Needs,”

Vol. 28, March, pp.

25-66.
Hahnel, Robin (2011).

M.E. Sharpe, New York.

Hanemann, W. Michael (1997), “Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation” in Frank Ackerman et al. (eds),
Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Island Press,
Washington, D.C., pp. 144-147.
Himmelweit, Sue (1995). “The Discovery of Unpaid Work: The Social Consequences of the Expansion of Work,”
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-20.
Houghton, J. T. et al. (2001).

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Howarth, Richard and Richard Norgaard (1997). “Intergenerational Transfers and the Social Discount Rate” in Frank Ackerman
et al. (eds),

Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University,

Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 154-157.
Howarth, Richard B. (2003). “Discounting and Sustainability: Towards Reconciliation,”30

ジェンダー研究

第15号

2012

6 (1), pp. 87-97.
International Labour Organization (ILO, 2007).

Global Report under the Follow-up to

the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ILO, Geneva.
Kamerman, S.B. (2000).
Unpublished Paper, New York, Columbia University, Institute for Child and Family Policy. Available at http://www.
columbia.edu/cu/childpolicy/kamerman.pdf.
Lakati A. et al. (2002). “Breastfeeding and the Working Mother in Nairobi,” in

5 (6), pp.715-718.

Lane, Robert (1997). “The Joyless Market Economy,” in Frank Ackerman et al. (eds),
Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 29-33.
Lohmann, Larry (2006). “Carbon trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power,”
No. 48, September.
McNicoll, Geoﬀrey (2003).

Population Council, New York.

Nelson, Julie (1993). “The Study of Choice or the Study of Provisioning,” in M. Ferber and K Nelson (eds)
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Nelson, Julie (2011). “Ethics and the Economist: What Climate Change Demands of Us,”
Working Paper No 11-02, May, pp. 1-38.
Ozkaynak, B. Devine and D. Rigby (2002). “Whither Ecological Economics?”
Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 317-335.
Parry, M., O Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden and C. Hanson (2007).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Razavi, Shahra (2007).
Gender and Development Paper, No. 3, United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development, Geneva.
Razavi, Shahra and Silke Staab (2011).

United Nations Research

for Social Development, Geneva, forthcoming.
Soderbaum, Peter (2008).

Earthscan, London.

Sheeran, Kristen (2011). “Building the Case for Climate Action: The Role of Economics,” forhttp://e3network.org/papers/Building̲the̲Case̲for̲Climate̲Action.pdf
Stern, Nicholas (2011).

Lecture for the Leontief Prize Medford,

Global Development and Environment Institute. http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/about̲us/leontief/SternLecture.pdf
Taleb, Nassim, (2010).

Random House, Inc. New York.

Travers, Peters and Sue Richardson (1993).

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

United Nations Childrenʼs Fund (UNICEF) (2008).

OxfordUniversity Press, New York.
United Nations Development Programme (2010),

Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2002).
Background Paper No. 5, Geneva.
United Nations Population Division (2011).

Department of Economic and Social Aﬀairs, New York.

Wisman, Jon (2011). “Inequality, Social Respectability, Political Power and Environmental Devastation,”
December, forthcoming.
World Health Organization (2008). “Can Governments Inﬂuence Population Growth?”

No. 229, November, pp.

35-37.

31