Reviewing feminist macroeconomics for the XXI century

Zuazu-Bermejo, Izaskun Working Paper Reviewing feminist macroeconomics for the XXI century ifso working paper, No. 30 Provided in Cooperation with: University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Socioeconomics (ifso) Suggested Citation: Zuazu-Bermejo, Izaskun (2024) : Reviewing feminist macroeconomics for the XXI century, ifso working paper, No. 30, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Socio-Economics (ifso), Duisburg This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/282996 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ uni-due.de/soziooekonomie/wp ifso working paper Izaskun Zuazu Reviewing Feminist Macroeconomics for the XXI Century 2024 no.30 Reviewing Feminist Macroeconomics for the XXI Century Izaskun Zuazu * February 1, 2024 Abstract Feminist macroeconomics draws on the notion that the gender system is both cause and consequence of macroeconomic structures, outcomes, and policies. In contrast, mainstream and heterodox macroeconomics have done little to integrate gender as an analytical tool in macromodelling. This paper defines the subfield of feminist macroeconomics, explores its origins, and provides a systematic review of its literature. Drawing on Seguino (2013), the paper divides the subfield in three main strands: i) feminist growth theory and gender dimensions of macrolevel policies, ii) macro-modelling and theoretical foundations of the care economy, and iii) social infrastructure and intra-household allocation. The paper discusses potential ways to expand the foci of feminist macroeconomic research, while considers challenges to the subfield, such as methodological issues regarding male-biased metrics and limited data availability, and the tensions with mainstream approaches to gender and the macroeconomy. Finally, the paper contextualizes the subfield in a post-pandemic era. Keywords: feminist macroeconomics, feminist growth theory, care economy, COVID-19 pandemic, economic methodology JEL Codes: E0, E12, B54 * email: izaskun.zuazu-b[email protected] Institute for Socio-Economics (IfSO), University of Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstr. 65 47057 Duisburg (Germany) 1 1 Introduction Feminist macroeconomics draws on the notion that the gender system is both cause and consequence of macroeconomic processes, outcomes, and policies (Braunstein, 2021). Gender system is widely defined as the system of economic, social, cultural and political structures that sustain and reproduce distinctive gender roles and the attributes of women and men (European Commission, 1998). Gender relations are embedded in gender systems, were systemic asymmetries of social power emerge between men and women, to the benefit of men (Akram-Lodhi & Hanmer, 2008). The research agenda of feminist macroeconomists brings gender systems and gender relations to the centre of the study of macroeconomic analysis. To the contrary, both mainstream and heterodox macroeconomics, albeit its major differences in methods and foci, have shown a common resistance to adopt gender as an analytical tool, by wrongly assuming that most economic aggregates and macroeconomic policies are gender neutral. In most of the extant macroeconomics analysis, gender is not recognized as part and parcel of economic processes and policies, recognizing it solely as a marginal, exogenous variable which is outside the economic system (Van Staveren, 2013; Braunstein, 2022). Akram-Lodhi & Hanmer (2008) states that there are at least two reasons why macroeconomics cannot be understood as gender neutral. The first one is that gender-neutral views in macroeconomics assume that the distribution of aggregate output is given and therefore analytically exogenous, which reflects an orthodox neo-classical conceptualization of the domain of macroeconomic analysis. While structuralist and post-Keynesian macroeconomists disagree on this exogeneity, the feminist critique fundamentally challenges the views of gender-neutral macroeconomics. Aggregate output and its distribution is viewed by feminist macroeconomics as a function of an outcome of explicit and implicit social choices, where gender relations play an extremely crucial role (Evers, 2003; C¸a˘gatay & Erturk, 2004).1Gendered power structures –by which women and men have access to different levels of economic, social and political power– determine the sexual division of labour (both paid and unpaid sides), thus resulting in segmented labour markets and gender imbalances in the distribution of household production and permeating other economics processes. The second, interrelated reason is that individuals reflect their social identity when making economic decisions (Akerlof & Kranton, 2000; C¸a˘gatay & Erturk, 2004; Akram-Lodhi & Hanmer, 2008), having this macro-level implications for monetary policies (Couto & Brenck, 2024), financial markets (Van Staveren, 2014b), savings and 1For more insights in the feminist economics and post-Keynesian economics, see Staveren (2010), Spotton Visano (2017) and Onaran & Oyvat (2023). 2 investments (Ert¨urk & C¸a˘gatay, 1995; Seguino & Floro, 2003). This paper reviews the foundations of feminist macroeconomics, placing special attention to the contributions of feminist economists to macroeconomics (Elson, 1991; Ert¨urk & C¸a˘gatay, 1995; Braunstein et al., 2011). While feminist economics has a vast microeconomic research tradition (Onaran & Oyvat, 2023), macroeconomic modelling and the incorporation of gender into macroeconomic analysis has been relatively ignored. In this paper, I make the case that the burgeoning scholarly agenda in feminist macroeconomics not only can result in a balance between the micro and macro-level foci of feminist economics, but also can improve macroeconomic modelling and macro-level analysis at large. Research in gender and macroeconomics, with its different ramifications into mainstream/orthodox and feminist currents, acknowledges the gender disparities as both cause and consequence of macroeconomic aggregates (international trade, investment, consumption, prices), macroeconomic processes (economic growth, distribution, economic crises) and macroeconomic policies (monetary policy, industrial policy, fiscal policy).2However, there are key methodological differences between gender/orthodox and feminist perspectives into macroeconomics: the former is focused almost exclusively in supply-side factors, while the latter opens up macro-modelling towards structuralist, demanddriven models. Supply-side and demand-side factors are often referred in macroeconomics as one of the major divides between mainstream/orthodox and heterodox currents (see Onaran & Oyvat (2023); Hein (2023a)).3In sharp contrast to gender-neutral perspectives and gender mainstream macroeconomic analyses, feminist macroeconomics openly portraits gender as analytical tool within the study of macroeconomics, and at the same time, acknowledges demand-side factors and power relations as key determinants of macro-level structures, outcomes, and policies. Yet neoclassical economics approaches to gender and the macroeconomy have been reviewed extensively (Cuberes & Teignier, 2014; Doepke & Tertilt, 2016; Silva & Klasen, 2021), feminist macroeconomics literature has received relatively less attention. We welcome some exceptions, both in the form of book chapters (Hein, 2023a) and research papers (Dow, 2020; Sawyer, 2020; Onaran & Oyvat, 2Throughout this paper, I will use the term gender-aware macroeconomics to refer to gender approaches to macroeconomic, both from mainstream and feminist currents. 3Demand-side factors refer to the aggregate demand in an economy, that is, the total quantity of goods and services which are acquired by consumers, business, government and foreign consumption. These factors relate to macroeconomic aggregates such as consumer spending, investment, government expenditure, and net exports. In contrast, supply-side factors refer to the total quantity of goods and services provided by producers, and its key factors are technology, labour force participation, human capital or labour productivity, among others. 3 2023). Dow (2020) introduces gender in macroeconomics from an evolutionary approach, however, her paper is rather epistemological than descriptive. Likewise, recent reviews of the state of the art of heterodox macroeconomics have noted the introduction of new streams, such as ecological economics and gender (Sawyer, 2020), but without systemically reviewing and considering its main contributions.4Hein (2023b) dedicates a subchapter to analyse the macroeconomic consequences of gender pay gaps, while noting the relevance and contributions of post-Keynesian/Kaleckian macroeconomic models, which are explained in further detail in this paper. Finally, Onaran & Oyvat (2023) proposes a synthesis of feminist economics and post-Keynesian/Kaleckian economics to enrich heterodox macroeconomics. They point to a symbiotic link between post-Keynesian economics and feminist economics by mentioning the benefits of integrating both research agendas. Concretely, the current paper goes along the lines of Onaran & Oyvat (2023) to argue that feminist economics would benefit greatly from macroeconomic modelling. The contribution of this paper is to provide, to the best of my knowledge, the first systematic review of the literature in feminist macroeconomics. The paper first defines and explores the origins of feminist macroeconomics (Section 2). A distinction between mainstream and feminist approaches to gender in the macroeconomy is provided, as well as a discussion on one of the major contributions of the subfield: the so-called feminization U hypothesis. I follow Seguino (2013) to divide the subfield into three strands (Section 3). By doing so, I assign different theoretical contributions to each strand, and consider potential new avenues for expanding the research agenda of the subfield. The paper contextualizes feminist macroeconomics in the real-world economic experiences of a post-pandemic era and highlights the challenges ahead and some pedagogic considerations (Section 4). Section 5 summarizes the main arguments of the paper. 4It should be noted that gender-aware macroeconomics literature is usually neglected from both mainstream and heterodox sides. One case in point, from the literature of heterodox macroeconomics, is Arestis & Sawyer (2019), where gender is only anecdotally cited in a book summarizing the frontiers of heterodox macroeconomics, with no reference to feminist macroeconomics. 4 2 Feminist macroeconomics: origins, concepts and stylized facts Although not necessarily the same, both feminist macroeconomics and gender mainstream/orthodox macroeconomics introduce gender as an analytical tool within the study of the macroeconomy. International organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the United Nations (UN), as discussed in Braunstein (2021), have provided a gender perspective in the study of macroeconomy, and correspondingly, in their policy agendas, for the last decades.5. However, gender macroeconomic analysis from orthodox traditions show a tendency towards supplyside factors, without questioning demand-side factors, as the major factors in understanding gender in macroeconomics. To the contrary, feminist macroeconomics acknowledges demand-side factors and embrace a more heterodox perspective. In what follows, I provide a more detailed definition of the subfield of feminist macroeconomics and review its origins. Next, I comment on the interconnection between heterodox macroeconomics, specially post-Keynesian macroeconomics, and feminist macroeconomics, to later establish the differences between mainstream and feminist macroeconomics. This Section finalizes with one of the major and well-known, stylized facts of both mainstream and feminist currents: the so-called feminization U. 2.1 Origins and definition The methods and foci within the field of macroeconomics have historically experienced major changes in the aftermath of disruptive economics shocks, such as the Great Depression and the Great Recession (Seguino, 2019; Heintz et al., 2021). This was also highlighted by Dow (2021), who states that real experiences in economics can mould the philosophical and methodological discourses in macroeconomics. In this way, the gender perspective and on-going updates of feminist economics contribute to macroeconomics, and economic science at large, by providing researches, policymakers and pundits alike with models that incorporate the care economy, and thus, do a better job in abstracting real-world economics. The care economy –a term often attributed to Diane Elson – refers to the paid and unpaid sides of reproductive labour, which are at the core of the functioning and 5One example of this from the IMF is Stotsky (2006). The perspectives adopted in the macroeconomic analysis of these different institutions (IMF, WB, UN) differ greatly within the context of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), as suggested by Akram-Lodhi (2016), which can be divided into orthodox and heterodox approaches 5 performance of the macroeconomy in feminist economics (Elson, 1995; Braunstein, 2021). The birth of feminist macroeconomics can also be considered in the context of disruptive events, or more precisely, in the backfire of international macroeconomic programs in specific geographic areas. For Akram-Lodhi & Hanmer (2008), the macroeconomic analysis of the household and gender relations remained in its infancy, relative to neoclassical economic perspectives of gender from a Beckerian tradition (Becker, 1960), at the time of the Great Recession, despite the pioneering works of Nilufer C¸agatay, among others. Nonetheless, early works in feminist macroeconomics can be traced back to the 80’s, such as for instance the works of Jane Humphries and Jill Rubery. Humphries & Rubery (1984) noted the relative autonomy of social reproduction from the macroeconomy, as macroeconomic aggregates both influence, and get influenced by, the distribution of paid and unpaid work within the household.6Humphries & Rubery (1984) question the causal connections between the macroeconomy and social reproduction, and consider that uneven distributions of paid and unpaid labour are borne out from macroeconomic policies, and this uneven distribution, at the same time, affects macroeconomic policies and macro-modelling7. What was once an effect, they said, can become a cause and vice versa. Despite the above early postulates in feminist macroeconomics, it was not until the aftermath of the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) of the IMF in late 1980s when the field gain momentum. SAPs produced unforeseen disparate gender effects, worsening the livelihoods of women in Global South countries, which occurred arguably due to gender-unaware macroeconomic theory and policies. In a series of works published in World Development in 1995 and 2000, feminist scholars such as Diane Elson and Nilufer C¸agatay, among many others, produced a body of scholarship which elucidated the critical role of the gender division of unpaid and paid labour for understanding the functioning of the macroeconomy. The critics of feminist macroeconomists were that the economic models underlying SAPs’ macroeconomic policy prescriptions, such as social-welfare spending cuts, wrongly presumed virtually unlimited supplies of unpaid labour from women and girls. This unleashed profound negative consequences not only for well-being, but for the economic goals of the programs themselves (Elson, 1991, 1995; Bener´ıa & Feldman, 1992; Braunstein, 2021). 6Social reproduction, defined as the contributions of time, commodities, and money required to produce, maintain, and invest in the labour force (Seguino, 2020), has short-run and long-run dimensions, respectively representing the replenishment of the workforce and human development. See Power (2004) for an explanation of feminist methodologies and the definition of social reproduction as a scientific method. 7It should come as no surprise that the paper of Humphries & Rubery (1984) coincide in time with the book of Marilyn Waring If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. 6 2.2 Orthodox, heterodox and feminist macroeconomics While both neoclassical and heterodox economic theories influenced the way gender gaps are incorporated into models, heterodox economists usually emphasize the demand and supply side in the short and long run, while neoclassical economists tend to focus on long-run supply-side effects (Seguino, 2020). This can be seen as a limitation of the scope of neoclassical perspectives for gender analysis in macroeconomics, relative to feminist macroeconomics perspectives. Demand-side factors, rooted in gendered institutions, are included in the feminist macroeconomics research agenda often drawing on Marxist and Keynesian traditions. Indeed, some strands of feminist macroeconomics follow heterodox traditions, such as Kaleckian models (Seguino, 2020; Kalecki, 1971), to focus on the distributional effects in output, employment and growth, to incorporate gender differences in income and employment. There is a mutual benefit in combining feminist economics and post-Keynesian economics in an unified research agenda (Staveren, 2010; Seguino, 2021; Onaran & Oyvat, 2023).8Integrating feminist macroeconomics into post-Keynesian macroeconomics will allow a better understanding of the interrelation between demand-side and supply-side factors, and a more accurate macro-level analysis of their effects on well-being, productivity, labour supply and fertility (Onaran & Oyvat, 2023). As similarly stated by Akram-Lodhi & Hanmer (2008) and Staveren (2010), Onaran & Oyvat (2023) also consider the relevance of gender relations and intra-household bargaining dictating the distribution of paid and unpaid work, and the different economic behaviour between women and men. The resulting gender-segregated labour markets and household production’s distribution perpetuate the over-representation of women and racial minorities in lower-paying jobs, and hence, maintain or can even enlarge, gender, race and class inequalities. These tenets from feminist macroeconomics framework will complement Post-Keynesian macroeconomic analysis of the dynamics of inequality and distribution (Onaran & Oyvat, 2023). Staveren (2010) and Onaran & Oyvat (2023) also delve into the other side of the coin, that is, how post-Keynesian macroeconomics would benefit feminist macroeconomics. To summarize the arguments in Onaran & Oyvat (2023), one can consider that the presence of excess capacity and involuntary unemployment in the economy in post-Keynesian macroeconomics will benefit feminist analysis of the demand-side reasons behind females’ economic inactivity, underemployment or unemployment. Kaleckian models can improve integrating gender and class inequality dimensions in 8For a more advanced discussion on the links between feminist economics and post-Keynesian economics, see Lavoie (2003) and Lawson (2006), among others. 7 Table 1: Review of Feminist Macroeconomics Literature (I) Authors Journal Method Geography Contribution i) Feminist growth theory and gender dimensions of macro-level policies Ert¨urk & C¸a˘gatay (1995) World Dev. Kaldorian model Global Feminization of LF (housework) increases investments (savings) C¸a˘gatay & ¨ Ozler (1995) World Dev. Panel regression 165 countries Feminization U-shape 1985-1990 Elson (1995) World Dev. Macro models Global Social matrix into macro-modelling Elson & C¸a˘gatay (2000) World Dev. Gender budget analysis Canada Deflationary, male breadwinner and commodification biases Seguino (2000) World Dev. Growth model 20 Global South GDP positively associated with Cross-section regression countries gender pay inequality Braunstein (2000) World Dev. Macro model Global FDI effects on women’s wages and employment Blecker & Seguino (2002) Rev. Dev. Econ. Two-sector macro model SIEs Identification of conditions for gender equitable depreciation policies Seguino (2010) Rev. Political Econ. Macro model SIEs & Opposing directions of gender wage and capabilities LIAEs across areas, and relevant role of government to improve equality growth Heintz & Folbre (2022) Fem. Econ. Macro model Global Below-replacement fertility can have serious l/r economic consequences Elveren (2023) J. Post Keynes. Econ. Macro model Global Higher military spending associated with higher gender inequality and lower economic growth 14 3.1.2 Macro-modelling and theoretical foundations of the care economy The second strand focuses on the macroeconomic theoretical foundations of the care economy and the role of care sector from a structural perspective, with the subsequent critique of adapting the systems of national accounts (SNA) for a more gender-inclusive metrics. Following the spirits of Waring & Steinem (1988) and Boserup (1970), this second strand places special attention to how labour gets accounted in macro-modelling: the care work essential to reproduce human life should be connected to macro-modelling to ensure its social provisioning. Braunstein et al. (2011) is probably the first work in providing a static structural macroeconomic model that puts in the centre the care economy, stressing demand-side factors, such as care. The authors conceptually transform the Keynes’s ”animal spirits” into ”caring spirits”, which is used by the authors to describe the exogenous effect of whether care is enthusiastically provided, for whatever reason. While animal spirits refer to herd-like sentiments that tend to characterize financial markets, as Braunstein et al. (2011) argue, caring spirits are long-term, institutional features of society, and thus, fundamental for the workings of the macroeconomy. The early work of Braunstein et al. (2011) was expanded in Braunstein et al. (2020), with both a Kaleckian macroeconomic model and econometric regressions, linking macroeconomic structures and economic growth with social reproduction and gender inequality. The paper ultimately identifies under what circumstances economic growth and social reproduction reinforce or contradict one another. Onaran et al. (2022a) also develop a feminist Post-Keynesian/Post-Kaleckian to focus on fiscal and labour market policies in growth and employment, which suits perfectly to further analyse the impacts of an upward convergence in wages, other types of fiscal spending, and taxes. Along similar lines, Onaran et al. (2022b) develop a model to analyse the macroeconomic effects of two dimensions of inequality –gender inequality and functional income distribution–, and public spending, in particular on social infrastructure, on output, productivity, and hours of employment of men and women. They complement this macro model with an dynamic panel data model using data on 18 European Union countries, and find that the UK is both gender equality-led and wage-led, and hence generally equality-led. The effects of public social infrastructure investment on both output and employment are positive, and that both female and male employment increases in the medium run. Among the last works included in this strand are Vasudevan & Raghavendra (2022) and Gonz´alez et al. (2022). These two papers provide macroeconomic models which shed new life into the consequences of the promotion of self-employment through financial inclusion initiatives, for the former 15 case, and the market prices effects in the women’s provisioning of unpaid care work. The conclusions of Vasudevan & Raghavendra (2022) suggest that neoliberal developmental policy framework designed to foster the capabilities of women through self-employment are not viable strategies without the implementation of directly boosting simultaneously aggregate demand and equal gender distribution of care responsibilities through social infrastructures. Gonz´alez et al. (2022), by their part, also place care at the spotlight, emphasizing the substitutability between women’s and men’s care work, and the countervailing effects between reducing gender wage gap and persisting gender norms. The paper finds that market power dynamics together with resilient gender norms, perpetuate reliance on women’s provision of unpaid care. Finally, Onaran & Oyvat (2023) propose a theoretical synthesis of feminist economics and post- Keynesian economics for a purple–green–red transition. The novelty of this model is that explicitly incorporates both demand and supply-side’s components, as well as gender and class inequality in income, employment and wealth, together with care and green economy fiscal policies. Their findings suggest the necessity of a fiscal policy paradigm shift to tackle inequalities and social, economic and ecological crises. 3.1.3 Social infrastructure and intra-household allocation The third strand within feminist macroeconomics opens the ”black box” of intra-household resource allocation, and draws on the idea that households are cooperative enterprises where conflict and competition are driving forces behind the bargaining power of household members.17 The macrolevel dimensions of this third line recognize the gender-biased impact of macroeconomic policies in intra-household bargaining power, subsequently affecting the gender equality in the performance of labour and in access to resources, ultimately affecting long-run productivity growth mediated by investments in health and education of children. In this third line, the focus is placed on the social provisioning of care (education, health, social work), and it are often accompanied by simulations of policies. Ilkkaracan et al. (2021) use the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Turkey to evaluate its effects on employment and income, time allocation in paid and unpaid work, and poverty. Increasing public spending in childcare is found to generate employment particularly for previously non-employed women, and at the same time, to reduce poverty rates. Nonetheless, em- 17This third line touches upon new developments in neoclassical gender economics, such as the non-unitary models of household behaviour. See Chiappori & Donni (2009) for a review. 16 ployment effects come at the cost of time-poverty increases. Childcare provisioning services alleviate this side-effect, and simultaneous employment creation and childcare can alleviate time- and income poverty and improve gender equality. Other examples in this strand are Oyvat & Onaran (2022), who study the short-run and medium-run impact of spending in social infrastructure and gender gap gap on output and gender employment in South Korea. To do so, they develop a post-Kaleckian feminist macroeconomic theoretical model and combine it with regression analysis. The findings show that an increase in the public social infrastructure significantly increases the total non-agricultural output and employment, and a positive relative effect in female employment. Oyvat & Onaran (2022) highlight the need of both labour market regulation and fiscal packages to achieve sustainable growth paths to gender equality. Gonz´alez et al. (2022) use a micro-level model of intra-household bargaining to analyse care. The authors endogeneize the role of labour market to find that the welfare cost of caregiving is shoulder disproportionately by women partners. They use data on 14 EU countries and focus on France to demonstrate how a decrease in an adult daughter’s bargaining power relative to her partner can increase her share of the care burden and the unmet care needs of her parent. Finally, the work of Onaran et al. (2023) offers a feminist post-Kaleckian model of taxation to study wealth concentration, and estimate econometrically the model to obtain that increasing wealth tax rates depresses wealth concentration and affects positive impact on output, employment and the budget. At the same time, they compare the effects of public social infrastructure and public physical infrastructure, to find that the former strongly benefits output and productivity and gender equality in wages and employment, while the latter creates relatively fewer jobs for women and has modest effects in productivity. These three strands complement each other by introducing gender power imbalances as cause and consequence of macroeconomic phenomena, and providing a theoretical framework to incorporate critical gender perspectives in macro-modelling. One of the requirements for including papers in this categorization of feminist macroeconomics was that they had, at least in a reduced form, a theoretical macro model. However, with the exception of Blecker & Seguino (2002) and some policy implications in Onaran & Oyvat (2023), none of them explicitly accounts for monetary policies in a theoretical fashion. Nonetheless, there is a series of contributions from feminist macroeconomics to the analysis of monetary policy from empirical approaches, which are already summarized in Braunstein (2022) and Couto & Brenck (2024).18 Some of the insights from this literature within feminist macroe- 18The UK-based think-tank Women’s Budget Group (WBG) have extensively researched on feminist monetary policies. See Powell (2023)’s WBG report on a feminist approach to monetary policies. 17 conomics point to specific mechanism through which monetary and central bank policies can affect women and men in different ways: one case in point is employment. As pointed in Braunstein (2022), anti-inflationary policies result in increasing real interest rates and reducing real money supply, which both lead to employment contractions for both women and men, but with stronger effects for female employment. Apart from the employment side, the differential impacts of monetary policies for women and men also work by altering asset prices and the uneven gender and racial distribution of wealth and income. Indeed, Young (2018) finds empirically that rising asset prices in stock markets by unconventional monetary policies have disproportionately benefited men. 18 Table 2: Review of Feminist Macroeconomics Literature (II) Authors Journal Method Geography Contribution ii) Macro-modelling and theoretical foundations of the care economy Braunstein et al. (2011) Fem. Econ. Macro model Global Macroeconomic conditions behind ”selfish” vs ”altruistic” economies Braunstein et al. (2020) Camb. J. Econ. Macro model and 156 countries Macroeconomic profiles of social panel regression 1991-2015 reproduction and economic growth Onaran et al. (2022a) Fem. Econ. Macro model 41 Emerging Social spending benefit for gender equality economies in LM and productivity Onaran et al. (2022b) Fem. Econ. Macro model and UK Interaction between gender and panel regression functional income inequality Vasudevan & Raghavendra (2022) Fem. Econ. Macro model Global Women’s self-employment perpetuates care asymmetries and gendered burdens within the household Gonz´alez et al. (2022) Fem. Econ. Macro model Global Social norms govern market price effects in the distribution of care work, perpetuating women’s unpaid care Onaran & Oyvat (2023) EJEEP Macro model Global Feminist post-Keynesian synthesis model iiii) Social infrastructure and intra-household allocation Ilkkaracan et al. (2021) World Dev. Macro–micro policy modelling Turkey Childcare provisioning increases Simulations employment and reduces time and income poverty rates Oyvat & Onaran (2022) World Dev. Macro model and South Korea Sustainable equitable development and employment regression analysis requires both labour market and fiscal policies R. Miller & Bairoliya (2022) Fem. Econ. Micro model 14 EU countries Decreasing adult daughter’s bargaining power Simulations increases welfare burden and unmet care needs of her parent Onaran et al. (2023) Camb. J. Econ. Macro model and UK Feminist post-Kaleckian model showing IV regression analysis tax wealth reduces wealth concentration and public social infrastructure investment 19 3.2 New avenues There are multiple ways in which feminist macroeconomics can be expanded, as previous macromodelling, both from mainstream and heterodox currents, have largely ignored gender as a macroeconomic variable within macroeconomic aggregates, such as employment, incomes, consumption or investments, or within macroeconomics policies or phenomena, such as monetary and fiscal policy, central banking, inflation, structural change and economic growth. For simplicity, I will elaborate on three potential avenues in what follows, mainly in relation to the ability of macroeconomists to measure unpaid work and develop macroeconomic models that would allow to discern unpaid and paid sides of gendered macro structures. Developments in Time Use Data: One important tool for the future development of feminist macroeconomics are Time Use Surveys (TUS). One methodological aspect of feminist macroeconomics is the quantification of unpaid work, which is feasible through the use of TUS data. TUS provide information on the time devoted by each agent within a household in different activities, from leisure time, to unpaid and paid labour, although the coverage of different household agents and detail of the information of the activities depend on the design and scope of the survey. International comparisons are available for a certain number of countries, although experts in the field claim for greater coverage and harmonization of the different data sources. Nonetheless, there are methodological problems, specially when considering Global South countries, regarding the design of the TUS different components of and the collection of data (Hirway, 2021). Connelly & Kongar (2017a) discuss the macroeconomic side of the use of time, and how the data can be used in order to represent differently the work (paid and unpaid) based on gender, age, sexuality, race and ethnicity, migration status, and income class. Time poverty can be conceptualized, similarly to income poverty, using TUS and be integrated in macroeconomic analysis in such a way that was not considered before in orthodox or heterodox accounts (Elson, 1994; ˙ Ilkkaracan, 2017). Greater efforts in advancing the computational methods in estimating the amount of the care economy by means of TUS can conform potential adhesions to the subfield. Social Accounting Matrices: Another computational contribution of the literature in feminist macroeconomics is the use of social accounting matrices to perform macro-micro modelling and simulations (Cicowiez & Lofgren, 2017). Feminist macroeconomics is interested in studying the factors determining the women’s allocation of time in household production. Thus, there are clear interlinks between the TUS and social accounting matrices (SAM), as both methods provide a computational 20 basis for simulating, for instance, public spending on physical and social infrastructure. As early noted in Elson (1991), the male biases in public expenditures, as part of macroeconomic policies, are often translated into a higher burden of care responsibilities of women. SAM target precisely the effects of macroeconomic policies, often related to investments in certain sectors or infrastructures. One application of SAM can be found in Zacharias (2019), where also a macro-micro modelling is implemented to study how physical and social infrastructure investments impact on the time on care work and paid and unpaid distribution of work. Intersectionality: Finally, feminist macroeconomics framework also takes intersectional approaches, as discussed in Fukuda-Parr et al. (2013), to emphasize the role of multiple trajectories transversal to gender, such as race and class, in unleashing distributional effects and affecting the macroeconomy. Power (2004) identifies five components in the task of incorporating social provisioning in economics: recognition of care work as a fundamental economic activity, use of well-being as a measure of economic success analysis of economic, political, and social processes and power relations, and the inclusion of ethical goals in economic analyses; and interrogation of differences by class, raceethnicity, and other factors. The first three tasks have been already taken into account in feminist macroeconomics. The latter two, though, can be new avenues in which the subfield can be expanded. A few works have already path the way in integrating intersectional views based on sexual orientation. The incorporation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people into macro-level analysis, as it is done in Badgett et al. (2019) with the use of Global Index on Legal Recognition of Homosexual Orientation, can be seen as future paths of the development of the subfield. 4 A post-pandemic era and challenges 4.1 The pandemic and feminist macroeconomics The COVID-19 pandemic uncovered profound gender imbalances in the macroeconomic policies and phenomena (Alon et al., 2021; Bahn et al., 2020), and made obvious the importance of the care economy for the functioning of the macroeconomy (Kabeer et al., 2021; Heintz et al., 2021). As other crises before, such as the Great Recession and subsequent fiscal retrenchment, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated once again what feminist macroeconomists have long argued: the two-way relationship between the macroeconomy and the care economy, where social reproduction emerges as the core element recreating future generations of the workforce. 21 Likewise the Great Depression was the stepping stone for Keynesian economics (Seguino, 2019), the Great Recession instigated many feminist economists to consider the microeconomic foundations of the financial crisis and austerity programs and their macroeconomic consequences (Berik, 2016; ˙ Ilkkaracan, 2016; Bargawi et al., 2016). Other macroeconomic shocks and policy choices derived in a reconfiguration of gender in macroeconomics. The gendered consequences of SAP were the cornerstone for feminist macroeconomists to argue that macroeconomic policies are gender biased (Beneria et al., 2000). In this sense, the sweeping economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with pre-existing gender inequalities to endanger the livelihoods of women at a higher rate than those of men. As pointed in Kabeer et al. (2021), women were more severely hit by the pandemic, as they are over-represented in the provisioning of paid and unpaid care. Migrant and lower-income women were disproportionately more affected by both death rates and the consequences of the socialdistancing policies. The new facets of the pandemic with respect to previous crises raise concerns on the conditions of existence, health inequality and social reproduction. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the critical dependency of market-oriented economies on non-market economic activities, with gendered institutions and gender uneven distribution of paid and unpaid labour, within a trio of interlocking structural crises: care, environment and the macroeconomy (Heintz et al., 2021). Thus, there are clear pathways to reconsider the design of macroeconomics as a scientific field and as a policy-making process: care work –which is in many instances done in non-market environments– and environmental degradation. The deep structural and ecological roots of the pandemic made it an organic crisis, with potentially more profound reconfigurations for the state of the art of the field of macroeconomics than the previous economic crisis. In this sense, the value of care in macroeconomics during the COVID-19 pandemic has been highlighted. Bahn et al. (2020) state that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of society believes human well-being should be at the centre of policy, rather than economic growth. Similarly, the value of care, specifically in times of rising death rates and vulnerability of human life, had enjoyed a reconsideration (Thomason & Macias-Alonso, 2020), and thus there is the opportunity of change the macroeconomic paradigm to integrate the care economy, and the distribution of it. This is what feminist macroeconomics long argued, and the COVID-19 pandemic might have the ability of making it possible. 22 4.2 Challenges ahead The field of feminist macroeconomics faces certain challenges. Here, I highlight three sources of potential challenges for the subfield: i) methodological aspects and data-related limitations, ii) ability of changing the standard macro-modelling and macroeconomic paradigm, and iii) the integration of feminist perspectives into the pedagogy of macroeconomics. First, as of methodological and dataavailability issues, one important challenge is the use of GDP as a macroeconomic metric. Some feminist macroeconomics’ work focuses on economic growth and gender imbalances, using GDP growth and market production as main metrics. As SNAs leave out non-market economic activities (Hanmer & Akram-Lodhi, 1998), such as unpaid work or informal work, the calculations of GDP are at the very least biased and under-report female-dominated economics activities, such the care economy.19 Nonetheless, as pointed in Braunstein (2021), these strands of the subfield allow a better understand systems for social provisioning and the aggregate economic structures. At the same time, the extent of their engagement with standard macro concepts allows to enter the discussion of macro theory and policymaking beyond feminist circles. Similarly to the drawbacks of GDP as a measure of economic well-being and its limitations to account for unpaid work, structuralist approaches also suffer from the lack of gender-awareness in quantitative methods. One crucial methodological aspect in the structuralist approaches of feminist macroeconomics is that cross-sectoral productivity is measured in the same way, that is, by means of value added per number of employees or worked hour. Structural change is analysed by means of changes in employment shares from low-productivity to high-productivity sectors. Nonetheless, measurement and comparability of productivity in alternative sectors is cumbersome as not all sectors contain activities of the same nature (e.g. tradable or non tradable services, routine and non-routine, manual or technical, among other characteristics). This is crucial when measuring productivity in the care economy, where labour productivity might not be obtained reducing the amount of labour, and were technological adoption might not always result in the same type of goods and services. This concern dates back, although not necessarily with a gender perspective, to the work of Baumol (1967), who considers that services suffers from a ”cost disease”: as due to their nature, productivity enhance- 19Relatedly, DeRock (2021) explores the political economy of statistical agencies in generating economic metrics and the discretion of the staff at the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank, in defining what an economic activity is, and where to classify it. DeRock (2021) find a rather reluctant position of statistics staff to actually incorporate a more gender-aware definition of GDP aggregates, which goes in line with the early claims of Elson (1995). 23 measurement. New Political Economy,26 (1), 20–35. Dinkelman, T., & Ngai, L. R. (2022). Time use and gender in africa in times of structural transformation. Journal of Economic Perspectives,36(1), 57–80. Doepke, M., & Tertilt, M. (2016). Families in macroeconomics. In Handbook of macroeconomics (Vol. 2, pp. 1789–1891). Elsevier. Doepke, M., & Tertilt, M. (2019). Does female empowerment promote economic development? Journal of Economic Growth,24 , 309–343. Douarin, E., & Uberti, L. J. (2023). The feminization u. Springer Nature. Dow, S. (2020). Gender and the future of macroeconomics: an evolutionary approach. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy,1(1), 55–66. Dow, S. (2021). Economic methodology, the philosophy of economics and the economy: another turn? Journal of Economic Methodology,28 (1), 46–53. Elson, D. (1991). Male bias in macro-economics: the case of structural adjustment. In Male bias in the development process (pp. 164–190). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Elson, D. (1994). Micro, meso, macro: gender and economic analysis in the context of policy reformthe strategic silence: gender and economic policy (Tech. Rep.). Elson, D. (1995). Gender awareness in modeling structural adjustment. World Development,23 (11), 1851–1868. Elson, D. (1998). The economic, the political and the domestic: Businesses, states and households in the organisation of production. New Political Economy,3(2), 189–208. Elson, D. (2019). Macroeconomic policy for a gender equal economy. Briefing Paper for Commission on an Gender Equal Economy. Retrieved from https://wbg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/ 06/Briefing-Paper-on-Macroeconomic-Policy.pdf Elson, D., & C¸a˘gatay, N. (2000). The social content of macroeconomic policies. World Development, 30 28(7), 1347–1364. Elveren, A. Y. (2023). Militarization, gender inequality, and growth: a feminist-kaleckian model. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 1–18. Ert¨urk, K., & C¸a˘gatay, N. (1995). Macroeconomic consequences of cyclical and secular changes in feminization: an experiment at gendered macromodeling. World Development,23 (11), 1969–1977. Evers, B. (2003). Broadening the foundations of macro-economic models through a gender approach: new developments. In Macro-economics: Making gender matter. M. Gutierrez (ed.), London: Zed Press. Folbre, N. (2006). Measuring care: Gender, empowerment, and the care economy. Journal of human development,7(2), 183–199. Fukuda-Parr, S., Heintz, J., & Seguino, S. (2013). Critical perspectives on financial and economic crises: Heterodox macroeconomics meets feminist economics. Feminist Economics,19(3), 4–31. Gaddis, I., & Klasen, S. (2014). Economic development, structural change, and women’s labor force participation. Journal of Population Economics,27(3), 639–681. Galor, O., & Weil, D. N. (1993). The gender gap, fertility, and growth. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA. Goldin, C. (1994). The u-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA. Goldin, C. (1995). The u-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history. In Investment in women’s human capital and economic development (pp. 61–90). T. P. Schultz. Gonz´alez, I., Seo, B., & Floro, M. S. (2022). Gender wage gap, gender norms, and long-term care: A theoretical framework. Feminist Economics,28 (3), 84–113. Grimm, M. (2003). Family and economic growth: A review. Mathematical Population Studies,10 (3), 145–173. 31 Grossbard, S. (1984). A theory of allocation of time in markets for labour and marriage. The Economic Journal,94 (376), 863–882. Grossbard, S. (2001). The new home economics at colombia and chicago. Feminist Economics,7(3), 103–130. Hanmer, L. C., & Akram-Lodhi, A. H. (1998). In “the house of the spirits”: Toward a post keynesian theory of the household? Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,20 (3), 415–433. Heggeness, M. L. (2023). The girly economics of care work: Implications for economic statistics. In Aea papers and proceedings (Vol. 113, pp. 632–636). Hein, E. (2023a). Macroeconomics after kalecki and keynes: post-keynesian foundations. Edward Elgar Publishing. Hein, E. (2023b). Post-keynesian constant price macroeconomic models. In Macroeconomics after kalecki and keynes (pp. 63–135). Edward Elgar Publishing. Heintz, J., & Folbre, N. (2022). Endogenous growth, population dynamics, and economic structure: Long-run macroeconomics when demography matters. Feminist Economics,28 (3), 145–163. Heintz, J., Staab, S., & Turquet, L. (2021). Don’t let another crisis go to waste: The covid-19 pandemic and the imperative for a paradigm shift. Feminist Economics,27(1-2), 470–485. Hirway, I. (2021). Conducting time-use surveys employing rigorous methods to produce quality data. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics,64, 883–898. Humphries, J., & Rubery, J. (1984). The reconstitution of the supply side of the labour market: the relative autonomy of social reproduction. Cambridge Journal of economics,8(4), 331–346. Hyman, P. (2014). Counting on marilyn waring: New advances in feminist economics. New Zealand Sociology,29(2), 141. ˙ Ilkkaracan, ˙ I. (2016). A feminist alternative to austerity: The purple economy as a gender-egalitarian strategy for employment generation. In Economics and austerity in europe (pp. 49–61). Routledge. 32 ˙ Ilkkaracan, ˙ I. (2017). Unpaid work in macroeconomics: a stocktaking exercise. Gender and Time Use in a Global Context, 29–50. Ilkkaracan, I., Kim, K., Masterson, T., Memi¸s, E., & Zacharias, A. (2021). The impact of investing in social care on employment generation, time-, income-poverty by gender: A macro-micro policy simulation for turkey. World Development,144 , 105476. Kabeer, N. (2016). Gender equality, economic growth, and women’s agency: The “endless variety” and “monotonous similarity” of patriarchal constraints. Feminist economics,22(1), 295–321. Kabeer, N., Razavi, S., & van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. (2021). Feminist economic perspectives on the covid-19 pandemic. Taylor & Francis. Kalecki, M. (1971). Selected essays on the dynamics of the capitalist economy 1933-1970. CUP Archive. Lavoie, M. (2003). The tight links between post-keynesian and feminist economics. The Crisis in Cconomics: the Post-Autistic Economics Movement: the First,600 , 189–92. Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge journal of economics,30(4), 483–505. Lundberg, S., & Stearns, J. (2019). Women in economics: Stalled progress. Journal of Economic Perspectives,33(1), 3–22. Miller, G. R. (2019). Teaching feminist economics through student-written diaries 1. In Principles and pluralist approaches in teaching economics (pp. 191–214). Routledge. Miller, R., & Bairoliya, N. (2022). Parental caregivers and household power dynamics. Feminist Economics,28(3), 114–144. Onaran, ¨ O., & Oyvat, C. (2023). Synthesizing feminist and post-keynesian/kaleckian economics for a purple–green–red transition. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies,20 (2), 317–337. Onaran, ¨ O., Oyvat, C., & Fotopoulou, E. (2022a). Gendering macroeconomic analysis and develop- 33 ment policy: a theoretical model. Feminist Economics,28 (3), 23–55. Onaran, ¨ O., Oyvat, C., & Fotopoulou, E. (2022b). A macroeconomic analysis of the effects of gender inequality, wages, and public social infrastructure: the case of the uk. Feminist Economics,28(2), 152–188. Onaran, ¨ O., Oyvat, C., & Fotopoulou, E. (2023). Can wealth taxation fund public investment in a caring and sustainable economy? the case of the uk. Cambridge Journal of Economics,47 (4), 703–724. Oyvat, C., & Onaran, ¨ O. (2022). The effects of social infrastructure and gender equality on output and employment: the case of south korea. World Development,158 , 105987. Powell, J. (2023). Feminist perspectives on monetary policy. Power, M. (2004). Social provisioning as a starting point for feminist economics. Feminist economics, 10(3), 3–19. Saave, A. (2021). Teaching feminist economics. conceptual notes and practical advice for teaching a subject in the making. Wirtschaft neu lehren: Erfahrungen aus der pluralen, sozio¨okonomischen Hochschulbildung, 77–92. Sawyer, M. (2020). The past, present and future of evolutionary macroeconomics. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy,1(1), 37–54. Seguino, S. (2000). Gender inequality and economic growth: A cross-country analysis. World Development,28 (7), 1211–1230. Seguino, S. (2010). Gender, distribution, and balance of payments constrained growth in developing countries. Review of Political Economy,22(3), 373–404. Seguino, S. (2013). From micro-level gender relations to the macro economy and back again. In Handbook of research on gender and economic life. Edward Elgar Publishing. Seguino, S. (2019). Tools of macroeconomic policy: fiscal, monetary and macroprudential approaches. Gender Equality and Inclusive Growth: Economic Policies to Achieve Sustainable Development. 34 Seguino, S. (2020). Engendering macroeconomic theory and policy. Feminist Economics,26 (2), 27–61. Seguino, S. (2021). Gender and economic growth. The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Economics, 341–350. Seguino, S., & Floro, M. S. (2003). Does gender have any effect on aggregate saving? an empirical analysis. International Review of Applied Economics,17(2), 147–166. Silva, M. S., & Klasen, S. (2021). Gender inequality as a barrier to economic growth: a review of the theoretical literature. Review of Economics of the Household, 1–34. Spotton Visano, B. (2017). Gendering post-keynesian monetary macroeconomics with situated knowledge. Review of Radical Political Economics,49(4), 567–573. Staveren, I. v. (2010). Post-keynesianism meets feminist economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(6), 1123–1144. Stotsky, J. G. (2006). Gender and its relevance to macroeconomic policy: A survey. Thomason, B., & Macias-Alonso, I. (2020). Covid-19 and raising the value of care. Gender, Work & Organization,27(5), 705–708. Van Staveren, I. (2013). Gender as a macroeconomic variable. In New frontiers in feminist political economy (pp. 135–153). Routledge. Van Staveren, I. (2014a). Economics after the crisis: An introduction to economics from a pluralist and global perspective. Routledge. Van Staveren, I. (2014b). The lehman sisters hypothesis. Cambridge Journal of Economics,38(5), 995–1014. van Staveren, I. (2017). Beyond stimulus versus austerity: pluralist capacity building in macroeconomics. European journal of economics and economic policies: intervention,14(2), 267–281. Vasudevan, R., & Raghavendra, S. (2022). Women’s self-employment as a developmental strategy: 35 The dual constraints of care work and aggregate demand. Feminist Economics,28(3), 56–83. Waring, M., & Steinem, G. (1988). If women counted: A new feminist economics. Harper & Row San Francisco. Young, B. (2018). The impact of unconventional monetary policy on gendered wealth inequality. Zacharias, M. T. R.-A. F. N. M. K. K. . K. T., A. (2019). Macroeconomic and microeconomic impacts of improving physical and social infrastructure: A macro-micro policy model for ghana and tanzania. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. 36 Appendix Table 3: Countries in the Sample (Figure 1) Country GDPpc FLFP (%) Country GDPpc FLFP (%) Country GDPpc FLFP (%) Country GDPpc FLFP (%) Afghanistan 1790.7 16.6 Djibouti 4435.0 16.6 Lebanon 14392.4 22.6 Rwanda 1323.0 53.0 Albania 8674.4 49.7 Dominican Republic 11580.8 41.9 Lesotho 2025.2 62.2 Samoa 4976.7 41.6 Algeria 10058.1 13.7 Ecuador 9806.6 50.1 Liberia 1466.1 71.8 Sao Tome and Principe 3409.3 37.4 Angola 6122.1 75.3 Egypt, Arab Rep. 9014.7 20.8 Libya 25481.4 32.3 Saudi Arabia 43895.5 18.9 Argentina 20193.4 48.7 El Salvador 7184.0 44.6 Lithuania 24397.1 54.7 Senegal 2801.7 34.2 Armenia 7896.3 56.2 Equatorial Guinea 17315.0 50.5 Luxembourg 102421.0 46.6 Serbia 13535.8 46.0 Australia 41592.9 56.7 Estonia 26486.7 55.0 Madagascar 1541.8 83.7 Sierra Leone 1355.3 60.5 Austria 48405.6 51.7 Ethiopia 1196.3 72.1 Malawi 1214.6 72.8 Singapore 69701.1 55.2 Azerbaijan 9381.8 65.0 Fiji 10100.7 39.2 Malaysia 19138.8 46.0 Slovak Republic 22301.3 52.6 Bahamas, The 34214.5 67.2 Finland 41734.5 56.1 Maldives 15827.0 35.3 Slovenia 31825.1 52.4 Bahrain 46157.7 38.3 France 40506.6 50.0 Mali 1823.7 59.4 Solomon Islands 2386.6 82.1 Bangladesh 3246.9 30.4 Gabon 15528.4 39.0 Malta 30499.8 35.4 Somalia 1063.6 21.0 Barbados 15145.2 61.4 Gambia, The 2020.9 49.5 Mauritania 4762.8 27.0 South Africa 12080.8 50.9 Belarus 13135.5 55.4 Georgia 8894.0 56.8 Mauritius 15363.2 41.3 Spain 35159.6 45.3 Belgium 44968.3 44.8 Germany 45700.6 51.6 Mexico 17870.8 40.7 Sri Lanka 8407.7 35.8 Belize 8642.2 42.3 Ghana 3580.3 70.0 Moldova 8413.0 46.2 St. Lucia 13410.8 57.4 Benin 2607.5 62.2 Greece 29555.3 41.3 Mongolia 7296.4 55.1 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 10601.6 50.8 Bhutan 6484.7 59.3 Guatemala 7106.6 40.2 Montenegro 16427.4 44.3 Sudan 4136.8 28.1 Bolivia 6235.2 59.4 Guinea 1904.1 55.4 Morocco 6061.6 24.3 Suriname 15623.5 38.4 Bosnia and Herzegovina 9681.9 32.7 Guinea-Bissau 1806.7 48.3 Mozambique 882.2 82.7 Sweden 44065.4 59.8 Botswana 12393.3 52.1 Guyana 10205.2 38.0 Myanmar 2259.7 57.5 Switzerland 62089.1 59.7 Brazil 12977.5 51.2 Haiti 3050.5 59.2 Namibia 8219.6 51.2 Tajikistan 2396.4 31.0 Brunei Darussalam 67079.3 54.1 Honduras 4588.4 43.8 Nepal 2531.5 23.8 Tanzania 1815.6 83.1 Bulgaria 16073.0 48.5 Hungary 23703.2 44.3 Netherlands 48564.9 55.1 Thailand 12729.0 63.8 Burkina Faso 1531.1 64.9 Iceland 47614.7 70.9 New Zealand 36023.4 60.3 Timor-Leste 3034.5 62.3 Burundi 862.0 83.3 India 3815.4 27.3 Nicaragua 4448.2 40.8 Togo 1733.7 55.2 Cambodia 2594.5 69.9 Indonesia 7753.4 50.4 Niger 1038.3 66.8 Tonga 5091.0 43.1 Cameroon 3257.8 73.6 Iran, Islamic Rep. 12851.1 14.1 Nigeria 4083.9 55.2 Trinidad and Tobago 20937.3 48.2 Canada 42715.6 60.4 Iraq 7465.4 10.9 Norway 58490.3 60.3 Tunisia 8795.0 24.5 Central African Republic 988.7 63.2 Ireland 56157.8 51.1 Oman 35705.5 25.9 Turkmenistan 7733.1 51.6 Chad 1357.5 56.3 Israel 34090.7 55.0 Pakistan 3972.3 18.8 Uganda 1607.8 64.8 Chile 18789.4 41.6 Italy 41408.3 37.6 Panama 20711.2 46.1 Ukraine 11157.6 51.9 China 7643.4 66.8 Jamaica 9794.4 58.3 Papua New Guinea 3380.9 58.5 United Arab Emirates 82371.2 40.6 Colombia 11311.1 53.7 Japan 37709.6 49.9 Paraguay 10671.3 54.6 United Kingdom 40232.1 55.4 Comoros 2961.4 32.4 Jordan 9740.7 12.8 Peru 8708.6 61.2 United States 52475.4 57.3 Congo, Dem. Rep. 964.8 67.6 Kazakhstan 17410.9 65.7 Philippines 5707.5 47.1 Uruguay 17448.7 51.5 Congo, Rep. 4466.5 66.6 Kenya 3754.8 70.9 Poland 21088.8 49.6 Uzbekistan 4590.7 45.0 Costa Rica 15276.9 42.9 Korea, Rep. 29389.2 50.2 Portugal 30035.4 53.1 Vanuatu 2869.5 60.5 Cote d’Ivoire 4127.1 51.6 Kuwait 58399.5 45.8 Puerto Rico 30867.3 33.7 Vietnam 5710.8 71.1 Croatia 23716.3 45.1 Kyrgyz Republic 3987.3 52.2 Qatar 94072.3 50.5 West Bank and Gaza 5110.4 14.3 Cyprus 34557.6 52.3 Lao PDR 4384.7 58.7 Romania 18887.6 51.3 Zambia 2674.8 52.0 Denmark 49701.2 59.2 Latvia 21549.7 52.7 Russian Federation 20899.7 55.2 Zimbabwe 2301.8 60.6 37 Institute for Socio-Economics University of Duisburg-Essen Lotharstr. 65 47057 Duisburg Germany uni-due.de/soziooekonomie [email protected] ifso working paper ifso working papers are preliminary scholarly papers emerging from research at and around the Institute for Socio-Economics at the University of Duisburg-Essen. All ifso working papers at uni-due.de/soziooekonomie/wp ISSN 2699-7207 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License