head of household that ensure everyone’s utility is met among the members.
And therefore women aresuffered from prejudices or economically disadvantages, and then it is should be the micro level, whichwould have nothing to do with the macro and micro, according the neo-classical theory. While microlevel in the neo-classical perspective accepts gender differences such as male and female as economicagent, yet certain level of gender biases remain untouched. For example, preference on access andcontrol over resources, entitlements and endowments that the neo-classical economists consider thateveryone is rational to maximize each utilities. A summary analysis of Diane critiques on this articlewill be discussed in next section and follow by the entire discussions.Critiques as Diane illustrated first would be focusing on economic agent who is not and will notbe rational for everyone. It is strongly disagree that the guaranteed of general equilibrium will beachieved if letting the market mechanism and money as medium of exchange of supply and demand towork freely. What Diane has simply emphasized/referred that if the economic agent thinks the price willchange in the future, it is likely that the agent will not spend any cash. Second critique is based on theidea that economic crisis are from the external threats but she argues that such threats themselves arefrom the malfunction/dysfunction and international economy which macro economists failed toconsider, therefore macro economics do not just limit into the country wide, it should be both globallyand nationally prepared as this globalization can easily affect the country economy. The third critiquemade by the article is on voluntarily contract where it is not sure that all contracts are voluntarily orforced.A matter of fact, each individual can be either very cooperative or competitive depends onvarious social norms and practices. This social norm is itself like a meso structure which shape/reshapeacting pattern. As she argues that without properly understanding/addressing social norms, exchanges ineconomic activity would not have been easily/satisfactory achieved since the results of the economyaction may also derive from how each person feels about certain situation in a certain setting with boundof friendship sharing mutual trust versus and non-friendship interactions. In this case, family as aneconomic agent makes no sense since as family is very much a social institution that either cooperative,conflict or both under poverty circumstances (Sen, 1990). Such cases of severe poverty, discrimination,subordination and socially unequal gender division of labor may limit or forbid people to freely chooseor what they want. Thus, argument can be made that this family is socially personal choice but personaland impersonal is political too (p.38). With regard to various economic and gender impacts briefingabout, Diane Elson also explains different critiques from a feminist critical economics and the critiquesof the economy policies as follows.One of the basic critiques of her on this article illustrated is concentrating on the idea of malebias reproducing the women oppression and subordination to men. The biases are mainly derived fromthe neoclassical economics which do not take into consideration of the inequality between men andwomen. What would help a feminist found ways out of this biasness is to explore carefully the threestructures of micro, macro and meso of the economy cannot be ignored the social reproduction andmake men aware of their dominant and encourage women to see they are under oppressed . Withoutanalyzing how male bias in these three levels, gender equality in both men and women would remainunchanged in term of addressing both the needs of women and men. In doing these three levels of analysis can be done via exploring social institutions such as family, marriage, kin relationships, socialrelations and meso institutions such as also market structures which are the norms to continuously limitwomen equal rights and burden women unpaid labor.Though in economic and labour market women represent some sort of employment quotas buttheir level of work tends to be at the bottom ladder of the employment, having limit chances to improvetheir human skills and excluding from possible of gaining wages as other equal professionals. Anothercritiques which Diane Elson has demonstrated was the reforming/re-establishing of public sectors whichcould increase women back into their works and social security, yet she warned that gender perspectivesmust be incorporated into this new re-establishment public sectors, otherwise, women will be againturning to the point where male
bias coexists “even it may not be male
-bias by design but they will bemale-
biased by omission” (p.40).
The third challenge puts forward is the uses of money. It is argued bythe author that money are not in itself a gender equality, it is influenced by social structures since moneyderived from paid work and therefore the benefits tend to go to men, however, a good example showed