Article Review

Elson, Diane (1994) “Micro, Meso, Macro: Gender and Economics Analysis in the
Context of Policy Reform” in I. Bakker (ed) The strategic Silence: Gender and
Economic Policy, London and Ottawa: Zed Books, pp. 93-104

Assignment to be submitted to:

Dr. Yayoi Sugihashi

Submitted on 26th June 2009

School of Environment, Resources and Development,
Gender and Development Studies,
Asian Institute of Technology,
Student Name: Sreng Sopheap
Student ID: st107692
Summarize

Diane Elson (1994) provides in her analysis and critiques on economic policy reforms which
include micro, meso and macro economic. Micro and macro; however, traditionally were what
economist used to focus on such as a division of supply and demand side and its connection between the
micro and macro level with its gender neutral interaction considering individual economic agents as a
unit of analysis. However, later the article brings its introduction into the meso level analysis that it is
more concern on how each structure would interfere or influence individual household economy which
markets, private enterprises and public sectors as the major considerations into the economy.
In this article, Diane brings together the three levels of micro, meso and macro economics into
discussion of policy reform as well as its effects on gender. She also offers some feminist
methodologies which are useful in understanding these three level analyses. It will first summary
economic policy reform at micro, macro and meso in the neo-classical perspective. Second, it briefs
some critiques of economic policy reform of these three levels in the perspectives of critical economics
and third is the feminist critical economics and the critique of economic policy reform, which will be
later followed a discussion and conclusion.
As neo-classical economic perspective being introduced is actually a major economic of policy
reform which solely reliance on the notions of self-regulating, free market, free choice of economic
agents and self-interested individual to work towards meeting the supply and demand and utilities. This
believes that as long as both supply and demand are free market, they will adjust and mediate through
some mechanisms which soon will achieve general equilibrium; where supply and demand are satisfied.
The satisfaction is of course followed by a notion that each economic agent is rational and voluntarily
with some market mechanisms aim to utilize the most available resources and with a theory of Pareto
optimality where the result of such an economic interaction should not let anyone be made better off
without someone else being made worse off (p.34)
The neo-classical economics which the micro, macro and meso are very much inter-related,
though at different levels. Marco level examines economy in a bigger scale such as market output in
both private and public sectors, total national and private expenditures. On how these macro activities
are designed/operated will be surely shedding impacts on the populations/household which are
considered micro level, through some meso structures such as market institutions. The effects may also
be from how the government/public policy is introduced. If the policy is not properly managed/initiated,
it may cause some imbalances at the macro level in which supply and demand are not accurately
developed. As result of this macro imbalances will also mislead the individual choices at micro level in
both micro supply and demand on such as goods and services. Such misleading imbalances of supply
and demand together will prevent the economy development of the country and mitigate external threats
such international current rate, international trade and direct investments.
The article proposes that there must be a need to change in state intervention at both macro and
meso levels. Diane shows in some recommendations on this change includes cutback public expenditure
and the supply of money to reduce aggregate demand and changes in meso level to remove distortion in
the individual economy. These as changes in pricing through devaluation, privatization, trade
liberalization and withdrawal of subsidies and public services like road, education, and health services
(p.35). As this change will be likely to influence the rights of individual to enjoy certain utility or
access to certain resources, thus in some cases it promotes property boom through privatization, but this
may lead to breaking community social cohesion, destroying customary use rights, limit employee
social collective rights and the right to strike. What is it interesting is that these removals are considered
as to help eliminate distortions but these generally do not apply to the rich and the powerful, unlike the
poor and the weak whose social rights are more reasonably to be thought as distortions. This because of
lack in gender and pro-poor policy which can help better see the overall picture of the intervention
ignoring the informal economy where women and children are the domain of the market and ensure that
the formal economy keeps running, without both informal economy and reproductive work, formal and
productive work cannot be attained.
At the meso level (same as macro level), analysis on family which refers to the neo-classical
economic as considers family as gender neutral and individual with joint utility manages by altruistic
2
head of household that ensure everyone’s utility is met among the members. And therefore women are
suffered from prejudices or economically disadvantages, and then it is should be the micro level, which
would have nothing to do with the macro and micro, according the neo-classical theory. While micro
level in the neo-classical perspective accepts gender differences such as male and female as economic
agent, yet certain level of gender biases remain untouched. For example, preference on access and
control over resources, entitlements and endowments that the neo-classical economists consider that
everyone is rational to maximize each utilities. A summary analysis of Diane critiques on this article
will 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 not
be rational for everyone. It is strongly disagree that the guaranteed of general equilibrium will be
achieved if letting the market mechanism and money as medium of exchange of supply and demand to
work freely. What Diane has simply emphasized/referred that if the economic agent thinks the price will
change in the future, it is likely that the agent will not spend any cash. Second critique is based on the
idea that economic crisis are from the external threats but she argues that such threats themselves are
from the malfunction/dysfunction and international economy which macro economists failed to
consider, therefore macro economics do not just limit into the country wide, it should be both globally
and nationally prepared as this globalization can easily affect the country economy. The third critique
made by the article is on voluntarily contract where it is not sure that all contracts are voluntarily or
forced.
A matter of fact, each individual can be either very cooperative or competitive depends on
various social norms and practices. This social norm is itself like a meso structure which shape/reshape
acting pattern. As she argues that without properly understanding/addressing social norms, exchanges in
economic activity would not have been easily/satisfactory achieved since the results of the economy
action may also derive from how each person feels about certain situation in a certain setting with bound
of friendship sharing mutual trust versus and non-friendship interactions. In this case, family as an
economic 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 choose
or what they want. Thus, argument can be made that this family is socially personal choice but personal
and impersonal is political too (p.38). With regard to various economic and gender impacts briefing
about, Diane Elson also explains different critiques from a feminist critical economics and the critiques
of the economy policies as follows.
One of the basic critiques of her on this article illustrated is concentrating on the idea of male
bias reproducing the women oppression and subordination to men. The biases are mainly derived from
the neoclassical economics which do not take into consideration of the inequality between men and
women. What would help a feminist found ways out of this biasness is to explore carefully the three
structures of micro, macro and meso of the economy cannot be ignored the social reproduction and
make men aware of their dominant and encourage women to see they are under oppressed . Without
analyzing how male bias in these three levels, gender equality in both men and women would remain
unchanged 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, social
relations and meso institutions such as also market structures which are the norms to continuously limit
women equal rights and burden women unpaid labor.
Though in economic and labour market women represent some sort of employment quotas but
their level of work tends to be at the bottom ladder of the employment, having limit chances to improve
their human skills and excluding from possible of gaining wages as other equal professionals. Another
critiques which Diane Elson has demonstrated was the reforming/re-establishing of public sectors which
could increase women back into their works and social security, yet she warned that gender perspectives
must be incorporated into this new re-establishment public sectors, otherwise, women will be again
turning to the point where male bias coexists “even it may not be male-bias by design but they will be
male-biased by omission” (p.40). The third challenge puts forward is the uses of money. It is argued by
the author that money are not in itself a gender equality, it is influenced by social structures since money
derived from paid work and therefore the benefits tend to go to men, however, a good example showed
3
by the case is that it is inseparable to bias again women who burden all the unpaid work in order to
sustain household members while the privileges are not returned. As because of the male biases and
where sexual/gender division of labour means also that women in the reproductive sphere will largely
responsible as the effects of the economic restructuring where social policy and welfare are reduced.
The turning point of this explains that the macro economy or economy has mainly been focusing
on just what it is a profit/paid economy and assumption is completely unfair that the reproductive work
will be automatically adjusted if changes take place in the macro level such as reducing government
expenditures on health, education and infrastructures that women would just be ready to supply what are
missing by the productive/monetized economy, yet women’s continue to disproportionately shoulder the
rest burden while the macro level do not directly benefits women. That is what strongly accused by the
author that the macro economics are definitely a male-bias which cannot just be modified or changed
easily, it needs to have all levels of government, international organization and global economic
functions to help meet development which can accommodate both men and women. I will later continue
to provide extra discussions on what the article has demonstrated in both giving my own critiques and
supporting ideas in the discussion below.

Discussion:
The article has demonstrated/contributed greatly on gender and economics and economy policy
reforms which are crucial in understanding a wider context of economics developments and the effects
on human, to be specifically those are the women, men and the poor of the society. My understanding to
this article is that I strongly agree on some of the article arguments while on other parts are not properly
explained or given details.
First, I acknowledge that on the neo-classical economics assumption about the free will or
rational person to interact in the economy of free market. But what leaves us unanswered is how can
women and other poor disadvantaged and an inequitable society be a rational or free choice given that
much already socially neglected or oppressed. As a matter of fact, various gender stereotypes and
inequitable gender norms are embedded in political, legal, cultural and economic domains, which as
result determine different access and control over resources, strengthen, reproduce, and even continue to
justify unequal gender systems (Seguino, 2007). There is no free choice or capabilities if women and
poor are forced to take certain conditions under social norms which limit them to act and prohibit their
agency to value the life they want to achieve (Sen, 1990). Plus, on the basic of asymmetric information
where one side of the agent is equipped with information and other agents who have not any
information power to go onto the economy interactions, as result women and the poor are the ones to be
exploited of either labour or economy terms. In some ways, to have this information that each individual
can use to attain their utilities in the neo-classical economy tend to also rely on the human capital.
Human capital theory which was developed by Becker during the 1950s and 1960s is itself also
a gender blinded seeing that those who are paid less or having less choice in the economy is because
they do not invest into their human skills such as education and other qualification, which these
assumption give women to be less productive as male counterparts (Sugihashi, 2003). Taking into
account of various women’s planned interruption, where women can not be rational to compete as
planned interruptions have been expecting women to perform certain reproductive roles and that what
are appropriate by the society. Women will be a rational economic agent as if she were not to pursue her
higher education as she will not be able to do so with her future interruptions. Again the neo-classical
economics assumption of economic free-will/rational agent cant be applied in the case where women are
socially defined to be in the feminine role to reach their full potential participation in this neo-classical
economics.
Second, the notion of Pareto Optimality where no one can be made better off without someone
else is made worse off. This shows bit tricky in the sense that assumption of a head of household to
satisfy each member utilities. Each member utilities as assumed that head or household or joint utilities
will be made by the male bread winner model shows ineffective in the way that male usually prioritizes
their income on personal satisfaction such as on cigarette, alcohols, gambling and other goods to
become high status in the society, while women give all priorities to their children and household well-
being, rather than her own needs (Elson, 1998). This has demonstrated that the male breadwinner model
4
cannot be joint utilities as head of household are gender blind and have the power to use the money
ineffectively, this especially when the men use the money for own consumption while women tend to
keep to satisfy household members.
Third, even though the neo-classical economics in discussion brought by Diane that covers the
micro, macro and meso and it is argued that the biasness are mainly derived from the neoclassical
economics which do not take into consideration of the inequality between men and women. I personally
see the point of Diane has raised but what I also personally disagree and wish to explore and be alert
from a gender point of view that this notion of being so confine to just “male” and “female” leaves
further a problem to what an argument made by Butler (1990); Jolly (2000) that from ideas of gender
and sex, it seems that sex is something fixed and nature while gender is more based on cultural
perspectives. However, this dichotomy tends to limit only into two types human being that is only a
woman and man, neglecting other types in between, those who are not fitting into the box of either a
woman or a man, such as intersex, transgender and transsexual people (Butler, 1990; Jolly 2000).
As gender studying economics, are we continuing to ignore them from economic point of view?
Here MSM (men have sex with men) sex workers in Cambodia can be taken as a good example. These
MSM could be hidden/invisible, not recognized by the society that there are such thing existed and
having sex with men is socially unrealistic/unacceptable (Morineau, Ngak and Sophat, 2004). As Danby
points out that even after one realized such sexual identity, “resisted conversation about one’s romantic
or emotional life as gay person” (Danby, 2007, p.43). But these MSM contributes to the household
economy from what they have earned and consumed as sex worker, either men or women or in between.
The division of male and female is invalid in this case where if we focus on gender and economic
development. How can we make sure our economic policy will be engendered even not a single word of
homosexual person to be mentioned. There are not just male and female, we must take into account
others who don’t just fall into this category. We cannot isolate them, as they are part of our economic
agents too but view them as part of our contribution once develop our economic action plans.
Fourth critique on this article I would take is to consider gender division of labor. From the
article, it looks like that the assumption is always women are the victims of such economy policy
reform. Of course, to some degrees it is reliable to say so such on the that women are brainwashed to
perform her duties which traditionally have been appropriate for them to do so such child rearing,
household work to sustain human capital for her family members and to some extend voluntarily
(England, 1993) or triple roles where Moser argued that women are burden in productive, reproductive
and community roles which are not widely visible or counted (Moser, 1993). Does it always like that?
Well, again I am taking a feminist way of looking at women agency as whether women are the victims
or rather it has been habitus as an area of willed intention and a disposition which Bourdieu developed
what he termed as strategies to open ways to acquire more peaceful means and understanding of limited
freedom(Risseeuw, 199, p.165). This also lead women to be the victims are not because they are passive
but the socially embedded are so strong that beyond to questions (ibid). So women are economic passive
agent are not always the true as they have also been that being silent and accepted to male dominant is
to also exercise her agency. As gender students, we should unpack this notion so that we will not
reproduce the idea of women as victims and men protector.
In conclusion, the article provides a timely discussion on the economic policy reform as well as
relevant to the current economic crisis which the effects of these are profoundly differing to men and
women. Thus this world financial crisis has no completely much to do the SAPs, but is has been argued
earlier that government is taking a role in this crisis mitigation. With chorological order of the article
that offers with brief description of the micro, meso and macro economy before bringing to the critiques
make the article to be an easy to follow, though some economic background were required. The author
has also provided clear and simple example on economic and some aspects on the household level
covers male and female as the point of discussion, it would further be a very feminist article once
include those sexes who are not in between, otherwise it is again a gender blind article, neglecting the
other sexes of economic agent. As a gender is not just about men and women, it is about social
constructions, race, class, ethnicities and social institutions which lead the way men and women to be
the way they must or should confine to. And that is why discussing about gender and in economic term,
we must be sure that no sexes are further marginalized, which what traditionally macro economist do.
5
Bibliography
Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York & London:
Routledge, Chapter 1: Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire, p346

Danby, Colin. (2007). “Political Economy and the Closet: Heteronormativity in Feminist Economics”,
Feminist Economics 13(2), April 2007, p.43

Elson, D. (1998). Thinking to the boys: Gender and Economic Growth Model. In C. Jackson, & R.
Pearson. page 155-170.

England, P. (1993). Separative and Soluble Selves:Dichotomous Thinking in Economics. In M. Ferber,

& J. A. Nelson, Feminist Economics Today: Beyond Economic Man (pp. 33-35). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Jolly, S. (2002) Gender and Cultural Change: BRIDGE, Institute of Development Studies, University
of Sussex, Brighton

Morineau, G., Ngak , S., and Sophat, P. (2004) Men Who Sex with Men in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Population size and sex trade

Moser, Caroline (1993) “Gender roles, the family and the household.” Gender Planning and
Development: theory, practice and training, Routledge, London and New York

Risseeuw, C. (1991). Bourdieu, Power and Resistance: Gender Transformation in Sri Lanka. In Davis
et al, The Gender of Power (p. 165). London: Sage.

Seguino, Stephani .(2007) “Plus Ca Change? Evidence on Global Trends in Gender Norms and
Stereotypes”. Feminist Economist 13(2), April 2007,1-28

Sen, A. K. (1990). Gender and Cooperative Conflicts. In I. Tinker, Persistent Inequalities: Women and
World Development (pp. 131-157). New York amd Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sugihashi, Y. (2003). Gender Wage Differentials and Discrimination in Britain and Japan. Manchester:
PhD thesis.