Saturday, June 09, 2007

Practice exam question: Inside the black box of the family

Practice exam question: Explain why policy makers should invest more time in understanding processes internal to the family.

Hmm, can start here with Okin's notion of justice, and her contention that underlying all the inequalites specifically affecting women is the unequal distribution of unpaid labour in teh household. And Hobson's contention that the family is a site of great inequality, of a sort which doesn't mirror societal inequality. They should invest more time in understanding it because we have limited understanding of it - i'll discuss the theories of household bargaining that we have. But mainly they should invest more time in understanding it because, as feminist theorists observe, social policy is both shaped by and shaping of what goes on within the so-called black box of the family. And social policy understanding has always been skewed towards the public sphere, but as Hobson argues, the policy divide between public and private is arbitrary, ideological, and not gender neutral. Because women take on more of the caring duties within the family and tend to have weaker bargaining positions economically, policy which does not seek to peer into the black box is policy that tacitly supports, approves of and furthers the current gender gap.

Continue reading "Practice exam question: Inside the black box of the family" »

Practice exam question: "Malestream" theories

Practice question: "In the field of social policy, mainstream theories would be more appropriately referred to as malestream theories." Discuss.

Ok, how to address this one? First of all, I don't know a lot about mainstream theories. I know a fair amount about EA, and I know that Willensky's was based on social expenditure. And I know that Marshall was the mac daddy of social citizenship, and that in general social citizenship is defined as one's ability to participate fully in the activities of society. What I could say is that I'll argue that mainstream theories have been said to be malestream because they were far more concerned with the welfare of men than with women. This concern expressed itself  through a concentration on class and an ignorance of the role of gender in personal welfare, as well as an implicit assumption that women's primary role was as carer rather than provider.

Continue reading "Practice exam question: "Malestream" theories" »

Practice exam question: citizenship, gender, and Wollstonecraft's dilemma

In what ways can policies that seek to address the distribution of unpaid and caring work be seen as an attempt to solve Wollstonecraft's dilemma by requiring both women and men to be "citizen workers"?

Ok, I'm a bit shaky on this material right now, but the purpose of this practice question is to get me up to speed with the key concepts and contributors. So here goes a kitchen skink approach, which I'l clean up later.

Continue reading "Practice exam question: citizenship, gender, and Wollstonecraft's dilemma" »

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Patience capital and non-cognitive development

Download patience_capital_and_the_demise_of_the_aristocracy.pdf

I'm not sure I buy the premise of the above paper on 'Patience capital and the demise of the aristocracy', but it's an interesting one, and some of the arguments are interesting. For instance, there's a good point about the fact that urban artisans had a life characterised by a steep income slope (making nothing as an apprentice, pretty little as a journeyman, and hopefully a good deal more as a master) that encouraged long-term planning and financial discipline; this in contrast to those (both poor and rich) in rural areas, for whom the land was worth basically the same when they were 20 as when they were 60. For the latter, lifetime income had more of a tendency to be flat from year to year; thus notions of investment in the future and the accumulation of capital would have been less salient - or so goes the theory. (See bottom of page for data on the landed aristocracy's attitude to business.)

Most interesting for my studies, though, is the notion of patience capital (think the Marshmallow Test, and the ways in which parents strive to teach their children patience and other key non-cognitive skills) is an interesting one.

It may be particularly related to positive outcomes for low-income children who attend decent daycare programmes, argue some. Remember, these kids - eg in the Abecedarian or Perry High Scope project - tend not to show greater cognitive development than their peers over time, but they do show better outcomes. Here's a snippet:

Heckman (2000)
and Heckman and Krueger (2003) review the evidence from a large number of
programs targeting disadvantaged children through family development sup-
port. They show that most programs were successful in permanently raising the
treated children’s non-cognitive skills, turning them more motivated to learn,
less likely to engage in crime, and altogether more future-oriented than children
of non-treated families. On the other hand, the programs were less successful in
raising cognitive skills as measured by IQ test scores.3 The most effective pro-
grams where those targeted to children at a young age, although positive effects
are also documented for programs targeting adolescents. These studies show
how important family transmission is in this particular form of human capital
accumulation, of which the notion of patience discussed in this paper is a com-
ponent. Similar conclusions are reached by a number of studies in child develop-
ment psychology (see e.g., Goleman 1995, Shonkoff and Philips 2000 and Taylor,
McGue, and Iacono 2000). Coleman and Hoffer (1983) argue that the emphasis
on patience and self-discipline is the key of the effectiveness of Catholic schools
in the US. [p 8]

There's also an argument in there that would be useful for understanding cultural transmission, eg through engaging in Lareau-ish analysis of parenting styles:

In our model, in contrast, parents invest in their children’s patience. In this re-
spect, our paper is related to the growing literature on cultural transmission (e.g.,
Bisin and Verdier 2000 and 2001, Hauk and Saez-Marti 2002, Saez-Marti and
Zenou 2004).5 In this literature, parents evaluate their children’s life prospects
from the standpoint of their own preferences, and actively try to manipulate chil-
dren’s preference to induce choices that parents regard as desirable. As these
papers, we argue that economic incentives are crucial in determining the effort
parents exert in affecting their children’s preferences. [p 10]

OK, up above  I promised data on the landed aristocracy's attitudes to business.  (it's really worth having a look at the table in the pdf; for some reason I can't seem to paste it into this post.)

Table 2 reports the professional choice of Cambridge graduates during
the period 1750–1899. The vast majority of students at Cambridge during this pe-
riod were sons of members of the landowning class, so their professional choices
(other than landowning) give us a good idea of which professions younger sons
entered. Strikingly, until 1850, not a single graduate got involved in banking or
business (widely defined as any “profit-oriented activity”), and even after 1850
the percentage remains surprisingly low.



Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Ladies and gentlemen

Harry Brighouse links to a series of fab-sounding papers on gender egalitarianism. Authors include Gornick and Meyers, Crompton, and plenty of others. The papers can be found here. Just so you I can see what I'd be missing by not clicking through, I've pasted a list of them below, though the links don't seem to work down there. Damn t'internets! Bring back the slateboard!

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
Background           Paper: 
  
Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers "Institutions                   that Support Gender Egalitarianism in Parenthood and Employment"
  
  
Responses                 and Papers: 
  
Rosemary               Crompton "National                   Particularities, Caring, and the Domestic Division of Labour:           Their Impact on Gender Egalitarianism in Parenthood and Employment"
Ruth           Milkman "Class                   Disparities, Market Fundamentalism and Work-Family Policy:           Lessons from California"
Lane               Kenworthy "Who                   Should Care for One- to Three-
          Year-Olds?"
Harry               Brighouse and Erik Olin Wright "In                   Defense of Strong Gender Egalitarianism
          (even if this requires Illiberal Policies for its Achievement)"
Shireen Hassim "Whose                   Utopia? A Response to Gornick and Meyers 'Institutions           that Support Egalitarianism in Parenthood and Employment'"
Peter               McDonald "Comments                   upon: Institutions that Support Gender Egalitarianism in Parenthood           and Employment by Janet C. Gornick and Marcia K. Meyers"
Rosalyn               Baxandall "Winning                   Day Care through Grass Roots Struggle
          In New York City"
Scott               Coltrane "Fatherhood,           Gender and Work-Family Policies"
Kymberly               Morgan "The                   Political Path to a Dual-Earner/Dual-Carer Society: Pitfalls           and Possibilities"
Myra               Marx Ferree "An                   American Utopia? A roadmap to reconciliation politics in the                     US"
Nancy           Folbre "The           Qualities and Inequalities of Care"
Kathrin           Zippel "The                   Missing Link for Promoting Gender Equality:
          Family-Work & Anti-Discrimination Policies"
Johanna           Brenner "Beyond                     the Family/Household and the Bureaucratic Welfare State"
Heidi           Hartmann and Vicky Lovell "Paid           Sick Days: The Missing Component"
Michael               Shalev "Trouble                     in Utopia: Class Divisions in Preferences, Interests and                     Politics"
Collette               Fagan "Some                   brief Comments for the Conference on
          Institutions for Gender Egalitarianism"
Barbara               R. Bergmann "Taking                     Gender Equality into Account in Work-Family Policies" (revised)
Cameron           Macdonald "What’s                   Culture Got to Do with It? Mothering Ideologies as Barriers                   to Gender Equity"

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Assessed essay - SA4A7

Download sa4a7_assessed_essay_draft_3.doc

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Toynbee blasts the Tories

They took her to their bosom a few weeks ago (well a few of the newer ones did), but now the old Tories rear their Thatcher-ite heads. The way to solve the problem of poverty, they say, is to increase the marriage rate. Why do conservatives so often forget that  a solution to some people's problems isn't necessarily the solution to the problem as a whole, or even much of it?

Marriage is the Tories' happy hunting ground, their comfort zone. It may hearten their heartland, but its wider political value is doubtful. Most ordinary families have divorce in their midst and they know life is complicated. It is a genuine social problem that a quarter of children live in single-parent families, yet society still fails to let mothers support a family. But as for cause and effect, one fact is conveniently missing from these reports: Denmark has exactly the same proportion of one-parent families and the least child poverty in the EU. Good social policy trumps moralising.

Friday, December 08, 2006

LSE/ESRC work-life balance seminars

These took place between 2002 and 2004, but the summaries will still be worth a read, I imagine.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Freezing eggs

Interesting article on freezing eggs. I like the idea of delaying childbearing until 55 or so, following an early retirement. Might be a bit exhausting, but on the other hand, it lets you coordinate the biggest time/energy drains (children and work) in a more orderly fashion.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Cute butts and housework

Via RebelDad:

I'm late to the party -- Dadspoint and Feministing have already noted it -- but I wanted to draw your attention to a piece in the NYTimes Magazine on Sunday. It's a thought-provoking piece, largely on the new (historically speaking) trend of men and women marrying those with similar earning power, and the consequences thereof. But in the last paragraph, the author, Annie Murphy Paul, lets loose with one of the more wonderful passages I've seen in a while:

Of course, men and women don't choose each other on the basis of education and income alone. Putting love aside, as men's and women's roles continue to shift, other standards for selecting a partner may come to the fore. Indeed, the sociologist Julie Press recently offered what she called "a gynocentric theory of assortative mating," moving the focus from what men now desire in a marriage partner to the evolving preferences of women. What would-be wives may be seeking now, she proposed in The Journal of Marriage and Family, is "cute butts and housework" -- that is, a man with an appealing physique and a willingness to wash dishes. Could this be a feminist slogan for our time?