Reanalyzing the gender-specific effects of the Great Recession

Khalil, Sana (2018): Reanalyzing the gender-specific effects of the Great Recession. Published in: The Political Economy of International Finance in an Age of Inequality: Soft Currencies, Hard Landings, (2018): p. 47.

Abstract

The subprime mortgage crisis that began in the United States eventually unraveled as the worst global economic crisis – the Great Recession – since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The literature has described several factors to explain the causes of the Great Recession, most prominent being the pace of financial deregulations and excessive financial innovations that catalyzed an unnatural boom that ended in a crisis (Crotty and Epstein, 2009). Countries hit the hardest in terms of an upsurge in unemployment rates over 2008–10 include Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, and Latvia. A comparison of harmonized unemployment rates for these countries shows that Estonia posted the highest increase in the unemployment rate, which rose from 5.5 percent in 2008 to 16.7 percent in 2010, an increase of 203 percentage points. Other countries worst hit by the crisis were Iceland (153 percent), Latvia (151 percent) and Ireland (117 percent) (OECD, 2018a). To this end, an important but understated issue worthy of discussion concerns the gender impacts of the Great Recession. Crisis theories that have described its distributional dynamics do not converge to a united whole and predict differential impacts of crises for men and women. One theory posits that since women are used as employment buffers – called in when demand increases but pushed back when demand shrinks – women’s unemployment rates may rise more than that of men’s during recessionary phases. Thus, women might experience a greater loss in employment, earned income, and overall wealth during recessions (Humphries, 1988 [2010]). However, an argument running counter to this theory is that women’s concentration in female-dominated occupations – which tend to be cyclically robust – may shield women’s employment relative to that of men’s. Since there is no definitive theoretical model of these relations, the issue of the gender impacts of recessions becomes an empirical question. In this respect, men’s and women’s labor market experiences from the Great Recession can be treated as a litmus test. Similar to previous two recessions in the US, men’s unemployment rates rose faster than women’s during the Great Recession. Due to this phenomenon, these recessions have come to be known as “man-cessions” (Wall, 2009). However, I argue in this chapter that this observation can be misleading on many accounts. I argue that although men and women showed substantial differences in their vulnerabilities to the recession, within-gender differences were much more pronounced. Additionally, gender impacts of crises derive from differences in men’s and women’s unique, socially and culturally drawn positions, job structures, family models and welfare systems.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Recession, Gender gap, Employment, Unemployment
• Subjects: F - International Economics > F0 - General; F - International Economics > F0 - General > F00 - General; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J0 - General > J00 - General; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J7 - Labor Discrimination; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J7 - Labor Discrimination > J71 - Discrimination

References

Albelda, R. (2014), “Gender impacts of the ‘Great Recession’ in the United States,” in K. Karamessini and J. Rubery (eds), Women and Austerity: The Economic Crisis and the Future for Gender Equality, New York: Routledge, pp. 82–101.

Algan, Y. and P. Cahuc (2003), “Job protection and family policies: The macho hypothesis,” unpublished paper, University of Paris I.

Arestis, P., A. Charles and G. Fontana (2013), “Financialization, the Great Recession, and the stratification of the US labor market,” Feminist Economics, 19(3), 152–80.

Beechey, V. (1977), “Some notes on female wage labor in capitalist production,”Capital and Class, 1(3), 45–66.

Becker, G.S. and K.M. Murphy (1992), “The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(4), 1137–60.

Berghammer, C. (2014), “The return of the male breadwinner model? Educational effects on parents’ work arrangements in Austria, 1980–2009,” Work, Employment and Society, 28(4), 611–32.

Berik, G. and E. Kongar (2013), “Time allocation of married mothers and fathers in hard times: The 2007–09 US recession,” Feminist Economics, 19(3), 208–37.

Bettio, F. and A. Verashchagina (2014), “Women and men in the ‘Great European Recession’,” in K. Karamessini and J. Rubery (eds), Women and Austerity: The Economic Crisis and the Future for Gender Equality, New York: Routledge, pp.57–81.

Bettio, F., M. Corsi and C. D’Ippoliti et al. (2012), The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Situation of Women and Men and on Gender Equality Policies, Brussels: European Commission.

Bittman, M., P. England and N. Folbre et al. (2003), “When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work,” American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 186–214.

Blau, F.D. and L.M. Kahn (2013), “Female labor supply: Why is the United States falling behind?,” American Economic Review, 103(3), 251–6.

Bruegel, I. (1979), “Women as a reserve army of labour: A note on recent British experience,” Feminist Review, 3(1), 12–23.

Budig, M.J., J. Misra and I. Boeckmann (2012), “The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work–family policies and cultural attitudes,” Social Politics, 19(2), 163–93.

Cho, Y. and D. Newhouse (2013), “How did the Great Recession affect different types of workers? Evidence from 17 middle-income countries,” World Development, 41, 31–50.

Crotty, J. and G. Epstein (2009), “Avoiding another meltdown,” Challenge, 52(1), 5–26.

Dymski, G., J. Hernandez and L. Mohanty (2013), “Race, gender, power, and the US subprime mortgage and foreclosure crisis: A meso analysis,” Feminist Economic, 19(3), 124–51.