Self-sacrifice: an analysis of female economic behaviour in less developed countries through the lenses of Amartya Sen’s thought

Erasmo, Valentina (2021): Self-sacrifice: an analysis of female economic behaviour in less developed countries through the lenses of Amartya Sen’s thought.

Abstract

The paper shows how Sen admitted self-sacrifice, as opposite motive compared to self-interest, for describing female behaviour in less developed countries. During the Nineties, Sen referred specifically to some anthropological studies about women conditions (Kapur, 1999) in less developed countries: when these scholars had asked them whether they felt deprived, they said ‘no’. These women identify themselves with their family, in turn, their privileged economic motive is self-sacrifice at the goal of maximizing family welfare. In those cases only, Sen advocates selfishness as the ideal route for improving women’s well-being. These elements offer a more complex understanding of economic behaviour and an alternative compared to rational choice theory prevailing in those years, considering also those diversities deriving from gender specificities and geographical influences on decision-making. The main result of this paper is to have provided an extended reading of Sen’s analysis of economic behaviour where self-sacrifice and its related maximization of family welfare which might be considered typical female and “eastern” categories. These categories represent rural India’s women behaviour, while are absent in “Western” decision-making where gender specificities and geographic differences are not considered because they are not so stark.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: diversity; rational choice theory; self-interest; self-sacrifice; women.
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals > B31 - Individuals; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B59 - Other; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D01 - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D64 - Altruism ; Philanthropy

References

Abrams P. (1997), “Population Control and Sustainability: It’s the same old song but with a different meaning” Environmental Law, 27, 4 , pp. 1111-1135.

Barnes, T. (1988), “Rationality and relativism in economic geography”, Progress in Human Geography, 4, pp. 473-496.

Barnes T. (1989), “Place, space, and theories of economic value: Contextualism and essentialism in economic geography”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 14, pp. 299-314. .

Barnes T. J. and Sheppard E.(1992), “Is There a Place for the Rational Actor? A Geographical Critique of the Rational Choice Paradigm”, Economic Geography, pp. 1-21.

Brandt, R. B. (1982). ‘Two Concept of Utility,’ in H. B. Miller and W. H. Williams (eds) The Limits of Utilitarianism, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Carson, T. L. (2000). Value and the Good Life. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Condorcet, Marquis de (1795), Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain.

Darwall, S. (2002). Welfare and Rational Care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Davis J. B. (2007), “Identity and Commitment: Sen’s Fourth Aspect of the Self” In Fabienne Peter and Hans Berhard, eds., Rationality and Commitment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 313-335.

Davis J. B. (2009), “The Capabilities Conception of the Individual”, Review of Social Economy, LXVII, 4, pp. 413-429.

Davis J. B. (2012), “The idea of public reasoning”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 19, 2, pp. 169-172.

DeNardo J. (1985), Power in numbers, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Elster J. (1989), The cement of society, Cambridge and New York : Cambridge University Press.

Erasmo V. (2020), “Oltre le specificità di genere. Cura e diritti nella prospettiva relazionale di Amartya Sen e Martha Nussbaum”, SocietàMutamentoPolitica, 11, 22, pp. 151-161.

Erasmo V. (2021a), “Extending Davis’s Capabilities Conception of the Individual: Relationality and Responsibility”, Mimeo.

Erasmo V. (2021b), Female economists and philosophers’ role in Amartya Sen’s thought: his colleagues and his scholars, working paper, Female economists and philosophers’ role in Amartya Sen’s thought: his colleagues and his scholars - Munich Personal RePEc Archive (uni-muenchen.de).

Gasper D. (2020), Amartya Sen, social theorizing and contemporary India, International Institute of Social Sciences, Working Paper, n. 658.

Giovanola, B. (2009), “Re-Thinking the Anthropological and Ethical Foundation of Economics and Business: Human Richness and Capabilities Enhancement”, Journal of Business Ethics, 88, pp. 431-444.

Granovetter M. S. (1973) “The Strength of Weak Ties”, The American Journal of Sociology, 78, 6., pp. 1360-1380.

Granovetter M. S. (1983), “The Strength of Weak Ties. A Network Theory Revisited”, Sociological Theory, 1, pp. 201-233.

Griffin, J. (1986). Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Habermas J. (1984), The theory of communicative action, Vol. I. Boston: Beacon Press.

Heathwood C. (2011), “Preferentism and Self-Sacrifice”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92, pp. 18–38.

Hector M. (1990), Comment: On the inadequacy of game theory for solution of real-world collective action problems, In The limits to rationality, eds. K. Cook and M. Levi, pp. 240-49. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hédoin C. (2016), “Sen’s criticism of revealed preference theory and its ‘neo-samuelsonian critique’: a methodological and theoretical assessment”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 23, 4, pp. 349- 373.

Kant I. (1785), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, New Heaven: Yale University Press.

Kant, I (1798), Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique, Paris : Garnier-Flammarion.

Kapur A. (1999), “Human Development: An Interview with Amartya Sen”, The Atlantic Online.

Klasen S. and Wink C. (2003), “Missing Women”: Revisiting the Debate, “Feminist Economics”, 9, 2/3, pp. 263-299.

Kynch, J. and Sen A. (1983), Indian Women: Well-Being and Survival, “Cambridge Journal of Economics”, 7, pp. 363 – 80.

Mahieu, François-Régis (2016), Une Anthropologie Ėconomique, Paris :L’Harmattan

Malthus T. (1798), Essays on the Principle of Population, London: J. Johnson.

Martin R. (1994), “Economic Theory and Human Geography” in D. Gregory, R. Martin and G. Smith (Eds.), Human Geography, Palgrave, London, pp. 21-53.

Miller B. (1992), “Collective Action and Rational Choice: Place, Community, and the Limits to Individual Self-Interest”, Economic Geography , Jan., 1992, Vol. 68, No. 1, Rational Choice, Collective Action, Technological Learning (Jan., 1992), pp. 22-42

Olson, M. (1965), The logic of collective action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Overvold M. C. (1980), “Self-interest and the Concept of Self-sacrifice”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 10 (1): 105-118.

Przeworski, A. (1985), Marxism and rational choice, Politics and Society, 4, pp. 379-409.

Sen A. (1977b), “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory.” Philosophy &Public Affairs 6, 4, pp. 317-44

Sen A. (1980), “Equality of What?.” The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, 1, pp. 195-220, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sen A. and Sengupta S. (1983), Malnutrition or Rural Children and the Sex Bias, “Economic and Political Weekly” 18, pp. 855-864.

Sen A. (1985), “Goals, Commitment and Identity.” Journal of Law, Economics& Organization 1, 2, pp. 341-355.

Sen A. (1990a), ‘‘Gender and Cooperative Conflict.’’ in Irene Tinker (ed.), Persistent Inequalities – Women and World Development, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 123 – 49.

Sen A. (1990b), More than 100 million women are missing, “The New York Review of Books”

Sen A. (1994), Population: Delusion and Reality,” The New York Review of Books”, 41.

Sen A. (1996), “Fertility and Coercion”, The University of Chicago Law Review, 63, pp. 1035-1061.

Sen A. (1997), “Population policy: authoritanism versus cooperation”, Journal of Population Economics, 10: 3-22.

Sen, A. (2002), Rationality and Freedom, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.

Sumner L. W. (1996), Welfare, Happiness, & Ethics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Taylor M. (1982), Community, anarchy, liberty, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor M. (1987), The possibility of cooperation, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor M. (1988), Rationality and revolutionary collective action. In Rationality and revolution, ed. M. Taylor, pp. 63-97. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.