Abstract
Sylvia Walby, Professor of Sociology and Gender Research at the University of Lancaster, has written a concise and elegant book on the current crisis, mainly with reference to the UK but also to other European countries, especially the Nordic countries. She develops a sociological theory of crisis, with important additions (especially democracy and gender) to the usual discussions of crisis from an economic perspective. But she does not exclude the standard aspects of crisis, i.e., financial and economic. So she is taking part in the discussion on an economic level without renouncing other dimensions of the crisis. To simplify a little, one could say that her position is based on a positive view of social democracy and gender equality in the Nordic version, as opposite to the neoliberal model strong in the UK
Walby has an attractive style of writing, with no unnecessary frills or theoretical complications. There is little empty sociological rhetoric, though she refers to a few more extreme sociological theorists (like Giorgio Agamben). She argues for a strong relational systems analysis and presents a typology of four responses to crises: system breakdown, self-correction, renewal, and transition to a new type. In the book, she uses these four types to discuss different aspects of the crisis but does not develop a clear formulation of the relation among financial, economic, democratic, and gender dimensions with respect to the four types.
She begins with the financial and economic aspects of crisis. Her analysis is crisp and informative. But she discusses gender aspects, which economists usually forget to mention. For example, tax dodging is predominantly a male activity, as is the use of financial services in general. This is almost always forgotten. Her discussion of finance is perhaps lacking in flair and drama (of the Michael Lewis type) but concise and comprehensive. Yet her own formulation of a ‘new approach’ is disappointing. She repeats the same formulation that finance is contingent on state and politics as a social relationship. This is not very useful. The important point would be ‘how.’
On the other hand, the discussion of the gendering of finance is highly interesting. And the conclusion, that regulation of finance is not only important from the point of view of the economy but also because it affects women more than men, is very useful. Regulation is better for women than for men.
A similarly patterned model is presented about the economic effects of a depression. Walby analyzes the gendered consequences of the economic depression and comes to the conclusion that the effects vary in the long and short term and that it is difficult to say conclusively whether it is men or women who suffered more. Also, the recession has not forced women out of employment and back home but it has affected the work–life balance somewhat negatively.
Next, she turns to a discussion of austerity, which is seen as a fiscal crisis. Austerity means reducing state expenses in order to cut the deficit (and the consequent public debt). This has been a major response in most EU countries, and after a brief period of Keynesian policies, in the UK as well. But there is also structural or permanent austerity where the welfare state is seen as simply too expensive and a need to cut taxation is posited. This is the case especially in the so-called liberal model described by Esping Andersen. In my country, Finland, there is constant talk over the ‘sustainability gap,’ where the expected future expenses are expected to be greatly superior to the expected revenues, unless something drastic is done. This means, for instance, cuts in future pension levels, health care (or keeping costs stable regardless of growing needs), and unemployment benefits. In the UK, the need to talk about a sustainability gap is less pressing, because there is stronger political acceptance of diminishing the state, whereas in the Nordic countries it is more important to emphasize the supply side, i.e., the preservation of the welfare state largely intact. Walby points out again that the choice between cutting expenses or increasing taxes is a gender issue: women lose if cuts are directed to care and health issues or pensions (because women live longer and have lower pensions to start with), but they win relative to men if taxes are increased.
The two chapters on democracy and gender relations are important innovations. Democratic crisis has two dimensions, shallower democracy on the national level and the problems of democratic governance on the EU level. Walby sees problems here but is somewhat optimistic. Again, there has been some improvement in democracy with respect to gender relations. She sees gender as the pivot of the crisis, because all specific aspects have an important gender dimension. So the strategies of economic growth must be considered from a gender perspective.
In the final chapter, she draws everything together and emphasizes the importance of a sociological theory of the crisis. How would sociological theory produce different recommendations and solutions? Her discussion points out conceptual differences, but she gives also practical recommendations, namely, better regulation, more taxes, the definancialization of the economy, and the deepening of democracy. She also makes precise policy proposals concerning education, care, or the employment of women. It is obvious that these proposals will not find favor with the neoliberal economists dominating the discussion in Europe. Whether they will find favor with policy makers in the present situation is an open question. Even in the Nordic countries, the major trends are against her proposals.
In any case, this is a book that keeps to the ground and is highly readable. When – as it will – the tide turns, one hopes there will be a more favorable climate for Walby’s proposals.