Abstract
The economic downturn in Eurozone countries started in late 2007, and it continues today, over a decade later. Current Eurozone economic austerity policy is a quantitatively driven “one size fits all” policy whose goals are to decrease Eurozone countries’ debt through a set of “belt-tightening” measures that amount to massive cutbacks in the service sector. Such measures have been shown to negatively impact the most vulnerable within these societies—youth, the elderly, and single mothers and their children. This paper argues that applying a feminist standpoint approach and praxis provides a reflexive perspective for assessing the current framework and application of Eurozone austerity policies, as well as their social and economic consequences. The application of a feminist perspective and praxis assesses the degree to which austerity policy promotes social justice and transformative goals. It offers “out of the box” ways for re-thinking economic policies, which provide ways to integrate the voices and lived experiences of those most impacted by economic downturns.
Introduction
Economic austerity policy arose from the Eurozone financial crisis in late 2007, whereby most Eurozone governments began to enact a range of austerity proposals and policies focusing on deficit cutting and drastic spending reduction as a means to remedy the financial and economic downturns.
In contrast, Keynesian economic policies had dominated in the past, arguing for the infusion of government resources to spend its way out of steep economic downturns, such as the Great Depression in the decade prior to World War II. As Paul Krugman, Economic Nobel Prize winner, notes, . . . in a deeply depressed economy, in which the interest rates that the monetary authorities can control are near zero, we need more, not less, government spending. A burst of federal spending is what ended the Great Depression, and we desperately need something similar today. (Krugman, 2013, p. 231)
The Movement Toward Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs) and Economic Policy
There is strong faith within economic sciences regarding the efficacy of evidence-based economic practices. This core EBP economic model at the heart of austerity policies that have been pushed in the Eurozone is a neoliberal economic model, centered on a belief in the power of free trade, privatization, and free-flowing capital. These three key economic factors are assumed to produce a strong and competitive market, which in turn leads to the growth of whichever national economy is under discussion.
The basic assumption of human nature that underlies a neoclassical economic framework posits that an individual is autonomous, self-interested, and seeking only to maximize his or her own economic gain. Neoclassical economic theory asserts that as a consequence of this self-serving behavior, the “invisible hand” of the market system will inherently align the individual’s accumulation of wealth with the common social good (Smith, 1759/2002). The methods of economic analysis deployed by neoliberal economists were closely associated with the natural sciences, with the pursuit of “evidence” fueled by methods practices derived from mathematical models that employed quantitative measurements of economic outcomes—for example, measuring economic success in terms of an economy’s gross national product (GNP) or gross domestic product (GDP; see Nelson, 2005). Early in the formation of the field, classical economist John Stuart Mill argued that the study of economics should be founded on the mathematical field of geometry (Mill, 1844). Feminist economist Julie Nelson notes, John Stuart Mill contributed the idea that the “science” of economics should be modeled on the axiomatic-deductive model of geometry. Mill also proposed that people, in their economic roles, could be thought of as interested only in wealth. David Ricardo came up with the parable about two countries gaining from trade. This Classical economic image became “Neo” in the late 19th century as Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, and others realized they could mathematically formalize the image of the self-regulating system. By adapting models from Newtonian physics, calculus could apparently be as easily applied to economic issues as it previously had been applied to the design of machinery. (Nelson, 2005, p. 58)
The potential for a neoliberal EBP model has been given new life by an extended Eurozone economic downturn. The age of austerity thinking fuels the need for governments to show that the policies they are implementing are effective and efficient. The United Kingdom, for example, has moved toward establishing “what works” evidence centers whose very goal is to evaluate the efficacy of social policies such as austerity (Cabinet Office, 2013). Such pressure by the U.K. government trickles down as well to a movement of government economic initiatives toward EBPs as the “gold standard” of evaluating economic and social policies.
An EBP austerity economic framework is mathematically driven and considered the highest tier of current best EBPs in the field of economics. Economists employ precise measurement tools that are thought to produce more “credible evidence” (outcomes that can be quantified and are, therefore, easily measurable), that is, as the argument goes, unattainable from less precise theoretical models and methods.
However, feminist economist Julia Nelson (2009) notes that even John Stuart Mill was concerned about stripping away the social context within which any economic policy plays out. According to Nelson, John Stuart Mill . . . rightly warned that any application of this narrow model without reference to other disciplines or to experience could lead to absurdity. He also was an often perceptive observer of human behavior. (Nelson, 2009, p. 18)
How we have framed the context of the current Eurozone economic downturn since 2007 has had a significant impact on the subsequent economic policies, such as the decrease of debt through welfare “belt tightening” and cutbacks in social services to marginalized groups. This is especially the case when deciding upon specific economic policy interventions, and the measures by which to assess their “success.”
Eurozone elites have constructed austerity policies that rely on clear-cut quantitative assessments of “what works.” Early on, for example, policymakers in the United Kingdom moved toward more “evidence based” policies (Davies, Nutley & Smith, 2000) that rely upon clear-cut assessments of economic success using quantitative indicators, such as ratio of debt to GDP. An examination of the current history of neoliberal economics as applied to austerity initiatives in the Eurozone will shed light on the development of these policies.
Evidenced-Based Practices and Current Eurozone Austerity Policy Initiatives
Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, and Richardson (1996) define EBP as the “conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” (p. 71). Sackett noted that because the randomized control trial (RCT) design was considered “much more likely to inform us and so much less likely to mislead us, it has become the ‘gold standard’ for judging whether a treatment does more good than harm” (p. 72). The early definition of current best evidence also included the integration of patient expertise and values as well as expert clinical judgment as part of the EBP model (see Sackett, Straus, Richardson, Rosenberg, & Haynes, 2000). However, over time, two important elements of EBPs have been increasingly dropped out of the EBP praxis model—clinical judgment and expertise and patient expertise and values—leaving the praxis of EBP hyper-focused on the method, using quantitative data collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the top tier of what is considered credible evidence (Figure 1). By dropping out these two critical subjective components of the original evidence-based practice model, EBP praxis begins to take on a more objective, methods-centric focus (Gold Standard Economic Theories and Quantitative Analysis) to the detriment of other, more qualitatively driven, subjective components that derive from the lived experiences of patients and expert clinicians that are now dropped from consideration. In addition, it is not clear what overall theoretical perspectives (whether implied or explicit) are linked to what has become, for the most part, an EBP methods-centric RCT praxis model (see Figure 1).
Components of EBP in economics.
The use of such “what works” EBPs, while first appearing in medicine, eventually entered into the U.K. policy-led discourse in the 1990s (see Sherman, 2009). Neoliberal economists deployed an EBP model to move economic policy toward making conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence for decisions about how to reverse an economic downturn (see, for example, Haskins & Baron, 2011; Nutley, 2012; Nutley, Davies, & Walter, 2003). EBP provides economists with systematic economic research for such use. Neoliberalists increasingly relied on the use of “best” economic practices in making decisions about what interventions lead to a positive economic outcome—in the case of the current economic Eurozone crises, cutting back on government spending and reducing a range of social services (austerity welfare policies). Neoliberalists privilege interventions that can be measured by quantitative indicators, such as the ratio of debt to GDP.
Within the U.K. context, while using evidence as input for social policy is not new, the practice became more emphasized under the Blair administration’s 1997 “What counts is what works” 1 initiative, leading up to 2016 Brexit. From that time, nearly 20 years ago onward, EBP-based policy initiatives continued to gain popularity in the United Kingdom (see Bullock, Mountford, & Stanley, 2001). EBP-infused economic policies were seen as a way for politics to incorporate rational decision making by providing better informed and more effective economic policy outcomes (Shaxson, 2005).
Austerity initiatives that are based on EBPs leave out input from a range of organizational stakeholders at the national level (such as nongovernmental organizations [NGOs] and labor unions) and at the level of community and individual agents who are most affected by austerity policies (such as the elderly, women, and other marginalized groups, see Figure 1). Current austerity-driven economic policies deploy entrenched quantitative methods as best practices a priori. The dangers of solely focusing on quantitative data for a “what works” austerity policy begs the question, “Whose expertise and input is unaccounted for in Eurozone austerity policies?”
As noted in Figure 2, there is a lack of thinking broadly beyond narrow economic theories. EBP austerity model’s methodology (theoretical perspective) is isolated from the rest of the economic model and appears as the last in the economic model sequence. It is not clear how theory (whether it is implied or explicit) is linked to a specific methods design, but it appears as if the Eurozone economic model is driven by sheer faith in the methods of austerity (Figure 2) by those who influence and direct austerity policies.
Positive Praxis in thinking about Austerity as “The” Economic Policy.
This includes Eurozone stakeholder world leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the European Central Bank, and other economic elites, while marginalized, subjective stakeholders such as NGOs, the political opposition, and vulnerable populations are currently left out of austerity policy planning and implementation. However, it is only by including these left out and vital components that Eurozone leaders can serve to promote a richer dialogue across differences in economic standpoints about “what works” beyond the current primarily quantitatively driven formulation of austerity policy. Providing room at the Austerity Policy table for these differences provides an opportunity for broadening the economic ground for incorporating a more socially transformative and just austerity economic policy (see Figure 3).
The table of austerity initiatives.
Applying a Feminist Perspective and Praxis to Austerity Economic Policy
I apply a critical feminist lens to the current austerity policy debate happening in the Eurozone countries and beyond. Austerity, as an economic model and policy, is currently deployed by economic elites in dominant Eurozone countries as the “solution” to fix the pervasive financial crisis. Austerity policies were initially framed as a way to stabilize Eurozone countries whose economies were spiraling into debt. This debt was framed by economic elites as arising from the reckless spending habits of certain individuals—primarily placing the blame on those who were unable to pay back the debt they accrued from borrowing against credit (using money from their home mortgages, borrowing from banks that were often unregulated, giving out loans to those with little credit to their name, etc.). The enactment of austerity policies—policies that focused on cutting back government spending, cutting back social services, and reducing service sector jobs—was seen as a “corrective” to the poor choices made by these same individuals and their families. The blame was conveniently and clearly placed on those with the least economic power within the social system.
Paul Krugman, an American economist, describes this type of “blaming the victim” mentality seen in banking and political elites as taking on the trappings of a “morality play.” He notes, . . . there’s the continuing urge to make the economic crisis a morality play, a tale in which a depression is the necessary consequence of prior sins and must not be alleviated. Deficit spending and low interest rates just seem wrong to many people, perhaps especially to central bankers and other financial officials, whose sense of self-worth is bound up with the idea of being the grown-ups who say no. (Krugman, 2012, p. 207)
Many core Eurozone governments began to enact a range of quantitatively driven austerity proposals and policies to remedy the financial and economic downturns by cutting the deficit and drastically reducing spending, essentially rolling back Keynesian economic policies that promote the government injection of resources into the economy. To use Paul Krugman’s phrase, these governments were listening to the inclinations of “the grown-ups who say no” and not the voices of the marginalized.
Austerity Policy and Global Colonialism
This Euro-centric and core-centric approach, both in the austerity model applied and in the media discourse surrounding austerity, created what Ntampoudi (2014) terms a “two speed” Europe, whereby core “economic elites” chastised the peripheral Eurozone countries and depicted them as economically unstable, labeling them with the acronym “PIIGS” (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) to underscore the “challenged” nature of their economies (Ntampoudi, 2014). The two-tier structure of the core versus the periphery arose in media rhetoric during the Eurozone crisis and was reinforced by the back and forth relationship between policy-making and media discourse, which often deployed a colonial rhetoric that framed peripheral countries as animalistic, “uncivil,” and untrustworthy. While the acronym arose as a shorthand way to discuss the unstable peripheral economies, it also served at times to justify the severe austerity measures placed on them. However, what is clear is that since the financial crisis hit these countries in 2008, austerity’s neoliberal core economic policy of reducing the debt actually saw increases in debt over the course of the next decade in peripheral Eurozone economies. As one political economist, David Blythe, notes, So PIIGS cut their budgets and as their economies shrank, their debt loads got bigger not smaller, and unsurprisingly, their interest payments shot up. Portuguese net debt to GDP increased from 62 percent in 2006 to 108 percent in 2012, while the interest that pays for Portugal’s ten-year bonds went from 4.5 percent in May 2009 to 14.7 percent in January 2012 . . . The poster child of the Eurozone crisis and austerity policy, Greece saw its debt to GDP rise from 106 percent in 2007 to 170 percent in 2012 despite successive rounds of austerity cuts and bondholders taking a 75 percent loss on their holdings in 2011. Greece’s ten-year bond currently pays 13 percent, down from a high of 18.5 percent in November 2012. (Blythe, 2013, p. 4)
Also involved in the austerity policy initiative is a tendency toward destabilizing/dismantling (see Hall, 2011) the very national sovereignty of peripheral Eurozone countries. The colonizing model of austerity policy governance harkens back to earlier colonial ruling practices that also appear, as noted earlier, within the discourse of austerity (see Ntampoudi, 2014). For example, let us consider the case of Greece. It has been hit particularly hard by the current set of debt reduction cutbacks. In 2010, George A. Papandreou, the then-current Prime Minster of Greece, asked for assistance from the International Monetary (IMF), The European Union, and the European Central Bank (Papadopoulos & Roumpakis, 2013). However, seeking out assistance from these foreign monetary organizations has had the unintended consequence of not only undermining the economic and social well-being of the population of Greece but has also begun to threaten Greece’s national sovereignty. As noted by one economist, The demand that the Greek people be subjected to austerity, an assimilationist regime imposed by foreign monetary organisations, undoes and transforms the dimensions of national sovereignty. While Greece must remain a sovereign state in order to pay its debtors, the manner in which this is dictated and imposed undoes Greece’s national sovereignty . . . Gourgouris comments “though Greece still exists on the map of nation under a sovereign flag, it is effectively a country on hold—or under hold—a country whose sovereignty has been mortgaged” (Gourgouris, 2012). (Giannacopoulos, 2015, p. 179)
While austerity policy functions as a fiscal management tool in response to the global financial crisis of the Eurozone, Giannacopoulos (2015) warns that austerity policy has the potential to take on a critical role in reshaping the overall governance structure of peripheral Eurozone nations whose economies continue in a downward spiral. Bramall (2016) notes that there is a distinct set of cultural politics to austerity initiatives: . . . austerity is best understood not as a temporary measure for dealing with government debt, but as an enduring commitment to reshape social relations . . . For some, this “war on welfare” marks the end of the post-war social contract—the withdrawal, in effect, of the “promise” for the future that the post-war conjuncture delivered. (Bramall, 2016:2)
While this paper will not go into a detailed analysis of the role cultural politics play in molding Eurozone nations’ internal and national governance structure, it is mentioned here to underscore the many forms neoliberal economic policies can morph into that pose a range of challenges to Eurozone integration.
This paper’s central focus turns to a specific examination of the social and economic assumptions contained within Eurozone austerity policy, offering a range of strategies for thinking “outside” of this one-size fits all economic policy box.
Applying a Feminist Lens to Interrogate Eurozone Austerity Policy
As noted earlier in this paper, austerity policy enacted by Eurozone nations assumes a positivist, quantitative framework within which austerity economic policies are formed and implemented. There is the tendency to treat the subject of policy initiatives as an “object” without paying attention to his or her subjective experience—for example, how he or she may experience the policy intervention and how he or she perceives its effectiveness. Yet, without paying attention to the experience of the subject (considered as “object”), the intervention, interpretation, and overall credibility of policy outcomes are drawn from the policy maker’s perspective alone.
What is proposed instead is an EBP feminist knowledge-building economic model that is sensitive to difference: socio-historical differences, race/class/gender differences, and so on. The eighteen Eurozone countries (not counting the United Kingdom, which has just voted to exit from the Eurozone) have different sociocultural and historical traditions, and the current neoliberal “one size fits all” austerity model serves to culturally decontextualize these policies and treat those individuals impacted by these policies as a homogeneous group; both of these movements make assessing policy impact difficult in the short and long term. We first provide a brief overview of some of the most important aspects of feminist inquiry and praxis here, and then apply these perspectives to an examination of current austerity policy initiatives within Eurozone countries.
Early on, feminist philosophers and researchers such as Sandra Harding (1987, 1990) took up Hans Reichenbach’s (1938) distinction about the overall research process as having two important components that are critical to interrogate when assessing the credibility of any research evidence. The first he termed the context of discovery, in which the researcher asks questions and formulates hypotheses. The second is the context of justification, consisting of the project-specific measures and methods tools. Feminist researchers expanded these contexts and their meanings. The “context of discovery” was extended to include a consideration of how values and gendered ideologies serve to potentially introduce male bias into the types of questions researchers ask that especially exclude diverse points of view of women and other marginalized groups (see Hesse-Biber, 2012 for a review of the history of feminist research contributions with regard to this issue). In addition, feminist researchers extended the focus of the “context of justification” to an examination of power and privilege that resides within the researcher–researched relationship and may create bias across the research process.
Feminist research praxis, thus, highlights reflexivity and takes into account axiological concerns that deal with the intrusion of researcher bias stemming from the values and attitudes they bring into a given issue and their overall approach. It is within the problem formation and question asking stage of research that researcher’s values and attitudes first enter the research process, often determining what questions are asked (and not asked); what individuals/groups are included (and excluded); and which specific hypotheses are tested (or not tested). This set of potential biases can affect the credibility of research results no matter how well the context of justification is implemented. The practice of “strong reflexivity”—having those involved in policy creation and implementation disclose their values, attitudes, and biases in their approach to a particular set of research questions and engage in strong reflexivity throughout the research process—can often offset these biases.
Another important perspective in this process of reflexivity comes from the aforementioned feminist philosopher Sandra Harding (1993). Harding introduced the concept of “strong objectivity,” the recognition that all knowledge comes from a particular point of view. Strong objectivity requires that the subject of knowledge be placed on the same critical, causal plane as the objects of knowledge. Thus, strong objectivity requires what we mentioned earlier as “strong reflexivity.” Harding notes that by acknowledging our situated location and being reflexive of our position within it, we in fact are in a position to become more aware of others’ positions, and in this sense, we become “more” objective.
Another important feminist principle of praxis is tending to difference across the research process. Here, feminist praxis would ask questions such as, “Who gets to formulate the problem?” “Why is this problem important?” “Who benefits from having this problem addressed?” “Who is included in this problem and who is left out?” A consideration of difference enters in the context of discovery stage, especially when examining the recruitment methods used to obtain research participants (such as survey respondents or interviewees). Feminist researchers advocate for the importance of studying across differences in terms of gender, race, class, and so on, depending on the nature of the research problem.
We can also apply feminist praxis principles at the context of justification (i.e., data collection design, intervention, and analysis and interpretation) stage of a research project to enhance the credibility of research evidence. Especially with regard to ethical praxis, being cognizant of our ethical research standpoint is an important characteristic of a feminist approach to research, and this requires careful attention to axiological practice. Axiology means being cognizant of our values, attitudes, and biases and acknowledging how this might play out in research praxis in terms of not just (a) what questions are asked or not asked in our research, but also (b) what type of data is or is not collected and (c) the type of methods, measurement, analysis, and interpretation that shape our understanding of the research process.
There are, then, a set of potential biases embedded in the “context of discovery” stage of a policy initiative that can impact the credibility of evidence no matter how well the “context of justification” (the method used for collecting, analyzing, and determining cause and effect) is carried out. The practice of strong objectivity can often offset the potential biases of this sort that may plague the implementation of an economic policy initiative. Feminist research praxis would also stress a broader awareness of issues of power, authority, and ethics when moving forward into the context of justification arena, including while gathering data and ultimately choosing a policy. Performing the type of axiological reflection expressed earlier is critical in developing this awareness, especially surrounding issues of social justice and policy initiative. Such ethics praxis needs to be included in the creation and implementation of Eurozone economic practices.
Given the current centering of a positivist, quantitative framework within which economic policies are formed and implemented, there is the tendency to treat the subject of policy initiatives as an “object” without paying attention to his or her subjective experience—for example, how he or she may experience the policy intervention and perceive its effectiveness. Without paying attention to the experience of the subject (considered as “object”), the intervention, interpretation, and overall credibility of policy outcomes are drawn from the policy maker’s perspective alone.
The policy maker and those involved in policy implementation have missed an important opportunity to take into account the subjective understandings of those who are directly affected by the policy, namely, the subjects. To what extent do they feel the intervention was meaningful? Did they perceive the intervention a success, and, if so, how do they define success?
The Contribution of a Feminist Standpoint Lens to Current Eurozone Austerity Policies
Applying a feminist standpoint lens to Eurozone austerity policy theory would first and foremost mean advocating a more just society by emphasizing social change initiatives, especially with regard to women and other oppressed groups. While feminist praxis is used in this paper as an umbrella term that encompasses a range of research initiatives, there are common elements that comprise its praxis. One critical element is the goal of disrupting traditional ways of doing research with the goal of excavation: getting at subjugated knowledge of those oppressed and questioning existing theories that often reinforce the status quo. Researchers can do this by asking new questions about the lived experience of those who are not represented at the austerity policy decision-making table.
A primary goal of any policy initiative emerging from feminist research praxis would be to address the range of social differences that are interconnected as a way to avoid essentialism. A feminist perspective might explore some of the following questions: “How important is an awareness of gender/race/class critical to austerity policy makers?” “To what extent are gender/race treated as universal categories in austerity policies?” “To what extent does your study make a generic statement about all women, for example?” “To what extent does austerity policy make assumptions regarding gendered work and family roles?”
The praxis of reflexivity can also be applied to austerity policy initiatives with the goal of examining how differences in power and authority enter into the implementation of social policy initiatives. Table 1 summarizes feminist principles of theory and praxis applied to current policy initiatives. The credibility of economic evidence-based models has primarily rested on the un-questioned belief in a hierarchy of evidence that prioritizes “quantitative” economic research in knowledge-building designs. Yet, as these models are applied to a range of economic settings (with many differences in terms of cultural, subcultural, and historical contexts, as well as levels of economic development), such a “one size fits all” economic model becomes more difficult to assess in terms of how effective its specific interventions are in encouraging economic success.
Feminist Research Approach and Strategies for Maximizing Credibility of Economic Policies.
Re-Visioning Eurozone Economic Policies Before, During, and After Austerity-Driven Economic Interventions
We now turn toward analysis of current austerity economic policy by incorporating a feminist approach and praxis to address issues of social justice and social change. Such an approach is inclusive of difference and offers strategies for thinking outside the current practices linked to austerity measures to stress the goals of social justice and transformation. As mentioned earlier in the paper, austerity’s current hegemonic economic perspective is based on a statistically aggregate macro portrait of a society’s economic status, with little attention paid to the specific well-being of those who are affected by these policies. There is little understanding of how macro-level austerity policies affect the diversity of lived experiences at the meso- (community) or individual level. This next section offers strategies that address the social justice and social transformation goals of austerity policies before, during, and after their implementation.
Taking a feminist perspective onto austerity policy has the goal of making current austerity initiatives responsive/transparent/accountable to the original EBP initiatives envisioned by Sackett et al. many years ago. This means examining the extent to which current day austerity policy initiatives include the voices of diverse groups and organizations whose constituents are directly affected by those policy initiatives. Such praxis will hopefully provide a “way forward” that begins to open up a dialogue focused on austerity policy accountability, with goals of examining and suggesting approaches and practices for unearthing the hidden, biased assumptions contained within current policy initiatives.
Applying a Feminist Lens and Praxis onto Austerity Policy Making Moments
We now move to look at the different moments across the austerity-making policy spectrum. These are sites where intervention taking up a feminist lens and praxis can in fact open up space for critique and accountability. We envision these moments along a continuum of policy making that takes place in the “before,” “during,” and “after” moments of policy development.
The “Before” Stage of Austerity Policy Making
At the “context of discovery” or question-asking stage, before austerity policies are formulated and finalized, there are a series of questions that can provide the economist with a richer understanding of which considerations should be included when formulating specific austerity policies and programs. At this stage, a feminist approach to austerity policy would center on issues of difference by asking questions that acknowledge the diversity among those affected by austerity initiatives. Who is left out? Who benefits? Why? This type of questioning would prompt an examination of the impact of austerity by considering different levels of impact from the individual to the community to the nation when thinking about the goals and implementation of austerity policies. For example, “Does the specific austerity policy fit the cultural context of the society in which it is embedded?” “To what extent are ethical concerns taken into account in the development and implementation of austerity policy/policies?” “What types of interventions do those affected by these policies feel are feasible, given their specific socioeconomic and cultural context?”
A second important aspect to consider at the “before” stage is the range of measurement issues and their assumptions. How do we measure austerity success? Since austerity policy relies heavily on economic measures, it behooves us to look at their underlying assumptions with regard to the target population affected by their outcome measures. A feminist lens onto austerity policy might ask some of the following questions, “Do the economic measures upon which austerity policies are based take into account the lived experiences of the target population?” “To what extent does the target population have a voice in deciding which specific measures get implemented and how the impact of any given austerity policy is measured?” More specifically, “From whose perspective is the efficacy of an austerity intervention determined? Stakeholders?” “To what extent have the target population’s concerns been included in the determination of these measures?” “To what extent is an intervention perceived as effective by the target population?”
The “During Early-Stage Implementation” of Austerity Policy Making
Weaving a feminist approach into an assessment of an ongoing austerity policy would consist of taking readings of country-specific austerity policy implementation through an ongoing iterative policy impact approach. Such a procedure might first initiate a pilot inductive evaluation of specific on-going austerity initiatives using unobtrusive measures, including observational methods, economic measurement readings, and one-on-one interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders at various levels (individual/community/nation). Such an assessment would center on discovering what midcourse adjustments need to be made (if any) across Eurozone countries.
This information would provide input to Eurozone economic administrators with the goal of inductively revising austerity policies to fit specific Eurozone countries. The goal at this point is to obtain feedback (what is or is not working) from specific stakeholders in a given country. Such on-the-fly assessments of an ongoing intervention can reveal the potential for a midcourse adjustment. The researcher might explore ongoing results by testing hypotheses and generating new ideas about ongoing austerity intervention effects (e.g., consider moving an economic intervention model in a specific Eurozone country toward a policy that includes growth measures that are a cross between neoliberal and Keynesian economic models, or instituting some newly emergent hybrid economic model that lies outside traditional economic thinking). One goal of this research initiative would be to identify potential issues with the intervention in terms of ethics (e.g., does the intervention appear harmful to some groups?) to head off some potentially larger impacts if left unattended.
Another important factor to consider and assess is policy attrition (noncompliance with austerity protocols) in specific Eurozone countries. Eurozone administrators should listen to and understand the ongoing issues and concerns specific Eurozone countries are experiencing at multiple stakeholder levels (nation/community/individual) relating to the current implementation of austerity policies. This can be done using in-depth interviews, focus groups, and by assessing a variety of economic and policy measures.
After Austerity Policy Making
It would be important to conduct interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders across a diverse range (by ethnicity/race/gender/class/ability/etc.) and at different levels within each Eurozone nation where austerity policies have been in place for at least one year. The goal of this assessment would be to get at some of the following things: “What have been these stakeholders’ experiences relating to the overall impact of austerity protocol and intervention from their perspective?” “What worked?” “How might protocol and intervention be improved, if at all?” “What didn’t work?” “Why?” “What are their specific suggestions for improvement and visions for the economic future of their specific nation?”
This type of individual Eurozone national assessment would be followed up with analysis of individual nations’ data and an aggregate analysis of all 19 Eurozone nations’ data. With regard to assessing individual Eurozone nation data, it would be important to gather stakeholders from all levels within a given Eurozone nation to converse with one another about the overall nation-specific results. One question for discussion might ask, “What does each stakeholder group see as the next step?” This question might be followed up by the following questions, perhaps in joint focus groups consisting of those same stakeholders: “To what extent, if any, did the austerity intervention work?” “Not work?” “Under what conditions do the stakeholders perceive the intervention/measure working (or not working) and why?” (Note: This feedback can be looped into the beginning of the next economic policy phase for consideration while building on the next set of interventions; this feedback might inform target population and intervention selections.)
All of these data extracted from individual Eurozone countries might then be placed in conversation with one another at the Eurozone policy level where the collective experience of all 19 nations becomes the unit of study. The processes by which data are analyzed and conclusions are drawn are fraught with issues of what counts as valid knowledge (and from whose perspective). These are larger issues of power and control in the realms of policy making and implementation.
As noted earlier, the differences that lie between Eurozone nations should be emphasized. Perhaps the more difficult issues are the set of “culture clashes” that must be addressed between nations. Built into the creation of the Eurozone as a unified economic entity is an inherent set of structural/cultural tensions that must be accounted for. There are broad cultural differences between core versus peripheral countries (e.g., core countries such as Germany or France vs. peripheral countries such as Portugal, Lithuania, Greece, or Cyprus), and countries from all areas have various self-interested priorities when identifying ways in which their economies could be improved and/or rehabilitated. Each of these countries has had a unique historical trajectory that has led to its current economic structure, along with different ideas about the nature of the relationship between the individual and his or her society, different moral dimensions, and different societal values. The current angst about austerity policies coming especially from peripheral Eurozone nations has to do with how each country’s national cultural milieu has answered some central questions about the nature of the relationship between the individual and his or her society. This response to austerity programs has to do with how a nation collectively responds to the following questions: “What is the ideal size of the government?” “How and to what extent will a society take care of its people?” “What is responsible government?” “How do we value the next generation of children?” “How do we value families?”
As current austerity policies continue to withdraw critical welfare entitlements and make paid work a condition for receiving them (increasing the “double day” for women who need to care for dependents: young children and elderly relatives), it becomes increasingly clear that such policies must be understood in the context of each given nation’s set of values and goals—what one might term national character. Contained within the discourse on austerity are a range of deeply held cultural and multicultural values and expectations across the range of Eurozone economies that provide various cultural frameworks.
The challenge the Eurozone as an economic entity faces is the reconciliation of economic policies and practices among its diverse constituents. As Germany begins to bail out some of its poorer Eurozone members, some workers in Germany ask, “Why should I pay for Greece?” “Why should their government employees constitute almost 50% of their total work force?” The implied demand of such bailouts is that southern Eurozone economies and peripheral nations should become more “like us” (i.e., the dominant Eurozone economies). Historically, some countries like Germany have valued and tended toward austerity, given that Germany experienced severe inflation in the 1920s, which in part led to a culture of strict saving on the part of the German population. Such practices were also buttressed by the country’s religious Calvinistic belief that didn’t calvinists believe in predestination? Other Eurozone nations, such as Greece, on the other hand, has traditionally valued its government’s social welfare ethic with the strongly held belief in a social contract whereby its government provides for the needs of its people. Neglecting such Eurozone national differences weakens the ability of the Eurozone to function effectively as a cohesive economic union.
For example, Greece is often pointed to as the prototypical example of the “PIIGS” category. The economic policy model of austerity forced onto Greece was culturally biased and reflected the “economic elites’” preferred method of economic recovery—namely cutting public expenditure. Greece, with its long history of the welfare state, suffered severe budget restrictions and cuts to its social services (as did Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain). The public sector and civil servant workers took the largest cuts to their income and pension benefits, a pattern that has been seen in all of the peripheral economies to date. Youth workers took large cuts to their entitled minimum wages in the private sector, while old age pensions were cut and the age of retirement pushed out.
According to Kaplanoglou and Rapanos (2015), the most vulnerable group hit by the severe austerity measures were “families with children.” By 2013, almost half of the children in Greece were living in “2008 poor” standards (Kaplanoglou and Rapanos, 2015, p. 12). Geographic regions in Greece that are of a lower socioeconomic status are more vulnerable to the ramifications of the “one size fits all” austerity model than higher income areas (Monastiriotis, 2011). But as Monastiriotis (2011) states, the Troika pays little attention to geographic and sociocultural differences when it comes to applying economic policy.
What we can conclude from taking Greece as a prototypical example of neglecting national differences between the core and periphery Eurozone is that, first, a “one size fits all” economic model cannot be applied to numerous countries with vast cultural, social, and economic disparities. Second, the politics of blaming during the Eurozone crisis have meant that countries such as Greece are blamed for the failure of culturally insensitive austerity measures. Third, the colonial rhetoric used to label failing peripheral economies attempts to legitimize the blame game that “economic elites” are playing when their quantitatively driven core-centric model does not “fit.” It must be questioned further if the discourse of “PIIGS” acted as a self-fulfilling prophecy in the world of economic policy.
Closing Thoughts and Moving Toward “Out of the Box” Thinking About Economic Policy Alternatives to Austerity: The Role of Feminist Qualitative Methodologies
The adoption of a feminist critical transformative approach requires Eurozone policy-making elites to shift their perspectives from a more narrow focus on a “one size fits all” austerity policy to one based in feminist principles. Among these is the recognition of the range of differences that lie within and especially between research participants—in this case, the Eurozone nations. This requires policy-makers to go beyond their economic policy comfort zone by bridging and working across several divides—national, socio-economic, ethnic/racial, gender, and so on. It requires them to reflect on the values that drive their own actions regarding economic policy decision-making and to extend such reflection into their lives outside of any particular professional field. It requires awareness of the power and authority invested in policy making, and inviting the feedback and input of those stakeholders whose lives are affected by those very policies. It requires making the economic policy-making table inclusive. It requires skill with a variety of methods. In particular, it requires collating data from many different sources without simplification.
Taking a feminist approach and praxis enables the movement of the current Eurozone crisis away from political and economic polarization, and in doing so, may provide some space for innovative policy-making that supports a range of different alternatives to austerity. One such “out of the box” concept that merits consideration in this regard comes from the early work of Indian economist and philosopher, Amartya Sen (1985). Sen sets forth a different type of theoretical model that flies in the face of what he perceives as the utilitarian economic models that are narrowly focused on economic growth. His model incorporates a consideration of the qualitative elements left out of EBP models for understanding “what works” in terms of economic policy initiatives. In this way, he turns things around by noting that any government should be evaluated in terms of how well it enhances the well-being of its population. He sets forth a “capabilities approach” model that starts out with any economic policy goal being that of providing individuals with valuable capabilities of living (the ability to live to an old age, to vote, to not be impoverished, and so on). Amartya Sen asserts that any government or major institutions’ policies and economic initiatives must be evaluated with regard to qualitatively driven measures that incorporate subjective measures with regard to the extent to which they provide their target populations with valuable ways of living their lives that ensure a human life lived with dignity.
Amartya Sen does not limit evaluation methods to unidimensional quantitative indicators. Instead, he offers a range of qualitative social as well as economic indicators that are infused with a qualitatively driven methodological understanding of the diversity of lived experience for individuals on the ground, with the goal of moving economic policy evaluation toward a human-oriented model.
American feminist philosopher, Martha Nussbaum (Nussbaum & Sen, 1993), collaborated with Amartya Sen in the production of a co-edited volume, The Quality of Life, targeted to policymakers. This work critiques the weighting of economic policies toward traditional utilitarian economic outcome measures. Nussbaum (2000) extends the analytics of a “capability approach,” by deriving ten core “central capabilities” (those that stress the importance of promoting physical health and well-being). Nussbaum argues that it is these core indicators that need to be priorities for any democracy.
Martha Nussbaum’s re-framing of dominant economic thinking that primarily relies on quantitative unidimensional indicators of economic growth, much like current austerity economic measures, was extremely influential in thinking about how to frame and measure development in policy. Her efforts, and those of Amartya Sen’s, served to promote qualitatively driven alternative ways of thinking about measuring the economic well-being of a developing nation beyond GDP or GNP. Aspects of Sen’s and Nussbaum’s core “capability” principles, in fact, were incorporated into development indicators such as the Human Development Index and the Gender-Related Development Index used to assess the well-being of developing nations. Underlying both these indices is a deep commitment to fostering human dignity among a population’s members, especially with regard to women and development.
Another important example of the application of qualitative methodologies is the idea of gender-responsive budgeting (GRB), a concept that challenges Eurozone economists to ask a different set of qualitative and quantitative questions that calls for examining the presence of institutional gender discrimination that may reside in the very economic assumption of gender neutrality of the austerity budgeting process itself (Elson, 2002).
Eurozone governments enacting neoliberal austerity policies are under pressure to demonstrate that their budgets are delivering value for their money (VfM). GRB’s agenda is that it stresses accountability and economic transparency. GRB, therefore, resonates with the assumptions inherent within a neoliberal belt-tightening economic policy framework. GRB examines the quantitative impacts on gender in addition to locating specific budget lines where investment in women has a high rate of return for investment (Vfm), Such an approach can also extend the range of qualitatively driven questions that can interrogate austerity budgeting policies through asking the extent to which austerity policies address the needs of women, children, and other vulnerable groups in their budgeting policies. There are currently 80 countries whose budgeting policies have incorporated some type of gender budget planning methods and GRB tools (Downes, von Trapp, & Nicol, 2017).
While GRB relies on centering social justice issues that call for gender equality, this type of budgeting process does not have a feminist discourse attached to its implementation. Instead, GRB is viewed as good economic budgeting sense. In addition, this budgeting process depends on standard economic budget planning and assessment that is already used by economists.
One example of the positive impact of line-by-line scrutiny of budgets with regard to the extent that they are gender neutral can result in adding value to women’s lives and perhaps even upend ideas about women’s economic worth. A 2016 U.K. study reported in The Economist, for example, identified areas of opportunity for adding value for the money (Vfm) with regard to certain budget items. “Gender Budgeting” (2017) reporting on this study notes, . . . once you breakdown public spending, the opportunities stand out. For instance, if the British government diverted investments worth 2% of GDP from construction to the care sector, it could create 1.5 m jobs instead of 750,000. (“Gender Budgeting,” 2017, p. 65)
These budgeting items also revealed that the budgeting process itself is not gender neutral but, instead, reflects stereotypical assumptions regarding women’s economic worth. Spending on physical infrastructure in the U.K. budget is considered an investment of social infrastructure; child care is solely viewed as a cost. The idea that investment in child care can grow jobs by increasing the number of women who are able to work because they have access to child care in greater numbers is not often viewed as a budgetary strategy that can promote economic growth.
Another example of the lack of gender neutrality in the budgeting process came about at the urging of the Labor Party in the United Kingdom. Conservatives carried out a gender audit of their tax and spending policies that was conducted by the House of Commons library. This study, as reported in The Guardian, revealed that “86% of the burden of austerity since 2010 has fallen on women.” It went on to note that, “Women are paying a disproportionate price for balancing the government books.” This report also noted that “by 2020 men will have borne just 14% of the total burden of welfare cuts, compared with 86% for women” (see Stewart, 2017).
These examples reveal the importance of placing a GRB lens onto austerity policies, coupled with the deployment of qualitative approaches that ask new sets of subjugated budgetary questions, that taken together, provides a way forward to making women and children count in austerity policy initiatives, a budgetary lens that can serve to promote social justice and transformative goals. Asking such questions as, “Are these policies gender neutral?” “From whose perspective are austerity measures a success?” and “How is success determined?” serves to address the gender equality of such policy initiatives.
Fostering “out of the box” economic policies involves exposing the issues and concerns with regard to entrenched ways of knowing. Taking a feminist lens and praxis onto the current austerity economic policy landscape holds the promise of moving the current Eurozone economic crisis away from political and economic polarization. By encouraging accountability that fosters potential new policy-making thinking, the Eurozone may refocus its efforts in support of humanity and dignity for the whole.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Lizzie Jekanowski Bailey Flynn, Keeva Farrelly, and Sienna Remick, for their excellent editorial advice.
Authors’ Note
This article is partly adapted from Hesse-Biber, Sharlene (2014). Thinking inside and outside the austerity economic box: Applying a feminist praxis lens to austerity policy in eurozone countries. British Psychological Society. Psychology of Women Section Review Vol. 16:1:9-23.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.