The Observer - 25.08.2019

• The Observer
  48 25.08.19 Comment & Analysis

Economics will

stay a man’s game

while women

are kept out of

the equation

We should heed the

Women’s Budget

Group if we want a

better economic future

Keep the home fi res
burning! After the apocalyptic vision
of post-Brexit Britain revealed
last week in the leak of Operation
Yellowhammer, we learn that the
government will spend £4m on “local
resilience forums” across England
( and £1.7m for Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland) supporting Brexit
preparations for public services.
The reasonably sane response
might be – what public services?
Central government funding for local
government will have fallen by 56%
in the 10 years to 2020. Or, to put a
more human face on it, 1.4 million
older people are not receiving the
home care they need, 155 women
and 103 children are turned away by
refuges every day and hundreds of
libraries, youth services, Sure Starts
and day centres are closing weekly.
At the current rate, the main job
of resilience forums will be putting
up yet more shutters. All of which

affects both men and women but

no change is gender neutral in the

damage it infl icts. Women have

already paid a far heavier price from

austerity and, deal or no deal, worse

is to come.

So who will speak up? If women

counted, what kind of an economy

might we have? Wednesday 18

September sees the 30th birthday

of the Women’s Budget Group

(WBG), an independent thinktank

that is now part of a global

network of feminist economists

who are growing in infl uence,

particularly in places where there

is an insightful leader such as New

Zealand, with Jacinda Ardern. In

May, her government introduced a

wellbeing budget. Billed as the fi rst

in the world, it allocated millions

to child poverty and narrowing the

inequality gap. The International

Monetary Fund predicts that the

New Zealand econom y will grow by

2.9% next year.

In the UK, it was the sight of John

Major, the then chancellor of the

exchequer, carrying his red box on

budget day in 1989 that prompted

a group of feminist economists,

trade unionists and activists to set

up the WBG. Its purpose was to

demonstrate what a non-gender-

blind approach to economics might

look like and to encourage women

to take a bigger part in the economic

debate. It’s our future too.

What do gender-blind policies

mean in practical terms? One

example: transport. The cumulative

cuts in fuel duty will cost the

exchequer £9bn a year by 2020. The

Treasury says this is gender neutral:

both men and women drive. But men

are more likely to own cars, drive cars

with higher fuel consumption and go

longer distances. At the same time,

public transport, on which women

rely more than men , has received so

little investment that the sight of a

bus in rural areas is a rare event.

Another example: unequal pay

means that no single woman on

median earnings can afford to buy

or rent an averagely priced house

in any region in England. Average

rent takes 43% of a woman’s median

earnings, 28% of men’s.

And a third: we have a growing

crisis in care because this precious

commodity is valued so poorly.

Between 2005 and 2014, the number

of hours of unpaid care rose by 25%

from 6.5bn to 8.1bn hours a year –

that’s mainly women’s work – at the

same time as debt and low wages

mean women have to hold on to

employment, however insecure.

“Women are disproportionately

affected ... as a result of structural

inequalities which mean they earn

less and have more responsibility

for unpaid care and domestic work,”

says Prof Diane Elson , chair of

WBG’s commission on a gender-

equal economy that reports next

year. “It doesn’t have to be like this.

Our positive vision for an alternative

economy puts care and wellbeing of

people and planet front and centre.”

Under New Labour, urged on by

feminist ministers, WBG had a major

infl uence on, for instance, working

tax credit and the need to consider

the gender impact on policies (a

statutory duty easily ignored). Since

then, the road has become rockier

domestically. The E U , however, has

passed several benefi cial laws for

women’s employment.

So what next? WBG argues not

for “a budget for women” but for

“an economy for human beings”

that works more effectively and

fairly. One day, let’s hope “women’s

issues” are extinct, replaced by an

understanding that pro-equality

policies work more effectively both

for women and men, for social

cohesion and for the environment.

“Classical economics is based on

the independent man who works full

time and is in control,” says Mary-

Ann Stephenson, WBG’s director.

“But life isn’t like that. We will all give

or receive care at some time in our

lives. So we need a system in which

care is a fundamental part of the

economy and the unpaid economy is

fully recognised as having value.”

In 1988, Marilyn Waring , a

former New Zealand MP, wrote

If Women Counted , criticising the

use of gross domestic product as a

system that “counts oil spills and

wars as a contributor to economic

growth, while child rearing and

housekeeping are deemed valueless”.

A woman in Africa who toils 18 hours

a day on the land and for her family

is classed in man made economics as

“unoccupied”. Why, Waring asked,

does water going through a pipe have

a market value but not water carried

on a woman’s head?

In the same vein, the WBG argues

that attention should be paid to

what it calls social infrastructure –

for instance, investment in social

care – in addition to investment in

roads and rail. This isn’t a “women’s

issue” – it makes economic sense.

If the UK invested 2% of GDP in the

care sector, it would create 1.5 m

jobs; the same investment creates

750,00 jobs in construction.

“Can you imagine the nation’s

annual budget becoming a realistic

description of wellbeing of the

community and its environment, a

refl ection of real wealth and different

values?” Waring wrote in 1988.

The members of WBG not only

imagine just such a society, they

pursue it with the kind of academic

rigour and economic expertise that

reveals the real price we all pay for

continued injustice and inequality –

and how there is a better alternative.

May WBG have the best of birthdays.

Children’s centres

are closing weekly.

Getty

Yvonne

Roberts

May I have

a word?

Jonathan

Bouquet

The shifting

patterns of English:

Boris Johnson’s

linguistic prowess

We have a

growing crisis

in care because

this precious

commodity is

valued so poorly

Is it really any wonder that

there is so much consternation

in Europe at the negotiating

tactics employed by the prime

minister over Brexit and the

blasted backstop?

His full linguistic prowess was

on display before his meetings

last week with Angela Merkel

and Emmanuel Macron: “We

can’t get it through parliament

as it is. So I’m going to go at it...

with a lot of oomph.” For good

measure, he added that there

needed to be a “total backstop-

ectomy” if there is to be any

chance of a Brexit deal.

I know that Johnson thinks

himself a latter-day Churchill

but I’m equally certain that

the great man would have

mustered something more

magisterial than “oomph”

at such a parlous time and,

if M Macron had responded

with a de Gaulle-esque “non”

in the face of such language,

I wouldn’t have been the

slightest bit surprised.

Meanwhile, Jean-Marc

Puissesseau , the Boulogne-

Calais port chief, seems,

happily, to take a more bracing

and optimistic attitude to

Brexit. He has dismissed

warning of chaos on the Dover

to Calais trade route, saying:

“Th ere are certain people in the

UK who are whipping up this

catastrophism for their own

reasons. C’est la bullshit.”

I do fear, though, that he

might face the full wrath of the

Académie française for that last

word. As I’ve written before , its

members are such frightful

sticklers.

A load of old manure

Living in a somewhat

somnolent market town where

nothing much of note happens,

I love a good local scandal. So

last week, when a large load of

manure was dumped outside

a pub , topped with a notice

saying “Th e landlord is fucking

my wife”, my heart soared.

(Th e landlord has since said the

allegation is untrue.)

Not so that of the

constabulary, which

responded with a full

regulation sour-pussedness:

“We can confi rm we are

investigating an allegation of

malicious communications

following an incident in which

off ensive signage was placed

outside a pub in Liss.”

Oh come on, Plod, grow

a sense of humour, for

heaven’s sake, and kindly go

at it with a bit – or even a lot

• of oomph.