He called this individual 'Rational Man', who makes every decision taking into account his benefit. These are the ‘words of wisdom, you will get introduced to in possibly your first economics class.
As an eleventh grader, I hardly questioned anything about it since my only goal in life was to ace the paper which is pretty doable by learning a few definitions. But over time growing from that eleventh grader to a woman majoring in economics, I have had quite a time to think about that first class.
Why did Adam smith call the individual a rational man and not a woman? If all of our actions are motivated by self-interest, what about the acts which are purely based on selfless nature? What about people who do not get anything after contributing to a particular job? Does everyone behave like the ‘rational man’?
Being an economics major for two years now, I have had a lot of chances to dive into discussions relevant to the topic, and most of these discussions often end up with one question 'if there is a rational man in the world, where is the rational woman?’
Women and the Unpaid Work
A large part of activities that contribute to the overall functioning of the world is done by women. Ironically, more than half of them do not come under the definition of 'work' as per the societal norms and social structure that we are part of.
The main reason for this is that the work done by them is not paid. And to classify as a worker in the outside world, you have to have a monetary value associated with the work done by you.
Yes, we are talking about work done by all the homemakers all over the world.
Can you imagine doing your daily tasks with an empty stomach or wearing dirty clothing the entire day or if there is no one to look after you when you are sick? These tasks are not only crucial to the existence of life but also very important in economic terms as well. Then why they should not be paid?
Should Household Work Be Paid?
There have been a lot of debates on thoughts of 'potential remuneration' for unpaid household work done by homemakers (mostly women). While some believe that this is an insult to motherhood and the foundations of relationships, others believe that paying for household work would mean giving recognition and acknowledging the efforts of homemakers.
But if we analyze it through the gender lens, remuneration can be a progressive step. Women, specifically in India, struggle a lot with financial dependency. Due to burdening household work, many of them even voluntarily leave the workforce.
Women spend almost 95 percent more time at housework in comparison to their male counterparts and get no reward for it. Payment of the prescribed amount would ensure financial independence and also give them more control of their life.
Why There Is a Need to Make Household Work Paid?
It is a universally acknowledged fact that money earns you respect. So, remuneration would be handy in this aspect as well. Income can help women to earn their self-esteem which would further increase their visibility in the outside world. It tends to make the female population more confident and more comfortable in their voice.
Control of financial resources also comes along with the ability and courage to leave poor situations. Due to the pandemic, there has been a drastic rise in domestic violence cases in India.
If a woman is dependent upon her partner for the fulfillment of her basic needs, then the probability of her reporting the crime or even seeking help is very low. The assurance of fixed income would encourage them to leave the unfavorable conditions faster.
Rise From Unfair Power Imbalance
Moreover, because of the unrecognition of household work, there has been an evident power imbalance in households. There is a lack of representation from women's side in decision making and deciding upon the allocation of household resources.
So, if the work done by them has some monetary value attached to it, then there is a greater chance for them to intervene in the decision-making process.
The Recognition of Care Economy
Monetising the unpaid work would not only create an impact at an individual level but on a macro level, it would mean recognizing the care economy and industry.
The care economy is crucial to a country's growth. Recognition and adding a monetary value to it would present it as a lucrative space for investors to invest.
This would lead to the entrance of more human capital there and with the right policy changes, the unpaid care work could be converted into full-fledged paid employment opportunities.
In the current scenario, women are often paid less for the same amount of work done as the men because they already do a lot of work for 'free' such that when they try to enter the workforce, the same is expected from them. Monetization would help to change that notion.
A large proportion of the female population in India is still engaged in household work directly or indirectly. It also includes the population which is already part of the workforce.
Making a significant amount of the population do a work that would reap them no benefit under the disguise of ‘work done because of love and affection is neither ethical nor respectful. Women are vulnerable, particularly, in rural areas and any kind of support would be helpful for them to create a life for themselves.
Monetization would not just mean converting household activities to economic activities. The benefit would be far bigger. It would mean challenging the existing social culture and standing up for the rights of a population that has been nothing, but sacrificial.
It is high time we introduce the 'rational woman' in the world who is recognized and valued for her work. Our economics and Adam Smith might have skipped them easily but it does not mean she doesn’t exist. She was always there, since the beginning of time. Who do you think served food to Adam Smith?
Written by - Gunjan Nagpal
Edited by - Akanksha Sharma
0 Comments