The Impact of Government and Capitalism on Women in the Developing World

Democracy is usually defined as a form of government in which the common people are the source of political power. Hand in hand with capitalism, democracy has long been portrayed as the ideal form of government which the developing world should strive for. These two concepts became entangled at the end of World War II, when developing countries had to choose between support from the United States or Russia. This actually had the effect of suppressing any true democracy in most of the developing world, as much of their supposed independence was reliant upon the good will of one of the two superpowers, who regularly used the developing countries like pawns against each other. When an economic recession hit, this caused most of the governments in the developing world to go into debt, which in turn subjected them to the unfair dictates of capitalism, in order to have access to foreign aid for recovery. Therefore, the so called democracies of the developing world are not actually based on the power of the common people, but rather rely on outside sources for their power. As such, they have subsequently been made slaves to the whims of the developed world, and are no longer truly democracies.

Let us look at the effects of capitalism on inequality, specifically, the switch from Keynesian policy to the current neoliberal policies. Under the Keynesian policy, also known as industrial capitalism, there was a trend toward equalization, with "[a commitment] to achieving full employment and higher incomes for everyone.'' While this industrial capitalism actually performs better than neoliberalism, or finance capitalism, when measured on conventional scales, that did not prevent neoliberalism from taking over. This is because at the end of World War II, it was argued it would be better for the "optimal operation of the market" if the government deregulated more of the economic sphere and stopped interfering. As such, the economic policy of neoliberalism, which favors free market capitalism, was born. However, this deregulation left us with a legacy of inequalities. Under neoliberalism, the rich get richer. As the rich continue to accumulate wealth, they gain more sway over not only matters of economic policy, but also over seemingly neutral matters like the media and advertising. This results in a cycle which favors those at the top continuing to amass wealth and power at the expense of everyone else.

How does this switch from industrial capitalism to finance capitalism affect women? Much research has shown that when further stress is placed on the poor, the increased work normally falls on the women. As the ones who are mainly responsible for taking care of the family, this job gets significantly harder when sources of income disappear, as they take on the mental, and often physical, burden of trying to stretch out their resources. However, there are other ways in which this shift has negatively affected women. It was assumed the weakening of the trade unions, which resulted from the switch in policy, would increase the power of women by encouraging the hiring of unskilled workers. This is rarely the case, since women hired under such situations are usually exploited, being paid less than their male counterparts.

In heavily agricultural societies, women are often the ones farming to feed their families, with anything extra going to earn a little cash on the side. When developed companies begin to import food, these women cannot compete, thereby eliminating what little money they do earn. Even in developed countries, the switch from industrial capitalism to finance capitalism has changed the image of the successful women: no longer just a mother and cook, she must now also be visually appealing, strong willed, and capable of being as ruthless as any man. This has hurt the developed world, as it makes any woman who accepts a life of anything less than the above to appear weak and unaccomplished. This thereby continues the stereotype of the general helplessness of women in general, all for the sake of economic progress.

Unfortunately, economic progress is a very badly defined term. Every country wants to be 'economically progressing' but it is uncertain what measurements should be used to quantify how much progress is occurring. One of the usual measurements is Gross Domestic Product, which is the monetary value of the goods and services produced by a country over a set period of time. However, this calculation ignores the unpaid work of women, usually in the form of caring for their family. This negligence has the effect of making the work most women are engaged in invisible at the macro level, which in turn gives them little to no power over the policies being enacted with regard to the economy as a whole, often to the detriment of the women involved.

For example, in the name of economic progress, many of the forests in India have been seized by the government to allow various companies access to the land and resources, while denying the very same access to the communities who have been living symbiotically with the forests for generations. In most of these households, the women have taken on a greater share of the increased workload as many of the items the women used in the upkeep of their families were found in the forests. The work required to replace the loss disproportionately adds to the amount of work the women are forced to do. When there is a loss of income, whether monetary from the husband or in the form of resources, women are often forced to seek paid employment, usually on top of the unpaid work they already perform for their families. Therefore, while the devastation of 'economic progression' does affect entire populations, the resulting loss in stability is skewed with women compensating for the brunt of the loss.

These inequalities between men and women have been ignored for a long time. The first step to correcting the disparity should be showing how important the unpaid household work of women is to the economy of any given country and the world as a whole. As already stated, the unpaid work of women is not included in standard measures of economic progress. At the most, it is measured in satellite accounts, which are data collected and analyzed experimentally, but without disrupting or being reported along with the main numbers or analysis. Including the unpaid work of women into mainstream economics would not be hard to do: it can be given a monetary value based on what it would cost to replace, or what the women would earn if they worked at a paid job and were given the same salary as a male peer with an equivalent education. Estimating the value of unpaid work is an easy way to get a rough idea of how much women are contributing to the economy, even if they are not working at a job which directly proves an income.

The very wealthy benefit enormously from the new neoliberal policies that were enacted after World War II. The idea was that without regulations, investors would be more likely to spend their money and stimulate the economy. However, the only way to keep this cycle going is if the rich invest in ever riskier propositions. This only serves to destabilize the economy. In theory, both the inequalities present in poverty and the destabilization caused by risky investments could be fixed by taxing the rich more. The money could be used to educate people, usually girls, who would not regularly be able to go to school, and the lack of excess funds in the pockets of the rich would cut down on risky investments. The best way to test this would be to try it out, but unfortunately, now that finance capitalism has been in place for so long, the rich are the ones with most of the power, and they are unlikely to agree to anything which may serve to break the hold they have on the economy of the world, no matter who is currently hurt by it.