The Modern Women of Economics

In October 2023, now Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves released a new book: ‘The Women Who Made Modern Economics’. An admirable and – as many who have experienced a 9am Principles of Economics lecture will know – necessary discussion in a field that can feel a little bit like a sausage party. However, it was soon alleged by the Financial Times that (shock horror) some passages had been lifted from Wikipedia. The ensuing scandal was suitably tiresome as it was splashed across the usual tabloids and apologies from the offending

parties were given.  

It may seem odd to look back on a case of lazy plagiarism two years on when the current economy has enough stories to keep me up at night, but it is the topic of Reeves’ book that allures me. Women still too often seem an afterthought in this field, both as subjects and as authors. Therefore, I wanted to highlight three authors, not of the past, but of the present that are ploughing the way for all female economists. 

Kate Raworth 

For those that are not in the loop of sustainability economics, Raworth may not be a familiar name. For those that are, she is a true A-lister, perhaps similar to Timothee Chalamet in fame.  

Raworth is known for being the creator of the Doughnut Model, which unfortunately for me as a money-strapped but constantly hungry student, has nothing to do with Krispy Kreme. Instead, the titular Doughnut refers to an ideal zone for economies to operate. The inside of the ring represents shortfalls in welfare, while the outer area signifies overstepping global ecological boundaries. Raworth hypothesises that as a global economy, we are straddling both sides of the doughnut without achieving the sweet spot of the doughnut ring.  

Since first publishing her ideas in 2012 in an article (later followed by a full book in 2017), Raworth has caused a storm, bringing together ideas of ecological  and development economics with challenges against the constant growth argument. This is all combined with a very aesthetic diagram, which appeals to every A Level Economics teacher who has said ‘if it’s tricky, draw a piccy’. In my experience, that would be most. Raworth’s work is a point to us all that we can take up space and challenge the accepted stance of the majority in order to cause change. 

Katrine Marçal 

Marçal is a Swedish journalist, known in the English-speaking world for her book named ‘Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner?’, a work that criticises much of the basis for macroeconomic calculations. As the name suggests, the book serves as a well-deserved evaluation of GDP and similar measures, with the clear point that GDP – which serves as basis for headlines, government budgets, and economics degrees the world over – does not account for unpaid domestic labour. Yet, the global economy would be unable to function without this unpaid childcare, cleaning, and yes, cooking dinner.  

As much of this labour is done disproportionately by women (in both the past and present), Marçal outlines how we have a gap in our most valued measure, and this undervaluation can disadvantage those that do it. While women have entered the workforce in droves with the advancements of feminism, they still often do this labour without appropriate credit, leading them to be held behind in terms of pay, political rights, and social standing. 

In the past few years, we have all undoubtedly been subject to the GDP-critical argument, but Marçal takes a new approach by specifically emphasising how it discriminates and diminishes the background work that allows for the rest of the economy to function. Marçal makes it clear that in order for women to be economically emancipated, domestic labour needs to be democratised and equalised, and that may have to happen via this shadowy world of domestic labour being internalised properly into the central economic measures. 

Kristen Ghodsee

I may have to hold some hands for this section, as Ghodsee is not an economist, but instead a Professor of Russian and Eastern European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, with a particular emphasis on Gender Studies. Shudder, I know. However, in the field of social sciences, transdisciplinary thinking is key, so we must be brave and branch into other fields. I was introduced to Ghodsee’s work with her book ‘Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism’, a provocative title that was only a little embarrassing to ask the librarian for when I couldn’t find it on the shelf.  

The book gives food for thought on how different political structures treat women, making a case study of the differences between East and West Germany. Whether it was differing levels of contraception use, free childcare, or orgasms, Ghodsee highlights the best and the worst of state socialism in terms of its impact on women and what she thinks could be implemented to better lives today. 

While mentions of socialism are likely to scare a Durham BSc Economics student faster than they would Senator McCarthy, this frank evaluation (though lacking in aspects of intersectionality) is refreshing when we exist in a world that thinks having a few women in the boardroom removes centuries of misogynistic institutions, all while brushing the true issues of women the world over today under the rug.