The post AIDC Political Economy Working Group: Austerity and the crisis of social reproduction appeared first on AIDC | Alternative Information & Development Centre.
Last Friday, 23 August 2024, the Political Economy Working Group held its second roundtable, bringing together economists, policymakers, unionists and social activists to foster reflection and discussion on key issues. This meeting focused on austerity measures and the crisis of social reproduction. Austerity policies are often implemented under the guise of promoting economic stability, but, in reality, they erode the social fabric. The discussion highlighted how austerity not only weakens public services and keeps wages stagnant but also disproportionately burdens women, exacerbating gender inequalities and contributing to a growing “crisis of care.” Our guest speakers were Samah Krichah, Head of Training and Learning at the UK Women’s Budget Group, who spoke on the crisis of social reproduction in the context of austerity, and Maria Jose Romero, Policy and Advocacy Manager at Eurodad. Romero’s presentation centred on the implications of public-private partnerships for gender equity.
During the first presentation, there was a presentation on the general context of the social reproduction crisis in the UK since 2010 when the Conservative Party gained power, which culminated in the reduction in social protection. One response to budget cuts has been the privatisation of care work, implying that people with lower incomes have to work longer and harder to meet their needs. Krichah also explained how cuts to social protection have gendered and racialised outcomes, disproportionately harming Black women, low-income groups, and people living with disability.
The roundtable discussion underscored several key areas where austerity inflicts deep and lasting damage on society. We discussed how neoliberalism is used as a way of organising towards the atomisation and individualisation of people in society. When it comes to the provision of care, there are often narratives around “uncaring” families, but the issue of the uncaring state needs to be problematised and centralised.
One of the critical insights from the discussion was the recognition of austerity’s gendered impact. As public services are cut and wages remain stagnant, women are disproportionately affected. This is due to the persistent gender roles that see women as the primary caregivers in society. The roundtable participants highlighted several ways in which austerity deepens gender inequalities:
Increased Unpaid Labour: As public services diminish, the care responsibilities fall more heavily on women, who already perform the majority of unpaid labour. This increase in unpaid work exacerbates existing gender inequalities and limits women’s participation in the formal workforce.
Economic Insecurity: With wages stagnant and job opportunities limited, women face heightened economic insecurity. This insecurity is compounded by the fact that women are more likely to be employed in low-wage, precarious jobs that are particularly vulnerable to cuts.
The Crisis of Care: The term “crisis of care” was discussed at length during the roundtable, referring to the growing gap between the need for care and the resources available to provide it. As austerity measures force more care work onto households, the stress and strain on caregivers—most of whom are women—intensifies, leading to burnout and reduced quality of care.
There are at least two major independent but also inter-related tracks for intervention:
- Reducing the time and cost required for care work
- Transforming relations towards increased collectivisation of care work
Addressing the harms of austerity becomes increasingly tenuous under the Government of National Unity. The ANC and DA prioritise fiscal sustainability at the expense of schools, hospitals, and communities. A key question is how to finance the expansions of infrastructure and public services and increase their quality while reducing poverty and inequalities. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have become a popular mechanism for financing and delivering public services and infrastructure across the globe. By combining the resources and expertise of both the public and private sectors, PPPs are often presented as a win-win solution to address fiscal constraints while maintaining or even improving service delivery. However, beneath this appealing narrative lies a more complex reality, and despite being implemented during fiscal distress, it can be viewed as a way to hide the cost of the debt.
The presentation by Maria Jose Romero outlined a critique of PPPs. PPPs are agreements in which private sector companies replace the state as the provider of traditional public services; and where both public and private sector agree on how to distribute the risks associated with the project. PPPs can take different forms, but all PPPs are able to generate and guarantee income for the private sector. The gendered impacts of PPPs are significant and multifaceted. Women, who disproportionately rely on public services such as healthcare, education, and social protection, are often the most affected by the changes in service provision that PPPs bring. When the private sector assumes control over public services, the focus tends to shift towards cost-efficiency and profitability, which can lead to reduced access, higher fees, and a decline in service quality. These changes can exacerbate existing gender inequalities, particularly for women in low-income households who may already face barriers to accessing essential services.
General challenges of PPPs:
- High cost to the government: PPPs are often double the cost of government borrowing, usually the most expensive means of financing
- High risk placed on the state
- Generally opaque and lacking oversight or consultation mechanisms: Companies often fail to engage local communities and have no public disclosure of project information
- Tend to worsen inequality
- Tend to come with environmental impacts
These challenges are exacerbated for women. The state’s withdrawal from service provision makes things increasingly more expensive, often resulting in people needing to fill the gap in the private sphere, such as within the household.
The efficiency claims of PPPs are also contested as they often come at a cost, such as poor standard of service delivery and worsened employment conditions. The ultimate priority of private sector companies is their shareholders, not citizens. This means that people are treated as clients/users and not as rights holders.
The roundtable discussion provided valuable insights into the harmful effects of austerity and the crisis of social reproduction in our society. As the group continues its work, it is clear that addressing these issues requires a fundamental shift in how people think about economic policy. Our next discussion will be in October, where we will be looking at the Trade and Industrial Policy related to Just Transition. Follow us on Facebook and X for more information.
