ARR

Development, 2014, 57(3–4), (416–422) © 2015 Society for International Development 1011-6370/15

www.sidint.net/development/

Development (2014) 57(3–4), 416–422. doi:10.1057/dev.2015.8

Thematic Section

Mothers of the World Unite: Gender inequality and poverty under the neo-liberal state

MELINDA VANDENBELD GILES

ABSTRACT Much literature on globalization and increasing inequalities has failed to fully acknowledge how women, specifically mothers, are both excluded and included within global markets. Despite the neo-liberal reliance upon the poorly remunerated or unpaid labour of women and mothers, there has been distinctive silence in terms of recognizing this economic and political contribution. This article is an attempt to start a pivotal conversation regarding the specific positionality of women, particularly mothers, within the neo-liberal paradigm, and the ways in which a transformative feminist alternative economic paradigm can be imagined.

KEYWORDS mothering; feminism; political economy; neo-liberalism; globalization; poverty

‘No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged’ (Smith, 2010: 88).

Introduction

Contrary to optimistic pronouncements regarding the ascent of women,1 70 percent of the one billion people living in absolute poverty (less than one US Dollar per day) are women (Braedley and Luxton, 2010: 21). And the majority of those women living in absolute poverty are mothers. In The Spirit Level, Wilkinson and Pickett (2010) discuss the corrosive relationship between increasing income inequality and social and health problems further stating that ‘women’s status is significantly worse in more unequal states’ (59). And yet, despite the neo-liberal reliance upon the poorly remunerated or unpaid labour of women and mothers, there has been distinctive silence in terms of recognizing this economic and political contribution. This article is an attempt to start a pivotal conversation regarding the specific positionality of women, particularly mothers, within the neo-liberal paradigm, and the ways in which a transformative feminist alternative economic paradigm can be imagined.

An alternative feminist economic paradigm

‘We need a movement made up of thousands of women’s groups ready to dream and to build the possibility of a new world, because, as the most revolutionary movement of this new millennium says, ‘another world is possible.’ It is around this realization … that we need to formulate our anti- globalization strategies’ (Facio, 2013: 43).

Much literature on globalization and increasing inequalities has failed to fully acknowledge how women, specifically mothers, are both excluded and included within global markets. As Hartsock points out in ‘Women and/as Commodities: A Brief Meditation’, Hardt and Negri’s (2000) book Empire includes no index entry for women. ‘At the macro or grand theory level, economic discourse on globalization erases gender as integral to the social and economic dimension of globalization’ (Hartsock, 2013: 196). And yet women, and particularly mothers, are the pivotal producers, consumers, and reproducers upon which the neo-liberal capitalist system is reliant.

The use of the term ‘mother’ in this article is with recognition of the multiplicity of mothering practices and forms. Borrowing from the anthropological understanding, ‘mothering’ is about ‘engaging acts of mothering, regardless of institutional involvement, biology, sex, and gender. More to the point, mother- ing occurs whether or not it is biologically, legally, and/or socially/culturally recognized as such’ (Walks and McPherson, 2011: x). ‘Mothering’ refers to the work of primary caregiving, being responsible for the economic, educational, and social care of another human being. Such an expansive definition means fathers, grandparents, LGBTIQ2 parents, and so on can perform ‘mothering’. However, the reality is that caregiving continues to be highly gendered, and while ‘mothering’ occurs in many forms, it is also crucial to acknowledge that it is women who are globally performing the majority of this mother- ing work. Thus it is this highly gendered reality of mothering that is prioritized in this article.

Mothering and neo-liberalism

While the positionality of mothers within the neo-liberal context has been primarily excluded

from global political economic analysis, popular discussions of mothering have proliferated.3

A societal preoccupation with mothering has coin- cided with an increasing focus on women within the global political economic realm.4 And yet there is a distinctive disjunctive between popularized motherhood claiming emancipatory potential within an increasingly essentialist global material reality void of structural supports.

Given the shift from Keynesian social democracy to neo-liberal individual responsibility, there has been corresponding research in terms of how the erosion of the welfare state has had the most direct material consequences for women and mothers (Jenson et al., 1988; Razavi, 2009; Braedley and Luxton, 2010). The increasing feminization of pov- erty has been a direct result of neo-liberal policies eroding social/economic supports for mothers. Neo-liberal/neo-conservative philosophy idealizes the image of a maternal ‘domestic goddess’ while providing no structural support for the increasing majority of working mothers. The ‘working mother’ becomes de-gendered within a framework of ‘equality’, while the mythical ‘domestic goddess’ becomes fixed within biological gendered assump- tions. Within this paradigm, it becomes advanta- geous for ‘the state’ to offload social reproduction onto the shoulders of mothers while simultaneously creating a ‘feminist’ contradictory narrative of emancipation through ‘choice’. While neo-liberal individualism appears to ‘emancipate’ all people within a discourse of ‘equality’, in reality it further entrenches inequalities by obscuring structural factors of poverty, gender and race. Such ‘good mothering’ assumptions predicated on Anglo white-middle-class positionality further marginalize those who exist outside these normative categories, in particular resulting in the further erosion of welfare support through governance structures that implicate racialized mothers as ‘undeserving’ (Bloch and Taylor, 2014: 200).

From the feminization of poverty to the ‘emancipation’ of women

‘Globalization is changing the way we argue about justice … Arguments about justice assume a

Vandenbeld Giles: Gender Inequality under the Neo-liberal State

417

double guise. On the one hand, they concern first- order questions of substance, just as before: How much economic inequality does justice permit, how much redistribution is required, and accord- ing to which principle of distributive justice? … But above and beyond such first-order questions, arguments about justice today also concern sec- ond-order, meta-level questions: Who are the relevant subjects entitled to a just distribution or reciprocal recognition in the given case?’ (Fraser, 2013: 192–193).

‘One of the central distinguishing features of neo- liberalism is the gender regime that anchors it …. Unlike liberalism, which rested upon the legal subordination of women, neoliberalism assumes that the individual can be male or female (and perhaps trans). The result is a new gender regime; one that is a consequence of an economy in which men and women are income earners’ (Braedley and Luxton, 2010: 12–13). However, while those who are ‘privileged’ may enter the global capitalist creative class, the majority must enter the increasingly poorly remunerated and precarious wage labour market in unprecedented numbers. And the majority of those entering this neo-liberal global wage labour market are women and mothers.

Such a fundamental shift in gender conceptua- lizations has sparked a popular fascination with the ‘feminization of society’. Framed within a ‘feminist’ language of empowerment, this dis- course can be highly persuasive: ‘The earth is shifting. A new age is dawning. From Kabul to Cairo to Cape Town and New York, women are claiming their space at home, at work and in the public square’ (Armstrong, 2013: 1). The United Nations Millennium Development Project claims that the status of women is directly related to the economy. ‘The World Bank asserts that if women and girls are treated fairly, the economy of a village will improve’ (Armstrong, 2013: 1). In Kevin Voigt’s CNN article ‘Women: Saviors of the World Economy?’ he writes ‘the largest growing eco- nomic force in the world isn’t China or India – it’s women’ (Edgar, 2011: 2). Women in the United States control 80 percent of all consumer purchas- ing decisions (and consumer purchases make up two thirds of US gross domestic product) (Edgar, 2011: 2). According to the United Nations

Development Fund for Women, women do 66 percent of the world’s work (Edgar, 2011: 3). The United Nations World Food Programme reports that women in developing countries pro- duce 80 percent of the food (Edgar, 2011: 3).

While it is true that women and mothers form a pivotal productive, reproductive, and consumptive basis to ensure neo-liberalization, corresponding recognition and equal rights and benefits have not coincided with the global labour shift. United Nations initiatives and global campaigns such as ‘Because I am a Girl’ offer powerful images for reframing the global failure of neo-liberalism toward a more positive opportunity for change. However, such empowerment programmes, while acknowledging material poverty, offer solutions that reside within the very framework upon which the poverty emerged. Thus, while these narratives reveal the failure of neo-liberalism towards mothers, they do nothing to challenge the inher- ent political economic basis upon which neo- liberalism is built – the poorly remunerated labour of women and mothers.

In the Feminization of the Labor Force, Jenson et al. (1988) write, ‘One of the most dramatic changes in industrial societies in the postwar years has been the intensification of women’s participa- tion in the paid labor force’ (3). And yet, women’s work in the reproductive sphere as mothers and caregivers has equally increased in direct response to the reduction of government funding for social and community services. ‘Mothering/caring was being garnered as a means to fill in the gaps left by economic reform’ (Simon-Kumar, 2009: 147). Women who are caregivers in the home are placed within an essentialist maternal framework of reproduction and given no state support. Yet, women performing care work in the marketplace (many who are also mothering transnationally), are placed within the neo-liberal efficiency frame- work of production, as in the case of Filipina care- work migration. Such dualistic categorizations of mothering lead to massive structures of inequality that benefit neither mothers nor children. The marketization of mothering has also meant that reproduction itself becomes a commodity (Craven, 2010). Just as the bodies of ‘individuals’ become identified in terms of economic potentiality, so, too,

Development 57(3–4): Thematic Section

418

do the bodies of mothers become economized as experimental markets for pharmaceuticals, particularly contraceptives (Simon-Kumar, 2009: 148).

‘Neoliberalism’s core theoretical premise and its practice … has resulted in a global decline in women’s positions and material well-being’ (Braedley and Luxton, 2010: 13). Braedley and Luxton identify three important dynamics in how the neo-liberal project has had global negative consequences for women. First, women’s work is so poorly remunerated that women are the major- ity of poor people in the world. In many areas of the world, the promotion of international agribusi- ness has undermined women’s subsistence farm- ing thus effecting the survival of their households and communities. At the same time, while more waged labour opportunities arise, they are predo- minantly low paid and insecure. Second, while neo-liberalism identifies women only as ‘economic actors’, the work of mothering must still be per- formed and is in fact integral to the reproduction of future neo-liberal workers. However, because of the neo-liberal commitment of reducing state expenditures such as paid maternity leave and childcare, mothers are left with no support systems (Braedley and Luxton, 2010: 15). Third and last, despite the emancipatory potential within the ‘feminization of society’, neo-liberalism remains an inherently male paradigm in terms of who controls the capital assets. ‘So neoliberalism allows space for women who are willing or able to live like men, who present themselves as men do and who are able to compete as men do’ (Braedley and Luxton, 2010: 15).

Neo-liberalism ensures mothers who are respon- sible for caregiving remain marginalized and thus dependent upon poorly remunerated wage labour, disenabling them from entering the ‘male’ cate- gory of capital assets by eroding community and institutionalized caregiving structures and inde- pendent agricultural-based means for household survival (Braedley and Luxton, 2010: 14). While very few ‘privileged’ mothers may ‘choose’ to enter the neo-liberal space of masculine virility by off- loading the responsibilities of mothering onto other mothers and caregivers, for the majority, whether to perform labour in the ‘public’ sphere or perform

mothering work in the ‘private’ sphere is not a question of ‘choice’, but rather economic necessity. Even for those ‘privileged’ few garnering success through becoming the ideal ‘male’ neo-liberal worker, there is no space in this patriarchal para- digm to be a mother. For those mothers attempting to merge the worker and maternalist spheres through part-time labour, working from ‘home’, and so on (contradictorily encouraged given the lack of state support for childcare), they are faced directly with the difficulties of merging two realms that have been constructed as diametrically opposed.

Creating a divisionary paradigm in which mothers as ‘economic agents’ becomes antithetical to mothering, ensures a maternal/child separation for all mothers. Far from creating more ‘choice’, such a paradigm in effect takes all choices away by necessitating the majority of mothers either enter the poorly remunerated work sphere or become full-time caregivers because of lack of childcare supports. Neo-liberal emancipatory social justice in which ‘everyone is equal under the law’ obscures the structural realities of gender, race and class, thus intensifying existent inequalities. The very magnification of such inequalities is the founda- tion upon which neo-liberal capital relies. While the neo-liberal paradigm theoretically creates spaces in which a few women and mothers can thrive, we cannot call neo-liberalism a feminist emancipatory paradigm until all mothers, women and children are able to thrive globally.

Mothers of the world unite!

‘There are no excuses left. Either you join the revolt taking place on Wall Street and in the financial districts of other cities across the country or you stand on the wrong side of history. Either you obstruct in the only form left to us, which is civil disobedience, the plundering by the criminal class on Wall Street and accelerated destruction of the ecosystem that sustains the human species, or become the passive enabler of a monstrous evil. Either you taste, feel and smell the intoxication of freedom and revolt or sink into the miasma of despair and apathy. Either you are a rebel or a slave’ (Hedges, 2013: 336).

Vandenbeld Giles: Gender Inequality under the Neo-liberal State

419

There is a powerful anti-neo-liberal discourse emerging, an increasing group of individuals who have taken to the streets, the public squares and the coffee shops of the world proclaiming their disenfranchisement. This movement can be called the new millennium collectivism and encompasses ‘an informal but influential alliance embracing businesses, unions, the more moderate NGOs, academics, commentators and public figures, various elements in government circles … and most UN agencies’ (Henderson, 2001: xv). Indeed, the power of this collectivist millennium move- ment was revealed in global uprisings from the Occupy Movement to SlutWalk (Teeka et al., 2015) to Tahrir Square illuminating the expansive influence of global social media. As neo-liberal governments become increasingly centralized and totalitarian, popular movements proclaiming par- ticipatory democracy proliferate. Such cultural movements make explicit the neo-liberal global failure and are thus vital to an anti-neo-liberal paradigm.

Within the wake of global neo-liberal destruc- tion, there is arising a crucial discourse of human rights, corporate social responsibility and sustain- able development. Given the massive evidence of neo-liberal failure producing increasing global inequality, labour instability and ecological unsus- tainability – all of which directly impact mothers and children – such a discourse is pivotal to deconstructing previous utopian dreams of a harmonious globalized future that subsumed recognition of its material destruction. Such anti- neo-liberal critiques provide a powerful starting point. However, they do not fundamentally break down the neo-liberal philosophy upon which such destruction is built. They are reactive in that for the most part they offer alternatives that involve working with corporations and neo-liberal states to effect change rather than working to effect change within the political structures of power.

Such calls for participatory democracy – while directly establishing an assault on neo-liberal marketization and political/corporate corruption – fail to re-politicize neo-liberal governmental spaces. The desire to create a ‘global civil society’, while powerful within the imaginary, fails to acknowl- edge the very real changes required at the local

levels of governance. Esoteric cultural dreams must be grounded in political economic realities. While the emancipatory potential of global democ- racy proliferates, democratic institutions are being eviscerated. Women and mothers are being erased from public policy through the de-funding of research programmes and ministries specifically related to gender and through the erosion of policies and supports that unequivocally impact mothers and children the most.5

In Fortunes of Feminism, Fraser (2013) writes, ‘To combat the subordination of women requires an approach that combines a politics of redistribu- tion with a politics of recognition’ (163). A politics of both redistribution and recognition enables a more collectivist vision. Instead of dividing the world between ‘privileged’ women and the rest, such a politics enables recognition for how a neo- liberal regime is detrimental for all women and children in different ways. Just as the Occupy Movement was a unifying force in that it identified the 1 percent as the target thus bringing together the 99 percent in collective outrage, so, too, can a feminist anti-neoliberal paradigm prioritizing women and children be conceptualized. Multiple tools of justice can be utilized. In spaces where biological maternalism provides a strong tool for change, the power of reproduction can be co-opted to demand governmental reform.6 In spaces where the language of human rights predomi- nates, the powers of legality can produce struc- tural change (Breton, 2014: 318–319), or the strength of collectivity can create institutional reform (Schulz, 2014: 368–369). A universal movement does not necessitate universal strate- gies. Far from creating a de-legitimation of diverse ‘mothering’, such collectivism requires the embra- cing of such diversity to effect redistribution. Thus, resources are redistributed more equitably through greater recognition of those actively contributing to the neo-liberal paradigm and providing ade- quate supports.

Conclusion

Whether the discussion is about transnational feminism (Mohanty, 2003), maternal activism (Vandenbeld Giles, 2014) feminist utopias

Development 57(3–4): Thematic Section

420

(Eichler et al., 2002), embracing matriarchy (Goettner-Abendroth, 2009), or feminist econom- ics (Strassmann, 2004), all of these sources pro- vide powerful forces of change. As Angela Miles writes in Feminist Politics, Activism and Vision, an effective global feminist counter to neo-liberalism must be: (1) committed to women’s solidarity, (2) opposed to colonial, class and race as well as patriarchal oppression, (3) sustained by women’s creative commitment to local communities, (4) aware of the possibilities and limits of engage- ment with the state, the United Nations, and multi- lateral agencies, and (5) conscious of the inade- quacy of looking to economic growth and western ‘modernization’ to liberate women (Miles, 2004: 21–22). ‘Even as the gap between the globe’s rich and poor grows wider, the globe itself – its capital, its cultural images, its consumer tastes, and peoples – have become more integrated’

(Hochschild, 2004: 36). And it is precisely this integration that can provide a type of heteroglossia in terms of global feminist resistance (Hunt and Saulnier, 2001).

As a starting point, this article can only cover the very edge of what it means to do mothering in a neo-liberal world. Far more research and action is required. Thus the words of Rashida Bi – a Bhopali mother-activist – can provide inspiration for us all.

‘We are not expendable. We are not flowers to be offered at the altar of profit and power. We are dancing flames committed to conquering darkness. We are challenging those who threaten the survi- val of the planet and the magic and mystery of life. Through our struggle, through our refusal to be victims, we have become survivors. And we are on our way to becoming victors’ (Shadaan, 2014: 351).

Acknowledgements

Segments from this article in a previous version have been published in Vandenbeld Giles (2014).

Notes 1 Please see Armstrong (2013); Mundy (2012); and Sandberg (2013) for further reading. 2 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning. 3 For further reading see Kawash (2011). 4 For reading regarding women and globalization see Cohen and Brodie (2007); González and Seidler (2008);

Mohanty (2003); and Razavi (2009). 5 See Brodie and Bakker (2008) for further discussion regarding the eradication of gender from public policy. 6 See Ogunyankin (2014) and Shadaan (2014) for further reading regarding maternal activism.

References

Armstrong, Sally (2013) Ascent of Women: Our Turn, Our Way – A Remarkable Story of Worldwide Change. Toronto, ON: Random House Canada.

Bloch, Katrina and Tiffany Taylor (2014) ‘Welfare Queens and Anchor Babies: A Comparative Study of Stigmatized Mothers in the United States’, in Melinda Vandenbeld Giles (ed.) Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.

Braedley, Susan and Meg Luxton (2010) ‘Competing Philosophies: Neoliberalism and Challenges of Everyday Life’, in Susan Braedley and Meg Luxton (eds.) Neoliberalism and Everyday Life. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp 3–21.

Breton, Pat (2014) ‘Deserving Children and ‘Risky Mothers’: Situating Public Policy and Maternal/Child Welfare in the Canadian Context’, in Melinda Vandenbeld Giles (ed.) Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.

Brodie, Janine and Isabella Bakker (2008) Where Are the Women? Gender Equity, Budgets and Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Cohen, Marjorie Griffen and Janine Brodie (eds.) (2007) Remapping Gender in the New Global Order. New York: Routledge, Print.

Craven, Christa (2010) Pushing for Midwives: Homebirth Mothers and the Reproductive Rights Movement. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Vandenbeld Giles: Gender Inequality under the Neo-liberal State

421

Edgar, Stacey (2011) Global Girlfriends: How One Mom Made It Her Business to Help Women in Poverty Worldwide. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

Eichler, Margrit, June Larkin and Sheila Neysmith (2002) Feminist Utopias: Re-Visioning Our Futures. Toronto, ON: Inanna Publications and Education Inc.

Facio, Alda (2013) ‘Confronting Globalization: Feminist Spirituality as Political Strategy’, in Angela Miles (ed.) Women in a Globalizing World: Transforming Equality, Development, Diversity and Peace. Toronto: Inanna Publications and Education Inc.

Fraser, Nancy (2013) Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. London: Verso. Goettner-Abendroth, Heidi (ed.) (2009) Societies of Peace: Matriarchies Past, Present, and Future. Toronto, ON: Inanna Publications and Education Inc.

González, Ana Marta and Victor J. Seidler (2008) Gender Identities in a Globalized World. Amherst, New York: Humanity Books.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri (2000) Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Cambridge. Hartsock, Nancy (2013) ‘Women and/as Commodities: A Brief Meditation’, in Angela Miles (ed.) Women in a Globalizing World: Transforming Equality, Development, Diversity and Peace. Toronto, ON: Inanna Publications and Education Inc.

Hedges, Chris (2013) The World as it is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress. New York: Nation Books. Henderson, David (2001) Anti-Liberalism 2000: The Rise of New Millennium Collectivism. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell (2004) ‘Love and Gold’, in Luciana Ricciutelli, Angela Miles and Margaret H. McFadden (eds.) Feminist Politics, Activism & Vision: Local and Global Challenges. Toronto, ON: Inanna Publications and Education Inc.

Hunt, Krista and Christine Saulnier (eds.) (2001) Feminism(s) on the Edge of the Millennium: Rethinking Foundations and Future Debates. Toronto, ON: Inanna Publications and Education Inc.

Jenson, Jane, Elisabeth Hagen and Ceallaigh Reddy (eds.) (1988) Feminization of the Labor Force: Paradoxes and Promises. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kawash, Samira (2011) ‘New Directions in Motherhood Studies’, Signs 36(4): 969–1003. Miles, Angela (2004) ‘Introduction’, in Luciana Ricciutelli, Angela Miles and Margaret H. McFadden (eds.) Feminist Politics, Activism & Vision: Local and Global Challenges. Toronto: Inanna Publications and Education Inc.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade (2003) Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Mundy, Liza (2012) The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners Is Transforming Sex, Love, and Family. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ogunyankin, Grace Adeniyi (2014) ‘Dancing without Drums: Using Maternalism as a Political Strategy to Critique Neoliberalism in Ibadan, Nigeria’, in Melinda Vandenbeld Giles (ed.) Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.

Razavi, Shahra (ed.) (2009) The Gendered Impacts of Liberalization: Towards ‘Embedded Liberalism?’. New York: Routledge.

Sandberg, Sheryl (2013) Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Schulz, Katheryne (2014) ‘It’s Not the Meek Who Inherit the Earth: Low-Income Mothers Organize for Economic Justice in Canada’, in Melinda Vandenbeld Giles (ed.) Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.

Shadaan, Reena (2014) ‘Maternal Activism in the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB), India’, in Melinda Vandenbeld Giles (ed.) Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.

Simon-Kumar, Rachel (2009) ‘‘Productive’ Reproducers: the Political Identity of Mothering in Contemporary India’, Mothering and Poverty Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering 11(2): 143–152.

Smith, Adam (2010) The Wealth of Nations. West Sussex, UK: Capstone Publishing Ltd. Strassmann, Diana (2004) ‘Feminist Economics – It Flourishes’, Feminist Economics 10(3): 1–2. Teeka, Alyssa, Erika Jane Scholz, May Friedman and Andrea O’Reilly (eds.) (2015) This is What a Feminist Slut Looks Like: Perspectives on the Slutwalk Movement. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.

Vandenbeld Giles, Melinda (ed.) (2014) ‘Introduction: An Alternative Mother-Centred Economic Paradigm’, in Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.

Walks, Michelle and Naomi McPherson (eds.) (2011) An Anthropology of Mothering. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press. Wilkinson, Richard and Kate Pickett (eds.) (2010) The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone. Toronto: Penguin Books.

Development 57(3–4): Thematic Section

422

���������� �� ���������� �� � � ������� � � ���� ���� �� ������������ ��� ������ �� ���

�����������