The three big numbers

Interview in the Perspectives series by Jette HausotterFeminist academics have joined forces in the #CloseEconDataGap working group because they not only want to highlight the economic inequalities between the sexes, but also quantify them. In this interview, Ulrike Knobloch, Claire Funke, Ulrike Reiche and Christine Rudolf explain the figures they present on their website, shed light on the background and draw political conclusions.Interview: Jette Hausotter, Care Revolution BerlinQuestion: You have defined and calculated three indicators to summarise the economic inequality between men and women in Germany. Please briefly introduce them. Christine Rudolf: The three figures show the economic inequality between women and men that results from the unequal distribution of unpaid and paid work between the sexes. The figure of 380 billion euros expresses the Gender Overall Earning Gap (GOEG) in absolute figures. This is how much women earn less than men in Germany in a year because they do much more unpaid work and therefore do much less paid work and because women receive much less pay than men for the same paid work (gender pay gap). Women work 60 billion hours unpaid in Germany. In no sector of the paid economy is more work done. If this work were paid according to the average wages in the respective occupation, this would result in a gross value added of 825 billion euros, which is more than the federal, state and local governments spend in one year.Question: The figures seem impressively high. We are talking about huge amounts of money that women have less than men, and huge amounts of time that women spend working more unpaid than men. But you don't just want to raise the alarm with the initiative, you want to point out structural connections and causes. What is your aim here?Ulrike Reiche: Our aim is to impart sound macroeconomic general knowledge. On the one hand, we get to the bottom of the structural economic conditions and show that existing inequalities at the macroeconomic level can only be eliminated through overarching political action. Expanding childcare or paying a maternal pension are isolated measures and therefore no more than a drop in the ocean - the social contract as a whole needs to be readjusted in line with people's very different lifestyles and diverse realities. On the other hand, we want to create a resilient basis for discussion and encourage people to explore both individual and institutional room for manoeuvre.Question: Was it a challenge to calculate the key figures? Is the necessary data easily accessible or did you also have to use estimates and assumptions?Christine Rudolf: It was a challenge. The first figure is still relatively easy to calculate in absolute terms and is also published annually as a percentage by the Statistical Office of the European Union. The second figure comes from the time utilisation study that the Federal Statistical Office publishes every ten years. These large time intervals and the late publication - the last survey was in 2012 and the results were not published until 2015 - mean that the desired timeliness is lacking. Now, for example, during the pandemic, it would really be desirable to see what has changed. There have been an incredible number of shifts into unpaid work. The biggest statistical challenge was the third figure. Various statistical documents had to be linked together here, as there are no statistics in Germany that show employees and their pay by gender and occupation. This systematically conceals the lower pay for women.Question: Can comparisons be made with other countries based on the figures?Christine Rudolf:There are comparisons with other countries; I calculated these figures in a working group with Swiss and Austrian colleagues. In both countries, the scale of the unequal distribution of money and time between the sexes is similar to ours. However, there are also other European countries such as Sweden and Slovenia where these figures are only half as high as in Germany. Even if we were to present a separate analysis of East and West Germany, we would still see major differences. The more equal situation of women in the East still has an impact today, particularly in terms of wages.Question: From a social perspective, the inequality between men and women is not necessarily as clear-cut as such highly summarised figures would suggest. The living conditions of men and women are also significantly influenced by someone's social background or position, whether someone is racially discriminated against, and what mental and physical conditions someone has. How should the figures be categorised against this background? Or to put it another way: as feminist economists and social critics, how do you view the relationship between gender and other factors of inequality in relation to work, time and money?Ulrike Reiche: At the macroeconomic level, structural inequalities as a whole are made visible and can therefore be discussed in principle. In the course of our survey, we looked at the various economic sectors in relation to time and money. In our calculations, we are bound by the available figures, which so far mainly differentiate between men and women and largely ignore other factors. Answers to the many questions that arise when taking a closer look at the different social circumstances still need to be found in a joint discourse - we believe that we are at the beginning of a lengthy debate here. This would also urgently require more reliable and differentiated data, which could, however, be made more easily accessible or available in view of increasing digitalisation. It would also be desirable if targeted research in this area were funded.Question: One political conclusion is obvious: we need to redistribute. What do you propose in order to achieve a fair distribution of paid and unpaid work, power and opportunities?Ulrike Knobloch: Alongside relocation, avoidance and change, redistribution is one of four ways of relieving ourselves of unpaid domestic and care work. The increase in female employment without a comparable decrease in male employment has meant that many unpaid activities have been monetised, i.e. shifted from the household to other organisations or paid for services in the household. But a completely monetarised society does not seem desirable. And unpaid work can only be avoided and changed to a limited extent. When it comes to redistribution, it is important to consider what should be distributed fairly: if we only focus on gainful employment, power and opportunities in the existing economic and social system, which is not sustainable and not gender-equitable, this can easily lead to cementing androcentric structures dominated by male norms instead of overcoming them. With regard to unpaid domestic and care work, in addition to its fairer distribution and greater recognition, a reduction in paid work for all should be discussed so that there is time for unpaid work, including voluntary work. A revaluation of subsistence, a strengthening of common goods (commons), a focus on the development of human abilities and the sovereign provision of what is necessary for a (good) life are starting points for an economic and social system for the 21st century.Claire Funke: Care work is devalued throughout society, only gainful employment is considered work. We therefore need a different, expanded concept of work, as well as an awareness that we are all in need at all times and that unpaid care work is vital and a prerequisite for a functioning economy. As a concrete example of redistribution, I find Tove Soiland's idea of the care levy interesting. Anna Saave-Harnack (University of Jena) has written a paper on the subject. The idea is that profits from economic sectors in which productivity increases are possible are redistributed to care work in the public and private sectors. This could solve the problem that productivity increases, and therefore (higher) profits, are not possible in the care sector, or only possible to a limited extent and then with many disadvantages for everyone involved.Question: And for us as care revolutionaries: In your opinion, what role does unpaid care work play for a fairer economic model of society?Ulrike Knobloch: Unpaid care work is the linchpin for shaping a sustainable and gender-equitable economic and social model. Feminist economists have made this clear time and again in a variety of ways and it is alarming that this has not long been taken for granted in teaching and research, business and politics.Claire Funke: We absolutely must change our social values towards a care-centred society. Children, for example, should grow up realising that care work is a central, vital issue and not a fuss or a tiresome matter that is made invisible as a private matter. We should also be able to set an example for them by having enough time in the family/family of choice for them and any relatives who need to be cared for, and not everything, including vital needs, should be subordinated to gainful employment. Care and care work should also be a central topic at school. Here, children and young people not only learn arithmetic and writing, but also how to consciously reflect on themselves, differentiate between feelings (not so easy), articulate them and use them to shape relationships. The answer to the question of what vital needs are certainly differs from person to person. A thought experiment by John Rawls (American philosopher) may be a good starting point for finding answers here: If we did not know what kind of world we were born into, how would we shape it? For example, if we didn't know what colour or gender we would be, whether we would live with or without disabilities, whether the country we were born in would be at war or at peace, whether we would have a poor or rich family with empathetic or rejecting caregivers, etc., how would we shape it? If we ask different questions, we will get different answers to the question of what a good life can look like for all people, and unpaid care work plays a central role in this, because all people have vital needs at all times.