CRITIQUES: NEOCLASSICAL VS. FEMINIST PARADIGMS Copy

Feminist economics criticises the neoclassical paradigm and its political correlates. The neoclassical paradigm is considered to be mainstream and is rooted in complex and technical discourses and methodologies. It prevails in academic as well as political institutions. On the other hand, the feminist paradigm is lacking in integrated theoretical base and common platforms to discuss and disseminate alternative views. 

The neoclassical paradigm operates with a universal figure called “homo economicus” who is considered to be an active agent on the labour market who is self-sufficient, selfish and rational. Homo economicus is free from societal influence and has clearly defined preferences. It operates in an ideal market based on self-interest where prices are the only means of communication. Homo Economicus has unlimited desires and limited resources and is able to optimise his/her choices.

In contrast, the feminist paradigm sees people as relational human beings who are defined by many variables (e.g., gender, age, race, social class, religion, beliefs, values, migration status, family status etc.). They are influenced by the societies they live in. People’s choices are influenced by many factors, and they have different opportunities resulting from unequal positions.

Further differences between the neoclassical and feminist paradigms are analysed in the long version of the article.