Neoliberalism brought about significant changes in the global economy. Markets adopted new systems of operation, which considered, in part, the role and potential of women in the labor industry. While previous economic models were limiting in various aspects, it provided some level of opportunity when it comes to gender. Although that is the case, there has not been optimal realization of the value of women in regards to their input. This is in terms of value-recognition, for instance, through pay alongside other rewards. The fact that neoliberalism is based on a free-market model, business and organizations have the freedom to determine what amount of rewards they give their employees, gives them an advantage when it comes to labor relations. It is also important to consider that product and service price determination force businesses to consider techniques are likely to promote reduction of costs, while also promoting high profit margins.
A scholar Lourdes Beneria (2009) provides her own conceptualization of the impact that neoliberalism has on international division of labor. According to her view, changes in technology, flexibility of labor process, as well as decentralization of production linked to globalization are some of the features of organizations in the neoliberal economy. She advanced her point noting that these characteristics are also linked to the age of high tech resulting into “dismantling of what many authors called ‘old labor contract’ that had prevailed high-income countries and in the ‘modern sector’ in developing countries during the post-World War II period” (Beneria, 2009, p. 76). Of particular importance is the nature of the old labor contract, which regarded the man as the breadwinner. During this period, the contract was linked to the internal labor market of each organization and advocated for “… stable working conditions, long-term contracts, trade-unions and collective bargaining, relatively high wages, and predictable patterns of promotion” (Beneria, 2009, p. 76).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, the new labor contract is considerably different. Some of the features of this particular contract are such as decentralization of firms leading to a shift in job positions, leading to lack of permanency and individuals performing tasks, which are unrelated to their specific careers. Additionally, there are no long-term and stable contracts, which is an incentive for workers to have skills in various professions (Beneria, 2009). Consequently, they shift from one company to the next, which leads to a situation where there is body of laborers with different skills following lack of certainty about their employment in a particular organization. This has been a major catalyst promoting exploitation of exploitation in the modern-day labor market. The self-centered nature of companies has led to reduction in the power of trade unions to negotiate on behalf of workers. These unions are provided with little opportunity to influence labor relations, in turn having no option but to accept the terms that companies give.
Different from Beneria (2009) but still maintaining the lower-level status of workers in the economy, Maria Mais (n.d.) advanced the argument that women have become ‘houswifized’. She explained that women have been relegated to housewives such that there is no equal appreciation, in terms of pay or other incentives, of their input. The free-market nature of the modern-day economy has led to acquisition of new roles between already developed countries compared to those that are in the developing phase. As an example, Mais (n.d.) noted that “The relocation of industries from developed to underdeveloped countries does not mean a genuine industrialization of the latter. It means rather the closing down of a particular factor in Federal Germany, Holland or the USA, and its re-opening in South-East Asia, Africa, or Latin America” (p. 113).
From an analytical point of view, Beneria (2009) talked about the old and new labor contracts. The differences noted demonstrate that in the new economy, organizations have some level of power and can decide the terms of labor relations. In order to demonstrate this, Mais (n.d.) addressed how factories can simply relocate to underdeveloped nations. These nations become producers, while their developed counterparts become consumers. However, important to note is the provision of employment opportunities to women, who are not treated in a manner equal to their level of input. Mais (n.d.) noted that there is manipulation of the sexual division of labor and that “… by defining women universally as housewives, it is possible not only to cheapen their labour, but also gain political and ideological control over them” (p. 116). Furthering this particular point of view, Beneria (2009) noted that organizations have developed systems, which have workers operating in teams, where individuals have rotating responsibilities. She argued that these systems allow discriminatory behavior based on aspects such as gender and class, which is diffused in these teams and therefore hard to identify. This particular understanding shows how organization, within their systems, promote the concept of housewifization as Mais (n.d.) noted.
Conclusion
The authors have converging ideas, which, although presented different, complement each other in terms of demonstrating the reality of the new international division of labor. Central to their arguments, implicitly and explicitly, is that women have been subjected to housewifization, which renders them to discriminatory behavior based on gender. Therefore, neoliberalism has not only led to undermining the potential of women in the society but continues to limit them through implicitly defining the place in the labour industry.
References
Beneria, L. (2009). Globalization, labor, and women’s work: Critical challenges for a post-neoliberal world. Pdf.
Mais, M. (n.d.). Housewifization international: Women and the new international division of labour. Pdf.
