Afleveringen

  • Ep. 6: Household Bargaining, Pt. 2: Cailin O’ Connor on Evolutionary Game Theory and the Gendered Division of Household Labor

    Ep. 6: Household Bargaining, Pt. 2: Cailin O’ Connor on Evolutionary Game Theory and the Gendered Division of Household Labor

    · The Pinkonomics Podcast

    Evolutionary game theory studies the repetition of strategies and choices over time, such that some strategies emerge as more successful in a society than others. It can also explain how cultural norms and beliefs evolve when players — society members — pick certain strategies again and again. Cailin O’ Connor is here this week to discuss her work on evolutionary game theory and the origins of inequity, specifically in the context of the gendered division of household labor.

    We primarily talk about her book The Origins of Unfairness (2019), which uses game theory to explain the use of social categories – in particular, the social category of gender – in complementary coordination games, and how inequity then builds on these social categories.

    Cailin is the Chancellor’s Professor in the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science at UC Irvine, and a philosopher of biology and behavioral science, philosopher of science, and evolutionary game theorist. You can learn more about her and her work on her website here: <https://cailinoconnor.com/>.

    Chapters

    00:00:00 Introduction

    00:04:35 Complementary Coordination Problems: Salsa Dancing and the Division of Labor by Gender

    00:07:45 Why We Specialise in Different Kinds of Household Labor

    00:10:10 The Unsettling of Gendered Conventions in Developed Societies

    00:11:04 The Efficiency of Gender as a Symmetry-Breaker

    00:14:31 The Very Existence of Social Types Allows for Inequity

    00:19:27 Household Bargaining, and How Inequity Compounds Over Time

    00:22:28 The Efficiency of Division of Labor by Social Categories

    00:24:46 Rational Choice Models vs. Evolutionary Models: Repetition and Cultural Evolution

    00:29:58 Why Do Women (Usually) Stay at Home, and Why Do Men (Usually) Work Outside the Home?

    00:33:38 How Monetary Gains from Market Labor Empower Players in Household Bargaining

    00:34:52 The Murky Waters of Personal Preferences: Models, Empirical Reality, Ideologies that Perpetuate Inequity

    00:38:42 Why Equal Pay Doesn’t Shift the Equilibrium in Which Women Do More Household Labor, and Men Do Less (or Why Household Inequity Persists Even with Equal Pay for Men and Women)

    00:41:08 The Logic of Strikes

    00:42:45 Reducing One Player’s Labor in One Round to Get the Other Player to Increase Their Labor in the Next Round

    00:44:45 Two Players — Man and Woman — Could Have Different Ideas of the Sufficient Amount of Labor Required for a Household

    00:45:09 Men and Women Have Different Estimations and Perceptions of How Much Work They Are Each Doing (please keep time diaries and spreadsheets guys)

    00:47:09 The Solution to Inequity Based on Social Categories: Messing Up Social Categories, and Reducing Their Power Over Us

    00:52:08 Processes Driving Towards Inequity Happen Naturally, So We Need to Be Constantly Active to Prevent Their Taking Hold

    References

    O’Connor, Cailin. The Origins of Unfairness: Social Categories and Cultural Evolution. Oxford University Press, 2019. OUP Link: <https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-origins-of-unfairness-9780198789970?cc=us&lang=en&>.

    Cailin also mentions the work of Susan Moller Okin, whose work you can read about here, and of Mihaela Pope Wyatt, whose work you can find here.

    Cover art by Cato Benschop (IG: @catobenschop).

    Copyright 2024 The Pinkonomics Podcast. All rights reserved.

  • BONUS: The Gender Disparity in Startup Funding, Venture Capital, Going Viral, and More ft. Startup Guy Raymond

    BONUS: The Gender Disparity in Startup Funding, Venture Capital, Going Viral, and More ft. Startup Guy Raymond

    · The Pinkonomics Podcast

    A bonus, informal, explicit (!) episode of The Pinkonomics Podcast! This is the first episode featuring a guest from outside academia. Raymond is a tech startup founder (and my friend) who insisted on coming on the show to demonstrate what good audio sounds like and how to go viral.

    We discuss feminist economics, startups, Raymond’s experiences funding and establishing his own startup, and why women are less likely to found companies and get less funding for their companies if they do. We also argued about whether or not “feminist content” should be entertaining, and about being right and nuanced vs. being generally right and popular.

    P.S. There will also be some scheduling changes starting this week, since summer is now drawing to a close. I talk about this in the episode.

    Chapters

    00:00:00 Introduction

    00:02:49 How Economics Differs from Sociology, and What (Feminist) Economics Entails

    00:07:18 The Need for Qualitative and Interdisciplinary Methods in Economics

    00:09:50 Math vs. Economics, and Economics as a Social Science

    00:17:14 Why Female Startups Receive (Wayyyy) Less Funding than Male Startups

    00:17:32 Venture Capital vs. Other Kinds of Startup Incubators (can’t name the company, but you’ll hear it on the show :))

    00:21:50 The Gender Disparity in Startups

    00:22:16 The Origins of the Gender Disparity in Startups and STEM Fields

    00:27:15 Are Women More Risk-Averse than Men? (Plus the Lottery and Gambling Problems)

    00:33:48 The Role of Trust for Investors

    00:38:08 The Academic Literature on Why Female Startups Receive Less Funding than Male Startups

    00:40:03 Raymond Thinks Men ‘Cap’ More

    00:41:16 Disproving Someone's Point Does Not Mean They Will Believe You — People Believe What They Want to Believe

    00:42:54 When Is the Best Time to Teach People or Correct Their Beliefs?

    00:44:31 Teaching Kids When Young and Raymond Insisting on a Manifesto for Children

    00:48:14 Going Viral vs. Stable, Steady Growth

    00:51:22 Must “Feminist Content” Be Entertaining?

    References

    Scott, Linda. The Cost of Sexism: How the Economy Is Built for Men and Why We Must Reshape It. Faber & Faber, 2020.

    Rao, Vijayendra. “Can Economics Become More Reflexive? Exploring the Potential of Mixed-Methods.” The World Bank Group Policy Research Working Paper 9918, 2022. URL: <https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/485771643376160320/pdf/Can-Economics-Become-More-Reflexive-Exploring-the-Potential-of-Mixed-Methods.pdf>.

    Dowd, Kevin. “A sector-by-sector guide to the gender gap among startup founders.” Carta Blog, 2024. URL: <https://carta.com/blog/gender-gap-by-sector-2023/>.

    Jacobs, Rose. “How to Get More Woman CEOs: A look at what’s holding women back from top-paying jobs.” Chicago Booth Review - Economics, November 2018. URL = <https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/how-get-more-woman-ceos>.

    Wong G, Zane N, Saw A, Chan AK. “Examining gender differences for gambling engagement and gambling problems among emerging adults.” J Gambl Stud. 2013 Jun;29(2):171-89. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9305-1>.

    Barnes GM, Welte JW, Tidwell MC, Hoffman JH. “Gambling on the lottery: sociodemographic correlates across the lifespan.” J Gambl Stud. 2011 Dec;27(4):575-86. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-010-9228-7>.

    Laura Bottazzi, Marco Da Rin, Thomas Hellmann, The Importance of Trust for Investment: Evidence from Venture Capital, The Review of Financial Studies, Volume 29, Issue 9, September 2016, pp. 2283–2318 DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhw023>.

    Ruel E, Hauser RM. “Explaining the gender wealth gap.” Demography. 2013 Aug;50(4):1155-76. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0182-0>.

    Dana Kanze et al., “Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit.” Sci. Adv.6 (2020). DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd7664>.

    Dana Kanze et al., “We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61, No. 2, 2018. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1215>.

    Kwapisz, A., & Hechavarría, D. M. (2017). “Women don’t ask: an investigation of start-up financing and gender.” Venture Capital, 20(2), 159–190. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2017.1345119>.

    Snellman, Kaisa and Solar, Isabelle. “Does Investor Gender Matter for the Success of Female Entrepreneurs? Gender Homophily and the Stigma of Incompetence in Entrepreneurial Finance.” Org. Sci., Vol. 34, No. 2. 2022. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1594>.

    Malinin, A.. “Beyond the Pitch: Role of Founders’ Characteristics in Startup Funding.” Journal of Accounting and Finance, 23(5). 2023. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.33423/jaf.v23i5.6563>.

    Cover art by Cato Benschop (IG: @catobenschop).

    Follow the podcast on X: @pinkonomicspod (x.com/pinkonomicspod)

    Copyright 2024 The Pinkonomics Podcast. All rights reserved.

  • Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?

    Klik hier om de feed te vernieuwen.

  • Ep. 5: Household Bargaining, Pt. 1: Game Theory, Cooperative Conflicts, and Bargaining Models

    Ep. 5: Household Bargaining, Pt. 1: Game Theory, Cooperative Conflicts, and Bargaining Models

    · The Pinkonomics Podcast

    Now that we’ve established all models are wrong, let’s discuss some models!

    Game theory is the study of strategy in social interactions. It’s very useful for assessing (heterosexual) household inequality — and for developing strategic responses to that inequality.

    There are two episodes on household bargaining, and in this first part I cover simple Nash bargaining models, and Amartya Sen’s household bargaining model from his 1990 paper “Gender and Cooperative Conflicts”.

    Chapters

    00:00:00 Introduction

    00:03:46 Game Theory, Battle of the Sexes, and Why Strategy Is a Good Thing

    00:12:05 Bargaining Models, Sen’s Household Bargaining Model, and How Financial Independence Increases Bargaining Power

    00:17:55 More to Come!

    Games and Models

    A good visual for the Battle of the Sexes game can be found here: <https://policonomics.com/lp-game-theory2-battle-of-the-sexes/>.

    For the Nash Bargaining Model, see Nash, John F. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 18, no. 2 (1950): 155–62. <https://doi.org/10.2307/1907266>.

    Another explanation of the Nash Bargaining Model: <https://econbeh.blogspot.com/2015/06/nash-bargaining-solution.html>.

    References

    Sen, Amartya. “Gender and Cooperative Conflicts,” Persistent Inequalities, edited by Irene Tinker, Oxford University Press, 1990. See 1987 working paper here: <https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/WP18.pdf>.

    Dutta, Prajit K. and Vergote, Wouter. Strategies and Games: Theory and Practice, Second Edition, The MIT Press, 2022.

    Bittman, Michael, et al. “When Does Gender Trump Money? Bargaining and Time in Household Work,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 109, No. 1, pp. 186–214, 2003. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1086/378341>.

    Miller, Claire Cain. “Men Do More at Home, but Not as Much as They Think.” The New York Times, 2015. <www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/upshot/men-do-more-at-home-but-not-as-much-as-they-think-they-do.html>.

    Goldin C, Kerr SP, Olivetti C. The Other Side of the Mountain: Women's Employment and Earnings over the Family Cycle. IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities. London, England: Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS); 2021. URL = <https://scholar.harvard.edu/goldin/publications/other-side-mountain-womens-employment-and-earnings-over-family-cycle>.

    Bianchi SM, Sayer LC, Milkie MA, Robinson JP. Housework: Who Did, Does or Will Do It, and How Much Does It Matter? Soc Forces. 2012 Sep 1;91(1):55-63. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos120>. PMID: 25429165; PMCID: PMC4242525.

    Barroso, Amanda. “For American couples, gender gaps in sharing household responsibilities persist amid pandemic.” Pew Research Center, 2021. URL = <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/01/25/for-american-couples-gender-gaps-in-sharing-household-responsibilities-persist-amid-pandemic/>.

    Further Reading

    Harris, E.A., Gormezano, A.M. & van Anders, S.M. Gender Inequities in Household Labor Predict Lower Sexual Desire in Women Partnered with Men. Arch Sex Behav 51, 3847–3870 (2022). DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02397-2>.

    Cover art by Cato Benschop (IG: @catobenschop).

    Follow the podcast on X: @pinkonomicspod (x.com/pinkonomicspod)

    Copyright 2024 The Pinkonomics Podcast. All rights reserved.

  • Ep. 4: All Models Are Wrong, but Economic Models Are Especially Wrong: Notes on Objective Knowledge and What (Feminist) Economics Even Is

    Ep. 4: All Models Are Wrong, but Economic Models Are Especially Wrong: Notes on Objective Knowledge and What (Feminist) Economics Even Is

    · The Pinkonomics Podcast

    The next two episodes are about game theory and bargaining models (and economists looooove talking about models), so I thought I’d spend this episode telling you how scientific models work, why they’re all wrong, and why economic models are especially prone to error. I also talk about Catharine MacKinnon’s feminist method, and why a feminist economics grounded in the personal lives and experiences of women is one way to counter the erroneousness of economic models, which are heavily informed by the personal experiences and opinions of men.

    References

    Box, G. E. P. “Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building.” Robustness in Statistics, 1979, pp. 201-236. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-438150-6.50018-2>.

    Colander, D., Goldberg, M., Haas, A., Juselius, K., Kirman, A., Lux, T., & Sloth, B. (2009). THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE SYSTEMIC FAILURE OF THE ECONOMICS PROFESSION. Critical Review, 21(2–3), 249–267. DOI: <doi.org/10.1080/08913810902934109>.

    MacKinnon, Catharine A. “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence.” Signs, Summer 1983, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 635–658. JSTOR stable link: <jstor.org/stable/pdf/3173687.pdf>.

    “Empowering Girls & Women.” Clinton Global Initiative. 2009. <www.un.org/en/ecosoc/phlntrpy/notes/clinton.pdf>.

    Rink, Ute and Barros, Laura. “Spending or saving? Female empowerment and financial decisions in a matrilineal society.” World Development, Vol. 141, 2021. <doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105342>.

    Shapiro, Fred R. “The Most-Cited Law Review Articles Revisited.” Symposium on Trends in Legal Citations and Scholarship, Chicago-Kent Law Review, April 1996. <scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3037&context=cklawreview>.

    Boustan, Leah and Langan, Andrew. “Variation in Women’s Success across PhD Programs in Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 1, Winter 2019. DOI: <10.1257/jep.33.1.23>.

    Further Reading

    “Why Economists Failed to Predict the Financial Crisis.” Knowledge at Wharton, May 2009. <knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-economists-failed-to-predict-the-financial-crisis/>.

    Parker, Kim. “Women more than men adjust their careers for family life.” Pew Research Center, 2015. <pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/10/01/women-more-than-men-adjust-their-careers-for-family-life/>.

    You can also see this New York Times Opinion article by Raj Chetty that takes the opposing view that Economics is a science: <https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/opinion/yes-economics-is-a-science.html>.

    Cover art by Cato Benschop (IG: @catobenschop).

    Follow the podcast on X: @pinkonomicspod (x.com/pinkonomicspod)

    Copyright 2024 The Pinkonomics Podcast. All rights reserved.

  • Ep. 3: Liz Karns on the Lifetime Economic Costs of Sexual Violence and Misconduct

    Ep. 3: Liz Karns on the Lifetime Economic Costs of Sexual Violence and Misconduct

    · The Pinkonomics Podcast

    When most of us think of the impact of sexual violence, we think of the physical or psychological pain and trauma caused by the incident — but rarely of the economic costs that the victim then has to bear for the rest of their life. And this is exactly Liz Karns’ area of research.

    Karns is a lawyer and epidemiologist whose practice involves applying statistical methods to legal problems such as sexual assault damages, and occupational and environmental injuries. She holds a BA in Economics from Reed College, an MPH in Epidemiology from Rutgers University, and a JD from Quinnipiac University Law School. Currently she is a senior lecturer in Statistics and Data Science in the Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science, Cornell University.

    Watch Liz’s interview with eCornell, “Adding It Up: The Lifetime Costs of Sexual Violence and Misconduct”: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyDv-NAP3Xc>.

    TW: Sexual Assault, Sexual Violence, Rape

    Chapters

    00:02:04 Introduction

    00:03:33 Economic Costs of Physical and Psychological Injuries, Lost Opportunities

    00:05:46 Economic Damages of Sexual Violence and Abuse on Campus

    00:07:40 The ‘But-For’ Argument

    00:08:54 Injury from Car Crashes vs. Injury from Sexual Violence

    00:10:13 Can We Attach a Monetary Cost to Sexual Crimes?

    00:13:55 Why Money Matters, and Why It’s Important to Focus on Subsequent Costs

    00:15:18 How Perpetrators Can Be Made to Pay

    00:16:36 Tax and Wage Garnishment

    00:18:19 Victims Need Time to Recover, and to Decide if Reporting Is Worth It

    00:21:30 Recovering, and Documenting All Costs

    00:23:27 Societal Change Takes Effort, Laws Supporting Economic Argument

    00:25:06 Does Backlash Mean Progress?

    References

    Peterson C, DeGue S, Florence C, Lokey CN. “Lifetime Economic Burden of Rape Among U.S. Adults.” Am J Prev Med. 2017 Jun;52(6):691-701. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.014. Epub 2017 Jan 30. PMID: 28153649; PMCID: PMC5438753.

    “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice.” The Center for Public Integrity, 2010. <https://cloudfront-files-1.publicintegrity.org/documents/pdfs/Sexual%20Assault%20on%20Campus.pdf>.

    Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Harps, S., Townsend, R., Thomas, G., Lee, H., Kranz, V., Herbison, R., & Madden, K. (2019). Report on the AAU Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Association of American Universities.

    Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-006X.55.2.162

    Van Dam, Andrew. “Less than 1% of rapes lead to felony convictions. At least 89% of victims face emotional and physical consequences.” The Washington Post, 2018. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/>.

    See Also

    “The MeToo Backlash.” Harvard Business Review, 2019. <hbr.org/2019/09/the-metoo-backlash>

    “A Wider Lens on the MeToo Backlash: Who Pays for ...A Wider Lens on the MeToo Backlash: Who Pays for Societal Change?” The New York Times, 2022. <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/world/asia/depp-heard-metoo-women.html>.

    Cover art by Cato Benschop (IG: @catobenschop).

    Follow the podcast on X: @pinkonomicspod (x.com/pinkonomicspod)

    Copyright 2024 The Pinkonomics Podcast. All rights reserved.

  • Ep. 2: Is Thinness Economically Rational? Cato Benschop on Eating Disorders and the Pursuit of Thinness

    Ep. 2: Is Thinness Economically Rational? Cato Benschop on Eating Disorders and the Pursuit of Thinness

    · The Pinkonomics Podcast

    TW: Thinness, Pursuit of Thinness, Eating Disorders, Eating Behaviors

    According to The Economist, it is economically rational for women to pursue thinness. I invite my friend Cato Benschop to examine this argument and discuss her views on the pursuit of thinness and eating disorders. We also ask whether or not it’s worth it for women to spend their time on this goal. What Cato does best is use philosophical perspectives to provide some conceptual clarity around eating disorders, and she has a simultaneously bold and empowering take here, that eating disorders are extreme versions of problems that are only to be expected in a society that values thinness so much.

    Cato is an illustrator and philosophical researcher at Utrecht University, specializing in philosophical analysis of eating disorders — or as she prefers to refer to these conditions, eating problems. Last year, she founded a practice for combating this problem in Amsterdam, called “BEC,” where she helps people get rid of suffering and distress relating to eating. You can find out more about Cato on her website: www.catobenschop.nl

    Chapters

    00:04:50 Cato Introduction

    00:05:46 How Philosophy of Mind and Agency Can Help Clarify Conceptual Confusion Surrounding EDs

    00:07:36 Do People with EDs Have Agency over Their Eating Behaviors?

    00:10:39 Where Does the Desire to Be Thin Come From?

    00:17:04 The Economist’s “The Economics of Thinness”

    00:17:51 Cato on Why the Pursuit of Thinness Is Important to People (Especially Women)

    00:21:31 Eating Disorders vs. Eating Problems

    00:33:37 Getting out of Dieting Trouble

    00:37:20 Different Goals to Pursue in Lieu of Thinness

    00:40:04 Broadening the Standard Medical View of Eating Behaviors

    00:41:50 How Thinness Declines in Importance

    00:44:07 Having New Goals and Pursuits

    00:46:30 The Utility of Pursuing Thinness vs. Other Goals

    References

    “The Economics of Thinness.” The Economist, December 2022. <https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2022/12/20/the-economics-of-thinness?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8fHCxaLchgMVJmtHAR3Y0w2SEAAYASAAEgJEevD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&utm_medium=affiliates.offer.pd&utm_source=partnerize-viglink&utm_campaign=a.io&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&utm_term=1011lyDpRuDf&partnerize_clickref=1011lyDpRuDf>.

    Manne, Kate. "Diet Culture Is Unhealthy. It's Also Immoral." The New York Times, January 2022. <www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/diet-resolution.html>.

    Cato also discusses Susan Bordo’s work in her discussion of eating disorders; Bordo’s book Unbearable Weight was published by the University of California Press in 2004. DOI: <https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520930711>.

    Cover art by Cato Benschop (IG: @catobenschop).

    Follow the podcast on X: @pinkonomicspod (x.com/pinkonomicspod)

    Copyright 2024 The Pinkonomics Podcast. All rights reserved.

  • Ep. 1: What We Get Wrong about Adam Smith, The Invisible Hand, and Self-Interest

    Ep. 1: What We Get Wrong about Adam Smith, The Invisible Hand, and Self-Interest

    · The Pinkonomics Podcast

    Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' theory has dominated our understanding of economic behavior for centuries. But we don't understand Smith very well -- and we don't understand the choices of women very well, especially when it comes to the fulfilment of self-interest.

    References

    Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, with an introduction by Amartya Sen and notes by Ryan Patrick Hanley. Penguin, 2009.

    Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations Books I–III. Edited with an introduction and notes by Andrew Skinner. Penguin, 1999.

    Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations Books IV–V. Edited with an introduction and notes by Andrew Skinner. Penguin, 1999.

    Evensky, Jerry M., “Adam Smith’s Essentials: On Trust, Faith, and Free Markets.” 2011. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 249-268, 2011.

    Plato. The Republic, edited by G. R. F. Ferrari, translated by Tom Griffith. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

    Sen, Amartya. “Adam Smith and the contemporary world.” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, Volume 3, Issue 1, Spring 2010, pp. 50-67.

    Scott, Linda. The Cost of Sexism: How the Economy Is Built for Men and Why We Must Reshape It. Faber & Faber, 2020.

    Further Reading

    Birch, Thomas D. “An Analysis of Adam Smith’s Theory of Charity and the Problems of the Poor.” Eastern Economic Journal 24, no. 1 (1998): 25–41.

    Perelman, Michael. “The Neglected Economics of Trust: The Bentham Paradox and Its Implications.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 57, no. 4 (1998): 381–89.

    Cover art by Cato Benschop (IG: @catobenschop).

    Follow the podcast on X: @pinkonomicspod (x.com/pinkonomicspod)

    Copyright 2024 The Pinkonomics Podcast. All rights reserved.

  • The Pinkonomics Podcast: Trailer

    The Pinkonomics Podcast: Trailer

    · The Pinkonomics Podcast

    Introducing The Pinkonomics Podcast, a summer 2024 project by Arundhati Singh.

    Cover art by Cato Benschop (IG: @catobenschop).

    Follow the podcast on X: @pinkonomicspod (x.com/pinkonomicspod)

    Copyright 2024 The Pinkonomics Podcast. All rights reserved.