ROCKING OUR PRIORS

Across the world, women have agitated for greater rights, freedoms, and protections, but with differing degrees of success. In some countries, feminist activists have mobilised widespread dissent, secured legal reforms, and pressed for enforcement. Elsewhere, they have been marginalised and maligned. What explains this international heterogeneity? Women are much more likely to collectively criticise unfair practices and organise for reform if they have economic autonomy, move freely in their communities, broaden their horizons through city-living, and become emboldened through civic resistance. Without these preconditions, feminist movements fail to take off. Warning: this is a very depressing post. It pinpoints obstacles in the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. These include powerful religious authorities, underdevelopment, and female seclusion. To read more on this, check out the references on my blog: https://www.draliceevans.com/post/what-thwarts-feminist-activism

Argentina has just legalised abortion - thanks to relentless feminist activism. Latin America can now boast rapid social change: with rising female employment, soaring representation (outpacing Europe), protections for domestic workers, and ginormous rallies against sexist violence. This sharply contrasts with entrenched patriarchy in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. What is different about Latin America? I would stress relatively weak constraints on women's mobility, economic development and democratisation. These deep roots and disruptors create a fertile environment for sustained mobilisation. This is the audio version of my latest blog. It draws on a wealth of brilliant scholarship. Click here for the bibliography: https://www.draliceevans.com/post/why-is-feminist-activism-thriving-in-latin-america

Everyone knows that Southern and Northern India are very different in culture, language, and socio-economic development. But the most dramatic regional disparity may be in gender relations. Why is this? Is it due to.. Poverty Colonialism Matriliny Cousin marriage Conquests and purdah Labour-intensive cultivation Ancestral crop yields? If you would rather read than listen, the blog is here: https://www.draliceevans.com/post/why-are-southern-north-eastern-indian-states-more-gender-equal

Professor Joe Henrich (Harvard) presents his new book on 'how Westerners became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous'. He suggests that the Western Church eroded kinship in Europe, which enabled a process of cultural evolution, resulting in democratisation, innovation, and economic growth. I present an alternative hypothesis: through economic development, wage labour, non-familial employment, and rural-urban migration, people broaden their networks beyond kinship. So my suggestion is that economic development fosters cultural change. Let me know what you think!! Read more about Professor Henrich: https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/ And his book: https://weirdpeople.fas.harvard.edu/

Support for gender equality has increased across the world, especially in cities. Why is this? And what does it tell us about the drivers of social change? World Bank talk, followed by insightful audience questions. Sharing in case it's of wider interest. My research in Zambia & Cambodia suggests that cities: (i) raise the opportunity costs of the male breadwinner model, (ii) increase exposure to women in socially valued roles, and (iii) enable diverse associations, so people can collectively contest established practices. Interests, exposure, and association then reinforce a snowballing process of social change. This work has been published in Gender & Society, and the Annals of the Association of American Geographers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327035036_HOW_CITIES_ERODE_GENDER_INEQUALITY_A_NEW_THEORY_AND_EVIDENCE_FROM_CAMBODIA https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320921459_Cities_as_Catalysts_of_Gendered_Social_Change_Reflections_from_Zambia

Here's the video of my interview with Professor Stasavage: https://youtu.be/T9VCP6ENJ6w We discuss his new book, "The Decline & Rise of Democracy".

Crops, technology, & exit options influenced whether societies became democratic or authoritarian - argues Professor David Stasavage. Rulers wanted to tax their people at the right level: extract the maximum revenue without making the goose hiss! Their strategy would depend on crop yields and technology. If caloric output is easy to predict (owing to stable temperature, irrigation, and other technology), rulers could easily calculate the agrarian surplus. But if caloric output varies each year (owing to changing weather patterns and primitive technology), prediction is difficult. Leaders could overcome these informational constraints either by surveying with bureaucrats or by soliciting council governance. Bureaucracies and councils performed the same role: providing information on crop yields. If rulers lacked bureaucratic technology, they would solicit council governance, to ascertain how much to tax. This gave rise to large-scale representative governance - argues Stasavage. In this podcast, we discuss whether this theory explains the dearth of democracy in China and MENA today, and the rise of the Communal Movement in Europe. It's a great read, though I remain sceptical.. There remains a further question: why were European but not Chinese or MENA societies able to collectively organise, and secure democratising reforms? Curious? Buy the book: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177465/the-decline-and-rise-of-democracy Further readings: Greif & Tabellini: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/GreifTabellini.pdf Joe Henrich: https://weirdpeople.fas.harvard.edu/ Jonathan Schulz & others: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/eaau5141/tab-article-info Frank Fukuyama: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Political-Order-Prehuman-Revolution/dp/1846682576 Klaus Mühlhahn: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674737358

I've made a special episode of Rocking Our Priors. It's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgnluTjB-YE Enjoy! So, which do you prefer? Audio or video?

Today I discuss 3 fantastic new books on work, families, and social change - C19-21. 'Making Motherhood Work: How Women Manage Careers and Caregiving', by Caitlyn Collins https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691178851/making-motherhood-work 'Double Lives: A History of Working Motherhood', by Helen McCarthy www.bloomsbury.com/uk/double-lives-9781408870761/ 'Bread Winner: An Intimate History of the Victorian Economy' by Emma Griffin. yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300230062/bread-winner Also mentioned: 'Women's labour force participation in nineteenth‐century England and Wales' onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ehr.12876 'The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women’s Employment, Education, and Family' by Claudia Goldin https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/the_quiet_revolution_that_transformed_womens_employment_education_and_family.pdf 'Changes in the Labour Supply of Married Women' by Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn www.nber.org/papers/w11230.pdf 'From ‘MeToo’ to Boko Haram: A survey of levels and trends of gender inequality in the world' by Stephan Klasen https://www.nber.org/papers/w11230.pdf 'Women Forget That Men are the Masters : Gender Antagonism and Socio-economic Change in Kisii District, Kenya', by Margrethe Silberschmidt www.bookdepository.com/book/9789171064394

Why has China grown so fast for so long despite vast corruption? In China's Gilded Age, Professor Ang argues that not all types of corruption hurt growth, nor do they cause the same kind of harm. Ang reveals that the rise of capitalism was not accompanied by the eradication of corruption, but rather by its evolution from thuggery and theft to access money. In doing so, she challenges the way we think about corruption and capitalism, not only in China but around the world. This is an excerpt, read by Alice Evans. Professor Ang tweets @yuenyuenang Book details: https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/yy-ang/chinas-gilded-age/