Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T17:15:54.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Discussion of Aida H. Hozic and Jacqui True’s Scandalous Economics: Gender and the Politics of Financial Crises

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2017

Abstract

“Critical analyses of the global financial crisis of 2008 (GFC) have neglected the ways in which structural inequalities around gender and race factor into (and indeed make possible) the current economic order. Scandalous Economics breaks new ground by arguing that an explicitly gendered approach to the GFC and its ongoing effects can help us to understand both the root causes of the crisis and the failure to significantly reform financial institutions and macroeconomic models.” These words, from the blurb on the back cover of Scandalous Economics, nicely summarize the book’s topic and the general approach to it. Because the book contains contributions from a number of the top political scientists writing about the gendering of political economy, and because this topic is such an important one, we have invited a range of political scientists to comment on the book and on the broader theme of the gendering of political economy.

Type
Review Symposium: Gender and Financial Crisis
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ingelhart, Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara. 2013. “Of Mancessions and Hecoveries: Race, Gender, and the Political Construction of Economic Crises and Recoveries.” Perspectives on Politics 11(1): 167–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar