 So, hello, everyone. Hello. Hello. I'm just going to say a few brief words before we kick off this panel. I know there's been a huge amount of demand for audience participation in this panel, so we're going to try and keep it short and sweet and then go straight to Q&A afterwards. But briefly, why are we having this panel in this first place? It's very clear that there's a gender problem in economics. And this is reflected in economics conferences and economics classrooms and the economics curriculum and the output of economic work. Now, I was talking to the speakers before the session today about how we can act to change that, because I think there's a huge demand as well from everyone here today for practical responses and strategies, advice as to how we can start to change that. And one thing I think we can do to start off with is count the women. So first, I'd like everyone who is a woman in the audience to stand up. And I'd like you to look around the room and look at another woman who you haven't met yet. Give them a wink and know that you're part of this conspiracy that we're fermenting right now to increase that number. And I'd like everyone who is involved as well in the organizing of the conference to look around and think, how can we improve on this number for INET 2019? How can we build the foundations for there to be more growth in this community that we're nurturing today? So give yourselves a clap for being here. And thank you for being here. Thank you for standing up. And I hope that as we'll learn from this panel, it's good to stand up. And it's not a bad thing to stand out. So with no further ado, I'm going to hand over to Winnie who's going to give us her presentation. And I'm really honoured to be on this panel with these eminent professors. Oxfam's research on economic inequality revealed early this year that eight men own as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity, 3.6 billion people. I'm sure you've heard that statistic. We've repeated it so many times. Behind that statistic is a story of an economic model that doesn't work for the majority. That is slowing down our efforts to lift people from poverty and that's bringing instability. And it's an economic model that really puts women at the bottom of the heap. And who are these? These are women agricultural workers, domestic workers, migrant workers, casual workers in the supply chains of big business. These are not a minority. In Africa and in Asia, 75% of women work in the informal sector are doing informal work. So today I would like to focus on three areas which we need to address if we are to change this, and get to grips with the twin crises of economic inequality and gender inequality. The first one that I want us to reflect on is how we measure, how we measure economic performance, how we measure social progress. I wonder if I can get my slide there. How do I do this? I have to do it for you. Okay. I'll begin with a story which many of you economists might know already of an old professor who had a maid who helped him to cook, to clean and to run errands. And both of them were contributing to the real GDP. Then the maid cut a good impression with the old professor. They fell in love. They married. And she continued to cook, to clean and to run errands for him. But this time she was not paid. The real GDP declined. That is it. What does that say? Because her work was now not recognized, not counted, so the GDP declined. And what is that story? The story is about the limitations of GDP as an indicator of economic progress. What we count. We have decided not to count what is so important in life. It is the work that is done mostly by women but also by men of caring, raising, nurturing the human race. So we need other measures of economic performance. We need to count this work that women do that is done also by men and boys, that is done mostly by women and that is uncounted. And that keeps women out of paid employment actually. And that keeps girls out of schools, out of building their capabilities. When I was growing up I told you I used to fetch water from the river. And I can remember that we used to fetch water between six and eight o'clock in the morning. And also in the evening between four and six o'clock after school with our mothers. There was one man in our village who didn't have a wife. And nobody saw him at the river because he'd go there at five in the morning. He didn't want to be seen with a pot of water on his head. It was women's work to carry water. So I'll come to that. So we need to measure economic performance differently and include all this work that's so important. And include the environment as well. Second is what is called the gender division of labour. These economists call it that. But I call it the way society has assigned roles to men and women. We have been, women and men occupy different spaces in the economy. And this is ascribed by our society. Men can do this, women can. Like I just said, the man in my village who didn't have a wife but feared to go to the well to be called a woman because he's fetching water. So the poorest women you'll find, and the best example is Africa. You'll find women, because it's an agrarian economy. You'll find the poorest women are in agriculture. The roles they play there and the roles men play. And you will see that even when the modern economy comes, it shifts them into the lower paying jobs and puts men in the better paying jobs. If some technology comes in agriculture, it goes in the hands of men and the women do the drudgery. But all this is usually socialized by. It is building on how society has assigned roles. And it also assigns access to assets, access to land, access to a house, access to cows. So it places women weakly in the economy. And then comes capitalism. It takes advantage of that. I want to quote for you something that I found in a report by the Asian Development Bank. Just to show you how deliberate this capitalist system takes advantage of this social construction of roles between men and women. The Asian Development Bank, in its report, one of its reports in 2015, was talking about why it promotes special economic zones in Asia. And it made explicit the logic for bringing in, for hiring women. The companies it lends money to and why they hire women in Asia. This is a quote. It is said that females possess nimble fingers and patience with routine tasks required by the labor-intensive processes generally occurring in the zones. And that they are, they meaning women, are also less likely than males to strike or disrupt production in other ways. End of quote. This is the reason the Asian Development Bank is giving for the money it gives to companies to exploit women. So you see that the model of the economy is taking advantage of a gender division of labor. Instead of improving the gender division of labor and sharing roles, it takes advantage of this. So we need to cure that. In fact, there are a lot of, these same multilateral banks, multinational banks, have done a lot of research. The World Bank, I draw on World Bank's research in this area. They show how if you give women the same inputs in many African countries, land, tools, finance, that production that yields will increase by 20% or so. So there's every reason why men and women could be empowered to play different, the same roles and gain more for the economy, but it's not followed. My last point is, so we need to tackle this issue of how society, how culture, religion as scribes rose and stop capitalism from taking advantage of it, but cure it. My third point and last point is about institutions. The public sector, we have wanted to believe that public institutions will treat men and women equally, but it's not the case. We know that they give different outcomes for men and women. When women come before, say regulators, if they come before customs officials, tax collectors, when they come for licensing, all the things they need in the economy, they are not treated the same as men, particularly if they are poor women, if they are black women, if they are minority women, they will be treated differently. So public institutions are also carrying the same biases that are in society and limit women's ability to engage and gain. And then you come to the market, that's my last point. The market is even worse. The market is supposed, and in public institutions, we've been trying to cure that to tackle gender inequality in public institutions. We challenge it, but in the market you can't touch because the market is supposed to be regulated by a hidden hand. It's not supposed to be touched. It manages itself. So the barriers in the market are not touched, and yet there are so many. So we need to tackle those two. We need to say that the market has also to be regulated to make it level for men and women. So those are some of the issues that I'm putting forward, but my main solution is that you can't deal with gender biases in the economy without tackling the general global injustice of a system that benefits just a few at the top and not at the most. It's a restructuring that's total, and that includes the biases against women. Thank you. I'll just wait for my presentation as well. Yes. Here we are. So let's go back to the so-called developed world. Well, in this world, we definitely need to rethink growth in a different way. Not only in order to get rid of the crisis, but to be able actually to achieve a better word for all. So in that sense, as you can see from the title of my presentation, I will briefly sketch what I have in mind in proposing a pink new deal. What are actually the starting point? Well, in dealing with the crisis, most of the Western countries had just one target to reduce the budget deficit. This is definitely the case, at least in the European Union, but not only. And it's quite clear nowadays, we have been discussing this issue in several sessions during these days, that the budget deficit is the wrong policy target to begin with. What is the main deficit? Is the deficit in investment, in care, in equality? And therefore, the anti-crisis intervention in Europe must be clear. It's not gender neutral, but rather it is inspired by prejudice, by potentially worsening the role of women in the economy and the society, as well as introducing additional gender inequalities. I mentioned some concerning the gender structure of our societies in my previous presentation, and of course I don't go back to that because of lack of time, but I hope you were there when I was speaking. So where do we stand? Just one statistical indicator to make it clear. Unfortunately, this is something that is provided by one agency of the European Commission, so the European Institute of Gender Equality in Vilnius. Well, if we take into account their indicators, I just go directly to that slide, and this is the Gender Equality Index produced by EIGA. Well, it's quite easy to see that in the last ten years, the situation has not improved or not improved enough. So this index has 100 as a target. If we achieve 100, it means that we are in a perfectly balanced situation from a gender perspective. We are now at 66.2. You can even look at their chart, which means that we are more or less halfway, a bit more than halfway in the path to equality. And as you can see, actually equality is a very complex system meant in terms of work, in terms of financial assets, in terms of knowledge, in terms of time, in terms of power, and in terms of health, of course, which is a very important and crucial issue. So we are just halfway in the path to gender equality. And I just remind you that gender equality is in the European constitution since the 50s. So in 60 years or more than 60 years of history, we are just half away. I'm pretty concerned about that. I hope you are too. So that's why I think it's really time to reassess the need of a more balanced society and a more balanced economy. That's what I have in mind. This is not just my own thought, actually. We are a group of people performing, carrying out analysis in the direction, and especially this idea of a pink new deal came out of an editorial meeting or one of the journals which I contributed to, found in January.eat, that is a web magazine both in Italian and in English. You are all welcome to read us. We are freely available on the web. So this idea is really to reassess in a global way, as Winnie was saying, the policymaking after the crisis and, of course, also during the crisis, because the crisis is still on. We are not over. So this is the pink new deal. As you can see, it's a complex system made of different type of interventions. The first one, concern, of course, fiscal policies. We cannot forget about the bubbly deficit, obviously, but we must re-adapt fiscal policies, first of all, to enhance female labor force participation. Second, we actually have to remove all labor market distortions, which prevents the demand for women labor. And when I speak about women labor, I speak about decent women labor. I speak about quality women labor. I'm not talking about, as usual, women involved just in precarious jobs, women involved in low-paid jobs, and so on. I want quality for women's labor. This is something that we must try to achieve and very soon, according to us. Then, of course, we have a need to increase the awareness of equal rights in our economic policymaking. Equal rights are not a separate issue. Equal rights are part of our economic paradigm, or should be at least. And in that sense, it's quite important to empower the national equality bodies. I say this from a European perspective. Because one of the main impacts of the fiscal consolidation has been to cut, apart from all the welfare system, of course, and this is something that has been said already, education, health, and so on, cut the resources for the national equality bodies. I speak about my own countries. We used to have a gender equality committee. We don't have it anymore. We used to have a minister for gender equality. We don't have it anymore. And we are Italy. We are one of the founders of the European Union. So in that sense, we are a very bad example to start with. But anyway, so it's very important to have some resources to be spent in that direction at institutional level. Institutions are absolutely crucial in this game. And then reconsider the formulation of indicators to monitor the gender impact of the crisis. Not only, of course, Winnie has already spoke about that at international level. So I don't want to go on or to add anything about that. Finally, as English people say, last but not least. So to implement a real social investment plan. Thomas Servas in the previous session was speaking about, and remembering, of course, the social investment, the importance of social investment in a Keynesian perspective. Of course, we completely agree with this perspective. And social investments means to give state a different role. Innovative role, not just in infrastructure, but innovative in a different way of conceiving the well-being of our societies. And maybe, and now I quote Winnie from yesterday, maybe you think I'm naive. Or maybe as John Lennon would say, you think I'm a dreamer. But I'm quoting Winnie once again. Do you think that we still can go on like this in the future? So think about that and join us in this discussion. Thank you so much. Oh, thank you. I want to pick up on some of the points that have been made in order to focus thinking about gender in terms of macroeconomics and what a gender focus implies for macroeconomics. Macroeconomics deals with aggregates. That's the whole economy. And yet there's increasing interest in decomposing those aggregates. And there's been a lot of discussion about the dual economy here at this conference. I mean, if we're talking about gender, we're talking about decomposing by gender. And this is spurred on by the fact that from a policy point of view, there's clearly a gender element to horizontal income inequality. There's clearly a gender element to what's happening in the labor market. And this is encouraging much more attention to gender within macroeconomics. And it allows for a policy proposal to be made at the political level that it would serve the goal of economic growth to promote more gender equality. If there's greater access to skills, this would feed into growth and so on. But I want to just take a moment to think about how this is framed if it's discussed within a standard mainstream kind of framework. This is a framework which focuses on the market and builds theory on the basis of atomistic individuals. And the micro foundations agenda is something that's dominated macro for several decades now. Sorry, I'm running ahead of my slides. Now, there is some discussion about what happens within the household, economic sharing of activities within the household. But this is discussed in terms of contractual arrangements, calculative decision making to share activities. And from a macro perspective, the presumption is that this is all optimized and therefore the fact that it is not market activity doesn't matter because the presumption is that it's already dealt with. If one pursues the issue of gender differences further, then there's scope for thinking of this in terms of different preferences. We can have the two representative individuals with different preferences, different endowments, different constraints. But then the implication of all this is that gender issues are something about market imperfections, something about barriers to equal access to skills and so on. And the implication of that is that if one can remove bias from behavior, if one can remove the market imperfections, then gender issues are no longer a matter of concern. But there's something missing in all of that. This does not connect with gender studies or feminist economics. The first obvious disconnect is over the focus on GDP growth, and it's already been pointed out that GDP is a very particular focus which leaves out a lot, so many things. But in particular, it leaves out non-market activity, care. And it's women who perform the bulk of care outside of the market. The gender budgeting program is attending to incorporate that within goals for society. But further than that, the relationship between the formal sector and the informal sector is important as well. It's not that these are two separable things. The mainstream approach is full of separabilities, whereas the feminist approach is to focus on synergies and interrelations. So for example, you can argue that when economies are facing difficulties, it's the informal sector that takes up the slack. That's where a lot of the support comes from. Now, why is that support provided? That's a huge question that is not addressed just by specifying different preferences. How do we understand individual behavior if we move beyond the mainstream model? Well, if we look at the feminist literature, we see discussion of social interactions, affection, moral values, all sorts of things that go beyond rational economic calculation, yet are fundamental to caring behavior. But of course, along with that goes the whole issue of power relations, gender power relations in particular, which is something that is difficult to incorporate in the mainstream framework, and yet which is important when we start thinking about relations within the household, women in the labour force, and so on. And just the last thing that I would mention that's missing is a discussion of identity. We have the atomistic individual in the mainstream model, but once we start exploring the idea of identity from a gender perspective, we understand it as being fundamentally social, but also fundamentally as being emergent. It's not something that's stamped on us at birth, it's something that evolves, and this is particularly important when we think of gendered behavior. Now, this is the ontology of women. This reflects the experience of most women and how women see the world, and from that follows a feminist epistemology, in other words, a way of building knowledge about that world. And in feminist economics, it's a matter of building economic knowledge about that. And if we move beyond the closed system mainstream approach built in atomistic individuals, and move towards thinking about society as an evolving open system, then that requires a system of thought which itself is open and evolving. And is non-dualistic. I mean gender itself is not dualistic. There are so many jewels that have become habits of thought that all need potentially to be challenged. Further, I mentioned emotion, social convention, moral values as driving behavior, but these also drive cognition. And if we think of Adam Smith, David Hume, they both said all science starts with the passions. Mathematics, you start with the passion. Why do we study mathematics? We have to go back to emotion. And so these are part and parcel of building knowledge, not something to be put aside in a dualistic opposition to rationality. And this epistemology supports a pluralistic approach to economics. It's built on the idea of situated knowledge, the idea that our knowledge of the world comes from our experience of the world, how we understand it, our ontology, and therefore how we formulate knowledge about it. And given the fact that situated knowledge inevitably is bound to be pluralistic, there are bound to be different situations. I mean within women there are different situations, within men there are different situations and so on. Once we start getting into situated knowledge then we come to accept that there are going to be different approaches to understanding the economy and all can contribute to building up a full picture of the complex world we live in. And one of those forms of knowledge is feminist. But of course that's not the form of knowledge that dominates within our discipline, which influences the way in which women experience careers within economics. Thank you. So thank you, Sheila, for this. And I'm going to speak about diversity in economics and diversity in the economics profession. And why? Because yesterday we saw also in the panel, in the dinner panel, that diversity is a problem. It's a problem within the panelist in these conferences. I mean we are talking about gender and we are all women but in the other panels I mean we had just one or two women in the other panels. But I just wanted to point out which is the degree of diversity in the economics profession and if there are some gender differences. Here I just wanted to start with a quote for Byron Rose that in a recent article they find out that the field of economics is behind other in its progress on diversity concern. But what I mean talking about diversity in the economics profession, we have I think two dimensions here. It's just not about the virginity of researchers. So how many women economists or many men economists we have within an institution but it's also a problem of, as Sheila told us before, of pluralism. So we should have a pluralism of research interest. So what I try to investigate, there are some differences in trends in gender publication, publication habits and distribution in the field of research in the last 20 years. Is something changing in the degree of diversity in our profession? Okay, I tested it for Italy. I took Italy as a case studies just because we saw yesterday we have a persistent vertical segregation. You just have to imagine that just 80% of full professors are women. But also because we performed in 2010 a reform on the university system and we had a boom of bibliometrics. And this means that we have standard bibliometric indices to be promoted, to enter in the careers and also to have more public found to the university. And most of all because in Italy, pluralism was a key element of the economy thought since the Second World War. So what I try to test with the data about the publication of almost 800 economists working in economics in Italian university is to test how the social context in this terms, how those changes in the university reform can affect the development of the economic thought. And the main question here is, is pluralism at risk? And moreover, if women are more exposed to this phenomena, so do women tend to homologate more, tend to convert more to an unique, vocal model of best excellence, economic way of doing and of researching? So which are the main results that I found? I call that we found a trend of homologation. Why I prefer homologation instead of convergence? Because it embodies a gender dimension since homologation denies the possibility to have a specific feminine culture. We find out that women became more on research field where they were previously underrepresented and most of all about mathematics and quantitative methods. More of all, they changed their research preferences over the time more than their male colleague. And we find also that institutions, when they told us, count because this pressure to converge in research to a model, a male model of researching, is higher for a tenure professor than for PhD students. And most of all, we found out that there is a tendency among women to reduce more their contribution in what we call the last mainstream research fields. I'll show you just two graphs to give you an idea. This is the share of publication in history of economy thought and in black we have the trend for women and in gray we have the male. And as you can see, women do have to reduce their contribution more than their male colleague. And we can say the same thing also for the heterodox approaches. Here I just analyzed from 1991 to 2004 the trends. So I try also to measure how this gender effect could be changing in the time. And I use a Duncan segregation in this so you can find everything and all the detail in the working paper that has been published in the INET website. But anyway, usually this measure is used for the horizontal segregation in the labor market. And used here for looking how women and men tend to distribute in research fields. So what it means, these in this range from 0%, that means that there is full homologation. So women and men do research in the same fields and 100% that it means that with full segregation is that women and men do research in completely different research fields. And what we find here is once more it's a tendency and there is a huge reduction in the index in the days and in the years. So this means that women and men tend more and more to research in the same research fields. But which is the direction of this convergence? So how are they converging to an univocal profile of the top economists? As you can imagine, the answer is yes and both for men and women. And I take the research field that are published in the article in the 10 top economy journals and yesterday we had this discussion about the five top journals but I used the 10 economy journals. And here we can find once more in black we have women and in grey men and there is a tendency to converge to an univocal and to a perceived idea of excellence in economics. But it's of course, so codify has having a higher bibliometric indices and being in American and UK journals. So what we found, we found that there is less pluralism and there is also this double convergent path. So women and men tend to research more and more on the same research field and at the same time they tend to converge to an univocal concept of excellence. So this means that there is absolutely a reduction in diversity in our profession. Just give me, I just want you to give you some conclusions and looking at the Italian case and these rules that are mainly based on excellence and quality in terms of citation counts do reinforce the gender discrimination in academia in economics and also try to shape I say Italian but I think that is a problem in all the other countries research activity and they tend to favor the majority view of course the mainstream ones. So some policy suggestions would be that all these changing institutions and all these research assessment and also these methods to introduce these mechanisms to recruit new economies should prevent, should have an explicit goal that should be to prevent pluralism, to preserve pluralism. And more and once more there should be also an awareness of the gender impact of this institutional change. I just finished, I have just few seconds with a provocative quote from an Italian feminist of the 70s and this is for both women economists but also for ethereodox. Do we appreciate being included under this condition after millennia in a world conceived by others? Thank you. Thank you to our speakers Winnie, Marcella, Sheila and Juliet. I'm just going to say a few words before we go to all of you so please take some time to think of your comments and your questions that we'll gather after my brief points. So today we heard from Winnie and Marcella how the economy and the smooth functioning of the economy relies on the invisible labor of women and how that isn't counted. We've heard from Sheila as to why the reason that isn't counted is because of the methodology that's prominent in mainstream economics today that only takes into consideration a very narrow slice of the economy. And we've also heard from Julia as to the link between ideas and the reality of the people who generate the ideas that the narrow amount of methodologies and scores of thought in economics to the narrowness and lack of diversity in the profession. So I think there's a link here between the ideas and the reality that generates the ideas and of course it's a symbiotic system. The ideas also affect reality. And so I'd like to go to maybe stereotypically for a China-based economist to a Karl Marx quote which is to call them to give up their illusions about their condition. It's to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. No wonder that economics, neoclassical economics does not take account of the labour of women in the economy. The same economists probably had their dinners cooked and their beds made and their laundry done by women who were given very little attempts, very little voice in their own households. And this is the role of women throughout intellectual history being the handmaidens. So now that we know that there's a link between reality and the ideas that generate that reality and again between the reality of the profession and the ideas generated in that profession, how do we change that link and how do we change it for the better? There are just two things I want to suggest briefly. One is that conferences like these are spaces to organise the new wave of economists and also spaces to generate a kind of critical mass that leads to breaks in awareness and revolutions in consciousness. We've talked a lot recently about the Harvey Weinstein scandal of perpetrators of sexism and sexual assaults in Hollywood. That was a huge revelation because many women stood up and made it clear that they weren't going to stand this kind of behaviour in the future and it's also a process that is incredibly shameful for the women at the beginning because they risk outing themselves, they risk being the targets of slander, of men in their industry, of being jeered at, of being accused of lying and so on. That happens at the wedge at the start of every revolution. How can we create more opportunities for that kind of break in awareness and revolution in consciousness? I think the answer is to lower the costs of beginning if we're using economic terms. How do we do that by organising? So there are spaces like this where after you disperse after today it's going to be more difficult to get in touch with people here. You'll have opportunities to read the age of the internet to access all the papers that we've talked about, so you can do that at any time. But what you don't have is the opportunity to meet people here and to form allegiances and form groups of trust where you can speak to other people about your experience and know that you're not standing alone when you're fighting against the sexism in our profession. So the first thing I'd like to say is for the women in the room, for the allies to get together and to start those groups and those structures of support because what begins as a rant, in a directionless and imaginative, explorative way, may well end up as an action plan. We never know where those conversations will lead, so please make use of the time here to have those conversations. The second thing I would say is also a call to the men in this room to stand down when there are women who would better deserve your platforms. And there's a pledge that's been going around which I can also tweet a link to. There's a pledge that's been widely tweeted recently about the no to manals pledge, which a manal is an all-male panel. And if you sign the no to manals pledge, what you're saying is that whenever you're invited to speak on a platform of only men, just because you're a man and because the man organizing the conference can only think of men when he thinks off the top of his head of the five most famous people in their profession, we all know from social psychology that that's an inherent bias. You tend to think of people like you when you select people to fill up a platform, whatever that platform may be. That's where we're humans. Signing that pledge, what you're saying is that you will not take part in those all-male panels. And instead, you'll suggest to women to take your place. And that will hopefully correct the behavioral biases we have when we think of people like us to fill platforms organized by us. So without further ado, I'd like to get some comments and questions from the audience. I'll take them in groups of three and then we'll have a few responses. Can we have some hands up from the audience? Woman over there, that's right. Thank you very much for this really excellent and interesting presentation and offering solutions to these problems that we all know exist in our profession and in the world that we live in. But I have a question you may not be able to answer that's pretty specific. I was curious if you had any information on the different, if there is, happens to be more women in heterodox approaches to moralistic economics rather than and compared to mainstream or orthodox economics. Thank you very much. Hi, the statistics in the United States for endowed chairs is only 4% of endowed chairs are women. And I'm one and I feel I need to speak up and say me too. The price of women entering our profession was quite high, which was just exhibited in the last three months explosively with a paper by April Wu from Berkeley which showed, which analyzed the comments on a job board which described how women, young women candidates were being perceived by professors and by other students and how male candidates were being perceived. They were just doing a word count. Men were associated with words like data, methods, policy implications, enthusiastic, careful. Women were associated with babe and other words I don't want to repeat. So the micro and macro aggressions that happen all the time, for instance when there's no women on a panel which is probably indirect, being interrupted, this is a very much of a standard in our profession. Have you ever been in fields when they say we're not going to use economics rules, we're going to use sociology rules and what they mean by that is let the panelists proceed with their talk before they're interrupted. So I think your work was very important about the kinds of topics and the conceptions that we use but I really do want to bring it back down to the way we treat each other and the American Economic Association just Friday responded to a petition of a thousand of us to adopt their own job board to try to police their own behavior. So thanks for the panel. And one last point to close off this round. Let's go over there. Hi, thank you. Vinnie, University of Tampa. You've all brought up GDP not being a good indicator of all the activity and a lot of non-market activity, invisible labor. Why are we not or how do we address measuring that invisible labor because I really believe it's bigger than the GDP economy and it's completely untouched and unmeasured. So we had questions about women in heterodox economics about the AAA petition and other ways of organizing invisible labor. So I don't want to kick off. Okay, I answer to the heterodox women and yes, I have some statistics about also mainstream women and the women are entering more and more in the mainstream and are going away from the mainstream. So this is the point. We have this. Can I see something about GDP? Well concerning GDP and the hidden contribution of women, especially concerning the unpaid work, there are quite a lot of techniques already experimented like the budget accounting. But of course, generally speaking, when I spoke about monitoring the gender impact of policymaking, gender budgeting is actually the answer to the problem. And there are countries in the world that has already implemented these kind of systems on monitoring Australia, one for all, or in Europe, or in Austria. So I mean, this is not a dream. This is reality. There are ways to calculate this, to measure the amount of care work that is done that is not paid. There are household surveys that capture the different time use surveys that capture how men and women spend their time and the tasks they do at the household. There are economists who have experimented with what they call satellite accounts and so on, but still all this work remains still outside what is measured and counted. But still, there are policies to tackle it. And we know that those countries that recognize it and put in place policies both for the private sector and the government sector to distribute it, to reduce it and to redistribute it between households, the public sector and the private sector, that those countries actually do better in terms of growth and also increase the participation of women in the labor force and even more women participating in public decision making, like in politics. So these correlations have been made. But where I see the big problem is with the private sector, the market. A lot of progress in getting the public sector to take some of this work away like provision of water, child care or better public transportation and so on. But the private sector still lags very far behind especially in the south in terms of those policies that can help women and men to balance work and life, balancing responsibilities in the household with their career. I want to go back to what was said here about standards for professional behaviour, sociology rules where you don't interrupt people while trying to make a point versus economics rules where the person with the loudest voice closest to the podium gets to make usually his point. And I want to say that this is not about women. It's not really about gender even. It's about power and in groups versus out groups. Seven years ago I was on a commission and I was asked to try to improve women's representation at high levels in academia because even disciplines like medicine have a large intake of women. You get this inverted pyramid where at the top it's still men ruling the roost. We found that interventions such as setting professional standards for engagement things that you imagine are just simple rules of how to be polite to people which apparently the dons at Oxford hadn't yet managed to realise. These were not only good for increasing participation of women but also many other minorities, LGBT people from working classes, ethnic minorities and this is not simply about women or men or people of any gender, it's about increasing out group participation. When there are no rules in an institution and that institution is ruled by one group then that group will keep its power because there are no rules to challenge the rule of that group. I applaud your position to the AEA and I hope that we can find many more platforms for international standards in engagement in economics. Can I just add on the AEA point it's really encouraging that there's been this response to the study because in the past the AEA has tended to resist suggestions of getting into issues of ethics and economics beyond the kind of generic things about plagiarism and so on. I see this as an opportunity it's a wonderful step to have taken but there are many more steps that need to be taken but maybe there's scope for pushing now because there are values embedded in economics and yet there's a general refusal to admit this and therefore they don't get discussed. In fact the moral responsibility of economists is to be upfront about the values that they're embedding in theory about gender or anything else for that matter and so the onus is on us to explain what our values are how they enter our theory and be prepared to debate it and if we can get the AEA to move just a little in the direction of recognizing that as an important responsibility in our part that would be wonderful. Let's do second round questions. Is there a woman over there? Thanks for starting a great discussion. I apologize for my voice. So as far as pushing professional standards on sort of I don't know rules of engagement in departments I was hoping that a big organization like INET could do something in that regard specifically like there's a lot of professional organizations that we're a lot of part of I'm based in the United States therefore I guess the American Economic Association is I guess I'm by default. I am a member but the point is that perhaps we can push these organizations to sort of create standards which every member of the organizations have to abide by or maybe like I love Professor Zakia's work about the distribution of how what women study how they're doing as compared to men perhaps we could have like lists of departments we can sort of like put the spotlight on who are not particularly bad in this regard in terms of gender distribution if I don't know if you've seen the news last week Oxford and Cambridge have put in the spotlight for not having enough for not taking enough black students and therefore like some sort of spotlight on this and if that's something we can do I mean it's not a question it's a comment I'm hoping this we can move in this regard and we can sort of push these boundaries through these professional organizations because as Jan pointed out that's possibly the best way to make sure that we can have better rules of engagement than a profession. Thank you for your comments there's a point just behind you this way hi so I was thinking a lot about the type of question I wanted to ask and then it occurred to me that I have absolutely no question for the panel because the panel speaks the truth and I've spoken the truth for the past I don't know how long all of you have been dealing with the search of NGOs and we speak the same language I would face the same difficulties so it was like yes I know that I know that so what else and then it occurred to me that in yesterday's panel we were talking about how it's impossible if you're a heterodox if you're a woman if you're none of the top five institutions in the Ivy League you're never going to make it so it feels like we're always here talking about the struggle and always talking about how it's difficult and always talking about that there should be more women and as the professor of course has said we're trying to go through more than 50 years that we're trying to go through gender balance and we're not doing anything and I love the discussion I love the thing, God there's a discussion in here but what are we actually doing there are still few women on boards I remember the headline for a month ago where Uber was looking for a CEO and the headline was Uber CEO search narrowed down to two men great where were the protest where were all this community of women who feel completely marginalized and are alone I think that these are questions that are far bigger than just the panel are far bigger than just research because it doesn't deal only with gender it deals with a lot of class structure it deals with being a status as an immigrant as a researcher, as a woman in finance, in marketing it's not a sectoral thing it's about power and in this conference we didn't talk about power a lot but it was mentioned at least and that's a start I guess what I wanted to say maybe to end in a high note first of all because again I cannot thank you enough for speaking the gospel of rights but I believe the new economic paradigm will not come from the dominant paradigm and by that I mean that maybe the new economic paradigm should come from people who actually speak from marginalized part and I hope and I work so hard as a heterodox, as a woman, as a researcher and as an activist, as an organizer to promote people who come from a different party, rather than the dominant party minorities, women and to give them a platform to talk even if what they're saying is obvious to me but not obvious to what we consider now the dominant one so thanks to everyone who has come to every panel thanks to everyone who has come to the black people in the room, the women in the room and thanks to everyone who doesn't who still have the strength and is not getting tired in 50 years or in 60 years of saying the same thing because we're not getting tired, we're getting stronger, thank you Thank you My question is about land and women and I'd like to focus on one aspect of this relationship, women and feeding the world we know that small farmers produce most of the world's food on a fraction of the world's farmlands we know that most small farmers are women, often with very insecure tenure, we know that the area that small farmers are producing off is shrinking fast and that the land is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the rich and the powerful often corporations and multinationals we know that these corporations and multinationals are directed by markets and profits and they're busy supplying wars and conflicts they're busy plundering and I'll refer specifically to putting in commercial forestry and stripping out natural forests they sanitizing and poisoning land ecosystems and communities with chemicals and pesticides all of this contributing to the current collapse of ecosystems and communities the very environment and context that economies survive off we know that we need to urgently kind of put and keep land and the production of food in the hand of small producers especially women and we know that we need to develop and promote an agrarian vision, central to the struggle for better food systems we know all of this last night I heard the answer to protecting ecosystems land rights and land access is through regulations as a native of Africa and Ireland and familiar with governments and their relationships with corporations and multinationals my question to this forum and to this group is are regulations enough? Have regulations enough? I think the first couple of questions perhaps we can summarize them into one question about what can INET do to challenge the power structures and economics and then we have a question of is regulation enough or are there other forms of answers that we need to look for so who wants to kick off? This question of land and natural resources is a highly political one the economic model we are dealing with now is very aggressive it's violent, it's using force and taking away natural resources from those who live off them the real political battles here last year I went to visit a woman's a home in Honduras a woman who had been killed Betaka Cherez, an indigenous woman leading her community pushing back against a company that had been illegally granted a license to build a dam over their water taking away their water rights and even their land and she was leading her community she was just killed in her home this total impunity people who are living off natural resources are on the front lines, they are being killed every day for defending their natural resources and that's this model this economic model it's aggressive, it's militaristic so we have to push back regulation is simply not enough because the rules of regulation have been made by a political and economic elite to favor themselves in this particular case example of giving you we pushed hard as ox farm and allies and everything now is showing that the minister who passed the license did it illegally the bank the banks five of them five funders of the project have pulled out but one which is closely linked with the political elites has refused to pull out you see the collusion between political and economic elites so ultimately it's really about taking away the power of the companies from controlling our politics getting our politics to be back to the public policy process to be owned by people, by citizens not by big business so yes we work on regulations we push for better rules but ultimately it's about ending the political capture well concerning the importance of gender also in this perspective probably you know that has been invented a new word that is purple economy actually the pink and the green as the suffragettes used to do at the beginning of the struggle as Bessiana was saying so I believe that the role of women in preserving the environment in giving us a better chance for the future is crucial as I said before I think it must be of course we need ox farm and I mean fortunately there are people activists working for that already but I mean as economists so and as an academic what I can do is to try to involve women from the ground in this kind of experiments so for just to give you an example I'm trying to to actually I ask already some funding to the European Commission for carrying out a project in three different areas of the world which are Mexico for Latin America Uganda for Africa and the Central Asia so Uzbekistan and the countries around just to involve women working in agriculture in introducing renewable energies so it depends of course on the country itself and the sorts of energy that they can use but of course they need to empower financially I mean so basically what I'm trying to do is to involve in each of these areas not only universities but microfinance practitioners and NGOs working with these women day by day in order to reach them to help them not just giving them money but to giving them non-financial services for carrying out these kind of businesses and if we start from the ground if we ask these people to work with us you know introducing just a solar panel instead of using you know renewable energies and so on I think we can do something good even being academics of course I hope I will succeed thank you for the questions anyway and there are some things that are positive coming out of this challenge of climate change for example they shift towards clean energies means that there is more innovation in off-grid sources of energy and that's a real possibility for the 600 million Africans for example why in darkness who have no power and who are working with their hands instead of using tools for production so there are real opportunities the challenge they move towards a low carbon economy can be an economy that lifts many boats exactly that's right absolutely so we don't have time in this panel to address the first two questions that are raised over here about what we in this room can do and what can INET do to challenge structures of power in economics but that's a big conversation I suggest that we take that conversation into the corridors into the sessions after this and if you have ideas action plans starting points for that question to tweet them using the INET 2017 hashtag email them and discuss them in the group but just to close off this discussion I know that econometricians like to check their data and I was and I was also trained to do this so at the start we counted the women in the room now I'd quite like the men in the room also to be counted so please can the men in the room raise your hands please can all the men in the room raise their hands and I would like you to keep your hands up if you're willing to take the no-to-manals pledge on behalf of everyone in this room I thank you for being an ally to this movement and we will hold you to that pledge thank you everyone