Yves here. I am normally not keen about notions like “gendering”. But I hope you agree that this piece is an exception. It looks at the priorities of James Galbraith’s Predator State, and in particular its affinity for militarization and financialization. The authors even go so far as to contend that it gives that form of neoliberalism a particularly masculine presentation. But even if you don’t buy that, the article describes how those focuses are harmful to the disadvantaged, particularly women.
By Damla Topbaş and Adem Yavuz Elveren, Associate Professor of Economics, Fitchburg State University
Feminist political economy analysis draws parallels between male heads of households and the masculine state, both exercising control over dependents under the guise of acting in their best interests. Their hold on power is inherently violent, yet this violence is frequently masked by ideals of virtue and love (Young 2003: 6; True 2015: 419). Expanding on this analogy, one could assert that in the era of financial neoliberalism, the state embodies not just a masculine persona but a “militarized masculine” head of household, and more significantly, one that is “abusive of” women’s labor on a global scale. Drawing upon James K. Galbraith’s concept of the predatory state, we illustrate the gendered impact of the contemporary capitalist state.
Drawing from Thorstein Veblen’s evolutionary social theory, James K. Galbraith introduced the term the predator state in one of his significant works to elucidate the resurgence of predatory behavior within the business realm in the United States (Galbraith 2008). Galbraith has asserted that during the era of financial neoliberalism, capitalists strived for “complete control of the state apparatus” (Galbraith 2008: 131). This resulted in the government morphing into a mere coalition of representatives from regulated industries—like mining, oil, media, pharmaceuticals, and corporate agriculture—determined to thoroughly dominate the regulatory framework. Their perspective viewed the government’s economic activities not through ideological lenses, but purely as avenues for enormous private profit on a continental scale (ibid. 131). The prey in this scenario is (the majority of) the public, who suffer from the depletion of public resources, which in turn becomes an opportunity for corporations to profit.
Contrary to common understanding, the neoliberal economic paradigm does not necessarily promote a smaller state but rather assigns a greater role to the state in facilitating the expansion of the private sector to pursue profit in more areas (Galbraith 2008; True 2015). In line with this objective, neoliberalism reduces public spending on welfare programs and public goods, weakening social solidarity. This reduction can extend to defense and police services as well. As states become increasingly unable to fulfill these roles, the public sector is perceived as weak (overly “feminine” or “soft”), necessitating the private sector to step in and provide the tasks and services that the weakened state can no longer afford for its citizens (Peterson and Runyan 1999: 104; Via 2010: 46-47).
Militarism is documented to serve as a highly useful tool for the predator state, particularly when aligned with financial neoliberalism (Harvey 2005; True 2015; Marshall 2020; Akcagun-Narin and Elveren 2023). Neoliberal rhetoric often reinforces itself through narratives of fear and danger, emphasizing the importance of state militarization (Harvey 2005). The pervasive threat of terrorism, both internationally and domestically, has significantly influenced discourses surrounding national security, leading to increased social and practical militarization of states. This includes efforts to garner support socially and the hiring of private military companies as extensions of traditional ‘national security’ provided by national militaries (True 2015). This paradigm reinforces higher military spending at the expense of less welfare spending as well as environmental and infrastructure investment, making large majorities more vulnerable to social, economic, and environmental challenges. In other words, the predator state diverts more resources for unproductive but highly profitable arms production at the expense of the welfare of the majority. This is referred to as “structural violence” (Runyan and Peterson 2014). Obviously, gender gaps in the household and paid labor market make the structural violence more detrimental for women. That is, “the structural violence of political, economic, and social priorities and inequalities that leave wide swaths of people subject to unemployment, underemployment, poverty, disease, malnutrition, crime, and domestic and sexual violence” has a gendered dimension (Runyan and Peterson 2014: 13).
Financialization also serves the interests of the predator state, and it has varying impacts on the well-being of men and women. By the 1970s, capitalists sought to bolster their economic power in response to declining profit rates (Harvey 2005). In this regard, adoption of the neoliberal economic policies from the early 1980s onward, coupled with the rapid expansion of the financial sector, presented a valuable opportunity for capitalists to offset the decline in profit rates. Deregulation and advancements in the financial system facilitated a significant increase in cross-border capital flows and the development of new financial instruments, enabling capital to generate substantial profits not through production but through the trading of financial assets (i.e., making money from money). The financial sector has become increasingly involved in financing arms production and has seamlessly integrated with the military sector through stock purchases. This profound shift in the economic paradigm provided arms producers with new opportunities for increased profitability by expanding the scale of arms production and its financing. This symbiotic relationship between the financial sector and arms producers has strengthened in the 21st century. The military sector, with its high profit margins, has become an attractive investment option due to its potential for exceptionally high returns (Marshall 2020; Akcagun-Narin and Elveren 2023). Major financial corporations have expanded their influence over the military sector by acquiring defense firms or purchasing their stocks. Capital enjoys nearly risk-free high returns on investment in militarized sectors, which are increasingly promoted by the militarized predator state. These funds could otherwise be invested in civilian infrastructure or social welfare programs. According to Runyan and Peterson (2014), financial trading diverts resources and focus away from long-term investments in industry, infrastructure, and human (social) capital. This diversion exacerbates conditions of extreme inequality and contributes to crises of social reproduction and sustainability. It is evident that the lack of such investments is likely to disproportionately harm women, as they are more reliant on social spending.
Financialization also increases women’s vulnerability through financial crises. While it facilitates capital accumulation, providing more opportunities for large corporations, it also hampers the capital accumulation process by precipitating financial crises. Undoubtedly, the impact of financial crises varies among social classes and gender. There exists a vast body of literature on the gendered costs of man-made financial crises, with feminist scholars examining how unpaid labor has been called upon to bridge the gap between public welfare and private market provision during economic downturns (Bennholdt-Thomsen 1981; Elson and Pearson 1981; Mackintosh 1981; Mies et al., 1982; Picchio 1992; Elson 1998; Hoskyns and Rai 2007; Bakker 2007; Bedford and Rai, 2010; Rai 2013; Antonopoulos 2014).
When the economic crises hit, unemployment increases, real wages, social services, and welfare transfers decline, women are called upon for their duty to compensate the loss of monetized income. They increase both their paid and unpaid work, in terms of both time and intensity. Sassen refers to this phenomenon as the “feminization of survival” (2000), wherein women, as a survival strategy, rely heavily on informal activities to ensure social reproduction. Man-made financial/economic crises result in the loss of secure jobs and earning capacity, leading to women’s concentration in precarious forms of employment. This, in turn, leads to longer work hours for women as they strive to mitigate the impact on household income. Additionally, there is a decrease in girls’ participation in education, deteriorating health conditions for women, increased child labor, and women’s involvement in both licit and illicit informal activities. Moreover, there is an increase in structural violence as well as direct violence against women (Aslanbeigui and Summerfield 2001; Harcourt 2014; Runyan and Peterson 2014; Sutton 2010; True 2012; True and Tanyag 2019: 18).
The militarized masculine nature of the predator state is deeply intertwined with its organic relationship with military production. This symbiosis not only fosters the expansion of the private sector but also cultivates a fertile ground for its involvement in military endeavors, whether directly through contracts or indirectly through the involvement of financial sector. In this sense, the home of the predator state is the Military-Industrial Complex, its influence reaching across the globe like a relentless hunter. By leveraging real or perceived threats posed by terrorism and enemies, the militarized masculine predator state justifies its exercise of power in the name of protecting the majority of its populace. However, this protection often comes at the steep price of neglecting investments in social welfare. Moreover, the burden of sustaining this illusion of security falls disproportionately on the shoulders of the most vulnerable members of society, particularly women. As social welfare curtails, women find themselves shouldering an increasingly heavy burden.
In conclusion, the predator state is gendered; it embodies a “militarized masculine” identity and operates within the home of the (global) Military-Industrial Complex, relying on unpaid labor of women.
References
Akçagün, P. and A. Y. Elveren. (2023). Financialization and Militarization: An Empirical Investigation. Review of Radical Political Economics https://doi.org/10.1177/04866134231167
Antonopoulos, R. (Ed.) (2014). “Introduction” in Gender Perspectives and Gender Impacts of the Global Economic Crises. New York: Routledge.
Aslanbeigui, N. and G. Summerfield. (2001). Risk, gender and the international financial architecture. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 15(1): 7–26.
Bakker, I. (2007). Social reproduction and the constitution of a gendered political economy. New Political Economy12(4): 541–556.
Bedford, K. and S. M. Rai. (2010). Feminists theorize the international political economy. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 36(1): 1–18.
Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. (1981). “Subsistence Production and Extended Reproduction.” In Of marriage and market: Women’s subordination internationally and its lessons. Edited by K. Young, C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh. London: Routledge.
Elson, D. (1998). The economic, the political and the domestic: Businesses, states and households in the organisation of production. New Political Economy 3(2): 189–208.
Elson, D. and R. Pearson. (1981). “The Subordination of Women and the Internationalisation of Factory Production.” In Of marriage and market: Women’s subordination internationally and its lessons. Edited by K. Young, C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh. London: Routledge.
Galbraith, J. K. (2008). The Predator State How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too. Free Press: New York.
Harcourt, W. (2014). Women and the European crisis. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 25(3): 455–464.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoskyns, C. and S. M. Rai. (2007). Recasting the international political economy: Counting women’s unpaid work. New Political Economy 12(3): 297–317.
Mackintosh, M. (1981). “Gender and Economics: The Sexual Division of Labour and the Subordination of Women.” In Of marriage and market: Women’s subordination internationally and its lessons. Edited by K. Young, C. Wolkowitz and R. McCullagh. London: Routledge.
Marshall, S. (2020). The Defense Industry’s Role in Militarizing US Foreign Policy. Middle East Research and Information Project No. 294.
Mies, M., V. Bennholdt-Thomsen, G. von Werlhof. (1988). Women: The last colony. London: Zed Books.
Peterson, V. S. and A. S. Runyan. (1999). Global Gender Issues: Dilemmas in World Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Picchio, A. (1992). Social reproduction: The political economy of the labour market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rai, S. (2013). “Gender and (International) Political Economy:. In The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics. Edited by Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and S. Laurel Weldon. Oxford Handbooks Online.
Runyan, A. S. and V. S. Peterson. (2014). Global Gender Issues in the New Millennium, 4th ed. London: Routledge.
Sassen, S. (2000). Women’s burden: Counter-geographies of globalization and the feminization of survival. Journal of International Affairs 53(2): 503–524.
Sutton, B. (2010). Bodies in Crisis: Culture, Violence, and Women’s Resistance in Neoliberal Argentina. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
True, J. (2012). The Political Economy of Violence Against Women: A Feminist International Relations Perspective. The Australian Feminist Law Journal 32: 39-59.
True, J. and M. Tanyag. (2019). “Violence Against Women/Violence in the World Toward a feminist conceptualization of global violence”. In Routledge Handbook of Gender and Security. Edited by C. E. Gentry, L. J. Shepherd and L. Sjoberg. London and New York: Routledge.
True, J. (2015). A Tale of Two Feminisms in International Relations? Feminist Political Economy and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda. Politics and Gender 11(2): 419–424.
Via, S. (2010). “Gender, Militarism, and Globalization: Soldiers for Hire and Hegemonic Maculinity”. In Gender, War, and Militarism Feminist Perspectives. Edited by L. Sjoberg and S. Via. Praeger.
Young, I. M. (2003). The Logic of Masculinist Protection. Signs 29 (1): 1–25.