Feminist critiques of economics come prior-otherwise the aff is bound to fail.

Alessandrini 13 [Donatella, Professor of Law Director of Postgraduate Research Co-director Social Critiques of Law “A Social Provisioning Employer of Last Resort: Post-Keynesianism Meets Feminist Economics.” World Review of Political Economy, vol. 4, no. 2, 2013, pp. 230–54. JSTOR, . //CPSW–PA

I have argued that the UK government’s approach to “recovery” is not only unable to deliver what it promises, that is increased investment, employment and growth, but it is also likely to augment those inequalities that have triggered the current global crisis. This is for two reasons: first because it places a massive bet on private sector led job growth which has been a constant, but unsuccessful, feature of governments’ policies since 1979; and secondly because it does so while the major source of the lack of demand, that is inequality, is increased through unprecedented cuts to public spending that threaten social reproduction. In other words, unless the private sector is able to re-absorb the job loss in the public sector, create new jobs and increase the share of national income that goes to workers, not only will the lack of demand that triggered the financialization process not be addressed. Inequality and economic and social insecurity will also increase. A different investment strategy, and one that aims to reverse the trend towards inequality and insecurity threatening social reproduction, is therefore needed. In this respect, and drawing on Lerner’s concept of functional finance as well as Robinson’s critique of government spending per se, I have considered the potential of feminist economists’ engagement with ELR proposals articulated by post-Keynesians. I have argued that the adoption of the social provisioning approach has the potential to enrich these proposals by intervening in the job “design” of the program, thereby transforming the concept of “work” and productive activity as well as the current system of (pecuniary) valuation that regulates investment decisions. Rather than laying down a blueprint of the ELR I have sought to emphasize the potential for meaningful social transformation of a program that is based on, while trying to radically affect, the institution of wage labor, with a view to generating further discussion on the desirability and feasibility of the program. Obviously, there are important questions that have not been addressed here and that require thorough additional research, starting with those concerning the resources necessary to fund the program. In this respect Lysandrou’s proposal for a global redistribution of wealth through taxation (2011: 340–341) is important not only because it suggests how resources can be procured, and in a way that reduces inequality, but also because it points to the fact that concerted efforts at the international level might be necessary for these strategies, including the ELR, to succeed. More importantly, additional research needs to be carried out to ensure that, while government funded, the administration of the program is decentralized as much as possible in both its design and implementation (Todorova 2009: 18) so to enable effective participation. However, I have argued that as a project that aspires to eliminate the reserve army of labor; offers a socially desirable floor for wages; provides for mobility through training and, importantly, instills values other than the profit motive in investment decisions, the program goes a long way to address economic and social uncertainty; challenges social created scarcity and gradually changes the meaning of “work.” It thus represents an alternative to current investment thinking and strategies that are based on the privatization of social reproduction and a narrow conception of production and productive activities and as such it deserves further exploration.