The alt solves – feminist economics rejects the productive demands of neoliberalism that commodify labor and affect in favor of gender centered inclusive fiscal reform

Feminist economics has also deconstructed dominant narratives of the European crisis and the austerity measures of the last decade. It has examined the financial and production consequences of austerity and their connections with social reproduction (Gálvez 2013; Rai and Waylen 2013). FE highlights the role of households—and the women within them—as the units that actually bear the burden of economic adjustments. On the one hand, neoliberal management implies the dismantling of the welfare state and the subsequent transfer of resources from the state to private capital in education, healthcare, and social protection—services that are basic to a guarantee of some progress toward equality. This dismantling also entails the eradication of spaces for collective deliberation and negotiation and the loss of social control over political decisions. On the other hand, neoliberalism reinforces the private sphere in two ways: 1) commodification and financialization of daily life gives more power to markets (as explained below), and 2) households are forced to handle greater responsibility with whatever (private) resources they have available, by modifying or reducing their consumption or developing “survival strategies” (Pérez Orozco 2014). These strategies are privatized in households and made invisible, as no policies are made out of them. But they are performed by particular subjects. Women, in their intersection with specific class, race, migration status, and age positions, are the ones who take on the role of home protector, guarantor of the household savings, and party responsible for family well-being (Bassel and Emejulu 2017). This capacity to cope is not idealized by FE; the purpose is to politicize it. In summary, from a feminist perspective, the great recession is not only an economic crisis, but a crisis of social reproduction, which has intensified the precariousness of life and individualized its risks. It is also a care crisis in the sense that the need for care is increasingly fulfilled in the market by those who can pay for it or precariously dealt with by those who cannot. Faced with the neoliberal management of the crisis, FE does not have a consensus on how to respond, but it has multiple proposals enriching one another: A reversal of austerity policies. • Progressive fiscal reform that incorporated gender criteria (such as a family model that treats equally male breadwinners and female caregivers. • A fight against fiscal fraud. • Restoration of public resources to reverse cutbacks in the welfare state and enlarge it to include people who have been excluded until now, ending women’s second-class citizenship. • Development of benefits and services that have historically been provided by unpaid work, such as preschool education and care for dependent people. • Defense of the commons, the limiting of which is part of a new attempt to accumulate by dispossessing others (Caffentzis and Federici 2014). • Gender-sensitive budgets that take into consideration impacts on gender issues and the well-being of different social groups. One example of these proposals is the so-called F Plan (Elson 2015). It was conceived as more than a simple economic approach to growth and employment creation. With its focus on building a caring and sustainable economy for people and the planet, the plan defines a framework for understanding the impact of the financial crisis on three interacting spheres: finances, production, and reproduction. It proposes an economy based on mutual support and respect for human rights, as well as being oriented toward the wider and inclusive objective of improving well-being to reduce inequality, not only today, but also for future generations. Feminist Views on the Privatization and Commodification of Intimate Life Feminist economics strongly resists the expansion of the neoliberal development model and the commodification of intimate life. It denounces the logic of profit permeating such areas as affections, sex, care, and biological reproduction, as we will now explain. Affectivity is becoming increasingly important in production processes for various reasons. First, the workplace has mobilized the affections to increase productivity with quality circles, team work, promotion of creativity, and enhancement of communication abilities. Second, in parallel to the care crisis, affective work has emerged as an economic sector in itself, with a multiplication of firms that “take care” of the citizen according to the logic of commodification. Third, production and objects on sale are becoming immaterial, affections and experiences are becoming commodities. Fourth, firms are developing loyalty management mechanisms to build long-lasting and trustful relationships between firms and clients. Fifth, in a complex environment, mediated by new technologies, firms present themselves as necessary mediators to manage and guide new social relationships in the creation of value (Alfama, Bona, and Callén 2005).