By Anita Bosch
When we celebrate Women’s Day on August 9, we should also ponder a very important question: Why do certain jobs tend to be dominated by men? This question has intrigued researchers for years since women’s workplace outcomes such as pay, promotion and leadership are all closely linked to the types of jobs they have access to.
Economists have analysed extensive datasets to uncover patterns that might explain why men and women often gravitate toward different occupations and professions. Some social scientists point to the role of human reproduction. Because women give birth and can nurse children, it is often assumed they might prefer roles that allow them to care for young children. However, many workplaces are not designed to accommodate these needs, pointing towards the organising of work influencing the types of jobs women are more likely to pursue.
Economists Leanne Roncolato and Natalia Radchenko have found that in South Africa women without educational credentials gravitate to working in small-scale agriculture or informal employment.
In a 2016 article in “Feminist Economics”, they hypothesise that this low-paying arrangement provides the flexibility for them to combine paid work with unpaid work, such as caring for the household. However, the choices that these women are left to make do not bring them closer to economic independence.
So, which factors determine what is considered “women's work” and “men's work”? The influence of technological advancements and work organisation on shaping gender norms — defining what is deemed acceptable for women and men — offers fascinating insights.For instance, the division of labour between the sexes may have origins earlier than industrial capitalism, rooted in agricultural practices. In her groundbreaking study, Woman's Role in Economic Development (1970), Danish economist Ester Boserup argued that societal norms around gendered work can be traced back to the use of the plough in agriculture.
The plough, requiring significant upper body strength, led to men predominantly working the fields while women focused on household chores. Whereas societies that used digging implements and hoes to prepare soil have not seen the same gendered division of labour.
Boserup argues that plough-based division developed a specialisation of production along gender lines which reinforced the belief that women's natural place was at home. Her research shows that despite the plough's obsolescence in being the main form of work in modern society, these gendered labour divisions and associated norms have largely persisted, even as societies moved away from agriculture.
Economists Alberto Alesina, Paola Giuliano, and Nathan Nunn have argued in their 2013 article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics that the long-term effects of plough use remain evident in modern-day economies since it shaped institutions, policies, laws, and markets in ways that limit women's participation in activities outside the domestic sphere. Their study estimates indicate that in countries with a traditional use of the plough, women currently have lower participation rates in the labour market, are less likely to own businesses, and are under-represented in national politics.
In addition, women tend to achieve higher levels of education and become economically active when societies show strong economic growth. In the initial phases of economic growth, there is often a decline in the number of women in the workforce. However, as income levels continue to increase, women's economic activity tends to rise again.
This provides us with a few pointers on how we can contribute towards the economic participation of women in South Africa.
Firstly, the way in which we structure work, including where it must be performed, the distance and transport between work and home, and the times at which we expect people to work, can be designed differently.
Secondly, it is in the interest of every South African to find ways of regenerating our economy. For women specifically, a growing and strong economy can create greater educational development, economic participation and independence.
On Women’s Day and beyond, we should recognise that we can shape our thinking about what we regard as “women’s and men’s work”, since the original reason for work segregation, namely bodily strength, no longer plays a major role in most jobs due to technological advancements.
Professor Anita Bosch holds the Research Chair: Women at Work at Stellenbosch Business School at Stellenbosch University.
BUSINESS REPORT