Economic efficiency or economic chivalry? Women's status and women's work in early neo-classical economics

This study traces back to the origins of the neo-classical economics school of thought the biases in methodology and discourse which characterise the school's treatment of women and their place in a capitalist economy.;The roots of women's invisibility and of the neglect of non-market activity in economic theory are sought first in the classical writings of Adam Smith. The work of John Stuart Mill then allows a study of an isolated attempt to integrate a feminist awareness into economic theory.;The study next examines the debate on the question of equal pay for men and women which took place between 1890 and 1925. It was sparked by feminist demands for equal pay and features economic writings by feminists and by mainstream economist. It permits to test the universality of the marginal productivity theory of wages. It becomes apparent that neo-classical economist fail to explain the purpose a resolution to the wage inequalities encountered by women. Yet, they reject the alternative proposals of the feminists. To conclude this debate, Edgeworth asserts the necessity of patriarchal priviledge in the labour market at the cost of internal consistency in the neo-classical model.;Subsequently, the writing of Marshall and Pigou show a consistent construction of women's role as unpaid reproducers, who "contribute more" if they stay in the home. This position is developed in both economists' elaboration of a "human capital" theory and of an initial blueprint for welfare state. Definite gaps in their adherence to the dogmas of the freedom of the market and of economic rationality transpire, revealing the ideological position which informs neo-classical theorising on women and the contradictions this position creates within the paradigm.;The feminist approach used in the thesis and the contrast provide by the economist writings of feminist comtemporaries allow to further the methodological and ideological questioning of the neo-classical paradigm. It strengths the criticisms of inadequacy and unrealism of its assumptions. It exposes the serious lack of internal consistency in the model and the failure of its claim to universality.