Zdravka Todorova
Within heterodox economics, the household has been conceptualized as an expenditure and financial unit; as a part of production and monetary circuits; as the relations of the reproduction of labor power; as a source of macroeconomic growth, stability, and instability; as a site of exploitation; as a through-time producer; as an entity understood and formed through colonial relations; as the site of and an actor in global production and financial remittances; and a combination of these scopes (O’Hara 1995; Elson 1998; Hanmer & Akram-Lodhi 1998; Peterson 2003; Charusheela & Danby 2006; Fraad et al. 2009; Todorova 2009; Safri & Graham 2010; Hewitson 2013). Both inter- and intra-household relations have received attention at the empirical and conceptual levels, especially within feminist and Marxian-feminist economics (Robeyns 2005; Fraad et al. 2009).
The present chapter builds on various heterodox approaches to economics to explore a direction towards analyzing households within a broader heterodox economic theory of social provisioning. The first section delineates the theoretical foundations of households within heterodox economic perspectives. The second section discusses the analytical categories of the household as a going concern, the household as an institution, and the household as an actor-participant within a system of provisioning processes. Finally, the chapter offers suggestions for future developments.
There have been considerable attempts to meld together heterodox economic approaches (Lee 2012: 123). This is a development in the right direction if heterodox economists are concerned with a systemic understanding of economic problems. Various heterodox approaches have focused on different aspects or levels of economic reality. Conceptualizing households within heterodox economics will thus mean bringing together developments and insights from various approaches. In this section I delineate theoretical elements that to my understanding represent the most fundamental developments of heterodox economic thought that will enrich heterodox theorizing of households.
A fundamental distinctive element of any heterodox economic approach is a theoretical framework that is able to see below the surface of exchange. Heterodox frameworks in general analyze production as a money-making activity and the distribution of income and resources as socially governed and determined. In heterodox economics these two key aspects of the capitalist economy are not conflated with market exchange. Instead, socially produced and distributed surpluses, the creation of resources, together with the agency and structure of classes play a central role in analyzing the capitalist economy (Lee & Jo 2011; Philp & Trigg 2015). This premise is evident in Marxian-radical, original institutionalist, Post Keynesian (including Kaleckian and Sraffian), structuralist, circuitist, Social Structures of Accumulation, Régulation, some feminist approaches, and various combinations of these (see Lee 2012: 116). Diving below the surface of exchange has brought into question the market mechanism as an explanation of production and distribution, and has led heterodox economists to explore their social and historical organizations.
However, in this endeavor some heterodox economists, particularly feminists, argue that production is broader than the monetary production of commodities for market exchange (see, for example, Elson 1998; Peterson 2003; Charushela & Danby 2006; Todorova 2009; Safri & Graham 2010). In this respect, the analysis of households from a heterodox economics perspective should be based on distinguishing the production of commodities from the production of non-commodities, and on the articulation of the distinct logics, motives, and valuations that govern market and non-market oriented activities that are nonetheless part of a system of provisioning (Todorova 2015a). Consequently, the concept of s ocial provisioning provides a broader meaning of the economy, as wells as a starting point for theorizing households within heterodox economics (Dugger 1996; Power 2004; Todorova 2015b; Jo & Todorova’s chapter in this volume).
An understanding of the economy as a social provisioning process is empowered by a notion of multi-faceted humans and their multi-faceted interactions, motives, and values. This means conceiving of humans as living beings, with social lives and identities beyond their economic positions as consumers and material providers. Continuation of life should thus be paramount in the conceptualization of households, given that the processes of social provisioning are part of ecosystems and have ecological bases and consequences. People and households ought to be theorized from the outset as both biological and social beings. Heterodox economics is well-suited to the conceptualization of this sociality outside of market interactions.
Multi-faceted and living humans are important for heterodox theorizing of households. First, such a conception of human beings helps develop a broader formulation of household economic activities including care and recreation (Todorova 2015c). Second, it supports a more comprehensive understanding of vulnerabilities as well as capabilities of people within households. Third, it enables an evolutionary (as opposed to static and non-living) and context-specific (as opposed to universalizing) analysis of households and their relations, motivations, and agencies that impacts and is impacted by social and natural processes. Finally, the conception of multi-faceted and living humans is an understanding that humans have various experiences, goals, and identities resulting in diverse households. Such analyses are strengthened by the conception of a system of processes as described below.
Having diversity within theoretical foundations enables the evolutionary analysis of the household organizations, such as the emergence of the single parent, global migrant worker, and dual-career commuter households, which are connected theoretically to changes in social provisioning and more generally to the evolution of culture-nature processes (Hardill 2002; Peterson 2003). The evolution of the household organization is a subset of institutional change and the evolution of the economic system. The diversity of household arrangements is connected to various positions, experiences, and historical developments in terms of social class, gender, race/ethnicity, citizenship/residency processes, as well as to the evolution of social provisioning within geopolitical and environmental contexts. Consequently, households should not be an analytical category that subsumes the existence of individuals and their diverse experiences. These are essential, rather than tangential, for the heterodox economic analysis of social provisioning.
Within heterodox economics, diversity among and within households cannot be conceived without engaging in explicit analyses of power, hierarchical relations, and social and economic classes; and without connecting these analyses to agency and social structures (Power 2004; Lee 2011). Household choice, decision-making, perceptions, identities, and agency cannot be understood outside of social and economic classes, hierarchical relations, and collective power to create and pursue vested interests and capabilities. That hierarchies within households and among households’ socio-economic positions need to be conceived together with desires and actions to change those positions and social arrangements of distribution means that heterodox analyses should allow for the multi-dimensionality of power. This further means that in addition to oppression and invidious distinction, the analysis of power needs to capture the creation of capabilities (Robeyns 2005), and the differences among households in developing and exercising those.
In conceiving of households’ agency, it is important to connect the differences among and within households to a notion of levels and types of agency. That is, questions about agency are linked to classes, power, and hierarchies. However, individuals and going concerns cannot be subsumed into aggregate categories, if agency is to be taken into account (Jo 2015). The notion of agency presumes a developed and socialized individuality (Davis 2003: 11). Social structures are not mere outcomes of an aggregate individual’s will, and the socialization of the individual does not mean a complete determination of the self (for an elaborate exposition see Archer 2000: 253–282). Consequently, with respect to intra-household relations there must be a conceptualization of diverse selves that are not entirely explained by social norms and the structure of the household as a going concern. Analytically, this allows for the emergence of various forms of household going concerns, as well as for actions towards altering household positions and structural arrangements.
Based on the above theoretical points, below I discuss three fundamental categories that are necessary for theorizing households—going concerns, institutions, and processes, and that are consistent with developments in heterodox economics. I will explain the importance of distinguishing between the household as an institution and as a going concern that participates and contributes to the emergence of an evolving system of nature-culture-provisioning processes.
Social activities are organized and carried out by going concerns. Going concerns engage in continuous, relatively stable social activities through which they exercise certain agencies. Households are going concerns that take various forms of organization. Place(s) and spaces of residence are part of the household going concern. Analyses of kinship and familial ties may be part of the household as a going concern, but do not necessarily overlap with them.
If we understand the household as a going concern, rather than a static unit, the focus of inquiry shifts to how people live over time. The concept of a going concern enables evolutionary analyses that allow complexities over time and space, and transcend unitary, fixed, and universalizing notions of ‘the household,’ and captures the diversity among households with respect to their geographical characteristics, methods of obtaining a livelihood, and marriage and co-habitation arrangements. For example, migrant workers are engaged in maintaining a household of members who do not reside together continuously. This is done through financial remittances as well as emotional relations and support. Those households may also be part of another household, as in the case of domestic work and care or the co-habitation of workers. Similarly, dual-career households with members holding jobs in different regions and living in separate dwellings are engaged in maintaining a household as a going concern. Furthermore, a household as a going concern is a broader concept than a financial unit of cash (out)flows and financial obligations.
In heterodox economics, particularly grounded in institutional economics, the concept of the going concern has been developed with respect to the business enterprise (see Veblen [1904] 2005; Commons [1924] 1995; Jo & Henry 2015). What distinguishes households as going concerns from other forms of going concerns needs further articulation. For example, the going concern of the business enterprise continues as the expectation for future profits continues. A liquidated or near bankrupt business enterprise ceases to be a going concern. However, a household continues to be a going concern after the depletion of assets and income flows (although as a result of that it could disintegrate through death, or transform through divorce, migration, etc.).
Identifying activities are not sufficient to distinguish households from other institutions (Hendon 1996: 46), given that consumption, recreation, even care activities take place within other going concerns too, such as the business enterprise; and, moreover, that production takes place within households. Motivation and valuation are also not exclusively designated to a particular going concern. For example, care as paid employment can be motivated by both money and caring (Zelizer 2010; England et al. 2013); and predatory and invidious motivation could in fact underline some household activities (Todorova 2015a).
An application of the concept of the going concern to the household should reflect the conceptualization of the economy as a social provisioning process beyond production for market exchange. As stressed by feminist economists, households engage in paid and unpaid activities that are central to social provisioning and communities (Power 2004). Unpaid activities include household work, care, recreational, and consumption activities. Such unpaid activities are part of the reproduction and maintenance of the labor force through birthing, bringing-up children, caring, socializing, and other daily support care activities. These activities support capital accumulation and, generally, the social provisioning process. Informal employment blurs the lines between paid and unpaid work (Charusheela & Danby 2006). Households and home-based paid work, as well as unpaid work and care, are part of global commodity chains and economies (Peterson 2003; Collins 2014; Ramamurthy 2014). The growth of commodity production means that households are part of debtor–creditor relations and vulnerable to entrepreneurial expectations and to neoliberal policies such as privatization (see, for example, LeBaron 2010; LeBaron & Roberts 2013). Unpaid household work and care can only partially offset a worsened household’s financial position and livelihood, because households must obtain money through participation in the market process to purchase goods and services, and to service debts and pay taxes. Structural changes such as precarious employment, rising medical debts, and the costs of education cannot be fully circumvented by engaging in non-market oriented production and more generally non-market household and community activities. Yet, financial responsibility and costs are shifted onto households (Resnick & Wolff 2006).
This is amplified by distinctions among households based on income and wealth (Wolff & Zacharias 2013). Such distinctions can be understood not only as individual household characteristics, but also as social-class relations embedded in the ways that household incomes are earned and spent, and established and perpetuated via institutions, such as the educational system. Household going concerns interact with institutions differently based on those differentiated social-class relations (Lareau & Cox 2011; Lareau & Calarco 2012; Miller & Sperry 2012; Stephens et al. 2012).
Households as going concerns, together with particular emergent working rules, procedures, social beliefs, symbols, discourse, and conventional wisdom regarding their organization and operation, as well as related emerging personal attitudes, constitute the institution of the household. All of these are analytical categories or elements of social processes.
A particular evolution of those elements results in specific habits of thought, such as the ‘breadwinner household.’ The term ‘habits of thought’ refers to the institutionalized patterns of practices and ideas that can serve as an ideal for aspiration, and as a criterion for value judgment. As in the case of the breadwinner model of the household, for example, a particular idea or habit can have a normative effect on policy and influences judgments of success and worthiness, even if the model is dwindling or unachievable by most (Peterson & Peterson 1994; Rose 2000).
The analytical distinction between the household as a going concern and the household as an institution enables us to conceptualize not only the variations of households, but also their common institutional position in the economic structure. The household as an institution occupies a passive position within the hierarchy of money, and with respect to the determination of effective demand, output, and employment (Bell 2001; Todorova 2009). In a capitalist economy the overall monetary wealth and income of households is determined by the activities of business enterprises and the state, both of which determine the level and composition of income, employment, and effective demand, and thus the ability of households to repay their debt obligations. Those are limitations of the household as an institution. However, there are different household going concerns, including capitalist and working-class households, which engage in the social provisioning process in different manners. That is to say, all households must navigate surrounding environment and address problems that arise outside their realm of influence in order for them to remain as going concerns, but household going concerns located in different social strata encounter different types or degrees of limitations. Thus, there are variations in agency among households with respect to their interactions with institutions, their ability to engage in social provisioning activities in order to support their lives and lifestyles; and with respect to their ability to direct other households’ lives.
Cardwell & Todorova (2016) note that it is useful to think of some household going concerns as operating through the institution of the household; and others operating also through other institutions. They argue, for example, that under money-manager capitalism a concentrated financial sector inhibits the agency of household going concerns who act only through the institution of the household, while providing opportunities for political and economic agency of household going concerns that transcend their institution and/or that are able to exercise agency as going concerns through financial institutions.1 They also argue that differences in agency among household going concerns (due to economic class and the ability to operate as agents outside the household institution) are indeed amplified by the limitations of the household institution in the capitalist economy.
The implication of such variations in household agency for heterodox economic theory is that households cannot be theorized as merely passive or choice-making individual entities. Understanding specificities and variations of households and their experiences is enhanced by an understanding of the structural positions of households as institutions. That some households are able to take advantage of particular institutions in their own interests indicates distinctions and hierarchies among household going concerns, which are consistent with different patterns of household behavior. To better explain such variations in household agency in the social context, economic analyses ought to be able to conceptualize social processes and to investigate developments in their elements—symbols, discourse, social beliefs, conventional wisdom, personal attitudes and perceptions, working rules, procedures, and rituals (Todorova 2014, 2015a, b).
‘drocesses’ is a term used in different theoretical frameworks. For example, building on and broadening Marxian theory Fraad et al. (2009) and Resnick & Wolff (2009) look at the internal household structure by conceptualizing ‘class processes’ within the household. They see the appropriation and distribution of a surplus as a fundamental class process, and argue for envisioning the class process also within the household. First, their notion of the class process is specific to an analysis based on the labor theory of value, and, second, this analysis is extended to households to argue that exploitation as conceptualized by Marx also occurs within the household. Some feminist economists have also pointed out the usefulness of refocusing analyses on processes (Nelson 1993; Power 2004).
Elsewhere I have suggested a way to develop the notion of a process. A process pertains to structures that precede individual and collective actions through going concerns that contribute to the evolution of structural arrangements. The emergence and transformation of the elements of social processes (such as conventions and discourse) is the result of the agency of all sorts of going concerns. Thus, the concept of a process encompasses the analysis of agency and structure and hence micro–macro theory in an integrative manner. The appendix shows a suggested typology of interconnected evolving processes of nature, culture, and provisioning, discussed by Todorova (2014, 2015a, b, c).
The offered typology has the following implications with respect to household theory. First, a process need not be analytically confined to a realm of the household or to any other single institution. For example, the emergence and representation of femininity and masculinity can be defined as a ‘gender process’ that can emerge and interact with any other process, and be a part of the activities and practices of any going concern. The particular context and investigation will determine the actual relations. Therefore households are not designated as separate units in respective social and cultural realms.
Second, rather than just focusing on households’ demographic characteristics, the suggested system of processes enables the investigation of systemic relations of race/ethnicity, gender, etc. This is the point of column 3 in the appendix. Those are not just personal characteristics or variables, but social processes as defined above. There is value in making a distinction between processes that are directly governed by or associated with a particular going concern (citizenship and residency via the state), and those that are not (but nonetheless affected by going concerns, such as language).
Household going concerns are part of the whole system of processes. For example, while the state governs the social process of citizenship and residency, households are very much part of that process, as evidenced by global chains of migrant care workers (see Safri & Graham 2010; Collins 2014). In this example, it is easy to see that households participating in labor and care processes of social provisioning are also part of supervision, surveillance, and direction processes. Again, specific connections between these processes will be determined by specific investigations. To do so one needs further details in the specification of the analytical categories of social process. Thus, what are the conventions (procedures and working rules) for state surveillance of migrant care providers, and how do they evolve? How do they intersect with social beliefs about household organization, gender roles, work, care, race and ethnicity, and citizenship, for example? What are emerging habits of thought? An example is a global household of a migrant care-giver who relies on somebody’s unpaid family labor to care for her own household (see Safri & Graham 2010; Yeates 2014).
Finally, theorizing of households should not be secondary to the main narrative of a heterodox economic approach. For example, if we look at commodity chains, we can see a myriad of social provisioning processes. The feminist literature on world systems and commodity chains has shown how global production is built on decentralized home-based production intertwined with reproductive activities and gender norms (Collins 2014; Dunaway 2014). Home-based production and the putting-out system have been a part of the early development of capitalism and continue to be central in the modern global commodity chain and capital accumulation (Kessler-Harris [1982] 2003; Ross 2014). That is, the blurring of the boundaries between home and work (Hardill 2002) is not just an aspect of the early stage of capitalism; it is in fact central to contemporary business cost-cutting techniques, as well as the neoliberal discourse and practices of ‘entrepreneurial self’ (Mirowski 2013) addressing household ‘strate-gies’ for survival. Of course, theorizing households is important for a better understanding of commodity chains. Moreover, it is important since human life is maintained through the organizing and sustaining of household going concerns—this should be central in developing heterodox economics. The system of processes is useful in opening the vast fields of inquiry in this direction.
My concern in this chapter has been the development of a theory of the household beyond a particular stream of heterodox economics. While useful for specific purposes, a Post Keynesian theory of the household, for example, is a limited project; so is a Marxian or feminist approach. A project of building bridges among heterodox streams may eventually lead to a broader heterodox theory (see, for example, Todorova 2009). Here I have delineated a set of starting points for such a theory with respect to households in the social provisioning process.
There is no doubt that each heterodox tradition has its own contribution to the analysis of households under capitalism. Post Keynesians, for example, specify and emphasize the limited financial position of households in the monetary production economy. Post Keynesian analyses are in general at the level of households as institutions as explained above. Feminist economists point to the centrality of non-commodity production, gendered capabilities, and intra-household relations. Marxian-feminists point to the role of households in capital accumulation. Those approaches go deeper into the household going concern and explore its connections to the elements of social processes and structures. Ecological economists and institutionalists have pointed out the centrality of living human beings within ecosystems and complex social provisioning systems. The Social Structure of Accumulation approach provides an analysis of the changes in institutional arrangements and accumulation regimes with particular regard to their systemic effects.
Individual heterodox approaches have paid attention to different aspects (with different scopes) of social provisioning. Given that more heterodox economists cross boundaries, it would be a worthwhile effort if each tradition engages in theory development within heterodox economics as broadly defined. This is my hope in delineating the theoretical entry points and basic analytical categories. Following are some general directions for future development in the heterodox theory of the household.
First, I have argued for the usefulness of the notion of the going concern applied to households. This concept should be further developed specifically regarding households, since application has been primarily with respect to the business enterprise. Particularly, how are households distinguished from other going concerns? How and why do household going concerns differ in terms of their organization, operation, background, and agency?
Second, given the recognition of institutional commonality among households, what are the mechanisms through which some households transcend their limitations as institutions, and how do they operate through other institutions to exercise a different type of agency than other household going concerns who remain more limited in their action?
Third, how are collective actions of households enabled and restrained within social provisioning, and how do households contribute to the evolution of social and natural processes? Within given contexts, what are the specific connections among household going concerns, other going concerns, and processes? What are the roles of households in the emergence of specific habits of thought? The proposed system of processes opens ways to bring in the centrality of households into social provisioning and heterodox economics. In combination with developed heterodox methods, it offers a way to think about and to research households within a broadly heterodox economic theory.
Appendix: a system of processes
| (1) Biological and geographical processes | (2) Processes formulated on the basis of a social provisioning activity | (3) Processes not formulated on the basis of a social provisioning activity | |
| (3a) Affected by, but not operating through, specific going concerns | (3b) Identified with going concerns | ||
| Biospheric processes | Care | Gender | Citizenship and legal residency |
| Production of biomass | Labor | Social class | (state, international institutions) |
| Information sourcing | Recreation | Race and ethnicity | Economic class |
| Habitat | Consumption | Language | (business enterprise, state, |
| Bodies | Mobility and residence | international institutions) | |
| Birth | Communication, expression, and | Ownership | |
| Lactation | persuasion | (business enterprise, state, | |
| Cognition and emotions | Cultivation and transmission of knowledge, | international institutions, courts, | |
| Development | memories, tools | military) | |
| Spirituality | Undertaking (investing; organizing; | Contracts and justice | |
| Sexuality | mobilization) | (courts, state, international | |
| Illness | Resource creation and usage | institutions) | |
| Impairment | Machine process (production; | Worship | |
| Aging | mechanization of activities) | (temples, religious establishments) | |
| Death | Supervision, surveillance, and direction | Kinship | |
| Information sourcing | Threat and punishment | (households, tribes) | |
| Physical space | Distribution | ||
| Landscapes | Deprivation | ||
| Localities/places | WasteExchange, trade, speculation/ gift | ||
| Buildings/architecture | Debt-credit/gift | ||
| Infrastructure | Violence | ||
Source: This is an updated and modified version of tables published in Todorova (2014, 2015b).
1 Undertaking political actions and creating other going concerns, such as unions and consumer cooperatives, and mobilization, are also important for theorizing, especially considering the discussed multifaceted agent. These also represent the possibility to act through other institutions.
Archer, M. 2000. Being Human: The Problem of Agency. New York: Routledge.
Bell, S. 2001. ‘The role of the state and the hierarchy of money.’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, 25 (2): 149–165.
Cardwell, L. & Todorova, Z. 2016. ‘Evolution of U.S. household agency over stages of capitalism.’ Journal of Economic Issues, 50 (2): 542–548.
Charusheela, S. & Danby, C. 2006. ‘A through-time framework for producer households.’ Review of Political Economy, 18 (1): 29–49.
Collins, J. 2014. ‘A feminist approach to overcoming the closed boxes of the commodity chain,’ in: W. Dunaway (ed.), Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 27–38.
Commons, J. [1924] 1995. Legal Foundations of Capitalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers.
Davis, J. 2003. The Theory of the Individual in Economics: Identity and Value. New York: Routledge.
Dugger, W. 1996. ‘Redefining economics: from market allocation to social provisioning,’ in: C. Whalen (ed.), Political Economy for the 21st Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 31–43.
Dunaway, W. 2014. ‘Through the portal of the household: conceptualizing women’s subsidies to commodity chains,’ in: W. Dunaway (ed.), Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 55–72.
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.
England, P., Folbre, N., & Leana, C. 2013. ‘Motivating care,’ in: N. Folbre (ed.), For Love and Money: Care Provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 21–40.
Fraad, H., Resnick, S., & Wolff, R. 2009. ‘For every knight in shining armour, there’s a castle waiting to be cleaned: a Marxist-Feminist analysis of the household,’ in: G. Cassano (ed.), Class Struggle on the Home Front: Work, Conflict, and Exploitation in the Household. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 19–71.
Hanmer, L. & Akram-Lodhi, A.H. 1998. ‘In the “house of the spirits”: toward a Post Keynesian theory of the household?’ Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 20 (3): 415–433.
Hardill, I. 2002. Gender, Migration and the Dual Career Household. New York: Routledge.
Hendon, J. 1996. ‘Archaeological approaches to the organization of domestic labor: household practice and domestic relations.’ Annual Review of Anthropology, 25 (1): 45–61.
Hewitson, G. 2013. ‘Economics and the family: a Postcolonial perspective.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37 (1): 91–111.
Jo, T.-H. 2015. ‘Heterodox microeconomics and heterodox microfoundations,’ in: T.-H. Jo & Z. Todorova (eds.), Advancing the Frontiers of Heterodox Economics: Essays in Honor of Frederic S. Lee. London: Routledge, 97–114.
Jo, T.-H. & Henry, J.F. 2015. ‘The business enterprise in the age of money manager capitalism.’ Journal of Economic Issues, 49 (1): 23–46.
Kessler-Harris, A. [1982] 2003. ‘From household manufactures to wage work,’ in: Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women, in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 20–44.
Lareau, A. & Cox, A. 2011. ‘Social class and the transition to adulthood; differences in parents’ interactions with institutions,’ in: M.J. Carlson & P. England (eds.), Social Class and Changing Families in an Unequal America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 134–164.
Lareau, A. & Calarco, J. 2012. ‘Class, cultural capital, and institutions: the case of families and schools,’ in: S.T. Fiske & H.R. Markus (eds.), Facing Social Class: How Societal Rank Influences Interaction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 61–86.
LeBaron, G. 2010. ‘The political economy of the household: neoliberal restructuring, enclosures, and daily life.’ Review of International Political Economy, 17 (5): 889–912.
LeBaron, G. & Roberts, A. 2013. ‘Toward a feminist political economy of capitalism and carcerality.’ Signs, 36 (1): 19–44.
Lee, F.S. 2011. ‘Modeling the economy as a whole: an integrative approach.’ The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70 (5): 1282–1314.
Lee, F.S. 2012. ‘Heterodox economics and its critics,’ in: F.S. Lee & M. Lavoie (eds.), In Defense of Post-Keynesian and Heterodox Economics. London: Routledge, 104–132.
Lee, F.S. & Jo, T.-H. 2011. ‘Social surplus approach and heterodox economics.’ Journal of Economic Issues, 45 (4): 857–875.
Miller, P.J. & Sperry, D.E. 2012. ‘Déjà vu: the continuing misrecognition of low-income children’s verbal abilities,’ in: S.T. Fiske & H.R. Markus (eds.), Facing Social Class: How Societal Rank Influences Interaction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 109–130.
Mirowski, P. 2013. Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste. London: Verso.
Nelson, J. 1993. ‘The study of choice or the study of provisioning? Gender and the definition of economics,’ in: M. Ferber & J. Nelson (eds.), Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 23–37.
O’Hara. P.A. 1995. ‘Household labor, the family, and macroeconomic instability in the United States: 1940s–1990s.’ Review of Social Economy, 53 (1): 89–120.
Peterson, J. & Peterson, C. 1994. ‘Single mother families and the dual welfare state.’ Review of Social Economy, 52 (3): 314–338.
Peterson, S. 2003. A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive and Virtual Economies. New York: Routledge.
Philp, B. & Trigg, A. 2015. ‘Heterodox economics, distribution and the class struggle,’ in: T.-H. Jo & Z. Todorova (eds.), Advancing the Frontiers of Heterodox Economics: Essays in Honor of Frederic S. Lee. New York: Routledge.
Power, M. 2004. ‘Social provisioning as a starting point for feminist economics.’ Feminist Economics, 10 (3): 3–21.
Ramamurthy, P. 2014. ‘ Feminist commodity chain analysis: a framework to conceptualize value and interpret perplexity,’ in: W. Dunaway (ed.), Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 38–52.
Resnick, S. & Wolff, R. 2006. ‘The Reagan–Bush strategy: shifting crises from enterprises to households,’ in: S. Resnick & R. Wolff (eds.), New Departures in Marxian Theory. New York: Routledge, 309–353.
Resnick, S. & Wolff, R. 2009. ‘The class analysis of households extended: children, fathers, and family budgets,’ in: G. Cassano (ed.), Class Struggle on the Home Front: Work, Conflict, and Exploitation in the Household. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 86–116.
Robeyns, I. 2005. ‘The capability approach: a theoretical survey.’ Journal of Human Development, 6 (1): 93–117.
Rose, N. 2000. ‘Scapegoating poor women: an analysis of welfare reform.’ Journal of Economic Issues, 34 (2): 143–157.
Ross, R. 2014. ‘In chains at the bottom of the pyramid: gender, the informal economy, and sweated labor in global apparel production,’ in: W. Dunaway (ed.), Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 91–105.
Safri, M. & Graham, J. 2010. ‘The global household: toward a feminist postcapitalist international political economy.’ Signs, 36 (1): 99–125.
Stephens, N.M., Fryberg, S.A., & Markus, H.R. 2012. ‘It’s your choice: how middle-class model of independence disadvantages working-class Americans,’ in: S.T. Fiske & H.R. Markus (eds.), Facing Social Class: How Societal Rank Influences Interaction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 87–106.
Todorova, Z. 2009. Money and Households in a Capitalist Economy: A Gendered Post Keynesian–Institutional Analysi s. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Todorova, Z. 2014. ‘Consumption as a social process.’ Journal of Economic Issues, 48 (3): 663–679.
Todorova, Z. 2015a. ‘A further Veblenian articulation of a monetary theory of production,’ in: T.-H. Jo & F.S. Lee (eds.), Marx, Veblen, and the Foundations of Heterodox Economics: Essays in Honor of John F. Henry. London: Routledge, 102–123.
Todorova, Z. 2015b. ‘Social provisioning within a culture-culture life-process.’ Review of Political Economy, 27 (3): 390–409.
Todorova, Z. 2015c. ‘Economic and social class in theorizing unpaid household activities under capitalism.’ Journal of Economic Issues, 49 (2): 425–433.
Veblen, T. [1904] 2005. The Theory of Business Enterprise. New York: Cosimo Classics.
Wolff, E. & Zacharias, A. 2013. ‘Class structure and economic inequality. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37 (6): 1381–1406.
Yeates, N. 2014. ‘Global care chains: bringing in transnational reproductive laborer households,’ in: W. Dun-away (ed.), Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 175–189.
Zelizer, V. 2010. ‘Caring everywhere,’ in: E. Boris & R. Salazar Parrenas (eds.), Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies and the Politics of Care. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 267–279.