IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-04139239.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Les économistes et "La cité des femmes": le débat théorique sur l'accès des femmes au marché du travail (1850-1914)

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie Le Bouteillec
  • Loïc Charles

    (EconomiX - EconomiX - UPN - Université Paris Nanterre - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Après une mise au point sur le contexte législatif et institutionnel du débat sur la législation du travail féminin, l'article montre que les positions politiques très diverses des économistes dans ce débat s'insèrent dans des discours théoriques. Un premier discours que nous qualifions de "moral" représente l'activité économique de la femme comme "naturellement" différente de celle de l'homme et relevant uniquement de la sphère familiale, c'est-à-dire d'un registre social indépendant des relations marchandes. D'autres auteurs pensent que la femme doit être considé-rée comme un agent économique comparable (ce qui ne veut pas dire nécessairement égal) à l'homo œconomicus masculin. Puis, l'influence de Darwin à la fin du XIXe siècle entraîne une "naturalisation" de la division sexuelle des tâches. De fait, Marshall nous présente deux agents économiques différenciés du fait de leurs caractéristiques physiologiques. Ces différences dans la "nature" des deux sexes se traduisent désormais en termes économiques.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathalie Le Bouteillec & Loïc Charles, 2007. "Les économistes et "La cité des femmes": le débat théorique sur l'accès des femmes au marché du travail (1850-1914)," Working Papers hal-04139239, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-04139239
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04139239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04139239/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Fontaine, 2000. "Making use of the past: theorists and historians on the economics of altruism," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 407-422.
    2. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 1996. "Economics in a Family Way," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 1903-1934, December.
    3. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 1996. "Economics in a Family Way," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 1903-1934, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Virginie Gouverneur, 2021. "Family and Women in Alfred Marshall’s Analysis of Progress and Well-being," Working Papers 02-21, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC).
    2. Virginie Gouverneur, 2021. "Family and Women in Alfred Marshall’s Analysis of Progress and Well-being," Working Papers of BETA 2021-03, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alger, Ingela, 2021. "On the evolution of male competitiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 228-254.
    2. Éric Langlais, 2010. "On unilateral divorce and the “selection of marriages” hypothesis," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 76(3), pages 229-256.
    3. repec:tiu:tiutis:fe79a9d2-e9e3-4dbc-9539-cdece886993d is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Steven F. Koch, 2005. "Love and Addiction: The Importance of Commitment," Working Papers 200516, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    5. Domenico Tabasso, 2011. "With or Without You: Hazard of Divorce and Intra-household Allocation of Time," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n07, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    6. Rickard Eriksson & Magnus Nermo, 2010. "Care for Sick Children as a Proxy for Gender Equality in the Family," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 341-356, July.
    7. Smith, Trenton G. & Tasnadi, Attila, 2007. "A theory of natural addiction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 316-344, May.
    8. Jellal, Mohamed & Wolff, Francois-Charles, 2000. "Shaping intergenerational relationships: the demonstration effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 255-261, September.
    9. Gibson, Mhairi A. & Gurmu, Eshetu & Chua, Regina & Van Bavel, Hannelore & Myers, Sarah, 2023. "Abandoning female genital mutilation/cutting (FGMC) is an emerging but costly parental investment strategy in rural Ethiopia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 335(C).
    10. Ingela Alger & Donald Cox, 2013. "The evolution of altruistic preferences: mothers versus fathers," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 421-446, September.
    11. Donald Cox, 2001. "How Do People Decide to Allocate Transfers Among Family Members?," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 514, Boston College Department of Economics.
    12. Donald Cox & Oded Stark, 2007. "On the Demand for Grandchildren: Tied Transfers and the Demonstration Effect," Chapters, in: Luigino Bruni & Pier Luigi Porta (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Happiness, chapter 18, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Arrondel, Luc & Masson, Andre, 2006. "Altruism, exchange or indirect reciprocity: what do the data on family transfers show?," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, in: S. Kolm & Jean Mercier Ythier (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 971-1053, Elsevier.
    14. Richard D. Horan & Jason F. Shogren & Erwin Bulte, 2003. "A Paleoeconomic Theory of Co‐Evolution and Extinction of Domesticable Animals," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 50(2), pages 131-148, May.
    15. Robert A. Pollak, 2007. "Bargaining Around the Hearth," NBER Working Papers 13142, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Gil S. Epstein & Shirit Katav-Herz, 2019. "Who Is in Favor of Immigration," Working Papers 2019-05, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Economics.
    17. Malapit, Hazel Jean L., 2012. "Why do spouses hide income?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 584-593.
    18. Donni, Olivier, 2014. "Over-investment in marriage-specific capital," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 34-43.
    19. Ribar, David C., 2004. "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage? A Review of Quantitative Methodologies," IZA Discussion Papers 998, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Alger, Ingela, 2015. "How many wives do men want? On the evolution of preferences over polygyny rates," IAST Working Papers 15-24, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST), revised Oct 2016.
    21. Gil S. Epstein & Shirit Katav Herz, 2019. "Who is in favor of immigration: the wealthy or the poor? the old or the young?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 1424-1434.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    [No keyword available];

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-04139239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.