Women’s Employment in Muslim Countries

Patterns of Diversity

Niels Spierings

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781137466761
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137466778
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Labour Economics
• Index: Social Sciences

This book presents a new and nuanced exploration of the position of women in Muslim countries, based on research involving more than 300,000 women in 28 Muslim countries. It addresses topical debates on the role of Islam, modernization, globalization, neocolonialism, educational inequalities, patriarchy, household hierarchies, and more.

Part I

Background

1

Introduction: Disconnected Knowledge

1.1 Khadija: The first, economically independent, Muslim

She was born in the year 555 CE and was said to be both beautiful and wealthy, coming from a successful business family, and the widow of a rich merchant. She was Khadija bint Khuwaylid, Muhammad’s first wife. After having lost her second husband, she led her own trade business. Laws did not prohibit public activities for women, and as a widow, Khadija had the authority to make her own decisions. The young orphan Muhammad was one of the agents this economically independent woman hired. He turned out to be gifted. At the age of 40, Khadija decided to ask Muhammad (25) to marry her. Thus, she became his first wife.

Khadija also became the first Muslim. When Muhammad received his first revelations, Khadija is said to have been of great moral support and encouraging of his endeavour, besides teaching him how to read and write. Her wealth (housing, network, resources) gave Muhammad the opportunity to perform the task he believed was assigned to him. Till her death (619 CE), Muhammad did not marry another woman.¹

This is Khadija’s story. Her story seems contradictory to our common belief as well as against much of what is written in the scientific literature about the (economic) position and role of women in Muslim cultures.

1.2 Civilizations, individual women, and everything in between

Mona Eltahawy (2012) wonders ‘Why do they hate us?’ in her like-named book – they being Muslim men, us Muslim women. Inglehart and Norris (2003a: 68–9, 73) conclude that ‘the real fault line between the West and Islam … concerns gender equality and sexual liberalization’. Hirsi Ali (2006: xi) substantiates this by saying that ‘Islam is … a culture in which women were the property of their fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, or guardians. … Her veil functions as a constant reminder to the outside world of this stifling morality that makes Muslim men the owners of women’.

One of the dimensions vital to the position and empowerment of women is their economic independence and, derived from this, paid employment (see Farah, 2006; Fergany et al., 2006; Metcalfe, 2011; Moghadam, 2003). Focussing on the specific topic of economic participation, scholars have drawn conclusions similar to those cited above: ‘Islam, with its strong emphasis on separate spheres for men and women … ha[s] blocked women from acknowledged entry into the paid work force’ (Clark et al., 1991: 59–60); and ‘obstacles to female participation include religion … . Religious norms … discourage female labor force participation most strongly in Islamic countries’ (Lincove, 2008: 50, 57). When Islam is part of the public and scientific debate – as in the last decades it often has been – prominent politicians, opinion leaders, and social scientists do not shy away from making strong and wide-ranging claims, and often the (‘dreadful’) position of women in Islam and Muslim countries is involved.

However, another scientific literature – mostly postcolonial feminist studies – presents a rather different picture. Regional experts and anthropological studies of women’s lives show, among other things, how women have appropriated cultural codes and found their own way to secure an income (Jansen, 2004), how young women have negotiated with and convinced their parents to allow them to take jobs (Miles, 2002), that religious women wanted to become medical professionals and were able to do so even in very conservative environments (Vidyasagar & Rea, 2004), how women have changed the Islamic discourse to break down obstacles to paid employment (Afshar, 2008), and more generally how Muslim and Islamist feminists have used religion to improve the (economic) position of women (Anwar, 2009; Ghorashi, 1996).

Civilizationist literature could not be more contrary to the anthropologists’, and as such they represent the two poles of the spectrum of studies of women’s economic position in Muslim countries. The first is crude and simplistic, but does draw attention to looking for general patterns. Still, the ‘Islamic civilization’ or the group of Muslim-majority countries includes countries as diverse as Indonesia and Iran, Somalia and Syria, Bangladesh and Burkina Faso, Tajikistan and Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia and Senegal. There are great differences between the positions of women in these countries. Women’s participation in the non-agricultural labour market is said to range from around 5% in Algeria and Yemen to about 50% in Brunei and Uzbekistan (Spierings et al., 2009). Within the borders of each individual country, the differences seem even larger. In Ouagadougou, to take Burkina Faso for instance, 65% is non-agriculturally employed, while this level is about 26% in the Hauts-Bassins region and 3% in the Eastern province. Generalizations at the level of a ‘civilization’ (e.g. Anker, 1998; Clark, 1992; Clark et al., 1991; Huntington, 1993, 1996; Inglehart & Norris, 2003a, 2003b) clearly tend to ignore ‘ “the internal dynamics and plurality” of Muslim nations’ (Davis & Robinson, 2006: 167).

The second – anthropological – literature shows that women are not just victims of a religio-cultural system, but agents with their own stories and voices, who are all part of a complex and dynamic system of norms and structures. However, this agency and the above mentioned differences should not lead us to believe that the low levels of employment in some Muslim countries should be denied or ignored. Despite the fact that Muhammad’s first wife Khadija was economically independent, an active entrepreneur, and even Muhammad’s employer (Ahmed, 1992), women’s employment is relatively low in some Muslim and Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries (see also Fergany et al., 2006; Moghadam, 2004; Spierings et al., 2009). In other words, despite the high diversity and women’s own agency, there are systematic differences between geographic areas, based on other characteristics of the women and their environment, such as education (e.g. Aromolaran, 2004; Assaad & Arntz, 2005; Gündüz-Hoşgör & Smits, 2008; Khattab, 2002; Kuepie et al., 2009) and economic development (e.g. Bullock, 1994; Jaquette, 1982; Moghadam, 1998; Standing, 1996).

A full grasp of these systematic differences and similarities is still lacking, however, and many scholars have called for a better understanding of women’s employment position in these countries throughout the last decades (e.g. Abu Nasr et al., 1985; Fergany et al., 2006; Hijab, 1988; Kapteijns, 1998; Miles, 2002: 413; Moghadam, 2003; Syed, 2008: 136). While the number of studies on and our knowledge of women’s employment has risen more recently – parallel to the growing prominence of Islam and of Muslim countries in popular media after 9/11 – this body of work is still rather fragmented,² which is why scholars are still calling for more comprehensive approaches. It is striking how little dialogue is taking place and how insights from different approaches are not tied together.

The lack of conferences on the topic of this book, the non-existence of specialized institutes, and the absence of special issues of major journals contribute to, and are indicators of, the absence of such communication.³ For instance, Pettit and Hook observe that ‘[t]he polarization of research on women’s employment into traditions emphasizing either micro or macro determinants of women’s employment ignores the relationship between individual employment decisions and institutional conditions’ (2005: 780). And they are talking about the far richer literature on women’s employment in the West. In the same vein, Moghadam argues for a more comparative approach, which ‘is rarely applied to the Middle East, and even less so to women in Muslim societies in general’ (2003: 2).

This book sets out to provide a broader and more connected knowledge of women’s employment in Muslim countries, by presenting a macro–micro encompassing gender theory of employment and applying it more specifically to paid, non-agricultural employment. While doing so, it presents a wealth of empirical information on 28 Muslim-majority countries and the provinces in these countries, as well as a sample of over 300,000 women. Based on that information, the patterns of diversity in women’s employment will be laid bare and analysed.

1.3 What we do (not) know

But first, what does this fragmentation of the literature mean substantively? This can best be illustrated by zooming in on some of the most prominent issues in the literature: (1) Islam; (2) modernization; (3) education; (4) globalization; and (5) patriarchy.

1.3.1 The role of Islam

Already touched upon, one major strand in the literature on women’s employment in Muslim countries compares ‘Muslim countries’ as one collective with other groups of countries in the world. The difference in averages between these ‘civilizations’ is then attributed to the negative influence of Islam (e.g. Anker, 1998; Clark, 1992; Clark et al., 1991; Inglehart & Norris, 2003a, 2003b; Lincove, 2008; Yuchtman-Yaar & Alkalay, 2007).

While seeking general patterns, this literature ignores that Islam, as any religion, is not a uniform ideology, but harbours different strands and schools of thought, including feminist ones (Anwar, 2009; Ghorashi, 1996). As such the ‘systematic study’ of the impact of Islam would benefit from more qualitative or theoretical approaches that distinguish different possible messages linked to Islam, which each can manifest itself or be transmitted in different ways, such as religious norms, the personal views of the women themselves, peer pressure, and Islamic law and policies (Badran, 2001; Spierings, 2007). The question then becomes when and how does Islam relate to women’s employment. Such an approach needs a far more nuanced conception of religion than is found in most comparative studies.

Part of the fragmentation on this issue is also found in the absence of a connection between the society and household-level literature, partly because statistical data and studies that focus on the role of beliefs and women’s employment in Muslim countries are very rare (an exception is Khattab [2002]). Consequently, many questions remain unanswered: Which women are likely to have lower employment probabilities in Muslim-majority countries? The Muslim women? The women from religious minorities? The most traditional women from whatever religion? Or, is there no difference because societal norms based on religion and religious policies influence all women?

1.3.2 The modernization thesis

Arguably, the dominant explanation of women’s employment level in general is the modernization thesis (e.g. Abu-Lughod, 1998; Jaquette, 1982; Lenski & Nolan, 1984; Lerner, 1958; Mernissi, 1987; Moghadam, 2003; Rukhsana, 2004; Spierings et al., 2009; see also Jaquette, 1982; Walby, 2009: 24–35). In their general theories on modernization, both Lerner (1958) and Inglehart (1997) link technological advancement, industrialization, urbanization, mass media, and education to changing social patterns and shifting values (Lerner, 1958; Inglehart, 1997). In this process, women are expected to enter the paid labour force as more opportunities are created and societies become less traditional (Inglehart, 1997). This theory is generally tested at the macro level using economic development as an indicator for the degree of modernization, and indeed in richer countries, more women are employed (e.g. Inglehart, 1997; Moghadam, 2003; Pampel & Tanaka, 1986; Spierings et al., 2009). However, the absence of macro–micro studies leaves us in the dark about whether the micro foundations of the theory hold.

Among the modernization theorists and the critics, there is also some disagreement about how modernization and economic processes interact with the rest of the environment. In Lerner’s (1958) theory, the process is not mediated by other factors. Inglehart also thinks in terms of universal processes but draws attention to the existence of a cultural imprint: countries at the same stage of industrialization may differ (Inglehart & Baker, 2000), and in particular ‘Islamic culture’ is said to leave behind a negative imprint (Norris & Inglehart, 2002). Other scholars argue against the idea of one universal trajectory whatsoever, because some cultures have characteristics that are completely incompatible with modernization (e.g. Huntington, 1996; see also Walby, 2009), because they believe there are different paths towards a modern society (e.g. Moghadam, 2003), and because industrialization might not always be conducive to modernization and modernization not to women’s employment, depending on the existing cultural–economic system (Lenski & Nolan, 1984; Moghadam, 1998; Ross, 2008) and women’s position in agriculture (Bullock, 1994; Jaquette, 1982; Pampel & Tanaka, 1986). For instance, oil-driven development is said to foster labour-intensive sectors in which hardly any women are employed. To resolve these kinds of discussions, our theoretical and empirical knowledge about the different spheres of life (economic, polity, culture) should be connected more.

1.3.3 The influence of education

Across Muslim countries, or developing economies for that matter, it has been shown that higher education is strongly related to people’s employment opportunities (for Muslim countries see Aromolaran, 2004; Assaad & Arntz, 2005; Glick & Sahn, 2005; Gündüz-Hoşgör & Smits, 2008; Hirschman & Aghajanian, 1980; Khattab, 2002; Kuepie et al., 2009; Moghadam, 2003).

Human capital theory (Becker, 1965, 1981; Mincer, 1962, 1974) is possibly the framework articulated in most detail when it comes to the education–employment link. Aromolaran (2004) and Kuepie et al. (2009) apply this to Nigeria and urban West Africa and argue that people weigh the opportunity costs of leaving the household against the wage benefits of a job. What is learned in primary school is said to be more beneficial to the role of housewife and mother and to have less value in the labour market. Therefore, primary-educated women are expected to have lower employment rates than uneducated women, whereas secondary and higher education is associated with higher employment rates (see also Lincove, 2008). The support for this theory is mainly based on micro-level comparisons with an economic focus, whereas other studies suggest that education also decreases fertility (Olmsted, 2003) and shifts peoples’ ambitions and value patterns towards personal development (Azzam et al., 1985; Hirschman & Aghajanian, 1980; Lincove, 2008). How these different mechanisms relate to each other can only be understood when studied, and theorized, in connection. Moreover, the negative relationship with primary education might be an artefact of not accounting for other factors, and it could also be context specific and unique to Sub-Saharan Africa, as only broader tests can show.

This context dependency is also a more general issue regarding education. Some economists argue that education is only conducive to employment in some parts of the labour market (Calvès & Schoumaker, 2004; Hirschman & Aghajanian, 1980; Kuepie et al., 2009), and this might lead to different pay-offs of the same type of education in different areas (see also Miles, 2002; Pampel & Tanaka, 1986; Tansel, 2002). More anthropological research on the other hand hints at the importance of cultural contextual characteristics that are often ignored in understanding the effect of education (see Abu-Lughod, 1998; Acar, 2006; Jansen, 2006). To understand the education–employment link better, it is therefore necessary to connect these different foci (culture, economy) and the micro and macro levels.

1.3.4 Globalization

A popular belief is that over time things will almost automatically change for the better because of globalization and the diffusion of equality norms (e.g. Black & Brainerd, 2004; Gray et al., 2006; Meyer, 2003; Richards & Gelleny, 2007; Villarreal & Yu, 2007). This almost devout belief heavily rests on two assumptions. The first is that processes such as modernization are largely unitary. The second assumption is that effects remain stable through time.

Regarding the first assumption, the statistical cross-national literature cited above seems to be out of touch with the conceptual literature and in-depth case studies. Globalization has become a container concept that includes phenomena as diverse as American cultural imperialism, economic liberalization, and communicational closeness (television, internet) (cf. Moghadam, 2007; Scholte, 2001; Walby, 2009). These diverse aspects of globalization can each have their own and different effects on women’s employment: globalization ‘has given rise to contradictory tendencies and trends’ (Moghadam, 2007: 2; see also Bergeron, 2001; Pyle & Ward, 2003). Understanding the systematic impact of these processes means unpacking them and studying the different elements...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• Part I: Background
• Part II: A New Perspective on Existing Explanations
• Part III: New Issues in Women’s Employment
• Part IV: Conclusions and Discussions
• Notes
• References
• Index