1998
DOI: 10.1080/135457098338400
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Economics Without Money; Sex Without Gender: A Critique of Philipson and Posner's"Private Choices and Public Health: The AIDS Epidemic in an Economic Perspective"

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For further discussion, see the following literature: Christensen (1998); Wojcicki and Malala (2001); Pettifor et al (2004); Wingood and DiClemente (2000); Jewkes and Morrell (2010). The literature highlights the lack of sexual power among women and shows that women's negotiating power is likely to further decrease with decreases in economic status or upon increasing economic dependence on men.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For further discussion, see the following literature: Christensen (1998); Wojcicki and Malala (2001); Pettifor et al (2004); Wingood and DiClemente (2000); Jewkes and Morrell (2010). The literature highlights the lack of sexual power among women and shows that women's negotiating power is likely to further decrease with decreases in economic status or upon increasing economic dependence on men.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In the literature, the current practice has been to make assumptions and acknowledge the mere simplification of sexual behaviour (see, e.g. Philipson and Posner 1995;Christensen 1998;Mannberg 2012). For instance, Philipson and Posner (1995) note that 'The modelling of human behaviour as a reflection of a rational calculus of gains and losses may not provide a complete satisfactory explanation of individuals' actions or even of the aggregate outcomes of such actions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This inequality of power is also expressed in the rare(er) occasions in which women are the one who are gaining sex through giving money to men, something that was touched upon by participants in our study site and noted in other research projects (Dunkle et al 2007), adding further nuance, suggesting that in some cases economic power is more important than gendered power. These explanations that address power relations, including the influence of gendered and economic coercion, are in stark contrast to the rational choice models that underpin mainstream economic approaches (Christensen 1998). …”
Section: The Economics Of Transactional Sex Revisitedmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Firstly, whilst there is some acknowledgment of the challenges that women face, it is unclear whether the notion of agency, conceptualised as the ability for women to rationally and freely choose whether or not to engage in transactional sex, reflects the influence of unequal economic and gender relations that frame these decisions. Indeed, the use of the loaded term 'choice' in this context is certainly questionable (Johnston 2011), with the options that poor(er) women face within a constrained socio-economic environment more akin to the frying pan or the fire rather than alternative outcomes that can be regarded in any sense as optimal (Christensen 1998). This narrow formulation of agency ignores issues such as power, force and coercion.…”
Section: The Economics Of Transactional Sexmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For women in poor circumstances and in migrant situations, sex becomes a commodity that they can sell. It becomes one of their only means to obtain desperately needed money (Clive Evian 1993;Kimberly Christensen 1998).…”
Section: P O V E R T Ymentioning
confidence: 99%