Fondly Recalling Thatcher's Handbag of IPE Doom

It is one of the most notable incidences in European integration history: Although the exact wording is still being debated to this day, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously went before her European Community colleagues in 1984 demanding that the UK not pay so much into the infamous Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of agricultural subsidies since Britain believed it paid far more than it received in this scheme.

Demanding a rebate, she slammed her handbag into the conference table and exclaimed something to the effect of "I want my money back!" While the CAP's share in the EU budget has gone down from being over three-quarters at its height to less than half today, it remains a big sticking point in WTO negotiations over agricultural market access of LDCs to developed countries, but that's another story for a different post. Here is a brief backgrounder on the UK rebate which exists to this day:

The UK won the rebate in 1984, after the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher threatened to halt payments to the EU budget. "We are not asking the Community or anyone else for money," she said at a summit in Fontainebleau. "We are simply asking to have our own money back".

The UK was then the third poorest member of the Community but was on course to become the biggest net contributor to the EU budget. This was mainly because the UK had relatively few farms, so it got a relatively small share of farm subsidies, which at the time made up 70% of Community expenditure.

The formula for determining how much a country paid into the Community budget was also unfavourable to the UK. It was in effect penalised for raising more revenue from VAT than most other member states and importing more goods from countries outside the Community.

So we now have this splendid story of a charity auction of some famous people's possessions. A finals match ball from England captain Lawrence Dellaglio's 2003 Rugby World Cup winning side went for £13,500. One of "Slowhand" Eric Clapton's Fender Telecasters commanded £16,000. And, apropos for today's story, Mrs Thatcher's now-famous handbag--swung around for emphatic effect in various national and international political arenas in her heyday--highlighted the auction and sold for £25,000:

A handbag belonging to Margaret Thatcher fetched £25,000 when it went under the hammer on Monday, auctioned by Lord Archer. The black glossy leather bag, owned by the former prime minister for more than 30 years, was pictured in a photograph taken as she walked alongside then US president Ronald Reagan during her visit to the United States in 1985.

The lot donated by Lady Thatcher was among a number of highly prized items sold by amateur auctioneer and author Lord Archer for charitable causes. It was bought by an unnamed Cypriot who is understood to have been a student in Britain during Lady Thatcher's tenure as prime minister. The Cypriot, a private buyer, is said to be a "great admirer" of the former Conservative leader.

It literally carries considerable British history, and surpassing prissy stuff like mace, pepper spray and stun guns, made "handbagging" a true weapon worthy of IPE Mortal Kombat:

As the auction at Christie's headquarters in central London concluded, Lord Archer said: "The handbag makes you automatically think of Margaret Thatcher. Someone has captured this and will have, frankly, a historic document for the rest of their lives."

Lady Thatcher's daughter Carol, who joined bidders in the packed sale room, said her mother was "longing to know" how much the bag had raised for her "carefully chosen" charities. "I hope that the highest bidder knows that if he's into handbagging, he's got a weapon with quite a track record. After all, my mother invented the verb 'to handbag'," she said.

Talk about girl power before that hackneyed term was developed:

Edwina Currie, a former minister in Baroness Thatcher's government, said: "It wasn't a shield, it was a weapon. "It said, 'I am Margaret Thatcher, I'm the boss, I'm in charge. I have all this power and I have control'. "That was why the handbag was always so neat and tidy and black and shiny and dominant. It would go on the Cabinet table.

Make no mistake: the Iron Lady had bigger balls than nearly everyone else while maintaining a distinctly feminine touch. WHOMP! Former US Secretary of State George Schultz is said to have enrolled her into the Grand Order of the Handbag:

In 1988 Mrs Thatcher received a handbag as a gift from George Shultz, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state. He told her it was ‘to mark your ability to produce from within the right form of words to end a tedious discussion. You are the first and only recipient of the Grand Order of the Handbag’.

Those were some days.

The UN Should Be Anywhere But New York

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world - Eleanor Roosevelt

There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States...The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference - John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations

Given that his campaigning self promised a more internationalist outlook, it is striking how Barack Obama hews more closely to the John Bolton School of International Relations (now there's a thought for you) than that of Eleanor Roosevelt. In addition to keeping that shining example of American justice Guantanamo Bay alive and strong, the Obama administration has done little in terms of Roosevelt's "concerted citizen action" at home. As Eleanor Roosevelt suggested, a likely reason why we often "look in vain for progress in the larger world" is because of unyielding negativity about the UN from the country it is headquartered in. Home ain't where the heart is.

As I will enumerate, the US routinely flouts conventions people from other parts in the world consider valuable--especially in terms of advancing rights. Given the plenitude of such examples, it is best to consider the US a delinquent parent of the organization. Unfortunately, John Bolton's flippant suggestion that nothing much would be lost if ten floors of the UN were blown off is not far from actual US policy. Indeed, the Obama administration is next to no improvement seen in this light -

"The United States is concerned about children's rights and welfare."

Americans blather on and on about human rights. Call it the white man's harangue. So much so that you'd expect it to have ratified the well-meaning UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), right? If you read my lengthy post on why the shameless publicity seeker Amy Chua is more American than Chinese, then you would know that it isn't. How embarrassing is this? Well, aside from a failed state (Somalia), the US is the only other country that hasn't ratified it. Alike Guantanamo, it appears Obama has not been more talk than action in behaving in an internationally acceptable manner.

For all its human rights happy talk, the truth, dear readers, is this: the United States is a miserable place to be a kid. But don't take my word for it. The OECD recently compared the well-being of children across developed countries and found that the US ranked second worst next to the UK--and by quite some margin. Perhaps you and I should be concerned about this American failing that is only reinforced by its failure to ratify this convention. Child misery, thy name is America:

"The United States wishes that women have equal rights to men."

While the US does somewhat better on measures of gender equality such as the pay gap, it has yet to achieve several milestones others have alike having a female head of state. Most plausibly, America's chauvinistic tendencies are behind it not inking the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In another shameful display, the US is noted by commentators to be the only developed nation not to ratify CEDAW. A shining beacon of gender equality for the world to follow? I think not.

"The United States condemns crimes against humanity."

The Bush administration was famously hostile to pursuing the ratification of US membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in the Hague. While the Obama administration has stopped its predecessor's outright hostility to the body, it still remains aloof to the idea of ratifying participation. Then again, given the United States' continuing penchant for extrajudicial imprisonment, I guess membership in the ICC is not on the game plan for the immediate future despite more internationalist voices calling for it.

"The United States cares about the welfare of migrants."

It is well-known that virtually all signatories to the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families are migrant-sending nations. Despite calling itself the land of opportunity, a melting pot, and so forth, the truth is that the US is just as reluctant as other developed nations to sign on to something which concerns guaranteeing the welfare of migrants. In trade terms, it is unsurprising a country that has so far been unwilling to implement WTO provisions concerning temporary migration is also unwilling to extend them substantive international rights.

"The United States does not want to deploy land mines indiscriminately."

Activists have, for a long time, been championing the reduction in the use of land mines for the simple reason that they tend to kill and maim civilians--often long after conflicts that resulted in them being deployed have ended. However, the US has once again not ratified the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention. For a country that is already malodorous in so many parts of the world due to its militaristic excursions, this shameful omission only reinforces America's negative image.

"The United States cares about the environment."

Kyoto Protocol. Nuff said.

"The United States has a national interest in respecting international maritime law."

Of all the conventions left unsigned by the US at the UN, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is perhaps the most interesting one in terms of geopolitical implications. In fact, Hillary Clinton alluded to it last year during the non-controversy over the South China Sea the US fomented at the ASEAN Regional Forum. As I have explained, the utterly hypocritical point is that the US has not ratified UNCLOS but claims that its stipulations should be followed when it comes to resolving others' disputes. Hypocrisy aside, meddling in others' disputes without a discernible legal basis to do so takes a lot of nerve.
-----------------------------

All in all, here is the bottom line when it comes to the US and the UN: If you don't bother with much of anything people of the world devote their valuable time and effort to, then you might as well not host the United Nations. Let's face it: Americans tend to be very parochial in outlook. This negative kind of American exceptionalism poisons international relations through thinking that what goes on in the UN is not in US interests in so many instances. Alike with the IMF which really ought to be in Beijing, the time has come to move the UN elsewhere. The world has moved on. I won't even get into the US offering the sole veto over discouraging continued Israeli settlement of the occupied territories.

There's a saying that you shouldn't stick around where you're not wanted. I guess now is as good as time as any for the UN to move from a country of the past that doesn't care much for it (by brushing off any number of conventions) to a country of the future that at least embraces its core belief in the value of multilateralism. There is no point remaining in a location which undermines it at almost every turn like the United States does. A reason why the UN is often ineffective is because of America's delinquent parenting as its host nation. Think of a child continuously being belittled, insulted and threatened by its parents and modern US treatment of the UN comes to mind. (Not that actual American parenting is much better--see above.) That it even functions at all is a wonder.

When the United States is such an all-around bad example for core UN principles alike human rights, justice, opportunity, and non-discrimination, it's best to skip town. That's something John Bolton and I can probably agree on. Does modern America do Eleanor Roosevelt proud? As I said, the UN should be anywhere but New York.

Three Cheers for UK Women Drivers, Shame on EU

My life fades, my vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos, ruined dreams; this wasted land. Most of all, I remember the man we called Max, the Road Warrior. To understand who he was we have to go back to the other time...

While I am generally among the most pro-Europe of IPE commentators, I must admit that my patience is being tried here. While I usually roll my eyes at notions that supranational EU institutions are replacing UK policymaking efficacy--an idea so beloved by Euroskeptics--I may grudgingly make an exception here. Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself (I am large, I contain multitudes).

In essence, insurance premiums for female drivers in the UK--especially younger women--were lower because they are more careful when driving as opposed to shambolic displays of carmaggedon or carpocalypse now-style vehicular displays young males tend to exhibit. Too much Top Gear, methinks. Having been a driver in that age range, I regrettably understand all too well. However, the European Court of Justice has now ruled against the use of gender in determining insurance premiums, in effect ordering insurance firms to charge the same (read: higher) amount male drivers are usually asked to pay. Not very progressive, I believe:

Young women drivers buying car insurance and any man considering retirement will get a worse deal from the end of next year, following a ruling prohibiting the use of gender in insurance underwriting. The ruling, by the European Court of justice, means insurers will no longer be able to use sex as a factor to determine whether someone represents a bigger risk in insurance terms, even though historical evidence shows that being male or female has a bearing on frequency and size of claims.

Maggie Craig, acting director general for the Association of British Insurers, said: "This gender ban is disappointing news for UK consumers and something the UK insurance industry has fought against for the last decade. The judgment ignores the fact that taking a person's gender into account, where relevant to the risk, enables men and women alike to get a more accurate price for their insurance..."

Insurers have until now charged young men significantly more to reflect the fact they are more likely to have serious accidents: a male driver under 21 is twice as likely to have an accident than a woman under 21. But the insurance industry will now have to rip up its current pricing model, and young men under the age of 25 are now likely to see premiums decrease by an average of 10%, and in some cases 25%.

Adrian Webb of [online insurer] esure said the prohibitively high cost of car insurance for young men has previously helped discourage them from buying high performance vehicles, thus reducing the risk to themselves and others. "If young men's premiums are artificially reduced, this could lead to more opting to choose more powerful vehicles," he said. "It is particularly alarming given that the head of the Association of Police Officers in the UK in 2005 noted that the biggest killer of young women in Britain is their boyfriend's and male friends' driving" [!!!--and you thought the Road Warrior references were over the top.]

At the same time, car insurance premiums for women under the age of 25 are expected to rise by an average of 25% by the end of 2012, but by up to 60% for the youngest drivers, which could translate into an extra £500-£1,000 a year for some. Biba, the British Insurance Brokers' Association, said: "Effectively, females will now pay a cross-subsidy for males on their insurance premiums." The AA warned that many insurers will find the young driver market "too risky" and pull out altogether, thereby reducing competition and pushing up prices...

In my humble opinion, this misdirect attempt at political correctness violates principles of good social science: why would you choose to do away with a significant predictor variable in gender? It's mind boggling, to say the least, to penalize women for not driving like, well, a drunk Mel Gibson. Ah, the foibles of the European Union. It's great, but sometimes quite absurd as well. Perhaps the two go together in the mystery called European integration.

And the Road Warrior? That was the last we ever saw of him. He lives now only in my memories.

Egypt Not Alone in Having Demographics of Doom

Back in elementary school, I remember learning how to interpret charts. For today's feature, I'll extend this fond reminisce and explain with a few handy images why Egypt is not alone in having demographic woes in the Middle East and North Africa. Woes that, in certain circumstances as Tunisia and Egypt demonstrate, can result in regime-toppling popular unrest. Many self-absorbed Westerners, particularly those of the neoconservative persuasion, will naturally ascribe these events to downtrodden people yearning for freedom and democracy (nevermind that their leaders helped propped up these tyrants for decades like Mubarak). My explanation is simpler: growing populations of unemployed young people are a hazard to authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, recent events suggest states unable to buy them off with proceeds from energy revenues are particularly vulnerable.

First, while it is true that youth unemployment rates are quite high around the world, such rates are obviously more pernicious in countries with large proportions of young people. Consider the population pyramid of Egypt based on International Data Base figures:

The Egyptian population is very young, indeed, with a median age estimated at 24. Next, have a look at the youth unemployment figures from slide 19 of a recent IMF regional presentation on what it calls "Middle East North Africa Oil Importers" (link c/o Real Time Economics):

Aside from being oil importers, what Egypt and Tunisia share are the highest levels of youth unemployment in this group of countries, being well above the Middle East / North Africa average on the right hand side of the chart above. Coincidence? I'll leave that up to the area studies folks to sort out.

Let's now move to the regional situation. Fortuitously, the International Labour Organization (ILO) recently released the most recent biennial Global Employment Trends for Youth report for 2010. Especially given the backdrop of the global financial crisis, conditions are quite difficult for young folks seeking world not only in these regions but around the world. First, the good folks at the ILO have prepared a youth employment-to-population ratio chart for various world regions from 1991 to 2011. At the foot of the table are North Africa (which Egypt and Tunisia are classified under) and the Middle East with well under 30% of the young being at work:

As a proudly gender-aware blogger, I must point out that exceedingly low employment of young working women contributes quite a lot to the poor showing of the Middle East and North African groupings. From p. 15 of the ILO report:

The portrait of youth employment in the latter two regions is quite similar; while four out of ten male youth were working in 2008 (39.5 and 40.7 per cent in the Middle East and North Africa, respectively), less than two of ten young women engaged in work (14.9 and 15.9 per cent, respectively). There is clear segmentation in youth labour market opportunities in these regions with the result being severe underdevelopment in the productive potential of the economies. Employment opportunities are clearly low for young men in the region and nearly non-existent for young women.

Finally, I will give no prizes for those who've correctly guessed which regions of the world have the highest youth unemployment rates:

Someone with little experience at reading charts (hopefully not you) may complain: "Well, even if the Middle East and North Africa top the youth unemployment tables, rates have been going down even there in recent years. So, some countries should have revolted years ago instead of now." As above, you need to consider (1) the relative share of youth to the overall population in the respective countries and (2) the outright size of the young population. Moreover, unique to the world's regions, the Middle East and North Africa are expected to have rises in this rate in 2010 and 2011.

If you look at the overall macroeconomic picture of Egypt, it isn't too shabby. It has a high growth rate and its foreign debt is decreasing as a percentage of GDP. However, the demographics tell another tale. While I can't say that I could've predicted these events, they make more sense in retrospect given the information present above in chart form. Watch the kids, I tell you, watch the kids.

Of Sexy Russian Spies and 'Erotic Capital'

Lest you think I've become an econodullard obsessed with discount rates and multiplier effects--it's easy enough to find plenty enough of those without looking hard--here's funner stuff that showcases the diversity which the best IPE encompasses. Freakonomics-style dweebery doesn't count by the way; let's just say I don't prattle endlessly about the veracity of being described as "concave-chested." Anyway, to today's post. A few months ago, the headlines were littered with headlines of American authorities arresting and sending away the Russian spy Anna Chapman. The gaffer here at LSE IDEAS, Professor Michael Cox, was inordinately proud to have a feature in The Sun on her alleged spying escapades. He further exclaimed that unlike el cheapo academic publications, this Rupert Murdoch news outlet paid its contributors--and pretty well to boot.

The curious thing was that Anna Chapman did not appear to have stolen any meaningful information. The only remarkable thing about the episode was that, yes, she was an attractive Russian spy--certainly the stuff of Cold War-era spy novels and male imaginations. Not quite being a real spy like Valerie Plame, Miss Chapman subsequently lost her British citizenship and used her newfound celebrity for material gain. Nothing wrong there, actually--from appearing in her skivvies (with weaponry, even!) in the Russian edition of Maxim to recently hosting an otherwise unremarkable mystery show in her homeland in, er, skimpy attire.

Closer to the end of last year, we had another spy scandal here in the UK involving an attractive, young Russian lady that didn't receive as much attention abroad (at least until she appears in FHM, Maxim, Stuff or another of those lad's mags). Ekaterina 'Katia' Zatuliveter was working as an aide to Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock when the UK Border Agency had her arrested and scheduled for deportation over not being "conducive to national security."

It seems that the brain trust here at the LSE is of two minds about these mildly salacious stories. On one hand, Avery Hancock sees popular commentary as juvenile:

It seems clear then for both journalists and their sources that Ms Zatuliveter’s beauty, age, or hair colour are all judged highly relevant in forming the basis for such serious allegations. Yet, leaving aside possible connections to the FSB, why is it so surprising that young, educated women (not girls, I would point out) should be taking part in internships, or looking for jobs pointing towards a political career? Some commentators have pointed out that her researcher position in the Commons may have only served as launch pad into a more powerful career in government. But that is precisely what hundreds of parliamentary researchers (many of whom are foreign) are trying to do. The LSE runs a very popular scheme that places many of our graduate students (often from overseas) with MPs as interns to do just that. So until we find out that Ms Zatuliveter’s intentions were to penetrate the heart of British government in order to spy, it seems unfair to criticize her ambition as well.

My preferred, actually very gender-neutral theoretical application is this notion of 'erotic capital'. Instead of overdoing the politically correct route by ignoring that looks matter--for both sexes, actually--why not try to describe it, quantify it, and explain how it is deployed? In the beginning, we had old-fashioned economic capital familiar to readers of classical political economy. Then Chicago School sociologist Gary Becker came up with 'human capital'. Later came the notion of 'social capital' still very much in vogue with policymakers. Not to be outdone, environmentalists coined the term 'natural capital'. Pretty soon, some bored political scientists came up with 'political capital'. Bewildered with this veritable explosion of capitals, Catherine Hakim of our Sociology department has come up with yet another sort of capital:

Erotic capital is the implicit but powerful commodity that can count just as much as educational qualifications in the labour market, politics, media or the arts, finds a new report published today by a sociologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 'Beauty and sex appeal have become more important personal assets in the sexualised cultures of our liberal, modern societies, often just as important as educational qualifications' says Dr Catherine Hakim in the study.

She coins the term 'erotic capital' to refer to this difficult-to-define but crucial combination of physical and social attractiveness which makes some men and women agreeable company and colleagues, attractive to all members of their society and especially to the opposite sex. She says: 'People who possess an above-average amount of erotic capital are more persuasive, are more often perceived as honest and competent. They find it easier to make friends, get jobs, get married, and tend to earn 15 per cent more on average as well'.

And here's a list of the seven components of erotic capital:

1. Beauty - Though it varies across times and cultures, great beauty is always in short supply and highly-prized by all societies. The modern emphasis on photogenic features means that men and women with large eyes and mouths and sculpted faces are valued. Conventionality, symmetry and an even skin-tone also contribute to attractiveness.
2. Sexual attractiveness - This can be quite separate from classic beauty. Beauty is mainly about facial attractiveness while sexual attraction is largely about a sexy body. However sex appeal can also be about personality and style, femininity or masculinity, a way of being in the world. Beauty tends to be static and easily captured in a photo while sexual attractiveness is about the way someone moves, talks and behaves so it can only be captured on film.
3. Social attractiveness - Includes grace, charm and social skills – the ability to make others feel at ease and happy, wanting to know you and, possibly, desire you.
4. Liveliness - A mixture of physical fitness, social energy and good humour. As illustrated by those who are 'the life and soul of the party'
5. Presentation - This includes the way you dress, style your hair, wear make-up or perfume and jewellery. People who are skilled at these accomplishments are more attractive.
6. Sexuality itself - A category that includes sexual competence, energy, erotic imagination, playfulness and all the things that constitute a sexually satisfying partner. Not the same thing as having a strong libido, although those that do are more likely to acquire these qualities through experience. The only one of the six which usually only applies in private, rather than social, situations.
7. All six categories apply to some extent to both men and women However for women, in some cultures, there is a seventh category – of fertility. In many cultures a fertile woman is regarded as having extra attractions, especially if her children are healthy and beautiful.

Returning to our Russian spies, there is an explanation for the phenomenon at hand:

She finds that women have the edge over men in these areas, partly because women work harder at being physically and socially attractive, and at dressing well. However, another reason is the large sex deficit that affects more men than women, universally. Recent national sex surveys show that, around the world, men's sexual interest greatly exceeds women's sexual interest and activity, especially among people aged 35 and over. So women are in greater demand as sexual partners, a dramatic reversal of men's advantage in courtship and marriage markets.

So there you are. Cue the Apollonia 6 for old time's sake while you're at it. Let's say I'm not entirely sold just yet, but there are certainly testable hypotheses here that can be examined through the use of survey data and experiments. You can read the entire journal article to make up your mind. (Unsurprisingly, there are sceptics out there.) Meanwhile, the proliferation of various forms of capital being identified is driving me bonkers to the point of wishing I were an orthodox Marxist alike social capital critic Ben Fine who has built a career repeating the idea that capital is indivisible ad infinitum.

But hey, if Marxists were considered sexy, maybe I should become one. Vladimir Putin did say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was last century's worst geopolitical catastrophe. As the saying goes, if you can't beat 'em...

Washing Machine Changed World More Than Web

Don't take my word for it; take Ha-Joon Chang's. Just a few posts back, I wrote about the absolute deluge of events here at the LSE on Tuesday, including the launch event of Chang's new book 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism that turns a lot of economic orthodoxy on its head. Despite my doubts about some of the things Ha-Joon Chang mentions--for instance, he believes that it is possible for governments to pick winners--he too believes the Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be. Now here's something Chang and I could probably agree about as various world governments envision building their policies around the Web. I also have to give kudos to Chang for coming up with quite a catchy title. Plus, the cover is interesting if I don't exactly see what it has to do with a wide-ranging critique of economic orthodoxy.

Whatever your view of Ha-Joon Chang, his new book is certainly worth a read if you get the chance from what I gathered at the lecture. Here is an excerpt of his interview with the Observer on the subject matter of which innovation matters more in the bigger scheme of things:

Is it really true that the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet?

When we assess the impact of technological changes, we tend to downplay things that happened a while ago. Of course, the internet is great – I can now google and find the exact location of this restaurant on the edge of Liverpool or whatever. But when you look at the impact of this on the economy, it's mainly in the area of leisure.

The internet may have significantly changed the working patterns of people like you and me, but we are in a tiny minority. For most people, its effect is more about keeping in touch with friends and looking up things here and there. Economists have found very little evidence that since the internet revolution productivity has grown.

And the washing machine was more transformative?

By liberating women from household work and helping to abolish professions such as domestic service, the washing machine and other household goods completely revolutionised the structure of society. As women have become active in the labour market they have acquired a different status at home – they can credibly threaten their partners that if they don't treat them well they will leave them and make an independent living. And this had huge economic consequences. Rather than spend their time washing clothes, women could go out and do more productive things. Basically, it has doubled the workforce.

The washing machine is just one element here. Other factors have contributed to the liberation of women – feminism, the pill and so on.

Yes, but feminism couldn't have been implemented unless there was this technological basis for a society where women went out and worked. Of course it's not just the washing machine, it's piped water, electricity, irons and so on.

PC Gone Too Far? UK Jobcentres Ban Stripper Ads

The height of summer is here and even our dedicated scribes have gotten bored talking endlessly about unemployment. Or have they? The silly season is in as the press is having its fun with the headline that UK jobcentres will no longer place adverts for lap dancers and strippers, citing that these jobs may lead to "exploitation." I'd love to hear what cool papa Marx would have to say about that.

But seriously, there are genuine points of political-economic debate here. For those not following the feminist literature, there is a debate ongoing over the validity of such rulings regarding women's rights. On one hand, it may be good that the government is taking a more active stance towards protecting women. That's the traditional view. On the other hand, revisionists argue that it is paternalistic for the government to introduce such rules since women can themselves best identify whether such work is comfortable enough for them to engage in. Given tough times in Blighty, well, there may be more than adequate motivation to engage in such trades. Understandably, it's quite controversial stuff; read a bit more about it and see where you stand:

Job centres will no longer be able to carry adverts for jobs in the sex industry under a ban announced by the government. The curb, which will come in with immediate effect, will cover jobs such as lap dancers and strippers. The government said this was to prevent jobseekers feeling they had to accept jobs they felt uncomfortable with.

However, adverts for vacancies such as a cleaning job in a lap dancing club would be allowed. The ban will only affect jobs which could lead to exploitation, Employment Minister Chris Grayling said.

The latest move is in response to a public consultation that the government said revealed "significant public concern" about the advertisement of sex industry jobs in job centres. Adult industry job adverts have been allowed in job centres since 2003, when lingerie chain Ann Summers won a legal fight to advertise for shop staff. Figures show that job centres advertised more than 350 jobs in the sex industry in 2008.

As I will need to move on soon, what's their say on, er, male dancers? Dontcha just love those raunchy hen parties?