1This issue is particularly important owing to the effort made to explore a domain which is well-nigh “invisible” in the scirence of economics, namely the role of gender in the economic organisation of the corporate sector and in the organisation of the discpline itself. This is a paradox. Scientific literature on questions of gender has existed continuously ever since political science came into being, and yet it has never developed to any great extent. Does that lead us to conclude that such questions are of only marginal interest in economics? Or is it rather that they cause unease, both in the academic field and in the world of business. Some would say that productivity is just as sexless as comparative advantage. But others dispute this, and those that do so are not only women. For example, a recent study (Evans, 2018) on gender relations in the history of the IT sector shows that women have constantly played an important role in both innovation and production ever since since middle of the 19th century (notably their implication in the creation of the first program, the rise of information technology after the Second World War, cybermilitantism and online communities in the 1990s), but that “when the tasks became more important and gained in value, in short, when there was money to be made”, the men arrived in the sector and ousted the women. In other words, as Fraser1 has been claiming for many years, the economy cannot be considered solely in terms of remuneration and cannot be divorced from considerations of social recognition. This is yet another illustration that there is no such thing as the “pure” market economy.
2The set of articles presented here does not, however, provide a definitive or complete answer to these questions. This being said, the proposals selected from those received after our call for papers offer a stimulating diversity of approaches. The introduction by Thomas Lamarche and Cécile Lefèvre outlines clearly the reasons why the issue of gender is important in research, reasons which are also important in business management and in economic policy-making. Several papers consider a particular sector: agriculture, finance and monetary policy are covered, respectively, by Jean-Louis Escudier, Gunther Capelle-Blancard, Jezabel Couppey-Soubeyran and Antoine Rebérioux and Guillaume Vallet. Others look at a country (the paper on Vietnam by Thi Anh-Dao Tran), identify and analyse the effets of the finncial crisis (Carole Brunet and Esther Jeffers), consider the implementation of corporate strategy of sustainable development (Irène Berthonnet and Clémence Clos) and examine the way in which working time is determined in the corporate sector (Anne Bustreel and Martine Pernod-Lemattre) in order to improve understanding of the different institutionalised forms of wage ratio.
- 2 « introduire l’économie féministe commence souvent par la mise en évidence des difficultés à la (...)
- 3 « l’aspect peut-être le plus révolutionnaire de l’économie féministe contemporaine réside dans s (...)
- 4 “The substantive meaning of economics stems from the fact that man is dependent on nature and on (...)
3Two interviews also help to contextualise this research. Sylvie Morel, who teaches economics at the Université Laval (Quebec), defends the idea that “the first problem that often emerges when you approach feminist economics is the difficulty of delimiting the subject area”2, and invites us to reflect on the position of the academic economist. This follows an encounter with Diana Strassmann, for whom “perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of contemporary feminist economics lies in the fact that it contests the objective of research in economics on whose behalf is economic thought conducted and how can it improve human life?”3. For institutionalist economists who reject a purely substantive or ontologically individualistic definition of the object of their science, and who endeavour, rather, to socialise it4, it is a further encouragement to organise socially based research programmes (Fiorini, 2016) without forgoing the requirement for reflexivity and the objectivisation of reality which are the hallmark of scientific work.
- 5 i. e. selected after double blind evaluation by two academics from outside the editorial committ (...)
4As usual, this issue also presents the Varia feature, devoted to scientific articles5 that do not belong to the main theme. This month Lena Lavinas, Eliane Araujo and Miguel Bruno analyse the effects of the financiarisation of the economy of Brazil.
The reader will also find food for thought in the other sections of this issue, as follows.
5• An ’opinion and debate’ article by Thierry Pairault, which analyses the gradual construction of a kind of ’Chinese model’ that counterbalances the Western model of governance, via the analysis of the intellectual and institutional trajectory of Lin Yinfu, the Chief Economist of the World Bank.
6• An interview exploring the intellectual pathway of one of the founders and exponents of the regulationist current, Robert Boyer, whose work on crises and national modes of regulation of capitalism has marked the field of macroeconomic analysis since the end of the nineteen-seventies.
7• A double interview exploring the room for manœuvre and the constraints that are present when there is a desire for political rupture, comparing the view of a government decision-maker (Rafael Correa Delgado, President of the Republic of Equador from 2007 to 2017) with that of a researcher (Matthieu Le Quang).
8In addition, the issue includes the commentaries and thesis presentations that also make up the latest news in an open and innovative research environment!
9We could not have terminated this issue without paying tribute to our friend and colleague Olivier Weinstein, who passed away at the beginning of June. Our thoughts go naturally first and foremost to his family relatives at this time. We would also like to stress the importance of Olivier’s intellectual companionship. A professor emeritus at the Université Paris 13 and a member of the Centre d’économie Paris-Nord (CEPN), he had been involved in the institionalist current for many years. He was a member of our editorial committee and when our paths crossed at a thesis or research habilitation, or in the corridor at a symposium or outside a lecture hall, all of us had the occasion to appreciate both his erudition and his thirst for scientific discussion, toether with his kindness and his open mind. Oilivier was not a sectarian and was adept at ensuring that concepts were exchanged between different currents. Despite an academic environment in which opposition could at times be ferocious, he succeeded in remaining modest and the twinkle in his eye betrayed a combination of mischievousness and curiosity. Finally, he had the marvellous gift of always seeking to do pertinent research and to be a good teacher. Some of his papers and books, notably those pertaining to institutionalist theory in the corporate sector, have provided and will continue to provide valuable support for both PhD students and fully-fledged researchers. His passing therefore represents a considerable loss at both personal and academic levels. We will devote more space to his achievements in a later issue.
10And to conclude on a happier note… We have always refused to evaluate a review or a paper on the sole basis of a bibliometric indicator. But in this case the information has its usefulness, provided the limits of the method of calculation employed are recognised and provided the findings are seen in the context of other means of appraisal of scientific production 6. Within these limits, we can only express our staisfaction at the latest results communicted to us by Google Scholar Metrics7. The result of the calculation of the h5 impact factor (the last five years) shows that the Revue de la régulation is in first place for economic journals in French over the period, and is therefore ahead of all other journals listed by the CNRS in categories 2 et 3 (there are no French-language publications listed no 1), and n° 12 when all diciplines are included.