Feminist Economics, Argentina’s Crisis, and Global Neoliberalism

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

Noelia Méndez Santolaria, an economist, discusses her work within DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era), a feminist network focused on gender justice and economic transformation. She highlights Argentina’s economic challenges, the resurgence of neoliberalism under President Javier Milei, and the systemic undervaluation of unpaid labor. Méndez Santolaria emphasizes the need for structural change, warning against the exploitation of Argentina’s natural resources without reinvestment. She critiques rising global militarization and digital harassment against feminists. Feminist economics, she argues, must address wealth redistribution, care work, and systemic inequalities while countering neoliberal policies and social resistance to change.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Noelia Mendez Santolaria is an economist from a feminist perspective. She works with DAWN Feminist. It’s a 40-year-old network and collection of analysts, economists, and others who approach issues from a feminist lens. How did you get involved?

Noelia Mendez Santolaria: My personal background is somewhat unconventional. I originally worked in the private sector for my family’s business, which imports equipment for analyzing water quality. I studied economics alongside my work because, in Argentina, it is very common to study and work simultaneously.

While studying, I met Corina Rodríguez Enríquez, a highly respected feminist economist who teaches at a public university. We developed a mentor-student relationship—she was my thesis advisor—and is also part of DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era), a feminist network focused on gender justice and economic transformation.

After finishing my MA in Economics courses and leaving my job in the private sector, I began working as a consultant for NGOs and government agencies. Corina introduced me to DAWN and its members, whom we call the “DAWNees,” and I started working with them. Before that, I had already conducted research from feminist perspectives, but DAWN specifically focuses on viewpoints from the Global South. This perspective is often overlooked in mainstream economics, including feminist economics.

Jacobsen: How advanced is that discourse and work in Argentina?

Santolaria: Argentina has a long tradition of heterodox economic thought. It is, for example, the birthplace of Latin American structuralism, largely developed by Raúl Prebisch, a prominent economist known for formulating the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis on declining terms of trade. This concept, referred to in Spanish as Términos de Intercambio Desiguales, highlights the unequal economic relationships between industrialized and developing countries.

Argentina has maintained this tradition to some extent, largely due to the presence of public universities and a strong intellectual culture, but these ideas face resistance. Mainstream neoclassical economics remains dominant, and neoliberalism is currently experiencing a resurgence under President Javier Milei, who promotes libertarian economic policies.

The intersection of Latin American heterodox economics and feminist economic perspectives is not yet widespread, but we are working to advance it. For instance, DAWN is currently leading a project on macroeconomics from a feminist and Global South perspective. The goal is to integrate alternative economic frameworks with feminist economic theories to develop a more inclusive and just economic model.

Jacobsen: How are these economic views perceived in Argentina under the current leadership?

Santolaria: We are seen as adversaries—quite literally. The Milei administration has openly dismissed feminist economic perspectives and targeted gender-focused policies, including dismantling the Ministry of Women, Gender, and Diversity. Milei’s economic approach prioritizes deregulation, privatization, and drastic reductions in state intervention. This directly contradicts feminist and heterodox economic analyses emphasizing social justice and state responsibility in addressing inequalities.

However, I believe this backlash also reflects the progress made in advancing feminist perspectives and increasing feminist participation in economic policy discussions. Under the previous administration of Alberto Fernández, while he was not a feminist himself, feminist policies gained institutional recognition, and some feminists were appointed to key positions within the government.

And I think that kind of advancement implies rethinking the very economic system because we are trying to put value—not necessarily price, but value—on all the non-remunerated work being done for the economic system or the market to even function. And this was very, very powerful.. During the pandemic, everybody saw that life didn’t happen without care, schools, or health care. So, I think awareness of this major work needed for markets to function is very resisted. Still, there is very strong resistance to incorporating and valuing that in the economic system because, at least in Argentina—but in the Global South more broadly—capitalism takes on a particularly extractive form.

It’s extractive everywhere, but in the Global South, it thrives on extracting natural resources, cheap labour, and non-remunerated labour from women. When states shrink, the services we call education and health care do not stop being provided—women instead of the state provide them. So, these neoliberal policies that seek to drastically reduce the size of the state are facing a strong feminist response. I think the backlash we are seeing now is a reaction from neoliberal economic forces against feminist progress.

Jacobsen: Very big in the Beijing Declaration and several other declarations, but the Beijing Declaration was particularly clear on unremunerated work being a major hurdle. How does Milei view unremunerated work? Does he see it as women’s work, period? Or does he even make any statements about it? Or is it just assumed and never discussed?

Santolaria: It’s a good question because I think that these far-right extremists and conservative politicians share the same fundamental diagnosis that we, as feminists, do: someone has to provide these essential services. However, their solution is a conservative one—a return to a supposedly better past for men, which is an illusion because that economic and social order no longer exists.

I believe this is another intentional deception propagated by the far-right—not only to subjugate women but also to weaken the collective consciousness of men. Since Beijing, political awareness has evolved, but there is far less recognition of social class divisions as they were traditionally understood. Despite being valuable in many ways, the multilateral world that emerged after that era also made people forget about the deep structural hierarchies that persist in society.

In today’s highly technological world, there is an illusion that anyone can become wealthy overnight by investing in Wall Street or gaining fame on Instagram. My grandparents understood that they would never be rich in their lifetime. Still, many people today believe they can be if they work hard enough. Similarly, there is this false idea that we can return to a traditional past that never actually existed in the way it is now imagined—and it certainly will not exist in the future.

Jacobsen: Yes, it’s about creating a fantasy or a false history and projecting it forward as something to aspire to, claiming it’s a return to something better—when, in reality, that past never existed in the first place.

Santolaria: Yes, it was real for a very, very small part of the population. It has never been real in the Global South because we have a fragmented economic structure. The informal sector is very large—it represents half of the economy. Those in the informal sector have never lived this traditional family model that the right wing is trying to bring back. They were not “trad wives.” Poor women work just as much as poor men in their households.

We already know that this model is not viable, yet the aspiration still exists. I think that has a lot to do with the strong religious influence that conservative and right-wing ideologies are built around. It becomes a matter of belief—people think that returning to this past is actually possible.

Of course, this issue is especially relevant for women who have gained financial independence in Latin America due to major increases in labour market participation and professionalization. In Argentina—though this is not the case for every country in the Global South—many women from the 1980s onward accessed university education, became professionals, and entered the workforce. However, this also led to increasing inequality among women.

Now, we see professional, upper-class, or wealthy women gaining freedom from unpaid domestic labour by paying poorer women for it. So while some women have made significant advances, a gap has also widened between them. We know that this alone is not enough to achieve gender equality, but reverting to a past system is simply unrealistic—and it is not our goal.

Women have entered the labour force, but men have not entered the care economy in the same proportion. This is often discussed, but the reality is that men have not taken on their fair share of unpaid household labour. They have also not entered traditionally female-dominated sectors like health care and education, largely because these jobs are underpaid. This structural imbalance needs to change, and the state is the primary tool for making that change happen.

That is why the destruction of the state in Argentina is so concerning. But this is not just happening here—this is a global trend. The major representatives of the far right worldwide are focused on dismantling the state because they recognize that the state is the most effective mechanism for redistribution—not just of income and wealth but also of unpaid care work.

Jacobsen: So your specialty is economics, particularly feminist economics. In a fair analysis, what is Milei doing right economically? What is he doing wrong economically in Argentina? Also, why are North American democratic leaders so fascinated with him?

Santolaria: I think Argentina is being viewed as a far-right experiment, and they see it can be done. I think Milei’s presidency is seen as a major success simply because he has maintained power so far.

There is strong resistance, but there has been no large-scale social explosion. Some claim that the country is socially imploding, but others argue that people largely accept or validate what Milei is doing now. That kind of public tolerance didn’t happen in the past, which was a significant political win for him.

As for what he is doing economically, some of my economist colleagues appreciate the macroeconomic stability he has brought to the country, but I doubt the sustainability of that stability. The dollar has always been a major concern for Argentinians—its volatility and constant devaluations make it difficult for people to maintain their purchasing power. After Milei won the election, he immediately devalued the peso, and since then, the exchange rate has remained relatively stable. However, this has been achieved in a highly unsustainable way.

His administration is currently trying to negotiate a new loan with the IMF—what they call “fresh money” or “fresh dollars.” They have been very explicit that this money will enable financial sector investors to take their gains and exit. The IMF, however, is pressuring for another devaluation, which makes the current situation highly unstable.

This so-called stability exists not only because there has been no widespread social resistance but also because the other branches of government, which should act as checks and balances in a republic, have not done so. Congress has passed every bill Milei needed, and the judiciary is largely absent, acting as though it has no role to play.

Civil society has called for judicial intervention to stop certain policies, but the courts have not acted. For example, there is a very repressive anti-protest protocol in place. Despite its clear rights violations, the justice system has not intervened to stop it.

So, if we consider what Milei has done well, his biggest achievement has been his ability to consolidate support from the establishment—the so-called casta in Argentina. They are backing him very strongly, which has brought stability but is fragile and temporary.

Jacobsen: What would a feminist economic model for Argentina bring? Not necessarily one superior, but one better suited to Argentina’s context for achieving greater gender parity.

Santolaria: Well, that’s very hard to say because I think a feminist approach to the economy is not about implementing minor reforms—you need structural change. Argentina has significant potential in terms of natural resources.

This is not specifically a feminist perspective, but I believe that under this administration, those resources are being sold to the highest bidder with no strategic planning. They are not considering the development of national capacities or strengthening the internal market. Instead, the approach is: If you want to come and take our natural resources, go ahead—we ask for nothing in return.

This development model will shape Argentina over the next few years. As feminists, we must be vigilant against these extractive practices. That does not mean rejecting the use of natural resources altogether but rather ensuring that extraction does not lead to depletion, the erosion of our productive capacity, or the hollowing out of our social and economic structures. The profits must be reinvested to sustain the reproduction of life, something that has never been done in our history.

The other day, I listened to a representative from Norway explain how they used revenue from their state-owned petroleum company to establish a universal social protection system. That was a very intelligent decision that allowed them to sustain one of the most egalitarian societies in the world for the last 70 years.. They now have comprehensive social security because they directed those gains toward national welfare.

With the energy transition going on, Argentina is at a similar crossroads—it must decide how to manage potential revenue from its natural resources. I think Norway’s approach is very smart for them. However, I am unsure if it is applicable to Argentina due to its external sector. Argentina has been trapped in a external debt cycle for the past 200 years. We are heavily indebted in foreign currency, which means that every dollar the country produces is quickly siphoned off to repay external debts.

As a result, we face a serious risk: we might extract all our resources yet see none of that wealth reinvested in the country. That is why we need to be extremely cautious and ensure that any alternative economic framework we build is community-driven and centred on the sustainability of life.

After all, what is the purpose of an economy if it is not to sustain life and improve the well-being of the people living in Argentina?

Jacobsen: What are the mitigating factors to this vision? Is machismo a factor? Is traditionalist religion a factor? Are there well-meaning feminist proposals—ones different from yours—that, while idealistic, lack sufficient evidentiary support and do not account for economic science? What are the key forces at play here that shape this discussion?

Santolaria: Our main challenge—the biggest risk factor—is the neoliberal mindset that dominates our thinking. We struggle to imagine alternatives that are not neoliberal.

Of course, machismo exists, and Argentina, like every other society, is a patriarchal society. However, the feminist movement has made significant progress. There is a strong political foundation, and we have young, capable political representatives who could lead transformative efforts—but the progressive side of the political spectrum largely ignores them.

I believe that more damaging than the backlash itself is this invisibilization—the way the progressive sector, feminist leaders, and women who can drive real transformation are sidelined. One of the most important things we must work on is strengthening alliances and ensuring that feminist women take the lead in these initiatives.

We mainly have Milei in office because the other half of the political spectrum is lost and deeply divided. If we want an alternative, we need to find ways to unite and build it together.

Jacobsen: Outside of economics, from the work of DAWN feminists, what other issues are they targeting that are relevant to the Argentinian case?

Santolaria: DAWN works on several other key issues, including social reproduction, reproductive rights, sexual rights, and violence against women. All of this is approached through a strong economic and materialist lens.

That is what sets DAWN apart—they consistently highlight the material power relations underlying these issues. This is not always common in the feminist movement, as economics is often perceived as difficult or overly complex. Many think economic discussions are inaccessible because they are framed in highly technical language.

One of the things DAWN does very well is communication. They manage to present complex economic issues in a way that is clear and accessible while still maintaining depth in their analysis. Their work creates a space for reflection and a deeper understanding of what is happening.

We believe that economics is for everyone and should be accessible to all. The idea that it must remain obscure or complicated is, in itself, another form of power imbalance. That is why, at DAWN, every aspect of our work is deeply connected to economic analysis—it is impossible to separate them.

Jacobsen: In different interviews, at least at this moment, some recurring themes have emerged—genuine disagreements between regions. I’ve been reflecting on whether the discussion concerns Africa, Latin America, Asia, or North America.

In some regions, the concern is that no matter how many policies you implement—such as setting a 30% or 35% minimum representation of women in political participation and leadership—it simply will not happen in most countries, even if those policies exist on paper. For them, policy is not the key issue.

In other countries, policy implementation matters more. If policies are in place, there is at least some degree of political will, which makes change more likely.

Some perspectives dismiss policy as almost secondary, focusing instead on women’s economic independence. The argument is that real change happens when women achieve financial autonomy—not just in purchasing power but in determining their own lives. This economic empowerment, in turn, gives them more degrees of freedom in society, regardless of whether formal policies exist.

In the Latin American context, one concern that consistently arises in these discussions is the rise of femicide. Globally, femicide rates have doubled. Some South African commentators have pointed out that rates have increased by 20% in certain areas, while in others, they have tripled. The worst-hit regions are Latin American countries.

From your perspective, based on the discussions you’ve participated in, what are the most acute issues facing Latin America today?

Santolaria: Well, you cannot escape the question of political will. Without political will, no technical solution will be strong enough to make meaningful change happen. Economies are inherently political. Everything is political. And there is no silver bullet.

We need to operate on all levels—the micro level, the level of individual consciousness and awareness, the macro level,, and the meso level, which includes institutions. This is incredibly difficult work because it must happen simultaneously. No single approach will fix everything. If change happens only from the top—if a progressive government enacts the best equality policies but society does not embrace them—those policies will likely fail.

We saw this during the Soviet Union. The government implemented very progressive policies, but people were not demanding them, and ultimately, it did not work as intended. That is why we need both top-down and bottom-up change. That is our greatest challenge as feminists: advocating for this agenda requires working on all fronts.

Violence—both in Latin America and globally—is one of the most alarming trends. The world is moving toward militarization at an accelerated pace. For years, we have advocated for increased funding for the care economy, health care, and education, and the response has always been the same: No, there is no money for that. We have debts to pay. We have a budget deficit.

Yet, suddenly, there is money for military expansion. No one questions how these massive military expenditures will be funded. But whenever we push for gender equality policies, the first question is: How will you pay for this?

Well, the answer is simple: With the money that was going to be spent on missiles, guns, and drones, the funds will likely come from cuts to social protection programs and possibly from more debt. Governments have a limit on how much debt they can take on until militarization becomes a priority. Then, constitutions get rewritten to allow for more military spending. It is all political. That is the biggest threat we face today.

Jacobsen: So, in the last interview, I did yesterday was with someone from Women on Web. She was the executive director of Women on Web. I kept thinking about my involvement in the humanist and secular humanist communities. Richard Dawkins once did a segment where he read his hate mail, turning it into a comedy bit. That gave me an idea.

So, I proposed to her: Have you ever thought about reading your anti-abortion hate mail as comedy on YouTube? It could discourage hate mail while also making it a bit fun. One of the emails she received had the subject line Burn in Hell. So, she would go through her regular work emails, and in the middle of them, there would be one saying Burn in Hell. Then, she’d continue with her regular work emails.

For a DAWN feminist, there are stereotypes about feminists. And, as with any movement, a few belligerent individuals naturally scare people off. But have you ever thought about making comedy out of your hate mail? Like, taking quotes from it and presenting them as endorsements—almost like a page filled with those comments?

Santolaria: It’s a nice idea. Humour is powerful.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Santolaria: I don’t receive that kind of hate mail.

Jacobsen: So lucky.

Santolaria: Yes, but it’s a huge issue. Many well-known feminists in Argentina are suffering from it. Many journalists, too.

Jacobsen: Oh yeah, I can imagine.

Santolaria: Yes. Humour is powerful, and we should, of course, use it as a tool to combat this kind of harassment candidly. But at some point, we also need to acknowledge the vulnerability it creates.

Receiving that kind of hate is not harmless. Even if you have psychological support or try to brush it off, it still seeps in. It’s not okay. Maybe we shouldn’t take it too lightly—of course, humour helps—but the reality is that this increasing violence thrives in the digital space, where anonymity provides a fertile ground for these attacks.

Dealing with it is a very personal decision. I have friends who shut down their social media accounts completely. I don’t use social media anymore. I used to have more accounts, but I closed them.

Jacobsen: Was it because of privacy concerns?

Santolaria: Yes. In the panel we were just in, we discussed how images, voices, and pictures can be misused in unsettling ways. 

Jacobsen: As they pointed out, 98% of deepfake content targets women.

Santolaria: And I don’t think it’s worth it. Social media has become a very hostile place.

Jacobsen: I would rephrase that—if I may—as it has become a hospitable place for hostile people.

Santolaria: Yes, exactly. And it’s also about who owns these platforms. Social media is controlled by a very concentrated economic power structure that is willing to do whatever someone like Trump asks them to. They claim these platforms are highly democratic and essential for free speech, but that’s not the reality.

Algorithms reinforce power imbalances, and hostile behaviour is often rewarded. That’s why I choose not to use social media. Fortunately, I don’t receive hateful emails, so I am lucky.

Santolaria: But I know it’s hard, and it’s yet another form of violence that we are now experiencing.

Jacobsen: Did I miss anything?

Santolaria: No. I hope it was interesting.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.