Gender Justice and the Market A Transformative consumer research perspective

Prévia do material em texto

Gender Justice and the Market: A Transformative
Consumer Research Perspective
Wendy Hein, Laurel Steinfield, Nacima Ourahmoune,
Catherine A. Coleman, Linda Tuncay Zayer, and
Jon Littlefield
Despite growing awareness of the importance of gender equality in the advancement of global economies, the
involvement of marketing and policy in (re)producing and resolving gender injustices remains understudied.
This article proposes a transformative consumer research approach to studying gender-related issues. It
develops the “transformative gender justice framework” (TGJF), which identifies perspectives from three
enfranchisement theories: social and distributive justice, capabilities approach, and recognition theory. By
applying a multiparadigmatic analysis, the authors encourage a dialogic and recursive approach so that
scholars and policy makers can assess the interactions between structural, agentic, and sociocultural forces
that underlie gender injustices. They argue the TGJF is necessary for full comprehension of the complex,
systemic, glocalized, institutionalized, and embodied nature of gender injustices, as well as how policy,
markets and marketing can both perpetuate and resolve gender injustices. To demonstrate the TGJF’s
analytical power, the authors apply the framework to one site of gender injustice (i.e., the sex tourism industry),
propose applications across additional sites, and discuss questions it raises for future research.
Keywords: gender justice, social justice, capabilities, recognition, transformative consumer research
During the ratification of the 2030 United Nations Sus-tainable Development Goals, the international commu-nity noted that none of the stated goals, including poverty
alleviation, sustainability, or the fight against corruption, could
be achieved “without ensuring gender equality and women’s
empowerment” (United Nations 2015). Women have been
positioned as a “double dividend” in that investments in their
health and education are equated with increased well-being of
children and countries (Kofi Annan, as quoted in UNICEF
2006, p. vi). Likewise, corporations and policy makers have
coined the label the “third billion,” denoting women as
emerging participants in the global economy as employees,
employers, producers, and consumers. Women are described
as an increasing market segment and economic contributor
equal to the billion-plus populations of China and India
(International Labour Organization 2015). Yet, women have
always participated in the global economy. Thus, it is not
women themselves who are emergent but, rather, recognition
of their contribution. Moreover, as empowering as this label
may be for some women, it can further emphasize sociocul-
tural and economic inequalities.
These developments clearly highlight that gender matters.
Yet, across these and other growing movements, intrica-
cies are encountered that, if not fully understood, could
(re)produce what we conceptualize as gender injustices.
Gender is an immensely complex construct, and while we
find vast transformative literature related to gender from
disciplines such as women’s and gender studies, few studies
in marketing have addressed its complexities, the influences
of policies and marketplaces, and, in particular, how these
influences can coalesce to alleviate sites of gender injustice.
Yet, marketing scholars, often situated at intersections of
these gender dilemmas, have an opportunity to shape these
important processes further. To encourage more holistic
thinking about the multiple, intersecting levels on which
gender inequalities and resulting injustices operate we in-
troduce the “transformative gender justice framework”
(TGJF). This framework joins three prominent theoretical
Wendy Hein is Lecturer in Marketing, Birkbeck, University of London
(e-mail: w.hein@bbk.ac.uk). Laurel Steinfield is Assistant Professor of
Marketing, Bentley University (e-mail: lsteinfield@bentley.edu). Nacima
Ourahmoune is Associate Professor of Marketing and Consumer Culture,
Kedge Business School (e-mail: nacima.ourahmoune@kedgebs.com).
CatherineA. Coleman is Associate Professor of Strategic Communication,
Texas Christian University (e-mail: c.coleman@tcu.edu). Linda Tuncay
Zayer is Associate Professor of Marketing, Loyola University Chicago
(e-mail: ltuncay@luc.edu). Jon Littlefield is Associate Professor of
Marketing, Dalton State College (e-mail: jlittlefield@daltonstate.edu).
These authors represent the first gender transformative consumer re-
search group, and this article is their combined work. The authors would
like to thank Professor Elizabeth Hirschman for her support of the gender
track at the 2015 Transformative Consumer Research Conference at
Villanova University, which led to the development of this manuscript.
The authors would also like to thank Professor Shona Bettany for her
helpful comments onworking drafts of themanuscript. All the authors are
extremely grateful to their families for their support during work on the
article. Brennan Davis served as associate editor for this article.
© 2016, American Marketing Association Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
ISSN: 0743-9156 (print) Vol. 35 (2) Fall 2016, 223–236
1547-7207 (electronic) DOI: 10.1509/jppm.15.146223
mailto:w.hein@bbk.ac.uk
mailto:lsteinfield@bentley.edu
mailto:nacima.ourahmoune@kedgebs.com
mailto:c.coleman@tcu.edu
mailto:ltuncay@luc.edu
mailto:jlittlefield@daltonstate.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jppm.15.146
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1509%2Fjppm.15.146&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-09-01
lenses: social and distributive justice theory, which predom-
inantly identifies inequalities at the structural socioeconomic
level; capabilities approach, which highlights barriers indi-
viduals face in realizing their desired potential; and recogni-
tion theory, which locates disenfranchisement in sociocultural,
symbolic, and discursive dynamics. Although in practice all of
these areas overlap, remedies often focus on one specific lens.
This reductionist view, however, threatens to contribute to
unintended consequences that (re)produce gender injustices. In
contrast, the TGJF is based on dialogic premises that work to
resolve injustice by going back and forth between remedies
and injustices, acknowledging that remedies may simulta-
neously complement and conflict.
We start this article by noting what the study of gender and
gender injustices would entail from a transformative con-
sumer research (TCR) perspective. We then demonstrate the
contribution of the TGJF by exploring, in depth, its appli-
cation to one specific site of injustice: the sex tourism in-
dustry. In this case, we reveal what each lens identifies and
omits, illustrating the nuanced nature of gender injustices and
the variations and interactions between policy and market
resolutions. In subsequent discussions, we briefly sketch
potential applications of the TGJF to three further cases:
sexual violence, domestic and childcare, and health care. We
conclude by outlining directives for future research, noting
critical questions that can guide scholars and encourage
transformative approaches to the study of gender and gender
injustices in the wider field of marketing.
Gender and Gender Injustices in a
TCR Context
We position the study of gender in a TCR context around
gender injustices. We describe these injustices as negative
consequences that arise from inequalities attributed to gender
and gendering mechanisms; produced and reproduced via
ascribed identities; and present in the family, community,
state, and marketplace (UNIFEM 2010). They are experi-
enced in developing and developed countries alike, can be
seen in perpetuations of stereotypes of men and women, and
can manifest in a range of areas, including sexual violence,
domestic care, childcare, health care, sex tourism, and many
others. They are exacerbated by poverty, conflict, instability,
and patriarchal power dynamics. Gender injustice is “not lo-
cated in just one institutional space, but isfound in many
different dimensions, often intersecting with other kinds of
injustice” (DeJaeghere, Parkes, and Unterhalter 2013, p. 541).
Topics related to these injustices can lead to uncomfortable
conversations or be controversial areas of study. Con-
sequently, they are often muted or marginalized. However, a
transformative lens demands that such topics are acknowl-
edged and given voice (Tadajewski et al. 2014).
Scholarship on gender injustices from feminist critiques,
women’s studies, gender studies, and development studies
(see Fraser 1998; Nussbaum 1999), to name a few, provides a
foundation for our study. However, TCR perspectives can
contribute to this research, for example, by addressing how
gender interacts with policy and marketplaces and how
market structures (e.g., supply chains, consumer landscapes,
valuations of production) and marketing communication
reinforce gender injustices. A range of valuable marketing
literature has considered social and cultural constructions of
gender (e.g., Bettany et al. 2010), and uncritical essential-
izations of sex and gender have been critiqued (e.g., Bristor
and Fischer 1993). As these scholars note, gender certainly
affects consumer behavior, yet discussions of its trans-
formative potential are often left unaddressed.
We follow feminist perspectives that emphasize gender as
produced and maintained through multiple and intersecting
levels of gender relations (McCall 1992). These include (1)
gender symbolism and representations, or “durable cultural
expressions of gender differences” (McCall 1992, p. 837)
rooted within binary categories of male/female, masculine/
feminine; (2) gender identities, or the multiple experiences that
relate to individual circumstances and personal embodiment
of gender, found, for example, in experiencing motherhood or
masculinity; and (3) gender organization and institutions that
affect socioeconomic structuring, such as the gendered divi-
sion of labor (McCall 1992). The TGJF thus addresses gender
inequities in various forms (e.g., discrimination, oppression)
as they manifest symbolically/culturally, individually, and
structurally. Across these multiple levels, we need to be sen-
sitive to gender as it intersects with sex, sexuality, class, race,
religion, age, and ethnicity (Gopaldas 2013).
TGJF
A TCR perspective of gender necessitates a critical, reflective,
and constructive approach to explore the complexities of
gender as it is linked to identities, inequalities, policy, and
the marketplace. We propose the TGJF to guide scholars
in navigating this terrain. In the following sections, we
examine each lens individually—social and distributive
justice, capabilities approach, and recognition theory—before
discussing how they converge to provide a more holistic and
dialogic analysis.
First Lens: Social and Distributive Justice
The first lens, focused on socioeconomics (i.e., wealth-based
differences) and the allocation of goods, may be the most
widely acknowledged basis for analyzing sites of gender
injustice. Principles are often linked to egalitarian theories
such as Rawls’s (1971) “justice as fairness,” or Pogge’s
(2002) and Sachs’s (2005) arguments for global redistribu-
tions of wealth and prosperity. This lens positions justice
as achievable through distributive justice that ensures equal
access to resources. For example, Scott et al. (2011) have
proposed fundamental provisions for subsistence, health,
safety, sociality, sovereignty, and spirituality. Marketing
scholars have applied Rawlsian theory to issues of consumer
vulnerability (Laczniak and Murphy 2008), impoverished
market segments (Santos and Laczniak 2009), and socially
responsible, ethical marketing (Laczniak and Murphy 2008).
Notably, Hill and Dhanda (1999) use capability-related
distribution measurements (human development index [HDI]
and gender development index [GDI]) to highlight the
global pervasiveness of gender inequalities (for a summary, see
Table 1). Concepts of social and distributive justice, however,
are limited by implicit assumptions of rational actors and
states who recognize and are willing to allow redistribution.
Moreover, Rawls’s perspective, though valuable for assessing
224 Gender Justice and the Market
T
ab
le
1.
Su
m
m
ar
y
of
T
he
or
et
ic
al
L
en
se
s
an
d
L
it
er
at
ur
e
L
en
s
D
is
tr
ib
ut
iv
e
Ju
st
ic
e
C
ap
ab
ili
ti
es
A
pp
ro
ac
h
R
ec
og
ni
ti
on
T
he
or
y
F
oc
us
•
S
oc
io
ec
on
om
ic
le
ve
l
•
P
os
iti
on
s
ju
st
ic
e
as
ac
hi
ev
ab
le
th
ro
ug
h
di
st
ri
bu
tiv
e
of
ec
on
om
ic
an
d
so
ci
al
re
so
ur
ce
s
•
O
ft
en
lin
ke
d
to
eg
al
ita
ri
an
th
eo
ri
es
•
In
di
vi
du
al
le
ve
l
•
A
ge
nc
y
•
F
oc
us
es
on
en
su
ri
ng
pe
op
le
ha
ve
ca
pa
bi
lit
y
to
pe
rf
or
m
im
po
rt
an
t
fu
nc
tio
ns
an
d
fr
ee
do
m
to
liv
e
liv
es
th
ey
va
lu
e
•
L
in
ks
ge
nd
er
an
d
id
en
tit
y
po
lit
ic
s
•
G
ro
un
ds
ju
st
ic
e
in
cu
ltu
ra
l
sp
he
re
•
A
dd
re
ss
es
cu
ltu
ra
l,
sy
m
bo
lic
,a
nd
di
sc
ur
si
ve
is
su
es
th
at
un
de
rl
ie
ac
kn
ow
le
dg
m
en
t
of
id
en
tit
ie
s
•
M
ut
ua
l,
in
te
rs
ub
je
ct
iv
e
pr
oc
es
s
in
w
hi
ch
hu
m
an
s
re
co
gn
iz
e
ea
ch
ot
he
r
as
su
bj
ec
ts
K
ey
th
eo
ri
st
s
•
R
aw
ls
•
P
og
ge
•
S
ac
hs
•
S
en
•
N
us
sb
au
m
•
T
ay
lo
r
•
H
on
ne
th
•
F
ra
se
r
•
Y
ou
ng
S
tr
en
gt
hs
•
A
tte
m
pt
s
to
en
su
re
s
eq
ua
la
cc
es
s
to
re
so
ur
ce
s
an
d
eq
ua
lit
y
be
fo
re
th
e
la
w
th
at
en
ab
le
s
pe
op
le
to
re
al
iz
e
th
ei
r
hu
m
an
po
te
nt
ia
l
•
R
ec
og
ni
ze
s
va
ry
in
g
ab
ili
tie
s
of
pe
op
le
to
m
ak
e
us
e
of
re
so
ur
ce
s
an
d
ab
ili
ty
to
ha
ve
fr
ee
do
m
to
us
e
th
es
e
re
so
ur
ce
s
to
liv
e
on
e
ty
pe
of
lif
e
ov
er
an
ot
he
r
•
R
ec
og
ni
ze
s
th
e
cu
ltu
ra
l,
sy
m
bo
lic
,
an
d
di
sc
ur
si
ve
is
su
es
th
at
co
nt
ri
bu
te
to
re
co
gn
iti
on
an
d
m
is
re
co
gn
iti
on
of
ge
nd
er
id
en
tit
ie
s
an
d
pe
rp
et
ua
tio
n
of
ge
nd
er
in
ju
st
ic
es
(e
.g
.,
se
x
st
er
eo
ty
pe
s,
ge
nd
er
ro
le
s,
ob
je
ct
if
ic
at
io
n
of
bo
di
es
)
•
R
ec
og
ni
ze
s
th
e
ne
ed
fo
r
re
sp
ec
t
W
ea
kn
es
se
s
•
Im
pl
ic
it
as
su
m
pt
io
ns
of
ra
tio
na
l
ac
to
rs
/s
ta
te
s
•
N
eg
le
ct
s
cu
ltu
ra
l,
sy
m
bo
lic
,a
nd
di
sc
ur
si
ve
fo
rc
es
of
te
n
at
ro
ot
of
op
pr
es
si
on
•
C
an
le
ad
to
su
rf
ac
e-
le
ve
l
al
lo
ca
tio
ns
vs
.
fu
nd
am
en
ta
lr
es
tr
uc
tu
ri
ng
of
so
ur
ce
of
in
eq
ua
lit
ie
s
•
P
ot
en
tia
lt
o
tr
ea
t“
w
om
en
”
as
a
ca
te
go
ry
,a
ss
um
in
g
ho
m
og
en
iz
at
io
n
of
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s
an
d
di
sr
eg
ar
di
ng
in
te
rs
ec
tio
na
lit
ie
s
of
ot
he
ri
de
nt
ity
m
ar
ke
rs
th
at
ca
n
de
ep
en
in
eq
ua
lit
ie
s
•
F
oc
us
on
in
di
vi
du
al
re
m
ov
es
at
te
nt
io
n
fr
om
po
w
er
,
cu
ltu
ra
l
re
la
tio
ns
,
an
d
sy
st
em
ic
op
pr
es
si
on
•
A
ss
um
es
in
di
vi
du
al
is
aw
ar
e
of
op
pr
es
si
on
an
d
ab
le
to
le
ve
ra
ge
ca
pa
bi
lit
ie
s
•
C
an
ne
gl
ec
t
po
w
er
dy
na
m
ic
s,
le
av
in
g
in
ta
ct
po
lit
ic
al
,
ec
on
om
ic
,
an
d
so
ci
oc
ul
tu
ra
l
st
ru
ct
ur
es
th
at
ar
e
th
e
so
ur
ce
of
m
ar
gi
na
liz
at
io
n
an
d
m
is
re
co
gn
iti
on
•
P
ot
en
tia
l
to
tr
ea
t
ge
nd
er
an
d
se
x
as
a
fo
rc
ed
ca
te
go
ry
,
le
ad
in
g
to
st
er
eo
ty
pi
ng
or
ne
gl
ec
t
of
ot
he
r
fo
rm
s
of
di
sc
ri
m
in
at
io
n
an
d
fu
rt
he
r
m
ar
gi
na
liz
at
io
n
of
m
is
re
co
gn
iz
ed
id
en
tit
ie
s
P
ol
ic
y
to
ol
s
an
d
m
ar
ke
t
ap
pl
ic
at
io
ns
•
A
ff
ir
m
at
iv
e
ac
tio
n
(i
.e
.,
qu
ot
as
)
•
R
ed
is
tr
ib
ut
io
n
of
w
ea
lth
th
ro
ug
h
ta
xa
tio
n
an
d
st
at
e
pr
og
ra
m
s;
st
at
e,
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t,
or
co
rp
or
at
e
fu
nd
s
•
M
ic
ro
fi
na
nc
e
•
C
ha
ri
ty
w
or
k
an
d
co
rp
or
at
e
so
ci
al
re
sp
on
si
bi
lit
y
in
iti
at
iv
es
•
F
ai
r
tr
ad
e
•
B
ot
to
m
-o
f-
th
e-
py
ra
m
id
co
ns
um
er
is
m
•
M
ea
su
re
m
en
t
to
ol
s:
H
D
I
an
d
G
D
I
•
M
ea
su
re
m
en
t
to
ol
s:
qu
al
ity
-o
f
lif
e
m
et
ri
cs
(O
rg
an
is
at
io
n
fo
r
E
co
no
m
ic
C
o-
op
er
at
io
n
an
d
D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
B
et
ter
L
if
e
In
de
x;
S
oc
ia
l
P
ro
gr
es
s
In
de
x)
;
G
en
de
r
E
m
po
w
er
m
en
t
M
ea
su
re
;
G
en
de
r
In
eq
ua
lit
y
In
de
x;
W
om
en
E
co
no
m
ic
O
pp
or
tu
ni
ty
In
de
x
•
G
en
de
r
m
ai
ns
tr
ea
m
in
g
(p
ol
ic
ie
s
of
in
cl
us
iv
ity
an
d
di
ve
rs
ity
)
•
U
nc
on
sc
io
us
bi
as
tr
ai
ni
ng
•
D
el
ib
er
at
iv
e
de
m
oc
ra
cy
•
P
ar
tic
ip
at
or
y
co
ns
um
er
is
m
•
S
oc
ia
l
m
ar
ke
tin
g
an
d
br
an
di
ng
•
C
ul
tu
ra
l
st
ra
te
gi
es
•
R
es
po
ns
ib
le
ge
nd
er
re
pr
es
en
ta
tio
n
an
d
ad
ve
rt
is
in
g
A
pp
lic
at
io
n
in
m
ar
ke
tin
g
lit
er
at
ur
e
to
ge
nd
er
-r
el
at
ed
st
ud
ie
s
•
U
se
of
G
D
I
or
H
D
I
to
as
se
ss
ge
nd
er
in
eq
ua
lit
y
ac
co
rd
in
g
to
un
fa
ir
al
lo
ca
tio
n
of
so
ci
oe
co
no
m
ic
re
so
ur
ce
s
(H
ill
an
d
D
ha
nd
a
19
99
)
•
S
tu
di
es
of
w
om
en
’s
st
ra
te
gi
es
to
co
pe
w
ith
di
se
m
po
w
er
in
g
si
tu
at
io
ns
(e
.g
.,
m
ot
he
rs
on
w
el
fa
re
;
H
ill
an
d
S
te
ph
en
s
19
97
)
•
In
te
rs
ec
tio
na
lit
y
of
st
ru
ct
ur
al
dy
na
m
ic
s
w
ith
in
di
vi
du
al
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s
an
d
ne
ed
s
(S
aa
tc
io
gl
u
an
d
C
or
us
20
14
)
•
S
tu
di
es
on
ad
ve
rt
is
in
g/
m
ed
ia
re
pr
es
en
ta
tio
ns
of
ge
nd
er
(S
ch
ro
ed
er
an
d
B
or
ge
rs
on
19
98
;Z
ay
er
an
d
C
ol
em
an
20
15
)
•
C
on
su
m
er
id
en
tit
y
po
lit
ic
s
an
d
na
vi
ga
tio
n
of
st
ig
m
as
(T
ho
m
ps
on
20
14
)
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 225
resource-based inequalities, does not address sociocultural as-
pects, such as symbolic and discursive forces often at the root
of oppression (Scott et al. 2011). It thus leaves patriarchy—
supremacy and idealization of the man—unaddressed and
skews resource allocations and human development gains to-
ward men (as reflected in Hill and Dhanda’s [1999] findings).
Distributive remedies are reflected in gender quotas for
governments, boards, and corporations, as well as in the UN’s
sustainable development goals of gender equality and
women’s empowerment. While these remedies highlight
the goal of furthering equality between the sexes, they have
been criticized for essentializing women as a category (Young
1997) and failing to see nuances within gendered categories.
Second Lens: Capabilities Approach
The capabilities approach is concerned with ensuring that
individual people have the capacity to perform important
functions and the freedom of choice to live the lives they
value and to achieve the identities they desire (Nussbaum
1999; Sen 2009). In this context, the capabilities approach
relates to (1) fundamental “functionings,” or states and ac-
tivities of individuals, necessary for human development, and
(2) the agency of the individual. Although similar to social
justice theory in terms of access to resources, the capabilities
approach recognizes people’s varying abilities to make use
of these resources and their freedom to use these resources
to live one type of life or another. Nussbaum (1999), par-
ticularly concerned with directing policy makers to apply the
capabilities approach to women’s empowerment, formulates a
list of basic capabilities that governments must guarantee to
ensure people can live “truly human” and “flourishing” lives
(p. 40). This list includes securing capabilities related to (1)
life; (2) bodily health; (3) integrity; (4) senses, imagination,
and thought; (5) emotions, including the ability to show love,
grief, gratitude, and justified anger; (6) practical reason and
the ability to be reflective about and plan for one’s own
life; (7) affiliation, including being able to recognize and
show concern for others, to have freedom to affiliate with
others, and to be capable of achieving self-respect and
nonhumiliation; (8) recognition of other species and the
environment; (9) play; and (10) control over one’s envi-
ronment on a political and material scale (pp. 41–42). She
advocates that policy makers attend to the development of
persons’ internal capabilities as they relate to their particular
circumstances. For example, a pregnant woman will have
different needs from an elderly man.
Sen and Nussbaum do not claim a complete theory of
justice. They attempt to recognize elements necessary for
human dignity, integrated with agency, by supporting peo-
ple’s freedom to choose how to define such a life. This
approach, however, does not adequately address ideological
power or the role of political and economic institutions. It
expects the disenfranchised to know and envision possible
alternatives to their lives, disregarding Foucault’s argument
that people’s minds and bodies are shaped by normative
structures (McNay 2013). It also expects institutions that can
limit capabilities, such as families, communities, and states,
to be aware and open to change (Dean 2009). Its notion of
achieving recognition and respect remains centered on the
individual, de-emphasizing the way these ideas are cultivated
and reified through an intersubjective process that involves
societal interactions, practices, and discourse. It thus leaves
the victim blamed for oppression (Fraser 1998). Despite these
weaknesses, Nussbaum’s list (1999) has found traction in the
formulation of policy-related gender measurement indices,
including the Gender Empowerment Measure and Gender
Inequality Index. Capabilities approach has also found
significant resonance across the social sciences, particularly
in development and education studies. Within marketing
literature, scholars have explored these theories in arguing
for a humane perspective of consumerism that recognizes the
power of consumption and the capability of the market to
improve quality of life or life satisfaction (Martin and Hill
2012; Scott et al. 2011). Most work in this vein builds on
distributive justice theory, adding lenses that consider the
consumer’s capacity for involvement (Santos and Laczniak
2009), or individual experiences and needs (Hill and Stephens
1997; Saatcioglu and Corus 2014). However, gender is
typically not central to this research.
Third Lens: Recognition Theory
Recognition theory provides the necessary link between
gender and identity politics—whether based on “politics of
universalism” or “difference” (Taylor 1992)—and grounds
justice within the cultural, symbolic, and discursive sphere
by addressing marketplace and policy issues that can result
in injustices, such as objectification, discrimination, and vio-
lence. Recognition of self can be understood as a fundamental
aspect of identity development, that is, how individuals gain
self-consciousness and respect for themselves. It is, however,
based on mutual, intersubjective processes in which humans
recognize each other as subjects. This process involves
sociocultural patterns of representation, interpretation,
and communication of identities (Fraser 1998). It is through
language that we learn to recognize one another and ourselves,
and it is often at the beginning of our lives, through love,
care, and friendships, that we experience self-discovery and
self-affirmation (Taylor 1992). Recognition is thus a form
of approval. It includes respect, esteem (e.g., in the sense of
recognizing achievement), and acknowledgment (Honneth 1996).
The importance of recognition becomes particularly poi-
gnant if we consider misrecognition—the subordination or
refusal to acknowledge the identity of others. Fraser (1998)
provides examples of how this links to cultural sexism, or
the devaluation of the “feminine” (p. 439), as expressed in “a
range of harms suffered by women,” including
sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and pervasive domestic vi-
olence; trivializing, objectifying, and demeaning stereotypical
depictions in the media; harassment and disparagement in all
spheres of everyday life; subjection to androcentric norms in
relation to which women appear lesser or deviant and which work
to disadvantage them, even in the absence of any intention to
discriminate; attitudinal discrimination; exclusion or marginali-
zation in public spheres and deliberative bodies; and denialof full
legal rights and equal protections (pp. 439–40).
We argue that to overcome these injustices requires going
beyond the remedies of economic redistribution to include
changing cultural perspectives that devalue and marginalize
identities. It requires not only equal rights before the law but
equal respect in society. Recognition theory, however, has its
226 Gender Justice and the Market
limitations. Although it illuminates sociocultural barriers that
undermine the effectiveness of redistribution, it neglects
fundamental power relations. The decision of who and what
is worthy of recognition, and by whom, rests on power
(McNay 2008). Consequently, policies aimed to increase
recognition, such as gender mainstreaming or the women’s
empowerment rhetoric of the “double dividend” and the
“third billion,” often leave intact the political, economic, and
sociocultural structures that are the source of marginalization
and misrecognition. They result in surface reallocations but
fail to address underlying problems (Walby 2005). They can
(re)produce essentialized identity categories such as
“woman” and “mother,” which may not resolve injustices.
Such forced group specificity can also lead to the prioriti-
zation of one identity marker over others (i.e., gender over
race or age) or the replacement of one ideology and set
of normative pressures with another. Although recognition
theory is well developed within feminist studies and political
sciences, in marketing literature it is reflected implicitly in
studies that address gender representations in media (e.g.,
Schroeder and Borgerson 1998) and consumer identity
politics but that focus less on the transformative potential of
policies or markets. Examples of a catalog of research include
the autumn 2013 curation “The Politics of Identity Work” in
the Journal of Consumer Research (Thompson 2014), wherein
a variety of research showcases consumers’ navigation of
stigmas.
Exploring the Dialogics of Gender Injustices
Through the Intersections of TGJF’s Lenses
The importance of a multidimensional andmultiparadigmatic
perspective for gender justice has been noted in relation to
education (e.g., DeJaeghere, Parkes, and Unterhalter 2013)
and as a tactic to explain intersectionality (Jensen 2010). Yet
as Fraser (1998) notes, any simultaneous application of lenses
is not an easy task; proposed remedies can often conflict, as
our opening vignettes suggest. To help scholars and policy
makers navigate these tensions, and to move away from
reductionist thinking and disjointed solutions, we propose a
dialogic and recursive analysis. By “dialogic,” we refer to
what Edgar Morin (1992) describes as the “symbiotic unity”
of various logics (in our case, social and distributive justice,
capabilities, and recognition) in how they can simultaneously
support, compete with, complement, and contrast with one
another (p. 77). By “recursive” we emphasize that cause and
effect are interactive—each contributing to one another. The
method for applying the TGJF thus starts by examining the
insights the three enfranchisement lenses can individually
produce about the impact of the injustice, the perpetuating
factors, the barriers to transformational outcomes, and proposed
remedies (see Table 1 for examples). It then combines the
lenses to synthesize and juxtapose how these dynamics interact
with one another, and how solutions align and misalign. We
note that it is often in these areas of disjointedness that gender
injustices remain and are (re)produced. Rather than over-
looking potential conflicts or vying for the prioritization of one
theoretical view, we second Morin (1992) and encourage
scholars to allow these conflicts to open up spaces for creative
thinking in hopes that we can move beyond description of
inequalities to resolution of injustices.
Applications of the TGJF: Exploring Sites
of Gender Injustice
In the following section, and in Table 2, we highlight how the
TGJF can be applied in research and practice to various sites of
gender injustice. We illustrate the sex tourism case in detail,
beginning with a description of its context and background,
followed by application of the TGJF. Adopting a dialogic
approach, we discuss the (in)compatibilities of each lens and
their proposed remedies, and we flag gaps that could benefit
from additional research and interventions.
Case Study: Sex Trade and the Case of
Sex Tourism
Prostitution and sex trade are significantly tied to gender
politics and socioeconomics. It is estimated that 40
million–42 million people shape the global prostitution
market worth $186 billion annually, with 80% of these being
women and girls (Scelles Foundation 2012). The phenom-
enon as a whole points to gender injustices resulting from
socioeconomic deprivation and gender asymmetries, which
are maintained through flows of financial capital and sex
trade at the transnational level (Kempadoo 2004; Penttinen
2007; Sassen 2002). Policy has started putting some
frameworks in place to prevent sexual exploitation. Com-
monly, two perspectives compete: the abolitionist, which
seeks to outlaw and abolish prostitution, and the regulatory,
which strives for appropriate policing but legalization. This
interplay is further complicated by different forms of global
sex trade; not all prostitution faces the same issues andmarket
dynamics (e.g., sex trafficking compared to sex tourism). For
our illustration, we focus on sex tourism as one case in point.
Although sex tourism may be domestic, if we consider for
example travel within the United States, research has par-
ticularly defined it as the travel of relatively wealthy tourists
from a Western background to foreign, relatively poorer
countries, to engage in sexual relations (Ryan and Hall 2001;
Truong 1990). Due to its various manifestations (formal vs.
informal, casual vs. regular), the overall size and economic
value of the global sex tourism market is particularly opaque,
but estimates place it at a multibillion-dollar level, supporting
an international workforce of millions of people (Hannum
2002). Sex tourists are predominantly Western, white, often
married men from various social classes (Omondi 2003),
although numbers of female consumers are increasing
(Kempadoo 2004). Destinations in developing countries are
particularly prevalent (e.g., the Philippines, Thailand, Brazil,
the Dominican Republic, Kenya), as are touristic regions of
Eastern and Southern Europe (Omondi 2003). In these
countries, sex tourism adds to related services such as airline,
taxi, restaurant, and hotel industries (UNICEF 2007). In 1998,
the International Labor Organization reported that 2%–14% of
the gross domestic product of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Phil-
ippines, and Thailand derives from sex tourism (Edgell and
Swanson 2013). Yet market indicators, even as vague as these,
cannot accurately account for the industry’s size and form,
given that a large portion of its activities are illegal, un-
derground, and unregulated (Penttinen 2007; Sassen 2002).
Despite this growing market phenomenon, and despite sig-
nificant research in social sciences (Enloe 1989;Kempadoo2004;
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 227
T
ab
le
2.
A
pp
lic
at
io
n
of
T
ra
ns
fo
rm
at
iv
e
G
en
de
r
Ju
st
ic
e
F
ra
m
ew
or
k
to
Se
xu
al
V
io
le
nc
e
an
d
B
ra
nd
s,
D
om
es
ti
c
C
ar
e
an
d
C
hi
ld
ca
re
,
an
d
H
ea
lt
h
C
ar
e
E
xa
m
pl
es
So
ci
al
an
d
D
is
tr
ib
ut
iv
e
Ju
st
ic
e
T
he
or
y
C
ap
ab
ili
ti
es
T
he
or
y
R
ec
og
ni
ti
on
T
he
or
y
D
ia
lo
gi
ca
l
V
ie
w
(T
G
JF
)
P
ol
ic
y
St
re
ss
T
es
t
Id
en
ti
fi
es
Il
lu
m
in
at
es
Id
en
ti
fi
es
Il
lu
m
in
at
es
Id
en
ti
fi
es
Il
lu
m
in
at
es
Id
en
ti
fi
es
Il
lu
m
in
at
es
S
ex
ua
l
vi
ol
en
ce
an
d
br
an
ds
•
R
ap
e
on
co
lle
ge
ca
m
pu
se
s
an
d
re
la
tio
n
to
ac
ad
em
ic
in
st
itu
tio
na
l
br
an
ds
•
R
ap
e
fa
nt
as
ie
s
in
ad
ve
rt
is
in
g
•
T
he
ri
gh
t
to
se
cu
ri
ty
an
d
ow
ne
rs
hi
p
ov
er
on
e’
s
ow
n
bo
dy
•
O
cc
ur
re
nc
e
of
po
w
erim
ba
la
nc
es
(i
.e
.,
re
la
tiv
e
po
si
tio
n
of
po
w
er
)
•
A
cc
es
s
to
m
ar
ke
ts
an
d
re
so
ur
ce
s
th
at
ca
n
pr
ov
id
e
a
ch
an
ne
l
fo
r
vo
ic
e
•
V
ul
ne
ra
bi
lit
ie
s
pr
od
uc
ed
th
ro
ug
h
ge
nd
er
ed
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
•
N
ee
d
to
se
cu
re
bo
di
ly
in
te
gr
ity
(f
re
ed
om
fr
om
bo
di
ly
ha
rm
,
se
xu
al
as
sa
ul
t,
ha
ra
ss
m
en
t)
an
d
th
e
ri
gh
t
to
sa
fe
se
x
•
A
bi
lit
y
to
fo
rm
ul
at
e
an
d
co
nt
ro
l
na
rr
at
iv
es
ab
ou
t
bo
dy
an
d
in
te
gr
ity
•
R
ep
re
se
nt
at
io
n
an
d
m
is
re
co
gn
iti
on
of
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
an
d
ra
pe
re
fl
ec
t
w
ay
s
th
at
w
e
co
m
e
to
kn
ow
ou
rs
el
ve
s,
ot
he
rs
,
an
d
ou
r
bo
di
es
•
D
if
fe
re
nt
fo
rm
s
of
in
ju
st
ic
es
an
d
ca
te
go
ri
es
of
ra
pe
(e
.g
.,
as
a
w
ar
cr
im
e,
ca
m
pu
s
ra
pe
,
sp
ou
sa
l
ra
pe
;
ra
pe
of
m
en
an
d
w
om
en
)
•
S
te
re
ot
yp
in
g
an
d
st
ig
m
a
of
ra
pe
w
he
n
re
co
gn
iz
ed
as
an
in
ju
st
ic
e
•
R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
of
di
sc
ou
rs
es
su
rr
ou
nd
in
g
ra
pe
,
bl
am
in
g
vs
.
em
po
w
er
in
g
vi
ct
im
s
•
H
ow
br
an
di
ng
le
gi
tim
iz
es
pr
ac
tic
es
of
ra
pe
•
S
oc
io
cu
ltu
ra
l
an
d
m
ar
ke
t
fa
ct
or
s
th
at
pe
rp
et
ua
te
na
rr
at
iv
es
of
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
•
D
es
tig
m
at
iz
in
g
of
vi
ct
im
s
th
ro
ug
h
un
de
rs
co
ri
ng
bo
th
th
e
ro
le
of
in
st
itu
tio
ns
an
d
in
di
vi
du
al
ag
en
cy
in
th
e
st
or
ie
s
pe
rp
et
ua
te
d
ab
ou
t
ra
pe
in
so
ci
et
y
•
R
es
pe
ct
of
in
di
vi
du
al
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s
as
so
ci
at
ed
w
ith
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
,
pa
rt
ic
ul
ar
ly
as
th
ey
de
vi
at
e
fr
om
pr
io
ri
tiz
ed
fo
rm
s
an
d
na
rr
at
iv
es
of
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
•
C
ha
lle
ng
in
g
th
is
pr
io
ri
tiz
at
io
n
an
d
re
co
gn
iti
on
of
so
m
e
fo
rm
s
of
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
on
th
e
ba
si
s
of
m
ar
ke
t
or
po
lic
y
dy
na
m
ic
s
D
oe
s
th
e
po
lic
y.
..
•
en
su
re
na
rr
at
iv
es
th
at
em
po
w
er
?
•
ad
dr
es
s
th
e
so
ci
oc
ul
tu
ra
l
fa
ct
or
s
th
at
ve
il
or
pr
om
ot
e
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
,
in
cl
ud
in
g
br
an
di
ng
an
d
ad
ve
rt
is
in
g?
•
ad
dr
es
s
th
e
st
ru
ct
ur
es
th
at
pe
rm
it
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
?
•
em
po
w
er
in
di
vi
du
al
s
to
ta
ke
ac
tio
n
in
th
ei
r
be
st
in
te
re
st
?
•
ad
dr
es
s
re
co
gn
iti
on
of
m
ul
tip
le
id
en
tit
ie
s
an
d
in
te
rs
ec
tio
ns
in
vu
ln
er
ab
ili
tie
s
re
la
te
d
to
na
rr
at
iv
es
of
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
?
•
de
le
gi
tim
iz
e/
pr
io
ri
tiz
e
ce
rt
ai
n
fo
rm
s
of
se
xu
al
vi
ol
en
ce
an
d
re
co
gn
iz
e
in
ju
st
ic
e?
D
om
es
tic
ca
re
an
d
ch
ild
ca
re
•
D
if
fe
re
nt
ia
l
ac
ce
ss
to
an
d
ex
pe
ct
at
io
ns
of
do
m
es
tic
ca
re
an
d
ch
ild
ca
re
•
S
oc
io
ec
on
om
ic
st
ru
gg
le
to
in
cl
ud
e
do
m
es
tic
ca
re
an
d
ch
ild
ca
re
in
ec
on
om
ic
m
ea
su
re
m
en
ts
•
G
en
de
re
d
as
su
m
pt
io
n
of
“
fr
ee
w
or
k”
•
N
ee
d
to
in
cl
ud
e
ev
id
en
ce
of
do
m
es
tic
ca
re
an
d
ch
ild
ca
re
in
m
ea
su
re
s
of
gr
ow
th
an
d
w
el
fa
re
•
B
od
ily
ca
pa
bi
lit
ie
s,
pe
rs
on
al
pr
ef
er
en
ce
s,
an
d
fu
lf
ill
m
en
t
w
ith
re
ga
rd
to
ca
re
w
or
k
(e
.g
.,
br
ea
st
fe
ed
in
g)
•
N
ee
d
fo
r
fa
ir
an
d
eq
ua
l
ac
ce
ss
to
ca
re
re
so
ur
ce
s
•
S
oc
io
cu
ltu
ra
l
dy
na
m
ic
s
th
at
un
de
rv
al
ue
ec
on
om
ie
s
of
do
m
es
tic
ca
re
•
G
en
de
re
d
cu
ltu
ra
l
ex
pe
ct
at
io
ns
m
os
t
of
te
n
re
la
te
d
to
w
om
en
an
d
ca
re
;
di
sc
ou
rs
e
th
at
m
ai
nt
ai
ns
se
pa
ra
te
sp
he
re
s
be
tw
ee
n
“
pa
id
”
an
d
“
un
pa
id
”
w
or
k
•
N
ee
d
to
re
co
gn
iz
e
th
e
co
nt
ri
bu
tio
n
of
ca
re
w
or
ke
rs
an
d
va
lu
e
pl
ac
ed
on
th
e
pr
ac
tic
es
of
ca
re
•
N
ee
d
fo
r
un
co
ve
ri
ng
so
ci
oe
co
no
m
ic
bi
as
es
an
d
cu
ltu
ra
ld
yn
am
ic
s
in
th
e
va
lu
e
an
d
di
st
ri
bu
tio
n
of
ca
re
•
P
at
hw
ay
fo
r
in
di
vi
du
al
ag
en
cy
in
de
ci
si
on
s
re
la
te
d
to
do
m
es
tic
ca
re
an
d
ch
ild
ca
re
•
C
ha
lle
ng
es
to
ge
nd
er
no
rm
s
of
w
om
en
as
ca
te
go
ri
ca
l
pr
ov
id
er
s
in
fa
vo
r
of
sh
ar
ed
re
sp
on
si
bi
lit
ie
s
D
oe
s
th
e
po
lic
y.
..
•
en
su
re
fa
m
ili
es
ac
ce
ss
to
re
so
ur
ce
s
re
la
te
d
to
ca
re
?
•
re
co
gn
iz
e
an
d
m
ea
su
re
th
e
va
lu
e
of
ca
re
?
•
fa
ci
lit
at
e
in
di
vi
du
al
ac
tio
n
in
pu
rs
ui
t
of
ca
re
?
•
se
ek
to
ch
an
ge
so
ci
oc
ul
tu
ra
l
fa
ct
or
s
th
at
co
nt
ri
bu
te
to
th
e
un
de
rv
al
ua
tio
n
of
ca
re
?
•
pr
om
ot
e
an
d
re
w
ar
d
sh
ar
ed
re
sp
on
si
bi
lit
ie
s?
228 Gender Justice and the Market
T
ab
le
2.
C
on
ti
nu
ed
E
xa
m
pl
es
So
ci
al
an
d
D
is
tr
ib
ut
iv
e
Ju
st
ic
e
T
he
or
y
C
ap
ab
ili
ti
es
T
he
or
y
R
ec
og
ni
ti
on
T
he
or
y
D
ia
lo
gi
ca
l
V
ie
w
(T
G
JF
)
P
ol
ic
y
St
re
ss
T
es
t
Id
en
ti
fi
es
Il
lu
m
in
at
es
Id
en
ti
fi
es
Il
lu
m
in
at
es
Id
en
ti
fi
es
Il
lu
m
in
at
es
Id
en
ti
fi
es
Il
lu
m
in
at
es
H
ea
lth
ca
re
•
D
if
fe
re
nt
va
lu
at
io
n
of
m
al
e
vs
.
fe
m
al
e
ca
re
•
D
if
fe
re
nt
ia
l
ac
ce
ss
to
he
al
th
ca
re
•
S
tr
uc
tu
re
s
an
d
di
st
ri
bu
tiv
e
m
ec
ha
ni
sm
s
th
at
pe
rm
it
eq
ui
ta
bl
e
ac
ce
ss
to
he
al
th
ca
re
•
C
on
se
qu
en
ce
s
of
in
eq
ui
ta
bl
e
ac
ce
ss
to
he
al
th
ca
re
re
so
ur
ce
s
•
P
ri
or
iti
za
tio
n
an
d
fu
nd
in
g
of
he
al
th
ca
re
re
se
ar
ch
an
d
se
rv
ic
es
th
at
ta
ke
ge
nd
er
in
to
ac
co
un
t
•
Im
po
rt
an
ce
of
se
lf
-
de
te
rm
in
at
io
n
•
In
eq
ui
ta
bl
e
kn
ow
le
dg
e
of
,
ac
ce
ss
to
,
an
d
ab
ili
ty
to
us
e
he
al
th
ca
re
re
so
ur
ce
s
•
N
ee
d
fo
r
al
ig
nm
en
t
of
he
al
th
ca
re
pr
ov
is
io
ni
ng
w
ith
in
di
vi
du
al
re
qu
ir
em
en
ts
,a
nd
ab
ili
ty
to
vo
ic
e
ne
ed
s
•
N
ee
d
fo
r
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e
ed
uc
at
io
n
of
pa
tie
nt
s
an
d
he
al
th
ca
re
pr
ov
id
er
s
•
R
ec
og
ni
tio
n
of
he
al
th
ca
re
as
a
hi
st
or
ic
al
ly
an
dr
oc
en
tr
ic
fi
el
d
th
at
ha
s
af
fe
ct
ed
ac
ce
ss
to
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e
an
d
qu
al
ity
ca
re
•
C
ha
lle
ng
e
of
a
ca
te
go
ri
ca
l
ge
nd
er
bl
in
d
sp
ot
th
at
ha
s
ig
no
re
d
id
en
tit
y
di
ff
er
en
ce
s
•
H
ea
lth
ca
re
co
nc
er
ns
sp
ec
if
ic
to
th
e
fe
m
al
e
or
m
al
e
se
x
as
w
el
l
as
he
al
th
ca
re
co
nc
er
ns
re
la
te
d
to
ge
nd
er
so
ci
al
iz
at
io
n
•
S
ys
te
m
ic
is
su
es
th
at
ar
e
fo
rm
ed
by
hi
st
or
ic
al
an
dr
oc
en
tr
is
m
an
d
th
at
do
no
t
pr
ov
id
e
ad
eq
ua
te
ca
re
to
al
l
•
N
ee
d
to
co
nt
ex
tu
al
ly
ex
am
in
e
eq
ua
l
ac
ce
ss
,t
he
ab
ili
ty
to
us
e
he
al
th
ca
re
se
rv
ic
es
,
an
d
th
e
ef
fe
ct
s
of
he
al
th
ca
re
po
lic
ie
s
D
oe
s
th
e
po
lic
y.
..
•
sa
fe
gu
ar
d
al
l
in
di
vi
du
al
s’
ac
ce
ss
to
re
so
ur
ce
s
re
la
te
d
to
he
al
th
ca
re
?
•
en
su
re
al
l
ge
nd
er
ed
ne
ed
s
ar
e
le
gi
tim
iz
ed
?
•
en
ab
le
in
di
vi
du
al
s
to
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
e
in
th
ei
r
ph
ys
ic
al
,
m
en
ta
l,
an
d
em
ot
io
na
l
ca
re
ac
co
rd
in
g
to
th
ei
r
ge
nd
er
ed
he
al
th
ca
re
ne
ed
s?
•
pr
ov
id
e
w
om
en
an
d
m
ar
gi
na
liz
ed
id
en
tit
ie
s
vo
ic
e
in
th
e
in
st
itu
tio
ns
of
he
al
th
ca
re
?
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 229
Kibicho 2005; Ryan and Hall 2001; Truong 1990), studies
on sex tourism in the marketing and consumer behavior litera-
ture are extremely scarce. One exception is Belk, Østergaard,
and Groves (1998), which explores sex consumption in Thai-
land and knowledge about HIV/AIDS; it critiques a lack of
marketing models that could promote condom use and ex-
plain high-risk sexual behaviors. Although the study notes
gender inequalities as contributing to the spread of HIV/
AIDS, it does not provide transformative perspectives on
gender. In contrast, we place gender and its injustices at the
center of what needs to be transformed.
Social Justice
Starting with the first lens, the social justice perspective, we
note that the resulting, contending policies—abolition versus
regulation—lead to different outcomes. The former poten-
tially exacerbates injustices by pushing activities further
underground and by denyingsex workers legal protection
and recourse to merited compensation. Both, however, tend
to neglect the socioeconomic reasons for the existence of this
industry: the inequitable distribution of resources and wealth
at a global level that allows sex tourism to flourish (Penttinen
2007). In the “Global South”—a term that designates po-
litically and economically developing regions of the world—
relatively poorer nations are encouraged to open their frontiers
to foreign visitors for a range of commercial transactions,
including sex (Kibicho 2005, p. 258; Sassen 2002). Sadly,
touristic zones and red-light districts are often the result of
redistribution sought through development agendas. Structural
adjustment policies have led to fast urbanization, structural
unemployment, insufficient welfare provisions, currency
devaluation, and cheap labor, as millions of impoverished
individuals—particularly women—join the informal econ-
omy in which unregulated tourism and sex play a significant
role (Brennan 2004; Sassen 2002). Even when laws are
implemented, trade activities continue on the margins of
legality due to their sizeable contribution to economies
(O’Connell Davidson 2004). Structural developments that
lack contextual gender sensitivity are thus one factor con-
tributing to sex tourism.
Furthermore, in developing regions, women are often
prevented from accessing appropriate work to match their
skills or education level (Sassen 2002). This is compounded
by discrimination: although the tourism industry is highly
feminized, women are assigned to lower-paid, precarious
work conditions, even when they hold the same or higher
levels of education or skills as men (World Tourism Orga-
nization 2010). Thus, while social justice might encourage
structural policies to address global wealth inequalities,
disjoining these policies from local gender contexts can re-
produce and even deepen gender injustices.
Additional elements that hold gender injustices of sex
tourism in place stem from transnational dynamics. Touristic
zones, kept as exclusive areas for vacationers, allow global
corporations to reap the profits. Thus, the flow of capital
remains between tourists and wealthy global corporations.
Informal economies continue to dominate as locals are
pushed to the margins of official trade. This feeds, rather than
resolves, economic disparities between the wealthy and the
poor (Gregory 2007; Ourahmoune 2012), providing further
incentive for gender-blind, structural adjustment policies.
Indeed, as exemplified in this case, markets may benefit from
gender inequalities, so it may be in the markets’ interest to
retain the inequalities.
From a TGJF perspective, the social or distributive justice
perspective, while addressing important wealth inequalities,
does not provide comprehensive solutions for gender in-
justices. A more nuanced analysis of the sex worker’s agency
(as per capabilities approach) and cultural gender discrimi-
nations and hierarchies (as per recognition theory) is required.
Capabilities Approach
Viewing Nussbaum’s (1999) list of capabilities in light of
sex tourism, we note how a sex worker’s agency is limited
in terms of reproductive health and protection against sex-
ual discrimination, sexual assault, and domestic violence
(Nussbaum’s capabilities 2, 3, and 7). Sex work threatens
the right to be cared for when dependent and in need of care;
the right to care for others and ability to respect others and
achieve a sense of respect for oneself; and the right to have
meaningful intimate relationships (capabilities 4, 5, and 7).
Although prostitution and sex tourism may not cause all sex
workers to be denied these capabilities, it puts them at a
higher risk of being restricted or compromised in their
freedoms. For example, sex workers experience dangers
inherent to life simply by carrying out their everyday ac-
tivities, whether in forced prostitution or while working as
independent sex workers. They typically frequent high-crime
environments and are more vulnerable to experiences of
violence, including physical and sexual assault, notably by
pimps, bar owners, police officials, and customers (Brennan
2004; Gregory 2007), which results in higher mortality rates
(Brody et al. 2005). Added to this are challenges related to
their health, including access to information about (sexual)
health (Porras et al. 2008) and access and utilization of
(mental) health care (Gajic-Veljanoski and Stewart 2007),
which are worsened by perceived stigmatization from health
care providers (Kerrigan et al. 2006). These and other limited
functionings often prevent sex providers from entering into
exchange relationships as equals, especially in the context
of developing economies, where capabilities are further re-
stricted by economic inequalities and perceived racial infe-
riority (Kempadoo 2004; Ryan and Hall 2001). Whether a
sex worker is forced into sex trade by a trafficker or by a lack
of professional and economic alternatives, a recurring theme
is the sense of being trapped and without choice, which
becomes a significant barrier to the search for other options.
Thus, for many, sex work becomes a survival strategy and
not a lifestyle choice (Leichtentritt and Davidson-Arad 2004).
While freedom of movement may not be physically restricted,
sex workers’ perceived lack of choice, based on reduced con-
trol over sexuality and health, and the continuous threat to
capabilities of bodily health and integrity, lead to experi-
enced, if not material, loss of ownership over their bodies.
Another viewpoint offered by the capabilities perspective
is one that identifies the agency of sexual service providers
(Nussbaum 1999). Women are described as being far from
passive “victims”; rather, they systematically choose sex
work as a profession to take advantage of Western tourists in
hope of eventually escaping to a better life (Brennan 2004;
Roux 2010). While we may understand these individuals as
agentic when compared with the ones who are trafficked,
230 Gender Justice and the Market
forced, and deprived of basic freedoms (Scelles Foundation
2012), their agency still rests on unequal socioeconomic
conditions and, as noted, can result in exposure to risky
environments, deprived health conditions, and social mar-
ginalization (Gregory 2007; Kempadoo 2004). The action
program Red Thread Women’s Development Program
implemented “codes of conduct” among Guyanese sex
workers that showed they could be “actively involved in
negotiating the terms of the exchange and some rules of the
game” (Red Thread Women’s Development Program 1999,
p. 276). Yet, despite these codes, the continued high in-
cidence of diseases and pregnancies indicates that these sex
workers still do not have full agency. The TGJF thus suggests
that a capabilities approach—or supporting the agency of sex
workers—does not fully resolve gender injustices due to
other forces: transnational socioeconomic inequalities (as per
social justice) and symbolic asymmetries of gender, class,
and ethnicity that lead to misrecognition (as per recognition
theory).
Recognition Theory
While social justice and capabilities lenses might deem sex
work as potential (economic or individual) empowerment,
recognition theory renders it as a largely unequivocal in-
justice. Endorsing sex tourism as a normalized labor makes
it legitimate for Western populations to take advantage of
human economic despair and to treat certain “other” women
differently than those in their home countries.
Recognition theory, which reveals the marginalization and
stigmatization of sex workers, also notes that regardless of
how empowering sex tourism might appear, it still results in
the sex workers being recognized as sex objects. Notable
attempts have been made by policy makers and marketers to
address gender injustices based on misrecognition. For ex-
ample, governments of developing nations that rely on in-
come from tourism have tried to implement policies to build
a positive and safe image of the countryin order to attract
tourists (often families) and foreign investments. Brazil’s
tourism officials have deliberately sought to remove mar-
keting references to an earlier, systematic “mulata–bikini–
tropical beach” narrative, which emerged as a dangerous
appeal for sex tourism (Bandyopadhyay and Nascimento
2010). When Adidas wanted to sell a T-shirt for the 2014
FIFA World Cup that displayed a bikini-clad woman with a
soccer ball, emblazoned with the slogan “Lookin’ to Score,”
the Brazilian government negotiated the shirt’s withdrawal.
Recognition in this case worked on the premise of responsible
representation of women to challenge issues linked to sexual
exploitation and tourism. This example also highlights the
frequent conflicts between the marketplace and policies re-
garding recognition. It is not the first time that marketing
images of gender have been linked to stereotyping, dis-
crimination, and sexualization, which is proving a challenge
in policy struggles (Heatwole 1989). For example, the so-
called four “s” words of tourism (“sun,” “sea,” “sand,” and
“sex”) continue to operate as the significant theme in tourism
marketing, perpetuating the colonial myth of the sexualized
exotic body (Kempadoo 2004; Ourahmoune 2012). This in
turn fosters women’s subordination and men’s social per-
mission to participate in sexual transactions. Women’s exotic
bodies become these women’s recognized feature.
The question remains whether the promotion of respon-
sible tourism is sufficient for discouraging sex trade. Practical
decisions regarding recognition are in reality deeply inter-
twined with global market demands of tourism, which are not
necessarily linked to interest in resolving localized gender or
social inequalities. From this it would appear that recognition
theory’s remedies may fall short; to resolve this gender in-
justice requires grappling with the socioeconomic structures
and control over resources that allow sex tourism to continue.
As Enloe (1989) argues, “To succeed, sex tourism requires
Third World women to be economically desperate enough to
enter prostitution” (p. 36).
The Dialogics of Sex Tourism Through the TGJF
From these illustrations it is evident that each lens tackles
complex issues in its own right, yet none on its own fully
resolves this case of gender injustice. In combining the lenses,
the TGJF reveals dilemmas and tensions that arise. Rather than
ignoring these, we encourage scholars to engage with these
areas of disjointedness. By thinking dialogically between our
TGJF lenses, that is, going back and forth to consider how they
complement or contradict each other, we can move beyond
polarized positions (i.e., remedies of abolition vs. regulation;
global vs. local) to identify gaps for future research and enable
creative thinking about transformative interventions.
First, the lenses of social justice and recognition theory
seem compatible and complementary at the outset. Gender
injustices occur because of global and local asymmetries
that have been perpetuated by gender-blind policies (e.g.,
structural adjustments), markets (e.g., North/South relations),
and marketing (e.g., the four “s” words of tourism). Identi-
fying and recognizing these gender injustices could disrupt
the fundamental power issues at transnational and national/
local levels that tend to normalize injustices. This gender
focus within distributive justice cannot be pushed further
without recognition of unequal gender relations. However,
despite this seeming compatibility between lenses, asym-
metries exist that make gender transformations tremendously
challenging. We cannot neglect the fact that global wealth
inequalities offer powerful benefits to some people; these
global inequalities also have local impacts, one of which is
the sex tourism industry. Equally crucial are challenging
questions of who needs recognition, for what, and by whom,
yet these questions have been insufficiently researched.
Nevertheless, injustices of misrecognition should be funda-
mental gender concerns for policy makers and responsible
marketing.
Second, several dilemmas emerge at the intersection of
capabilities approach and recognition theory. For example,
perspectives from the capabilities approach would argue
that normalization of sex work could liberate women: if
the stigmatization associated with sex work were eliminated,
poor workingwomenwould havemore options for livelihood
(i.e., they would be freer to choose sex work). This, of course,
assumes sufficient safeguards against disease and abuse, as
well as access to required health education and resources.
Yet, as our recounting of current circumstances indicates,
realities are often different. And even if these circumstances
were possible, would they resolve the injustice? Not ac-
cording to recognition theory: normalization reinforces the
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 231
stereotype of cultural permissiveness of the Global South that
drivesWestern tourists to act in ways that are usually morally
prohibited. Moreover, it does not end stigma of the sex worker
or any misrecognition of women as sex objects.
Third, the capabilities approach can be at odds with social
justice. As the burden of empowerment is placed on individuals,
it also becomes their responsibility to find ways of exiting the
trade. Depending on their economic welfare, this can further
discourage governments to consider sex workers as vulnerable
and in need of distributive justice as a priority. Yet, without
social justice, these gender injustices can be perpetuated by
economic exploitation of gender differences and the continued
objectification of women, their bodies, and their health.
Finally, despite these dilemmas, tensions, and seeming
(in)compatibilities, examples exist of organizations that
have succeeded working with and through these issues.
The Avancemos project in the Dominican Republic serves as
an illustrative example. Avancemos was launched by the
nongovernmental organization (NGO) COIN to empower
women in the sex trade as the Dominican Republic, known
as a sex tourism destination, grappled with HIV/AIDS (the
Caribbean is the second most affected region in the world).
The NGO started its full-scale HIV prevention plan with peer
education, development of educational materials designed
by and for sex workers, social marketing in the promotion
of condoms and mobile clinical sexually transmitted disease
services, and the launch of a microcredit cooperative to assist
sex workers to develop their own businesses and savings
(Kerrigan et al. 2006). Furthermore, the organization designed
strategies to link sex workers to the social and economic sup-
port they required, such as rehabilitation for those formerly
incarcerated, payment of school fees for sex workers’ children,
and assistance with access to alternative employment for those
who wished to transition out of sex work.
Since the beginning of Avancemos, immense change has
been made. In 1996, 72% of sex workers interviewed named
their main source of information concerning sexually transmitted
infections/AIDS as Avancemos (Kempadoo 2004). Know-
ledge, Attitudes, and Practices surveys in Santo Domingo and
Puerto Plata demonstrated significant increases in consistent
condomuse (Centro deEstudios Sociales yDemográficos 1999).
In Puerto Plata, by combining Avancemos with a government
policy that held sex-establishment owners responsible for en-
suring required condom usage, a 40% reduction in sexually
transmitted infections was documented over the course of a
year (Kerrigan et al. 2006).
In this example, we see how markets, marketing, and
NGOs’ policies have addressed critical points needed to
resolve injustices that work in conjunction. Reading the suc-
cesses of Avancemos through the TGJF illuminates how
social justice (i.e., access to microcredit) can go hand in hand
with capabilities (i.e., health education and condom use) and
can create circumstances conducive to giving sex workers
choice (i.e., to remain in or exit the industry).As the Puerto
Plata intervention revealed, Avancemos is perhaps a missing
ingredient in the Thailand model that Belk, Østergaard,
Groves (1998) explore. The Thai model, a government-
imposed preventive focused on decreasing high-risk behav-
ior, has been criticized as being forced upon sex workers
(Kerrigan et al. 2006; Truong 1990). The TGJF highlights that
it is not enough to ensure knowledge about high-risk
behavior, but that a concerted effort that addresses—rather
than evades—gender inequalities is required. Indeed, particular
successes of Avancemos have inspired adaptations of the
program in Asia. This transfer of know-how and the collab-
orative dimension has fostered innovation at a transnational
level, with a high degree of flexibility for local contexts. Thus,
we see an intervention that can match sex tourism’s trans-
national character. This raises important points about the
global nature of some of these gender injustices that could
benefit from higher-level policies (e.g., from the United Na-
tions) and collaborative learning.
Reading the Avancemos program through our TGJF does,
however, also highlight limitations. Avancemos does not
receive significant support from the private sector (Kerrigan
et al. 2006), when potential marketing involvement could
range from developing brand associations to responsible
marketing (such as a link to destination marketing). This lack
of funding may contribute to exacerbation of some gender
injustices: the program is limited to large cities and does not
reach LGBT prostitution. It also highlights the necessity of
engaging more with meanings of gender recognition in the
context of sex tourism. In a positive way, Avancemos’s
recognition of sex workers (as a profession or status) does not
necessarily lead to the normalization or promotion of sex
work but, rather, engages in action that points to the harmful
effects of prostitution, whether forced or not. However, this
recognition does not address the demand side of the market
or the wider social implications and dangerous conditions
in which sex workers operate. Most of the solutions place
“responsibility” on female sex workers and result in some
of the successes mentioned. Yet paying for sex remains a
naturalized position, although this, in particular, requires fur-
ther research attention and action.
Discussion and Implications for Markets,
Marketing, and Policy
Our examination of gender (in)justices in the sex tourism
context highlights challenges yet also builds toward trans-
formative solutions. We further recognize that various cam-
paigns are attempting to tackle gender issues. Concepts such
as diversity, inclusivity, and mainstreaming are entering
market and policy discourses. Yet solutions are often applied
without an intersecting perspective of enfranchisement theories
and gender justice, as we propose. We recommend that mar-
keters and policy makers take into account the multiple per-
spectives of the TGJF to produce insights for resolutions and to
avoid deepening injustices. Marketing and policy may at times
compete in the pursuit of gender justice; however, both play
significant roles in its materialization and resolutions. Our ex-
ample of sex tourism reveals howpolicy can affect redistribution
of resources and draw attention to areas where people’s ca-
pabilities are being denied, while markets and marketing often
hold the power to influence gender representations.
In Table 2, we demonstrate TGJF’s usefulness and ver-
satility by applying the framework to three additional sites
of gender injustice: the interaction of sexual violence and
brands, the domestic care and childcare economy, and the
health care industry. We reveal what issues are identified,
what resolutions can be illuminated by each lens, and how a
TGJF perspective can work dialogically through dilemmas
232 Gender Justice and the Market
and incompatibilities. This table suggests, as we have shown
in detail in the case of sex tourism, that while social and dis-
tributive justice, capabilities, and recognition individually
provide insight into policy development, combining all lenses
facilitates identification of issues in their complexity and ex-
tends illumination of resolutions. A key contribution of Table 2
is its ability to provide an evaluative mechanism for exam-
ining potential policy directions that include insights from each
of the three lenses in both individual and integrated fashions.
If we consider that sexual violence and brands often be-
come linked, whether by choice or association (e.g., cases
of college campus rape), social justice identifies gender
injustices as rooted in differential rights regarding body
ownership and sexuality. Markets in this instance can provide
transformative channels that give voice to these injustices. The
capabilities approach highlights the importance of safeguarding
bodily integrity, while agency could be facilitated through
narratives and shared experience. Sexual violence is, however,
also fundamentally rooted in instances of misrecognition, and
we should note that recognition of one specific act of sexual
violence (e.g., rape as a weapon of war) can relativize other
forms of violence (e.g., domestic violence). Responsible
discourses of rape thus become particularly important in
transformative illuminations of recognition. Finally, we add
potential identifications of gender injustices as they intersect
across all lenses, and illuminations that may arise from a
dialogic process across these distinct levels. For example,
markets can serve as a mechanism of distributive justice to
empower recognition of narratives of victims of sexual vi-
olence, which can equally relate to capabilities. Our policy
stress test raises important questions for implementing TGJF
in potential market and policy mechanisms.
Following the same pattern for two further cases (i.e.,
domestic care and childcare, and health care) reveals differ-
ent tensions, but along similar spectra of our three lenses.
We understand these lenses, linked to our TGJF, as laying the
foundations for a future research agenda of gender in TCR,
which we discuss in the following section.
Future Research and Limitations
Future Research
The TGJF draws attention to key considerations for scholars
studying gender in the context of TCR. In this section and as
illustrated in Figure 1, we outline questions that can guide
marketing scholars in taking a transformative approach to
studying gender. Fundamentally, gender TCR depends on
thorough investigations of whether, how, and why gender is
identified and conceptualized, providing an important foun-
dation on which to build transformative inquiry. To build
on these important “how” and “why” questions and to ad-
vance transformative agendas as reflected through TGJF,
scholars should ask how levels of analysis—whether per-
sonalized, localized, systemic, and/or institutional—interact
recursively, and what role markets, policy, andmarketing can
and do play in transforming or exacerbating injustices.
First, research that fails to address the complexities of
gender is in danger of being gender blind (i.e., neglecting
important gender differentiations) or, alternatively, may
overemphasize gender. Related to this, research based on
essentialized or stereotyped gender roles can increase in-
justices. Transformative measures should consider how and
why gender is a differentiating factor, or why and how gender
differences need to be removed. We argue that TGJF aids the
process of thinking creatively through the various—at times
contradictory—levels of how gender can come to matter.
Second, as we have discussed, research on the dynamics
of intersecting lenses often reveals dilemmas or contradic-
tions, highlighting the intricacies of gender across levels of
analysis—for example, personal, localized or global, trans-
national, systemic, or institutional. Although work on each
lens in its own right is equally important, siloed approaches
can lead to unintended consequences or significantgaps that
require further resolution. This raises questions such as how
and why localized or personal experiences of gender potentially
relate to and interact with larger global, transnational, or
institutional organizations. Thus, we encourage a recursive
and dialogic approach built around applications of the TGJF.
Finally, we raise important questions on how markets,
marketing, and policy can play a transformative role in or, at
times, exacerbate gender injustices. These issues are rarely
simple. Therefore, to examine them we need to adopt (1) a
critical lens to identify where the domination of one enfran-
chisement lens has led to disjointed policy or market resolu-
tions and created unintended consequences that exacerbate
injustice; (2) a dialogic lens to capture how solutions can
simultaneously support, compete, complement, and contrast;
and (3) a creative lens to recognize howareas ofmisalignment can
be fertile grounds for innovative solutions. Placing gender at
the core of transformative research, TGJF facilitates ques-
tions such as how and why marketing and policy transform
gender or add further challenges in the struggle for justice.
Limitations
Despite the complexities of gender represented in our
framework, power dynamics still remain implicit at each level
and can potentially undermine integration and specific res-
olutions toward gender justice. Similarly, as elusive as power
may be and as influential in gender relations, our framework
may not lead to actions that are easily implemented or tan-
gibly measured. For example, sociocultural gender norms
emerge as very real and harmful, and they can be linked to
marketing activities (Zayer and Coleman 2015). However,
their pervasiveness will pose challenges for effecting change.
This research therefore suggests a need for policy makers and
marketers to work in tandem to resolve injustices.
Conclusion
Our intention in this article is to underscore the importance of
gender justice and to provide a working model that scholars
and policy makers can extend to other sites of injustice. Each
site requires resolutions sensitive to its context. However,
rather than viewing sites as isolated cases or reductively
through one perspective, we encourage researchers to ex-
amine injustices in a dialogic fashion and to understand how
marketing, markets, and policies are entangled. In this regard,
our framework can go beyond analyses of gender to include
intersecting attributes that create inequities and injustices,
such as race or class. We are not claiming that our framework
represents a panacea for all gender issues or that it prescribes
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 233
universal strategies. Indeed, there is no one right way of ad-
dressing injustices, and the recognition of injustice in itself
may be a first step toward resolution. Rather, what we seek
to encourage with this article is for research and policy to
recognize the various levels of gender injustices and the
recursiveness of their causes and effects so that scholars
and policy makers can work toward more holistic and
transformative solutions. Ultimately, our main aim and
contribution is to build a theoretical and conceptual foun-
dation that allows us to advance a transformative research
agenda directed toward significant change.
References
Bandyopadhyay, Rajnan and Karina Nascimento (2010), “‘Where
Fantasy Becomes Reality’: How Tourism Forces Made Brazil
a Sexual Playground,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18 (8),
933–49.
Belk, Russell W., Per Østergaard, and Ronald Groves (1998),
“Sexual Consumption in the Time of AIDS: A Study of
Prostitution Patronage in Thailand,” Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 17 (Fall), 197–214.
Bettany, Shona, Susan Dobscha, Lisa O’Malley, and Andrea Prothero
(2010), “Moving Beyond Binary Opposition: Exploring the Tap-
estry of Gender in Consumer Research and Marketing,” Marketing
Theory, 10 (1), 3–28.
Brennan, Denise (2004), What’s Love Got to Do with It? Trans-
national Desires and Sex Tourism in the Dominican Republic.
London: Duke University Press.
Bristor, Julia and Eileen Fischer (1993), “Feminist Thought: Im-
plications for Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 19 (4), 518–36.
Brody, Stuart, John Potterat, StephenMuth, and DonaldWoodhouse
(2005), “Psychiatric and Characterological Factors Relevant
to Excess Mortality in a Long-Term Cohort of Prostitute
Women,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 31 (2), 97–112.
Centro de Estudios Sociales y Demográficos (1999), Survey of
Knowledge, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Practices in Relation to HIV/
AIDS Among Female Sex Workers and Men Involved in the
Sex Industry in the Dominican Republic. Santo Domingo:
CESDEM.
Figure 1. Research Paradigm to Direct Application of Transformative Gender Justice Framework in Future Research
Question 1: Is gender identified? Why or why not (e.g., neglect, essentialism)? 
 If gender is identified, how is it conceptualized (e.g., binary constructions, multiplicities)? 
How are we (as scholars) conceptualizing “gender”? How is “gender” conceptualized within the context under study (e.g., by interviewees, by 
written or visual representation, by the discursive practices)?
What are the implications of applying our conceptualization of “gender” to the area of study? What are the implications of the context-specific
conceptualization of “gender” on the area of study?
RT: What (mis)recognitions do these conceptualizations of gender reflect?
CA: How do these conceptualizations affect the lived, personal experiences of gender and intersect with other identity markers?
SJ: How are these conceptualizations reflected in localized or systemic structures, and recursively, how do the localized and systemic 
structures contribute to these conceptualizations of gender?
Question 2: How do levels of analysis interact recursively?
(Personal/Localized Experience vs. 
Institutional/Systemic Organization)
Question 3: What role do markets, policy, 
and marketing play?
(Exacerbating vs. Transforming)
What dynamics of gender injustice are reflected at the different
What market, policy, and marketing solutions does each lens (SJ, 
CA, RT) identify?
How do these solutions interact recursively?
levels of analysis, using the various lenses (SJ, CA, RT)?
What resolutions can we identify or propose on the basis of our 
analysis that can overcome areas of misalignment/conflict and 
build toward achieving gender justice?
Notes: SJ = social justice theory; RT = recognition theory; CA = capabilities approach.
234 Gender Justice and the Market
Dean, Hartley (2009), “Critiquing Capabilities: the Distractions of
a Beguiling Concept,” Critical Social Policy, 29 (2), 261–78.
DeJaeghere, Joan, Jenny Parkes, and Elaine Unterhalter (2013),
“Gender Justice and Education: Linking Theory, Policy, and
Practice,” International Journal of Educational Development,
33 (6), 539–45.
Edgell, David and Jason Swanson (2013), Tourism Policy and
Planning: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. London: Routledge.
Enloe, Cynthia (1989), Bananas, Beaches, and Bases. London:
Pandora.
Fraser, Nancy (1998), “From Redistribution to Recognition? Di-
lemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age,” in Feminism and
Politics, A. Phillips, ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
430–60.
Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga and Donna Stewart (2007), “Women Traf-
ficked into Prostitution: Determinants, Human Rights, and Health
Needs,” Transcultural Psychiatry, 44 (3), 338–58.
Gopaldas, Ahir (2013), “Intersectionality 101,” Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 90–94.
Gregory, Stephen (2007), The Devil Behind the Mirror: Global-
ization and Politics in the Dominican Republic. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Hannum, Ann Barger (2002), “Sex Tourism in Latin America,”
ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America, [available at http://
revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/sex-tourism-latin-america].
Heatwole, Charles A. (1989), “Body Shots: Women in Tourism-
Related Advertisements,” Focus (SanFrancisco), 39 (4), 7–11.
Hill, Ronald Paul and Kanwalroop Kathy Dhanda (1999), “Gender
Inequity and Quality of Life: A Macromarketing Perspective,”
Journal of Macromarketing, 19 (December), 140–52.
——— and Debra Lynn Stephens (1997), “Impoverished Con-
sumers and Consumer Behavior: The Case of AFDC Mothers,”
Journal of Macromarketing, 17 (Fall), 32–48.
Honneth, Axel (1996), The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral
Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
International Labour Organization (2015), Women in Business and
Management: Gaining Momentum. Geneva, Switzerland: Inter-
national Labour Organization.
Jensen, Robert (2010), “Beyond Race, Gender, and Class:
Reclaiming the Radical Roots of Social-Justice Movements,”
Global Dialogue, 12 (2), (accessed August 16, 2016) [available at
http://raceproject.org/pdfs/Jensen2011.pdf].
Kempadoo, Kemala (2004), Sexing the Caribbean: Gender, Race,
and Sexual Labor. New York: Routledge.
Kerrigan, Deanna, Luis Moreno, Santo Rosario, Bayardo Gomez,
Hector Jerez, and Clare Barrinton (2006), “Environmental-
Structural Interventions to Reduce HIV/STI Risk Among
Female Sex Workers in the Dominican Republic,” American
Journal of Public Health, 96 (1), 120–25.
Kibicho, Wanjohi (2005), “Tourism and the Sex Trade in Kenya’s
Coastal Region,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13 (3), 256–80.
Laczniak, Eugene and Patrick E. Murphy (2008), “Distributive
Justice: Pressing Questions, Emerging Directions, and the
Promise of Rawlsian Analysis,” Journal of Macromarketing,
28 (March), 5–11.
Leichtentritt, Ronit D. and Bilha Davidson-Arad (2004), “Ado-
lescent and Young Adult Male-to-Female Transsexuals: Path-
ways to Prostitution,” British Journal of Social Work, 34 (3),
349–74.
Martin, Kelly D. and Ronald Paul Hill (2012), “Life Satisfaction,
Self-Determination, and Consumption Adequacy at the Bottom of
the Pyramid,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1155–68.
McCall, Leslie (1992), “Does Gender Fit? Bourdieu, Feminism,
and Conceptions of Social Order,” Theory and Society, 21 (6),
837–67.
McNay, Lois (2008), Against Recognition. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
——— (2013), Foucault and Feminism: Power, Gender, and the
Self. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Morin, Edgar (1992),Method: Towards a Study of Humankind, Vol.
1. The Nature of Nature, J.L. Roland Belanger, trans. New York:
Peter Lang.
Nussbaum, Martha (1999), Sex and Social Justice. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
O’Connell Davidson, Julia (2004), “Child Sex Tourism: An Anom-
alous Form of Movement?” Journal of Contemporary European
Studies, 12 (1), 31–46.
Omondi, Rose Kisia (2003), “Gender and the Political Economy
of Sex Tourism in Kenya’s Coastal Resorts,” paper presented
at International Symposium/Doctoral Course on Feminist Per-
spective on Global Economic and Political Systems, Tromso,
Norway, [available at http://www.arsrc.org/downloads/features/
omondi.pdf].
Ourahmoune, Nacima (2012), “Marketplace Performances in
Emerging Economies: Eliciting the Asymmetric Interactions Be-
tween Service Providers and Western Tourists,” in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 40, Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, Cele Otnes,
and Rui (Juliet) Zhu, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research, 976–79.
Penttinen, Elina (2007), Globalization, Prostitution, and Sex
Trafficking: Corporeal Politics. London: Routledge.
Pogge, Thomas (2002), World Poverty and Human Rights: Cos-
mopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Porras, C., M. Sabidó, P. Fernández-Dávila, V.H. Fernández, A.
Batres, and J. Casabona (2008), “Reproductive Health and
Healthcare Among Sex Workers in Escuintla, Guatemala,”
Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10 (5), 529–38.
Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Red Thread Women’s Development Program (1999), “‘Givin’ Lil’
Bit fuh Lil’ Bit’: Women and Sex Work in Guyana,” in Sun, Sex,
and Gold: Tourism and Sex Work in the Caribbean, Kamala
Kempadoo, ed. New York: Routledge, 263–90.
Roux, Sébastien (2010), “Patpong, entre sexe et commerce: Ethno-
graphie du tourisme sexuel en Thaı̈lande,” EspacesTemps, [avail-
able at http://www.espacestemps.net/articles/patpong-commerce/].
Ryan, Chris and Michael Hall (2001), Sex Tourism: Marginal
People and Liminalities. London: Routledge.
Saatcioglu, Bige and Canan Corus (2014), “Poverty and Inter-
sectionality: A Multidimensional Look into the Lives of the
Impoverished,” Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (2), 122–32.
Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2005), The End of Poverty. New York: Penguin.
Santos, Nicholas J.C. and Gene R. Laczniak (2009), “Marketing to
the Poor: An Integrative Justice Model for Engaging Impov-
erished Market Segments,” Journal of Public Policy & Mar-
keting, 28 (Spring), 3–15.
Sassen, Saskia (2002), “Global Cities and Survival Circuits,” in
Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New
Economy, B. Ehrenreich and A.R. Hochschild, eds. New York:
Henry Holt, 254–72.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 235
http://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/sex-tourism-latin-america
http://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/sex-tourism-latin-america
http://raceproject.org/pdfs/Jensen2011.pdf
http://www.arsrc.org/downloads/features/omondi.pdf
http://www.arsrc.org/downloads/features/omondi.pdf
http://www.espacestemps.net/articles/patpong-commerce/
Scelles Foundation (2012), L’exploitation de la prostitution, un fléau
mondial. Paris: Scelles Foundation, [available at http://www.
fondationscelles.org/pdf/prostitution_fleau_mondial_2013.pdf].
Schroeder, Jonathan E. and Janet L. Borgerson (1998), “Marketing
Images of Gender: A Visual Analysis,” Consumption Markets &
Culture, 2 (2), 161–201.
Scott, Linda, Jerome D. Williams, Stacey Menzel Baker, Jan Brace-
Govan, Hilary Downey, Anne-Marie Hakstian, et al. (2011),
“Beyond Poverty: Social Justice in a Global Marketplace,”
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30 (Spring), 39–46.
Sen, Amartya (2009), The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.
Tadajewski, Mark, Jessica Chelekis, Benet DeBerry-Spence,
Bernardo Figueiredo, Olga Kravets, Krittinee Nuttavuthisit,
et al. (2014), “The Discourses of Marketing and Development:
Towards ‘Critical Transformative Marketing Research,’” Journal
of Marketing Management, 30 (17/18), 1728–71.
Taylor, Charles (1992), “The Politics of Recognition,” in Multi-
culturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, A. Gutman,
ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 25–73.
Thompson, Craig J. (2014), “The Politics of Consumer Identity
Work,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), iii–vii.
Truong, Thanh-Dam (1990), Sex, Money, andMorality: Prostitution
and Tourism in Southeast Asia. London: Zed Books.
United Nations (2015), “Global Goals Cannot Be AchievedWithout
Ensuring Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment—UN
Chief,” press release (September 27), United Nations [avail-
able at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51987#.
V6SqxPkrLq4].
UNICEF (2006), The State of the World’s Children 2007, [available
at http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/The_State_of_the_
Worlds__Children__2007_e.pdf].
——— (2007), “La explotación sexual de menores en Kenia
alcanza una dimensión horrible,” (accessed June 14, 2016),
[available at http://www.unicef.es/actualidad-documentacion/
noticias/la-explotacion-sexual-de-menores-en-kenia-alcanza-
una-dimension-ho].
UNIFEM (2010), Gender Justice: Key to Achieving the Millennium
Development Goals. New York: UN Women.
Walby, Sylvia (2005), “Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Ten-
sions in Theory and Practice,” Social Politics, 12 (3), 321–43.
World Tourism Organization (2010), Global Report on Women in
Tourism 2010, [available at http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/
pdf/global_report_on_women_in_tourism_2010.pdf].
Young, Iris Marion (1997), Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender,
Political Philosophy, and Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Zayer, Linda Tuncay and Catherine A. Coleman (2015), “Adver-
tising Professionals’ Perceptions of the Impact of Gender Por-
trayals on Men and