Household economies, social norms and practices of unpaid market work in Europe from the sixteenth century to the present

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

^1. The following stands out from the now extensive literature: Elson (2007); for France, Weber (2005); for Italy, Sarti (2010); Rapport de la commission sur la mesure des performances économiques et du progrès social (Commission «Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi») 14 september 2009 (Report of the commission on the measurement of economic performance et social progress http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf, 12/12/2012); Razavi (2012) publication accessed online on November 10, 2012, http://www.unrisd.org/__80256b3c005bccf9.nsf/0/2dbe6a93350a7783c12573240036d5a0?OpenDocument&panel = relatedinformation&Click = 

^2. The articles in this issue of The History of the Family are part of a multiannual research programme on “Family work, family workshops and unpaid work in Europe (15^th–21^st centuries)” that was also supported by the École Française de Rome. Two conferences were organised at the Paris Diderot (September 2011) and Rouen (Ocotber 2012) universities and a panel presented at the European Social Science History Conference in Glasgow (April 2012). We would like to thank all the participants at these meetings for their suggestions and helpful comments and particularly Maria Ågren, Mathieu Arnoux, Amy Erickson, Francisco García González, Sibylle Gollac, Fabia Guillén, Claire Lemercier, Corine Maitte, Elise van Nederveen Meerkerk, Liliane Pérez, Raffaella Sarti, Carmen Sarasúa and Heide Wunder.

^3. On apprenticeship and family history, there is an extensive literature, especially about England, see, for example, Krausman Ben-Amos (1994); for France, see Pellegrin (1993); for Italy, Bellavitis (2006b); for a recent overview on the history of apprenticeship in Europe and in Japan, see, de Munck, Kaplan, and Soly (2007).

^4. The issue of apprenticeship has been discussed in the Paris and Rouen meetings and will be extensively treated in our next conference (Ecole Française de Rome, 23–24 October 2014).

^5. For recent analysis on proto-industry in relation to women’s and family history see Lehners (2003); Ogilvie and Cerman (1996).

^6. For England see: Erickson (1993); McIntosh (2005); Phillips (2006); for Germany, Ogilvie (2003); for Italian States, Bellavitis (2008), Chabot (2011); Groppi (1994); Zucca Micheletto (2014); for Flanders, Howell (1998); for the Netherlands, Schmidt (2010); for Sweden, Ågren (2009); for the consequences of the legal status of English women on contracts see Muldrew (2003), on capitalism see Erickson (2005), on business history see Honeyman (2007); for an European perspective on marriage and the economy of the household, see Ågren and Erickson (2005), Carmichael, De Moor, and van Zanden (2011) and Béaur (2011), see Beattie and Stevens (2013).

^7. This is the conclusion that Heide Wunder reached in her communication during the Paris 7 workshop in 2011.

^8. For some examples see, for Italy, Franceschi (2001); for England, Whittle (2005); for Portugal, Abreu-Ferreira (2000); for conflicting identities of worker and wife in France, see Crowston (2001).

^9. Statistics are based on the discursive construction of the male breadwinner and the dependent housewife (Folbre, 1991; Frader, 2008); for a comparative analysis of the different interpretations of the breadwinner in relation to the origins of the welfare state in Great Britain and France see Pedersen (1993).