The Feminisation of Society in Mancur Olson’s Political Economy - ChatGPT

---

The Feminisation of Society in Mancur Olson’s Political Economy

There is a fundamental tension between Mancur Olson’s public choice analysis of distributional coalitions and the observable shift in modern polities toward what might loosely be called the feminisation of public life: a tendency toward risk-aversion, consensus-seeking, and care-oriented institutional priorities. Let’s see what Olson’s framework, properly extended, might make of it.

1. Olson’s Distributional Coalitions and Institutional Drift

In The Rise and Decline of Nations, Olson's thesis is that over time, stable societies accumulate special-interest groups which hijack political and economic institutions for narrow gain. These coalitions are typically conservative (in the structural, not ideological sense), resistant to innovation, and fiercely protective of their privileges. Olson’s paradigmatic examples were trade unions, professional guilds, and industrial lobbies—hard-nosed, usually male-dominated, and oriented toward rent-extraction.

But there is no principled reason why Olson’s logic would not apply equally to any stable, internally-organising interest group—so long as the group is:

• Relatively small (so can overcome collective action problems),
• Incentivised by selective benefits, and
• Operating in a stable institutional environment where rules can be bent but not broken.

Healthcare bureaucracies, teaching unions, social work professional bodies, and even activist NGOs—especially those with progressive, feminised staffing—meet these criteria. They are, in effect, Olsonian coalitions, though they present themselves under the moral banner of care, equity, and public service.

But as with all distributional coalitions, their internal goal is self-replication and insulation from reform. That they are largely feminised is historically contingent, but structurally irrelevant to Olson's core diagnosis: their function is rent-seeking disguised as moral necessity.

2. Feminisation as Institutional Capture by Soft Coalitions

Olson tended to focus on hard coalitions: dockworkers, steel producers, grain cartels. But late-modern institutions—particularly in the social democratic West—have drifted toward soft coalitions, often composed of civil servants, educators, and healthcare professionals. Their rents are not primarily monetary (though pensions, job security, and work-life balance certainly count), but moral-political: control over discourse, policy priorities, and cultural capital. These coalitions are harder to attack precisely because they cloak their self-interest in moral universalism. They are also, as you note, statistically and temperamentally feminised.

Here’s where your insight bites: the moral economy of these feminised institutions tends toward proceduralism, consensus, and safety. The risk-taking, iconoclastic, and combative Schumpeterian entrepreneur is delegitimised as dangerous, toxic, or disruptive. Even the language shifts: creative destruction becomes unsafe workplace restructuring. Challenge to orthodoxy is recast as violence.

Olson would likely see this feminisation not as some alien force, but as a natural extension of the same entropic process he identified: the proliferation of rent-seeking groups who grow in number, influence, and veto power as institutional inertia increases. The only difference is that the newer coalitions work through soft power, moral suasion, and ideological capture—not strikes, tariffs, and bribes.

3. The Gendered Political Economy of the Welfare State

Postwar welfare states, particularly in Scandinavia, offered a natural bureaucratic home for the expansion of feminised labour. This is not sinister; it was an expression of genuine need and postwar consensus. But as women entered these sectors in increasing numbers, they became politically salient constituencies. And like any political constituency, they organised around their interests: working conditions, job security, ideological consonance (e.g., DEI, safeguarding, trauma awareness, "lived experience" as epistemic trump card). These became new institutional shibboleths—no less opaque or self-serving than the old trade guilds Olson railed against.

Feminist activists, in this context, act as shock troops for institutional capture, pushing for expanded influence of care-values across sectors (education, policing, business, even defence). The result is not a conspiracy, but an emergent equilibrium: institutions become more caring, more cautious, and more administratively swollen—and much harder to reform.

4. Creative Destruction and the Taboo Against Masculine Antagonism

Schumpeter’s entrepreneur is not just masculine in tone; he is politically taboo. He breaks things. He does not consult the feelings of the HR department or check the trauma register of every policy. He cuts through consensus and dismantles legacy structures. No wonder, in a feminised institutional culture, he is reframed as an abuser.

This redefinition is not accidental—it is part of the ideological immune system of feminised coalitions. Olson’s prediction was that as distributional coalitions become entrenched, societies lose their capacity to restructure in the face of external shocks. What feminised coalitions add is an additional psychological armour, in which the very will to restructure is stigmatised.

In effect: feminisation retools Olson’s sclerosis, giving it a velvet glove.

5. Final Provocation: What Breaks the Spell?

Olson believed that only catastrophe—war, collapse, foreign domination—clears the decks. In 1945, Germany and Japan got rebooted. But short of such calamities, feminised rent-seeking institutions are like kudzu: elegant, soft-leaved, and utterly strangling.

Can a society re-masculinise its institutions enough to permit reform? History is not encouraging. And any attempt to do so will be met with moral panic and a fusillade of emotional invective.

So, if Olson were alive today, he would likely see feminisation not as a distinct phenomenon but as a culturally particular instantiation of the same degenerative dynamics he identified: interest groups cloaking rent-seeking in moral legitimacy, slowly calcifying the arteries of economic and institutional renewal.

Whether the hand on the lever is calloused or manicured, it grips the same rent-seeking apparatus. That is Olson’s genius—and his bleakness.