Transcript www.ehs.org.uk

Women in economics
Jane Humphries
University of Oxford
The Economic History Society Annual Conference
3-5 April 2009 University of Warwick
Status of women in the economics
profession
• Women’s issues of intermittent interest to the economics
profession throughout its existence
• Women have been economists since earliest time
• Critical mass of women economists not achieved until
late in 20th century
• Movement to recognise issues that impacted women’s
careers
• Formally recognised through formation of women’s
groups within the profession
• Remit: gather comparative data on representation of
women and structure of men’s and women’s careers
Women’s groups
An example: CSWEP
• American Economics Association (AEA) founded in 1885
• December 1971 resolution passed to investigate the
status of women in the economics profession
• May 1972 Committee on the Status of Women in the
Economics Profession (CSWEP) was formed as an ad
hoc committee of the AEA
• CSWEP has operated continuously since
• Reports every year and reports are published in the
annual AEA Papers and Proceedings
• CSWEP’s founding followed by formation of many other
groups in different countries
Types of Group
1. Standing Committees of economics
associations
Primary concerns being career advancement and increased
representation of women
2. Separate organizations
Primary concern being to advance feminist research and
methodological issues
3. Career-orientated subgroup of an economics
association
4. Regional or metropolitan group of women
economists
Types of group
1. Standing Committee of an economics
association; e.g. Canadian Women
Economists Network (CWEN), Royal
Economics Society’s Committee for
Women in Economics (RESCWE) and
the Economic Society of Australia’s
Committee for Women in Economics
Types of group
2. Separate organizations with feminist and
methodological interests; e.g.
International Association for Feminist
Economics (IAFFE) meets regularly
independently and at ASSA and
produces its own very successful journal,
Feminist Economics
Effects of groups
•
•
•
•
Raised awareness
Antidiscrimination agenda???
Affirmative action agenda???
Systematic tracking of women’s progress
through the ranks of the profession
– (CSWEP pioneered the collection of data via the
AEA’s UAQ annual survey which collects and
disseminates information on the gender composition
of the economics profession and widely used salary
information)
Three (almost) universal findings
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Proportion of women among academic economists is lower than
among academicians in general
Representation of women decreases with rank with women most
heavily represented among the least secure non-tenure track
positions
The decreasing representation by rank is not simply a cohort
effect  US data which offers the longest series of cross-sections
and the UK data which track particular departments in a balanced
panel display lower transition probabilities for women than men in
moving up in rank
China has similar percentages of women in economics as in
academia more generally and similar percentages of women at
beginning, middle and top of the career ladder  perhaps reflects
the lower status of academia and of academic economics in
China?
Illustrate from RES survey 2006
ct
ur
e
r-p
Le
er
io
r
R
ct
ur
er
er
so
r
ea
d
fe
s
ct
ur
e
Al
l
m
an
en
r-f
t
Se
ixe
ni
d
or
te
R
rm
R
es
es
ea
ea
rc
rc
he
he
R
r
-p
es
r
er
ea
m
rc
an
he
en
r-f
t
ix
ed
te
rm
Le
Le
Se
n
Pr
o
%
o
Academic grade by gender – full-time academic,
balanced panel, 2004-2006
80
70
60
50
40
30
2004
2006
20
10
0
Women by grade – full-time standard academic, balanced
panel 2006
Lecturer
Permanent
48%
Lecturer-fixed
term
2%
Professor
16%
Reader
10%
Senior Lecturer
24%
Men by grade – full-time standard academic, balanced
panel 2006
Lecturerfixed term
2%
Professor
33%
Lecturerpermanent
36%
Senior Lecturer
22%
Reader
7%
The proportion of female promotions awarded to
female economists, responding sample, 2006
% female
promotions
% female in
grade
% female in
grade
below
Number of female
promotions
Professor
14.29
8.4
15.79
2
Reader
31.25
15.79
16.84
5
Senior Lecturer
37.5
16.84
24.46
12
Permanent
Lecturer
16.67
24.46
33.33
1
Proportion of women in new staff compared with original
staff and feeder grades (responding sample, 2006)
% female in
original staff
% female in
new staff
% female in ‘feeder
grade
Professors
9.13
3.7
22.22
Readers
22.22
0
19.14
Senior Lecturers
19.14
37.5
22.3
Lecturers-Permanent
22.3
34.55
40
Lecturers-fixed-term
40
23.08
--
Senior Researchers
25
33.33
26.67
Researchers-permanent
26.67
58.33
50
Researchers-fixed-term
50
32.56
--
Proportion of women in new staff compared with original
staff and feeder grades (responding sample, 2006)
% female in
original staff
% female in
new staff
% female in ‘feeder
grade
Professors
9.13
3.7
22.22
Readers
22.22
0
19.14
Senior Lecturers
19.14
37.5
22.3
Lecturers-Permanent
22.3
34.55
40
Lecturers-fixed-term
40
23.08
--
Senior Researchers
25
33.33
26.67
Researchers-permanent
26.67
58.33
50
Researchers-fixed-term
50
32.56
--
Proportion of women in new staff compared with original
staff and feeder grades (responding sample, 2006)
% female in
original staff
% female in
new staff
% female in ‘feeder
grade
Professors
9.13
3.7
22.22
Readers
22.22
0
19.14
Senior Lecturers
19.14
37.5
22.3
Lecturers-Permanent
22.3
34.55
40
Lecturers-fixed-term
40
23.08
--
Senior Researchers
25
33.33
26.67
Researchers-permanent
26.67
58.33
50
Researchers-fixed-term
50
32.56
--
Dependent Variable
Female
Female
Nonwhite
Nonwhite
Professor
-0.165
-0.165
-0.123
-0.12
[0.025]**
[0.025]**
[0.023]**
[0.023]**
-0.035
-0.054
-0.041
-0.041
[0.045]
[0.043]
[0.039]
[0.039]
-0.041
-0.052
-0.051
-0.048
[0.031]
[0.031]
[0.027]
[0.028]
0.02
0.005
-0.112
-0.113
[0.081]
[0.077]
[0.038]**
[0.037]**
0.126
0.109
0.007
-0.002
[0.068]
[0.067]
[0.052]
[0.051]
0.014
0.007
-0.017
-0.026
[0.052]
[0.052]
[0.046]
[0.045]
0.127
0.129
-0.004
-0.004
[0.060]*
[0.060]*
[0.046]
[0.046]
-0.097
-0.1
-0.014
-0.014
[0.029]**
[0.029]**
[0.031]
[0.031]
-0.039
-0.042
0.032
0.031
[0.029]
[0.029]
[0.029]
[0.029]
-0.056
-0.055
-0.035
-0.034
[0.027]*
[0.027]*
[0.025]
[0.025]
Reader
Senior Lecturer
Senior researcher
Junior researcher
Temporary
Part-time
RAE 4
RAE 5/5*
Business/Management department
Promoted in last year
Hired in last year
Observations
1022
Standard errors in brackets
0.18
0.028
[0.066]**
[0.052]
0.049
0.042
[0.039]
[0.036]
1022
1022
1022
Explanations for missing women?
Explanations for missing women?
• Bias
– “Different socialization and patterns of discrimination
in a search” (Summers 2005)
• Biology
– “Different availability of aptitude at the high end”
(Summers 2005)
• High powered job effect
– Women prefer lower stress occupations and lower
stress positions within occupation (Summers 2005)
Explanations for missing women?
• Bias
– “Different socialization and patterns of discrimination
in a search” (Summers 2005)
• Biology
– “Different availability of aptitude at the high end”
(Summers 2005)
• High powered job effect
– Women prefer lower stress occupations and lower
stress positions within those occupations (Summers
2005)
“The combination of the highpowered job hypothesis and the
differing variances probably
explains a fair amount of this
problem” (Summers, 2005)
“The combination of the high-powered job
hypothesis and the differing variances
probably explains a fair amount of this
problem” (Summers, 2005)
Explanations for missing women?
• Cohort effect
– Wait ---- time will set things right? But what
about the evidence on transition probabilities?
• Role model effect
– Wait ---- bandwagon will set things right?
• Leaky pipeline effect
– Why do women leave academic economics?
– What do they do afterwards?
Is there a life after economics?
Final thoughts
• Is Gender passé?
– Falling response rates to RESWC questionnaire apparent declining
interest?
• Relative pay?
– Can well-trained women economists do better outside academia?
Mixed evidence here!
• Gender and economics?
– Preference for applied topics
– Women and the methodology of economics (Ferber and Nelson 1993,
2003; Feminist Economics; Humphries and Rubery, 1995)
– Women economists’ lives  can prosopography provide clues?
– Women and training in economics (Colander and Holmes 2007)
– Destinations of women trained in economics but who work in other
disciplines or not in academia?
• Female economists in other disciplines?