Women in economics Jane Humphries University of Oxford The Economic History Society Annual Conference 3-5 April 2009 University of Warwick

Women in economicsJane Humphries

University of OxfordThe 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 groupsAn 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 organizationsPrimary 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. Proportion of women among academic economists is lower than among academicians in general

2. Representation of women decreases with rank with women most heavily represented among the least secure non-tenure track positions

3. 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

4. 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?

5. Illustrate from RES survey 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

%

2004

2006

oAcademic grade by gender – full-time academic,

balanced panel, 2004-2006

Women by grade – full-time standard academic, balanced

panel 2006

LecturerPermanent

48%

Lecturer-fixedterm 2%

Professor 16%

Reader 10%

Senior Lecturer24%

Men by grade – full-time standard academic, balanced

panel 2006

Senior Lecturer22%

Reader7%

Professor33%

Lecturer-fixed term

2%

Lecturer-permanent

36%

% femalepromotions

% 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

The proportion of female promotions awarded to female economists, responding sample, 2006

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 --






Readers 22.22 0 19.14












Readers 22.22 0 19.14







Dependent Variable Female FemaleNon-white

Non-white

Professor -0.165 -0.165 -0.123 -0.12

[0.025]** [0.025]** [0.023]** [0.023]**

Reader -0.035 -0.054 -0.041 -0.041

[0.045] [0.043] [0.039] [0.039]

Senior Lecturer -0.041 -0.052 -0.051 -0.048

[0.031] [0.031] [0.027] [0.028]

Senior researcher 0.02 0.005 -0.112 -0.113

[0.081] [0.077] [0.038]** [0.037]**

Junior researcher 0.126 0.109 0.007 -0.002

[0.068] [0.067] [0.052] [0.051]

Temporary 0.014 0.007 -0.017 -0.026

[0.052] [0.052] [0.046] [0.045]

Part-time 0.127 0.129 -0.004 -0.004

[0.060]* [0.060]* [0.046] [0.046]

RAE 4 -0.097 -0.1 -0.014 -0.014

[0.029]** [0.029]** [0.031] [0.031]

RAE 5/5* -0.039 -0.042 0.032 0.031

[0.029] [0.029] [0.029] [0.029]

Business/Management department -0.056 -0.055 -0.035 -0.034

[0.027]* [0.027]* [0.025] [0.025]

Promoted in last year 0.18 0.028

[0.066]** [0.052]

Hired in last year 0.049 0.042

[0.039] [0.036]

Observations 1022 1022 1022 1022

Standard errors in brackets

* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%

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)


• 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 high-powered 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)


• 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?

Documents

Women in economics Jane Humphries University of Oxford The Economic History Society Annual Conference 3-5 April 2009 University of Warwick