Cheering the notable success of women in Economics isn’t difficult. Elinor Ostrom, winning the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her work on the analysis of economic governance, is a stand-out moment. Creating a “who?” response among those seemingly more critical of women, it is positive that this year she was joined by another female winner. Awarded jointly with Michael Kremer and Abhjiit Banerjee, Esther Duflo’s work on poverty alleviation using experimental methods deserves praise. Surely such momentous success can create an earthquake moment in how women are perceived in the discipline? Unfortunately, any transformation is more evolutionary. Prominent female economists may be spoken about with reference to their equally or less successful spouse. Shall we call Janet Yellen the ‘former Chair of the Federal Reserve’ or shall we refer to her as ‘Akerlof’s wife’? Is it research by ‘Deaton and Case’ or ‘Case and Deaton’? Can we drop the rule of alphabetical ordering when it comes to publications by married people?
Accusations of a dismal science, at least in terms of ignoring sexism, are long gone. Economics has opened its eyes to gender biases that have plagued the profession. Campaigns, both in Europe and across the pond, have rolled out. Imbalances are noted and awareness raised. Key Economics Societies, such as the RES and the AEA, conduct climate surveys to try to grapple with the scale of the issue. Shocking revelations over the unfair treatment of female academics are revealed. Alice Wu, looking at the language used on the Economics Job Market Rumours Forum (EJMR), finds continued issues with sexist language. Women are discussed in terms of appearance. Men escape such personal dialogue, with descriptions focused on academic and professional characteristic. Despite being published in a top economics journal and significantly impacting on media debate, some will still prefer just to ignore and discredit. They’re on a loser. The momentum has shifted, as shown by the AEA adopting a strict code of conduct to counteract the vocabulary seen on the EJMR forum.
Despite our progress in acknowledging poor practices, there is no doubt that we must still strive for change. Research, for example, confirms gender biases in academic career profiles. Erin Hengel shows that papers written by women take on average 6 months longer to pass through the peer review process. Jennifer Doleac and Elizabeth Pancotti, documenting the percentage of female seminar speakers at schools in the US, find that only 25% in 2019 across US economics departments are female. Presenting and disseminating work is a key driver of success in academia. With lower invites, women are automatically at a disadvantage. To counteract these inequalities, however, goes beyond just targeting one group in adopting a ‘blame game’ outlook. Ultimately, every one of us should play a part in driving out any remaining sexism. Consider, for example, the so-called ‘queen bee effect’. This phenomenon refers to how, following career success, female leaders may disassociate with other women. Indeed, given they have had to compete and fight for their position, they may hold women to higher standards than their male counterparts. Solutions can include women-only mentoring retreats. The purpose here is not somehow to exclude males, but to strengthen the mentorship and camaraderie in the discipline. It is an example of successful positive action.
As an economist and woman, I remain optimistic that these positive changes will continue and intensify. Sexist behaviour is pilloried. More and more people will cry foul over inappropriate remarks. Colleagues and friends will cooperatively reinforce gender equality. We expect both the media and management to compliment this process. We expect support for developments aimed at eliminating gender bias, such as the insight days where HE institutions (e.g. UEA, Bristol and Cambridge) challenge perceptions to encourage more young women to pursue an economics education. Such developments are snowballing. Warwick, for example, held a conference in January for current female Undergraduate students to discuss how Economics departments can improve the environment for their female students. In the UK, the Athena SWAN award provides an incentive for Departments to self-reflect and consider the success and progression of their female colleagues. The conversations are happening, but now it is time for action.
References
Derks, Belle, Van Laar, Colette, and Ellemers, Naomi. 2016 “The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women.” The Leadership Quarterly, 27: 456-469.
Hengel, Erin. 2020 “Pu.blishing while Female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review.” Working Paper.
Wu, Alice H. 2018. “Gendered Language on the Economics Job Market Rumors Forum.” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108: 175-79.
Image attribution: © Prolineserver 2010 / Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons