Daphne A. Kenyon, Department of Economics, Simmons College and Ana Kravitz, Department of Economics, Wesleyan University.

This richly detailed and thought-provoking book is part of a series on the impact of feminism on various disciplines in the arts and sciences. Because as Albelda says, " [ e]conomics holds the dubious distinction of being the most male-dominated discipline among the social sciences and the humanities in the United States today," she was convinced at the outset that this volume would be the slimmest in the series. To her surprise, and our benefit, Albelda's research quest was very productive.

The first part of the book focusses on the role of women in the economics profession from 1865 to 1990. Albelda turns to this topic because she reasons that a necessary precondition for a feminist voice in economics is a sufficient number of female economists. Although Albelda concludes that economics has always been male-dominated, she discovers that a number of women were active in the economics profession in its early years. At that time, economics was not yet defined as an apolitical science, and instead was seen as a promoter of social change. Because of women's interest in social reform, economics was seen as an appropriate, and appealing, topic for women to study.

By 1900, five women had received their Ph.D.s in economics, and over 10 percent of the economics doctorates awarded from 1920 to 1924 went to women. From about the 1930s on, however, there was a decline in the role women played in the economics profession. For example, the proportion of economics doctorates awarded to women fell after 1920-1924, and women did not regain that proportion until 1975-1979. How did this decline happen? Albelda offers these reasons: severe discrimination by potential employers; the establishment of social science experts in graduate departments in universities, which were effectively barred to women; the adoption of an economics methodology incompatible with feminist analysis; and the move towards specialization, which tended to segregate women in particular fields and to move questions concerning women out of the economics profession.

The last chapter of Part I documents the relatively small proportion of women currently in the economics profession and the slow increase in the representation of women in economics relative to other disciplines over the last two decades. For example, in 1992, the percentage of doctorates awarded to women was lower in economics than in business & management, mathematics, chemistry, biological sciences, and health sciences. Only computer science and chemistry & astronomy had lower percentages of doctorates awarded to women than did economics. Albelda notes that in its 110 years of existence, the American Economic Association (AEA) has had only two female presidents, and the three journals of the AEA have never had a female editor. Despite this lack of women in the economics profession, "[ t]here are no scholarships to promote female graduate students or distinguished awards for women in the profession nor have there been any formal statements from the AEA concerning the position of women in the profession or in the curriculum." Furthermore, a 1991 blue-ribbon report on economics graduate education included no discussion of the under representation of women.

Part II presents the results and interpretations of Albelda's 1992 random survey of four hundred AEA members. Most of the questions pertain to the respondents views on the impact of feminism on economics, but the survey also provides interesting information about the age, gender, sexual orientation, family size and composition, personal and family income, type of employment and teaching responsibilities of this sample of economists.

The survey reveals a near-consensus that feminism has had little impact on most aspects of economics, and that most economists have little desire to see more feminist economic analysis. At the same time that the survey respondents were generally resistant to feminist analysis in economics, they were generally supportive of the women s movement and goals, more so than the general population. This highlights the perceived incompatibility of feminism and economics, where women's rights and feminist perspectives are seen as valuable but not appropriate in this "objective" field.

Part III concerns economics methodology, which Albelda turns to in order to shed some light on why feminism has not had a greater impact on economics. Chapter 7 looks at neoclassical economics and feminism, and Chapter 8 explores Marxian economics and feminism. Albelda finds that both neoclassical economics and Marxian economics contain antifeminist explanations of women's unequal status. For example, neoclassical economics promotes " blame the victim" explanations of women's inferior status by arguing that "women receive lower wages than men and perform more unpaid labor than men largely out of women's and men's own rational choices and desires." Albelda concludes that feminism has had only a minimal impact on either methodology. Albelda concludes with a look at the future of feminist analysis in economics. She is cautiously upbeat, arguing that:

feminist economists are...stretching the boundaries of economic analysis by recognizing and integrating gender differences into economic models, by spanning disciplines, and by employing a variety of analytical tools and paradigmatic approaches...feminist economists have the potential to push the economics profession to new theoretical and analytical insights as they work to make women's economic roles more visible.

Albelda herself has performed an important service for the economics profession. Any economist reading her book will be granted new insights into the nature of the economics profession and his or her role in that profession.