../newsletter.html../gifs/news.gifter Spring 1996
WOMEN'S CONTRIBUTION TO INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION: PART I
Esther Gal-Or, The University of Pittsburghand Margaret E. Slade, The University of British
Columbia
It is very difficult to provide a precise definition of the field of Industrial Organization
since its boundaries are extremely fuzzy. The main focus of the field is the business
strategy of the firm, the organization of the market, and the implications of this for the
design of public policy. Topics include issues related to a firm's choice of price and
product line, its timing and extent of innovation, its internal organization, whether it
cooperates or competes with other industry members, and how its market is affected by
incomplete information. Many studies also include a social-welfare analysis of industry
conduct, and thus lead to the design of optimal patent or antitrust laws as well as
government regulations. The concepts and tools introduced in the field of IO in the last
two decades have been adopted in other fields of economics as well. This diffusion of
knowledge makes it difficult to identify the exact boundaries of the field.
Given the space limitations, we have written a two-part review of women's contributions
to five broad areas of the industrial organization literature.oan Robinson was among the
first to argue that the fundamental assumption of perfect competition, which seemed to
have been the basis of analysis in the literature at her time, does not reflect reality in
many industries. She, therefore, focussed attention on developing models of imperfectly
competitive markets (Econ of Imper. Comp. 1969). She pointed out the importance of
modelling the behavior of market participants who possess the power to price
discriminate or to utilize alternative practices aimed at extracting the consumer's surplus.
The IO literature in the last two decades has taken this approach and has employed
noncooperative-game theoretic concepts to develop oligopoly models where the strategy
space of each firm is carefully defined.
The distinction between price-based (Bertrand) and quantity-based (Cournot) equilibria,
as well as non-price dimensions of the competition, are important. For example, models
of Bertrand-type competition with capacity constraints have been developed by Beth
Allen and Martin Hellwig (IER 1993), Esther Gal-Or (IER 1984) and Martin Osborne
and Carolyn Pitchik (JET 1986), all of whom demonstrate that the Nash equilibrium in
prices involves nondegenerate mixed strategies. Beth Allen and Jacques Thisse (JEMS
1992) later demonstrate the possibility of pure-strategy-Nash equilibria in prices when
consumers are responsive only to large price differences among competitors.
Empirical models of industries characterized by price competition with capacity
constraints have been estimated by Timothy Bresnahan and Valerie Suslow (JLE 1989)
and by Anne Gron (Rand 1994 and JLE 1994). Bresnahan and Suslow model the
behavior of prices and production in the primary-aluminum industry, which is an
oligopoly in which marginal costs rise steeply near capacity, whereas Gron assesses the
cycles that might be induced by capacity constraints in property-casualty-insurance
markets.
Special issues pertaining to price competition have been addressed by Nancy Stokey
(QJE 1979) in the context of intertemporal-price discrimination, by Esther Gal-Or (IJIO
1988) in the context of quantity-contingent price discrimination, and by Monika Schnitzer
(Rand 1994) in the context of "most favored consumer" best-price clauses. Nancy Stokey
(Bell 1981) extends her work on intertemporal-price discrimination to investigate the role
of the period of commitment in durable-goods pricing, Valerie Suslow (IJIO 1986) adds
the possibility of recycling to the durable-goods monopolist's problem, and Swati Bhatt
(IJIO 1989) investigates the implication of risk aversion on the part of the durable-goods
producer for her sales strategy. Finally, Maria Paz Espinosa (Rand 1992) compares
delivered pricing systems to free-on-board schemes and shows how delivered pricing
facilitates spatial-price discrimination and collusion. Nevertheless, it is also the only
pricing rule that can be sustained in a competitive market.
On the empirical side, evidence of price discrimination has been found by Andrea
Shepard (JPE 1991), who looks at retail-gasoline markets and finds that some customers
are willing to pay more for high-quality service. In addition, Severin Borenstein and
Nancy Rose (JPE 1991) find considerable dispersion in the prices charged to customers
on the same airline route. Furthermore, neither of these patterns can be explained by
cost differences.
The commonly used solution concepts of Bertrand and Cournot have been extended by
Paul Klemperer and Margaret Meyer (Econometrica 1989), who derive "supply-function"
equilibria that nest Bertrand, Cournot, and many other oligopoly models. Moreover,
they evaluate the properties of these equilibria as a function of the number of firms and
the extent of demand uncertainty that is confronting the industry. Given that there are
so many possible solution concepts and outcomes, it is useful to have a summary statistic
for market conduct. The notion of a conjectural variation has been used for this
purpose. For example, Morton Kamien and Nancy Schwartz (CJE 1983) and Paul
Klemperer and Margaret Meyer (Econ. Lett. 1988) develop the notion of a consistent
conjecture in the context of a static model, whereas Paula Worthington (IJIO 1990)
relates the conjecture to the slope of an intertemporal-reaction function in the context of
a dynamic model. Those authors have demonstrated that intermediate outcomes
between Bertrand and Cournot can be obtained as consistent-conjectural equilibria.
More general conjectural-variations models can lead to outcomes that are more favorable
(from the view point of the players) than Cournot. Moreover, the degree of oligopoly
power can be identified empirically. For example, Margaret Slade (IJIO 1986), Valerie
Suslow (Rand 1986), and Timothy Hannan and Nellie Liang (IJIO 1993) estimate
market-conduct parameters for retail-gasoline, primary-aluminum, and banking markets,
respectively, and reject both price-taking and one-shot-Nash-equilibrium behavior. These
static models reveal tacitly collusive outcomes but do not investigate the strategies that
underlie these outcomes. Dynamic-repeated-game models have also been assessed. For
example, Margaret Slade (JIE 1987 and REStud 1992) investigates the strategies that firms use during retail-gasoline-price wars using a model (Slade,
Economica 1989)of structural-demand shifts, whereas Severin Borenstein and Andrea Shepard (Rand
1996) examine wholesale-gasoline pricing over the business cycle using a model from
Julio Rotemberg and Garth Saloner (AER 1986). Both find empirical support for the
theoretical models.
The possibility for maintaining the collusive outcome in oligopoly was investigated by
Carolyn Pitchik and Martin Osborne (EER 1983 and IER 1987) for explicit collusion in
the form of cartelization and by James Brander and Barbara Spencer (JIE 1985) for tacit
collusion. The former authors demonstrate, for instance, that negotiated output quotas
depend on the bargaining power of the firms, which derives in turn from the damage the
firms can do by cutting prices. James Brander and Barbara Spencer (Bell 1983 and EER
1992) point out the strategic value of precommitment in oligopoly models. They
demonstrate, for example, that an oligopolistic firm that is facing uncertainty about its
environment has to weigh the efficiency-improving consequences of flexibility against the
strategic value of a commitment to capital or output levels.
The idea that firms might over invest for strategic purposes (i.e., in order to commit to
more aggressive behavior in the product market) has been investigated econometrically
by Elizabeth Hall (IJIO 1990) and by Margaret Slade (JEMS 1995). Hall finds some
evidence of strategic-capacity expansion on the part of DuPont in the titanium-dioxide
market, whereas Slade finds that firms in retail-grocery markets over invest in advertising
but under invest in dynamic-price competition.
First and second-mover advantages have been studied by a number of women. In
particular, Esther Gal-Or (IER 1985 and REStud 1987) demonstrates the general result
that the existence of first or second-mover advantages in oligopoly models depends upon
the slopes of players' reaction functions. Special cases have also been considered. In a
model of R&D competition, Jennifer Reinganum (IJIO 1985) shows that there are
second-mover advantages, whereas, in models of product differentiation, Cecilia Conrad
(IJIO 1983) and Lynne Pepall (JEMS 1992) show that advantages are associated with
moving first.
Questions of existence, uniqueness, stability, and computation of oligopolistic equilibria
have also been addressed by women. Indeed, Gabrielle Demange and Dominique
Henriet (JET 1986 and JET 1991) derived conditions that guarantee the stability of
equilibria in oligopoly models and show that the existence of increasing returns to scale
is not sufficient to preclude stability. In addition, Margaret Slade (JIE 1994) derives
necessary and sufficient conditions for the equivalence between a Nash equilibrium (a
fixed-point problem) and an ordinary optimization
problem and shows that when these conditions are satisfied, computation of equilibria is
substantially facilitated.
Product Differentiation and the Choice of Product Line
Women have also made important contributions in the field of horizontal and vertical-
product differentiation. To understand the nature of horizontal-product differentiation,
Martin Osborne and Carolyn Pitchik (Econometrica 1987) utilize Hotelling's model of
spatial-price competition to demonstrate that an equilibrium in mixed strategies does not
involve minimum differentiation but leads instead to distinct product locations. Esther
Gal-Or (Bell 1983 and JET 1985) demonstrates that strict product differentiation also
characterizes markets where oligopolists compete in quality. In contrast, Lynne Pepall
(EJ 1990) shows that product clustering may arise as a result of informational uncertainty
concerning consumers' preferences, and Swati Bhatt (JIE 1987) demonstrates that similar
clustering can arise when each firm can diversify by offering a spectrum
of differentiated products. Maria Paz Espinosa (IJIO 1992) adds elements of
uncertainty over the timely delivery of products and therefore the possibility that risk-
averse consumers might be willing to pay a higher price if they can hedge and divide
their orders between suppliers. In her model, minimum differentiation can be efficient.
Finally, Gabrielle Demange and Jean-Pierre
Ponssard (IJIO 1985) demonstrate that the incentive of oligopolistic firms to engage in
non-price competition, via product differentiation for instance, depends upon their
relative-cost structure, with high-cost firms favoring nonprice over price competition and
low cost firms having the reverse preferences.
Empirical contributions to the field of differentiated products have also been made by
women. For example, Fred Inaba and Nancy Wallace (REStat 1989) investigate a model
of spatial-price competition for freight transportation, and Pinelopi Goldberg
(Econometrica 1995) uses micro data to estimate a model of the automobile industry
where aggregate demand is derived from the discrete choices of individual consumers.
In order to address the issue of optimal diversification, Richard Gilbert and Carmen
Matutes (JIE 1993) examine a model where products are differentiated by both quality
and brand name. They show that the extent of a firm's diversification, in the sense of
the number of products that it offers, depends upon the extent of brand-specific
differentiation among firms. In addition, Rajiv Lal and Carmen Matutes (J of Bsns
1994) consider optimal-pricing and advertising strategies that could accompany a firm's
decisions concerning its product line. They show, for instance, that firms may advertise
below-marginal-cost prices on some goods in order to attract consumers to the store
where they will then buy the firm's other goods that sell at positive margins.
Carmen Matutes and Pierre Regibeau (Rand 1988) address the issue of compatibility in
industries where consumers can assemble various components to form their own systems.
They demonstrate that the Nash equilibrium leads to full compatibility across rivals. In a
second paper (JIE 1992), they show that the production of compatible components can
be accompanied by bundling, sustained via discounts offered to consumers who purchase
all components of the system from the same firm. Carmen Matutes and Jorge Padilla
(EER 1994) later apply the concept of compatibility to explain the desirability of shared
ATM networks in banking competition. Competition in the banking industry is also
examined by Loretta Mester (J of Banking and Finance 1992), who demonstrates the
possible existence of diseconomies of scope between traditional and non-traditional
activities of banks, which may suggest the optimality of restricting a bank's product line.
On the empirical side, Garth Saloner and Andrea Shepard (Rand 1995) assess network
effects by investigating the adoption of ATMs by banks and show that adoption times
decline as both the number of branches and the value of deposits increase. Judy Wang-
Chiang and Ann Friedlaender (REStat 1984) investigate network effects in the multi-
output technology of trucking.
(Part II of this article will be in the Fall 1996 CSWEP newsletter)
THE GENDER FACTOR IN TEACHING EVALUATIONS
Linda B. Nilson, Director, Center for Teaching, Vanderbilt University
and John T. Lysaker, Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
What is the effect of instructor gender on teaching evaluations? To answer this
question, we draw on three extensive literature reviews, recently published by Feldman
(1992, 1993) and Goodwin and Stevens (1993), on college students' perceptions of male
and female instructors across the disciplines. This is a line of inquiry that extends back
over 20 years, almost as far as the teaching evaluation research tradition. We then
review the results from a recent unpublished study by Anderson and Siegfried (1996) on
the rating of instruction in introductory economics.
The bottom line is that relatively few of the studies looking for gender bias in student
evaluations of class instruction in subjects outside economics have found it, at least not
to a statistically significant or substantively interesting degree. Across the literature, the
only variables that have weighed heavily and consistently in the students' assessments
have been instructor characteristics, such as expressiveness, organization, knowledge,
clarity, warmth, and supportiveness -- the same dimensions that explain teaching
effectiveness and student evaluations in general.
The few studies that have shown significant differences have found them working in favor
of female instructors as often as against them, and these differences have been very
small. After the rhetorical and statistical dust settles, the research leaves us to conclude
that the gender of instructors does not significantly and systematically affect the ways in
which students evaluate them.
The preponderance of non-results early on inspired efforts to raise the issue to a higher
level of sophistication. After factoring in the instructor's discipline and the gender of the
student, Ferber and Huber (1975) reported that female instructors fared better in
traditionally female fields and received higher evaluations from female students than did
male instructors. Another early study (Kaschak, 1978) found evidence of interaction
effects between instructor gender and other variables, namely 1) personal characteristics,
such as expressiveness, physical attractiveness, and warmth and 2) student gender.
However, further research failed to confirm gender interactions with personal
characteristics, and Kaschak's student-gender effects -- that male students favored male
instructors whereas female students favored neither gender -- ran contra Ferber and
Huber's.
Almost a decade later, Basow and Silberg (1987) revisited the interaction between
instructor and student gender, carefully controlling for a variety of other instructor and
student traits. They found a particularly insidious gender-bias pattern: Male students
gave significantly lower ratings to female instructors than to male instructors on all six of
the evaluation measures used, and so did female students on three of the six measures.
However, the instructor-student gender interaction explained only 4% of the variance, a
substantively trivial amount.
It is worth seeking the sources of inconsistencies in the gender-bias findings. Five
methodological problems are evident. First, several potentially relevant but non-gender
related variables, for which some studies controlled but others did not (e.g., seniority and
age) may explain away the
gender biases. Second, only a few of the studies were conducted in real classrooms.
Most had
students evaluating mock lectures, teaching videotapes, or fabricated instructor profiles --
research designs that fail to reproduce the long-term, face-to-face realities of the student-
instructor relationship. Third, each study involved too small a sample of instructors (real
or fabricated) to be representative of any instructor population. Fourth, even if a study
had drawn a real, representative faculty sample of one institution, neither the faculty nor
the students would have captured the various subcultures that exist across and within
different colleges and universities. For instance, the demographically rooted values and
beliefs that are prevalent at a large state university may not carry over to a small, private
liberal arts college.
Finally and most importantly, no study even attempted to control for the "objective" or
relative quality of the instructors being evaluated. Previous evaluations, teaching honors,
and teaching effectiveness (i.e., student learning) were ignored, perhaps because such
data were considered contaminated by the very effects the research was seeking to
reveal. Still, no teaching quality baseline was provided. Only Basow and Howe (1987)
tried to compensate for this deficiency by having students supply personal profiles of the
instructors being evaluated. Once the effects of instructor traits like expressiveness and
trols, they found, consistent with the non-economics literature, no differences between
overall ratings received by male and female instructors of macroeconomics. They did
find, however, that on all instructor dimensions (enthusiasm, preparation, English-
speaking ability, and standards) women instructors received significantly higher ratings
than men, but the differences were small. Overall, instructor gender was not an
important determinant of ratings differences in introductory economics.
While little evidence of direct gender bias in student evaluations is evident, there do
seem to be some systematic differences in the teaching styles of women and men. Four
studies published in the 1980s and early 1990s found that female, compared to male,
instructors generated more student participation, discussion, and student-teacher dialogue
and showed more concerned for developing their students' self-esteem. In addition,
female instructors were more likely to attend teaching workshops and consult with peers
and teaching centers.
In summary, then, the literature on the effects of instructor gender on teaching
evaluations boils down to three modest conclusions. First, isolated from possible
confounding variables, teacher gender does not seem to influence students' evaluations of
teaching. Second, when combined with other variables, teacher gender at times appears
to effect students' evaluations, but in very small and unpredictable ways just as likely to
be to the benefit as to the detriment of female instructors. Third and prescriptive of
future research, studies aimed at discerning gender bias in teaching evaluations have not
yet exerted sufficient control over all the potentially important independent variables,
especially baseline teaching quality. Until this is done, we will not be able to make any
confident statement about the presence or absence of gender bias in teaching
evaluations.
References
Anderson, Kathryn H. and John J. Siegfried. 1996. Gender differences in rating the
teaching of economics. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Basow, Susan A. and Karen G. Howe. 1987. Evaluations of college professors: Effects
of professors s sex-type and sex and students sex. Psychological Reports 60: 671-78.
Basow, Susan A. and Nancy T. Silberg. 1987. Student evaluations of college professors:
Are female and male professors rated differently? Journal of Educational Psychology 79
(3): 308-14.
Feldman, Kenneth A. 1992. College students view of male and female college teachers:
Part I--Evidence from the social laboratory and experiments. Research in Higher
Education 33 (2): 317-75.
________________1993. College students views of male and female college teachers:
Part II--Evidence from students evaluations of their classroom teachers. Research in
Higher Education 34 (2): 151-211.
Ferber, M.A. and J.A. Huber. 1975. Sex of student and instructor: A study of student
bias. American Journal of Sociology 80: 949-63.
Goodwin, Laura D. and Ellen A. Stevens. 1993. The influence of gender on university
faculty members perceptions of good teaching. Journal of Higher Education 64 (2):
166-85.
Kaschak, E. 1978. Sex bias in student evaluations of college professors. Psychology of
Women Quarterly 2: 235-43.
SUCCESSFUL COURSE DESIGN
Kate Pulling, Community College of Southern Nevada
In response to the appeal in the Spring 1995 Newsletter for items addressing teaching
issues, I would like to offer some advice about course design. My teaching experience
has been almost entirely with working adults, and I have recently been a working student
myself. Therefore, my recommendations focus primarily on designing courses for
working adult students. However, since working adults are coming into college
classrooms in growing numbers, my remarks should be of interest to a wide range of
women economists teaching at the college and university level.
I have taught full-time for 18 years. For most of that time I taught working adults
pursuing undergraduate or graduate degrees in business administration. My students
were military personnel, their family members, and government employees attending
classes in degree-granting programs offered at US military installations overseas. I
taught economics, statistics and math courses for the University of Maryland in its
undergraduate programs in both Asia and Europe, and I taught economics, operations
management, statistics and computer information courses for Boston University in its
overseas graduate programs in Europe. I began my overseas stint with a Ph.D. in
Economics in hand. However, while teaching for BU s business program, I enrolled in
graduate courses offered in BU s computer systems program and completed the
requirements for a Master s degree in Computer Information Systems. Last fall I joined
the Computer Information and Technologies Department at CCSN in Las Vegas. I now
teach introductory computer and information courses to a diverse student population,
most of whom are working adults with a variety of educational goals.
Based upon my experience as a professor and as a student, I believe courses can be, and
should be, designed to help students succeed in their educational endeavors. This entails
appreciating students circumstances and then devising course requirements and
assignments that will guide stuents to use their resources efficiently and effectively. My
recommendations concentrate in two key areas:
First, all of your students face the economic problem of unlimited human wants and
limited resources. For working adults attending college their wants are the demands of
their bosses, their families and their professors. Their limited resources are time and
energy. They weigh the opportunity cost of more time studying for your course against
less income or less time with family or less time on another course, not just against less
party time. Consequently, nothing that you ask students to do in the course should
squander their precious resources:
Each new exercise should advance and refine (not just repeat) what was learned
already.
Working adults have neither the time nor the patience for busy work.
Assignments should be clear and specific so students do not waste their time
guessing
what the assignments mean.
Assignments should not be open-ended, either in content or in when they are due.
Requirements for rote memorization should be restricted to situations in which
there
are clear educational benefits.
Entire books should not be assigned if selections can achieve the same objective.
Term projects should be practical applications of principles. These projects
should be
shared with the whole class, formally or informally, so all students can appreciate
the scope and variety of applications.
Lectures should amplify and apply (not just repeat) what the students have
already read.
Students resent it when the instructor reads the textbook to them.
Second, many of your students enroll in your class with fear and trepidation. These
emotions arise not just because Economics has a reputation, but because adult students
are usually out of their element. They may not have been in a college class for a long
time, if ever. They are often taking a class they know little or nothing about, and the
catalog description may not have been much help. They don t know what to expect from
you.
Your syllabus can allay your student s fears, help them manage their time, and
help them
make informed choices. It should clearly communicate your course objectives and
the
course requirements; it should be detailed. If possible, your syllabus should be
published
well before the start of the term. It should delineate exact requirements
(assignment due
dates, exam dates, etc.) to allow students to adjust work schedules, to arrange for
child
care, and otherwise to prepare to devote their fullest attention to your course.
Any
changes you make during the term must never disadvantage students.
You can also allay their fears by clearly explaining your grading expectations.
When you
establish your grading scheme, it should be clear what is required to gain subject
mastery
and thus pass the course. Students should be able to attain this passing grade
(probably a
C) with a reasonable amount of effort and commitment. Higher grades would
require more effort, more commitment, and a more sophisticated understanding of
the material.
For most working adults a passing grade is not a goal but a minimum
requirement--for
financial aid, for degree requirements, or for credit transfer; they will work hard
to learn
as much as they can.
In summary, after you have decided the content of your course and the sequence of
topics, course
design becomes a matter of knowing your audience. By keeping your students special
needs in mind -- both their time constraints and their fears -- you can help them succeed
in your course, whether you teach at a community college, in a undergraduate program,
or in a graduate program.
LADY MARGARET HALL: COMPETITIVE MARKETS SPECIALIST
Kim Marie McGoldrick, University of Richmond
and Sonia Banerji, Harvard University Law Student
Lady Margaret Hall (formerly Lady MacDougall) was born in England in 1910 and
educated at Somerville College, Oxford, where she received a First Class Honors degree
in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and won the University Prize in Economics in
1931. She was elected a Fellow and Tutor of Somerville College in 1949, where she
spent almost all of her academic career. Her tenure at Oxford was described by former
student Shirley Williams as such: "She blazed in the Oxford scholarly firmament like the
brightest of shooting stars...She not only challenged the more brilliant of her colleagues
but also enchanted them." Lady Hall was also a Visiting Professor at M.I.T. in 1961-
1962, a Visiting Lecturer in 1984-1987 and later Honorary Professor (since 1987) at the
University of Stirling. In 1979 she received an Honorable L.L.D. from the University of
Nottingham.
Margaret Hall held numerous positions as a consultant to both government and industry.
She served in the US Government Office of Price Administration (1941-1944), when she
found herself stranded in America and separated from her family during World War II,
with the National Economic Development Office (1962-1987), as a Member of the
Economic Development Committee for the Distributive Trades (1963-1987), on the
Monopolies and Mergers Commission (1973-1976), and as an Economic Consultant to
Distillers Co. (1978-1984), among many others. Margaret Hall consistently published her
work in prestigious academic journals throughout her career, such as the American
Economic Review, Oxford Economic Papers, Economic Journal, and the Review of
Economics and Statistics.
Her research interests included the distributive trades, goods and services, the economics
of industry and the UK economy, and competition policy. Her most cited book,
Distribution in Great Britain and North America (with J. Knapp and C. Wren), appeared
in 1961 and was billed as the "first serious attempt at an explanation of labor productivity
in retailing." (Schwartzman, (1963), 403) The work carried out in this book includes a
detailing of the retail industry and its output, the differences in efficiency between the
two countries, consideration of economies of scale, issues of the market and competition
(for food and clothing in particular), and the influences of the environment (per capita
income, population density, and rate of growth) on productivity.
The focal point of her research was the theory of imperfect competition. Margaret Hall
viewed economies as "dynamic and imperfectly competitive, she was not persuaded of the
widespread possibility of markets clearing at all quickly. In this respect she has remained
an unreconstructed Keynesian". (C. Moir and J. Dawson (1990), 3) She was honored by
a diverse collection of her associates with the publishing of Competition and Markets:
Essays in Honour of Margaret Hall in 1990. Margaret Hall died in March 1995 at the
age of 84.
References
Hall, Margaret (1950) "The United Kingdom after Devaluation." American Economic
Review, 40, 864-75.
Hall, Margaret, John Knapp, and Christopher Wren (1961) Distribution in Great Britain
and North America: A Case Study in Structure and Productivity. London: Oxford
University Press.
Hall, Margaret and Christopher Winston (1965) "Variations in Required Average of
Census Data-A Methodological Study." Review of Economics and Statistics, 47, 54-64.
Moir, Christopher and John Dawson, editors (1990) Competition and Markets: Essays in
Honor of Margaret Hall. London: Macmillan Press.
"Obituary of Margaret Hall" The Daily Telegraph, 30 March 1995, 21.
Vaughan, Janet (1990) "Margaret Hall: A Biographical Note" in Christopher Moir and
John Dawson, editors, Competition and Markets: Essays in Honor of Margaret Hall,
London: Macmillan Press.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The 1996 Spring Meeting of the New England Women Economists Association will be
held Friday, May 10, 1996 at Simmons College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Alicia H.
Munnell, Member of the Council of Economic Advisers will be speaking on Social
Security Reform. For further information about this organization, call Dr. Barbara
Sawtelle at 617/521-2582.
Women s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy, a quarterly journal
established in 1995, encourages submissions from a diverse range of disciplines. The
journal is dedicated to advancing our knowledge of the psychological, social, cultural,
economic, and political processes that affect women s physical health, and how gender
influences health-behavior relationships, illness, and health care. For a copy of the Call
for papers (and submission guidelines), contact: Tracey A. Revenson, Ph.D., Editor,
Women s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy, Box 335, The Graduate
School & University Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10036-8099,
212/642-2533 (phone), 212-642-2523 (fax).
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF CSWEP BOARD MEMBERS
OLIVIA S. MITCHELL
University of Pennsylvania
It might seem that I never had a choice about what to study for a career, being the oldest
child of two economists. Nevertheless when I started college, economics was the furthest
thing from my mind. I had grown up as a citizen of the world; my family followed my
father s career with the United Nations throughout Asia and Latin America. A career as an
archaeologist or anthropologist seemed likely when I applied to Harvard as an
undergraduate in 1970. I don t quite know what happened (perhaps nature and nurture
took their toll), but shortly into my sophomore year in college, I found myself in Otto
Eckstein s Principles of Economics course and never looked back. My undergraduate days
from then on were full of heady reading in international finance, explanations for the Great
Depression, and radical economics. The topics were meaningful to one raised in poor
countries, the potential applications seemed unlimited, and students even read the Wall
Street Journal for credit! By my junior year, I was sold.
Of course, what I was sold on turned out to be rather different from what I have ended up
doing in the economics profession in the last twenty years. No one advised me as to how
much emphasis graduate school would place on statistics and math. Nevertheless, the
faculty in the PhD program at the University of Wisconsin struck an excellent balance
between theory and applied work, and the research as well as teaching assistantships I held
over those four years were instrumental in shaping how I approach problems, how I write,
and how I teach. Adding to the intellectual climate, my fellow PhD students were
fantastically collegial and helped each other through coursework and the dissertation blahs.
I can honestly say that I learned as much from my fellow students as from the faculty
during those four years.
After receiving my PhD, I accepted a job on the faculty of the Labor Economics
department at Cornell University s Industrial and Labor Relations School. I soon found
that being female, young, and marginally blond was something of a liability, at least insofar
as the students were concerned. A senior (male) colleague advised me to acquire two dark,
severe-looking suits for teaching days; these did seem to increase classroom cooperation. I
greatly enjoyed the colleagues and students at Cornell, and after a leave at the NBER, I
returned to Ithaca and married a Cornell biochemist. In 1984 I was tenured and gave birth
the same week to our first daughter. Within a year my husband found a research position
at Cornell, and a second daughter was born three years later.
After completing my degree, I had launched a research program on the economic
determinants of retirement, an agenda that rapidly expanded into analysis of social security
and pensions. Though my early work was mainly US-oriented, I expanded my background
and undertook several research projects for the Word Bank and other international
organizations. In 1993, I accepted a chaired position at the University of Pennsylvania,
becoming the Director of the Pension Research Council at Wharton School. Since arriving
here, my international involvement has become more extensive, involving lecturing and
research in Brazil, Chile, China, Mexico and Uruguay. I also co-chaired a Technical Panel
for the US Social Security advisory Council, and I look forward on continued research and
policy work on US Social Security reform as well as retirement programs around the world.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF CSWEP BOARD MEMBERS
DAPHNE A. KENYON
Simmons College
In the spring of 1971 at Michigan State University I needed a new major and I needed
money. I had been put on academic probation despite an A+ GPA because I had
neglected to put together the writing portfolio my major required, I had exhausted my
college savings and my father was unemployed. A sympathetic economics professor found a
$900 scholarship I could obtain by changing my major to economics. I have never regretted
that decision.
After graduation, a PhD in economics seemed a natural next step. My advisors were
dismayed when I chose the University of Michigan over Harvard because my boyfriend
could not conceive of following me to Cambridge. I fell in love with the town of Ann
Arbor, chose public finance and econometrics as fields, and found important mentors.
My first job out of graduate school was at Dartmouth College. I was the second tenure
track woman hired in the Economics Department in Dartmouth s 200-year history. After
three years of struggling to publish articles, learning how to teach and immersing myself in
the literature of public finance and public choice, I received signals that tenure was unlikely.
Deciding not to prolong the inevitable, I sought a position in Washington, D.C.
In D.C., I felt like I had been born again. I was thrilled by the professional opportunities
available, found myself excited by policy economics, and loved city life. I began at the U.S.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations where I researched federal tax
deductibility of state and local taxes. When elimination of this federal tax provision became
a centerpiece of President Reagan s tax reform package, I was well-positioned to move to
the U.S. Treasury. There I worked on the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The hours were long,
but I was single, lived within walking distance of my job and loved it. Implementing tax law
was less exciting and I was lured to the Urban Institute to work on state tax studies. There
I played the role of researcher/consultant, had the opportunity to travel, and found myself
obsessed by billable hours. When the public finance section at the Institute folded, I had
already decided to move on.
My long-distance boyfriend and I decided to marry and move to southern New Hampshire.
Peter wanted to start a medical practice in his home town, and I thought an academic
position in Boston would allow me to combine professional and personal life. I was
fortunate to obtain a position at Simmons College, a women s college in Boston. As Peter
worked to establish his medical practice, I strove to gain tenure. The research projects I
had started in Washington, D.C. were completed, and I became an able teacher in a much
different environment than Dartmouth. At the age of 38, I became pregnant with my
daughter Elizabeth. Raising her has been made immeasurably easier by Peter s
commitment to fatherhood and by the help of my nearby family.
I earned tenure three years ago. My husband s practice is doing well and Elizabeth is a
happy, precocious and assertive five-year old. I continue to enjoy state and local public
finance research as well as teaching and mentoring students at a small college. Now that I
am squarely in the middle of my life, Bonnie Raitt s words, Life is mighty precious when
there s less of it to waste, ring true. I balance the various facets of my life, trying to focus
my efforts on those things that are really important, and enjoying my ability to help younger
women with their lives and careers.
CSWEP-SPONSORED SESSIONS AT THE 1996 SOUTHERN ECONOMIC
ASSOCIATION MEETING
The Southern Economics Association (SEA) will meet in Washington, D.C. on
November 23-25, 1996. CSWEP will sponsor two sessions and a reception. The titles of
the sessions are Environmental issues in Developing Countries (Kathryn Anderson,
chair) and Feminist Pedagogy: Theory and Practice (KimMarie McGoldrick, chair).
To register for the SEA contact Joseph M. Jadlow, Oklahoma State University, 405-744-
7645 (phone) or 405-744-5180 (fax).
SUMMARY OF THE CSWEP-ORGANIZED SESSION
AT THE 1996 EASTERN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION MEETING
Women, Work and Welfare
Daphne A. Kenyon, Simmons College
Jane Sjogren (Simmons College) was co-organizer and chair of a well-attended session
on a variety of topics. Monica Galizzi (Workers Compensation Research Institute)
presented a paper entitled Gender Discrimination and Quit Behavior: Do Future Wages
Matter? Galizzi s research is based on the hypothesis that quit behavior may depend
upon a worker s perception of future earnings. She estimates a Cox proportional hazard
model using a new data set from the archives of the Italian Social Security
Administration. Galizzi finds that once expected future earnings are controlled for,
women in her sample have greater job attachment than men. Veronica Kalich (Baldwin-
Wallace College) presented Analyzing the Occupational Status of Women in Ohio
During the Industrial Restructuring of 1980-1990. She applied the Wilcoxon Rank Sum
test, shift-share analysis, and Occupational Ratios to Census data for Ohio. She
concludes that women have made significant advances into otherwise male-dominated
occupations, that education levels do matter in the competitive job area and that good
jobs may be more prevalent in the city, although growth continues in the suburbs.
Dorie Seavey (Wellesley Center for Research on Women) summarized her report
entitled Back to Basics: Women s Poverty and Welfare Reform. This brings together
statistics and social science research to profile women s poverty in the U.S., to discuss the
role of welfare in the lives of poor women and their children, to provide a structure for
understanding women s poverty, and to suggest improvements in social welfare policy.
Phil Levine (Wellesley College) presented his NBER working paper co-authored with
David Zimmerman entitled An Empirical Analysis on the Welfare Magnet Debate.
They use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth from 1979 to 1992 to
analyze the extent to which differences in welfare generosity among the states leads to
interstate migration, the so-called welfare magnet effect. Their probit regression
equations provide no support for the welfare magnet hypothesis. Jane Katz (Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston), Jane Sjogren (Simmons College) and Daphne Kenyon
(Simmons College) served as discussants.
SUMMARY OF THE CSWEP-ORGANIZED SESSIONS AT THE 1996 MIDWEST
ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION MEETING
Session 1: Balancing Work and Family
Donna M. Anderson, University of Wisconsin - La Crosse
Ann I. Fraedrich s (Marquette University) paper on Gender Differences in Family Plans
and Education Expectations: A Test of Human Capital Theory tests the proposition that
a young person s plans for marriage and family affect his or her educational investment
plans. She finds that both young men and young women who have traditional views
about the role of women in the household expect to complete less education. The
number of children expected and the expected timing of children significantly affect
expected educational investments for females, but only the expected timing significantly
affects the expected educational investments for males. C.R. Winegarden and Paula
Bracy (The University of Toledo), in Does Family Policy Matter: The Demographic
Effects of Maternity Leave and Child Allowances in Sweden, construct and test a five-
equation simultaneous model in order to estimate the demographic effects of Swedish
family policy, as gauged by the Government s child-allowance and family leave programs.
Simulations show positive impacts on birth rates and marriage ratios, and a marked
negative influence on infant mortality. Contrary to expectations, they find a braking
effect on the upward trend in the proportion of out-of-wedlock births. Michael P.
Shields (Central Michigan University) in Relative Income, Child Subsidies and Women s
Wage Rates: The Impact of Births, contributes to the current research on time series
models of fertility by introducing a variable related to relative income - age structure -
into a recent model by Whittington, Alm and Peters (AER, June 1990). The
introduction of this variable dramatically reduces the model s high autocorrelation and
greatly reduces the impact of a tax exemption variable on fertility. Farida C. Khan
(University of Wisconsin - Parkside) in Credit for Self Employment: A Numerical
Household Production Model for Women in Rural Economies, examines the demand
for credit by self-employed women in rural economies in developing countries within a
household production framework. A model is developed which integrates household
behavior into a broader economy-wide model. This model allows the effect of policy-
induced changes in interest rates as well as policies that alter wages in the formal sector
on self-employment, informal sector employment, and the demand for credit to be
analyzed. Discussants were Donna M. Anderson (University of Wisconsin - La Crosse),
Paul Gabriel (Loyola University - Chicago), and Patricia K. Smith (University of
Michigan - Dearborn).
Session 2: Demographics and Economic Development
Janice G. Yee, Wartburg College
The session began with Selective Migration, Program Placement, and the Evaluation of
Government Programs in Developing Countries , by Donna M. Gibbons (Carleton
College). The paper presents a model which examines the demand for human capital
and children within the household allowing for government program placement and
locational choice of the household to be endogenous. The results of the model suggest
that current evaluations of government programs may be inadequate. Karine S. Moe
(Macalester College) presented the second paper
entitled Fertility, Human Capital, and Time Use. The study examines the interactions
between fertility, human capital investment, and time use as an economy develops. The
model is calibrated to the World Bank s 1985 Living Standard for Peru, and provides
explanations for an economy s transition from a low human capital and high fertility to
one characterized by high human capital and low fertility. The third paper, Choosing to
Educate Females in Nigeria by Janice Weaver (Drake University) offered descriptive
information on reasons to educate females in Nigeria. Providing historical and current
context for the situation in Nigeria and incorporating this with the human capital model,
the paper considered the positive impact which the education of females would have on
the country s overall level of development. Concluding the session, Shahina Amin
(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) offered her paper The Effects of Female
Labor Force Participation on Family Income Inequality. Examining the first and second
waves of the Malasian Family Life Survey, the paper studied the impact which married
women s labor force participation had on family income inequality. The study found that
married women s earnings tended to have an equalizing impact on family income
distribution. Rose-Marie Avin (University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire) and Robin Klay
(Hope College ) served as discussants.
CALL FOR PAPERS:
CSWEP AT THE 1997 MIDWEST ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION MEETING
CSWEP will co-sponsor two sessions at the Midwest Economics Association Annual Meetings
to be held March 20-22, 1997 in Kansas City, MO. One session will be on gender-specific
issues. A nongender-specific session entitled Poverty, Welfare and Health will also be put
together. If you would like to be considered for either of these sessions, please submit abstracts
of a paper to Susan Pozo, Department of Economics, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
MI 49008, no later than September 15, 1996.
CALL FOR PAPERS:
CSWEP AT THE 1997 EASTERN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION MEETING
CSWEP is organizing two sessions at the 1997 meetings of the Eastern Economic Association.
One will be gender related, the other on public finance, with special preference for state and
local public finance. The meetings will be held in Arlington, Virginia (near Washinsgton, D.C.)
at the Crystal City Hyatt Regency from March 27-30. Anyone who would like to organize a
session, chair a session, present a paper, or act as a discussant, please contact (before December
13, 1996): Daphne Kenyon, Department of Economics, Simmons College, 300 The Fenway,
Boston, MA 02115; 617/521-2587 (phone), 617/521-3199 (fax) or
dkenyon@vmsvax.simmons.edu (e-mail). If sending a fax, please attach a cover sheet noting my
name and that I m in the Economics Department.
CSWEP-SPONSORED SESSIONS AT THE 1996
WESTERN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION MEETING
The 1996 meeting of the Western Economic Association will be held June 28-July 2, 1996 at the
Hyatt Regency San Francisco. Registration fees are $95 for WEA members and $155 for
nonmembers. There is an additional $45 fee for participants registering after April 1. The
additional charge for nonparticipants registering on-site is $20. Full-time student registration is
$40 (there is no additional charge for on-site registration). For additional information, contact
the WEA at 7400 Center Avenue, Suite 109, Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3039; phone
714/898-3222; fax 714/891-6715.
The CSWEP reception will be held Saturday, June 29, 7-8pm, in the Hyatt Regency Hospitality
Area B (tentative location--so check conference program).
CSWEP is sponsoring 3 sessions.
SESSION I: The Economics of Defense Saturday, June 29, 10:15-12:00.
Chair: Karen Tyson, Institute for Defense Analyses
Bruce R. Harmon, Institute for Defense Analyses, A Frontier Approach To Estimating Product
R&D Schedules
Karen Windau Tyson, Institute for Defense Analyses, Cost And Schedule Overruns In High-
Technology Research and Developments: Is Optimism Incurable?
Susan Hosek, Peter Tiemeyer, Rebecca Kilburn and Debra Strong, RAND Corporation, Race And
Gender Differences In Officer Career Progression
Carol Moore, Linda Cavalluzzo and Henry Griffis, Center for Naval Analyses, Do Navy
Separation Incentives Work? The Joint Determination Of Eligibility And Decisions
Discussants: Joni Hersch (University of Wyoming), Henry Griffis (Center for Naval
Analyses)
SESSION II: Gender and Risk Saturday, June 29, 4:30-6:15
Chair: Marsha Courchane, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Robert Jones, Simon Fraser University, David Nickerson, American University, Marsha Courchane,
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Credit Risk and Credit Rationing
Joni Hersch, University of Wyoming Do Women receive Compensating Differentials for
Job Risks?
Rosalie Pacula, University of San Diego Gender Differences in Risk Factors Determining
Addiction: A Look at the Demands for Alcohol and Marijuana
Nancy Ammon Jianakoplos and Alexandra Bernaskek, Colorado State Are Women More Risk
Averse?
Discussants: MariGloria Cobas (OCC), Maury Gittleman (BLS), Marsha Courchane (OCC),
Patty Born (American Medical Association)
SESSION III: Foreign Exchange Intervention, Exchange Rates, and Other
International Aspects of Monetary Policy Monday, July 1, 1996 (tentative-- check
conference program)
Chairs: Hali Edison and Linda Kole, Federal Reserve Board
Catherine Bonser-Neal, V. Vance Roley, and Gordon Sellon, Federal Reserve Bank-Kansas City
U.S. Monetary Policy Changes, Central Bank Intervention, and Exchange Rates
Allan Brunner and Linda Kole, Federal Reserve Board, What Determines the Effectiveness of
Monetary Policy: International Aspects of the Transmission Process
Michael Melvin, Arizona State University and Bettina Peirs, University of California at Los Angeles
Global Transmission of Volatility in the Foreign Exchange Market
John Montgomery and Helen Popper, University of Santa Clara, Information Sharing and Central
Bank Intervention in the Foreign Exchange Market
Discussants: Rich Lyons (University of California at Berkeley), Catherine Mann (Federal
Reserve Board), Carol Olser (Federal Reserve Bank - New York), Mark Spiegel (Federal
Reserve Bank - San Francisco)
NEWS & NOTES
Robin Bartlett of Denison University was recently awarded the Laura C. Harris Chair.
Annette Brown (Ph.D. expected Summer 1996, University of Michigan) and Usree
Bandyopadhyay (Ph.D., University of Maryland) have joined the Western Michigan University
Economics Department effective Sept. 1996.
CSWEP board member Ron Ehrenberg has become Vice-President for Academic Programs,
Planning and Budgeting at Cornell University. He was also elected to the AEA Executive
committee this past fall.
Former CSWEP chair Nancy Gordon has recently been appointed Associate Director for
Demographic Programs at the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Julie Hotchkiss has been promoted to Associate Professor with tenure at Georgia State
University.
Carmen Reinhart has accepted a new job as a tenured Associate Professor in the School of
Public Policy at the University of Maryland. She will also have an affiliation with the Institute
for International Economics.
Alice Rivlin has been appointed Vice-Chairperson of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
in Washington, D.C.
CSWEP NEWSLETTER SPECIAL REPRINT ISSUE NO. 2
The second reprint issue of articles from the CSWEP Newsletter is now available. Reprint
Issue No. 2 contains some articles previously reprinted and others appearing in the Newsletter
more recently. To obtain a copy, at no cost to members, write CSWEP, c/o Dr. Joan Haworth,
4901 Tower Ct., Tallahassee, FL 32303.
Preparing For The Job Market
A Guide To The Academic Job Market For Students
Mentoring And Being Mentored
The Joint Job-Hunting Problem
Translating A C.V. To A Resume
Finding Senior Academic Jobs
Presenting
How To Survive A Seminar Presentation
Guidelines For Being A Discussant
Publishing
Publish Or Perish: The Perils of Pauline How Not To Perish: Tips for Submitting
Articles Responding To Referees and Editors
Planning For Promotion And Tenure
The Year Of The Tenure Decision
The Process of Earning Tenure At A Small Liberal Art Institution
Collegiality
What Do You Do If You Think You Have Been Mistreated?
Grant Proposals
Grantwriting Guidelines
KimMarie McGoldrick Ad
C S W E P
The Committee on the Status of Women in the
Economics Profession
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
CSWEP depends on all of its dues-paying members to continue its activities. In addition to
publishing the Newsletter, we maintain a Roster of women economists that is used by members,
employers, organizations establishing advisory groups, and the like. We also organize sessions
at the meetings of the AEA and the regional economics associations and publish an annual
report on the status of women in the profession.
If you have not paid your dues for the current member year (July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996), we
urge you to do so. Questionnaires and dues reminders were mailed in September to members.
If you have paid, please pass this newsletter page on to a student, friend, or colleague and tell
them about our work. Thank you!
__________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: STUDENTS DO NOT HAVE TO PAY MEMBERSHIP DUES!!!
JUST SEND IN THIS APPLICATION
__________________________________________________________________________
To become a dues-paying member of CSWEP and receive our Newsletter and Roster, send this
application, with a check for $20 payable to:
CSWEP, c/o Dr. Joan Haworth
4901 Tower Court, Tallahassee, FL 32303
NAME____________________________________________________________________
MAILING
ADDRESS________________________________________________________________
CITY, STATE,
ZIP_______________________________________________________________________
Check here if currently an AEA member _____ Renewal of CSWEP Membership ____
New CSWEP Member _____ a Student _____
If you checked student, please indicate what Institution _____________________________
Check here if you wish a copy of the Special Reprint Issue _____
The Special Reprint Issue of the newsletter contains reprints of fourteen articles designed to
help women economists advance in the profession. The cost for non-members is $8.00.
________________________________________________________________________
CSWEP: PEOPLE TO CONTACT
__________________________________________________________________________
General Policy Matters Rebecca Blank, Department of Economics, 2003 Sheridan Rd.,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, rblank@nwu.edu
Items for Newsletter Rebecca Blank, Department of Economics, 2003 Sheridan
Rd., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208,
rblank@nwu.edu
Dues, Change of Joan Haworth, Membership Secretary, 4901 Tower Court,
Address, Roster Tallahassee, FL 32303
CSWEP East Daphne Kenyon, Department of Economics, Simmons
College,
300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, dkenyon433@aol.com
CSWEP South Kathryn H. Anderson, Department of Economics, Box 11, Station B,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235,
anderskh@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
CSWEP West Joni Hersch, Visiting Scholar, Department of Economics,
Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0097,
jhersch@econ.duke.edu
CSWEP Mid-West Susan Pozo, Department of Economics, Western Michigan
University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, susan.pozo@wmich.edu
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
American Economic Association Nonprofit Org.
CSWEP U.S. Postage
c/o Rebecca Blank PAID
Department of Economics Permit No. 205
2003 Sheridan Road Evanston, Illinois
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL 60208
Return to the CSWEP Newsletter List Page.