For the past two years, CSWEP has worked on developing a network of contacts in all the Ph.D.-granting departments. One of the tasks of these contacts is to report annually on the progress of women in their department. As a result, CSWEP has been able to acquire much more complete and accurate information than is available through the AEA Universal Academic Questionnaire (UAQ) which is mailed to all department chairs each fall. In Fall 1994, CSWEP was able to obtain responses on a one-page questionnaire from 111 of the 115 Ph.D.-granting departments where it has contact persons. This is in contrast to the UAQ, which received responses from only 69 Ph.D.-granting departments.
Information from the CSWEP questionnaire on the status of women faculty. Table 1 provides information on the share of women faculty at various levels in 111 Ph.D.-granting departments. Column 1 provides information on all 111 schools, while column 2 provides a comparison to the top 20 schools. (Note that all of the top 20 schools returned the CSWEP questionnaire, so this is a complete sample of these schools, which has never been available through the UAQ.)
Table 1 indicates that the share of women in academic appointments decreases with rank. The growing group of non-tenured faculty in economics departments (due to cost pressures on many schools) contains 25 percent women. Untenured tenure-track assistant professors are 23 percent female, associate professors are 13 percent female, while full professors in economics are only 6 percent female. Among the top 20 schools, the numbers are lower at every rank, indicating less representation of women on the faculty in the very top-ranked departments.
Information from the UAQ on the status of women faculty over time. While the UAQ data are less reliable, because of both a smaller sample size and a high variance in which schools report over time, they do provide a time series on women s representation by rank over the years. Figure 1 shows the patterns from 1974 to 1994 in Ph.D.-granting departments. The 1994 numbers from the UAQ are quite close to those from the CSWEP data. The share of women at each rank continues to increase over time, although the increase has been very slow in recent years.
Figure 2 compares public and private schools that grant Ph.D.s. Both this year and on average over the past five years, the share of women at each rank is slightly higher in public universities than in private universities. This is most noticeable in 1994 at the full professor level, where only 1.7 percent of the reported faculty are women in private institutions, while 5.4 percent of the full professors are women in public institutions.
Figure 3 looks at the advancement and promotion of women through the ranks. Figure 3 compares new Ph.D.s to new assistant professor hires. The number of new Ph.D.s who were women has been relatively constant, averaging 25.6 percent over the last five years. The share of new assistant professors hired into Ph.D.-granting departments over the last five years has been at about this same level.
Figure 4 looks at the next point of career progression, comparing the female share of newly hired or promoted associate professors to the share of women among the stock of assistant professors. In 1994, the share of newly hired or promoted associates fell well below the share of female assistant professors. Over the past five years, the female share of new hires or promotions at the associate level has averaged 4.2 percentage points below women s representation at the assistant professor level. Figure 5 compares the share of women newly hired or promoted as full professors to the share of women among the stock of associate professors. Over the past five years, the share of new full professor hires has averaged 2.7 percentage points below the share of female associates.
The evidence in Figures 3-5 indicates that there is some gap between the rate at which women are being hired and promoted and their share in the rank below. Indeed, efforts to simulate the expected progress of women through the ranks, given their entry-level representation, indicates that women are not advancing as rapidly as might be expected. Information on the status of women graduate students and undergraduates in economics. The availability of faculty women to economics depends crucially upon the pipeline of women being trained in economics. As noted above, the share of women in graduate programs has been relatively constant since the late 1980s. The share of undergraduate economics majors who are female has actually fallen over the past 10 years. The UAQ reports that 29 percent of graduating B.A.s in economics were female in 1994. CSWEP data show a very similar 30.4 percent share of women among B.A.s given by Ph.D.-granting departments. As long as the share of women majors remains at this level, it will be difficult to increase the share of women in graduate school.
Table 2 reports information on women in graduate programs in economics, taken from the 1994 CSWEP questionnaire. About one-third of the entering class were female; while 27 percent of those granted Ph.D.s over the year were female. The representation of women in Ph.D. programs in the top-20 ranked schools is very similar to that in all graduate programs. While these shares are above the level of 10 or 20 years ago, the share of women in economics Ph.D. programs remains very low compared to other related disciplines; out of 22 disciplinary fields for which the National Science Foundation reports data on doctoral recipients, only 5 have a lower share of women than economics (physics & astronomy, atmospheric & marine sciences, mathematics, computer sciences, and agriculture sciences.) The life sciences, the rest of the social sciences, and the humanities are far above economics. Table 3 shows how women fared in the job market in 1994, relative to men. With about 27 percent of the Ph.D.s, women were far more likely to enter jobs at non-Ph.D.-granting academic institutions and far less likely to take non-U.S. jobs (reflecting the lower representation of women among foreign students.) Women took academic jobs at Ph.D.-granting institutions and public and private sector U.S.-based jobs at about the same rate as men. The lower rate of women who found no job suggests that women are more likely to take academic jobs (often non- tenure track) in non-Ph.D.-granting schools rather than go without a job.
CSWEP is involved in a wide range of activities designed to help women advance in the economics profession. As part of its ongoing efforts to increase the participation of women (particularly younger women) on the AEA program, CSWEP organized seven sessions for the January 1996 meetings, three on gender-related topics, three on topics related to international trade and finance, and a roundtable discussion entitled Raising Children and Managing a Career in Economics: How Do You Do Both? CSWEP also held a business meeting and reception at the meetings, and sponsored a hospitality suite.
One of the ongoing concerns of CSWEP has been to provide assistance to women who are not at the top-ranked or Ph.D.-granting departments. Through regional representatives to the Eastern, Southern, Midwestern, and Western Economic Associations, CSWEP is trying to extend its outreach to women who come to these meetings but may not be the AEA annual meetings. While CSWEP has always organized sessions at these meetings, in both the Midwestern and the Southern Economic Associations a group of volunteers is looking at ways to establish greater networks among women faculty in smaller regional schools and in out-state university campuses.
One of CSWEP s most important activities is the publication of the CSWEP Newsletter three times each year. Each issue contains articles about women in economics, information of interest to younger economists about how the profession operates, articles on career opportunities, as well as information on research funding. This year, CSWEP also put together a Special Reprint Issue of the Newsletter, pulling together articles from the past 6 years of newsletters that provide particularly useful career advice to younger economists. CSWEP also maintains a Roster of Women Economists, providing information on all women members of the AEA. Employers particularly interested in targeting female candidates can receive the entire Roster or a sorted version of it, available in print or on disk.
As discussed above, CSWEP has worked to maintain a network of CSWEP contacts in all the Ph.D.-granting departments. These CSWEP representatives both collect information on the progress of women in their department and distribute information on CSWEP to female graduate students and new faculty. Since these departments are where future economists are trained, maintaining close connections to them is of ongoing importance. The Committee wishes to thank a number of people who made major contributions to CSWEP s work over the year. Joan Haworth, the Membership Secretary, and her staff maintain the Roster, send out annual membership reminders, and create customized listings from the Roster at the request of employers.
Three members left the Committee at the end of 1995: Robin Bartlett (Denison), who served as the Midwestern Economic Association representative; Irene Lurie (SUNY-Albany), who served as the newsletter coordinator; and Ann Witte (Wellesley). Lisa Lynch (Tufts) started a term as Eastern Economic Association representative, but resigned when she accepted a new position as Chief Economist to the Department of Labor. She was replaced by Daphne Kenyon (Simmons). CSWEP appreciates the work of all of these individuals on its behalf.
Finally, CSWEP thanks Helen Goldblatt and Yolanda Wales, both on the staff of Northwestern University, who provided administrative support for CSWEP during 1995 and who have each served as Assistant Editor of the Newsletter. The Department of Economics at Northwestern also provides much appreciated support to the operations of CSWEP.
Rebecca M. Blank, Chair
One hundred and eleven of the 115 Ph.D.-granting departments surveyed by CSWEP last year returned their questionnaires. (The results of these surveys are summarized in the table on page 10.) Of the 3122.75 positions in these institutions, 12% were held by women. Approximately 14% of the tenured associate professors and 6% of the tenured full professors were female. Seventy percent of males were either tenured associate or full professors. Only 46% of females were either tenured associate or full professors.
For the first time, surveys from the top 20 departments in the country were all completed and returned. Of the 767.25 positions in these departments, 9% of the positions were held by women. Eleven percent of the tenured associate professors and 4% of the tenured full professors were female. While 65% of males were either tenured full or associate professors, 35% of all females were tenured associate or full professors at these schools.
Sometimes I call myself a consulting economist; sometimes I say an economic consultant; sometimes I just say economist. The truth is that, at 49 years old, almost twenty years after finishing my Ph.D. at the London School of Economics, I am a wandering plumber -- carrying an analytical mind and a well-used bag of tools -- to confront fiscal, management or policy emergencies eagerly. So far, I've had a great time!
My story is about risk-taking and career opportunism; it is about leaving behind the world in which you show how smart you are for the world in which your skills make you an indispensable member of a team; and, it is about becoming as comfortable with knowledge acquired from your work (and the long hours in the back rooms) as you have been with "formal" learning from textbooks (and the long hours cramming in the library).
Fundamentally, it is the story of the outsider, coming in to change an organization in some way. Looking back, I see that each major risk has led to the next encounter, with "transition" linkages formed both through my experiences and through the networks of people, topics, policy issues and bodies of work that I follow in a very regular way. Day to day involvement with specific topics ebbs and flows as circumstances warrant, but the over-riding characteristic of my "career" is that the network of people, topics and issues gets ever wider, but not necessarily deeper. The premium is on being a quick study, reaching into that network to grab up the "state of the art." The downside is never "belonging" anywhere or fitting ideally into a traditional job slot.
I have done my share of teaching -- racking up about fifteen years of undergraduate and graduate courses, full and part-time, but I don't think I ever intended to be a full-time academic. I had the luck as I finished my thesis, on local government finance, to be able to create the job of Chief Economist at the country's largest public employee union, at the height of the New York City Fiscal Crisis of the 1970s, and was able to change and re-create it as the crisis abated in the 1980s.
During my 13 years (low seniority for a union), I built a small policy analysis shop; became a part-time health economist; "learned" the art of collective bargaining and how to cost labor contracts; applied modern portfolio theory, as a fiduciary on a $20 billion pension fund, to balance returns and risk; and helped to found and build groups of institutional investors pushing the envelope on corporate governance and economically targeted investing. It should not be hard for other economists to see the utility of the economist's bag of tools along that part of the journey: A general comfort with endless pages presenting billions of dollars, with or without brackets. A systematic and logical framework for analysis stemming from theoretical models. A healthy respect for market forces and a healthy understanding of market failures. A reliance on hard data. A chronic need to look forward, not so much to forecast as to not rest on precedent.
My pension fund work led, via the women's network and political consultant Ann Lewis, to a major role in the 1988 Presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson. I became his chief economic advisor in 1987, creating the Reinvest in America program, doing debate prep in the primaries around the country, and directing the JJ'88 plan for Federal budget balance. The union during the fiscal crisis had been perfect preparation; in a campaign, everything is a crisis. My bag of tools had expanded to include the one page briefing memo and numerous factoids and it logged thousands of frequent flyer miles. A national network of contacts resulted. I learned a huge amount of politics; but campaigns are about using up, rather than amassing, human capital.
Returning to the union and New York City, I briefed David Dinkins, who was building on the Jackson campaign to become New York City's first African American Mayor, on the City's economy. When he won, for the first time in my life, I went after a specific job, and became Finance Commissioner at the beginning of 1990, as the City's economy plunged into the worst period of job loss since the Great Depression. I wanted that job because I was interested in and felt prepared for the policy content -- the revenue side of the budget (a bewildering array of 23 taxes) and the chairing of the City's two largest employee pension funds, worth more than $50 billion.
But, while policy is sexy, management was what the Finance Department needed. I was the fifth commissioner in five years, and the only one, ever, who was a professional economist. No one had set priorities or made any tough decisions there for a long time. In four years of intense re-structuring, introduction of new technology and countless management retreats and seminars, the department became 25% smaller while collecting 67% greater enforcement revenue, and won the Federation of Tax Administrators' prize for technology achievement.
Oh, there was some policy, too; I got to create three tax packages totalling more than $2 billion, reform the property tax administratively and preach even greater reform in the midst of a real estate depression. And, I will always remember how a leaked two page memo, from me to the Mayor, laying out the impact of Jerry Brown's flat tax proposal on New York City, stopped his momentum cold and is credited by Bill Clinton's advisors as turning the 1992 New York primary for him. The Mayor appointed me Budget Director in the summer of 1993, so I finally had the $32 billion spending burdens of the fourth largest government in America as well as the task of holding onto the credit rating of the largest borrower in the municipal credit market. As it turned out, it was too short a stint.
The ebb and flow since leaving government has taken a number of interesting directions. While my first love has always been state and local government finance, my professional development has in many ways mirrored the internationalization of the economy. I am doing some basic analysis for the NYC Partnership and Chamber of Commerce on growth industries with international links, which has included the creation of an incubator for small software and multi- media firms in lower Manhattan's financial district. I am co-chairing an ongoing research project, linking academics and practitioners, on the similarities of fiscal and other issues facing Mexico City and New York City. I also chair a study group at the Council on Foreign Relations on labor and the international economy, and have been part of a group there analyzing the changing domestic base of US foreign policy, including the proliferation of state and local government foreign relations initiatives.
For a woman trained by solid, thoughtful, but largely risk-averse, male professors, my career is not what I expected. "Transition" is my constant state. However, one thing graduate school did prepare me well for: I am usually the only woman behind the closed doors where the decisions are made, whether in a union, a political campaign, the Mayor's office, or, now, the board of a steel company. I like to think it's my analytical mind, nerve and determination that got me there. Of course, it could be my shiny tools they envy....
In 1990, women represented less than one-quarter of newly granted doctoral degrees in economics and of new assistant professors in economics departments. The share of women in the tenured ranks is significantly lower. This underrepresentation is also apparent at the undergraduate level, as women received only 31 percent of bachelor degrees awarded in economics in 1990 as compared to just over half of bachelor degrees awarded in all fields.
Although the evidence indicates that women are underrepresented in the field of economics, it is not clear whether efforts to change the gender balance would be justified. Many people see little need for intervention, arguing that women are inherently less interested in economics, or that women are less willing or able to acquire the math skills needed to do well in the subject. At the same time, some people support active efforts to increase the number of women in the field, pointing to other possible causes of their current underrepresentation. These people argue, for example, that women are deterred from entering the field because of a lack of female role models, or that women are discouraged by an unappealing classroom environment.
Our study sets out to identify some of the factors that influence undergraduate students' decisions to major in economics. Our primary data are drawn from a survey of students, both male and female, in the year-long introductory economics class at Harvard University. Roughly half of each class at Harvard enrolls in this course at some point in their undergraduate careers. We sampled students in April 1991 and April 1992. In both years, roughly half of the students sampled were in their first year at Harvard, and the survey was administered shortly after they were asked to declare their majors. The survey asked about the students' characteristics, backgrounds, perceived performance in the course, and choice of major. It also asked students about their attitudes regarding various features of the course, such as classroom environment and the amount of math used. Finally, the survey noted the sex of each student's instructor. Because most of the course's meetings are in small classes taught by different instructors, we are able to use variation in the instructor's gender to investigate the importance of role models in the choice of major.
We also obtained data from the Harvard registrar on all students in the class of 1989. This data set includes information on whether and when each student took the introductory economics course, as well as each student's major, grade in the course, sex, math SAT score, and overall grade-point-average at the time of graduation. The registrar data enabled us to gauge the extent to which our introductory course estimates would differ from estimates based on all students.
We find a statistically significant difference of 7.8 percentage points between the fraction of female students in the course who choose to major in economics and the fraction of male students who do the same. Although women in the introductory economics course at Harvard begin the course with a weaker math background on average, math background does not appear to affect students' decisions about whether to major in economics and does not explain much of the gender gap. The class environment and the presence or absence of role models also do not explain much of the gender gap. At the same time, women receive lower grades in economics relative to their other courses than men do, and controlling for this difference in relative performance significantly diminishes the estimated gender gap. Thus, the evidence suggests that women may not major in economics partly because they have a comparative advantage in other fields.
After controlling for performance, math background, role models, and classroom environment, the estimated gender gap in the introductory course data is 6.1 percentage points, 22 percent smaller than the original gap. While this estimate is not statistically different from zero, its magnitude indicates that some difference in the probability of majoring in economics across sexes remains. This remaining gap may arise from differences in tastes or other unmeasured characteristics such as knowledge about the nature of economics upon entering college. In support of this last explanation, we find that, after controlling for other factors, women who were considering majoring in economics when they began introductory economics were about as likely to choose economics as were men.
We do not know whether women perform less well in economics relative to other classes because of differences in aptitude for economics, differences in work effort in economics, or differences related to the other courses they take. We also do not know what determines the taste for economics that students bring to college. Women may arrive at college with preconceptions about the nature of the field, having already decided not to major in it. It is worth noting that when upperclass students were asked why they did not take introductory economics in their first year, women were over twice as likely as men to respond that they "did not think that economics was interesting."
If you would like a copy of the paper, please write Cecilia Rouse, Industrial Relations Section, Firestone Library, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, or call (609) 258-4040.
This article is a "How to" on dealing with differences that arise when your "liberal arts style" economics department is located in a College of Business (COB) rather than in a liberal arts or social science college (such as a College of Arts and Sciences or A&S.) This article does not address true Business Economics departments, which are discussed in Ann Bartel's Fall 1994 article.
If you are at a top university where high academic standards are applied across the board, you will probably not be affected by your administrative location, except for the standards applied to teaching. Business colleges stress teaching more than A&S, and you may also be teaching MBA students with their emphasis noted by Ann Bartel. If you are not at a top university, your location in the COB may affect your relationship with College colleagues outside your Economics Department and, subsequently, affect tenure and promotion decisions because you are by tastes, temperament, and training more suited to A&S. A&S is usually the largest college in the university, with a large number of departments, majors, and graduate programs. The COB will be relatively small, with few departments. Most of the undergraduate majors within the COB will be in the traditional business disciplines. This has two implications: undergraduate economics courses are often seen as servicing the needs of other Business degrees, and you may find that economics majors are in the minority in many economics classes.
At major universities, most departments in the COB will offer graduate degrees. However, in smaller or lower-ranked universities, your department may be in the minority within the COB if it offers graduate degrees. To departments not granting graduate degrees or to those offering MBA degrees which are typically profitable, such programs seem extravagant, and resources allocated to graduate programs may appear to be a subsidy to the Economics faculty. There may be philosophical differences among departments in the COB, in that the traditional Business disciplines may view economics as primarily a tool for business, while economists view Business as merely applied economics. Since real resources are usually at stake, rivalries between Economics departments and the other Business departments seem to be common and genuine. However, despite the possible sources of tension noted above, there are a number of advantages to being located in the COB. Although you will be near the bottom of the COB pay scale, salaries tend to be somewhat higher than they would be if located in A&S. In a smaller College you can have greater voice. Since economists often work on questions similar to those asked in management, operations research, marketing and accounting, there is opportunity for valuable interaction or for data set sharing.
What are the practical implications? Evaluations: Don't expect people outside of economics to be familiar with the relative quality of economics journals, after the top few. Provide a list of journal rankings in your review file. Highlight the journals in which you have published. Keep in mind that many journals in the business disciplines have similar sounding names, allowing highly regarded economics journals to be mistaken for lower regarded business journals.
Research agenda: Even if your business colleagues seem to be rewarded for quantity of publications in practitioner journals, don't succumb to the temptation to follow suit by sacrificing quality for quantity. Emphasize activities that make you nationally marketable in economics. This may mean that by tenure time, you have fewer publications than non-economists in the College. This is where the support of your department is vital. It is their responsibility to make it clear that you have met the standards of the economics profession. Make sure that your department representative on the Tenure and Promotion committee is knowledgeable about the journals in which you have published.
Service: One needs to be cautious about choice of committees within the College, especially when untenured, so that your committee assignments don't take up too much valuable time that could be devoted to research which gets greater weight. However, you need to show your willingness to work with COB colleagues, no matter what their department. You should ask advice of Department colleagues about which committees would provide visibility but also not take up too much time.
Visibility: Try to take part in COB events, such as College faculty meetings, graduation ceremonies, and other functions such as receptions, in order to get to know your COB colleagues on a more personal basis. This helps your colleagues connect a face to your name and may smooth over possible rivalries. As the COB will be relatively small, it is likely that personal considerations will be more influential in tenure and promotion decisions than in a larger, more anonymous A&S.
Final comment: You should always try to maintain a balance between external standards (staying nationally marketable) and internal standards (getting tenure at your current job). This is true no matter whether you are located in a COB or A&S.
From the beginning I knew I wanted to combine an academic career with one in public policy, being driven by a notion of "wanting to improve society." In this, I had a number of role models when I entered Harvard in 1963, as many economics department faculty were shuttling to Washington as advisors to the Kennedy and later Johnson administration. It was a time of great optimism that, with wise counsel from economists, our leaders could overcome business cycles, steer the economy to its potential, create a more equitable income distribution, and minimize negative externalities. My professional goal was to become a policy advisor to the President, preferably at the Council of Economic Advisors. I took a faculty position at The American University, where I was to remain for 23 years. I recognized that I needed to establish myself as an expert in a relevant area if I wanted to give advice, and so I began to do research in the areas of unemployment, inflation, and productivity. I achieved tenure in 1972, and took a sabbatical on a Fulbright to the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. This unexpectedly became an important turning point in my career. My sabbatical project was to be a cross-national comparison of inflation-unemployment tradeoffs: an attempt to understand how the Europeans at that time managed to keep unemployment in the 1.5-2 percent range. However, the timing of my arrival in Sweden, shortly after the US had invaded Cambodia and recalled our ambassador from Sweden, thrust me into a situation of great curiosity regarding American activism, and in my case, with many questions regarding the women's movement, civil rights, and equal employment policy. Although I had not worked in this area before, I began a study of wage discrimination in Sweden, and returned home with some expertise in international labor market comparisons. In this, I had found a "niche." Although I always hoped for wider recognition as a macroeconomist, I found I had increasing opportunities to speak and write on women's issues, often from a comparative perspective. In retrospect, this was undoubtedly "a woman's place," but eventually it opened other doors for me.
In the spring of 1975, I was surprised to receive a phone call from Alice Rivlin, who asked me to join a small group she was putting together as the initial staff of the newly-established Congressional Budget Office. This was the opportunity I had been waiting for, and the attraction was doubly great in that Alice was one of my few female role models -- one who had succeeded both as a professional economist and a policy advisor. I took a leave from the university, and for nearly two years learned to function in a highly political congressional setting, made triply complex by the new budget process, different parties in control of Congress and the executive branch, and a stagflation economy that did not lend itself to the neat Keynesian remedies that had been prescribed by the Harvard professors a decade before.
After Jimmy Carter's election, I was invited to join his transition team, as an economic policy advisor, and from there I headed to the senior staff of the Council of Economic Advisers (my career goal achieved!) The American University had a time limit on leaves of absence, so I returned there for a two year stint, and then went back into government, this time as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy, Evaluation, and Research. There, under Ray Marshall, I gave policy advice on the broad range of programs that the labor department administers and sat on numerous interdepartmental task forces that developed economic policy over a wider range of matters -- from trade and anti-trust policy, to the Chrysler bailout. But also, for the first time, I had major administrative responsibility for large budgets and management responsibility for a large professional staff. I found this administrative role very much to my liking, as I enjoyed solving problems and trying to bring order to chaotic situations. I found that other executives came to rely on me to solve practical problems of this sort, and I thrived on what some others found to be mundane and boring.
With the defeat of Carter I returned to the university (after a short stint working with Betsy Bailey at the CAB), and took over as Department Chair. Our department, like many others, had experienced a number of ideological disputes during the 1970s that had filtered down into departmental governance, and had created an environment that was not conducive to making quality hires or achieving sensible curriculum development. My experience in government had opened the door to other career options for me, especially as I had a relatively rare combination of professional and administrative experience "for a woman," and hence was sought after by corporate headhunters. But I saw a real challenge in taking the chair of AU's economics department at this critical juncture, and I also had great affection for my friends there who had tolerated my many leaves and who had faith in my ability to heal past wounds and get things back on track.
In retrospect, the seven years I served as economics chair at AU were halcyon days. I still had a lot of opportunity to write, to testify before congress, and to travel abroad and throughout the US speaking on economic policy issues. It was an extremely productive time intellectually. But I began to find too much repetition in my work, and an itch to return to a larger administrative assignment. Once the Democrats went down to defeat in the 1988 election, I realized that I would need to leave Washington to find such an opportunity. The time was opportune in that my youngest child graduated from high school that year. Also, I decided that I wanted to take a break from the policy analysis I had been doing.
I took a position as Dean of the College of Business Administration at Fairleigh Dickinson University, just outside New York. The challenge set for me was to achieve accreditation for this very large (6000 students) business school, located in the heart of the Fortune 100. This was my first experience with business education, and enabled me to spend considerable time with corporate CEOs and to learn how they think and something of their managerial approaches. I absorbed this new knowledge like a sponge, developed an accreditation plan for the college, hired new faculty, and began to see noticeable changes in morale and faculty aspirations. I also began to develop expertise on policy issues facing higher education, and it was not difficult to transfer my earlier skills in policy analysis to this topic. Soon after, I had the opportunity to move up the academic ladder as chief academic officer at Western Michigan University. This brought me to an entirely new part of the country, as I had never lived away from the East Coast. Like Fairleigh, Western Michigan is an institution in transition, with great potential for innovation, and I enjoy the challenge of being a change agent while at the same time keeping a very large (26,000 students) academic enterprise on course.
Recently I was interviewed by John Siegfried, who is doing a study of economists who are college presidents and provosts. Apparently there are a disproportionate number of us, relative to other professions. He hypothesizes that "thinking like an economist" is a comparative advantage for solving the wide range of problems and bringing order to chaos, which is the daily fare of the administrator.
What convinced me to become an economist was reading Robert Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers while attending Manhasset High School in Manhasset, Long Island. In addition to making the subject matter of economics interesting and compelling, Heilbroner mentioned in passing that John Maynard Keynes's only regret in life was not having drunk more champagne. I decided that this was the profession for me, and indeed, that I would become a macro economist.
I majored in economics at Bryn Mawr College (1966-69) and then faced the dilemma of where to attend graduate school. Although accepted by the Universities of Chicago and Minnesota my husband (at the time) wanted to become a lawyer. His best opportunity was the Cornell Law School, so I went to Cornell to study macroeconomics.
My decision to go to Cornell was one of many career decisions made for personal reasons -- none of which I regret. When I graduated from Cornell in 1973, I received an offer from the NYU Business School (my dissertation was on portfolio theory) but I chose, instead, to become an Assistant Professor at the University of California, Riverside where my then "significant other" (and future father of my children) had also received an offer as an Assistant Professor.
This turned out to be a major career change. When I reached the University of California, Riverside, Ralph d'Arge (along with Allen Kneese) was starting the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. He, Tom Crocker, and other now-notable environmental economists like Bill Schulze and Jim Wilen were doing pioneering research. I decided to switch from being a macro/monetary economist to being an environmental economist. This was, in retrospect, a great move. I went from a very crowded field to one that was just beginning, where the competition was less and opportunities for making a contribution greater.
My move from California to Washington, DC was also prompted by personal motives, and has lead to interesting and rewarding careers at the University of Maryland, Resources for the Future, and the World Bank. My connection with the University of Maryland has been a long and happy one. I have worked closely there with many students, often publishing joint papers both with undergraduates and graduate students. My affiliation with Resources for the Future has been invaluable in helping to orient my research toward issues that are more policy-relevant -- valuing environmental health effects and examining factors influencing environmental policy. This trend has culminated at the World Bank, which has made it possible for me to examine environmental problems in countries where they are, indeed, more pressing than in our own country.
Looking back on my life, I would say that the three most important decisions I have made are (in chronological order) to obtain a Ph.D. in economics, to pursue a research career and to have children. (My children, Alexander and Meredith, are 13 and 11.) I have never regretted any of these decisions; indeed, they have made my life an interesting, fulfilling and a rewarding one.
Economics was not high in my thoughts during my undergraduate years at University of Rochester, despite enjoying Sherwin Rosen's introductory course. But grad work in physics brought visions of years in dark laboratories, while environmental interests led me to look to the social sciences. A friend told me math is useful in economics. I read Stigler's intermediate text, decided there was something to all this, and leapt into Berkeley's graduate economics program.
I've never looked back. I love both the rigor and the relevance of economics. My math background helped but I work in a "medium-tech" mode most of the time, specializing in urban and transportation economics. I like policy analysis and try to use technical skills to support it.
My post-graduate experience - Assistant Professor at Princeton, followed by twelve years on the senior faculty at Irvine - confirms some stereotypes about careers and contradicts others:
- The value of connections is undeniable. Getting a job at Princeton depended on them and opened new ones. For me, this was worth the insecurity of a high-expectation department with slim tenure prospects.
- You do not make or break a career in economics by age 35. Whatever you manage to accomplish in the early years is the starting point for later additions, and reputation is cumulative.
- Senior people are less dependent on their local environment. Irvine's economics department was new and tiny when I arrived, but I found what I needed: some lively intellects, facilities and time for research, and an ample phone budget.
- Writing books does not hurt your career. A successful one can really solidify your reputation.
- Writing well is incredibly important. I credit McCloskey for alerting me to this.
- An apprentice system for grad students, using them as coauthors when appropriate, can work well for both sides. They get their name in print and watch an experienced researcher up close; I get projects completed that I would not have time to do alone.
- Administration is both rewarding and draining. Any talent is quickly spotted; be prepared to make tough decisions about your priorities. (I spent 9 years as associate dean and department chair; I don't regret it but decided it was enough.)
Although I enjoyed Princeton and found those years tremendously valuable, being a senior faculty member is a lot more fun! Gone is the tension of wondering if I could get articles into print, panicking over how to fill 50 minutes of a new class day after day. (Gone also are the weekly colds and flu of early parenting!) I much prefer the feeling of knowing one's business, and the satisfaction of seeing students develop. Most recently, I have discovered the pleasures of achieving some international recognition, a great ego booster with practical side benefits. I'm not sure what lessons I have specifically for women. I believe a major obstacle for career women is workaholic career husbands. Since our profession encourages and rewards overworking in any gender, I suspect there is no general formula satisfactory to all couples. For my part, I acknowledge the benefit to my career from a supportive spouse with an interesting profession and an off-and-on commitment to the labor market.
The session opened with "Asset Market Structure and International Trade Dynamics" by Athanasios Arvanitis (IMF) and Anne Mikkola (University of Helsinki). The paper examines the consumption, output and trade balance implications of a two-country real business cycle model that allows for specialization in production and alternative asset market structures. The model replicates observed low consumption correlations and countercyclical trade balance fluctuations even with complete financial markets, if countries have strong preferences for the domestically-produced good and a low elasticity of substitution between domestic and imported goods.
The second paper was "U.S. Equity Investment in Foreign Markets: Portfolio Rebalancing or Return Chasing?" by Henning Bohn and Linda Tesar (both of the University of California at Santa Barbara). This paper tests the first-order conditions of a standard asset pricing model using data on U.S. net purchases of foreign equities. U.S. investors do not appear to maintain a balanced portfolio of stocks over time, but "chase returns" by investing in markets where forecasted returns are high. Between 1980-94, this strategy of picking "winning" markets did not outperform a value-weighted portfolio of foreign stocks. The final paper, by Jane Ihrig (University of Virginia) was "Multinationals' Response to Repatriation Restrictions." A stochastic dynamic programming framework is used to examine the impact of repatriation restrictions on the investment decisions of multinational firms. Depending on the timing and the expected duration of the capital flow restrictions, investment and technology transfer may increase or decrease when restrictions are imposed. Simulation results are consistent with the investment patterns of U.S. multinationals and their Brazilian subsidiaries during the 1980s.
Mario Crucini (Ohio State University), Urban Jermann (University of Pennsylvania), and Enrique Mendoza (Board of Governors) provided valuable comments.
The CSWEP session on "Current Debates in Trade Policy" consisted of four papers. Ann Harrison (Columbia Business School) and Gunnar Eskeland (World Bank) presented "Playing Dirty? Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis." They conducted tests to see whether foreign investors are likely to flee environmental regulations at home by locating in countries with more lax regulations. Their paper finds no evidence of this phenomenon. Anne Gron (Kellogg School of Management) and Deborah Swenson (UC-Davis) presented "Pricing to Market and Imperfect Competition: The Effect of Local Production." Their paper estimates exchange-rate pass-through for US and Japanese auto firms when controlling for local production in the destination market. Corinne Krupp (Michigan State) and Susan Skeath (Wellesley College) discussed "Modelling the Upstream/Downstream Impacts of Antidumping Duties." Using an original data set, they show that antidumping investigations themselves can result in strategic pricing and production shifting in the upstream market. Kala Krishna (Penn State) and Jiandong Ju (Penn State) discussed "Market Access Effects of Free Trade Areas." Their paper examines some conditions under which welfare-reducing import-reducing effects dominate in a free trade area without rules of origin. The discussants for the session were Jane Ihrig (Virginia), Mike Knetter (Dartmouth), Tom Prusa (Rutgers) and Carsten Kowalczyk (Fletcher School).
The four papers presented in this session addressed a range of topics about exchange rate policy, performance and implications of exchange rate movements. In "The Timing of Exchange Rate Adjustments in Developing Countries," Susan M. Collins (Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution) develops and estimates a model of the time at which policy makers decide to undertake an exchange regime change. Her results highlight the importance of reserves, inflation and growth in determining the timing. Anne Mikkola's (University of Helsinki) paper posed the question: "Does the Volatility of Exchange Rates Affect Trade Flows?" She presents results for a range of countries and time periods. While she finds that it is difficult to identify a conclusive link, she argues that there is more support for the view that nominal exchange rate volatility has real effects than much of the previous literature suggests.
In her paper "Forecasting the Trade-Weighted Dollar Over the Medium Run," Adrienne Kearney (Congressional Budget Office) extends the typically bilateral monetary model of exchange rate determination so as to explain movements in a multilateral exchange rate for the U.S. dollar. Her model does relatively well in picking up turning points, suggesting an approach for conditional forecasting exercises over 2-3 year horizons. Finally, Carmen M. Reinhart (IMF) and Carlos Vegh (IMF) ask "Do Exchange Rate-Based Stabilizations Carry the Seeds of Their Own Destruction?" After examining 12 episodes in which the exchange rate was used as the main nominal anchor in an inflation stabilization program, they conclude that the answer is often yes -- although country specific and/or external shocks may have contributed to the demise of some programs.
The session's discussants were Reuven Glick (Federal Reserve of San Francisco), Charles Engel (University of Washington) and Robert Cumby (Georgetown University).
In the first paper, "Domestic Violence: Credible Threats and the Use of Services as Signals," Amy Farmer (University of TN) and Jill Tiefenthaler (Colgate University) provide a game theoretic model of how the existence of services for battered women may reduce domestic violence even if a battered woman who uses the service ultimately returns to her relationship. Services such as police intervention, shelters, and counseling may provide a woman with a credible signaling mechanism about her threat to have a relationship for the use of such signals may improve her situation even if she returns to the relationship.
Elizabeth Power's (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland) paper, "Fertility and Welfare Participation," addresses the relationship between fertility and welfare participation. Using data from the March 1987 Current Population Survey and the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, Powers analyzes a few basic empirical facts about the phenomenon of welfare births. She finds that fertility rates (unadjusted) of welfare recipients do exceed that of other groups. However, she finds no evidence that women use AFDC to begin families earlier or that AFDC births help realize mothers' desires for larger families.
Jean Kimmel's (Upjohn Institute) paper, "Reducing the Welfare Dependence of Single Mother Families," is about the extent to which the inability of welfare recipients to find employment that replaces Medicaid benefits limits their willingness to accept employment. Using data from the sixth interview of the 1987 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) she finds that Medicaid does serve as a disincentive to work and that higher probabilities of receiving employer-based health insurance increase the probability of employment.
In the session's final paper, "Family Values and Economic Rationality", Shirley Burggraf (Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University) assumes that society places a high value on parental investment of time and resources in children to facilitate the process of intergenerational culture transmission and the development of human capital. However, the opportunity cost of women's time investment in children has risen and thus the private incentives of women are to have fewer children and to invest less in each. Thus, a form of an externality exists and she suggests ways that this externality might be internalized, for example by putting a share of children's social security taxes into retirement trust funds for their own parents.
Kathryn Shaw (Carnegie Mellon) chaired the CSWEP session on "Women's Work Choices." Lori Kletzer (UC - Santa Cruz) presented "Gender Differences in the Incidence and Consequences of Job Displacement from Import-Sensitive Industries." She noted that while there is a negative relation between import share and the likelihood of reemployment, this appears to be due to the large proportion of women in import-competing industries who have a lower probability of reemployment. In "Gender Differences in Overeducation: A test of the Theory of Differential Overqualification," KimMarie McGoldrick (Richmond) and John Robst (SUNY Binhampton) test, and reject, the hypothesis that married women are more likely to be overeducated in smaller labor markets than in larger ones due to restrictions on their job search. This finding suggests that the effect on the gender wage gap of married women being "tied stayers" or "tied movers" may be small. In "Is There Such a Thing as Women's Work? A 1980s Perspective," Melinda Pitts and Ann Mcdermed (North Carolina State) address the basis behind the large and persistent degree of occupational segregation by gender. Their results indicate that, although female dominated occupations have lower wages, individuals in female dominated occupations earn more than if they were employed in a male-dominated occupation. In "Taboos or Tolerance: Occupation Differences by Sexual Orientation" M.V. Lee Badgett (Yale and Maryland) estimated a model of occupational choice which finds that lesbian/bisexual women are more likely than heterosexual women to be in service in crafts/operative jobs. The roles of discrimination, differences in tolerance levels, and gender taboos, in leading to the differences in occupation distribution were discussed. Discussants were Kathryn Shaw (Carnegie Mellon University), Joni Hersch (Wyoming), and Larry Kahn (Cornell).
The session on "Household and Labor Market Interactions," chaired by Joni Hersch (Wyoming), included four papers. The first two papers addressed a similar question: after controlling for the endogeneity of the working spouse decision, whether husbands with working wives earn less than those with non-working wives. In "The Labor Market Value of Having a Supporting Spouse," Julie Hotchkiss and Robert Moore (Georgia State) present evidence that male managers with working wives experience a wage penalty, while Joyce Jacobsen and Wendy Rayack (Wesleyan) find little or no evidence of a working wife penalty in their paper "Do Men Whose Wives Work Really Earn Less?," In "All in the Family: Family, Income, and Labor Market Behavior," Jon Haveman and Janet Netz (Purdue) examined the effect of controlling for detailed family composition and characteristics on the duration of unemployment and labor force participation, finding that such characteristics are an important determinant of these outcomes. Linda Edwards and Elizabeth Field-Hendrey (Queens College, CUNY) examine the determinants of the decision to engage in home-based market work, rather than on-site work. They find that high fixed costs of working outside of the home have an important positive effect on home-based labor force participation. Discussants were Patricia Reagan (Ohio State), Ivy Broder (The American University), Walter Oi (University Rochester), and Shelly Lundberg (University of Washington).
Chair: Janice Yee (Wartburg College)
Papers: "Choosing to Educate Females in Nigeria," Janice Weaver (Drake University)
"Selective Migration, Program Placement and the Evaluation of Government Programs in Developing Countries", Donna M. Gibbons (Carleton College)
"Fertility, Time Use, and Economic Development", Karine Moe (McCalester College)
"The Effects of Female Labor Force Participation on Family Income Inequality," Shahina Amin (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
Discussants: Rose Marie Avin (University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire), Robin Klay (Hope College), Janice Yee (Wartburg College)
Chair: Jean Kimmel (W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research)
Papers: "Gender Differences, Family Plans, and Educational Expectations," Ann I. Fraedrich (Marquette University)
"Does Family Policy Matter? The Demographic Effects of Maternity Leave and Child Allowances in Sweden," C.R. Winegarden and Paula M. Bracy (University of Toledo)
"Relative Income, Child Subsidies, and Women's Wage Rates: The Impact on Births," Michael P. Shields (Central Michigan University)
"The Demand for Credit for Self-Employment Among Women. A Numerical Household Production Model," Farida C. Khan (University of Wisconsin, Parkside)
Discussants: Donna Anderson (University of Wisconsin-LaCross), Paul Gabriel (Loyola University, Chicago), Pat Smith (University of Michigan, Dearborn)
There will be a CSWEP business meeting on Thursday, March 21, from 5:00-6:00 p.m. and a CSWEP reception on Friday, March 22, from 5:30-7:00 p.m..
Chair: Jane Sjogren (Simmons College)
Papers: "Gender Discrimination and Quit Behavior: Do Future Wages Matter?," Monica Galizzi (Workers Compensation Research Institute)
"Job Changes by Occupation and Industry for Ohio Women 1980-1990," Veronica Kalich (Baldwin-Wallace College)
"Women and Welfare: Popular Conceptions vs. Historical Facts," Dorie Seavey (Wellesley Center for Research on Women)
"An Empirical Analysis of the Welfare Magnet Debate," Phil Levine (Wellesley College)
Discussants: Jane Katz (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston), Kathleen Langley (Boston University)
There will be a CSWEP business meeting from 12:45-1:45 p.m. - "Networking Opportunities for Women: Current and Proposed"
Co-chairs: Joyce Jacobsen (Wesleyan College) and Daphne Kenyon (Simmons College)
A CSWEP reception will be held from 4:00-5:30 p.m. in the Berkeley and Clarendon Rooms, Mezzanine Level. This reception is to welcome all those who are curious about CSWEP or who belong to CSWEP. Please bring a friend or arrange to meet a friend at the reception. There will be complimentary hors d'oeuvres and a cash bar.
Yana van der Meulen Rodgers, College of William and Mary Rose-Marie Avin (University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire) and Louise Laurence (Towson State University) "The Status of Women in Transition Economies: The Case of Nicaragua." This paper analyzes the changing social and economic environment for women in Nicaragua during the 1990s, and it highlights women's response to their new environment. More specifically, the paper focuses on the impact of the restructuring policies on women's incomes, their economic and family status, and their opportunities for advancement.
Susan Linz (Michigan State University) "Job Rights in the Soviet and Post-Soviet Labor Market: An Analysis of Gender Differences." This paper analyzes gender differences in the application of job rights in the Soviet and post-Soviet labor market utilizing survey data collected in 1983, 1992, and 1995: that is, prior to perestroika, immediately after perestroika, and nearly three years after the initiation of the transition process in Russia. First, the paper uses pre-perestroika survey data to assess the impact of job rights on job search, job choice, and perceptions of factors influencing career advance. Second, the paper tests hypotheses formulated in the pre-perestroika analysis with survey data collected in the post-perestroika period in order to evaluate the impact of perestroika on gender differences associated with job rights. Third, the paper establishes a series of hypotheses regarding the impact of transition on the institution of job rights using survey and interview data from 1994 and 1995.
Joseph E. Zveglich, Jr. (Harvard University) and Yana van der Meulen Rodgers (College of William and Mary) "The Impact of Protective Measures for Female Workers: Some Evidence from Taiwan." This article examines whether a new Labor Standards Law in Taiwan might have depressed women's relative earnings and had other negative impacts on women's employment during the 1980s. The Labor Law contains provisions on night work, hours of overtime, and maternity leave that treat female workers differently than male, and may have raised the cost to firms of employing women. The authors estimate a system of equations for employment, earnings, and hours worked using a set of sector-demographic- temporal dummy variables which isolate the Labor Law effects. The study shows that although policy makers intended to protect women with these provisions, enforcing the regulations actually led to a decline in women's labor input and relative earnings.
The first paper, "Poverty Among the Oldest Old: New Estimates from AHEAD," Kenneth Couch (University of Connecticut) and Mary Daly (Northwestern University), investigates the poverty status of the elderly and its relationship to their ability to meet basic material needs. They find substantial risks of poverty among those aged 80 and older, with women, African-American and Hispanic elderly facing the highest risks. When money is limited, the elderly make adjustments, including buying less expensive food, putting off home repairs, and not purchasing prescribed medications.
"Fuzzy Health Indices and the Performance of Race and Gender in a Competing Risks Model of Nursing Home Entry and Death" by Alvin Headen (North Carolina State University) uses data from the 1982 and 1984 National Long Term Care Survey to investigate health indicators that predict risk of nursing home entry and risk of death. He finds that one risk profile (GIK4, including four limitations in activities of daily living and medical conditions of Parkinson's disease, circulatory problems, cognitive deficiencies and senility) is the largest predictor of nursing home entry. On the other hand, a health profile with the elderly person facing acute medical conditions, including stroke, pneumonia, emphysema, multiple sclerosis, and cancer most frequently predicts the risk of death.
The final paper was "Giving Incentives and the Well-Being of Children Who Care for Disabled Parents," Shelley White-Means (University of Memphis) and Gong Soog Hong (Purdue University). This paper examines whether altruism and bequest motives influence adult childrens' decisions about giving time to care for a disabled parent, giving financial resources, and giving up labor force employment. Using data from the 1992 Health and Retirement Survey, they find that bequest motives influence monetary support and employment decisions. Altruism motives influence monetary support only. Financial and overall life satisfaction are lower among adult children who care for disabled parents.
Discussants were Kathryn Anderson (Vanderbilt University) and Donna Jennings (East Tennessee State University).
feminist social policy and the attack on big government is every woman entitled to have as many children as she wants, at taxpayers' expense?
government support for child care: the number one feminist issue?
economic theory: feminist economists know what they don't like, but have they produced any good substitutes?
is affirmative action unfair?
experimental evidence of discrimination in the marketplace
doing feminist economics through survey research
Special feature: A psychologist, sociologist, historian, lawyer, and a journalist will prowl the conference and give us their unvarnished views of feminist economics.
þþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ
þþþþþþþ
If you would like to come, return this sheet with your payment by
May 15, 1996 to
Jean Shackelford, Department of Economics, Bucknell University,
Lewisburg, PA 17837
Those using a credit card may fax this form. PLEASE PAY
FOR REGISTRATION, ROOM AND FOOD IN ADVANCE. Make checks payable
to
IAFFE.
Will you give a paper? _________ Lead a
discussion?_________
Topic:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Conference Registration: IAFFE Members $65, Nonmembers $105,
Students $20
(to join IAFFE Contact Jean Shackelford)
Dorm room with semi-private bath, per night: Single occupancy $69
Double occupancy $45
Breakfasts $4, Lunches $9, Gourmet dinner $20
Check appropriate boxes and write in appropriate dollar amounts:
Registration: member [ ] nonmember [ ] student [ ]
Dorm Room: single occupancy [ ] double occupancy [ ] for
Friday night [ ] Saturday night [ ]
Sunday
night [ ]
Meals: Saturday: Breakfast [ ] Lunch [ ]
Gourmet Dinner [ ]
Sunday: Breakfast [ ] Lunch [ ]
TOTAL PAYMENT
$_______________
_______________
_______________
$_______________
check enclosed [ ] charge my Visa [ ]
Mastercard [ ]
cardnumber__________________________expires_______signature______
________________________
Name___________________________________Affiliation_______________
_______________________
Address__________________________________________________________
_____________________
_________________________________________________________________
_____________________
Phone_____________________________Fax____________________________
____E-mail____________
For those of you wishing to register for the Western Economic
Association meetings to be
held at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco, CA, June 28 - July 2,
1996, you will pay the
lowest registration fee if you register by April 1. The
registration fee is lower for students
and for members of the WEA. You can also register during the
conference. For
registration forms, call 714-898-3222; fax 714-891-6715; e-mail
72614.15@CompuServe.Com. CSWEP will sponsor two sessions and
host
a reception at
these meetings.
Applications for the 1996-97 AEA/FRS Minority Graduate
Fellowships in Economics are
now being accepted. Applicants must be Black, Hispanic or Native
American, enrolled in
accredited graduate programs in Economics, have completed their
comprehensive
examinations (including any field examinations) and about to
begin their dissertation
research. The fellowships provide a monthly stipend of $900
during the academic year.
Awards will be based on academic performance, with preference
given to research areas of
special interest to the Federal Reserve. Applications are due
March 1, 1996. For further
information, please contact Susan M. Collins at 1775
Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington,
DC 20036; phone: (202) 797-6293 or E-Mail: scollins@brook.edu.
CSWEP will hold a general discussion session at the 32nd
annual Missouri Valley
Economics meetings. The meetings will run from March 7-9, 1996
at the Peabody Hotel in
Memphis, TN. Individuals interested in CSWEP activities and in
forming sessions for next
year's meetings are invited to attend the session tentatively
scheduled for Saturday at 10:15
a.m. If you are unable to attend, please feel free to contact
either Karen Vorst, U-Missouri-
Kansas City (vorstk@vax1.umkc.edu), Janet Rives, University of
Northern Iowa
(Rives@uni.edu), or Janice Yee, Wartburg College
(Yee@wartburg.edu).
A report back from the newly formed Washington Economists'
Network - On November 1
the Washington Economists' Network met for the first time. About
40 people attended a
breakfast get-together at Sholl's Cafeteria (1990 K St.) to greet
old friends, make new
contacts, and to discuss the direction for the group. The group
will emphasize the exchange
of information on career directions and job opportunities, as
well as bring together
Washington economists who work on similar topics, but for
different agencies and
institutions. Catherine Mann has offered her internet address as
a transfer point. If you
have some information to exchange or want to be added to the
e-mail list, send it to
CLMannPhD@aol.com. Please note along with your e-mail address
your telephone, fax, and
interests.
The next meeting will be on Wednesday, February 7, 1996 at
Sholl's Cafeteria, 1990 K. St.
at 7:30 a.m. For more information contact Thesia Garner at
204-544-5906 or Kathleen
Scholl at 202-244-2297.
Jody L. Sindelar has been named Associate Dean at Yale's School
of Public Health.
CSWEP will sponsor two sessions at the November 1996 meetings of
the Southern
Economic Association. Anyone interested in presenting a paper on
gender issues in teaching
should contact KimMarie McGoldrick at the University of Richmond
(mcgoldrick@urvax.urich.edu). Anyone interested in presenting a
paper
on environmental
issues in developing countries should contact Kathy Anderson at
Vanderbilt
(anderskh@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu).
Spell checking can be dangerous. In the final round of
spell-checking our Fall Newsletter,
the references to Arleen Leibowitz all got changed to Arleen
Layabout in the article
"Women's Contributions to Economic Demography." We apologize
profusely to Arleen.
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 (*new). 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
Presenting
Publishing
Planning For Promotion And Tenure
Grant Proposals
Return to the CSWEP Newsletter List Page.