----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I am softening the title of this discussion because 'missing women' has dire connotation
in Amartya Sen's work, i.e. the killing of female fetuses in some parts of the world.
 
Barkley Rosser's post touches on some important issues, the answers to which are as
complicated as the questions themselves. There are certainly no explicit constraints on
both husband and wife publishing together; but it may be that the husband, having attained
a certain status through uninterrupted labor force attachment, [meaning no time off for
bearing children or raising them] may find it necessary to capitalize on his academic
standing. I know a case where the wife's name appeared as a co-author only in the latest
edition, even though she apparently was a 'helper' in every sense of the word.
 
The gender discrimination is well documented by various studies done by CSWEP, [Committee
on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession] which bear out women's dearth in the
higher ranks. This happens in spite of the larger number of women graduating and getting
doctorates. I also remember reading that among all social sciences, the glass ceiling on
women's promotions and progress is most severe in economics. Recently, on another list,
women graduate students in economics discussed the less than hospitable environment in
which they work, especially if they have started their families, a decision they make with
great trepidation. I don't see how we as a society are going to deal with women's
reproductive role in an enlightened manner unless we realize that we are all in this
together, in a manner of speaking!
 
Regarding the awarding of Nobel prizes, a very fine essay in Feminist Economics, [Fall
1996, vol. 2, no. 3] by Yun-Ae Yi on the economist Margaret G. Reid, highlights not only
the neglect of women economists' contribution to the discipline, but also what may be
wrong with how it developed. Many of the themes which have emerged in the thread on
graduate economics education are also an integral part of the story. Reid while at Chicago
made enormous strides in consumption economics, is credited to have initiated the
permanent income hypothesis and the life cycle model, was responsible for the time
allocation concept later used by Gary Becker in his household economics and was active in
consumer education and protection of their rights. Modigliani acknowledged her help in his
Nobel speech, Friedman gave a blanket nod in her direction only as part of a group and
Becker did not do it at all. Her focus on women's work in the household as production was
meticulous in it methodology, devoid of ideological bias and used a rigorous statistical
and empirical approach. But it perhaps stigmatized her as a soft economist and she won no
other plaudits except the Distinguished Fellow award of the AEA in 1980. To quote the
author herself:
"[this] shift in fundamental principles and the subsequent heavy emphasis mathematical
economics partly explain the under-appreciation of Reid's contributions that were holistic
in nature and going beyond econometric modeling or scientific theory building,
accommodated historic, anthropological and social perspectives."
 
I am not knowledgeable enough to call this piece on Reid 'thin' or thick' history, but it
is an outstanding example of what history if economics can deliver.
 
With sincere apologies for the length of this post, 
 
Sumitra Shah 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]