the gender gap in economists' beliefs

8/10/2019 The Gender Gap In Economists' Beliefs

1/22

ARE DISAGREEMENTS AMONG MALE AND FEMALE ECONOMISTS

MARGINAL AT BEST?: A SURVEY OF AEA MEMBERS AND THEIR VIEWS

ON ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC POLICY

ANN MARI MAY, MARY G. MCGARVEY, and ROBERT WHAPLES

The authors survey economists in the United States holding membership in theAmerican Economic Association (AEA) to determine if there are significant differencesin views between male and female economists on important policy issues. Controlling

for place of current employment (academic institution with graduate program,academic institution undergraduate only, government, for-profit institution) anddecade of PhD, the authors find many areas in which economists agree. However,important differences exist in the views of male and female economists on issuesincluding the minimum wage, views on labor standards, health insurance, and

especially on explanations for the gender wage gap and issues of equal opportunityin the labor market and the economics profession itself. These results lend support tothe notion that gender diversity in policy-making circles may be an important aspectin broadening the menu of public policy choices. (JELA11, J78, A14)

I. INTRODUCTION

Few changes in the demographics of highereducation in the United States have been aspronounced as the increasing percentage of doc-toral degrees awarded to women in the past

40 years. In 1975, men received the majorityof bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees; by2000, the majority of bachelors and mastersdegrees were awarded to women. In 2002, forthe first time in U.S. history, more Americanwomen than American men received doctoraldegrees from U.S. universities and today more

The authors would like to thank Professor Julia McQuil-lan, Director of the Bureau for Sociological Research, Uni-versity of Nebraska-Lincoln for her helpful suggestionson the survey questionnaire, Michael L. May, Swarthmore

College 11 for his research assistance, and the ResearchFund of the Department of Economics at the University ofNebraska-Lincoln for assistance in funding a portion of thisresearch. We also thank three anonymous referees for theirvery helpful comments and suggestions.

May: Professor of Economics, Department of Economics,University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0489. Phone 402-472-3369, E-mail [email protected]

McGarvey:Associate Professor, Department of Economics,University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0489. Phone 402-472-9415, E-mail [email protected]

Whaples: Professor of Economics, Department of Eco-nomics, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC

27109-7505. Phone 336-758-4916, E-mail [email protected]

doctorates are awarded to women than to menat U.S. universities.1

Although the proportion of women in eco-nomics continues to lag behind that of othersocial science disciplines, data from the Surveyof Earned Doctorates show that women rep-resent 34.4% of new doctorates in economicsfrom U.S. universities in 2011, up from 28.1%in 2001 (Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Uni-versities 2011: Table 14 National Science Foun-dation 2012). This represents a 6.3 percentagepoint increase over the period as comparedwith an average 2.5 percentage point increasefor all fields. As a result, increasing num-bers of female economists are actively involved

1. Earned Degrees Conferred: 1870 2000, Postsec-ondary Education Opportunity, Number 116, February 2002available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED473779&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED473779. Accessed December6, 2009.

ABBREVIATIONS

AEA: American Economic Association

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

GLS: Generalized Least Squares

OLS: Ordinary Least Squares

SUR: Seeming Unrelated Regression

111

Contemporary Economic Policy (ISSN 1465-7287)Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2014, 111132Online Early publication February 25, 2013

doi:10.1111/coep.12004 2013 Western Economic Association International


2/22

112 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY

in research and policy making on a varietyof levels including the Board of Governorsof the Federal Reserve Bank to the Coun-cil of Economic Advisors. But does it makeany difference if men or women are at thetable when economic policies are debated and

alternatives considered? Or, are disagreementsbetween male and female economists marginalat best?

In this study, we survey male and femaleeconomists who are members of the Ameri-can Economic Association (AEA) and providewhat is the first systematic study of the viewsof male and female economists on a wide vari-ety of policy issues to determine if there aredifferences in the views of male and femaleeconomists after controlling for place of current

employment (academic institution with graduateprogram, academic institution undergraduateonly, government, for-profit institution) anddecade of PhD.

A. Consensus and the Economics Profession

Numerous studies using survey data to exam-ine the degree of consensus among economistshave been published over the past 25 years(Alston, Kearl, and Vaughan 1992; Frey et al.1984; Fuller and Geide-Stevenson 2003; Kearl

et al. 1979; Whaples 2006). While these sur-veys appeared relatively late in economicsas compared with other social science disci-plines, the importance of consensus within thediscipline has a long history. In fact, con-cern over consensus dates back to the ori-gins of the AEA where the annual meetingoffered a forum for developing consensus ina discipline thought to reflect a sometimesembarrassingly wide array of views on eco-nomic policy questions. Economists, in particu-

lar, had much to gain in the professionalizationof higher education and the lack of consensuson economic questions served as yet one morereminder of the possibly less-than-scientificnature of a discipline aspiring to be scientific(Coats 1993).

Recent studies examine consensus amongeconomists by focusing on underlying assump-tions, methodology, and policy issues. Theresults of these studies indicate that economistsare less supportive of government interven-tion in the economy than their counterparts in

other social science disciplines (Klein and Stern2005, 2007) and that a fair degree of con-sensus exists among economists. Kearl et al.

(1979, 36) in their study of U.S. economists ina survey conducted in 1976 report more con-sensus on microeconomic than macroeconomicissues, but overall report that the perceptions ofwidespread disagreement are simply wrong. Ina follow-up study, Alston, Kearl, and Vaughan

(1992) find that although opinions of U.S.economists on particular issues had shifted, asimilar pattern of consensus emerged with thecaveat that degree vintage and subgroup (AEAmembership, government economists, businesseconomists, teachers of principles of economicscourses at 4-year institutions, and institutionaleconomists) are also important determinants ofconsensus on various questions. Alston, Kearl,and Vaughan (1992) find considerable consen-sus among economists overall. Yet, as Fuchs

et al. (1998) later point out, the seven ques-tions about policy in Alston, Kearl, and Vaughan(1992) show a very high level of disagreement.In their own study Fuchs et al. (1998) find con-siderable disagreement between labor and publiceconomists about policy proposals in their areasof specialization. In an additional study, Fuchs(1996) surveyed health economists and foundconsiderable disagreement about major issues ofhealth policy.

Other studies have examined the influenceof international differences (Frey et al. 1984),

age differences or age upon receipt of degree(Alston, Kearl, and Vaughan 1992; Klein andStern 2005), political party and voting pat-terns (Klein and Stern 2005, 2007), schoolof thought (Alston and Vaughan 1993), andeconomic field (Fuller and Geide-Stevenson2003; Kearl et al. 1979) to determine if thesefactors produce differences in the views ofeconomists. Yet, absent from these discussionsis any examination of gender differences amongeconomists.

In contrast to these previous studies, only fewstudies examine gender differences in opinionsof economists.2 Davis (1997), in his study ofAEA members, examines economists views ofmethodology, the social value of research, per-ceptions about the publication of that research,and perceptions about the influence of race andgender on economic research. He reports thatthere are significant differences in the viewsof male and female economists with respectto whether author recognition among profes-sional economists influences the probability of

2. Some studies on gender differences in economicpolicy on single issues offer similarly interesting results.See, for example, Burgoon and Niscox (2012).


3/22

MAY, MCGARVEY & WHAPLES: AEA MEMBERS VIEWS 113

an articles acceptance in refereed economicsjournals in the United States, whether there is agood-old-boy network in the economics pro-fession, and whether economists are amenableto interdisciplinary research approaches. Specif-ically, Davis finds that although the majority ofmale and female economists have similar opin-ions, women typically reach a much strongerconsensusparticularly on issues of equity andfairness in the economics profession.

In her study of AEA economists conductedin 1992, Albelda (1997) examines a variety ofquestions concerning gender and the economicsprofession. According to her, men were muchless interested than women in having more atten-tion paid to topics such as womens labor forceparticipation, the impact of fiscal and mone-

tary policies on women and the family structure,wage discrimination, and the economic status ofminority women (Albelda 1997, 7980). More-over, there was little support for the notionthat feminism has impacted the discipline ofeconomicsnor did economists express muchinterest in seeing more feminist economic anal-ysis. Most notable, however, were the largegender gaps in response to questions about thetreatment of women in the economics profession(Albelda 1997, 69). As she reports, almost one-

third of male respondents agree with the state-ment that it is easier for women to get tenureand promotions than it is for men, while lessthan 4% of women agreed with the statement(Albelda 1997, 81).

Hedengren, Klein, and Milton (2010) exam-ine gender differences in policy-oriented peti-tions endorsed by economists, finding thatmen are much more likely to sign liberty-enhancing petitions, which call for a smallerrole for the state, while women economists aresomewhat more likely to endorse petitions call-ing for greater governmental intervention. Daviset al. (2011) conduct a survey on a wide rangeof issues (including favorite economic thinkers,economics journals, and blogs) and find thatwomen economists are much more likely thanmen to be members of the Democratic Party andto favor policies that restrict individual liberty.In addition, Stastny (2010) finds that womeneconomists in the Czech Republic tend to favormuch more government intervention than domale economists.

Although these studies offer importantinsights into gender differences on views of theeconomics profession, they ask a fairly narrow

range of questions and are not designed to sys-tematically explore the nuances of differencesbetween male and female economists. Giventhe changing demographics of the economicsprofession over the past 30 years, these differ-ences, if they exist, may have significant impli-cations for policy-making outcomes.

B. Gender and Economics in the United States

Although the gender gap in voting andparty identification has been a topic of wide-spread interest since the 1980 election, lessattention has been paid to gender differences inpolicy preferences. Yet, several studies indicatethat gender differences in policy preferencesexist in the United States and have increased

since the 1970s (Ingelhart and Norris 2000; PewResearch Center 2009; Saad 2003; Shapiro andMahajan 1986; Smith 1984). While disagree-ment exists as to the cause of these differencesin voting patterns, party identification, and pub-lic opinion surveys on policy issues, women andmen appear to differ most on matters concern-ing violence and force and so-called compassionissues concerning aid to the poor, unemployed,sick, and others in need, and in their views onregulatory policies (Shapiro and Mahajan 1986,

4445).Although gender differences in the general

population are well studied, gender differencesin the views of economists have received littleattention. In fact, no systematic study of genderdifferences in views of American economists ona wide variety of economic policy issues has yetbeen undertaken. Our study attempts to remedythis by examining the views of male and femaleeconomists who are members of the AEA inthe United States. Using survey data on core

precepts and approaches in economics, viewson market solutions and government interven-tion, specific policy issues, and gender equalityin economics and society we ask the question,Do male and female economists share the sameviews on underlying assumptions, methodologi-cal approaches, policy solutions, perceived prob-lems in economics, and equal opportunity insociety and the economics profession? Becausesurvey data from noneconomists indicate thatthere are often significant gender differencesin views on policy issues (Saad 2003), we

are interested to see if these differences disap-pear among economists with shared training andbackgrounds.


4/22


II. METHODOLOGY

A. Data and Descriptive Statistics

Our goal is to estimate the extent of dif-ferences in opinions on economic methodologyand policy issues between male and female

economists with doctoral degrees who are mem-bers of the AEA. The population from whichwe sampled is the list of members in the 2007AEA Directory who received both their under-graduate and PhD degrees from U.S. insti-tutions.3 The selection process yielded 202randomly selected male members and 202 ran-domly selected female members to whom thesurvey was mailed in early November 2008. Theoverall response rate was 35.4% which is similarto previous surveys.4

Table 1 contains descriptive statistics (overalland disaggregated by sex) for the entire sam-ple, for the 143 members who returned usablesurveys, and for the 261 nonresponders. Char-acteristics of the AEA members include demo-graphic information on sex, year of PhD, andcurrent type of employment. This informationwas obtained from survey responses of thosewho returned the surveys and from the AEAdirectory entries of the nonresponders. Addition-ally, Table 1 reports whether or not the AEAmember chose to list his/her research interests

in the 2007 AEA directory. This informationwas included as an indication not only of theeconomists research activity, but also the will-ingness of the individual to respond to surveyquestions.

The original, random sample of AEA mem-bers was evenly divided between men andwomen by design. Approximately 67% of thosesampled are employed in academic institutionswith 41% teaching in graduate programs and26% in undergraduate programs. Fourteen per-

cent of those sampled work in the for-profit

3. The 2007 AEA membership directory has 1,116 pagesof members. To create a sample of approximately 200 maleand 200 female members we randomly picked a startingpage between 1 and 5 and then selected the first male and thefirst female to meet the selection criteria. (Many membersdo not list information regarding their degrees and had to beskipped.) The search procedure was repeated by fifth/sixthpage thereafter. This yielded 202 males and 202 females (inone instance there was a stretch of six pages over which nofemale met the criteria). Sex was usually obvious from theindividuals first name, but an Internet search of individualswas conducted in cases of ambiguity.

4. Response rates among AEA member in recent sur-

veys include 34.4% in Alston, Kearl, and Vaughan (1992),30.8% in Fuller and Geide-Stevenson (2003), 36.3% inWhaples and Heckelman (2005), 26.6% in Klein and Stern(2005), and 40.0% in Whaples (2006).

sector and 11% are employed by the govern-ment. The remaining 8% are either retired, not inthe formal labor market, or working in the non-profit sector. Although, in our sample, it is morelikely for women to be employed in academicinstitutions than men, and more likely for men

to work in the government or for-profit sectorsthan women, these differences in employmentrates are not statistically significantly differentfrom 0. The economists in the AEA surveyearned their doctoral degrees about 22 yearsago with womens degrees earned about 5 yearsmore recently than mens and the average differ-ence is statistically significant. It is interestingthat, in our random sample of AEA members,male economists are more likely to list theirresearch interests in the AEA directory than

female economists. The 10 percentage point dif-ference is also statistically significant.A comparison of the responders and nonre-

sponders descriptive statistics shows that mostof the characteristics are similar. Forty-five per-cent of those responding to the survey arewomen, whereas 52% of the nonresponders arewomen. The distribution of overall employmentacross sectors is roughly the same with theexception of employment in an academic institu-tion with a graduate program. Formal statisticaltests find evidence that the overall proportions

of economists teaching in graduate institutionsdiffer for the responders and nonresponders(.35 vs. .44) and that it is the male respon-ders who are statistically significantly less likely(by 11 percentage points) to teach in graduateinstitutions than the male nonresponders. Theproportion of economists who list their researchinterests in the AEA directory is 55% for theresponders and 62% for the nonresponders. Onaverage, those responding to the survey receivedtheir PhDs about two and a half years more

recently than those not responding and this dif-ference is statistically significant. A smaller pro-portion of those economists who responded tothe survey received their degrees in the 1970sthan those who did not respond.

Most of the statistically significant male andfemale differences in the original random sam-ple remain significant in the sample of respon-ders. Male economists are more likely to listtheir current research in the AEA directoryand received their PhDs earlier than femaleeconomists. In the responders sample, male

economists are more than twice as likely to beworking in the governmental sector as femaleeconomists. Although this relative difference in


5/22


T

ABLE1

CharacteristicsofAEASurveySample

AEASurveySample

ResponderstoSurvey

Nonresponder

s

Total

Female

Male

Total

Female

Male

Total

Female

Male

Variable

N

M

N

M

N

M

N

M

N

M

N

M

N

M

N

M

N

M

Female

404

0.50

143

0.45

261

0.52

0.50

0.50

0.50

Graduate

403

0.41

201

0.42

202

0.41

142

0.35

+

64

0.38

78

0.34

+

261

0.44

137

0.44

124

0.45

0.49

0.00

0.00

0.48

0.49

0.48

0.50

0.50

0.50

Undergraduate

404

0.26

202

0.29

202

0.24

143

0.30

65

0.34

78

0.27

261

0.24

137

0.26

124

0.22

0.44

0.00

0.00

0.46

0.48

0.45

0.43

0.44

0.41

ForProfit

403

0.14

201

0.13

202

0.15

143

0.13

65

0.12

78

0.13

260

0.15

136

0.13

124

0.16

0.35

0.00

0.00

0.33

0.33

0.34

0.35

0.34

0.37

Government

403

0.11

201

0.09

202

0.14

143

0.13

65

0.07

78

0.17

260

0.11

136

0.10

124

0.12

0.32

0.00

0.00

0.33

0.27

0.38

0.31

0.30

0.33

ListedRe

search

403

0.60

201

0.54

202

0.64

143

0.55

65

0.47

78

0.60

260

0.62

136

0.58

124

0.67

0.49

0.00

0.00

0.50

0.50

0.49

0.49

0.50

0.47

PhDpre1970

395

0.09

198

0.06

197

0.12

141

0.08

65

0.06

76

0.09

254

0.09

133

0.05

121

0.13

0.28

0.23

0.32

0.27

0.24

0.29

0.29

0.22

0.34

PhD1970s

395

0.21

198

0.16

197

0.25

141

0.16

+

65

0.12

76

0.20

254

0.23

133

0.18

121

0.29

0.41

0.37

0.44

0.37

0.33

0.40

0.42

0.39

0.46

PhD1980s

395

0.29

198

0.27

197

0.31

141

0.28

65

0.26

76

0.29

254

0.30

133

0.28

121

0.32

0.45

0.45

0.46

0.45

0.44

0.46

0.46

0.45

0.47

PhD1990s

395

0.23

198

0.29

197

0.17

141

0.26

65

0.32

76

0.21

254

0.22

133

0.28

121

0.15

0.42

0.46

0.38

0.44

0.47

0.41

0.41

0.45

0.36

PhD2000s

395

0.18

198

0.22

197

0.15

141

0.22

65

0.23

76

0.21

254

0.16

133

0.21

121

0.11

0.39

0.41

0.36

0.42

0.42

0.41

0.37

0.41

0.31

YearsPhD

395

21.63

198

19.02

197

24.25

141

19.98

65

18.15

76

21.56

254

22.54

133

19.45

121

25.94

12.65

12.06

12.73

12.71

11.79

13.33

12.55

12.20

12.09

Notes

:Standarddeviationsarebeneathsamplemeans.

Thesymbols,

,

denoterejectionatthe10%,5%,1%

significancelevelso

ffemale-maleequalmeanstestswithi

nAEAmemberspopulation(usingAEAsurveysample),

withinAEAresponderspopulation(usingAEAsurveysample),withinAEAresponderspopulation(usingresponderss

ample),andwithinthenonresponders

population(using

nonresponderssample).

Thesymbols+,

++,

+++

denoterejectionat

the10%,5%,1%significancelevelsf

ortestsofequalmeansbetweenrespondersandnonresponderspopulations,bothoverallandfor

eachsex(usingrespondersandnonresponders

samples).


6/22


government employment exists in the originalrandom sample, it is larger and statistically sig-nificant among the responders.

Our statistical analysis of gender differencesin economists opinions on methodology andpolicy issues is based on the responses of those

who returned their surveys; we do not knowthe opinions of the nonresponders. It is possi-ble that estimation using only the observablesurvey responses will lead to inconsistent esti-mates of the gender effect. We address thisissue in the next section by estimating thedecision to respond to the survey as a probitmodel and testing for nonresponse bias in ourestimation of gender differences in the group-level scaled answers using Heckmans (1979)procedure.

B. Scaled Responses to Group Questions andTest for Selection Bias

The survey questions can be classified intofive groups, each group designed to ascertainthe respondents views about different types ofissues. The first group of questions relate to coreprinciples in economics and economic method-ology. The second through fourth groups exam-ine views on market solutions and governmentintervention, government spending, taxing, and

redistribution, and the environment. The fifthgroup of questions asks specifically about equalopportunity in society and gender equality inthe economics profession. The wide variety ofpolicy-related questions allows us to examinepossible gender differences on a host of themost important and topical issues currently fac-ing economists.

Before examining gender differences in ans-wers to specific questions, we first construct anoverall measure of the economists opinion on

each of the five group topics. The Appendixdescribes the construction of each scaled opin-ion measure and the survey questions uponwhich each is based. Tables A1 and A2 providedescriptive statistics of the opinion measures andcorrelations of the responses between topics. Wefind that the Cronbachs values are greaterthan .70 for each of the scaled answers, indicat-ing that each is a reliable measure of the overallopinion on the group topic.

Our goal is to estimate the mean differencein opinion on economic methodology and pol-

icy issues of male and female PhD economistswho received their educational training in theUnited States. To better isolate the effect of

gender on economists opinions, we need tocontrol for those variables that are both cor-related with the economists opinions on pol-icy and methodology and with the economistsgender. Because female economists receivedtheir terminal degrees more recently, on aver-

age, than male economists, and opinions mightbe related to degree vintage, we include fourbinary indicators of the decade the PhD wasreceived as one of our control variables. Theomitted category of economists contains thosewho received their PhDs prior to 1970. Wealso include controls for the economists placeof employment. Although there were no sta-tistically significant differences in the propor-tions of men and women employed in graduateor undergraduate-only academic institutions, nor

in the for-profit sectors, there might be differ-ences in types of employment by gender afteraccounting for degree vintage. The economistsopinions on policy issues and methodologymight reasonably be related to, or influencedby, their type of work. For these reasons, wealso include the mutually exclusive employmentcategory variables, graduate, for profit, govern-ment, and undergrad as control variables inthe regression. The omitted category includesemployment in the nonprofit, nonacademic, non-government sector, not currently employed,

or retired.We base our inference on the estimated

coefficient on the binary indicator, female, inthe model,

yi,j= j1femalei + j2PhD1970si(1)

+ j3PhD1980si + j4PhD1990si

+ j5PhD2000si + j6graduatei

+ j7governmenti + j8for profiti

+ j9undergradi + j0 + i,j,

wherei denotes thei th economist andjdenotesthe jth question or group of questions. Becausewe cannot observe the survey answers of thoseeconomists who did not respond, even if theregression error is independent of the controlvariables, it is possible that estimation of j1using only the responders observations willproduce inconsistent and biased estimates of thegender effect. We test the null hypothesis of noselection bias using the Heckman (1979) two-stage procedure.

We assume that the decision to respondto the survey follows a probit model, P (si =1|xi ) = P (Z xi), where si = 1 if individual


7/22


TABLE 2

Probit Estimation of Probability of Response to

AEA survey, N= 391

X Variables Coefficients

Female 0.245 (0.136)

Graduate 0.684 (0.292)

Undergraduate 0.471 (0.308)

Government 0.528 (0.340)

For Profit 1.101 (0.399)

Listed Research 0.263 (0.149)

For Profit Listed Research 0.828 (0.388)

PhD1970s 0.075 (0.293)

PhD1980s 0.253 (0.289)

PhD1990s 0.444 (0.300)

PhD2000s 0.566 (0.314)

Constant 0.166 (0.0305)

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses.The symbols , , denote 10%, 5%, 1% significance

levels from testing the null hypothesis that the coefficientequals 0.

i responds to the survey and si = 0, if not. The(1 k) vector of variables, xi , that influencesthe choice to respond to the survey includesthe control variables in Equation (1). We alsoinclude a binary control for whether or notthe economist lists his/her research interests

in the AEA 2007 directory (listed research)and the interaction of listed research with for

profit to allow the effect of listed research onthe probability of response to differ for thoseworking in the for-profit sector.

In this framework, the economist respondsto the survey (si = 1) if the unobservable netbenefit from doing so (si) is positive, or ifs

i =

xi+ ui >0, whereui is a standard normal ran-dom variable and is distributed independently ofxi . Under these assumptions, consistent estima-

tion of the gender effect on economists opin-ions on question j (j1) can be obtained usingonly the responders information if the errorterm in Equation (1) is uncorrelated with ui ,the error term in the response equation. We testthe hypothesis that these errors have zero cor-relation by adding the estimated inverse Millsratio, IMRi = pdfz(xi)/CDFz(xi)as a regres-sor in Equation (1) and testing that its coefficientequals 0.

Table 2 reports the probit estimates of theresponse equation. The results indicate that the

probability of responding to the survey is lowerfor female economists relative to males and foreconomists employed in two of the included

job categories relative to males and thosewho are retired or employed in nonacademic,nongovernment, or for-profit institutions. Thoseeconomists who earned their PhD in the 2000sare more likely to respond to the survey, relativeto those who earned their degrees prior to 1970.

Those economists who list their current researchinterest in the AEA directory are less likely torespond; however, those who work in for-profitinstitutions and list their current research aremore likely to respond.

Table 3 presents the ordinary least squaresestimation of Equation (1) for each of thefive topic groups, with and without the inclu-sion of the estimated inverse Mills ratio. Thedependent variable is the scaled response tothe questions on each topic, standardized to

have zero mean and unit variance, so thatthe coefficient on female is the average dif-ference in female economists response rela-tive to male economists in standard deviationunits. The results indicate that male and femaleU.S.-trained AEA members generally agree oncore economic precepts and methodology andon U.S. environmental policy, but differ onissues related to market solutions and govern-ment intervention, government-backed redistri-bution, and the extent of gender inequity inthe U.S. labor market and within the economicsprofession.

Tests of the null hypothesis of no selectionbias for each topic category provide no evi-dence that the selection equation error is corre-lated with the error in Equation (1); moreover,the inclusion of the inverse Mills ratio in theregressions has little effect on the ordinary leastsquares (OLS) point estimates and estimatedstandard errors. These results support the valid-ity of our study using the sample of respondingeconomists to estimate model (1) and suggest

that our inference on gender differences will notsuffer from selection bias.

III. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ECONOMISTS

VIEWS ON POLICY ISSUES

This section presents Seeming UnrelatedRegression (SUR) estimation results based onthe survey response to estimate gender dif-ferences in economists views on economicmethodology and policy issues. The SUR model

is relevant when the regression errors are cor-related across equations and have different vari-ances. For convenience, we reproduce our model


8/22


T

ABLE3

RegressionTestsofNoSelectionBiasUsingTwo-StepHeckmanProcedure(Heckit)DependentVa

riable:StandardizedScaledAn

swertoGroup

Question

Group1:CorePrecepts

&

Economic

Methodology

Group2:MarketSolutions

andGovernment

Intervention

Group3:Government

Spending,Taxing&

Redistribution

Group4:The

Environment

Group

5:Genderand

EqualOpportunity

Variables

OLS

Heckit

OLS

Heckit

OLS

Heckit

OLS

Heckit

OLS

Heckit

Female

0.196

0.219

0.506

0.613

1.056

0.979

0.300

0.400

0.938

0.806

(0.197)

(0.232)

(0.180)

(0.216)

(0.174)

(0.213)

(0.198)

(0.239)

(0.173)

(0.214)

PhD1970s

0.851

0.842

0.415

0.467

0.415

0.461

0.812

0.935

0.095

0.010

(0.473)

(0.480)

(0.409)

(0.413)

(0.409)

(0.451)

(0.494)

(0.514)

(0.433)

(0.447)

PhD1980s

0.882

0.859

0.919

0.847

0.919

0.822

0.913

0.901

0.043

0.103

(0.463)

(0.467)

(0.400)

(0.410)

(0.400)

(0.443)

(0.476)

(0.478)

(0.420)

(0.425)

PhD1990s

0.903

0.919

0.716

0.494

0.716

0.587

0.814

0.659

0.032

0.224

(0.459)

(0.504)

(0.397)

(0.452)

(0.397)

(0.481)

(0.478)

(0.509)

(0.409)

(0.450)

PhD2000s

0.596

0.559

0.423

0.163

0.423

0.688

0.620

0.433

0.089

0.191

(0.488)

(0.568)

(0.426)

(0.510)

(0.426)

(0.531)

(0.501)

(0.554)

(0.438)

(0.513)

Graduate

0.889

0.875

0.118

0.107

0.118

0.123

0.357

0.173

0.067

0.305

(0.361)

(0.472)

(0.318)

(0.394)

(0.318)

(0.373)

(0.378)

(0.437)

(0.326)

(0.398)

Government

0.608

0.591

0.224

0.345

0.224

0.162

0.015

0.073

0.126

0.011

(0.422)

(0.462)

(0.368)

(0.391)

(0.368)

(0.376)

(0.416)

(0.432)

(0.367)

(0.384)

ForProfit

0.972

0.965

0.025

0.213

0.025

0.068

0.254

0.095

0.101

0.046

(0.418)

(0.466)

(0.370)

(0.416)

(0.370)

(0.406)

(0.442)

(0.480)

(0.412)

(0.436)

Undergraduate

0.829

0.770

0.108

0.010

0.108

0.384

0.311

0.227

0.130

0.258

(0.381)

(0.417)

(0.342)

(0.373)

(0.342)

(0.370)

(0.400)

(0.420)

(0.345)

(0.367)

InverseM

illsRatio

0.015

0.740

0.389

0.727

0.849

(0.908)

(0.744)

(0.748)

(0.845)

(0.805)

Constant

0.122

0.117

0.764

0.109

0.764

1.296

0.628

0.008

0.403

1.147

(0.367)

(0.846)

(0.320)

(0.730)

(0.320)

(0.771)

(0.374)

(0.809)

(0.321)

(0.775)

R2

0.099

0.106

0.155

0.160

0.306

0.306

0.067

0.072

0.218

0.214

N

113

112

123

122

114

113

117

116

120

119

Notes

:Standarderrorsareinparenthesesbe

neathcoefficientpointestimates.

Thesymbols,

,

denote10%,5%,1%

significancelevelsfromtestingthenu

llhypothesisthatthepopulationcoeffi

cientequals0.


9/22


of economisti s response to question j(or topicj) from the previous section,

yi,j= j1femalei + j2PhD1970si(2)

+ j3PhD1980si + j4PhD1990si

+ j5PhD2000si + j6graduatei

+ j7governmenti + j8for profiti

+ j9undergradi + j0 + i,j,

where we treat equation j as part of a SURsystem of equations. The error terms representthose unobservable individual-specific factorsthat affect opinions but are unrelated to gen-der, decade in which the PhD is earned, andtype of employment. We allow the variances ofthe errors to differ by question, the errors to be

correlated across questions, and the error covari-ance matrices to differ for males and females.The generalized least squares (GLS) methodincreases the precision of our estimates by incor-porating the estimated relationship among unob-servable factors that form opinions on relatedtopics.

Our first estimation strategy is to measuregender differences in economists views on gen-eral issues addressed by the five groups of sur-vey questions. This provides a more precise

measure of opinion on the issue by incorporatingrepeated observations on the same topic (aver-aging an individuals answers to all questionswithin the group topic), but limits the sample toindividuals who answered all questions withinthe five groups. Our second strategy is to esti-mate the extent of gender differences in averageresponses to specific questions within a generaltopic area. The dependent variable is individualis response to question j. Although yi,j is aless precise estimate of individual is opinion(it is based on the response to only one question

rather than an average of repeated responses ona topic), the sample size increases to the num-ber of economists who answered all questionsin one group rather than all groups.

A. Views on General Topic Areas

The first SUR system explains the standard-ized, scaled answers that measure the deviationsfrom the average economists views on the fivetopics: core precepts and economic methodology;market solutions and government intervention;

government spending, taxing, and redistribu-tion; U.S. environmental policies; and genderand equal opportunity. The optimal weighting

scheme incorporated in the GLS systems estima-tion increases the efficiency of the estimates overthe OLS method. The number of observations,however, is smaller for the systems estimationbecause it is based on the number of economiststhat have complete information for all questions

in each of the five groups.Table 4 contains the GLS estimates of the

coefficients in Equation (1) for j= 1, 2, . . . ,5,corresponding to the five group topics. Thedependent variables are the scaled responses,standardized to have zero mean and unit vari-ance, so the coefficient on a binary control vari-able (female, employment category, or decadeof PhD) is the average difference (in standarddeviation units) in the response of economistswho fall into the respective category relative to

those in the omitted category, given the othercontrols. The GLS system results confirm theconclusions based on the OLS and Heckit esti-mates of Table 3. Male and female members ofthe AEA with doctoral degrees from U.S. insti-tutions appear to agree on core precepts and eco-nomic methodology, whereas female economiststend to favor government-backed redistributionpolicies more than males, view gender inequalityas a problem in the U.S. labor market and eco-nomics profession more than males, and favorgovernment intervention over market solutions

more than their male counterparts. The meangender differences in opinions on these topicsare relatively large. The mean views of womeneconomists on government spending, taxing,and redistribution and on gender inequality areboth approximately one standard deviation awayfrom the mean opinion of male economists.Although the divergence in magnitudes of theGLS and OLS estimated gender difference inopinion on U.S. environmental policies is notlarge, the GLS estimate is statistically signifi-

cant. The mean response of female economistsis about .45 standard deviations greater than themean male response, indicating that women tendto favor an increase in U.S. environmental pro-tection more than men.

Generally speaking, the demographic con-trols contribute little to explaining views onthe five group topics once one controls forthe economists gender.5 The economists placeof employment appears to have no effect onopinion once gender and degree vintage are

5. The joint null hypotheses that the coefficients onPhD1970s, PhD1980s, PhD1990s, PhD2000s, Graduate,Government, Forprofit, and Undergrad equal 0 cannot berejected for each of the five equations in the system.


10/22


T

ABLE4

GL

SSystemEstimationofRespo

nsestoSurveyQuestionsStandardized(M

=

0,

SD

=

1)Sca

ledAnswerstoGroupQuestionsN=

83

Question

Group

Female

PhD1970sPhD1

980sPhD1990sPhD2000s

GraduateGovernmentForProfitUndergraduateConstant

Group1:

coreprecepts/economicmethodology

(6questions;Cronbach

=

.71)

0.27

1.20

0.8

6

0.084

0.60

0.86

0.26

0.84

0.3

5

0.35

(0.23)

(0.54)

(0.5

1)

(0.51)

(0.55)

(0.41

)

(0.47)

(0.47)

(0.4

4)

(0.43)

Group2:

marketsolutionsandgovernment

interventions(8questions;Cronbach

=

.78)

0.65

0.77

1.0

10

0.872

0.67

0.35

0.23

0.18

0.0

7

0.91

(0.23)

(0.52)

(0.4

9)

(0.49)

(0.53)

(0.39

)

(0.46)

(0.46)

(0.4

3)

(0.41)

Group3:

governmentspending,taxing,&

redistribution(9questions;Cronbach

=

.92

)

0.91

0.78

0.8

31

0.63

0.73

0.26

0.19

0.10

0.2

9

0.88

(0.22)

(0.51)

(0.4

8)

(0.48)

(0.52)

(0.38

)

(0.45)

(0.45)

(0.4

2)

(0.40)

Group4:

theenvironment(4questions;Cronbach

=.73)

0.43

1.025

0.7

9

0.874

0.80

0.46

0.07

0.36

0.4

9

0.63

(0.24)

(0.55)

(0.5

2)

(0.52)

(0.57)

(0.42

)

(0.49)

(0.49)

(0.4

5)

(0.44)

Group5:

genderandequalopportunity(6questions;

Cronba

ch

=

.93)

1.08

0.60

0.3

9

0.28

0.66

0.02

0.54

0.47

0.2

2

1.02

(0.21)

(0.48)

(0.4

5)

(0.45)

(0.49)

(0.36

)

(0.42)

(0.42)

(0.3

9)

(0.38)

Notes

:Standarderrorsareinparenthesesbe

neathcoefficientpointestimates.

,

,

Denote10%,5%,1%significance

levelsfromthehypothesisthatthepopulationcoefficientequals0.

considered. The results indicate a statisticallysignificant and relatively large difference inopinion between those who earned their degreesprior to 1970 and those who earned their degreesmore recently. Those who graduated in the1970s or 1980s are less likely to agree with

core precepts and economic methodology thaneconomists who earned their degrees before1970. The results also indicate that economistswith degrees from the 1980s are more likelyto favor government interventions over marketsolutions than economists with degrees prior to1970. Interestingly, the only characteristic thatmatters for the scaled answer to the Gender andEqual Opportunity questions is whether or notthe economist is female.

The results from system GLS estimation of

economists mean responses to the five groupsof questions on economic methodology, the roleof government (in allocating resources, redis-tributing wealth, protecting the environment),and equal opportunity provide strong evidenceof gender differences. Female economists aver-age responses differ from male economists by astatistically significant margin in four of the fivetopic areas after controlling for type of employ-ment and degree vintage. Mean differences inviews on government-backed redistribution andon gender and equal opportunity also differ by

a substantial margin about one full standarddeviation.

B. Views on Core Precepts and EconomicMethodology

We include several questions designed toaddress core economic preceptsone to exam-ine the question of individuals as rationalutility-maximizers and another to examine theassumption that human wants are unlimited.Also included in this group are questions con-

cerning economic methodology that attemptto ascertain views on mathematics in eco-nomic modeling, deductive versus empiricalapproaches to the study of economics, and twoquestions that examine potential differences inviews on modeling of household decision mak-ing and measuring aggregate economic output.GLS estimation of a SUR system for responsesto the Group 1 questions indicate no differencein mean opinions by gender after controlling fordegree vintage and place of employment.6

6. The results of the full GLS estimation of Equation(1) for each of the five groups is available from the authorsupon request.


11/22


Economists mean responses indicate agree-ment with the notions that individuals areutility-maximizers and that human wants areunlimited. Similarly, when examining method-ological questions in the economics professionthere appears to be no significant difference in

beliefs. On average, economists agree that math-ematical modeling should be an important partof economics and that research on householdsshould include intrahousehold decision making.Economists mean response to Question 23 indi-cates a neutral view on GDP being an insuffi-cient measure of overall economic performance.The GLS estimation results for the response toQuestion 39 indicate that, although there is nodifference in opinion based solely on gender,those economists who work in the for-profit sec-

tor are more likely to believe that the professionrelies too much on empirical analysis and notenough on deduction.

It would appear that on several core conceptsin economics and methodology, the beliefs ofmale and female economists are very similar.Male and female economists who are membersof the AEA appear to start from the sameassumptions about how people behave and howto approach the study of economics.

C. Views on Market Solutions and GovernmentIntervention

Previous studies such as Klein and Stern(2005) confirm that economists are less support-ive of government intervention in the economythan their counterparts in other social sciencedisciplines. Indeed, it is perhaps the penchant forfree market solutions that is the hallmark of thediscipline (Fourcade 2009). Yet, when we exam-ine the question of support for market solutionsversus government intervention, interesting dif-

ferences between male and female economistsbegin to emerge.Despite the similarities in views on core prin-

ciples and methodological approaches to eco-nomics, our study shows differences in the viewsof male and female economists in their sup-port of market solutions versus government reg-ulation. The GLS estimation results indicatethat the mean responses of women economistsare significantly lower than those of maleeconomists, suggesting women economists areless supportive of market solutions over govern-

ment interventions than male economists. Theonly exception is on the issue of whether thegovernment should tax unhealthy foods where

both men and women appear approximatelyequal in their opposition.

Table 5 presents GLS estimates of male andfemale economists expected response to eachproposition for which the estimated female meandifference exceeds one-half a point on the

Likert-type scale. For those questions, the prob-ability of responding disagree or stronglydisagree to the proposition conditional on gen-der, degree vintage, and place of employmentis estimated by a linear probability model.7

The table reports the estimated probabilities ofdisagreeing with the proposition at the sam-ple mean values of the PhD and place ofemployment dummy variables for both male andfemale economists. After controlling for PhDvintage and type of employment, we find that

women are more likely to disagree that eitherthe European Union or the United States hasexcessive government regulations by about 20percentage points. Female economists are 27percentage points more likely to disagree thatparents should be given educational vouchersand 14 percentage points more likely to dis-agree that Wal-Mart generates positive net ben-efits. In other words, evidence suggests thatmale economists are more likely to prefer mar-ket solutions to economic problems.8 Althoughthe SUR estimated mean difference in opinion

on whether the United States should drill foroil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge indi-cates a lower level of agreement for women, the12 percentage point difference in the probabil-ity of disagreement is not statistically signifi-cant. According to the SUR results, the largestdifference in the mean response is due to degree

7. We estimated the probability of disagreement usinga linear probability model rather than a logit or pro-bit model in order to incorporate the error correlationacross responses using individual-clustered standard errors.

Because the explanatory variables are binary indicators, thelinear probability model estimated probabilities are boundedbetween 0 and 1.

8. Also included in the original survey was a questionabout the newly enacted bailout of financial institutions. Atthe time that this question was asked, the bailout was verynew and opinion quite fluid. Not surprisingly perhaps, mosteconomists in our samplemale and femaleindicatedtheir support for the law and no gender differences wereapparent at that time. Similarly, our question about thebest way to deal with Social Securitys long-term fundinggap elicited a rather high number of none of the aboveanswers. As a result, we have concluded that this questionreveals little about the issue and have chosen to leave thediscussion of it out of our narrative. Along these same lines,

our questions about the impact of undocumented workerson American-born workers in various income groups andon returning to the gold standard produced no differences inopinion between male and female economists.


12/22


TABLE 5

Gender Differences in Opinions on Market Solutions and Government Interventions

Group 2 Proposition: MarketSolutions and GovernmentInterventions N= 122 Gender E(R/X) 1 R

a P(R/X) 1

The European Union has an excessive amount ofgovernment regulation of economic activity

Female 3.11

0.54

1 or 2 0.33

0.19

(0.15) (0.19) (0.06) (0.08)

Male 3.65 0.14

(0.12) (0.04)

The United States has an excessive amount ofgovernment regulation of economic activity

Female 2.38 0.55 1 or 2 0.62 0.21

(0.14) (0.21) (0.06) (0.09)

Male 2.93 0.41

(0.14) (0.06)

The United States should drill for oil in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge

Female 2.21 0.54 1 or 2 0.64 0.12

(0.18) (0.27) (0.06) (0.09)

Male 2.75 0.52

(0.20) (0.06)

Parents should be given educational vouchers which can

be used at government-run or privately run schools

Female 2.99 0.77 1 or 2 0.40 0.27

(0.18) (0.24) (0.06) (0.08)Male 3.75 0.13

(0.16) (0.05)

A Wal-Mart store typically generates more benefits tosociety than costs

Female 3.30 0.77 1 or 2 0.22 0.14

(0.14) (0.20) (0.05) (0.06)

Male 4.07 0.008

(0.13) (0.03)

Notes: Linear Probability Model: P (opinion|female, X) = 1 female + X 2.Mean Response Model: E (R|female, X) = 1 + X2|X = decade of PhD (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s), type of

employment.aUnless otherwise noted, 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.Mean parameters were estimated by SUR methods with different covariance matrices for males and females. Linear

probability model parameters were estimated by OLS with clustered standard errors., , Denote 10%, 5%, 1% significance levels from testing the null hypothesis that the coefficient equals 0.

vintage. Those economists who earned theirdegrees in the 1980s or 1990s, regardless of theirgender or place of employment, are much morelikely to oppose drilling in the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge than economists whose PhDswere granted prior to 1970.

It is interesting that there appears to belittle disagreement between male and femaleeconomists about the question of whether the

United States should impose taxes on unhealthyfoods what many in the popular press havedubbed an example of the so-called nannystate. Both male and female economists showlittle support for the imposition of a tax onunhealthy foods.

D. Views on Government Spending, Taxing,and Redistribution

Differences in views between male andfemale economists not only reflect variations in

preferences for market solutions versusgovernment intervention, but also appear toreflect values differencessome of which

correspond to what have been called compas-sion issues. These differences may not emergewhen we consider overall levels of governmentspending or taxation, but may emerge moreclearly when we ask specific questions aboutthe nature of government spending, income dis-tribution, revenue financing options, as well asevaluating the impact of various governmentprograms. The estimation results indicate sta-

tistically significant gender differences in opin-ions on each of the nine propositions; however,Table 6 reports only those with mean differencesgreater than one-half.

When asked their opinions about the size ofthe government, the average male economistsresponse is closest to the too large choice,whereas the average female economists respo-nse is closest to the about right response.Examination of the probability estimates showsthat women are 24 percentage points more likelythan men to believe the size of the government

is either about right, too small or muchtoo small. There are also statistically signifi-cant differences in mean responses between men


13/22


TABLE 6

Government Spending, Taxing, and Redistribution

Group 3 Proposition: Government Spending,Taxing, & Redistribution N = 115 Gender E(R/X) 1 R

a P(R/X) 1

The distribution of income in the United States should

be made more equal

Female 3.86 0.72 4 or 5 0.73 0.32

(0.16) (0.23) (0.06) (0.09)Male 3.14 0.41

(0.16) (0.06)

Increases in the minimum wage will increaseunemployment among unskilled workers

Female 2.91 0.94 1 or 2 0.38 0.26

(0.17) (0.21) (0.07) (0.08)

Male 3.85 0.12

(0.12) (0.04)

The United States should link import openness to thelabor standards of its export partners

Female 3.34 0.94 4 or 5 0.52 0.30

(0.17) (0.23) (0.07) (0.09)

Male 2.41 0.22

(0.14) (0.05)

Employers in the United States should be required toprovide health insurance to their full-time employees

Female 3.31 0.92 4 or 5 0.47 0.31

(0.17) (0.23) (0.07) (0.08)

Male 2.39 0.16

(0.14) (0.04)

The United States should implement a tax onconsumption and rely less on income taxes forrevenue

Female 2.51 0.80 1 or 2 0.54 0.23

(0.16) (0.23) (0.07) (0.09)

Male 3.31 0.31

(0.16) (0.06)

The size of government in the United States is1 = much too large, 2 = too large, 3 = about right,4 = too small, 5 = much too small

Female 2.80 0.46 3,4 or 5 0.74 0.24

(0.11) (0.17) (0.06) (0.09)

Male 2.34 0.50

(0.12) (0.06)

The U.S. tax structure should be: 1 = made lessprogressive, 2 = kept at its current level ofprogressivity, 3 = made more progressive

Female 2.81 0.70 3 0.83 0.41

(0.08) (0.14) (0.05) (0.08)

Male 2.11

0.41

(0.11) (0.06)

Notes: Linear Probability Model: P (opinion|female, X) = 1, female + X 2.Mean Response Model: E(R|female, X) = 1 + X2X = decade of PhD (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s), type of employment.

Mean parameters were estimated by SUR methods with different covariance matrices for males and females. Linear probabilitymodel parameters were estimated by OLS with clustered standard errors.

aUnless otherwise noted, 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree., , Denote 10%, 5%, 1% significance levels from testing the null hypothesis that the coefficient equals 0.

and women economists in their views of thecomposition of government spending and otherquestions about redistribution. For example, the

mean response to Question 30 of a femaleeconomist is almost 2.0, indicating that currentlevels of military spending are too large whilethe average male economists response is about2.4, closer to the about right choice.9 Con-versely, when asked whether employers shouldbe required to provide health insurance for theiremployees, the mean gender gap is almost one

9. The difference in opinion on military spendingattributable to degree vintage is much larger. Given genderand type of employment, the mean response of economists

receiving their PhDs in the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s is a fullpoint lower than those who graduated prior to 1980, indi-cating that more recently minted PhD economists are morelikely to believe the size of military spending is too large.

full point on the opinion scale with the averagemale response at 2.4 closer to the disagreecategory. The estimated proportion of female

economists is .31 greater than the proportion ofmale economists who agree or strongly agreewith the proposition.

Several questions asked about the distribu-tion of income and the tax structure as it relatesto income distribution. The estimated meanresponse of male economists indicates a beliefthat the tax structure should remain at its cur-rent level of progressivity, whereas the meanresponse of female economists falls closer toa belief that taxes should be more progressive.In fact, women are 41 percentage points more

likely than men to favor a more progressivetax structure. A comparison of economistsmean responses to the issue of whether the


14/22


U.S. income distribution should be more equalshows that the average males opinion is closerto neutral while females average response iscloser to agree. The linear probability modelestimates that women are 32 percentage pointsmore likely to agree or strongly agree with mak-

ing the U.S. income distribution more equal thanmen. Along the same lines, there is disagreementon whether the United States should implementa tax on consumption and rely less on incometaxes for revenue. The average male economistis closer to being neutral with a tax on con-sumption while the average female economistis closer to disagreeing. According to the pointestimates, 54% of female economists either dis-agree or strongly disagree compared to 31% ofmale economists. This result may not be sur-

prising given the difference between male andfemale economists on the question of makingthe tax structure more progressive.

We see the same gender differences in so-called compassion issues in questions aboutinternational trade and labor standards and theimpact of the minimum wage. When asked ifthe United States should link import opennessto the labor standards of its export partners,the average male economists response is closerto disagreement, whereas the average femaleeconomists response is closer to neutral. Femaleeconomists are 30 percentage points more likelyto agree or strongly agree with linking open-ness to labor standards than male economists.The average female economists opinion onthe proposition that increasing the minimumwage leads to increased unemployment amongunskilled workers is neutral whereas the averagemale indicates agreement.

E. Views on Environmental Policy Issues

On environmental issues, we ask questionsabout energy taxes in general, taxes on emis-sions of greenhouse gases in particular, as wellas ethanol subsidies to gauge the degree towhich male and female economists agree on theuse of taxes and subsidies to discourage or shapedesired activities that may affect the environ-ment. On this issue of taxes and subsidies, thereappears to be no significant difference in theopinions of male and female economists. Onthe question of nudging environmental pol-icy through various taxes, the average responses

of both male and female economists indicateagreement that energy taxes should be increasedalong with taxes on emissions of greenhouse

gases. Men and women also show no divergencein average opinions on U.S. policies favoringthe environment over economic growth. Neithermale nor female economists indicate support foran increase in ethanol taxes.

F. Views on Gender and Equal Opportunities

Although previous studies have not exam-ined gender differences in views of economistson policy issues, studies by Davis (1997) andAlbelda (1997) show differences in the views ofmale and female economists concerning equityand equal opportunity in the economics profes-sion. In this section, we examine survey resultson a variety of questions related to notions ofequal opportunity and affirmative action policiesin the United States as well as questions of gen-

der equality in the economics profession. Thesequestions allow us to examine in more detail theviews of male and female economists on issuesof equal opportunity (Table 7).

The results of our survey of male and femaleeconomists show that the area of largest dis-agreement between men and women lies inviews on equal opportunity. These differencesreveal themselves not only in views of genderequality in the economics profession, but in soci-ety in general.

Large disparities in average responses bet-ween male and female economists emerge inresponse to the statement, Job opportunitiesfor men and women in the United States arecurrently approximately equal. The estima-tion results show the mean response of femaleeconomists is one point (a full standard devia-tion) lower than that of male economists aftercontrolling for degree vintage and employmenttype. The average response of males is closerto agree with the statement while the aver-age response of females is closer to neutral.

The linear probability model, however, indicatesthat 58% of female economists with the averagecharacteristics of the sample either disagreeor strongly disagree that job opportunities areequal. Women are 42 percentage points morelikely to display this opinion than men.

As our previous results indicate, male econo-mists appear more likely to prefer market solu-tions to economic problems than do women. Weare interested to learn if male economists arealso more likely to see differences in outcomes,such as variations in wages between men andwomen in the United States, as an outcome ofchoice or the free market versus other institu-tional factors. When we ask if respondents agree


15/22


TABLE 7

Gender Differences in Opinions on Gender and Equal Opportunity

Group 5 Proposition: Gender & EqualOpportunityN = 122 Gender E(R/X) 1 R

a P(R/X) 1

Job opportunities for men and women in the United

States are currently approximately equal

Female 2.55 1.07 1 or 2 0.58 0.42

(0.17) (0.23) (0.07) (0.08)Male 3.62 0.16

(0.14) (0.05)

The gender wage gap is largely explained bydifference in human capital and voluntaryoccupational choices

Female 2.22 1.24 1 or 2 0.74 0.51

(0.14) (0.21) (0.06) (0.08)

Male 3.46 0.23

(0.15) (0.05)

Opportunities for economics faculty in the UnitedStates currently: 1. favor men a lot more thanwomen; 2. favor men a bit more than women; 3. areapproximately equal for men and women; 4. favorwomen a bit more than men; 5. favor women a lotmore than men

Female 2.04 1.09 1 or 2 0.76 0.55

(0.12) (0.18) (0.06) (0.08)

Male 3.13 0.21

(0.13) (0.05)

Graduate education in economics in the United Statescurrently: 1. favors men a lot more than women; 2.favors men a bit more than women; 3. isapproximately equal for men and women; 4. favorswomen a bit more than men; 5. favors women a lotmore than men

Female 2.29 0.58 1 or 2 0.52 0.55

(0.12) (0.14) (0.06) (0.08)

Male 2.88 0.15

(0.08) (0.04)

Notes: Linear Probability Model: P(opinion|female, X=)1female + X 2.Mean Response Model: E(R| female, X) = 1 + X2 X = decade of PhD (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s), type of

employment. Mean response parameters were estimated by SUR methods with different covariance matrices for males andfemales.

Linear probability model parameters were estimated by OLS with clustered standard errors.aUnless otherwise noted, 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree., , Denote 10%, 5%, 1% significance levels from testing the null hypothesis that the coefficient equals 0.

with the statement that the gender wage gapis largely explained by differences in humancapital and voluntary occupational choices, theresults of our survey indicate a significant dif-ference between male and female economistson this issue. When comparing economists withthe same employment status, who received theirPhD in the United States in the same decade, wefind that the mean response of males is morethan a full standard deviation higher than thatof females. On average, women disagree thatthe gender wage gap is due to choices and pro-ductivity difference; the average man is morelikely to agree. The probability of disagreeingor strongly disagreeing with the statement is 51percentage points higher for female economiststhan for male economists. Rent seeking, malepreferences for market solutions, and womensviews on gender equity may be reflected in thegender gap in responses.

As one of the most visible and controver-sial solutions to the problem of discrimina-

tion and equal opportunity has been affirmativeaction, we ask two questions about affirmativeaction. Question 26 asks whether affirmative

action programs for women are a good idea andQuestion 27 asks whether affirmative action pro-grams for African Americans are a good idea.Womens average responses to both questionsare statistically significantly more favorable tothe use of Affirmative Action than mens; how-ever, the magnitudes of the gender differences inopinions are only about one-third of a standarddeviation.

Finally, we examine views on equal oppor-tunity in the economics profession and examineperceptions of equal opportunity for women asgraduate students and as faculty. The questionabout graduate education asks respondents ifthey believe that opportunities for women grad-uate students in economics in the United Statescurrently favor men or women. After control-ling for degree vintage and type of employ-ment, we find that the mean response of femaleeconomists is closer to the favors men abit more choice and the mean response ofmale economists is closer to the is approx-

imately equal for men and women choice.According to the point estimates, 52% ofwomen and 15% of men believe graduate


16/22


education favors men either a bit more or a lotmore.

On the issue of gender equality as it relatesto women faculty in economics we ask respon-dents if they believe that opportunities for eco-nomics faculty in the United States currently

favor men or women or neither sex. We find thatthe average female economist believes opportu-nities favor men more than women and this viewreflects a full standard deviation difference inopinion from the average male economist. Theaverage male response indicates a belief thatcurrent opportunities for economics faculty inthe United States are equal, favoring neither mennor women. Women are 55 percentage pointsmore likely to believe that opportunities for eco-nomics faculty favor men a bit or a lot more than

women.On four of the five questions concerning gen-der equality, male and female members of theAEA have reached the opposite conclusion, withstatistically significant and large differences ofopinion. More than 50% of female economistsbelieve that opportunities in the economics pro-fession or in the job market in general favormen whereas more than 75% of male economistsbelieve they are either equal or favor women.

IV. CONCLUSION

Our survey of AEA economists provides asnapshot picture of the views of economists onsome of the core precepts and approaches to thestudy of economics and a variety of importantand topical policy issues facing policy mak-ers today. To isolate the difference in viewson overall topics and specific policy issues, ourstatistical analysis controls for degree vintageand type of employment. We estimate the meangender gap in opinions using system GLS meth-

ods that incorporate the estimated relationshipamong unobservable factors that form opinionson related topics.

It is important to note that on the core pre-cepts and methodological approaches to eco-nomics we found no significant difference inaverage opinion between male and femaleeconomists after controlling for the decade thePhD was granted and type of employment. Sta-tistical tests based on GLS systems composedof individual responses which support the con-clusion that male and female economists share

the view that individuals are utility-maximizers,human wants are unlimited, and that mathe-matical modeling should be an important part

of economic modeling. Moreover, male andfemale economists also embrace the notion thatresearch on household decision making shouldinclude analysis of intrahousehold decision mak-ing. In other words, male and female economistsappear to start with the same assumptions about

how people are expected to behave and how toapproach the study of economics.

Despite their similar academic training andshared views about core precepts and methodol-ogy in economics, our study reveals differencesin the views of male and female economists intheir support of market solutions versus gov-ernment intervention, in their interpretation ofeconomic outcomes, and their views toward so-called compassion issues. These results showa greater willingness among male AEA mem-

bers to rely on markets and see problems frominterfering with market processes views thatemerge when questions are put in general termsand more clearly when they are put in terms ofspecific policy issues.

Although male and female economists agreethat market solutions are most efficient, on theissue of government regulation in general, maleAEA economists, on average, see governmentregulation in both the EU and the United Statesas more excessive than do female economists.Moreover, male economists express greater sup-

port than women economists for reducing tariffsand express greater opposition to linking tradeopenness to partners labor policies and greateropposition to mandating that employers providehealth insurance. Male economists report greatersupport for the use of vouchers in educationand greater agreement that the competition pro-vided by a Wal-Mart store benefits society andare far more likely to support drilling in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not surpris-ingly, male economists are more likely to see

the costs associated with government interven-tion. For example, male economists are morelikely to see a loss of employment from raisingthe minimum wage.

Another area where we find some consen-sus is on the environment. Here the aver-age response of both male and female AEAeconomists indicates support for increases inenergy taxes and taxes on greenhouse emissionsand recommend that ethanol subsidies be elim-inated. It is important to recognize that valuedifferences associated with environmental issues

do emerge when we consider other areas ofmarket solutions versus governmental solutions.Although the mean responses of both male and


17/22


female AEA economists suggest that policies inthe United States currently do too much to favoreconomic growth at the expense of environmen-tal quality, the average female AEA economistdisagrees more with drilling for oil in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge than the average male.

Our estimation results indicate the largestgender gap in views among AEA economistsoccurs around the issue of gender equality insociety and in the economics profession notsurprising as this area goes to the heart of theefficiency of market solutions and may alsobe influenced by self-interest of both men andwomen. After controlling for degree vintage andtype of employment, the system GLS resultsshow that the average male AEA economist isneutral in his belief that job opportunities for

men and women in the United States are cur-rently approximately equal, whereas the averagefemale economist disagrees with this view. Sim-ilarly, the average male response suggests agree-ment that the gender wage gap is explained bydifferences in human capital and voluntary occu-pational choices while the average female AEAeconomist disagrees with this view. While bothmale and female economists disagree that affir-mative action for women or for African Ameri-cans is a good idea, women, on average, disagreeless strongly than men.

A large difference in views between male andfemale economists emerges on gender equalityin the economics professions itself. The GLSsystem results show that women economists aremore likely to believe that opportunities for eco-nomics faculty in the United States currentlyfavor men more than women. Approximately76% of female economists share this view,whereas only 21% of male economists hold thisopinion. The gender gaps in views on economicpolicy that we have detected among economists

who study markets in their professional capac-ity, suggest that many of the differences foundbetween men and women in the wider popula-tion hold for economists as well. Our findings ofsignificant and large gender gaps in economistsviews on the role of government intervention,the desirability of governments role to promoteequality, and the lack of gender equality in labormarket opportunities and outcomes are impor-tant for a variety of reasons.

First, these results suggest that it is crucialto include both women and men economists at

the table when forming policy to ensure that avariety of professional perspectives are includedin the discussion. If demographic differences,

such as sex, shape our views of policy-relatedquestions, it may be important that women beincluded on boards and in policy-making circlesat all levels of decision making. While includ-ing women in policy-making circles does notprevent the selection of only those individuals

with shared beliefs, it nonetheless may increasethe possibility that diverse viewpoints will berepresented.

Second, the gender gap in economists viewsmay provide a possible explanation why womenare underrepresented in economics as faculty inthe leading research institutions. If women holdviews that shape their perspectives on researchissues and inform their thinking on policy con-clusions that are at odds with the perspectives oftheir male counterparts in areas that are at the

heart of a discipline, this may affect hiring andpromotion decisions in ways that disadvantagewomen. In the nuanced process of hiring andpromoting of colleagues at research institutions,these differences may result in fewer women ondissertation committees, fewer courses related tosubjects on gender differences in economics, andfewer women engaging in research that shapesboth theory and policy in the discipline.

Finally, differences in views on economicpolicy between similarly trained men andwomen may also influence classroom materi-als and discussion and ultimately the worldviewof students in these classes. If these differencesin views on policy contribute to the crowd-ing out of women from research institutionsand crowding in of women into undergraduateinstitutions, one would expect that they wouldhave increased influence on undergraduate stu-dents especially those unwilling or uninter-ested in pursuing graduate training. Diversityof faculty in higher education in general hasresulted in a change in what constitutes knowl-

edge in the various disciplines and will no doubtcontinue to influence students as future citizensby at least providing a more complete menuof perspectives about important aspects of eco-nomic policy.

APPENDIX: SURVEY RESPONSES AND SCALEDMEASURES

The Appendix summarizes the survey results by percent-age frequency distributions and describes the scaled mea-sures of economists views on (1) Core Precepts and Eco-

nomic Methodology, (2) Market Solutions and GovernmentInterventions, (3) Government Spending, Taxing, and Redis-tribution, (4) the Environment, and (5) Gender and EqualOpportunity.


18/22


GROUP 1Core Precepts and Economic Methodology: Distribution of Responses by Gendera

Proposition Response 1 2 3 4 5

Individuals are rational utility-maximizers Female 3.2 15.9 17.5 55.6 7.9

Male 2.7 20.3 12.2 48.6 16.2

Human wants are unlimited Female 1.6 21.9 6.3 48.4 21.9

Male 2.6 17.1 7.9 44.7 27.6

Research on household decision making shouldinclude analysis of intrahousehold decision making

Female 0.0 1.6 17.7 48.4 32.3Male 0.0 1.6 29.7 46.9 21.9

Mathematical modeling should be an important part ofeconomic modeling

Female 0.0 7.8 21.9 50.0 20.3Male 0.0 6.7 21.3 50.7 21.3

GDP is an insufficient measure of overall economicperformance

Female 1.7 11.7 20.0 50.0 16.7Male 2.6 19.7 19.7 42.1 15.8

The economics profession in the United Statescurrently: 1. relies too much on deductive modelingand not enough on empirical analysis; 2. has aboutthe right mix of empirical analysis and deductivemodeling; 3. relies too much on empirical analysisand not enough on deductive modeling

Female 45.9 45.9 8.2

Male 41.3 48.0 10.7

aUnless otherwise noted, 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.

A. Group 1: Core Precepts and Economic Methodology

The Adhere to Core Precepts and Economic Method-ology variable is constructed from the responses to thefollowing questions:

1. Individuals are rational utility-maximizers.2. Human wants are unlimited.7. Research on household decision making should

include analysis of intrahousehold decision making.8. Mathematical modeling should be an important part

of economic modeling.23. GDP is an insufficient measure of overall economic

performance.39. The economics profession in the United States cur-

rently

a. Relies too much on deductive modeling and notenough on empirical analysis

b. Has about the right mix of empirical analysis anddeductive modeling

c. Relies too much on empirical analysis and notenough on deductive modeling.

We let the response strongly disagree equal 1, dis-agree equal 2, neutral equal 3, agree equal 4, orstrongly agree equal 5 for questions 1, 2, 8, and we letthe reverse assignment hold for the response to Questions7, 23. For Question 39, we let the response a equal 2, bequal 3, and c equal 4. The value of the variable, Adhereto Core Precepts and Economic Methodology, is the aver-age of the values assigned to the question responses. Thestandardized answer to Group 1 questions has zero meanand unit variance. A higher value reflects that the economistmore strongly agrees with traditional economic assumptionsand methodology. The standardized Cronbachs value is.71 indicating a reliable measure.

GROUP 2Market Solutions and Government Interventions: Distribution of Responses by Gendera


Market solutions are the most efficient way to allocateresources under most circumstances Female 1.6 7.8 10.9 56.3 23.4Male 0.0 2.6 9.0 46.2 42.3

The European Union has an excessive amount of governmentregulation of economic activity

Female 6.7 26.7 20.0 41.7 5.0Male 1.4 13.7 26.0 39.7 19.2

The United States has an excessive amount of governmentregulation of economic activity

Female 17.5 47.6 20.6 12.7 1.6Male 7.7 33.3 26.9 21.8 10.3

The United States should reduce tariffs and other barriers totrade

Female 0.0 8.1 9.7 61.3 21.0Male 0.0 1.3 7.8 44.2 46.8

The United States should drill for oil in the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge

Female 39.7 27.0 14.3 14.3 4.8Male 27.6 25.0 11.8 17.1 18.4

The United States should impose taxes on unhealthy foods Female 27.4 32.3 19.4 17.7 3.2

Male 32.0 30.7 13.3 17.3 6.7

Parents should be given educational vouchers which can beused at government-run or privately run schools

Female 16.1 24.2 22.6 22.6 14.5Male 6.5 7.8 24.7 28.6 32.5

A Wal-Mart store typically generates more benefits to societythan costs

Female 5.0 16.7 28.3 41.7 8.3Male 1.4 8.1 12.2 41.9 36.5

aUnless otherwise noted, 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.


19/22


B. Group 2: Market Solutions and Government Intervention

The Favor Market Solutions over Government Interven-tion variable is constructed from the responses to the fol-lowing questions:

3. Market solutions are the most efficient way to allo-cate resources under most circumstances.

5. The European Union has an excessive amount ofgovernment regulation of economic activity.

6. The United States has an excessive amount of gov-ernment regulation of economic activity.

10. The United States should reduce tariffs and otherbarriers to trade.

13. The United States should drill for oil in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge.

16. The United States should impose taxes on unhealthyfoods.

18. Parents should be given educational vouchers whichcan be used at government-run or privately-run schools.

21. A Wal-Mart store typically generates more benefitsto society than costs.

We let the response strongly disagree equal 1, dis-agree equal 2, neutral equal 3, agree equal 4, orstrongly agree equal 5 for Questions 3, 5, 6, 10, 13,18, 21, and we let the reverse assignment hold for theresponse to Question 16. The variable, Favor Market Solu-tions over Government Intervention, is the average of thevalues assigned to the question responses. The standard-ized answer to Group 2 questions has zero mean and unitvariance. A higher value reflects that the economist morestrongly agrees with the policy conclusions predicted bytraditional economic assumptions and methodology. Thestandardized Cronbachs value is .78 indicating a reliablemeasure.

C. Group 3: Government Spending, Taxing, and

Redistribution

The Favor Limiting Government-backed Redistributionvariable is constructed from the responses to the followingquestions:

4. The distribution of income in the United States

should be made more equal.9. Increases in the minimum wage will increase unem-

ployment among unskilled workers.11. The United States should link import openness to the

labor standards of its export partners.15. Employers in the United States should be required to

provide health insurance to their full-time employees.17. The United States should implement a tax on con-

sumption and rely less on income taxes for revenue.29. The size of government in the United States is

a. Much too largeb. Too largec. About rightd. Too smalle. Much too small

30. Current levels of U.S. military spending are

a. Much too largeb. Too largec. About rightd. Too smalle. Much too small

31. The U.S. tax structure should be

a. Made less progressiveb. Kept at its current level of progressivityc. Made more progressive

GROUP 3Government Spending, Taxing, and Redistribution Distribution of Responses by Gendera


The distribution of income in the United States should bemade more equal

Female 6.2 15.4 15.4 36.9 26.2Male 9.2 19.7 26.3 30.3 14.5

Increases in the minimum wage will increase unemploymentamong unskilled workers

Female 7.9 25.4 22.2 38.1 6.3Male 1.3 13.2 15.8 47.4 22.4

The United States should link import openness to the laborstandards of its exports partners

Female 6.7 26.7 18.3 38.3 10.0Male 21.9 38.4 16.4 20.5 2.7

Employers in the United States should be required to provide

health insurance to their full-time employees

Female 6.5 30.6 22.6 25.8 14.5

Male 24.7 26.0 28.6 14.3 6.5The United States should implement a tax on consumption

and rely less on income taxes for revenueFemale 15.0 33.3 21.7 30.0 0.0

Male 10.4 27.3 20.8 23.4 18.2

The size of government in the United States is 1 = much toolarge, 2 = too large, 3 = about right, 4 = too small, 5 =much too small

Female 7.0 28.1 56.1 8.8 0.0Male 24.7 23.4 40.3 11.7 0.0

Current levels of U.S. military spending are 1 = much toolarge, 2 = too large, 3 = about right, 4 = too small, 5 =much too small

Female 33.9 47.5 13.6 5.1 0.0Male 14.5 50.0 26.3 7.9 1.3

The U.S. tax structure should be 1 = made less progressive, 2= kept at its current level of progressivity, 3 = made moreprogressive

Female 4.8 17.7 77.4 Male 28.6 28.6 42.9

The effect of moderate amounts of inflation (


20/22


GROUP 4The Environment Distribution of Responses by Gendera


The United States should increase energy taxes Female 3.3 8.3 6.7 48.3 33.3

Male 9.1 10.4 11.7 31.2 37.7

The United States should impose a tax on emissions ofgreenhouse gases Female 4.8 3.2 4.8 50.0 37.1Male 9.3 1.3 13.3 40.0 36.0

Policies in the United States currently: 1. do too much to favorenvironment quality at the expense of economic growth; 2.strike approximately the right balance between environmentalquality and economic growth, 3. do too much to favoreconomic growth at the expense of environmental quality

the gender gap in economists' beliefs

Documents