Published four times annually by the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of Women CSWEPnews in the Economics Profession. 2021 ISSUE I Interview with Bennett Prize Winner David Cutler Stefanie Stantcheva

Stefanie Stantcheva, Professor of Eco- us a little bit about what aspects of this top- nomics at Harvard University, was ic you’re interested in, what you’re finding Stefanie the recipient of the 2020 Elaine Bennett and how you interpret it? Stantcheva Research Prize. Established in 1998, the After I spent several years working on Elaine Bennett Research Prize is award- tax policy and redistribution policies ed every two years to recognize and hon- from a theoretical and empirical per- or outstanding research in any field of spective, I realized that sometimes there economics by a woman not more than is quite some difference between how seven years beyond her Ph.D. Profes- people think about policies and how sor Stantcheva was recognized for her IN THIS ISSUE economists think about them. These remarkable contributions to our un- differences may result from differing Interviews derstanding of optimal taxation, the perceptions of the various forces that relationship between innovation and shape policies, from fairness concerns, 2020 Elaine Bennett Research taxation, and social preferences about or from misperceptions and gaps in Prize Winner Stefanie Stantcheva redistribution. knowledge that people may have. So, I by David Cutler ...... 1 I want to start off by asking about some of embarked upon this line of work which 2020 Carolyn Shaw Bell Award uses social economic surveys and ex- Winner Nancy L. Rose your most recent work, which is on pref- by Mar Reguant ...... 1 erences for different policies, what people periments to get into people’s minds know about different policies, preferences and see what shapes their attitudes and for redistribution, and so on. Can you tell 2020 Report on the continues on page 4 Status of Women in the Economics Profession

by Judith Chevalier & Margaret Interview with Bell Award Winner Levenstein ...... 11 Nancy L. Rose Regular Features

From the Chair Mar Reguant by Judith Chevalier ...... 2 Nancy L. Rose, Charles Kindleberger Thank You! ...... 10 Professor of Applied Economics in the Calls, Announcements, and MIT Department of Economics, is the Sessions at Upcoming recipient of the 2020 Carolyn Shaw Bell Meetings ...... 30 Award. Named after the first chair of CSWEP, the Carolyn Shaw Bell Award Board Member Directory . . . . 33 Nancy L. Rose was created as part of the 25th Anni- versary celebration of the founding of

continues on page 7

Free Digital Subscriptions @ CSWEP.org Forward the CSWEP News to colleagues and graduate students. From the Chair Judith A. Chevalier

Contributors Well! The AEA meetings were very dif- the past year. The report begins with a ferent this year, but I am pleased that we summary of our activities at the 2020 Judith A. Chevalier, were still able to host successful CSWEP annual meetings and ends with updates Chair activities. In this issue, we present in- on our activities throughout last year. William S. Beinecke Professor of Economics terviews with both our Carolyn Shaw Our reporting cycle to the AEA means and Finance Bell Award winner, Nancy L. Rose and that I am reporting to the AEA on our School of Management, our Elaine Bennett Research Prize win- activities at the prior annual meeting Yale University ner, Stefanie Stantcheva. This issue of just as the next annual meeting is start- News also includes the 2020 CSWEP ing. Indeed, the San Diego 2020 annu- Annual Report to the AEA, which doc- al meetings seem like a very long time

David Cutler uments CSWEP activities for the past ago. As I reread our annual report and Otto Eckstein Professor year and summarizes results from our review our activities since those meet- of Applied Economics, annual survey on the status of women ings, I am struck by how much CSWEP Harvard University in academic economics. In this letter, I has transformed our activities during will also summarize CSWEP’s ongoing the pandemic. The pandemic has been activities. a struggle for so many of us and we all Margaret Levenstein Research Professor The survey effort is spearhead- miss the many in-person events that and Director, Institute ed by Maggie Levenstein. The survey CSWEP has traditionally sponsored. for Social Research, was much more challenging this year Nonetheless, we have learned some new University of Michigan both for Maggie and for the econom- things about what we can do with tech- ics departments from whom we collect nology in these past months. During data, as remote staff had to undertake 2020, we hosted 9 CSWEP webinars some effort to access their records. I with over 2000 attendees. These includ- Mar Reguant Associate Professor am grateful to Maggie and the depart- ed our panels on the impacts of COVID of Economics, ments in the survey for their efforts on economists, our panels on careers Northwestern University and am pleased to report that, despite outside academia, and our “fireside these challenges, 225 of the 237 depart- chats with journal editors.” This is in ments contacted provided data. The sur- addition to virtual sessions and panels vey brings us some good news! The last that CSWEP board members organized CSWEP News Staff few years have shown a discernible up- for regional economics meetings. By the tick in the representation of women. time this issue of the News is emailed Judith Chevalier, Editor At every level of the professoriate, the to subscribers, in addition to our activi- Kate Silz-Carson, Oversight Editor share of women is higher than it has ties at the 2021 AEA meetings, we will Margaret Levenstein, Co-editor been at any point in the past, reaching have hosted four additional webinars in Leda Black, Graphic Designer 25.0% in 2020. Furthermore, the share January and February. I am not recount- of women entering PhD programs has ing this to brag about the hard work our About CSWEP increased in each of the last three years, board has done (well, maybe a little); I am recounting this to emphasize some A standing committee of the American reaching 35.3% in 2020. The increases Economic Association, the Committee on of the last three years are small but they lessons that we have learned. While we the Status of Women in the Economics follow a long period of stagnation. Af- will have in-person events again, we Profession (CSWEP) is charged with serv- ter reaching a peak of 35.8% in 2008, look forward to continuing to use tech- ing professional women economists by the fraction of new PhD students that nology to be more inclusive. Thanks to promoting their careers and monitoring are women hovered below 33 percent for webinar and remote networking tools, their progress. CSWEP sponsors mentoring the next decade. We are intent on seeing we have reached and can continue to programs, surveys economics departments improvements continue. I recommend reach graduate students, undergradu- and freely disseminates information on the full survey as well as a video presen- ates, and members of our profession professional opportunities, career develop- tation of the survey that can be found on who cannot travel to conferences. I am ment and how the profession works, both our website. so grateful to our CSWEP board and the on the web and via free digital subscrip- The 2020 CSWEP Annual Report many volunteers who have helped us tions to the CSWEP News. To subscribe, also documents CSWEP activities for with this experiment by organizing and email [email protected]. 2 CSWEP NEWS From the Chair participating in our webinars and other business meeting and awards ceremo- directorship of the Doctoral Programs remote events. Many of the people who ny. Due to the virtual format, the busi- workshop. Back in April, I approached participated in our webinars took the ness meeting was shorter this year. On- both Martha and Jessica to broach the time to help us out despite their lives line, you will find videos of speeches by subject of how we would manage if in- being upended by both the pandemic Carolyn Shaw Bell Award winner, Nancy person CeMENT workshops were not and the struggle for racial equity. Again, L. Rose, and by Elaine Bennett Research feasible. I was so pleased that both Mar- I am extremely thankful to the people Prize winner, Stefanie Stantcheva. Both tha and Jessica immediately and enthu- who volunteered for these programs. managed to compress a lot of wisdom siastically embraced the idea of hosting The 2021 vir- into short speech- virtual workshops. I was delighted to tual AEA meet- es. This issue fea- attend the opening of both workshops ings were busy for tures fascinating and was pleased to see a screen full of . . . we look forward to continuing CSWEP. We held in-depth inter- eager junior faculty women and men- our ninth annual to use technology to be more views with each tors. Martha and Jessica had to do a lot junior mentoring inclusive. Thanks to webinar and of these award of work to transition this program to the “breakfast” and winners. Due to virtual environment. I am grateful for our seventh an- remote networking tools, we have the short virtual their efforts, the efforts of the mentors, nual mid-career reached and can continue to reach speeches, I rec- and the commitment to the workshop mentoring “break- graduate students, undergraduates, ommend to read- shown by the mentees. fast.” Admitted- ers both the videos Just following the meetings, CSWEP ly, they were not and members of our profession and the interviews. and CSMGEP co-hosted a panel discus- at most partici- who cannot travel to conferences. We often cel- sion organized by Dick Startz designed pants’ breakfast- ebrate Carolyn to help undergraduate faculty advise time during the Shaw Bell Award their students on the graduate school virtual AEA, but winners because process. One way for the economics the remote events captured the essence of their contributions mentoring early profession to become more diverse is of our annual breakfasts. Thanks to the career economists. As the nominators to attract students to graduate school large number of mentor volunteers, we describe in their introduction, Nancy L. from a wider array of undergraduate were able to provide mentoring “tables” Rose certainly has done that well. How- institutions. This requires more wide- covering a wide variety of topics. We es- ever, both her video and her interview spread knowledge of the “hidden curric- pecially look forward to hosting these have good advice for mid-career peo- ulum” of preparing for graduate school breakfasts in person next year, but we ple. In her interview, she describes her and applying successfully. I recommend are investigating using the technology time in government as energizing and the video on our website for undergrad- to host a free-standing similar event be- she provides a helpful example of how uate advisors and prospective graduate tween now and next year’s meetings. one can craft the second half of a career. students. As always, we also organized paper Stefanie Stantcheva reflects on her im- Many thanks to the organizers sessions. Our sessions on the econom- portant research and how working on and mentors who contributed to our ics of inequality and on the econom- the topics that interested her the most CSWEP events and initiatives. As al- ics of innovation and entrepreneurship has served her well. In her interview, ways, we encourage you to forward this showcased the work of junior women she also talks about the mentoring she issue of News to your students and col- economists. We also held sessions on has received and how she aspires to be leagues. Help us get in touch with them the economics of gender and gender in equally generous with those who come early in their careers! Send a message to the economics profession. We are grate- after her. Even remotely, it was a plea- [email protected] to get on our mailing ful to Shahina Amin, Jonathan Guryan, sure to celebrate these two women at list for announcements and other news, Petra Moser, Jesse Rothstein, Antoinette our CSWEP award ceremony. to volunteer to help out with CSWEP ac- Schoar, Petra Todd, and Lise Vesterlund Both of our award winners empha- tivities, or to share your comments and for their assistance in organizing these size the importance that mentoring suggestions. Also, follow us on Twitter sessions. The call for papers for our plays in our profession. Of course, men- @AEACSWEP. We don’t send out an CSWEP sessions for the 2022 annual toring initiatives are core to our CSWEP enormous number of email reminders meetings in Boston are in News. These mission. Following the meetings, the so Twitter is a great way to make sure sessions remain an important way for CeMENT mentoring workshops were you know about our upcoming events. junior women to share their work and held. This was the first year as director of We also retweet professional develop- for scholarship about gender to be pre- the workshop for faculty in Non-Doctor- ment opportunities from other organi- sented to the profession. al Programs for Jessica Holmes of Mid- zations and track them on our website. Videos are available online of our dlebury. Martha Bailey continued her

2021 ISSUE I 3 Stefanie Stantcheva Interview continued from page 1 views on policies. What do they know? do they trust it? Efficiency concerns are The effect is even stronger for health How do they reason? actually quite second-order in people’s policy. If you drill down about ques- It’s been a great discovery to see the minds when it comes to tax policy. tions like: What are the distribution- complex things that go on in people’s These are all correlations. To see al impacts of more health insurance? minds. I’ve been fascinated by what sur- what’s actually causal and what could What are the efficiency impacts? Who veys and experiments can tell us. I’ve be shifting views, I show people these will use more medical care, have fewer done a range of projects on what shapes short ECON courses, which are two - or emergency room visits? What will hap- people’s views on policies ranging from three-minute-long videos which explain pen to people’s financial stress from intergenerational mobility to immigra- how taxes actually work. The videos medical deaths? People reason very tion. I’ve looked at their understanding take different perspectives. Although similarly. Even on the fairness aspect, or lack of understanding of various as- they’re neutral and pedagogical, they people are in relative agreement that pects of policies, and very recently, of don’t tell people what taxes should be it’s unfair if you’re in poor health or if their own social position in different or what’s fair or not. They just explain you’re born with pre-existing conditions reference groups and how that affects the how taxes work from one perspec- that you’re penalized for that through- their views. tive. For instance, one version focuses out your life. However, once you get only on the distributional impacts of to the policy views, such as should we You’ve published a paper on preferences taxes - who gains and who loses. The have Medicare for all or Obamacare or for redistribution, not just what preferenc- other version focuses only on the effi- single payer or any other name you can es people have, but then when you nudge ciency costs. Then there is the econo- put on this, suddenly people revert to them, how they changed their views. Tell us mist treatment, which shows both and party lines entirely. It’s not consistent a little about that. emphasizes the trade-off between effi- with the reasoning that they’ve gone In one of the recent papers that I did, I ciency and equity. One can replicate this through. With tax policy, it’s incredibly try to see how people understand var- approach for the other policies such as polarized at every single step of the rea- ious economic policies like tax poli- health policy or trade or even climate soning, maybe because it’s been a very cy, health policy, and trade policy, and change, which all have efficiency and entrenched policy for a long time. what things can improve their under- equity considerations. You started your career doing work on tra- standing. I try to go step by step by dig- What I find for tax policy confirms ditional tax policy, but it’s not really tradi- ging into the various mechanisms that the correlations. What shifts people’s tional. You extended it in incredibly inter- people may be thinking about, and try views most is to see the distributional esting ways to ask questions about human to see what matters more. Consider the impacts of taxes, not at all the efficiency capital formation and so on. Tell us what example of tax policy. Is it that people consequences of it. Even if you put it to- we’ve learned about optimal taxation from have different perceptions about the gether and emphasize the trade-off, it’s your work. economic cost of taxes? Is it that they still the distributional considerations think differently about the distribution- that dominate and outweigh the effi- In one of my earliest papers, I was try- al impacts that tax changes will have? Or ciency concerns. I think this project is ing to study what we should do given is it that they have very different views very much a first step to try and see with the big problems with student debt and of what’s fair and what’s not? Could the all we know as economists with all we financing education. How we can actu- reason be their views on the govern- have studied, can we actually improve ally have a proper system where we al- ment—how wasteful or efficient they understanding as opposed to just pro- low people to pay for education, acquire think the government is? Or is it purely viding facts or providing numbers, but education, and then pay for it later in a lack of knowledge about how the tax actually explain how the policies work? life in a way that doesn’t drain public fi- system works and what inequality is? nances, but still allows them to acquire I think of these factors as my explan- In health care, there’s a sort of undercur- the education in the first place. There atory or right-hand side variables. I can rent which is that when you present people are a few challenges in this. One is that decompose a person’s policy views into a health care problem, they immediately education doesn’t necessarily optimal- these various components. What I find start to think about, “Do I like government ly happen once in your life. That may is that for tax policy, a person’s views or not like government?” It seems that their be how a lot of the current system is on fairness, and who’s going to gain view of policy is less about ‘do I think in the set up, but there’s a lot of human capi- and lose from tax changes completely abstract that this is a good policy?’ but in- tal acquisition that you may want to do dominates all other concerns. This is stead ‘do I trust government to actually get throughout your life, whether it’s on the followed by a person’s views of the gov- it right?’ It sounds like you’re finding that job training or going back to school. The ernment. How much do they think the somewhat more generally, particularly in second thing is that people will benefit government should be doing, how effi- the tax realm. very differently from education or hu- cient is it, how wasteful is it, how much man capital acquisition. Some people

4 CSWEP NEWS Stefanie Stantcheva Interview will benefit much more than others. about these more unusual dynamic ef- where the gaps are, and what could be You can view this as being a result of la- fects of taxes which have been less stud- nice to do in the next project. You dis- bor market conditions or you can view ied. One of them is on innovation. There cover new data, you discover new policy it as being something more about their are lots of innovation policies through- issues as you present. The idea is just, own skill level or even health shocks out the world, and they look very differ- to me, like a tree. You start from one that may happen to them and that will ent. There’s no agreement on what is the root, but then there are so many branch- depreciate their human capital. I set up right mix of subsidies, tax credits, corpo- es that spring out of them. I guess the this problem so that people are born rate taxes, tax breaks, and deductions. real question then is how do you pick with some exogenously given ability. These R&D policies are actually very which branches to climb versus which In order to model shocks such a reces- large. If you look at what share of private branches to leave maybe for later or nev- sion or technology making someone’s innovation spending is in one form or er? I’ve always followed the instinct of skills obsolete, this ability evolves sto- the other actually paid for by the govern- what I’m most interested in and excited chastically throughout life. Ideally, the ment, it’s very large in many countries about because while there are so many government would like you to acquire yet countries have very different innova- questions that could be addressed and as much human capital as is right, and tion and productivity outcomes. there are lots of data, in the end, there also protect you against these random In this paper on optimal taxation and is so much work that goes into this that depreciations in your human capital R&D policies, we bring these tools of the only way to actually do it is to be re- that may happen to you. It’s a com- dynamic mechanism design to issues ally interested. plicated problem because the govern- related to firms’ innovation and inno- You have an interesting background. You ment doesn’t know whether you are a vation policy. We assume that firms, were born in Bulgaria, you grew up in high skill person or a low skill person. like people (since firms are collections France, and you’ve now lived in the US When they see low earnings, is it be- of people), have different types. Some for 11 years. Does your background give you cause you didn’t work hard or because firms are great at producing innovation any different insights? Is it good in some something bad happened to you? The out of a given set of inputs and others ways to have a more unusual background? government tries to design this tax plus are not so good. In addition, firms them- education subsidy system that allows selves don’t exactly know what will hap- It’s hard to take a normative stand, but them to trade off the disincentive effect pen to a given investment. Innovation is what’s true is that I’ve definitely been of possibly taxing or subsidizing people stochastic and part of the realization is influenced by my background in many too much against the desire to insure random. We ask what is the right design ways. In addition to being born in Bul- them against these shocks and also help of the elements of a tax system that will garia, I’ve also lived in Eastern Germany lower income people relative to higher both incentivize firms to invest in in- before the wall came down, then moved income people. novation, but also recoup part of it back to France, studied in the UK, came back What I find is that the optimal sys- for society, and also makes sure that the to France, then came to the US. One tem in this setting is one of income con- government doesn’t just subsidize inef- thing that this has definitely done is to tingent loans, versions of which are ac- ficient firms but rather subsidizes the give me a glimpse into many different tually done in several countries. In this really good firms at innovation? What political, social and economic systems. income-contingent loan system, when- we find is that the right system is one That has been an asset in the sense that ever a person acquires human capital, that conditions on past performance to I’ve never assumed that the way things they are allowed to take out a loan that some extent. This is something we don’t are in this country or in another country will cover their expenses. Then, as they currently really do. are the way things should necessarily be. start earning more, they start repaying a I’ve been very deeply shaped in my How do you decide on an interesting re- higher share of their income. It is a very choice to do economics because of that search project? progressive system in which the better history. When I was a kid and I would one does, the more they pay into the I remember when I was in grad school go back to Bulgaria in the summer, I common pool. And vice versa, of course, at MIT we would have mentoring meet- witnessed a hyperinflation. I was about the less one makes, the lower the share ings with Esther Duflo and we would six years old, so I didn’t know what a hy- they repay. It’s different from current ask her, “How do we come up with an perinflation was, but it was very shock- systems, which typically only insure the interesting research topic?” She was ing to see the prices balloon. Then, in downside. Currently, those systems for- like, “One day you’ll have so many ideas Germany, there were such gigantic gaps give part of the loan if you do very poor- and you won’t have time to work on in pay between the East and the West. ly, but they don’t necessarily have a gra- them.” We all looked at each other and Even before you know that these are dient if you do better over time. we thought, “That will never happen to economic factors, you start questioning Another line of work that I’ve been us. It’s not possible.” But here we are. what’s happening. It’s only later that I trying to push in the tax theory realm is As you work on one topic, you realize realized, “Oh, this is called economics.

2021 ISSUE I 5 Stefanie Stantcheva Interview Join the CSWEP Liaison Network! And it would be great to study it and get range of papers and who’s been always Three cheers for the 150+ economists some answers.” It’s definitely shaped a dedicated mentor. Although I’m not who have agreed to serve as CSWEP Li- me a lot. in development economics, I was a re- aisons! We are already seeing the positive search assistant for Esther Duflo as effects of your hard work with increased The economics profession is going through an undergrad and she’s always been a demand for CSWEP paper sessions, fel- a lot of discussion about its treatment of presence there, helping and support- lowships and other opportunities. Thank women and minorities and ways it can you! Dissemination of information— ing me. At Harvard, I’ve I received so improve. What advice would you give to including notice of mentoring events, much support for which I’m incredibly young female scholars who are interested new editions of the CSWEP News and grateful. Our colleagues, Alberto Alesi- in economics? Anything they should think reporting requests for our Annual Sur- na and Emmanuel Farhi, who so sadly about, be aware of, be alert to? vey and Questionnaire—is an important passed away, were a tremendous source charge of CSWEP. For this key task, we I have a few piec- of support, friend- need your help. We are looking for li- es of advice for ship, and mentor- aisons from the following colleges and young women in ship. In our side universities: Find good mentors. economics. First of the corridor, Centre College of all, finding you, Larry Katz, Colgate University good mentors is Work on what interests you. Claudia Goldin, College of Saint Benedict/ incredibly impor- and Ed Glaeser Saint John’s University tant. If you can Have a support group of your peers. have been just so DePauw University put every effort to supportive and so Lake Forest College Lawrence University try and find out, Ask people you admire incredible to me. either from your for advice and help. Randolph-Macon College So, huge shout Sewanee University of the South peers or from peo- out to my amaz- St. Olaf College ple who are more ing colleagues. Susquehanna University advanced in their Vassar College I know that you do a lot of advising of stu- careers, who are the good mentors, that Wheaton College (MA) is critical. The second piece of advice dents. What is your philosophy about help- Willamette University that I would give is very much along ing a student choose a project? How do If you know individuals at these institu- the lines of what I said before—work you personally be a good mentor to Ph.D. students? tions who you think might be interested on what you’re interested in. Don’t self- in serving as a CSWEP Liaison, please censor. Don’t try to go in a direction just You know, I try very hard to be a good encourage them to contact us at info@ because you think you’re expected to go mentor and I definitely see two sides cswep.org. We are also seeking liaisons in that direction. Work on what’s inter- to it. One is the sort of pure work side, from outside the academy. To indicate esting to you—hopefully with the sup- “Let’s talk about your projects, your ca- your willingness to serve, send an e-mail port of your mentors. The third piece of reer.” On the work side, what I always try with your contact information to info@ advice is to have a good support group to do is to give students some structure, cswep.org. in your peers. Any good person that you because I think what is very tough for have around you is an asset, regardless many students is once they start switch- of their own background. Part of that ing from classes to research, there is is also to reach out to people. I think this amorphous shape of days where someone’s going through a rough patch many people are very willing to help. they’re trying to do research, but they as well as when someone has some- Even though people are very busy, if you don’t quite know how to start. There are thing good happening to them. reach out to ask for something concrete so many potential projects, yet nothing In the end, we are the contact of stu- or for some input, or for some advice concrete. I have found that giving them dents with the research world. I think from someone you admire, people do a structure of regular meetings, a giv- being an advisor goes way beyond be- their best. The worst case is they’ll say, en write up to be done before the meet- ing just there for the work side. I think “I’m extremely busy. Sorry.” But people ings with a set of steps, a list of projects students are sharing a lot with us and typically try to do their best to help their and for each project, what has been ex- they’re relying on us to cheer them juniors at different stages. plored. Is this to be continued? Is this when things are good. It’s obviously I’ve been incredibly lucky with my to be stopped? Having the structure has tough when something bad is happen- mentors. At MIT, I was advised by Jim been incredibly helpful. On the person- ing to a student, it’s very sad to deal with Poterba and Ivan Werning, who are al side, I actually always try to keep track it. But I think it’s very much our respon- both stellar advisors and huge support- of what’s going on in their lives to the sibility too. ers. I also worked with Emmanuel Saez extent that they want to share, of course. at Berkeley, with whom I’ve written a It’s important especially to know when 6 CSWEP NEWS Nancy L. Rose Interview continued from page 1 CSWEP and has been given annually to family and career balance. They note woman at that point. So, I try to think since 1998 to an individual who has fur- her candor in sharing her own experi- about what it was like to be a graduate thered the status of women in the eco- ences and willingness to “…share the student and how to recreate that kind nomics profession through example, difficulties in making it all work, -of of support and welcoming environment achievements, increasing our under- fering a necessary counterpoint to the for all of my students, but particularly standing of how women can advance in mainstream rhetoric” in economics my women students. the economics profession or mentoring that parenthood should not be “too As a student at MIT, I remember we used others. The award was presented at the time-consuming” and that “finding it to have the women’s lunches, the women’s annual CSWEP business meeting and difficult is due to a lack of self-organi- breakfasts, etc. At the time, I thought it was award ceremony held during the 2021 zation and outsourcing.” In all of her a bit unnecessary but again, in hindsight, I ASSA meeting. roles, Professor Rose has worked to fur- realized how big of a difference that made Professor Rose earned her doctorate ther the status of women, acting both to me and to many others. from MIT in 1985 and joined the fac- as a role model and advocate and serv- ulty at the MIT Sloan School of Man- ing as an exemplar of the Carolyn Shaw It’s interesting that you would say agement after graduation. In 1994, she Bell Award criteria. CSWEP is thrilled that—at some point, there were ques- accepted a joint appointment with the to have Professor Nancy L. Rose as its tions about whether we still “needed” MIT Department of Economics, mov- 2020 Carolyn Shaw Bell Award winner. formal women-only events. I think at ing full-time to the Economics depart- some point after I left for the Depart- Nancy, you are such an inspiration and ment in 1997. She was awarded an en- ment of Justice, they kind of died out. great mentor to so many women (and dowed chair in 2010, and served as men) in the field of Industrial Organiza- Oh, no! the MIT Economics Department Head tion that you seem perfect for the award. In Yes. But I returned to MIT almost the from 2017 to 2020. From 2014 to 2016, a difficult year such as 2020, your award same time that concerns about gender she served as the Deputy Attorney Gen- came as uplifting news to me. Excited? Or in economics were blowing up, with eral for Economic Analysis, Antitrust already in your expected utility? Alice Wu’s study of the rumors web- Division, Department of Justice. She site and mainstream news coverage. was the second woman to ever serve It was a complete surprise for me. In I was taking on the department head in that post, following former advisee, fact, when Judy sent me an email say- role, and called a meeting of wom- Fiona Scott Morton, Theodore Nieren- ing, “Can we set up a time to talk soon?” en faculty. There was universal agree- berg Professor of Economics at the Yale I was racking my brain to figure out ment we needed to restart and step up School of Management. what job she was going to ask me to our lunches and dinners. I think MIT Professor Rose is a leader in the do. I cannot convey what a wonderful has long been a great place for women field of Industrial Organization. She is surprise it was. And a number of peo- economists, but we shouldn’t assume known for her research on economic ple, many of whom I hadn’t talked to in that happens on its own. It reminds me regulation, particularly in airline, mo- ages, heard about this one way or an- of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in tor carrier, and electric utility markets. other, and reached out to me. the Shelby v. Holder voting rights de- At MIT, she has inspired many under- As your former student and perennial ad- cision—“like throwing away your um- graduate and graduate students, win- visee, I always thought you were perfect for brella in a rainstorm because you are not ning numerous teaching awards in- the award. In hindsight, I realize you did getting wet.” cluding the MIT-wide MacVicar Faculty many small things here and there to make Until we get to better representation Fellow award for undergraduate teach- gender a non-issue at MIT. I have specu- of women, I do feel like little things ing. She was an early advocate for wom- lated often on all the little and not so lit- like that can be very helpful in creating en in the profession and endeavored to tle things that it amounted to. How would a community where people are able to support a more collegial profession in you describe your secret recipe, if it can be say things they perhaps wouldn’t feel as her many leadership positions. As the shared? comfortable saying in a mixed gender Director of the National Bureau of Eco- environment. nomic Research (NBER) program on I don’t think I have a secret recipe. I’ve benefited a ton from mentorship in my Industrial Organization from 1990– You shine as a role model that has been life, most of it male because there just 2014, she worked to broaden the base of able to make your own choices. Personal- weren’t that many women ahead of me. NBER participants and modeled a style ly, I feel it’s so hard to be a mom and be But as I mentioned in my speech, the of questioning during seminar sessions in balance. I kind of love it that you were women graduate students when I was a that was both penetrating and civil. able to ask for what you needed, not nec- student at MIT filled the place of wom- Many letter-writers also noted her essarily what was most expected. We don’t en faculty, because there was only one willingness to discuss problems related have those examples too often and I find very senior faculty member who was a

2021 ISSUE I 7 Nancy L. Rose Interview them sorely needed. Do you perceive a bit own way. When I was pregnant with my the small things in life. This anecdote has of a change, perhaps with different timings first child, I looked at MIT’s regulations. been at times a lighthouse for me! and paths being embraced with a bit less They didn’t have a maternity leave pol- I love that! You know, we have colleagues judgment? icy for faculty, and I was due on Labor for whom economics is their entire life For me, the decision to start a family Day. Remember, I was the first woman and most of what they do. I might be before tenure was pretty obvious: I’ve at Sloan to have a baby while on the fac- married to one of them [laughs]. And always wanted kids, but didn’t think I ulty. I told Paul Joskow, who has always they love it. That’s what nourishes their needed tenure at MIT to make me hap- been a mentor and source of sage ad- soul. But there are lots of different ways py. I think it is getting better. But I also vice, that I thought I would teach my to go through life. If all I did was eco- think part of the problem is that that we fall MBA classes with 3 or 4 weeks off nomics, I think it would have made me sometimes judge ourselves more harsh- after delivery, and maybe my husband very unhappy. Maybe the advantage of ly than the world judges us. could cover those. Paul looked at me not having many women on the path like I was utterly insane, which I prob- ahead of me is that I didn’t feel there Aha! Well, we really do. ably was. He said I couldn’t possibly do was a clear way of doing things that I That’s one of the reasons we need great- that, that I didn’t know how complicat- had to follow. And if I’ve given you per- er diversity in the profession. If you see ed—and exhausting—things could get. mission to run a Girl Scout troop for 10 a variety of different paths that are cho- So, I then planned to just take unpaid years, go for it—it’s awesome! sen by women in the profession you leave. But the Sloan School Dean, Les- realize, “Oh, there is really flexibility ter Thurow, called me in a few weeks lat- In a CSWEP News article, you seemed to make my own er to tell me Sloan to predict the future. I quote: “There are path.” Even if you had put together many years between my youngest’s depar- worry about your a teaching reduc- ture for college and faculty retirement ages, and even more unanswered questions in decisions, you You should always take advantage tion and adminis- industrial organization.” Indeed, right af- see that your col- of disruptions that allow you to trative assignment leagues aren’t re- that would let me ter sending your youngest child to college, ally being judged completely clear the decks. take a semester off you became the Deputy Assistant Attorney for different de- with pay and not General for Economic Analysis in the An- cisions that they have to prep new titrust Division of the U.S. Department of made. It may al- courses. That was Justice from 2014 to 2016, then you were low you to ease up on yourself a bit, I a huge boost for me, my research, and department head at MIT, and you are now think. When I started, I had no women my belief that Sloan valued my contri- a key figure in merger policy. Such a long- colleagues at Sloan who had children butions. I probably should have asked term vision is so dearly missing in the pro- while on the faculty; now you can find directly (I don’t know who did on my fession. On top of that, you got to execute it! women who have had kids at all career behalf, but I’ve guessed Paul had a role). A wise friend always says to me it’s stages, from grad school through post- But I’m continually reminded that we better to be lucky than smart. When I tenure, or not at all. can give other people the opportunity got the DOJ call in 2014, my youngest To be fair, when I say there’s no judg- to be helpful and useful and rise to the daughter had just started college. My ment, there are certainly exceptions. At occasion. And those of us in positions first reaction was to say no—I’d had one point there was some pushback to to be helpful need to be attentive to seiz- similar calls occasionally in the past, my second maternity leave, because I’d ing those opportunities. but always said “no, but not never.” But already taken time off just two years be- Talking about finding your own path and I then realized, “Oh, I usually say no be- fore for my first child. I thought “Okay, doing what makes you happy, I have to cause I’ve got kids at home—that isn’t yes, I am having a second child. And confess that there is an anecdote about true anymore.” Then I thought about your point is….?” I had to try not to let one of our interactions that influenced me all the other commitments I’d made— it get to me. probably more than you might imagine in including becoming department head within the year. So, my second reaction You explained in your speech how you grad school—and which you surely do not was still, “No, I can’t let people down to managed to get MIT to reconsider their remember! One day coming back home do this.” I did not go back to that article, leave policy. Getting MIT as an institution from class, I ran into you in the middle of but maybe it was still speaking to me, to reflect on their maternity policies and Harvard Square, in your Girl Scouts out- because I finally stopped and thought, expand the possibility of leaves seems like fit, selling cookies with your daughter and “You know, if I say no again, maybe it re- such a huge milestone for progress. her friends. Apart from getting some deli- cious cookies, it was so refreshing to see an ally is no, never.” I felt like I knew what I often just assumed I had to find my MIT professor just doing that, embracing the Antitrust Division was up to—I had

8 CSWEP NEWS Nancy L. Rose Interview increasingly been using DOJ antitrust to just unwind what I had committed different from what I’m accustomed to complaints cases in my undergraduate to. I looked at Jim at the end of this, in academics.” class. Usually not to teach antitrust, but and I said, “Okay, I think I now real- I believe many of the readers might find because they often have great descrip- ize why I get no research done.” Be- this relatable content. It has definitely tions of how firms compete in their cause this wasn’t even doing the jobs. happened to me, it is a very distinct feeling market, with compelling illustrations This was just calling all the people I had when you are the only woman in a very of competitive interactions, tacit collu- to reach—from the AEA leadership to large room, not sure why! sion, and the like. boards to MIT colleagues—to say I’m I decided I would go to Washington taking a job in DC and it means I can’t I think that motivates the challenge to to meet with the DOJ team. I knew I continue working with you. increase diversity. When you ask, was was interviewing for the position, but there a secret recipe in terms of MIT I am taking notes… for a friend! also trying to figure out if I wanted to or the NBER? Part is paying attention: do it enough to unwind my other com- I do think women get asked much more Asking yourself whether it’s appropri- mitments and commute to DC weekly and we are generally not as good at ate to create a program with only one or if I got the offer. On the flight down, guarding our time. There is also the is- two women presenters, or where wom- it dawned on me that I could be help- sue of representation of women, for ex- en play only a discussant role? When I ing to write the antitrust complaints ample in committees. If we don’t have was department head at MIT, I started that I would be using in my classes enough women faculty to fill all those asking people to send me their seminar when I came back, and could be shar- duties, maybe we need to make that a schedule so that I could look at them for ing the backstories on merger challeng- priority. diversity. And I think just knowing that the department head was a woman who es or whatever. That started getting me We have started to talk much more in the was going to be looking at your seminar jazzed. Within two or three of the half- economics profession: the academic pro- schedule got some people to look at invi- hour meetings at DOJ, I realized these gression of the problems we have, rampant tations with fresh eyes and think about were people I wanted to work with and racial and gender discrimination problems, what they were doing. a job I wanted to do, and switched from etc. I often hear about how in the private thinking, do I want this to how do I con- sector or government, it might be better. Right after DC, you returned to MIT to vince these people that I’m the one they Was this your impression from your time become department head. Did your DC want? in DC, that we are lagging behind quite experience shape the way you approached I finished the day with a late lunch dramatically? that role? with Bill Baer, the head of the antitrust I had hoped that it would give me some division. As you know, I’m pretty direct While there were many women in the more leadership insight. It did some, and maybe not always very strategic. I Antitrust Division, so I felt I was going but not as much as I expected. First, be- get to lunch and I’m not very subtle— to a place that was this mecca of women, cause my number two—Bob Majure, a I say something like, “I’m just going to the women lawyers feel as though there phenomenal Director of Economics— cut to the chase—I want this job. I love are many fewer of them in the field of viewed his job as running the man- this job. I would love to do it, but it’s antitrust, which is to some extent true— agement and bureaucracy as much as going to take me a while to figure out if maybe because it’s a very economics- possible, and leaving me to focus on in- I can unwind all of my commitments, based part of the legal profession. vestigations and cases and high-level so the sooner you make a decision, the Within the Economic Analysis decisions. He really protected my time, more likely I can make it work.” At Group, the part of the DOJ that I was and I got to focus on the most fun and which point he laughs at me and says, overseeing, we struggled with the same important parts of the job. But the gov- well, just how long do you think you’ll challenges that academia has in try- ernment is more intentional about pro- need to get there? ing to recruit more women, because the pipeline is so thin. That said, there viding management and HR training, What a wonderful way to also get out of were more women Ph.D. economists at and some of that was helpful when I re- commitments! DOJ than at MIT, though still, as a frac- turned to MIT. tion, low. I will say as advice: You should always Well, this sounds quite awesome… take advantage of disruptions that allow But during my time there, the lead- Yes, but there is another reason the ex- you to completely clear the decks. I’ve ership at DOJ was 50 percent women, perience didn’t port. DOJ and, govern- done that two or three times in my life sometimes better. I think that’s a testa- ment in general, tends to be pretty hi- and it can help quite a bit. It was very ment to Bill Baer, then Renata Hesse, erarchical. It was only the second time cathartic. who led the division during my years in my life I had a real boss (sorry to my But it was amazing to me how long there. I suddenly noticed, “Wow, the department heads and deans!). It also it took me. It took two and a half weeks place I’m working in now is really quite

2021 ISSUE I 9 Nancy L. Rose Interview Thank you to 2021 AEA/ASSA Session Organizers meant that most economists thought of me as their boss. But CSWEP says thank you to the following individuals who helped orga- in academia, none of the faculty think the department head nize CSWEP sessions for the 2021 AEA/ASSA annual meetings. Thank is their boss. If I had tried to act that way when I got back to you for continuing to ensure the high quality of CSWEP’s sessions at MIT, it would have ended badly! the ASSAs! Shahina Amin, University of Northern Iowa To conclude, I have maybe a bit of an unfair question, but what’s Jonathan Guryan, Northwestern University next for you? I suspect it is not taking time off. Petra Moser, New York University Jesse Rothstein, University of California, Berkeley As you know, I came back from DOJ with this incredible Antoinette Schoar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology amount of energy and passion for anti-trust and a belief that Petra Todd, University of Pennsylvania the academic IO profession has not provided the kind of re- Lise Vesterlund, University of Pittsburgh search that antitrust enforcers need to be more effective. I’m active in discussions of antitrust enforcement and in the pol- Thank you to CeMENT Mentors icy debate, which is huge these days. While I was department CSWEP says thank you to the following individuals who served as men- head, I wrote my first law review article with a very generous tors during the 2021 CeMENT Mentoring Workshops, which followed collaborator, who held my hand through that process, espe- the 2021 AEA/ASSA annual meetings. We thank you for your generous gift of time and expertise to all of our 2021 mentees. cially footnoting, because law review articles are very differ- Mentors for the CeMENT Workshop for Doctoral Program Faculty ent from economics articles. Part of my objective is to trans- Anat Admati, Stanford University late what we’ve learned in economics into terms that lawyers and particularly judges and their clerks might understand, to Laura Alfaro, Harvard University try to advance the frontier of how we are enforcing antitrust. Lori Beaman, Northwestern University I’ve written a second law review piece, and expect I will Marika Cabral, University of Texas at Austin continue to write for those audiences. Now that I’ve stepped Elizabeth Cascio, Dartmouth College down as department head, I’m plotting what type of empiri- Anusha Chari, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill cal research I want to do to complement those objectives. My Leemore Dafny, Harvard University goal is to try to make a real difference in how effective we are Pascaline Dupas, Stanford University in combating anticompetitive behaviors, changing enforce- Ying Fan, University of Michigan ment norms, and helping to restore a more competitive econ- April Franco, University of Toronto-Scarborough omy going forward, which is super exciting. Antitrust is an Marina Halac, Yale University area I’ve taught for a long time, but I hadn’t done much re- Sarah Jacobson, Williams College search in it. It kind of blows my mind that I can at this point Katrina Jessoe, University of California, Davis in my career launch a completely new research agenda! Ginger Jin, University of Maryland, College Park It sounds like shaking things up was extremely productive. I think Ivana Komunjer, Georgetown University it is again going back to your long-term vision of an academic ca- Michelle Lowry, Drexel University reer, a marathon mentality. Rosa Matzkin, University of California, Los Angeles Muriel Niederle, Stanford University I am excited beyond belief. Working at DOJ was an incredible Emily Owens, University of California, Irvine experience—I think I extended my term three times, with the Sara Reber, University of California, Los Angeles support of my colleagues, department heads, Dean, and Pro- Kareen Rozen, Brown University vost. But it certainly has gone well beyond anything I would have imagined in terms of returning me to academics with Ina Simonovska, University of California, Davis the passion and energy to take up a new research agenda. Lise Vesterlund, University of Pittsburgh Alessandra Voena, Stanford University Thank you, Nancy. It is wonderful to hear about your experience Mentors for the CeMENT Workshop for Non-Doctoral Program Faculty and your career path. All of your advisees have benefited from Amy Damon, Macalester College much of your wisdom and clarity, and I hope with this interview Teresa Harrison, Drexel University we can share some of it with the economics community. Pinar Keskin, Wellesley College Katherine Kiel, College of the Holy Cross Jennifer Mellor, College of William and Mary Lucie Schmidt, Williams College Gina Shamshak, Goucher College Katherine Smith, United States Naval Academy Sara Solnick, University of Vermont Leslie Stratton, Virginia Commonwealth University Kirsten Wandschneider, Occidental College Marketa Wolfe, Skidmore College 10 CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession

December 16, 2020 Judith A. Chevalier, Chair graduate student participants and 48 Section II reports on the adminis- volunteer mentors. In response to the tration of CSWEP. Section III describes I. Introduction pandemic, this event was held virtually. CSWEP activities. Associate Chair Mar- The Committee on the Status of Women We also launched three different webi- garet Levenstein of the University of in the Economics Profession (CSWEP) nar series, hosting a total of nine webi- Michigan directed the 2020 CSWEP has served women economists by pro- nars as of December 9, with over 2000 Annual Survey, analyzed the results and moting their careers and monitoring attendees in total. wrote the report on the status of wom- their progress through the profession CSWEP provides professional op- en in the economics profession in Sec- since its founding as a standing com- portunities to junior women through tion IV. Section V concludes with well- mittee of the American Economic As- competitive entry paper sessions at both deserved acknowledgements of many sociation in 1971. Our regular activities the Annual AEA/ASSA Meetings and who have contributed to CSWEP’s mis- are myriad: In 1972, CSWEP fielded at regional economic association meet- sion. Appendix B lists the 2020 Board the first survey of economics depart- ings. CSWEP also endeavors to raise members. ments regarding the gender composi- awareness among men and women of tion of faculty and, since 1993, has sur- the challenges that are unique to wom- veyed some 250 departments annually en’s careers in economics and of best II. CSWEP with findings reported in the American practices for increasing diversity in the Economic Association: Papers & Proceed- economics profession. To recognize and Administration ings and reprinted in the CSWEP Annu- celebrate the accomplishments of wom- al Report. CSWEP organizes mentoring en, CSWEP awards the Carolyn Shaw A. CSWEP Office programs that serve several hundred Bell Award annually (for furthering the economists annually. These include the status of women in the economics pro- Judy Chevalier of Yale University is in CeMENT Mentoring Workshops for ju- fession) and the Elaine Bennett Prize bi- her second year as CSWEP chair. In nior women which have been shown in ennially (for fundamental contributions September 2018, CSWEP began a new randomized control trial studies to im- to economics by a woman within seven model of administration. CSWEP coor- prove outcomes. CSWEP offers one Ce- years of the Ph.D., adjusted for leaves). dinates with the AEA’s Nashville office MENT program designed for faculty in CSWEP disseminates information on to house CSWEP’s Committee Coor- Ph.D.-granting institutions or research- women in economics, professional op- dinator, rather than at the home insti- oriented nonacademic positions and an- portunities, and career development tution of the chair as had been done other for faculty in non Ph.D.-granting through both the CSWEP website and previously. This improves communi- institutions. At the annual AEA/ASSA the CSWEP News (which successful- cation between CSWEP and the AEA Meetings, we typically also host three ly moved from 3 annual issues to 4 in administration will ease future lead- Mentoring Breakfasts as well as a vari- 2020). The CSWEP News articles pro- ership transitions. In the summer of ety of career development roundtables vide valuable career development advice 2019, the Committee Coordinator for and panels. We also typically host ca- for both men and women and subscrip- CSWEP undertook a similar role assist- reer development panels and mentor- tions have grown to over 3300 subscrib- ing CSMGEP. The Committee Coordi- ing events at the meetings of each of the ers. Our website provides and tracks re- nator’s time is divided between CSWEP four regional economics associations. sources for women economists and for duties, CSMGEP duties, and occasional In 2020, CSWEP launched two new economists who seek to create a more tasks as needed for the Association. Re- mentoring initiatives. First, CSWEP inclusive profession. bekah Loftis assumed this role in De- launched its first mentoring program The centerpiece of this Annual Re- cember 2019. Each year, we have made for women and nonbinary graduate stu- port of CSWEP’s activities is the sum- some system improvements. For exam- dents. The event, organized by Jennifer mary of the 2020 Annual Survey in Sec- ple, this year, the Coordinator worked Doleac and Maya Rossin-Slater, was at- tion IV. The CSWEP data are available to with the Pittsburgh office to design a tended by 120 women and nonbinary individual researchers via ICPSR. submission portal for our CeMENT

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 11 The 2020 Report mentoring programs; submissions to We have also made a substantial committee. Our Board continues to CeMENT took place via this central por- effort to improve the professional de- stand ready to assist the Executive Com- tal for both our doctoral and nondoctor- velopment resources available on our mittee and Officers in diversity and in- al programs this year. website. For example, we keep a list of clusion efforts that the AEA may launch. A central goal of the staffing reorga- conferences, workshops, and events nization was to facilitate smoother and focused on mentoring or profession- B. Mentoring Programs more efficient chair transitions. We al development. We have resources for The effective mentoring of women econ- look forward to a smooth chair transi- job-seekers, resources for chairs look- omists is central to CSWEP’s mission. tion next year when Judy Chevalier’s ing to hire diverse talent, etc. This or- Clearly, our CeMENT Mentoring Work- term ends. Similarly, a central goal of ganization of resources can be found shops are a crucial part of this endeav- establishing the submission portal for at https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/ or. The CSWEP Mentoring breakfasts CeMENT was to facilitate smoother committees/cswep/programs/resourc- at the AEA/ASSA meetings, mentoring and more efficient transitions of the Ce- es. Our website also archives recordings events at the four regional economic as- MENT program directors. of our webinar series. sociation meetings, and our new grad- Our Twitter account, @AEACSWEP, uate student mentoring workshop, are B. CSWEP Communications was launched in 2017 and we have been all important components of our men- The success of CSWEP programs in tweeting prize announcements, calls toring work. CSWEP also participates advancing the status of women in eco- for papers, and information about our in coordinating the AEA Summer Fel- nomics depends upon our ability to board members since that time. Our lows Program, which provides mentor- communicate broadly and effectively Twitter account has been instrumental ing and research support for Ph.D. stu- to members of the profession both in- in building awareness of our new we- dents and junior faculty. side and outside of academia. Our main binar series and advertising our men- communications tools are our subscrib- toring opportunities. We also use our 1. CeMENT Mentoring Workshop er email list, our twitter account, our Twitter account to flag non-CSWEP for Faculty in Doctoral Programs website, and our newsletters. professional development resources of and CeMENT Mentoring Workshop Our subscriber list remains our pri- interest to our followers and point our for Faculty in NonDoctoral mary form of communication. In or- followers to the larger set of resources Programs. der to receive communications from available on our webpage. Our Twitter Our CeMENT Mentoring workshops CSWEP, members of the profession followers have grown from just over are the cornerstone of CSWEP’s men- must send an email to info@cswep. 3000 followers one year ago to 5485 as toring efforts. This workshop has been org. We currently have over 3300 sub- of this writing. It is now commonplace, demonstrated to be effective in helping scribers which represents more than when we announce one of our webinars junior scholars earn tenure in a ran- ten percent subscriber growth over the on Twitter, to have hundreds of people domized controlled trial study.1 last year. A subset of our subscribers register for the webinar before we have Responding to the enormous de- are CSWEP Liaisons. The CSWEP Liai- sent out an email communication to our mand for our mentoring workshops, son Network (created in 2014) recruits subscribers. CSWEP increased the number of men- an individual at each institution who is tees accommodated in both our work- willing to insure that their department shop for Faculty in Doctoral Programs completes our annual survey and who II. CSWEP Activities as well as our workshop for Faculty in is willing to distribute CSWEP newslet- Nondoctoral Programs. In early 2020, ters, announcements, and professional in 2020 we also received permission from the development opportunities to potential- Executive Committee to increase the ly interested individuals. Our goal had A. CSWEP and AEA Initiatives frequency of our workshop devoted to been to recruit a tenured faculty liaison faculty in nondoctoral programs from in every department of economics in- on Equity, Diversity and every other year to every year. Both pro- cluding, where appropriate, economics Professional Climate grams were held in 2020 and are sched- groups in business, public policy and The CSWEP Board continues to sup- uled to be held immediately following environmental schools. In 2019, we be- port AEA efforts on Equity, Diversity, the AEA meetings in January 2021. gan an effort to establish a CSWEP li- and Professional Climate. Board mem- aison in every branch of government 1 See Donna K. Ginther, Janet M. Currie, Francine D. Blau, ber Petra Moser from New York Uni- and Rachel T.A. Croson. “Can mentoring help female assis- that employs Ph.D. economists as well versity serves on the committee to de- tant professors? Evaluation by randomized trial” working as to establish a liaison within each of paper (2019) and Francine D.Blau, Janet M. Currie, Rachel TA sign and award the new departmental Croson, and Donna K. Ginther. “Can mentoring help female the major foundations that conduct eco- diversity awards. CSWEP Chair Cheva- assistant professors? Interim results from a randomized tri- nomic research. lier also serves on the AEA’s outreach al.” American Economic Review 100, no. 2 (2010): 348-52. 12 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report History of Doctoral CeMENT Applications For the 2021 virtual workshops, Mar- 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 tha Bailey of UCLA will continue in her direction of the program for faculty in a) Total applications (b+e) 201 180 106 122 110 Ph.D.-granting institutions (and for re- b) Applications eligible to randomize (c+d) 158 99 80 80 73 searchers outside academia with similar c) Randomized in* 50 42 43 40 40 research expectations). Jessica Holmes d) Randomized out 108 57 37 40 33 of Middlebury College has assumed e) Deemed ineligible* 43 81 26 42 42 directorship of the program for facul- ty from institutions that do not grant *Note: 49 of the 50 invited attendees attended in 2020; 40 of the 42 invited attended in 2019; 42 of the invited 43 attended Ph.D.s. We received 117 applications for in 2018 the program for faculty in Ph.D.-grant- The 2020 CeMENT Mentoring “extremely helpful”). The average men- ing institutions and 48 applications for Workshop for Faculty in Doctoral Pro- tor rating of the workshop was 6.56. the program for faculty in non Ph.D.- grams was held after the San Diego Among all of the sessions, junior par- granting institutions. ASSA meetings on January 5th – 7th, ticipants rated the “Getting Published” 2020. The program was organized and and “Getting Tenure” panels the most 2. Mentoring Breakfasts for Junior directed by Martha Bailey, then of the valuable, with the average rating of 5.98 Economists University of Michigan. The workshop and 5.96 respectively. CSWEP hosted two mentoring break- consisted of large group discussions on The table above shows the recent fasts for junior economists of all gen- career development topics and small history of applications. ders at the 2020 ASSA meetings. These group sessions pairing mentors with The CeMENT workshop for faculty were organized by Sandy Black of Co- four to five junior economists with simi- at institutions that do not offer a Ph.D. lumbia University and our Associate lar research interests. One unique fea- in Economics was held on January 5 and Chair for Mentoring Sebnem Kalemli- ture of the CeMENT workshops is the 6, 2020 in San Diego. Forty-nine junior Ozcan of the University of Maryland. small group sessions. The small group faculty and eleven senior mentors at- Approximately 160 junior economists sessions allowed each junior participant tended the two-day workshop organized participated across the two break- to receive detailed feedback on a work- by Ann Owen of Hamilton College. This fasts. Senior mentors staffed topical ing paper from the other members of was the first time that the workshop for tables (Research/Publishing, Teach- their small group. The basis of small faculty at non-doctoral institutions was ing, Tenure/Promotion, Non-Academ- group discussions were the research held following the national AEA meet- ic Careers/Grant- Writing, Work/Life papers, CVs, and research statements ings in January and a record number of Balance, Job Market and Job Market provided by junior participants. Prepa- faculty attended the program. Special Topics—Dual Career Couples, ration for these sessions is intensive for The Workshop for Faculty at Non- Job Search 4+ Years post Ph.D.) and ju- both the mentors and the mentees. For- doctoral Institutions is designed to as- nior participants rotated between tables ty-nine junior economists participated sist faculty who are at institutions that at 20-minute intervals based on their in the workshop and were matched with place emphasis on both research and own interests. In a post-event survey of nineteen senior mentors.2 undergraduate teaching. Participants participants, the median rating was 87 Based on informal and formal feed- at the 2020 workshop received advice out of 100. back we received, the workshop was a about publishing, teaching, network- 3. Peer Mentoring Breakfast for great success. Based on the exit survey, ing, the tenure process, and achieving the average junior participant rating of a work/life balance. They also worked Mid-Career Economists the workshop was 6.53 (on a scale of 1–7 together in small groups on goal set- CSWEP hosted a mid-career mentoring where 1 is “not at all helpful” and 7 is ting and provided feedback on research breakfast, organized by Petra Moser of papers to other group members. Over- New York University at the 2020 ASSA 2 We are grateful to the faculty mentors for the workshop all, the workshop was rated as extreme- meetings. Approximately 40 mid-career for faculty in doctoral programs: Yana Rodgers (Boston ly helpful, with a mean overall rating women attended the event with senior University), Tavneet Suri (MIT), Kelsey Jack (UCSB), Susan Parker (University of Maryland), Neha Khanna (Binghamton was 6.5/7, with participants comment- mentors. The breakfast kicked off with University SUNY), Paulina Oliva (USC), Angela De Oliveira ing on the helpfulness of the advice they short talks by Rebecca Henderson of (U Mass Amherst), Laura Gee (Tufts University), Anat Harvard University and Leeat Yariv of Admati (Stanford University), Stephanie Curcuru (Federal received and the usefulness of the net- Reserve Board), Stefania Garetto (Boston University), Fiona work that they started at the workshop.3 Princeton University. The remainder of Scott Morton (Yale University), Mo Xiao (University of the breakfast was devoted to informal Arizona), Janet Currie (Princeton University), Marianne Page 3 We are grateful to the mentors who volunteered their time (University of California, Davis), April Franco (University for this workshop: Shahina Amin (University of Northern of Toronto), Aysegul Sahin (University of Texas at Austin), Iowa), Emily Conover (Hamilton College), Jill Caviglia-Harris College), Shaianne Osterreich (Ithaca College), Li Qi (Agnes Anna Aizer (Brown University), Marianne Bitler (University of (Salisbury University), Sharon Harrison (Barnard), Melanie Scott College), Kartini Shastry (Wellesley College), Julie Smith California, Davis). Khamis (Wesleyan University), Mahnaz Mahdavi (Smith (Lafayette College), and Tara Watson (Williams College)

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 13 The 2020 Report discussion at the breakfast tables. Each have a valuable opportunity to present mentoring event for women and non- table consisted of 4-6 mid-career partici- it. The sponsoring institutions are large- binary third- and fourth-year graduate pants and 2 senior mentors who mod- ly government agencies. Many fellows students, “Successfully Navigating Your erated the discussions about promotion have reported this experience as a ca- Ph.D.” Our CSWEP Coordinator adver- to full professor, whether to accept ad- reer-changing event. tised the event, processed the incoming ministrative roles, managing research Dan Newlon directs the summer applications, and supported the virtual time, work/life balance, career transi- fellows program. Our Committee Co- workshop. The event consisted of a one- tions, and negotiating with department ordinator manages incoming applica- day mentoring workshop held on No- and university administrators. tions. One member of our board (Karen vember 20, 2020. The event revealed Pence) is part of the committee to assess the significant interest in programming 4. Launching a Professional applicants.4 This was a difficult year for of this type as there were 255 applicants Development Initiative the program due to hiring freezes by a of whom 120 were admitted and attend- At the 2020 AEA meetings, CSWEP co- number of sponsors due to the pandem- ed the workshop. Fortunately, 48 men- hosted with CSMGEP a panel discus- ic. Nonetheless, 14 fellows were hired in tors volunteered their time to meet with sion entitled “Launching a Professional 2020 (versus 19 in 2019), of whom four the mentees. The mentors consisted Development Initiative.” The discus- were members of minority groups. Al- of early career economists at universi- sion was moderated by Peter Henry of though there was a decline in sponsor- ties, think tanks, and government agen- New York University and the panelists ship participation (hopefully temporary cies. Modelled in part after CeMENT, were all individuals who started or are and due to the pandemic), there were the workshop featured panels as well running a professional development three sponsors that hired for the first as small-group sessions in which stu- initiative. Peter Henry runs an initia- time. dents received individualized feedback tive for diverse predoctoral fellows. The Unfortunately, this decline in the on their research ideas from mentors other participants were Martha Bailey ability to place fellows occurred in the and peers. (CSWEP CeMENT director), Anna Gifty same year as an unprecedented surge Opeku-Agyeman (cofounder of the Sa- in applications. There were 125 appli- 7. Professional Development die Collective, an organization aimed at cants in 2019 and 230 in 2020. This webinar series black women interested in economics at increase may have been due in part to In response to the pandemic, CSWEP the undergraduate or high school level), the launch of the new application por- launched three different Professional Marie Mora (CSMGEP mentoring pro- tal. During 2019, our Committee Coor- Development webinar series. The first gram), and Maya Rossin-Slater (who or- dinator worked with the AEA Pittsburgh series, consisting of two webinars, fo- ganized a mentoring program for grad- office to redesign the application portal. cused on the impact of COVID on uate student women in economics). The The goal of this portal was to make it economists. One panel consisted of a session focused on advice for individu- feasible to organize packets more quick- conversation between junior faculty als and organizations that are consider- ly and better serve fellowship sponsors. and economist deans and was entitled ing launching such a program. A video However, the portal also likely increased “How Should Universities Respond to of this event and the ensuing discussion the visibility of the program on the in- the Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on is available on CSWEP’s website here. ternet and made application submis- Faculty?” The second panel consisted sion more streamlined. of a conversation amongst government 5. AEA Summer Economics Fellows economists and was entitled, “Manag- Program 6. Workshop for Women and ing the Challenges of COVID-19 for Begun in 2006 with funding from the nonbinary graduate students Government Economists: A panel con- National Science Foundation (NSF) Our CSWEP Southern region represen- versation regarding the challenges that and designed and administered by a tative, Jennifer Doleac of Texas A&M COVID-19 has created for work, pro- joint AEA-CSMGEP-CSWEP commit- University, and Maya Rossin-Slater ductivity, and agency production.” tee, the AEA Summer Economics Fel- of Stanford organized and cohosted a Our second webinar series consist- lows Program aims to enhance the ca- ed of four panels and explored jobs for reers of underrepresented minorities 4 Many thanks to the 2020 committee for screening and matching fellows to sponsors: Daniel Newlon from the AEA economists outside academia and fea- and women during their years as se- (chair), CSWEP Board member Karen Pence of the Board of tured women economists from govern- nior graduate students or junior fac- Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Ivan Vidangos of ment agencies, think tanks, and the pri- ulty members. Fellowships vary from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Lucia Foster of the Center for Economic Studies at the U.S. Bureau vate sector. This series was organized one institution to the next, but general- of the Census, Vicki Bogan of Cornel University, and Cecilia by Stephanie Aaronson of the Brook- ly, senior economists mentor the fellows Conrad of the MacArthur Foundation. More information on ings Institution and was co-sponsored the AEA Fellows Program is available at https://www.aeaweb. for a two-month period, and fellows, in org/about-aea/committees/summer-fellows-program by Brookings. We hosted four differ- turn, work on their own research and ent panels consisting of three to four

14 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report economists per panel. The intended Economics, is the recipient of the 2020 D. CSWEP’s Presence at the audience was graduate students, under- Carolyn Shaw Bell Award. Professor graduates, and career switchers. Rose is an accomplished scholar, an Annual Association Meetings Our third webinar series is ongoing. award-winning teacher, a gifted advisor and Regional Economic This webinar series, “Fireside Chats and mentor and a strong academic lead- Association Meetings with Journal Editors: Demystifying the er. She has also served as the Deputy AEA Journal Process,” is organized by Assistant Attorney General for Econom- 1. The 2020 American Economic Anusha Chari of the University of North ic Analysis, Antitrust Division, United Association Meeting Carolina at Chapel Hill, and consists States Department of Justice. She has In addition to mentoring activi- of monthly half-hour interviews with served as a Vice President of the Amer- ties, presentation of the Annual Re- journal editors. Thus far, we have inter- ican Economic Association, as a mem- port, and the presentation of awards, viewed Esther Duflo of the American ber of the AEA Executive Committee, CSWEP sponsored seven competitive- Economic Review, Amy Finkelstein of and as a CSWEP board member. Pro- entry paper sessions at the AEA/ASSA AER: Insights and Erzo Luttmer of AEJ: fessor Rose is a leader in the field of In- Meetings in San Diego. For the 2020 Economic Policy. dustrial Organization and is known for meetings, Jonathan Guryan of North- While we always advertise that these her studies of the effects of regulation, western University, Claudia Olivetti of webinars will be available on video, live particularly for airlines, motor carriers, Dartmouth College, and Melissa Kear- attendance has been robust and thus and electric utilities. In these many ney of the University of Maryland or- far, our webinars have had more than roles, she has been a fierce advocate for ganized two sessions in the economics 2000 total attendees.5 women in the profession and has ad- of gender, including one on gender in vised dozens of women students. C. Awards the economics profession. Sebnem Ka- 2. Elaine Bennett Research Prize lemli-Ozcan of the University of Mary- land organized two sessions on Finan- 1. Carolyn Shaw Bell Award The Elaine Bennett Research Prize is cial Globalization, Growth and Welfare. Awarded annually since 1998, the Car- awarded every other year to recognize, Sandy Black of Columbia Universi- olyn Shaw Bell Award recognizes an support and encourage outstanding ty and Jennifer Doleac of Texas A&M individual for outstanding work that contributions by young women in the University organized two sessions on has furthered the status of women in economics profession. The first Elaine Crime Research. These committees the economics profession. Dr. Nancy L. Bennett Research Prize was awarded selected seven papers for publication Rose, Charles Kindleberger Professor of in 1998. Stefanie Stantcheva, Profes- in three pseudo-sessions in the AEA: Applied Economics, MIT Department of sor of Economics at Harvard Universi- P&P. To be considered for these ses- ty, is the recipient of the 2020 Elaine sions, papers must have at least one ju- 5 CSWEP would like to thank the following individuals Bennett Research Prize. Established in for serving as a panelist or moderator in one of our webi- nior author and, in non- gender-related nars: Stephanie Aaronson (Brookings Institute), Belinda 1998, the Elaine Bennett Research Prize sessions, at least one author must be a Archibong (Barnard College), Lisa Barrow (Federal Reserve recognizes and honors outstanding re- Bank of Chicago), Vicki Bogan (Cornell University), Marika junior female. search in any field of economics by a Cabral (University of Texas at Austin), Anusha Chari The submissions process for these (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Judy Chevalier woman not more than seven years be- sessions is highly competitive—there (Yale University), Pamela Davis (U.S. International Trade yond her Ph.D. (adjusted for family re- Commission), Jennifer Doleac (Texas A&M University), Esther were 135 abstract submissions for the sponsibilities). Professor Stantcheva is Duflo (Editor, American Economic Review), Anne Catherine 2020 sessions. Women consistently Faye (Analysis Group), Laura Feiveson (Federal Reserve Board recognized for her remarkable contribu- of Governors), Amy Finkelstein (Editor, American Economic report that these sessions, which put tions to our understanding of optimal Review Insights), Jane Fortson (Mathematica), Lucia their research before a wide audience, Foster (U.S. Census Bureau), Dania Francis (University of taxation, the relationship between in- are professionally valuable. Massachusetts Boston), Jevay Grooms (Howard University), novation and taxation, and social pref- Misty Heggeness (U.S. Census Bureau), Erin Hengel (University of Liverpool), Sandile Hlatshwayo (International erences about redistribution. Using a 2. Four 2020 Regional Economic Monetary Fund), Ann Huff Stevens (University of Texas at wide range of methodologies, spanning Austin), Deniz Igan (International Monetary Fund), Felicia Association Meetings Ionescu (Federal Reserve Board of Governors), Diane Lim empirical and theoretical work, Profes- CSWEP maintains a strong presence at (Author of the EconomistMom blog), Trevon Logan (Ohio sor Stantcheva has pushed forward the all four of the Regional Economic As- State University), Erzo Luttmer (Editor, AEJ: Economic frontier of knowledge about the impact Policy), Emily Nix (University of Southern California), Sandra sociation Meetings. At most region- Rivera (U.S. International Trade Commission), Louise and role of taxation, a fundamental al meetings, CSWEP now hosts a net- Sheiner (Brookings Institute), Susan Singer (Consumer question of public economics. Financial Protection Bureau), Jenna Stearns (University of working breakfast or lunch, as well as California-San Diego), Karen Stockley (Congressional Budget paper sessions and career development Office), Laura Tiehen (U.S. Department of Agriculture), panels. The events are well attended by Didem Tuzeman (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City), Valerie Wilson (Economic Policy Institute), and Ellen Zentner people of all genders and provide an (Morgan Stanley).

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 15 The 2020 Report informal opportunity for CSWEP repre- CSWEP events. Two research paper economics meeting. This conversation sentatives and senior women to network sessions focused on the economics of took place at the Eastern Economics As- and mentor one-on-one. We are grateful crime. There were also three profession- sociation meeting in 2019. to the four Board Regional Representa- al development panels co-sponsored tives who organize and host CSWEP’s with CSMGEP and Committee on the 2. Advice for Job Seekers and Early presence at the Regionals. Status of LGBTQ+ Individuals in the Career Folks The only in-person regional meeting Economics Profession (CSQIP). The This Focus Section, co-edited by Sarah of 2020 was the Eastern Economic As- career development panels were: “Meet Jacobson of Williams College contains sociation Meeting in Boston in late Feb- the Editors”, “Meet the Funders”, and career development advice. The con- ruary. Karen Conway of the University “The Non-Rookie Job Market.” The ca- tributors offer counsel on such topics of New Hampshire and CSWEP East- reer development panels will be avail- as discerning from the outside what ern Representative Terry-Ann Craigie able on the CSWEP website. Jennifer the institutional culture is like at a po- of Connecticut College organized 10 Doleac additionally hosted several vir- tential position, assessing whether a paper sessions and a networking break- tual CSWEP social hours that were well- government job opportunity is a “fit”, fast. The research sessions considered attended by faculty, economists in non- planning for the future possibility of a range of topics in health, crime, edu- academic institutions, and graduate changing jobs, and building a research cation, and other subjects. In addition, students. portfolio in different types of job set- one of the sessions featured three pre- tings. This Focus section grew out of a sentations on the use of art in teaching E. CSWEP News: 2020 Focus panel at the Southern Economics Asso- introductory economics. The network- and Features ciation in 2018. ing breakfast included Ph.D. students, Under the able direction of CSWEP 3. Ideas for Mitigating the postdocs, faculty at all stages and econ- News Oversight Editor Kate Silz-Carson Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on omists from non-academic institutions. of the U.S. Air Force Academy and with Economists Both the CSWEP Eastern Representa- the graphic design expertise of Leda This Focus Section grew out of tive and the CSWEP Chair spoke at the Black, CSWEP published four newslet- CSWEP’s Summer 2020 webinars fea- breakfast to introduce CSWEP activi- ter issues in 2020. turing economists grappling with the ties, and substantial time was allotted The first issue of the year contains impact of COVID on their careers. The for informal discussion. the CSWEP annual report and an inter- issue contains advice from a universi- The Midwest Economic Association view with the CSWEP prize winners. ty dean, presents early research on the Meeting was scheduled to be held in The other three issues of the year each impact of the pandemic on women and Evanston Illinois in March 2020 and feature a Focus section of articles with a people of color, and addresses the dispa- Midwest Representative Shahina Amin theme chosen and introduced by a guest rate impact of the pandemic and other of the University of Northern Iowa or- editor who solicits the featured articles. challenges on people of color. We are ganized two career development panels. The quality of these Focus articles is grateful for CSWEP Board Members Pe- Unfortunately, the meetings were can- consistently high, with many proving tra Moser of New York University and celled due to the pandemic. to be enduring career resources for ju- Jonathan Guryan of Northwestern Uni- The Western Economics Associa- nior economists. The CSWEP Board ex- versity in co-editing this issue and for tion Meeting were held virtually. West- tends our thanks to the authors and oth- the authors who contributed to it on a ern Representative Catalina Amuedo- er contributors. Dorantes of the University of California tight turnaround schedule. Merced organized four paper sessions. 1. Surviving and Thriving as an CSWEP wishes to extend our thanks These were consolidated to three five- Academic Economist to all those who took the time to write paper sessions when the conference This Focus section, organized by our contributions to newsletters during converted to a virtual event. Session former CSWEP Board Eastern Repre- 2020. Professional development fea- topics included household impacts of sentative, Karen Conway, is stylized as tures of these and past issues of CSWEP health shocks, topics in education, and a conversation among academics with News are now more easily accessible at examination of public policies impact- tips for surviving and thriving. It is par- CSWEP.org, where one can find them ing immigrants and families. ticularly helpful for new economists as archived by year as well as by target au- Finally, at the Southern Economic the contributors discuss balancing the dience and topic. Association Meeting (November, held demands of teaching, research, and virtually), Jennifer Doleac (Texas A&M service. This Focus Section arose, as University, CSWEP Board Southern many of our Focus sections do, from a Representative) organized numerous CSWEP session organized at a regional

16 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report Table 1. The Pipeline for Departments with Doctoral Programs: Percent and Number of Students and Faculty Who Are Women*

Year 1994–1997 1998–2002 2003–2007 2008–2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Faculty Full Professor Percent 6.8% 6.4% 7.8% 10.6% 10.9% 11.7% 12.1% 12.8% 12.5% 13.9% 14.2% 14.8% Number 93.7 94.9 122.7 167.2 168.2 182.5 190.2 202.0 191.0 219.0 227.0 234.4

Associate Professor

Percent 13.4% 15.6% 20.2% 22.3% 23.0% 23.2% 24.0% 25.3% 23.5% 26.0% 26.2% 27.5% Number 74.5 85.4 113.0 134.3 136.8 149.9 155.9 173.5 157.0 174.0 184.0 191.3

Assistant Professor

Percent 23.6% 24.3% 27.9% 28.4% 27.8% 29.0% 28.2% 27.9% 28.5% 28.6% 30.2% 31.0% Number 136.5 144.3 198.2 223.2 211.2 226.5 231.7 232.0 245.5 236.0 247.0 249.4 All Tenure Track (Subtotal) Percent 12.1% 12.4% 15.3% 17.7% 17.9% 18.7% 19.0% 19.6% 19.4% 20.5% 21.1% 21.9% Number 304.7 324.6 433.9 524.8 516.3 558.8 577.9 607.5 593.5 629.0 658.0 675.1

All Non-Tenure Track

Percent 33.2% 30.9% 33.2% 34.5% 35.2% 37.8% 34.8% 35.1% 34.9% 36.9% 38.0% 39.3% Number 38.7 90.8 150.7 209.4 181.5 223.3 296.7 311.0 324.0 234.0 285.3 260.7 All Faculty Percent 13.0% 14.3% 17.7% 20.5% 20.5% 21.9% 22.4% 23.1% 23.0% 23.3% 24.4% 25.0% Number 343.4 415.5 584.6 734.1 697.8 782.2 874.6 918.5 917.5 863.0 943.3 935.8 Ph.D. Students Ph.D. Granted Percent 24.7% 29.9% 32.1% 33.9% 35.4% 32.7% 34.7% 31.1% 32.8% 32.1% 32.1% 34.7% Number 213.5 264.2 325.2 366.5 391.2 356.7 403.8 372.0 361.0 370.0 345.0 374.9 ABD Percent 27.4% 30.6% 33.9% 33.8% 32.1% 32.2% 31.7% 31.7% 33.0% 32.7% 32.9% 32.6% Number 643.0 845.7 1215.0 1314.7 1225.5 1345.0 1324.5 1428.0 1467.0 1470.0 1454.0 1465.6 First Year Percent 29.9% 33.2% 33.4% 32.9% 32.7% 31.8% 31.5% 33.4% 32.2% 33.1% 34.7% 35.9% Number 443.4 516.0 567.0 555.9 478.0 504.0 498.0 516.0 491.0 475.0 541.0 459.8 Undergraduate Economics Majors Graduated Percent 32.0% 32.2% 31.7% 30.5% 32.1% 33.6% 33.2% 32.9% 34.0% 34.1% 33.4% 34.1% Number 2491 3275 5103 5723 5731 7004 7753 7538 7894 8198 8342 8590 Senior Majors* Percent missing missing missing 30.7% 32.8% 32.7% 34.3% 33.8% 34.2% 36.3% 34.2% 34.3% Number missing missing missing 7589 5762 6682 6842 7148 7424 8413 8347 7434

*Notes: Entry and exit change the population universe. Any known Ph.D. programs are considered members of the population. Any non-respondents were imputed first with UAQ survey responses and, if those are unavailable, with linear interpolation. All programs responded to the 2019 survey. For five year intervals, simple averages are reported.

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 17 The 2020 Report Figure 1. The Pipeline for Departments with Doctoral Programs: Percent of Doctoral Students and Faculty who are Women, 1994–2020

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%                            First Year Students Senior Majors New Ph.D.s Note: T and U indicate tenured and untenured, Assistant Professors (U) Associate Professors (T) Full Professors (T) respectively.

women through the academic ranks. progress in 2020 is that a record twelve IV. Status of Women After a long period of stagnation in the top-twenty departments have first year representation of women in econom- classes that are at least 35% female (Ta- in the Economics ics, the last few years have begun to ble 7). Note that despite this progress, show a promising uptick. The share of there are still more women in non-ten- 6 women in the faculty of Ph.D.-granting ure track positions (261) in Ph.D.-grant- Profession economics departments has increased ing economics departments than either each year since 2017, reaching 25.0%, full (234) or associate (191) professors A. Women’s Status in the its highest level ever, in 2020 (Table 1). (Table 1) and women make up less than Economics Profession: At every level of the professoriate, the a quarter of the incoming class in five Summary female share is higher in 2020 than at of the top twenty departments (Table 7). This report presents the results of the any point in the past. The share of wom- The share of women among under- 2020 CSWEP survey of U.S. econom- en entering Ph.D. programs has also graduate economics majors at these ics departments. It compares the top increased each of the last three years, same schools has increased (from 32.1% ranked economics departments—which reaching 35.9% in 2020. The increases in 1998 to 34.1% in 2020), but is still produce the vast majority of faculty in of the last three years are small, but they well below parity, and does not approach Ph.D. granting departments—to all suggest a hopeful inflection. The female the 55% share of women in the under- 7 Ph.D. and non-Ph.D. granting depart- share of the first year class first reached graduate population. ments. It also examines gender dif- 35% in 2003, peaked at 35.8% in 2008, and then stayed between 30 and 33 per- 7 According to the National Center for Science and ferences in outcomes in the Ph.D. job Engineering Statistics report on Women, Minorities, and market and progress (and attrition) of cent until 2018. There has been no in- Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 55% crease in the share of new Ph.D.s go- of full-time undergraduates are female (National Science ing to women, but the female share of Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering 6 This survey report is written by Margaret Levenstein, Statistics. 2019. Women, Minorities, and Persons with CSWEP Associate Chair and Survey Director. We gratefully assistant professors has also reached Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019. Special Report acknowledge the assistance of Dawn Zinsser in the adminis- a new high of 31.0%. Another sign of NSF 19-304. Alexandria, VA. Available at https://www.nsf. tration and analysis of the survey. gov/statistics/wmpd).

18 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report Table 2a. The Pipeline for Top Departments: Percent and Numbers of Faculty and Students who are Women at All Top 10 Schools

Year 1994–1997 1998–2002 2003–2007 2008–2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Faculty Full Professor Percent 4.7% 7.1% 8.3% 8.9% 9.6% 9.7% 9.6% 9.2% 9.1% 10.7% 12.2% 12.5% Number 10.8 17.8 21.5 25.8 28.0 27.0 27.0 26.0 27.0 33.0 39.0 39.0

Associate Professor

Percent 12.5% 21.1% 16.4% 22.5% 23.3% 21.9% 25.0% 28.9% 30.8% 26.3% 21.2% 22.2% Number 4.5 6.1 4.8 7.7 7.0 7.0 8.0 13.0 12.0 10.0 7.0 8.0

Assistant Professor

Percent 20.4% 18.0% 22.7% 23.1% 17.0% 20.0% 21.6% 18.0% 20.2% 17.9% 19.8% 22.4% Number 20.8 19.0 23.7 23.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 18.0 22.0 17.0 19.0 22.0

All Tenure Track (Subtotal)

Percent 9.9% 11.1% 12.7% 13.3% 12.2% 13.0% 13.6% 13.3% 13.7% 13.6% 14.5% 15.5% Number 36.0 42.9 50.0 56.5 50.0 52.0 56.0 57.0 61.0 60.0 65.0 69.0

All Non-Tenure Track

Percent 34.7% 31.4% 40.0% 35.9% 35.2% 33.9% 44.3% 39.3% 33.3% 34.4% 35.7% 34.2% Number 5.3 7.6 15.2 20.0 19.0 20.0 43.0 35.0 29.0 22.0 30.3 25.0 All Faculty Percent 10.8% 12.3% 15.1% 15.8% 14.8% 15.7% 19.5% 17.8% 16.9% 16.2% 17.9% 18.1% Number 41.3 50.5 65.2 76.5 69.0 72.0 99.0 92.0 90.0 82.0 95.3 94.0 Ph.D. Students Ph.D. Granted Percent 24.6% 24.8% 28.6% 26.7% 31.3% 25.9% 25.9% 26.4% 28.4% 23.6% 29.9% 23.6% Number 51.3 51.0 57.0 54.0 67.0 51.0 52.0 58.0 57.0 49.0 64.0 49.0 ABD Percent 22.9% 24.4% 28.0% 26.1% 30.4% 25.4% 25.1% 25.4% 24.6% 26.9% 25.2% 24.7% Number 134.8 184.0 240.2 218.8 255.0 217.0 225.0 247.0 221.0 264.0 234.0 233.0 First Year Percent 24.5% 28.1% 26.3% 24.4% 27.9% 24.0% 23.9% 29.8% 25.8% 26.1% 32.1% 32.6% Number 69.3 72.5 66.8 61.0 65.0 62.0 52.0 68.0 66.0 59.0 71.0 71.0 Undergraduate Economics Majors Percent 31.1% 34.1% 35.7% 35.5% 39.6% 37.2% 36.9% 36.0% 39.6% 36.3% 36.8% 35.8% Number 372 668 777 744 866 849 895 907 990 866 981 979 Senior Majors Percent missing missing missing 38.7% 38.0% 38.6% 37.3% 36.6% 38.3% 38.6% 36.2% 36.2% Number missing missing missing 967 994 1003 898 924 984 947 993 996

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 19 The 2020 Report Table 2b. The Pipeline for Top Departments: Percent and Numbers of Faculty and Students who are Women at All Top 20 Schools

Year 1994–1997 1998–2002 2003–2007 2008–2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Faculty Full Professor Percent 4.3% 6.4% 7.7% 8.8% 9.6% 10.0% 10.1% 11.3% 10.2% 11.6% 12.7% 13.1% Number 17.3 29.5 36.5 42.8 49.0 49.0 50.0 58.0 53.0 62.0 69.0 72.0

Associate Professor

Percent 11.9% 17.1% 16.3% 22.5% 19.1% 20.4% 19.6% 20.2% 20.6% 20.6% 16.8% 16.4% Number 9.8 11.6 10.1 19.9 17.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 15.0

Assistant Professor

Percent 18.0% 18.2% 24.5% 22.9% 18.7% 21.3% 21.5% 21.2% 20.7% 21.5% 22.3% 25.0% Number 31.8 35.3 50.6 49.4 37.0 43.0 44.0 44.0 43.0 45.0 43.0 50.0

All Tenure Track (Subtotal)

Percent 9.0% 10.6% 13.1% 14.1% 12.9% 14.1% 14.2% 14.9% 14.0% 15.1% 15.4% 16.3% Number 58.8 76.4 97.2 112.1 103.0 111.0 113.0 124.0 116.0 127.0 128.0 137.0

All Non-Tenure Track

Percent 37.3% 32.3% 41.5% 34.3% 38.9% 39.6% 42.8% 39.3% 38.2% 32.2% 39.0% 40.4% Number 11.5 16.7 30.2 46.5 44.0 57.0 83.0 70.0 72.0 48.0 75.3 70.5 All Faculty Percent 10.2% 12.0% 15.6% 17.0% 16.1% 18.1% 19.8% 19.2% 18.5% 17.7% 19.8% 20.4% Number 70.3 93.1 127.4 158.6 147.0 168.0 196.0 194.0 188.0 175.0 203.3 207.5 Ph.D. Students Ph.D. Granted Percent 25.0% 24.9% 29.5% 28.2% 33.2% 29.3% 28.4% 26.2% 26.9% 25.3% 32.0% 27.7% Number 84.3 84.1 102.1 100.6 124.0 102.0 110.0 112.0 98.0 98.0 123.0 103.0 ABD Percent 23.4% 26.2% 29.9% 28.2% 30.3% 26.5% 25.7% 26.7% 27.0% 27.3% 25.9% 26.9% Number 218.9 297.4 407.1 401.5 444.0 427.0 390.0 451.0 444.0 447.0 396.0 439.0 First Year Percent 25.8% 29.3% 28.4% 27.6% 28.4% 27.4% 24.9% 29.5% 26.0% 29.9% 32.5% 34.4% Number 124.1 142.5 135.4 129.2 121.0 123.0 112.0 130.0 116.0 126.0 167.0 128.0 Undergraduate Economics Majors Percent 32.2% 33.9% 35.5% 35.5% 39.3% 37.4% 37.2% 37.3% 38.8% 37.0% 36.8% 37.2% Number 866 1362 1906 1943 2241 2290 2494 2502 2512 2431 2340 2416 Senior Majors Percent missing missing missing 36.1% 39.1% 37.8% 37.8% 37.5% 37.4% 39.7% 39.0% 39.4% Number missing missing missing 2326 2627 2676 2243 2226 2252 2702 2589 2527

For each category, the table gives women as a percentage of total. For the five-year intervals, simple averages of annual percentages are reported.

20 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report Figure 2. The Pipeline for Departments without Doctoral Programs: Percent of Students and Faculty who are Women, 2006–2020

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Senior Majors Associate Professors (T) Note: T and U indicate tenured and untenured, respectively. Assistant Professors (U) Full Professors (T)

In 1971 the AEA established CSWEP progressed through the leaky academ- remarkable achievement while most as a standing committee to monitor the ic pipeline, the share of women enter- were operating remotely due to the CO- status and promote the advancement of ing economics Ph.D. programs peaked VID-19 pandemic and a sign of the im- women in the economics profession. In at 35.8% in 2008 and has not reached portance that many in the economics 1972 CSWEP undertook a broad survey that level since (Table 1). The share of profession attach to the status of wom- of economics departments and found women receiving economics Ph.D.s and en in our profession.8 The non-doctoral that women represented 7.6% of new becoming assistant professors reached sample is based on the listing of “Bac- Ph.D.s, and 8.8% of assistant, 3.7% of 29% in 2005 and did not exceed that calaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts” from associate, and 2.4% of full professors. until 2019. Similarly the share of new the Carnegie Classification of Institu- In the two decades after CSWEP’s first economics Ph.D.s going to women has tions of Higher Learning (2000 Edi- survey, there was significant improve- been essentially flat since 2006. Hope- tion). Starting in 2006 the survey was ment in women’s representation in eco- fully, the small but positive changes in augmented to include departments in re- nomics. By 1994, women made up al- the last two to three years are the be- search universities that offer a Master’s most a third of new Ph.D. students and ginning of a new period of sustained degree but not a Ph.D. degree program almost a quarter of assistant professors improvements in the representation of in economics. We have harmonized in economics departments with doctor- women in the economics profession. and documented the departmental-level al programs. The share of associate and full professors who were women had al- B. The CSWEP Annual 8 We handle missing data as follows. We impute responses most tripled. for missing items or non-responding departments. In years Surveys, 1972–2020 when non-responders to the CSWEP survey did respond to Progress at increasing the represen- In fall 2020 CSWEP surveyed 126 doc- the AEA’s Universal Academic Questionnaire (UAQ), we use tation of women continued through toral departments and 111 non-doctor- UAQ data to impute missing responses. When the depart- the early 2000s and then essentially ment responded to neither CSWEP nor UAQ, we use linear al departments. This report analyzes interpolation from survey responses in other years. Table 8 stopped. While the shares of women in the responses provided by 125 doctoral and appendix figures provide more detail on response rates the more senior ranks of the professo- and the impact of imputation on reported results. We are and 100 non-doctoral departments—a very grateful to Charles C. Scott and the American Economic riate continued to increase as women Association for sharing the UAQ data with us.

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 21 The 2020 Report Table 3. Percent Women Faculty and Students: Economics Departments without Doctoral Programs

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Faculty Full Professor Percent 19.7% 21.1% 20.3% 21.9% 24.6% 24.6% 23.7% 23.3% 23.3% 23.8% 23.6% 24.7% 26.7% 28.8% 27.9% Number 80.4 89.8 92.8 107.2 117.4 119.8 113.6 107.3 108.0 111.0 107.0 115.5 121.5 132.5 128.0 Associate Professor Percent 37.2% 35.9% 34.4% 32.6% 32.4% 32.9% 33.9% 35.6% 35.0% 36.1% 37.5% 38.8% 42.2% 41.9% 38.9% Number 92.9 93.3 92.9 89.9 94.2 94.8 93.4 93.2 95.2 96.8 97.1 104.8 114.5 119.5 108.2 Assistant Professor Percent 38.0% 39.2% 39.4% 42.2% 40.2% 40.3% 40.2% 40.4% 41.8% 41.4% 40.5% 42.4% 40.9% 40.2% 41.9% Number 91.7 100.3 106.2 114.5 118.9 123.0 122.4 113.6 119.3 127.2 127.1 133.5 131.2 139.8 152.7 All Tenure Track (Subtotal) Percent 29.4% 30.1% 29.3% 30.1% 31.1% 31.3% 31.1% 31.3% 31.6% 32.2% 32.3% 33.6% 35.0% 35.8% 35.3% Number 265.0 283.3 291.9 311.6 330.5 337.5 329.4 314.0 322.5 335.0 331.2 353.8 367.2 391.8 388.8 All Non-Tenure Track Percent 34.7% 35.3% 37.1% 29.5% 37.7% 35.4% 32.9% 36.0% 35.6% 36.6% 35.3% 33.3% 27.5% 34.7% 28.5% Number 82.6 87.3 98.0 83.2 94.3 90.4 98.9 64.3 84.0 132.0 114.0 93.0 46.7 83.3 58.2 All Faculty Percent 30.5% 31.2% 30.9% 29.9% 32.3% 32.1% 31.5% 32.0% 32.3% 33.3% 33.0% 33.5% 34.0% 35.6% 34.2% Number 347.7 370.6 389.9 394.8 424.8 427.9 428.3 378.3 406.5 467.0 445.2 446.8 413.8 475.2 447.0 Students Undergraduate Economics Majors Graduated Percent 34.0% 33.1% 33.3% 34.7% 35.3% 34.3% 33.9% 34.7% 34.1% 33.9% 35.6% 35.9% 35.3% 35.6% 38.9% Number 1406.8 1449.7 1580.2 1678.4 1754.8 1713.1 1581.1 1441.0 1826.6 2093.8 2255.1 2133.3 2230.5 2191.5 2797.5 Undergraduate Senior Majors Percent 35.0% 37.9% 36.5% 35.9% 36.0% 35.4% 34.1% 35.6% 33.8% 35.4% 35.5% 35.9% 35.9% 35.9% 38.6% Number 1549.3 1805.4 1784.3 1917.6 1935.2 1871.8 1793.5 1697.6 1826.8 2340.2 2301.9 2310.7 2383.8 2298.7 2854.2 M.A. Students Graduated Percent 33.2% 43.1% 33.3% 38.4% 35.4% 39.7% 39.2% 32.2% 39.9% 40.1% 39.9% 38.8% 38.2% 36.8% 39.8% Number 17.7 61.5 77.7 89.3 81.8 66.9 56.3 34.0 59.0 55.0 43.5 40.0 20.0 63.5 39.3 M.A. Students Expected to Graduate Percent missing missing missing missing missing missing missing 42.2% 37.4% 34.2% 42.3% 35.5% 35.2% 32.8% 34.9% Number missing missing missing missing missing missing missing 43.0 61.8 49.3 43.3 60.0 34.0 64.0 25.0 N Departments 106.0 106.0 107.0 107.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0

Notes: For each category, the table gives women as a percentage of women plus men. For the five-year intervals, simple averages of annual percentages are reported. data from the 1990s to the current pe- departments who are women reached over a quarter of all female faculty in riod to improve our analysis of long-run an all-time high at 21.7% (Table 1, Fig- Ph.D.-granting departments are in non- trends in the profession. Department- ure 1). The shares of women at each lev- tenure track positions. level longitudinal reports are provided el of the professoriate—assistant, asso- Turning to the 21 economics depart- to all responding departments; these re- ciate, and full—reached all-time highs. ments that make up the “top twenty,” ports are shared with department chairs Perhaps most importantly, after having and produce the vast majority of fac- and CSWEP liaisons on an annual ba- been flat since 2005, the share of assis- ulty who teach in Ph.D.-granting de- sis. Previous years of the survey are ac- tant professors in Ph.D.-granting de- partments, we see a consistent story. cessible as ICPSR study 37118 at https:// partments increased in each of the last There are three more female profes- doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37118.v4.9 three years. Progress in doctoral stu- sors in 2020 than there were in 2019, dents is not as striking: while the share and the number and share of women at C. 2020 Survey Results of some in the first year class increased the full level has increased for the last In 2020 the share of tenure-track fac- in each of the last three years, it is still three years (Table 2b). The number and ulty in Ph.D.-granting economics below the share reached in 2008. Wom- share of associate professors actually en make up less than a quarter of all fac- fell last year, and the year before that. 9 Aggregate time series data are publicly available. Department-level panel data are available with a restricted ulty in Ph.D.-granting departments, and This negative trend at the associate level data use agreement. The data are updated annually.

22 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report Table 4. Percent Women in Job Placements of New Ph.D.s from the Top Economics Departments All Top 10 Schools All Top 20 Schools 1994– 1998– 2003– 2008– 2013– 1994– 1998– 2003– 2008– 2013– 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017

U.S.-based, All Types Percent 24.9% 29.7% 30.1% 26.2% 27.7% 20.7% 37.7% 25.9% 26.7% 29.1% 31.6% 29.3% 28.3% 23.8% 35.6% 28.8% Number 35.8 39.1 45.3 35.6 38.2 31.0 52.0 42.0 58.9 59.9 80.0 66.1 71.0 64.0 88.0 78.0 Faculty, Ph.D. Granting Department Percent 22.1% 25.9% 29.8% 24.5% 28.0% 17.6% 42.6% 23.0% 24.0% 26.3% 30.9% 27.8% 27.3% 20.2% 40.9% 24.4% Number 16.0 18.9 26.8 17.8 19.4 13.0 29.0 14.0 27.0 29.5 44.4 33.2 29.4 22.0 38.0 22.0 Faculty, Non-Ph.D. Granting Department Percent 42.1% 50.1% 26.5% 35.1% 34.4% 14.3% 0.0% 20.0% 41.8% 50.2% 30.8% 41.2% 33.0% 14.3% 28.6% 10.0% Number 6.8 5.3 2.4 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 8.8 7.3 6.6 6.9 6.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 Non Faculty, Any Academic Department Percent missing missing missing missing 35.4% 26.7% 28.6% 33.3% missing missing missing missing 28.9% 28.6% 19.2% 34.8% Number missing missing missing missing 3.4 4.0 2.0 5.0 missing missing missing missing 6.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 Public Sector Percent 24.1% 30.3% 31.4% 29.9% 27.2% 10.0% 36.4% 32.3% 28.3% 28.8% 33.6% 28.9% 26.4% 23.1% 37.5% 32.7% Number 6.5 8.5 7.3 6.9 4.6 1.0 8.0 10.0 12.3 12.9 14.2 11.5 9.8 9.0 15.0 16.0 Private Sector Percent 22.4% 30.8% 28.6% 24.1% 25.7% 27.3% 34.2% 24.0% 25.2% 28.9% 31.7% 28.5% 29.7% 27.9% 35.1% 31.3% Number 6.5 6.4 8.8 8.4 8.8 12.0 13.0 12.0 10.9 10.2 14.8 14.5 19.8 24.0 26.0 31.0 Foreign-based, All Types Percent 17.8% 14.5% 23.1% 22.9% 20.2% 27.7% 24.2% 25.9% 17.8% 19.6% 22.7% 24.4% 24.8% 26.7% 28.8% 25.4% Number 5.8 4.3 9.1 12.3 8.4 13.0 15.0 15.0 10.8 11.2 18.4 26.8 22.0 28.0 34.0 29.0 Academic Percent 24.5% 13.4% 25.3% 23.0% 23.1% 27.3% 25.0% 28.3% 19.8% 19.9% 25.2% 22.3% 26.5% 26.7% 32.2% 27.3% Number 5.3 3.0 7.1 9.3 6.8 9.0 11.0 15.0 8.5 8.2 13.6 17.7 16.8 20.0 28.0 27.0 Nonacademic Percent 6.1% 17.7% 18.1% 22.6% 11.6% 28.6% 22.2% 0.0% 13.2% 17.7% 17.6% 29.6% 20.6% 26.7% 19.4% 13.3% Number 0.5 1.3 2.0 3.1 1.6 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.3 3.0 4.8 9.1 5.2 8.0 6.0 2.0 Unknown Placement Percent missing missing missing missing missing 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% missing missing missing missing missing 33.3% 33.3% 50.0% Number missing missing missing missing missing 2.0 1.0 1.0 missing missing missing missing missing 2.0 1.0 1.0 No Placement Percent 19.6% 31.7% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.5% 34.7% 23.4% 18.1% 25.7% 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% Number 6.5 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 4.0 3.5 1.2 0.8 2.0 2.0 1.0 Total on the Market Percent 23.3% 27.1% 28.0% 24.8% 25.9% 23.4% 33.3% 26.0% 24.1% 27.2% 29.4% 27.5% 27.4% 25.0% 33.4% 27.7% Number 48.0 45.9 55.0 47.9 46.8 47.0 68.0 58.0 78.6 75.1 101.9 94.1 93.8 96.0 125.0 109.0

Notes: For five year intervals, simple averages are reported. may reflect promotion or attrition of in- 2020, the number of female assistant Turning to an examination of non- dividuals, but taking the longer view, professors in this group reached 50 for doctoral departments, Figure 2 and Ta- it is clearly the result of the stagnation the first time since 2008. Women still ble 3 show a similar pattern to that ob- in the number of female assistant pro- make up a smaller share of assistant served in Ph.D.-granting departments.10 fessors in this group of departments. It professors than they did in 2006. One The share of faculty who are women is had reached 27% in 2008, when there sign of progress is that both the top 10 higher than in Ph.D.-granting depart- were a total of 63 female assistant pro- and the top 20 increased both the share ments, at every level of the professoriate, fessors in “top 20” departments. In the and the number of women in the enter- decade between 2010 and 2019, there ing Ph.D. class. Women make up 32.6% 10 We report data on non-Ph.D. departments beginning in were on average 43.5 female assistant of new students in top ten departments, 2006. The sample changed considerably in that year, expand- ing to include departments in universities that give masters. professors in these departments. In the highest fraction ever. Figure 2 and Table 3 use a consistent panel of departments over time.

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 23 The 2020 Report Figure 3. Lock-Step Model: Percentage of women, by entering Ph.D. cohorts—Matriculation, graduation and entry into first-year assistant professorship

38%

36%

34%

32%

30%

28%

26%

24%                            Matriculating Cohort Year When Continuing Survivors Became Last- When they matriculated in t When Cohort Survivors Graduated with Ph.D.s in t+5 Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors in t+5+7

Figure 4. Lock-Step Model: Percentage of women, by receiving-Ph.D. cohort—Graduation, last year-in-rank assistant professorship, and last year-in-rank associate professors 40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%                                                Graduating Cohort Year When Cohort Survivors Became Last- When Continuing Survivors Became When They Received Their Degrees in t Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors Last-Year-in-Rank Associate Professors in in t+7 t+7+7

24 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report Table 5. Percent Women in Job Placements of New Ph.D.s from but there has been remarkably little All Other Economics Departments change in this century. In general, the share female falls as the research inten- All Other Schools sity of the department increases (e.g., 1994–1997 1998–2002 2003–2007 2008–2012 2013–2017 2018 2019 2020 from top 20 to top ten). The one ex- U.S.-based, All Types ception is among undergraduates. In Percent 29.4% 33.3% 35.6% 38.7% 37.6% 36.9% 34.6% 36.3% the top ten departments, women made Number 90.7 119.4 169.3 209.7 170.9 174.0 159.0 140.3 up 35.8% of econ major undergrads; Faculty, Ph.D. Granting Department 37.2% of majors in the top 20; 34.1% Percent 31.3% 30.5% 31.8% 36.8% 33.3% 39.0% 36.9% 36.0% in all Ph.D. granting departments; and Number 27.9 32.7 50.9 65.7 36.5 30.0 31.0 25.1 38.9% in non-doctoral departments (Ta- Faculty, Non-Ph.D. Granting Department bles 1, 2, and 3). Both doctoral and non- Percent 31.3% 30.5% 31.8% 36.8% 33.3% 39.0% 36.9% 36.0% doctoral programs rely on women to Number 27.9 32.7 50.9 65.7 36.5 30.0 31.0 25.1 teach, with women making up 39.3% Non Faculty, Any Academic Department of all non-tenure track faculty in the for- missing missing missing missing 30.8% 41.4% 33.8% 30.9% Percent mer and 28.5% in the latter. missing missing missing missing 15.4 29.0 22.0 17.0 Number At every level of the academic hier- Public Sector archy, from entering Ph.D. student to Percent 30.9% 35.6% 36.4% 36.9% 35.5% 28.0% 31.1% 31.9% full professor, women have been and re- Number 18.9 26.8 28.6 37.1 22.5 14.0 19.0 23.0 main a minority. Moreover, within the Private Sector Percent 24.9% 32.7% 33.6% 44.0% 45.3% 37.8% 34.1% 39.3% tenure track, from new Ph.D. to full Number 14.4 26.8 32.4 44.6 47.7 51.0 46.0 46.1 professor, the higher the rank, the lower Foreign-based, All Types the representation of women (Figure 1). Percent 17.8% 27.2% 26.3% 30.3% 31.9% 29.6% 24.1% 35.8% In 2020 new doctorates were 34.7% fe- Number 23.8 29.9 42.3 69.2 57.7 66.0 41.0 66.1 male, falling to 31.0% for assistant pro- Academic fessors, to 27.5% for tenured associate Percent 21.2% 30.6% 29.8% 32.5% 34.7% 30.6% 25.4% 34.6% professors, and 14.8% for full profes- Number 17.6 18.5 26.7 44.1 42.7 49.0 32.0 46.1 sors. This pattern has been character- Nonacademic ized as a “leaky pipeline.” Our reliance Percent 12.3% 23.0% 21.9% 26.9% 25.9% 27.0% 20.5% 38.8% on this leaky pipeline for incremental Number 6.2 11.4 15.7 25.0 15.0 17.0 9.0 20.0 progress in women’s representation Unknown Placement in the profession depends on contin- Percent missing missing missing missing missing 8.0% 7.7% 58.3% ued growth in entry, which has not oc- Number missing missing missing missing missing 2.0 1.0 7.0 curred in this century. To the contrary, No Placement the pipeline seems to leak earlier in the Percent 21.7% 25.9% 35.0% 37.2% 42.7% 53.7% 35.9% 30.1% academic pipeline, as the share of as- Number 21.1 13.5 19.4 35.6 15.3 51.0 14.0 17.3 sistant professors who are female is no Total On the Market longer tracking those who complete Percent 25.1% 31.2% 33.4% 36.3% 36.3% 36.0% 31.5% 36.0% their Ph.D.s. Number 135.5 162.8 231.1 314.4 243.9 293.0 215.0 230.6 To provide a visual representation *Notes: For five year intervals, simple averages are reported. and estimates of this leaky pipeline, this report presents a simple lock-step mod- el of typical academic career advance- ment (Figures 3 and 4). We track the gender composition of younger cohorts from when they enter graduate school and older cohorts from receipt of their degree. We compare the share female as the cohort progresses through aca- demic ranks. CSWEP’s model has long shown that women complete their Ph.D.s and enter into assistant profes- sor positions at proportions roughly

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 25 The 2020 Report Table 6. New Ph.D. Job Placement by Gender and Department Rank, Current Year Top 10 Top 11–20 All Others 2019–2020 Women Men Women Men Women Men

U.S.-based, All Types 72.4% 72.7% 70.6% 61.3% 60.8% 59.7% (Share of all individuals by gender) Faculty, Ph.D. Granting Department 33.3% 39.2% 22.2% 28.8% 17.9% 18.0% Faculty, Non-Ph.D. Granting Department 2.4% 3.3% 0.0% 6.8% 20.7% 17.7% Non-Faculty, Any Academic Department 11.9% 8.3% 8.3% 6.8% 12.1% 14.4% Public Sector 23.8% 17.5% 16.7% 16.4% 16.4% 20.3% Private Sector 28.6% 31.7% 52.8% 41.1% 32.9% 29.5% Foreign-based, All Types 25.9% 26.1% 27.5% 35.3% 28.7% 29.2% (Share of all individuals by gender) Academic Job 100.0% 88.4% 85.7% 81.0% 69.8% 73.4% Nonacademic Job 0.0% 11.6% 14.3% 19.0% 30.2% 26.6% Unknown Placement 1.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1.2% (Share of all individuals by gender) No Placement 0.0% 0.6% 2.0% 3.4% 7.5% 9.9% (Share of all individuals by gender) Total on the Market 58 165 51 119 231 406 equal to their share as new graduate students for each cohort. Women have Table 7. Distribution of Top 20 Departments by Female Share of First Year Ph.D. Class, been less likely to transition to tenured 2014–2020 associate or full professors, creating a Share of women in Number of Programs leaky pipeline. While women continue first year Ph.D. class to complete their Ph.D.s at the same 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 rate as men (compare the blue and red 40% or above 2 3 6 2 7 9 7 lines in Figure 3), they have dispropor- 35–39% 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 tionately exited (or perhaps never en- 30–34% 5 2 2 8 2 5 3 tered) the assistant professor ranks pri- 25–29% 6 6 5 1 3 5 1 or to coming up for tenure (compare 20–24% 2 6 3 3 3 0 4 the red and green lines in Figures 3 and Below 20% 5 4 4 6 6 2 1 4). As suggested above, a slightly more hopeful picture is suggested by the last *Note: This table classifies departments by the share of women in their entering class. This differs from the average share of women entering Ph.D. programs, each year, because of differences in the size of different programs. few years of data. The estimated leakage of associate professors was smaller in Figure 5 shows the trend for women candidates from the top 20 schools last 2019 and 2020 (note the convergence undergraduate senior majors (for Ph.D. year (Table 4) and almost 36% of all of the green and purple lines for the and non-Ph.D. granting departments) Ph.D. students on the market (Table 5). graduating classes of 2005 and 2006); over time. The female share is some- While in 2019 women were “over-repre- this may also reflect the increased leak- what higher in non-Ph.D. departments sented” in their placements in positions age from those cohorts into and while than in Ph.D.-granting departments, in Ph.D. granting departments (relative they were assistant professors. That is, but they have converged in recent years. to their share on the market), that was there was real regression in women’s Unfortunately, they have converged at not true of students on the market in status in economics; women receiving around 35%, the maximum reached by 2020. The number of students placed Ph.D.s in 2005 and 2006 were less like- Ph.D.-granting departments, well below was down significantly, presumably be- ly to be assistant professors seven years the 40% reached by undergrad-focused cause of the COVID-19 pandemic and its later, but those who persisted were less schools earlier in the century. The share impact on the budgets of academic in- likely to exit at the full professor tran- female fell increased in 2020, at least stitutions. But in addition, women were sition. The last two years suggest a re- in the non-Ph.D. granting departments. less likely to be placed in Ph.D. grant- versal, as the estimated leakage of assis- Tables 4, 5, and 6 provide snapshots ing departments, whether they were tant professors was smaller in 2019 and of the job market experiences of wom- coming from a top 10 or top 20 depart- 2020 (the green line approaches the red en from different types of Ph.D. pro- ment. Table 5 presents the share female line for the classes of 2012 and 2013 in grams. Women made up 27.7% of job and outcomes for job market candidates Figure 4).

26 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report in Ph.D.-granting departments outside continue unless economics is able to women in economics over the past few the top 20. Just over 36% of job mar- increase the number of women study- years can have a measurable impact. ket candidates from these departments ing economics at both the undergradu- CSWEP’s many years of data on the were female. Table 6 presents place- ate and graduate levels. While the share evolution of faculty composition at the ment data slightly differently, showing of women in first year Ph.D. programs department level are unique in the so- where last year’s job market candidates has increased in each of the last three cial sciences and beyond. CSWEP now placed, by the rank of the originating de- years, this progress has simply meant a makes department-level longitudi- partment. Men coming from top 20 de- return to the share that was reached in nal data available to individual depart- partments were more likely to place in the early years of this century. Women ments so that they have this informa- a Ph.D.-granting department than wom- make up a larger share of undergradu- tion to determine appropriate steps to en from the same departments. Wom- ate majors, suggesting that a pool from achieve gender equity. Annual aggre- en, on the other hand, were more likely which to attract graduate students does gate data and departmental-level data to take public sector positions, especial- exist. However, even at the undergrad- are available for research purposes in a ly when coming from top ten schools. uate level the share of women does not manner that protects the confidentiality That is not true of new Ph.D.s coming approach parity and it has not been in- of the responding departments through from lower ranked departments where creasing. Women are over-represent- the Inter-university Consortium for Po- there seems to be more gender equity ed in non-tenure-track teaching jobs. litical and Social Research and will be in placements. Over a third of the female faculty in updated annually. top twenty economics departments are D. Conclusions in non-tenure track teaching positions. This report is more optimistic than This may play a role in shaping how un- those of previous years, with small in- dergraduate women view the econom- creases in women’s representation at ics profession. The increases in the fe- all levels of tenure track faculty sug- male share of the incoming Ph.D. class gesting a hopeful change from the and in assistant professors, where rap- lack of progress over the previous de- id change is most possible, suggest that cade and more. This progress cannot the efforts and attention to the status of

Figure 5. Undergraduate Senior Economics Majors

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Senior Majors—Non-Ph.D. Programs Senior Majors—Ph.D. Programs Senior Majors—All Programs

Note: CSWEP Ph.D. survey began collecting major counts in 2009

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 27 The 2020 Report Appendix A: Figures and Tables on Data Quality and Reporting Figure 6a. Comparison of self-reported and imputed data from Figure 1 40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%                           

First Year Students First Year Students, Self-reported Assistant Professors (U) Assistant Professors (U), Self-reported Senior Majors Senior Majors, Self-reported Associate Professors (T) Associate Professors (T), Self-reported New Ph.D.s New Ph.D.s, Self-reported Full Professors (T) Full Professors (T), Self-reported Note: T and U indicate tenured and untenured, respectively. Figure 6b. Comparison of self-reported and imputed data from Figure 2 50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Senior Majors Senior Majors, reported Assistant Professors (U) Assistant Professors (U), reported

Associate Professors (T) Associate Professors (T), reported Full Professors (T) Full Professors (T), reported Note: T and U indicate tenured and untenured, respectively. 28 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CSWEP NEWS The 2020 Report Table 8. Number of Economics Departments in the CSWEP Survey, by Year and Type of Program Year of survey 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

With Doctoral Programs Number responded CSWEP 68 77 92 98 91 93 100 110 120 122 122 117 122 124 124 126 126 126 126 Number of programs (analysis) 121 122 122 123 123 124 124 124 124 126 126 126 127 127 127 126 126 126 126 Without Doctoral Programs Number responded CSWEP 49 33 49 61 65 69 63 71 66 80 82 62 101 104 107 84 109 108 104 Number of programs (analysis) 89 92 96 102 106 106 106 107 107 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 112

Notes: Any non-respondents are imputed, with UAQ if they responded to that survey, and then with linear interpolation for any remaining non-responding years. Appendix B: Directory of 2020 CSWEP Board Members

Judith A. Chevalier, Chair Terry-Ann Craigie, Eastern Sandra E. Black, At-Large Martha Bailey, Ex-Officio, CeMENT William S. Beinecke Professor of Representative Professor of Economics and Director Economics and Finance Associate Professor of Economics International and Public Affairs Department of Economics and School of Management Connecticut College Department of Economics and Population Studies Center Yale University 270 Mohegan Avenue School of International and Public University of Michigan 165 Whitney Avenue New London, CT 06320 Affairs 611 Tappan Street, 207 Lorch Hall New Haven, CT 06511 (860) 439-2638 Columbia University Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220 (203) 432-3122 [email protected] 1022 International Affairs Building (734) 647-6874 [email protected] 420 West 118th Street [email protected] Shahina Amin, Midwestern New York, NY 10027 Sebnem Kalemli-Ozcan, Associate Representative (212) 854-3676 Jessica Holmes, Ex-Officio, CeMENT Chair & Director of Mentoring Lawrence Jepsen Professor of [email protected] Director Neil Moskowitz Endowed Professor International Economics Professor of Economics of Economics Department of Economics, College Jonathan Guryan, At-Large Middlebury College Department of Economics of Business Administration Professor of Human Development 303 College Street University of Maryland University of Northern Iowa and Social Policy Middlebury, VT 05753 4118D Tydings Hall 1227 West 27th Street Institute for Policy Research (802) 443-3439 College Park, MD 20742 Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0129 Northwestern University [email protected] (301) 405-3486 (319) 273-2637 2040 Sheridan Road [email protected] [email protected] Evanston, IL 60208 (773) 848-9408 Margaret Levenstein, Associate Jennifer Doleac, Southern [email protected] Chair & Survey Director Representative Research Professor & Director Associate Professor of Economics Petra Moser, At-Large Institute for Social Research Texas A & M University Jules Blackman Faculty Fellow University of Michigan 4228 TAMU Associate Professor of Economics 330 Packard Street College Station, TX 77843-4228 Leonard N. Stern School of Business Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1248 [email protected] New York University (734) 615-8400 44 West Fourth Street, 7-69 [email protected] Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes, Western New York, NY 10012 Representative [email protected] Kate Silz-Carson, Newsletter Professor of Economics Oversight Editor University of California-Merced Karen Pence, At-Large Professor of Economics Economics Department, Assistant Director United States Air Force Academy COB2-367 Division of Research and Statistics 2354 Fairchild Drive, Suite 6K110 University of California, Merced Federal Reserve Board USAF Academy, CO 80840-6299 5200 North Lake Rd. 20th Street and Constitution Avenue (719) 333-2597 Merced, CA 95343 NW Katherine.Silz-Carson@ (619) 300-6362 Washington, DC 20551 afacademy.af.edu [email protected] (202) 452-2342 [email protected]

2021 ISSUE I 2020 ANNUAL REPORT 29 Calls, Announcements, and Sessions at Upcoming Meetings

Call for Abstracts for the The organizers of the AEA sessions address and email for the correspond- will select a subset of the presented pa- ing author or session organizer. 2022 Allied Social Science pers for publication in the 2022 AEA 4. Name(s), title(s), affiliation(s) and Association Annual Meetings Papers & Proceedings. Authors of accept- email address(es) for any coauthor(s) ed abstracts will be invited to submit 7–9 January 2022 or for each corresponding author in a their paper for publication consider- Sheraton Boston complete session submission. Boston, MA ation in December. The abstract should be a PDF docu- In addition to individual paper sub- DEADLINE: 5 March 2021 ment, not exceeding two pages in missions, complete session proposals length, double-spaced, with a max- CSWEP invites abstract submis- may be submitted, but the papers in imum of 650 words and should sions for paper presentation at seven the session proposal will be considered contain details on motivation, CSWEP-sponsored sessions at the individually. Duplication of paper pre- contribution, methodology and data (if 2022 ASSA/AEA Meeting in Boston. sentation at multiple AEA Sessions is applicable); and be clearly identified At least two sessions will be focused not permitted, therefore authors will with the author(s) name(s). Name the on gender-related topics. We are partic- be expected to notify CSWEP imme- file: “Abstract_Corresponding Author ularly interested in papers on gender diately and withdraw their abstract if Last Name-First Name.” Completed in the economics profession and their paper is accepted for a non- papers may be sent but may not gender disparities in the impacts of CSWEP session at the 2022 ASSA substitute for an abstract of the appro- COVID-19, although the decision to Meeting. Similarly, authors whose priate length. sponsor a special session on either of paper is accepted to a 2022 CSWEP these topics will depend on the num- session will be expected to withdraw it Questions can be addressed ber and quality of submissions. We are from consideration by any other orga- to Rebekah Loftis, Committee also planning several sessions focused nization at the same meetings. Coordinator, [email protected]. on labor economics and on public eco- nomics. Within those sessions, we To have research considered for the Call for Papers, CSWEP CSWEP-sponsored sessions at the may devote one of the sessions to stud- Sessions @ 91st Southern ies of the impacts of social safety net 2022 AEA Meeting, the corresponding programs if sufficient submissions on Author must complete an online sub- Economic Association Annual that topic are received. mission form and upload an abstract Meeting to: http://yale.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/ CSWEP’s primary intention in orga- SV_3OxrpkL1iEitoKV 20–22 November 2021 nizing these sessions is to create an Marriott Marquis Houston opportunity for junior women to pres- The application form will ask for the Houston, TX ent papers at the meetings and to meet following information: DEADLINE: 19 March 2021 with and receive feedback from lead- 1. Indication of submission to one of ing economists in their field. For this the sessions: CSWEP (Committee on the Status of reason, the presenting author of each Women in the Economics Profession) paper should be a junior woman. The Gender-related Topics will sponsor several sessions at the term junior woman usually refers to Economics of Gender in the Economics Southern Economics Association anyone identifying as a woman or Profession Meetings to be held November 20–22, nonbinary who is untenured, or who (All applications submitted to 2021, at the Marriott Marquis Houston has received a Ph.D. less than seven the Economics of Gender in the in Houston, TX. years ago, but could also refer to a Economics Profession will auto- Jennifer Doleac (CSWEP Southern woman who has not yet presented matically be considered for the representative) will organize one or papers widely. There are no restric- gender-related topics as well.) more sessions on the economics of tions on the gender or seniority of crime. Abstracts of papers in that area coauthors. There are two exceptions Public Economics are particularly solicited, although sub- to the requirement that the present- Labor Economics missions in other areas will also be ing author be a junior woman—the considered for potential separate ses- gender-related sessions are open to 2. Indication of a single abstract sions. Proposals for complete sessions all junior economists, and potential submission or a complete session sub- (organizer, chair, presenters and dis- sessions on gender in the economics mission. cussants) are encouraged. Please email profession are open to all. 3. The name, title, affiliation, mailing 30 CSWEP NEWS Calls, Announcements, Sessions abstracts (1–2 pages, including names Fetal origins of COVID-19: evidence Panel: Demystifying Tenure and of all authors, as well as their affilia- from Peru Promotion in the Academy tions, addresses, email addresses, Patricia Ritter (University of and paper titles); please also denote Saturday, 27 February 2021, Connecticut) and Ricardo A. Sanchez 1:00–2:20 PM which author will present the paper (Peru Ministry of Education) if accepted. Moderator: Dhaval Dave (Bentley Discussant: Molly Jacobs (East University) The deadline to submit a pa- Carolina University) per or session is March 19, 2021. Organizer: Terry-Ann Craigie All submissions should be sent to Parenthood, paid maternity leave, (Connecticut College) Jennifer Doleac, CSWEP Southern and job performance: evidence from Panelists: Representative, [email protected]. the Marine Corps CSWEP Graduate Student Olivia Healy (Northwestern Linda Bell (Barnard College) University) and Jennifer A. Heissel Lisa Lynch (Brandeis University) Mentoring Workshop @ (Naval Postgraduate School) Imke Reimers (Northeastern 91st Southern Economic University) Discussant: Patricia Ritter (University Marla Patricia Ripoll (University of Association Annual Meeting of Connecticut) Pittsburgh) 19 November 2021 Houston, TX Does making mothers literate improve Health Insurance their little one’s health? Evidence from DEADLINE: TBD Saturday, 27 February 2021, India 2:30–3:50 PM CSWEP is organizing a half-day Opinder Kaur (University of Session Chair: Ajin Lee (Michigan mentoring workshop for women/ California, Riverside) State University) non-binary third- and fourth-year eco- nomics Ph.D. students the Friday Discussant: Olivia Healy Organizer: Terry-Ann Craigie afternoon before the SEA meetings be- (Northwestern University) (Connecticut College) gin (November 19, 2021). Applications Heterogeneity among women with will require a one-page research pro- Health insurance mandates, posal, and will be due in July. A full stroke: demographic, acute care and penalities and uninsurance: evidence call for applications will be posted later discharge differentials from a natural experiment this spring. In the meantime, please Molly Jacobs (East Carolina University) Dhaval Dave (Bentley University) and contact members of the organizing Discussant: Opinder Kaur (University Gregory Coleman (Pace University committee (Jennifer Doleac, Catherine of California, Riverside) and National Bureau of Economic Maclean, Javaeria Qureshi, and Danila Research) Serra) for more information. Panel: Navigating the Publication Process in Economics Discussant: Prerna Rakheja (Johns CSWEP Sessions @ Eastern Hopkins University) Friday, 26 February 2021, Economic Association 47th 4:00–5:20 PM The effects of managed care on long- Annual Conference Moderator and Organizer: Terry-Ann term care: evidence from hospital 25–28 February 2021 Craigie (Connecticut College) utilization New York Sheraton Ajin Lee (Michigan State University) (with Online Virtual Option) Panelists: Discussant: Maggie Shi (Columbia New York, NY Cynthia Bansak (St. Lawrence University) NOTE: All sessions are virtual. All University) times are Eastern Standard Time. Nancy Folbre (University of Policy complexity and administrative Massachusetts, Amherst) spending: evidence from the Medicare Health, Gender and Motherhood Sophie Mitra (Fordham University) Recovery Audit Contractor program Friday, 26 February 2021, Nina Pavcnik (Dartmouth College) Yana Rodgers (Rutgers University) Maggie Shi (Columbia University) 2:30–3:50 PM Discussant: Ajin Lee (Michigan State Session Chair: Molly Jacobs (East CSWEP Virtual Cocktail Hour University) Carolina University) Friday, 26 February 2021, Organizer: Terry-Ann Craigie 5:30–6:30 PM (Connecticut College)

2021 ISSUE I 31 Calls, Announcements, Sessions What is CSWEP? Disability insurance and labor supply: CSWEP Sessions @Midwest the role of health insurance CSWEP (the Committee on the Status Economics Association 85th of Women in the Economics Profession) Prerna Rakheja (Johns Hopkins Annual Conference is a standing committee of the Ameri- University) can Economic Association charged with 22–26 March 2021 serving professional women economists Discussant: Gregory Coleman (Pace Virtual University and National Bureau of in academia, government agencies and Economic Research) NOTE: All times are Central Daylight elsewhere by promoting their careers and Time. monitoring their progress. Women, Work, and Leadership CSWEP activities endeavor to raise the awareness among men and women of the Saturday, 27 February 2021, Panel: Advice for Job Seekers Friday, 26 March 2021, challenges that are unique to women’s ca- 4:00–5:20 PM reers and can be addressed with a wide 10:00–11:45 AM Session Chair: Belinda Archibong variety of actions, from inclusive searches (Barnard College) Chair and Organizer: Shahina Amin to formal and informal mentoring activi- (University of Northern Iowa) ties. CSWEP freely disseminates informa- Organizer: Terry-Ann Craigie tion on how the profession works as well (Connecticut College) Industry interviews on the job market as advice to junior economists. We intend Evan Buntrock (Amazon.com) this information to be of value to all econ- Tacking sexual harassment: evidence omists, male or female, minority or not. from India Economic consulting vs. academia Annually, CSWEP Karmini Sharma (University of Frances Lee (Loyola University • Organizes mentoring workshops, pa- Warwick) Chicago) per presentations sessions at the annual Discussant: Muchin Bazan (Virginia AEA Meetings, and professional devel- Tech) Job market tips opment sessions at the annual meet- Ruoyun Mao (Grinnell College) ings of the four regional economics as- Women in engineering: the role of role sociations (the Eastern, Mid-Western, models Job market guide and advice Southern and Western); • Conducts a survey and compiles a re- Shahnaz Parsaeian (University of Marcos Agurto (Universidad de Piura), port on the gender composition of fac- Kansas) Muchin Bazan (Virginia Tech), Sudipta ulty and students in academic econom- Sarangi (Virginia Tech), and Siddharth ics departments in the United States; Hari (World Bank) Panel: Academic Career Challenges and Opportunities • Publishes three editions of the CSWEP Discussant: Karmini Sharma News, containing a feature section writ- (University of Warwick) Friday, 26 March 2021, ten by senior economists that highlights 1:15–3:00 PM career advice or other topics of interest to the economics profession; and Do female politicians lead to better Chair and Organizer: Shahina Amin learning outcomes? • Awards the Carolyn Shaw Bell Award, (University of Northern Iowa) given to a person for their outstanding Sadia Priyanka (Connecticut College) From surviving to thriving: staying work to promote the careers of women economists as well as the Elaine Ben- Discussant: Belinda Archibong research active in the age of COVID (Barnard College) nett Research Prize, given biennially Jill S. Harris (United States Air Force to a young woman economist for fun- When women march: the 1929 Aba Academy) damental contributions to academic Women’s Tax Revolt and gender gaps economics. Gender diversity in economics: the in political participation in Nigeria Our business meeting is held during role of the department chair the annual AEA Meetings and is open to Belinda Archibong (Barnard College) Debra Israel (Indiana State University) all economists. It is a time for us to con- and Nonso Obikili (ERSA and fer awards and celebrate recipients, pres- Stellenbosch University) Grant funding in economics: dos and ent the Annual Report on Women in the Discussant: Sadia Priyanka don’ts of the application process Economics Profession and to hear your input on CSWEP’s activities. The CSWEP (Connecticut College) Georgia Kosmopoulou (University of Board meets three times yearly and we en- Oklahoma) CSWEP Virtual Cocktail Hour courage you to attend our business meet- Saturday, 27 February 2021, Teaching, research, and service in ing or contact a Board Member directly to convey your ideas for furthering CSWEP’s 5:30–6:30 PM mid-career during COVID mission. Anne Villamil (University of Iowa) Visit cswep.org for more information. 32 CSWEP NEWS Directory of CSWEP Board Members

Judith A. Chevalier, Chair Shahina Amin, Karen Pence, At-Large William S. Beinecke Professor of Midwest Representative Assistant Director of Division of Economics and Finance Lawrence Jepson Professor of Research Statistics School of Management, Yale International Economics Federal Reserve Board University Department of Economics, College of 20th Street & Constitution 165 Whitney Avenue Business Administration Avenue NW New Haven, CT 06511 University of Northern Iowa Washington DC, 20551 (203) 432-3122 1227 West 27th Street (202) 452-2342 [email protected] Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0129 [email protected] (319) 273-2637 Anusha Chari, [email protected] Petra Moser, At-Large Assoc. Chair & Dir. of Mentoring Associate Professor of Economics Professor of Economics, Department Jennifer Doleac, Southern Leonard N. Stern School of Business of Economics, the University of North Representative New York University Carolina at Chapel Hill Associate Professor of Economics 44 West Fourth Street, 7-69 Gardner Hall 306B Texas A & M University New York, NY 10012 University of North Carolina 4228 TAMU [email protected] Chapel Hill, NC 27599 College Station, TX 77843-4228 (919) 966-5346 [email protected] Jonathan Guryan, At-Large [email protected] Professor of Human Development and Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes, Social Policy Margaret Levenstein, Western Representative Institute for Policy Research, Assoc. Chair & Survey Director Professor of Economics Northwestern University Research Professor, University of California-Merced 2040 Sheridan Road Institute for Social Research Economics Department, COB2-367 Evanston, IL 60208 Director, ICPSR, University of University of California, Merced (773) 848-9408 Michigan 5200 North Lake Rd., [email protected] 330 Packard Street Merced, CA 95343 Jessica Holmes, Ex-Officio, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1248 (619) 300-6362 (734) 615-8400 [email protected] CeMENT Director [email protected] Professor of Economics Stephanie Aaronson, DC Middlebury College Kate Silz-Carson, Representative 303 College Street Newsletter Oversight Editor Vice President and Director, Middlebury, VT 05753 Professor of Economics Economic Studies and Fellow, (802) 443-3439 U.S. Air Force Academy Economic Studies [email protected] 2354 Fairchild Drive, Suite 6K110 Brookings Institution Martha Bailey, Ex-Officio, USAF Academy, CO 80840-6299 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (719) 333-2597 Washington, DC 20036 CeMENT Director Professor of Economics Katherine.Silz-Carson@afacademy. [email protected] af.edu Department of Economics Kasey Buckles, At-Large University of California–Los Angeles Terry-Ann Craigie, Eastern Associate Professor of Economics, 315 Portola Plaza, Bunche Hall 9349 Representative Research Associate, NBER, Research Los Angeles, CA 90095 Associate Professor of Economics Fellow, IZA, Concurrent Associate [email protected] Connecticut College Professor of Gender Studies, 270 Mohegan Avenue University of Notre Dame New London, CT 06320 3052 Jenkins Nanovic Halls (860) 439-2638 Notre Dame, IN 46556 [email protected] (574) 631-6210 [email protected]

2021 ISSUE I 33