Difference between revisions of "Consequences"

From Diversifying Economic Quality: A Wiki for Instructors and Departments

Jump to: navigation, search
Line 47: Line 47:
 
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?emc=eta1]
 
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?emc=eta1]
 
"The economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations...Unfortunately, this romanticized and sanitized vision of the economy led most economists to ignore all the things that can go wrong...economists will have to learn to live with messiness."
 
"The economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations...Unfortunately, this romanticized and sanitized vision of the economy led most economists to ignore all the things that can go wrong...economists will have to learn to live with messiness."
 +
 +
survey of literature on effects of gender imbalance in the profession (Colander, Holmes, McCloskey, Feminist Economics,...)
 +
(Also, in the Making of an Economist, Colander finds the field better, grad core not. )

Revision as of 13:51, 17 July 2011

Does it matter that certain people, or members of certain groups, are less likely to become economists?

Of course, you say, it isn't fair that not everyone can experience the joys of being an economist, one of the most satisfying and useful occupations of all time, but

We may be experiencing efficiency and equity effects A) in allocating people to professions, B) in generating ideas within the discipline, and C) through government policymaking:

A) wasted talent and unfair opportunity
B) inaccurate analysis and incomplete analysis
C) inefficient policy and inequitable policy


Efficiency, Generally Speaking:

Including women, minorities, and people with different backgrounds in economics will not only important research topics to the economic discipline but could also help increase efficiency in the market. This is because members of these groups may be able to more accurately see costs affecting their groups than would rich white men [to put it crassly]. Recognizing these costs and building them in to economic models (such as labor/leisure tradeoff and demand for certain goods) could make these groups better off without making anyone else worse off, thus increasing Pareto efficiency. It is also possible that these newly efficient solutions would be more equitable to the parties involved!

Moreover, perhaps there are some women and minorities who would have been brilliant economists, but due to various barriers did not become economists. If instead they enter a field in which it is more socially acceptable for them to work, but they are not as well-suited for, this is a Pareto-inefficient allocation of workers to jobs.

Does gender and race inequality actually impact academic work?

Gender

Another reason women should be more involved in Economics is to increase the focus on issues related to women. For example, the alternative to working in the labor force is termed leisure. However, many women are actively involved in maintaining their households when not involved in the labor force. Women may view this term offensively. A woman economist would more likely call for a re evaluation of the term due to her personal interest in the matter. Lois Banfill Shaw, in the book 'Engendering economics: conversations with women economists in the United States' By Paulette I. Olson, Zohren Emami seconds this notion. She also mentions how women economists may be more adept/more likely to study issues such as, how social security reforms affect women, why there is discrimination against women in the work place and to consider equity to be as important as efficiency.

The book provided valuable insights into the thoughts and suggestions of women economists in the United States and can be used as a point of reference.

Another example is the exclusion of the value of non-market production (such as childrearing, cooking, growing vegetables and herbs, etc.) from GDP calculations. This may be partially because it is difficult to find accurate methods to do so. Women economists might be more likely to research methods for evaluating non-market production and incorporate it into GDP calculations.

Underrepresentation of women in the Economics field may also be attributed to a lack of female role models. This would end up being a negative feedback loop: a lack of female Economics professors leads to a lack of female Economics undergraduates, which leads to a lack of female Economics graduate students, which loops back to a lack of female Economics professors.

Race

Individuals across all races should be more adequately represented within the field of economics.

While championing the cause of increased African-American participation in Economics, Dr. Rhonda Williams of the University of Maryland asserted that "Economists are the ones running the Federal Reserve Bank and making every day decisions that will determine or even undermine the qualify of life of millions of African Americans." Only 1.2% of all Phd's in Economics are held by Blacks, despite representing 12.4% of the US population.

Moreover, the low representation of blacks in the economics profession raises public policy as well as diversity concerns. In particular, as many black economists point out, "the African-American community, as a whole, suffers when there aren't any African-American economists at the conference table when important decisions are being made." (Ruffins 1996, 18)

This sentiment can be generalized: "the Federal Reserve Bank makes every day decisions that will determine or undermine the quality of life" (Ibid.) of every group in this country. Therefore, representative membership in the Economics profession will be more equitable, and likely more efficient, for all parties involved. Women make up ~50% of the country but a much lesser percentage of professional Economists; the argument above applies well here and to all other underrepresented groups.

Here's an interesting article outlining why we need more Black Economists and reasons for their declining numbers. : Black economists: an 'elite clan of warrior intellectuals.' by Paul Ruffins, June 24, 2007

"Once upon a time there was a little girl who wanted to know why some people had jobs and others didn't, so she took a course in economics. The textbook said that if you went to school and did the right things, you'd get a job. But she said, `that can't be right. I have four cousins in Chicago who finished school, who finished training programs, and who still don't have jobs.' So she studied some more."


[1] "The economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations...Unfortunately, this romanticized and sanitized vision of the economy led most economists to ignore all the things that can go wrong...economists will have to learn to live with messiness."

survey of literature on effects of gender imbalance in the profession (Colander, Holmes, McCloskey, Feminist Economics,...) (Also, in the Making of an Economist, Colander finds the field better, grad core not. )