Last month, the economics community rejoiced when the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics to Claudia Goldin for “having advanced our understanding of women’s labor market outcomes.”
One can hardly think of a more deserving recipient than the scholar who pioneered the study of women in the labor force, pursued it with passion, and mentored dozens of today’s top thinkers along the way.
However, the significance of this year’s prize goes beyond Goldin, because it represents a long-overdue acknowledgment that the economic experience of about 50 percent of the world’s population is worthy of scientific inquiry. What may be obvious today was not always so. Until nearly a decade ago, economics professors would routinely discourage their graduate students from studying gender-related issues. Unsurprisingly, the students most interested in such topics were the few women attending graduate programs in economics at the time.
“This is a very interesting question,” academic advisers would say. “But you’d better have tenure before you pursue it.”
It is testament to Goldin’s drive and intellect that she pursued her research agenda successfully despite such an unsupportive environment. Her efforts paved the way for the flourishing of gender-related research today, but the implications of the recognition she has received also goes well beyond gender, which is just one of many dimensions of personal “identity.”
In its early days, economics focused on “representative agents,” and thereby abstracted from all the traits that make each person unique. Later, the discipline embraced heterogeneity, but only to the extent that it was directly related to socioeconomic status and economic outcomes — by distinguishing, for example, between people with and without education, high or low income and so forth. Other traits, such as gender, sexual orientation, culture or birthplace, remained outside the scope of mainstream economics. Not until Goldin were the economic implications of “identity” fully appreciated.
It would take many pages to summarize Goldin’s contributions to economics, so I will highlight two of her major insights that are particularly policy-relevant today — one for developing economies, and one for advanced economies, especially the US.
The first insight is that growth does not automatically bring about higher female labor-force participation and wage equality across genders. On the contrary, these relationships are complex and contingent on many factors including norms, family status — especially the presence of children — and standard supply and demand forces. An uptick in female labor-force participation has often gone hand in hand with an increase in labor demand that exceeded what male workers could supply.
This is an important corrective to the long-held assumption that women would automatically join the labor force as countries grow richer. It also might explain the puzzling experience of India, where the female labor-force participation rate, one of the lowest globally (30 percent), has actually declined in the past two decades, despite fast growth.
Yet recent economics research shows that integrating women — as well as other historically underrepresented population groups — into the labor force can result in substantial productivity and income gains for a country. Policymakers in all low and middle-income countries should take note.
The second major insight is that the pay gap between men and women in the US is primarily explained by children. Men and women’s earnings paths tend to be similar up to the time when a woman has her first child; then they start to diverge.
Goldin is careful to point out that this pattern applies primarily to educated women, but that group is quite important in a rich country that already has a relatively high level of female emancipation. The implication is that the “child penalty” weighs more heavily on pay and career outcomes than bias or discrimination.
Goldin attributes this pattern to the current nature of work, which requires — or did until the COVID-19 pandemic — long, inflexible hours and face-time at the workplace, all of which is incompatible with the demands of a growing family. The implication is that more flexible professional arrangements (working from home and at hours accommodating family needs) would help close the pay gap. Of course, not every job is susceptible to such changes; but the pandemic showed that many are. Goldin’s latest book, Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey Toward Equity, should be required reading for those weighing in on the recent, often heated, debate about whether employees should be forced to return to the office five days per week.
In the short run, a Nobel Prize would not change the predicament of women, many of whom are still treated as second-class citizens in many parts of the world. However, ideas matter in the long run, and to the extent that the Nobel Prize represents a celebration of an idea, this year’s selection is a small victory for women. Let us hope that Goldin’s work could inform policymaking more directly in the years to come.
Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, a former World Bank Group chief economist and editor-in-chief of the American Economic Review, is professor of economics at Yale University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS