economic woman

What is this strange graphic, you ask? It’s our familiar globe, morphed to represent the world’s population as it is distributed between countries. That’s why India is so large, while Canada barely exists. This creative projection is from Worldmapper, my new favourite website. 

Freakonomics posted about Worldmapper a couple years back, but I get the sense it’s expanded significantly since then. Created by a group of academics, mostly at the University of Sheffield, it now includes 366 maps where the size of each country is morphed to reflect various data. The maps cover the familiar (military spending, poverty) and the obscure (yellow fever, molluscs at risk). You can print off a colourful info sheet for each map, and more importantly access the relevant data in several formats.

It’s worth carefully reading what each map represents, since this isn’t the sort of data we’re used to. For example, this map of prison population shows the proportion of the world’s prisoners that live in each country. That’s not the same thing as highlighting countries with a particularly large proportion of their population in prison. (For extra credit, flip between the prisoner map and this one of prisoners awaiting trial.)

A number of maps reflect the status of women around the globe. To get a sense of where the wage gap is widest, flip between men’s income and women’s income. Flip between women’s market hours and women’s home hours to see where women have been incorporated into the market economy.

I was struck by how much some of these maps contrast with the ways we usually discuss women’s empowerment around the world. Girls’ education in Afghanistan, for example, gets a lot of media play in Canada. But check out this map, where “territory size is proportional [to] the world distribution of the excess male over female enrolment in primary education.” Maybe we should be talking more about India.

The site is a phenomenal tool, and definitely worth a few hours. Maybe it’s time to extend “always graph your data” to “always map your data.” And what do you know? There’s already an ArcGIS tool to help you.

(Hat tip to Undergraduate Economist.)

Commenting on this post, “v” has made a good point about one source of the gender wage gap:

Some say it happens at the negotiation stage. Men are more likely to ask for raises or higher salaries when hired or changing jobs. This trait is attributed mostly to gender and could drive the results.

As it happens, there has been research done on women and negotiation. By now something of a feminist proverb, “women don’t ask” is actually the title of a book from a few years back by Linda Babcock and Sarah Laschever. (Babcock is an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon’s school of management and public policy. The two released a sequel of sorts in February.)

Women Don’t Ask seems to be marketed as self help, but is backed up by Babcock’s academic research. Here’s a sample, from the book’s site:

By not negotiating a first salary, an individual stands to lose more than $500,000 by age 60—and men are more than four times as likely as women to negotiate a first salary.

If the problem is that we don’t ask, then learning to ask for more should help close the gap, right? Not so fast. Writing in the Harvard Business Review (gated), Babcock herself covers the downside of asking for more:

…many companies’ cultures penalize women when they do ask - further discouraging them from doing so. Women who assertively pursue their own ambitions and promote their own interests may be labelled as bitchy or pushy.

There is necessarily less quantitative research backing up this point, so sprinkle salt to your taste. Still, it all goes back to yesterday’s post. Women can’t address the wage gap on our own.

This has nothing to do with economics or feminism, but you might enjoy it anyway. My internet video column is up over at The Tyee. It’s about ultra high speed photography, and I think I’ve found some exceptionally cool videos this month. Here’s one to pull you in:

And with that, I’m off to read me some statistics.

While preparing my post on advice for undergraduates, I came across Daniel S. Hamermesh’s 2004 essay of advice for young female PhDs. This isn’t really my area of expertise, but it was an interesting read. Here are two ways in which young women have to work harder than men to make it to tenure:

University administrators love committees that are balanced by gender; but the relative supply of women, especially from economics departments, is small. [...] The time spent on them eats up research time and usually generates minimal credit in your tenure decision. Requests like this are another form of sexual exploitation.

Readers and tenure referees tend to assume that a young economist who coauthors with a more senior economist, especially a thesis advisor, is doing the dirty work rather than providing the central innovation of the study. This is regrettably especially true when the junior person is a woman and the senior economist is male.

Women get a lot of advice on avoiding sexism - it ranges from well-meaning and insightful observations like these, to patronizing double standards (”don’t walk home alone”) and meaningless restrictions on our freedom (”don’t wear that tank top”). Most if it is pretty ineffective, but also relatively harmless.

Still, let’s not lose sight of a larger point: the people best equipped to combat sexism are usually men in positions of power. I imagine that it’s tough, early in your career, to turn down an administrative position or tell your supervisor that you don’t want to co-author a paper with him. Older, male professors, on the other hand, might have time to spend mentoring a younger professor, or social capital to burn as the voice of reason on a tenure committee. Making sure that the field is safe and welcoming for women is also their job.

Feminist blogs are tackling gendered aspects of food price increases. To be honest, I’m still working my way through technical points that have been posted on the economics side - I knew I had reached a new level of geek the other week when I enthusiastically clicked on a link titled “the problem with fertilizer” - but this post from Feminocracy, based loosely around two links, has helped me frame my thinking a little bit.

The first point I’ve taken from it is the disproportionate impact of food price increases on women in the developing world. When food is more expensive, some women may be the last to eat in their family. They are also likely to work longer hours in the informal sector, which doesn’t provide benefits or minimum wage.

The second point that finally hit home is the magnitude and consequences of grocery price increases in the US. I wonder if economists have been too quick to dismiss 10-30% increases in staples. Certainly the West enjoys remarkably cheap and plentiful food, but for those already on the margin this has got to have welfare effects.

That got me wondering about Canadian prices. I know that bread is a little bit more expensive, and I also know that my monthly grocery bill has changed barely a cent since January. But I couldn’t tell you how much I paid for eggs last week - I tend to concentrate on prices relevant to my decision, i.e. this brand vs. that brand vs. a substitute product - so that might just be increasing thriftiness. Anyway, it looks like my first instincts are right: if CP can be trusted, we haven’t seen anything like the US price increases, likely thanks to the strong dollar. Thank you Alberta - at least our laid-off auto workers can buy cheap eggs.

Economics bloggers have posted a lot of advice for graduate students and young faculty, but not much for undergraduate students interested in economics. I’m something of an undergraduate expert - now heading into year five, I’ve studied at two different universities on two different continents: the University of Toronto and the University of Edinburgh.

This advice is written with a younger me in mind. I’m thinking of students who are motivated and looking for a challenge, but perhaps not quite sure where they want to end up.

1. Take more math

In high school, I enjoyed and excelled in math. But when I decided to pursue social science in university, I figured a bit of statistics was all I could make time for. In first year, I wanted to take Linear Algebra as an elective, but I held off. Now I know that a few tough quantitative courses look great on your transcript, even if you’re a history major. I should have had more confidence in my unusual interests - as it happens, a late switch to economics means that I do need that linear algebra course, so four years later, I’m picking it up over the summer.

2. Be interdisciplinary

If you go on to graduate school, studying outside your discipline will be nearly impossible. That’s too bad, because the best academics often draw on more than one area. This is your chance. Pick up some intro classes in political science, sociology, biology, or psychology; you’ll experience a different world view, and one day that background might make you a more innovative economist.

3. Don’t be afraid to ask

Don’t be afraid to ask professors to waive prerequisites or make room for you in a full course. At some universities and in some departments, profs are happy to make exceptions for bright, motivated students interested in their work. In later years, don’t be afraid to ask a favourite professor to do a reading course or independent study project with you. Don’t be afraid to ask counselling or psych services for help if you’re overwhelmed. Unless you’re rude, you won’t end up any worse off.

4. Talk to your professors

One day, you will need references from these people. Make sure they remember you. Approach them at the end of class or during office hours with an insightful question or a relevant magazine article. Ask for further reading on something that interests you. Good professors wish they could spend less time answering stupid questions (”Will this be on the test?”) and more time chatting about ideas with their students.

5. Switch majors (if you want to)

An extra year might feel like a long time right now, but over your lifetime, it’s nothing. Program switching can be taken too far - eventually you do want to pack up and graduate - but in moderation, it’s a small price to pay for a degree you can actually use. Don’t assume that scholarships and bursaries can’t be extended - it doesn’t hurt to ask.

6. Make time for other things

If you go to graduate school, you won’t have time for most extracurriculars. Again, this is your chance. University is about more than linear algebra. Take some time to build social networks and explore your interests.

Now it’s your turn. What have I missed?

Feministing has pulled a beautiful little quote out of an abstinence-only education website:

Virginity is an asset that holds its value well.

Click over for a witty comment thread. I also have a few thoughts, because it’s late at night.

1. What rate is it taxed at?
2. But seriously, folks. What value does virginity store? Purity? The gains from marriage to a God-fearing mate?
3. Even accepting the premise: since virginity is relatively easy to lie about, it should in fact be a very unreliable store of value.
4. Past a certain point virginity begins to lose its value. Definitely by 40 you’re facing some sort of opportunity cost in holding this asset.

Unfortunately, abstinence only education is not any sort of asset.

(The headline is a tribute to this, obviously.)

Feministing recently put me on to Feminist Finance, and I’ve been poking my way through the archives with pleasure. It’s sort of difficult to explain what this blog is about. It’s loosely organized around finance for women, I guess, but without the irritating self-help nonsense that tends to come with budgeting tips. And there are some posts on pay equity and the dynamics of marriage that would fit in just fine on this site. So you should check it out. Here’s a little welcome post to get you started.

…expect more on-topic posts. For starters, I’m working my way through this Econ Journal Watch forum on women in economics, and I expect I’ll have a response.

I also think I may work on subverting the unwritten code that says bloggers may not discuss an article or issue more than week old. There are several links that I didn’t get around to posting over the last month, but some are still important, so I’m going to take a print magazine approach and forge ahead with my out-of-date opinions.

This morning I read that New York Times magazine article about Cease Fire, an outreach program tackling the cycle of gun violence and retribution in Chicago. I won’t gush until I’ve seen some numbers, but it struck me as the sort of intellectual inspiration, pragmatism, and people that makes for great public policy.

Then this evening I read about this ass-backwards plan to encourage the police to hound youth on Britain’s council estates. (The headline: “Police should harass young thugs - Smith.”)

As part of the crackdown on bad behaviour, [Home Secretary Jacqui Smith] will urge police forces across the country to follow the example of Essex police, who have mounted four-day “frame and shame” operations by filming and repeatedly stopping identified persistent offenders on problem estates.

The programme in Essex has been successful, even though it may raise human rights issues about such tough tactics, especially if those harassed by the police have not been found guilty of any criminal offence.

Since it’s my expertise, let’s talk about sloppy reporting. What is “success” in this situation? A reduction in violent crime rates? Fewer arrests? Positive feedback from local residents? A glowing review in the local paper? Can we really get away with not narrowing this down?

On areas well beyond my expertise: what do you imagine these “identified persistent offenders” are more likely to do after receiving this sort of treatment: join a group like Cease Fire, or go out and shoot a cop?

This is a slide from my macro course. I’m as fond of math as the next eco student, maybe even more so, but it takes a particular sort of mind to use the word “practical” in this context.

Things are a little slow this week due to a couple exams and a research deadline. (In related news, I think I’ve decided that macro isn’t my thing.) Posts should pick up next week.

A study shows that married women do seven extra hours of housework, and married men do one hour less. That’s a net increase of five hours. It’s a wonder anyone gets married. But wait, what do they mean by chores?

Other activities such as home repairs, mowing the lawn, and shoveling (sic) snow were not in the study. “Items such as gardening are usually viewed as more enjoyable; the focus here is on core housework,” says Stafford.

Now there’s a gendered view of housework. Traditionally male pursuits are “the fun chores.” First off, I know no one who enjoys shovelling. And I know more than one person who loves vacuuming. Let’s give those wayward husbands (or wives) credit for doing the “fun” chores too. In any case, unless the study is missing ten hours of yard work, there’s a significant gap:

Based on 2005 data, which have been compared to those from national time diaries, the research shows women, of all ages with no children, on average do 10 hours of housework a week before marriage and 17 hours of housework a week after marriage. Men of all ages with no children, on the other hand, do eight hours before marriage and seven hours afterwards.

These numbers don’t automatically distinguish between exploitation and a mutually beneficial division of labour. I’d be more interested in a study which adds up housework hours and hours spent in conventional employment – I bet the women would still be working longer then.

(Hat tip to Feministing.)

I’ve been enjoying Economist’s View’s dispatches from the Milken Institute Global Conference. (An aside: Someone should start a website that aggregates blogged accounts of conferences around the world. I don’t have the time or resources to attend nearly as many meetings as I’d like to, so I appreciate reading about them.)

Here’s a bit on a session with Ricardo Hausmann, Myron Scholes, and Maria Eitel, called “Harnessing Growth to Break Poverty’s Grip on the Developing World.” Eitel is the president of the Nike foundation, and she made an argument for more aid to women.

Did you know that only 5 cents on every dollar of development aid is “devoted to improving the economic prospects for women”? The session also touched on the difficulty of investing in women who already provide essential care and insurance.

Even though there are large long-term benefits to helping women, it is in nobody’s short-term interest to take women out of their traditional role in the family and community where they provide water, firewood, and food for the family, care for sick family members, are expected to provide insurance for the family by dropping out of school if the family needs help, and so on.

Click over to the original post for a little more on solutions.

I skipped Blog for Fair Pay Day, partly because I was studying, and partly because it was an American legislative campaign that I don’t feel much connection to. Nonetheless, I have wage gaps on the brain, and I’m still poking through the material released for that initiative.

The central statistic – that American women make 77 cents on the dollar – is almost meaningless. I want to know the breakdown – what proportion of that gap is straightforward discrimination, women simply being paid less than men for equal work? Thomas Sowell says that gap is “trivial.”

Here are some alternative points, from the National Women’s Law Centre:

A 2003 study by U.S. Government Accountability Office (then the General Accounting Office) found that, even when all the key factors that influence earnings are controlled for — demographic factors such as marital status, race, number and age of children, and income, as well as work patterns such as years of work, hours worked, and job tenure — women still earned, on average, only 80% of what men earned in 2000. That is, there remains a 20% pay gap between women and men that cannot be explained or justified.

One extensive study that examined occupational segregation and the pay gap between women and men found that, after controlling for occupational segregation by industry, occupation, place of work, and the jobs held within that place of work (as well as for education, age, and other demographic characteristics), about one-half of the wage gap is due solely to the individual’s sex.

Read the full fact sheet with references here.

I don’t want this site to be, as someone imagined, “all income inequality all the time,” but I have lots more to say right now. Stay tuned.

Folks over at the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE) have started a YouTube channel for feminist economics. So far they’ve collected a number of videos from the release of the World Economic Forum’s 2007 Global Gender Gap Report. You can watch Saadia Zahidi’s presentation here, and a response panel here. Both of those clips are 20 minutes plus, so I’ll embed a short interview with Laura Tyson.

Call me naive - or just Canadian - but I didn’t realize until I watched these videos that the United States has no federally enforced paid maternity leave at all, and only 6 weeks of unpaid maternity leave. Dear god. For a quick sense of just how backward that is, check out this Wikipedia chart summarizing parental leave policies around the world.