Identity economics and the gender gap

This post follows my review of Akerlof and Kranton's book Identity Economics yesterday. As I suggested at the end of that post, it would be interesting to look at the gender gap in economics through an identity economics lens (see my post last week for the latest on the gender gap in economics. So, that's what I'm going to attempt to do here, borrowing where I can from the 'Gender and Work' chapter of the Akerlof and Kranton book, starting with the basic (boilerplate) model:

We start with a boilerplate model of a labor market. There are firms that desire to hire workers to do tasks - yielding the demand for labor. There are men and women who desire to work - yielding the supply of labor. Some men and women are better at a task than others, with no overall difference between men and women... Solving for the wage where supply equals demand yields the number of men and women employed.

Now introduce the identity elements of the model. The 'social categories' are men and women. Some tasks are labeled appropriate for men (including economist), while other tasks are labeled appropriate for women. Then Akerlof and Kranton note:

Women lose utility from working in a man's job. And men lose utility from working in a woman's job. Men also lose utility when a women works in a man's job.

Solving this model for equilibrium, we would find that men would be more likely to be hired as economists. This is because, in the model, men would have to be paid more in order to compensate for working with female economists. To maximise profits, the employers (e.g. universities or research centres) would want to hire more men than women, because the premium they would need to pay would be lower. At equilibrium, men would resist the addition of more female economists to their workplace since that would lower their utility. Alternatively, rather than necessarily eliminating the hiring of women, the employer could segregate men and women in different parts of the firm - say, in different fields of economics.

Now, thinking about the model outlined above, this simple model seems to explain a surprising amount of the gender gap in economics. First, there are more men than women employed at each level of academia, from professors to assistant professor. This is consistent with employers having a preference for male economists. Second, there are more male than female PhD graduates. This reflects that men are preferred in hiring decisions, and students respond to those incentives. Third, the academic climate for female economists is undeniably hostile. This is consistent with men's identity utility being reduced by working with female economists. This also reinforces the second point, that there are fewer female economics PhDs, because the climate affects students as well as career academics. Fourth, male and female economists do work in different fields of economics, with men more likely to work in macroeconomics or finance, and women more likely to work in health or labour economics. This is consistent with some segregation by employers, but also with differences in the climate between the different fields.

Of course, this model is necessarily simplified, and I'm sure some will take issue with how it is presented. The implications are clear though - if the model is to be believed, then the gender gap is entrenched within economists' identities. The norms and ideals of economics need to change, so that economics is no longer considered a 'man's job'. Unfortunately, Akerlof and Kranton's book is relatively silent on how norms and ideals can be changed. Better mentoring of female students and economists has been suggested. However, if it is the norms and ideals that need to adjust, then it is the actions (and inactions) of male economists that need to change.