̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Victoria Bateman

Women economists underrepresented ‘at every level’ in UK academia – report

fpjl2 — Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:37:44 +0000

Women are underrepresented "at almost every level" within the discipline of economics at UK universities, according to a new report co-authored by a Cambridge economist.

Dr Victoria Bateman says that her research for the Royal Economics Society (RES) found signs of “stagnation and retreat” in the closing of gender gaps across the study of economics – with female intake (relative to male) actually falling at both undergraduate and master’s levels over the last two decades.

Published today, the report ‘Gender Imbalance in UK Economics’ marks 25 years since the establishment of the RES Women’s Committee, which was set up to monitor and advance the representation of women in UK economics.

“ ̽��ֱ��economy affects everyone, and economists need to represent us all,” said Bateman, an Economics Fellow at Gonville and Caius College. “If they don’t, that’s a major barrier to building a solid understanding of the economy.”

“Across all students, from undergraduate to PhD, there are twice as many men studying economics as there are women in UK universities. While in many respects the discipline of economics has come a long way in the 21st century, the gender gap is clearly still real, persistent and in some ways getting worse.”

Bateman and colleagues argue that attracting, retaining and promoting female economists is a “particular problem” within UK academia when compared to areas of government and third sector organisations such as think tanks.

Only a quarter (26%) of economists working in UK academia are female, and only 15% of economics professors are women, compared to 38% of the economists at the UK Treasury and 44% of researchers at economic think tanks.

Among UK students entering the discipline, the gender gap has actually widened since 2002, when 31% of economics undergraduates and 37% of master’s students were women. By 2018, this had fallen to 27% and 31% respectively. Bateman says these statistics show that the closure of the gender gap in economics “isn’t simply a matter of time”.

“Only a third of economics lecturers in the UK are women, and just 15% of economics professors,” said report co-author Dr Erin Hengel, who received her PhD in economics from Cambridge before going on to lecture at the ̽��ֱ�� of Liverpool.

“While these figures are better than they were 25 years ago, the improving trend has levelled off. It appears that progress is starting to slow far before we reach any kind of gender parity.”

When the report’s authors factored in ethnicity, the percentage of female students was higher. In 2018, a third (33%) of Black economics undergraduates and 31% of Asian ethnicity undergraduates were women, compared to a quarter (25%) of White students.

However, women from ethnic minority backgrounds are not staying in academic economics. ̽��ֱ��report also found that at PhD level, the proportion of women is ten percentage points lower among minority candidates than white candidates.

Perhaps startlingly, the report found that between 2012 and 2018 there was not a single Black woman employed as a professor of economics anywhere in the UK.

Bateman says she hopes the new report will serve as a “call to arms” for the discipline of economics. “We are calling on universities to ask themselves why so few UK women are attracted to studying and researching the economy and why, even when they are, they do not stay,” she said.

Bateman’s 2019 book ̽��ֱ��Sex Factor showed how the status and freedom of women are central to prosperity, and that 'gender blindness' in economics has left the discipline wide of the mark on everything from poverty and inequality to understanding cycles of boom and bust.

“Unless economists are diverse, we cannot hope to build a complete understanding of the economy, and, with it, formulate the right kinds of policies,” Bateman added.

New research shows the gender gap in the teaching and study of economics is still dramatic and actually getting worse. Economists argue that this is not just a problem for the discipline, but for society as a whole.

Unless economists are diverse, we cannot hope to build a complete understanding of the economy, and, with it, formulate the right kinds of policies

Victoria Bateman

̽��ֱ��Gender Imbalance in UK Economics Short Edit

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Fake news, black holes and AI: Cambridge academics to speak at Hay Festival

mjg209 — Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:00:00 +0000

̽��ֱ��Series is now an established feature of the Hay Festival and is now in its eleventh year. This year’s speakers include experts on the localised effects of climate change, combatting fake news, black holes, food security and the impact of dinosaurs on the British landscape.

̽��ֱ��Series is part of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s commitment to public engagement. ̽��ֱ��Festival runs from 25th May to 2nd June and is now open for bookings.

Several speakers will address how experts navigate a world of fake news and artificial intelligence. Bill Sutherland, Miriam Rothschild Chair in Conservation Biology, will describe attempts to make global evidence available to all, improve the effectiveness of experts and change attitudes toward the use of evidence, especially in relation to conservation. Sander van der Linden from the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab and Department of Psychology will speak about how we can counter fake news and whether we can inoculate the public against misinformation. His forthcoming book will investigate the psychology of trust and how to communicate about facts and evidence in a post-truth society. Rapid changes in the use of artificial intelligence and the social and ethical implications of these will be discussed by Adrian Weller, a senior research fellow in machine learning.

Other speakers will address how reading is being transformed in a digital age. Writer, editor and researcher Tyler Shores will explore reading in an age of digital distraction while literacy education expert Fiona Maine will speak about the potential of complex, ambiguous wordless picturebooks and short films as springboards for children’s critical and creative discussions about the world and how we live in it.

From the world of science speakers include Professor Nicole Soranzo on the evolution of human genetics and how new genetic evidence is being used to better understand the interplay between our DNA (‘nature’) and the environment (‘nurture’). Professor Christopher Reynolds will describe how black holes stretch our understanding of space-time to the limits and power some of the most energetic phenomena in the Universe. Neuroscientist Professor Paul Fletcher will explain how different processes in the brain can lead to seemingly irrational decisions when it comes to what we eat. Dr Catherine Aitken will explore how life in the womb affects not only children’s lifelong health and well-being, but maybe even that of grandchildren.

Responses to climate change feature in several Cambridge Series sessions: climate change scientist Emily Shuckburgh will speak about her research on modelling localised effects of climate change and will also be in conversation with former Irish president Mary Robinson about climate justice. Another Cambridge Series session on female voices on climate change will see a panel of researchers talk about what kind of adaptations may be required as global warming increases and how we bring a broad range of the public on board, particularly with regard to the more complex issues around climate change. Speakers include Chandrika Nath, executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Professor Melody Clark from the British Antarctic Survey and two Gates Cambridge Scholars - Morgan Seag, co-chair of the international council of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists, and anthropologist Ragnhild Freng Dale from the Scott Polar Research Institute and the Western Norway Research Institute.

Other sessions explore issues of identity. Professor Michael Kenny will take part in a panel discussion on Brexit and the politics of national identity in the UK with Welsh government minister Eluned Morgan and Adam Price, leader of Plaid Cymru, while economist Victoria Bateman will address the role of women in the economic rise of the West. Her new book ̽��ֱ��Sex Factor - how women made the West rich argues that, far from the Industrial Revolution being all about male inventors and industrialists, the everyday woman underpinned Britain’s – and the West’s - rise.

For those interested in the more distant past Anthony Shillito and Neil Davies will explore their research on how ancient creatures, from dinosaurs to giant millipedes, shaped the land around them and what secrets are held within their prehistoric footprints. Martin Jones, Emeritus Professor of Archaeological Science at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, will discuss the vital question of food security, showing how our prehistoric ancestors built resilience into their food supply and what we can learn from them.

Peter Florence, director of Hay Festival, said: "Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� is home to some of the world's greatest thinkers, at the forefront of debate and exploration in the arts, sciences and global affairs. We're proud to open those ideas into conversations that resonate around the world from our field in Wales. Join us."

Ariel Retik, who oversees the Cambridge Series, said: “We are proud to continue our valued relationship with Hay. ̽��ֱ��Festival is a wonderful way of sharing with the public the research and learning that happens in Cambridge. We have found that Hay audiences are diverse, engaged and intellectually curious. They are an incredible cross-section of the public: from potential students and tourists, to journalists and policy-makers – everyone is represented. They are always interested in the research and, importantly, ask fantastic and challenging questions! We are excited for another year of talks and debates around the research and emerging ideas from Cambridge, which have global relevance and potential for world-changing impact."

Other ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge speakers at the Festival include Professor Martin Rees, neuroscientist Giles Yeo, author and lecturer Robert Macfarlane and neuroscientist Hannah Critchlow. Charlie Gilderdale, NRICH Project Secondary Coordinator, will once again be running maths masterclasses with Alison Eves from the Royal Institution.

Book tickets

Full line-up of the Cambridge Series

Nineteen academics from a wide range of disciplines will take part in this year’s Cambridge Series of talks at the Hay Festival, one of the most prestigious literary festivals in the world.

We are excited for another year of talks and debates around the research and emerging ideas from Cambridge, which have global relevance and potential for world-changing impact

Ariel Retik

Sam Hardwick

Hay Festival

Yes

Opinion: Four ways to understand Theresa May’s Hard Brexit Speech

ag236 — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:58:58 +0000

Hard Brexit. Clean Brexit. Full Brexit. Naked Brexit. Whatever you want to call it, we now know what Brexit really means. Or do we? Theresa May's long awaited speech isn't quite as clear cut as it seems. There are, in fact, four very different ways to interpret the Prime Minister's carefully crafted words, underpinned by what could be seen as the four motivating factors behind what would now appear to be Britain’s hard Brexit stance: the economy, politics, society and the art of negotiation.

Firstly, it could be a matter of “it’s the economy, stupid". Whilst economists are well known for predicting economic calamity as a result of the referendum decision, and the latest research suggests that, if anything, they were too optimistic - that factoring in the adverse effects of reduced immigration doubles the economic losses - there are those who argue that a clean break could bring economic benefits in the longer run. According to Shanker Singham, Chairman of the Special Trade Commission at the Legtaum Institute, these benefits arise from the potential for Britain to become more global: to, for example, eradicate the agricultural protectionism associated with the Common Agricultural Policy, and to make independent trade deals with the wider world. According to Singham, this can only be achieved by a "full Brexit". Whilst I have myself identified a number of issues with this type of "globalising Brexiteer" story, it may be that it has nevertheless persuaded the Prime Minister.

Of course, even if such hoped for economic benefits really are on offer, there is still a rather big fly in the ointment: the leap of faith that is required to read the Brexit vote as a vote for more - rather than less - globalisation. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Brexit supporters span the whole spectrum of economic views from the left-leaning to the free-market right. Global Britain might satisfy some not all, leading us down a yellow brick road of disappointment. And, even if the majority really are in support of a more global Britain, Theresa May’s strategy seems to involve pressing the de-globalisation button alongside the button for globalisation. To the rest of the world, Britain is not leading the way with free trade, as it did centuries ago, it’s doing precisely the opposite.

Having been a Remainer herself, the Prime Minister is likely to be well aware of the possible economic fallout of Brexit (even if she won’t admit it). In that case, her speech is more a matter of "it's politics, stupid" than it is of "the economy, stupid". To date, Europe has made it clear that Britain can't have its cake and eat it, leaving May with a choice: remain in the single market for the benefit of the economy, thereby accepting freedom of movement, or aim instead for a little England, with control over migration, whatever the economic cost. May's speech will be widely interpreted as prioritising the issue of immigration whilst minimising the economic trade-off involved – or suggesting that we will be peddling hard globally to do whatever we can to compensate for losses associated with reduced European trade. Even if that peddling does get us somewhere, we cannot assume that more trade will mean a stronger economy. ̽��ֱ��reality is that it takes a stronger economy to create more trade, not vice-versa.

Aside from the economic and the political interpretations, there is, however, a third interpretation of May's speech: that society is being brought in from the cold. Over the last hundred years, a battle has been raging between the state and the market. On the left and the right, politicians and economists have imagined the economic pie as being divided into two pieces: the slice that represents government and the slice that represents market activity. ̽��ֱ��idea of a direct trade-off between the two naturally follows - more of one must mean less of the other. However, many of the concerns expressed by voters, whether in the U.K. Brexit vote or the U.S.A. election, don't fit neatly into this two-slice division of the economic pie. That's because there is a third slice of the pie that economists and politicians have been neglecting and, here, it is a matter of "it's society, stupid".

Only by bringing society into our picture can we truly understand the Brexit (and Trump) vote: why, for example, so many Conservatives (or Republicans) who would normally be pro-market and anti-state are in favour of the state “regaining” control over immigration, and why some on the Left are in favour of remaining in what is a free-trade zone, despite not exactly being enamored with free markets. Such apparent inconsistencies require us to think about peoples fears and hopes for society, beyond either the frontiers of the market or the state.

Perhaps the Prime Minister understands that concerns about society are one of the key drivers of dissatisfaction amongst voters: that what we have experienced is not simply a backlash against markets and a desire for the state to do more, but, rightly or wrongly, worries about social breakdown. If that is the case, then her speech falls short. What we desperately need is a wider public debate that engages with two big questions: firstly, to what extent has society really deteriorated, and, secondly, to what extent have globalisation and the free market model – including free movement - really been bad for society.

However, this third interpretation might be giving the Prime Minister too much credit, which brings me to my fourth and some might say most likely interpretation of May's hard Brexit tactics - that they are nothing more than a negotiation strategy. That this is a game of asking Europe for more than the government is truly happy to accept. If that's really the case, we need to take what May says with a pinch of salt. Perhaps we can’t infer much at all.

Economics first, politics first, society first, or the art of negotiation. There are four distinct ways to interpret May's hard Brexit stance. Between all four, you could be left wondering whether we really are any the wiser about Britain’s future. However, whatever happens, May’s image of a stronger, richer and more global Britain cannot yet be taken for granted.

Dr Victoria Bateman is a Fellow in Economics and economic historian, Gonville & Caius College

An economic historian offers her initial reaction to the Prime Minister's address

To the rest of the world, Britain is not leading the way with free trade, as it did centuries ago, it’s doing precisely the opposite

Victoria Bateman

Photo via Flickr: speedpropertybuyers.co.uk

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Brexit: Listen to experts from Cambridge and beyond discuss how, why and what next for Brexit Britain

fpjl2 — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:40:50 +0000

̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge recently held a week-long series of Brexit talks and discussions, featuring senior experts in law, politics, history, science and economics from Cambridge and beyond.

̽��ֱ��aim was to engage both ̽��ֱ�� students and the local community in debates on how Britain moves towards departure from the European Union in the wake of June’s referendum.

You can listen to some of the talks below, or download from iTunesU here.

How Did We Get Here?

Tuesday 18th October

Robert Tombs, Professor of Modern European History at Cambridge's Faculty of History

Robert Tombs is the author of a recent epic history of England, and a renowned expert on nineteenth-century French political history and the relationship between the French and the British. During the EU Referendum campaign, he was a signatory on a letter produced by ‘Historians for Britain’, which supported a Leave vote, and has written about the future of the UK post-Brexit.

Dr Victoria Bateman, Fellow and College Lecturer in Economics at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge

Victoria Bateman is an economic historian at Cambridge, and a Fellow at the Legatum Institute think tank. Her current research focuses on the European economy from early-modern times to the present. Victoria has called for a sexual revolution in economics due to a lack of women in the discipline, and wrote articles in favour of a Remain vote in the run-up to the EU Referendum. She tweets at @vnbateman.

Dr Chris Bickerton, ̽��ֱ�� Lecturer in Politics at POLIS and Official Fellow at Queens’ College, Cambridge

Chris Bickerton’s research focuses on the dynamics of state transformation and the challenges facing representative democracy in Europe. He has written a recently published book called ̽��ֱ��European Union: A Citizen’s Guide. During the run-up to the EU Referendum, Chris wrote in favour of a Leave vote, making the left-wing case for Brexit. He tweets at @cjbickerton.

Key Issues for the UK and EU Post-Brexit

Wednesday 19th October

Coen Teulings, Professor of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations at Cambridge’s Faculty of Economics

As well as holding the Montague Burton Chair at Cambridge, Coen Teulings is a Professor of Economics at the ̽��ֱ�� of Amsterdam. He has written extensively about wages and income inequality, and spent seven years as the Director of the Central Planning Bureau — the Netherlands’ official economic forecasting agency. He has talked publicly about the risks posed by Brexit to free trade.

Athene Donald, Professor of Experimental Physics at Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory and Master of Churchill College

Athene Donald has served on the ̽��ֱ��’s Council and as its gender equality champion. She was appointed a Dame Commander of the British Empire in 2010, and Master of Churchill College in 2013. Athene wrote and talked extensively on the dangers that a Leave vote posed for UK science during the run-up to the EU Referendum. She is a regular blogger, and tweets at @AtheneDonald.

Charles Clarke, former Home Secretary

Charles Clarke is a Visiting Professor at the Policy Institute of Kings College London. He was MP for Norwich South from 1997 to 2010, and served as Home Secretary between 2004 and 2006 in Tony Blair’s Labour Government. During the run-up to the EU Referendum, Charles co-authored a report warning that intelligence relationships would be damaged by a Leave vote.

Process and Politics of the UK Leaving the EU

Thursday 20th October

David Runciman, Professor of Politics and Head of Department at POLIS and Fellow at Trinity Hall, Cambridge

David Runciman’s current research projects include the Leverhulme-funded Conspiracy and Democracy project and Future of Intelligence centre. In 2013, he published the book ̽��ֱ��Confidence Trap, a history of democratic crises since WWI. David hosts the weekly podcast Talking Politics from his Cambridge office, and has written that the Referendum vote shone a light on the education divide in democracy.

Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, and Fellow at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge

Mark Elliott has written a number of books on public law, and is Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Mark writes a highly regarded blog called Public Law for Everyone, on which he analyses many of the legal issues surrounding the triggering of Article 50 and Theresa May’s Great Repeal Bill. Mark tweets at @ProfMarkElliott, and the slides from this talk are available at his blog.

Global Britain? ̽��ֱ��Future of British Trade after Brexit

Thursday 20th October

̽��ֱ��Rt. Hon. Greg Hands MP, Minister of State in the Department for International Trade, delivered this year’s Alcuin Lecture at Cambridge’s Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS). Greg was appointed to his current position by Theresa May in July 2016, where he serves as number two to Secretary of State Liam Fox. He tweets at @GregHands.

̽��ֱ��UK and Brexit: How, Why and Where Now?

Friday 21st October

Matthew Elliott, Head of Vote Leave

Matthew Elliott is the former Chief Executive of the Vote Leave campaign. He is now Editor-at-Large of BrexitCentral, recently launched with the aim of “promoting a positive vision of Britain after Brexit”. He was a founder and former Chief Executive of the political think tank ̽��ֱ��TaxPayers’ Alliance. Matthew tweets at @matthew_elliott.

Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and Employment Law at the Faculty of Law, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge

Catherine Barnard is a leading expert on EU internal markets and employment law, publishing extensively in these fields. She is a Senior Fellow of the ESRC’s UK in a Changing Europe initiative, and is jointly leading the EU Migrant Worker research project. Catherine regularly commented in the media during and after the EU Referendum. She has recently written that there could be free movement of workers in any Brexit deal. Catherine tweets at @CSBarnard24.

Jonathan Portes, Principal Research Fellow at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research

In addition to his role at the NIESR, Jonathan Portes is also a Senior Fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative. Previously, he served as Chief Economist at the Cabinet Office. Jonathan’s new book, 50 Capitalism Ideas You Really Need to Know, has just been published. During the run-up to the EU Referendum, he wrote on the misrepresentation of migration by sections of the media. Jonathan tweets at @jdportes.

Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King’s College London

Anand Menon is the Director of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative, and has written widely on many aspects of EU politics and policy and on UK-EU relations. As part of the initiative, he recently led on a report suggesting that “Brexit has the potential to test the UK’s constitutional settlement, legal framework, political process and bureaucratic capacities to their limits”. Anand tweets at @anandMenon1.

Listen to some of the talks that were given as part of the ̽��ֱ��'s 'Brexit Week' series, which took place from 18 - 22 October.

Ed Everett

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Opinion: Economics has a serious gender problem – it needs more women

bjb42 — Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:38:33 +0000

On the eve of the 2008 financial crisis, economists were feeling optimistic. ̽��ֱ��two-headed beast that had blighted the economy throughout the 1970s and 1980s – inflation combined with unemployment – had been tamed, and the business cycle seemed to be a thing of the past. Economists believed they had developed such a good understanding of the economy that they could keep it on an even keel. ̽��ֱ��Nobel Prize-winning economist and president of the American Economic Association, Robert Lucas, went as far as to announce that the Great Depression would never happen again.

When the unthinkable happened in 2008, no one was therefore more shocked than economists themselves – and economics has been trying to rebuild itself ever since. Along the way, it has been having to wrestle with two other not entirely unrelated problems: rising inequality and a slowdown in economic growth. If economics is to change for the better and not for the worse, economists need to draw on new ideas and new voices. That must include women.

Economics has a serious sex problem – this is, in my view, one of the prime reasons why it went “off piste” in the first place. Hence my call for a sexual revolution in economics. ̽��ֱ��presence of leading ladies such as Janet Yellen at the Fed or Christine Lagarde at the IMF masks a deep underlying problem in economics, one which is apparent from the fact that there has only ever been one female Nobel Prize-winning economist.

Whether we are looking at policymakers, academics or economics students, there are many more men than there are women at the helm of the economy. In the UK and US, there are almost three times as many male home students majoring in economics at university as there are female home students. In the UK, the proportion of girls studying for an economics degree has been on a downward as opposed to upward trend.

Whether an economist is male or female should not, in principle, matter. But given that our society has been one in which the male experience is very different to that of the female, how can a subject dominated by men not implicitly and unknowingly provide us with only half of the story?

While economists like to think of their discipline as being gender neutral, the reality is that economists have looked at the world around them through male eyes – and rather privileged male eyes at that. This male experience has traditionally been one of business and paid work, an experience that leaves family and community to the opposite sex. ̽��ֱ��interactions between society and the economy are ignored, and the vital role of reproduction, care and nurture – something which is just as important as investment in capital stock – is downplayed. It is, effectively, taken for granted.

Men, after all, have far more experience of investment in plant and machinery than they do of investment in the next generation – or of caring for the previous generation of “producers”. And since traditionally “rationality” has been seen as a male trait and “emotion” as female, economists have long taken the attitude that to incorporate real human characteristics into their way of thinking about the economy would be to make it less rigorous.

False dichotomy

While the economy affects everyone – male or female – the questions economists seek to answer, the tools they use to find an answer, the assumptions they make along the way and the economic phenomena they choose to measure are all dictated by the fact that economics is a discipline dominated by men. In turn, so are the economic policies that affect our daily lives.

Unsurprisingly, economists have placed markets on a pedestal, leaving life outside in the cold – including vital activities without which the economy and society could not function. ̽��ֱ��“upsides” of state interventions, many of which have a powerful effect on women’s lives, have received little attention relative to the much-trumpeted “downsides”. ̽��ֱ��welfare state has been demonised and women have suffered the consequences.

With this neglect of our wider lives, economists have typically divided the economy into twin spheres: the state and the market. Any expansion of the former is therefore seen as coming at the cost of the latter. Only by recognising a third sphere, involving life outside of the market and beyond the whims of the state, will we stop seeing the state and the market as if they are in a permanent zero-sum game. By supporting women’s labour force participation through social and welfare policy, the state can, for example, work in support of market activity rather than crowding it out.

His story must include her

In addition to the bias contained within economists’ models of the world, their interpretation of the past – of what has made the Western economy successful – also leaves something to be desired. ̽��ֱ��story we are typically told is supposedly gender neutral but, when you think about it, it’s very much a male tale – one involving the largely male engineers, inventors, industrialists and scientists of the Industrial Revolution. But history suggests that women’s choices about work, fertility and home were just as important for the rise of the West.

In Britain, women had already begun to enter the workforce hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution and did not marry until their mid-20s – very different to the situation in many emerging economies today. ̽��ֱ��result was smaller families – meaning less downward pressure on wages, a greater ability for parents to educate the children they did have and spare resources for families to save for the future. By affecting wages, skills and savings, women’s choices about work and family sowed the longer-term seeds of economic growth.

By ignoring the relevance of gender to economic growth, economists have been blinkered to the potential which female empowerment provides to help resolve today’s pressing economic problems – including in the West. Whether it is a slowdown in growth, deflation, negative interest rates, poor productivity performance, stagnant wages, inequality or political battles about immigration, the problems we currently face are rooted in what I have recently termed for Bloomberg “a global sex problem”.

A lack of female empowerment in poorer countries has resulted in high fertility rates and rapid population growth over the past century. With the onset of globalisation, as rich and poor economies have come into greater contact, this has created significant downward pressure on wage growth in the West. Rising inequality and slow growth have been the inevitable result – as has animosity towards foreigners and to the forces of globalisation.

To my mind, it is not globalisation that is the underlying cause of our problems: it is the lack of freedom for women in poorer countries across the world – including their lack of freedom to take charge of their bodies. Our economic suffering reflects their own sufferings: excessive population growth abroad resulting from women’s lack of freedom hurts wage growth in the West, particularly of less skilled workers. This affects inequality and lowers incentives for businesses to invest.

Unfortunately, the gender problem in economics has meant that the connection between women’s empowerment and current-day economic problems has remained unexplored. Take what is perhaps the most respected book on the challenges facing the Western economy – Secular Stagnation: facts, causes and cures, edited by the economists Coen Teulings and Richard Baldwin. None of the 20 or so contributors was female – gender did not receive a mention. And, take Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First century. Gender hardly features at all. I only counted one mention of it in the text.

In the process of the economy remaking itself, economists need to admit that their discipline has a serious sex problem – one that desperately needs to be addressed if we are to get to grips with the major challenges we face: slow growth, inequality and recurrent crises. By ignoring the problem, or by presuming that it is women who need to change, not the discipline itself, we will be destined to repeat past mistakes. And that will hurt everyone – male or female.

Victoria Bateman, Lecturer and Fellow in Economics, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

Victoria Bateman (Lecturer and Fellow in Economics) calls for fresh thinking to prevent the exclusion of women's voices.

Valsts kanceleja/ State Chancellery

Ministru prezidents piedalās Latvijas bankas un Starptautiskā Valūtas fonda konferences "Apstākļiem spītējot: Baltijas valstu tautsaimniecības atveseļošanās pieredze" atklāšanā

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Closing the Gender Gap

ta385 — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:00:00 +0000

Gender diversity, both in education and the economy, is now the subject of serious debate among policy-makers, academics, teachers and employers. Of particular concern is the fact that female participation in STEM subjects – science, technology, engineering and mathematics – suffers from a “leaky pipeline”. Up to the age of sixteen, as many girls as boys study maths and science, but thereafter a gap opens up which continues to widen at each step of the career ladder.

For this reason, many of Cambridge’s access events aim to encourage female students, particularly those in state sector schools and colleges, to continue studying mathematics and science at school and to apply for university courses in which women are currently under-represented across the UK.

Recent events have included

Robinson College’s Women in Science Festival

Robinson welcomed 124 female Sixth Formers from across the country to its inaugural Women in Science Festival, an entirely free one day event aimed at encouraging more young women to pursue further study in science and maths related disciplines.

̽��ֱ��event opened with five talks by female scientists currently making waves at Cambridge. Dr Liisa Van Vliet spoke about microscopy, Dr Teresa Tiffert on Malaria and Anaemias and Dr Athina Markaki on Cardiovascular stents. They were followed by two PhD students – Joana Grah discussed the use of Mathematical Image Analysis in Cancer Research while Diana Vasile revealed the computer science behind mobile devices.

Twelve courageous Sixth Formers then took to the stage to give five minute presentations about a STEM topic which they feel passionate about, earning feedback from an expert judging panel. After taking lunch at Robinson with College Fellows and students, the participants visited the Department of Materials Science & Metallurgy to experience ̽��ֱ��-level laboratory work. ̽��ֱ��most popular experiment involved measuring the temperature-dependent properties of rubber, with the participants using liquid nitrogen to cool their samples.

Robinson’s Dr Rachel Oliver, a Reader in Materials Science, said "We believe that many young women have the potential to make a real contribution in STEM subjects, but they are sometimes put off by misconceptions about science and engineering, or about the people who work in those fields. We wanted to give Sixth Formers the opportunity to meet real female scientists and engineers and be inspired by the work they do.”

Gonville & Caius College’s Women in Economics Day

Highly respected female economists including Dame Kate Barker, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, and Dr Vicky Pryce, former joint head of the Government Economic Service, gave 100 Sixth Form girls a clear message: “Economics Needs You!”

Women currently represent about 36% of applications to study economics at Cambridge and receive 37 per cent of offers. This is significantly higher than the UK average. A recent study by the ̽��ֱ�� of Southampton found that women account for just 27 per cent of economics students in the UK, despite making up 57 per cent of the overall undergraduate population. Nevertheless, the Collegiate ̽��ֱ�� would like to see more women studying Maths in Sixth Form and going on to apply to study economics.

̽��ֱ��event at Gonville & Caius was run by Dr Victoria Bateman, Director of Studies for Economics at the College. Dr Bateman told a packed auditorium "Sadly, the lack of female representation in the subject has meant that economists have built a model of the economy which tells only half of the story. ̽��ֱ��future of economics – and the economy – is in your hands.”

̽��ֱ��students received a welcome message from Carolyn Fairbairn, who gained a double first in economics at Caius and becomes the CBI’s first female director general in November 2015. Ms Fairbairn said economics was too often seen as “a science that only an elite of often male experts are qualified to comment on” and argued that women’s views were vital if economic policy were to respond to the needs of both genders.

Corpus Christi College’s STEM Summer School for Years 12 & 13

For the first time, Corpus Christi ran a three-day STEM event for 16-18 year old female students from across the country. 86 schools, the vast majority state sector, selected one hundred participants to take part in recognition of their impressive academic achievements and their passion for one or more of the STEM subjects.

̽��ֱ��event combined hands-on activities, departmental visits and lectures on a diverse range of topics, from the chemistry of water to a programming language for blind children. It also included a practical advice session on STEM interviews at Cambridge.

Unforgettable words of encouragement came from Dame Athene Donald, Professor of Experimental Physics and Master of Churchill College, Cambridge, who spoke of the importance of perseverance and the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of the sciences.

Event leader, Dr Sophie Zadeh, Fellow in Psychology at Corpus Christi College, said “We’re thrilled that we’ve been able to offer these young women the opportunity to experience Cambridge but we want to ensure the impact of this event reaches far beyond the attendees. We want to help close the gender gap in STEM across the country.”

More information and photos here.

Newnham College’s Joan Clarke Maths Residential

Joan Clarke achieved a double first in Mathematics at Newnham in the 1930s and went on to play a crucial role in the Second World War by helping to crack the Enigma machine at Bletchley Park.

Named in her honour, Newnham’s inaugural maths residential gave thirty Year 13s studying Further Maths at state schools an inspiring taste of STEM subjects at Cambridge.

̽��ֱ��programme included lectures, seminars, discussion groups, practical work and social activities, as well as the opportunity to meet current staff and students.

This entirely free event was made possible by alumnae donations made specifically to encourage more women from state schools to apply for science and maths based courses at Cambridge.

Dr Sam Lucy, Newnham’s Admissions Tutor, said: “This initiative gives very bright young women the information they need to make competitive applications to Cambridge and other top universities, while also helping them to explore the different types of maths taught on STEM courses."

More information here.

Murray Edwards College’s ‘She Talks Science’

Murray Edwards recently set up ‘She Talks Science’, a blog designed to give young women the opportunity to share their passion for science with each other and with Murray Edwards students, Fellows and alumnae. Previous posts have included thoughts on snowflakes, micro-seismic activity and an inspiring introduction from the College’s President, Barbara Stocking.

̽��ֱ��College’s annual Pathways to Success conference introduces high-achieving Year 12s from schools across the UK to students, graduates and staff at Murray Edwards. ̽��ֱ��event aims to encourage young women to expand their horizons and to embrace aiming high. Previous guest speakers have included high-flying alumnae who studied science at the College.

Cavendish Inspiring Women (CiW)

CiW was set up by two Cambridge PhD students, Sarah Morgan and Hannah Stern, together with Dr Elsa Couderc, a former post-doc at the ̽��ֱ��, and Dr Atefey Amin, a research associate, to encourage young women to pursue careers in science, or to use their science training to further other career paths.

CiW introduces promising teenage scientists to inspiring role models by holding regular speaker events at the Cavendish Laboratory. Previous speakers have included Dr Sarah Bohndiek, a lecturer in biomedical physics and a junior research group leader at the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute. CiW also provides advice via its website and recently published ‘What is so Exciting About Physics?’ a free booklet aimed at secondary school students featuring insights from several female scientists.

Hannah and Sarah said “We both really enjoy studying science and haven't felt disadvantaged by being women. But we have noticed how few female scientists there are in comparison to men and we know that the way society portrays scientists can sometimes be very stereotypical. So we started Cavendish Inspiring Women to promote the visibility of women in science and to show that it can be an excellent career path for women as well as men.”

Every year, 200,000 young people participate in access initiatives run by the ̽��ֱ�� and the Colleges. This programme includes a wide range of opportunities specifically designed to inspire young women and to foster greater participation in certain areas of Higher Education and work.

"We promote the visibility of women in science and show that it can be an excellent career path for women as well as men".

Sarah Morgan & Hannah Stern, Cavendish Inspiring Women

Robinson College’s Women in Science Festival

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Lessons from history: how Europe did (and didn’t) grow rich

amb206 — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:00:00 +0000

In the modern world, we take for granted the fact that our economies become richer and more sophisticated decade-on-decade – and that our grandchildren will live a better life than our own, just as we live a better life than our grandparents. However, for the greatest part of human history, the standard of living was low and subject to little improvement.

One of the most important questions that economists seek to answer is how we made the shift from stagnation to continued growth, a shift commonly thought to have occurred with the Industrial Revolution in late 18th-century Britain. ̽��ֱ��stakes are clearly high: being able to answer this significant question would give us the potential to unlock millions of people from poverty across the world today.

̽��ֱ��most popular answer to the question of who or what created lasting growth can be found on the reverse side of the British £20 note, which bears the face of Adam Smith, champion of the free market. Following Smith’s Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, liberalisation and free trade have become familiar to us all, and the state and the market are commonly seen in opposition, with the release of the market requiring reining in the state through privatisation and deregulation.

In the tradition of Smith, modern day economists argue that the reason why economies were poor in the past was that absolutist monarchs undermined property rights (reneging on debt and forcibly extracting wealth from minority groups), and that the state too heavily regulated the economy, including granting monopoly privileges to guilds and international trading companies, all of which limited the incentives and ability of people to buy and sell goods freely. ̽��ֱ��result was that people lacked the incentive to produce, invest and invent – economic growth was thereby hampered.

Only with the onset of the Glorious Revolution in Britain in 1688, which transferred power from the monarch to an elected parliament, were markets supposedly set free, culminating in the Industrial Revolution a century later. In the century which followed, the collapse of the Communist regime in Russia and the success of market liberalisation in China, seemed to add credence to this free-market led view of growth. By 2003, following decades of market liberalisation across the globe, the President of the American Economic Association stood up and publicly announced that the future was bright for the global economy. Instead, what happened was the very opposite: we now stand in the middle of the greatest global economic crisis since the Great Depression.

So, with the economic crisis in mind, what evidence is there to support the claim that markets really do deliver in the long term? As my recent book Markets and Growth in Early Modern Europe has uncovered, very little historical evidence exists to support this claim, despite its power and influence on policy-making over the last two centuries.

Looking at evidence from as far back as ancient Babylonia and through to medieval, early-modern and modern Europe, my research has built a picture of the evolution of markets across the long span of human history using one particularly abundant historical data source – the prices of goods. ̽��ֱ��prices originate from sources as wide as the clay tablets of ancient Babylonia to the account books of Oxbridge Colleges, and include those for a number of commonly consumed goods (such as candles, soap and linen), with the most abundant being for cereals (which provided around 80 per cent of calorie intake in pre-modern Europe).

Where markets became more developed, one should find that in response to trade flows, prices became less volatile and, for the same good, converged across different locations. By applying statistical techniques to measure price behaviour, I have been able to measure market development in a consistent and comparable way across different parts of Europe and across many hundreds of years.

If the free-market view were correct, the picture revealed should have been very simple: poorly-developed markets throughout history until the 17th and 18th centuries, at which point new previously unseen levels of market development were achieved (particularly in Britain), culminating in the Industrial Revolution and the birth of modern economic growth. Instead, the picture I found was very different indeed: markets were certainly not a ‘modern invention’.

Indeed, the presence of markets in Europe as far back as Roman times would not surprise any visitor to museums, many of which have on display a great abundance of coins indicative of market-exchange, together with artifacts such as vases which had been traded across hundreds of miles to the point at which they were unearthed in an archaeological dig. Such markets were supported by the vast state infrastructure for which the Romans are famous – a stable coinage system, a taxation system that funded transport and utilities, and a common legal system to uphold contracts.

Once the Roman state began to crumble, so did the markets it supported, leaving Europe in what was once called the ‘Dark Ages’, falling behind Byzantium and the Orient. Indeed, it was only with the development of institutions in medieval Europe which substituted for the state (such as the Church, guilds and city-states) that markets began to recover – a process which took many centuries.

My research shows that, by the end of the medieval period, markets were around two or three times as developed as in the early ancient period and were highly active throughout Europe. At this time, Venice was the leading long-distance trader on the continent, sourcing exotic silks and spices that had travelled along the ‘silk road’ from the Orient and Middle East all the way to Constantinople. In an effort to sell their goods to European customers, the Italians carved out and linked themselves into trade routes across Europe, exchanging the exotic goods from the East together with the produce of the Mediterranean (oil, soap and wine) for the woolen cloth of north-western Europe (where 45 per cent of the residents of Bruges worked manufacturing cloth in the early 14th century), and the grain, metals, amber and furs of central and eastern Europe.

̽��ֱ��customs records of Southampton reveal a constant battle between the English authorities and the Italians, with one official refusing in 1423 to disembark an Italian ship on which customs duties were owed, only for the captain stubbornly to set sail, with the official eventually having to give in and disembark on the Isle of Wight.

Not only were markets for goods advancing in the medieval period, but so were those for finance, as along with the medieval trading boom came a demand for credit. It was in medieval Italy that Europe’s financial markets first began to develop, benefiting from the mathematical techniques which flowed from the East alongside the spices and silks. For this reason, many modern day banking terms have their origins in the Italian language, including the old symbols for the British currency (L, s and d), and, more generally, why the ‘intellectual fizz’ that was the Renaissance originated in the part of Europe most closely tied with the East.

Looking in envy at the wealth created by the Italian cities through trade with the East, other parts of Europe soon started to take advantage of developments in trading technology (such as sturdier ships, navigation and maps) to search for their own route to the Middle East and Orient. In the late 15th century, Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic to find a ‘back door’, stumbling on the Americas along the way (some say that he took some convincing that he was not on Chinese soil). ̽��ֱ��result was the birth of the Atlantic economy, and the first major globalisation of the world economy: as calculated by O’Rourke and Williamson, world trade in the first half of the 16th century grew at a rate of 2.4 per cent a year, a figure not far off that in the twentieth century.

̽��ֱ��level of market development achieved by the end of the medieval period was already so advanced that, as my book argues, it was barely surpassed by the time of the Industrial Revolution three centuries later, only after which did markets witness a second phase of significant improvement. This is evident in the reduction in the disparity of wheat prices across Europe in the course of the 19th century, when the average price-gap fell from 45 per cent to only 4 per cent, indicating significantly more connected markets. This second major phase of improvement was an outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution itself, based on the application of the steam engine to ships and rail, which drastically cut transport costs, making the world ‘smaller and flatter’.

With these greater flows of goods came significant flows of people – around 30 million people emigrated from Europe to the USA in the century after 1820. This was a process of globalisation that worked on all levels: goods, people and money, and it was not surpassed until towards the end of the 20th century. As with that most recent round of globalisation, it was economic growth itself (or the technologies it brings) that enables markets to reach a new level of development.

In sum, what my research has shown is that the two most significant phases of market development occurred either side of the period traditionally emphasised - and that they took place well before the Industrial Revolution, and then subsequent to it, as opposed to during the 17th and 18th centuries. ̽��ֱ��idea that markets are at the root of the modern age of sustained economic growth is therefore seriously in doubt when we look at the historical evidence. Instead, it makes much more sense to argue that markets, while necessary, are both insufficient for growth and are as much a consequence as a cause.

If we want to understand why the Industrial Revolution occurred and so how Europe and the West grew rich, we need to continue to pursue this long-span historical approach; looking back at economies throughout the past to work out in which ways they were similar and, more importantly, in which ways they truly were different to those of the modern age.

For economists immersing themselves in theory and models, economic history provides a wealth of evidence that is yet to be fully exploited – and which has the potential for revolutionising economic policy and, with it, the lives of many people in the present and future. Until the lessons of history are learned and we realise that more than markets were required to light the fire of continued growth, we may find it difficult to escape the current economic crisis and return to the sustained growth we had begun to take for granted.

Dr Victoria Bateman is Fellow and College Lecturer in Economics at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. She is author of Markets and Growth in Early Modern Europe (Pickering and Chatto, 2012) and contributor to RJ Van der Spek, Jan Luiten van Zanden and ES van Leeuwen (eds), A History of Market Performance: From Ancient Babylonia to the Modern World (Routledge, forthcoming).

̽��ֱ��Industrial Revolution is seen as the spark that lit Europe’s economic prosperity. In her analysis of markets over many hundreds of years, economist Dr Victoria Bateman presents a compelling argument for a broader global perspective.

My research has built a picture of the evolution of markets across the long span of history using one particularly abundant data source – the prices of goods.

Dr Victoria Bateman

Bernardo Bellotto (Canaletto) A View at the Entrance of the Grand Canal, Venice, c.1741 Oil on canvas, 59.3 cm x 94.9 cm (detail)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes