This week the Nobel Foundation recognized Claudia Goldin “for having advanced our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes”. If you follow our blog you probably already know that each year Marginal Revolution quickly puts up a great explanation of the work that won the economics Prize. This year they kept things brief with a sort of victory lap pointing to their previous posts on Goldin and the videos and podcast they had recorded with her, along with a pointer to her latest paper. You might also remember our own review of her latest book, Career and Family.
But you may not know that Kevin Bryan at A Fine Theorem does a more thorough, and typically more theory-based explanation of the Nobel work most years; here is his main take from this year’s post on Goldin:
Goldin’s work helps us understand whose wages will rise, will fall, will equalize going forward. Not entirely unfairly, she will be described in much of today’s coverage as an economist who studies the gender gap. This description misses two critical pieces. The question of female wages is a direct implication of her earlier work on the return to different skills as the structure of the economy changes, and that structure is the subject of her earliest work on the development of the American economy. Further, her diagnosis of the gender gap is much more optimistic, and more subtle, than the majority of popular discourse on the topic.
He described my favorite Goldin paper, which calculates gender wage gaps by industry and shows that pharmacists moved from having one of the highest gaps to one of the lowest as one key feature of the job changed:
Alongside Larry Katz, Goldin gives the canonical example of the pharmacist, whose gender gap is smaller than almost every other high-wage profession. Why? Wages are largely “linear in hours”. Today, though not historically, pharmacists generally work in teams at offices where they can substitute for each other. No one is always “on call”. Hence a pharmacist who wants to work late nights while young, then shorter hours with a young kid at home, then a longer worker day when older can do so. If pharmacies were structured as independent contractors working for themselves, as they were historically, the marginal productivity of a worker who wanted this type of flexibility would be lower. The structure of the profession affects marginal productivity, hence wages and the gender gap, particularly given the different demand for steady and shorter hours among women. Now, not all jobs can be turned from ones with convex wages for long and unsteady hours to ones with linear wages, but as Goldin points out, it’s not at all obvious that academia or law or other high-wage professions can’t make this shift. Where these changes can be made, we all benefit from high-skilled women remaining in high-productivity jobs: Goldin calls this “the last chapter” of gender convergence.
There is much more to the post, particularly on economic history; it concludes:
When evaluating her work, I can think of no stronger commendation than that I have no idea what Goldin will show me when I begin reading a paper; rather, she is always thoughtful, follows the data, rectifies what she finds with theory, and feels no compunction about sacrificing some golden goose – again, the legacy of 1970s Chicago rears its head. Especially on a topic as politically loaded as gender, this intellectual honesty is the source of her influence and a delight to the reader trying to understand such an important topic.
This year also saw a great summary from Alice Evans, who to my eyes (admittedly as someone who doesn’t work in the subfield) seems like the next Claudia Goldin, the one taking her work worldwide:
That is the story of “Why Women Won”.
Claudia Goldin has now done it all. With empirical rigor, she has theorised every major change in American women’s lives over the twentieth century. These dynamics are not necessarily true worldwide, but Goldin has provided the foundations.
I’ve seen two lines of criticism for this prize. One is the usual critique, generally from the left, that the Econ Nobel shouldn’t exist (or doesn’t exist), to which I say:
The critique from the right is that Goldin studied unimportant subjects and only got the prize because they were politically fashionable. But labor markets make up most of GDP, and women now make up almost half the labor force; this seems obviously important to me. Goldin has clearly been the dominant researcher on the topic, being recognized as a citation laureate in 2020 (i.e. someone likely to win a Nobel because of their citations). At most politics could explain why this was a solo prize (the first in Econ since Thaler in 2017), but even here this seems about as reasonable as the last few solo prizes. David Henderson writes a longer argument in the Wall Street Journal for why Claudia Goldin Deserves that Nobel Prize.
Best of all, Goldin maintains a page to share datasets she helped create here.
Economist Writing Every Day 