A look at former Penn economics professor Claudia Goldin’s Nobel-winning work

Was Goldin’s area of research considered innovative in the late 1970s and early 1980s? What’s special about her work?

Behrman: There were some big questions in economic history at that time. One that absorbed a lot of energy was what were the impacts of railroads, which is still a very interesting and relevant question. Of course, a major question was slavery, both antebellum and postbellum. I am unaware that there was much emphasis before Claudia on the gender questions. So, I think she was early, if not the first, among major economic historians to delve into that. Over time, both at Penn and going to Harvard, she delved more and more into greater and greater depth and also partly for that reason, she became much more visible. Her early publications were very much in niche economic history journals or books. Over time they became more and more in the major general economic journals because she was going into greater depth.

Todd: Claudia’s work is very data oriented. She uses economic models, but I would say she first looks at the data patterns to get a big picture and then develops appropriate models to better interpret the data. She is also a very good writer, which is a rare skill. I think the fact that her papers and books are well-written and tell interesting stories to explain historical data has made her work more broadly accessible. She has a famous paper called ‘Orchestrating Impartiality: The impact of blind auditions on female musicians’ that analyzes whether women are more likely to get selected for positions in orchestras when they audition for the position behind a screen. They find a screen increases the probability that women will be hired or advanced. 

What do you think is the most important thing for people to understand about her research?

Behrman: She’s shown that gender gaps through the decades in the U.S. and labor force outcomes have not primarily been because of discrimination but have been because of a number of other factors. 

One she has emphasized is with the growth of the economy, the demand for different skills has changed. Clerical and secretarial work was almost an all-male occupation in the 19th century, and with the growth of the economy it became an almost all-female occupation by the mid-20th century. Relatedly, as demand for labor has shifted towards more need for intellectual skills and for fine motor skills, this tended to shift demands for female workers. A prominent example not in the U.S. is Bangladesh, a very different country with a tremendous expansion of textile industry, which favored people with fine motor skills. Women took over that employment in Bangladesh. 

Another important factor, of course, is the change in contraception, where women had more control over their fertility. That had not been emphasized much before the work of Claudia, together with Lawrence Katz, who’s a frequent collaborator and her husband.

Understanding in more depth how these patterns occurred, rather than just having a gut reaction that it must be discrimination, is important. I think she would not say there was no discrimination but that discrimination is much less a part of the story than many people thought it might be. 

Todd: Women make up at least half of the workplace, so it’s important to look at issues that are very pertinent for women like job flexibility and the tradeoff between wages and job flexibility. You might think the wage gap between men and women all comes from discrimination. But, if you can document that it’s coming from things like job flexibility, then that gives you a clue about what sort of interventions could be helpful. If there was more flexibility in the workplace, then perhaps men could take time off after having a child, and women could stay attached to the labor force instead of dropping out. Claudia also did research on the importance of birth control for women’s ability to plan and pursue careers. This research is still relevant today, particularly in parts of the world where women may not have access to family planning. For example, there are a lot of countries in Africa where women still don’t have easy access to contraception or might not know about its effectiveness.

What are your thoughts on her getting the Nobel?

Todd: My initial reaction was surprise that they didn’t give it to her as a joint prize, as she’s worked very closely with her husband, Larry Katz, and no other woman has won the solo prize. But it is great to hear that she was honored on her own.

Behrman: It’s terrific. She clearly has well established herself in the economic profession. She’s grown from being a player of a narrow niche area of economic history into a major player in the overall economics profession. I’ve been at Penn for a while, and she’s the seventh person who was a colleague of mine during my time at Penn who won the Nobel Prize in Economics. The quality, in terms of economics, was very good during the time she was here, and she contributed to it. 

Have you been in touch with her since her win?

Behrman: Yes, probably like hundreds of other people, I sent her a congratulatory note. I was surprised that she even had time to say thanks, but she did.

Todd:  Not yet, but I hope I will get a chance soon to congratulate her in person.