An ordered probit model is used to examine the impact of gender and the quality of the PhD g ranting in stitution o n the publication r ecord of m ale an d f emale economists who received t heir doctorate i n 1985. This analysis indicates th at men an d women have different publ ication pa tterns regardless of where t hey r eceived t heir P hD and t hat the quality of t he P hD granting institution has n o m easurable effect o n an individual's publication record.gender, ordered probit model, journal publications

E. Bruce Hutchinson

Leila J. Pratt

Marc A. Loizeaux

Stephanie Smullen

English

Research Papers in Economics

27  JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, 10(2), FALL 2010 
 
 
   
 
  A GENDER COMPARISON OF ECONOMISTS’ 
PUBLICATIONS 
 
E. Bruce Hutchinson, Marc A. Loizeaux, Leila J. Pratt, and Stephanie Smullen
1
 
 
Abstract 
 
An ordered probit model is used to examine the impact of gender and the quality of the 
PhD granting institution on the publication record of male and female economists who 
received t heir  doctorate i n 1985.   This  analysis  indicates th at  men an d  women  have 
different publication patterns regardless of where they received their PhD and that the 
quality  of t he P hD  granting  institution  has n o m easurable  effect o n  an  individual’s 
publication record. 
 
Key Words:  Gender, ordered probit model, journal publications 
 
JEL Classification:  J16 
 
Introduction 
  Numerous s tudies ( Davis, H uston a nd  Patterson [ 2001], G oodwin a nd S auer 
[1995], H utchinson a nd Z ivney [ 1995], a nd  Laband a nd P iette [ 1994]) e xamine t he 
journal-publication be havior of  i ndividuals w ith  a  doctorate i n e conomics.  A  s ub-
category of this literature is a continuing professional interest in the comparative journal-
publication records of male and female economists.  Based on a 1966 National Science 
Foundation survey, Hansen, Weisbrod and Strauss report that women economists have 
“higher average job quality” yet “lower research productivity (1978, p.737).”  Fish and 
Gibbons whose research focused on journal publication between 1969 and 1986 conclude 
“…that men significantly out-publish women …whether the samples [are] regarded as 
matched pairs or as two independent samples (p. 97).”  McDowell and Smith, using data 
from 1968 t o 1975 f or an equal number of male and female economists from top 20 
institutions, conclude that on a verage, women produced fewer publications even after 
adjusting for the number of coauthors (1992, p. 75).   Ginther and Kahn, relying upon 
National Science Foundation data for doctorates earned from 1974 t hrough 2000, w rite 
that “notably, men publish more than women, particularly in non-top-10 journals (2004, 
p. 199).” 
  In a 2006 a rticle, McDowell, Singell and Stater, using data from the American 
Economics Association (AEA) Directories for the years 1964, 1974, 1985, 1989, 1993,  
and 1997, conclude that by 1993 the conclusion of earlier studies that male economists 
                                                           
1 E. Bruce Hutchinson is Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University 
of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403; Marc A. Loizeaux is Manager, 
Provider P erformance  Assessment A nalytics,  BlueCross B lueShield  of T ennessee, 
Chattanooga, TN 37402; Leila J. Pratt is Hart Professor of Economics, University of 
Tennessee at Chattanooga; and, Stephanie Smullen, is Professor of Computer Science, 
Computer Science, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. 
 28  JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, 10(2), FALL 2010 
 
 
   
 
 were more likely to publish more than their female counterparts (p. 166-67) was no 
longer applicable.  Their analysis of post-1993 data indicates that males and females had 
substantively equal publication records. 
  The present study uses statistical analysis to compare male and female publication 
records a djusted b y  the  quality of  t he  PhD  granting i nstitution.   Quality  here  is 
determined by school tier as established by the National Research Council.  We, as other 
authors excepting McDowell, Singell and Stater, find a continuing statistical difference in 
journal publication records when we simultaneously consider gender and the quality of 
the PhD granting institution. 
 
Data and Results 
  Our data are drawn from the 1985 and 1986 listing of "Doctoral Dissertations in 
Political Economy in American Universities and Colleges" published in the December 
1985 a nd 1986 e ditions of  t he  American Economic Review.  Th ese  lists id entify 
individuals and the year in which the PhD is conferred.  Our data set includes all listed 
individuals who received a PhD in 1985.
2  The Economic Literature Database (Heck, 
2001), which  contains 2 50-plus j ournals, was u sed t o i dentify  economics and related 
journal articles (hereafter “journal article”) published by these individuals between 1985 
and 1999.  Counted were articles and notes; omitted were comments, replies, discussions, 
and book reviews, which is the general treatment followed in the literature.   If articles 
were co-authored, even if both authors were from the 1985  PhD class, each was given 
credit for one publication.  The gender of an individual was determined based on name 
and where necessary and possible by contacting the individual.
3
The  original  data s et  contained  720 i ndividuals;  however,  we  were  unable t o 
determine t he  gender o f  50  individuals.   Thus our  w orking da ta s et c ontains 670  
individuals.  Of these 115 or 17.2% were females and 555 were males.  Three-hundred 
and twenty-seven (48.8%) of these individuals published at least one journal article. 
 
A larger percentage (see Table 1) of women (58%) failed to publish at least one 
article be tween 1985  and 1999 t han di d m en ( 50%).   However a   slightly l arger 
percentage of women (13%) than men (12%) published exactly one article.  Likewise the 
percentage of  w omen  (8%) w ho publ ished t hree a rticles du ring t his p eriod w as a lso 
somewhat l arger t han t he p ercentage o f m en  (5%).   However  a s ubstantially l arger 
percentage of men (7%) than women (3%) published exactly two articles and an even 
higher pe rcentage o f m en ( 26%) t han w omen  (18%) publ ished f our o r m ore a rticles 
during this period. 
                                                           
2 The lists include individuals who earn the PhD from Canadian Universities.  T hese 
individuals are omitted from our sample because their PhD is from a non-U.S. university 
and the tier rankings used include only U.S. universities. 
 
3 Many faculty and students with knowledge of foreign languages and cultures assisted in 
this d etermination.  E -mails w ere a lso s ent in  a n e ffort to  d etermine th e g ender o f 
individual economists. 
 29  JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, 10(2), FALL 2010 
 
 
   
 
   
 
Table 1 
Number of Publications by Gender 
Publications  0  1  2  3  4 + 
Female  67  15  3  9  21 
   58%  13%  3%  8%  18% 
Males  276  66  40  29  144 
   50%  12%  7%  5%  26% 
Total  343  81  43  38  165 
   51%  12%  6%  6%  25% 
 
 
Universities  were p laced  into  school  tiers a ccording t o  the 1982 r anking of  
economics d epartments  as  reported i n t he a ppendices of  t he 1995 N ational R esearch 
Council update to the 1982 assessment of research-doctorate programs.  Essentially, we 
used  Hansen’s  first  (highest o r be st)  to f ifth  (lowest)  tier d esignations  to g roup  the 
schools.
4
As can be seen, 40% of our sample received their PhD from a tier 1 or tier 2 
institutions while 32% received their degree from a tier 5 s chool.  14 % of the males 
received their degrees from a tier 1 s chool compared to only 8% of the females.   In 
addition, a  hi gher p ercentage of  w omen t han m en g raduated f rom t ier 4 or  t ier 5  
institutions. 
   Table 2 shows this stratification.  
                                                           
4 Schools in the various Tiers are: 
Tier 1:  Chicago, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Yale 
Tier 2:  Columbia, Michigan, Minnesota, Northwestern, Pennsylvania, Rochester, UC-
Berkeley, UCLA, UW-Madison 
Tier 3:  Brown, C al-Tech, C arnegie-Mellon, C ornell, D uke,  Illinois, J ohns H opkins, 
Maryland, Michigan State, New York University, North Carolina, UC-San Diego, 
Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Washington-Seattle 
Tier 4:  Boston University, Claremont, Florida, Iowa, Iowa State, Massachusetts, Ohio 
State, Pennsylvania State, Pittsburgh, Purdue,  SUNY-Stony  Brook, T exas A &M, 
Texas-Austin,   UC-Davis, UC -Santa B arbara, U SC, V anderbilt, W ashington-St. 
Louis 
Tier 5:  All other Colleges and Universities. 
 30  JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, 10(2), FALL 2010 
 
 
   
 
   
 
Table 2 
Gender by School Tier 
   Tier 1  Tier 2  Tier 3  Tier 4  Tier 5 
Publications  1  2  3  4  5 
Females  9  28  16  21  41 
   8%  24%  14%  18%  36% 
Males  76  156  90  62  171 
   14%  28%  16%  11%  31% 
Total  85  184  106  83  212 
   13%  27%  16%  12%  32% 
 
  Table 3 s hows publishing records stratified by gender and school tier.   Giving 
consideration t o t he s ensitivity of  pe rcentages ba sed on s mall num bers, no pa ttern 
differences ar e r eadily  observed.   An or dered  probit m odel i s us ed t o  determine th e 
impact of these variables on the probability that an individual will publish 1, 2, 3 or 4 or 
more articles between 1985 and 1999.  In general, this model takes the form: 
 
      y
* = β’x + ε. 
 
y
* is not observed but we do observe 
    y  =  0                if  y
* ≤  0 
    y  =  1     if  0 ≤  y
*  ≤  μ1 
    y  =  2      if  μ1  ≤ y
*  ≤  μ2 
        .   
        . 
        . 
    y  =  j      if  μj-1  ≤  y
* 
 
The µ’s are unknown parameters and are estimated with the β’s.  The values of both these 
parameters depend on the set of measurable factors, x, and the unobservable factors ε.  
The  error  term,  ε,  is  assumed  to  be  normally  distributed  across  observations.    It  is 
standardized to a mean of zero and a variance of one.  The resulting normal distribution 
gives us the following probabilities: 
    Prob (y = 0) = Φ(-β’x), 
    Prob (y = 1) = Φ(μ1 - β’x) - Φ(-β’x), 
    Prob (y = 2) = Φ(μ2- β’x) - Φ(μ1 - β’x), 
    Prob (y = 3) = Φ(μ3- β’x) - Φ(μ2 - β’x), 
    Prob (y = 4) = 1 - Φ(μ3- β’x). 
 
For all the probabilities to be positive: 
0 ‹ µ1 ‹ µ2 ‹ µ3. 
 
 31  JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, 10(2), FALL 2010 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
Table 3 
Number of Publications by School Tier and Gender 
Publications  0  1  2  3  4 + 
Tier 1    
 
  
 
  
Females  4  2  1  1  1 
   44%  22%  11%  11%  11% 
Males  34  10  10  3  19 
   45%  13%  13%  4%  25% 
Tier 2    
 
  
 
  
Females  18  3  0  1  6 
   64%  11%  0%  4%  21% 
Males  85  13  13  10  35 
   54%  8%  8%  6%  22% 
Tier 3    
 
  
 
  
Females  6  2  1  1  6 
   38%  13%  6%  6%  38% 
Males  47  11  6  5  21 
   52%  12%  7%  6%  23% 
Tier 4    
 
  
 
  
Females  12  0  0  4  5 
   57%  0%  0%  19%  24% 
Males  31  8  3  5  6 
   58%  15%  6%  9%  11% 
Tier 5    
 
  
 
  
Females  27  8  1  2  3 
   66%  20%  2%  5%  7% 
Males  79  24  8  6  54 
   46%  14%  5%  4%  32% 
 
 
The e xplanatory va riables or  t he  regressors,  x, a re G ENDER  which e quals 1 i f t he 
individual i s male, and a s et of dum my v ariables t hat designate t he t ier of t he P HD 
granting institution.  Table 4 reports the results of the ordered probit.  None of the school 
tier dummies are significant indicating that the quality of the PhD granting institution is 
unimportant in explaining an individual’s probability of publishing.  However, gender is 
positive and significant indicating that males have a significantly higher probability of 
publishing than females. 
 
 32  JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, 10(2), FALL 2010 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
Table 4 
Ordered Probit Regression Results 
Variable  Coefficient 
Std. 
Error  t-Statistic 
Constant  -0.1858  0.1277  -1.455    
Gender  0.2313  0.1211  1.910  * 
Tier 1  0.0310  0.1465  0.212    
Tier 2  -0.1349  0.1175  -1.149    
Tier 3  -0.0106  0.1371  -0.077    
Tier 4  -0.1367  0.1498  -0.913    
µ1  0.3112  0.0326  9.546  ** 
µ2  0.4882  0.0402  12.144  ** 
µ3  0.6592  0.0464  14.195  ** 
*  Significant at the 5% level    
**  Significant at the 10% level    
 
As usual in models with discrete dependent variables the marginal impacts of the 
x values on the probabilities are not equal to the coefficients.  To measure the marginal 
impact of a binary explanatory variable, one must compare the probabilities that result 
when the variable takes on its two values (0 or 1) with all other variables held constant at 
their means.  Table 5 shows the marginal impact of each of the binary regressors (school 
tiers or gender) on the five publishing probabilities given all the other variables are held 
constant at  t heir s ample m eans.   For e xample, a ccording to  th e  estimated ma rginal 
impacts presented in Table 5, m ales are 9.20% more likely to not publish than females 
given the school tiers are held constant at their mean values.   Likewise a graduate of a 
Tier 2 institution is 5.40% less likely to not publish than other individuals given gender 
and the other three tier dummy variables are held constant at their mean values. 
The small differences in male and female publication probabilities in the five 
school t iers r einforce t he non -significance o f t he t ier d ummy v ariables.  T he g ender 
dummy variables however provide some surprising results.  M en are about 9% more 
likely than women to not publish at all.  Women, on the other hand, are about 8% more 
likely than men to publish 4 or  more articles or to be “super publishers”.   In addition, 
women and men are almost equally likely to publish 1, 2, or 3 articles between 1985 and 
1999. 
 
 
 
 
 
 33  JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, 10(2), FALL 2010 
 
 
   
 
   
 
Table 5 
Marginal Impact of Gender & School Tier on Publishing Probabilities 
   Prob. y =0  Prob. y =1  Prob. y =2  Prob. y =3  Prob. y =4 
Gender =0  0.412  0.123  0.069  0.064  0.331 
Gender =1  0.504  0.122  0.065  0.058  0.252 
Difference  0.092  -0.001  -0.004  -0.006  -0.079 
     
 
  
 
  
Tier 1 = 0  0.486  0.122  0.066  0.060  0.266 
Tier 1 = 1  0.499  0.122  0.065  0.058  0.256 
Difference  0.013  0.000  -0.001  -0.002  -0.010 
     
 
  
 
  
Tier 2 = 0  0.503  0.122  0.065  0.058  0.253 
Tier 2 = 1  0.449  0.124  0.068  0.062  0.298 
Difference  -0.054  0.002  0.003  0.004  0.045 
     
 
  
 
  
Tier 3 = 0  0.488  0.123  0.066  0.059  0.264 
Tier 3 = 1  0.484  0.123  0.066  0.059  0.264 
Difference  -0.004  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000 
     
 
  
 
  
Tier 4 = 0  0.488  0.123  0.066  0.059  0.264 
Tier 4 = 1  0.483  0.123  0.066  0.059  0.269 
Difference  -0.005  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.005 
 
 
Conclusion 
This study used research records based on a search of the Economic Literature Database 
citations to 250-plus economics and related journals to examine the impact of gender and 
school tier on t he probability that an individual who received the PhD in 1985 w ould 
publish zero, one, two, three or four or more articles between 1985 and 1999.   We find 
that for this group, the tier (general quality) of the graduate institution from which they 
graduated does not impact their publishing probability.   W e also find that men have a 
significantly different publication pattern than women though the difference is narrow.  
In particularly we find that men in this cohort are more likely to not publish at all.  On the 
other hand, we find that women are more likely to be “super publishers” publishing four 
or more articles between 1985 and 1999. 
 
References 
American Economic Association. 1985. Eighty-second List of Doctoral Dissertations in 
Political Economy in American Universities and Colleges.” American Economic 
Review, December: 1225-46. 34  JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, 10(2), FALL 2010 
 
 
   
 
 American Economic Association. 1986. Eighty-third List of Doctoral Dissertations in 
Political Economy in American Universities and Colleges. American Economic Review, 
December: 1238-57. 
Broder, I E. 1993. “Professional Achievements and Gender Differences Among 
Academic Economists.” Economic Inquiry 31 (1): 116-27. 
Davis, J. C., J. H. Huston and D. M. Patterson. 2001. “The Scholarly Output of 
Economists: A Description of Publishing Patterns.” American Economics Journal 
29 (3): 341-49. 
Durell, Alan, Bruce Sacerdote, and Heidi Williams. 2007. “Is Economics Becoming 
Gender Neutral?” AEAweb: Conference Papers, 
<http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0105_1430_1103.pdf, 2007> 
ASSA Conference, Chicago, Illinois, January 5-7, 2007 
Enomoto, C. E. and S. N. Ghosh. 1993. “A Stratified Approach to the Ranking of 
Economics Journals.” Studies in Economic Analysis 14 (2): 74-93. 
Fish, M. and J. D. Gibbons. 1989. 2004. “A Comparison of the Publications of Female 
and Male Economists.” Journal of Economic Education 20 (1): 93-105. 
Ginther, D. K. and S. Kahn. 2004. “Women in Economics:  Moving Up or Falling Off the 
Academic Career Ladder.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 18 (3): 193-214. 
Goodwin, T. H. and R. D. Sauer. 1995. “Life Cycle Productivity in Academic Research: 
Evidence from Cumulative Publication Histories of Academic Economists.” 
Southern Economic Journal 61 (3): 728-43. 
Hansen, W. L., B. A. Weisbrod and R. P. Strauss. 1978. “Modeling the Earnings and 
Research Productivity of Academic Economists.’ Journal of Political Economy 
86 (4): 729-41. 
Heck, J. L. 2001. Economic Literature Database. Wayne, PA: JLH Enterprises. 
Hutchinson, E. B. and T. L. Zivney. 1995. “The Publication Profile of Economists.” 
Journal of Economic Education 26 (1): 59-79. 
Laband, D. N. and M. J. Piette. 1994. “The Relative Impacts of Economics Journals: 
1970-1990.”  Journal of Economic Literature 32 (2): 640-66. 
Mason, P. J., J. W. Steagall, and M. M. Fabritius. 1997. “Economics Journal Rankings by 
Type of School:  Perceptions Versus Citations.” Quarterly Journal of Business 
and Economics 36 (1):  
McDowell, J. M. and J. K. Smith. 1992. “The Effect of Gender Sorting on Propensity to 
Coauthor: Implications for Academic Promotion.” Economic Inquiry 30 (1): 68-
82. 
McDowell, J. M., L. D. Singell, and M. Stater. 2006. “Two to Tango? Gender 
Differences in the Decisions to Publish and Coauthor.” Economic Inquiry 44 (1): 
153-168. 
National Research Council 1995. Continuity and Change. Washington, D. C.:   National 
Academy of Sciences. 
 

Economic Literature Database.

Economics Journal Rankings by Type of School: Perceptions Versus Citations.”

Eighty-second List of Doctoral Dissertations in Political Economy in American Universities and Colleges.” American Economic Review,

Is Economics Becoming Gender Neutral?” AEAweb: Conference Papers,

Life Cycle Productivity in Academic Research: Evidence from Cumulative Publication Histories of

A Gender Comparison of Economists' Publications

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics