on the contributions of barbara bergmann to economics

23
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University] On: 19 November 2014, At: 13:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Review of Political Economy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crpe20 On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics Paulette I. Olson a a Department of Economics , Wright State University , Dayton, USA Published online: 09 Oct 2007. To cite this article: Paulette I. Olson (2007) On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics, Review of Political Economy, 19:4, 475-496, DOI: 10.1080/09538250701622303 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09538250701622303 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Upload: paulette-i

Post on 24-Mar-2017

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 19 November 2014, At: 13:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Review of Political EconomyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crpe20

On the Contributions of BarbaraBergmann to EconomicsPaulette I. Olson aa Department of Economics , Wright State University , Dayton,USAPublished online: 09 Oct 2007.

To cite this article: Paulette I. Olson (2007) On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann toEconomics, Review of Political Economy, 19:4, 475-496, DOI: 10.1080/09538250701622303

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09538250701622303

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

On the Contributions of BarbaraBergmann to Economics

PAULETTE I. OLSONDepartment of Economics, Wright State University, Dayton, USA

ABSTRACT This paper examines the major economic contributions of Barbara R.Bergmann. After presenting her personal background information, it gives an overviewof her theoretical framework. This is followed by her critique of economic methodologyand an examination of her major contributions in micro-simulation, feminist analysis oflabor markets and the family, and policy-oriented work focused on improving the livesof women and children. The essay concludes with a brief discussion of Bergmann’sunique qualities as an activist economist in the pursuit of social change.

1. Introduction

Many in the economics profession would argue that Barbara Bergmann deservesthe Nobel Prize for her extensive contributions to economics. Yet in its almost40-year history, no woman has ever won the Prize, including Joan Robinson,one of the most prominent economists of the 20th century. Moreover, Dr Bergmanndoes not belong to the school of economic thought from which the majority of Nobellaureates have been selected; namely, the Chicago School.1 She is not only an out-spoken critic of the latter, she proudly claims the title of feminist economist—aresearch area that is rarely understood within the profession and often dismissedas political. In addition, she has questioned the reasons for the Nobel Prize in econ-omics in the first place. She believes that it is disingenuous to award a Prize in Econ-omic Science, because economics as currently practiced fails as a field of scientificinquiry. Rarely, she argues, does the Bank of Sweden award the honor to those whoare the most deserving; namely, economists engaged in systematic observation ofeconomic behavior such as Amartya Sen, Herbert Simon, and Gunnar Myrdal.According to Bergmann, the Nobel award:

Review of Political Economy,Volume 19, Number 4, 475–496, October 2007

Correspondence Address: Paulette I. Olson, Department of Economics, Wright State University,Dayton, OH 45435, USA. Email: [email protected] 1969, nine Nobel Prizes have been awarded to University of Chicago laureates. By compari-son, Harvard, Berkeley and Columbia Universities each received four awards; MIT receivedthree; and Princeton and Stanford each received two (source: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates).

ISSN 0953-8259 print/ISSN 1465-3982 online/07/040475–22 # 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09538250701622303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

frequently occasions embarrassment, since we have to explain to the public whatthe achievement of the newest laureate is. That achievement is usually not thediscovery of something previously unknown, like the form of DNA moleculeor the genetic code. Rather, it is a totally made-up simplified representation ofsome process we all know takes place (Bergmann, 1999b, pp. 52–53).

This quote and other such displays of irreverence in her work endears her to manyin the profession who agree that the ‘emperor wears no clothes’ (Folbre, 1998, pp.159–160). Yet it also dramatically reduces her chances of receiving the NobelPrize.

Nevertheless, it is an important exercise to document Bergmann’s life andwork in the hope that someday the economics profession will eventually recognizeher many important contributions to the Economic Science. To this end, an outlineof her major contributions is presented below. We begin by presenting personalbackground information to provide the historical and social context for under-standing Bergmann’s subsequent research interests and priorities. Then wepresent a brief sketch of her theoretical framework and philosophical perspective.Section 4 details her critique of economic methodology together with an overviewof her major contributions to economic methodology. Central to her work onmethodology is a strong desire to make economics more policy-relevant by col-lecting meaningful data about economic actors as they conduct their affairs. Thefinal section provides an outline of her major contributions in the developmentof a feminist analysis of labor markets and the family. The common thread thatruns through Bergmann’s work is a steadfast commitment to solving the problemsof real people. For this reason, her work has inspired a generation of feminist econ-omists dedicated to the pursuit of an emancipatory economic science.

2. Personal Background2

Bergmann was born in the Bronx on July 20, 1927. Her father was born in theUnited States to immigrant parents from the Russian region of Poland while hermother was born in Romania and came to the United States around 1903 withher mother and four siblings. They settled in the lower East Side of Manhattan.Both sets of grandparents fled anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. As children ofimmigrants, her parents were expected to earn their keep. In contrast, Barbara’sgeneration—both boys and girls—were expected to succeed scholastically andfinancially. The boys were expected to become doctors and lawyers; the girlswere expected to marry such professionals. Because New York City at the timeprovided tuition-free public colleges, this was not an unrealistic goal.

Both of her parents worked. Her father was a typographer. Throughout theGreat Depression, he continued to earn a union wage of $50 a week. Nevertheless,she witnessed the humiliation and demoralizing effect of joblessness all aroundher. This experience inspired her later work on unemployment and poverty andconvinced her that the government had an important role to play in assisting

2The information contained in this section comes from two main sources (Olson & Emami, 2002;Bergmann, 2005e) and from an extensive interview with Bergmann on February 24, 1998.

476 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

people under certain circumstances; when faced with problems beyond theircontrol, or have legitimate needs that exceed their available resources.

Bergmann’s later work on lone motherhood was influenced by another earlyexperience. During World War II, her father became a merchant seaman and diedfrom a heart attack aged 45. Her mother became a single mother while Barbarawas still in high school. She would work her entire life.

Although Bergmann acknowledges that the market system often fails to meetthe needs of everyone, she is mostly satisfied with the capitalist system, and arguesfor the limited role of government in the form of regulation and social safety nets.Accordingly, Bergmann considers herself a liberal or ‘left of center.’ But she hasnot always had liberal tendencies. She recalls at age 17 a more conservativemindset. From the vantage point of scholastic achievement and good career pro-spects, she began to fret about the government taxing away her riches andgiving it to the undeserving poor. In retrospect, she refers to this period in herlife as‘. . .a brief spasm of immaturity and selfishness.’

Her contempt for Marxism is rooted in another childhood experience. Her sixthgrade teacher, an avowed communist and‘. . .a fanatical admirer of Stalin’s Russia,’devoted much class time to Soviet accomplishments. When Bergmann’s class wastaken to World’s Fair, they were forced to spend much of the day in the Russianpavilion. As a result of this experience, Bergmann equates Marxism with fanaticismand is suspect of anyone sympathetic with communism or communist regimes.

Bergmann’s junior high school experience in Queens had a different learningoutcome. It was here that her interest in mathematics was sparked. Although hermother wanted her to become a professional pianist for which she had the requisitetalent, Barbara had other plans. After she graduated from Forest Hills HighSchool, she applied to the engineering college at MIT much to the chagrin ofthe interviewer who reportedly denied her admittance. Luckily she had appliedto Cornell University as well and was accepted on full scholarship, majoring inmathematics. At Cornell she also became interested in economics. She recallsreading Gunnar Myrdal’s book, An American Dilemma, which explores racerelations in the United States, influencing her later analysis of race-based discrimi-nation. She graduated with a BA in mathematics and economics in 1948.

Bergmann’s propensity for feminism was honed soon after graduation. Notonly derided by her mother for not finding a husband at Cornell, she had the mis-fortune to graduate in the midst of a recession and had difficulty finding a job. Sherecalls having both sexism and anti-Semitism working against her. This influencedher later work on gender-based discrimination and occupational segregation.Jobs were segregated by sex and she was over-qualified for the traditionallyfemale jobs being offered. Rather than settle, she continued to apply for male-defined jobs. When nothing materialized, she briefly worked as a typist and as aresult of her mother’s prodding attended the Teaching College at ColumbiaUniversity. After a year, the federal government rescued her from its ‘uselesscurriculum’ and offered her a position at New York’s Regional Office of theBureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). She began her career in economics answeringphones and addressing public inquiries about the Consumer Price Index. Shewas hired on the lowest rung of the professional career ladder, but was promotedseveral times and within two years became head of her unit.

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 477

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

At the BLS, Bergmann gained an appreciation for collecting and using datarather than relying solely on abstract modeling to explain economic phenomena.Her later work on racial discrimination was also informed by what she witnessedthere. Although she promoted the only black employee in her unit, he was notallowed to sit in public view, and was soon replaced by someone else. Whenshe visited the wage-survey division in Washington DC in 1962, in the midst ofthe civil rights movement, attitudes had not changed, and race-based job segre-gation was still common practice. Nevertheless, Bergmann heralds the capabilitiesand serious dedication of her colleagues at the BLS and challenges the claim thatgovernment workers are overpaid, inefficient, and unproductive.

It was also at the BLS that Bergmann was encouraged by a research econom-ist to apply for graduate school. Accordingly, she applied to Harvard-Radcliff andwas admitted on fellowship despite the disingenuous recommendation from herboss who failed to mention her intellectual acumen, but felt compelled to notethat she was ‘a young lady of culture and refinement.’ Bergmann excelled atHarvard where she served as a teaching assistant for statistician and sociologist,Fred Mosteller, and for economists, Wassily Leontief and Franco Modigliani.Like most women in male-dominated fields, she lacked a mentor. However, sherecalls being intellectually challenged by several professors in the graduateprogram. She credits Alvin Hansen for providing her with a firm grounding inKeynesian macroeconomics and Gottfried Haberler for influencing her highlyaccessible writing style. But the professors who had the greatest impact on hereconomic thinking were Edward Chamberlain and Guy Orcutt. Chamberlainwas a pioneer in experimental economics and Orcutt was a pioneer in computersimulation of the macroeconomy.

At the dissertation stage, Bergmann worked with Edgar Hoover to producean input–output model of the New York Metropolitan Area. She was awarded aPhD in 1959, and from 1958 to 1961 she worked at Harvard as an econ-mathinstructor. Between 1960 and 1961, she served as a senior research associatefor the Harvard Economic Research Project. She eventually left Harvard totake a position as a senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisorsin Washington DC during the Kennedy Administration. In 1962, she accepted anassociate professor position at Brandeis University without tenure, and in 1963,she joined The Brookings Institution as a senior staff member, traveling to Peruand Bolivia as part of a research team studying the impact of highway invest-ment on development. It was also during this time that she met her husband,Fred Heinz Bergmann, a genetic scientist at the National Institutes of Health.They were married in 1965.

By this time Barbara had accepted an associate professor position at theUniversity of Maryland where she taught graduate courses in macro, micro,econometrics and other standard fare. During President Johnson’s ‘war onpoverty,’ Bergmann secured research funding to set up and direct the Project onthe Economics of Discrimination at the University of Maryland and developeda course on poverty and discrimination; one of the first of its kind in the nation.In this pre-personal-computer era, she also introduced a course on computermethods in economics, sharing her passion for computer simulation with herstudents.

478 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

During an academic leave (1966–1967) to work at the Agency for Inter-national Development as a senior economic advisor, her child, Sarah, was born.David was adopted later. Like all working mothers, Bergmann faced the doubleburden of work and family. Because there were few childcare centers in the late1960s, she hired a full-time housekeeper and childcare provider. This life-changingexperience clearly influenced her later work on childcare issues.

As an academic, Bergmann always kept one foot in the policy-making arena.From 1977 to 1988, she served on the Congressional Budget Office Panel of Econ-omic Advisors, and periodically testified before Congress on race and genderissues throughout the 1970s and 1980s. She also served on the board of directorsfor the Public Interest Economics Center (1975–1976), the American EconomicAssociation Advisory Committee to the Census Bureau (1977–1982) and thePrice Advisory Committee for the US Council on Wage and Price Stability(1979–1980). During the early 1980s, she became a regular contributor to theSunday business section of the New York Times, writing on a variety of economictopics such as the Reagan recession, unemployment, social security, affirmativeaction, poverty and welfare reform. Her critique of economic methodology wasalso shared in these pages.

In addition to her government and academic work, she devoted enormoustime and effort providing leadership and working with organizations on behalfof women. She served as a member of the Advisory Board to the Women’sLaw Project (1974–1980); as a Senior Research Associate at the Council onContemporary Families (2003), as Vice President of the American EconomicAssociation (1976); as Chair of the Committee for the Status of Women in theEconomics Profession, as President of the Eastern Economic Association(1974), the American Association of University Professors (1990–1992), theSociety for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (1994–1995), and the Inter-national Association for Feminist Economics (1998). She also served on numerouseditorial boards and received many professional awards—most recently, the 2004CSWEP Carolyn Shaw Bell Award. As testament to the interdisciplinary nature ofher contributions to women’s issues, in 2006 she was installed as a CharlottePerkins Gilman Fellow by the American Academy of Political and SocialSciences.

In 1988, she left the University of Maryland as Professor Emerita to become aDistinguished Professor at American University. Today, she is a professor Emeritaat both universities. She lives with her husband in Washington DC where she con-tinues to publish and champion policies designed to help working women.

3. Theoretical Underpinnings

Central to Bergmann’s theoretical framework is the principle of equality; in par-ticular, racial and gender equality. For Bergmann, the key to attaining equality isrooted in the job market. Everyone, regardless of race or gender, should be guar-anteed access to decent paying jobs that support a family with dignity.

Bergmann’s emphasis on labor market equality is consistent with the liberalfeminist tradition in economics; in particular, the 19th century writings of HarrietTaylor and John Stuart Mill. Taylor and Mill employed utilitarian arguments in

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 479

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

favor of equal rights for women under the law and linked women’s roles as wifeand mother and their resulting lack of occupational choice and low wages to theireconomic dependence on men (Pujol, 1992, pp. 23–37). Bergmann builds on thistradition by arguing in favor of state action in pursuing policies that ensure equalopportunity for all in the labor market.

The effect of racial inequality on black workers and urban communities figuresprominently in Bergmann’s early work. The main body of her work, however,focuses on the impact of gender inequality on women—as workers, wives andmothers. Gender inequality, for Bergmann, is located in an ‘ancient system’ ofsocially-sanctioned gender relationships based on male privilege and female subor-dination—what she calls a ‘sex-role caste system’ (Bergmann, 1986a, 2005b).Under this system, women were assigned familial roles and confined to theprivate sphere of the home. Men were assigned public roles in the ‘male world’of work and politics. This meant that men and women had radically differentlives and functions. While women were confined to a single occupation—that ofhousewife—men enjoyed a wide choice of lifestyles and occupations. Accordingto Bergmann, although women have ‘emerged’ and felt freer to enter the ‘maleworld’ since World War II, the disappearance of the sex-role caste system is farfrom complete. Gender inequality in the labor market remains firmly entrenchedas a result of lingering sexist attitudes about women’s domestic roles and productivecapabilities. Bergmann contends that those who benefit by keeping women occupa-tionally segregated from men have little incentive to change their behavior(Bergmann, 1974e). Thus, she advocates for stronger enforcement of existingemployment laws such as affirmative action and pay equity.3

Gender relations within the family also penalize women in the labor market.According to Bergmann, because of the tradition that men have little or no dom-estic responsibilities, wives and/or mothers who work face a double-burden thatnegatively impacts their labor market opportunities. The penalty for singleworking mothers is even greater. Lacking another adult person in the householdto assume domestic tasks, the single mother bears the full double-burden ofpaid and unpaid work. Bergmann, therefore, sees an important role for governmentin giving working mothers the resources necessary to compete in the ‘male world’on an equal footing with men, such as subsidized high-quality childcare andreliable child-support payments. Bergmann argues against initiatives designedto compensate housewives and paid parental leave because these initiativesreinforce the sex-role caste system. The housewife role is considered so disadvan-tageous to women that any effort that leads to its demise is more than welcome(Bergmann, 1982a, p. 230). Thus, she favors the outsourcing of housework andchildcare, shifting these activities from the private to the public sphere (Bergmann,1998a).

3Pay equity is the term used in the United States for a policy that requires jobs with equivalentdemands and working conditions to be paid equally. Pay equity policy is often understood tomean ‘comparable worth’ policy which is ‘. . .designed to raise the wages of jobs held predominantlyby women until they equal the wages of comparable jobs held predominately by men (Hartmann &Figart, 1999, p. 70).

480 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

Bergmann’s theory of a sex-role caste system is not limited to a feministanalysis of the labor market and the family. It is also used to analyze the econ-omics profession. For Bergmann, the failure of ‘non-feminist’ economists totake seriously feminist claims of discrimination and unfairness in the labormarket demonstrates their allegiance to the old regime. This allegiance isembedded in their theories; in particular, in their assumptions of rationality andperfect competition. Rational beings, such as employers, are posited as freefrom sexist baggage; if not, it is assumed they will be driven from the competitivemarketplace by non-discriminating firms who hire cheaper but equally productivesubstitutes for white males. If an occupation is devoid of females, then it isassumed that either they are excluded by employers because of evidence ofwomen’s low productivity in that occupation or they have shunned the occupationas incompatible with their family responsibilities. As Bergmann points out, theseassumptions are contradicted by the facts. Many successful firms have been con-victed of long-standing discrimination in the courts (Bergmann, 1986a, 1996a,2005b). For Bergmann, the secret of continued business success among discrimi-nators is that their competitors discriminate too and that this behavior may result inincreased profits (Bergmann, 1974e).

Bergmann also questions the emphasis on the role of ‘choice’ by mainstreameconomists. In mainstream accounts, women’s choices are seen as powerfully con-ditioned by their household roles as wives and mothers. This leads to a view thatwomen’s inferior position in the labor market is biologically and socially deter-mined and in no way connected to the discriminatory practices of employers orco-workers. Bergmann has a less benign view of women’s ‘choices.’ She sees‘choice’ as a process with feedback effects operating within an institutional frame-work of economic constraints. For instance, the higher turnover rates of womenrelative to men are interpreted by most economists as a sign that women have‘chosen’ to devote more time to housewifery. For Bergmann, turnover rates arepart of a vicious cycle whereby women are relegated to low-paying dead-endjobs with no penalty for high turnover and ‘choose’ to quit only to be re-employedin similar work (Bergmann & Adelman, 1983, p. 511). The combination of entry-level discrimination, irrelevant hiring criteria, sexual harassment and internallabor markets that govern promotions within firms likewise constrain the‘choice’ of women workers. In addition, she sees the ‘choice’ for singleworking mothers between expensive childcare centers and unlicensed neighbor-hood providers as no choice at all. In her framework, the only economic actorsenjoying the discretion of ‘choice’ are employers.

4. Methodological Perspective

Throughout her professional career, Bergmann has repeatedly argued for a radicaloverhaul of economic methodology. What is particularly troubling to her is thatvirtually all economic ‘knowledge’ is the product of introspection. That is, econ-omists construct their theories by sitting and mulling over a few factual tidbits theyhave gathered casually in the course of their everyday lives rather than seekingfirst-hand knowledge about their subject matter (Bergmann, 1987h, 1999b).

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 481

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

Bergmann’s skepticism about economic theorizing began at Harvard in acourse taught by Edward Chamberlain. His student-run market experiments chal-lenged the ‘holy grail’ of economic thinking; namely, equilibrium under con-ditions of perfect competition. The experiments typically generated an averageprice different from the predicted equilibrium price. Bergmann learned thelesson that theory, no matter how logically tight, could misrepresent the actualfunctioning of the market. The following year she took statistics from GuyOrcutt who introduced her to computer simulation as a method for investigatingthe effects of public policy on household behavior. In both cases, the hook forBergmann was the ability to explore complex explanations of real world phenom-ena (Olson & Emami, 2002, pp. 59–60).

Her skepticism grew when she was asked to testify as an expert witness in alawsuit. Her task was to explain to the judge how an unfettered, competitive labormarket was supposed to work. In the process of preparing for her court appearance,the attorney interrupted and asked how she knew the ‘facts’ she espoused. WhenBergmann explained that it was ‘agreed-upon theory,’ the attorney was unsatis-fied. Bergmann was told to testify in court that she had conducted many studiesbecause the judge needed to be convinced that the methodology of economicswas on par with that of other expert witnesses whose methodology is based ondirect observation of their subject matter (Bergmann, 1987h, pp. 192–193).This experience made her realize that everything she knew about the labormarket came from the private musings of economists, not from a systematic,first-hand study of workers or their employers.

Bergmann concluded that the failure of economics to advance like othersciences is rooted in the resistance by economists to adopt methods of direct obser-vation of economic phenomena. She agrees that economic theories are oftenclever. But, for her, they are no substitute for direct empirical research (Bergmann,1987h, p. 196). For one thing, theorizing is based on imagined scenarios and astandard set of assumptions about human rationality and avarice that often conflictwith reality. For another, it is impossible to separate the low-quality musings fromthe high-quality musings in a way that would gain universal agreement within theprofession. Despite these flaws, she argues, economists proceed to ‘investigate’their factual tidbits by running regressions. In addition, they use mathematicalnotation to obscure the weak link between available data and the actual behaviorthe data are suppose to represent. The results of a regression are then used tobolster one theoretical argument over another. But truth is never revealedbecause it is often the case that empirical support provided by results is weak,inconclusive and easily countered by other regressions. Indeed, thousands ofregressions are run as a technical exercise rather than as a sincere search fornew knowledge. As Bergmann observes, regression running on sexy topics mayboost the career prospects of individual economists who can show the existenceof logical possibilities, but it fails to advance the ‘science’ of economicsbecause it does little to increase the store of economic knowledge.

Bergmann has recently interpreted the resistance to adopt direct empiricalmethodology, especially in macroeconomics, as a political move (Bergmann,2005d). She notes that data on important macroeconomics issues such as unem-ployment, inflation and international trade are scarce, indirect, and difficult to

482 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

interpret. Thus, appeals to ‘the evidence’ will seldom yield decisive outcomes insettling controversies. This encourages macro theorists to champion far-fetchedclaims of knowledge and predictions. Politicians eager to find a theoretical justi-fication for their policy positions are thus ‘free to choose’ among economists witha similar ideological bent. This process may advance the careers of those involved,but it does little to improve policy making or the workings of the economy.

Bergmann recognizes that the musings/regression methodology will be dif-ficult, if not impossible, to eliminate unless something better is substituted. Tothis end, she has spent the better part of her research life exploring ways toimprove economic methodology in an effort to make it more policy-relevant.Unlike other economists, her theoretical musings are consistently based on awealth of primary data that she (and sometimes her students) have collected andanalyzed. Particularly compelling is the data she derives from discrimination com-plaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to highlight thesubtle and overt discriminatory practices that limit women’s access to jobs andrestrict their promotional opportunities within firms (Bergmann, 1986a, 1996a,2005b). In addition, she applauds the use of ‘situation tests’ to identify systematicdiscrimination in housing and labor markets. This experimental method sends twopeople of different race/gender and claiming identical qualifications to apply forthe same house or job (Bergmann, 1974c, 1996a, 2005d). She believes that themethods of economists should become more like those of anthropologists andother behavioral scientists who likewise study human behavior. She repeatedlynotes the lack of information about the behavior of business people, but seeshope in the work of Alan Blinder who used survey methodology to investigatepricing decisions (Bergmann, 2005d, p. 12). Her view of behavioral and exper-imental economics is guarded because there is little if any direct observationinvolved. Instead, experiments are conducted in a laboratory using students as sub-stitutes for real economic actors. Thus, she remains somewhat skeptical of thismethodology (Bergmann, 2005d, pp. 11–12).

Bergmann has always approached economic problems using policy-relevantmethodology. For example, in her 1969 examination of the ‘urban crisis,’ shedeveloped an accounting system of complex relationships between the character-istics of an urban economy and its unique problems. These relationships werefolded into an input–output model, highlighting the effects of economic activitiesby firms, households and government on the well-being of black residents, airquality and the fiscal sufficiency of the urban core. The accounting systemoffered a blueprint for reducing urban unemployment by making explicit employ-ment patterns by industry. The significance of the accounting system, she notes, isnot its use as a predictive system, but its use as a policy tool to show ‘those inter-ested in urban problems, including businessmen themselves, the way in whichbusiness behavior affects these problems’ (Bergmann, 1969b, p. 645).

Perhaps Bergmann’s least appreciated contribution is her pioneering work incomputer simulation. A recent book about ‘cutting edge’ economists discussescurrent simulation models under development (Colander et al., 2004). However,Bergmann’s work dating back to the early 1970s is completely ignored. Free com-puter usage at the University of Maryland allowed her to set up a micro simulationof the labor market which she used in her graduate course and led to a host of

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 483

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

articles explaining the usefulness of simulated markets in evaluating and formulat-ing public policy (Bergmann, 1973b, 1973c, 1974a, 1974b, 1975c, 1977, 1980b,1980c, 1982m, 1984c, 1987h, 1988b, 1990a, 1990b, 2005d, Eliasson et al.,1977). For example, in Econometrica, Bergmann promotes the benefits of usingsmall-scale micro-simulation as a tool for integrating theory with regressions(Bergmann, 1973c). While the subtext of the article is an examination of howunemployment rates, wage rates and turnover interact to contribute to thepoverty rate among the working poor, the aim of the paper is to showcase themerits of ‘prepared’ over ‘raw’ regressions in improving predictability. Accordingto Bergmann, the benefits of simulation over conventional methods are several: it‘prepares’ the data for regressions by exploring for nonlinearities and variableinteractions that are inherent in the phenomena under study; it may include theeffects of additional explanatory variables when the number of observations issmall; it is relatively easy to incorporate monthly, quarterly and/or annual datain the same simulation; and, more importantly, it can be designed to describethe complex processes of the economy in a more realistic way. The ease ofadding complexity to a basic simulation framework not only provides a betterunderstanding of the workings of the economy, thereby improving predictiveaccuracy, it also allows an economist to build on the work of others, a standardpractice in other sciences.

Much of Bergmann’s work with computer simulation techniques reflects her12-year collaboration with Robert Bennett at the University of Maryland. Theirbook, A Microsimulated Transactions Model of the United States Economy(Bennett & Bergmann, 1986) extends microsimulation methodology by modelingthe micro behavior of businesses, banks, a monetary authority, and governmentagencies in addition to household behavior, the focus of Orcutt’s work (Orcuttet al., 1976). Their aim is to develop a highly-useful, policy-relevant model of themacroeconomy based on microfoundations. The model is microsimulated in thesense that decision-making rules are specified for each economic actor, permittingthe incorporation of rational as well as non-rational behavior discovered throughdirect observation. The model also keeps track and reports on the interactionsamong the various actors, reflecting the dynamic nature of real transactions andmonetary flows. Individual transactions are then added up to get the macroeconomictotals for the hypothetical economy. These totals are then ‘blown up’ to the scale ofthe US economy. Bergmann notes that both the transaction and conventional macromodels are limited as policy tools by the serious lack of micro data on businessfirms. The difference in how this limitation is treated by the two models,however, is instructive. In Bergmann’s transactions model, it is transparent. In stan-dard models, it is conveniently concealed in theories, macro equations andregression running (Bergmann & Bennett, 1984c, pp. 93–94).

Another example of Bergmann’s policy-relevant methodology is her ‘basicneeds budget’ approach (BNB) which she developed with Trudi Renwick tomeasure poverty in the US (Renwick & Bergmann, 1993). Unlike the officialmethod, which calculates the poverty-line solely based on food expenditures,the BNB approach requires that the analyst specify and justify an adequacy stan-dard for seven budget categories, including food, housing, health care, transpor-tation, clothing, childcare, and personal care/miscellaneous. The BNB approach

484 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

also adjusts for differences in family size, the employment status of parent(s), agesof the children, and geographic differences in the cost of living. Besides thefamily’s budget expenses and tax obligations, the BNB method also accountsfor the family’s non-cash benefits available from public and private sources inresponse to conservative concerns that the official rate ignored food stamps andMedicaid benefits. The results of this approach led to a conclusion that thepoverty line should be higher for families without a full-time caretaker and thatthe surest way to reduce poverty in the United States without reducing work ormarriage incentives is to subsidize health insurance for all low-income familiesand childcare for their children under six.

5. Main Contributions

The debates over the definition of structural unemployment, the urban crisis andthe racial wage gap appears to have galvanized Bergmann’s work on racialinequality (Bergmann, 1965a, 1967, 1969a, 1971a, 1971b, 1972, 1973f). Unlikeher contemporaries, she offered a demand-side explanation of racial differencesin unemployment and income. The main explanatory variable for Bergmannwas racial discrimination. In the debate over wage determination, for example,she agreed that blacks possessed less education, training and experience thanwhites and that this may, in part, account for the black–white wage differential.But rather than blame the victim, she highlighted the impact of institutionalizedracism in the US on the employment status of black men. Specifically, she calcu-lated that the nation invested roughly $50 billion less on the human capital of adultblack males relative to their white counterparts. This underinvestment was tracedto school segregation and employment discrimination (Bergmann, 1969a). Inanother article, she showed that raced-based occupational segregation wasgreater in industries insulated from the open market, and in metropolitan areasin which fair employment laws had failed to pass. In other words, the lack of com-petitive pressure to lower labor costs and the prevalence of racist attitudes bothhelped to explain the discriminatory hiring practices of employers, and thus thelow earnings of blacks. She also found evidence that efforts to curb the discrimi-natory behavior of employers had a greater payoff than efforts to improve blackeducation, challenging human capital theory (Bergmann & Lyle, 1971b).

Bergmann first gained prominence by formalizing the ‘crowding’ hypothesisin a path-breaking article in the Journal of Political Economy (Bergmann,1971a).4 It posits that employers discriminate against blacks by excluding themfrom occupations reserved for whites. Because the demand for blacks in ‘whitejobs’ is restricted, blacks are crowded into a comparable few jobs reserved forthem. The overcrowding in these occupations drives down wages. For simplifica-tion, blacks and whites are assumed to have equal education and abilities. Thus,without the existence of discrimination they would be paid equally. Bergmann

4Bergmann credits Edgeworth’s 1922 article for the ‘crowding’ idea. However, the ‘overcrowding’theory of women’s wages was first developed by Barbara Bodichon and Millicent Garrett Fawcett,which Edgeworth failed to cite (Pujol, 1992, p. 97).

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

then shows that blacks were indeed confined to a limited number of occupationsand that occupational integration would have little effect on ‘white’ earnings. Ina subsequent path-breaking article, she explored the effects of crowding on bothblacks and women and found that discrimination is profitable if it is standardemployment practice (Bergmann, 1974e). This finding challenges the conclusionsof Becker’s ‘taste for discrimination’ theory (Becker, 1957) that predicts marketforces will eventually eliminate both hiring and pay discrimination because it isassumed unprofitable.5 For Bergmann, discrimination is both rational and profitable.

The crowding theory of wage determination entered labor textbooks in itsmarket-based form, featuring separate supply and demand curves by race andgender. But as a theory of wages, it never rivaled the ‘taste for discrimination’theory in the mainstream literature for several reasons. First, discrimination isimpossible to quantify, and second, a test of the hypothesis requires direct obser-vation. Both are considered beyond the purview of economics. Consequently,economic journals continue to showcase regressions that solve for discriminationas an unexplained residual, after accounting for more ‘legitimate’ reasons forwomen’s lower wages such as education, training and work experience. The‘crowding’ hypothesis did, however, gain ground among feminist economistsand other social scientists that recognized the radical implications of Bergmann’smodel. By making ‘discrimination’ explicit, Bergmann pointed the way towards afeminist understanding of how gender- and race-based labor markets are sociallyconstructed. Thereafter, the discriminatory process and its effects became thefocus of studying women’s disadvantaged position in the labor market. For thisreason, Bergmann is often considered a pioneer in the development of feministanalysis of the labor market. Feminist scholars in various disciplines, armedwith large data sets, have extended her analysis of race- and gender-based wagedifferentials and have often used the results to advocate for pay equity (Ferber &Lowry, 1976; Treiman & Hartmann, 1981; Reskin, 1984; Reskin & Hartmann,1986; Jacobs & Steinberg, 1990; England, 1992; Sorenson, 1994; Figart &Lapidus, 1995; Lapidus & Figart, 1998; Gibson et al., 1998).

Bergmann’s most important contribution to economics is her comprehensivetreatise, The Economic Emergence of Women (Bergmann, 1986a, 2005b). It wasone of the first books of its kind, examining the evolution of women’s dualcareers as homemakers and labor-force participants. It also contains Bergmann’spolicy recommendations for achieving an equitable future such as pay equity,affirmative action and childcare assistance. The recent publication of the secondedition attests to its continued popularity among a variety of disciplines.

According to Bergmann, women’s economic emergence into the workforce isthe result of economic forces set in motion by the industrial revolution; namely,technological change and capital accumulation. These forces, in turn, led to along-term rise in the real wage. This meant that, from a family perspective,

5In less recognized papers, she examined the large racial disparity in the incidence of employment(Bergmann, 1980a) and, based on her findings, argues that the upgrading of blacks relative to whitesin pay and occupational status would occur faster with a lower overall unemployment rate (Atkinson &Bergmann, 1972).

486 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

women’s time became too valuable to be spent entirely in the home. The importantrole played by social and demographic factors in women’s emergence is alsoemphasized such as lower birthrates, higher educational attainment, higherdivorce rates, older age at marriage and other changes in social norms. The resultof the interplay of all these factors is that working women rather than housewivesare now the social norm. A reversal of this trend is, for Bergmann, highly unlikely.

The book also provides a historical and social context for further discussionof the ‘crowding’ hypothesis. For Bergmann, job segregation by gender is not aneutral or benign process. Rather it is rooted in history, tradition and misogyny.Historically, women entered the labor market when almost all jobs, except dom-estic servant, were reserved for men. Through tradition, paid work was defined as a‘male’ arena unfit for respectable women. In addition, misogynous behaviorwithin the labor market operates to exclude women from jobs that would makethem equal or superior to men. Together these processes explain the overcrowdingof women into a limited number of jobs defined as female. Crowding does morethan lower the wages in occupations traditionally held by women. In addition, itlowers women’s pay in jobs that are mixed-sex and mostly male; it preventswomen from accumulating human capital and experience which allow them toearn better wages; and since overcrowding reduces the productivity of women’slabor, overall efficiency is lower than would exist in a single sex-blind labormarket (Bergmann, 2005b, pp. 89, 98). Occupational segregation also sets up avicious cycle by reinforcing misinformed beliefs about differences in women’scapabilities, preferences, and social roles. For Bergmann, government action isrequired to ensure occupational integration to mitigate these effects such as affir-mative action policies.

Indeed, Bergmann is not shy about tackling controversial policy issues likeaffirmative action. Her book, In Defense of Affirmative Action, has been widelyreviewed and discussed in both scholarly and popular outlets such as TheNew Yorker (Wolfe, 1996) and The New York Times Book Review (Berman,1996). In this provocative book, she confronts the conservative opponents of affir-mative action head on (Bergmann, 1996a). As the title suggests, her main thesis isthat affirmative action is necessary and justified as a policy tool to prevent currentdiscrimination and to eradicate inequality based on race and gender. As always,she uses ample documentation and supportive materials to challenge the claimthat affirmative action is unnecessary because discrimination no longer exists.She examines and responds to various opposing arguments with deftness andcalm logic. For example, she questions the logic behind the opposition to affirmativeaction that sees ‘merit’ as the single most important criteria for deciding employ-ment, promotions and college admissions by pointing to examples of long-standingpreferences to which almost no one objects, including, among others, veteranbenefits, bosses hiring friends and relatives, colleges admitting the children ofalumni, and students with athletic abilities. She admits that affirmative action isabout quotas, and argues that without quotas little progress toward eliminating dis-crimination will be made. She notes that numerical goals are pervasive in all aspectsof management because they have proven to be effective. A number of large corpor-ations favor affirmative action in part because they wish to expand the talent pool.Finally, she concedes that affirmative action policies will impose costs on some

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

members of privileged groups. The alternative to affirmative action, however, is thecontinuation of the status quo.

Bergmann argues that affirmative action has done little to eliminate thegender pay gap, especially for the majority of women working in traditionallyfemale jobs. The problem is gender-based occupational segregation. As long asthe latter is allowed to persist, wages will be determined in separate genderedmarkets. Employers who maintain segregated jobs, she emphasizes, are violatingthe Civil Rights Act and should, in addition to dismantling their segregationistmethods of hiring, training and promoting, be forced to adopt a wage structurethat equally values the human capital of their workers regardless of sex. Thus,she advocates pay equity or comparable worth policies that are designed torealign and improve wages in jobs still dominated by women. As with all of herwork, she offers a practical solution by presenting job evaluation schemes thathave been used within firms and could be used to determine wages based on jobcharacteristics rather than the sex of the worker. Her advocacy for pay equity isrooted in her desire to force discriminatory employers to pay in the presentperiod what the future market wage would be in a world where men andwomen had equal access to all jobs. Ultimately, gender equity in the labormarket, she contends, requires a combination of affirmative action policies andpay equity (Bergmann, 1984a, 1985a, 1985c, 1985e, 1986a, 1987f, 1989a, 2005b).

Bergmann claimed another first in economics when she analyzed the occu-pation of the housewife, emphasizing the inherent economic risks to women inthis ‘peculiar occupation’ (Bergmann, 1981d, 1986a, 2005b). The longer thehousewife’s tenure, Bergmann argues, the greater the risk—both physical andfinancial. The greatest risk facing housewives within ‘the job’ is sexual or physicalabuse from their more powerful partners. A housewife’s ‘job mobility’ also entailshigh financial risk which, in part, explains why women often stay in abusive mar-riages. Unlike other employee–employer relations, marriages are costly and diffi-cult to dissolve. Moreover, the work experience attained as a housewife is notvalued by employers. Even with the assistance of court-ordered child supportand/or alimony payments, it may be difficult to financially support herself andher children. These and other arguments about the unique ‘live-in’ features ofhousewifery are used to compare the job of housewife to other less-risky occu-pations and to demonstrate how the comfort and interest of men are served byhomemakers with impoverished alternatives in a monetary economy.

Bergmann’s analysis of the family contrasts sharply with the ‘new homeeconomics’ which invokes the theory of comparative advantage to explain whywomen ‘specialize’ in housework (Becker, 1981). The latter assumes that thehousehold division of labor is a rational response by spouses to their exogenouslygiven sex-role differences, and thus in no need for reform. For Bergmann, this is‘preposterous’ because it ignores the fact that men’s market advantage is derivedfrom employment discrimination and men’s traditional refusal to assume theirfair share of domestic responsibilities when women work outside the home(Bergmann, 1995f, 1996d).

Bergmann has also prescribed a number of policy initiatives aimed at assist-ing the growing number of single mothers. Her main objective is to design policiesthat channel economic resources to poor families, allowing them to maintain a

488 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

minimally decent living standard. For instance, she advocates rigorous enforce-ment of parental child-support payments (Bergmann, 1981e, 1981f, 1982g,1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1986a, 1995e, 2005b). Although the latter has receivedwidespread political support in recent years, resulting in federal- and state-levelinvolvement and sometimes criminal convictions for violators, these measureshave not resulted in the reliable delivery of child support. Poor enforcement,Bergmann argues, has made the custody of children a financially difficult experi-ence for women. Rigorous enforcement of child support obligations shifts thefinancial burden to the father. This may have the effect, Bergmann argues, ofincreasing fathers’ requesting custody of their children (Bergmann, 2005b,p. 163). Nevertheless, she concludes, a better child support system by itself willdo little to eradicate poverty among single mothers. In addition, they requireaccess to high paying jobs and government subsidized health care, childcareand housing (Bergmann, 2005, p. 164).

Declining federal support for ‘welfare’ during the 1980s and early 1990s pro-vides the historical context for Bergmann’s subsequent book, Saving Our Childrenfrom Poverty: What the United States Can Learn from France (Bergmann, 1996b).By focusing on child poverty, Bergmann shifted the welfare debate away fromvitriolic diatribes against poor mothers to the real needs of poor children. She com-pares US family and childcare policy with the French system and argues that thelatter is far superior because it has produced much lower child poverty rates.Bergmann advocates a modified version of the French system, selectively adopt-ing those features of the French welfare system that have been successful andadaptable to the US system. In particular, she proposes a ‘help for workingparents’ program (HWP) that includes, among others, vouchers for high-qualitychildcare, health insurance for all families with children, free childcare for pre-schoolers, expansion of existing programs such as earned-income tax creditsand food stamps and housing assistance in high rent areas. To gain politicalsupport, she advocates extending childcare and healthcare benefits to middleincome families. For Bergmann, government provisioning of high-quality child-care is essential for two main reasons. First, it allows single working mothers inminimum-wage jobs to maintain their families above the poverty line. Second,it provides a work incentive by making most benefits available to poor workingfamilies, thereby encouraging labor force participation and increasing workforceattachment. She notes that the largest roadblock to the proposal is the misleadingclaim that the United States cannot afford it. With some political will, she argues,the HWP plan could be financed by a modest rearrangement of budget priorities(Bergmann, 1987d, 1987e, 1988a, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d,1996b, 1996c, 1996e, 1996f, 1997a, 1997b; Hartmann & Bergmann, 1995).

For Bergmann, childcare is an indispensable ingredient of any policy aimedat eliminating child poverty. This is the focus of a co-authored book, America’sChild Care Problem: The Way Out (Heilburn & Bergmann, 2002) in which thecurrent system of childcare financing and delivery is reviewed and foundwanting. The main problem is that good quality childcare is not affordable forthe majority of families who need it. The ‘way out’ consists of three main propo-sals: federal financing with state and local government administration of servicesprimarily provided by private-sector childcare facilities; the expansion of

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

licensure requirements and higher qualifications for childcare workers, therebyimproving the quality and safety of childcare provisioning; and finally, increasedand better information about childcare to parents who routinely overestimate itsquality. Bergmann starts from the premise that childcare is a ‘merit good’ (Berg-mann, 1994a). That is, the high cost of quality childcare excludes most womenfrom the market. In general, mothers who want to work are forced to stayhome. Single mothers are forced to use low-quality childcare because they haveto work. Thus, the public provisioning of affordable high quality childcare isrequired to help women obtain a decent life for their families. Bergmann notesthat employers will also benefit from subsidized childcare in the form of lowerabsenteeism and turnover among employees who are less distracted by childcareproblems (Bergmann, 2001). In addition, children will benefit by spending theirdays in a safe, non-violent environment, in which cognitive skills are developed,nourishing meals are provided, and health and psychological problems areaddressed, producing better learners and workers (Bergmann, 1994a, p. 1084).

From time to time, when Republican administrations attempted to dismantlethe social security system, Bergmann was there to defend it (Bergmann, 1981b,1982a, 1982l). Her most recent foray into this debate is a primer on social securityentitled, Is Social Security Broke: A Cartoon Guide (Bergmann, 2005a). Thebook offers a succinct critique of the arguments favoring privatization and argu-ments in favor of keeping social security ‘as is’ with a touch of Bergmannesquehumor in the form of cartoons. Less than humorous are the implications of priva-tization for elderly women. As Bergmann points out, one of the main sources ofincome for elderly women without husbands is Social Security. Thus, privatizationmay adversely affect women by increasing their risk of financial loss, therebyincreasing the number of elderly women living in poverty. Bergmann traces theprecarious financial position of elderly women to the gender biases in thedesign of the social security system established during the 1930s when menwere the primary breadwinners and women spent most of their married lives athome. Like the income tax system, social security is more generous to one-earner couples than two-earner couples with the same income; a result knownas the ‘housewife bonus.’ For instance, divorced women who work their entirelives in the low-wage job market and contribute to social security receive lowerbenefits than housewives who remain married. In essence, divorced womenreceive a zero rate of return on their labor force contributions. And as thenumber of housewives dwindles, fewer elderly women are able to reap thereduced benefits associated with the sex-role caste system (Bergmann, 2005b,pp. 149–151).

6. Conclusion

Bergmann’s contributions to economics are both numerous and varied. Thus, it isdifficult to provide a fair treatment of the breath and depth of her thinking. Whatthe foregoing essay has attempted to capture is her unique ability to blend theor-etical, empirical and advocacy work. Unlike most economists, she is not content toengage in introspection or regression running. Her objective is not to seek individ-ual glory or win the Nobel Prize by misusing mathematics in an attempt to prove

490 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

questionable hypothesis. Her primary goal is to make economics policy-relevantin the pursuit of social change. By grounding her theoretical arguments in empiri-cal evidence about real people she has indeed furthered that goal.

She does not dismiss the research findings of other disciplines. Rather, sheincorporates relevant information from many disciplines in her work to bolsterher arguments. By writing for a host of scholarly journals outside the field of econ-omics, she engages in interdisciplinary dialogue in an effort to gain widespreadsupport for her policy initiatives.

She does not pretend value neutrality with respect to social and economicissues. Rather, she believes that economists have a moral obligation to developpolicy initiatives that lead to a more equitable and just future. Consequently,her work focuses less on theory development and more on addressing feministissues—asking questions and finding answers—in an attempt to move thepolicy discussion forward.

She acknowledges that her policy proposals will involve both winners andlosers. Indeed, she estimates the costs and presents it without apology. She doesnot deny, for instance, that it will cost billions of dollars to begin subsidizing child-care and healthcare for those who need it and that it will cost more rather than lessto eliminate child poverty. She admits that affirmative action programs are aboutquotas and that some members of previously advantaged groups will lose. Sheagrees that profit-maximizing employers will shift the cost of pay equity raisesfor women workers onto men in the form of slower wage increases. Thishonesty reveals her deep and unwavering commitment to make the world abetter place for everyone, especially single working mothers and their children.

As a public intellectual she has indeed made her mark. By testifying beforeCongress, providing organizational leadership, writing for major newspaper andmagazine articles, participating on radio and television shows, and writinghighly accessible books, Bergmann has brought an economic point of view onwomen’s issues to a broader public. But her impact on the profession beyond fem-inist economics has been tempered in large part by the nature of her subjectmatter—women, children and other marginalized groups. Indeed, it is difficultto imagine the significance given to the work of Milton Friedman or the morerecent Nobel laureate, Edmund Phelps, by the Bank of Sweden had their workfocused on issues of concern to working women. Perhaps, however, it would bemore appropriate that Bergmann receive the Peace Prize like the recent recipient,economist Muhammad Ynus, who helped to improve the lives of millions of poorpeople. After all, Bergmann, like Ynus, deserves a real Nobel Prize!

References

Becker, G.S. (1957) The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Becker, G.S. (1981) A Treatise on the Family (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Becker, G.S. (1985) Human capital, effort and the sexual division of labor, Journal of Labor Econ-

omics, 3(1), part 2, pp. S33–S58.Berman, P. (1996) Redefining fairness, The New York Times Book Review, 14 April, pp. 32–38.Colander, D., Holt, R.P.F. & Rosser, J.B. (2004) The Changing Face of Economics: Conversations

with Cutting-edge Economists (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).England, P. (1992) Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence (New York: Aldine deGruyter).

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

Ferber, M.A. & Lowry, H.M. (1976) The sex differential in earnings: a reappraisal, Industrial andLabor Relations Review, 29, pp. 377–387.

Figart, D.M. & Lapidus, J. (1995) A gender analysis of labor market policies for the working poor inthe US, Feminist Economics, 1(3), pp. 60–81.

Gibson, K.J., Darity, W.A. & Myers, S.L. (1998) Revisiting occupational crowding in the UnitedStates: a preliminary study, Feminist Economics, 4(3), pp. 73–96.

Hartmann, H.I. & Figart, D. (1999) Comparable worth/pay equity, in: J. Petersen & M. Lewis (Eds)The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar), p. 70.

Jacobs, J.A. & Steinberg, R.J. (1990) Compensating differentials and the male-female wage gap: evi-dence from the New York comparable worth study, Social Forces, 69(2), pp. 439–468.

Lapidus, J. & Figart, D.M. (1998) Remedying ‘unfair acts’: US pay equity by race and gender,Feminist Economics, 4(3), pp. 7–28.

Mincer, J. & Polachek, S. (1974) Family investment in human capital: earnings of women, Journalof Political Economy, 82(2), part 2, pp. S76–S108.

Myrdal, G. (1944) An American Dilemma (New York: Harper & Brothers).Olson, P.I. & Emami, Z. (2002) Engendering Economics: Conversations with Women Economists in

the United States (London: Routledge).Orcutt, G., Caldwell, S. & Wertheimer, R. (1976) Policy Exploration through Microanalytic Simu-

lation (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute).Polachek, S. (1981) Occupational self-selection: a human capital approach to sex differences in

occupational structure, Review of Economics and Statistics, 63(1), pp. 60–69.Pujol, M.A. (1992) Feminism and Anti-feminism in Early Economic Thought (Aldershot, UK:

Edward Elgar).Reskin, B.F. (Ed) (1984) Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press).Reskin, B.F. & Hartmann, H.I. (Eds) (1986) Women’s Work, Men’s Work: Sex Segregation on the

Job (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).Sorensen, E. (1989) Measuring the effect of occupational sex and race composition on earnings, in:

R.T. Michel, H.I. Hartmann & B. O’Farrell (Eds) Pay Equity: Empirical Inquiries, pp. 49–60(Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

Treiman, D.J. & Hartmann, H.I. (Eds) (1981) Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs ofEqual Value (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

Wolfe, A. (1996) Affirmative Action, Inc. The New Yorker, 72, pp. 106–115.

The Works of Barbara R. Bergmann

Atkinson, L.C. & Bergmann, B.R. (1972) The prospect of equality of incomes between white andblack families under varying rates of unemployment: a comment, Journal of Human Resources,7(4), pp. 545–547.

Bennett, R. & Bergmann, B.R. (1986) A Microsimulated Transactions Model of the United StatesEconomy (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press).

Bergmann, B.R. (1965a) An approach to an absolute measure of structural unemployment, in:A.M. Ross (Ed.) Employment Policy and the Labor Market, pp. 256–268 (Berkeley, CA: Uni-versity of California Press).

Bergmann, B.R. (1965b) Debt servicing in sanction-free situations: a comment, National BankingReview, 2(4), pp. 569–570.

Bergmann, B.R. (1966) The Cochabamba–Santa Cruz Highway in Bolivia, in: G.W. Wilson,L.V. Hirsch & M. Klein (Eds) The Impact of Highway Investment on Development, pp. 17–54 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Transportation Research Program).

Bergmann, B.R. & Kaun, D. (1967) Structural Unemployment in the United States (Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Commerce).

Bergmann, B.R. (1969a) Investment in the human resources of negroes, in: J.F. Kain (Ed) Race andPoverty: the Economics of Discrimination, pp. 52–57 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Bergmann, B.R. (1969b) The urban economy and the ‘urban crisis,’ American Economic Review,59(4), pp. 639–645.

492 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 20: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

Bergmann, B.R. (1971a) Effect on white incomes of discrimination in employment, Journal of Pol-itical Economy, 79(2), pp. 294–313.

Bergmann, B.R. & Lyle, J.R. (1971b) Occupational standing of negroes by areas and industries,Journal of Human Resources, 6(4), pp. 411–433.

Bergmann, B.R. & Krause, W.R. (1972) Evaluating and forecasting progress in racial integration andemployment, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 25(3), pp. 399–409.

Bergmann, B.R. (1973a) Assessing the impact of alternative economic outcomes on social objec-tives, in: A. Brody & A.P. Carter (Eds) Input Output Techniques, pp. 31–43 (Amsterdam:North-Holland).

Bergmann, B.R. (1973b) Labor turnover, segmentation and rates of unemployment: a simulation-theoretic approach (College Park: Project on the Economics of Discrimination, University ofMaryland).

Bergmann, B.R. (1973c) Combining microsimulation and regression: a ‘preferred’ regression ofpoverty incidence on unemployment and growth, Econometrica, 41(5), pp. 955–963.

Bergmann, B.R. (1973d) The economics of women’s liberation, Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences, 208, pp. 154–160.

Bergmann, B.R. (1973e) Sex discrimination in wages: comment, in: O. Ashenfelter & A. Rees(Eds) Discrimination in Labor Markets, pp. 152–154 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress).

Bergmann, B.R. (1973f) Can we end racial discrimination under capitalism? In, J.H. Weaver (Ed)Modern Political Economy: Radical and Orthodox Views on Crucial Issues, pp. 312–318(Boston: Allyn & Bacon).

Bergmann, B.R. (1974a) A microsimulation of the macroeconomy with explicitly representedmoney flows, Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 3(3), pp. 475–489.

Bergmann, B.R. (1974b) Studying black-white differences in the context of a simulation of the labormarket, in: G.M. Furstenberg, B. Harrison & A.R. Horowitz (Eds) Patterns of Discrimination,pp. 5–26, Volume 2 (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).

Bergmann, B.R. (1974c) Towards more useful modes of research on discrimination in employmentand pay, Sloan Management Review, 15(3), pp. 43–45.

Bergmann, B.R. (1974d) Unfairness of how to analyze fairness of women’s salaries on your owncampus: reply, AAUP Bulletin, 62(1), pp. 126–128.

Bergmann, B.R. (1974e) Occupational segregation, wages and profits when employers discriminateby race and sex, Eastern Economic Journal, 1(2/3), pp. 103–110.

Bergmann, B.R. (1975a) Equality in retirement benefits: the need for pension reform, Civil RightsDigest, 8, pp. 25–27.

Bergmann, B.R. (1975b) Combining microsimulation and regression: reply, Econometrica, 43(3),pp. 529–531.

Bergmann, B.R. (1975c) Empirical work on the labor market: is there any alternative to regressionrunning? Have economists failed?, Eastern Economic Journal, 2(3), pp. 16–24.

Bergmann, B.R. & Maxfield, M. Jr. (1975d) How to analyze the fairness of faculty women’s salarieson your own campus, AAUP Bulletin, 61(3), pp. 262–265.

Bergmann, B.R. (1976) Reducing the pervasiveness of discrimination, in: E. Ginzberg (Ed) Jobs forAmericans, pp. 120–141 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Bergmann, B.R. & Bennett, R.L. (1977) Macroeconomic effects of a Humphrey-Hawkins typeprogram, American Economic Review, 67(1), pp. 265–270.

Bergmann, B.R. (1980a) Discrimination and unemployment, in: E. Malinvaud & J.S. Fitoussi (Eds)Unemployment in Western Countries, pp. 420–442 (London: Macmillan).

Bergmann, B.R. & Bennett, R. (1980b) Policy explorations with the transactions model of the UnitedStates, in: R.H. Haveman & K. Hollenback (Eds) Microeconomic Simulation Models for PublicPolicy Analysis, Volume II, pp. 22–38 (New York: Academic Press).

Bergmann, B.R., Devine, J.R., Gordon, P. Reedy, D., Sage, L., & Wise, C. (1980c) The effect ofwives’ labor force participation on inequality in the distribution of family income, Journal ofHuman Resources, 15(3), pp. 452–455.

Bergmann, B.R. & Darity, W. (1980d) Social relations, productivity and employer discrimination,Monthly Labor Review, 104(4), pp. 47–49.

Bergmann, B.R. (1981a) The economics of expectation, The New York Times, September 20, p. 3.

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 21: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

Bergmann, B.R. (1981b) Relax, social security is doing its job, The New York Times, November 15,p. 3.

Bergmann, B.R. (1981c) Charity needs coercion, The New York Times, December 13, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1981d) The economic risks of being a housewife, American Economic Review,

71(2), pp. 81–86.Bergmann, B.R. (1981e) The economic support of ‘fatherless’ children, in: P.G. Brown, C. Johnson &

P. Vernier (Eds) Income Support: Conceptual and Policy Issues, pp. 195–211 (Maryland:Rowman & Littlefield).

Bergmann, B.R. (1981f) The share of women and men in the economic support of children, HumanRights Quarterly, 3(2), pp. 103–112.

Bergmann, B.R. (1982a) The housewife and social security reform: a feminist perspective, in:R.V. Burkhauser & K.C. Holden (Eds) A Challenge to Social Security: the Changing Rolesof Women and Men in American Society, pp. 229–233 (New York: Academic Press).

Bergmann, B.R. (1982b) An affirmative look at hiring quotas, The New York Times, January 10, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982c) Here is why you lost your job, The New York Times, February 7, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982d) Investment is the business of business, The New York Times, March 7, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982e) Lobbying: shakedown on Capitol Hill, The New York Times, April 4, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982f) A threat ahead from word processors, The New York Times, May 30, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982 g) It’s single parents who need help, The New York Times, May 2, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982 h) A vicious cycle of high rates, The New York Times, June 27, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982i) The sound and fury over poverty, The New York Times, August 22, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982j) Why the football union can hit hard, The New York Times, September 19, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982k) Who’s to blame for the economy, The New York Times, October 17, p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982l) Social security’s overblown problem, The New York Times, November 14,

p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1982m) The failures of a chair-bound science, The New York Times, December 12,

p. 3.Bergmann, B.R. (1983a) Setting appropriate levels of child support payments, in: J. Cassetty (Ed)

The Parental Child Support Obligation: Research, Practice, and Public Policy, pp. 115–118(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).

Bergmann, B.R. (1983b) Women’s plight: bad and getting worse, Challenge, 26(1), pp. 22–26.Bergmann, B.R. & Adelman, I. (1983c) The economic report of the president’s council of economic

advisors: the economic role of women, American Economic Review, 73(4), pp. 509–514.Bergmann, B.R. (1983d) Feminism and economics, Academe, 69(5), pp. 22–25.Bergmann, B.R. & Gray, M. (1984a) The economics of compensation claims under Title VII, in:

H. Remick (Ed) Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination: Technical Possibilities and Pol-itical Realities, pp. 155–172 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).

Bergmann, B.R. (1984b) Report of the committee on the status of women in the economics pro-fession, American Economic Review, 74(2), pp. 457–462.

Bergmann, B.R. & Bennett, R.L. (1984c) Macroeconomic models on microfoundations—datarequirements, Review of Public Data Use, 12(2), pp. 91–96.

Bergmann, B.R. (1985a) The economic case for comparable worth, in: H.I. Hartmann (Ed) Compar-able Worth: New Directions for Research, pp. 71–85 (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress).

Bergmann, B.R. (1985b) Is there a conflict between racial justice and women’s liberation?, RutgersLaw Review, 37(4), pp. 805–817.

Bergmann, B.R. (1985c) Pay equity—how to argue back, Ms, 14, p. 112.Bergmann, B.R. (1985d) Report of the committee on the status of women in the economics pro-

fession, American Economic Review, 75(2), pp. 448–453.Bergmann, B.R. (1985e) Comparable worth for professors, Academe, 71(4), pp. 8–10.Bergmann, B.R. (1986a) The Economic Emergence of Women (New York: Basic Books).Bergmann, B.R. (1986b) The economic well-being of women: comment, Science, 233, p. 510.Bergmann, B.R. (1987c) The task of a feminist economics: a more equitable future, in: C. Farnham

(Ed) The Impact of Feminist Research in the Academy (Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress), pp. 131–147.

Bergmann, B.R. (1987d) A fresh start on welfare reform, Challenge, 30(5), pp. 44–50.

494 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 22: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

Bergmann, B.R. & Roberts, M. (1987e) Income for the single parent: child support, work, andwelfare, in: C. Brown & J. Peckman (Eds) Gender in the Workplace, pp. 247–270 (Washington,D.C.: Brookings Institution).

Bergmann, B.R. (1987f) Pay equity—surprising answers to hard questions, Challenge, 30(2), pp. 45–51.Bergmann, B.R. (1987g) Women’s roles in the economy: teaching the issues, Journal of Economic

Education, 18(4), 393–408.Bergmann, B.R. (1987h) Measurement, or finding things in economics, Journal of Economic Edu-

cation, 18(2), pp. 191–201.Bergmann, B.R. (1987i) Comment on Higgins’ women in the Islamic Republic of Iran: legal, social

and ideological changes, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12(3), pp. 606–607.Bergmann, B.R. (1988a) A workable family policy, Dissent, 35(1), pp. 88–93.Bergmann, B.R. (1988b) An experiment on the formation of expectations, Journal of Economic

Psychology, 9(2), pp. 137–151.Bergmann, B.R. (1989a) What the common economic arguments against comparable worth are

worth, Journal of Social Issues, 45(4), pp. 67–80.Bergmann, B.R. (1989b) Why do most economists know so little about the economy? In: S. Bowles,

R.C. Edwards, & W.G. Shepherd (Eds) Unconventional Wisdom: Essays in Honor of JohnKenneth Galbraith, pp. 29–37 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).

Bergmann, B.R. (1989c) Does the market for women’s labor need fixing? Journal of EconomicPerspectives, 3(1), pp. 43–60.

Bergmann, B.R. (1990a) Micro-to-macro simulation: a primer with a labor market example, Journalof Economic Perspectives, 4(1), pp. 99–116.

Bergmann, B.R. (1990b) A microsimulated model of inventories in interfirm competition, Journal ofEconomic Behavior and Organization, 14(1), pp. 65–77.

Bergmann, B.R. (1990c) Feminism and economics, Women’s Studies Quarterly, 18(3/4), pp. 68–74.Bergmann, B.R. (1991a) Do sports really make money for the university?, Academe, 77(1),

pp. 28–32.Bergmann, B.R. (1991b) Professors should back national health insurance, Academe, 77(3), p. 62.Bergmann, B.R. (1991c) Bloated administrations, blighted campuses, Academe, 77(6), pp. 12–16.Bergmann, B.R. (1993) The French child welfare system: an excellent system we could adapt and

afford, in: W.J. Wilson (Ed) Sociology and the Public Agenda (Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications), pp. 341–350.

Bergmann, B.R. (1994a) Economic issues in child-care policy, Pediatrics, 94(6), pp. 1083–1084.Bergmann, B.R. (1994b) Curing child poverty in the united states, American Economic Review,

71(2), pp. 76–80.Bergmann, B.R. (1995a) Probing the opposition to affirmative action, Gender, Work and Organiz-

ation, 2(2), pp. 89–94.Bergmann, B.R. (1995b) Welfare that works, The Nation, 260, p. 114.Bergmann, B.R. & Hartmann, H.I. (1995c) Instead of ‘cut ‘em off’: a program to help working

parents, The Nation, 260(17), pp. 592–595.Bergmann, B.R. & Hartmann, H.I. (1995d) A welfare reform based on help for working parents,

Feminist Economics, 1(2), pp. 85–89.Bergmann, B.R. & Wetchler, S. (1995e) Child support awards—state guidelines vs. public opinion,

Family Law Quarterly, 29(3), pp. 483–493.Bergmann, B.R. (1995f) Becker’s theory of the family: preposterous conclusions, Feminist Econ-

omics, 1(1), pp. 141–150.Bergmann, B.R. (1996a) In Defense of Affirmative Action (New York: Basic Books).Bergmann, B.R. (1996b) Saving Our Children from Poverty: What the United States can Learn from

France (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).Bergmann, B.R. (1996c) Real welfare reform: help for working parents, Challenge, 39(5),

pp. 34–37.Bergmann, B.R. (1996d) Becker’s theory of the family: preposterous conclusions, Challenge, 39(6),

pp. 9–12.Bergmann, B.R. & Hartmann, H.I. (1996e) A welfare reform program based on help for working

parents, in: R. Albelda, N. Folbre & the Center for Popular Economics (Eds) The War on thePoor, pp. 123–124 (New York: The New Press).

The Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics 495

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 23: On the Contributions of Barbara Bergmann to Economics

Bergmann, B.R. (1996f) Child care: the key to ending child poverty, in: I. Garfinkel, J.L. Hochschild &S. McLanahan (Eds) Social Policies for Children, pp. 112–135 (Washington, D.C.: BrookingsInstitution).

Bergmann, B.R. (1997a) Government support for families with children in the United States andFrance, Feminist Economics, 3(1), pp. 85–94.

Bergmann, B.R. (1997b) Work–family policies and equality between women and men, in: F.D. Blau &R.G. Ehrenberg (Eds) Gender and Family Issues in the Workplace, pp. 277–279 (New York:Russell Sage Foundation).

Bergmann, B.R. (1998a) The only ticket to equality: total androgyny, male style, Journal of Contem-porary Legal Issues, pp. 75–86.

Bergmann, B.R. (1998b) Watch out for family friendly policies, Dollars and Sense: The Magazine ofEconomic Justice, 215, pp. 10–11.

Bergmann, B.R. (1999a) Making child care ‘affordable’ in the United States, Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science, 563(May), pp. 208–219.

Bergmann, B.R. (1999b) Abolish the Nobel Prize for economics, Challenge, March–April,pp. 52–57.

Bergmann, B.R. (2000) Subsidizing child care by mothers at home, Feminist Economics, 6(1),pp. 77–88.

Bergmann, B.R. (2001) Decent child care at decent wages, The American Prospect, 12(1), pp. 8–9.Bergmann, B.R. (2004) What policies toward lone mothers should we aim for? Feminist Economics,

10(2), pp. 240–246.Bergmann, B.R. (cartoons by J. Bush) (2005a) Is Social Security Broke? A Cartoon Guide to the

Issues (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).Bergmann, B.R. (2005b) The Economic Emergence of Women, 2nd edn (New York: Palgrave/

St. Martin’s Press).Bergmann, B.R. (2005c) A Swedish-style welfare state or basic income: which should have priority?

Politics and Society, 32(1), pp. 107–118.Bergmann, B.R. (2005d) The current state of economics: needs lots of work, The Annals of the

American Academy, pp. 1–16.Bergmann, B.R. (2005e) Pushing for a more humane society, Newsletter of the Committee on the

Status of Women in the Economics Profession, Fall, pp. 1, 9–10.Bergmann, B.R. (2006a) Reducing inequality: merit goods vs. income grants, Dissent, 53(1),

pp. 67–72.Bergmann, B.R. (2006b) Curing the nursing shortage–the role of compensation, The New England

Journal of Medicine, 354(15), pp. 1648–1649.Brown, C.V., Bergmann, B.R. & Swartz, K. (1978) Unemployment rate targets and anti-inflation

policy as more women enter the workforce, American Economic Review, 68(2), pp. 90–94.Eliasson, G., Orcutt, G. & Bergmann, B. (Eds) (1977) Micro-simulation—Models, Methods and

Applications (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International).Folbre, N. (1998) Barbara, the market, and the state, Feminist Economics, 4(3), pp. 159–168.Folbre, N., Bergmann, B.R., Agarwal, B. & Floro, M. (Eds) (1993) Women’s Work in the World

Economy (New York: New York University Press).Gray, M. & Bergmann, B.R. (2003) Student teaching evaluations, Academe, 89(5), pp. 44–46.Hartmann, H.I. & Bergmann, B.R.(1995) Get real—look to the future, not the past, Feminist

Economics, 1(2), pp. 109–119.Heilburn, S.W. & Bergmann, B.R. (2002) America’s Child Care Problem: The Way Out (New York:

Palgrave/St. Martin’s Press).Renwick, T.J. & Bergmann, B.R. (1993) A budget-based definition of poverty: with an application to

single-parent families, Journal of Human Resources, 28(1), pp. 1–24.

496 P. I. Olson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

57 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014