|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2011‒03‒05
two papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Benno Torgler; Marco Piatti |
| Abstract: | Using information collected from American Economic Review publications of the last 100 years, we try to provide answers to various questions: Which are the top AER publishing institutions and countries? Which are the top AER papers based on citation success? How frequently is someone able to publish in AER? How equally is citation success distributed? Who are the top AER publishing authors? What is the level of cooperation among the authors? What drives the alphabetical name ordering? What are the individual characteristics of the AER authors, editors, editorial board members, and referees? How frequently do women publish in AER? What is the relationship between academic age, publication performance, and citation success? What are the paper characteristics? What influences the level of technique used in articles? Do connections have an influence on citation success? Who receives awards? Can awards increase the probability of publishing in AER at a later stage? |
| Keywords: | American Economic Review; publishing economics; rankings; cooperation; authors; editors; board members; referees; connections; awards; paper characteristics; economic history; history of economic thought |
| JEL: | A10 A11 B00 B31 B40 I23 N01 J00 Z00 |
| Date: | 2011–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cra:wpaper:2011-04&r=sog |
| By: | Zinovyeva, Natalia (IPP-CSIC); Bagues, Manuel F. (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid) |
| Abstract: | Several countries have recently introduced gender quotas in hiring and promotion committees at universities. This paper studies whether these policies increase the presence of women in top academic positions. The identification strategy exploits the random assignment mechanism in place between 2002 and 2006 in all academic disciplines in Spain to select the members of promotion committees. We find that a larger proportion of female evaluators increases the chances of success of female applicants to full professor positions. The magnitude of the effect is large: each additional woman on a committee composed of seven members increases the number of women promoted to full professor by 14%. Conversely, when committee members decide on promotions to associate professor positions, we do not observe any significant interaction between the gender of evaluators and the gender of candidates. If anything, in this case a larger share of female evaluators is associated with fewer successful female applicants. The evidence is consistent with the existence of ambivalent sexism. |
| Keywords: | academic promotion, gender discrimination, randomized natural experiment |
| JEL: | J71 J45 |
| Date: | 2011–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp5537&r=sog |