{"id":714,"date":"2024-01-20T17:04:42","date_gmt":"2024-01-20T22:04:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/?p=714"},"modified":"2024-01-29T16:47:03","modified_gmt":"2024-01-29T21:47:03","slug":"the-quiet-revolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/2024\/01\/20\/the-quiet-revolution\/","title":{"rendered":"The Quiet Revolution"},"content":{"rendered":"

The <\/span>2023 Nobel Prize in Economics<\/a> <\/span>was awarded to Claudia Goldin for her research on the changing role of\u00a0 women in the workplace. As Noah Smith highlights in his <\/span>blog<\/span>, Goldin\u2019s work provides a \u201ccoherent narrative<\/a>\u201d that explains the historical trends in women\u2019s labor market outcomes by exploiting novel datasets\u00a0 and synthesizing seemingly disparate facts and theories. Here, I want to focus on Goldin\u2019s <\/span>2006 Ely Lecture<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0 as I believe it provides a great glimpse into the economist\u2019s <\/span>w<\/span>ide ranging <\/span>work.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Two Major Trends\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Before diving into the paper, it is useful to highlight two major changes in the labor market outcomes for\u00a0 women. First, there was a <\/span>gradual <\/span><\/i>increase in the female labor force participation (FLFP) rates since the 1900s.\u00a0 Second, there was a <\/span>sudden <\/span><\/i>increase in the relative earnings of women during the 1980s. Goldin\u2019s work sheds\u00a0 light into the underlying mechanism behind these two trends. As we will see, the difference in the way the two series increased is central to Goldin\u2019s argument.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 1. Labor Force Participation Rates for Females and Males by Age and Marital Status: 1890 to 2004<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Evolution vs. Revolution\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Goldin divides the 20<\/span>th <\/span>century into four phases: (i) 1900s to 1920s, (ii) 1930s to 1950s, (iii) 1950s to 1970s,\u00a0 and (iv) late 1970s onwards. She describes the first three as evolutionary and the last one as revolutionary\u00a0 (namely, the \u201cQuiet Revolution\u201d). It is important to distinguish between the two terms: <\/span>evolution <\/span><\/i>refers to a\u00a0 consistent but moderate change whereas <\/span>revolution <\/span><\/i>refers to a sudden and rapid change. While the gradual\u00a0 increase in the FLFP is a consequence of various socioeconomic evolutionary forces, the rapid ascent in\u00a0 women\u2019s earnings after 1980s is a result of revolutionary forces across specific dimensions like <\/span>horizon <\/span><\/i>and\u00a0 <\/span>identity<\/span><\/i>. For now, don\u2019t worry about what these terms mean.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 2. Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s Earnings: 1960 to 2003<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Phase 1: 1900s to 1920s\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Since most jobs in the 1900s were dangerous and long in hours, there was a social stigma against women\u00a0 working after they were married. It was the man\u2019s responsibility to provide income for his family, while the wife had to maintain their household. Such a socioeconomic environment meant that women could not\u00a0 benefit from the gains of economic growth. That is, the stigma against women working meant the supply of\u00a0 female workers was virtually non-responsive to increases in the demand for labor (and so wages). Yet, we can\u00a0 see the FLFP rise moderately during this period in Figure 1. Goldin deduces this to be caused by the rise in\u00a0<\/span>office clerical roles<\/span><\/a>. These \u201cnice jobs\u201d reduced the stigma of women working, which allowed their supply to\u00a0 become more flexible to wages.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Phases 2 and 3: 1930s to 1950s, 1950s to 1970s\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Since the phases lie on a continuum, it is hard to pinpoint what caused the transition from one phase to\u00a0 another. Intuitively, it\u2019s easier to think about the transitions as the result of the aggregate effects of a novel\u00a0 change in the previous period. Here, the aggregate effects of rising office jobs in the 1900s combined with the\u00a0 abolishment of <\/span>marriage bars<\/span><\/a> <\/span>in the 1940s resulted in many married women entering the work force during\u00a0 Phase 2. Additionally, the introduction of scheduled part-time work meant women did not have to make the\u00a0 difficult decision of committing to a full-time job. Instead, they had more flexibility in choosing <\/span>how <\/span><\/i>much\u00a0 they worked and <\/span>when <\/span><\/i>they worked, which increased their responsiveness to increases in (hourly) wages.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The aggregate impact of the increased clerical roles and part-time jobs led to a gradual change in the social\u00a0 norm, resulting in more married women entering the labor market in Phase 3. This was complemented by an increased demand for labor during the <\/span>economic boom<\/span><\/a> <\/span>of the 1950s, which resulted in women staying in the\u00a0 labor force for much longer than they had originally anticipated. This is not surprising, as they had formed\u00a0 their expectations growing up in Phase 2, witnessing their mothers work <\/span>intermittent jobs <\/span><\/i>with no plans of a\u00a0 <\/span>long-term career<\/span><\/i>. However, their experiences had set the stage for the new generation and their quiet revolution.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Quiet Revolution: Late 1970s Onwards\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take a moment here to summarize the socioeconomic <\/span>evolutionary <\/span><\/i>forces that resulted in the gradual\u00a0 increase in the FLFP. The 1900s was characterized by a strong social stigma against married women working\u00a0 dangerous and arduous jobs. However, the rise of office jobs and scheduled part-time work along with anti discriminatory legislation like banning marriage bans resulted in women entering <\/span>and <\/span><\/i>staying in the work force\u00a0 at greater rates.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, during this period of consistent improvements in the FLFP, women\u2019s relative earnings to men\u00a0 remained stagnant (Figure 2). This can be largely attributed to the nature of work performed by women\u00a0 (office workers, part-time gigs, etc.), which provided them with no incentive to invest in higher education and\u00a0 little on-the-job learning. However, this drastically changed during the quiet revolution for two main reasons.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First, young women in the late 1970s had an expanded <\/span>horizon<\/span><\/i>: they were able to better predict their future\u00a0 work lives after observing the progress made by women in Phase 3. Second, the changing role of women in\u00a0 the workforce added a new dimension to their <\/span>identity<\/span><\/i>. For example, Goldin notes that women increasingly\u00a0 began to value financial success and career recognition in the late 1970s. These forces were complemented by\u00a0 the invention of the <\/span>pill<\/span><\/a>, which allowed women to delay their marriage and focus on their careers first.\u00a0 Naturally, these changes resulted in a rise in women majoring in career-oriented subjects and transitioning\u00a0 from jobs as nurses and social workers to careers as doctors and lawyers. Goldin attributes these changes, in\u00a0 addition to continued anti-discriminatory legislations imposed in the labor market, to drive the reduction of\u00a0 the gender wage gap starting in the late 1970s.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

With such revolutionary forces in action, women\u2019s role in the workforce fundamentally changed \u2013 achieving a\u00a0 degree of parity with men that was seemingly implausible at the start of the century. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The 2023 Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Claudia Goldin for her research on the changing role of\u00a0 women in the workplace. As Noah Smith highlights in his blog, Goldin\u2019s work provides a \u201ccoherent narrative\u201d that explains the historical trends in women\u2019s labor market outcomes by exploiting novel datasets\u00a0 and synthesizing seemingly disparate facts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22089,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/714"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22089"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=714"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/714\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":739,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/714\/revisions\/739"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/uea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}