Carolyn Shaw Bell

The Principles of Economics from Now until Then

In 1948, Paul Samuelsons Economics revolutionized both teaching and learning, and although todays textbooks differ, they all trace a common heritage to the new paradigms of aggregate economic analysis introduced in the late 1940s and overwhelmingly accepted by the end of the 1950s. The aggregate economics presented at that time used the national economy as its unit of analysis. The great questions awaiting investigation, issues of economic growth, inflation, unemployment, had all surfaced as national problems. And this approach endures today. The introductory textbooks, whatever their differences in style or objective, concern themselves with the economics of one country, usually the United States. But the truth is that this country, like every other, is totally interdependent with the rest of the world. It follows that the model of a closed economy, typically used to present aggregate analysis, has become not only irrelevant but positively harmful. Nor is it possible to relegate international economics to one or more separate chapters, usually occurring at the end of the textbook and course.

WOMEN IN SCIENCE: DEFINITIONS AND DATA FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Among the social sciences, the field of economics has some reputation for being a particularly rigorous field. Partly, this reflects the quantitative nature of our data. A very famous British economist, A. C. Pigou, even defined the field of economics in terms of phenomena that could be measured,’ although he warned that our measuring-rod was itself a variable. Modern economics consists primarily of investigating questions about measured quantities, and about the methods used to measure them. Recently developed mathematical techniques have been rapidly adopted to give our analytical models new elegance and sophistication. Partly, also, the rigorous nature of economics reflects its commitment to such analytical models, and to defining, strictly, the concepts used in these models. Some may sound familiar to other scientists the notions of equilibrium, acceleration. circulation in a closed system, and ratchet effect; these and many others belong in the economist’s tool kit. On the other hand, few economists think of themselves immediately or primarily as “scientists.” We are grateful to the National Science Foundation for including economics on its list of fields eligible for research grants, but only three economists belong to the National Academy, and none, so far as I know, has been considered for election to Sigma Psi, the honor society for more conventionally defined scientific fields. It follows that few economists have a working definition of science readily at hand. But in order to locate and analyze economic data for women in science, we require a delineation of the scientific fields. As a first step, it seemed plausible to turn to another well-known definition of economics and adapt i t to science. “Economics is what economists do, ergo, science is what scientists do.” A directory or register of scientists, therefore, should provide a working definition by which specific individuals were included or excluded. Accordingly, I consulted American Men of Science, the latest edition being the eleventh, published in 1970. None of its seven volumes contains the slightest clue to the criteria used to determine the contents. Only the preface to the first edition, prepared in 1906, mentions this topic at all, and it does not give much of a definition of science. It contains, however, some useful insights for this particular data-problem; i.e., women in science. I quote: