S5 Ep24: Male and female voices in economics

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode discusses research showing that gender differences in economists’ public expression are measurable even among highly selected experts. Women on the Economist Expert Panel are less likely to respond, comment, express certainty, or rate confidence highly, and these gaps persist within and outside their expertise. The findings suggest women’s voices are not just underrepresented numerically but also heard differently, with implications for economic debate, policy influence, and how panels and professional settings are structured.

Main Topics: Measuring gender differences in economic voice: Sarah Smith explains how the study uses the Economist Expert Panel to quantify differences in how male and female economists express opinions, rather than only whether their views differ substantively. What the Economist Expert Panel is: The panel surveys leading academic economists every two weeks on topical issues, creating thousands of publicly available responses that can be analyzed for gendered patterns in voice and expression. Three dimensions: volubility, certainty, confidence: The study distinguishes between whether economists answer at all, how certain they are in their substantive position, and how confident they say they are in that position. Gender gaps persist even within expertise: Women are less likely to respond or comment and are less confident and more uncertain than men; crucially, these differences remain when economists are asked questions in their own field. Influence and public reach: By linking panel behavior to Twitter followers, the researchers find that confident men tend to have more followers, suggesting that strong male voices may receive more attention and reach broader audiences. Implications for economics and policy: The discussion broadens from the panel to the profession, arguing that diversity must include voice and not just representation, and that panel reporting and seminar culture may need to change.

Key Arguments: The study shows that gender differences in expression are measurable even among elite economists who are similarly trained and employed. Women on the panel are less likely than men to answer questions, write comments, express certainty, or report confidence. These differences are not explained only by men answering outside their expertise; the gap remains within fields of expertise. Confidence appears to translate into greater influence for men, as measured by Twitter followers, but not for women in the same way. Because EEP responses are public and can shape reputations and media coverage, these differences have real-world implications beyond entertainment or academic curiosity. Weighting opinions by confidence may unintentionally amplify male voices if confidence itself is gendered. Improving diversity in economics requires not only more women in the room but also better mechanisms to ensure women’s voices are heard in seminars, meetings, and public debate.

Data Points: Total panel size: about 100 economists - The Economist Expert Panel expanded from US economists to include European economists. Initial U.S. panel size: around 50 economists - The panel started in 2011 with leading academic economists in the U.S. Female share of panel: around 20-21% - Women are slightly overrepresented on the EEP relative to their share in top economics positions. Female share in top academic economics: about 13% in the US; about 15% in the UK; similar in Europe - Comparison group for senior economics positions. Survey frequency: every fortnight - Panel members are asked questions every two weeks. Publicly available responses: thousands of economic opinions - Repeated panel surveys generate a large dataset for analysis. Paper identifier: discussion paper 17166 - CEPR paper titled 'Male and Female Voices in Economics'.

Pivotal Quotes: "women's voices are even more absent from economic debate than we thought" — Tim Phillips: Opening framing of the episode and the research question. "male answer syndrome" — Sarah Smith: Her shorthand label for the tendency of men to answer questions even when they know little about the topic. "we need to focus on that aspect as well as just the numerical representation" — Sarah Smith: Her conclusion that diversity must include voice, not only headcount.

Implications: The episode suggests economics should redesign panels, seminars, and reporting norms to avoid amplifying gendered confidence gaps. More inclusive debate depends not just on representation, but on ensuring cautious voices are equally heard and valued.