May 2026
New analysis of archival data reveals how structural barriers have shaped the profession.
A new review from the IMF highlights findings from Ann Mari May’s Gender and the Dismal Science, offering a rare, data‑driven look at how women have been systematically excluded from economics for more than a century, and how those patterns continue to influence the profession today.
Drawing on AEA archives, university records, and publication data, the research shows that women faced structural barriers at every stage of the pipeline: admission, training, hiring, publication, and professional recognition. The result is a profession where representation gaps are not incidental, they are embedded.
An examination of AEA membership rolls, university archives, and publication patterns reveals three defining features of women’s experience in economics over the past century.
First, early female economists were admitted into programmes that often viewed their presence as experimental. They faced restricted access to classrooms, libraries, and research opportunities, conditions that limited their academic progression from the outset.
Second, professional networks played a decisive role. Analysis of publications in leading journals shows that network connections strongly influenced who published and who advanced. Women, excluded from these networks, had fewer opportunities to build visibility and credibility.
Third, representation remained low for decades. From 1886 through the mid‑20th century, women accounted for only around 5 percent of AEA membership. Even as more women entered higher education, structural constraints — including hiring discrimination and marriage penalties, limited their ability to build sustained careers.
May notes that the consistency of these patterns across time was striking. The barriers were not episodic; they were systemic.
This research provides a clear case study of how structural barriers can persist even in fields that specialise in analysing inequality. It also challenges a common assumption: that expertise alone is enough to prevent bias within institutions.
The findings show that systems, not intentions, determine outcomes. Informal networks, opaque advancement criteria, and legacy norms can shape who progresses and who does not, even when organisations believe they are operating fairly.
For modern institutions, the implication is direct: understanding representation requires examining the underlying structures that shape opportunity, not just the demographics of who enters the pipeline.
As organisations focus on talent development, leadership pipelines, and equitable advancement, this research underscores the importance of transparency and system design.
The economics profession demonstrates that without intentional structures, exclusion can persist for generations, even in environments committed to analytical rigour.
For businesses, the lesson is clear: inclusion is not only about who is present, but about whether the environment enables full participation, visibility, and progression.
Archival records show that women made up only a small share of economics students, faculty, and AEA members well into the 20th century.
Restricted access to training, networks, and publication opportunities limited women’s progression across generations.
Analysis of leading journals shows that informal networks strongly influenced who published and who gained recognition.
Despite progress, women, especially women of colour, remain significantly underrepresented in the field.
“The patterns are clear — the barriers were structural, and their effects are still visible today.” — Ann Mari May, Gender and the Dismal Science
Source: Gender and the Dismal Science, Finance & Development, International Monetary Fund, 2022
At Global Consultancy, we translate research like this into evidence-based strategy.
Get in touch to discuss what it means for your organisation.
© 2026 All rights reserved. Developed By: Contrast Advertising.
