In the world, alone four pct of CEOs (of Fortune 500 companies) are women, as well as therefore does the figure of half dozen pct shown inwards a higher house demonstrate underrepresentation of women inwards textbooks or an accurate reflection of reality? Similarly, policymakers mentioned inwards texts are around oft Presidents or Fed chairs. Historically, alone i adult woman has been a fellow member of this group. Economists mentioned inwards texts are around oft of import historical figures (Smith, Ricardo, Keynes) or prominent modern economists, such every bit Nobel laureates. Once again, 8 pct is higher than for the population existence sampled.
To locomote sure, the business office of women inwards gild is changing, as well as inwards approximately circles at that spot is approximately bias. But standard the total of bias is hard. The graphic inwards a higher house is non a useful gauge.
Or perhaps inwards my adjacent edition, I should add together a give-and-take of Paulina Volcker's disinflation.
-----
Update: Some twitter commentators seemed to misinterpret my cheeky final line. At the adventure of existence pedantic, allow me explain: Textbooks reverberate reality, which includes a history inwards which men played a larger business office than women inwards approximately spheres of life. If a history professor were to write a text on the history of presidential politics, as well as you lot were to notice that at that spot were to a greater extent than mentions of men than women inwards the book, would that locomote prove that the historian is biased? I don't cry upward so. The author has to reverberate what occurred as well as is non complimentary to alter the sex of historical protagonists. Sumber https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
