Historians of economic thought have rarely given much attention to writings by women. This volume is intended to help remedy that situation. It presents a wide-ranging collection of references to women’s writings on economic issues from the 1770s to 1940. Among the more than 1,700 writers included are prolific scholars, leading social reformers, economic journalists and government officials, along with many women who contributed only one or two works to the field. The topics addressed include principles of political economy, poverty, trade unions, women’s employment, child labor, women’s property rights, imperialism, and slavery. Most of the references are to writings in English, but some works are in other languages.
This bibliography will serve as a major reference work for inquiries concerning gender and economic thought. It will help illuminate the history and sociology of economics, the lives of female social scientists and activists, and the histories of labor, feminism, and social reform.
Kirsten K. Madden is Associate Professor of Economics at Millersville University, USA.
Janet A. Seiz is Associate Professor of Economics at Grinnell College, USA.
Michèle Pujol taught Women’s Studies at the University of Victoria, Canada.
Her 1992 book Feminism and Antifeminism in Early Economic Thought was a path- breaking study of women and gender in economics. She died in 1997 at the age of 46.
A Bibliography of Female
Economic Thought to 1940
1 Economics as Literature Willie Henderson
2 Socialism and Marginalism in Economics 1870–1930 Edited by Ian Steedman
3 Hayek’s Political Economy The socio-economics of order Steve Fleetwood
4 On the Origins of Classical Economics
Distribution and value from William Petty to Adam Smith Tony Aspromourgos
5 The Economics of Joan Robinson
Edited by Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, Luigi Pasinetti and Alesandro Roncaglia 6 The Evolutionist Economics
of Léon Walras Albert Jolink
7 Keynes and the ‘Classics’
A study in language, epistemology and mistaken identities
Michel Verdon
8 The History of Game Theory, Vol. 1
From the beginnings to 1945 Robert W. Dimand and Mary Ann Dimand
9 The Economics of W. S.
Jevons Sandra Peart
10 Gandhi’s Economic Thought Ajit K. Dasgupta
11 Equilibrium and Economic Theory
Edited by Giovanni Caravale 12 Austrian Economics in
Debate
Edited by Willem Keizer, Bert Tieben and Rudy van Zijp
13 Ancient Economic Thought Edited by B. B. Price
14 The Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild Socialism
Frances Hutchinson and Brian Burkitt 15 Economic Careers
Economics and economists in Britain 1930–1970
Keith Tribe
16 Understanding ‘Classical’
Economics
Studies in the long-period theory Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori 17 History of Environmental
Economic Thought E. Kula
Routledge Studies in the History of Economics
Communist and Post- Communist Europe Edited by Hans-Jürgen Wagener 19 Studies in the History of
French Political Economy From Bodin to Walras Edited by Gilbert Faccarello
20 The Economics of John Rae Edited by O. F. Hamouda, C. Lee and D. Mair
21 Keynes and the Neoclassical Synthesis
Einsteinian versus Newtonian macroeconomics
Teodoro Dario Togati
22 Historical Perspectives on Macroeconomics
Sixty years after the ‘General Theory’
Edited by Philippe Fontaine and Albert Jolink
23 The Founding of
Institutional Economics The leisure class and sovereignty Edited by Warren J. Samuels 24 Evolution of Austrian
Economics
From Menger to Lachmann Sandye Gloria
25 Concept of Money The god of commodities Anitra Nelson
26 The Economics of James Steuart
Edited by Ramón Tortajada
Economics in Europe since 1945
Edited by A. W. Bob Coats
28 The Canon in the History of Economics
Critical essays
Edited by Michalis Psalidopoulos 29 Money and Growth
Selected papers of Allyn Abbott Young
Edited by Perry G. Mehrling and Roger J. Sandilands
30 The Social Economics of Jean-Baptiste Say Markets & virtue Evelyn L. Forget
31 The Foundations of Laissez- Faire
The economics of Pierre de Boisguilbert
Gilbert Faccarello
32 John Ruskin’s Political Economy
Willie Henderson
33 Contributions to the History of Economic Thought Essays in honour of R. D. C.
Black
Edited by Antoin E. Murphy and Renee Prendergast
34 Towards an Unknown Marx A commentary on the
manuscripts of 1861–63 Enrique Dussel
35 Economics and
Interdisciplinary Exchange Edited by Guido Erreygers
Thought
Essays in memory of G. L. S.
Shackle
Edited by Stephen F. Frowen and Peter Earl
37 The Decline of Ricardian Economics
Politics and economics in post- Ricardian theory
Susan Pashkoff 38 Piero Sraffa
His life, thought and cultural heritage
Alessandro Roncaglia 39 Equilibrium and
Disequilibrium in Economic Theory
The Marshall–Walras divide Edited by Michel de Vroey 40 The German Historical
School
The historical and ethical approach to economics Edited by Yuichi Shionoya
41 Reflections on the Classical Canon in Economics Essays in honor of Samuel Hollander
Edited by Sandra Peart and Evelyn Forget
42 Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy
A centenary estimate
Edited by Terenzio Cozzi and Roberto Marchionatti
Schumpeter to Economics Economic development and institutional change
Richard Arena and Cecile Dangel 44 On the Development of
Long-Run Neo-Classical Theory
Tom Kompas
45 F. A. Hayek as a Political Economist
Economic analysis and values Edited by Jack Birner, Pierre Garrouste and Thierry Aimar
46 Pareto, Economics and Society
The mechanical analogy Michael McLure
47 The Cambridge
Controversies in Capital Theory
A study in the logic of theory development
Jack Birner
48 Economics Broadly Considered
Essays in honor of Warren J.
Samuels
Edited by Steven G. Medema, Jeff Biddle and John B. Davis 49 Physicians and Political
Economy
Six studies of the work of doctor-economists Edited by Peter Groenewegen
Economy and the Professionalisation of Economists
Economic societies in Europe, America and Japan in the nine- teenth century
Massimo Augello and Marco Guidi 51 Historians of Economics &
Economic Thought
The construction of disciplinary memory
Steven G. Medema and Warren J.
Samuels
52 Competing Economic Theories
Essays in memory of Giovanni Caravale
Sergio Nisticò and Domenico Tosato 53 Economic Thought and
Policy in Less Developed Europe
The 19th century
Edited by Michalis Psalidopoulos and Maria-Eugenia Almedia Mata 54 Family Fictions and Family
Facts
Harriet Martineau, Adolphe Quetelet and the population ques- tion in England 1798–1859 Brian Cooper
55. Eighteenth-Century Economics
Peter Groenewegen 56 The Rise of Political
Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment
Tanaka
57 Classics and Moderns in Economics Vol. I
Essays on nineteenth and twen- tieth century economic thought Peter Groenewegen
58 Classics and Moderns in Economics Vol. II
Essays on nineteenth and twen- tieth century economic thought Peter Groenewegen
59 Marshall’s Evolutionary Economics
Tiziano Raffaelli 60 Money, Time and
Rationality in Max Weber Austrian connections
Stephen D. Parsons
61 Classical Macroeconomics Some modern variations and distortions
James C. W. Ahiakpor
62 The Historical School of Economics in England and Japan
Tamotsu Nishizawa
63 Classical Economics and Modern Theory
Studies in long-period analysis Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori 64 A Bibliography of Female Economic Thought to 1940 Kirsten K. Madden, Janet A. Sietz and Michele Pujol
Kirsten K. Madden, Janet A. Seiz and Michèle Pujol
A Bibliography of
Female Economic
Thought to 1940
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge
270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group
© 2004 Kirsten K. Madden, Janet A. Seiz and Michèle Pujol
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN 0–415–23817–X
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
ISBN 0-203-48206-9 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-63151-X (Adobe eReader Format)
Abbreviations xi
Introduction xiii
Entries A–Z 1
Contents
coauth. coauthor
n.s. new series
o.s. old series
pseud. pseudonym
s.n. sine nomine
s.l. sine loco
Abbreviations
A decade ago when work on this project began, it was fair to say that historians lacked even the “raw materials” for an assessment of women’s contributions to economic thought. The pioneering works in the effort of recovery and evalua- tion (Pujol 1992; Groenewegen 1994; and M. A. Dimand et al. 1995) brought to light long-neglected writings by dozens of women. Since then the literature on women and economics has grown considerably, with M. A. Dimand et al. (2000) being a particularly vital contribution. We hope that this book will facilitate further research into this fascinating history.
This bibliography contains references to over 10,000 articles, books, and pamphlets on economic issues, written by more than 1,700 women, published between 1770 and 1940. It includes more than 400 doctoral dissertations and masters’ theses, which have not to our knowledge been listed together before; it also lists many reports issued by national, state, and local governments in the U.K. and the U.S. There are works from academic journals and from popular magazines, treatises on public finance and on the “science” of household management, and even a few works of fiction and poetry. Browsing the titles listed here, one learns about not only intellectual history but social history as well.
In this introduction we provide some background information about the writ- ings, describe our methods and sources, note some of the limitations of the collection, and reflect on uses we hope readers will make of the material.
The writers and their times
The women who appear here are remarkably varied in social origin, education, occupation, and political orientation. English aristocrats like Baroness Jeune rub shoulders with working-class activists such as Ada Nield Chew. Ph.D. recipients are present alongside women with only a few years’ formal education. There are civil servants and trade unionists, feminists and antifeminists. One finds profes- sors, novelists, journalists and poets, communists, conservatives and anarchists.
There are several nineteenth-century authors, all largely self-educated – Jane Marcet, Harriet Martineau, and Millicent Garrett Fawcett – who wrote widely read books seeking to make the new insights of political economy available to
Introduction
Kirsten Madden and Janet Seiz
the reading public. Far less well known, there is a mountain climber, Annie Smith Peck, who “climbed higher in the Western Hemisphere than any other American, man or woman” and was awarded a gold medal by the Peruvian government (James et al. 1971: 41). (We list one of several books she wrote seeking to improve relations between the Americas, a statistical handbook of South America.) And there is one of Karl Marx’s daughters, Eleanor Marx Aveling, who wrote and edited many works of socialist political economy and also translated into English Madame Bovary and the plays of Henrik Ibsen.
While the majority of these women published only a few works on economics, some were remarkably prolific. Carol Aronovici had approximately fifty publica- tions, Sophonisba Breckinridge, Anna Louise Strong, Mary Van Kleeck, and Beatrice Webb about seventy, and Edith Abbott nearly 100. Vera Anstey contributed over seventy book reviews to economics journals as well as writing books and articles on the economics of India.
Several contributors had path-breaking careers as journalists. Flora Shaw (later Lady Lugard) was Colonial Editor for The Times of London in the 1890s and wrote some 500 articles on colonial affairs. She influenced imperial policy as well as public opinion, “vigorously supporting British expansion, by military force if necessary” (Callaway and Helly 1992: 79). Ida M. Tarbell is described as
“perhaps the most outstanding female investigative journalist that America has ever produced. Her exposé of Standard Oil’s ruthlessness and other national ills made her a leader in the early muckraking movement” (Garraty and Carnes 1999: 322). Concerning her publications on tariffs (1911), U.S. President Woodrow Wilson said “she has written more good sense, good plain common sense, about the tariff than any man I know of ” (James et al. 1971: 429). Sylvia Porter won “every economics prize awarded to undergraduates” at Hunter College in New York in the 1920s (Garraty and Carnes 1999: 715), and became a journalist after a stint with a New York investment firm. Writing as S. F. Porter to conceal the fact that she was a woman, she was a “pioneer in making the inner workings of the business and financial communities understandable for the general public, translating what she called ‘bafflegab’ into simple, understand- able English” (ibid.: 716). Her articles were “quick to point out abuse and injustice, and she soon became known as both a watchdog and a champion of the small investor” (ibid.: 716).
Many important social investigators and social reformers are represented here. A description of one writer on working women, Elizabeth Beardsley Butler, says that she, like “other college-educated social reformers of the early twentieth century…believed that well-publicized research would galva- nize American businessmen, civic leaders, and legislators to improve the living and working conditions of the working class” (Garraty and Carnes 1999: 95). Similar hopes animated many others. Clementina Black, Florence Kelley, and Josephine Goldmark were prolific writers on women’s employment, child labor, and labor legislation. Clara Collet conducted many studies of women’s work and other labor issues for the British govern- ment from the 1890s through the 1920s. Physician Alice Hamilton was a
reform activist and a pioneer in industrial toxicology. Less famous, Catherine Krouse Bauer, an “urban-planning educator,” wrote on the economics and politics of providing low-cost modern housing in northern Europe, noting the association between European housing reforms and the political power of labor unions. “There will never be any realistic housing movement” in the U.S., she argued, “until the workers and consumers – and the unemployed – themselves take a hand in the solution” (Garraty and Carnes 1999: 346). Margaret Bondfield developed from shop clerk to labor activist and eventually became the first woman to occupy a post in the British Cabinet, serving as Labour Secretary from 1929 to 1931. Frances Perkins achieved a comparable distinction a few years later, becoming U.S.
Labor Secretary under President Franklin Roosevelt. Other well-known women reformers with works listed here include Jane Addams, Helen Bosanquet, Josephine Butler, Octavia Hill, Josephine Shaw Lowell, Florence Nightingale, Louisa Twining, and Frances Wright.
A number of the women who appear in this volume used fiction to address economic issues. Early in the nineteenth century, stories by Hannah More and Maria Edgeworth sought to instruct working- and middle-class readers on proper behavior in capitalist society. Later, economic problems inspired many fiction writers. Marie van Vorst’s novel Philip Longstreth centered on “a young man who devotes himself to ameliorating the conditions of the poor” (James et al.
1971: 514). Van Vorst worked in a Lynn, Massachusetts, shoe factory to obtain firsthand experience of labor conditions for another book, The Woman Who Toils.
Others who wrote about the hardships of industrial workers include Elizabeth Gaskell, Rebecca Harding Davis, Margaret Harkness, and Frances Trollope. And the economic situations of women were addressed in novels by Louisa May Alcott, Mary Cholmondeley, Isabella Ford, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, and Mary Anne Sadlier, among others.
A handful of the authors appearing here were Catholic nuns. The earliest of them, Margaret Anna Cusack, was born in Ireland in 1829 and wrote on Irish poverty. Six other Catholic nuns have Ph.D. theses listed, on topics including
“The Significance of a Changing Concept of Ownership to Current Economic and Social Planning” and “The Problem of Hours and Wages in American Organized Labor.”
Some of the writing cited in these pages was honored with prestigious awards.
Victorine Jeans wrote the Cobden Prize Essay for 1891, Factory Act Legislation, Its Industrial and Commercial Effects, Actual and Prospective. Helen Stuart Campbell’s Women Wage-earners won an award from the American Economic Association and was published in 1893 with an introduction by Richard Ely (R. Dimand 1995).
In 1924 Dorothy Swaine Thomas won the Hutchinson Silver Medal for excel- lence in research by a student at the London School of Economics for her Ph.D.
thesis “Social Aspects of the Business Cycle.” (Thomas is remembered as a soci- ologist because she ultimately received tenure in the University of California–Berkeley Sociology Department.) Eveline Burns received the same prize in 1926 for work on problems of wage regulation (“School Notes,”
Economica, March 1927: 274). Three women received the Hart, Schaffner and Marx Prize for their writing in economics: Yetta Scheftel in 1916 for The Taxation of Land Value; Hazel Kyrk for her University of Chicago Ph.D. thesis in 1920;
and Caroline Ware for her thesis on the New England cotton industry in 1929.
During the 170 years spanned by this project, the world was transformed in many ways that are clearly reflected in this bibliography. In the early nineteenth century it was far from widely accepted that women would write at all, and female authors commonly had their work published anonymously or under male pseudonyms. By the twentieth century female authorship per se was no longer controversial in many societies – but still women’s authority to define knowledge on economic, social and political matters was far from secure.
The period saw the emergence of feminist movements in many countries, which were intertwined in complex ways with other social movements. In the nineteenth-century U.S., Britain, and Ireland thousands of middle-class and wealthy women became involved in philanthropic and charitable work. Often this was portrayed as an extension of “mothering” beyond the home, to help the poor, the old, the sick, disadvantaged children, and – more controversially – natives of Britain’s colonies. Many women also participated in antislavery and trade union and socialist struggles.
Among the writers appearing here are several leading abolitionists (Elizabeth Heyrick, Lydia Maria Child, Harriet Beecher Stowe), but also at least one prominent apologist for slavery (Louisa McCord). There are leaders in the battles for women’s suffrage, property rights, and wider educational and employment opportunities, such as Barbara Bodichon, Eleanor Rathbone, and Harriot Stanton Blatch; and there are others who argued that women should not have the vote (Catharine Beecher). Quite a few contributors were socialists of various sorts (from the Fabian Beatrice Webb to Annie Besant and the revolutionaries Anna Louise Strong and Rosa Luxemburg) and several were anarchists (Louisa Bevington, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre). Other writers, most notably Harriet Martineau and Millicent Garrett Fawcett, were staunch proponents of free markets.
The period covered by this bibliography also saw the creation of “social science” and then of the separate “social sciences” as academic disciplines. As a number of scholars have shown (see especially Yeo 1996 and Silverberg 1998), this process was a highly “gendered” one.
In both Britain and the U.S., “social science” was initially closely connected with social reform. Britain’s National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (NAPSS) and the United States’ American Social Science Association (ASSA) were created (in 1857 and 1865, respectively) in the hope that scientific inquiry would lead to wiser policies for the amelioration of social ills. Members of these organizations came from many walks of life, including the clergy, medicine, charitable work, business, teaching, and the civil service, and the papers they presented at conferences discussed housing, capital–labor conflicts, women’s employment, poverty, public health, education, prisons, and law, as well
as foreign trade and banking policy. Both the NAPSS and the ASSA included substantial numbers of women.
Near the turn of the century, for reasons we will not attempt to summarize here, the social world began to be carved into discrete pieces covered by separate bodies of “experts.” In the U.S, groups broke away from the ASSA to form professional associations for historians in 1884, economists in 1885, political scientists in 1903, and sociologists in 1905. In Britain, similarly, the Royal Economic Society was founded in 1890. University departments in social science disciplines began to be established in the U.S. in the 1870s and 1880s, and Ph.D.
programs were created. Specialized journals were developed to serve and to delimit the emerging professions. In economics the first academic journals were Publications of the American Economic Association and the Quarterly Journal of Economics (both started in 1886), the Economic Journal (1891), and the Journal of Political Economy (1892).
In the professionalization process the “impartial pursuit of knowledge” was elevated above advocacy. Over time, reformers and activists were either ejected from the “community” or more or less silenced within it. Authority was linked to formal credentials, and access to these credentials was limited. Not coinciden- tally, among those who were no longer welcome in the community of inquirers were most of the women.
Academic institutions became the dominant sites for the creation and dissemi- nation of knowledge, and in academic institutions women were marginalized, either excluded altogether or relegated to niches related to traditional female roles. The gap between women’s and men’s formal schooling narrowed slowly:
women made up about one-fifth of undergraduate students in the U.S. in 1870 and just over one-third in 1900. Admission to graduate study was very rare for women. In both the U.S. and Britain, some of the most prestigious universities allowed women to take courses but not to receive degrees. The first major British institution to allow women to take degrees was the University of London in 1878. By 1900 most British universities had been opened to women, but Oxford and Cambridge remained largely closed. Economics Ph.D. programs in the U.S.
admitted a few women beginning in the 1890s. Even when women succeeded in acquiring impeccable “credentials,” however, they found their prospects for employment as economists rather limited.
In the U.S. universities studied by Nancy Folbre, prior to 1900 men wrote eighty-four dissertations in political economy and women wrote five (about 6 percent); between 1906 and 1920, women’s share of the dissertations rose to about 10 percent (Folbre 1998: 41). Evelyn Forget found that women’s share of U.S. Ph.D. dissertations in economics peaked at 19 percent in 1920, then hovered between 10 and 15 percent through most of the 1920s and 1930s (Forget 1995:
26–7). As Helene Silverberg points out, figures on degrees awarded understate the extent of women’s involvement in economic study. In the Department of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University, for instance, “of the 252 people who completed at least one year of graduate work between 1876 and 1926…, nearly 35 percent (seventy-seven) were women” (Silverberg 1998: 11).
In this bibliography are over 350 women known to have received doctorates in some field. Of these, approximately 300 wrote Ph.D. theses with an obvious economics focus. Most of the doctorates were earned in economics departments, but many were in other disciplines, especially history, sociology, and political science. Nine institutions granted Ph.D’s to ten or more of the women whose works are listed here: Columbia University, University of Chicago, Radcliffe College, University of Wisconsin at Madison, London School of Economics, Bryn Mawr College, University of Pennsylvania, University of California at Berkeley, and the Brookings Institution. There are also well over 130 master’s theses cited in these pages. Approximately 40 women here earned both master’s and Ph.D. degrees.
Many of the women who received advanced degrees in economics found employment as economists, though rarely on university faculties. Helen Frances Page Bates, the first woman to earn an economics Ph.D. (Wisconsin, 1896), became the Economics Department librarian at the University of California, Berkeley. Hannah Robie Sewall, whose 1898 Ph.D. dissertation on theories of value before Adam Smith became a standard work in the field, was hired by Carroll Wright at the U.S. Bureau of Labor. She wrote an important study of child labor in 1904 and then apparently stopped publishing (M. A. Dimand et al.
2000: 395). The prolific Edith Abbott received her Ph.D. in 1905 and taught briefly at Wellesley College before joining Sophonisba Breckinridge (who had Chicago doctorates in economics, politics, and law) in establishing a graduate school of social administration and social work in Chicago. Jessica Blanche Peixotto was “the only woman who received a Ph.D. before 1910 and managed to hold a faculty position in economics at a major research institution before 1920” (Folbre 1998: 43). Peixotto became the first female full-time faculty member at Berkeley, teaching courses on socialism and “social economy” in the Economics Department from 1904 to 1935 (Garraty and Carnes 1999: 258). She served as a vice-president of the American Economic Association in 1928.
Most of the economists represented here have received little scholarly attention, but it appears their careers were often quite interesting. Theresa Wolfson studied economics at Columbia University and earned her Ph.D. from the Brookings Institution in 1926. She taught economics and labor history in union-sponsored workers’ schools and at Brooklyn College. Persia Campbell, an Australian, studied at the London School of Economics and worked as a research economist with the government of New South Wales. She later moved to the U.S., taught at Queens College, and was active in the consumers’ movement (Garraty and Carnes 1999:
295–7). Helen Sumner did graduate work at Wisconsin with Richard Ely and John Commons. Unable to find a permanent academic position, she did research under contract for U.S. government agencies and was later employed by the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Labor and the Brookings Institution (Garraty and Carnes 1999: 144). Elizabeth Waterman Gilboy did graduate work at Harvard/Radcliffe and the London School of Economics in the 1920s and held administrative and research posts at Harvard/Radcliffe from 1929 through the
1960s. She made significant contributions to English economic history, the study of consumer demand, and input–output analysis (M. A. Dimand et al. 2000: 168–72).
Quite a few of the writers cited in this study were academics from fields other than economics but made noteworthy contributions to the discipline. Lucy Salmon, who was trained as an historian, with the support of U.S. Bureau of Labor commissioner Carroll D. Wright “made a pioneering application of statis- tical method to this field” in her 1897 book Domestic Service (James et al. 1971:
224). Another historian, Constance McLaughlin Green, wrote a doctoral thesis on American industrial history that was awarded Yale University’s prestigious Edward Eggleston Prize. Susan Kingsbury earned a history Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1905 and wrote extensively in economics thereafter.
Kingsbury served as a vice-president for the American Economic Association in 1919.
Some women who were trained in economics migrated to other fields of teaching and scholarship. Barbara Nachtrieb Grimes Armstrong worked as assis- tant in the University of California–Berkeley Economics Department from 1914 to 1919 and received a Ph.D. in economics there. Armstrong is remembered as a law professor in the American National Biography, doing interdisciplinary research and teaching in law and economics (Garraty and Carnes 1999: 607). Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1921, but then moved into law and soon ceased to publish in economics.
There was an interesting overlap between economics and the new discipline of home economics in the early twentieth century. Some women with economics Ph.D.s found jobs in university departments of home economics; and some home economists trained in other fields did research on households and consumption that is cited in this bibliography. Sophonisba Breckinridge, who wrote her Ph.D. dissertation on the history of monetary theory, held a faculty position in the University of Chicago’s Department of Household Administration. Mary Schenk Woolman was a home economist who studied at Harvard with economist Thomas Nixon Carver and coauthored with him a book about the textile industry. Ellen Henrietta Richards, trained as a chemist, founded the American Home Economics Association and was its first president.
Hazel Kyrk earned her Ph.D. in Economics at Chicago and ultimately became a full professor there in 1941, with joint appointments in the Departments of Economics and Home Economics (R. Dimand 1999). Kyrk is remembered for broadening “the economics curriculum to include consumer topics and estab- lish[ing] Chicago as the premier university for the study of family and consumer economics” (Sicherman and Green 1980: 405, quoted in M. A. Dimand 1995:
47–8). The field of “social work” was also undergoing professionalization early in the century, as governments took more responsibility for helping disadvan- taged individuals who earlier had depended on families and private charity.
Social work provided careers for many of the growing population of educated women, and women involved in social work contributed many writings to the literature covered here.
Even more women who were trained in economics pursued careers outside the academy, often in government or in advocacy and research organizations.
Frieda Miller did graduate research in labor economics, political science, law, and sociology from 1911 to 1915 at the University of Chicago. She later became a labor reformer and state and federal official (Garraty and Carnes 1999:
485). Emily Wayland Dinwiddie took graduate courses in economics at the University of Pennsylvania and worked in housing reform. Katharine Bement Davis had one of the most unusual stories: having completed an economics Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, she went on to an illustrious career in prison administration.
Subject matter
The definitions of “economist” and the “economic” were in considerable flux in the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth. This made our decisions about which writings and writers to include quite complex, and because the
“professionalization” movement was at its most intense just before and after the beginning of the twentieth century, our pre-1900 collection looks rather different from the post-1900 one.
The boundaries between the social sciences, as mentioned earlier, were non- existent before the late nineteenth century and remained hazy well into the twentieth. Prior to the professionalization and “academicization” of the social sciences, writers tended to be broadly educated and to move between topics and approaches with relative ease. Women who wrote on political economy might pen novels and philosophical tracts as well, and any individual text on economic issues might also be laden with religious or other non-economic content. By 1940, in contrast, writers on economics were less likely to be contributing to other unrelated fields, and their writing conformed more clearly to currently recognized disciplinary norms.
Relatedly, for most of the nineteenth century the professional journals did not yet exist, and writers on economics published their work in non-specialist period- icals such as the Westminster Review, the Edinburgh Review, Nineteenth Century, the Contemporary Review, the Arena, and the Forum (see Coats 1993). Most writers – certainly most women – continued to find such publications the primary outlets open to them as the professionalization of economics proceeded. Still, if one could reorder this bibliography by chronology rather than by author, the trans- formation of the literature from generalist to specialist would be quite apparent.
The editors of the Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists dealt with the
“whom to include” problem, they wrote, by deciding to concentrate on “individ- uals who were intentionally working in what would at the time they wrote, have been considered economics” (M. A. Dimand et al. 2000: xvii). This admirable rule is of course not easily applied in practice. And we have opted to cast a somewhat wider net: our authors need not have been economists, but merely have published some interesting (or interesting-sounding) writing on economic issues.
We believe we have identified most of what would be considered “contribu- tions to the literature of the discipline” in the narrow sense – books and articles that were written primarily for and read by other economists. But we have also included many writings for much wider audiences, particularly for the period before 1900. We do this not to exaggerate the extent of women’s presence “in economics,” but to provide a fuller and (we hope) more vivid picture of the writers and the “economic discourse” of the times.
The writers who appear here are better understood, we believe, when one has a sense of the range of their interests and involvements. While we have excluded an enormous number of the writers’ works focusing on subjects such as religion, art history, and literature, we have intentionally included a select few non- economic writings. We find it interesting that, for example, Frances Power Cobbe and other prominent British feminists writing in economics were also involved in the turn-of-the-century campaign against vivisection, which would now be called an “animal rights” movement.
Deciding which subject areas should be considered “economic” was far from simple, again especially for the earlier period. There are many social phenomena that are centrally “economic” but might be written about from non-economic angles: poverty, prostitution, and slavery are obvious examples. We include here a great deal of women’s writing on poverty. Some pieces are analytical, some are descriptive, and some serve mostly to reveal the range of “middle-class” attitudes toward the poor. The writings on prostitution that we list are similarly varied:
writers such as Josephine Butler and Annie Besant noted that many women became prostitutes because few other livelihoods were open to them, discussed ways the state should and should not regulate the sex trade, addressed moral issues, often in religious terms, and sometimes brought in public health and eugenics. On slavery, we cite some works with interesting economic emphases.
Lydia Maria Child’s An Appeal in Favor of that Class of Americans Called Africans (1833) was a pioneering scholarly study “addressing all aspects of the slavery controversy – moral, legal, economic, political, and racial” (Karcher 1996: xxiii).
Elizabeth Heyrick’s Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition (1824) called for radical changes in both the objective and the tactics of the antislavery movement, urging women to organize boycotts of West Indian sugar and other products of slave labor. On the other side of the debate, in defense of slavery, Louisa McCord (1851, 1856) drew on pseudoscientific “knowledge” about racial difference but also described the plight of the poor wage laborer in language that would have been at home in any socialist tract.
Feminist economists – including many whose work appears here – often argue that the fundamental fact shaping women’s economic lives is the gender division of labor. Thus we have included many writings from the period’s energetic debates about women’s domestic roles and education. We have tried to choose mostly works that focus on economic, legal, and political issues, but religious and biological arguments are present as well. We have also included some writings on women’s suffrage, in part because the writers so often stressed that the vote would give women a voice in shaping policies to improve their economic lives.
Most of our decisions about whether to list a piece of writing were necessarily based simply on the work’s title. Sometimes an ambiguous or seemingly non- economic title was kept in because the author had other writings that were clearly economic in nature, or because her education or work experience focused on economic issues. We have generally not included memoirs or biographies, with a few exceptions. We have listed some books recounting travel experiences for the insights they might provide into the writers’ attitudes about colonialism, race, and culture. Finally, we have included some works of fiction and poetry in which economic themes were central, especially if they were written by women who published significant nonfiction writings on economics or who were widely read and influential in shaping popular attitudes about the economy and social reform.
Procedures
This bibliography represents the melding of two separate research projects. In 1994 Michèle Pujol was commissioned by Routledge/Thoemmes to compile a multi-volume anthology of economic writing by women prior to 1900. By 1996 she had managed – painstakingly, without the aid of the electronic databases available to scholars now – to identify several hundred articles and books which she was beginning to evaluate for inclusion. Before Michèle’s tragically prema- ture death in 1997 she asked Janet Seiz to finish that work. Around the same time, Kirsten Madden began collecting references to works by women economists from 1900 to 1940 (for a discussion of this research, see her article in History of Political Economy, Madden 2002). Kirsten and Janet began to collabo- rate in the summer of 2000, with Kirsten keeping primary responsibility for writings published after 1900 and Janet focusing on earlier works. Although our searches were mostly conducted separately and our methods differed in some ways, the following account will describe what “we” did, neglecting the differ- ences for simplicity’s sake. We hope that sharing the procedures we followed will help others to identify ways in which the limitations of this collection may be overcome and the documentation of women’s economic writing made much more complete.
We (including Michèle) began by extracting names and references from the initially small secondary literature on women and economics. We also searched the author indices of the Index of Economic Journals (IEJ), volumes I–III. The pre- 1941 issues of the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Economic Journal, Journal of Political Economy, and Econometrica were examined for female authors of articles and reviews, and the book reviews were checked for refer- ences to books by women. The journals’ professional notes, thesis lists, and advertisements were perused as well.
Each female name found in these searches was entered into the online version of the FirstSearch World Catalogue, which lists books, pamphlets, and government documents catalogued in libraries around the world. The WorldCat provided hundreds of new references and also new names, as many women coauthored works with other women. Also very useful was Chadwyck Healey’s online
database The Nineteenth Century, which includes a large collection of works on economics.
We conducted similar searches with several electronic databases covering periodical literature. Nineteenth Century Masterfile (or “Poole’s Plus”) provides online access to Poole’s Index (covering 1802–1906), Stead’s Index (1890–1906), Jones and Chipman’s Index to Legal Periodical Literature (1786–1922), and the Cumulative Index to a Selected List of Periodicals (1890–1906). The Periodicals Contents Index (from Chadwyck Healey) covers hundreds of journals and maga- zines published from the late eighteenth through the twentieth century. The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals (on CD-ROM), covering the nineteenth century, makes a particularly valuable contribution because it identifies many authors of articles that were published without attribution or signed with initials or pseudonyms. We also were thankful for JSTOR, an electronic archive of full- text articles from hundreds of scholarly journals across many disciplines, which enabled us to verify information in many references, find new references, and in some cases examine the contents of articles to determine whether to include them in the bibliography.
To locate graduate theses, women’s names were entered through FirstSearch into the Dissertation Abstracts database, which covers U.S., Canadian, and some British and European institutions. Each time a school was found to have approved a thesis by a woman before 1941, its complete thesis records between 1880 and 1940 were searched for additional women degree recipients. Several of the major economics journals during the pre-1940 period published dissertation lists, sometimes including works in progress. If completion of a woman’s thesis could not be verified through Dissertation Abstracts, the institution’s library cata- logue was searched via the Internet. In addition, librarians at the Brookings Institution, Radcliffe College, Columbia University, and the London School of Economics were very helpful in responding to direct queries for information concerning women earning Ph.D.s through their economics departments.
We often used biographical reference books to learn more about authors’
education and work lives and to obtain additional references. Particularly helpful sources included Notable American Women (James et al. 1971; Sicherman and Green 1980), American National Biography (Garraty and Carnes 1999), The Dictionary of National Biography (Stephen and Lee 1959–60; Nicholls 1993), The Biographical Dictionary of British Feminists (Banks 1985), and the Encyclopedia of the American Left (Buhle et al. 1990). We also consulted secondary works on the history of the social sciences, social reforms, feminism, the labor movement, and socialism; our coverage of this literature was unsystematic and, needless to say, far from complete. Finally, Internet searches using search engines such as Google often yielded treasures (as well as trash).
Problems
The reader will by now have discerned that our research proceeded wonderfully smoothly and provided consistent excitement and pleasure. Would that it were
so. In fact, we encountered a multitude of difficulties. Searching databases (and often even journal issues) by name is problematic, as many references provide only the initials of authors’ first names. Having writers’ first names is often not sufficient for determining gender; some, such as Carroll, Marion, and Evelyn, could refer to either. For example, Alba Edwards was one individual we consid- ered including, as “Alba” has been used by both women and men. Through email queries with the Census Bureau, where Edwards published some work, a record was uncovered referring to Edwards as “Mister,” and so he was excluded.
We generally assumed that a gender-indeterminate name (or initials) referred to a male unless we found evidence that the writer was a woman. It may be, however, that there are still a few men listed here whose names misled us.
Women’s name changes due to changes in marital status also create uncer- tainty. As this volume goes to print, we discovered that Sarah Whittelsey married a man named Walden in 1905, and thus the 1900–3 Whittelsey references should be consolidated with the Walden references from 1916–17 (Hammond 1993). We have consolidated the references for those women whose name changes we were aware of – Beatrice Potter Webb, for instance, and Helen Dendy Bosanquet – and we have provided some cross-references. Most likely there are still women who make appearances under more than one name in the bibliography.
Although electronic databases such as the WorldCat and Nineteenth Century Masterfile make projects like this one vastly easier than they used to be, they remain in some ways cumbersome to use. A single book might have, say, twenty or forty separate WorldCat records, because the libraries holding it recorded the information slightly differently or because the book was reprinted many times.
For prolific authors, a name search may yield over 1,000 entries, and we no doubt failed to catch some references in such situations. Different indexes often provide conflicting information about dates, places of publication, and page numbers. An author’s name may be in the records in several different forms, some writings attributed to “Mary E. Kelley” and some to “M. E. J. Kelley,” or some to “Phillipps, Evelyn March” and others to “March-Phillipps, Evelyn.” We encountered many misspellings and strange electronic glitches. In light of all this, we would be grateful if readers would assume, when finding errors in this bibliography, that they are someone else’s fault, not ours.
Limitations of the collection
As we see it, this collection has two rather major limitations and a host of more minor ones. The major limitations are its geographic restrictions and the exclu- sion of most works coauthored with men.
The vast majority of our writers lived and published in Great Britain and the United States. Some others who wrote in English were based in Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Almost all of the remaining authors were European, writing in German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Polish, Czech, and Russian. There are hardly any
voices from South or East Asia, Africa, or Latin America. There are two contrib- utors known from Japan (Setsu Tanino and Kikue Yamakawa, both first noted in the Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists); and one female recipient of a Ph.D. from Columbia University has an East Asian name (Mabel Ping-Hua Lee).
The work’s limited geographic variety is in part the product of the uneven distribution of opportunities to publish. Few countries before 1940 had the income, education, and literacy levels needed to support large publishing indus- tries and research activity. The limitation is also in part a reflection of the sources available to us. The scholarly literature in English on women and economics does not often discuss writings in other languages (the Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists is an exception, and we benefited from it). The Dissertation Abstracts database includes mostly degrees from North American insti- tutions (thus we were unable to find complete references to the doctoral theses of women who we know received Ph.D.s from European institutions). The periodi- cals databases include relatively few journals not in English.
The main constraint, however, was our meager knowledge of other languages and histories. In some languages we could not identify writers’ genders from their names. (We sometimes consulted colleagues – Professor Bina Agarwal looked over a list of Indian economists for us, for example.) Often we could not fully translate a work’s title. Knowing little about countries’ social and intellec- tual histories made it difficult to search for and to evaluate references. Knowing that we could not do a competent job in literature not in English, we chose not to attempt it. We include some references in other languages to stimulate interest and we look forward to learning from other researchers about these literatures.
We have also included very little work that women wrote with male coau- thors. Without substantial biographical or textual evidence, one cannot discern the relative contributions of multiple authors to a piece. The search for refer- ences for 1900–40 initially focused exclusively on works written by women in order to be “conservative” in representing women’s contributions to the disci- pline. The pre-1900 search included male/female coauthored works, but there were not very many of them. In the end, because there were so many references produced by women only, we decided that works written with men would be included for only a few particularly significant “teams,” Beatrice and Sidney Webb being the most prolific. The bibliography therefore undercounts the output of some of the women it includes, while women who wrote on economics only as coauthors with men are not represented at all.
Our coverage of government publications is also rather limited. As noted earlier, many women with training in economics found employment in govern- ment agencies beginning in the late nineteenth century, and some contributed substantially to publications of the British Board of Trade, U.S. Labor Department, Women’s Bureau, Children’s Bureau, Census Bureau, etc. Most of our government references were uncovered through WorldCat searches by author. Almost all of them are from government bodies in the U.S. and Britain.
We were unaware of any convenient search tool with which to perform more systematic searches of government documents. The United Kingdom Official
Publications online database (BOPCRIS) is quite promising; the U.S. government provides no comparable index to documents that are not recent.
For ease of use, in this bibliography we typically present each woman’s name only once at the beginning of her entries. In our research, we frequently encoun- tered multiple name variations for a given contributor for many different reasons, including the author’s use of various signatures across publications (e.g.
first initials in some cases and full first names in others), the use of pseudonyms, marital name changes, as well as publication and electronic database naming procedure variations and misspellings. In this volume, brackets around portions of a woman’s name are intended to alert the reader to the existence of name variations across publications and reference sources. When a researcher inquires further into the work and lives of these women, it is strongly recommended that all variations of a given woman’s name are searched.
Although we have spent years on this project, it is still the case that we are able every day to discover new references. For example, our most recent discovery of personal information about Sarah Whittelsey also finally turned up a complete citation to her 1898 Yale University Ph.D. thesis entitled In How Far has Massachusetts Labor Legislation Been in Accordance with Teachings of Economic Theory?
The tools and databases available to researchers are expanding at a dizzying rate. The World Catalogue and most of the periodicals indexes are updated daily. Many institutions are building online collections of full texts of articles and books. We trust that future researchers will take advantage of this electronic wealth and that our knowledge of female contributions to economics will grow rapidly.
Questions for future research
This bibliography excludes many references that we would like to have included;
and it no doubt includes quite a few references that have less relation to economics than we imagined. We hope, however, that it will be a valuable resource for many kinds of research on gender and the history of economic thought. Among the inquiries we think of are the following.
Biographies and the sociology of economics
Some of the writers covered here have had their careers described in the Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists or elsewhere. But even for those
“familiar” authors this bibliography includes many writings on economic issues that are not mentioned elsewhere. More significantly, most of the authors here have not been discussed at all by economists, and so this study introduces many women whose work lives and contributions to the literature might usefully be investigated and compared.
Many interesting questions can be asked about individuals’ circumstances and outlooks. What psychological, familial, educational, and other social/cultural factors were important as girls matured to stimulate their interest in economics
and their ability to pursue writing careers in such a male-dominated area? How important was it for women to have personal male, female, or parental support systems? Where did women obtain the economic resources to finance their training and/or to subsidize their participation in unpaid work? How did class, nationality, and racial/ethnic identity affect women’s interests and perspectives?
Many of the authors were deeply involved in work in areas such as literature and social reform. How did these other interests shape their economic questions and analyses? For women with strong religious backgrounds, how did religion affect their careers and how did it shape their contributions? Were some religious tradi- tions more conducive to female contributions in the discipline than others?
Study of these less-known economists should add a great deal to our under- standing of how women related to the economics profession. What obstacles did female academics in economics face, such as limited employment opportunities at research universities, low pay, and high teaching and service loads? How important were these problems, relative to other factors, in determining how prolific women were? How did women balance the demands of career and family? For those women who did not marry or raise children, what were the benefits and drawbacks of these personal choices for their work? For the women who earned advanced degrees but only briefly contributed to economics, was it mainly domestic responsibilities that shortened their careers, or discrimination, or disappointment? Did some women give up on economics as a field for pursuing their interests as the discipline narrowed in scope? When women economists pursued careers in government and reform organizations, was that their genuine preference or would some have chosen academic careers if they had not faced discrimination there? What role did their economics training play for those women who became leaders in the professionalization of home economics and social work?
There is a great deal we do not know about why some institutions granted so many more advanced economics degrees to women than others. How much was due to differences in the attitudes of administrators and of male economics professors? How much was due to differences in the programs’ curricula and other factors that might affect their appeal for women? In which institutions were there professors willing to mentor female students?
Women economists often established extensive networks within academic settings, government agencies and advocacy organizations (M. A. Dimand 1995).
Some networks may be detected here in the institutions chosen for graduate training and in patterns of coauthorship. What was the role of such networking among women, and between women and men, in nurturing and sustaining female contributions to the discipline? How did these networks function? Are there ways in which the networks limited female development in economics? Are there substantial differences in content, methodology, or quality of coauthored works compared to independently authored pieces?
As mentioned earlier, many female economists made substantial contributions to the writing of government reports for agencies such as the U.S. Women’s Bureau, Children’s Bureau, Department of Agriculture, and Census Bureau.
These women’s writings and careers are ripe for investigation. What explains the availability of government employment to female economists, and how did the situation in the U.S. compare to that in other countries? Were women in govern- ment positions more easily able to excel in their research than in academia, where teaching and service loads may have limited research time? Did women define and lead their agencies’ investigations or did they typically work under male authority? How did government employment affect the subject matter, methodology, and findings of women’s economic research?
Finally, how was the economic writing of women received? Was it ignored, or treated in a paternalistic, derisive way? Or were women treated as equals, with as much chance as their male counterparts to be read, cited, and given awards?
How did women perceive the reception of their work, and how did this affect their contributions?
Gender differences in economic thought?
Do women´s perspectives on economic life and approaches to its study differ notably from those of men? One important question that has received scholarly attention concerns gender differences in topics of research. Studies of pre-1940 Ph.D. dissertations (Forget 1995) and journal publications (Folbre 1998) have found that research areas were distributed differently among women than among men, although Forget found that the differences diminished over time. Having compiled and examined a large list of women’s publications in economics from 1900 to 1940, Madden (2002) proposed a new subject classification scheme arguably more appropriate for characterizing the range of women’s writing than the conventional classification developed by the American Economic Association. What remains uncertain, of course, is how far the differences in focus represent gender differences in interests or inclinations rather than differ- ences in opportunity. This bibliography provides material for further studies along these lines.
It is clear from this work that female contributions to economic thought spanned all ideologies and research areas, and the listings here can facilitate systematic inquiry into female contributions to fields such as international trade, public finance, and monetary economics. That said, it also appears that a very large proportion of women focused on labor studies and the welfare of the working class, including gender-, age-, and race-specific analyses.
A considerable fraction of the writings listed here are about the participation of women in the economy. Serious scrutiny of what women wrote on women’s economic activity through 1940 would be a valuable contribution to the history of economic thought, economic history, and gender studies. Studies of women’s contributions to and impact on the labor movement could also be undertaken from the references consolidated in this volume.
The work of women listed here might be compared to that of contempora- neous male economists along many dimensions, in both quantitative and qualitative studies. For instance, did adherence to particular economic theories
differ between women and men? Can different patterns be identified in women’s and men’s choices of analytical methodologies and empirical techniques? If there are differences, why do they exist? Does the history of economics support the assertion that there are differences between women’s and men’s worldviews and/or modes of inquiry, emanating from the socially constructed differences in their life experiences? Similarly, examining more disaggregated groups, are there differences among women’s perspectives on economics associated with other dimensions of identity such as class and ethnicity?
We hope that perusal of this bibliography will also inspire reflection on how economics evolved. The professionalization of the field involved explicit exclu- sions of women in some times and places – as when women were categorically denied admission to graduate programs or employment as university economics professors. But the process must also be seen as a move to exclude certain ways of thinking and communicating which might have been particularly attractive to women (though not exclusive to women or universal among them). One descrip- tion of the American social reformer Jane Addams says that
[her] mind was not the skilled instrument of the scholar or the logician, but one of intuitive wisdom. She was a mystic possessed of a devastating common sense who viewed everyday experience from a new angle of vision, distilling from it compelling insights into the human and social cost of industrial capitalism and international conflict.
( James et al. 1971: 21) The physician and social reformer Alice Hamilton is described in a similar way, as “[v]ery much a part of the humanitarian sector of the progressive movement”
in occupational medicine (Garraty and Carnes 1999: 912). These thinkers would have fit in quite well with the “social science” practitioners of the late nineteenth century, but they probably found only a small audience among “economists.”
Female contributors to economic thought through 1940 appear remarkably interdisciplinary. There are writers representing numerous disciplines and back- grounds, including social work, economic geography, sociology, history, political science, psychology, home economics, journalism, public health, and nutrition.
Many devoted their energies to efforts to reduce gender inequality and rectify injustices associated with exploitation of the labor force (especially women and children). Exploration of the multi- and inter-disciplinary character of women’s economic writing could offer timely insights related to the questioning of the narrow scope of economics today.
Women’s participation in economic discourse prior to 1940 was clearly far more extensive than has been previously recognized. We hope that exploration of the female contributions to economics listed here will yield new insights into economic history and theory as well as more broadly informed assessments of the history and methodology of economics. The discipline’s evolution has entailed both gains and losses. We hope that women’s role in that development will be better understood. We also hope that gender-centered study of the
history of economic thought will encourage some useful rethinking of the ques- tion “what is economics?”
Acknowledgments
Robert Langham, the economics editor at Routledge, was instrumental in moti- vating this project, and his consistent support, patience, and professionalism warrant thanks. Alfred Symons assumed editorial responsibilities during the last year of the work, and his thoughtfulness and flexibility contributed a great deal to the book’s final form. Our copy editor, Lisa Williams, was truly superb: dedi- cated, scrupulous, communicative, and possessed of a fine sense of humor.
This project was completed in large part due to the incredible support provided by Beth Crumling Colvin, the Millersville University (MU) Economics Department Secretary. Much gratitude goes also to Cindy Groff and Kelly Urbanik, MU students who provided research assistance. Kirsten Madden received grant support from the MU Faculty Professional Development Committee, Released-Time Grants Committee, and Women’s Endowment Grant. Janet Seiz benefited from the generous support of Grinnell College, including two invaluable sabbatical leaves. Professor Eliza Willis of Grinnell College offered very helpful comments on this introduction, along with crucial moral support.
We are also grateful to the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE). For over a decade, its conferences and its journal Feminist Economics have provided sustenance for scholars, teachers, policymakers, and activists interested in gender and economic life. All royalties for this book will go to IAFFE, in cele- bration of the memory of Michèle Pujol.
References
Books and articles
Banks, Olive, ed. 1985. The Biographical Dictionary of British Feminists, vol. 1: 1800–1930.
New York: New York University Press.
Buhle, Mari Jo, Paul Buhle, and Dan Georgakas, eds. 1990. Encyclopedia of the American Left.
New York: Garland Publishing.
Callaway, Helen and Dorothy O. Helly. 1992. Crusader for Empire: Flora Shaw/Lady Lugard. In Nupur Chaudhuri and Margaret Strobel, eds., Western Women and Imperi- alism: Complicity and Resistance. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.
Coats, A. W. 1993. The Sociology and Professionalization of Economics: British and American Economic Essays, vol II. London and New York: Routledge.
Dimand, Mary Ann. 1995. Networks of Women Economists before 1940. In Mary Ann Dimand, Robert W. Dimand, and Evelyn L. Forget, eds., Women of Value: Feminist Essays on the History of Economics. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar.
Dimand, Mary Ann, Robert W. Dimand, and Evelyn L. Forget, eds. 1995. Women of Value:
Feminist Essays on the History of Economics. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar.
——. 2000. Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists. Aldershot, UK, and Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.
Dimand, Robert. 1995. The Neglect of Women’s Contributions to Economics. In Mary Ann Dimand, Robert W. Dimand, and Evelyn L. Forget, eds., Women of Value: Feminist Essays on the History of Economics. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar.
——. 1999. Women Economists in the 1890s: Journals, Books and the Old Palgrave.
Paper prepared for presentation at the Allied Social Science Association Meetings, New York City, January.
Folbre, Nancy. 1998. The “Sphere of Women” in Early Twentieth Century Economics.
In Helene Silverberg, ed., Gender and American Social Science: The Formative Years.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Forget, Evelyn. 1995. American Women Economists, 1900–1940: Doctoral Dissertations and Research Specialization. In Mary Ann Dimand, Robert W. Dimand, and Evelyn L. Forget, eds., Women of Value: Feminist Essays on the History of Economics. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar.
Garraty, John A. and Mark C. Carnes, eds. 1999. American National Biography. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Groenewegen, Peter, ed. 1994. Feminism and Political Economy in Victorian England. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar.
Hammond, Claire H. 1993. American Women and the Professionalization of Economics.
Review of Social Economy 51 (fall): 347–70.
James, Edward J., Janet Wilson James, and Paul S. Boyer, eds. 1971. Notable American Women 1607–1950. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Karcher, Carolyn. 1996. Introduction to Lydia Maria Child, An Appeal in Favor of that Class of Americans Called Africans. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press.
Lewis, Margaret. 1999. History of Economic Thought. In Janice Peterson and Margaret Lewis, eds., The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics. Aldershot, UK, and Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.
Madden, Kirsten. 2002. Female Contributions to Economic Thought, 1900–1940. History of Political Economy 34(1): 1–30.
Nicholls, C. S., ed. 1993. The Dictionary of National Biography. Missing Persons. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Pujol, Michèle A. 1992. Feminism and Anti-Feminism in Early Economic Thought. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar.
——. 1996. Nineteenth Century Economic Writing by Women. Paper presented at the History of Economics Society meeting, June 1996, Vancouver, B.C.
Sicherman, Barbara and Carol Hurd Green, with Ilene Kantrov and Harriette Walker.
1980. Notable American Women: The Modern Period. A Biographical Dictionary. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Silverberg, Helene, ed. 1998. Gender and American Social Science: The Formative Years.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stephen, Sir Leslie and Sir Sidney Lee, eds. 1959–60. The Dictionary of National Biography, from the Earliest Times to 1900. 22 vols. London: Oxford University Press.
Yeo, Eileen Janes. 1996. The Contest for Social Science: Relations and Representations of Gender and Class. London: Rivers Oram Press.
