 Bergman is I think one of the folks who really pushed the discipline to do that. And I think actually quite interestingly, she kind of moved into this with more ferociousness throughout her career, right? In the 70s, when she's just got tenure, she's very political, right? She's playing nice with Becker and all of these other kind of more mainstream thinkers. And then you can see in her work slowly as she goes on, she's talking about Becker and his preposterous conclusions, right? And being really quite harsh about some of the mainstream's rejection of feminist economics. Dr. Sarah Small, my professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Utah. Barbara Bergman was a really vibrant feminist economist. She was one of the original founding members of the International Association for Feminist Economics. So her whole research was along race and gender lines. She has a lot of, I think, really prominent work in the field of feminist economics. Some of my favorites, right? She has some work on the economic risks of being a housewife. She has some work on the economic emergence of women, a work on affirmative action. And some of my research in particular has been on her occupational crowding hypothesis. Barbara Bergman's Occupational Crowding Hypothesis, which she wrote in 1971 at a time where there is really quite a lot of work on the economics of discrimination in the mainstream. Her Occupational Crowding Hypothesis, her theory, was that black workers are crowded into a smaller number of occupations, which therefore increases the labor supply in those occupations, therefore reducing the wages in those types of jobs. What's really, I think, unique about Bergman's work, though, is that she also looks at this from the perspective of white workers, right? And she finds that because of this crowding of black workers, the occupations, which are reserved for white workers, have the smaller labor supply and therefore, higher wages. So what I think is really exciting and unique about Bergman's work in this period is that she is not only just documenting trends in labor markets, but she's really trying to document issues of power, issues of a discrimination and the benefits that accrue to white workers as a result of this discrimination. And the Occupational Crowding Hypothesis isn't necessarily Bergman's. I think she's really quite famous for it, but she, in turn, cites Edgeworth, who worked on the Occupational Crowding Hypothesis, who, right then, Edgeworth, in turn, cites Millicent Fawcett, who was a woman working on this in the 1800s. It's quite interesting. I do a lot of archival work on Barbara Bergman, and there are letters between her and Kenneth Arrow. And in those letters, Kenneth Arrow points out that she doesn't cite Millicent Fawcett in her work, and Bergman replies with regret, right, saying she didn't know about this. So the Crowding Hypothesis has been around for quite a while. Bergman is just kind of the one who formalized it, using a lot of, I think, more mainstream tools, which brought it into the fold, at least for a little while, in kind of mainstream economics. So Bergman's studying labor market discrimination in a time where it's really quite popular to be studying labor market discrimination, right? Becker had done, you know, his work on race and gender-based preferences, right? Just a taste for discrimination, as he calls it. Arrow is building off a lot of that work. Thoreau is doing a lot of work in the economics of discrimination. But I think what a lot of those folks don't have is the personal experience that Barbara Bergman had with occupational segregation. So she was a Jewish woman born in the 1920s in New York City, faced a lot of occupational discrimination in her life. She got her bachelor's degree at Cornell, but then in her words, was looking for a job in the, like, male categories in the 1950s and couldn't get anything. And so she took a job in these kind of more feminized career paths and she couldn't endure the boredom, as she describes it. And then eventually she lands a job at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, where she sees a lot of race-based discrimination going on, which she had previously thought was really just confined to the South, and she sees it taking place in New York. And this is kind of part of what really drives her to move into working on race-based discrimination. And then even, you know, by the time she gets to Harvard to do her PhD in economics, the Department of Economics at Harvard during this time is rife with anti-Semitism and sexism. And then even later in her career and her archival work, right, we have records of her documenting pay inequities in her academic departments later in her career. So really she is someone who has this deep personal experience with discrimination in the labor market. And so I think she's well-positioned in ways that maybe Becker and Arrow and Thoreau were not to really think critically about economic theories of discrimination. When Barbara Bergman published the Occupational Crowning Hypothesis in 1971, it did kind of stand among the mainstream theories. She, even in the work, kind of aligns herself with Becker in some ways. She's really using a lot of the tools that mainstream economists use. She's leaning quite heavily on marginal productivity theory in her thinking about labor and wages. But then the reception of the work is not quite as strong, right? I think we all maybe are aware that the mainstream kind of still really stands on a lot of Becker's tastes and preferences for discrimination, rather than I think the more critical approaches that deal with power, right? And so Bergman's hypothesis, at least in this time period in the 1970s, is actually quite unique in that she first is really focused on imperfect competition, which is something that she learned from her to live under Chamberlain when they were at Harvard. And then she was also quite focused, again, on the benefits that accrue to white workers as a result of this discrimination, which is something that I think both feminist and stratification economists are highlighting in their work today, right? Thinking about these issues of material benefits that accrue to different groups, right, based on discrimination. Bergman is a pioneer in feminist economics. When I think about feminist economics, I think about power, patriarchy, and social provisioning. And this is something that Bergman touches in all of her work, right? Especially in the occupational-crowding hypothesis, she's thinking a lot about, again, power and how that plays out in labor markets. Some of her other work, she's really focused on issues of child care and family, which is something that feminist economists have been really pushing the mainstream to think about, right? Pushing the mainstream economic paradigm to kind of not think in such a masculine way, right? To think about unpaid work as work, to think about the things that keep us alive and happy and thriving and able to go to work as things that are really integral parts of the economy. Bergman is, I think, one of the folks who really pushed the discipline to do that. And it, I think, actually quite interestingly, she kind of moved into this with more ferociousness throughout her career, right? In the 70s, when she's just got tenure, she's very political, right? She's playing nice with Becker and all of these other kind of more mainstream thinkers. And then you can see in her work slowly as she goes on, she's talking about Becker and his preposterous conclusions, right? And being really quite harsh about some of the mainstream's rejection of feminist economics. Bergman does really kind of argue that the field needs to take women and people of color and much more seriously in their work. And I'm kind of arguing the same thing, I think, in history of economic thought. When I was taking history of economic thought courses, I found myself feeling really discouraged, right? To just see a lot of old white men's ideas represented to make me feel like I didn't see myself in the great economists. I've done some work recently where I look at five decades of history of economic thought syllabi, right? I do a lot of archival work in this and find that all of these syllabi are really just covering the thoughts of white men. I think interestingly enough, as we shift from the 70s to today, we find that these syllabi have shifted to make room for different ideas, right? We see, for instance, more history of thought courses including folks like Hayek, right? But they haven't made room for women quite largely. They haven't made room for people of color. They haven't made room for people from the global South. And this is not only alienating to our students, but frankly inaccurate, right? I think there's a lot of economic knowledge that has come from all of these groups, right? So I'm doing a lot of work to try to push the discipline of history of economic thought both in terms of research and teaching to include, again, more women, people of color, and folks from the global South. So my work on Bergman, I think, you know, as part of a larger push, there is a community in scholars of history of economic thought that are trying to diversify this research, right? Trying to make it so that when we open a journal and then a history of economic thought, it's not just five articles about Adam Smith. So it is part of a larger movement. And my work on Bergman and Bergman's occupational crowding hypothesis is I think important in thinking about the importance of biography in economic thought, right? Again, Bergman had all of these experiences with occupational discrimination. And so that made her really well situated to write about it very thoughtfully. And so again, I think if we are serious in history of economic thought and economics more broadly about pluralistic approaches to economic thought, then we need to be very deliberate about the types of folks that we are citing and thinking about and referencing in our work. I am optimistic about the field kind of moving in this direction where we're diversifying our citations, our syllabi, and our research in the history of economic thought. A lot of my more recent work is showing us how we can incorporate, you know, women, people of color, people from the global South in a history of economic thought course. I provide a lot of resources for folks who are interested where we show, hey, you want to talk about Adam Smith? Well, then you could also talk about Priscilla Wakefield, who was a contemporary who criticized Adam Smith for not thinking about women's unpaid work, right? And this is one of the key tenants of feminist economics today. And so I think there's really a lot of opportunity, right, for folks to move ahead, incorporating a more pluralistic and diverse approach to history of economic thought.