the current stock of women economists in academia, with emphasis on women with new Ph.D.s in economics; 2) are the flows of women economists into the various faculty levels (a) in line with the proportion of women in the relevant stock, and (b) enough greater than the past pattern to suggest affirmative action is occurring; and 3) can the revolving door syndrome be quantified, and is it affecting women disproportionately? These questions pick up the problem at the point of production of Ph.D.s. No analysis is made of the prior issues of reducing barriers to filling the pipe line with women earning Ph.D.s, or of the contributing issues related to encouragement of women after employment

The pool of women with highly specialized trainiing is increasing and the tolerance of such women for accepting occupational seg,regationi and narrow views of their career potentials is dimiiinishinig. It is crucial that we understand the differences between lab-or markets for men anid women at professionial levels, the resulting differellces in career patterns, and how barriers to full career development for women impinge on occupational rewards. Only then can we plani effcctively for the generation of younig womento come. Particularly important at this time is analysis of the market for h-elds anid occupations that are atypical for women. Overall societal attitudes toward the proper role of women are evolving, yet on the demand side employers' perceived differences as to the employability of women (whether real or imaginary) result in barriers that vary in intensity by occupation. Economics, a stereotypically male profession, has relatively intense barriers for women on the demand side over and above variations in aggregate demand.1 The demand-side barriers are different from those associated with stereotypically female occupations. On the supply side, barriers to full career development for women are likely to be those common to all professional occupations plus the effect of women's perceptions of the intensity of the demand-side barriers for the particular profession (i.e., any lack of support of male colleagues, professional isolation and lack of access to information network, or employers' lack of perception of the women's career potential). One group of supply-side barriers includes presence of children, husband's unfavorable attitudes, guilt feelings of the women related to a high sense of responsibility for monitoring consumption at home, and poor earlier education choices based on limited perception of career possibilities. In addition, the two probably most important are geographic mobility or immobility, related to demands of family, and lack of the on-the-job-training, caused by either gaps in the women's career patterns or diminished opportunities for investment in human capital for women when working. The purposes of this paper are to use preliminary data from the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP), American Economic Association (AEA) 1974-75 Survey of Economists to test a model showing that two supply curves exist for economists, instead of one, with the division related to nonpecuniary returns for women, and then consider whether more than two supply curves should be formulated to allow for whether workers are major earners in the family, equal earners, or secondary earners.2 The model used as a starting point, * Professor of economics, Southern Methodist University. I wvant to thank Patricia Kirby and Anna Fay IFriedlander for help in computing and prograimming. 1 For a qualitative discussion of such barriers, see Kenneth E. Boulding and Barbara B. Reagani. 2 Informationi on the sampling and survey procedure anid qualityof sample may be obtained from the author.