Skip to main content

Alice Rivlin Accomplishments

Alice Mitchell Rivlin (March 4th, 1931 to May 14th, 2019) was an American economist known for her contribution to economics and different fields. She was born in Philidelphia, moved to Europe when she was working on the Marshall Plan, which was created to help reconstruct the economies of Western European countries after World War 2. Although she got her bachelor's degree in arts, she stepped in the economics eventually with a Ph.D. degree at Harvard University in 1958. 

As written in abundant articles, Alice M. Rivlin was described as "the original economist mom," "economics intellectual," "first woman to lead to the White House budget office," and "an inspiration for generations of women economists." Back in the 1960s, the proportion of female economists was lower than 5 percent. The economics was field entirely male dominant. Has Rivlin entered the economics field with her revolutionary contributions, voice of female in economics would still had remained unheard.

She did not make it to beat cancer, passed away in 2019. In her eighty-eight years of living, she had been placed in prominent positions in institutions, organizations and the government, as a senior fellow of Economic Study at Brookings Institution, as the founder of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), as the chair of the Commission on Budget and Financial Priorities, and as a visiting professor at Georgetown University. In addition, she had her specialty in macroeconomics theory and U.S. federal budget.

Comments

  1. Professor ArvanSeptember 7, 2019 at 6:11 AM

    While recently we also have had a woman serve as Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, I believe Alice Rivlin was the female economist who was most effective in government service. There have been a few others, but Rivlin really stands out for the role she played.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gift exchange - opportunism

The ideas and theories in the three articles are intriguing. It is not surprising for me when I read some of the theories, such as those of the first and second article. People are more likely to share what they have with people who are in poorer conditions when they know that both parties are collaborating in, or putting effort into, the same goal. It is rarely the case that fairness exists. The rare existence of fairness does not necessarily mean there’s nothing we can do to equalize (or balance) all the parties. There are strategies alleviate the sense of unfairness. “I cut, you pick” and “tit for tat” work not only for children but also work for adults in teams or organizations. As long as both or multiple parties are making similarly equal amount of dedication or sacrifice, people won’t complain about the unfairness. The third article surprised me in that I always think people make choices and decisions for their own benefit. However, in fact, people do not make decision
2 comments
Read more

principal-agent model in real life

The standard principal-agent model involves only two parties, one principal, and one agent. The agent is helping the principal make decisions and actions based on the relatively abundant and professional information it possesses. In real life, however, there are some times one agent working for more than one principal, trying to help both of them better off at the same time. Sometimes due to the incapabilities of communication, work done by agent is not as efficient as it should be with respect to both principals. Furthermore, sometimes the agent utilizes such ineffective communication between the two principals to take advantage of them without neither of them knowing.  The tourism in China can be described as a three-party principal-agent model. The two principals are the local souvenir stores and the tourists, whereas the agent is the tourist agents of the tourism companies. The tourist agents are supposed to do two major jobs for the tourists and the local souvenir stores. Fir
2 comments
Read more

discipline and punishment

Retrospect to the blog post assignment last week, the concept of sharing the marbles was introduced and discussed. It was basically saying that people are more willing to share their possessions with people in the middle of poorer situations when both parties are contributing efforts to the common project or goal. If the distribution of resources is allocated randomly, with no collaboration requiring or existing in the situation, sharing is less likely, if by any chance, happening. Bringing the same topic to a different level, this week, we are going to discuss whether the division of the reward based on the performance will actually improve the performance in the future, or on the contrary, do harm to the relationship among the team members. When making decisions and considerations in groups, the judgment is no longer based merely on the fairness of reward allocation. In fact, all the rewards and penalties are aiming at improving the performance and production in the future. I was
2 comments
Read more