Research Papers

We developed a new economic framework to study the relationship between how we spend our time and our well-being. Our key insight is that while we may pursue enjoyable activities, they do not all equally contribute to happiness. Moreover, even if we understand what we enjoy, we may not fully understand what makes us happy; we learn this over time.

We sense that (i) over the past decade or two we have developed a deep undercurrent of unhappiness in the United States, and (ii) this seems to be related to the increase in time we are spending on our phones and streaming content as well as the decrease in time we are spending together. We wanted to understand how these phenomena are related.

It seems that we have a lot to learn about what makes us happy, and we hope this paper can help that process. The Easterlin paradox is indicative of our current state; we do not necessarily become happier when incomes rise. There are many other similarly fascinating empirical findings in the economics of happiness, and many of them are difficult to explain with our current models.

I distinguish retrospective meritocracy, which is static and backwards-looking grounding merit in past achievement or desert, from prospective meritocracy, which defines merit functionally as contribution to specified social objectives. Using formal social planner models, I analyze assignments of students to schools and workers to jobs, examining where these conceptions diverge and what each demands of policymakers.

Meritocracy remains underdefined, lacking specification of objectives and socioeconomic context. Yet debates over affirmative action and admissions continue invoking merit as self-evident. I answer Sen’s challenge by embedding alternative definitions of merit within explicit formal environments, revealing their differing logics, efficiency implications, and information requirements.

Alternate versions of meritocracy may or may not be socially efficient. Sequential meritocratic rules applied stage by stage across schooling can be individually reasonable yet collectively inefficient. Any claim that an assignment rule is meritocratic requires prior specification of both social objectives and the socioeconomic environment at stake.

We study the Baltimore Regional Housing Partnership (BRHP) and its success helping Housing Choice Voucher recipients access opportunity neighborhoods. We document large changes in neighborhood and school characteristics for participants. Oaxaca-Blinder decompositions highlight the importance of BRHP’s regional design, which allows access to all opportunity neighborhoods in metropolitan Baltimore.

The BRHP offers a model for public housing policy. Prior literature documents the benefits of counseling, housing search assistance, post-move support, and extended search times—much of it from the BRHP itself. We examine how the rental market’s supply side interacts with the program, focusing on eligible neighborhood scope, racial composition of opportunity neighborhoods, and durability of neighborhood changes.

Many cities in the United States exhibit concentrated poverty and residential segregation by race. If neighborhoods affect their residents, then this could represent an important source of inequality of opportunity. Housing mobility programs like the BRHP offer a policy for addressing this issue.

Using survey and qualitative data from Sub-Saharan Africa, we study women’s conversion to new Christian churches, leveraging this data to trace how conversion reshapes gender norms, shifts household bargaining dynamics, and redefines women’s roles within families and communities.

It remains unclear whether religious conversion reinforces or reshapes gender hierarchies. By focusing on women joining new Christian churches, this study isolates a setting where shifts in beliefs can be directly linked to changes in household roles and power.

If conversion expands women’s autonomy, religious change may quietly shift power within households even as broader social structures appear stable. These incremental shifts can accumulate, altering gender relations in ways that are uneven, contested, and not immediately visible.

We analyze intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurship using microdata from seven former communist countries. By linking pre-communist business ownership of parents and grandfathers to post-communist self-employment and employer status, we measure persistence after decades when private enterprise was banned.

The mechanisms behind intergenerational entrepreneurship remain unclear because channels such as inheritance, wealth, and direct exposure typically operate together. By studying a context where these were largely absent under communism, this paper isolates whether persistence can still emerge through less visible forces like attitudes and informal family transmission.

Findings show strong persistence even without traditional channels, pointing to attitudes like risk-taking and informal family influence as key drivers. This shifts policy focus toward culture and skill formation, not just capital access, when promoting entrepreneurship and mobility.

We study residential segregation and public service access across 1.5 million neighborhoods in India. Linking census data to schools, clinics, water, and electricity, we measure how separated Muslims and Scheduled Castes are from other Indians and whether their neighborhoods have equal access. We systematically decompose disparities across various levels of government to identify where inequalities emerge.

Prior research examines inequality in large administrative units, but lack data on neighborhood-level segregation and service access. Aggregate analyses can’t reveal if people actually access services where they live. Qualitative studies suggested barriers, but systematic evidence remained unavailable. We build the first dataset linking neighborhood demographics to public facilities at scale in a developing country.

Affirmative action appears effective at district level—areas with more Scheduled Castes receive more facilities. But local allocation systematically diverts resources from marginalized neighborhoods, erasing higher-level progressivity. This creates a blind spot: policymakers using aggregate data see success while marginalized groups lack services where they live. As cities grow rapidly, these patterns may persist.

We study intergenerational class mobility using synthetic dynasties modeled using Markov chains. This yields measures of movement (class change across generations) and memory (how long class origins persist). Applied to U.S. cohorts born 1945-1990, we find overall stability masking offsetting trends: upper/lower classes show declining movement and rising memory; middle classes show the reverse.

Existing research relies on origin–destination associations from log-linear models, capturing only one mobility dimension with restrictive assumptions. Prior evidence is mixed, limited by small samples or volatile income measures. We develop a dynamic, nonparametric framework using Markov chains that separately identifies movement and memory across generations.

When inequality grows but mobility stays constant, stable mobility may reduce public concern about inequality and weaken redistribution support. Yet it amplifies mobility’s significance: moving up feels more rewarding, moving down carries steeper penalties. These divergent high-stakes experiences can deepen social and political divisions.

We challenge Magness and Makovi’s (2023) claim that Marx’s prominence depends on the Bolshevik Revolution rather than his ideas. Their synthetic control approach lacks a credible counterfactual and cannot separate competing explanations for citation growth, leaving the role of merit versus history unresolved.

Strong claims about intellectual prominence need rigorous empirical grounding. Magness and Makovi’s analysis faces standard identification issues—weak counterfactuals, limited evidence, and unclear mapping from data to theory—producing unsubstantiated conclusions about whether Marx’s influence stems from substance or circumstance.

Understanding how ideas gain prominence requires methods that address identification problems. A sound framework for citation analysis can separate historical accident from intellectual merit, underscoring the need for theoretical models that yield credible insights into which thinkers truly shaped scholarship.

Our goal is to call attention to how complexity science can add to our understanding of inequality and aid in the development of policies and interventions that might reduce it. To explore what complexity has added or can add to our understanding of inequality, we argue that the economics profession has become more expansive in the types of assumptions it makes about how people act and how the world works.

Compounded disadvantages create system of system effects where each disadvantage reinforces others, making inequality a pressing issue that nations have struggled to reduce. Given that some economic phenomena require moving in the direction of complexity economics, the failure to think systemically may produce ineffective policies and lead to misleading inferences.

Viewing inequality as resulting from interacting complex systems offers insights into its causes and solutions. A complexity lens can identify system features for lasting interventions. Adopting a complex adaptive systems perspective highlights the need to coordinate interventions across interdependent systems, deepening understanding and creating more effective policies

I outline ways to think about meritocracy, which I interpret as a set of claims about who deserves positions in schools, firms, and government. My goal is to show challenges in evaluating meritocracy. I explore how different concepts of merit can lead to different policies and consider equality/efficiency tradeoffs that arise under meritocratic rules.

Beyond its current salience, meritocracy has long been controversial among scholars. The notion of merit is contestable in ways that lead to different meritocratic rules, so an abstract belief in meritocracy may offer little concrete guidance. Meritocracy can also lead to enhanced inequality, highlighting how its pursuit can result in dysfunction or conflict with other ideals.

Claims about meritocracy are integral to policy debates and often involve claims of efficiency. Historically, meritocratic employment rules have helped individuals maximize potential, making societies more productive. However, recent critiques argue meritocracy causes social harm. Well-intended policies may falter if their implementation relies on flawed empirical or normative stances.