Happy People Have Children: Choice and Self-selection into Parenthood with Andrew Clark and Claudia Senik, European Journal of Population, 2016
There is mixed evidence in the existing literature on whether children are associated with greater subjective well-being, with the correlation depending on which countries and populations are considered. We here provide a systematic analysis of this question based on three different datasets: two cross-national and one national panel. We show that the association between children and subjective well-being is positive only in developed countries, and for those who become parents after the age of 30 and who have higher income. We also provide evidence of a positive selection into parenthood, whereby happier individuals are more likely to have children.
Preferences over Income Distribution: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with Max Lobeck, Claudia Senik and Thierry Verdier, Journal of Economic Psychology, 2019
Using a choice experiment in the lab, we assess the relative importance of different attitudes to income inequality. We elicit subjects' preferences regarding pairs of payoff distributions within small groups, in a firm-like setting. We find that distributions that satisfy the Pareto-dominance criterion attract unanimous suffrage: all subjects prefer larger inequality provided it makes everyone weakly better off. This is true no matter whether payoffs are based on merit or luck. Unanimity only breaks once subjects' positions within the income distribution are fixed and known ex-ante. Even then, 75% of subjects prefer Pareto-dominant distributions, but 25% of subjects engage in money burning at the top in order to reduce inequality, even when it does not make anyone better off. A majority of subjects embrace a more equal distribution if their own income or overall efficiency is not at stake. When their own income is at stake and the sum of payoffs remains unaffected, 20% of subjects are willing to pay for a lower degree of inequality.
Working papers and work in progress
Principal’s Distributive Preferences and the Incentivization of Agents with Max Lobeck
While recent advances in the literature has explored the role of workers' social preferences, far less is know about the importance of managers' preference in workplace interactions. Using a lab experiment and a Principal-Agent setting, we ask managers to choose between two piece-rate wage contracts for two workers that are heterogeneous in ability. Choices are designed to elicit managers preferences regarding output-maximizing contracts, redistributive contracts, and merit contracts. To isolate normative preferences we vary the incentives that managers face. At the extensive margin, managers are randomly allocated into a Stakeholder group (income is proportional to output), or a Spectator group (fixed income). At the intensive margin, we vary the size of the tradeoff between contracts. We find that managers do hold distributive preferences, which constitutes one additional explanation for wage compression within firms. Nearly all Spectators care to some extent about the distributive consequences of their decisions by trading-off a higher output to reduce inequality across workers. About 40% of Stakeholders are willing to give up on income to compress wages, but they are sensitive to stakes and are less incline to favor equality when they have a lot to loose.
Students’ Higher Educational choices with Ghazala Azmat, Anne Boring and Roberto Galbiati
Ethnic in-group favoritism within country: evidence from online trust games in the US and Germany (first author) with Yann Algan, Gianluca Grimalda, Fabrice Murtin, Louis Putterman, Ulrich Schmidt, Vincent Siegerink