Research

Publications

"The Welfare Effects of Eligibility Expansions: Theory and Evidence from SNAP" (with Charlie Rafkin)

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Forthcoming

Click here for survey instrument, and click here for literature review details.

We study the U.S. rollout of eligibility expansions in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Using administrative data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we show that expanding eligibility raises enrollment among the inframarginal (always-eligible) population. Using an online experiment and an administrative survey, we find evidence that information frictions, rather than stigma, drive the new take-up. To interpret our findings, we develop a general model of the optimal eligibility threshold for welfare programs with incomplete take-up. Given our empirical results and certain modeling assumptions, the SNAP eligibility threshold is lower than optimal.

Work in Progress

"Good Cop, Bad Cop: The Effect of Federal Regulatory Enforcement Capacity on State Enforcement Outcomes" (with Romaine Campbell)

(Job Market Paper) In Progress

We demonstrate that federal enforcement capacity affects states' ability to enforce environmental regulations. Exploiting 2011 budget cuts that reduced the US Environmental Protection Agency's workforce by nearly 20%, we show that state-issued Clean Air Act penalties fell, with 24% larger reductions among facilities with high ex ante exposure to EPA enforcement. In a state superfund program, firm-led remediation was slower under Republican presidential administrations, but state-led cleanups were not. We write a model where the state and firm bargain over enforcement outcomes with the EPA as the state's outside option. The model suggests stronger federal enforcement power increases state welfare.

"Inefficient Social Disconnection" (with Amanda Pallais)

In Progress

Social disconnection has increased over the last 25 years, while traditional contexts for forming connections, like churches and in-person workplaces, have weakened. Through a field experiment, we show the effectiveness of an alternative approach to connection formation: mutual friend intermediaries. We hosted a four-week trivia competition where participants could either join friend-organized teams or register to be matched onto teams with strangers. We then randomized which teams could participate. When teams were organized by existing friends, teammates who weren’t initially friends were 20 pp more likely to be friends and 15 pp to be in text communication four months later due to participating, while participating reduced contemporaneous loneliness by 11 pp (24%). In contrast, the intervention did not generate lasting relationships for pairs matched onto teams by the competition. Yet, we propose mutual friends make inefficiently few introductions due to a market failure: it is difficult to compensate friends for organizing costs. Consistent with inefficient underprovision, survey evidence finds substantial untapped supply of friend introductions – 72% of people say they could connect friends, while only 5% recently have – alongside strong demand for such introductions. Finally, we discuss examples of organizations that encourage people to bring their networks together at scale, showing how the organizations best-positioned to scale this approach may not be those typically associated with community building

"Welfare Analyses of Firm-Based Government Policies" (with Valerie Chuang, Nathaniel Hendren, and Eric Zwick)

In Progress

"Superfund Sites and Cancer Incidence" (with Rachel Young)

In Progress