Congrats @lnavarrosola.bsky.social !

bit.ly/3K0Jfop

🔗📝http://bit.ly/3K0Jfop

💡Our paper shows that affirmative action broadens opportunities without significantly changing
household ranking behavior or long-term outcomes.
Even when the policy is applied at such an early age!

3️⃣ 🚫 Treated households do not apply to higher value-added schools.

4️⃣ ⬆️ Admissions shift toward charter schools and schools with higher socioeconomic composition.

5️⃣ 🚫The policy has no significant long-run impact on standardized test scores or students’ well-being nine years later

We show that the policy:
1️⃣ ⬆️ Expands the feasible choice set both quantitatively and qualitatively — families can now access ~15–16% more schools, and those schools have higher value-added (+0.1 SD).
2️⃣ ⬆️ Increases the chance of admission to the top-ranked school by 4–7pp.

We exploit an income-based affirmative action in Spain that grants extra school admission points to low-income households 💰
The policy creates sharp thresholds in eligibility, which we use in a regression discontinuity design ↗️

Practically, a Hamburg reunion :)

Armando shows that policymakers are averse to monetary incentives when it comes to healthcare behaviors, like vaccinations

Alex shows that firms explain 25% of variation in healthcare expenditure

Anna shows that GP offices closing in Germany have an adverse effect on patient health

Thanks Peter. I think there are other relevant criticisms, so probably not much to gain. But it’s good to know that this works sometimes!

They are, and it’s working 😀