IZA Newsroom

IZA – Institute of Labor Economics

Mark Fallak

Call for Applications: IZA@LISER Summer School in Labor Economics 2026

by

Following the successful transition of the IZA Network to its new institutional home in Luxembourg, we are delighted to announce that the tradition of the IZA Summer School continues. Applications are now open for the IZA@LISER Summer School 2026, which will take place from June 1–3 in the scenic town of Remich, Luxembourg.

Bridging Generations of Labor Economists

The IZA Summer School has long been a cornerstone of the global labor economics community. It offers PhD students a unique environment to learn from world-leading researchers while engaging in rigorous academic exchange with their peers. Under the new IZA@LISER framework, the school remains committed to providing high-level feedback and fostering long-term professional networks for early-career researchers.

2026 Featured Lecturers

We are honored to welcome two distinguished scholars as our featured lecturers for the 2026 edition:

Alan Manning (London School of Economics)

Kristiina Huttunen (Aalto University)

During the three-day program, participants will attend lectures by these experts and present their own research projects to receive constructive feedback from both faculty and fellow students.

Venue and Participation

The event will be hosted at the CEFOS center in Remich, located in the heart of the Luxembourgish wine region.

To support the participation of promising young scholars, LISER will provide and cover three nights of accommodation and meals for all invited students. Travel support may also be available upon request for those unable to secure funding through their home institutions.

How to Apply

We invite applications from PhD students (second year and above) currently working on their thesis in labor economics or closely related fields.

Submission Deadline: March 5, 2026

Acceptance Notification: March 2026

For full details on the application process and to submit your paper, please visit the official event page:

View Full Call & Apply Online

Early support, lasting impact: A new model for refugee integration in Europe

by

As the global refugee crisis continues to deepen—with the number of displaced people tripling between the early 2010s and 2022 to 36 million—Europe has become a primary destination, hosting roughly one-third of the world’s refugees by 2023. While many newcomers aim to rebuild their lives, they often face significant barriers to employment: language difficulties, delays in obtaining work permits, and a lack of recognition for previous education or work experience. These early obstacles can lead to prolonged joblessness or informal, low-skilled employment, resulting in skill loss, stalled careers, and limited social inclusion.

Targeted approach: Early, individualized support

In response to these pressing issues, an IZA discussion paper by Giovanni Abbiati, Erich Battistin, Paola Monti, and Paolo Pinotti evaluates FORWORK, an innovative program in Italy designed to support asylum seekers during the critical early stages of their stay. This group, typically facing bleak job prospects and limited access to services, was the focus of an intervention offering personalized job mentoring, assistance with job searches, and access to subsidized internships.

The effectiveness of FORWORK was rigorously assessed through a randomized controlled trial conducted across 260 reception centers in Northern Italy, with half implementing the program and the other half continuing with existing services. The results, eighteen months after the program’s inception, demonstrate significant positive impacts on both employment and broader integration outcomes.

Participants in FORWORK were 20 percentage points more likely to be employed than those in the control group, representing an impressive 61 percent increase over the baseline employment rate of 33 percent. Even excluding subsidized internships, the employment boost remained substantial at 10 percentage points, a 30 percent increase over baseline. The quality of employment also saw marked improvement, with participants more likely to secure fixed-term or open-ended contracts, offering enhanced security and legal protections compared to informal work. These gains in job quality translated into a 30 percent increase in labor earnings over 18 months.

Beyond jobs: Language skills, social trust, and inclusion

While both men and women benefited, women experienced particularly significant relative gains, with their employment rising by 67 percent compared to a 39 percent increase for men, albeit from a lower starting point. Beyond employment, the program fostered wider social and economic integration. Participants doubled their baseline Italian language scores and reported three times more interactions with Italian residents, alongside increased trust in the host community. These findings suggest that integrating work and social support can yield complementary benefits extending beyond the labor market.

The success of FORWORK can be attributed to three key elements: early intervention to prevent prolonged inactivity and skill loss; individualized support tailored to participants’ specific needs; and an emphasis on practical work experience over traditional classroom-based training. With a cost ranging between €2,080 and €3,171 per person, comparable to other European active labor market programs, FORWORK offers a scalable solution without excessive financial burden. Furthermore, by reducing reliance on informal work, the program mitigates the risk of exploitation, improves job stability, and may even ease community tensions by promoting smoother integration.

For countries like Italy, often serving as the first point of arrival for refugees and asylum seekers, programs like FORWORK represent a promising strategy for building more inclusive and resilient societies. The study provides compelling evidence that early, personalized labor market support can profoundly impact the lives of asylum seekers, offering a practical and replicable model for enhancing refugee integration across Europe and beyond.

Are economics students more influenced by source authority than argument substance?

by

An IZA discussion paper by Mohsen Javdani and Ha-Joon Chang examines the extent to which the dominant, ideologically narrow discourse in mainstream economics—embedded in its educational practices under the guise of objectivity and value-neutrality—biases the views of economics students.

Drawing on a large-scale online randomized controlled experiment with 2,735 economics students from 10 countries, the authors explore how hidden ideologies and power structures in economics shape students’ evaluations of statements on a range of economic issues. By interrogating the ideological dimensions of economics education, they aim to shed light on its broader social and intellectual implications—a subject of growing concern.

The Authority Bias Effect

When the source attributed to a statement is randomly switched from mainstream to non-mainstream, or removed entirely, students’ reported agreement drops significantly. Despite 67% of students claiming to assess arguments solely on their substance, this pattern suggests they rely heavily on the perceived authority and ideological alignment of mainstream sources.

These biases intensify with academic progression. PhD students show more than twice the bias against non-mainstream sources compared to undergraduates and master’s students. This reflects how prolonged exposure to mainstream ideas—and a self-selection process that rewards those who “think like an economist”—entrenches the very biases economics claims to avoid through its emphasis on neutrality.

The Paradox of Advanced Education

Ironically, PhD students also present themselves as the most committed to critical thinking and independence: 76% endorse judging arguments solely on substance, compared to 62% of master’s students and 55% of undergraduates. Yet their evaluative behavior suggests otherwise—those who claim to be most resistant to bias appear the most influenced by it.

Political ideology further amplifies these biases, particularly among right-leaning students. Political orientation significantly shapes agreement levels, even when statements are attributed to mainstream sources. Across all academic levels, a shift from far left to far right consistently reduces agreement with mainstream-attributed statements. Right-leaning students are more likely to reject views that challenge or diverge from orthodoxy—even when such views originate within the mainstream. Political orientation also interacts significantly with students’ ideological and authority biases, provoked by changes in attributed sources.

Political and Gender Dimensions

These effects are present across all academic levels but are most pronounced among PhD students. On the far left, switching to a non-mainstream source reduces agreement among PhDs by 18.6% of a standard deviation—compared to 1.2% among undergraduates and 9.6% among master’s students. Among PhD students at the political center, the reduction is 38%; on the far right, it rises to 64%—a 230% increase from the far-left effect. These results point to the increasingly dominant role political orientation plays in shaping how advanced students engage with non-mainstream ideas.

Gender is another critical dimension of these biases. Male students exhibit substantially stronger reactions to source changes. Switching from a mainstream to a non-mainstream source reduces agreement among male students by 20% of a standard deviation, compared to 7.5% for female students—a 62% smaller effect. When source attribution is removed entirely, the reduction is 37% for men and 27% for women—a 25% smaller effect. These gender differences persist even after accounting for potential systematic variation in political ideology, pointing to deeper, gendered dynamics in how economic knowledge is received and processed.

Implications for Economics Education

The study contributes to the growing debate about the narrow ideological framework of economics education and calls for greater pluralism. By identifying a concrete manifestation of ideological and authority bias, the findings highlight how economics’ rigid discourse shapes pedagogy, socializes students into a particular mindset, and reproduces institutional power dynamics that define disciplinary norms. These forces limit students’ ability to think independently and critically engage with the content of their education.

The implications extend beyond the classroom. Given the generative nature of ideology, these biases are likely to influence students’ future research, policy preferences, and broader civic and professional outlooks. According to the authors, economics education is in urgent need of reform.

The Path Forward: Embracing Pluralism

Their findings suggest that a more pluralistic approach—one that integrates diverse theoretical traditions, methodological frameworks, and real-world contexts—would provide students with a deeper, more critical understanding of economic life. Such an approach would expose students to non-mainstream traditions (such as institutional, feminist, post-Keynesian, Marxian, and ecological economics) and foster engagement with the historical, political, and ethical dimensions of economic decision-making.

Recognizing the value-laden and ideological aspects of economics discourse is crucial for cultivating a more inclusive and pluralistic discipline—one capable of addressing real-world complexities. This awareness also benefits students, encouraging them to approach their studies with epistemic humility and critical thinking, rather than passively accepting the dominant paradigm as universal truth. True pluralism demands openness to fundamentally different perspectives, not just minor adjustments to the neoclassical framework and its ideological foundations.

Firms overestimate local competitiveness, but still prefer to stay

by

A recent IZA discussion paper by Sebastian Blesse, Florian Buhlmann, Philipp Heil, Davud Rostam-Afschar shows that firms’ perceptions of their location’s competitiveness shape satisfaction and investment plans–and that these perceptions are often inaccurate. Surveying executives in Germany, the authors find that many firms overrate the competitiveness of their municipality compared to others.

An experiment providing municipality-specific information corrects these misperceptions: firms receiving negative feedback about their local tax or infrastructure conditions reduce their satisfaction with the location. Yet, despite this, most still prefer to invest locally, suggesting a strong home bias. Reactions to information vary. Firms with high location flexibility respond strongly to positive tax news by reducing planned investments in other municipalities. Information about local tax burdens has a greater effect on investment plans than information on infrastructure, such as highway access. These findings carry important implications for local economic policy and our understanding of firm location decisions.

Methodology

The study uses a survey experiment embedded in the German Business Panel (GBP), with over 3,000 randomly selected firm managers. Participants first rated the perceived efficiency of public spending and estimated their local business tax rate and average distance to the nearest highway. They also guessed how their municipality ranked nationally in both aspects. Firms were then randomly assigned to one of four groups: a control group, and three treatment groups receiving information about the actual tax ranking (TAXATION), highway access (INFRASTRUCTURE), or both (TAXATION-INFRASTRUCTURE). After receiving this data, firms rated their satisfaction with their location and their likelihood of investing locally or elsewhere.

Findings

Firms Misjudge Competitiveness: Firms are fairly accurate in estimating their absolute tax burden and highway distance, but they systematically overrate their municipality’s competitiveness. On average, they overestimate tax competitiveness by 28 percentage points. Nearly 80% believe their tax position is better than it is, and similar patterns appear for infrastructure. This indicates substantial misperceptions in comparative assessments.

Information Affects Perception, But Not Always Behavior: Providing accurate information significantly changes how firms assess their location–but not always in the same way. Firms receiving negative news on taxes or infrastructure reduce their satisfaction, while those receiving positive news show little change. In infrastructure, satisfaction only drops if firms had overestimated their access; it remains stable otherwise.

Tax News Influences Investment Plans: Tax information affects investment plans more than infrastructure information. Firms that learn their municipality is more tax competitive are less likely to invest elsewhere. Those receiving negative tax news are more likely to consider investing outside their current location. These effects are statistically significant when comparing over- and under-estimators, though not always in comparisons across all groups. In contrast, learning about infrastructure conditions–whether positive or negative–has no significant impact on investment decisions. This may indicate that firms assume a basic infrastructure level or place more weight on tax conditions in short-term planning.

Heterogeneous Effects: Responses vary across firms. Firms in more mobile sectors adjust investment plans more strongly when receiving positive tax news. Corporations are more responsive than partnerships, likely because partnerships can partially offset business tax against income tax. Interestingly, when firms receive both tax and infrastructure information, responses are muted–perhaps reflecting a view that taxes are a price for local infrastructure.

Key Takeaways

Despite being informed of less favorable conditions, most firms still prefer to invest at their current location. This home bias may reflect high adjustment costs, such as relocating skilled labor or breaking local networks. Uncertainty about alternative locations could also play a role. Overall, the study highlights that firms often misperceive the competitiveness of their location, particularly in tax and infrastructure comparisons. These misperceptions influence satisfaction and, in some cases, investment decisions. Addressing information gaps through targeted communication could be a valuable tool in local economic policy.

AI is changing higher education, but students aren’t using it how you’d expect

by

Generative AI is transforming higher education at unprecedented speed, with over 80% of students at an elite U.S. college now using these tools for academic purposes—up from less than 10% before Spring 2023. This represents one of the fastest technology adoption episodes ever documented, according to a new IZA discussion paper by Zara Contractor and Germán Reyes.

The researchers surveyed students at Middlebury College, a highly selective liberal arts institution, between December 2024 and February 2025. Their findings challenge common narratives about AI in education and reveal important patterns in how students actually use these powerful new tools.

Finding 1: Students primarily use AI to enhance learning, not replace it

Contrary to fears about widespread academic dishonesty, students use generative AI more for augmentation (61.2%) than automation (41.9%), as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Academic Uses of Generative AI

Augmentation includes using AI to explain concepts, find information, and receive feedback—activities that enhance learning while maintaining student engagement. Automation involves having AI directly produce outputs like essays or complete assignments.

Students frequently describe AI as an “on-demand tutor,” particularly valuable when traditional resources like office hours are unavailable. Non-native English speakers report using AI for proofreading to overcome language barriers, while STEM students use it to debug code and understand error messages. When students do automate tasks, it’s typically during periods of overwhelming workload, with time savings being the primary motivation.

Finding 2: Adoption varies dramatically across disciplines and demographics

Figure 2. The Adoption of Generative AI among College Students

AI adoption is far from uniform. Natural Sciences majors (which includes computer science and math) lead with 91.1% usage, while Literature (48.6%) and Languages (57.4%) show substantially lower rates. This variation likely reflects how well AI capabilities align with field-specific academic tasks.

Notable demographic differences also emerge. Males adopt AI at higher rates than females (88.7% versus 78.4%), consistent with gender gaps documented across multiple contexts. Perhaps most surprisingly, lower-achieving students show higher adoption rates than their higher-achieving peers (87.1% versus 80.3%), suggesting AI could either help struggling students catch up or potentially widen achievement gaps if it undermines skill development.

Finding 3: Students believe AI improves learning but institutional policies matter

Figure 3. Student Beliefs about the Impact of AI on their Academic Performance

Most students believe AI improves their understanding of course materials (70.2%) and learning ability (60.1%), though fewer think it improves grades (41.1%), as shown in Figure 3.

These positive perceptions strongly predict adoption—a 10 percentage point increase in belief that AI improves learning corresponds to a 4.9 percentage point increase in usage.

Why this matters

These findings have important implications for educational policy. The rapid adoption and preference for augmentation over automation suggest that blanket AI bans may be both ineffective and counterproductive, potentially disadvantaging students who benefit most from AI’s learning enhancement capabilities.

The study also reveals significant information gaps—only 10.1% of students know about college-provided AI resources, and just 32.6% understand proper citation practices. These gaps suggest straightforward opportunities for improvement through better communication and training.

As generative AI becomes embedded in educational settings, understanding actual usage patterns becomes crucial. Rather than focusing on preventing cheating, institutions might better serve students by teaching responsible AI use that enhances rather than replaces learning. The technology has already transformed how students approach their education—the question now is how to harness it effectively.

Understanding labor market adjustment in the age of automation

by

The rapidly evolving landscape of the labor market, supercharged by advancements in AI, presents a complex challenge for policymakers striving to understand and mitigate its impact. A recent IZA discussion paper by Michael Johannes Böhm, Ben Etheridge, and Aitor Irastorza-Fadrique introduces an innovative equilibrium model designed to shed light on how workers and wages will adapt to these technological shifts. This model moves beyond simplistic categorizations of “automatable” jobs, instead offering a nuanced perspective by integrating expert data on automation’s reach, a sophisticated model of worker mobility, and historical evidence of past labor market adjustments.

One of the study’s core findings is the significant heterogeneity in workers’ ability to switch jobs. Occupations like those held by doctors and teachers are deemed “inelastic,” meaning substantial wage fluctuations do not translate into significant employment shifts. Conversely, roles in IT and administrative support demonstrate greater adaptability, with employment more responsive to wage changes.

Furthermore, the research reveals that occupational transitions are far from uniform in their ease. While some shifts, such as from lab technician to nursing, are common, others like moving from manufacturing to coding are infrequent and often entail considerable costs. This nuanced understanding of transition costs is crucial for effective policy design.

A particularly salient finding is the tendency for automation to impact similar jobs concurrently. This correlation in shocks limits workers’ fallback options, often preventing individuals in shrinking sectors from easily transitioning into growing, substitutable occupations.

Looking ahead, the model provides forward-looking projections for the labor market. It predicts an increase in employment for IT and construction-related occupations, alongside wage increases in the health and education sectors. Conversely, manufacturing jobs and even some high-skilled professions, including accountants and auditors, are expected to face declining wages. The analysis suggests that IT and tech roles will expand by attracting workers from a wide array of business and technical backgrounds, while manufacturing workers face limited attractive alternative occupations.

These findings carry profound implications for policy. Effective strategies must extend beyond merely identifying at-risk jobs to consider the realistic pathways for workers to transition elsewhere and the capacity of other occupations to absorb new labor. This necessitates targeted retraining initiatives for occupations with limited alternatives, along with comprehensive transition support such as job-matching and counseling along realistic career paths. Additionally, policymakers may need to explore wage subsidies or other support mechanisms for workers in low-mobility roles.

Ultimately, this research provides a powerful framework for policymakers to anticipate structural changes, predict the interplay between wages and employment, identify viable job transition routes, and craft more intelligent and targeted interventions to address potential inequalities in the labor market.

IZA Network finds new home at Luxembourg’s LISER

by

The IZA Network, a leading global community in labor economics, will continue its work at a new institutional home: the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER). The transition will take effect on January 1, 2026, following the closure of the Bonn-based IZA Institute at the end of this year.

This move guarantees the seamless continuation of the IZA Network’s flagship activities—most notably the IZA Discussion Paper Series and the IZA World of Labor. These platforms have long been trusted sources for high-quality economic research and accessible, policy-relevant insights for decision-makers and educators worldwide. Key events such as the IZA Summer School, thematic workshops, and a visiting fellows program will also remain at the heart of the network.

Founded in 1989, LISER is an international, multilingual research institute with over 200 staff from more than 30 countries. Deeply embedded in Europe’s research landscape and policymaking circles, LISER works closely with EU institutions, universities, and policy practitioners. Its strong ties with Germany, along with its strategic location in Luxembourg, make it a natural fit for hosting and expanding the IZA Network’s reach.

In their joint announcement, LISER CEO Aline Muller and IZA CFO Martin T. Clemens emphasized the significance of this step:

“Our most important priority is to ensure the continuity of the network’s valuable contributions to labor economics and related areas of research.”

They also stressed the broader mission behind the move:

“At a time of growing threats to academic freedom and evidence-based policymaking, we aim to maintain a beacon for open, collaborative, and impactful social science research in Europe and beyond.”

With LISER’s stewardship, the IZA Network is set not only to preserve its established activities but also to expand accessibility and strengthen its European policy footprint—ensuring that cutting-edge labor research continues to inform public debate and real-world decision-making for years to come.

How to create livable and productive working habitats

by

These days, the role of paid work is being questioned—not only from the perspective of economic and technological change but also from the viewpoint of individuals. There is a lot at stake for work in general and for all those who must cope with their jobs to make a living. This holds true for both the structure and quality of work, as well as its boundaries with non-work life.

The enduring importance of paid employment

The empirical account presented in my recent book, The Future of Work Environments: Creating Livable and Productive Working Habitats (Edward Elgar, 2025), makes it clear that, for the foreseeable future, paid work will remain essential for nearly everyone. Gainful employment under capitalism is here to stay. While we need not fear the end of work itself, we must pay close attention to the kind of work we do—and the conditions under which it is performed.

Human labor continues to grow where it is least similar to what machines can do—where it complements, uses, or opposes automation. This is even more pronounced in the era of rapidly advancing technologies, including artificial intelligence. The domain of human work now lies along a narrow frontier between automation and uniquely human capabilities. To expand this domain, human work must be increasingly distinct from what intelligent machines can replicate. People shape their work and, when conditions are right, become less and less replaceable.

Imagining different futures of capitalism

Although paid work continues under capitalism, it’s important to recognize there is not just one form of capitalism. We face various possible scenarios in this critical phase: optimistic, pessimistic, and ambiguous. One is a model of radical, unrestrained capitalism, marked by a rigid hierarchy and a complex periphery—combining old bureaucratic structures with a new, tightly managed regime focused on human capital. The other path imagines a more egalitarian, humane capitalism. This would involve a well-functioning labor market, better organizations, and empowered individuals flourishing in supportive environments.

Of course, reality may unfold somewhere in between—ambivalently, with gains for some and setbacks for others. Still, imagining these pathways helps us define what kind of future we want to strive for.

The triple embedding

To create good working habitats, I propose a triple embedding—bringing public policies, firm-level organization, and individual capabilities into coherence so they can reinforce one another. A more horizontal, egalitarian sphere of work—and a more humane capitalism—could form the foundation for livable and productive environments for all.

Reducing inequalities would mean weaker incentives for destructive competition. People could survive, and even thrive, at reasonable standards without an extreme concentration of advantage. Good institutions are key. Built and maintained through adaptation, they enable conditions where people can work and live well—with as much freedom as possible. They are essential for creating working habitats that are both productive and humane.

The role of public policy in shaping work

Public policies can help chart pathways toward more habitable forms of work—especially work that is non-routine and uniquely human. These policies define outer boundaries, shape power dynamics, and support access to employment. They help ensure income security, foster human capital, and enhance individual bargaining power. This benefits not just select groups, but society as a whole.

While policy cannot control every detail of how work evolves, it can provide essential infrastructure—dykes and dams that shape the flow without blocking it. Good policy is, in itself, a productive factor—supporting wages, social benefits, education, lifelong learning, and mechanisms for participation. All of this helps reduce hierarchy and foster more egalitarian labor relations.

Firms as collaborative workspaces

In the best-case scenario, companies become places of collaborative, joint productive work. This means fewer management layers, less rigid control, and more cooperation among equals. While such settings demand strong self-management and individual initiative, they also allow for diversity, creativity, and meaningful participation.

However, this model only works if the necessary skills and capital are widely distributed—not confined to a privileged few. The effort is still real, but work feels less superfluous or absurd. Instead of being extended unnecessarily, it becomes more purposeful.

Human capitalism and the boundary of work

In the era of “human capitalism,” everyone becomes a kind of human capitalist—whether they like the term or not. This system depends on expertise, self-organization, and the ability to cooperate and adapt. It also requires awareness of the boundary between work and its “hinterland”—the essential non-work sphere that sustains us.

Maintaining some distance from the constant demands of work helps preserve mental well-being. People have a remarkable capacity to not just endure difficult conditions, but to shape them, to craft their jobs, and to manage boundaries—especially when supported by a conducive overall environment.

A future worth building

I argue that we can look to the future with relative confidence—especially if the settings we create help individuals shape their own working habitats. When positive complementarities between policy, firms, and individuals reinforce one another, truly livable and productive work environments can emerge.

Still, the future will never unfold exactly as we imagine it—and that’s a good thing. Complete predictability would be stifling. Today’s uncertainty is a sign of the future’s openness. The more is at risk, the more is uncertain—and the more important the idea of a working habitat becomes.

An attractive working habitat—good for both work and non-work—can offer a sense of rescue and refuge. As good as it can get.

+++

How workplaces shape the economic impact of caregiving shocks on mothers

by

When a child falls seriously ill, the ripple effects go far beyond the hospital. For working parents—especially mothers—a sudden health crisis like a cancer diagnosis can upend careers, strain finances, and widen long-standing gender gaps in the labor market. A recent IZA discussion paper by Peyman Firouzi Naeim, David W. Johnston, and Maryam Naghsh Nejad explores this underexamined yet critically important issue: how do workplaces influence the extent to which caregiving shocks affect mothers’ jobs and incomes?

Using detailed administrative data from Australia, the researchers trace the employment and earnings outcomes of parents whose children are diagnosed with cancer. This rare but severe caregiving shock provides a unique lens through which to examine how workplace environments can either cushion or intensify the economic fallout. The findings offer powerful insights for policymakers, employers, and advocates interested in improving gender equity and caregiving support in the workforce.

Why this matters

While the effects of childbirth on women’s careers are well known, less attention has been paid to caregiving responsibilities that arise later in childhood. These episodes—often sudden and intense—can force parents to step back from paid work to care for their child, with long-term consequences for their earnings and career progression. Mothers are disproportionately affected, both because they tend to be the primary caregivers and because workplace structures often do little to accommodate these demands.

The researchers’ work sheds light on how much workplace characteristics matter in this context. By analyzing factors such as the prevalence of long working hours, the presence of women in leadership roles, and gender pay gaps across firms, occupations, and industries, they examine how workplace norms and structures influence the economic consequences of caregiving.

What the researchers did

The authors used population-wide data linking tax, welfare, and health records to follow the careers of nearly all parents in Australia whose children were diagnosed with cancer. This comprehensive dataset includes matched employer-employee records, allowing them to map out the workplace environments in which these parents were employed.

To identify the causal impact of caregiving, the researchers used a dynamic difference-in-differences approach. They compared parents of children recently diagnosed with cancer to those whose children will face a similar diagnosis in the future. This method allows them to control for family-specific characteristics and isolate the effect of the caregiving shock itself.

What they found

The effects on mothers are striking and persistent. In the year a child begins cancer treatment, maternal earnings drop by 15%. Even three years later, earnings remain nearly 10% lower than they would have been without the diagnosis. Notably, there is no similar impact on fathers’ earnings, reinforcing the gendered nature of caregiving responsibilities.

Workplace characteristics play a major role in shaping these outcomes. Mothers employed in firms or occupations with long average work hours experience larger earnings losses. In contrast, workplaces with more women in senior roles—especially at the firm level—are associated with smaller declines in maternal earnings. These results suggest that more flexible or supportive work environments can help mothers better balance caregiving with paid work.

Why workplace design matters

The findings suggest that workplace policies and cultures can significantly influence how families navigate serious caregiving demands. In particular, long-hour work cultures and limited representation of women in leadership appear to make it harder for mothers to stay engaged in the labor market during these shocks. Conversely, workplaces that offer flexibility and have more gender-equitable leadership structures may allow mothers to maintain employment and earnings more effectively. These environments likely reflect broader organizational support for caregiving, including formal policies (like leave or flexible schedules) and informal norms that shape how caregiving is viewed and accommodated.

Policy implications

The authors offer the following policy recommendations:

  • Supportive Work Environments Matter: Policymakers should encourage workplace flexibility and gender-inclusive leadership as part of broader efforts to improve labor market equity. Incentives or standards for caregiving-friendly practices could help reduce the economic penalties faced by working mothers.
  • Caregiving Leave Should Extend Beyond Early Parenthood: While many parental leave policies focus on the early years of a child’s life, these results highlight the need for support mechanisms that also address caregiving demands later in childhood—especially in cases of serious illness.
  • Targeted Income Support May Be Needed: Even in countries with robust health systems and social safety nets, families often bear long-term economic burdens when a child becomes seriously ill. Earnings losses that persist for years suggest a potential role for more generous or better-targeted income replacement during caregiving shocks.
  • Reducing Gender Gaps Requires Structural Change: The persistent earnings penalties for mothers underscore how gender inequality in the workplace is reinforced through caregiving demands. Addressing these disparities requires not only individual accommodations but systemic change in how work is structured and rewarded.

Looking ahead

As populations age and dual-earner households become the norm, the ability to balance caregiving with employment will only grow in importance. This study offers a data-driven look at one extreme but illustrative case: childhood cancer. The lessons apply more broadly to other caregiving scenarios—whether for children with chronic conditions, aging parents, or partners with disabilities.

How administrative data fosters young economists’ careers

by

The path to a successful academic career in economics is often shaped by more than just intellectual ability or hard work. Over the years, research has revealed that factors like institutional prestige, elite networks, and gender disparities play a major role in determining who gets hired, promoted, and recognized in the field. Scholars from top-ranked universities tend to benefit from better mentorship, greater visibility, and stronger professional connections. In contrast, women and researchers from less prestigious institutions often face tougher standards and fewer opportunities for recognition and collaboration.

A new dimension has emerged in this landscape: the increasing importance of administrative data. These large, detailed datasets, often maintained by government agencies, are now central to cutting-edge economic research, especially in applied fields like labor economics and public policy. But as this type of data becomes more essential for producing high-impact research, an important question arises: Does access to administrative data help level the playing field for early-career researchers, or does it further entrench existing academic hierarchies?

The case of VisitINPS

In a new IZA discussion paper, Anthony Lepinteur and Roberto Nistico address this question using a unique case: VisitINPS, a program run by the Italian Social Security Institute (INPS), which gives researchers access to rich administrative datasets on Italian workers, firms, and employment history. The authors follow nearly all early-career researchers who applied to VisitINPS over time, analyzing how data access affected their research output, visibility in the academic community, and job market outcomes.

The results show that access to administrative data can significantly shape academic careers. Researchers who gained access to the INPS data didn’t simply publish more papers. Instead, they were more likely to publish in prestigious field journals, especially in labor economics, where this data is particularly relevant. They also became more visible in the profession through working papers, conference presentations, and increased networking. These factors improved their standing in the academic job market, not necessarily through a sheer quantity of research, but by enhancing the quality and signals of their potential as scholars.

Interestingly, the impact of data access was not evenly distributed. Researchers from top-ranked PhD programs were particularly adept at converting data access into career benefits. On the other hand, even though women who accessed the data produced strong research, they didn’t experience a corresponding boost in career advancement. Additionally, data access also influenced where researchers ended up: while it reduced the probability of securing a position in a top world-ranked economics department, it increased their chances of getting hired at top departments within Italy, helping them build strong domestic careers.

Contributions and policy questions

This study offers several important contributions to ongoing debates in the economics profession. First, the paper adds to the growing literature on how resources and signals influence academic success. Just as graduating from a prestigious university or publishing in a top journal can open doors, access to administrative data is now another important career asset. This research highlights the growing importance of data access not only for individual academic careers, but also for the broader goals of scientific progress and evidence-based policymaking.

Second, the findings raise important policy questions. As programs like VisitINPS are publicly funded, understanding who benefits most from such programs is central to evaluating their distributional impact, not just on research outcomes but on the composition of the academic community itself. If those already well-positioned in academia are most likely to benefit from access to administrative data, such programs risk unintentionally reinforcing the very inequalities they seek to address.

Conclusion

In summary, the study offers a timely and thought-provoking look at how administrative data access affects academic careers in economics. As economics continues to evolve into a data-intensive discipline, who gets access to this data and who can make the most of it will play a defining role in shaping the next generation of scholars. While access to administrative data can be a powerful tool for research and professional advancement, its benefits are not automatically equitable.

Ensuring that all researchers can turn data into meaningful career opportunities will require more inclusive policy design. If programs like VisitINPS are to truly democratize research opportunities, they must ensure that access to data is paired with support mechanisms (such as training, mentoring, and infrastructure) that help researchers from diverse backgrounds succeed. Otherwise, the authors argue, the promise of data-driven research may remain out of reach for many talented scholars.