iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

World Human Capital Expenditure database

The data underlying the paper and replication package are publicly available at the World Human Capital Expenditure Database: whce.world

whce.world

whce.world | about

010

Published version coming soon! Link to old WP: wid.world/document/hum....

wid.world

100

We build a new global historical database on education and health expenditures since 1800 and study how unequal opportunities shape long-run productivity convergence. Joint work with @nitin-k-bharti.bsky.social, Amory Gethin, @thomaspiketty.bsky.social, @markjenmana.bsky.social and Li Yang.

Belinda Archibong @belindaarch.bsky.social · 12/01/2026

✨ Good news to start 2026! ✨ 🥳 Our paper “Human Capital, Unequal Opportunities and Productivity Convergence: A Global Historical Perspective, 1800–2100” has been accepted at the Journal of Public Economics.

170

Reposted by Zhexun Mo

I am so very sorry to hear about the passing about my friend and colleague Professor Kimuli Kasara. She was a brilliant scholar and a bright, funny, warm person. I remember first meeting her as the only other Black woman/faculty at the Columbia political econ seminar and feeling relief/happiness

1285645647

Reposted by Zhexun Mo

Yonatan Berman @yonatanberman.com · 30/12/2025

🚨 We're hiring an Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in Economics Only 5 days left to apply. See details 👇

01927

Reposted by Zhexun Mo

John Holbein @johnholbein1.bsky.social · 29/12/2025

Also, "contributed by" articles should probably be entirely done away with at PNAS. This dirty little secret is that this provides a way for NAS members to get questionable work in at a high profile outlet with less stringent peer review. It's corrupt and it's anti science.

25810

Reposted by Zhexun Mo

World Inequality Lab @wid.world · 08/12/2025

South Africa remains the most unequal country in the world, with the top 10% earning 70% of all pretax income. New study by A. Gethin & L. Czajka shows that inequality in 2019 was as high as in 1993. Racial inequality reduced only because top 10% Black incomes surged. ▶️ wid.world/news-article...

wid.world

Racial Inequality and Redistribution in Post-Apartheid South Africa - WID - World Inequality Database

Racial Inequality and Redistribution in Post-Apartheid South Africa The source for global inequality data. Open access, high quality wealth and income inequality data developed by an international aca...

01715

Reposted by Zhexun Mo

Thomas Piketty @thomaspiketty.bsky.social · 10/12/2025

Today, we are publishing our World Inequality Report, which reviews the most recent #inequalitydata and exposes the magnitude of #inequality across time, space and all its dimensions. 👇Share this thread, share the report! www.youtube.com/watch?v=R67u...

youtube.com

World Inequality Report 2026

YouTube video by World Inequality Lab

3177131

Reposted by Zhexun Mo

Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

This is a very cool paper with a clever identification strategy to test the causal impact of the opioid epidemic on various political outcomes. A key point that’s not in the abstract —causal mechanism is voters agreed with GOP tough on crime rhetoric and policy.

3285

Full paper link here: osf.io/preprints/so...

osf.io

OSF

000

🎯 Conclusion: Light-touch information corrects misperceptions but does not shift deeper identity-based or geopolitical attitudes toward Chinese FDI. As Germany and the EU adjust their China strategies, public opinion—not just economic fundamentals—will shape the policy space ahead.

210

📌 Heterogeneity: Quantile regressions on WTA measures show that fact-checking and positive narratives reduce the penalty only among respondents already at the favorable end. Heavy baseline bias → no treatment response Low baseline bias → clear treatment effect to information and narratives

📉 More on Willingness-To-Accept (WTA): To consider a Chinese investor equivalent to an EU/US investor, respondents require more job preservation: • EU/US investor baseline: 250 jobs saved • Chinese investor: ~350 jobs saved This implies a ~50% China-origin penalty built into public preferences.

100

However: ❌ deeper geopolitical or autonomy-related attitudes remain unchanged ❌ support for a Germany–China FDI agreement does not shift ❌ no detectable effects on either conjoint choices or WTA measures In short, belief updating does not translate into substantive preference updating.

📣 Narratives: 🔵 Positive narrative → modest improvements in economic perceptions 🔴 Negative narrative → little effect on China-specific concerns, but notably increases favorable evaluations of US FDI, consistent with a substitution logic

100

📈 Fact-checking effects: Providing accurate information significantly improves perceived economic benefits of FDI (across the board regardless of the country of origin) — by roughly 0.2–0.3 standard deviations

100

🧪 Experimental interventions: We implemented three randomized treatments interventions w.r.t. Chinese FDI in Germany: 1️⃣ Fact-checking: true FDI shares 2️⃣ Negative narrative: economic/political risks, dependency, IP 3️⃣ Positive narrative: market access, diversification, competitiveness

100

🇨🇳➡️🇩🇪 Meanwhile in China: Chinese respondents express overwhelmingly positive evaluations of German FDI, rating it highly on: ✔️ job creation ✔️ technological upgrading ✔️ national economic development Roughly 80% provide strongly favorable assessments. The asymmetry in mutual perceptions is striking.

100

🧩 Conjoint experiment: Holding all attributes constant, changing the investor from EU → China reduces selection likelihood by: ➡️ −40 percentage points Compared with the US: ➡️ −20 points A substantial origin penalty, independent of project characteristics.

100

🟦 EU FDI 🟧 US FDI 🟥 Chinese FDI Across every domain we measure — 💼 economic prospects 🏭 employment 🧪 innovation 🏛 political autonomy a remarkably stable preference hierarchy emerges: EU > US > China This structure is consistent and highly robust.

📊 The perception gap: On average, Germans believe that Chinese firms account for 33% of inward FDI. The actual figure? 👉 ~1% — a roughly 30-fold overestimation. 😬 By contrast: • EU FDI is systematically underestimated • US FDI is perceived relatively accurately

100

🔥 Key finding: German respondents substantially overestimate the scale of Chinese FDI in Germany and evaluate it far more negatively than FDI from the EU or the United States. Attempts to correct these misperceptions produce only modest and fragile shifts in attitudes.

100

🌍💼 Why this matters: Germany and China are economically intertwined through bilateral FDI flows, not just trade. As Figure 1 shows 👇 🇩🇪 German FDI in China has expanded sharply since 2004—reaching nearly 3% of Germany’s GDP-equivalent. 🇨🇳 Chinese FDI in Germany, by contrast, remains very small.

100