Juan Dodyk

Assistant Prof in PoliSci @WashU. Climate policy, interest groups, money in politics, formal theory.

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

https://t.co/kp4LVNlIti

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@itaisher It's funny and tragic how much he's still obsessed with writing and publishing blog posts

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@haddadliv @Harvard Congratulations!! Awesome

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

This is unironically good music https://t.co/wKUSJ8Ajrc

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@ahall_research @ben_golub @rootsofprogress It’s 10x-ing garbage research for sure

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@brhkim @arthur_spirling sure

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@HunterWieman @RefineInk 99% of political scientists wouldn't notice either. not because it's subtle

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@cur7i7e te falto schoenberg en viena, el goat

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@cachitorla nooooooooo

[Thomas Bourany @TBourany]

This semester, we'll organize a PhD reading group on Industrial policy at @columbia_econ, with CBS, SIPA, and CPE, with @luchi_casal and Filip Milos (both postdocs at CBS)
We'll cover recent advances in IP at the intersection of macro, growth, firm dynamics, trade-spatial, public finance, IO, etc.
Find the full syllabus here: https://t.co/UO6DuDxL4M

[Daniel T. Roberts @DanielT_Roberts]

New Working Paper! Why do policies that reinforce unequal opportunities persist? Some blame elites. I argue less secure families defend these "boundaries" against reform, and call this "boundary defense". I test this on a 2010 referendum against school reform in Hamburg, Germany.

[Ahmad Lashkaripour @ALashkaripour]

We’ve written a review on *New Industrial Policy* for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia.

We offer a unified framework for analyzing IP effects and survey evidence from both ex post event studies and ex ante model-based evaluations of IP.

🧵thread on key takeaways (link below)

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@erazoca @cachitorla Jaja todos deben morir pero no matar

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@erazoca @cachitorla Jaja no esperaba que fuera tan polémico el tuit. Obviamente no estoy a favor del suicidio!

[Joseph Steinberg @jbsteinberg]

[Warning: this may offend some people!]

I think economists have done society a disservice by elevating applied-micro studies that focus exclusively on the relative effects of trade across different groups of workers but are silent about the aggregate effects. Differences-in-differences is a useful hammer, but not everything's a nail.

The paper Arpit cites says that regions that were exposed to NAFTA had worse labor-market outcomes than less-exposed regions. This doesn't mean that NAFTA was bad for US workers! A story that is entirely consistent with their results is that NAFTA increased US manufacturing employment overall, just less so in more-exposed areas.

Autor et al's "China Shock" narrative is the best example. It has colored the debate on trade to such an extent that many economists (not to mention the vast majority of Americans) are convinced that trade with China was a net negative for US workers. But all it says is that regions that were more exposed to Chinese import competition had worse labor-market outcomes than less-exposed regions. It doesn't say anything about the aggregate effects!

An important paper by Wang et al. (https://t.co/oVu1bGyDUi) shows that after accounting for the supply-chain effects of Chinese imports, overall employment and wages actually increased. What's even more striking is that they find positive labor-market outcomes overall even in regions that experienced large manufacturing employment declines via the Autor et al. channel.

I think we also do society a disservice by putting so much focus on labor-market effects. Especially in the case of China, the biggest effects come from lower prices (i.e. higher real wages). Here, there are no tensions between aggregate and distributional effects. Everyone gained, but lower-income households gained the most!

For example, this paper by an old friend of mine (https://t.co/5xjpkM7DBR) finds a "large fall in domestic prices" and that "[p]roduct categories catering to low-income consumers experienced larger price declines."

And this paper by Mike Waugh (https://t.co/NpRu6ZHTzE) which develops a cool model where trade interacts with heterogeneity in the price elasticity of demand across the income distribution. He finds that "gains from trade are pro-poor and that the average gains from trade [is] substantially larger than representative agent benchmarks."

Don't get me wrong: trade isn't a pareto improvement, and the tradeoff between widely-dispersed aggregate gains and concentrated losses is real. But somehow I think society is interpreting many of our findings as saying that trade is a net negative, not a net positive, and that's not good.

[Joseph Shapiro @_josephshapiro]

🚨Excited for incredible lineup at @nberpubs
conference on **Energy Markets, Decarbonization, and Trade**

🗓️This Thurs/Fri 3/20-21:

Organized w Natalia Ramondo, supported by @SloanFoundation

Full agenda and streaming link in next post below👇

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@colin_fraser @slimer48484 Oh, sorry, haha I'm worse than an LLM. But it's just a consequence of Green-Tao, as someone noted: take f(x) = ax + b such that f(1), ..., f(k^2) are all prime. In particular f(1^2), ..., f(k^2) are all prime, so P(x) = ax^2 + b is a quadratic such that P(1), ..., P(k) are prime

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@colin_fraser The answer it gave you is false: https://t.co/oHk21Asgdu

[Juan Dodyk @jdodyk]

@slimer48484 @colin_fraser Yes, it's a super special case of this generalization of Green-Tao by Tao and Ziegler: "The primes contain arbitrarily long polynomial progressions" https://t.co/oHk21Asgdu