🚨 NEW ECONOMICS JOURNAL 🚨
We are excited to announce the launch of The Review of Economic Studies: Insights, a new open-access journal in the REStud family.
Mission: publish concise, high-quality research on important questions across economics and economic policy.🧵1/13
My paper with @BoWonKim5 is out at the Review of International Organizations (https://t.co/1ZFOfQ9k7t)! If you are interested in the growing role of lawyers in international commerce and how they can shape the design of international cooperation, this paper may be of interest🧵
⏰ Reminder: the deadline to submit to the 21st EGSC is July 19th, 2026! We've already started receiving submissions from PhD programs across the country. Don't miss your chance to present! Submit at https://t.co/InJIb7N9my
My book will be published by Cambridge University Press this September! There is growing debate over whether federal employees should be easier to dismiss in order to make them more responsive to presidential directives. What would be the consequences of such a change?
📣 This will be an amazing conference in LA, marking the 40th anniversary of the Economic Science Association -(@EcScienceAssoc ) the organization that helped bring experiments to the forefront of economics research. 🌟
I am honored to be one of the keynote speakers.
Apply!👇
@sndurlauf@jbsteinberg My naive reading was 'I (editor) like the idea enough to reconsider but not enough to go against the referees; try a couple other journals & come back if you make substantial changes along the way, but only when enough to justify another set of referees', but I guess I was wrong?
First time at Duke! Excited to present a new project at BMP 2026 on how outcome-biased voters reshape politicians' incentives after a policy failure. https://t.co/xRSZnsRTki
@cherylwoooo Maybe, or maybe not. For many positions, the hiring side has their hands tied. Why would it necessarily hurt innovation, though? Breadth may increase the likelihood of a match between ideas from different disciplines, but may not guarantee the match quality.
Advice for PhD students in economics about using AI, from the brilliant Isaiah Andrews. This should probably be circulated to all PhD cohorts
https://t.co/07xEbmx5n5
Compare with @DAcemogluMIT et al. (2026) who propose garbling (degrading AI accuracy); our decomposition leads to different instruments: encouraging public sharing of AI solutions (logging) offsets the flow margin, preserving AI capability. Resolution requires user engagement.
New paper: AI helps users solve problems faster, but the answers stay private. Fewer questions reach public, and the archives future users depend on shrink. I decompose this into two margins: flow of questions posted vs. resolution conditional on posting.
https://t.co/FsmbHpUNtq
The model yields a discriminating prediction: volume decline alone with stable/rising resolution would indicate private diversion; but if posted volume & resolution conditional on posting both decline, then the answerer pool is thinning. They require different fixes.
We axiomatize a representation that nests EU, implies context-dependent independence, and is unique up to affine transformation. After all, independence was not a sufficient norm.
The independence axiom is what makes expected utility work: normatively clean, mathematically elegant. Problem? People violate it systematically. We've known this since 1953. Many non-EU models use prob weighting. We take a different route. #EconTwitter https://t.co/1DGo6nEpzG
In our model language, the shift in the worst outcome changes the context: how likely disappointment is, which changes the utility function, which flips the ranking. Within any fixed context, independence still holds. Violations arise only across contexts.
@alexolegimas Interesting point. One thought: serious papers at NBER/high-visibility level take years, so the early LLM-assisted cohort may still be in the pipeline (LLMs help not only with speed but also self-verification before circulation).