Philipp Leverhulme Prize 2019 (2020-2024)

On this webpage you will find information on my Philipp Leverhulme Prize 2019 (2020-2024).  There are two distinct big themes we cover under this grant: (a) how can we design institutions to support and encourage cooperation and reduce inequality? and (b) what are the consequences of the "Working fom Home (WFH) Revolution",  specifically how  does WFH affect productivity and innovation?   On this page I will periodically update about activities and outcomes from the project. The support of the Leverhulme Trust is gratefully acknowledged. 

Theme A:  Cooperation, Inequality and Collective Action

Publications: 

Abstract: Experimental studies of infinitely repeated games typically consist of several indefinitely repeated games (“matches”) played in sequence with different partners each time, whereby match length, i.e. the number of stages of each game is randomly determined. Using a large meta data set on indefinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma games (Dal Bó and Fréchette, 2018) we demonstrate that the realized length of early matches has a substantial impact on cooperation rates in subsequent matches. We estimate simple learning models displaying the “power law of practice” and show that participants do learn from match length realization. We then study three cases from the literature where realized match length has a strong impact on treatment comparisons, both in terms of the size and the direction of the treatment effect. These results have important implications for our understanding of how people learn in infinitely repeated games as well as for experimental design. 

Abstract: We survey the literature on preferences for redistribution. We discuss different ways the literature has measured these preferences and review literature on the different determinants of preferences for redistribution. These range from institutions and demographic factors to fairness views and social preferences. Income inequality is, perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the most important determinants of preferences for redistribution. While our survey is largely focused on the economics literature, we also review some work from political science, sociology, and psychology.

Theme B:  Consequences of the WFH Revolution

Under this theme we study various consequences of the working frome home (WFH) revolution. We are specifically focused on how WFH affects productivity and innovation and the role of employee networks for the generation of high quality ideas.

Publications: 

Abstract: We study employee productivity before and during the working-from-home period of the COVID-19 pandemic, using personnel and analytics data from over 10,000 skilled professionals at an Indian technology company. Hours worked increased, output declined slightly, and productivity fell 8%–19%. We then analyze determinants of productivity changes. An important source is higher communication costs. Time spent on coordination activities and meetings increased, while uninterrupted work hours shrank considerably. Employees networked with fewer individuals and business units inside and outside the firm and had fewer one-to-one meetings with supervisors. The findings suggest key issues for firms in implementing remote work. 

Abstract: The Covid-19 pandemic forced firms globally to shift workforces to working from home [WFH]. Firms are now struggling to implement a return to working from the office [WFO], as employees enjoy the significant benefits of WFH for their work-life balance. Therefore many firms are adopting a hybrid model in which employees work partly from the office and partly from home. We use unique and detailed data from an Indian IT services firm which contains a precise measure of innovation activity of over 48,000 employees in these three work environments. Our key outcomes are the quantity and quality of ideas submitted by employees. Based on an event study design, the quantity of ideas did not change during the WFH period as compared to WFO, but the quality of ideas suffered. During the later hybrid period, the quantity of submitted ideas fell. In the hybrid phase innovation suffered particularly in teams which were not well coordinated in terms of when they worked at the office or from home. Our findings suggest that remote and hybrid work modes may inhibit collaboration and innovation.


This work has been covered extensively by the media. Under these links you can read up on some of their takes.

[Media: The Economist I, The Economist II, The Economist III, The Economist IV, Time Magazine,  Financial Times I, Financial Times II,  Financial Times III, Wall Street Journal, New York Times,  Bloomberg,  BBC, Wirtschaftswoche, Wired, Le Nouvel Economiste, Diario Financiero Chile,  Hong Kong Economic Times,  Radio Suffolk, New York Post,  GQ Magazine; Blogs/Podcasts: marginalrevolution, money for the rest of us,...]

Here is a video explaining some of the work.