Between 1981 and 2013, the share of the global population living in extreme poverty fell by 34 percentage points. This paper argues that such rapid reductions will become increasingly hard to achieve for two reasons. First, the majority of the poor now live in middle-income countries where the benefits of growth have often been distributed selectively and unequally. Second, a reservoir of extreme poverty remains in low-income countries where growth is erratic and aid often fails to reach the poor. If the international community is to most effectively leverage available resources to end extreme poverty, it must ensure that its investments in institutions and physical infrastructure actually provide the poor the capabilities they need to craft an effective pathway out of poverty. We term the human and social systems that are required to form this pathway "invisible infrastructure" and argue that an effective domestic state is central to building this. By corollary, ending extreme poverty will require both expanding state capacity and giving the poor power to demand reforms they need by solving agency problems between citizens, politicians, and bureaucrats.

We link over- and under-confidence in math at ages 8-11 to education and employment outcomes 22 years later among the children of PSID households. About twenty percent of children have markedly biased beliefs about their math ability, and beliefs are strongly gendered. Conditional on measured ability, childhood over- and under-confidence predict adolescent test scores, high school and college graduation, majoring or working in STEM, earnings, and unemployment. Across all metrics, higher confidence predicts better outcomes. These biased beliefs persist into adulthood and could continue to affect outcomes as respondents age, since intermediate outcomes do not fully explain these long-run correlations.

Draft available here.

Abstract. Political action spreads through social networks, so citizens may have power to shape policy both through their own advocacy and by recruiting others to act. Do citizens try to spread grassroots action? If so, do they work to build broad, bipartisan coalitions or to recruit others like them? We focus on the climate movement, where most citizen advocates are Democrats. Mobilizing bipartisan action could more effectively promote climate policy in Congress, but record-high affective polarization—animosity towards counter-partisans—may impede cross-party grassroots cooperation. In online experiments with 25,000 participants, we connect Democrats with other Americans across the political spectrum (all of whom believe climate change is human-caused) to understand whether and how they try to recruit others to push for climate policy. Democrats are motivated to recruit others—they are 10% more likely to email Congress when doing so allows them to invite others to act. Even while Democrats say that a bipartisan climate movement would be more effective, however, they are 27% more likely to invite other Democrats than Republicans to email Congress. This gap does not arise from Democrats’ own distaste for engaging with counter-partisans, but rather can be explained by their correct beliefs that their invitation will have about half as much impact on Republicans’ action. Anticipated affective polarization drives these beliefs: Democrats estimate that Republicans would respond three times more to invitations that did not identify them as Democrats.

Draft available here on SSRN. 

Abstract. Food systems account for approximately one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon-footprint labeling is an increasingly common tool to shift consumers towards lower-carbon diets. In a randomized field experiment with over 200,000 customers at a major US food-services company, we find that carbon labels increase customer retention by 1.1% and company profits by 0.9%, despite reducing customers’ carbon footprints by only 0.6%. These profit effects suggest that carbon labeling may remain a common sustainability tool, despite its small environmental benefits. Moreover, label targeting is crucial: labels may increase footprints among those who do not agree with their purpose.

Draft available here on SSRN.

Abstract. Policy progress often advances incrementally, and citizen movements must sustain engagement across wins and losses. Wins could mobilize citizens by building political-efficacy beliefs—perceived government responsiveness to citizen demands—but could also deflate demand for additional policy. In an online experiment (N≈6,000), learning about a major US climate policy slightly increases political-efficacy beliefs, but reduces demand for additional policy and has no effect on climate advocacy. In contrast, combining this information with a fictional narrative linking legislation to citizen action increases political-efficacy beliefs, policy demand, information-gathering about climate marches, and lobbying donations. These findings highlight the power of storytelling to shape political movements.