Democracy is often linked to improved welfare. However, less is known about how these improvements are distributed between groups in society. Does democracy reduce the gap in welfare outcomes between disadvantaged and advantaged groups? If so, how? In answering these questions, we draw on the microeconomics literature on within-family variation to address issues of reverse causality and the omitted variable bias. We examine infant mortality in 3.8 million infants born between 1960 and 2016 in African countries, using twins and singletons as proxies for disadvantaged and advantaged groups, given that twins have a higher risk of mortality relative to singletons. We find strong and robust evidence that democracy reduces health inequality. Our evidence suggests that democracy expands the provision of basic goods in Africa. As disadvantaged groups start from a worse point than advantaged groups, they realize greater benefits. This, in turn, reduces the health disparity.

In a health crisis, how do early mitigation policies affect the effectiveness of later interventions? Using the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, we show that the stringency of early public health and safety interventions increased vaccine uptake among nursing homes' residents and employees; however, the effect was negative in states with low lockdown compliance. This negative effect was exacerbated in nursing homes with a larger proportion of Black residents. The analysis highlights the present-day relevance of the historical mistrust between Black populations and health authorities and how this manifests in long-term care institutions.

In a health crisis, how do early mitigation policies affect the effectiveness of later interventions? Using the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, we show that the stringency of early public health and safety interventions increased vaccine uptake among nursing homes' residents and employees; however, the effect was negative in states with low lockdown compliance. This negative effect was exacerbated in nursing homes with a larger proportion of Black residents. The analysis highlights the present-day relevance of the historical mistrust between Black populations and health authorities and how this manifests in long-term care institutions.

This paper examines racial disparities in economic publishing using bibliometric data from over 200 economic journals. We find notable differences in authorship between White and non-White authors, with Black, Hispanic, and Asian economists being significantly underrepresented in comparison to their share of the overall population. While non-White economists’ share of publications has increased over the last three decades, the average number of Top 5 journal publications by a non-White economist is 25% to 50% lower than that of a White economist in a comparable position. These disparities highlight the need for measures to enhance knowledge diversity within the economics profession.

This paper examines racial disparities in economic publishing using bibliometric data from over 200 economic journals. We find notable differences in authorship between White and non-White authors, with Black, Hispanic, and Asian economists being significantly underrepresented in comparison to their share of the overall population. While non-White economists’ share of publications has increased over the last three decades, the average number of Top 5 journal publications by a non-White economist is 25% to 50% lower than that of a White economist in a comparable position. These disparities highlight the need for measures to enhance knowledge diversity within the economics profession.

We use unique data on nursing home networks in the United States and estimation of state-level preference for prioritizing short-term economic gains over health to analyze the effects of race, laissez-faire (more tolerance to the virus spread) policies, and network centrality on COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes. Our findings suggest that laissez-faire policies increase deaths. Nursing homes with a larger share of black residents experience more deaths, but they are less vulnerable to laissez-faire policies, especially when not central in social networks. Our findings highlight significant interactions between COVID-19 policies, race, and network structure among U.S. seniors.

We use unique data on nursing home networks in the United States and estimation of state-level preference for prioritizing short-term economic gains over health to analyze the effects of race, laissez-faire (more tolerance to the virus spread) policies, and network centrality on COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes. Our findings suggest that laissez-faire policies increase deaths. Nursing homes with a larger share of black residents experience more deaths, but they are less vulnerable to laissez-faire policies, especially when not central in social networks. Our findings highlight significant interactions between COVID-19 policies, race, and network structure among U.S. seniors.

During a crisis, does ethnic composition influence policy efficiency? How do the effects of ethnic divisions differ from those of ethnic diversity? Using the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic, we show that ethnic divisions, rather than diversity, significantly reduce the efficacy of crisis response. U.S. counties with higher levels of ethnic divisions fared worse after lockdowns in COVID-19 cases and deaths. Diversity had little effect, except in highly segregated areas. Results are not driven by differences in politics, public goods, socioeconomics, or levels of high-risk populations.

During a crisis, does ethnic composition influence policy efficiency? How do the effects of ethnic divisions differ from those of ethnic diversity? Using the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic, we show that ethnic divisions, rather than diversity, significantly reduce the efficacy of crisis response. U.S. counties with higher levels of ethnic divisions fared worse after lockdowns in COVID-19 cases and deaths. Diversity had little effect, except in highly segregated areas. Results are not driven by differences in politics, public goods, socioeconomics, or levels of high-risk populations.

During a crisis, does ethnic composition influence policy efficiency? How do the effects of ethnic divisions differ from those of ethnic diversity? Using the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic, we show that ethnic divisions, rather than diversity, significantly reduce the efficacy of crisis response. U.S. counties with higher levels of ethnic divisions fared worse after lockdowns in COVID-19 cases and deaths. Diversity had little effect, except in highly segregated areas. Results are not driven by differences in politics, public goods, socioeconomics, or levels of high-risk populations.