Applied Microeconomics
Applied Microeconomics
The Applied Microeconomics research group unites researchers working on a broad array of topics within such areas as labour economics, economics of education, health economics, family economics, urban economics, environmental economics, and the economics of science and innovation. The group operates in close collaboration with the CAGE Research Centre.
The group participates in the CAGE seminar on Applied Economics, which runs weekly on Tuesdays at 2:15pm. Students and faculty members of the group present their ongoing work in two brown bag seminars, held weekly on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 1pm. Students, in collaboration with faculty members, also organise a bi-weekly reading group in applied econometrics on Thursdays at 1pm. The group organises numerous events throughout the year, including the Research Away Day and several thematic workshops.
Our activities
Work in Progress seminars
Tuesdays and Wednesdays 1-2pm
Students and faculty members of the group present their work in progress in two brown bag seminars. See below for a detailed scheduled of speakers.
Applied Econometrics reading group
Thursdays (bi-weekly) 1-2pm
Organised by students in collaboration with faculty members. See the Events calendar below for further details
People
Academics
Academics associated with the Applied Microeconomics Group are:
Research Students
Events
Applied Economics, Econometrics & Public Policy (CAGE) Seminar - Imran Rasul (UCL)
Title: Ideas Generation and Innovation in Bureaucracies: Evidence from a Field Experiment and Qualitative Data
joint with Margherita Fornasari [World Bank], Daniel Rogger [World Bank] and Martin J.Williams [Michigan]
Abstract - We study the process of sparking innovation through ideas generation in bureaucracies, combining qualitative and quantitative evidence on workplace cultures, workplace climates, ideas generation and sharing, and bureaucratic performance. We study these issues at-scale, working with bureaucrats in all ministries served by the Ghanaian Civil Service. Our qualitative evidence suggests these organizations have strong hierarchical cultures, where juniors feel unable to raise ideas, they are not listened to when they do, or even fear being sanctioned for doing so. Our quantitative evidence comes from a field experiment training bureaucrats how to break down problems into simple solutions and raise these new ideas with colleagues. We implemented training at the individual level, and at the division-level to bureaucrats working together day-to-day. Our key finding is that individual level trainings were more effective in shifting workplace climates towards being open to new ideas, measured 6-18 months post-training. This led individuals to be more likely to raise and discuss new ideas, ultimately improving administrative processes and public service delivery. Division-level training was less effective because action plans drawn up by divisions after training failed to integrate in key aims of the intervention in terms of the nature of innovations proposed and collective steps to implementation. Rather, division-level plans reflected pre-existing workplace cultures that unrealistically aim for resource intensive systems-wide change, rather than bottom-up incremental innovation.