user avatar
Charlie Rafkin
@CharlieRafkin
Public and behavioral economics Postdoc @UCBerkeley @Stanford, then assistant professor @UBC
Boston, MA
Joined February 2013
Posts
  • user avatar
    Very happy to share that I will start as an assistant professor at @ubcVSE in Jan 2026, after postdoc visits at Berkeley and Stanford! So grateful for my time at @MITEcon, and for my fantastic advisors, mentors, coauthors, and classmates.
    We're happy to announce three new hires, marking the end of a very successful recruiting year. Join us in welcoming Ying Gao, Charlie Rafkin (@CharlieRafkin), and Miguel Ortiz (@mortiz217 ) to Vancouver, and to UBC! Article: econ.cms.arts.ubc.ca/?p=32068
  • user avatar
    My paper on how changing government guidance affects the public’s beliefs — joint with @AdvikSh and @plvautrey — is now up on the @JPubEcon website! This is my first publication (!), and I am excited to share a little about it (1/N) sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
  • user avatar
    Earliest documented instance of econ hating… absolutely wrecked by Proudhon in 1840
  • user avatar
    A charity scales up a development intervention, conducts rigorous testing, finds a null result, and then pulls back. Of course disappointing that this particular program didn't work, but this is exactly how policy should be done
    Today, we’re proud to share an in-depth piece about why we #TestAtScale as an essential part of our #Beta process that takes #evidence-based interventions & incubates them for #scale to cost-effectively ↓ burden of #poverty for millions. bit.ly/2S3zogP
  • user avatar
    Mortality trends are catastrophic for people without a high school degree In our new AEJ: Applied paper, @thesamasher @paulnovosad and I show that selection alone is not responsible (using some nifty new tools)
    A 🧵 on our work on US mortality change, just out in AEJ:App, with @thesamasher and @charlierafkin. We ask: how concentrated is the U.S. pre-Covid mortality crisis? Is everyone doing a little worse, or is a small subset doing catastrophically worse? The graph is a spoiler 1/N
  • user avatar
    when someone asks about my research plans for the semester
  • user avatar
    Sharing some simple Javascript code embeds that can improve Qualtrics surveys for econ/social science research (+ if you have similar hacks, I'd love to see them!) github.com/crafkin/simple…
  • user avatar
    Sam, Paul and I have a new working paper on intergenerational mobility in India. We find evidence of very low (and declining) Muslim upward mobility in India — a stark contrast with mobility trends for India's other major demographics: dartmouth.edu/~novosad/anr-i…
  • user avatar
    During a global crisis, it is nice to have some constants to rely on. Gives a sense of normalcy e.g.: credulous coverage of correlational health studies as causal 🙃😩
  • user avatar
    Nothing to see here, totally normal democracy we have going
    I will give $1,000/mo for the next 12 months FREE to someone who retweets this and follows me by July 4th 😃 Let's show why money is the answer & why this is the campaign for people. No purchase necessary. US citizens only. yang2020.com/rules
  • user avatar
    What is the German compound word for "feeling surprised, alarmed, and somewhat sad that I did not know this very basic fact about a computer programming language that I have used full time for several years" 😱
    Important PSA: @Stata supports multiple missing values (not just “.” but also e.g., “.a”). Using “!=.” as a test for nonmissing values is NOT robust and is asking for trouble! (Using the popular “<.” is even worse.) PLEASE always use “~missing(•)” (even in joke tweets 😉)
  • user avatar
    Replying to @salonium
    One flag is that the indirect effect on dementia is larger than the direct effect on shingles (at least in pp). My guess (based on v little tbf!) is that biologically plausible “passthrough” could be no larger than 1 in 5, but the study is not powered to detect effects that small
  • user avatar
    Replying to @Longreads
    thanks to @Longreads for featuring my article on Upper Valley poverty. let's start this conversation in Hanover. lgrd.co/1jmTr1m
  • user avatar
    Can both be true that: a. The polls were very bad, at least in some states. WI and MI polls had larger errors than '16 (even if they ultimately called the winner correctly) b. Polls are a better way of aggregating public opinion than the alternative (cringey diner interviews)