This project aims to provide an exhaustive analysis of how pharmaceutical mergers and acquisitions affect market competition and prices of patent-protected branded drugs involved in the deal. So far, little direct evidence exists about the impact of mergers and acquisitions activity on pharmaceutical market outcomes, partly because reliable data on prices and ownership of drugs is very difficult to obtain. The scholars will assemble a comprehensive dataset tracking the ownership of new products. This will be one of the major contributions of this project since there are no data sources that systematically track the marketing rights of each pharmaceutical product. The project examines whether prices, sales, and formulary coverage of acquired products increase after acquisition and, if so, what types of acquisitions are more likely to lead to changes in these market outcomes. This project will be the first to examine the differences in how list and net prices of pharmaceuticals respond to changes in market structure and competition. It also asks why market outcomes change. Economic theory predicts that within-market (substitute products) mergers will lead to higher prices. More recent evidence suggests that cross-market (noncompeting products) mergers also may generate upward pricing pressure in markets. The project tests these theories in the context of the pharmaceutical market. It also explores alternative explanations, such as shifts in marketing strategy, by incorporating advertising data into the analysis. Finally, the project also investigates anticompetitive effects of acquisitions in the patent-protected branded drugs market and what types of deals are more likely to have an anticompetitive effect.

This project will leverage variations in implementation timing of the requirement in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Stimulus, or CARES, Act that employers notify recently separated workers of their eligibility for Unemployment Insurance. It seeks to causally identify whether notification improves the take-up of Unemployment Insurance with an emphasis on Black and Latino workers. The author will compile a database of states’ implementation of required separation notices by employers to employees by state and year. This project is expected to yield credible evidence regarding the efficacy of these employer separation notice requirements on the receipt of Unemployment Insurance. The project will further investigate whether such requirements close the racial divide in receiving Unemployment Insurance. Given known racialized disparities in receiving these benefits, the emphasis on this is critical. The distribution of information on UI eligibility as a mechanism in attenuating (or not) racial disparities would add to policymakers’ understanding of what is driving these disparities. In the case that separation notice requirements increase the take-up of Unemployment Insurance, the project has the potential to identify a relatively low-cost intervention with large payoffs. In the case that separation notice requirements do not improve UI take-up or close racial divides, policymakers may want to reconsider the universal requirements implemented as part of the CARES Act.

This project considers the interplay between paid and unpaid care work and the relationship between care work penalties and gender, race, and class inequalities. The author makes the novel argument that prior research does not sufficiently understand the combined effects of both paid and unpaid care work penalties and how they interact. To fill this gap, this project will develop a “care-work-systems” framework to determine how pay penalties for care work impact economic inequality. The project identifies that paid and unpaid care work penalties are often viewed as separate even though they impact each other. In addition to bringing these two skeins of research literature in conversation with one another, it will also bridge the research literatures in child care and eldercare, and integrate class, in addition to race and gender, into the analysis. In addition to the theoretical contribution, it proposes an empirical study to test this framework using panel data from three countries with different care infrastructures—the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany—to help shed light on how policies and social structures play a role in generating paid and unpaid care work penalties.

There is increasing evidence of monopsony power in labor markets, with implications of lower wages and higher inequality. One popular policy recommendation is to constrain such monopsony power through more organized unions of workers, such as in local bargaining councils—collections of trade unions and employers representing specific industry-regions that consultatively bargain over and set minimum wages and working conditions for those industry-regions. This project will study the effect of such “sectoral bargaining” using South African data. Using matched employer-employee tax data from the South African Revenue Service, Bassier will match these agreements to firms as demarcated by industry and location. There are currently 39 legally recognized bargaining councils in South Africa, each covering a specific industry-region. Bargaining councils are estimated to cover 40 percent of workers in the formal sector in South Africa, concentrated mainly in the manufacturing, construction, trade, and transport industries in addition to covering the public sector. This research could give insight into how sectoral bargaining could improve worker power and mitigate the effects of monopsonistic labor markets.

Central banks across the developed world are reconsidering their monetary policy frameworks and are frequently looking to academic research to inform the question of whether to stick with the dominant paradigm of inflation targeting or to adopt a new monetary policy regime. To address this question, Halperin and Caratelli will build a model where price stickiness is modeled in a substantially more realistic way, compared to other models, in order to explore whether it is optimal for central banks to use nominal income targeting rather than inflation targeting. The two researchers will examine whether nominal income targeting would mean that central banks would not have to tighten policy in response to strong wage growth, which could boost equitable growth.

This project examines how increasing labor market polarization affects the transmission of monetary policy. Specifically, Morrison will examine how heterogeneity in worker substitutability with capital affects the role the labor market plays in the transmission of monetary policy. The research will estimate the importance of a heterogeneous worker-capital substitutability channel of monetary policy—investment spurred by monetary policy will have muted effects on aggregate consumption if workers whose labor is complementary with capital tend to have lower marginal propensities to consume. To investigate this phenomenon, she first plans to build and solve a model that captures this effect, then estimate the impulse-response functions of wages of workers in various skill categories to unexpected expansionary monetary shocks.