Below are two working papers that are still in progress.
Below are two working papers that are still in progress.
Combating LGBTphobia in Schools: Evidence from a Field Experiment in France, February 2025, with Stéphane Carcillo and Pedro Vergara Merino, IZA Discussion Paper Series No. 17683. Online access: here.
Abstract: This paper presents the first rigorous evaluation of school-based interventions aimed at reducing LGBTphobia. We focus on a classroom intervention that addresses the issue of LGBT harassment through perspective-taking and narrative exchange. Using a field experiment in France with more than 10,000 middle and high school students, we find robust evidence of strong positive effects, with variations across gender, age, and socio-economic status. We argue that changing perceptions of group norms is a key channel driving these heterogeneous effects.
SELECTED MENTIONS & REVIEWS
L'inclusion des personnes LGBTQ+ reste un défi collectif, March 21, 2025, Pierre Cahuc, Les Échos.
What 10,000 students taught us about combating LGBTphobia in schools, March 12, 2025, together with Stéphane Carcillo and Pedro Vergara Merino.
When Correspondence Studies Fail to Detect Hiring Discrimination, September 2019, with Pierre Cahuc, Stéphane Carcillo and Andreea Minea, IZA Discussion Paper Series No. 12653. Online access: here.
Abstract: Based on a correspondence study conducted in France, we show that fictitious low-skilled applicants in the private sector are half as likely to be called back by the employers when they are of North African rather than French origin. By contrast, the origin of the fictitious applicants does not impact their callback rate in the public sector. We run a survey revealing that recruiters display similarly strong negative discriminatory attitudes towards North Africans in both sectors. We set out a model explaining why differences in discrimination at the stage of invitation for interviews can arise when recruiters display identical discriminatory attitudes in both sectors. The estimation of this model shows that discrimination at the invitation stage is a poor predictor of discrimination at the hiring stage. This suggests that many correspondence studies may fail to detect hiring discrimination and its extent.