This paper investigates how gentrification affects the welfare of low-income incumbent renters. To do so, we construct an annual panel from US Census and IRS data tracking the earnings, workplaces, and residential addresses of over 3 million low-income urban renter households. We use this panel to conduct a comprehensive descriptive analysis and to estimate a dynamic structural model of residential and workplace choice. We find that, because low-income renters are highly mobile, the welfare effects of gentrification differ only modestly among renters initially living in different census tracts within the same metropolitan area. Our findings shift attention beyond changes in incumbent renters' initial neighborhoods to the metropolitan area choice sets that shape their welfare.

This paper investigates the role that residential vacancy chains – the sequence of moves across housing units initiated by the construction of a new housing unit – play in linking different housing submarkets. We focus in particular on how the market for suburban single-family homes affects the market for dense urban housing in multifamily buildings. Using administrative data on the residential histories of the U.S. population, we describe the distribution of vacancies created by different kinds of new housing. A key finding is that vacancy chains end quickly, with 90% ending within three rounds of moves. We then conduct a simulation exercise to understand what the observed patterns of vacancy chains imply about the welfare and price effects of new housing supply. We show that the geographic distribution of moves created by vacancy chains is correlated with the geographic distribution of welfare and price effects, and that the number of vacancies created in a neighborhood is as strong a predictor of price effects as are model-derived crossneighborhood substitution effects. These results, along with our descriptive results, imply that the incidence of the benefits of new housing depend strongly on what kind of housing is built and where.

This paper considers when policy makers should prioritize providing opportunities for families to leave disadvantaged neighborhoods in Greater Boston and when they should prioritize investing resources in these disadvantaged neighborhoods and their schools. To do so, the paper develops a quantitative spatial general equilibrium model that is amenable to optimal policy analysis for a broad class of spillover functions and agents with heterogeneous preferences. Upon quantifying the model using administrative US Census data on the residential histories of most ACS respondents in Greater Boston, I argue that as the social planner prioritizes the upward mobility of children vis-à-vis parents' utility, optimal policy integrates low-income families into Greater Boston's suburbs. However, given calibrations implying substantial complementarity between school spending and peer composition, school spending in the inner city remains ineffective. Children of parents with strong attachments to the inner city thus stay economically immobile under the optimal welfarist policy. Alternative policies concentrating spending in initially disadvantaged neighborhoods ensure a minimum level of economic mobility for all children, including those of parents with strong attachments to the inner city.

This paper presents a review of mostly experimental evidence demonstrating the potential usefulness of simplifying the college admission and enrollment process. Seemingly small differences in the process of students transitioning to college often determine whether some matriculate or not. Behavioral models that imply the possibility of sub-optimal long-run outcomes may be needed to better explain these results. We argue that the model which fits the results best is one where some students are inattentive to their college possibilities and therefore let opportunity slip by. Making the process to get to college easier and more salient helps offset this inattentiveness and prevents some exiting high school from falling through the cracks.

Behavioural economics incorporates ideas from psychology, sociology and neuroscience to better predict how individuals make long-term decisions. Often the ideas adopted include present or inattention bias, both potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. But these models also point to opportunities for effective, low-cost government policies that can have meaningful positive effects on people's long-term well-being. The last decade has been marked by a growing interest from governments the world over in using behavioural economics to inform policy decisions. This is true of Canada as well. In this paper we discuss the increasingly important role behavioural economics plays in Canadian public policy. We first contextualize government policies that have incorporated insights from behavioural economics by outlining a collection of models of intertemporal choice. We then present examples of public policy initiatives that are based upon findings in the field, placing particular emphasis on Canadian initiatives. We also document future opportunities, challenges and limitations.