I am an Economics M-DPhil Candidate at the University of Oxford supervised by Professor Ian Crawford. My research interests include welfare, public, and behavioural economics.
I am also a Research Fellow at The Behavioural Insights Team.
I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Melbourne, and a Master's in Public Policy from Harvard Kennedy School.
You can reach me at hubert.wu@nuffield.ox.ac.uk.
International Comparisons: Multilateral Indices and Nonparametric Welfare Bounds
[Paper] [Slides]
Abstract: Multilateral index numbers, such as those used to make international comparisons of prices and income, are fundamental objects in economics. However, these numbers are often challenging to interpret in terms of economic welfare as a data-dependent ‘taste bias’ can arise for these indices that distorts measurement of price and income levels and dispersion. To study this problem, I develop a means to appraise indices’ economic interpretability using non-parametric bounds on a true cost-of-living index. These bounds improve upon their classical counterparts, define a new class of indices, and can correct existing indices for preference misspecification. In my main application I apprise existing international comparison methods. I find that taste bias generally leads to overestimates (underestimates) of price (income) levels. Superlative indices, such as the Fisher-GEKS index, lie within the permitted bounds more frequently than non-superlative methods, but the mean size of this bias is modest in all examined cases. My results can thus be interpreted as supporting the economic validity of the myriad multilateral methods which are in practical use.
The Behavioural Economy: A 10 point plan to upgrade economic policy (with Nida Broughton, Lis Costa, David Halpern, Johannes Lohmann, Richard O’Brien, Pantelis Solomon, Stefanie Schultheis, and Natalia Shakhina), 2020 [Paper]
Summary: We present a 10‑point roadmap to embed behavioural science into economic policymaking across three levels: micro (households/jobs), meso (markets), and macro (economy-wide). At the micro level, we recommend reshaping tax incentives to encourage saving and redesigning job support using behavioural insights. At the meso level, we encourage measuring and reducing market “sludge,” increasing transparency in services and employers, and harnessing 'smart data' to lower switching costs and spur competition. On the macro front, we highlight the potential for improving stimulus delivery through behavioural targeting, redesigning tax reliefs to overcome psychological barriers, and integrating social trust and experimental rigour into policymaking.
Trust mechanisms and online platforms: A regulatory response (with Mitch Watt), 2018 [Paper]
Harvard Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Governance Associate Working Paper Series No. 97
Summary: We examine how online platforms deploy trust mechanisms—such as ratings, reviews, background checks, and algorithmic filters—to facilitate trust and enable transactions in digital marketplaces. We introduce a novel classification framework of these mchanisms based on participants, informational content, and function, applying it across five industries (e‑commerce, ride‑sharing, accommodation, advertising, freelance labor) and 29 platforms. We find that design choices respond to specific trust problems and can influence market competition. We then analyze the benefits (e.g., reducing regulatory burdens, expanding markets, enhancing government targeting of interventions) and harms (e.g., information opacity, reputation gaming, discrimination). Finally, we offer policy recommendations for regulators and platforms to enhance transparency, promote best practices, adjust licensing frameworks, and improve public-sector data use.
Dream Hoarders Down Under: A Review and Comparison (with Nicholas Biddle), 2018 [Paper (gated) [Short article in The Conversation]
Economic Record, 94 (307), 502-505.
Summary: We review Richard Reeves’s Dream Hoarders, which argues that America’s upper middle class (top 20%) secures its advantages by both cultivating merit and “hoarding opportunities” through means including zoning, legacy admissions, and nepotism. We compare these societal trends to the outlook in Australia, where similar patterns of income and educational inequality exist despite different institutions and demographics. We examin Reeves' focus on early life and note that later-life educational choices may also shape mobility in imporatn ways. We also consider how technology and inter-firm inequality could further entrench class divides, raising questions about the future of social mobility and policy responses.