Economics of LGBTQ+ Individuals Virtual Seminar Series

Tuesdays at Noon ET (16:00 UTC)


The one-hour seminar includes a 35-minute presentation by the author and 25 minutes for questions and discussion. Please contact Michael Martell at with any questions or feedback.

Please sign up to receive the link to the Zoom meeting each week.

Click here for a list of previous seminars: 2020 | 2021 | 2022

Upcoming Seminars


August 16, 2022
Do LGBTQ-related Events Drive Individual Online Disclosure Decisions?
Jason Jones (

Abstract: When and how to come out are difficult choices. In this research project, we examine one form of disclosure: the addition of an LGBTQ keyword to one's online social media profile. We construct daily time series of the prevalence of American Twitter users whose self-descriptions contain LGBTQ keywords. Further, we construct daily time series of inferred add and delete events - i.e. we make best estimates for how many users per day make an edit to include a previously absent word or remove a word previously present. These we compare to relevant annual and one-time events such as LGBTQ Pride Month and the date of the Pulse Nightclub shooting. We confirm one pre-registered hypothesis and explore several others.


Fall 2022 Seminar Schedule

Job Market Candidates:

September 6: Conversion Therapy Bans, Suicidality, and Mental Health
Benjamin Harrell (

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among 10-25 year-olds, and LGBTQ+ youth are four times more likely to attempt. Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity Change Efforts (SOGICE), sometimes known as Conversion Therapy, is a set of pseudoscientific interventions aimed at enforcing heterosexual attraction and cisgender identity and/or expression that has been shown to further raise the risk of suicide.  While the practice has been rejected for some time by professional organizations like the American Psychological and American Psychiatric Association, state-wide statutory bans of the practice were not passed until 2012.  I use a combination of data from national mortality files, national survey data, and Google trends data to estimate a series of difference-in-difference models that show these bans lead to modest reductions in deaths by suicide and improvements in self-reported mental health driven mostly by young men, while also leading to lower google search intensity for consumer-related conversion therapy terms overall. 

September 13: Anti-Discrimination Laws and Mental Health: Evidence from Sexual Minorities
Samuel Mann (

This paper provides the first causal evidence on the effect of Anti-Discrimination Laws on mental health. Exploiting the roll out of Anti-Discrimination Laws at the state level within a difference-in-difference model that is robust to staggered timing I document that these laws reduce the number of poor mental health days by around 11% for male sexual minorities but have no significant impact on female sexual minorities. I leverage data from several sources to explore plausible mechanisms. I demonstrate that these mental health effects are unlikely a result of changes in labor market outcomes or health insurance coverage, and instead are likely driven by significant reductions in animosity and prejudice and improvements in workplace climate. I demonstrate that these changes in discrimination are gendered: with reductions in prejudice being principally driven by reductions in prejudice towards sexual minority men.

September 20: Power to the teens: collective labor supply model with parents and teenager
José  Alfonso (

Teenagers are key members of the household. They provide domestic work, consume and, sometimes, provide income. However, regular household models do not consider them as active members, even when empirical evidence says otherwise. Using data from the Costa Rican Household Survey, I show that households benefiting from a high school transfer reallocate parents' and teenager's time. Most specifically, the mother decreases market participation, while the teen dedicates more time to schooling and less to domestic labor. To explain these results, I present a collective labor household model with the parents and the teen as decision-makers. This model allows me to quantify a bargaining effect of the teenager when the household receives an exogenous income and see its effect on parents' labor outcomes and household domestic time allocation.

September 27: Local Income, Race, and Mortality
EK Green (

Racial disparities in infant mortality are persistent and significant even today, though some progress has been made in reducing infant mortality rates and closing these racial gaps. There is a significant literature studying the reasons for these gaps and how it has changed over time. Economic literature has considered the relationship between economic features, and health outcomes. My project bridges these two literatures and in particular considers the changes in these relationships over time. My paper makes a unique contribution in considering local economic features, rather than national shocks, by looking at state and county level income and income changes, and also by looking at county-level mortality measures. The period considered in this research, 1959-2001, includes particularly steep declines in infant mortality, particularly for Black Americans.

Throughout analyses of the data, several key patterns emerge. As expected given documented disparities, non-white infants and non-white individuals in general are more likely to face higher mortality rates. A consistent pattern suggests that living in higher-average-income states or counties is associated with lowering infant mortality and overall mortality rates more per dollar for non-whites, though this does not outweigh the overall effect of higher mortality rates for non-whites. Considering results by time, earlier periods tend to show worse mortality disparities for non-whites, as well as steeper declines per dollar of average income for their state or county of residence. These patterns point to potential avenues for further investigation, such as considering unemployment alongside income, or considering hospital availability in relation to local income. 

October 4: The Effect of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) on Suicide Rates
Hasan Shahid (

The HIV/AIDS crisis was associated with heightened homophobia, an increased pressure to come out, and the risk of dying from a highly infectious disease. In 1995, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved saquinavir, the first protease inhibitor. This ushered in a new era of combination drug therapies which became known as Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART). HAART was a game changer in this epidemic and led to a substantial reduction in HIV-associated mortality. The introduction of HAART is associated with reduced suicide risk amongst HIV positive individuals (Keiser et al., 2010) and a reduction in homophobia in high HIV states relative to low HIV states (Fern ìandez, Parsa, & Viarengo, 2019). Despite clear mechanisms by which the introduction of HAART could improve mental health outcomes of at-risk groups, to the best of my knowledge, no study estimates the effects of HAART on suicide rates in the US. This paper exploits spatial variation in HIV incidence at the time HAART treatment was introduced, while controlling for other factors which might explain changes is suicide rates, and finds that the introduction of HAART led to a disproportionate decrease in suicide rates, for men aged 25 to 44, in counties with high rates of HIV-incidence compared to counties with low rates of HIV. When comparing counties in the top decile of pre-HAART HIV incidence to counties in the bottom 3, this paper estimates a reduction in men’s suicide rate of approximately 25%. Since women are less likely to contract HIV and less likely to be affected by the introduction of HAART, this paper also employs a triple difference approach where it differences out effects on women’s suicide rate and finds that estimates are robust.

October 11: Mechanisms of Misinformation Diffusion
Jimmy Narang (

We conduct a set of lab-in-field experiments in India to understand how misinformation can spread through peer-to-peer messaging. We examine how sharers make sharing choices based on a story's (perceived) accuracy and the cost/benefit of sharing it; and receivers form an opinion about the story based on its content and their assessment of the sharers' discernment & motivations. The experiments also provide estimates of Indian citizens' ability to discern misinformation of various topics (health, politics & identity, finance), and the types of stories they like to share. 

October 18: The Effects of Post-Release Supervision on Crime and Recidivism
By Abigail R. Banan (

Abstract: To help offenders have an orderly and successful transition back into society upon their release from prison, many correctional programs have supervision requirements for these criminal offenders. The Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011 enacted in North Carolina presents an opportunity to study the causal effects of supervision upon release from prison on the extensive margin. Prior to 2011, inmates who commit lower-level criminal offenses are not subject to any supervision upon their release from prison. The Justice Reinvestment Act changed the law to require nine months of post-release supervision for the aforementioned levels of crime. If these released offenders violate the terms of their supervision, they are sent back to prison for three to nine months depending on the severity of their violation. This paper utilizes administrative data from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. I use a regression discontinuity in time model as well as duration models to explore the effects of this legislative change on criminal outcomes and recidivism. Evidence indicates that post-release supervision decreases property and violent crimes but has no perceivable effect on sex, drug, or procedural crimes. Evidence does not suggest that the decrease in crime persists beyond the supervision period. Furthermore, supervision upon release leads to more individuals returning to prison at a faster rate due to technical, not criminal, violations. These results suggest that requiring lower-level offenders to undergo post-release supervision may be more costly to society than is saved from crime prevention.  

October 25: Bikesharing, Metro Stations, and House Prices: Evidence from Washington’s Capital Bikeshare System
Xinxin Cao (

As a green mode of transportation, technology-based public bike-sharing systems were introduced in the U.S. over a decade ago and have gained popularity over the years. Bike-sharing systems can act as amenities to neighborhoods as they help residents commute, save travel time, and provide a solution to the “last-mile problem” for residents living within a certain radius of metro stations. Meanwhile, bike-sharing systems may lead to safety hazards and disruption of a quiet neighborhood. Therefore, the overall effect of bike-sharing systems on residential property prices and metro station house price gradient is ambiguous. How the impact of bike-sharing systems is capitalized on residential house prices in the U.S. has not been studied extensively. Previous studies that analyze the effects of bike-sharing systems on house prices focus mainly on the impact of bike-sharing systems on house prices without addressing the impacts of metro station house price gradient. With detailed property level transaction data from Zillow and locations and opening dates of each Capital Bikeshare station and metro station, this paper studies the impact of docked bike-sharing system on both residential house prices and metro station house price gradient in the Washington Metropolitan Area using a hedonic regression model with difference-in-differences. The paper also studies the association between proximity to metro stations and residential property prices. Results show that introducing bike-sharing stations near residential properties has heterogeneous effects on metro station house price gradient. Single-family houses within 0.5 miles of metro stations experience an increase in prices while those outside the distance do not. Townhouse prices do not change within 0.5 miles of metro stations while they increase outside of the radius. Condominiums within 0.5 to 1.25 miles of metro stations experience an increase in price, while condominiums outside the 1.25-mile radius decline in price. The findings also support a generally perceived downward sloping metro station house price gradient.

November 1: Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances and Drug Mortality
Ashley Bradford (

Criminal Activity Nuisance Ordinances (CANOs) are municipal-level laws ostensibly aimed at reducing police department burden by placing the responsibility of tenant actions on the property owner. In general, this means that property owners are penalized for tenants who exhibit any behavior that the city has deemed criminal (such as 911 abuse, domestic abuse, or drug-related events). Additionally, there is evidence indicating that these laws are often applied to minor non-criminal activities. Landlords must abate the nuisance in order to prevent the penalty. Often, the means of abatement is eviction. It is possible that CANOs discourage tenants from calling 911 for assistance in a variety of situations, including substance-use related emergencies. If this is the case, we would expect an increase in substance-use related mortality following the adoption of such policies. This study explores the relationship between CANOs and categories of drug mortality rates using data on all CANOs in Ohio from 1999 to 2017. I find that the implementation of these laws is associated with an increase in the mortality from multiple categories of accidental opioid-related overdose rates, as well as cocaine-, benzodiazepine-, and stimulant-related overdose rates per 100,000 residents. I also explore eviction as a possible mechanism. I find evidence that CANOs are associated with increases in city-level eviction rates, potentially explaining one pathway between CANO adoption and drug-related mortality events. This is the first ever study to investigate an important unintended consequence of CANOs which may be limiting the effectiveness of policies previously found to reduce overdose mortality.  

November 8: #IamLGBT: Social networks and coming out in a hostile environment
Jan Gromadzki (, Przemyslaw Siemaszko 

Recent decades have witnessed a remarkable increase in the number of people disclosing their LGBTQ identity. We propose a model of a binary-action supermodular game on a network with social learning to investigate the role of peer effects in coming out decisions and analyse the perfect Bayesian equilibrium we obtain. We collected unique data on coming outs which occurred during two spontaneous Twitter actions in Poland. We use these data to empirically test the hypothesis that observing peers coming out increases the probability that an individual will make a decision to disclose their LGBTQ identity. The estimated peer effects are strong and statistically significant. The spread of information about the existence of the action through networks does not explain the results. Instead, we argue that these effects are due to changes in beliefs about the costs of disclosure. 

November 15: Do LGBTQ-related Events Drive Individual Online Disclosure Decisions?
Jason J. Jones (

When and how to come out are difficult choices. In this research project, we examine one form of disclosure: the addition of an LGBTQ keyword to one's online social media profile. We construct daily time series of the prevalence of American Twitter users whose self-descriptions contain LGBTQ keywords. Further, we construct daily time series of inferred add and delete events - i.e. we make best estimates for how many users per day make an edit to include a previously absent word or remove a word previously present. These we compare to relevant annual and one-time events such as LGBTQ Pride Month and the date of the Pulse Nightclub shooting. We confirm one pre-registered hypothesis and explore several others.

November 22: No Seminar – Day after SEA Meetings

November 29: If You (Re)Build It, Will They Come? Evidence from California Hospitals
Zach Levin (

Hospitalization represents the largest share of total healthcare expenditure – reaching $1.2 trillion in 2019. Amidst a flurry of mergers and acquisitions, increased consumer cost sharing, and risk-based insurance arrangements, hospitals have continued to invest significant amounts of money in infrastructure improvements. A recent estimate found that in the United States,hospitals spend around $25 billion a year alone on construction projects. These expenditures have been understudied in the literature given the potential impacts they may have on patients, physicians, and markets overall. I utilize data from California to estimate the impact of major hospital construction projects on patient demand. Patients may view new and/or improved facilities as a quality or experience signal that influences their decision-making when it comes to receiving care. By linking discharge data to a novel dataset of hospital facility information, I use a patient choice model to estimate the influence of renovations/rebuilds. Over the period 2009-2015, I observe more than sixty facilities undergo a major expansion, addition, or replacement facility. I find a positive association between these projects and the probability a patient chooses that facility. Estimating by payor, this result remains strong for Medicare fee-for-service patients, notable for having the widest set of choices when it comes to hospitals. I find mixed evidence when looking separately at profitable procedures which are potential hospital revenue targets. Overall, my results suggest that hospital construction projects may influence patient demand for hospital care. This finding may motivate policymakers to consider facility investment in light of competition policy, especially in increasingly concentrated markets.

LGBTQ+ Papers by non-JMCs

December 6: Inclusive Law and Democrats Votes - Evidence from Law of Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.
Luyang Chen (

While the content of inclusive laws directly benefits minorities, these laws may have both positive and negative unintended consequences on attitudes towards minorities and on the public’s perception of the efficacy of institutions responsible for the passing of these laws, with consequences for voting behavior. Between 2003 and 2014, 36 states legalized Same-Sex Marriage (SSM), before it was made legal across the whole country in 2015 by Supreme Court ruling. Democrats played an active role in efforts to promote SSM, while Republicans tend to hold more conservative social values and to oppose SSM. Democrat vs. Republican voting may therefore be impacted by the legalization of SSM through two channels: a political efficacy channel and a social values channel. 

To analyze the effects of SSM on voting, I use data from presidential election results and the American National Election Survey. The variation in the timing of SSM across states allows me to implement a staggered difference-in-differences design. Since the linear two-way fixed effects estimator is not robust to heterogeneous effects, I estimate the instantaneous treatment effects using the new estimator proposed by de Chaisemartin and D’Haultfoeuille (2020), which uses the ‘Not-Yet-Treated’ as the control group. 

I find that SSM increases Democrat votes in the first-treated election. The effects are mainly from counties dominated by the Republican party at baseline. Turning to mechanisms, SSM does not affect attitudes towards LGBTQs, but it increases trust in government. Moreover, I rule out some alternative mechanisms by showing that SSM does not affect voter turnout, party affiliation or the share of swing voters (defined as people who have contradicting attitudes towards the two parties). 

I address the endogeneity concern that states with more progressive people may adopt SSM earlier than other states in several ways. First, a placebo treatment, which “switches on” one election before the actual first-treated election, has no effects on voting. I also control for potential sources of endogeneity by allowing differential trends according to baseline democratographical features and election results. In addition, I confirm that SSM does not affect inter-state migration. Another critical concern is that SSM may come up with other left-wing social welfare policies. I show that SSM does not affect government spending on social services, subsidies and so on. Finally, I show that SSM has no effect on a set of un-related attitudes. 

December 13:  Understanding Labor Market Discrimination Against Transgender People: Evidence from a Double List Experiment and a Survey
Billur Aksoy ( (with Christopher S. Carpenter and Dario Sansone)

Using a US nationally representative sample and a double list experiment designed to elicit views free from social desirability bias, we find that anti-transgender attitudes in the labor market are significantly underreported. After correcting for this concealment, we report that 73% of people would be comfortable with a transgender manager and 74% support employment non-discrimination protection for transgender people. We also show that respondents severely underestimate the population level of support for transgender individuals in the workplace. Our results provide timely evidence on workplace-related views toward transgender people and help us better understand employment discrimination against them.

December 20: Gender, Sexual Identity, and Competitiveness
Ian Chadd ( (with Billur Aksoy)

In the United States, there are significant differences in the socio-economic status of sexual minorities relative to heterosexuals. For example, LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to be unemployed and have lower income than the general population. These disparities could arise due to discrimination, but differences in economic preferences may also be an important channel. In this paper, we study the relationship between sexual minority status, gender, and competitiveness. First, we replicate the gender gap with our heterosexual participants and find a similar gender gap also for homosexual participants. Second, we find a sexual orientation gap in willingness to compete which is mostly explained by differences in self-confidence. We argue that these findings in willingness to compete may emerge as a result of individuals' social status or power in the society. 

Previous Seminars


April 15, 2020
Ian Burn, University of Liverpool (with Mike Martell)
"Gender Typicality and Sexual Orientation Earnings Differentials"

April 22, 2020
Shuai Chen, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (with Jan van Ours)
"Mental Health Effects of Same-Sex Marriage Legalization"

April 29, 2020
David Schwegman, American University (with Mattie Mackenzie-Liu and Leonard Lopoo)
"Do Foster Care Agencies Discriminate Against Gay Couples? Evidence from a Correspondence Study" 

May 6, 2020
Kitt Carpenter, Vanderbilt University (with Gilbert Gonzales Jr. Tara McKay and Dario Sansone)
"Effects of the Affordable Care Act Dependent Coverage Mandate on Health Insurance Coverage for Individuals in Same-Sex Couples" 

May 13, 2020
Charlie Whittington (she/her), Human Rights Campaign Foundation (with Dan Stewart (he/him))
"The Moderating Role of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Relationship Between Income and Complications During COVID-19 Infection" 

May 20, 2020
Ian Chadd, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (with Billur Aksoy)
"Queer Preferences for Competition" 

May 27, 2020
Travis Campbell, University of Massachusetts - Amherst (with Lee Badgett and Everest Brennan)
"Beyond the Gender Binary: Transgender Labor Force Status in the United States 2014-2017" 

June 3, 2020
Emily Nix, University of Southern California (with Martin Eckhoff Andresen)
"What Causes the Child Penalty and How Can it be Reduced? Evidence from Same-Sex Couples and Policy Reforms" 

June 10, 2020
Matthew Shannon, University College, Dublin
"The Labour Market Outcomes of Transgender Individuals"

June 17, 2020
Connor Redpath, University of California, San Diego
"Access to Marriage Affects Couples’ Assortativeness: Evidence from Same-Sex Marriage Legalization"

June 24, 2020
Michael Martell, Bard College
"Tolerance and the Labor Supply of Gays and Lesbians"

July 1, 2020
Joanne Hadaad, University of Ottawa (with Abel Brodeur)
"Institutions, Attitudes and LGBT: Evidence from the Gold Rush" 

July 15, 2020
Ralph Dehaas, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, CEPR, and Tilburg University (with Victoria Baranov and Pauline Grosjean)
"Men. Roots and Consequences of Masculinity Norms" 

August 26, 2020
Raquel Fernandez, New York University (with Sahar Parsa and Martina Viarengo)
"Coming Out in America"

September 16, 2020
Roberto Ivo da Rocha Lima Filho, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
"Decision Neuroscience Applied to a Trading Environment: An EEG Approach"

September 23, 2020
Nir Eilam, University of Texas, Austin (with Scott Delhommer)
"PrEP and Moral Hazard"

October 7, 2020
Luca Fumarco and Eva Dils, Tulane University (with Patrick Button, Benjamin Harrell, and David J. Schwegman)
"Gender Identity, Race, and Ethnicity Discrimination in Access to Mental Health Care: Evidence from an Audit Field Experiment" 

October 14, 2020
William Delgado, University of Chicago
"Teachers’ Comparative Advantage, School Segregation, and Educational Mobility in Chicago Public Schools"

October 21, 2020
Hyunmin Park, University of Chicago
"Specific Human Capital and Employment Dynamics"

October 28, 2020
Hani Mansour, University of Colorado, Denver
"Voting and Political Participation in the Aftermath of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic"

November 18, 2020
Ylva Moberg, Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI) (with Marie Evertsson and Maaike van der Vleuten)
"The child penalty in same-sex and different-sex couples in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland" 

December 2, 2020
Raquel Fernandez, New York University (with Sahar Parsa and Martina Viarengo)
"Coming Out in America" 

December 9, 2020
Lucas Tilley will present "The Labor Market and Health Effects of Gender Dysphoria: Evidence from Sweden" (with Ian Burn, Ylva Moberg and Emma von Essen)

December 16, 2020
Sheheryar Banuri (University of East Anglia) "On the process of discrimination in healthcare: A field experiment with Pakistan’s Transgender community" (with Husnain F. Ahmad and Farasat Bokhari)


February 2, 2021
Samuel Mann, Swanswea University
"Sexual Orientation, Political Trust, and Same-Sex Relationship Recognition Policies: Evidence from Europe"

February 16, 2021
Marcus Dillender, University of Illinois at Chicago
"Does Place-Based Federal Health Funding Work? Evidence and Lessons from the Fight against HIV/AIDS"

March 2, 2021
Bridget Hiedemann and Lisa Brodoff, Seattle University
"Marriage Equality and Activity Limitations among Older Adults in Same-Sex Relationships"

March 16, 2021
Travis Campbell, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
"Health insurance coverage and health outcomes among transgender adults in the U.S."

March 30, 2021
Silvia Palmaccio, KU Leuven
"Early Labor Market Outcomes of Children in Same-Sex Families: Evidence from Population Data"

April 13, 2021
Joshua Martin, West Virginia University
"The Effect of Same-Sex Partnership Laws on Adoptions and Family Formation in the US"

April 20, 2021
Max Lee, San Francisco State University
"Schooling and Coming Out: Education as a Coping Mechanism"

May 4, 2021
Billur Aksoy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
"Hidden Identity and Social Preferences: Evidence From Sexual Minorities"

May 18, 2021
Raquel Fernandez, New York University (with Sahar Parsa and Martina Viarengo)
"Coming Out in America"

July 20, 2021
Mike Martell, Bard College
“Labor market differentials estimated with researcher-inferred and self-identified sexual orientation”

August 31, 2021
Billur Aksoy, Christopher “Kitt” Carpenter, and Dario Sansone
"Survey Experiments on LGBTQ Individuals: A Preliminary Design"

September 14th at 12:00 ET:
Moving for Love? Migration in Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Relationships
Etienne Makdissi (

September 21 at 12:00 ET:
Heated Tobacco Products (HTP) Taxation and Tobacco Use in Japan and Korea
Shaoying Ma (, Ce Shang, Kai-Wen Cheng, Hye Myung Lee, Hong Gwan Seo, Sungkyu Lee, Sujin Lim, Sung-il Cho, Shannon Gravely, Steve Xu, Anne C. K. Quah and Geoffrey T. Fong

September 28th at 12:00 ET:
How Does the Earned Income Tax Credit Affect Household Expenditures for Single Female Heads of Households?
Arian Seifoddini (

October 5th at 12:00 ET:
Duration Dependence: Learning from Advance Notice
Div Bhagia (

October 12th at 12:00 ET:
Gender Differences in the Cost of Corrections in Group Work
Yuki Takahashi (

October 19th at 12:00 ET:
Estimating the nature of corruption: evidence from a policy experiment in Brazil
Murilo Ramos (

October 26th at 12:00 ET:
From Taxation to Fighting for the Nation: Historical Fiscal Capacity and Military Draft Evasion during WWI
Luca Bagnato (

November 2nd at 12:00 ET: 
Same-Sex Couples and Parental Earnings Dynamics
Rachel Nesbit ( (with Barbara Downs, Lucia Foster, and Danielle Sandler)

November 9th at 12:00 ET:
The effects of anti-LGBTQ+ curriculums: Evidence from Utah's 'no promo homo' repeal
Santiago Deambrosi (

November 16th at 12:00 ET:
Do gender-nonconforming peers influence their classmates' life outcomes?
Abigail R. Banan (

November 23rd at 12:00 ET:

December 7th at 12:00 ET:
Employer Sponsored Health Insurance and Labor Market Outcomes for Gay Men: Evidence from the Advent of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis
Conor Lennon (

December 14th at 12:00 ET:
The introduction of Prep and HIV: Incidence, Mortality and Heterogeneity
Sebastian Tello-Trillo (


February 1, 2022
“Economic Outcomes for Transgender People in the United States: First Estimates from a Nationally Representative Sample”
Christopher S. Carpenter ( with Maxine J. Lee and Laura Nettuno

February 15, 2022
“Elite Endorsement of Emergent Issues in Weak States: Survey Experimental Evidence on Same-sex Marriage in Nepal”
Siddhartha Baral ( with Sarah Rich-Zendel 

February 22, 2022
“Identifying Effective Strategies to Improve Livelihoods of LGBTI People” and a panel on Research Opportunities related to Development.
Lee Badgett ( with James Heintz 

March 1, 2022
“The LGBTQ+ Gap: Recent Estimates for Young Adults in the United States”
Marc Folch (

March 8, 2022
“The Impact of Sodomy Law Repeals on Crime”
Riccardo Ciacci ( and Dario Sansone

March 15, 2022
“Gender and LGB Pay Gaps in the National Health Service: The Puzzle of Observability and Disclosure”
Karen Mumford (

March 29, 2022
“Do Same-Sex Couples Induce Gentrification?”
Daniel J. Henderson ( with Mia Goodnature and Amanda Ross

April 5, 2022
“Gender Affirming Care and Transgender Health: Evidence fromMedicaid Coverage”
Samuel Mann ( with Travis Campbell and Duc Hien Nguyen

April 12, 2022
“Effects of Legal Same-Sex Marriage on Employer Offers of Domestic Partner Health Benefits”
Ben Harrell ( with Christopher S. Carpenter and Thomas Hegland

April 19, 2022
“Public Health Insurance Expansions and The Spread of Infectious Disease”
Shyam Raman ( with Katherine Wen, Ben Harrell, Sam Mann, and Alex Hollingsworth

April 26, 2022
“Intergenerational Mobility of LGBTQ+ Individuals”
Santiago Deambrosi (

June 14, 2022
Matching on Gender and Sexual Orientation
Edoardo Ciscato and Marion Goussé (

July 12, 2022
Commuting to work and gender-conforming social norms: evidence from same-sex couples
Sonia Oreffice ( ) and Dario Sansone