I am an Economics M-DPhil Candidate at the University of Oxford supervised by Professor Ian Crawford. My work explores questions in welfare, public, and behavioural economics.
Before my doctoral studies, I was a Senior Advisor at the Behavioural Insights Team where I remain affiliated as a Research Fellow. I hold a BCom (Hons) from the University of Melbourne and a MPP from Harvard Kennedy School.
You can reach me at hubert.wu@nuffield.ox.ac.uk.
The Empirical Welfare Content of International Price and Income Comparisons [Paper]
Abstract: Multilateral index numbers, such as those used to make cross-country comparisons of prices and income, are fundamental objects in economics. However, these numbers can be challenging to interpret in terms of welfare due to a bias related to preference misspecification. To study this problem, I derive multilateral bounds on the cost of living implied by revealed preference. The bounds improve upon their classical bilateral counterparts, permit a benchmark-free appraisal of comparison methods, and define a novel index that is transitive, welfare-consistent, and which incorporates income effects. In an appraisal application I find support for the welfare-interpretability of many contemporary index methods, but not for market exchange rates. Turning to the end uses of cross-country comparisons themselves, I document that when calculated using an index based on the multilateral cost of living, the world in 2017 was substantially larger and more equal vis-à-vis the United States than suggested by conventional measures.
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: This paper examines 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.