Syndicated loan data provided by DealScan is an essential input in banking research to answer urging questions on bank lending, e.g., in the presence of financial or geopolitical shocks or climate change. However, many data options raise the question of how to choose the estimation sample. We employ a standard regression framework analyzing bank lending during the financial crisis of 2007/08 to study how conventional but varying usages of DealScan affect the estimates. The key finding is that the direction of coefficients remains relatively robust. However, statistical significance depends on the data and sampling choice, and we provide guidelines for applied research.

This paper examines how firms adjust the number and types of workers they hire in response to increased biodiversity transition risk. Using the adoption of the Key Biodiversity Areas Standard of 2016 as a source of variation that increases the risk of future land-use restrictions, we find that firms reduce job postings in affected areas and reallocate labor to less exposed regions. This effect is concentrated among firms that make negative impacts on biodiversity. Cuts are stronger among production roles, while hiring in green and adaptive occupations increases. The effect is not driven by changes in capital investment or workers’ labor supply decisions. Our findings contribute to the ongoing debate on the costs and benefits of biodiversity conservation policies and their implications for labor market outcomes.

How do beliefs on admission probability influence application choices? In this study, we empirically investigate whether and how admission probability is reflected in application choices in a centralized admission system. We exploit a novel setting of a dynamic deferred acceptance mechanism as employed in Croatia with hourly information updates and simultaneous application choices. This setting allows us to explore within-applicant strategic adjustments as a reaction to changing signals on admission probability. We show in an RDD analysis that applicants react to negative signals on admission probability with an increased propensity to adjust their application choices by 11-23%. Additionally, we show how application strategies evolve over time, while applicants learn about their admission probability. The group most-at-risk to remain unmatched improves their application choices by applying to programs with a higher admission probability towards the application deadline. Yet, we also identify a popular and potentially harmful strategy of applying to safer programs before applying to more risky “reach” programs. About a quarter of applicants have the potential to improve their application choices by resorting their application choices.

Wage mobility reduces the persistence of wage inequality. We develop a framework to quantify the contribution of employer-to-employer movers to aggregate wage mobility. Using three decades of German social security data, we find that inequality increased while aggregate wage mobility decreased. Employer-to-employer movers exhibit higher wage mobility, mainly due to changes in employer wage premia at job change. The massive structural changes following German unification temporarily led to a high number of movers, which in turn boosted aggregate wage mobility. Wage mobility is much lower at the bottom of the wage distribution, and the decline in aggregate wage mobility since the 1980s is concentrated there. The overall decline can be mostly attributed to a reduction in wage mobility per mover, which is due to a compositional shift toward lower-wage movers.

We measure desired labour supply at the extensive (employment) margin in two representative surveys of the U.S. and German populations. We elicit reservation raises: the percent wage change that renders a given individual indifferent between employment and nonemployment. It is equal to her reservation wage divided by her actual, or potential, wage. The reservation raise distribution is the nonparametric aggregate labour supply curve. Locally, the curve exhibits large short-run elasticities above 3, consistent with business cycle evidence. For larger upward shifts, arc elasticities shrink towards 0.5, consistent with quasi-experimental evidence from tax holidays. Existing models fail to match this nonconstant, asymmetric curve.

Firm training is widely regarded as crucial for protecting workers from automation, yet there is a lack of empirical evidence to support this belief. Using internationally harmonized data from over 90,000 workers across 37 industrialized countries, we construct an individual-level measure of automation risk based on tasks performed at work. Our analysis reveals substantial within-occupation variation in automation risk, overlooked by existing occupation-level measures. To assess whether firm training mitigates automation risk, we exploit within-occupation and within-industry variation. Additionally, we employ entropy balancing to re-weight workers without firm training based on a rich set of background characteristics, including tested numeracy skills as a proxy for unobserved ability. We find that training reduces workers’ automation risk by 3.8 percentage points, equivalent to 8% of the average automation risk. The training-induced reduction in automation risk accounts for 15% of the wage returns to firm training. Firm training is effective in reducing automation risk and increasing wages across nearly all countries, underscoring the external validity of our findings. Training is similarly effective across gender, age, and education groups, suggesting widely shared benefits rather than gains concentrated in specific demographic segments.