I am a Senior Research Scientist at the NYU Stern School of Business. I study questions in climate and labor economics, as well as innovation and entrepreneurship using tools from applied microeconomics.
In Fall 2026, I will start as an Assistant Professor of Finance at Stern at NYU Abu Dhabi.
I have a PhD in Sustainable Development from Columbia University and a BA in Economics from Princeton University.
Download CV (Updated Dec 12, 2025)
This perspective addresses two of humanity’s greatest challenges: feeding a growing population and conserving biodiversity. We begin by examining the legacy of Nikolai Vavilov, who pioneered the improvement of crops such as wheat and beans by hybridizing them with their wild relatives. This strategy used wild species biodiversity to introduce new genetic variation into crops, making them more resilient and productive. Its adoption around the world greatly increased food security and brought lasting benefits to humanity. However, since the 1990s, well-intentioned laws shifted the governance of biodiversity from a shared global resource to the sovereign control of nation states, with serious unintended consequences. These changes have disrupted the collection, preservation, exchange, and use of biodiversity, all of which are central to Vavilov’s strategy for crop improvement and to biodiversity science more broadly. Efforts at reform have been frustrated as the issues became moralized, inhibiting the open dialogue needed for change. Using foundational concepts shared by science and good governance, we propose seven empirically grounded principles for reform, to help realign biodiversity governance with its intended aims. We then suggest a framework—underpinned by global financing to protect biodiversity hotspots—that would allow the principles to work in practice. Together, these measures would create the conditions for stronger biodiversity conservation and research, agricultural development, global food security, and all the associated benefits to humanity.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Large disasters devastate economies, yet regional productivity and household income often improve in their wake. Why? Using administrative plant-level microdata from the US Census Bureau and an event study design, I trace the creative destruction process that follows large, federally declared floods. Exits rise after flooding, primarily among the least productive plants. Their second-hand machines are then reallocated toward more productive survivors and, notably, toward high-productivity entrants. Survivors also upgrade their machinery as they rebuild and see productivity gains. A key mechanism is that federal disaster spending expands access to financing, particularly for nimble, well-managed new and young firms that disproportionately drive job creation and productive churn. In the absence of federal aid, however, financing constraints dampen this creative destruction, misallocating resources and lowering residents' income. My findings reveal a novel, underappreciated channel through which government spending supports disaster-hit economies and underscore its critical role in a warming world.
Policy summary and outreach: Chicago Fed Insights, Nada es Gratis
Supported by: Equitable Growth Doctoral Research Grant, Columbia Center for Political Economy Graduate Research Grant
Hair texture is a phenotypical feature, yet Western norms favor straight hair over the kinky natural textures of Black populations. We conduct experiments in which university students and US adults rate the professionalism, competence, and agreeableness of headshots of hypothetical candidates for STEM professor jobs, with incentive-compatible rewards for truthful revelation. Relative to straightened hair (for women) and clean-cut hair (for men), kinky hair carries large penalties for Black individuals. These penalties are most pronounced for the professionalism and competence ratings of Black women and agreeableness of Black men. Racialized hair penalties also surpass penalties for objective photo elements like poor resolution or not smiling, implying that in mixed-race workplaces, Black individuals face penalties for not tightly adhering to Euro-centric hairstyle norms. This paper contributes to the study of discrimination by using advanced experimental methods to examine hair-based racial bias in STEM academic settings––contexts where optimal talent allocation is particularly crucial. Our findings also inform ongoing legal discourse around outlawing hair-based discrimination in the US.
Wondering how to pronounce my name? It is 'Taa-ree-kwa'. I am always happy to clarify, so please feel free to ask :)