This paper examines the impact of import competition on local labor market adjustments and the welfare of Peruvian workers, leveraging substantial tariff reductions on U.S. imports to Peru following the implementation of the U.S.–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) in 2009. We show that regions experiencing greater tariff reductions saw a sustained and pronounced rise in informal employment. Consistent with previous studies, our results confirm that the informal sector serves as an "employment buffer," cushioning the adverse labor demand shocks driven by import competition. Using worker-level panel data, we find that individuals in regions facing larger tariff reductions are more likely to transition into informal employment and work significantly longer hours. This shift is more pronounced among women, skilled workers, older workers, incumbents, and those already in informal employment. Finally, we explore the welfare implications, revealing that the informal sector also functions as a "welfare buffer" in the face of negative labor demand shocks. Our findings highlight the important role of trade liberalization in giving rise to informality, a prevalent phenomenon in low-income countries.

Leveraging the time variation in the arrival of submarine Internet cables across coastal African countries and the geographic variation of the cable connectivity in the 0.5*0.5 grid cell, we study the causal effect of the arrival of fast Internet on infant mortality in the late 2000s and early 2010s. The findings indicate that the arrival of fast Internet reduces infant mortality. In our exploration of mechanisms, we find the most support for the hypothesis that the fast Internet is a source of new and diverse information. Consistent with this hypothesis, we observe a significant increase in women's disapproval of domestic violence, trust in medicine, and preventive health behaviors. We also document that the arrival of fast internet links with increased labor market opportunities to support the alternative mechanism. 

This paper examines the impact of floods on U.S. presidential elections at the county level, using comprehensive data on floods and presidentially declared floods over the past 60 years. We estimate the political effects of floods on the incumbent vote share, finding that floods decrease the incumbent vote share, but these negative effects fade over time. Furthermore, we show that voters in flood-prone areas respond more negatively to the incumbent after floods. We also provide theoretical and empirical evidence to suggest that presidential declarations after floods partially compensate for the negative impacts on the incumbent vote share. Finally, we evaluate the disaster declaration policy implemented in 1953 and underscore its importance in ensuring a fair democratic process. Overall, our findings shed light on the electoral consequences of natural disasters and the role of government policies in mitigating their effects.