Canishk Naik

Canishk Naik

Job Market Candidate

Department of Economics

Connect with me

Languages
English, German
Key Expertise
Public Economics, Behavioural Economics

About me

Canishk is a PhD candidate in the Department of Economics. He is on the job market in 2024/25. His research interests are in Public Economics and Psychology and Economics. He focuses on how governments can optimally provide a social safety net for the most vulnerable, and examines how psychological factors shape behaviour and impact policy effectiveness.

In his job market paper, he demonstrates that people with poor mental health are inefficiently screened out of social assistance despite their substantial need for support, implying barriers-to-access should be reduced. 

Contact Information

Email
c.naik@lse.ac.uk

Office Address
Department of Economics
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE

Contacts and Referees

Placement Officer
Matthias Doepke

Supervisors
Nava Ashraf
Johannes Spinnewijn

References
Nava Ashraf
Department of Economics
London School of Economics and Political Sciences
Houghton St, London WC2A 2AE
n.ashraf1@lse.ac.uk

Johannes Spinnewijn
Department of Economics
London School of Economics and Political Sciences
Houghton St, London WC2A 2AE
j.spinnewijn@lse.ac.uk

Daniel Reck
Department of Economics
University of Maryland
3114 Tydings Hall
7343 Preinkert Drive
College Park, MD 20742
dreck@umd.edu

Download CV

Job Market Paper

Mental Health and the Targeting of Social Assistance

People living with mental disorders are at a higher risk of needing income-support programs but face greater difficulty overcoming barriers to access. This paper investigates whether social assistance effectively reaches people with poor mental health. I measure mental health and social assistance take-up using Dutch administrative data and develop a theoretical framework to show how take-up levels and responses identify the marginal value of benefits (need) and the cost of barriers. These are key components for evaluating targeting effectiveness. I find that a policy increasing barriers disproportionately screens-out those with poor mental health, indicating a 65% higher cost of these barriers. Despite their higher cost, people with poor mental health have the same average take-up levels as those with good mental health, conditional on eligibility, which suggests greater need. To assess this, I show that individuals with poor mental health are more responsive to plausibly exogenous variation in benefits than those with good mental health, demonstrating that their need is twice as high. These estimates imply that people with poor mental health are inefficiently excluded from social assistance by barriers. Consequently, reducing barriers to take-up would be twice as effective as increasing benefits. I Link to paper.

 

Publications and Research

Working Papers

Intrapersonal Comparisons as Interpersonal Comparisons, with Daniel Reck. 
 We consider the optimal policy problem of a benevolent planner, who is uncertain about an individual’s true preferences because of inconsistencies in revealed preferences across be- havioral frames. We adapt theories of expected utility maximization and ambiguity aver- sion to characterize the planner’s objective, which results in welfarist criteria similar to social welfare functions, with intrapersonal frames replacing interpersonal types. Under paternalistic risk aversion or ambiguity aversion, a policy is less desirable to the planner, holding all else fixed, when it leads to more disagreement about welfare from revealed pref- erences. We map some examples of behavioral models into our framework and describe how this notion of robustness plays out in applied settings.

A Welfare Analysis of Public Housing Allocation Mechanisms, with Neil Thakral. 
When allocating scarce resources such as public housing units to applicants in a waiting list, welfare depends on applicants’ preferences (match values and waiting costs) as well as their choices (which may involve errors). To trade off between allowing agents to wait for better matches and prioritizing agents with high waiting costs, allocation mechanisms impose restrictions on choices. Public housing allocation mechanisms in the UK restrict the set of available options that an applicant may accept, while mechanisms in the US restrict the number of times an applicant may reject. We examine how these different ways of restricting choices influence welfare, both theoretically and empirically. Using data on preferences for public housing in the US and the UK, we show how welfare compares under rationality and explore the sensitivity of the mechanisms to choice-error.

 

Works in Progress

The Social Determinants of Mental Health, with Jon Kolstad, Will Parker and Johannes Spinnewijn. 
This paper documents and analyzes the relationship between socio-economic factors and key measures of mental health. We demonstrate a sharp deterioration of mental health below an income threshold around the poverty line, while the impact of income beyond the threshold level are remarkably flat. The persistence of low socio-economic status further increases the risk of poor mental health. We find that the socio-economic gradients are strongest for working-age individuals, are not driven by access to health care and mostly explained by work status. Big economic events such as physical health shocks and job losses seem not to contribute much to the overall gradient. Rather, the evidence suggests social drift as the primary mechanism: those with poor mental health sort into lower incomes over the lifecycle.

Rebuilding Lives: Integrating Mental Health and Economic Recovery in Climate Disaster Response, with Amen Jalal and Pol Simpson. 
Disaster recovery often focuses on rebuilding physical infrastructure, overlooking the mental health impact of  traumatic events like floods. In Pakistan, where flooding in 2022  submerged a third of the country under water and lasted up to 8 months, over one in five flood affectees report severe psychological distress 2 years later. When asked about the long-term consequences of flooding, worsened mental and physical health is the second most commonly reported impact, following housing damage (Jalal and Simpson, 2024). Ignoring mental health in reconstruction may prolong the socio-economic impact of disasters by limiting individuals' ability to work, plan, and recover. This project studies the interaction between physical and psychological recovery in flood-affected communities, by fielding a locally developed mental health literacy initiative, cross-randomised with a housing reconstruction program. This 2x2 design allows us to compare the benefits of mental health support against the standard infrastructure-focused approach, and explore complementarities. Our findings aim to measure the non-economic losses and damages of climate catastrophes, and inform more holistic disaster recovery policies that address both physical and psychological needs.