Fernanda Estevan
Fernanda Estevan is an Associate Professor of Economics at the São Paulo School of Economics – FGV in Brazil. Her research focuses on labor economics and the economics of education. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium.
Follow Fernanda on
Website
Follow Fernanda on
Website
Fernanda Estevan is an Associate Professor of Economics at the São Paulo School of Economics – FGV in Brazil. Her research focuses on labor economics and the economics of education. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium.
In their own words…
IEA – Could you walk us through the key moments that shaped your path – from your earliest exposure to economic thinking, to what sparked your interest in the field, and ultimately what drew you to academic research?
Fernanda – Growing up in Brazil, a country characterized by profound social and economic inequalities, I could observe the pervasive challenges associated with poverty and unequal opportunities. Observing these disparities ignited my lasting interest in understanding not only how inequalities emerge, but also how rigorous research and effective public policies can help address and mitigate them.
I initially pursued a degree in Business Administration, but I developed a growing interest in Economics after taking a course on the Economics of Education during an exchange program at Universidad Carlos III in Spain. It was the first time I saw how economic theory and empirical tools could be applied to understand not only how inequality is perpetuated through limited access to education, but also how well-designed public policies could alter people’s trajectories and enhance welfare.
In the final year of my undergraduate studies, I worked in the private sector, but I found myself far more engaged with my bachelor’s thesis than with my job. That realization made it clear that I wanted to keep asking questions, digging deeper, and contributing to knowledge that could inform real-world change. From there, pursuing a master’s and then a Ph.D. in Economics felt like a natural step. I wanted to learn rigorous analytical tools to explore questions that I care deeply about—questions at the heart of development, education, and inequality in countries like my own.
IEA – In a recent paper, you investigated how higher task rewards affect the gender performance gap using data from Brazilian university’s admission exam. Can you briefly summarize your findings? What surprised you most about your findings?
Fernanda – In a joint paper with Bruna Borges and Louis-Philippe Morin, forthcoming in the Journal of Labor Economics, we investigate whether men and women respond differently to incentives by examining how their performance varies with the task reward. This question is rooted in a broader literature exploring gender differences in behaviour under pressure, particularly in educational settings, with the aim of shedding light on persistent gender gaps in labour market outcomes.
We take advantage of a unique feature in the admissions exam of a highly selective Brazilian university, where students take the same set of subject exams, but the weight assigned to each subject varies according to their intended major. This enables us to compare performance on the same tasks across students who face different reward structures. Because we observe students’ performance in each subject, we can control for fixed individual traits and isolate the impact of task reward intensity. Additionally, we observe their performance in the previous exam phase, where rewards are held constant, allowing us to control for subject-specific ability.
Our findings reveal that women perform relatively worse than men when the task rewards are higher—that is, in exams that carry more weight for their chosen major. This pattern is robust across specifications and particularly pronounced among high-ability students.
What surprised us most, however, is that this performance gap under high-reward conditions does not translate into worse labour market outcomes. When we follow students over time, we find no evidence that those who underperform on high-reward tasks face penalties in wages or employment. This suggests that while gender differences in response to incentives may exist in academic settings, they are unlikely to be a major driver of the gender wage gap in the labour market.
IEA – How does exposure to female peers and professors in economics affect female students’ career trajectories, according to your research?
Fernanda – The underrepresentation of women in undergraduate economics programs—both among students and faculty—has raised concerns about access to mentorship, networks, and role models that could be crucial for shaping students’ aspirations and career trajectories.
In a joint paper with Bruna Borges, forthcoming in Management Science, we investigate whether exposure to more female peers and professors affects the early career outcomes of female students. We take advantage of a unique quasi-random allocation mechanism: economics students at a Brazilian university are assigned to course sections based on the alphabetical order of their first names. This creates exogenous variation in the gender composition of both peers and instructors across sections within the same cohort.
Our results show that female students do benefit from greater exposure to female peers and professors. These effects are particularly strong in sections where women are severely underrepresented. We find positive impacts on labour force participation and years of work experience after graduation, suggesting that these early exposures influence career engagement.
Digging deeper into potential mechanisms, we show that female students exposed to more female peers are more likely to engage in internships and part-time jobs during their studies, fostering greater labour market attachment. They are also more likely to pursue careers in higher-paying and traditionally male-dominated fields.
Overall, our findings underscore the importance of fostering gender diversity in male-dominated academic environments. The presence of female peers and faculty can play a meaningful role in shaping career paths and reducing gender disparities in the labour market over the long term.
IEA – Your research on peer effects found that peer ability has more impact on long-term career outcomes than on short-term academic performance. What might explain this pattern, and what implications does this have for how universities structure learning environments?
Fernanda – In a joint paper with Andrea Lépine, published in Labour Economics, we examine how the ability level of one’s university cohort—measured by admissions exam scores—shapes both academic and labour market outcomes. Interestingly, we find that peer ability has a limited impact on short-term academic performance, such as grades, but a significant influence on long-term career outcomes.
Specifically, we show that students from the lower half of the ability distribution benefit from being surrounded by higher-ability peers through increased participation in the formal labour market after graduation. For students above the median of the ability distribution, exposure to stronger peers is associated with a greater likelihood of pursuing graduate education.
These results suggest that peer effects in higher education operate less through classroom performance and possibly more through broader behavioural and aspirational channels—such as motivation, access to informal support networks, and exposure to new career paths. In other words, the influence of peers in this setting is more about shaping choices and building social capital than about sacademic grades.
IEA – How has your personal background influenced your research perspectives, and what concrete steps do you think the economics field should take to become more inclusive?
Fernanda – I strongly believe that our personal background plays a significant role in shaping the research questions we find meaningful. Growing up in a highly unequal country like Brazil undoubtedly influenced my interest in topics related to inequality, education, and labour markets. Similarly, navigating male-dominated academic and professional environments made me more attuned to the subtle and structural ways in which underrepresentation can shape women’s trajectories in the field.
These experiences reinforce my conviction that increasing diversity in economics is essential, not just in terms of gender, but also in terms of race, socioeconomic background, and geographic origin. Diversity matters because it expands the range of questions we ask, the perspectives we bring to economic analysis, and ultimately, the relevance of our findings for broader segments of society. If we want to understand and solve the problems that affect most of the global population, the discipline itself needs to reflect that population.
As for how we move toward a more inclusive field, that’s a complex challenge. I sense that economics has historically been slower than some other disciplines to acknowledge underrepresentation as a problem. There is often a perception that if the current state is an equilibrium and no clear inefficiency is visible, then there is nothing to fix.
But recent research, including my own, challenges this view. Even if the current situation is an equilibrium, it does not mean it is optimal. There may be other equilibria—ones with greater representation and richer intellectual diversity—that lead to better, more inclusive economic insights. Additionally, there may be inefficiencies in how we define success, evaluate potential, and shape incentives in environments where diversity has long been lacking.
Thus, a concrete first step is raising awareness, not only about the consequences of low diversity, but also about the structural barriers that perpetuate it. We also need to create academic environments that foster growth and support individuals from diverse backgrounds. Inclusion is not just a moral imperative; it is essential for the intellectual vitality and societal relevance of the field.