Rashmi Barua
Follow Rashmi on
Website
Follow Rashmi on
Website
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?
Rashmi – Sometimes you take a new road only because a known path was closed. That’s exactly how I ended up taking economics. I was from a science field, never having studied economics in school. I couldn’t clear the medical competitive exams and so ended up taking the most in-demand course at that moment, an economics undergraduate degree! I fell in love with the subject almost immediately, largely thanks to an inspiring microeconomics teacher, Dr. Ela Trivedi at Jesus and Mary College, who first sparked my interest. That spark grew into a genuine passion at JNU, where I completed my MA in economics and experienced academic research for the first time.
IEA – Your study finds that groundwater contamination is associated with increased absenteeism, grade retention, and lower test scores among students. Can you explain how you established that contamination is actually causing these educational problems, and what you think are the main ways that contaminated water affects children’s ability to succeed in school?
Rashmi – We use a natural experiment in Assam, where groundwater is heavily contaminated with arsenic, and combine it with student-level administrative data from all public schools in the most affected block. The staggered rollout of a piped water scheme that provided arsenic-free water created variation in exposure across birth cohorts and habitations, allowing us to isolate the effect of contaminated groundwater on educational outcomes.
Arsenic is a well-documented neurotoxin, so chronic exposure can directly impair cognitive development. It also increases illness-related absenteeism and household burdens, which reduce children’s ability to participate in school and ultimately harm their academic performance.
IEA – Your research finds that arsenic-contaminated water stunts children’s growth, but the effects are much worse for younger daughters than for eldest children. Why do you think this happens, and what does it reveal about how environmental problems and family dynamics combine to affect children’s health?
Rashmi – Young children are especially vulnerable to environmental hazards, and girls often face added risks when nutrition or healthcare is limited. In our study, we find that arsenic exposure above safe levels lowers children’s height-for-age and weight-for-age, but the effects are much stronger for girls born later in the birth order.
This fits with what other research has shown: in many households, parents tend to invest more in eldest sons. So younger daughters may already be starting out with fewer resources, and when an environmental shock like arsenic contamination hits, it amplifies those existing disadvantages.
IEA – Your research finds that areas with fewer women due to son preference have higher crime rates, and you link this to changes in marriage customs. Can you explain how a shortage of women leads families to change the way they arrange marriages, and why you think these changes in marriage patterns are connected to increases in crime?
Rashmi – When there are fewer women in a community, families struggle to find brides within their traditional social networks. As a result, marriages are increasingly arranged outside their village or district, effectively “importing” brides. This relaxes long-standing norms of marrying within known families where reputation matters.
Why does this affect crime? In tightly knit networks, a groom’s behaviour carries social consequences i.e., bad reputation can hurt marriage prospects. But when marriages are arranged with distant, unfamiliar families, that stigma weakens. With less reputational cost attached to criminal behaviour, the deterrent effect falls. So, the shortage of women not only reshapes marriage customs but also lowers the social penalties for crime, contributing to higher crime rates.
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?
Rashmi – My own background has been one of steady access to opportunities, supportive mentors, and an environment that encouraged learning. That privilege has shaped my research perspective in a different way: it has made me acutely aware of how much outcomes depend on structures that many people don’t have. Recognising what access enabled for me pushes me to study contexts where those opportunities are uneven, and to understand how social norms, household dynamics, and environmental conditions can constrain the choices of others.
To make the field more inclusive, we need to widen the path into it. That starts with giving students early exposure to economics, especially those who might not see it as an option (neither did I when I was 18!). Strong mentoring, financial support, and open, respectful departmental cultures go a long way.