Valentina Paredes
Valentina Paredes is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the Universidad de Chile. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley. Her research focuses on applied microeconomics, specifically in the fields of Economics of Education and Gender Economics. She uses empirical methods to study the determinants of gender gaps in education, the impact of teachers on student achievement, and the effectiveness of public policies—such as labor subsidies and parental leave—in reducing inequality.
Follow Valentina On
Website
Follow Valentina On
Website
Valentina Paredes is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the Universidad de Chile. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley. Her research focuses on applied microeconomics, specifically in the fields of Economics of Education and Gender Economics. She uses empirical methods to study the determinants of gender gaps in education, the impact of teachers on student achievement, and the effectiveness of public policies—such as labor subsidies and parental leave—in reducing inequality.
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?
Valentina – My interest in economics and public policy wasn’t born in a classroom, but at the family dinner table. I grew up in a home where conversations about public affairs were highly valued; my parents encouraged my siblings and me to form our own opinions, creating a space where our voices were validated from a young age. This early empowerment sparked a deep curiosity about how societies function and how policy can be used to solve collective problems.
A defining moment occurred while I was pursuing my Master’s in economics in Chile. The 2006 student protests fundamentally shifted my focus toward the economics of education. Witnessing the national debates on school selection and higher education financing made me realize how critical economic analysis is for social justice. Later, during my PhD at UC Berkeley, my advisor, David Card, became a major influence. His work showed me how rigorous research could be applied to vital social issues like the minimum wage, migration, and gender gaps, solidifying my commitment to an academic career.
The final piece of the puzzle fell into place when I returned to Chile. For a significant period, I was the only woman in the economics department. Although I was already accustomed to male-dominated environments, being the sole female voice in that space was a catalyst. It pushed me to gradually shift my research focus toward gender, as I realized that understanding these gaps was not just an academic interest, but a necessity to change the field itself.
IEA – Your study finds that extended maternity leave improved infant health largely by reducing day care attendance and exposure to illness. What does this suggest about how we design parental leave policies?
Valentina – My study focuses on one specific aspect of the maternity leave extension, which is its impact on infant health. We already know that these policies can affect wages and employment, but I was interested in looking at effects in other areas that are often overlooked. Our finding that infant health improved by reducing early exposure to daycare shows that parental leave acts as an important health intervention.
However, I believe that to design correct public policies, we need a comprehensive evaluation of both expected and unintended effects. Because of this, I am currently researching how this same policy affects maternal health and gender roles within the household. We need to look at the full picture. A good policy design should consider how these extensions impact the family as a whole, from the child’s health to the mother’s well-being and the division of labor at home.
IEA – Your findings show that teachers with a growth mindset modestly boost student performance, especially for high-achieving and low-income students. What do you think drives this differential effect, and what are the implications for teacher training?
Valentina – We believe this effect is driven primarily by pedagogical practices. Our analysis shows that teachers with a growth mindset are more likely to implement effective classroom strategies, such as providing better instructional feedback and monitoring homework more closely.
The impact is stronger for low-income students, which is consistent with previous evidence showing that a growth mindset can help buffer the negative effects of poverty on academic achievement. For high-achieving students, a teacher with this mindset might be creating an environment that encourages them to take more intellectual risks.
The main implication for teacher training is that we should not only focus on subject content but also on the beliefs that teachers hold about their students’ potential. Since we found that a growth mindset is less common in low-income schools, targeted interventions to foster these beliefs among teachers in vulnerable contexts could be a very effective and low-cost tool to reduce the academic gap.
IEA – Your study finds that economics students show greater gender bias than those in other fields, with the gap widening after exposure to the curriculum. Do you think economics education itself amplifies this bias, or does the discipline simply attract more biased students to begin with?
Valentina – Our study suggests that both factors are at play. We found that students who choose to major in economics already enter with higher levels of gender bias compared to their peers in other social sciences or humanities. However, this is only part of the story.
The most important finding is that this bias gap increases as students progress through their degrees. This suggests that the economics curriculum itself plays a significant role in amplifying these views. While students in other fields tend to become more egalitarian over time, economics students—especially men—do not show the same trend. It seems that the way we teach the discipline, often focusing on models that ignore gender dynamics or social identities, can reinforce existing prejudices rather than challenge them.
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?
Valentina – My personal experience as a woman in a male-dominated field has deeply influenced my work on gender gaps and role models. Over the years, many female students have approached me to share how important it was for them to finally have a woman teaching their economics courses. Now, in my role as Director of the Master’s and PhD programs in Economics, students have again reached out to tell me how much it means to see a woman in a leadership position.
These interactions reinforce what I have seen in my research: visibility matters. To become more inclusive, the field needs to move beyond just talking about diversity and take concrete steps to change its structure. We need to ensure that women are not just present, but are also in positions of influence and leadership. Promoting more women to senior faculty and administrative roles is essential, as it sends a clear signal to the next generation of economists that they belong in this discipline and can lead it.