Business & Entrepreneurship

What are tariffs, who pays for them and what can they do to the economy?

Jennifer Soules — Mon, 24 Mar 2025 18:48:34 +0000

What are tariffs, who pays for them and what can they do to the economy? Jennifer Soules Mon, 03/24/2025 - 12:48

Jennifer Soules , Nicholas Goda

President Donald Trump may institute blanket tariffs on Wednesday, April 2—the latest development in an ongoing tariff and economic strategy that has created uncertainty around the world.

Since taking office, Trump has threatened, rescinded and in some cases, implemented tariffs on several of the United States' largest trading partners, including China, Mexico and Canada.

Keith Maskus is a professor emeritus in economics at the �� and served as Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of State in 2016 and 2017. He sat down with �� Today to explain the history of tariffs and give his take on what it means for the economy and the average consumer.

In its most basic form, what is a tariff?

A tariff is an import tax. It is literally a tax on imports; not on the domestic production of goods that compete with imports. In that sense, it is a discriminatory tax. It's also a tax on consumption because imports make up a pretty large share of U.S. goods that are consumed and also of the inputs that are used in production in the United States.

For example, imagine you bring in a television, it’s coming from China, and the export price for the TV is $400 with a 10% tariff. When that product lands in the United States, it sits in a warehouse until somebody pays the government $40. The importer—Walmart, Target or somebody else—has to pay that $40. Then they have to decide whether they're going to mark that $40 up into a higher sales price for consumers, which they almost always do within a matter of 6-8 months. So, it’s simply false to believe or argue that exporters will pay the cost of these tariffs. Domestic consumers and businesses pay them.

How have tariffs historically been used in the United States?

Professor Emeritus Keith Maskus.

Early in its history the United States was an agricultural economy and there was not much industry. With industrialization in the late 19th century, tariffs were still important for protection and raising government revenue, but were coming down because it was significant for industrialists to have access to international components and labor. In 1913, the United States replaced tariffs and some other forms of revenue with the income tax and almost immediately, tariffs became unimportant as a matter of revenue generation.

Tariffs came back with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, when the U.S., concerned about an oncoming reduction in employment and what seemed to be a recession at the time, raised the average tariff rate on affected imports to well over 50%. All of the other major countries in the world retaliated very quickly at that time, and global trade from 1930 to 1932 was cut by 70%, both due to the tariff increases and to declining incomes. That tariff war was a real contributing factor to the Great Depression.

From the 1950s through the 1990s, there was a generalized reduction in global tariff rates imposed on manufactured goods and consumer goods. The United States has been a very open economy in this context. So have Europe, Canada and other similar countries. And that opening was pretty much led by the United States, and later, the United States and Europe together. President Trump is fond of saying that the world is screwing the United States through its trade policy. But in fact, the history here is that the Americans led this process toward pretty free global trade, and we benefited as much as anyone else from it, through access to lower prices and international technologies and investment.

How is that different from what we’re seeing in headlines now?

The trade war initiated by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 was massive, but it did not have this kind of strange variability from day to day—the varying tariff rates and threats to use tariffs for things they don’t really work for. At that time, countries raised their tariffs and kept them at those high levels for a good seven, eight years.

Now, trade wars of this kind are exceptionally uncommon, and the only one of any consequence after World War II was between the first Trump administration and China. You may recall that we put in these high tariffs on steel and aluminum from many countries, including China, and they responded. Then we put higher tariffs on a lot of their imports. They responded, and so on.

The current Trump administration, as far as I can tell, has not articulated exactly what they're trying to achieve with all of this variability and these threats. It generates considerable economic uncertainty, and of course, also generates a feeling, on behalf of our trading partners, that the United States is becoming untrustworthy and can't really be depended on to lead the global economy the way we've been doing for generations.

What are some examples of ”using tariffs for things they don’t really work for?“

President Donald Trump with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2019. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons/State Department Photo)

Tariffs are primarily used to protect domestic industry from import competition. That was easier in the 19th and middle of the 20th century—now international supply chains are much more complicated, making tariffs a significant element of costs of production around the world.

Tariffs can also be used to raise revenue. But they’re really only used that way in developing countries. In the U.S., Canada, Europe and other rich countries, that strategy has long since been replaced by more efficient and broader tax systems, such as the income tax here or the value added tax elsewhere.

More recently, we're seeing tariffs used as components of sanctions packages. So as you know, we have very extensive economic sanctions against Iran and North Korea, Russia, and several other countries, including China. The sanctions exist in principle to try to change behavior that we don't like. Sanctions do economic damage to those countries, but they don't change the government's behavior very much.

In this new environment, we see one person deciding tariffs are appropriate tools to use to achieve or influence almost anything, like pressuring Canada and Mexico to up their immigration enforcement and stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

Let’s use fentanyl as a detailed example:

If you really want to deal with the fentanyl problem in the United States, it's really an American problem. We have this excessive demand for illicit drugs. And if you want to deal with that, you need to come up with interventions that try to work at the source. Even if tariffs did stop the flow of drugs across our borders with Mexico and Canada, you still have demand. So, you will get more black market products and higher priced drugs. You get it coming from elsewhere, or produced more in the United States. That's not the way to go about trying to deal with a fentanyl problem. It is a way to throw around your weight as a big country without achieving the underlying objective.

What I’m trying to say in this long answer is this—if you have five problems you want to address, using one tool, tariffs, will never get you there. Tariffs are indirect and a very rough, blunt instrument that doesn't generally get you what you want, and we'll find that out.

What is the impact on the regular consumer?

The share of consumption that low income households pay for tariffs is much, much higher than it is for middle income or higher wealthier consumers. We've done some estimation on the results of implementing Trump’s campaign promises on tariffs; promises that included a 20–25% across the board tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on all goods coming from China.

Looking strictly at the consumption of imported goods, that policy would cost the average American household about $2,500 as an additional tax. And $2,500 imposed on a family of four with relatively low income, say $50,000, $60,000; that is a big chunk of their regular consumption possibilities. And it would cause real, real hardship.

What about the overall impact on the national economy?

Nobody in business really knows from week to week what the tariffs will look like, whether they’re in place, what the rates are, etc. You cannot establish an investment program that makes sense under those circumstances.

Also, higher prices and higher costs associated with tariffs will push the economy into slower growth. I think it's pretty clear that within the next 12 to 15 months, we'll be in a recession, partly associated with these tariffs.

Tariffs, since the 1950s, have rarely been an element of generating a recession, because they haven’t been that important to American costs. Now, with this uncertainty and this dramatic increase in the level of tariffs, I think things have fundamentally changed, and we will see, in my estimation, both rising unemployment and rising inflation, in what we call a “stagflation.”

Is there anything people can do to prepare for economic changes or challenges caused by tariffs?

It will take some time for the tariffs to work their way through to higher prices. So if you are thinking about buying a car, now is the time to do it, especially a foreign car.

When people are feeling more uncertain about the future, they tend to consume less and save more. That's a perfectly rational decision because they need that kind of cushion. I would encourage people to think a little bit more about what kind of goods they really need to spend on in this time of uncertainty. Prices will go up on products subject to tariffs, so maybe you want to buy it now, but you also want to have some cushion.

�� Today regularly publishes Q&As with our faculty members weighing in on news topics through the lens of their scholarly expertise and research/creative work. The responses here reflect the knowledge and interpretations of the expert and should not be considered the university position on the issue. All publication content is subject to edits for clarity, brevity and university style guidelines.

Professor Emeritus Keith Maskus explains the economic principle of a tariff and gives his take on what businesses and the average consumer may experience if President Donald Trump fulfills his tariff-related campaign promises.

Traditional

White

�� hosts showcases highlighting breakthrough innovations, investment-ready ventures

Megan Maneval — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:21:39 +0000

�� hosts showcases highlighting breakthrough innovations, investment-ready ventures Megan Maneval Fri, 03/21/2025 - 07:21

Venture Partners at �� and its partners across the Intermountain West once again demonstrated the power of university innovations with back-to-back startup showcases for the Embark Deep Tech Startup Creator and Destination Startup.

Traditional

White

The rising threat of fake news in financial markets

Katy Hill — Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:14:36 +0000

The rising threat of fake news in financial markets Katy Hill Wed, 03/19/2025 - 09:14

Katy Marquardt Hill

Fake news isn't just a problem for politics—it's also wreaking havoc on financial markets. A new study reveals how deceptive information is being used to manipulate stock prices, causing real financial damage to investors.

The study, published in December 2024 in the Journal of Accounting and Economics, finds fake financial news has been on the rise, especially in the years following the 2016 election. According to Austin Moss, assistant accounting professor in the Leeds School of Business and co-author of the study, fake news in the stock market is typically designed to deceive investors about the true value of a company’s stock.

Austin Moss

“Without any proof or facts, (fake news authors) often allege that a company is engaging in fraud or falsifying earnings,” he said.

Moss and co-author Betty Liu, assistant professor of accounting in Indiana University's Kelley School of Business, highlight an example in the study involving the real estate company Farmland Partners. In 2018, a single false report claiming 310% of the company’s previous-year earnings were fabricated caused the stock price to drop by over 40% in just one day, wiping out tens of millions in market value.

Such deceptive stories have real-world impacts, Moss said. Fake news can manipulate stock prices, leading to short-term volatility while also eroding long-term investor confidence.

How fake news moves markets

Why do investors fall for fake news? Moss suggests that in the fast-paced world of financial markets, speed is key. “Investors are often so eager to react to information before anyone else that they don’t verify it,” he said. “That rush to act leads to false claims having a real, immediate impact on stock prices.”

The study found companies with less transparent financial reporting are more vulnerable to manipulation. “Fake news authors choose firms that are hard to understand,” Moss said. “Companies that provide less forward guidance and have more complex financial statements are easier targets.”

The researchers examined the timing of fake articles relative to earnings announcements. They found fake news authors tend to publish more articles in the days leading up to quarterly earnings releases, capitalizing on the heightened attention surrounding these announcements.

“Leading up to these big events, there’s a lot of attention on the company’s results. This is when uncertainty about the company is highest, and that’s when fake news can reach a wider audience,” Moss says.

But once the actual earnings report is released, fake news loses its power, as fresh, reliable data takes over.

By analyzing the content of 125,475 crowdsourced financial articles from platforms like Seeking Alpha, the researchers found 57% of fake articles discussed accounting-related topics. Compare that to genuine articles, where 88% of the articles focused on accounting.

This suggests that while fake news often seeks to exploit accounting details, it is less likely to be as information-heavy or grounded in verifiable data.

Incentives to spread misinformation

Fake news authors spread disinformation for a variety of reasons, Moss said.

Some want to manipulate stock prices to profit from short-term positions, much like classic pump-and-dump schemes. For example, in the case of Farmland Partners, individuals behind the fake report had taken short positions before the article’s release, betting that the stock price would fall.

Others create content for online platforms that reward clicks and views, capitalizing on sensational headlines, and still others do it for ideological reasons—even just for the enjoyment of “trolling” investors, Moss said.

The authors often hide behind anonymous profiles, he added, “so there's really no or very little reputational cost to producing this fake news since no one can easily find out who this person is.”

Focus on transparency

To mitigate this growing problem, the researchers suggest companies focus on increasing transparency, offering clearer guidance and ensuring their financial statements are easily accessible and understandable.

“If firms provide more transparent information, it makes it harder for fake news to convince the market,” Moss said.

For individual investors, Moss advises caution and verification. “If you see a claim that seems too outrageous to be true—like an unrealistic jump in earnings or a wild accusation about a company—check the company’s financial statements,” he said. By comparing these reports to the claims being made, investors can identify discrepancies and avoid falling for fake news.

He also warned that the period before earnings announcements is particularly risky. “In the three to four days before earnings announcements, that’s when fake news is most likely to spread,” Moss cautions.

Finally, be wary of publications or websites that crowdsource their articles, he added. Skepticism is one of the best defenses investors have against the manipulation of stock prices by misinformation.

A new study shows how misinformation is manipulating stock prices and harming investors, but greater transparency can help fight back.

Traditional

White

Sristy Agrawal leads �� startup Mesa Quantum to success

Megan Maneval — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 17:54:26 +0000

Sristy Agrawal leads �� startup Mesa Quantum to success Megan Maneval Wed, 03/12/2025 - 11:54

Mesa Quantum, a �� spinout and leader in quantum sensing, recently announced $3.7 million in seed funding and a $1.9 million grant from SpaceWERX, the innovation arm of the U.S. Space Force. Both investments are fueling the company’s drive toward commercializing chip-scale quantum sensors.

Traditional

White

Live, laugh, lotus: Why group texting during ‘The White Lotus’ feels so good

Katy Hill — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:54:45 +0000

Live, laugh, lotus: Why group texting during ‘The White Lotus’ feels so good Katy Hill Wed, 03/12/2025 - 08:54

Katy Marquardt Hill

As the latest season of “The White Lotus” unfolds, fans are glued not just to their screens but also to their phones—texting friends about theories, sharing memes and scrolling through social media. It’s a familiar scene: the drama on-screen paired with real-time buzz and reactions.

For years, experts believed second-screening—using a phone, tablet or laptop while watching TV—distracted viewers from fully engaging with content. A new study co-authored by Alix Barasch, associate professor of marketing at the Leeds School of Business, flips that notion on its head.

Alix Barasch

It turns out, reaching for your phone during “The White Lotus” may actually make the experience better, especially if you’re watching alone. The study, published in January 2025 in the journal Psychology & Marketing, found engaging in “second-screen” activities, like texting friends or scrolling through social media, can create a sense of social connection that boosts your engagement and increases the likelihood you’ll watch the next episode.

“When you’re watching alone, that phone can become your bridge to a wider community,” Barasch said. “It’s not just about multitasking—it’s about deepening the experience by connecting with others in real time.”

Second-screening has become a staple of modern viewing. According to a recent report, 83% of TV viewers use a second device, whether it's for checking social media, browsing the web or texting during a show.

And while prior research has highlighted the negative effects of technology use—such as decreased enjoyment during experiences due to distraction—there’s a growing body of research recognizing its potential to enhance experiences.

“It allows us to go through an experience with others, comment on specific things, get other people’s reactions and just feel connected because we are all doing the same thing,” Barasch said.

The study, co-authored by Will Wei Wu, a doctoral student in the Leeds marketing department, and Emily Powell, director of the behavioral science center at market research firm Ipsos, examined the effect on participants while video streaming on YouTube as well as watching television shows and live TV events.

In one experiment, participants watched a four-minute segment of the documentary series “Planet Earth” while either interacting with others through a second screen or not. Those using second screens reported higher social connection and greater likelihood of rewatching the video compared to those who watched without a second screen.

Watching alone vs. together

Another experiment explored second-screen use during the 2017 Super Bowl. The results revealed second-screen use enhanced social connection and repeat viewing intentions when viewers were alone. However, when viewers were watching with others present, second-screen use actually decreased both social connection and the likelihood of rewatching the event.

This suggests that while second-screening can enhance social connection when viewers are alone, it may detract from the experience when watching with others in person, Barasch said.

“When you’re sharing the experience with friends or family, second-screen use can actually create a disconnect,” she says. “It pulls attention away from the group and weakens the shared bond, making the experience less enjoyable.”

The study’s findings have significant implications for content creators and marketers. Broadcasters and content creators like TV networks or YouTubers could promote second-screen use by encouraging viewers to interact with online communities while watching. This could include things like displaying hashtags, creating show-related forums or involving celebrities in social media posts.

Meanwhile, streaming services could integrate more socially connecting features into their interfaces, such as live chats, real-time polls or gamified experiences to enhance viewers' sense of connection.

“From a content creator’s perspective, letting your audience communicate and encouraging your brand community to talk to each other—that isn't always intuitive but could have real benefits,” Barasch said.

But for viewers, the key takeaway is simple: If you're watching alone, using your phone to engage with on-topic content can help you feel more connected to others and even boost your enjoyment of the experience.

Beyond the story

Our research impact by the numbers:

45 U.S. patents issued for CU inventions through Venture Partners in 2023–24
35 startups launched based on university innovations in 2023–24
$1.2 billion raised by companies built on �� innovations in 2022–24

Follow �� on LinkedIn

New research reveals that second-screening—using a phone, tablet or laptop while watching TV—can enhance your experience and boost social connections.

Traditional

White

How to survive mundane tasks without feeling drained

Katy Hill — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 14:22:36 +0000

How to survive mundane tasks without feeling drained Katy Hill Wed, 03/05/2025 - 07:22

Katy Marquardt Hill

We’ve all been there: the endless laundry pile, the last 20 minutes of a meeting that could have been an email, or the long commute after an especially long day at work.

While we may think we’ll feel a sense of relief as we approach the end of these mundane tasks, the reality is often the opposite. According to new research, the closer we are to finishing a tedious task, the more drained we feel. It’s not just you—it’s science.

Ying Zeng

Ying Zeng, an assistant professor of marketing at the Leeds School of Business, led a study forthcoming in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology exploring how we experience everyday chores and errands.

The researchers, who included Claire Tsai of the University of Toronto, Min Zhao of Boston College and Nicole Robitaille of Queen’s University, found the psychological toll of mundane tasks actually increases as they near completion.

“The closer you are to the end of a mundane task, the worse you feel,” said Zeng, an expert on inconsistencies and biases in consumer decision-making. “Whether it’s washing the last load of laundry or wrapping up that final email of the day, our brains are wired to focus on how much we’ve endured rather than how much we’ve accomplished.”

Why does this happen? Zeng's research suggests it's all about relative task completion. We’re not as tired at the halfway mark, but as we get closer to finishing, we begin to feel the weight of the effort.

"People are more sensitive to the proportion of a task they've completed," Zeng said. "If you’re nearing the end, you would feel that you've endured a lot, which drains you."

It’s a kind of psychological trick our brains play on us, where the end feels harder than it really is, she added.

Mastering the mundane

For those of us who struggle to get through these monotonous tasks, Zeng’s findings offer a bit of hope. The key is managing how we approach these tasks. Staying busy with other things can actually help boost your energy levels and make the process feel less draining.

“When you’re busy, you feel better,” Zeng said.

This insight mirrors what we experience when we’re juggling multiple things and somehow don’t feel as tired as when we’re just trying to finish a single task.

But it’s not just about how we manage our own energy—it’s how we structure these tasks in the first place. Zeng’s research shows combining tasks can make a big difference. If you tackle a big list of chores all at once, you’ll probably feel less exhausted than if you stretch them out over several days.

How to power through the grind

Stay active to boost your energy. Keeping yourself occupied can increase your energy levels, making it easier to handle routine tasks.

Batch tasks. Instead of tackling tasks in intervals, try grouping similar tasks together and power through them. This reduces the mental effort of switching between tasks and helps you make faster progress.

Reframe your mental approach. Your level of exhaustion is related to how your brain perceives the task, so try shifting your mindset to see these tasks as opportunities for productivity, not burdens.

“If you combine mundane tasks into one large list and power through them, it’s easier than breaking them down into bits and facing that same exhaustion again and again,” she said.

However, Zeng cautions this strategy isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution.

“This doesn’t apply to every task,” she explained, pointing out that caregiving or psychologically impactful events—like the grief of a funeral—can’t be simplified by these tricks.

The study focused on tasks with a clear beginning and end, which is why the 3 a.m. feedings of a newborn or the hours spent caregiving might not follow the same pattern.

What does this mean for your daily life? If you’ve ever felt more drained when your vacation was just around the corner or dreaded the final leg of a long workday, you’re not imagining it. Zeng’s research shows that the “mundane task effect” is real.

The trick is to recognize it and manage how you experience these chores. Power through your list, stay busy and embrace the fact that your exhaustion isn’t about the task itself—it’s about how your brain perceives it.

“For these types of tasks, combine them, because all you need to do is to endure them, and all you need to improve is your experience,” Zeng said.

And next time you're facing a mountain of laundry or back-to-back meetings, remember: The closer you are to finishing, the more likely it is that you’ll feel tired. But with some smart task management, you can trick your brain into making the process feel a little less exhausting.

Beyond the story

Our research impact by the numbers:

45 U.S. patents issued for CU inventions through Venture Partners in 2023–24
35 startups launched based on university innovations in 2023–24
$1.2 billion raised by companies built on �� innovations in 2022–24

Follow �� on LinkedIn

From commuting to laundry, new research reveals why approaching the finish line of everyday chores might be depleting—and how to feel better about it.

Traditional

White

Research linking concealed carry permits to rising gun violence earns top award

Katy Hill — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:53:24 +0000

Research linking concealed carry permits to rising gun violence earns top award Katy Hill Wed, 02/26/2025 - 08:53

Katy Marquardt Hill

As the U.S. grapples with escalating gun violence, research is challenging the narrative that more guns in public spaces equate to greater safety.

Stephen Billings, associate professor of finance in the Leeds School of Business, was recently honored with the inaugural Greenwald Family Award for Firearm Violence and Injury Prevention Research Excellence for his work on how concealed carry permits might be linked to higher rates of firearm-related crimes.

Stephen Billings

Billings’ research, published in June 2023 in the Journal of Public Economics, analyzed the impact of concealed carry on neighborhood crime and individual victimization in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The study found that the presence of more legally carried firearms correlates with a 5.3% rise in local crime.

"When people get a concealed carry permit, they don't suddenly become less likely to be victims of violent crime. In fact, they are just as likely to be victimized, but when it happens, the situation is often more serious,” he said.

This revelation is a pivotal part of Billings’ study, which dives deep into the complexities of gun ownership, including its effect on local crime. He noted that while concealed carry permit holders are typically law-abiding citizens, a surprising trend emerges: They are significantly more likely to have their firearms stolen.

"If you buy a gun and carry it legally, you're not necessarily a higher target for crime, but once it’s stolen, it can end up in the hands of someone who is not authorized to possess it. And that gun could then be used to commit crimes," he said. Stolen firearms often fuel neighborhood crime, he added, leading to an increase in gun violence.

"I wanted to look at what happens when people legally acquire guns," Billings said. "Do they become safer, or does it inadvertently contribute to more crime when their firearms are stolen or misused?"

His data, which included detailed records on gun ownership, theft and victimization, revealed people with concealed carry permits often had firearms stolen from their vehicles. "If you look at the data, it’s clear that more guns in a neighborhood mean more opportunities for theft, and more stolen guns mean more chances for them to be used in violent crimes," he said.

Billings, whose work often examines the connections among housing, schools, neighborhoods and crime, was partly inspired to study gun violence due to personal experience. After residing near the location of the March 22, 2021, mass shooting at King Soopers in Boulder, Billings felt compelled to explore the implications of rising gun ownership.

"I felt helpless after the shooting, and I wanted to contribute something meaningful to the conversation. I realized I had access to important data, and that it could shed light on how legal gun ownership affects safety," he said.

His study adds complexity to the ongoing debate surrounding gun rights and regulation. "My paper isn’t arguing for or against gun ownership. It’s about understanding the real-world consequences of legal gun ownership, and how those guns end up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them," Billings said.

He emphasized the importance of secure firearm storage laws to prevent thefts. "We need policies that ensure responsible storage of firearms. Whether you're on the left or the right, no one wants to see their gun used in a crime or have it stolen,” he said.

Looking forward, Billings aims to continue researching the broader social and psychological implications of gun ownership.

The Greenwald Award honors a research paper published within the past two years that enhances knowledge of firearm violence and prevention while offering clear policy recommendations. Billings was chosen by an independent panel of judges in December 2024 and received a $5,000 prize.

A Leeds professor has won the inaugural Greenwald Family Award for his groundbreaking study on firearm violence and injury prevention.

Traditional

White

Female entrepreneurs face hidden barriers in mentorship networks

Katy Hill — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:04:29 +0000

Female entrepreneurs face hidden barriers in mentorship networks Katy Hill Thu, 02/20/2025 - 09:04

Katy Marquardt Hill

In the competitive world of entrepreneurship, mentorship is an invaluable resource. Social networks are vital for building relationships, identifying opportunities and securing essential support. But when it comes to making those fruitful connections, female entrepreneurs often face an uphill battle, new research finds.

Ethan Poskanzer

Gender segregation within mentorship networks plays a major role in limiting access to critical resources for female entrepreneurs, according to a working paper by Ethan Poskanzer, an assistant professor at the Leeds School of Business and Minjae Kim, an assistant professor of management at Rice University Business School, who tracked interactions between startup founders (mentees) and seasoned mentors over the course of an entrepreneurship accelerator program in the Northeast U.S. in 2023.

The study revealed that while both male and female entrepreneurs equally reach out to mentors of both genders, male mentors are disproportionately likely to accept outreaches from male mentees. This bias among mentors, although not necessarily conscious, is a pervasive obstacle for women launching startups, Poskanzer said.

“Men have an easier time getting access to valuable mentorship and resources through social networks,” Poskanzer said, adding that although the study focused on gender, this is a challenge for all underrepresented entrepreneurs.

This may be because people form closer relationships with those similar to themselves, Poskanzer said, which leads to men offering more help and referrals to other men.

“Investment is essential for entrepreneurs,” Poskanzer said. “In a lot of cases, investors tend to source their investments from people they know. So getting plugged into that world and getting those kinds of warm introductions can make the difference between being funded and not being funded. Just having a conversation with a mentor for a few hours can affect a business's trajectory.”

The limits of “lean in”

The study challenges the widely promoted "lean-in" message, which suggests women can overcome network segregation by pushing themselves harder to make connections.

The researchers argue this advice overlooks a critical factor: The problem lies not in women’s efforts to reach out, but in male mentors’ receptiveness to their outreaches. “Mentors selectively decide where to distribute their resources, so it’s about the resource holders’ choice of who they’re going to work with,” Poskanzer said.

A high-stakes problem

In another working paper, Poskanzer and co-author Tristan Botelho, associate professor or organizational behavior at Yale University, found these biases become more pronounced in high-stakes situations, such as when investors or senior mentors are making funding decisions. In these cases, women entrepreneurs tend to be rated lower than their male counterparts.

In one study, both men and women pitched their startup ideas to a panel of judges. In less consequential evaluations, women were rated slightly better than men. However, when the stakes were higher—such as decisions about funding—women were rated significantly lower.

“We found that when investors feel something is low stakes, they don't act on their biases,” Poskanzer said. “But when they’re distributing more money, they become more risk-averse, more cautious, and more likely to lean on these cultural biases about women and entrepreneurship.”

Addressing the mentorship gender gap

Poskanzer emphasized that programs must go beyond simply pairing male and female entrepreneurs. “Throwing people into a mixer and telling them to network isn't enough to overcome this disadvantage since it occurs organically,” he said.

Increasing female representation in mentorship roles could be one critical step toward mitigating these biases, especially in industries where women have historically been underrepresented. However, Poskanzer acknowledges this is a complex issue requiring systemic change.

Raising awareness is another starting point, he added, since many mentors are unaware of the subtle gender dynamics influencing their decisions.

“Entrepreneurship is a difficult road to travel alone, and social connections are essential for success,” Poskanzer said. “By providing support for all talented entrepreneurs, we can develop more innovations and drive both progress and productivity.”

Cultural biases, network segregation and subtle mentorship dynamics prevent women from receiving the support they need in entrepreneurship, a new study finds.

Traditional

White

Leading citizen well-being through business research—The launch of a new initiative

Megan Maneval — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:07:40 +0000

Leading citizen well-being through business research—The launch of a new initiative Megan Maneval Mon, 02/17/2025 - 12:07

Leeds School of Business

Thanks to an anonymous gift, ��’s Leeds School of Business is investing $3.85 million to launch the Initiative for Global Business Impact, accelerating the school’s world-class research infrastructure and academic reputation.

Traditional

White

Sustainability case competition: Business students tackle AI’s energy challenge

Megan Maneval — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:32:46 +0000

Sustainability case competition: Business students tackle AI’s energy challenge Megan Maneval Mon, 02/17/2025 - 07:32

Leeds School of Business

The annual Leeds Sustainability Case Competition brought together 39 teams from top business schools to develop solutions for sustainability challenges in the age of artificial intelligence.

Traditional

White

Business & Entrepreneurship

What are tariffs, who pays for them and what can they do to the economy?

In its most basic form, what is a tariff?

How have tariffs historically been used in the United States?

How is that different from what we’re seeing in headlines now?

What are some examples of ”using tariffs for things they don’t really work for?“

What is the impact on the regular consumer?

What about the overall impact on the national economy?

Is there anything people can do to prepare for economic changes or challenges caused by tariffs?

Related Articles

�� hosts showcases highlighting breakthrough innovations, investment-ready ventures

Related Articles

The rising threat of fake news in financial markets

How fake news moves markets

Incentives to spread misinformation

Focus on transparency

Related Articles

Sristy Agrawal leads �� startup Mesa Quantum to success

Related Articles

Live, laugh, lotus: Why group texting during ‘The White Lotus’ feels so good

Watching alone vs. together

Related Articles

How to survive mundane tasks without feeling drained

Mastering the mundane

Related Articles

Research linking concealed carry permits to rising gun violence earns top award

Related Articles

Female entrepreneurs face hidden barriers in mentorship networks

The limits of “lean in”

A high-stakes problem

Addressing the mentorship gender gap

Related Articles

Leading citizen well-being through business research—The launch of a new initiative

Related Articles

Sustainability case competition: Business students tackle AI’s energy challenge

Related Articles

Business & Entrepreneurship

What are tariffs, who pays for them and what can they do to the economy?

In its most basic form, what is a tariff?

How have tariffs historically been used in the United States?

How is that different from what we’re seeing in headlines now?

What are some examples of ”using tariffs for things they don’t really work for?“

What is the impact on the regular consumer?

What about the overall impact on the national economy?

Is there anything people can do to prepare for economic changes or challenges caused by tariffs?

Related Articles

���������� hosts showcases highlighting breakthrough innovations, investment-ready ventures

Related Articles

The rising threat of fake news in financial markets

How fake news moves markets

Incentives to spread misinformation

Focus on transparency

Related Articles

Sristy Agrawal leads ���������� startup Mesa Quantum to success

Related Articles

Live, laugh, lotus: Why group texting during ‘The White Lotus’ feels so good

Watching alone vs. together

Related Articles

How to survive mundane tasks without feeling drained

Mastering the mundane

Related Articles

Research linking concealed carry permits to rising gun violence earns top award

Related Articles

Female entrepreneurs face hidden barriers in mentorship networks

The limits of “lean in”

A high-stakes problem

Addressing the mentorship gender gap

Related Articles

Leading citizen well-being through business research—The launch of a new initiative

Related Articles

Sustainability case competition: Business students tackle AI’s energy challenge

Related Articles

�� hosts showcases highlighting breakthrough innovations, investment-ready ventures

Sristy Agrawal leads �� startup Mesa Quantum to success