Linda Wu has joined the Stone Centre as a Postdoctoral Fellow after completing her PhD in Economics at University College London earlier this year. Before moving to Vancouver, she studied and conducted research in Taiwan, the UK, and the US, and will join the University of Michigan as an Assistant Professor of Economics in 2026. Linda sat down with our Research Coordinator, Mihir Singh, to talk about her research and how it connects to the Stone Centre’s mission.
MS: Your research spans public finance, labour economics, and inequality. What motivated you to bring these fields together, and how has that shaped the way you look at economic policy?
LW: I bring public finance, labour economics, and inequality together because they each capture a different part of how resources and opportunities are created and distributed. Public finance shapes incentives through taxation, labour economics examines how people access jobs and income, and inequality reflects the outcomes of these processes. Studying them jointly allows me to connect individual behaviour to broader patterns. This has guided my work on capital taxation, family businesses, and labour market dynamics across different institutional contexts, showing how policy design can shape inequality in many forms, including wealth, income, gender, and firm dynamic.
MS: What motivated you to join UBC’s Stone Centre, and how does its focus on inequality complement your research?
LW: I am drawn to the Stone Centre because of its mission to understand the mechanism and consequences of wealth inequality. My work on capital taxation, family succession, and labour market dynamics speaks directly to these themes. Stone Centres around the world have played a significant role in the development of my research and career. I was supported by the Stone Centre at UCL during my PhD studies, now I am excited to continue my research agenda at UBC, and next year I will be joining the University of Michigan where I will remain connected with the Stone Centre there. For me, being part of the Stone network is not just about institutional support, but about belonging to a community of scholars dedicated to making inequality research inform broader debates on efficiency and equity.
MS: Your research shows that kinship networks strongly influence firm ownership and performance. How do these patterns relate to social mobility and intergenerational wealth transmission?
LW: In my work, I show that kinship networks are common in how firms operate, both in their workforce and in their supply chain relationships. These ties can help overcome trust issues and make transactions easier, but they can also lead to nepotism in hiring, supplier choice, or ownership succession, which may reduce efficiency. Many governments provide tax breaks to family firms during generational transfers to protect continuity. Yet my research shows that firms passed within the family often perform worse than those transferred to unrelated individuals. Outsider succession tends to bring workforce changes and new supplier or buyer relationships that improve performance, while family succession often preserves existing structures. This suggests that policies designed to protect family firms could unintentionally reinforce intergenerational wealth transmission while missing chances to enhance productivity.
MS: Your work highlights how individuals respond to estate and corporate taxation. How can understanding these behavioural responses help policymakers design more effective and equitable tax policies?
LW: My research on estate taxation shows that reported estates respond strongly to reforms, with much larger changes during a tax increase than a tax cut, and that these shifts are driven by avoidance rather than real changes in wealth. These findings have important policy implications. First, policymakers should account for behavioural asymmetries when designing reforms. If ignored, policies might lead to outcomes that are different from their intended goals. Second, they emphasize the importance of stronger enforcement. International collaboration such as the sharing of offshore wealth information across countries is essential to close loopholes and improve compliance. Finally, the lessons extend beyond estate taxes to other capital taxation, where similar avoidance strategies are also used in those contexts.
MS: Having studied in Taiwan, the UK, and the US, and now continuing your work in Canada, how have these different policy environments shaped your approach to research?
LW: Comparing experiences across countries, I’ve found that institutional details matter, but the core behavioral responses to incentives often follow similar patterns. For example, in my estate tax research using Taiwanese data I find that an asymmetrical response between a tax increase and a tax cut, and that it is tax avoidance rather real wealth changes that is driving the responses. While the exact magnitude of responsiveness may differ depending on local rules and enforcement, I believe the patterns extend beyond Taiwan. The very wealthy across countries often face similar incentives, have access to resources and professional advice, and as long as tax enforcement is imperfect, similar behavior is likely to arise. Being exposed to different policy contexts has shaped my approach by making me attentive to institutional details while also encouraging me to infer broader lessons. I see country-specific evidence not just a local finding, but as part of a global pattern that informs how we understand the design of tax systems to probe inequality.
MS: As you continue your fellowship at the Stone Centre, what new dimensions of wealth and income inequality are you most eager to explore?
LW: I am going to explore new dimensions of how inequality is transmitted across generations, with a particular focus on gender. Wealth transfers are not only about how much is passed on, but also about who receives it and in what form, and these differences can shape long-term opportunity.