I am an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. My research lies at
the
intersection of Comparative Politics and Political Economy. I examine how economic transformations, such as
labor market shifts, the transition to renewable energy, regional
inequality, and housing crises, shape politics in established democracies. My work leverages a range of
research
designs and data sources, including natural experiments, large-scale surveys and administrative data.
Previously, I was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University. I graduaded with a PhD from the Department of
Government at Harvard University in
2022.
-
How Budget Tradeoffs Undermine Electoral Incentives to Build Public
Housing
(with Andreas Wiedemann). Conditionally Accepted, American Journal of Political Science.
[Abstract]
Housing shortages and rising rents have increased demands for
affordable
housing. In this paper, we propose that electoral constraints can undermine local politicians' incentives to
build
public housing. This occurs because voters' diverging preferences for spending conflict with municipalities'
long-term goals to provide affordable housing. Empirically, we draw on the full-count census of all housing
built in
Germany, data on 19,671 local elections between 1989 and 2011, and an original survey. Using a
difference-in-differences design, we demonstrate that local incumbents experience moderate electoral losses
after
constructing new public housing. We then show that these losses are not driven by homeowner opposition or
native-foreigner competition. Instead, we develop a novel argument that voters punish local incumbents for
new
municipal housing when they prefer spending on other prioritized policy domains. Our results have
implications for
the origins of the affordability crisis and suggest potential strategies to mitigate electoral constraints.
-
Does Rent Control Turn Tenants Into NIMBYs?.
(with Anselm Hager and Robert Vief). Conditionally Accepted, Journal of Politics.
[Abstract]
Affordable housing is a key challenge of the 21st century. A pivotal
driver of growing housing prices is residents' opposition to construction, a phenomenon known as NIMBYism
("Not In My Backyard"). To make housing more affordable, city governments are increasingly implementing rent
control policies. Does rent control---by making tenants more likely to stay in their apartments---spark
NIMBYism and thus exacerbate the housing crisis? We study the case of Berlin, which recently passed a
sweeping rent control law. Leveraging two discontinuities in the policy, we show that rent control made
tenants less NIMBY. Specifically, tenants in rent controlled apartments became more likely to approve of
local-level construction and immigration, compared to tenants in non-rent-controlled apartments. We argue
that the decline in NIMBYism is likely due to an economic channel. Tenants in urban centers associate
construction and immigration with displacement pressures and gentrification. Rent control alleviates these
concerns by providing financial and residential security.
-
Local Newspaper Decline and Political Polarization in Multi-Party Systems
(With Fabio Ellger, Sascha Riaz and Philipp Tillman). Accepted, British Journal of Political Science.
[Abstract]
How does the decline of local news affect political
polarization? We
provide novel panel evidence on this question in a multi-party setting. In particular, we shed light on the
link between newspaper exits, media consumption, and ultimately electoral behavior. To study the aggregate
relationship between local news exits and polarization, we rely on a unique panel of all German local
newspapers between 1980 and
2009. In addition, we precisely trace individual-level mechanisms by drawing on an annual media consumption
survey
of more than 670,000 respondents over three decades. Using a difference-in-differences design, we
demonstrate that
local newspaper exits increase electoral polarization, which aligns with evidence from the American context.
Going
beyond prior work, we then document that local news exits increase polarization because affected
constituents
substitute local news with national tabloid news. Finally, we show that local news exits increase
politicization and
partisanship at the individual level.
-
Wealth of Tongues: Why Peripheral Regions Vote for the
Radical
Right in Germany
(with Daniel Bischof and Daniel Ziblatt). 2024. American Political Science Review, 118 (3): 1480–1496.
[Abstract]
[Preprint]
Why is support for the radical right higher in some geographic
locations
than others? This paper argues that what is frequently classified as the “rural” bases of radical right
support in
previous research is in part the result of something different: communities that were in the historical
“periphery”
in the center-periphery conflicts of modern nation-state formation. Inspired by a classic state-building
literature
that emphasizes the prevalence of a “wealth of tongues” (Weber 1976)—or nonstandard linguistic dialects in a
region—as a definition of the periphery, we use data from more than 725,000 geo-coded responses in a
linguistic
survey in Germany to show that voters from historically peripheral geographic communities are more likely to
vote
for the radical right today.
-
Refugee Labor Market Access
Increases
Support for Migration
(with Anselm Hager and Sascha Riaz). 2024. Comparative Political Studies, 57 (5): 749–777.
[Abstract]
Does the economic integration of refugees affect public
attitudes
toward migration? We assess this pertinent question by examining a policy change in Germany, where the
government
significantly eased labor market access for refugees in the majority of the country. Using administrative
employment
data, we show that the policy led to a substantial increase in refugee employment, while natives' wages and
employment rates remained unaffected. The policy also had a positive effect on natives' attitudes toward
migration.
Voters exposed to more refugees in the labor market were two percentage points more likely to vote for
pro-migration
parties across both state and federal elections. Additional survey analyses suggest that our results are
driven by
positive native-refugee interactions in the workplace.
-
Natural Disasters and Green Party
Support.
2024.
(With Sascha Riaz). Journal of Politics., 86 (1): 241-256.
[Abstract]
[Preprint]
A growing literature shows that extreme weather events induce
pro-environment attitudes. We examine the political effects of a severe flood shortly before the 2021 German
federal
election. Drawing on about 600,000 survey responses and electoral data, we assess how flooding affected (i)
the
perceived salience of climate change, (ii) self-reported Green Party support, and (iii) Green Party voting
in
federal elections. We find that even severe local flooding had little to no effect on these outcomes.
Additional
evidence supports two mechanisms underlying this finding: nationwide rather than local effects of severe
disasters,
and voter demands for disaster relief rather than climate change prevention. We test the former mechanism
using a
regression discontinuity design and find that the flood increased nationwide Green Party support, although
this
effect persists for only two weeks. Our results shed new light on the precise duration and geographic scope
of the
political effects of natural disasters.
-
Government Spending and Voting Behavior.
2024.
(With Anselm Hager). World Politics. 76 (1):
88-124.
[Abstract]
Does government spending on public goods affect the vote choice of
citizens? On the one hand, voters have been
characterized as "fiscal conservatives" who may turn toward conservative parties when government spending
goes up.
Onthe other hand, increased spending may signal that the economy is doing well, which makes progressive
parties a
more viable option. To adjudicate between both hypotheses, this paper draws on a natural experiment, which
created
exogenous variation in government spending. A discontinuity in the 2011 German census meant that some
municipalities
saw an unforeseen increase in budgets. Using a regression discontinuity design, we show that the increase in
budgets
and subsequent spending on public goods benefited left-leaning parties, but had no effect on incumbent
support. To
parse out the causal channel, we rely on panel evidence and demonstrate that treated residents viewed their
economic
situation more favorably, which led them to espouse progressive parties.
-
Local News Monopolies Increase
Misperceptions about Immigration.
2023.
(with Sascha Riaz). Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49(17): 4536-4558.
[Abstract]
[Preprint]
We examine how local news monopolies affect misperceptions
about
the size of the immigrant population in Germany. We propose a theoretical framework in which heterogeneous
information from different local news outlets diffuses through social interactions. We posit that indirect
exposure to information from multiple sources leads to more accurate beliefs in competitive markets. To
causally identify the effect of local news monopolies on misperceptions, we exploit overlapping newspaper
coverage areas as a source of
exogenous variation in the number of available outlets. We estimate that local news monopolies increase
misperceptions about the size of the local immigrant population by about four percentage points. We
demonstrate that the effect of media monopolies hinges on social interactions. For individuals with fewer
close social contacts, misperceptions remain unaffected by local news monopolies. Our results suggest that
consolidation in the market for
news decreases constituents' knowledge about critical policy issues.
-
Freedom of Movement Restrictions Inhibit the
Psychological Integration of Refugees.
2022.
(with Sascha Riaz). Journal of Politics., 84(4): 2288-2293.
[Abstract] [Preprint]
How do freedom of movement restrictions affect refugee
integration?
While a growing body of research studies the initial spatial allocation of refugees, there is little causal
evidence
on subsequent policies that restrict residential mobility. We study a contentious law in Germany, which
barred
refugees from moving to a location different from the one they were randomly assigned to. To identify the
causal
effect of the movement restriction on integration, we utilize a sharp date cutoff that governs whether
refugees are
affected by the policy. We demonstrate that restricting freedom of movement had pronounced negative effects
on
refugees' sense of belonging in Germany while increasing identification with their home countries. In
addition, the
policy decreased engagement in a variety of social activities. Our findings suggest that discriminatory
policies
send a negative signal about the inclusiveness of the host society and thereby reduce the psychological
integration
of refugees.
-
Locked
Out of College:
When Admissions Bureaucrats Do and Do Not
Discriminate. 2022.
(with Jacob Brown). British Journal of Political Science, 52(3): 1436-1446.
[Abstract] [Preprint]
How does a criminal record shape interactions with the State and
society? We present evidence from a nationwide field experiment, showing that prospective applicants with
criminal
records are about five percentage points less likely to receive information from college admission offices.
However,
we demonstrate that bias does not extend to race. There is no difference in response rates to Black and
White
applicants. We further show that bias is all but absent in public bureaucracies, as discrimination against
formerly
incarcerated applicants is driven by private schools. Examining why bias is stronger for private colleges,
we
demonstrate that the private-public difference persists even after accounting for college selectivity,
socio-economic composition and school finances. Moving beyond the measurement of bias, we evaluate an
intervention
aimed at reducing discrimination: whether an email from an advocate mitigates bias associated with a
criminal
record. However, we find no evidence that advocate endorsements
decrease bureaucratic bias.
-
Does Public Opinion Affect Political
Speech? 2020.
(with Anselm Hager). American Journal of Political Science, 64 (4): 921-937. [Abstract]
Does public opinion affect political speech? Of particular
interest is
whether public opinion affects (i) what topics politicians address and (ii) what positions they endorse. We
present
evidence from Germany where the government was recently forced to declassify its public opinion research,
allowing
us to link the content of the research to subsequent speeches. Our causal identification strategy exploits
the exogenous timing of the research's dissemination to cabinet members within a window of a few days. We
find that exposure to public opinion research leads politicians to markedly change their speech. First, we
show that
linguistic similarity between political speech and public opinion research increases significantly after
reports are
passed on to the cabinet, suggesting that politicians change the topics they address. Second, we demonstrate
that
exposure to public opinion research alters politicians' substantive positions in the direction of majority
opinion.
-
Do Inheritance Customs Affect
Political and Social Inequality? 2019.
(with Anselm Hager). American Journal of Political Science, 63 (4): 758-773.
[Abstract]
Why are some societies more unequal than others? The French
revolutionaries believed unequal inheritances among siblings to be responsible for the strict hierarchies of
the ancien regime. To achieve equality, the revolutionaries therefore enforced equal inheritance rights.
Their goal was to empower women and to disenfranchise the noble class. But do equal inheritances succeed in
leveling the societal playing field? We study Germany—a country with pronounced local-level variation in
inheritance customs—and find that municipalities that historically equally apportioned wealth, to this day,
elect more women into political councils and have fewer aristocrats in the social elite. Using historic
data, we point to two mechanisms: wealth equality and pro-egalitarian preferences. In a final step, we also
show that, counterintuitively, equitable inheritance customs positively predict income inequality. We
interpret this finding to mean that equitable inheritances level the playing field by rewarding talent, not
status.
-
Estimating Controlled Direct Effects with
Panel Data: An Application to Reducing Support for Discriminatory Policies.
(with Matthew Blackwell, Adam Glynn and Connor Phillips). Revise & Resubmit, Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society: Series A.
[Abstract]
Political scientists are increasingly interested in controlled direct
effects, which are important quantities of interest for understanding why, how, and when causal effects will
occur. Unfortunately, their identification has usually required strong and often unreasonable
selection-on-observeables assumptions for the mediator. In this paper, we show how to identify and estimate
controlled direct effects under a difference-in-differences design where we have measurements of the outcome
and mediator before and after treatment assignment. This design allows us to weaken the identification
assumptions to allow for linear, time-constant unmeasured confounding between the mediator and the outcome.
Furthermore, we develop a semiparametrically efficient and multiply robust estimator for these quantities
and apply our approach to a recent experiment evaluating the effectiveness of short conversations at
reducing intergroup prejudice. An open-source software package implements the methodology with a variety of
flexible, machine-learning algorithms to avoid bias from misspecification.
-
Place-Based Policies, Local Responses, and Electoral
Behavior
(with Vincent Heddesheimer and Andreas Wiedemann).
[Abstract]
Place-based economic policies are increasingly seen as
instruments to counter political discontent in
economically-depressed regions. Do regional investment subsidies affect electoral behavior? We evaluate this
question in
the context of Germany's largest regional investment program. Our identification strategy leverages a 2014
subsidy rate
cut for manufacturing firms that -- due to EU rules -- was exogenous to local economic trends. The subsidy
cut reduced
voting for the far-right AfD and increased support for the incumbent Christian Democrats. We then
demonstrate that
subsidy cuts trigger two counterreactions: local firms invest more in human capital and local governments
invest more in
infrastructure and public goods. We argue that these dynamics signal to voters that local governments are
responsive and
care about their constituents, undermining populist appeals. Our findings suggest that political
consequences of
place-based policies -- and austerity more broadly -- cannot be understood without considering
counteractions by local
firms and governments.
-
The Green Transition and Political Polarization Along
Occupational
Lines
(with Vincent Heddesheimer and Erik Voeten).
[Abstract]
Green transition policies set long-term targets to reduce
carbon emissions and other pollutants, posing a threat to
workers in polluting occupations and communities reliant on these occupations. Can far right parties attract
voters who
anticipate losing from the green transition? We explore this in Germany, which has ambitious green policies
and a large
workforce in polluting occupations. The far right AfD started campaigning as the only party opposing green
transition
policies in 2016. Using a difference-in-differences design, we show AfD support increased in counties with
more
polluting jobs after this platform change. A panel survey further demonstrates that individuals in these
occupations
also shifted towards the AfD. Probing mechanisms, we find suggestive evidence that growing far right support
is due to
changing perceptions of social stigma and lower status. Our results highlight the need for a new research
agenda on a
backlash against the normative dimension of the green transition.
-
Party
Biased Party Nominations as a Source of Women's Electoral Underperformance
(with Pia Raffler and Thomas Fujiwara)
[Abstract]
What accounts for differences in electoral success between male
and female candidates? We argue that parties
systematically nominate female candidates to districts where the party is less popular, making it harder for
women to
get elected. Our empirical strategy uses the German mixed electoral system to create counterfactual gender
vote gaps.
These gaps represent the scenario where male and female candidates are nominated in districts where their
respective
parties have equal popularity. Using data on all candidates for the German Bundestag across eleven
elections, we
document that female underperformance, and its variation across parties and election years, is explained
almost entirely
by women running in districts where their party is less popular. In contrast, we find no evidence that voter
bias or
candidate characteristics play a substantial role. Our argument highlights gendered party gatekeeping that
increases in
district strength as an important driver of female underrepresentation.
-
Do Autocrats Respond to Citizen Demands? Petitions and Housing Construction
in the GDR
(with Hans Lueders and Sascha Riaz)
[Abstract]
Citizens in authoritarian regimes frequently communicate grievances
to the government. While there is some evidence that governments respond to such petitions, little is known
about the nature of this responsiveness: can petitions yield tangible improvements to citizens' livelihoods?
To answer this question, we assemble a novel panel of housing-related petitions to the government of the
German Democratic Republic (GDR) and all housing constructed between 1945-1989. Exploiting the timing of the
largest housing program in 1971, we employ a difference-in-differences design to show that construction was
targeted at regions with higher rates of petitioning. We then use a variance decomposition method to
benchmark the importance of petitions against objective indicators of housing need. Our results suggest that
petitions allow citizens to meaningfully influence the allocation of public resources. The paper contributes
to nascent scholarship on responsiveness in non-democratic regimes and shows that responsiveness leads to
tangible improvements in citizens' livelihoods.
-
Political and Social Correlates of Covid-19
Mortality
(with Constantin Manuel Bosancianu, Macartan Humphreys, Sampada KC, Nils Lieber and Alex Scacco)
[Abstract]
Do political and social features of states help explain the
evolving distribution of reported Covid-19 deaths? We identify national-level political and social
characteristics that past research suggests may help explain variation in a society's ability to respond to
adverse shocks. We highlight four sets of arguments---focusing on (1) state capacity, (2) political
institutions, (3) political priorities, and (4) social structures---and report on their evolving association
with cumulative Covid-19 deaths. After accounting for a simple set of Lasso-chosen controls, we find that
measures of government effectiveness, interpersonal and institutional trust, bureaucratic corruption and
ethnic fragmentation are currently associated in theory-consistent directions. We do not, however, find
associations between deaths and many other political and social variables that have received attention in
public discussions, such as populist governments or women-led governments. Currently, the results suggest
that state capacity is more important for explaining Covid-19 mortality than government accountability to
citizens, with potential implications for how the disease progresses in high-income versus low-income
countries. These patterns may change over time with the evolution of the pandemic, however.