Working Papers
Drafts available on request.
The Discretionary Color Line in International Institutions
Revise and resubmit, American Political Science Review.
Abstract
A growing literature documents racial hierarchy in international institutions. I test whether formally equal rules eliminate that hierarchy in practice. I argue that this hierarchy emerges when international institutions centralize formally color-blind rules while distributing discretionary implementation authority across states, allowing national racial classifications to shape how those rules are applied. I test this argument in the Schengen visa regime, where states apply substantially harmonized rules but national consulates retain discretion. Bilateral ancestral distance, a measure of perceived racial difference, predicts visa refusals after accounting for major bilateral confounders and all time-varying characteristics of applicant nationalities and issuing states. The relationship is driven by contemporary, not pre-1500, ancestral distance, intensifies under consular workload, and is stronger where national populations hold more restrictive attitudes toward racially different immigrants. The institutional allocation of implementation authority in IOs can therefore convert national racial classifications into international institutional racism.
Reliable Panel Regression: A Default Workflow for Slow-Moving, Mismeasured Variables
Abstract
Political scientists use two-way fixed effects (FE) as the default specification for panel regressions, on the reasoning that any coefficient surviving FE has been purged of time-invariant confounding. But many of the variables in those models—Polity, V-Dem indices, log GDP, trade share, oil rents—are slow-moving and measured with error. Under those conditions, FE does not purify the cross-sectional estimate; it strips out the signal (which lives between countries) and keeps the noise (which sits in the within-unit variation). Two-thirds of country-year variables in the Quality of Government dataset sit in this range. Larger panels make the problem worse because increased statistical power tightens confidence intervals around a biased point estimate. This paper develops a default workflow for the modal observational panel regression in political science. A sign test built on the empirical intraclass correlation of the regressor and the agreement between pooled OLS and fixed effects picks between random effects, fixed effects, and partial-identification bounds. The paper then applies this workflow to three recent panel-data papers and shows examples where it rescues and corroborates the findings.
Traces of the Past: Regime Histories and Anti-Foreigner Violence in Post-Unification Germany
with Hannah M. Alarian and Michael Bernhard.
Abstract
Anti-foreigner violence is a pressing problem in European democracies. Most interventions look to contemporaneous solutions to reduce or stigmatize such violence. Yet this focus fails to consider how historical legacies continue to shape the persistence and geographic contours of violence. We address this possibility, theorizing that divergent memory politics, reconciling with Nazism's violent legacies, influence current anti-foreigner violence. Using novel anti-foreigner violence data between 1992 and 2021, we reveal that past Nazi support remains associated with violence toward foreigners in post-unification Germany. Moreover, we demonstrate that memory politics can mitigate this violent legacy. The evolution of a culture of contrition in the former Federal Republic specifically diminished the frequency of attacks on foreigners, in contrast to the former German Democratic Republic, where the social roots of Nazi-era hatred remained unconfronted. State-level memorial and individual survey data corroborate these relationships, revealing that memory politics can blunt the impact of violent legacies.
Who Deserves to Belong? Public Opinion and U.S. Naturalization Decisions
with Juliana K. Mucci and Hannah M. Alarian.
Abstract
Citizenship is one of the most important and politically sensitive policy issues in democracies worldwide. Naturalization is a crucial aspect of democratic inclusion, as it requires states and their citizens to accept immigrants as fellow citizens. American attitudes toward immigration, in particular, are well-established, with Americans often favoring immigrants from culturally similar origins or those who hold high-status positions. Yet, little is known about Americans' preferences for naturalization. This article addresses this gap by examining Americans' evaluations of United States (US) citizenship applicants. Supplementing an existing study (osf.io/5ctkj), we test this theory in another original conjoint experiment to isolate attitudes toward naturalization in the US. We hypothesize that the "hidden consensus" that has been found to exist across party lines regarding immigration attitudes does not hold in the context of naturalization attitudes, especially in a polarized political climate. This study provides a further nuanced understanding of how Americans' own political identities shape their attitudes toward citizenship.
Races to the Bottom? Political Homophobia, Symbolic Politics, and Retrospective Voting in Local Elections
with Conor O’Dwyer and Matthew Stenberg.
Abstract
Do politicians pay an electoral price for policies stigmatizing minority groups? Drawing on retrospective voting theory, we explore this question using municipal elections in Poland's "LGBT Free Zones," which diffused in 2019–2020 under the sponsorship of the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party before sparking counter-mobilization. Using a difference-in-differences design, we compare the municipalities that adopted a "zone" with municipalities that considered but did not adopt. We find that PiS lost 14–16 percentage points of its seat share after passage. The penalty was strongest where the party label was most visible; the pattern does not extend to national elections. PiS's struggles in municipalities that enacted "zones" were not part of a general rejection of the party. Instead, voters punished identifiable local sponsors in those places where the policy had been enacted. These findings contribute to a fuller understanding of the short- versus longer-term effects of symbolic politics that stigmatize minorities.
Voting for Extremists: How Extremist Protests Influence Far-Right Voting Behavior in Germany
with Hannah M. Alarian and Sebastian Elischer.
Abstract
The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is a prominent force in German politics, risking social solidarity, increasing anti-democratic attitudes, and advancing exclusionary policies. The AfD's ascent in national polling underscores a striking paradox: the party's popularity persists alongside its growing recognition as an extremist organization. Is extremism attracting voters, or rendering the far-right anathema to the mainstream electorate? This article addresses this question, examining the proximity of the AfD to right-wing extremist civil society and its impact on the party's electoral performance. Using a novel dataset of AfD and extremist organization protests, we show that AfD participation in protests alongside extremist actors significantly increases its vote share between the 2013 and the 2017 elections. However, between 2017 and 2021, cooperation with right-wing extremist groups declined, and so did the contribution of that collaboration to the overall vote share. The findings contribute to the ongoing debate in political science about the impact of extremism on far-right parties.