Areas of Specialization

Working Papers

Panic at the Courtroom: Can Legislative Action against Discrimination in Court Reduce Violence?
Draft available upon request

Abstract: Can legislative action against discrimination in court reduce violence? In recent years, we have seen more and more legislation trying to address emerging regulatory gaps in the protection of gender identity and sexual orientation rights. While previous research documents great benefits of these policies when targeted at the LGBTQ+ population, much less is known about perpetrator-centered approaches. I examine whether the prohibition of the LGBTQ+ “panic” defense, a legal strategy that seeks to blame the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity for the defendant’s violent behavior, affects the prevalence of hate crimes. To identify the effect of legislative interventions banning this practice, I leverage the gradual roll-out of LGBTQ+ “panic” defense bans across the US and implement a difference-in-differences design. The results show that introducing LGBTQ+ “panic” defense bans lead to significantly lower levels of anti-LGBTQ+ hate crime rates. Besides contributing to the literature on minority politics, policy feedback and hate crime prevention, insights gained from this work are of assistance to policy makers and minority rights advocates.

Changing the Rules of the Game: Populists in power and constitutional retrogression
Draft available upon request

Abstract: As populists rise from periphery to power, the question of whether and how these actors threaten democratic institutions becomes ever more pressing. While previous research has focused primarily on the determinants of populist electoral success and its consequences for voters, established parties, and overall democratic quality, this article examines the impact of populist parties’ government participation on the most fundamental of democratic institutions, the constitution. Drawing on a comprehensive dataset, covering information on constitutional changes and populist parties across 30 European democracies (1989-2019), I investigate how the entrance of these actors into power impacts the content of constitutional redrafting. Using a series of matching and difference-in-differences models, I find no support for the notion that populists in power are going after constitutionally enshrined horizontal accountability. Neither de jure executive power nor de jure judicial independence significantly shift after populists enter the government. The same results hold when accounting for the level of constitutional rigidity. The findings make an important contribution to the literature on populist parties, constitutional change and democratic backsliding.

Does protest affect bystanders? experimental evidence
– with Daniel Bischof, Ferdinand Geissler, Johannes Giesecke, Felix Hartmann, Macartan Humphreys, Heike Klüver, Lukas Stoetzer, and Tim Wappenhans –

Abstract: Do protests matter? A rich body of observational work documents effects of protest on political outcomes such as election results, policy change, public opinion, and political behavior. However, there is a gap in empirical research capable of convincingly testing causal claims about protests and the detailed micro-foundations of the theoretical mechanisms developed in earlier research. We address this by designing and conducting a large-scale field experiment, randomly assigning citizens to observe climate strikes by Fridays for Future (FFF) in Berlin, Germany. Theoretically, we argue that observing political protest serves as a visible cue that conveys summary information about societal attitudes and behaviors, creating the impression of shifting public opinion and social norms. We find that while bystanders adapt their social norm perceptions and behavior in favor of protesters’ demands, their attitudes remain largely unchanged. These findings fill an important gap in the literature by unveiling the mechanisms through which protests translate into shifts in political outcomes.

The Electoral Effects of State-Sponsored Homophobia
– with Konstantin Bogatyrev, Tarik Abou-Chadi, Lukas Stoetzer, and Heike Klüver –

Abstract:
Do strategies of state-sponsored homophobia translate into electoral gains? While a growing body of literature documents the increasing politicization of LGBTQ- and gender-related issues by illiberal elites, little is known about the electoral effects of these strategies. We address this important question by studying whether anti-LGBTQ mobilization pays off electorally for the initiating party. Empirically, we study the adoption of anti-LGBTQ resolutions in many Polish municipalities prior to the 2019 parliamentary election. Using a synthetic difference-in-differences design, we find that the adoption of anti-LGBTQ resolutions increased support for the governing Law and Justice (PiS) party while decreasing opposition parties’ ability to mobilize in affected municipalities. Overall, this study’s findings are relevant for understanding the electoral consequences of both elite-led mobilization against stigmatized and discriminated groups, as well as policies of subnational democratic backsliding.

Selected Work in Progress

Crossing the Line: Electoral Implications of Mainstream-Radical Right Cooperation
– with Phillip Heyna, Hanno Hilbig, Tim Wappenhans –

The Police as Gatekeepers of Information: How Biased Reporting Shapes Misperceptions of Out-Group Crime
– with Ashrakat Elshehawy, Arun Frey, Tobias Roemer, Sascha Riaz –

Norms in Flux
– with Mirko Wegemann –