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 measures against discrimination in court reduce bias-motivated behavior? This study examines the impact of criminal code reforms that prohibit the LGBTQ+ “panic” defense—a legal strategy that attributes a defendant’s violent actions to a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity—on the incidence of hate crimes. I argue that such reforms operate through two primary mechanisms: first, by increasing the material costs of engaging in bias-motivated violence through heightened legal sanctions, and second, by signaling institutional disaprovement of violence as a means of enforcing heteronormative and masculinity norms. To assess the causal effect of these reforms, I exploit the staggered adoption of LGBTQ+ “panic” defense bans across U.S. states and employ a difference-in-differences design. The findings indicate that states implementing these bans experience a significant reduction in anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes. This study advances scholarship on minority rights, policy feedback, and the criminal justice system by demonstrating how legal reforms shape social norms and constrain bias-driven violence. The results also have direct implications for policymakers and advocates seeking to mitigate hate crimes through judicial and legislative interventions.

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 –