Publications


2024. Terrorism, perpetrators and polarization: Evidence from Natural Experiments

Journal of Politics (Accepted). Joint with Vincenzo Bove (University of Warwick), Georgios Efthyvoulou (University of Sheffield), and Harry Pickard (Newcastle University). 

[Working Paper] [Replication Material]

Abstract. We analyze whether affective polarization -- the extent to which individuals feel positively towards one party and negatively towards another one -- can be aggravated by terrorism violence. Terrorist attacks intensify pre-existing ideological worldviews and partisan leanings and bring divisive political issues to the fore.  Yet, they can also generate strong feelings of cohesion, solidarity and unity, as  individuals from the entire political spectrum come together. To identify causal effects, we exploit a series of natural experiments in Great Britain and leverage the timing of fatal far-right and Islamic terrorist attacks and the date of interview of respondents in the British Election Study. We find that Islamic attacks increase affective polarization whereas far-right attacks depolarize the electorate. We provide evidence that this discrepancy can partly be explained by the perceived salience of attacks and different attitudes towards contentious and polarizing issues. 


[See project webpage]

2024. Does Schooling Increase Political Belief Accuracy?

Political Studies, OnlineFirst. Joint with Marco Giani (King's College London). 

[Working Paper] [Replication Material]

Abstract. Citizens must hold accurate beliefs about politically relevant facts to preserve democratic representation, accountability and legislation. We theorize that, abstracting from one’s background, schooling per se does not trigger the epistemological sophistication that is necessary to get a grasp of the political world. In this article, we study whether schooling improves the accuracy of factual beliefs about the share of foreigners and unemployed, later in life. We derive an appealing metric of belief accuracy, matching survey respondents’ beliefs with the corresponding real-world datum at the time of the interview in their country, retrieving high levels of inaccuracy in both issues. More educated individuals display higher belief accuracy, most likely due to selection, rather than causality: compelling otherwise-dropouts to stay in school by extending compulsory education does not entail a significant effect on belief accuracy, in both issues. Taken together, cross-sectional and causal estimates suggest that education is necessary, but not sufficient, to contrast inaccurate beliefs.

2022. Military Culture and Institutional Trust: Evidence from Conscription Reforms across Europe 

American Journal of Political Science. Joint with Vincenzo Bove (University of Warwick) and Marco Giani (King's College London). 

[Working Paper] [Replication Material]

Abstract. Does military conscription reduce the distance between the ordinary citizen and the state? Decades after its abolition, numerous European policymakers from across the political spectrum advocate the reintroduction of conscription to foster civic virtues, despite a lack of empirical evidence in this respect. Leveraging quasi-random variation in conscription reforms across 15 European countries, we find that cohorts of men drafted just before its abolition display significantly and substantially lower institutional trust than cohorts of men who were just exempted. At the same time, ending conscription had no effect on institutional trust among women from comparable cohorts. Results are neither driven by more favourable attitudes towards the government, nor by educational choices. Instead, this civil-military gap unfolds through the formation of a homogeneous community with uniform values. We argue that reintroducing a compulsory military service may not produce the effects anticipated by its advocates.

2020. COVID-19, Security Threats and Public Opinions 

Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 26(3). Joint with Vincenzo Bove (University of Warwick).

Abstract. Throughout the coronavirus outbreak, politicians and commentators have often adopted a war-like rhetoric, invoking a language more often associated to terrorist violence, rather than epidemics. Although COVID-19 represents primarily a public health emergency, not inflicted by human agency, there are similarities in the type and scope of regulations governments have introduced to tackle the virus and to respond to terrorist attacks. In this article, we first ask what we can learn from the extant studies on the attitudinal and emotional consequences of terrorism, relating it to recent research on public opinions in the wake of COVID-19, in order to better understand and predict how the pandemic will influence public sentiments. We then analyze how attitudes can shift when a critical event not only threatens the population of a country as a whole, but directly affects its political leader. Leveraging recently released survey data, we show how the announcement of Angela Merkel’s quarantine significantly dampened the trust in and the credibility of her government, although this effect was short-lived.

Working Papers

Berlinguer I Love You (Still): the Downstream Effects of Expressive Voting, joint with Elias Dinas (European University Institute) and Biljana Meiske (European University Institute)

Abstract. For nearly as long as the rational voting paradox has puzzled scholars, it has been recognized that voters' decisions are influenced by expressive motivations. Yet, we still know little about how voting expressively can shape future political preferences. Addressing this question requires knowing whether voting has been instrumental or expressive: an inherently difficult task, as the two often get mixed. We fill this gap by focusing on a rare instance of expressive voting: support for the Italian Communist Party (PCI) in the 1984 European election, preceded by the sudden death of PCI's leader, Enrico Berlinguer. We find that votes cast on expressive grounds not only return to PCI in the future, but also tend to remain within its ideological domain after its dismantling in 1991. An instrumental variables approach based on differential expressive motives across electoral districts shows that the ``Berlinguer effect'' generates a long-term loyalty to the radical left. 

Felon Re-enfranchisement, Race, Arrests, joint with Mariaelisa Epifanio (University of Liverpool) and Giacomo Damioli (University of Bremen) 

Abstract. Civil right activists have long advocated for felons’ re-enfranchisement on the ground that felony laws disproportionately affect African Americans due to racial biases in policing.Following their campaigns, several U.S states have recently re-enfranchised felons. We exploit the staggered introduction of such reforms to study the impact of re-enfranchising felons on county-level arrests rates of African Americans. We find that felons re-enfranchisement yields an increase in arrests rates of African Americans in prevalently white counties and a decrease in counties with a sizable Black community. We investigate several explanations for this dual pattern. We show that the strength of civil rights organizations is most likely to explain the decrease in arrest rates of African Americans we document. We find no evidence in favor of an electoral mechanism or a change in crime rates. Additional tests also reveal that felon re-enfranchisement may have triggered a backlash by White citizens.

Good COP/Bad COP: Estimating the Impact of Global Political Initiatives on Climate Change Attitudes, joint with Catarina Midões (Università Ca' Foscari)

Abstract. Whilst political initiatives and extreme weather events have been found to shape attitudes towards Climate Change (CC), their effect can be dampened by ideological and cognitive barriers. We study two global, bipartisan, political initiatives, 2021's COP26 in Glasgow and 2016's COP22 in Marrakech, boosting CC salience but having limited short-term concrete repercussions. We merge responses to Wave 8 and 10 of the European Social Survey (ESS), whose roll-out overlapped with the two Conferences, with daily, gridded temperature data, and find that respondents exposed to upwards temperature anomalies before the interview are more concerned about CC. Even accounting for such local salience shocks, respondents interviewed throughout Glasgow’s COP26 - but not 2016's COP22 - and in the weeks following it, were more likely to express a higher preoccupation about CC. The effect appears driven by right-wing respondents, who also experience a reduction in their skepticism of human responsibility for CC.

Work in Progress

EU Make Me Feel Like A Natural Woman: Politics of Women's Representation in the EU Parliament, joint with Anatole Cheysson (European University Institute)

"Good" citizens in "Exceptional" Times: The Role of State and Regime Legitimacy, joint with Francesc Amat (Universitat de Barcelona)

The Political Impact of Job Restructuring Announcements: Evidence from the UK, joint with Costin Ciobanu (Aarhus University)

PhD Dissertation

Motherhood in Academia: A Novel Dataset with an Application to Maternity Leave Uptake, joint with Mariaelisa Epifanio (University of Liverpool), Thomas J. Scotto (University of Glasgow), and Vera E. Troeger (University of Hamburg)

Abstract. Motherhood is widely believed to be an important factor slowing down the career progression of women, hence we present a novel database that combines an original survey of women (and mothers) working in the Higher Education sector with data on the occupational maternity benefits offered by academic employers in the UK. This allows to track, at the individual level, child-bearing experiences and employment histories simultaneously. To give an illustration of how researchers can use our data, we offer a portrait of mothers in UK academia, and of how their experiences have evolved over the years. We also carry out an empirical analysis of the determinants of leave uptake, showing that women's employment status and family arrangements have a significant impact on the types of maternity leave - paid or unpaid - being taken.

The Motherhood Penalties: Insights from Women in UK Academia, joint with Mariaelisa Epifanio (University of Liverpool), Thomas J. Scotto (University of Glasgow), and Vera E. Troeger (University of Hamburg) 

Abstract. We use an original survey of women employed in the UK higher education sector to investigate different dimensions of the motherhood penalty.  Being a mother does not impact salaries, yet slows down career progression in academia. While exhibiting higher satisfaction rates towards the work environment, mothers are more likely to perceive their retribution as unfair with respect to male colleagues. Our paper then explores factors mitigating the motherhood penalty: more generous maternity provisions are associated with higher salaries, possibly by reducing the crowding out of research activity following childbirth. The same holds for longer childcare hours, and for an even distribution of responsibilities within the household. Our estimates also highlight the importance of a supportive work environment for mothers’ careers and well-being. Taken together, our findings suggest the necessity of a multi-faceted policy response to the motherhood penalties.

Motherhood, Leave Generosity and Academic Productivity, joint with Mariaelisa Epifanio (University of Liverpool), Thomas J. Scotto (University of Glasgow), and Vera E. Troeger (University of Hamburg)