Disseminating data is a core mission of international organizations. The Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs), in particular, have become a main data source for research and policy-making. Due to their extensive lending activities, the BWIs often find themselves in a position to assist and pressure governments to increase the amount of economic data that they provide. In this study, we explore the association between loans from the BWIs and an index of economic transparency derived from the data-reporting practices of governments to the World Bank. Using a matching method for causal inference with panel data complemented by a multilevel regression analysis, we examine, separately, loan commitments and disbursements from the IMF and the World Bank. The multilevel regression analysis finds a significant association between BWI loans and the improvement of economic transparency in all developing countries; the matching method identifies a causal effect in democracies.

Among the greatest challenges facing scholars of public opinion are the potential biases associated with survey item nonresponse and preference falsification. This difficulty has led researchers to utilize nonresponse rates to gauge the degree of preference falsification across regimes. This article addresses the use of survey nonresponse rates to proxy for preference falsification. A simulation analysis exploring the expression of preferences under varying degrees of repression was conducted to examine the viability of using nonresponse rates to regime assessment questions. The simulation demonstrates that nonresponse rates to regime assessment questions and indices based on nonresponse rates are not viable proxies for preference falsification. An empirical examination of survey data supports the results of the simulation analysis.

Studies of political persuasion often use an exogenous encouragement as an instrument for persuasive messaging. However, for some people, such encouragement is insufficient, while for others, it is unnecessary. These individuals are excluded from methods that only estimate a treatment effect among compliers. Using the marginal treatment effect framework, we extend research finding that exposure to West German television increases support for communism. We find that, because of self-selection, for those who watch West German TV regardless of signal quality, i.e. always-takers, cutting off West German television would have increased support for communism. Our extrapolation shows that media choices reinforce, rather than mollify, political preferences.

Scholars and policymakers warn that with rising affective polarization, politicians will find support from the public and permission from military professionals to use military force to selectively crack down on political opponents. We test these claims by conducting parallel survey experiments among the US public and mid-career military officers. We ask about two hypothetical scenarios of domestic partisan unrest, randomly assigning the partisan identity of protesters. Surprisingly, we find widespread public support for deploying the military and no significant partisanship effects. Meanwhile, military officers were very resistant to deploying the military, with nearly 75 percent opposed in any scenario. In short, there is little evidence that public polarization threatens to escalate domestic disputes, and strong evidence for military opposition.

The influence of congressional primary elections on candidate positioning remains disputed and poorly understood. We test whether candidates communicate artificially “extreme” positions during the nomination, as revealed by moderation following a primary defeat. We apply a scaling method based on candidates language on Twitter to estimate positions of 988 candidates in contested US House of Representatives primaries in 2020 over time, demonstrating validity against NOMINATE (r > 0.93) where possible. Losing Democratic candidates moderated significantly after their primary defeat, indicating strategic position-taking for perceived electoral benefit, where the nomination contest induced artificially “extreme” communication. We find no such effect among Republicans. These findings have implications for candidate strategy in two-stage elections and provide further evidence of elite partisan asymmetry.

What are the consequences of including a “don't know” (DK) response option to attitudinal survey questions? Existing research, based on traditional survey modes, argues that it reduces the effective sample size without improving the quality of responses. We contend that it can have important effects not only on estimates of aggregate public opinion, but also on estimates of opinion differences between subgroups of the population who have different levels of political information. Through a pre-registered online survey experiment conducted in the United States, we find that the DK response option has consequences for opinion estimates in the present day, where most organizations rely on online panels, but mainly for respondents with low levels of political information and on low salience issues. These findings imply that the exclusion of a DK option can matter, with implications for assessments of preference differences and our understanding of their impacts on politics and policy.

Civic associations are expected to foster civic, pro-social behavior, but this optimistic view is increasingly contested. We argue that populist radical right parties can strategically target and infiltrate associations to diffuse anti-establishment rhetoric and anti-democratic attitudes. We illustrate this phenomenon by examining the relationship between civic associations and compliance with government rules during Germany's first Covid-19 lockdown with a difference-in-differences design. Results show that areas with denser sport, nature, and culture clubs recorded higher mobility under lockdown. We document the infiltration mechanism and the spreading of anti-democratic attitudes within associations, using survey and election data and qualitative evidence including interviews. In doing so, we shed light on a negative effect of social networks and an understudied strategy of challenger populist parties.

The standard measure of authoritarianism asks respondents about desirable qualities in children. Although these questions are gender-neutral, respondents may differ in the gender of the child in their heads when answering. The items also may tap into gendered expectations about boys' and girls' behavior. We conducted three experiments that randomly assigned respondents to be asked about a child, a boy, or a girl in the items. We compare the means, measurement properties, and correlation between authoritarianism and other important variables across the conditions. Asking respondents about a girl creates significant differences in the level and measurement of authoritarianism, which is partially driven by the respondents' sexism. There are, fortunately, few other significant differences in the correlates of authoritarianism.

American politics scholarship has relied extensively on self-reported measures of ideology. We evaluate these widely used measures through an original national survey. Descriptively, we show that Americans’ understandings of “liberal” and “conservative” are weakly aligned with conventional definitions of these terms and that such understandings are heterogeneous across social groups, casting doubt on the construct validity and measurement equivalence of ideological self-placements. Experimentally, we randomly assign one of three measures of ideology to each respondent: (1) the standard ANES question, (2) a version that adds definitions of “liberal” and “conservative,” and (3) a version that keeps these definitions but removes ideological labels from the question. We find that the third measure, which helps to isolate symbolic ideology from operational ideology, shifts self-reported ideology in important ways: Democrats become more conservative, and Republicans more liberal. These findings offer first-cut experimental evidence on the limitations of self-reported ideology as a measure of operational ideology, and contribute to ongoing debates about the use of ideological self-placements in American politics.

We investigate the American public's attitudes over an integral component of judicial behavior: the legal principles judges employ when making decisions. Our theoretical perspective argues that political preferences shape individuals’ attitudes over how judges apply legal principles, mirroring ideological divisions expressed by political elites and judges. Using an original battery of questions, we find high support across all Americans for the use of certain, well-established legal principles, but stark differences in how liberals and conservatives evaluate the use of more controversial principles. In a survey experiment, we find that agreement (disagreement) between an individual's attitudes over the use of legal principles and the reasoning contained in a Supreme Court opinion is associated with increased (decreased) support for the Court decision.

We study the effect of compulsory civic duty on turnout. We take advantage of a natural experiment in Spain, where electoral officers are selected through a lottery and being an electoral officer is compulsory for those drafted. We analyze whether acting as an officer changes turnout and attitudes in subsequent elections. Our findings show that compulsory civic duty has a strong short-term and positive effect on electoral participation, but has no impact on political attitudes. The positive effect of the civic duty treatment, however, fades after a few months. Our results have implications for theories about civic duty and the formation of political habits.

With the increasing nationalization of politics, federal politicians have interacted more and more with subnational actors. In particular, the president and governing party have provided selective policy and spending benefits to same-party jurisdictions in order to increase their influence in subnational politics. As a significant amount of federal grants is allocated directly to city governments, we analyze the effects of the federal-city relationship in the federal grant process. Specifically, we examine the effects of the president–mayor party alignment on the allocation of federal block and project grants to 568 medium and large cities from 2005 to 2020 using a two-way (city and year) fixed-effects model. We find that the president favors co-partisan mayors in the distribution of federal grants, specifically co-partisan mayors from (a) secure party cities, (b) cities in states where the governor is also a co-partisan, and (c) secure party cities in states where the governor is also a co-partisan. Digging deeper, we find this form of presidential particularism is almost exclusively a Democratic pursuit.

Presidential elections are arguably the most consequential recurring political event in the United States. Understanding the factors that determine their outcomes, therefore, is of substantial importance. One proposed factor pertains to presidential candidates' incumbency status, yet its nature is complex and difficult to study with observational data. In particular, the individual-level mechanisms underlying incumbency effects remain unclear. This study proposes many citizens generally believe that, ceteris paribus, presidents should be afforded two terms. Crucially, such a norm implies that incumbency status possesses an inherent effect, operating independent of other mechanisms that may stem from incumbency. A large, pre-registered survey experiment was therefore employed to isolate the effect of incumbency status on presidential vote choice. The experiment finds strong evidence that one-term incumbent candidates have an inherent advantage against their non-incumbent opponents. The results also clarify that the two-term disadvantage present in observational data is not inherent, and is perhaps better understood simply as the absence of the one-term advantage. The study thus points toward a micro-foundational mechanism underlying incumbent-party performance in presidential elections. Finally, analyses of panel data explore which voters may be systematically inclined to vote based upon the incumbency status of presidential candidates.

Anemic demand for local news has contributed to an industry crisis. We consider whether local elections, which highlight the ability of local television stations and newspapers to provide information that is unavailable from national news outlets, increase local media use. While we show these elections are a time of increased attention to local politics in the news and among the public, we also find local media outlets do not benefit from this when considering behavioral news use measures. Relative to news outlets in cities without an election, local television remains substantively unchanged during local elections. Newspaper website traffic is largely stable, although it falls slightly the month after an election. In both cases these differences are small, even when considering close races and those happening off the federal election cycle. This shows limits on the ability of salient local political events to motivate local news use.

Increasing partisan polarization has characterized American politics for decades. On January 6, 2021, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress expressed their horror at the violent invasion of the US Capitol, leading to the popular perception—emphasized by media accounts—that the attack generated a rare moment of bipartisan unity. We argue that while members of both parties condemned the attack, a marked partisan divide characterized their messaging even as events unfolded. We analyze all 1861 tweets by members of Congress on January 6th and find that Republicans were significantly more likely to characterize the invasion as a protest grown out of hand, while Democrats described it as an attack on democracy. The results strongly indicate that partisan polarization was alive and well on January 6th and may help to account for Republicans’ shift toward normatively positive portrayals of the day in subsequent months.

We revisit Arunachalam and Watson's contention that a person's physical height may be used as instrument for income because it affects economic well-being solely by causing more conservative political preferences among people who are taller. To evaluate whether other early-life and genetic factors might serve as mechanisms connecting height and political preferences, we analyze a unique data source that includes political, economic, and demographic data on same-gender siblings. Models that include fixed effects for siblings provide a strong test of the Arunachalam and Watson thesis. We find that height is not a consistent predictor of political preferences once shared sibling characteristics are controlled in this way, raising doubt about whether height can in fact be used as an instrument for income.

A popular explanation for America's democratic ills is that Republicans and Democrats misperceive one another to hold extreme attitudes. However, Americans may also misperceive the diversity of partisans’ attitudes to ill effect. This paper uses surveys and pre-registered experiments with representative and convenience samples (n = 9405) to validate a measure of perceived attitude extremity and diversity and compare it to canonical measures of perceived polarization. We find that American partisans vastly under-estimate the diversity of each party's attitudes. Yet, contrary to existing research, we see little evidence that partisans over-estimate how extreme the “average” Republican or Democrat is. Finally, perceptions of both the “average” partisan and within-party attitude diversity predict partisan animosity and perceptions of out-party threat.

Regression models with log-transformed dependent variables are widely used by social scientists to investigate nonlinear relationships between variables. Unfortunately, this transformation complicates the substantive interpretation of estimation results and often leads to incomplete and sometimes even misleading interpretations. We focus on one valuable but underused method, the presentation of quantities of interest such as expected values or first differences on the original scale of the dependent variable. The procedure to derive these quantities differs in seemingly minor but critical aspects from the well-known procedure based on standard linear models. To improve empirical practice, we explain the underlying problem and develop guidelines that help researchers to derive meaningful interpretations from regression results of models with log-transformed dependent variables.

This research note builds upon a number of important articles published in a variety of outlets concerning the population ecology of interest groups. Importantly, Lowery and Gray (1995), Nownes (2004), and Nownes and Lipinski (2005) empirically demonstrated the dependence on the density of pre-existing, similar groups when predicting new group formations. In this letter, I add to this research by modeling the density of ideologically divergent reproductive rights groups as well as offer supporting evidence for the popular Energy-Stability-Area model. The former is a novel consideration in the field of population ecology which primarily examines ideologically similar groups. I show that density dependence is at play among these polarized groups. I also provide insight into counter-mobilization movements of group formation by empirically demonstrating which groups are initial movers versus reactionary formers. In doing so, I raise important questions for researchers concerned with the emergence, longevity, and impact of interest groups over long periods of time. Finally, this research provides some insight into the expectations of group formation behavior in light of the landmark Dobbs decision.

Several disciplines, such as economics, law, and political science, emphasize the importance of legislative quality, namely well-written legislation. Low-quality legislation cannot be easily implemented because the texts create interpretation problems. To measure the quality of legal texts, we use information from the syntactic and lexical features of their language and apply these measures to a dataset of European Union legislation that contains detailed information on its transposition and decision-making process. We find that syntactic complexity and vagueness are negatively related to member states’ compliance with legislation. The finding on vagueness is robust to controlling for member states’ preferences, administrative resources, length of texts, and discretion. However, the results for syntactic complexity are less robust.