Evidence from Norway suggests that a rise in turnout not only benefits centre-left parties, but can also benefit the radical right

High turnout in European elections has often been assumed to favour parties on the left of the political spectrum, based on the assumption that they derive their support primarily from working class voters. Henning Finseraas and Kåre Vernby argue that this principle may no longer be valid due to the existence of new parties on the left and right of party systems, such as radical right parties which appeal to those in lower socio-economic groups. Using data from Norway, they illustrate that the right-wing Progress Party appears to benefit from high turnout as much as Norway’s centre-left Labour Party, while the country’s Socialist Left Party loses support when turnout rises

The Feasibility of Using Data-Driven Algorithmic Recommendations for Refugee Placement in Norway

A growing body of research suggests that refugees’ initial settlement area can have a long-run impact on subsequent integration outcomes. As a result, matching refugees and asylum seekers to initial locations where they are likely to succeed holds the potential to improve their labor market integration. In this report we focus on the GeoMatch algorithm, which is a recommendation tool that provides settlement officers with data-driven location recommendations for incoming refugees and asylum seekers. Leveraging machine learning on historical data, the tool predicts labor market outcomes for individuals across possible settlement areas. A flexible allocation algorithm then provides location recommendations for each family unit while taking capacity constraints into account. Drawing on administrative data from Statistics Norway and incorporating a set of realistic constraints, we find that using GeoMatch recommendations could improve refugees’ monthly earnings by up to 55% over baseline. The report ends with a discussion of how the tool can be implemented in the Norwegian context.The Feasibility of Using Data-Driven Algorithmic Recommendations for Refugee Placement in NorwaypublishedVersio

Ideological biases in research evaluations? The case of research on majority–minority relations

Social science researchers tend to express left-liberal political attitudes. The ideological skew might influence research evaluations, but empirical evidence is limited. We conducted a survey experiment where Norwegian researchers evaluated fictitious research on majority–minority relations. Within this field, social contact and conflict theories emphasize different aspects of majority–minority relations, where the former has a left-liberal leaning in its assumptions and implications. We randomized the conclusion of the research they evaluated so that the research supported one of the two perspectives. Although the research designs are the same, those receiving the social contact conclusion evaluate the quality and relevance of the design more favorably. We do not find similar differences in evaluations of a study on a nonpoliticized topic.Ideological biases in research evaluations? The case of research on majority–minority relationspublishedVersio

Hvordan identifisere årsakssammenhenger i ikke-eksperimentelle data? En ikke-teknisk introduksjon

submittedVersio

Pre-analysis plan: The Effect of Small Group Instruction in Mathematics for Pupils in Lower Elementary School

submittedVersio

Ethnicity coding revisited: right-wing parties as catalysts for mobilization against immigrant welfare rights

Ethnicity coding means that threat-based views of ethnic minority members spur opposition to specific welfare programmes. To advance knowledge of the influence of political parties on ethnicity coding, we apply a dynamic approach. Longitudinal analyses show that: a) because right-wing political parties persistently frame state pensions as benefitting native majority members, a perceived ethnic threat increases support for this welfare scheme, and b) a perceived ethnic threat reduces support for social assistance when right-wing political parties frame it as favouring immigrants. Extending these findings, we show that opposition to immigrant welfare rights prompts electoral realignment, as left-wing voters increasingly switch to right-wing parties. More generally, political parties are capable of stimulating opposition to parts of the welfare state, including electoral mobilization against immigrant welfare rights. We utilize unusually rich mass-level survey data from Denmark, covering a 25-year period (1990‒2015). The broader implications of our findings for theories of ethnicity coding, political elite persuasion, and welfare state development are discussed in the conclusion

Fear of crime on the rail networks: Perceptions of the UK public and British Transport Police

Counter-terrorism on the rail network is vital to the security of the United Kingdom. The British Transport Police (BTP) employ covert and overt security measures to prevent crime, which includes: closed circuit television, armed police, unarmed polisce, police community support officers, police dogs, stops and searches and awareness campaigns. All security measures aim to deter crime while importantly reassuring the public. We surveyed both members of the public and BTP officers about the perceived effectiveness of current security measures, specifically with regards to fear of terrorism. Feelings of reassurance and the perceived effectiveness of security measures were positively related. The most effective and reassuring security measure was the use of armed police; whereas the least effective and reassuring was the use of awareness campaigns. However, interestingly, qualitative analyses suggested that an increase in armed police without informed awareness campaigns would have a negative impact on public reassurance by increasing fear

The heterogeneous effect of diversity: Ascriptive identities, class and redistribution in developed democracies

The current consensus among comparative political scientists postulates that diverse democracies redistribute less than homogeneous ones. However, whereas homogeneous democracies redistribute more on average, diverse democracies exhibit high variation in redistributive outcomes. Why does ascriptive heterogeneity stifle redistribution in some cases but not in others? In this article, it is argued that diversity undermines redistributive outcomes when identity groups differ more starkly in their income levels. More importantly, under these conditions, the policy outcomes are not uniform: rather than general cutbacks, richer groups selectively under‐prioritise benefits and access for poorer, minority‐heavy groups while keeping their own redistributive interests protected. The result is not simply less redistribution aggregately, but a more exclusionary and regressive welfare state that prioritises the social needs of better‐off identity groups. Empirical support is found for these hypotheses using macrocomparative panel data on multiple redistributive aspects in 22 developed democracies in the years 1980–2011. The article thus outlines a conditional and more nuanced relationship between diversity and redistributive outcomes than commonly assumed, as well as several broader lessons for research of identity politics and social policy.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147802/1/ejpr12283_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147802/2/ejpr12283-sup-0001-Appendix.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147802/3/ejpr12283.pd

Is it the Income Distribution or Redistribution that Affects Growth?

Hervorming Sociale Regelgevin