Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 Profile picture
@edenhofer_jacob
Feb 15, 2024 • 13 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X
These maps are interesting. Given the pre-existing differences between the East and West, however, we cannot simply "eyeball" the effects of the GDR regime, though some of the variation is likely causal.
Here are some of my favourite works that help us think carefully ... 1/11
about the GDR regime's effects.
1. I've pointed to this great paper so many times that I feel like a broken record, but this by @essobecker, @LukasMergele, and @Woessmann is essential reading 2/11
2. This by Kern and Hainmueller is an absolute classic and leverages the variation generated in large part by the topography of the valley of the unaware ("Tal der Ahnungslosen") around Dreseden.
3/11cambridge.org/core/journals/…
3. Bursztyn and Cantoni's paper use a similar identification strategy, but look at a different outcome, i.e. consumption, rather than attitudes.
4/11direct.mit.edu/rest/article-a…
4. Another great paper is this @JEEA_News piece by Lichter, Löffler, and @Sigginho. They use within-GDR differences in spying intensity to examine the effects on trust and, more broadly, social capital.
5/11academic.oup.com/jeea/article/1…
5. For non-German readers, let me note that imo Jens Gieseke's (@zzfpotsdam) history of the Stasi is unrivalled. English translation here
6/11amazon.co.uk/History-Stasi-…
Recently, a number of papers have come out that analyse the (i) process of privatisation (via the Treuhand) and (ii) effects of privatisation on economic and political outcomes.
6. This🧵and the related paper are absolute must-reads. 7/11
7. Then, there is this interesting working paper by @ufukakcigit and co-authors.
8/11nber.org/papers/w31645
8. This paper by @BachmannRudi et al. sheds light on the role of monopsony in creating productivity differences between East and West German firms.
9/11papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
9. On the political effects of privatisation, see the work by Hennicke, @anselmhager, @krause_we, and @LukasMergele
10/11osf.io/preprints/osf/…
10. @HansLueders has a new paper in @World_Pol, where he shows that the economic uncertainty associated with East Germany's democratisation has long-lasting effects, with East Germans responding more strongly to present economic uncertainty. 11/END
muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/…
Addendum: See this🧵of mine for some more general thoughts on the "workings" of autocracies:
@threadreaderapp unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦

Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @edenhofer_jacob

Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 Profile picture
Nov 18
Delighted to see this paper out - working with @grattonecon was fantastic; I learned a lot! We develop the argument that technocracy can serve as an intertemporal insurance device for groups who fear their majority status is ephemeral. Because technocrats weigh minority concerns Image
more than majority rule would, they protect today’s majority against losing power in the future. This protection is epsecially valuable when that majority cares intensely about the issue it delegates. But when majority status becomes more stable (e.g. via
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
entrenchment) or technocratic decisions consistently favour the same group, those disfavoured by technocracy may push back. Democracies can then oscillate between technocratic and majoritarian decision-making; the ensuing cycles can undermine institutional stability and heighten
Read 6 tweets
Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 Profile picture
Nov 9
This very interesting paper raises a broader questions: why do some scandals stay contained while others discredit an entire political class? Part of the answer, I think, lies in diffeences in the clarity of accountability across democratic political systems. A well-established
line of research in comparative politics points out that
democracies differ in how easily citizens can infer responsibility for policy decisions/outcomes. In systems with high clarity of responsibility—Westminster or presidential ones—power is
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
concentrated, making it easy to attribute decisions. In these systems, I would argue that scandals are (more) "individualised". The offender resigns, the party apologises, and voters move on. Each scandal reaffirms that wrongdoing can be sanctioned reasonably effectively. In
Read 10 tweets
Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 Profile picture
Nov 3
Fascinating paper by @grattonecon, @bartonelee2, and Hasin Yousaf!
The paper addresses a fundamental question: Why do some democracies chronically avoid ambitious, long-term reforms even when they have decent institutions?
They argue that what matters is not only institutional Image
quality (rules, transparency, electoral design), but also political culture: voters’ beliefs about whether politicians can be trusted and whether institutions really hold them accountable.
In their model, there are two types of politicians: ambitious
academic.oup.com/ej/advance-art…
(who promise reforms) and default (who play it safe).
- Ambitious politicians can be honest or dishonest; only honest ones try to deliver.
- Voters can’t observe effort directly; they see results with some probability (transparency).
- Voters have beliefs (their “political
Read 8 tweets
Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 Profile picture
Oct 30
Inspired by @CaioSeldon's selection of books, here is my summary of the conceptual chapter in Dahl's classic work on polyarchy and democratisation. The central question je seeks to answer is: “Given a regime in which opponents of the government cannot openly or legally organise Image
into political parties to oppose the government in free and fair elections, what conditions favour or impede a transformation into a regime in which they can?” (p. 1) He is concerned with explaining the development of a system of public contestation, with the government and the
opposition competing for political power in free and fair elections. The emergence of such a system is a central aspect, albeit not the only one, of democratisation.
Dahl argues that the key characteristic of democracy is the continuing responsiveness of the government to its
Read 23 tweets
Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 Profile picture
Oct 27
Inspired by this excellent Substack post, I want to share some thoughts on the limits of moderate accommodation and the logic of the second best. Specifically, here is what I think is the *strongest* argument for the anti-accommodation view looks like -- which doesn't necessarily Image
mean that I fully subscribe to it.
Moderate accommodation on immigration would, in principle, be feasible if Labour enjoyed credibility—or at least a lower valence disadvantage —on the issue. In such a case, voters could interpret a moderate policy
dysfunctionalprogramming.substack.com/p/on-the-immig…
adjustment as a sincere, competence-driven recalibration rather than an opportunistic manoeuvre. Yet in the British context, the credibility conditions for this equilibrium are absent. Decades of unmet promises have produced a persistent valence deficit: no government has even
Read 24 tweets
Jacob Edenhofer 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 Profile picture
Oct 25
Fascinating paper, especially when read against the backdrop of these (👇) two related papers! All three study the political effects of right-wing violence in Germany, yet they find seemingly contradictory opposite results. Below my attempt to reconcile the findings. Image
Image
First, though, let me briefly summarise the papers; see below for a more detailed summary.
1. De Juan et al.
- Analyses survey responses just before vs after the 2020 Hanau terror attack.
- Combines this with media content & a survey experiment.
-Finding: AfD support fell by 3 Image
–5 pp, and AfD Facebook unfollows spiked.
Interpretation: a media backlash — the attack was highly salient, explicitly racist, and widely linked to AfD rhetoric. → Short-term reputational cost or stigmatisation for the far right.
2. Krause & Matsunaga (2023)
- Uses weekly time Image
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(