Melina R. Platas

Global performance indicators, such as democracy ratings, are influential tools of global governance and can have a direct bearing on foreign policy, aid, and investment. Many of these indicators rely on expert assessments. Although expert assessments are generally understood to be objective, this article suggests raters’ identities may shape their assessments. It specifically examines how national identity shapes democracy ratings. Two data sources—an original survey of experts on Uganda and the Varieties of Democracy Institute—reveal significant differences in the ratings provided by national and non-national experts. In most cases, ratings by nationals are more positive. This article explores three potential reasons for the difference, finding some support for each: national differences in information access and consumption, national differences in conceptions of democracy, and in-group–out-group bias. The findings have implications for our understanding of global performance indicators, which are overwhelmingly a product of Global North organizations.

Who registers to vote? Although extensive research has examined the question of who votes, our understanding of the determinants of political participation will be limited until we know who is missing from the voter register. Studying voter registration in lower-income settings is particularly challenging due to data constraints. We link the official voter register with a complete social network census of 16 villages to analyze the correlates of voter registration in rural Uganda, examining the role of individual-level attributes and social ties. We find evidence that social ties are important for explaining registration status within and across households. Village leaders—and through them, household heads—play an important role in explaining the registration status of others in the village, suggesting a diffuse process of social influence. Socioeconomic factors such as income and education do not explain registration in this setting. Together these findings suggest an alternate theory of participation is required.

Social context theory suggests that an important driver of political participation is the behavior of family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. How do social ties between individuals shape equilibrium behavior in larger populations? Despite theoretical inroads into this question, direct empirical tests remain scarce due to data limitations. We fill this gap using full social network data from 15 villages in rural Uganda, where village-level turnout is the outcome of interest. We find that levels of participation predicted by structural features of village networks are strongly associated with actual village-level turnout in low-salience local elections, and weakly associated in high-salience presidential elections. We also find that these features predict other forms of political participation, including attending village meetings and contributing to village projects. In addition to demonstrating that networks help explain political participation, we provide evidence that the mechanism of influence is that proposed by social context theory rather than alternative mechanisms like the presence of central brokers or the ability of networks to diffuse information.

Immigration is a highly polarized issue in the United States, and negative attitudes toward immigrants are common. Yet, almost all Americans are descended from people who originated outside the country, a narrative often evoked by the media and taught in school curricula. Can this narrative increase inclusionary attitudes toward migrants? We draw from scholarship showing that perspective-taking decreases prejudice toward out-groups to investigate whether reminding Americans about their own immigration history increases support for immigrants and immigration. We propose that priming family experiences can indirectly stimulate perspective-taking and induce empathy toward the out-group, which we test with three separate survey experiments conducted over two years. Our findings show that priming family history generates small but consistent inclusionary effects. These effects occur even among partisan subgroups and Americans who approve of President Trump. We provide evidence that increased empathy for immigrants constitutes one mechanism driving these effects.

How are harmful social practices brought to an end? Female genital cutting (FGC) is extremely common among ever-married women in Egypt, but the practice has declined among younger women and girls. While much of the recent literature on abatement of FGC has focused on individual-level determinants of a mother's choice to circumcise her daughters, we focus on meso-level factors, particularly norm change within religious communities and attitude formation within families. We find differential FGC trends across Muslim and Coptic Christian communities as well as an effect of the gender of a woman's first-born child—an exogenous variable in Egypt where pre-natal sex selection is rare—on attitudes toward FGC. The effect of the first-born gender varies by religion and birth cohort, however, suggesting ways in which meso-level factors interact to impact women's attitudes and associated FGC outcomes.

A preregistered meta-analysis of six field experiments finds no evidence overall that information campaigns shape voter behavior.

Existing research has shown how easily individuals are moved to harbor exclusionary attitudes toward out-group members. Can we foster inclusion instead? This paper leverages the ongoing Syrian refugee crisis – one of the most significant humanitarian crises of our time – to test whether and under what conditions American citizens adopt more inclusionary attitudes and behaviors toward Syrian refugees. We conduct a nationally representative survey of American citizens in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election and experimentally test two mechanisms hypothesized to promote inclusion: information and empathy. We examine attitudinal measures of acceptance of refugees, as well as a substantively important behavioral measure – writing a letter to the 45th president of the United States in support of refugees. Our results unveil significant effects on attitudes and behavior of both empathy and information treatments that are mediated by partisanship. The empathy treatment resulted in an increase in the likelihood of writing a letter in support of refugees. An examination of heterogeneous effects by party reveals that the empathy treatment engendered inclusionary attitudes among Independents, and the increase in letter writing was driven primarily by Democrats, whose underlying attitudes did not change, but also by Republicans. The information treatment, on the other hand, did not robustly improve attitudes or behavior of Democrats or Independents, and may have induced a backlash among Republicans. We discuss implications for understanding what kinds of interventions increase inclusion and which create backlash.