Daniel Bischof

Building: 1340, Room: 234

Bartholins Allé 7, DK

8000 Aarhus C, DK

I am an Associate Professor (tenured) of Political Science at the Department of Political Science at Aarhus University and a SNSF Ambizione Grant Holder at the University of Zurich.

I primarily work on and teach Comparative Politics, Political Behavior and Political Economy. As a scientist, I seek to address research questions which are relevant to both the academic as well as the public debate. This means that I work on some of the key challenges contemporary democracies are facing such as the rise of extremism, its societal consequences, remedies to mitigate extremism, and the erosion of social norms more generally. My studies are primarily empirically oriented using research designs which seek to rigorously test theoretical arguments mostly with (quasi-)experimental designs. More information on the two major research projects I currently work on can be found below:

1.) The Causes & Consequences of Extreme Party Entrance (funded by SNSF Ambizione Grant: www.extremeentrance.github.io)

2.) DEMNORM - Democratic Norms (funded by Carlsberg Foundation Young Research Fellowship & AUFF Starting Grant: https://demnorm.github.io/)

CV as PDF

selected papers

OSF

Out-group Threat and Xenophobic Hate Crimes: Evidence of Local Intergroup Conflict Dynamics between Immigrants and Natives

with Sascha Riaz and Markus Wagner,

revise & resubmit: Journal of Politics 2021

Abstract HTML

This study examines the relationship between crimes attributed to immigrants and hate crimes against refugees at the local level. We argue that localized crime events attributed to immigrants can lead natives to exact retribution against uninvolved out-group members. We investigate such intergroup conflict dynamics between immigrants and natives in Germany, a country that has in recent years experienced a sharp increase in both the foreign-born population and hate crimes. Our empirical analysis leverages fine-grained geo-coded data on more than 9,400 hate crimes and 60,000 immigrant-attributed crime events between 2015 and 2019. Using a regression discontinuity in time design (RDiT), we show that the daily probability of hate crimes doubles in the immediate aftermath of an immigrant crime event in a local community. Additional evidence points to mobilization rather than legitimization as a likely mechanism. Our results speak to growing concerns about xenophobic violence in Western democracies.
OSF

Wealth of Tongues: Why Peripheral Regions Vote for the Radical Right in Germany

with Daniel Ziblatt and Hanno Hilbig,

revise & resubmit: American Political Science Review 2021

Abstract HTML

Why do voters for the radical right tend to cluster in specific geographic locations? Many scholars have emphasized the economic roots of radical right support. Other scholarship highlights the role of the urban-rural divide, contending that the radical right finds support in low population density locations due to distinctive social values and strong place-based social identities found in rural areas. To date, however, we do not have a full grasp of the sources of these latter factors nor an understanding of the historical roots that explain their emergence. We argue that what is frequently classified as the “rural” bases of radical right support in previous research is in part a proxy for something entirely different: communities that were in the historical "periphery" in the center-periphery conflicts that shaped modern nation-state formation. Inspired by a classic state-building literature that emphasizes the prevalence of a “wealth of tongues” (Weber 1976)—or nonstandard linguistic dialects in a region—as a definition of the periphery, we use data from more than 725,000 geo-coded responses in a linguistic survey in Germany to show that voters from historically peripheral geographic communities are more likely to vote for the radical right today.
OSF

How Simple Messages Affect Voters’ Knowledge and Their Perceptions of Politicians

with Roman Senninger,

2021

Abstract HTML

Public discourse is increasingly concerned with the way how politicians communicate. This is fuelled by a new generation of politicians like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, and representatives of populist parties who evidently communicate less sophisticated than mainstream politicians. However, the question whether and how linguistic styles affect citizens is largely unexplored. We argue that both citizens and politicians might benefit from simple political communication. First, mechanically citizens should have a better chance to understand political positions if political discourse is less sophisticated. Second, linguistic simplicity can function as a heuristic for citizens by signaling that politicians are amongst ‘the people’ instead of being part of the ‘elites’. We test our arguments using a pre-registered three-wave vignette survey experiment in Germany (N = 5,700). Our findings show that simple messages (as compared to sophisticated messages) indeed increase citizens’ comprehension of political positions. Moreover, we find that citizens use language sophistication as a heuristic to fill informational gaps about politicians. Politicians who communicate less sophisticated are perceived to have rather modest socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result, the use of simple language can benefit politicians’ claims to belong to the people instead of the elite. Our findings add important new insights to our understanding of the effects of political communication in contemporary democracies.
OSF

Lost in Transition – Where Are All the Social Democrats Today?

with Thomas Kurer,

prepared for an edited book by Silja Häusermann and Herbert Kitschelt 2021

Abstract HTML

This chapter follows individual voter flows using panel data for Social Democrats in Germany (1984-2018), the United Kingdom (1991-2018) and Switzerland (1999-2018). To our knowledge this chapter, thus, provides the first long running study of individual voting transitions amongst Social Democratic voters, following their transitions for almost 40 years. The key goal of this chapter is to understand where initial voters of the Social Democrats are today and which individual level characteristics correlate with leaving SDs. We find: 1) Social Democrats manage to keep some of their core 2) but a lot of their core gets de-mobilized or moves on to more progressive options (Greens, LibDem, Green Liberal Party). 3) SDs struggle in all countries to attract new voters, less so in Switzerland which we think is at least partly due to the progressive offer provided by the SP. In contrast, the German SPD loses to everyone and gains almost nothing. We also find evidence that SDs die out: the key factor correlated with ‘leaving’ is the generational cohort Social Democrats belong to. In contrast, often theorized and emphasized factors such as occupation, income or unemployment show much smaller correlations with former Social Democrats’ decision to leave the party behind.