About

Rafaela Dancygier is Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and holds the title of IBM Professor in International Studies. She received her Ph.D. in political science with distinction from Yale University in 2007. Her academic specialization is in comparative politics, with a focus on the implications of ethnic diversity in advanced democracies. Her research examines the domestic consequences of international immigration, the political incorporation and electoral representation of immigrant-origin minorities, the determinants of ethnic conflict, and contemporary electoral realignments in European democracies. Her notable contributions include her books 'Immigration and Conflict in Europe' (2010), which explores how immigration regimes and local political economies influence conflict dynamics, and 'Dilemmas of Inclusion: Muslims in European Politics' (2017), which investigates minority group incorporation into politics and its effects on party politics and electoral cleavages. Her work has been recognized with awards such as the Best Book Award from the European Politics and Society Section of the American Political Science Association and the 2018 Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Science Research. Dancygier's articles have received multiple Best Paper Prizes from APSA sections, and her research has appeared in leading political science journals.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Psychology
• Economics
• Sociology
• Political economy
• Law
• Public administration
• Management
• Social psychology
• Demographic economics
• Business
• Criminology

Selected publications

• Housing Populism Under Financialized Capitalism

  2026-03-06 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This paper examines the rise of housing populism---narratives that cast financial investors as predatory, demand investor bans, and frame housing as a fundamental social right requiring state protection. We argue that politicians embrace housing populism less because it reflects economic realities than because it resonates with public moral commitments: distrust of finance capitalism and support for housing as a collective entitlement. Using U.S. property-level transaction data (2012-2021), a difference-in-differences analysis finds no consistent evidence that investor activity increases housing costs. Yet original surveys reveal widespread, bipartisan beliefs that investors undermine the right to housing and that government should safeguard access. A candidate-choice experiment further shows that candidates advocating investor bans framed in rights-based or anti-elite terms substantially outperform those prioritizing home-building through pragmatic or market-oriented appeals. Housing populism channels social-rights claims into symbolic confrontations between ``the people’’ and financial elites, often displacing more effective policy responses.

  PublisherDOI

• Housing Populism Under Financialized Capitalism

  SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · 2026-03-06

  preprintOpen access

  This paper examines the rise of housing populism---narratives that cast financial investors as predatory, demand investor bans, and frame housing as a fundamental social right requiring state protection. We argue that politicians embrace housing populism less because it reflects economic realities than because it resonates with public moral commitments: distrust of finance capitalism and support for housing as a collective entitlement. Using U.S. property-level transaction data (2012-2021), a difference-in-differences analysis finds no consistent evidence that investor activity increases housing costs. Yet original surveys reveal widespread, bipartisan beliefs that investors undermine the right to housing and that government should safeguard access. A candidate-choice experiment further shows that candidates advocating investor bans framed in rights-based or anti-elite terms substantially outperform those prioritizing home-building through pragmatic or market-oriented appeals. Housing populism channels social-rights claims into symbolic confrontations between ``the people’’ and financial elites, often displacing more effective policy responses.

  Publisher

• Housing Populism Under Financialized Capitalism

  2026-02-24

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This paper examines the rise of housing populism---narratives that cast financial investors as predatory, demand investor bans, and frame housing as a fundamental social right requiring state protection. We argue that politicians embrace housing populism less because it reflects economic realities than because it resonates with public moral commitments: distrust of finance capitalism and support for housing as a collective entitlement. Using U.S. property-level transaction data (2012-2021), a difference-in-differences analysis finds no consistent evidence that investor activity increases housing costs. Yet original surveys reveal widespread, bipartisan beliefs that investors undermine the right to housing and that government should safeguard access. A candidate-choice experiment further shows that candidates advocating investor bans framed in rights-based or anti-elite terms substantially outperform those prioritizing home-building through pragmatic or market-oriented appeals. Housing populism channels social-rights claims into symbolic confrontations between ``the people’’ and financial elites, often displacing more effective policy responses.

  PublisherDOI

• Housing Populism Under Financialized Capitalism

  SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · 2026-02-24

  preprintOpen access

  This paper examines the rise of housing populism---narratives that cast financial investors as predatory, demand investor bans, and frame housing as a fundamental social right requiring state protection. We argue that politicians embrace housing populism less because it reflects economic realities than because it resonates with public moral commitments: distrust of finance capitalism and support for housing as a collective entitlement. Using U.S. property-level transaction data (2012-2021), a difference-in-differences analysis finds no consistent evidence that investor activity increases housing costs. Yet original surveys reveal widespread, bipartisan beliefs that investors undermine the right to housing and that government should safeguard access. A candidate-choice experiment further shows that candidates advocating investor bans framed in rights-based or anti-elite terms substantially outperform those prioritizing home-building through pragmatic or market-oriented appeals. Housing populism channels social-rights claims into symbolic confrontations between ``the people’’ and financial elites, often displacing more effective policy responses.

  Publisher

• Is Antisemitism a ``Red Line" for Voters?

  Open MIND · 2026-03-23

  otherOpen access

  We seek to estimate bounds on the share of voters for whom antisemitic speech by a political candidate is a ``red line'' --- meaning they would never vote for a candidate who expresses an antisemitic sentiment when a non-antisemitic alternative is available. We use a modified conjoint experiment with specially constructed ``dominance-favored'' tasks to estimate upper and lower bounds on this quantity. We also examine whether red-line behavior varies across demographic and political subgroups, and whether voters treat antisemitic statements differently from overtly racist statements about Black Americans.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Future of Multiracial Democracy: Liberal Democracy in an Age of Immigration

  Journal of democracy · 2024-09-24 · 1 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  ABSTRACT: Across democracies, there are concerns that immigration poses threats to liberal democracy. The conventional narrative focuses on two threats. First, as migrant inflows and ethnic diversity have risen, so has public support for nativist radical-right parties who are only weakly attached to democracy. Second, migrants themselves adhere to comparatively illiberal positions on a range of issues, with adverse consequences for liberalism. These narratives place the blame on mass publics. By contrast, this essay argues that mainstream political elites are frequently at fault. Even though large popular majorities are wedded to liberal democracy and open to immigration, mainstream parties have consistently adopted rhetoric and campaign strategies that legitimize and empower native and migrant citizens who promote illiberal politics. To the extent that immigration presents risks to liberal democracy, centrist political elites have facilitated and escalated these threats.

  PublisherDOI

• The Financialization of Housing and Its Political Consequences

  2024-05-30 · 2 citations

  preprintOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Institutional investors in residential real estate have become targets of political backlash against unaffordable housing. We argue that this backlash is not only about economic issues such as rising rents; it reflects a fundamental rejection of "financialized capitalism" that turns housing from a basic need into a speculative asset. Using novel geo-coded real estate transaction data, we document the extent of housing financialization cross-nationally and over time, and demonstrate that neighborhood-level exposure to financialization alone is insufficient to explain the widespread support to expropriate corporate landlords in a historic 2021 Berlin referendum. We then develop nationally-representative surveys to show that German citizens conceptualize housing as a social right and hold the state responsible for its under-provision. We demonstrate experimentally that arguments about housing financialization significantly raise support for expropriation beyond rent effects. Our findings suggest that financialized capitalism can unite diverse groups of voters in favor of housing socialism.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The financialization of housing and its political consequences

  American Journal of Political Science · 2024-11-25 · 7 citations

  articleOpen access1st author

  Abstract Institutional investors in residential real estate have become targets of political backlash against unaffordable housing. We argue that this backlash is not only about economic issues such as rising rents; it reflects a fundamental rejection of “financialized capitalism” that turns housing from a basic need into a speculative asset. Using novel geo‐coded real estate transaction data, we document the extent of housing financialization cross‐nationally and over time, and demonstrate that neighborhood‐level exposure to financialization alone is insufficient to explain the widespread support to expropriate corporate landlords in a historic 2021 Berlin referendum. We then develop nationally representative surveys to show that German citizens conceptualize housing as a social right and hold the state responsible for its under‐provision. We demonstrate experimentally that arguments about housing financialization significantly raise support for expropriation beyond rent effects. Our findings suggest that financialized capitalism can unite diverse groups of voters in favor of housing socialism.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Emigration and radical right populism

  American Journal of Political Science · 2024-03-27 · 24 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract An extensive literature links the rise of populist radical right (PRR) parties to immigration. We argue that another demographic trend is also significant: emigration. The departure of citizens due to internal and international emigration is a major phenomenon affecting elections via two complementary mechanisms. Emigration alters the composition of electorates, but also changes the preferences of the left behind. Empirically, we establish a positive correlation between PRR vote shares and net‐migration loss at the subnational level across Europe. A more fine‐grained panel analysis of precincts in Sweden demonstrates that the departure of citizens raises PRR vote shares in places of emigration and that the Social Democrats are the principal losers from emigration. Elite interviews and newspaper analyses explore how emigration produces material and psychological grievances on which populists capitalize and that established parties do not effectively address. Emigration and the frustrations it generates emerge as important sources of populist success.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Differently Divisive: Sexism, Racial Resentment, and Voter Support for Candidates with Incongruent Views <br>

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2024-01-01

  preprintOpen access
  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Kåre Vernby

  Stockholm University

  74 shared

• Karl‐Oskar Lindgren

  64 shared

• Pär Nyman

  Stockholm University

  63 shared

• Richard Alba

  The Graduate Center, CUNY

  50 shared

• Douglas S. Massey

  Princeton University

  50 shared

• Daniel J. Hopkins

  University of Pennsylvania

  50 shared

• Katherine Bartley

  University of South Carolina

  49 shared

• Monica McDermott

  Arizona State University

  49 shared

Awards & honors

• Best Book Award by the European Politics and Society Section…
• Choice Outstanding Academic Title
• 2018 Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Science Resea…
• Best Paper Prizes by APSA’s Sections on Comparative Politics…
• American Journal of Political Science Best Article Award (20…