Have you seen The Spotlight (@SpotlightMovie) and wondered about the broader implications of these scandals? In our new WP 🚨, @BKleinTeeselink and I study how religiosity affects policy preferences and gender norms. Here's what we find: (a 🧵) #EconTwitter #polsciTwitter

The data can be found here. I've downloaded the data and have already begun to explore it. Super cool! https://t.co/mBNUQAy3Op

Our new book — Greening the International Monetary Fund (Cambridge University Press, 2025) — examines how climate change has become embedded in the IMF’s work and what this means for global economic governance. 📖 Open access:

Read the full paper here 👉 https://t.co/8JAhURlXHD And see the coverage by @KingsCollegeLon:

Interpretation: Well-designed, work-neutral disability benefits do not reduce labor market participation. The small positive effects under strict assessors likely reflect filtering out strategic claims, not large behavioral responses.

📊 Results: •Expanding access (mental health) → no reduction in employment, if anything small positive effects •Restricting access (minor physical disabilities) → no gains in employment •Stricter assessors → small but significant ↑ in employment

Using the UK panel data (2009–2019) & quasi-experimental variation from the DLA→PIP reform, we estimate employment effects for: •Mental health conditions (gained eligibility) •Minor physical disabilities (lost eligibility) •Regions with stricter vs lenient assessors

PIP is unique. It covers the extra costs of disability but has no earnings tests & no work incapacity requirements. This design lets us isolate pure income effects without substitution distortions.

Most disability benefits combine income support + work restrictions. That makes it hard to know: do people work less because they can, or because policy forces them not to?

🚨 New working paper alert! As part of our Horizon Europe BENEFITS project, @BKleinTeeselink and I study whether disability benefits necessarily discourage work — using the UK’s Personal Independence Payment (PIP) reform as a natural experiment. 🧵 #econtwitter #horizoneu

❤️Does partisanship shape online dating? ➡️ In a conjoint in the UK, @yara_slei @GeorgeMelios & @profpauldolan find politics matter as much as looks, but openness to opposing views matters more. Labour voters show stronger in-group bias https://t.co/0UrhHOxe6O #FirstView

Available at

Takeaway: politics matters in private life—but signaling openness can bridge divides. Surfacing “tolerance” on platforms might reduce partisan sorting

Gender splits: Men penalized “progressive” profiles; women rewarded them. Women also showed a stronger in‑party preference than men

Counter‑stereotypes: Conservatives were more open to out‑partisans who defied stereotypes (e.g., White/Traditional/Non‑veg Labour). Labour respondents tended to prefer stereotypical Tories—except they liked progressive Tories

But tolerance is even stronger. Profiles saying “open to match with anyone” gained +19.9 pp—the largest effect; similar in size to being attractive. It’s not just avoiding “No Tories/No Labour” profiles. Even among co‑partisans, people preferred tolerant over intolerant profiles

Headline: Co‑partisanship is powerful. Co‑partisan profiles were picked +18.2 pp more often than out‑partisans

We ran a visual conjoint with 3,000 UK daters (18–40). Profiles varied party (Labour/Tory), a clear “tolerance” cue, ideology, race, education, diet, height, and facial attractiveness—using real photos to mirror apps

🚨📢 New paper out in @PSRMJournal w. @yara_slei & @profpauldolan : “Sleeping with the enemy: partisanship and tolerance in online dating”. How much do politics shape who we swipe?

#OpenAccess from @psrmjournal - “Sleeping with the enemy”: partisanship and tolerance in online dating - https://t.co/wQ2r5suzyA - @yara_slei, Georgios Melios & @profpauldolan #FirstView

On a personal note, @yara_slei and I took our “collaboration” to the next level last weekend! 🥳