Research

Under Review

• Whose Line is it Anyway? Border Imposition and Instability [Link]
  › Abstract
  States that don't settle their borders are more likely to have dampened economic growth, secession, and interstate conflict. Accordingly, existing research examines the origins of border instability and offers several explanations, including natural resource availability along the border, competing historical boundaries, or partitioned ethnic groups. Missing from the literature is an understanding of who designed the borders and whether the affected states were involved. I argue that external actors who imposed borders designed inefficient institutions that do not capture the preferences of the affected states. These imposed borders are more likely to experience higher rates of instability. To test my theory, I collect original data on the construction of borders, identify the participating actors, and classify the borders as being (1) Imposed, (2) One-sided, or (3) Coordinated based on whether the affected states were able to participate in their design. My results show that borders that were Imposed on states experience a greater rate of militarized conflict. Moreover, I find that this effect is tempered over time as the boundaries become normalized as international institutions.
• Territorial Dispute Resolution and Intergroup Attitudes [Link]
  with Deniz Aksoy and William O'Brochta
  › Abstract
  Existing research suggests that the presence of territorial disputes correlates with diminished public trust in state institutions and elevated levels of nationalism, hawkishness, and anti-democratic sentiment among citizens. However, despite the growing literature on the impacts of unresolved territorial conflicts, relatively little is known about whether, and in what ways, the peaceful resolution of such disputes might influence public attitudes, particularly toward ethnic out-groups linked to the opposing side. In this study, we examine whether the peaceful resolution of an international territorial dispute can reduce domestic intergroup animosity. We focus on the 2015 Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) between India and Bangladesh, a landmark accord that resolved a decades-long border dispute through negotiated settlement. Using original data from a survey conducted in India, we show how priming Hindu respondents with the resolution improves their attitudes toward Indian Muslims.

Working Papers

• War and Peace: Territorial Disputes and Public Opinion [Link]
  Job Market Paper
  › Abstract
  How do violent escalations or diplomatic cooperation in territorial disputes shape public opinion of other ongoing disputes? I argue that public audiences use prior activity in disputes as a heuristic to update their support for peaceful settlement and military action in other active territorial disputes. Peacefully resolving a dispute builds public trust in adversary states and fosters more dovish attitudes, while territorial violence activates latent nationalist beliefs that spike public distrust of rival states and hawkish public opinion. I test these ideas using two original experiments in India. I first examine the spillover effects of peace with a pre-registered face-to-face survey experiment (n=2,513). I find that informing respondents of a prior peaceful resolution that India negotiated modestly increases their support for peaceful settlement with any of India's rivals, conditional on pre-treatment levels of dispute salience. In the second study (n=1,113), I leverage a natural experiment during my survey to test the spillover effects of violence. I find that terrorism in the disputed territory of Kashmir increases support for military action and sharply reduces support for a peaceful settlement with any of India's rivals. While prior work studies territorial disputes independently, my findings highlight their interconnected nature and the implications for regional security. Violence in one dispute cultivates hawkish views towards any other rival in active disputes, whereas prior peaceful settlements can only promote dovish attitudes under limited conditions.
• The Effect of Territorial Violence on Domestic Issue Salience: Evidence from India
  › Abstract
  A voluminous literature argues that international conflicts can act as a diversionary tactic during periods of low state popularity. These theories rely on two assumptions. First, that violence can effectively divert public attention from unpopular domestic issues, and second, that violence can rally public support for incumbents. However, little work has tested these assumptions simultaneously. I address this gap by examining how the onset of violence in territorial conflicts shapes public perceptions of the state and key domestic issues. I draw on existing work and argue that territorial violence activates individual fears about threats, which captures public attention and raises concerns about the state's security. Using a natural experiment in India (n=1,113), I show how state-sponsored terrorism in the disputed territory of Kashmir decreases public concerns with corruption or the economy, increases fears about international war, and decreases trust in the Indian state. After the announcement of a ceasefire, citizens continue to deprioritize domestic issues like the economy but regain their trust in the state. These findings show that wars are an effective diversionary tactic but cannot effectively rally public support for the state. This contributes to a broader literature on the domestic political consequences of territorial conflict and war.
• Social Media Reactions to US Withdrawal from Afghanistan
  with William Nomikos, Rex Deng, Dahjin Kim, Gechun Lin, and Ipek Sener
  APSA Foreign Policy Section 2022 Best Paper Award
  › Abstract
  How does foreign policy shape public opinion in democracies? While prior research underscores the link between international politics and domestic evaluations of leadership, the role of social media in this process remains underexplored. We address this gap by examining public reactions to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021—a highly salient foreign policy crisis—using a novel dataset of over 7 million tweets. Leveraging a comprehensive keyword-based collection and advanced sentiment analysis, we measure real-time expressions of public sentiment toward the Biden and Trump administrations. This approach captures how citizens respond to major foreign policy decisions on social media, offering insights into when and how international events shape political perceptions. Our findings highlight the importance of early crisis cues and suggest that media-amplified initial actions, rather than subsequent developments, drive enduring public backlash online.

Works in Progress

• Borderlines and Party Lines: The Effect of Borders on Voting Behavior in Brazil
  with Raduan Meira
  › Abstract
  Borders and border regions are crucial to the development and stability of a state. Prior work has identified their importance for trade, civil conflict, and ethnic tension. While adjacent social science fields have identified the importance of border regions for shaping identities, little work in political science has identified the effects of borders on individual voting behavior. We theorize that border populations behave distinctly from the rest of the state. Individuals who live close to the border exhibit a different set of political preferences due to their proximity to the border and will vote for parties that protect their interests. We leverage the state of Brazil and its borders with 10 other countries to show individuals who live near borders with economic threats are more likely to vote for parties that stand for protectionist policies.
• Occupation, Statebuilding, and Political Participation
  with William Nomikos, Mike Olson, and Jordon Newton
  Honorable Mention, Best Paper Award, Southern Political Science Association 2023
  › Abstract
  Despite substantial evidence that international interventions help resolve intrastate violence, the occupations that follow them often fail to build stable democracies that facilitate out-group representation. We argue that the presence of occupying troops has meaningful short-term consequences for representation, but that democratization will fail if domestic actors do not break down conflictual social cleavages by changing norms or maintaining inclusive institutions. To test our expectations, we examine the Reconstruction period (1865–1877) in the American South following the U.S. Civil War. Our analysis uses original state legislative roll call data to measure legislators' preferences. We show that in several states, occupation by federal troops is associated with better representational outcomes for African Americans, but that these gains did not persist beyond Reconstruction.

Other Publications

• "The Territorial Roots of Interstate Conflict." SAIS Review of International Affairs, April 7, 2024.
• "Project 2025: Why South Asian Americans Should Be Concerned." Khabar Magazine, September 2024. (with Sunita Parikh).

Teaching

Instructor of Record

Teaching Assistant

• Terrorism and Counterterrorism — Carly Wayne, Undergraduate · Spring 2024
• International Peacekeeping Operations — William Nomikos, Undergraduate · Spring 2023 [contributed lectures & content]
• Introduction to International Politics — David Carter, Undergraduate · Fall 2022, Fall 2023 [contributed lectures & content]
• Introduction to Political Theory — Clarissa Hayward, Undergraduate · Spring 2021
• Interchangeables, Influentials, and Essentials — Brian Crisp, Undergraduate · Fall 2021 [contributed lectures & content]

Contact