My research addresses three related questions
I examine these questions in the context of states that failed to democratize during Europe’s “first wave of democratization.” In other words, I investigate the negative cases of democratization to understand the top-down origins of liberalism alongside the “middle-down” persistence of autocracy in Central and Eastern Europe.
To explain contemporary patterns of governance, I draw from the past using a multi-method research design. My approach quantifies and contextualizes archival materials from state, party, and private archives, often in collaboration with local digital historians. I integrate rational choice models with sociological explanations, combining insights from multiple methodologies to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data across historical and contemporary periods. This includes statistical analysis of self-collected administrative data, case studies, process tracing, and the use of large language models (LLMs) to process and interpret legal documents across multiple languages. My research attempts to advance theories of democratization (or lack thereof) in diverse contexts through analytical and conceptual clarity, and simple research designs that use new, but very complicated, data.
My coauthored work also incorporates interviews, focus groups, ethnography, and experimental and survey methods. Below you can find more information in my publications, and working papers. For a brief description of my book project, The Liberal Origins of Fascism: The Politics of Access in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, please see my Book Project.
Publications
2025
Halevy, Lotem, and Lenka Buštíková. "Confessional illiberalism in Europe." Politics and Governance
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.9675
(First Author)
2024
Kedar, Orit, Odelia Oshri, and Lotem Halevy. "Party positions and the changing gender gap (s) in voting." European Union Politics
https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165241257785
Working Papers
Who Gets to Play? Enfranchisement in Diverse Societies: Political Inclusion (and Exclusion) in the Liberalizing Kingdom of Hungary (Solo Authored)
Why do parties in autocracies liberalize access to The State and under what conditions?
This paper argues that autocratic parliamentary parties expand voting rights under precarious electoral conditions not to democratize, but to consolidate power by co-opting poorly organized groups before they organize as challengers. It examines why, when, and how parties in nondemocratic regimes extend political rights, advancing a threat-based model of enfranchisement in which elites weigh the potential organizational strength of social groups to determine electoral access during political openings. Drawing on evidence from the Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918), the paper shows that enfranchisement was driven less by democratic pressures from below, fiscal concerns, or nationalist policy than by strategic efforts to manage and contain threats to incumbency. Rather than accommodating mobilized groups, elites selectively extended rights to unorganized potential constituencies, using observable characteristics such as group size and cohesion to assess ex ante risks. By disentangling political strategy from nationalist and economic narratives, the paper reframes enfranchisement as a mechanism of cooption by autocratic parties, shedding light on the selective and uneven pathways through which electoral inclusion unfolds in multiethnic contexts.
WORKING PAPER
Associational Endowments (Solo Authored)
How do political parties cultivate loyal constituencies under conditions of mass disenfranchisement?
How do political parties forge constituencies in the absence of electoral incentives? Drawing on four original datasets from the Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918), I show how extra-parliamentary parties mobilized disenfranchised populations by embedding themselves in civil society. In the multinational imperial state, parliamentary incumbents concentrated on legislating and sustaining elite coalitions, while emergent extra-parliamentary parties focused on civil society gaining traction through liberalization by investing in associational endowments: the external civil arms of party organizations, some of which funded, delivered, and defined access to necessary goods and services in the absence of a welfare state. Unlike theories of mass party formation in democratic contexts, I qualitatively show that parties did not seek to politicize and mobilize across cleavages due to ideological purveyors of resources, churches. Using ecological inference techniques, I show that nascent political parties politicize existing religious and national divides through the provision of social services. The Hungarian case highlights the religious origins of nationalist mass politics. First, I argue that electoral incentives alone cannot explain party formation under Imperial settings. Second, I identify welfare provision as a mechanism of politicization that embeds nationalist cleavages in the absence of electoral incentives. Finally, I show why and how exclusionary politics take root where welfare and electoral access remain partial and unequal.
Currently revising, next scheduled presentation Feb 2026.
When The State Does Not “See": A Mixed-Method Framework for Counting Hard-to-Reach Populations (Second Author; Haile Zola is First Author)
How can researchers generate more reliable population estimates for hard-to-reach groups?This article proposes a framework for using diverse data sources in comparative social science research where official counts are either unavailable or unreliable, yet still frequently used as dependent or independent variables in social science analyses. Focusing on the case of Chasidic Jews in London, we demonstrate the value of supplementing state-generated data with information from specialized non-state surveys, community organizations, interviews, and ethnographic fieldwork. We show that the integrated approach—drawing on micro-, meso-, and macro-level sources—produces significantly different population estimates than those reported in the UK national census. Gaining access to non-state data required sustained trust-building within the Chasidic community, which, due to cultural and historical experiences, tends to view administrative data collection with skepticism. We discuss the ethical and reflexive dimensions of conducting research under such conditions. We argue that diversifying data sources is essential for improving the empirical foundations of research on hard-to-reach populations, but such diversification is only possible through immersion. Ethnographic engagement enhances access to alternative sources and strengthens the construction of reliable population estimates. This article presents a mixed-methods framework that improves the validity and comparability of demographic research in contexts marked by limited or contested official data.
Currently revising, last presenation July 2025; next scheduled presentation December 2025.
Narrowing Access and the Rise of Rural Populism: Evidence from Poland (Second Author; Allison Hartnett is First Author; also with Alexander Gard-Murray)
Why and how do changes to policy lead to a rise in populism? This article examines how reduced access to EU agricultural transfers contributed to the rise of rural populism in Poland. We argue that narrowing eligibility criteria to EU transfers after a 2013 policy change triggered backlash in rural communities with strong civic organization which fostered a once latent, now activated, rural identity. Using individual-level panel data (2005–2015), EU administrative records, and electoral results at the powiaty-level, we show that areas most affected by reduced access experienced attitudinal declines in trust state institutions at multiple levels and rising support for anti-establishment parties, particularly Law and Justice (PiS). Crucially, backlash was strongest in communities with robust civic infrastructure, where institutional grievance could be translated into political mobilization. The findings challenge the assumption that transfers build institutional trust, showing instead that their constriction, especially in politically organized rural areas, can activate idetities that foster populist realignment. The study contributes to research on distributive politics, rural populism, and the political consequences of administrative exclusion.
Papers In-Progress
- Why, when, and how do exclusionary ideologies become embedded in law?
- How do ordinary people and organizations respond to administrative exclusion (and inclusion)?
- What are the consequences of these processes for regime stability, whether democratic or authoritarian?
I examine these questions in the context of states that failed to democratize during Europe’s “first wave of democratization.” In other words, I investigate the negative cases of democratization to understand the top-down origins of liberalism alongside the “middle-down” persistence of autocracy in Central and Eastern Europe.
To explain contemporary patterns of governance, I draw from the past using a multi-method research design. My approach quantifies and contextualizes archival materials from state, party, and private archives, often in collaboration with local digital historians. I integrate rational choice models with sociological explanations, combining insights from multiple methodologies to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data across historical and contemporary periods. This includes statistical analysis of self-collected administrative data, case studies, process tracing, and the use of large language models (LLMs) to process and interpret legal documents across multiple languages. My research attempts to advance theories of democratization (or lack thereof) in diverse contexts through analytical and conceptual clarity, and simple research designs that use new, but very complicated, data.
My coauthored work also incorporates interviews, focus groups, ethnography, and experimental and survey methods. Below you can find more information in my publications, and working papers. For a brief description of my book project, The Liberal Origins of Fascism: The Politics of Access in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, please see my Book Project.
Publications
2025
Halevy, Lotem, and Lenka Buštíková. "Confessional illiberalism in Europe." Politics and Governance
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.9675
(First Author)
2024
Kedar, Orit, Odelia Oshri, and Lotem Halevy. "Party positions and the changing gender gap (s) in voting." European Union Politics
https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165241257785
Working Papers
Who Gets to Play? Enfranchisement in Diverse Societies: Political Inclusion (and Exclusion) in the Liberalizing Kingdom of Hungary (Solo Authored)
Why do parties in autocracies liberalize access to The State and under what conditions?
This paper argues that autocratic parliamentary parties expand voting rights under precarious electoral conditions not to democratize, but to consolidate power by co-opting poorly organized groups before they organize as challengers. It examines why, when, and how parties in nondemocratic regimes extend political rights, advancing a threat-based model of enfranchisement in which elites weigh the potential organizational strength of social groups to determine electoral access during political openings. Drawing on evidence from the Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918), the paper shows that enfranchisement was driven less by democratic pressures from below, fiscal concerns, or nationalist policy than by strategic efforts to manage and contain threats to incumbency. Rather than accommodating mobilized groups, elites selectively extended rights to unorganized potential constituencies, using observable characteristics such as group size and cohesion to assess ex ante risks. By disentangling political strategy from nationalist and economic narratives, the paper reframes enfranchisement as a mechanism of cooption by autocratic parties, shedding light on the selective and uneven pathways through which electoral inclusion unfolds in multiethnic contexts.
WORKING PAPER
Associational Endowments (Solo Authored)
How do political parties cultivate loyal constituencies under conditions of mass disenfranchisement?
How do political parties forge constituencies in the absence of electoral incentives? Drawing on four original datasets from the Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918), I show how extra-parliamentary parties mobilized disenfranchised populations by embedding themselves in civil society. In the multinational imperial state, parliamentary incumbents concentrated on legislating and sustaining elite coalitions, while emergent extra-parliamentary parties focused on civil society gaining traction through liberalization by investing in associational endowments: the external civil arms of party organizations, some of which funded, delivered, and defined access to necessary goods and services in the absence of a welfare state. Unlike theories of mass party formation in democratic contexts, I qualitatively show that parties did not seek to politicize and mobilize across cleavages due to ideological purveyors of resources, churches. Using ecological inference techniques, I show that nascent political parties politicize existing religious and national divides through the provision of social services. The Hungarian case highlights the religious origins of nationalist mass politics. First, I argue that electoral incentives alone cannot explain party formation under Imperial settings. Second, I identify welfare provision as a mechanism of politicization that embeds nationalist cleavages in the absence of electoral incentives. Finally, I show why and how exclusionary politics take root where welfare and electoral access remain partial and unequal.
Currently revising, next scheduled presentation Feb 2026.
When The State Does Not “See": A Mixed-Method Framework for Counting Hard-to-Reach Populations (Second Author; Haile Zola is First Author)
How can researchers generate more reliable population estimates for hard-to-reach groups?This article proposes a framework for using diverse data sources in comparative social science research where official counts are either unavailable or unreliable, yet still frequently used as dependent or independent variables in social science analyses. Focusing on the case of Chasidic Jews in London, we demonstrate the value of supplementing state-generated data with information from specialized non-state surveys, community organizations, interviews, and ethnographic fieldwork. We show that the integrated approach—drawing on micro-, meso-, and macro-level sources—produces significantly different population estimates than those reported in the UK national census. Gaining access to non-state data required sustained trust-building within the Chasidic community, which, due to cultural and historical experiences, tends to view administrative data collection with skepticism. We discuss the ethical and reflexive dimensions of conducting research under such conditions. We argue that diversifying data sources is essential for improving the empirical foundations of research on hard-to-reach populations, but such diversification is only possible through immersion. Ethnographic engagement enhances access to alternative sources and strengthens the construction of reliable population estimates. This article presents a mixed-methods framework that improves the validity and comparability of demographic research in contexts marked by limited or contested official data.
Currently revising, last presenation July 2025; next scheduled presentation December 2025.
Narrowing Access and the Rise of Rural Populism: Evidence from Poland (Second Author; Allison Hartnett is First Author; also with Alexander Gard-Murray)
Why and how do changes to policy lead to a rise in populism? This article examines how reduced access to EU agricultural transfers contributed to the rise of rural populism in Poland. We argue that narrowing eligibility criteria to EU transfers after a 2013 policy change triggered backlash in rural communities with strong civic organization which fostered a once latent, now activated, rural identity. Using individual-level panel data (2005–2015), EU administrative records, and electoral results at the powiaty-level, we show that areas most affected by reduced access experienced attitudinal declines in trust state institutions at multiple levels and rising support for anti-establishment parties, particularly Law and Justice (PiS). Crucially, backlash was strongest in communities with robust civic infrastructure, where institutional grievance could be translated into political mobilization. The findings challenge the assumption that transfers build institutional trust, showing instead that their constriction, especially in politically organized rural areas, can activate idetities that foster populist realignment. The study contributes to research on distributive politics, rural populism, and the political consequences of administrative exclusion.
Papers In-Progress
- Regime Change as a “Bundle of Reforms”: A Framework for Studying Negative Cases of Democratization (Solo Authored)
- Autocratic Legacies and Endogenous Historical Data: Working with Electoral Data from Autocratic Regimes (with Tyler Brown)
- Why Exit? Culture or Structure?: Experimental Evidence on Women and Academia’s Leaky Pipeline (Equal Coauthorship with Marta Antonetti)
- Groups without Ethnicity: How Parties Define Everyday Nationalism Beyond a Transylvanian Town (Solo Authored)
- The Democratic Origins of Political Antisemitism: A Contemporary Definition Based on Historical Conceptualization (Solo Authored)
- The Political Economy of Inclusion: A Cross-Regional Comparison of Enfranchisement in Latin America and Europe, 1848-1945 (Equal Coauthorship with Sebastian Cortesi)