Capstone Abstracts

To what extent do corporate political endorsements of the winning candidate impact corporate earnings in the United States? How do corporate political endorsements made by C-suite executives at corporations that align their values with certain political parties influence B2C interactions, and how do these factors shape corporate earnings in politically polarized markets? This research examines how companies navigate political endorsements and their effects on consumer trust and financial outcomes. It is hypothesized that corporate political endorsements influence earnings, with consumer trust playing a key role. In polarized markets like the U.S., endorsements may carry risks that outweigh benefits due to potential trust erosion. To analyze this, public corporate political endorsements by corporations, CEOs, or board members during the 2016 and 2020 U.S. elections will be compared with corresponding yearly earnings data, spanning the year of endorsement and three subsequent years. Preliminary correlation and regression analyses indicate that endorsements significantly predict corporate earnings, with a positive relationship between endorsing the winning candidate and financial performance. However, when excluding the tech and finance sectors, the positive relationship between endorsing the winning candidate and corporate earnings weakens. Additional findings reveal that partisanship, industry type, and the authority of the endorser shape outcomes. Democratic-aligned firms tend to experience financial gains, while Republican-affiliated companies face greater risks. B2C firms benefit more from endorsements due to brand visibility and consumer sentiment, whereas CEO endorsements show no significant advantage over endorsements from other executives. This research offers insights for companies navigating political engagement, highlighting the intricate relationship between policy, business strategy, and consumer behavior.

Does American policymaking that promotes corporate supply-chain transparency concerning the utilization of mined materials decrease child labor levels in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? This study examines whether American corporate supply-chain transparency policies effectively foster positive change in child school attendance in the DRC - a proxy for measuring child labor. In particular, the change in schooling attendance will be analyzed before and after the implementation of Section 1502 from the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which required publicly traded American corporations to conduct, file, and publicize due diligence reports on their supply chains to determine if minerals they used were sourced from known conflict regions (Justia). Information on school attendance was recorded from surveys conducted by the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund in 2010 and 2017-2018, while mining information was sourced from the International Peace Information Systems. The results of this research suggest that, although not statistically significant or causal, following the implementation of Section 1502, provinces with increased mining activity correlated with decreased school attendance, whereas before Section 1502’s implementation, increased mining activity correlated with increased school attendance. The findings from this research can be used to further arguments about the necessity of supporting institutional change in the DRC and decreasing child labor through policy that understands and acknowledges its root causes.

This study investigates the unprecedented shift among Latino voters towards the Republican Party in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, focusing specifically on how religious mobilization influenced this demographic shift. Historically aligned with the Democratic Party, Latino support for Democrats declined significantly, with Democratic candidate Kamala Harris achieving just 56% of the Latino vote, a notable drop from previous elections. The research explores whether the Republican Party strategically utilized religious rhetoric and faith-based policy issues, such as abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, to appeal to Latino voters. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the analysis integrates quantitative regression methods applied to American National Election Studies (ANES) data spanning from 1948 to 2020 and a qualitative dictionary text analysis of presidential campaign speeches from the 2016 and 2024 elections. The empirical findings reveal a clear relationship between religious identity and increased Republican alignment among Latinos, particularly those holding strong religious beliefs. Furthermore, the text analysis indicates that the Republican Party significantly increased its use of religious and Hispanic-oriented rhetoric in campaign speeches between 2016 and 2024. This evidence suggests that the Republican Party’s intentional focus on religious values successfully resonated with religious Latino voters, reshaping traditional partisan loyalties. The study underscores the growing interconnectedness between religion and politics within Latino communities, highlighting critical implications for future electoral strategies and broader identity politics in the United States. This shift may represent a lasting realignment with substantial consequences for the nation's political landscape. *

Trump’s first presidential campaign proliferated anti-Mexican narratives and pronounced the U.S.-Mexico border as a site of violence and danger. How did this rhetoric impact Mexican American identities along the border? I conduct a cross-temporal analysis using two survey datasets (one from 2002 and one from 2020) to compare Mexican American identification across three identity proxies—identity score (based on identity labeling or ethnic connection), Spanish language preference, and white racial identification—as a function of distance from the border. While I do not observe large differences in identity scores or Spanish language preferences across time, I find that white identification increases dramatically from 2002 to 2020, and it particularly increases in states along the U.S.-Mexico border. I also find suggestive evidence of interactive effects between gender and border distance and immigrant generational status and border distance. My findings suggest that geospatial factors and political rhetoric may impact Mexican American identities at the border, and Mexican Americans may use whiteness as a strategic response to adverse political contexts.

This paper examines the impact of athlete endorsements on voter behavior and electoral outcomes using data from the 2016, 2020 and 2024 U.S. Presidential Elections, specifically focusing on athletes’ influence in their hometown counties. Despite public skepticism surrounding athletes’ lack of political knowledge, research suggests endorsements from figures in sports may increase vote shares. This study compares two regressions to analyze the impact of athlete endorsements on vote share across counties. The first shows that Republican athlete endorsements slightly decrease Republican vote share, while Democratic athlete endorsements significantly increase Democratic vote share. The second, which includes interaction terms like athlete retirement status and sport type, reveals that the effects of Republican athlete endorsements vary based on these factors, while Democratic athlete endorsements consistently boost Democratic vote share. Ultimately, this paper reveals that athlete endorsements are increasingly important in shaping elections, particularly in local communities.

Studies of authoritarian politics, which analyze the coercive mechanisms that enable ruling elites to sustain power, have long demonstrated the crucial role of institutions in adapting administrative strategies and stabilizing power-sharing among elites. In Iran, despite growing opposition and social defiance, the Islamic regime has continuously adapted its complex system of overlapping leadership institutions, reinforcing its administrative control through restrictive and dubious laws, to achieve what it cannot through sheer force. This approach is now observed in the bureaucratization of cyber governance, with the passage of new laws and enforcement authorities to showcase its technological capabilities. This strategy is especially notable in the growing online presence of two major Iranian law enforcement factions—Cyber Sepah and the Cyber Morality Police. These entities have begun leveraging social messaging applications like Telegram and Eitaa to amplify their authority. In doing so, they also provide a new source of data providing insight into intra-state dynamics, local governance, and repression strategies. This paper aims to demonstrate the value of this new data source, make it accessible, and conceptualize its use in analyzing Iran. In doing so, it provides deeper insight into the enforcement mechanisms that sustain Iran’s digital repression regime.

Gen-Z men have become increasingly conservative over the last few years. This paper will attempt to analyze why by asking: What are the major topics in political discourse on non-traditional media sources that bolster support from conservative Gen-Z men? By looking into theories of fragile masculinity, the rise of conservative radio talk shows, and how social media works as a tool for political socialization, this study will argue that menfluencers exploited prominent feelings of fragile masculinity and spoke to Gen-Z men’s feelings of stolen pride, purpose, manhood, and pain (Devega). By aligning these narratives to the political agenda of the right, this social media content validated Gen-Z men’s concerns and endorsed extreme political stances affirmed by the conservative party. I explored these themes by conducting an inductive content analysis of various social media posts from Bryce Hall, The NELK Boys, Theo Von, and Joe Rogan on TikTok and Youtube. The results indicate that much of the political discourse disseminated by these menfluencers was rooted in fragile masculinity that was often disguised as misogyny, at least to some capacity. This study highlights the broader implications of menfluencers’ power in mobilizing their audiences, affecting their political engagement, and shaping their political identities.

This paper examines how extractive industries impact crime rates on Native American reservations in the United States, focusing specifically on the association between industry presence and increased crime rates involving non-Indigenous perpetrators. Extractive industries, including oil, gas, and mining operations, have historically exploited tribal lands, causing significant environmental and health damage. However, a less studied consequence is their correlation with increased violence and crime, exacerbated by "man camps"—temporary housing for non-Indigenous workers—situated near tribal communities. The study employs a mixed-methods empirical approach, combining regression analysis of crime data provided by tribal and federal agencies (2014-2020), and a comparative cross-sectional analysis of U.S. county-level crime data from 2016. Findings indicate significant correlations between extractive industries and elevated crime rates, particularly theft, assault, robbery, and murder in tribal counties compared to non-tribal counties. Surprisingly, rates of reported rape were lower near industry sites, which the paper attributes to likely underreporting. Qualitative analysis of historical and jurisdictional frameworks further illustrates systemic challenges faced by tribes in prosecuting non-Indigenous offenders due to jurisdictional complexities and resource limitations. The results highlight how federal jurisdictional constraints and inadequate resource allocation severely limit tribal justice capabilities, perpetuating cycles of violence and impunity. The paper underscores the critical need for enhanced federal support, policy reforms, and improved data collection to effectively mitigate crime associated with extractive industries on tribal lands, ultimately calling for increased accountability and resource allocation to protect tribal communities from exploitation and violence.

How do disparities in wealth influence an individual’s likelihood of obtaining release within the U.S. pretrial system? How does this impact their ability to access justice? This study examines public defenders’ experiences to argue that pretrial detention standards and practices disproportionately harm low-income individuals and systematically undermine principles of fairness and justice essential to the integrity of the U.S. legal system. Drawing on the results of a survey of public defenders, this study combines descriptive data with statistical analysis to explore perceptions of pretrial standards. Two key findings emerge: (1) public defenders believe significant inequality exists within the process of determining pretrial outcomes; and (2) public defenders highlight that pretrial detention negatively affects case preparation and outcomes. These findings point to the urgent need for reform, as the pervasive inequities in pretrial treatment and outcomes shape the broader criminal process and perpetuate injustice.

This paper examines the relationship between online attorney malpractice reporting resources and disciplinary actions against immigration attorneys in ten U.S. states with large immigrant populations. Using a novel additive index, the study evaluates the availability of key resources, including translated complaint forms, centralized disciplinary records, and anonymous reporting options, and tests their correlation with disciplinary outcomes. A before-and-after analysis using archived web data further explores the causal effects of new resources on reporting trends. The findings reveal a complex relationship. Translated complaint forms are associated with increased disciplinary actions, likely uncovering previously hidden misconduct, while accessible English-language forms correlate with fewer actions, suggesting a deterrent effect. Overall, higher resource availability is linked to fewer disciplinary actions, pointing to a possible preventative impact rather than underreporting. Additionally, discrepancies in disciplinary record transparency across federal and state systems, coupled with language barriers and fragmented reporting mechanisms, hinder accountability. These results highlight the need for standardized, multilingual, and accessible reporting tools to empower vulnerable immigrant populations. Implementing translated complaint forms and improving information-sharing systems could promote greater transparency and accountability. Addressing these systemic barriers is critical to ensuring fair legal representation and justice for immigrants navigating the U.S. legal system. *

This paper examines how knowledge of the lack of privacy policies influences women’s use of digital reproductive health apps and services. The argument is that the awareness of privacy vulnerabilities leads to increased reluctance among women to engage with digital reproductive health platforms. This includes the expectation that lower income, minority, and respondents from abortion restrictive states are less likely to use these platforms compared to other respondents. This study uses survey data collected from women across the United States, dividing respondents into treatment and control groups to assess the impact of privacy awareness on their likelihood of using reproductive health apps. The results show that the treatment group, who received information about privacy risks and criminalization, reported a significantly lower likelihood of using digital health services compared to the control group. The coefficient for the treatment variable is approximately −1.0, which represents a 31.6% decrease in likelihood use. When the conditional treatment effects were analyzed for income, race, and residing in an abortion-restrictive state, there was no change in the effect of treatment on likelihood use. These findings highlight that people are averse to privacy risks and data sharing regardless of their background. The substantial treatment effect suggests that women’s awareness of privacy risks can significantly deter app use, emphasizing the importance of establishing privacy protections to safeguard and encourage the use of these essential services.

This paper examines how judicial structures—term limits, appointment processes, and ideological dynamics—impact public trust in supreme courts through a comparative analysis of the United States, Brazil, Canada, and Germany. The central argument is that fixed judicial terms and bipartisan appointment mechanisms reduce ideological entrenchment, enhancing judicial impartiality and public confidence. Combining qualitative case studies with quantitative regression models, the study evaluates the relationship between institutional design, judicial outcomes, and public perceptions of trust. Qualitative findings reveal that countries with fixed terms and bipartisan selection processes, such as Canada and Germany, demonstrate lower ideological polarization and higher perceived judicial legitimacy. By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court’s lifetime appointments and politicized nomination process exacerbate ideological entrenchment, as evidenced by its conservative supermajority and declining public trust. Quantitative analysis highlights that judicial outcomes, particularly accountability and corruption levels, exert stronger influences on public confidence than structural design features like term limits. These results underscore that while transparent institutional frameworks foster judicial impartiality, tangible judicial outcomes—accountability and anti-corruption efforts—are key drivers of public trust. The findings suggest that reforming the U.S. Supreme Court through fixed judicial terms and bipartisan appointments could help mitigate ideological entrenchment and rebuild public confidence in its legitimacy.

How can the United States effectively support Taiwan in deterring Chinese aggression while minimizing the risk of escalation to full-scale conflict? This study first builds a game-theoretic model to analyze the strategic dynamics of U.S.-China-Taiwan relations, capturing the interplay of adversarial strategies under uncertainty. It then integrates empirical data to solve the model, deriving mixed strategy Nash equilibria for two key scenarios: coercive diplomacy and full-scale invasion. The results reveal that China favors coercive diplomacy due to its lower costs. At the same time, the United States achieves the most stability with a balanced approach of favoring diplomatic support and using credible military deterrence. The empirical findings highlight that escalation leads to net losses for both sides, reinforcing the strategic value of maintaining the status quo. This study provides a comprehensive framework to assess the current situation and offers actionable insights to deter aggression, sustain stability, and manage escalation risks effectively. The adaptable model can update as new empirical data and geopolitical dynamics emerge, ensuring its continued relevance.

This study examines the impact of Lina Khan’s antitrust agenda on the U.S. tech startup ecosystem, focusing on mergers and acquisitions (M&A), venture capital (VC) behavior, and innovation output. By blocking or challenging acquisitions, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under Khan seeks to prevent market consolidation, raising critical questions about the broader implications for startups, where M&A traditionally serves as a primary exit pathway. The paper argues that while Khan’s policies aim to foster competition, their effects on startups are more nuanced than anticipated. Despite heightened regulatory scrutiny, acquisition activity has increased, and innovation output remains stable, challenging assumptions that stringent antitrust enforcement stifles growth and innovation. However, venture capitalists perceive significant risks, suggesting psychological impacts that influence investment strategies. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study analyzes quantitative trends in acquisition activity (PitchBook data, 2000–2024) and annual patent filings (USPTO, 2017–2023) while controlling for macroeconomic factors like interest and unemployment rates. A survey of 24 venture capitalists captures qualitative insights into their perceptions of the regulatory environment, investment behavior, and innovation priorities. Results show acquisition activity increased during Khan’s tenure, and innovation output showed only a marginal 1% decline, likely due to external factors rather than regulatory changes. Venture capitalists expressed significant concern about regulatory impacts, though these concerns were not fully supported by quantitative findings. These findings highlight the resilience of the startup ecosystem amidst regulatory change and suggest that antitrust policies can coexist with robust acquisition and innovation activity. By balancing competition goals with the needs of startups and VCs, policymakers can refine regulatory strategies to foster a dynamic, innovation-driven economy, offering valuable insights into the evolving relationship between regulation and innovation.

How can developing economies strategically engage private actors to close public infrastructure funding gaps? More specifically, how can they leverage reputational returns as a key motivator for private investment? I argue that focusing on the salience of public disclosure when soliciting development capital from private actors significantly boosts the average total investment garnered. Additionally, I find that average total investment by private actors is also dependent on the development project type (brownfield, divesture, greenfield, and management and lease contract) where management and lease contract financing models attract the lowest average total investment by a significant margin. I run a series of regression analyses on data from 1990 - 2023 collected through the World Bank Group’s Private Participation in Infrastructure database. (1) Analyzing the amplification of private actors’ average total investment with solicitation status against public disclosure; and (2) analyzing the amplification of private actors’ average total investment with solicitation status against project type. The results of this analysis underscores the importance of considering public disclosure and project type in the strategic planning of capital raising campaigns promoted by developing economies in public infrastructure development.

This paper examines the mechanisms through which corruption in Ghana’s police force erodes public trust and undermines state capacity, a persistent issue in developing democracies. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study integrates Afrobarometer survey data, Transparency International reports, and qualitative insights to analyze how bribery, resource misallocation, and accountability failures perpetuate corruption and socio-economic inequalities. Empirical findings reveal a significant negative relationship between perceived corruption and public trust in the police, with over 65% of Ghanaians viewing most officers as corrupt. Regression results underscore that increased perceptions of corruption correspond to declining institutional trust. Qualitative insights highlight how bribery disproportionately affects marginalized communities, exacerbating systemic barriers to justice. Resource misallocation and weak oversight mechanisms further hinder law enforcement effectiveness, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of mistrust and inefficiency. Comparative analysis with Rwanda and Botswana offers actionable lessons, demonstrating that institutional accountability, technological reforms, and independent oversight can mitigate corruption. Policy recommendations include establishing an autonomous police oversight body, implementing digital payment systems to curb bribery, and fostering community engagement to rebuild trust. Addressing systemic corruption in Ghana’s police force is essential for enhancing state legitimacy, ensuring equitable justice, and strengthening democratic governance. With sustained political will and targeted reforms, Ghana can set a regional precedent for combating entrenched corruption and restoring public confidence in its institutions.

Under the liberal world order, the use of economic sanctions has long been an exclusive privilege of economically dominant Western powers, such as the U.S. and European Union. Even though China and Russia are increasingly pushing back against this hegemony, research on sanctions still disproportionately focuses on Western actors. Existing datasets document hundreds of sanctions by Western countries, but they record only a limited number from Russia and China. We drew on thousands of original government and non-government documents in Russian, Chinese and English and identified over 180 instances of economic sanctions imposed by Russia and China between 2000 and July 2024, with a marked increase in recent years. Recognizing that Russia and China have historically framed sanctions as illegitimate interferences with state sovereignty, we pay particular attention to the narratives they use to justify their actions. Through a preliminary analysis of our data, we found that China and Russia are more likely to adopt sanctions as a response to economic coercion from another country. Further, China uses sanctions to coerce smaller trade partners, whereas Russia is more willing to sanction larger economies. Future studies can use our findings as entry points to understand how China and Russia — the leaders of revisionist states — use sanctions to exert foreign policy influence.