Working Paper: CEPR ID: DP16356
Authors: Marcel Caesmann; Bruno Caprettini; Hansjoachim Voth; David Yanagizawa-Drott
Abstract: Propaganda can convince or repel. Social interactions can magnify these effects. We estimate the impact of Nazi marches in 1932 Hamburg, using granular data on all households. Direct exposure immediately affected voting -- propaganda was persuasive. To study diffusion, we measure social connections using contagion patterns from the 1918 Spanish flu, combined with social similarity. Nazi support spread to other parts of the city along the predicted contagion paths. Social spillovers are of similar importance as direct exposure. The marches were alsopolarizing the electorate -- in opposition strongholds, they backfired, and gains were concentrated in areas with high Nazi support.
Keywords: No keywords provided
JEL Codes: No JEL codes provided
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| Nazi marches (Y40) | voting behavior (D72) |
| social connections to treated areas (R23) | voting behavior in untreated areas (K16) |
| Nazi marches (Y40) | political polarization (D72) |
| voting behavior (D72) | support for Nazi party (F52) |
| Nazi marches (Y40) | decreased support for Nazi party in opposition strongholds (P27) |