We study parties' optimal ideological cohesion across electoral rules, when the following trade-off is present: A more heterogenous set of candidates is electorally appealing (catch-all party), yet, it serves policy-related goals less efficiently. When the rule becomes more disproportional, thus inducing a more favorable seat allocation for the winner, the first effect is amplified, incentivizing parties to be less cohesive. We provide empirical support using a unique data-set that records candidates' ideological positions in Finnish municipal elections. Exploiting an exogenous change of electoral rule disproportionality at different population thresholds, we identify the causal effect of electoral rules on parties' cohesion.

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and spreads through droplet-mediated transmission on contaminated surfaces and in air. Mounting scientific evidence from observational studies suggests that face masks for the general public may reduce the spread of infections. However, results from randomized control trials (RCT) have been presented as inconclusive, and concerns related to the safety and efficacy of non-surgical face masks in non-clinical settings remain. This controversy calls for a meta-analysis which considers non-compliance in RCTs, the time-lag in benefits of universal masking, and possible adverse effects. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs of non-surgical face masks in preventing viral respiratory infections in non-hospital and non-household settings at cumulative and maximum follow-up as primary endpoints. The search for RCTs yielded five studies published before May 29th, 2020. We pooled estimates from the studies and performed random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression across studies, accounting for covariates in compliance vs. non-compliance in treatment. Results: Face masks decreased infections across all studies at maximum follow-up (p=0.0318$, RR=0.608 [0.387 - 0.956]), and particularly in studies without non-compliance bias. We found significant between-study heterogeneity in studies with bias (I^2=71.2%, p=0.0077). We also used adjusted meta-regression to account for heterogeneity. The results support a significant protective effect of masking (p=0.0006, beta=0.0214, SE= 0.0062). No severe adverse effects were detected. Interpretation: The meta-analysis of existing randomized control studies found support for the efficacy of face masks among the general public. Our results show that face masks protect populations from infections and do not pose a significant risk to users. Recommendations and clear communication concerning the benefits of face masks should be provided to limit the number of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.

Objectives To examine the use of face mask intervention in mitigating the risk of spreading respiratory infections and whether the effect of face mask intervention differs in different exposure settings and age groups. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (ROB2). Data sources We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of face masks on respiratory infections published between 1981 and February 9, 2022. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included randomized controlled trials investigating the use of face mask intervention in mitigating the risk of spreading respiratory infections across different exposure settings. Results We identified 2,400 articles for screening. 18 articles passed the inclusion criteria for both evidence synthesis and meta-analysis. There were N = 189,145 individuals in the face mask intervention arm and N = 173,536 in the control arm, and the follow-up times ranged from 4 days to 19 months. Our results showed between-study heterogeneity (p < 0.0001). While there was no statistically significant association over all studies when the covariate unadjusted intervention effect estimates were used (RR = 0.977 [0.858–1.113], p = 0.728), our subgroup analyses revealed that a face mask intervention reduced respiratory infections in the adult subgroup (RR = 0.8795 [0.7861–0.9839], p = 0.0249) and in a community setting (RR = 0.890 [0.812–0.975], p = 0.0125). Furthermore, our leave-one-out analysis found that one study biased the results towards a null effect. Consequently, when using covariate adjusted odds ratio estimates to have a more precise effect estimates of the intervention effect to account for differences at the baseline, the results showed that a face mask intervention did reduce respiratory infections when the biasing study was excluded from the analysis (OR = 0.8892 [0.8061–0.9810], p = 0.0192). Conclusion Our findings support the use of face masks particularly in a community setting and for adults. We also observed substantial between-study heterogeneity and varying adherence to protocol. Notably, many studies were subject to contamination bias thus affecting the efficacy of the intervention, that is when also some controls used masks or when the intervention group did not comply with mask use leading to a downward biased effect of treatment receipt and efficacy. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020205523.

We study whether establishing new asylum-seeker centres influences the redistribution related policy positions of candidates in local elections in Finland-a country where municipalities have significant control over fiscal policies. The sudden and unprecedentedly large inflow of the asylum seekers in autumn 2015 and the resulting establishment of asylum centres facilitates a difference-indifferences research design. We focus on the supply side of redistributive politics and find that on average candidates do not respond to the presence of the centres by proposing less (or more) redistribution in a voting aid application survey. Our estimates are precise enough to rule out even fairly small effects both for all the candidates and the elected ones. In contrast, on the demand side, there is evidence of various voter responses on average suggesting that electoral politics may limit to some extent the impact of voter preferences on such policies. However, in the very smallest municipalities where there are many refugees per capita we find that also the candidates become less favourable towards redistribution. In other words, intensity of exposure to refugee migration seems to be behind any observed supply-side response regarding redistribution.

No abstract