Work on the electoral effects of gun violence in the U.S. relying on difference-in-differences designs has produced findings ranging from null to substantively large effects. However, as difference-in-difference designs, on which this research relies, have exploded in popularity, scholars have documented several methodological issues including potential violations of parallel-trends and unaccounted for treatment effect heterogeneity. These pitfalls (and their solutions) have not been fully explored in political science. We apply these advancements to the unresolved debate on gun violence’s effects on U.S. electoral outcomes. We show that studies finding a large positive effect of gun violence on Democratic vote shares are a product of a failure to properly specify difference-in-differences models when underlying assumptions are unlikely to hold. Once these biases are corrected, shootings show little evidence of sparking large electoral change. Our work clarifies an unresolved debate and provides a cautionary guide for scholars currently employing difference-in-differences designs.

Disparities in state and local government spending are key drivers of spatial inequality in social outcomes, including economic mobility. Yet beyond spending levels, the fiscal centralization of state and local governments—that is, the relative role of higher- versus lower-level governments in taxing, spending, and public employment—also differs substantially, traceable to place-specific founding circumstances and path dependent historical trajectories. In this study, we ask, in more centralized fiscal systems, is there less spatial inequality in the economic mobility outcomes of low-income children? To answer this, we construct a novel Fiscal Centralization Index for each state and each county using data from the U.S. Census of Governments. We then use place-based estimates of intergenerational economic mobility, provided by Opportunity Insights, to measure cross-census-tract variation in the mobility outcomes of children within each state and each county. We find that more centralized fiscal structures exhibit less spatial inequality in the economic mobility outcomes of low-income children, and this is driven by improving outcomes in lower-performing census tracts. Our findings motivate the fiscal sociology of place as a framework for revealing how historically conditioned fiscal systems are implicated in the production of place-based inequalities, with the potential to generate new insights and policy interventions.