What explains cross-national variation in how citizens hold political elites accountable? This project argues that enduring differences in accountability are rooted in historically embedded leadership norms that shape expectations about how rulers should behave. To measure these norms, I construct a Leadership Norm Index (LNI) using a novel dataset of 1,542 texts spanning 59 countries and nearly five millennia. Using large language models, I code each text against 70 survey-style statements capturing normative expectations about rulers' personal conduct, responsiveness to subjects, adherence to law, deference to religion, and relationships with elites. To measure accountability, I assemble a new cross-national dataset of political leaders by systematically extracting biographical records of presidents and prime ministers over the past 50 years, tracking instances of misconduct and the consequences they face. Linking these data to the LNI, I show that societies whose intellectual traditions place greater emphasis on constraint-based leadership norms exhibit higher levels of political accountability, even after accounting for institutional, economic, and geographic factors.

Examines how electoral institutions shape legislators' emotional expression as a visible form of political accountability. Using multimodal evidence from South Korea's mixed-member system, this project shows that stronger personal accountability induces more adversarial emotional performance in legislative debate.

Comparative political economy, institutions, elite politics, South Korea, and AI methods for social science.