Hello, Andrea, welcome on the Standard Error blog. Can you tell us a bit about yourself?

I’m Andrea Tizzani (he/him), a PhD candidate in economics at the European University Institute. I work at the intersection of political economy and economic history, combining archival research with causal methods to study how identities are formed and how they evolve over time.

We met at the EAYE meeting at King’s College London last month, where we had a fascinating discussion about how personal experience and identity can enrich a researcher’s agenda. Can you elaborate on this here for our blog readers?

Growing up as a queer kid, I often felt different. Queer representation in the media was limited, and that absence made a difference. But over time, as I learned more about myself and about LGBTQ+ history, I realised I was part of a community with a long history of struggle, resilience, and pride. That realisation was empowering—and it continues to shape how I think and the questions I ask.

My research is driven by the idea that identity isn’t just personal—it also has political and economic dimensions. I study how media, institutions, and key historical moments influence how people see themselves and others, and how those perceptions shape real-world outcomes.
Too often, identity is either overlooked or oversimplified. But not everyone fits neatly into boxes. We can carry multiple, intersecting identities that shape our experiences in unique ways. Understanding that complexity is essential—both for making better sense of the world and for designing institutions that reflect the people they’re meant to serve.

Speaking of complex identities, at that meeting, you presented your impressive paper “The Paradox of Charisma: Garibaldi and the Disillusionment of Italian Unification.”

That paper is part of my PhD dissertation. It started from two questions I kept coming back to.
First, we often talk about national identity—especially in the media—but in a country like Italy, with a complicated history and strong regional divides, we still don’t fully understand how national identity is built, how it changes over time, and whose version of it becomes dominant.
Second, the people we call “national heroes” can become controversial, depending on which voices are heard and which stories are remembered.

In the past I have worked on transformational leadership in organizations, a cousin of charismatic leadership. Something I particularly like about your paper is that you study what happens when people feel disappointed by the charismatic leader.

Charismatic leaders help people imagine a different future. They speak to shared hopes, and they make promises that allow others to see themselves in that future. In politics, think of Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi. They stood for ideas like freedom, equality, and nonviolence—and people connected with that. But what happens when those promises are not fulfilled? Do these leaders remain inspiring symbols, or do their legacies become more contested?

That’s what drew me to Giuseppe Garibaldi. He is probably the most famous figure in Italy’s unification. In 1860, he led the Expedition of the Thousand, landing in Sicily with a small group of volunteers to overthrow the Bourbon monarchy in the South. His victories created huge excitement, and when he reached Naples—my hometown—he was welcomed as a hero.

But many of the hopes linked to unification did not come true, especially in the South. The gap between Garibaldi’s promises and what actually happened under the new Italian state became more visible. Garibaldi remained admired abroad, but in many Southern towns, support for him and public celebrations of his role began to fade. His image became more complex: still respected by some, but increasingly distant or even questioned by others.

While I work at the intersection of organizational economics and labor economics, you work at the intersection of political economy and economic history—which involves very different methods. How did you research the legacy of Garibaldi, and what did you find?

My paper asks a bigger question: How do political leaders shape expectations, and what happens when those expectations are not met?

I collected new historical data to compare towns Garibaldi visited with those he planned to reach but didn’t, due to an unexpected halt in his campaign. I use the visit itself as a measure of how directly people were exposed to Garibaldi’s message and promises—how closely they came into contact with his vision of change. In the short term, the towns he visited showed more support for unification. But over time, those same places became less politically active and more distant from Garibaldi’s legacy.

The results suggest that leaders can inspire real hope and bring people together around a shared vision. But when the promises tied to that vision go unfulfilled, the initial excitement can give way to lasting disappointment. Over time, that disappointment can turn into frustration—and the very leaders who once stood for change may end up being blamed for the outcomes people feel were never delivered.

Andrea, thank you for this conversation. It was a pleasure meeting you in London and discussing your work and ideas. Is there anything you’d like to add for our blog readers?

Thank you for inviting me to this interview and for giving space on the blog to a variety of perspectives in economics. It’s great to see platforms like this that encourage reflection and open conversation. I really believe that diversity makes research better—everyone brings their own lens, and that’s what helps us ask better questions and see things in new ways.

You can find Andrea’s working paper here. You can connect with him on Bluesky @atizz.bsky.social.