In many developing countries, non-state actors are important sources of basic social services, including those with religious or political affiliations. Do politicized ethnoreligious divisions shape citizen choices of providers? Does the quality of care vary depending on whether patients visit ingroup or outgroup facilities? Watch the full video by Melani Cammett.
In this lecture, James C. Scott challenges dominant historical narratives about non-state populations. He argues that by dominating trade routes, extracting tribute, and providing the connective tissue between large population centers, “barbarian” life was in general freer, more leisurely, healthier, and, contra Hobbes, less violent than life in the centers of civilization.
In this talk, Professor Jeffrey Friedman argues that populism is a simplistic distillation of an assumption about the purpose of government that is endemic in modern culture: the assumption that the purpose of government is to solve the people’s tangible social and economic problems.
In this talk, Professor Ian Shapiro discusses the purposes of political parties, distinguishing clientelist conceptions of parties as seeking benefits for members that Madison feared from the view Burke championed: that parties seek to govern in the public interest—if from inescapably partisan points of view.
The work ethic was invented by Puritan ministers in the 17th century. At the turn of the 20th century, sociologist Max Weber argued that it trapped workers in an “iron cage” of meaningless drudgery for the sake of interminable wealth accumulation. In the 21st century, anarchist anthropologist David Graeber has condemned it for consigning workers to “bullshit jobs.” They are only half right.
This talk focuses on the intellectual sources of the transformation of the modern state. It suggests that modernist social science informed the main narratives of the crisis of the administrative and welfare state in the 1970s and inspired the waves of subsequent public sector reform. Mark Bevir is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for British Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
Did the English patent system help spark the Industrial Revolution? Most scholars addressing this question have focused on whether patents improved the economic incentive to invent. In contrast, Professor Gary Cox focuses on whether patents improved access to useful knowledge—via the requirement (instituted in 1734) that patentees provide technical specifications for their inventions.
Professor Larry Bartels (Vanderbilt) examines the relationship between public opinion and social spending in thirty affluent democracies over the past three decades. He finds that governments’ responsiveness to citizens’ preferences was highly skewed in favor of affluent citizens, who were generally less supportive of the welfare state than poor citizens were. This bias in responsiveness reduced the equilibrium level of social spending in most countries by 10-15%.
Guilds ruled many crafts and trades from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution, and have always attracted debate and controversy. They were sometimes viewed as efficient institutions that guaranteed quality and skills. But they also excluded competitors, manipulated markets, and blocked innovations. Did the benefits of guilds outweigh their costs? Professor Sheilagh Ogilvie of Cambridge University discusses her new book, The European Guilds: An Economic Analysis.
