policy podcast

When we talk about the interpretation and ultimately implementation of policy we’re not talking about Congress so much as the Administrative State. But what happens when those who work in those agencies decide through their positions to not only sabotage a policy they’re meant to carry out, but perhaps the whole agency?

In a recent paper titled “Administrative Sabotage” Rutgers law professor, David Noll, looks at the history of how agencies sabotage themselves and discuses what this means for a democracy and for the power of the Presidency.  

When we talk about policy choices around redistribution there is an assumption so obvious that most people never question it. That politicians are more responsive to the desires of the rich, and that policy preferences of the poor don’t hold as much sway. But what if that assumption was wrong?

In a recent paper by Boston University Economist Raymond Fisman titled “Whose Preference Matter For Redistribution: Cross-Country Evidence” uses cross-sectional data from 93 countries to see how much a government redistributes lines up with how much redistribution citizens of different socioeconomic statuses actually want. The findings are surprising.

Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. 

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.

Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. 

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.

The firing, and subsequent rehiring, of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman raises fundamental questions about whose interests are relevant to the development of artificial intelligence and how these interests should be weighed if they hinder innovation. How should we govern innovation, or should we just not govern it at all? Did capitalism "win" in the OpenAI saga?

Bethany and Luigi sit down with Luigi’s colleague Sendhil Mullainathan, a professor of Computation and Behavioral Science at Chicago Booth. Together, they discuss if AI is really "intelligent" and whether a profit motive is always bad. In the process, they shed light on what it means to regulate in the collective interest and if we can escape the demands of capitalism when capital is the very thing that's required for progress.

The recent crisis in the Israel and Palestine conflict has added fuel to the already heated debate over free speech in our politics and on college campuses. Does the scientific literature having anything to tell us about the health of public discourse in these domains?

A recent paper by Harvard Ph.D. candidate Yihong Huang titled “Breaking the Spiral of Silence” holds some answers. It looks at how the attention we pay, or don’t pay, to who stays silent in a debate can exacerbate self-censorship.

In her brand new book, "The Big Fail: What the Pandemic Revealed About Who America Protects and Who It Leaves Behind," Bethany and her co-author Joe Nocera argue that the COVID-19 pandemic was not simply a natural disaster but also a man-made one.

Based on rigorous research and compelling storytelling, Bethany, who is renowned for her incisive reporting, reveals uncomfortable truths that have emerged from the pandemic about capitalism, inequality, and corporate power. In this one-on-one conversation with Luigi, she dissects the policies, decisions, and systemic structures that exacerbated the pandemic's fallout for the most vulnerable in society, shedding light on who benefited and who was left to fend for themselves.

If there is one thing the right and left seem to agree on it’s that money distorts our politics. It allows the rich to shape policy, choose who gets elected, and escape consequences. But what if this common belief isn’t as true as you think?

On our second live episode, we look back to famous paper in the political science literature, “Why Is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” by Stephen Ansolabehere, John Figueiredo and James Snyder. Their provocative paper asks an often-overlooked question: if political money is so effective, why isn’t there more of it?

This episode was recorded live at the University of Chicago Podcast Network Festival.

One of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign promises is to upend the modern civil service through an executive order called “Schedule F”. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over this administrative state since its conception, but why is this area of government so divisive and what power does it really hold?

The history of the civil services’ origins is one that holds many lessons about the rise of presidential power, the fall of the party system, and the polarization of politics. And there is no better expert on these topics than University of Virginia political scientist, Sidney Milkis. His 1993 book “The President and the Parties” is one of those books that seems to always be relevant but, with increased conservative focus on the administrative state, it is especially worth revisiting today.

It’s one of the most common refrains in political discourse today: social media is the source of polarization. It’s a difficult proposition to empirically study because companies like Meta and X don’t share their data publicly. Until now.

In a landmark series of papers, three in Science and one in Nature, Princeton political scientists Andy Guess and a massive team of researchers were given unique access by Meta to study how the platform and algorithms affected users’ attitudes and behaviors during the 2020 election. The findings are surprising and fascinating, even as the project itself raises intriguing questions about how to conduct research on a company in partnership with that very same company.

As companies become increasingly big through mergers and acquisitions -- especially in technology, health care, and several other industries -- how should rules and regulations change with the times?

Freshly minted and hot off the press: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released an updated set of draft "Merger Guidelines," which could reshape the landscape of corporate mergers and acquisitions both in the U.S. and globally. Esteemed Stanford professor and Chief Economist at the DOJ's Antitrust Division, Susan Athey, joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss these changes. Why did the DOJ and FTC make them? How will they impact the way companies approach mergers and acquisitions? And what do they mean for consumers, competition, labor, and the broader economy?

Show Notes:

• Visit our ongoing online symposium on the Merger Guidelines, with a wide range of perspectives and debates from leading experts on the topic
• Hear more from Susan Athey at our 2023 Antitrust and Competition Conference

There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. Many even go so far as to call it an afront to our democracy. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?

In a new paper, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition” Princeton political scientist, Kosuke Imai, uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.

Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120

The assumption in political science has always been that electing challengers can lead to a downturn in performance. It takes time to do all the hiring involved in establishing a new government, and there is always a learning curve about processes and procedures. But a surprising new paper shows the opposite might be true.

In “Electoral Turnovers”, Boston University economist Benjamin Marx uses a vast new data set to show that ousting the incumbent always seems to lead to improved performance, especially economic performance.

Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4039485

A wet hot antitrust summer is in the news, mainly because of the Biden administration appointees continuing to take an aggressive approach to enforcement. Why is this important, and how has antitrust thinking evolved over time? In this conversation, Bethany and Luigi draw from his long-standing research and from the Stigler Center's most recent antitrust conference exploring new paradigms of traditional economic ideas. Together, they trace the evolution of antitrust from its fraught foundations to today's version, shaped by decades of political, economic, and legal minds. In the process, they spell out what a changing antitrust landscape could mean for us all.

Show Notes:

• Read a summary of the antitrust conference on ProMarket
• Watch the panel hosted by Luigi, which he references in the episode
• Revisit our episode from last year on recent research by Luigi and co-authors on declining antitrust enforcement in the U.S.

How can public policy improve upon and fix the mess of U.S. health care? In a new book, health economists Amy Finkelstein (MIT) and Liran Einav (Stanford) argue that's the wrong question. Instead, they suggest we ask: What is it that U.S. health policy should try to accomplish?

Finkelstein, also a MacArthur Genius grantee, joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss health care as a social commitment and to make the case for free, automatic, and universal coverage for a basic set of medical services. She argues why the current patchwork system of incremental reforms isn't the answer, why insurance is not the lever to reduce racial disparities in health inequality, and why we must “tear down the system and build from the ground up.

”Finkelstein and Einav's new book, "We've Got You Covered: Rebooting American Health Care," is out now.

Show Notes: On ProMarket, read:

1. Lowering the Barriers to Entry for Economics Research in Healthcare, by Filippo Lancieri
2. Rethinking How To Achieve Universal Health Care Coverage in the U.S., by Katherine Baicker, Amitabh Chandra, and Mark Shepard
3. More Than 20 Years of Consolidation Have Led to a Dysfunctional Health Care Market, by Martin Gaynor
4. The Secret Driver of U.S. Health Care Costs: Politicians Wanting to Get Reelected, by Asher Schechter

"Poverty will be abolished in America only when a mass movement demands it," writes Princeton sociologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Matthew Desmond in his new book, "Poverty, by America." Building on his own lived experiences of growing up poor and continued contact with impoverished communities that "forces [him] to be intellectually honest," he claims that poverty persists in America not because we are incapable of preventing it but because society - and especially the wealthy - benefits from it at the expense of the poor.

Bethany and Luigi draw from their recent conversation with former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, who argued against the premise altogether and said that poverty in America is not as terrible a "scourge" as many like Desmond claim it to be. With Desmond, our hosts discuss his views on the complex and deeply entrenched root causes of poverty, its relationship with the American capitalist system, and how we could build on individual choices - towards which we have otherwise been so stubbornly resistant - to end poverty.

Show Notes:

1. In case you missed it, here's Bethany and Luigi's conversation with Sen. Phil Gramm: "Is American Inequality a Myth?"
2. Read related reading on ProMarket: "Monopolies: Silent Spreaders of Poverty and Economic Inequality" and a conversation with Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton on "The Under-Discussed Driver of Inequality in America."

As the Supreme Court debates whether to end affirmative action, concerns about the power of implicit racial bias to shape who gets ahead in America are as salient as ever. But what do we know about the extent and power of this racism to drive voting decisions? Is there a scientific way to measure it?

In a new paper “Disfavor or Favor? Assessing the Valence of White Americans’ Racial Attitudes” political scientist Tim Ryan provides a new framework for how perceived racial attitudes line up with voting. It takes on the faults of our existing racial bias literature and provides striking evidence about how to characterize white American’s racial attitudes. 

Ryan is a professor at The University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. You can find the paper at this link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3701331 

If there is something both sides of the political aisle can agree on, it’s that there is something deeply wrong with health insurance in the United States. What they can’t agree on is how to fix it. The right blames everything on the Affordable Care Act, while those on the left say we need Healthcare For All. But what if there was another option?

In a recent paper published in JAMA, leading health economist and University of Chicago Provost Katherine Baicker lays out an innovative blueprint for health care—not to tinker with our system on the margins, but to redesign the entire thing. It’s a fascinating idea that takes us through the complex history of health insurance, how that web got so tangled up and how we can straighten it out.

Link to the advertised Chicago Booth Review podcast: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/podcast?source=cbr-sn-bbr-camp:podcast23-20230525

For the first time in decades, the future of abortion rights in the US is uncertain. With the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022, The Supreme Court has forced Americans to reconsider and fight for a new vision of a right to abortion should be.

But it’s important to remember that debates about abortion don’t end at our borders. The end of Roe will have global ramifications for how other countries think about abortion rights but, as the US re-enters this international debate, are their lessons we can learn from how other countries have constituted, or failed to constitute, a right to abortion?

To find some answers we spoke with Julie Suk, a Professor of Law at Fordham University, Catalina Martinez Coral, Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Paola Bergallo, Professor of Law at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.

What if we harnessed the collective wisdom of the crowds and delegated democratic leadership to the masses?

In her book "Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the 21st Century", Yale political scientist Hélène Landemore proposes a radically new vision for "what genuine democratic representation means and how we could open up our narrow electoral institutions to ordinary citizens, including via [what she calls] open mini-publics." Drawing from ancient Athenian democracy of the past and the promise of harnessing digital technologies of the future, she joins Bethany and Luigi to talk through this vision of participatory democracy. They discuss how to best harness human nature for agency and impact, ensure transparency to provide accountability in the face of private vested interests, and ultimately its implications for market capitalism.