PECN 6000
What’s Happening to Democratic Capitalism?
Professor: Douglas Nelson
Office: Tilton 108 (Murphy Institute), Phone: 865-5317
Office Hours: Tuesday and Thursday, 3:30-5:30
Phone: 865-5317
email: dnelson@tulane.edu
Webpage: nelson.wp.tulane.edu
Following the harrowing experiences of global depression and global war, there was widespread concern that the post-War period would be a continuation of the unstable politics and economics that had characterized the entire 20th Century to that point. The reality was quite different: the post-War period was a Golden Age of prosperity and peace (at least in the core of the global political economy). Although this system began to unravel as early as the mid-1970s, we only begin to see definitive signs of breakdown in the late-2010s. By 2023, we observe widespread concern with the sustainability of capitalism, democracy, and capitalist democracy. It is the purpose of this seminar to study these concerns.
Readings:
There are many readings and all required readings (marked with “■”), that are not books, will be available linked from this syllabus or on Canvas. There are far more readings (even required readings) than we can read for most weeks. Thus, before each week, I will limit the readings to 3 or 4 articles. The others are there should the topic be of interest (and to remind me of things I need to read).
Capstone courses. This course is a senior seminar for the Murphy Institute. 1) Prerequisites. In addition to the exposure to a broad range of perspectives in the Murphy core courses, I will presume familiarity with microeconomics at the intermediate level (i.e. Economics 3010) and a level of familiarity (and comfort) with formal and statistical analysis at the same level. 2) Participation. This course will be run as a seminar which means attendance and active participation are mandatory. I will expect all members of the seminar to have read, and be prepared to discuss, all the assigned readings before the date on which we discuss them. The analytical comments (see below) are an aid to this.
Evaluation: Your performance in this course will be evaluated on the basis of weekly reaction papers (worth 100 points), and one research paper (worth 100 points). To receive an A, you must earn at least 90 percent of the points available. To pass the course you must earn at least 60 percent of the points available. Grades between these limits will be determined on the basis of your performance relative to that of the class as a whole.
Policy on analytical comments. Each analytical comment will be marked on a 100 point basis, but the final analytical comments marks will be the average of your individual analytical comment marks. The analytical comments are written assignments consisting of two parts: a comment on the assigned reading for the week (90 of 100 points); and 5 questions raised by the assigned reading for the week (10 of 100 points). The comment should be about 3 double-spaced pages long. Do not waste time summarizing the reading. The goal is to identify some aspect of the reading that strikes you as particularly interesting and to explain why you find it interesting. The questions should identify things you would like to see discussed in class. Failure to include discussion questions will receive a 5 point penalty. The comments are due on, or before, the start of the class in which the material is discussed. Late comments will not be accepted. I will drop the two lowest analytical comment scores.
Research papers. Every member of the seminar is required to produce a research paper on some aspect of the current political economy (broadly related to the subject matter of the course). These papers must be original work, plagiarism will not be tolerated. Broadly speaking, I expect papers in the 25-35 page range. To ensure that topics are well-established and suitable for the course, I require a proposal due no later than the fifth meeting of the course (15 February). Late proposals will result in a 10 point penalty to be assessed on the paper’s final score. Research papers are due at the last regular meeting of the course (26 April). Late papers will not be accepted, and will earn a score of 0 points.
These papers must be original work, plagiarism will not be tolerated. This includes: unattributed appropriation of someone else’s work; and excessive use (whether or not attributed) of a secondary source [including, in particular, any of the above survey articles.] If you are unclear as to what constitutes plagiarism, consult the Tulane University Honor Code on plagiarism.
SACS-Related Material
I am aware that Tulane students are able to read a standard university syllabus and determine the content of the course and its relation to the major and the individual student’s course of study. However, the administration of Tulane University, along with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS–which “accredits” primary and secondary schools as well as all varieties of 2 and 4 year undergraduate programs [with very little in the way of adjustment in rubrics, metrics, etc.]), has determined that you require additional information. I collect this material in a separate section so that you can refer to it, or discard it, as you consider appropriate.
STUDENT OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: By the end of the course, the student should be able to think, speak, and write fluently and competently about the ideas and issues covered in the course (as reflected in the course description and the syllabus). The student should have a solid understanding of the social, political, economic, and philosophical significance of ideas and concepts in the analysis of social networks and they should be familiar with major ideas and theories regarding explanations, interpretations, applications, and criticisms of work on social networks. The student should be able to formulate critical views concerning these issues and respond fluently and competently to questions concerning these views.
1. Students will be able to identify and recognize major themes, ideas, and concepts.
2. Students will analyze, interpret, and discuss these ideas in a scholarly and coherent manner.
3. Students will construct, formulate, and develop creative and critical scholarly assessments.
4. Students will appraise, evaluate, and appreciate the values and consequences of these ideas.
Tulane University recognizes the inherent dignity of all individuals and promotes respect for all people.
As such, Tulane is committed to providing an environment free of all forms of discrimination including sexual and gender-based discrimination, harassment, and violence like sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and stalking. If you (or someone you know) has experienced or is experiencing these types of behaviors, know that you are not alone. Resources and support are available: you can learn more at allin.tulane.edu. Any and all of your communications on these matters will be treated as either “Confidential” or “Private” as explained in the chart below. Please know that if you choose to confide in me I am mandated by the university to report to the Title IX Coordinator, as Tulane and I want to be sure you are connected with all the support the university can offer. You do not need to respond to outreach from the university if you do not want. You can also make a report yourself, including an anonymous report, through the form at tulane.edu/concerns.
| Confidential | Private |
| Except in extreme circumstances, involving imminent danger to one’s self or others, nothing will be shared without your explicit permission. | Conversations are kept as confidential as possible, but information is shared with key staff members so the University can offer resources and accommodations and take action if necessary for safety reasons. |
| Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) | (504) 314-2277 or The Line (24/7) | (504) 264-6074 | Case Management & Victim Support Services | (504) 314-2160 orsrss@tulane.edu
|
| Student Health Center | (504) 865-5255 | Tulane University Police (TUPD) | Uptown – (504) 865-5911. Downtown – (504) 988-5531 |
| Sexual Aggression Peer Hotline and Education (SAPHE) | (504) 654-9543 | Title IX Coordinator | (504) 314-2160 or msmith76@tulane.edu |
ADA/Accessibility Statement
Tulane University strives to make all learning experiences as accessible as possible. If you anticipate or experience academic barriers based on your disability, please let me know immediately so that we can privately discuss options. I will never ask for medical documentation from you to support potential accommodation needs. Instead, to establish reasonable accommodations, I may request that you register with the Goldman Center for Student Accessibility. After registration, make arrangements with me as soon as possible to discuss your accommodations so that they may be implemented in a timely fashion. Goldman Center contact information: goldman@tulane.edu; (504) 862-8433; accessibility.tulane.edu.
Code of Academic Conduct
The Code of Academic Conduct applies to all undergraduate students, full-time and part-time, in Tulane University. Tulane University expects and requires behavior compatible with its high standards of scholarship. By accepting admission to the university, a student accepts its regulations (i.e., Code of Academic Conduct and Code of Student Conduct) and acknowledges the right of the university to take disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion, for conduct judged unsatisfactory or disruptive.
Religious Accommodation Policy
Per Tulane’s religious accommodation policy (with hyperlink), I will make every reasonable effort to ensure that students are able to observe religious holidays without jeopardizing their ability to fulfill their academic obligations. Excused absences do not relieve the student from the responsibility for any course work required during the period of absence. Students should notify me within the first two weeks of the semester about their intent to observe any holidays that fall on a class day or on the day of the final exam.
PECN 6000 SYLLABUS Fall 2023
What’s Happening to (Post-) Modern Capitalism?
● 21 August: What’s Happening to Growth?
■ Gordon (2016). “The Ascent and Descent of Growth”. Chapter 1 of The Rise and Fall of American Growth. Princeton: PUP.
■ Friedman (2016). “A Century of Growth and Improvement.” The American Economic Review, V.106-#5, 52-56.
■ Crafts (2016). “The Rise and Fall of American Growth: Exploring the Numbers.” The American Economic Review, V.106-#5, 57-60.
■ Acemoglu, Moscona and Robinson (2016). “State Capacity and American Technology: Evidence from the Nineteenth Century.” The American Economic Review, V.106-#5, 61-67.
■ Clark (2016). “Winter Is Coming: Robert Gordon and the Future of Economic Growth.” The American Economic Review, V.106-#5, 68-71.
■ Gordon (2016). “Perspectives on the Rise and Fall of American Growth.” The American Economic Review, V.106-#5, 72-76.
○ Vu, Hanafizadeh and Bohlin (2020). “ICT as a Driver of Economic Growth: A Survey of the Literature and Directions for Future Research.” Telecommunications Policy, V.44-#2, 101922.
○ Mokyr, Vickers and Ziebarth (2015). “The History of Technological Anxiety and the Future of Economic Growth: Is This Time Different?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.29-#3, 31-50.
○ DeLong (2013). “Is Growth Getting Harder? If So, Why, and What Can Be Done About It?” blog post.
○ Cowen (2011). The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Get Better. London: Dutton.
○ Teulings and Baldwin (2014). Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes & Cures. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
○ Eichengreen (2015). “Secular Stagnation: The Long View.” American Economic Review, V.105-#5, 66-70.
○ Rachel and Summers (2019). “On Secular Stagnation in the Industrialized World.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1-54.
○ Nordhaus (2021). “Are We Approaching an Economic Singularity? Information Technology and the Future of Economic Growth.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, V.13-#1, 299-332.
○ Pecchi and Piga, eds. (2008). Revisiting Keynes: Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
○ Palacios-Huerta, Ignacio, ed. (2013). In 100 Years: Leading Economists Predict the Future. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
● 28 August: What’s Happening to Industrial Concentration?
■ Shapiro (2019). “Protecting Competition in the American Economy Merger Control, Tech Titans, Labor Markets.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.33-#3, 69-93.
■ Khan (2017). “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” The Yale Law Journal, V.126-#3, 710-805.
■ Covarrubias, Gutiérrez and Philippon (2020). “From Good to Bad Concentration? US Industries over the Past 30 Years.” NBER Macroeconomics Annual, V.34, 1-46.
■ Bhaskar, Manning and To (2002). “Oligopsony and Monopsonistic Competition in Labor Markets.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.16-#2, 155-74.
■ Card (2022). “Who Set Your Wage?” American Economic Review, V.112-#4, 1075-90.
■ Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum (2022). “Labor Market Concentration.” Journal of Human Resources, V.57-#S, S167.
○ Manning (2020). “Monopsony in Labor Markets: A Review.” ILR Review, V.74-#1, 3-26.
○ Autor, Dorn, Katz, Patterson and Van Reenen (2020). “The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, V.135-#2, 645-709.
○ Azar and Vives (2019). “Common Ownership and the Secular Stagnation Hypothesis.” AEA Papers and Proceedings, V.109, 322-26.
○ De Loecker, Eeckhout and Unger (2020). “The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, V.135-#2, 561-644.
○ Khan and Vaheesan (2017). “Market Power and Inequality: The Antitrust Counterrevolution and Its Discontents.” Harvard Law and Policy Review, V.11-#1, 235-94.
○ Lamoreaux (2019). “The Problem of Bigness: From Standard Oil to Google.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.33-#3, 94-117.
○ Gilbert (2023). “Antitrust Reform: An Economic Perspective.” Annual Review of Economics.
★Philippon (2019). The Great Reversal: How America Gave up on Free Markets. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
○ Klobuchar (2021). Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.
● 11 September: What’s Happening to Income Distribution?
■ Alvaredo, Atkinson, Piketty and Saez (2013). “The Top 1 Percent in International and Historical Perspective.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.27-#3, 3-20.
■ Mankiw (2013). “Defending the One Percent.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.27-#3, 21-34.
■ Corak (2013). “Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.27-#3, 79-102.
■ Bonica, McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal (2013). “Why Hasn’t Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.27-#3, 103-23.
■ Piketty and Saez (2014). “Inequality in the Long Run.” Science, V.344-#6186, 838-43.
■ Autor (2014). “Skills, Education, and the Rise of Earnings Inequality among the ‘Other 99 Percent’.” Science, V.344-#6186, 843-51.
■ Saez and Zucman (2020). “The Rise of Income and Wealth Inequality in America: Evidence from Distributional Macroeconomic Accounts.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.34-#4, 3-26.
■ Hoffmann, Lee and Lemieux (2020). “Growing Income Inequality in the United States and Other Advanced Economies.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.34-#4, 52-78.
○ Atkinson, Piketty and Saez (2011). “Top Incomes in the Long Run of History.” Journal of Economic Literature, V.49-#1, 3-71.
○ Piketty, Saez and Zucman (2017). “Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, V.133-#2, 553-609.
○ Chetty, Hendren, Jones and Porter (2019). “Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, V.135-#2, 711-83.
○ DiPrete, Thomas A. (2020). “The Impact of Inequality on Intergenerational Mobility.” Annual Review of Sociology, V.46-#1, 379-98.
○ Durlauf, Kourtellos and Tan (2022). “The Great Gatsby Curve.” Annual Review of Economics, V.14-#1, 571-605.
What’s Happening to (Post-) Modern Democracy?
● 18 September: Is the Administrative State a Threat to Democracy?
○ Vermeule (2015). “The Administrative State: Law, Democracy, and Knowledge,” in M. Tushnet, M. A. Graber and S. Levinson eds, The Oxford Handbook of the U.S. Constitution. Oxford University Press., pp. 259-282. [Canvas]
■ Epstein (2008). “Why the Modern Administrative State Is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law“. NYU Journal of Law & Liberty; pp. 491-515.
■ Sunstein (2022). “The Administrative State, Inside Out,” ms: Harvard Law School.
■ Wallach (2016). “The Administrative State’s Legitimacy Crisis,” Brookings Center for Effective Public Management working paper.
■ Ansell and Gingrich (2003). “Reforming the Administrative State,” in B. E. Cain, R. J. Dalton and S. E. Scarrow eds, Democracy Transformed?: Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford University Press, pp. 164-191.
○ Lawson (1994). “The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State.” Harvard Law Review, V.107-#6, 1231-54.
○ Epstein (2013). “The Perilous Position of the Rule of Law and the Administrative State.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, V.36-#1, 5-19.
○ Shane (2013). “The Rule of Law and the Inevitability of Discretion.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, V.36-#1, 21-28.
○ Metzger (2017). “Foreword: 1930s Redux: The Administrative State under Siege.” Harvard Law Review, V.131-#1, 1-95.
○ Rosanvallon (2011). Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
★ Michaels (2017). Constitutional Coup: Privatization’s Threat to the American Republic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
★ Tucker (2018). Unelected Power: The Quest for Legitimacy in Central Banking and the Regulatory State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
○ Mashaw (2018). Reasoned Administration and Democratic Legitimacy: How Administrative Law Supports Democratic Government. Cambrdige, UK ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
★ Sunstein and Vermeule (2020). Law & Leviathan: Redeeming the Administrative State. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
★ Epstein (2020). The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
● 25 September: Is the Keynesian Welfare State Dying? Is that a Problem?
■ Starke (2006). “The Politics of Welfare State Retrenchment: A Literature Review.” Social Policy & Administration, V.40-#1, 104-20.
■ Green-Pedersen (2004). “The Dependent Variable Problem within the Study of Welfare State Retrenchment: Defining the Problem and Looking for Solutions.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, V.6-#1, 3-14.
■ van Kersbergen, Vis and Hemerijck (2014). “The Great Recession and Welfare State Reform: Is Retrenchment Really the Only Game Left in Town?” Social Policy & Administration, V.48-#7, 883-904.
■ Taylor-Gooby (2016). “The Divisive Welfare State.” Social Policy & Administration, V.50-#6, 712-33.
■ Bremer and Bürgisser (2023). “Public Opinion on Welfare State Recalibration in Times of Austerity: Evidence from Survey Experiments.” Political Science Research and Methods, V.11-#1, 34-52.
■ Bakija, Kenworthy, Lindert and Madrick (2016). How Big Should Our Government Be? Oakland, California: University of California Press.
○ Kersbergen and Vis (2014). Comparative Welfare State Politics: Development, Opportunities, and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
○ Gordon (1988). “Can We Pay the Piper? Linkages between the Macroeconomy and the Welfare State.” Politics & Society, V.16-#4, 487-502.
○ Schmitter (1988). “Five Reflections on the Future of the Welfare State.” Politics & Society, V.16-#4, 503-15.
○ Katznelson (1988). “The Welfare State as a Contested Institutional Idea.” Politics & Society, V.16-#4, 517-31.
○ Rosanvallon (2000). The New Social Question: Rethinking the Welfare State. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
○ Michaels (2017). Constitutional Coup: Privatization’s Threat to the American Republic. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
○ Acemoglu (2009). “The Crisis of 2008: Lessons for and from Economics.” Critical Review, V.21-#2-3, 185-94.
○ Colander, Goldberg, Haas, Juselius, Kirman, Lux and Sloth (2009). “The Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of the Economics Profession.” Critical Review, V.21-#2-3, 249-67.
○ Eichengreen (2020). “Keynesian Economics: Can It Return If It Never Died?” Review of Keynesian Economics, V.8-#1, 23-35.
● 2 October: Is Polarization Increasing? Is that a Problem?
■ Hare and Poole (2014). “The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics.” Polity, V.46-#3, 411-29.
■ Hetherington, Long and Rudolph (2016). “Revisiting the Myth: New Evidence of a Polarized Electorate.” Public Opinion Quarterly, V.80-#S1, 321-50.
■ Abramowitz and McCoy (2019). “United States Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump’s America.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, V.681, 137-56.
■ Iyengar, Lelkes, Levendusky, Malhotra and Westwood (2019). “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science, V.22-#1, 129-46.
■ Pierson and Schickler (2020). “Madison’s Constitution under Stress: A Developmental Analysis of Political Polarization.” Annual Review of Political Science, V.23-#1, 37-58.
■ Finkel, Eli J.;, et al. (2020). “Political Sectarianism in America.” Science, V.370-#6516, 533-36.
■ Peterson and Iyengar (2021). “Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?” American Journal of Political Science, V.65-#1, 133-47.
■ Kitschelt and Rehm (2022). “Polarity Reversal: The Socioeconomic Reconfiguration of Partisan Support in Knowledge Societies.” Politics & Society, V.0-#0, 00323292221100220.
■ Boxell, Gentzkow and Shapiro (2022). “Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1-60.
○ Hetherington and Weiler (2009). Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
○ Campbell (2016). Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
★ Fiorina (2017). Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.
★ Abramowitz (2018). The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
○ Mason (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, Illinois ; London: The University of Chicago Press.
★ McCarty (2019). Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
● 9 October: Is Populism a Threat to Democracy? Or Is Populism Democracy?
■ Canovan (2002). “Taking Politics to the People: Populism as the Ideology of Democracy,” in Y. Mény and Y. Surel eds, Democracies and the Populist Challenge. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 25-44.
■ Mair (2002). “Populist Democracy Vs Party Democracy,” in Y. Mény and Y. Surel eds, Democracies and the Populist Challenge. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 81-98.
■ Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal (2012). “The Ambivalence of Populism: Threat and Corrective for Democracy.” Democratization, V.19-#2, 184-208.
■ Rummens (2017). “Populism as a Threat to Liberal Democracy,” in C. Rovira Kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P. O. Espejo and P. Ostiguyeds, The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford University Press, 0.
■ Urbinati (2019). “Political Theory of Populism.” Annual Review of Political Science, V.22-#1, 111-27.
■ Spierings and Zaslove (2017). “Gender, Populist Attitudes, and Voting: Explaining the Gender Gap in Voting for Populist Radical Right and Populist Radical Left Parties.” West European Politics, V.40-#4, 821-47.
■ Margalit (2019). “Economic Insecurity and the Causes of Populism, Reconsidered.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.33-#4, 152-70.
■ Noury and Roland (2020). “Identity Politics and Populism in Europe.” Annual Review of Political Science, V.23-#1, 421-39.
■ Vachudova (2021). “Populism, Democracy, and Party System Change in Europe.” Annual Review of Political Science, V.24-#1, 471-98.
■ Guriev and Papaioannou (2022). “The Political Economy of Populism.” Journal of Economic Literature, V.60-#3, 753-832.
■ de Bromhead and O’Rourke (2023). “Should History Change the Way We Think About Populism?,” NBER Working Paper, #31148.
○ Grzymala-Busse, (2019). “How Populists Rule: The Consequences for Democratic Governance.” Polity, V.51-#4, 707-17.
○ Mény and Surel (2002). Democracies and the Populist Challenge. New York: Palgrave.
○ Laclau (2005). On Populist Reason. London ; New York: Verso.
○ Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012). Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or Corrective for Democracy? Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
○ Eichengreen (2018). The Populist Temptation: Economic Grievance and Political Reaction in the Modern Era. New York: Oxford University Press.
○ Mouffe (2018). For a Left Populism. London ; New York: Verso.
○ Galston (2018). Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
★ Urbinati (2019). Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
○ Pappas (2019). Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press.
○ Howell and Moe (2020). Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
○ Mettler and Lieberman (2020). Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
★ Rosanvallon (2021). The Populist Century: History, Theory, Critique. Cambridge, UK ; Medford, MA: Polity.
★ Bartels (2023). Democracy Erodes from the Top: Leaders, Citizens, and the Challenges of Populism in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
● 16 October: Is the West Turning to Authoritarianism? Would that be Bad?
■ Inglehart and Norris (2017). “Trump and the Populist Authoritarian Parties: The Silent Revolution in Reverse.” Perspectives on Politics, V.15-#2, 443-54.
■ Sunstein, ed. (2018). Can It Happen Here?: Authoritarianism in America. New York: Dey St., an imprint of William Morrow.
■ Ballard-Rosa, Jensen and Scheve (2021). “Economic Decline, Social Identity, and Authoritarian Values in the United States.” International Studies Quarterly, V.66-#1, 1-14.
■ Geddes and Zaller (1989). “Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes.” American Journal of Political Science, V.33-#2, 319-47.
■ Nilsson and Jost (2020). “The Authoritarian-Conservatism Nexus.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, V.34, 148-54.
○ Hedges (2006). American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York: Free Press.
★ Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018). How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.
○ Snyder (2018). The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. New York: Tim Duggan Books.
○ Albright and Woodward (2018). Fascism: A Warning. New York: Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.
○ Norris and Inglehart (2018). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Authoritarian-Populism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
○ Mudde (2019). The Far Right Today. Cambridge, UK ; Medford, MA: Polity.
★ Applebaum (2020). Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism. New York: Doubleday.
What are the Drivers of the Current Political Economy?
● 23 October: International Trade
■ Colantone and Stanig (2019). “The Surge of Economic Nationalism in Western Europe.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V.33-#4, 128-51.
■ Rodrik (2021). “Why Does Globalization Fuel Populism? Economics, Culture, and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism.” Annual Review of Economics, V.13-#1, 133-70.
■ Boucher and Thies (2019). ““I Am a Tariff Man”: The Power of Populist Foreign Policy Rhetoric under President Trump.” The Journal of Politics, V.81-#2, 712-22.
■ Noland (2020). “Protectionism under Trump: The China Shock, Deplorables, and the First White President.” Asian Economic Policy Review, V.15-#1, 31-50.
■ Autor, Dorn, Hanson and Majlesi (2020). “Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure.” The American Economic Review, V.110-#10, 3139-83.
■ Che, Lu, Pierce, Schott and Tao (2022). “Did Trade Liberalization with China Influence US Elections?” Journal of International Economics, V.139, 103652.
■ Mutz (2018). “Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, V.115-#19,
○ Mutz (2021). Winners and Losers: The Psychology of Foreign Trade. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
○ Autor, Dorn and Hanson (2016). “The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade.” Annual Review of Economics, V.8-#1, 205-240.E4330-E39.
○ Goldberg & Reed (2023). “Is the Economy Deglobalizing? And If So, Why? And What is Next?”. World Bank PRWP.
○ Margalit (2011). “Costly Jobs: Trade-Related Layoffs, Government Compensation, and Voting in U.S. Elections.” The American Political Science Review, V.105-#1, 166-88.
○ Feigenbaum and Hall (2015). “How Legislators Respond to Localized Economic Shocks: Evidence from Chinese Import Competition.” The Journal of Politics, V.77-#4, 1012-30.
○ Jensen, Quinn and Weymouth (2017). “Winners and Losers in International Trade: The Effects on Us Presidential Voting.” International Organization, V.71-#3, 423-57.
○ Hays, Lim and Spoon (2019). “The Path from Trade to Right-Wing Populism in Europe.” Electoral Studies, V.60, 102038.
○ Dippel, Gold, Heblich and Pinto (2021). “The Effect of Trade on Workers and Voters.” The Economic Journal, V.132-#641, 199-217.
○ Adler-Nissen and Zarakol (2021). “Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents.” International Organization, V.75-#2, 611-34.
○ Colantone, Ottaviano and Stanig (2022). “The Backlash of Globalization,” in Gopinath, Helpman and Rogoff eds, Handbook of International Economics–V.5. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 405-77.
● 30 October: International Migration
■ Leblang and Peters (2022). “Immigration and Globalization (and Deglobalization).” Annual Review of Political Science, V.25-#1, 377-99.
■ McLaren (2012). “The Cultural Divide in Europe: Migration, Multiculturalism, and Political Trust.” World Politics, V.64-#2, 199-241.
■ Hatton, Guriev and Pijoan-Mas (2016). “Immigration, Public Opinion and the Recession in Europe.” Economic Policy, V.31-#86, 205-46.
■ Hatton (2021). “Public Opinion on Immigration in Europe: Preference and Salience.” European Journal of Political Economy, V.66, 101969.
■ Magni (2021). “Economic Inequality, Immigrants and Selective Solidarity: From Perceived Lack of Opportunity to in-Group Favoritism.” British Journal of Political Science, V.51-#4, 1357-80.
■ Goodman and Pepinsky (2021). “The Exclusionary Foundations of Embedded Liberalism.” International Organization, V.75-#2, 411-39.
■ Mayda, Peri and Steingress (2022). “The Political Impact of Immigration: Evidence from the United States.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, V.14-#1, 358-89.
○ Dinesen, Schaeffer and Sønderskov (2020). “Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review.” Annual Review of Political Science, V.23-#1, 441-65.
○ Moriconi, Peri and Turati (2019). “Immigration and Voting for Redistribution: Evidence from European Elections.” Labour Economics, V.61, 101765.
○ Moriconi, Peri and Turati (2022). “Skill of the Immigrants and Vote of the Natives: Immigration and Nationalism in European Elections 2007–2016.” European Economic Review, V.141, 103986.
○ Dustmann, Vasiljeva and Damm (2019). “Refugee Migration and Electoral Outcomes.” The Review of Economic Studies, V.86-#5 (310), 2035-91.
○ Bredtmann (2022). “Immigration and Electoral Outcomes: Evidence from the 2015 Refugee Inflow to Germany.” Regional Science and Urban Economics, V.96, 103807.
● 6 November: Technological Change
■ Frey, Berger and Chen (2018). “Political Machinery: Did Robots Swing the 2016 US Presidential Election?” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, V.34-#3, 418-42.
■ Chen, Frey and Presidente (2022). “Automation or Globalization? The Impacts of Robots and Chinese Imports on Jobs in the United Kingdom.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, V.204, 528-42.
■ Mutz (2021). “(Mis)Attributing the Causes of American Job Loss: The Consequences of Getting It Wrong.” Public Opinion Quarterly, V.85-#1, 101-22.
■ Wu (2022). “Misattributed Blame? Attitudes toward Globalization in the Age of Automation.” Political Science Research and Methods, V.10-#3, 470-87.
■ Gallego, Kurer and Schöll (2021). “Neither Left Behind nor Superstar: Ordinary Winners of Digitalization at the Ballot Box.” The Journal of Politics, V.84-#1, 418-36.
■ Anelli, Colantone and Stanig (2021). “Individual Vulnerability to Industrial Robot Adoption Increases Support for the Radical Right.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, V.118-#47, e2111611118.
■ Mansfield and Rudra (2021). “Embedded Liberalism in the Digital Era.” International Organization, V.75-#2, 558-85.
○ Cohen (2009). Three Lectures on Post-Industrial Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
○ Frey (2019). The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
○ Hope and Martelli (2019). “The Transition to the Knowledge Economy, Labor Market Institutions, and Income Inequality in Advanced Democracies.” World Politics, V.71-#2, 236-88.
★ Iversen and Rehm (2022). Big Data and the Welfare State: How the Information Revolution Threatens Social Solidarity. York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
○ Busemeyer,Kemmerling, Marx, van Kersbergen (2022). Digitalization and the Welfare State. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
○ Ibsen and Thelen (2017). “Diverging Solidarity Labor Strategies in the New Knowledge Economy.” World Politics, V.69-#3, 409-47.
★ Acemoglu and Johnson (2023). Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle over Technology and Prosperity. New York: PublicAffairs.
● Optional Topic: Generational Change
● 13 November: Hegemonic Transition
■ Lebow and Valentino (2009). “Lost in Transition: A Critical Analysis of Power Transition Theory.” International Relations, V.23-#3, 389-410.
■ Mearsheimer (2019). “Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order.” International Security, V.43-#4, 7-50.
■ Brunnermeier, Doshi and James (2018). “Beijing’s Bismarckian Ghosts: How Great Powers Compete Economically.” The Washington Quarterly, V.41-#3, 161-76.
■ Brands and Gaddis (2021). “The New Cold War: America, China, and the Echoes of History.” Foreign Affairs, V.100-#6, 10-21.
○ Friedman (2013). After Liberalism?: The Future of Liberalism in International Relations. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
○ Brooks and Wohlforth (2016). America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
○ Mearsheimer (2018). The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. New Haven ; London: Yale University Press.
○ Bordo and James (2019). “The Trade-Offs between Macroeconomics, Political Economy and International Relations.” Financial History Review, V.26-#3, 247-66.
○ Kleinmann, Liu and Redding (2020). “International Friends and Enemies,” NBER working paper, #27587.
Is Capitalist Democracy in Crisis (Has It Always Been)?
● 27 November: Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy?
○ Polanyi (1944/2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
○ Streeck (2014). Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
★ Kuttner, Robert (2018). Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
○ Crain (2018). “Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy”. New Yorker;
● 4 December: Is Democracy a Threat to Capitalism?
■ Muller (2007). “The Democratic Threat to Capitalism.” Daedalus, V.136-#3, 77-86.
■ Galston and Kamarck (2022). “Is Democracy Failing and Putting Our Economic System at Risk,” Brookings Strengthening American Democracy Initiative,
★ Schumpeter (2003). Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy. London: Routledge. (esp. parts II-IV)
★ Wolf (2023). The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. New York: Penguin Press.