Himalaya: Listen. Learn. Grow.

4.8K Ratings
Open In App
title

The Governance Podcast

Centre for the Study of Governance and Society

10
Followers
11
Plays
The Governance Podcast

The Governance Podcast

Centre for the Study of Governance and Society

10
Followers
11
Plays
OVERVIEWEPISODESYOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Details

About Us

Conversations on governance with leading social scientists around the world. Run by the Centre for the Study of Governance and Society at King's College London.

Latest Episodes

Prisons and the Origins of Social Order: In Conversation with David Skarbek

David Skarbek (Brown University) describes his ethnographic work on prison governance as a historical analogy to the emergence of states. Join us in this episode of the Governance Podcast led by John Meadowcroft (King’s College London) for a vibrant discussion on how governance emerges (or doesn’t) in different social landscapes, from prisons and gulags to clans and nation-states. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest David Skarbek is Associate Professor of Political Science at Brown University. His research examines how extralegal governance institutions form, operate, and evolve. He has published extensively on the informal institutions that govern life in prisons in California and around the globe. His work has appeared in leading journals in political science, economics, and criminology, including in theAmerican Political Science Review, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Journal of Law, Economics & Organization,andJournal of Criminal Justice. His book,The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System(Oxford University Press), received the American Political Science Association’s 2016 William H. Riker Award for the best book in political economy in the previous three years. It was also awarded the 2014 Best Publication Award from the International Association for the Study of Organized Crime and was shortlisted for the British Sociological Association’s 2014 Ethnography Award. His work has been featured widely in national and international media outlets, such as the Atlantic, BBC, Business Insider, the Economist, Forbes, the Independent, and the Times. Skip Ahead 00:38: David, you’re well known for writing a book on prison gangs in California and America called The Social Order of the Underworld. Just to begin, tell us a little bit about that book. 2:01: You mentioned that prison gangs are often organized on racial lines. Why is that the case? 4:10: So race is a convenient way of organizing a large group of people. Is that what you’re arguing? 4:34: Does that mean this has changed over time? So as a prison population got bigger in America, gangs organized upon racial lines have become more important? 7:44: You mentioned that the convict code, if you like, was informal. Would you see gangs as providing more formal governance? 9:15: Would it be fair or is it a stretch to suggest that this is like a prison constitution? 10:53: One thing when you read the book that’s quite striking is there are lots of vivid descriptions of violence that occurs in prison. How do you reconcile that evidence with what you describe as some sort of order? 13:55: I imagine that the question that comes to many people’s minds when it comes to prison gangs, is what would happen if they went to prison? Would they have to join a prison gang, and if the didn’t, what would be the consequences? 15:26: So it’d be fair to say you cannot be a solitary individual, you cannot be a holdout, so to speak. 16:15: Could we then imagine that prisons are close to what we might think of the state of nature in social science? 17:05: This brings us to your latest work in this area, which I think is going to be called the Puzzle of Prison Order. How does it extend your previous work? 20:03: Maybe you can say a little more about English prisons. One senses that they don’t have that kind of gang organization that we observe in California. Why should that be the case? 23:39: One challenge this book takes on is trying to unpack all these different factors, all these different possibilities. So I guess one common sense question would be, looking at California, America, the UK, there is a presence of gangs on the streets. One might assume intuitively that the gangs on the streets a

50 MINMAR 25
Comments
Prisons and the Origins of Social Order: In Conversation with David Skarbek

Poverty, Informality and Politics in India: In Conversation with Tariq Thachil

Slums are home to 850 million people worldwide, making them prime territory for distributive politics. In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Tariq Thachil (Vanderbilt University) sits down with Irena Schneider (King’s College London) to discuss the counterintuitive ways in which governance emerges amidst poverty and informality in Indian cities. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Tariq Thachil is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University. His research focuses on political parties and political behavior, social movements, and ethnic politics, with a regional focus on South Asia. Hisfirst book examines how elite parties can use social services to win mass support, through a study of Hindu nationalism in India, and was published byCambridge University Press (Studies in Comparative Politics)in 2014. This project has won numerous awards, including the2015 Gregory Luebbert Awardfor best book in comparative politics, the2015 Leon Epstein Award for best book on political parties, and2010 Gabriel Almond Awardfor best dissertation in comparative politics, all from the American Political Science Association. It also won the2010 Sardar Patel Prizefor best dissertation on modern India in the humanities and social sciences. His current research focuses on the political consequences of urbanization, and draws on extensive qualitative and quantitative research among poor migrants in Indian cities. An article from this project, coauthored with Adam Auerbach, received the 2018Heinz I. Eulau Awardfor the best article published in theAmerican Political Science Reviewin the previous calendar year. Skip Ahead 00:58: As a political scientist, what prompted you to take an interest in the politics of Indian slums? 1:53: You talk a lot about machine politics in India—It’s a core element of your book. Historically when we think about machine politics, you also mention in your book that the big examples are US democratic party machines in New York and Chicago which emerged in the 19th century by giving out material benefits to poor European immigrants in exchange for political support. We’re seeing similar trends happening across the developing world today. Masses of migrants are flooding to cities, living in slums, and end up being governed by powerful machines. But you’re observing something uniquely different about how politics emerges within Indian slums. Quite specifically, you’re noticing that the process is a lot more democratic than we thought. What have you been observing? What’s counterintuitive? 7:56: That’s really interesting because it really has to do with this unique competitive environment. Why is it so competitive? Why is no one able to take over and become a boss in some of these Indian slums? 11:23: You argue that slum residents don’t really choose leaders on the basis of petty gifts or cash. Clientelism doesn’t boil down to something so simple. What criteria do residents really use to choose their leaders? 14:13: The picture you’re painting is that slum residents are much more empowered to choose among competing brokers rather than being passive or manipulated rule takers. How much power do they really have over their local brokers and local politicians? Can they really hold their brokers accountable in ways that would mimic what would happen under a formal democratic institution? 18:54: One of your most interesting findings is that when people are choosing their slum leaders and brokers, they’re not necessarily using the basis of caste or ethnicity—and a lot of what really matters is things like education. Talk a little more about that. Are we seeing a crowding out of forms of choice based on old kinds of hierarchy? 23:16: I want to talk a little m

46 MINMAR 5
Comments
Poverty, Informality and Politics in India: In Conversation with Tariq Thachil

Womanhood in Tocqueville's Democracy: In Conversation with Sarah Wilford

Alexis de Tocqueville argued that American democracy was rooted in associational life. What role did women play in building this capacity for association? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Dr Sarah Wilford (University of the Andes) sits down with Dr Irena Schneider (King's College London) to discuss how the domestic sphere shapes free societies and stems the tide of democratic despotism. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Dr Sarah Wilford is an assistant professor of politics at the University of the Andes in Santiago. Her research focuses on the political thought of Alexis de Tocqueville regarding family, women, and democratic conditions. Other research interests include the relationship between religion and liberty in Tocquevil...

--FEB 25
Comments
Womanhood in Tocqueville's Democracy: In Conversation with Sarah Wilford

The Case Against the Sovereign State: In Conversation with David Thunder

David Thunder (University of Navarra) argues that many modern political theorists, from Hobbes to Rawls, overstate the importance of state sovereignty. He envisions an alternative, polycentric form of social organisation that can support one’s freedom to flourish. Tune in for his argument in this episode of the Governance Podcast led by Billy Christmas (King’s College London). Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest David Thunderis a researcher and lecturer in political and social philosophy at the Institute for Culture and Society, University of Navarra. Prior to his appointment to the University of Navarra, he held several research and teaching positions in the United States, including visiting positions at Bucknell and Villanova Universities, and a stint as Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Princeton University’s James Madison Program. David earned his BA and MA in philosophy at University College Dublin, and his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Notre Dame.He is currently preparing two book manuscripts, tentatively entitledMay I Love My Country? In Search of a Defensible Patriotism;andSovereign Rule and the Still-Birth of Freedom: A Preface to Confederal Republicanism. David’sacademic writings includeCitizenship and the Pursuit of the Worthy Life(Cambridge University Press, 2014),The Ethics of Citizenship in the 21st Century(edited volume, Springer, 2017), and numerous articles in international peer-reviewed journals such as theAmerican Journal of Political Science,Political Theory,TheJournal of Social Philosophy,and theJournal of Business Ethics. His writings cover a wide range of questions including the pros and cons of individualism, the ethics of financial trading, the complicity of citizens in collective injustice, the concept of moral impartiality, and the scope of duties of beneficence. He writes occasionally forThe Irish Timesand RTE’sBrainstormpage. For more information, seewww.davidthunder.com. Skip Ahead 00:59: What is sovereigntism? Why are you so critical of it? 2:18: Is your criticism of it primarily in terms of as a theory of political organisation, as an approach to justice in normative political theory? Or is it a critique of empirical reality? Is it that you think this is the system we do in fact have, and it's bad for a number of reasons? 4:06: Could you say a bit more about how this aspiration to sovereignty is so harmful to these kinds of associations? 5:58: What do you think is worth protecting about associational life? What would you say to someone who takes the opposite approach and says that these small associations are undermining the authority of the national government and that undermines our sense of national identity, a more cosmopolitan and open ended form of human cooperation and really these associations are just old fashioned things which we can now do away with now that we have nation states. 8:47: So you start off with this tentative defense of associational life that, while any kind of associational life is not always good, it is a necessary condition that we are able to form and live in associations. And the aspiration of the sovereign state is parasitical or cannibalistic upon that. If the goal of associational life is this common flourishing, friendship and knowledge, generational solidarity, is there a need for external regulation of associational life in order to, not guarantee, but certainly regulate and offer some predictability that associational life will not go to the worst case scenario? 12:35: It sounds like you do want there to be political institutions to provide that kind of regulatory framework for associational life, but it's important that it be fragmented perhaps in a federal way. Do you see federal systems

57 MINFEB 17
Comments
The Case Against the Sovereign State: In Conversation with David Thunder

Socialism and the Future of Heterodox Economics: In Conversation with Geoffrey Hodgson

Is socialism feasible? What is the future of heterodox economics after the financial crisis? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Mark Pennington (King's College London) sits down with Geoffrey Hodgson (Loughborough University London) for a wide-ranging conversation on the nature of social democracy, neoliberalism, and new paradigms in economics. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Geoffrey Hodgson is a Professor in Management for the Institute for International Management at Loughborough University London. He isa specialist in institutional and evolutionary economics, with a background in economics, philosophy and mathematics. His research has applications to the understanding of organisations, organisational change, innovation, entrepreneurship and economic development.Hodgson is also the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Institutional Economics (ABS rank 3). He has published 18 academic books and over 150 academic articles. He is the winner of the Schumpeter Prize 2014 for his book on "Conceptualizing Capitalism". Skip Ahead 0:55: You've actually got two books out in the last year -- Is Socialism Feasible? and Is there a future for heterodox economics? I wonder if we could start by you talking us through-- first of all, how do you write two books in a year, but also the rationale for these two particular books? 8:44: I'd like to follow up on that last part and link it to the motivation for writing these books-- you're very clear to make a distinction between socialism and social democracy, so you do see yourself as a kind of social democrat who has been influenced by arguments in the liberal tradition. I wonder if you could say something about why you think, following the crash, there's been a movement toward going back to what you describe as 'big state socialism' as opposed to embracing a radical Keynesian view or some kind of interventionist or redistributive politics, which isn't about nationalising or controlling everything from the centre. 14:45: I really enjoyed this section of the book where you're talking about the use of terminology-- how the use of this term 'neoliberal' has meant that you almost can't have a conversation in certain areas because anything turns out to be neoliberal if it isn't full blooded socialism and I think there's a wonderful line in the book where you say that if you follow this kind of reasoning, when Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy to save the Soviet people from starvation, this would have been described as a neoliberal policy by some of the contemporary left. 16:34: Why do you think that label [neoliberalism] has become so ubiquitous? 18:17: You mention some heterodox thinkers using the term, dismissing certain things as being right wing just because of that. Perhaps we can connect to the second book-- could you talk about the rationale for writing it? 26:32: Can we pursue that more, this issue about how effectively methodological questions seem to get confused with policy positions or ideological views in heterodoxy? This is something that's always frustrated me-- I consider myself to be quite heterodox in the sense that I'm very influenced by the Austrian school ideas. There are lots of debates I'd like to engage with people who are post-Keynesians or post-institutionalists or evolutionary thinkers, and I feel that we should have a club identity around those themes. But because we might divide on policy issues that seems to come apart. 29:59: There is so much within neoclassical economics which promotes, if not radical socialism, although you could interpret some general equilibrium theory in that way, but it certainly promotes interventionism -- it assumes away all the problems of tacit knowledge. 30:33: You've given

58 MINFEB 7
Comments
Socialism and the Future of Heterodox Economics: In Conversation with Geoffrey Hodgson

Fukuyama on Liberalism, Dignity and Identity: In Conversation with Humeira Iqtidar and Paul Sagar

Where are the fault lines in the modern liberal project? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Dr Humeira Iqtidar and Dr Paul Sagar of King's College London tackle this question in a dialogue on Francis Fukuyama's new book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guests Dr Humeira Iqtidar joined King's College London in 2011. She has studied at the University of Cambridge, McGill University in Canada and Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan. Before joining King's, Humeira was based at the University of Cambridge as a fellow of King’s College and the Centre of South Asian Studies.She is a co-convenor of theLondon Comparative Political Theory Workshop. Humeira’s research explores the shifting demarcations of state, market and society in political imagination, and their relationship with Islamic thought and practice. Her current research focuses on non-liberal conceptions of tolerance. Her research has featured in interviews and articles in TheGuardian, BBC World Service,Voice of America,Der Spiegel,Social Science Research CouncilOnline,The Dawn,Express TribuneandOpen Democracy. Dr Paul Sagar is a lecturer in political theory at King's College London. His recent monograph, The Opinion of Mankind: Sociability and the State from Hobbes to Smith, explores Enlightenment accounts of the foundations of modern politics, whilst also addressing contemporary issues regarding how to conceive of the state, and what that means for normative political theory today. He has also published a number of studies on topics such as: the political writings of Bernard Williams, so-called ‘realist’ approaches to political philosophy, the nature of liberty under conditions of modernity, and the idea of immortality. Paul is currently in the early stages of two major new projects. The first is a monograph study of Adam Smith’s political philosophy as rooted in his conceptions of history and commercial society. The second is an exploration of the idea of the enemy in the history of political thought. Skip Ahead 0:55: Where do we see this book in Fukuyama's larger oeuvre? 3:39: You can see Hegel's influence more in his previous work, more in terms of a teleological thrust through history, and the metaphysics in Hegel... I really understand to be a kind of battle of ideas. And Fukuyama takes that on, and his argument is more that if we are thinkingabout ideas that will triumph, then liberal democracy is the best idea. 8:55: I think what Fukuyama wants to say in this Identity book is, the same threats to the last man at the end of history, which is the desire for recognition, will overwhelmcontentmentwith stability. Because even if liberal democracy... would provide all the comfortsof life... and solve the economicquestions, which we know now that it hasn't... but even back then Fukuyama thought that even if it does that, it will not solve the recognition problem, and if they don't get that recognition, they will break things, they will smash things. 11:14: I actually find the narrative that he tells pretty plausible. The idea that we exist not just with the desire for recognition, but a desire that each of us has an authentic self, an authentic identity, which may be at odds with wider society, and that society itself may be a structural mechanism of oppression. 13:29: His account of the failure of multiculturalism, which... he doesn't actually spell it out in so many words... but he lays the blame on a certain kind of identity politics at the doorstep of the left. What is interesting is... I think there is a problem with thinking of it only as a left failure, partly because the left remains undifferentiated in his thinking. 16:30: I actually think

43 MINJAN 28
Comments
Fukuyama on Liberalism, Dignity and Identity: In Conversation with Humeira Iqtidar and Paul Sagar

Migration and Economic Development: In Conversation with Volha Charnysh

How does migration affect economic development? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Volha Charnysh (MIT) talks to Humeira Iqtidar (King's College London) about this complex relationship, drawing on extensive fieldwork and archival data on forced migration in Post-World War II Germany and Poland. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Volha Charnysh joined MIT’s Department of Political Science in the fall of 2018. In 2017-2018, she was a fellow at the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. She received her PhD in Government from Harvard University in May 2017. Dr. Charnysh’s research focuses on historical political economy, legacies of violence, nation- and state-building, and ethnic politics. Her book project examines the long-run effects of forced migration in the aftermath of World War II in Eastern Europe, synthesizing several decades of micro-level data collected during a year of fieldwork in Poland, funded by theSocial Science Research CouncilandCenter for European Studies. Dr. Charnysh’s work has appeared in theAmerican Political Science Review,Comparative Political Studies,and theEuropean Journal of International Relations.Her dissertation won the 2018 Ernst B. Haas Best Dissertation prize, awarded by the European Politics and Society Section of the American Political Science Association, as well as the Best Dissertation Prize, awarded by the Migration & Citizenship Section. Dr. Charnysh has also contributed articles toForeign Affairs,Monkey Cageat theWashington Post,National Interest,Transitions Online,Arms Control Today,Belarus Digest, and other media. Skip Ahead 0:55: How did you get interested in these research themes? 2:15: One of the things that is less studied is the impact that World War II had in this particular way—Eastern Europe was transformed in a very profound manner. I saw in your research that you basically collected information at the municipality level—how easy was that? What was contained in that data? 4:47: You mentioned the Polish diaspora coming in from the USSR. I was curious, did the Polish diaspora speak Polish? Because one of the things that you talk about in terms of the composition of some of the more heterogenous municipalities later on – is there linguistic diversity as well? 6:13: Coming to your overall book project, I’m curious about the argument you’re building. What is the overall thesis and how does this microdata play into that? 8:15: So we have a picture of these different municipalities, some more heterogeneous than others, and as I understand it your argument is that in the short term, or at least initially, the more heterogeneous communities will have a deficit of social capital; certainly there’ll be less solidarity. And because of that, they are more likely to turn towards a third party for enforcement of norms—in this case, the state. But the next step is that the state actually builds capacity that at a later stage can allow for more economic development. 11:52: What does this mean, then, in terms of the development of the nation? Because we have these somewhat different communities – some that are more closely bound to each other and others that are not – how does that feed into your specific example? That is, Polish national identity and the making of the Polish nation? 13:40: Would you say that your argument now contradicts what you were saying earlier, which seems like there is a big regional difference in terms of these populations and Polish national identity is somewhat conflicted because of this division? 14:35: So you do make a distinction – depending upon the kind of state, this level of dependence upon the state ma

35 MINJAN 10
Comments
Migration and Economic Development: In Conversation with Volha Charnysh

The Politics of Order in Informal Markets: In Conversation with Shelby Grossman

Social science theories suggest that informal governance thrives when the state is weak. Shelby Grossman of Stanford University argues otherwise. In this episode of the Governance Podcast, she sits down with John Meadowcroft (King's College London) to discuss the relationship between markets, states and informal institutionsin Lagos, Nigeria. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest ShelbyGrossmanis a research scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory. She was previously an assistant professor of political science at the University of Memphis. Dr.Grossman’s primary research interests are in comparative politics and sub-Saharan Africa. Her research has been published in Comparative Political Studies, PS: Political Science and Politics,World Development, andWorld Politics. Dr.Grossmanwas a Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law from 2016-17. She earned her PhD in Government from Harvard University in 2016. Skip Ahead 00:28: Shelby, you're involved in a research project on the politics of order in informal markets. You're looking at informal governance in parts of Africa. Why did you choose to study Africa? 2:03: How do the markets in Lagos work? 5:18: Would most economic exchanges in Nigeria take place in this informal context? 6:05: You did extensive fieldwork in the Lagos markets. Tell us about that process. 9:20: You mentioned that these markets often exist on land owned by local governments. I imagine that introduces a lot of local politics into the equation. Could you give us an account of how local government works in this context? 12:44: What would be the key cleavages in Lagos or Nigerian politics? 13:28: That takes us to the heart of your work, which is the interaction between the politics and markets. What does the literature lead us to expect about that interaction in a place like Lagos? 16:45: Who writes the constitution in the market? 18:58: You mentioned that market leaders were responding to pressure from politicians-- what sort of pressures were they exposed to? 20:45: What then is the relationship between the market leaders and the politicians? 22:51: In the absence of those sort of political threats, how does a market leader tend to behave? 25:01: Did you have outliers at either end? Were there examples of having almost no formal governance but very good informal governance, or vice versa? 26:07: What were your overall conclusions vis a vis the relationship between formal and informal governance? 26:57: How does this play out in other contexts? Have you observed other examples that seem to follow the same pattern? 28:18: In one sense, what you're saying is that there isn't a simple downward sloping demand curve for informal governance... it's actually a U shape of sorts. 28:32: What are your next research pathways?

30 MIN2019 DEC 16
Comments
The Politics of Order in Informal Markets: In Conversation with Shelby Grossman

The Governance of Science: In Conversation with Terence Kealey and David Edgerton

How does science drive the economy? What are the origins of the creative sector, and how should it be governed? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, David Edgerton (King's College London) sits down with Terence Kealey (University of Buckingham) to discuss the counterintuitive role science plays, and should play, in society. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Terence Kealeyis a professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham in the United Kingdom, where he served as vice chancellor until 2014.As a clinical biochemist Dr. Kealey studied human experimental dermatology. He published around 45 original peer-reviewed papers and around 35 scientific reviews, also peer-reviewed. In 1996 he published his first book,The Economic Laws of Scientific Research,where he argued that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, governments need not fund science. His second book,Sex, Science and Profits(2008) argues that science is not a public good but, rather, is organized in invisible colleges, thereby making government funding irrelevant. Professor Kealey trained initially in medicine at Bart’s Hospital Medical School, London. He studied for his doctorate at Oxford University, where he worked first as a Medical Research Council Training Fellow and then as a Wellcome Senior Research Fellow in Clinical Science. David Edgerton is the Hans Rausing Professor of the History of Science and Technology and Professor of Modern British History at King's College London. He graduated from St John’s College Oxford and Imperial College London. After teaching at the University of Manchester he became the founding director of the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine at Imperial College London (1993-2003) where he was also Hans Rausing Professor. He joined the History department with the Centre on its transfer to King’s in August 2013. He was a Leverhulme Trust Major Research Fellow, 2006-2009, and gave the 2009 Wilkins-Bernal-Medawar Prize Lecture at the Royal Society. Skip Ahead 1:00: Terence, you and I have known each other for many years. You started off as a scientist, as I did, indeed, and we've both found our way to thinking about the place of science in society and in the economy. How did you start on this path? 3:53: Where did you develop your thoughts about science funding? It's very unusual for a scientist to be writing about the economics of science at all, especially from the positions you were taking. Where did you find the space to articulate your criticisms? 6:48: I imagine you were politically engaged in some way at this time. What were you reading outside science, what positions were you taking in this rather strained political atmosphere of the 1980s? 8:52: In the 1980s, you're pointing out that the university labs are getting fuller and fuller. Now I assume that most of the money that paid for all those new researchers was government money. Your argument, as it developed over the years, was that governments need not fund research in universities or elsewhere. So you were effectively saying that the Thatcher governments were spending too much on scientific research. 10:51: But the great bulk of the money going into universities from the so-called private sector is surely charitable money from the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research and so on, and highly focused on the biomedical sector. 11:44: Now the Thatcher governments presented themselves as wanting to reverse the British decline, and many of the people arguing for more investment in research argued that the British decline since the 1870s was caused by a lack of investment in research. So you might imagine that the Thatcher governments would in fact launch a program of such investments, and i

56 MIN2019 DEC 4
Comments
The Governance of Science: In Conversation with Terence Kealey and David Edgerton

How Ideas Govern Public Life: A Conversation with Mark Bevir

What can we know about the social world, and how much of it can we control? How high are the stakes in the battle between positivism and interpretive social science? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Mark Pennington (King’s College London) and Mark Bevir (UC Berkeley) discuss wide-ranging questions about the influence of philosophy and social science on public policy. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guests Mark Bevir is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for British Studies,University of California, Berkeley. He is also Professor of Governance, United Nations University (MERIT)and Distinguished Research Professor, Swansea University. Born and raised in London, Mark movedto Berkeley in January 2000, havingworked previously at universities in Indiaand the UK. He has heldvisiting fellowships in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Norway, South Korea,UK, and USA. Currently he is the general editor of The Oxford History of Political Thought, and he has been an editor ofJournal of the Philosophy of History, associate editor ofJournal of Moral Philosophy, President of the Society forthe Philosophy of History, and Chair of the Interpretive Politics Group (PSA). Mark has done policywork for governmental organizations in Asia, Europe, and North America, as well asfor the United Nations and its agencies. Mark’s research interests in political theoryinclude moral philosophy, political philosophy, and history of political thought. Hismethodological interests cover philosophy of social science, philosophy of history,andhistory of social science. His workon public policy focuses on organization theory, democratic theory, and governance. Skip Ahead 0:55: I wonder if you could start by what you’ve been working on most recently, perhaps the book on interpretive social science. 1:55: What is distinctive about the interpretive approach? We have the typical dichotomy between the interpretive or hermeneutic approach to social science and a more positivist view. And positivism is associated with some notion that you can read off almost in a mechanical way people’s behaviour by understanding background conditions, whether they’re economic incentives… or macro-structural influences. 5:29: It seems to me that if you adopt that approach--- I take the point that there’s a difference between particular epistemological foundations for social science and attachment to particular methods—but it seems to me nonetheless that if you do adopt this kind of [interpretive] approach, the implication is, to really get an appreciation of the meanings people attach to their actions or the beliefs they have or the traditions they’re situated in, you have to get up close with the actors. You have to try to be in their heads, and that does imply a more ethnographic approach. 8:48: One of the areas where you’ve applied this interpretive method to great effect is in trying to understand changes in governance relationships, especially within public sector organizations in the last 20-30 years. As I understand it, what your work points to is the influence of a particular set of social scientific beliefs about the problems that face hierarchical forms of state bureaucracy. And your argument is that initially this was questioned from a market-liberal perspective, public choice theory emphasising contracts and markets as an alternative to hierarchy, and then later we have the movement towards joined up governance approaches often associated with New Labour in the UK. And this is another set of social scientific ideas that markets produce excessive fragmentation and they need to be reintegrated in some sense. You make a very powerful claim that essentially it’s social scientific ide

60 MIN2019 NOV 21
Comments
How Ideas Govern Public Life: A Conversation with Mark Bevir

Latest Episodes

Prisons and the Origins of Social Order: In Conversation with David Skarbek

David Skarbek (Brown University) describes his ethnographic work on prison governance as a historical analogy to the emergence of states. Join us in this episode of the Governance Podcast led by John Meadowcroft (King’s College London) for a vibrant discussion on how governance emerges (or doesn’t) in different social landscapes, from prisons and gulags to clans and nation-states. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest David Skarbek is Associate Professor of Political Science at Brown University. His research examines how extralegal governance institutions form, operate, and evolve. He has published extensively on the informal institutions that govern life in prisons in California and around the globe. His work has appeared in leading journals in political science, economics, and criminology, including in theAmerican Political Science Review, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Journal of Law, Economics & Organization,andJournal of Criminal Justice. His book,The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System(Oxford University Press), received the American Political Science Association’s 2016 William H. Riker Award for the best book in political economy in the previous three years. It was also awarded the 2014 Best Publication Award from the International Association for the Study of Organized Crime and was shortlisted for the British Sociological Association’s 2014 Ethnography Award. His work has been featured widely in national and international media outlets, such as the Atlantic, BBC, Business Insider, the Economist, Forbes, the Independent, and the Times. Skip Ahead 00:38: David, you’re well known for writing a book on prison gangs in California and America called The Social Order of the Underworld. Just to begin, tell us a little bit about that book. 2:01: You mentioned that prison gangs are often organized on racial lines. Why is that the case? 4:10: So race is a convenient way of organizing a large group of people. Is that what you’re arguing? 4:34: Does that mean this has changed over time? So as a prison population got bigger in America, gangs organized upon racial lines have become more important? 7:44: You mentioned that the convict code, if you like, was informal. Would you see gangs as providing more formal governance? 9:15: Would it be fair or is it a stretch to suggest that this is like a prison constitution? 10:53: One thing when you read the book that’s quite striking is there are lots of vivid descriptions of violence that occurs in prison. How do you reconcile that evidence with what you describe as some sort of order? 13:55: I imagine that the question that comes to many people’s minds when it comes to prison gangs, is what would happen if they went to prison? Would they have to join a prison gang, and if the didn’t, what would be the consequences? 15:26: So it’d be fair to say you cannot be a solitary individual, you cannot be a holdout, so to speak. 16:15: Could we then imagine that prisons are close to what we might think of the state of nature in social science? 17:05: This brings us to your latest work in this area, which I think is going to be called the Puzzle of Prison Order. How does it extend your previous work? 20:03: Maybe you can say a little more about English prisons. One senses that they don’t have that kind of gang organization that we observe in California. Why should that be the case? 23:39: One challenge this book takes on is trying to unpack all these different factors, all these different possibilities. So I guess one common sense question would be, looking at California, America, the UK, there is a presence of gangs on the streets. One might assume intuitively that the gangs on the streets a

50 MINMAR 25
Comments
Prisons and the Origins of Social Order: In Conversation with David Skarbek

Poverty, Informality and Politics in India: In Conversation with Tariq Thachil

Slums are home to 850 million people worldwide, making them prime territory for distributive politics. In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Tariq Thachil (Vanderbilt University) sits down with Irena Schneider (King’s College London) to discuss the counterintuitive ways in which governance emerges amidst poverty and informality in Indian cities. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Tariq Thachil is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University. His research focuses on political parties and political behavior, social movements, and ethnic politics, with a regional focus on South Asia. Hisfirst book examines how elite parties can use social services to win mass support, through a study of Hindu nationalism in India, and was published byCambridge University Press (Studies in Comparative Politics)in 2014. This project has won numerous awards, including the2015 Gregory Luebbert Awardfor best book in comparative politics, the2015 Leon Epstein Award for best book on political parties, and2010 Gabriel Almond Awardfor best dissertation in comparative politics, all from the American Political Science Association. It also won the2010 Sardar Patel Prizefor best dissertation on modern India in the humanities and social sciences. His current research focuses on the political consequences of urbanization, and draws on extensive qualitative and quantitative research among poor migrants in Indian cities. An article from this project, coauthored with Adam Auerbach, received the 2018Heinz I. Eulau Awardfor the best article published in theAmerican Political Science Reviewin the previous calendar year. Skip Ahead 00:58: As a political scientist, what prompted you to take an interest in the politics of Indian slums? 1:53: You talk a lot about machine politics in India—It’s a core element of your book. Historically when we think about machine politics, you also mention in your book that the big examples are US democratic party machines in New York and Chicago which emerged in the 19th century by giving out material benefits to poor European immigrants in exchange for political support. We’re seeing similar trends happening across the developing world today. Masses of migrants are flooding to cities, living in slums, and end up being governed by powerful machines. But you’re observing something uniquely different about how politics emerges within Indian slums. Quite specifically, you’re noticing that the process is a lot more democratic than we thought. What have you been observing? What’s counterintuitive? 7:56: That’s really interesting because it really has to do with this unique competitive environment. Why is it so competitive? Why is no one able to take over and become a boss in some of these Indian slums? 11:23: You argue that slum residents don’t really choose leaders on the basis of petty gifts or cash. Clientelism doesn’t boil down to something so simple. What criteria do residents really use to choose their leaders? 14:13: The picture you’re painting is that slum residents are much more empowered to choose among competing brokers rather than being passive or manipulated rule takers. How much power do they really have over their local brokers and local politicians? Can they really hold their brokers accountable in ways that would mimic what would happen under a formal democratic institution? 18:54: One of your most interesting findings is that when people are choosing their slum leaders and brokers, they’re not necessarily using the basis of caste or ethnicity—and a lot of what really matters is things like education. Talk a little more about that. Are we seeing a crowding out of forms of choice based on old kinds of hierarchy? 23:16: I want to talk a little m

46 MINMAR 5
Comments
Poverty, Informality and Politics in India: In Conversation with Tariq Thachil

Womanhood in Tocqueville's Democracy: In Conversation with Sarah Wilford

Alexis de Tocqueville argued that American democracy was rooted in associational life. What role did women play in building this capacity for association? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Dr Sarah Wilford (University of the Andes) sits down with Dr Irena Schneider (King's College London) to discuss how the domestic sphere shapes free societies and stems the tide of democratic despotism. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Dr Sarah Wilford is an assistant professor of politics at the University of the Andes in Santiago. Her research focuses on the political thought of Alexis de Tocqueville regarding family, women, and democratic conditions. Other research interests include the relationship between religion and liberty in Tocquevil...

--FEB 25
Comments
Womanhood in Tocqueville's Democracy: In Conversation with Sarah Wilford

The Case Against the Sovereign State: In Conversation with David Thunder

David Thunder (University of Navarra) argues that many modern political theorists, from Hobbes to Rawls, overstate the importance of state sovereignty. He envisions an alternative, polycentric form of social organisation that can support one’s freedom to flourish. Tune in for his argument in this episode of the Governance Podcast led by Billy Christmas (King’s College London). Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest David Thunderis a researcher and lecturer in political and social philosophy at the Institute for Culture and Society, University of Navarra. Prior to his appointment to the University of Navarra, he held several research and teaching positions in the United States, including visiting positions at Bucknell and Villanova Universities, and a stint as Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Princeton University’s James Madison Program. David earned his BA and MA in philosophy at University College Dublin, and his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Notre Dame.He is currently preparing two book manuscripts, tentatively entitledMay I Love My Country? In Search of a Defensible Patriotism;andSovereign Rule and the Still-Birth of Freedom: A Preface to Confederal Republicanism. David’sacademic writings includeCitizenship and the Pursuit of the Worthy Life(Cambridge University Press, 2014),The Ethics of Citizenship in the 21st Century(edited volume, Springer, 2017), and numerous articles in international peer-reviewed journals such as theAmerican Journal of Political Science,Political Theory,TheJournal of Social Philosophy,and theJournal of Business Ethics. His writings cover a wide range of questions including the pros and cons of individualism, the ethics of financial trading, the complicity of citizens in collective injustice, the concept of moral impartiality, and the scope of duties of beneficence. He writes occasionally forThe Irish Timesand RTE’sBrainstormpage. For more information, seewww.davidthunder.com. Skip Ahead 00:59: What is sovereigntism? Why are you so critical of it? 2:18: Is your criticism of it primarily in terms of as a theory of political organisation, as an approach to justice in normative political theory? Or is it a critique of empirical reality? Is it that you think this is the system we do in fact have, and it's bad for a number of reasons? 4:06: Could you say a bit more about how this aspiration to sovereignty is so harmful to these kinds of associations? 5:58: What do you think is worth protecting about associational life? What would you say to someone who takes the opposite approach and says that these small associations are undermining the authority of the national government and that undermines our sense of national identity, a more cosmopolitan and open ended form of human cooperation and really these associations are just old fashioned things which we can now do away with now that we have nation states. 8:47: So you start off with this tentative defense of associational life that, while any kind of associational life is not always good, it is a necessary condition that we are able to form and live in associations. And the aspiration of the sovereign state is parasitical or cannibalistic upon that. If the goal of associational life is this common flourishing, friendship and knowledge, generational solidarity, is there a need for external regulation of associational life in order to, not guarantee, but certainly regulate and offer some predictability that associational life will not go to the worst case scenario? 12:35: It sounds like you do want there to be political institutions to provide that kind of regulatory framework for associational life, but it's important that it be fragmented perhaps in a federal way. Do you see federal systems

57 MINFEB 17
Comments
The Case Against the Sovereign State: In Conversation with David Thunder

Socialism and the Future of Heterodox Economics: In Conversation with Geoffrey Hodgson

Is socialism feasible? What is the future of heterodox economics after the financial crisis? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Mark Pennington (King's College London) sits down with Geoffrey Hodgson (Loughborough University London) for a wide-ranging conversation on the nature of social democracy, neoliberalism, and new paradigms in economics. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Geoffrey Hodgson is a Professor in Management for the Institute for International Management at Loughborough University London. He isa specialist in institutional and evolutionary economics, with a background in economics, philosophy and mathematics. His research has applications to the understanding of organisations, organisational change, innovation, entrepreneurship and economic development.Hodgson is also the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Institutional Economics (ABS rank 3). He has published 18 academic books and over 150 academic articles. He is the winner of the Schumpeter Prize 2014 for his book on "Conceptualizing Capitalism". Skip Ahead 0:55: You've actually got two books out in the last year -- Is Socialism Feasible? and Is there a future for heterodox economics? I wonder if we could start by you talking us through-- first of all, how do you write two books in a year, but also the rationale for these two particular books? 8:44: I'd like to follow up on that last part and link it to the motivation for writing these books-- you're very clear to make a distinction between socialism and social democracy, so you do see yourself as a kind of social democrat who has been influenced by arguments in the liberal tradition. I wonder if you could say something about why you think, following the crash, there's been a movement toward going back to what you describe as 'big state socialism' as opposed to embracing a radical Keynesian view or some kind of interventionist or redistributive politics, which isn't about nationalising or controlling everything from the centre. 14:45: I really enjoyed this section of the book where you're talking about the use of terminology-- how the use of this term 'neoliberal' has meant that you almost can't have a conversation in certain areas because anything turns out to be neoliberal if it isn't full blooded socialism and I think there's a wonderful line in the book where you say that if you follow this kind of reasoning, when Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy to save the Soviet people from starvation, this would have been described as a neoliberal policy by some of the contemporary left. 16:34: Why do you think that label [neoliberalism] has become so ubiquitous? 18:17: You mention some heterodox thinkers using the term, dismissing certain things as being right wing just because of that. Perhaps we can connect to the second book-- could you talk about the rationale for writing it? 26:32: Can we pursue that more, this issue about how effectively methodological questions seem to get confused with policy positions or ideological views in heterodoxy? This is something that's always frustrated me-- I consider myself to be quite heterodox in the sense that I'm very influenced by the Austrian school ideas. There are lots of debates I'd like to engage with people who are post-Keynesians or post-institutionalists or evolutionary thinkers, and I feel that we should have a club identity around those themes. But because we might divide on policy issues that seems to come apart. 29:59: There is so much within neoclassical economics which promotes, if not radical socialism, although you could interpret some general equilibrium theory in that way, but it certainly promotes interventionism -- it assumes away all the problems of tacit knowledge. 30:33: You've given

58 MINFEB 7
Comments
Socialism and the Future of Heterodox Economics: In Conversation with Geoffrey Hodgson

Fukuyama on Liberalism, Dignity and Identity: In Conversation with Humeira Iqtidar and Paul Sagar

Where are the fault lines in the modern liberal project? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Dr Humeira Iqtidar and Dr Paul Sagar of King's College London tackle this question in a dialogue on Francis Fukuyama's new book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guests Dr Humeira Iqtidar joined King's College London in 2011. She has studied at the University of Cambridge, McGill University in Canada and Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan. Before joining King's, Humeira was based at the University of Cambridge as a fellow of King’s College and the Centre of South Asian Studies.She is a co-convenor of theLondon Comparative Political Theory Workshop. Humeira’s research explores the shifting demarcations of state, market and society in political imagination, and their relationship with Islamic thought and practice. Her current research focuses on non-liberal conceptions of tolerance. Her research has featured in interviews and articles in TheGuardian, BBC World Service,Voice of America,Der Spiegel,Social Science Research CouncilOnline,The Dawn,Express TribuneandOpen Democracy. Dr Paul Sagar is a lecturer in political theory at King's College London. His recent monograph, The Opinion of Mankind: Sociability and the State from Hobbes to Smith, explores Enlightenment accounts of the foundations of modern politics, whilst also addressing contemporary issues regarding how to conceive of the state, and what that means for normative political theory today. He has also published a number of studies on topics such as: the political writings of Bernard Williams, so-called ‘realist’ approaches to political philosophy, the nature of liberty under conditions of modernity, and the idea of immortality. Paul is currently in the early stages of two major new projects. The first is a monograph study of Adam Smith’s political philosophy as rooted in his conceptions of history and commercial society. The second is an exploration of the idea of the enemy in the history of political thought. Skip Ahead 0:55: Where do we see this book in Fukuyama's larger oeuvre? 3:39: You can see Hegel's influence more in his previous work, more in terms of a teleological thrust through history, and the metaphysics in Hegel... I really understand to be a kind of battle of ideas. And Fukuyama takes that on, and his argument is more that if we are thinkingabout ideas that will triumph, then liberal democracy is the best idea. 8:55: I think what Fukuyama wants to say in this Identity book is, the same threats to the last man at the end of history, which is the desire for recognition, will overwhelmcontentmentwith stability. Because even if liberal democracy... would provide all the comfortsof life... and solve the economicquestions, which we know now that it hasn't... but even back then Fukuyama thought that even if it does that, it will not solve the recognition problem, and if they don't get that recognition, they will break things, they will smash things. 11:14: I actually find the narrative that he tells pretty plausible. The idea that we exist not just with the desire for recognition, but a desire that each of us has an authentic self, an authentic identity, which may be at odds with wider society, and that society itself may be a structural mechanism of oppression. 13:29: His account of the failure of multiculturalism, which... he doesn't actually spell it out in so many words... but he lays the blame on a certain kind of identity politics at the doorstep of the left. What is interesting is... I think there is a problem with thinking of it only as a left failure, partly because the left remains undifferentiated in his thinking. 16:30: I actually think

43 MINJAN 28
Comments
Fukuyama on Liberalism, Dignity and Identity: In Conversation with Humeira Iqtidar and Paul Sagar

Migration and Economic Development: In Conversation with Volha Charnysh

How does migration affect economic development? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Volha Charnysh (MIT) talks to Humeira Iqtidar (King's College London) about this complex relationship, drawing on extensive fieldwork and archival data on forced migration in Post-World War II Germany and Poland. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Volha Charnysh joined MIT’s Department of Political Science in the fall of 2018. In 2017-2018, she was a fellow at the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. She received her PhD in Government from Harvard University in May 2017. Dr. Charnysh’s research focuses on historical political economy, legacies of violence, nation- and state-building, and ethnic politics. Her book project examines the long-run effects of forced migration in the aftermath of World War II in Eastern Europe, synthesizing several decades of micro-level data collected during a year of fieldwork in Poland, funded by theSocial Science Research CouncilandCenter for European Studies. Dr. Charnysh’s work has appeared in theAmerican Political Science Review,Comparative Political Studies,and theEuropean Journal of International Relations.Her dissertation won the 2018 Ernst B. Haas Best Dissertation prize, awarded by the European Politics and Society Section of the American Political Science Association, as well as the Best Dissertation Prize, awarded by the Migration & Citizenship Section. Dr. Charnysh has also contributed articles toForeign Affairs,Monkey Cageat theWashington Post,National Interest,Transitions Online,Arms Control Today,Belarus Digest, and other media. Skip Ahead 0:55: How did you get interested in these research themes? 2:15: One of the things that is less studied is the impact that World War II had in this particular way—Eastern Europe was transformed in a very profound manner. I saw in your research that you basically collected information at the municipality level—how easy was that? What was contained in that data? 4:47: You mentioned the Polish diaspora coming in from the USSR. I was curious, did the Polish diaspora speak Polish? Because one of the things that you talk about in terms of the composition of some of the more heterogenous municipalities later on – is there linguistic diversity as well? 6:13: Coming to your overall book project, I’m curious about the argument you’re building. What is the overall thesis and how does this microdata play into that? 8:15: So we have a picture of these different municipalities, some more heterogeneous than others, and as I understand it your argument is that in the short term, or at least initially, the more heterogeneous communities will have a deficit of social capital; certainly there’ll be less solidarity. And because of that, they are more likely to turn towards a third party for enforcement of norms—in this case, the state. But the next step is that the state actually builds capacity that at a later stage can allow for more economic development. 11:52: What does this mean, then, in terms of the development of the nation? Because we have these somewhat different communities – some that are more closely bound to each other and others that are not – how does that feed into your specific example? That is, Polish national identity and the making of the Polish nation? 13:40: Would you say that your argument now contradicts what you were saying earlier, which seems like there is a big regional difference in terms of these populations and Polish national identity is somewhat conflicted because of this division? 14:35: So you do make a distinction – depending upon the kind of state, this level of dependence upon the state ma

35 MINJAN 10
Comments
Migration and Economic Development: In Conversation with Volha Charnysh

The Politics of Order in Informal Markets: In Conversation with Shelby Grossman

Social science theories suggest that informal governance thrives when the state is weak. Shelby Grossman of Stanford University argues otherwise. In this episode of the Governance Podcast, she sits down with John Meadowcroft (King's College London) to discuss the relationship between markets, states and informal institutionsin Lagos, Nigeria. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest ShelbyGrossmanis a research scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory. She was previously an assistant professor of political science at the University of Memphis. Dr.Grossman’s primary research interests are in comparative politics and sub-Saharan Africa. Her research has been published in Comparative Political Studies, PS: Political Science and Politics,World Development, andWorld Politics. Dr.Grossmanwas a Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law from 2016-17. She earned her PhD in Government from Harvard University in 2016. Skip Ahead 00:28: Shelby, you're involved in a research project on the politics of order in informal markets. You're looking at informal governance in parts of Africa. Why did you choose to study Africa? 2:03: How do the markets in Lagos work? 5:18: Would most economic exchanges in Nigeria take place in this informal context? 6:05: You did extensive fieldwork in the Lagos markets. Tell us about that process. 9:20: You mentioned that these markets often exist on land owned by local governments. I imagine that introduces a lot of local politics into the equation. Could you give us an account of how local government works in this context? 12:44: What would be the key cleavages in Lagos or Nigerian politics? 13:28: That takes us to the heart of your work, which is the interaction between the politics and markets. What does the literature lead us to expect about that interaction in a place like Lagos? 16:45: Who writes the constitution in the market? 18:58: You mentioned that market leaders were responding to pressure from politicians-- what sort of pressures were they exposed to? 20:45: What then is the relationship between the market leaders and the politicians? 22:51: In the absence of those sort of political threats, how does a market leader tend to behave? 25:01: Did you have outliers at either end? Were there examples of having almost no formal governance but very good informal governance, or vice versa? 26:07: What were your overall conclusions vis a vis the relationship between formal and informal governance? 26:57: How does this play out in other contexts? Have you observed other examples that seem to follow the same pattern? 28:18: In one sense, what you're saying is that there isn't a simple downward sloping demand curve for informal governance... it's actually a U shape of sorts. 28:32: What are your next research pathways?

30 MIN2019 DEC 16
Comments
The Politics of Order in Informal Markets: In Conversation with Shelby Grossman

The Governance of Science: In Conversation with Terence Kealey and David Edgerton

How does science drive the economy? What are the origins of the creative sector, and how should it be governed? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, David Edgerton (King's College London) sits down with Terence Kealey (University of Buckingham) to discuss the counterintuitive role science plays, and should play, in society. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Terence Kealeyis a professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham in the United Kingdom, where he served as vice chancellor until 2014.As a clinical biochemist Dr. Kealey studied human experimental dermatology. He published around 45 original peer-reviewed papers and around 35 scientific reviews, also peer-reviewed. In 1996 he published his first book,The Economic Laws of Scientific Research,where he argued that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, governments need not fund science. His second book,Sex, Science and Profits(2008) argues that science is not a public good but, rather, is organized in invisible colleges, thereby making government funding irrelevant. Professor Kealey trained initially in medicine at Bart’s Hospital Medical School, London. He studied for his doctorate at Oxford University, where he worked first as a Medical Research Council Training Fellow and then as a Wellcome Senior Research Fellow in Clinical Science. David Edgerton is the Hans Rausing Professor of the History of Science and Technology and Professor of Modern British History at King's College London. He graduated from St John’s College Oxford and Imperial College London. After teaching at the University of Manchester he became the founding director of the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine at Imperial College London (1993-2003) where he was also Hans Rausing Professor. He joined the History department with the Centre on its transfer to King’s in August 2013. He was a Leverhulme Trust Major Research Fellow, 2006-2009, and gave the 2009 Wilkins-Bernal-Medawar Prize Lecture at the Royal Society. Skip Ahead 1:00: Terence, you and I have known each other for many years. You started off as a scientist, as I did, indeed, and we've both found our way to thinking about the place of science in society and in the economy. How did you start on this path? 3:53: Where did you develop your thoughts about science funding? It's very unusual for a scientist to be writing about the economics of science at all, especially from the positions you were taking. Where did you find the space to articulate your criticisms? 6:48: I imagine you were politically engaged in some way at this time. What were you reading outside science, what positions were you taking in this rather strained political atmosphere of the 1980s? 8:52: In the 1980s, you're pointing out that the university labs are getting fuller and fuller. Now I assume that most of the money that paid for all those new researchers was government money. Your argument, as it developed over the years, was that governments need not fund research in universities or elsewhere. So you were effectively saying that the Thatcher governments were spending too much on scientific research. 10:51: But the great bulk of the money going into universities from the so-called private sector is surely charitable money from the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research and so on, and highly focused on the biomedical sector. 11:44: Now the Thatcher governments presented themselves as wanting to reverse the British decline, and many of the people arguing for more investment in research argued that the British decline since the 1870s was caused by a lack of investment in research. So you might imagine that the Thatcher governments would in fact launch a program of such investments, and i

56 MIN2019 DEC 4
Comments
The Governance of Science: In Conversation with Terence Kealey and David Edgerton

How Ideas Govern Public Life: A Conversation with Mark Bevir

What can we know about the social world, and how much of it can we control? How high are the stakes in the battle between positivism and interpretive social science? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Mark Pennington (King’s College London) and Mark Bevir (UC Berkeley) discuss wide-ranging questions about the influence of philosophy and social science on public policy. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast oniTunesandSpotifytoday and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us onfacebook,twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guests Mark Bevir is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for British Studies,University of California, Berkeley. He is also Professor of Governance, United Nations University (MERIT)and Distinguished Research Professor, Swansea University. Born and raised in London, Mark movedto Berkeley in January 2000, havingworked previously at universities in Indiaand the UK. He has heldvisiting fellowships in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Norway, South Korea,UK, and USA. Currently he is the general editor of The Oxford History of Political Thought, and he has been an editor ofJournal of the Philosophy of History, associate editor ofJournal of Moral Philosophy, President of the Society forthe Philosophy of History, and Chair of the Interpretive Politics Group (PSA). Mark has done policywork for governmental organizations in Asia, Europe, and North America, as well asfor the United Nations and its agencies. Mark’s research interests in political theoryinclude moral philosophy, political philosophy, and history of political thought. Hismethodological interests cover philosophy of social science, philosophy of history,andhistory of social science. His workon public policy focuses on organization theory, democratic theory, and governance. Skip Ahead 0:55: I wonder if you could start by what you’ve been working on most recently, perhaps the book on interpretive social science. 1:55: What is distinctive about the interpretive approach? We have the typical dichotomy between the interpretive or hermeneutic approach to social science and a more positivist view. And positivism is associated with some notion that you can read off almost in a mechanical way people’s behaviour by understanding background conditions, whether they’re economic incentives… or macro-structural influences. 5:29: It seems to me that if you adopt that approach--- I take the point that there’s a difference between particular epistemological foundations for social science and attachment to particular methods—but it seems to me nonetheless that if you do adopt this kind of [interpretive] approach, the implication is, to really get an appreciation of the meanings people attach to their actions or the beliefs they have or the traditions they’re situated in, you have to get up close with the actors. You have to try to be in their heads, and that does imply a more ethnographic approach. 8:48: One of the areas where you’ve applied this interpretive method to great effect is in trying to understand changes in governance relationships, especially within public sector organizations in the last 20-30 years. As I understand it, what your work points to is the influence of a particular set of social scientific beliefs about the problems that face hierarchical forms of state bureaucracy. And your argument is that initially this was questioned from a market-liberal perspective, public choice theory emphasising contracts and markets as an alternative to hierarchy, and then later we have the movement towards joined up governance approaches often associated with New Labour in the UK. And this is another set of social scientific ideas that markets produce excessive fragmentation and they need to be reintegrated in some sense. You make a very powerful claim that essentially it’s social scientific ide

60 MIN2019 NOV 21
Comments
How Ideas Govern Public Life: A Conversation with Mark Bevir

More from Centre for the Study of Governance and Society

Show

Playlists

History/Interviews
Sophie Hess
para escuchar
garciagibson
success toast
Welcome to Himalaya LearningDozens of podcourses featuring over 100 experts are waiting for you.