The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) economies are not catching up with the rest of the world. The region’s average per capita income has increased by just 62 percent over the last 50 years. In comparison, over the same period, the increase was fourfold in emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) and twofold in advanced ones. Only a few developing MENA economies have avoided diverging further from the richest countries’ living standards (what economists call the frontier), and those where conflicts erupted have accelerated in the wrong direction. In this presentation, Roberta Gatti will discuss the factors that shape MENA’s long-term growth potential, with special attention to the role of the state in the economy, the persistent effects of conflict, and the boost that closing the gender gap in the labor force can deliver in terms of growth.

This event is co-sponsored by the Program on Arab Reform and Development and the Program on Capitalism and Democracy, as well as the Middle Eastern Studies Forum.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Roberta Gatti is the Chief Economist for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region at the World Bank, where she oversees the analytical agenda of the region and the publication of the semi-annual MENA Economic Updates. She is the founder of the MENA Central Banks Regional Research Network. In her prior capacity as Chief Economist for the Human Development Practice Group, Roberta co-led the conceptualization and launch of the World Bank Human Capital Index and the scale up of the Service Delivery Indicators data initiative.

Roberta joined the World Bank as a Young Professional in the Macro unit of the Development Research Group, and she has since led and overseen both operational and analytical work in her roles of Manager and of Global Lead for Labor Policies.

Roberta’s research, spanning a broad set of topics such as growth, firm productivity, the economics of corruption, gender equity, and labor markets, has been published in lead field journals such as the Journal of Public Economics, the Journal of Economic Growth, and the Journal of Development Economics. She is also the lead author of a number of flagship reports, including Jobs for Shared Prosperity: Time for Action in the Middle East and North Africa; Striving for Better Jobs: The Challenge of Informality in Middle East and North Africa; The Human Capital Index 2020 Update: Human Capital in the Time of COVID-19; and Service Delivery in Education and Health across Africa.

Roberta has taught courses at the undergraduate, masters, and Ph.D. Level at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities. She is a frequent lecturer on development economics, most recently at Dartmouth College, Princeton University, and Cornell University. Roberta holds a B.A. from Università Bocconi and a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University.

Why are some authoritarian regimes highly competitive and others highly unified? Do they function differently? And what does it mean for our understanding of democracy and democratization? The Social Roots of Authoritarianism unpacks the grassroots mechanisms maintaining unity-based and division-based authoritarianisms. They develop in societies with opposite visions: the state as team leader or the state as outsider. Depending on which vision of the state is dominant in society, autocrats must use different tools to consolidate their regimes or risk pushback. The book demonstrates the grassroots mechanisms of authoritarian power comparing four Russian regions with opposite patterns of electoral performance—the Rostov region, the Kemerovo region, the Republic of Tatarstan, and the Republic of Altai. The theory of unity- and division-based authoritarianisms developed in the book implies that these types of authoritarian regimes miss the opposite elements of democracy, and that democratization depends on cultivating these missing institutions over time.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Natalia Forrat is a social scientist studying democracy, authoritarianism, state power, and civil society. She obtained her PhD from Northwestern University and held academic appointments at Stanford University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Michigan. Currently, she is a lecturer at the Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies at the University of Michigan.  

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

We assemble a comprehensive database of historical electoral results for the US House, Senate and presidential contests, from the 19th century until today. We analyze long run trends in election vote margins and party seat margins. Seat margins declined in the recent period, so the margins of control of the House, Senate, and Electoral College by either party have become smaller. However, this was not accompanied by a decline in the margins of victory at the constituency level. We interpret these facts in the context of a simple model of electoral competition where seat margins and vote margins depend on the availability of information about voter preferences, as well as the ability of political candidates to tailor their platforms locally. We argue that the gradual increase in politicians' information about voter preferences, as well as the growing nationalization of politics can explain the long-run decrease in seat margins and the concurrent stability in vote margins.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Clemence Tricaud is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. She is also a research affiliate of the NBER and CEPR. She received her Ph.D in Economics from Ecole Polytechnique and CREST in 2020. Her research lies at the intersection of political economy and public economics. Her work combines quasi-experimental designs with administrative data to better understand the determinants and consequences of citizen and policymaker behaviors. The first part of her research studies the factors affecting voters' and candidates' behavior during elections and the consequences of their choices on electoral outcomes. The second part of her work explores how the identity of policymakers and the level of governance affect the design of local public policies and the provision of public goods.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

We examine the impact of ethics and integrity training on police officers in Ghana through a randomized field experiment. The program, informed by theoretical work on the role of identity and motivation in organizations, aimed to re-activate intrinsic motivations to serve the public, and to create a new shared identity of "Agent of Change." Data generated by an endline survey conducted 20 months post training, show that the program positively affected officers' values and beliefs regarding on-the-job unethical behavior and improved their attitudes toward citizens. The training also lowered officers' propensity to behave unethically, as measured by an incentivized cheating game conducted at endline. District-level administrative data for a subsample of districts are consistent with a significant impact of the program on officers' field behavior in the short-run.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Danila Serra is Associate Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University. She received her PhD in Economics from the University of Oxford. She is an applied behavioral economist employing experimental methods to address policy-relevant questions in political economy, development, education, and gender economics. Her work has been funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the World Bank, the IZA G²LM|LIC program, the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (JPAL) and the Arnold Foundation. In 2017, she was the inaugural recipient of the Vernon Smith Ascending Scholar Prize, given by the International Foundation for Research in Experimental Economics (IFREE) to an exceptional scholar using experiments in economics research.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

Affirmative action improves the representation of women and minorities, but critics worry that it is at odds with meritocracy. We argue that quotas can improve quality under conditions of discrimination, as quota recipients are held to a higher standard despite facing structural inequalities that make meeting these standards difficult. The net effect of quotas on observable proxies for quality -- qualifications -- therefore depends on the degrees of selection and structural discrimination. We test our argument by examining the effects of electoral quotas on politicians' education and quality in India. Using two censuses covering more than 40 million residents and 13 states, we show that randomly and quasi-randomly assigned quota politicians have lower average education than non-quota politicians but the same or higher quality. We further provide evidence of both voter and structural discrimination. Our results show that quotas can both enhance the representativeness and quality of politicians.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Soledad Artiz Prillaman is an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University. Her research lies at the intersections of comparative political economy, development, and gender, with a focus in South Asia. She investigates the political consequences of development; the political behavior and representation of minorities, specifically women; inequalities in political engagement; and the translation of voter demands. She is the faculty director of the Inclusive Democracy and Development Lab and recently published a book with Cambridge University Press titled "The Patriarchal Political Order: The Making and Unraveling of the Gendered Participation Gap in India."

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

Delegation of authority is central to the functioning of bureaucracies and, indeed, to political institutions as a whole. It is today at the center of the contemporary assault on the "administrative state," and its importance is widely misunderstood. In this seminar, Francis Fukuyama will discuss how a well-functioning government needs to provide bureaucrats with sufficient authority and that this is something that the US has failed to do.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy Program, and a professor (by courtesy) of Political Science.

Dr. Fukuyama has written widely on issues in development and international politics. His 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, has appeared in over twenty foreign editions. His most recent book,  Liberalism and Its Discontents, was published in the spring of 2022.

Francis Fukuyama received his B.A. from Cornell University in classics, and his Ph.D. from Harvard in Political Science. He was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation and of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State. From 1996-2000 he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and from 2001-2010 he was Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. He served as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics from 2001-2004.  

Dr. Fukuyama holds honorary doctorates from Connecticut College, Doane College, Doshisha University (Japan), Kansai University (Japan), Aarhus University (Denmark), and the Pardee Rand Graduate School. He is a non-resident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rand Corporation, the Board of Trustees of Freedom House, and the Board of the Volcker Alliance. He is a fellow of the National Academy for Public Administration, a member of the American Political Science Association, and of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is married to Laura Holmgren and has three children.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

The recent regime change in Syria and Turkey’s role in this process underscores a complex interplay of geopolitical shifts in the Middle East, the regional ambitions of the Erdoğan government, and its domestic political calculations. This panel will analyze the political trajectory of Syria under its new leadership and its evolving relationship with Turkey while also examining Turkey’s policy toward Kurdish demands on both sides of the border and the recently revived talks with the imprisoned PKK leader.

This event is co-sponsored by The Program on Turkey at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and the Middle Eastern Studies Forum.

For millennia, land has been a symbol of wealth and privilege. But the true power of land ownership is even greater than we might think. Who owns the land determines whether a society will be equal or unequal, whether it will develop or decline, and whether it will safeguard or sacrifice its environment. Modern history has been defined by land reallocation on a massive scale. From the 1500s on, European colonial powers and new nation-states shifted indigenous lands into the hands of settlers. The 1900s brought new waves of land appropriation, from Soviet and Maoist collectivization to initiatives turning large estates over to family farmers. The shuffle continues today as governments vie for power and prosperity by choosing who should get land. Drawing on a career’s worth of original research and on-the-ground fieldwork, Land Power shows that choices about who owns the land have locked in poverty, sexism, racism, and climate crisis—and that what we do with the land today can change our collective fate.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Michael Albertus is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author of five books. His research examines democracy and dictatorship, inequality and redistribution, property rights, and civil conflict. His newest book, Land Power: Who Has It, Who Doesn't, and How That Determines the Fate of Societies, was published by Basic Books in January 2025. In addition to his books, Albertus is also the author of nearly 30 peer-reviewed journal articles, including at flagship journals like the American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, and World Politics. The defining features of Albertus' work are his engagement with big questions and puzzles and the ability to join big data and cutting-edge research methods with original, deep on-the-ground fieldwork everywhere from government offices to archives and farm fields. He has conducted fieldwork throughout the Americas, southern Europe, South Africa, and elsewhere. His books and articles have won numerous awards and shifted conventional understandings of democracy, authoritarianism, and the consequences of how humans occupy and relate to the land.
 

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

Social housing has regained public attention amidst rising rent prices. In this paper, we examine how the partisan composition of city councils affects housing policies and permits for social housing. We construct a novel panel of all municipal housing construction permits in Denmark between 1981 and 2021 and combine it with information on local election outcomes. Using a close-elections regression discontinuity design, we find that social housing permits increase when Social Democrats win control of the city council. This effect was particularly strong until the early 1990s but has disappeared since. We then draw on data from administrative registries and electoral precincts to demonstrate that electoral realignment can explain this dynamic. We show that social housing residents have become economically marginalized and turned to far-right populist parties while social democratic voters have become more educated and likely to be homeowners. This maps onto the electoral losses the Social Democrats experienced in precincts with high shares of social housing. Our findings suggest that partisan considerations and electoral rewards help explain changes in social housing policies.

This event is co-sponsored by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and The Europe Center.

Once a centralizing force of the democratic process, political parties have eroded over the past fifty years. In her new book, The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don't, Didi Kuo explores the development of political parties as democracy expanded across the West in the nineteenth century. While parties have become professionalized and nationalized, they have lost the robust organizational density that made them effective representatives. After the Cold War, the combination of a neoliberal economic consensus, changes to campaign finance, and shifting party priorities weakened the party systems of Western democracies. In order for democracy to adapt to a new era of global capitalism, The Great Retreat makes the case for stronger parties in the form of socially embedded institutions with deep connections to communities and citizens.

Kuo will give a brief talk about the book before being joined by Jake Grumbach, Julia Azari, and Bruce Cain for a panel discussion.