Valentin Bolotnyy, an affiliated scholar at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), has been appointed Vice Chair of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors by Gavin Newsom. The council serves as a strategic advisory body to the governor and the California Department of Finance, bringing together leading experts to analyze economic trends and provide guidance on state and federal developments.

The announcement introduces new leadership for the council, with Renee Bowen (Georgetown University McDonough School of Business and the Walsh School of Foreign Service) serving as Chair and Bolotnyy as Vice Chair. The group convenes experts from academia, policy, and industry to examine evolving economic conditions and advise on issues shaping California’s economy, including federal policy shifts, trade dynamics, and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.

Bolotnyy is a Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he contributes to the State and Local Governance Initiative and the Working Group on Civics and American Citizenship. His research focuses on designing and evaluating policies that improve economic and health outcomes, particularly for vulnerable populations, often in partnership with state and local agencies.

Using administrative data, quasi-experimental methods, and randomized controlled trials, his work examines issues including involuntary hospitalization, deinstitutionalization, and interventions for individuals cycling through hospitals, jails, and homelessness, as well as prison education and workforce development programs. He is also affiliated with CDDRL's Deliberative Democracy Lab.

His appointment comes as California continues to navigate global economic disruptions and policy shifts, with the council playing a key role in helping the state respond to emerging challenges and opportunities.

On April 2, FSI Center Fellow Didi Kuo opened CDDRL’s Spring Research Seminar Series with a presentation titled “Beyond Policy: The Rise of Non-Programmatic Party Competition in Advanced Democracies.” The seminar examined whether policy continues to serve as the primary basis of political competition and voter-party linkage in advanced democratic systems.

Kuo began by outlining the traditional “programmatic” model of party competition, which assumes that political parties compete by offering distinct policy platforms and that voters make choices based on these policy differences. In this framework, democratic responsiveness emerges from the alignment between public preferences and party positions. Historically, such programmatic competition has been closely associated with democratic consolidation, strong institutions, and effective governance.

However, Kuo challenged this assumption by asking whether policy still plays a central role in contemporary politics. She presented evidence suggesting that political discourse, particularly in the United States, has shifted away from policy-focused communication. For example, recent political speeches were shown to contain fewer policy references and more grievance-based and retrospective language. This shift raised concerns that parties may increasingly rely on alternative strategies to mobilize voters.

The seminar then explored several non-programmatic forms of political competition. These included identity-based appeals, grievance politics, populism, and affective polarization. Kuo explained that these strategies emphasize emotional resonance, group identity, and symbolic representation rather than concrete policy proposals. In such contexts, voters may be motivated less by policy preferences and more by partisan identity or perceived cultural alignment. Importantly, these dynamics do not fully replace programmatic competition but instead reduce its relative importance.

Kuo also discussed theoretical and empirical research showing that many voters possess limited policy knowledge and often hold unstable or weakly structured policy preferences. As a result, factors such as party identification, emotion, and social identity can play a more significant role in shaping political behavior. This complicates the traditional view that democratic accountability operates primarily through policy evaluation.

To assess whether programmatic competition is declining, Kuo introduced new measurement strategies. These included expert surveys evaluating party cohesion and policy salience, as well as analyses of voter responses over time to determine whether individuals reference policy when expressing political preferences. The findings suggested a gradual decline in policy-based reasoning among voters, even in countries like the United States that have historically been highly programmatic.

Kuo concluded by considering the broader implications of this shift. A decline in programmatic competition may weaken democratic accountability, as voters become less likely to evaluate governments based on policy performance. It may also contribute to increased polarization and reduced willingness to compromise, as identity-driven politics tends to be more zero-sum. Ultimately, the seminar suggested that if policy is no longer the dominant mode of political competition, scholars may need to rethink core assumptions about how democracy functions.

In sum, Kuo’s presentation highlighted a significant transformation in advanced democracies: the growing importance of non-programmatic strategies in party competition and the potential consequences this shift holds for democratic governance.

In a CDDRL research seminar held on February 19, 2026, Oliver Kaplan, visiting scholar at CDDRL and Associate Professor at the University of Denver, presented a collaborative project on labor market discrimination against ex-combatants in Colombia. The study explores how prevalent hiring discrimination is against ex-combatants in the formal job market and whether this bias can be reduced. To highlight the significance of this issue, Kaplan emphasized the central role employment plays in reintegration, explaining that it is not only about income and individual well-being, but also about preventing recidivism, which is critical to long-term democratic stability and the rule of law. 

As Kaplan argues, stigma can play a major role in shaping hiring outcomes, as employers may associate ex-combatants with violence, instability, or unreliability, impacting the hiring process. Hence, the research tests whether ex-combatants face an employment penalty relative to non-ex-combatants. The study also examines whether conflict victims face similar bias and whether applicants who were both ex-combatants and victims experience different outcomes, since victim status could either reinforce stigma or generate sympathy and improve hiring chances. Finally, the study aims to identify practical ways to mitigate discrimination through education and skills training beyond high school, participation in reconciliation or peacebuilding activities, and the presence of employer tax incentives.

Kaplan and colleagues implemented a field experiment, partnering with Columbia’s reintegration agency to work with eight former combatants who applied to jobs using different versions of their resumes. The key treatment was selectively including or withholding information such as reintegration status, education, training, or reconciliation experience. This allowed the researchers to see how employers respond to different signals without faking information or using false identities. Applications were submitted through major online job platforms, and employer responses, including interview invitations, requests for additional information, and job offers, were tracked through calls, messages, and emails.  

Kaplan concluded by emphasizing the potential policy implications of these findings, explaining that improving access to employment through training and employer incentives might strengthen reintegration and reduce barriers faced by ex-combatants. Ultimately, Kaplan stressed that employment is not just an economic issue, but a key component of long-term peacebuilding, as access to stable jobs reduces the likelihood that ex-combatants return to conflict and helps sustain democratic stability.

Every September, rising seniors in the Fisher Family Honors Program travel to the nation’s capital for CDDRL’s Honors College. This immersive, week-long program gives students an inside look at the institutions and experts in Washington, D.C. who are shaping global debates and working to advance democracy and development around the world.

Throughout the week, students will examine pressing global issues with experts at the Council on Foreign Relations’ Center on Preventive Action and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, gain insights into international development from scholars at the World Bank, and dive into the challenges and advantages of empowering local democratic activists — particularly in countries hostile to democracy — with speakers at the National Endowment for Democracy, among other exciting site visits. They are also encouraged to use this time to connect with experts related to their thesis question.

CDDRL’s Fisher Family Honors Program brings together undergraduates from diverse fields and methodologies who share a passion for understanding democracy, development, and the rule of law. The program challenges students to carry out original, policy-relevant research on these topics and produce a coherent, eloquently argued, and well-written honors thesis.

This year's Honors College begins on Sunday, September 14. It will be led by Stephen Stedman, Senior Fellow and Director of the Fisher Family Honors Program, and research scholar María Ignacia Curiel, alongside Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy Larry Diamond.