Jeffrey Friedman – författare

Technocrats claim to know how to solve the social and economic problems of complex modern societies. But as Jeffrey Friedman argues in Power without Knowledge, there is a fundamental flaw with technocracy: it requires an ability to predict how the people whom technocrats attempt to control will act in response to technocratic policies. However, the mass public's ideas-the ideas that drive their actions-are far too varied and diverse to be reliably predicted. But that is not the only problem. Friedman reminds us that a large part of contemporary mass politics, even populist mass politics, is essentially technocratic too. Members of the general public often assume that they are competent to decide which policies or politicians will be able to solve social and economic problems. Yet these ordinary "citizen-technocrats" typically regard the solutions to social problems as self-evident, such that politics becomes a matter of vetting public officials for their good intentions and strong wills, not technocratic expertise. Finally, Friedman argues that technocratic experts themselves drastically oversimplify technocratic realities. Economists, for example, theorize that people respond rationally to the incentives they face. This theory is simplistic, but it gives the appearance of being able to predict people's behavior in response to technocratic policy initiatives. If stripped of such gross oversimplications, though, technocrats themselves would be forced to admit that a rational technocracy is nothing more than an impossible dream. Ranging widely over the philosophy of social science, rational choice theory, and empirical political science, Power without Knowledge is a pathbreaking work that upends traditional assumptions about technocracy and politics, forcing us to rethink our assumptions about the legitimacy of modern governance.

The past few years have featured such blockbusters as Super-Size Me, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, March of the Penguins, and An Inconvenient Truth. And as news articles proclaim a new era in the history of documentary films, more and more new directors are making their first film a nonfiction one. But in addition to posing all of the usual challenges inherent to more standard filmmaking, documentaries also present unique problems that need to be understood from the outset. Where does the idea come from? How do you raise the money? How much money do you need? What visual style is best suited to the story? What are the legal issues involved? And how can a film reach that all-important milestone and find a willing distributor? Epstein, Friedman, and Wood tackle all of these important questions with examples and anecdotes from their own careers. The result is an informative and entertaining guide for those just starting out, and an enlightening read for anyone interested in a behind-the-scenes look at this newly reinvigorated field of film.

Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, a book written by Donald Green and Ian Shapiro and published in 1994, excited much controversy among political scientists and promoted a dialogue among them that was printed in a double issue of the journal Critical Review in 1995. This new book reproduces thirteen essays from the journal written by senior scholars in the field, along with an introduction by the editor of the journal, Jeffrey Friedman, and a rejoinder to the essays by Green and Shapiro. The scholars—who include John Ferejohn, Morris P. Fiorina, Stanley Kelley, Jr., Robert E. Lane, Peter C. Ordeshook, Norman Schofield, and Kenneth A. Shepsle—criticize, agree with, or build on the issues raised by Green and Shapiro`s critique. Together the essays provide an interesting and accessible way of focusing on competing approaches to the study of politics and the social sciences.

Since at least the time of Plato, political scientists and philosophers have been concerned about what citizens and rulers should know if they are to be governed—and govern—well. Moreover, the increasing complexity of modern societies has revivified thinking about and around the critical concept of political knowledge. Vital questions arise, such as: does effective democracy demand an informed electorate? is such an aspiration realistic, given the size and reach of modern governments? how can electorates compensate for their ignorance, given the vast amount of information that might be necessary to make sound political judgements? or is such ignorance ‘rational’?This new collection from Routledge brings together canonical and cutting-edge research to interrogate these and other issues. Edited by leading scholars, Political Knowledge assembles in four volumes the best and most important scholarship, from the ancients to the work of the deliberative democrats. The collection also gathers the key survey research, from the Columbia and Michigan schools down to the present. Further, it makes sense of the main lines of normative debate about these findings, and addresses the various causal and theoretical understandings of political knowledge and ignorance, while illuminating directions for future research.With a full index, together with a comprehensive introduction, newly written by the editors, which places the collected material in its historical and intellectual context, Political Knowledge is an essential work of reference. The collection will be particularly useful as an essential database allowing scattered and often fugitive material from less accessible books and specialized journals to be easily located. It will also be welcomed as a crucial tool permitting rapid access to less familiar—and sometimes overlooked—texts. For researchers, students, and policymakers, it is a vital one-stop research and pedagogic resource.

In the foundational document of modern public-opinion research, Philip E. Converse’s "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" (1964) established the U.S. public’s startling political ignorance. This volume makes Converse’s long out-of-print article available again and brings together a variety of scholars, including Converse himself, to reflect on Converse’s findings after nearly half a century of further research. Some chapters update findings on public ignorance. Others outline relevant research agendas not only in public-opinion and voter-behavior studies, but in American political development, "state theory," and normative theory. Three chapters grapple with whether voter ignorance is "rational." Several chapters consider the implications of Converse’s findings for the democratic ideal of a well-informed public; others focus on the political "elite," who are better informed but quite possibly more dogmatic than members of the general public. Contributors include Scott Althaus, Stephen Earl Bennett, Philip E. Converse, Samuel DeCanio, James S. Fishkin, Jeffrey Friedman, Doris A. Graber, Russell Hardin, Donald Kinder, Arthur Lupia, Samuel L. Popkin, Ilya Somin, and Gregory W. Wawro.This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

In The Rhetorical Presidency, Jeffrey Tulis argues that the president’s relationship to the public has changed dramatically since the Constitution was enacted: while previously the president avoided any discussions of public policy so as to avoid demagoguery, the president is now expected to go directly to the public, using all the tools of rhetoric to influence public policy. This has effectively created a "second" Constitution that has been layered over, and in part contradicts, the original one. In our volume, scholars from different subfields of political science extend Tulis’s perspective to the judiciary and Congress; locate the origins of the constitutional change in the Progressive Era; highlight the role of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and the mass media in transforming the presidency; discuss the nature of demagoguery and whether, in fact, rhetoric is undesirable; and relate the rhetorical presidency to the public’s ignorance of the workings of a government more complex than the Founders imagined. This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

The complexity of the modern world makes it difficult to predict the effects of political actions. In his 1992 book, System Effects, Robert Jervis underscored this difficulty by pointing to various sources of complexity when people interact. For example, they may misperceive each other’s perceptions, leading their actions to backfire or create unintended side effects. In this collection, scholars of international relations, law, network analysis, political philosophy, and political science examine why questions of societal complexity have become unfashionable in some social sciences and fashionable in others. And they discuss whether complex social interactions tie our hands: if our actions are unpredictable, should we, and can we, stop acting? Among the contributors are noted legal theorist Richard Posner; Philip E. Tetlock, the world’s leading expert on the predictive shortcomings of "experts"; and Jervis himself, who contributes a retrospective look at his 1992 book and its lessons.This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

The deflation of the subprime mortgage bubble in 2006-7 is widely agreed to have been the immediate cause of the collapse of the financial sector in 2008. Consequently, one might think that uncovering the origins of subprime lending would make the root causes of the crisis obvious. That is essentially where public debate about the causes of the crisis began-and ended-in the month following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the 502-point fall in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in mid-September 2008. However, the subprime housing bubble is just one piece of the puzzle. Asset bubbles inflate and burst frequently, but severe worldwide recessions are rare. What was different this time?In What Caused the Financial Crisis leading economists and scholars delve into the major causes of the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression and, together, present a comprehensive picture of the factors that led to it. One essay examines the role of government regulation in expanding home ownership through mortgage subsidies for impoverished borrowers, encouraging the subprime housing bubble. Another explores how banks were able to securitize mortgages by manipulating criteria used for bond ratings. How this led to inaccurate risk assessments that could not be covered by sufficient capital reserves mandated under the Basel accords is made clear in a third essay. Other essays identify monetary policy in the United States and Europe, corporate pay structures, credit-default swaps, banks' leverage, and financial deregulation as possible causes of the crisis.With contributions from Richard A. Posner, Vernon L. Smith, Joseph E. Stiglitz, and John B. Taylor, among others, What Caused the Financial Crisis provides a cogent, comprehensive, and credible explanation of why the crisis happened. It will be an essential resource for scholars and students of finance, economics, history, law, political science, and sociology, as well as others interested in the financial crisis and the nature of modern capitalism and regulation.

The financial crisis has been blamed on reckless bankers, irrational exuberance, government support of mortgages for the poor, financial deregulation, and expansionary monetary policy. Specialists in banking, however, tell a story with less emotional resonance but a better correspondence to the evidence: the crisis was sparked by the international regulatory accords on bank capital levels, the Basel Accords.In one of the first studies critically to examine the Basel Accords, Engineering the Financial Crisis reveals the crucial role that bank capital requirements and other government regulations played in the recent financial crisis. Jeffrey Friedman and Wladimir Kraus argue that by encouraging banks to invest in highly rated mortgage-backed bonds, the Basel Accords created an overconcentration of risk in the banking industry. In addition, accounting regulations required banks to reduce lending if the temporary market value of these bonds declined, as they did in 2007 and 2008 during the panic over subprime mortgage defaults.The book begins by assessing leading theories about the crisis-deregulation, bank compensation practices, excessive leverage, "too big to fail," and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-and, through careful evidentiary scrutiny, debunks much of the conventional wisdom about what went wrong. It then discusses the Basel Accords and how they contributed to systemic risk. Finally, it presents an analysis of social-science expertise and the fallibility of economists and regulators. Engagingly written, theoretically inventive, yet empirically grounded, Engineering the Financial Crisis is a timely examination of the unintended-and sometimes disastrous-effects of regulation on complex economies.

Isaiah Berlin’s liberalism seems both dated and essential in an era of ideological extremes. Berlin’s vision of liberalism rejected metaphysics, philosophies of history, and particular conceptions of the good, setting a pattern for Anglo-American political thought that is still influential and may offer resources for understanding the resurgence of ideology in the twenty-first century, but one that also seems to be firmly embedded in the Cold War opposition of liberalism against Marxism.In this volume, ten political theorists reconsider Berlin’s thought—especially his famous essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty”—in the light of contemporary political developments such as populism. Several contributors focus on Berlin’s neglected idea of political “maturity” as holding a key to his thought, making it an important site of contestation over his legacy. Others analyse Berlin’s notoriously fraught definition of liberty and his understanding of value pluralism; situate him as a Cold War liberal; and relate his work to that of contemporaries such as Raymond Aron and Leo Strauss.This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review.

Isaiah Berlin’s liberalism seems both dated and essential in an era of ideological extremes. Berlin’s vision of liberalism rejected metaphysics, philosophies of history, and particular conceptions of the good, setting a pattern for Anglo-American political thought that is still influential and may offer resources for understanding the resurgence of ideology in the twenty-first century, but one that also seems to be firmly embedded in the Cold War opposition of liberalism against Marxism.In this volume, ten political theorists reconsider Berlin’s thought—especially his famous essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty”—in the light of contemporary political developments such as populism. Several contributors focus on Berlin’s neglected idea of political “maturity” as holding a key to his thought, making it an important site of contestation over his legacy. Others analyse Berlin’s notoriously fraught definition of liberty and his understanding of value pluralism; situate him as a Cold War liberal; and relate his work to that of contemporaries such as Raymond Aron and Leo Strauss.This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review.

Populism has taken the world by storm—but what is it? In this volume, twelve political scientists and political theorists approach this question from a variety of new perspectives, empirical and theoretic, covering populism around the world. In addition to chapters on populism in Eastern Europe and Britain, six authors analyse populism in the United States, treating it, variously, as a reaction against technocracy, a form of technocracy, a manifestation of regional and class norms, a violent ideological import, and (potentially) a progressive democratic phenomenon. All the contributors attempt to understand populists on their own terms rather than reducing populism to a psychological or structural phenomenon.This book was originally published as a special issue of the journal Critical Review.

Populism has taken the world by storm—but what is it? In this volume, twelve political scientists and political theorists approach this question from a variety of new perspectives, empirical and theoretic, covering populism around the world. In addition to chapters on populism in Eastern Europe and Britain, six authors analyse populism in the United States, treating it, variously, as a reaction against technocracy, a form of technocracy, a manifestation of regional and class norms, a violent ideological import, and (potentially) a progressive democratic phenomenon. All the contributors attempt to understand populists on their own terms rather than reducing populism to a psychological or structural phenomenon.This book was originally published as a special issue of the journal Critical Review.

In The Longing for Total Revolution: Philosophic Sources of Discontent from Rousseau to Marx and Nietzsche (1986), the eminent intellectual historian and political theorist Bernard Yack offered a sweeping reinterpretation of modern thought. Yack argued that Rousseau prompted a line of philosophy that continued through Kant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche, which viewed the essential spirit of modernity as dehumanizing, and therefore implied, in a matter that became increasingly clear over time, that a total revolution against modernity is necessary.In this volume, seven political theorists and historians, including Yack himself, reconsider the book’s substantive and methodological innovations, its limitations, and its current relevance. Contributors to the volume discuss, inter alia, left Kantianism in historical context, the theological origins of the longing for total revolution, the question of whether the tradition identified by Yack is connected to twentieth-century totalitarianism, and the unique form of critical genealogy pioneered by Yack’s book. The volume concludes with Yack’s response to the other contributors’ chapters.This book was originally published as a special issue of the Critical Review.

In The Longing for Total Revolution: Philosophic Sources of Discontent from Rousseau to Marx and Nietzsche (1986), the eminent intellectual historian and political theorist Bernard Yack offered a sweeping reinterpretation of modern thought. Yack argued that Rousseau prompted a line of philosophy that continued through Kant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche, which viewed the essential spirit of modernity as dehumanizing, and therefore implied, in a matter that became increasingly clear over time, that a total revolution against modernity is necessary.In this volume, seven political theorists and historians, including Yack himself, reconsider the book’s substantive and methodological innovations, its limitations, and its current relevance. Contributors to the volume discuss, inter alia, left Kantianism in historical context, the theological origins of the longing for total revolution, the question of whether the tradition identified by Yack is connected to twentieth-century totalitarianism, and the unique form of critical genealogy pioneered by Yack’s book. The volume concludes with Yack’s response to the other contributors’ chapters.This book was originally published as a special issue of the Critical Review.

Intolerance of ideas different from one’s own seems to be a common attitude among human beings and, at the same time, something that seems to be more pronounced in recent years. In this volume, political theorists and philosophers consider some of the historical preconditions of modern intolerance and debate the sources of its recent manifestations.From theories of religious intolerance during the Reformation to the contemporary suppression of religious symbols; from homophobia to attempts to ban it; from populism on the right to “cancel culture” on the left—this book covers a variety of forms of intolerance, analysing not only its consequences but its causes and implications. Some of the chapters suggest means by which democracies may, through popular and judicial measures, defend themselves against intolerance, while others probe the philosophical grounding of intolerance in epistemological and metaphysical doctrines such as self-evident truth, divine revelation, inner illumination, naïve realism, and the moral relativism attributed to analytic philosophy and postmodernism.The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of Critical Review.

Intolerance of ideas different from one’s own seems to be a common attitude among human beings and, at the same time, something that seems to be more pronounced in recent years. In this volume, political theorists and philosophers consider some of the historical preconditions of modern intolerance and debate the sources of its recent manifestations.From theories of religious intolerance during the Reformation to the contemporary suppression of religious symbols; from homophobia to attempts to ban it; from populism on the right to “cancel culture” on the left—this book covers a variety of forms of intolerance, analysing not only its consequences but its causes and implications. Some of the chapters suggest means by which democracies may, through popular and judicial measures, defend themselves against intolerance, while others probe the philosophical grounding of intolerance in epistemological and metaphysical doctrines such as self-evident truth, divine revelation, inner illumination, naïve realism, and the moral relativism attributed to analytic philosophy and postmodernism.The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of Critical Review.

In the Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (1992), John Zaller set out one of the most influential models of opinion formation: he presented the public as a pliable instrument of political elites, who are able to garner support simply by sending "cues" through the mass media telling Republicans or Democrats, for example, what "the" Republican or Democratic position is on a given issue. Contributors to this volume critically examine Zaller’s model and its implications, empirical and normative. The introduction contrasts two different strands in Zaller’s book, one of which confines the impact of media messages to politicians’ cues, the other of which emphasizes the impact of journalists’ interpretive frames. Other chapters examine whether elite domination of public opinion is desirable and assess how well Zaller’s model has withstood two decades of research. Zaller himself contributes a long retrospective in which he modifies some claims, defends others, and sets out a bold new research agenda.This book was published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

In The Rhetorical Presidency, Jeffrey Tulis argues that the president’s relationship to the public has changed dramatically since the Constitution was enacted: while previously the president avoided any discussions of public policy so as to avoid demagoguery, the president is now expected to go directly to the public, using all the tools of rhetoric to influence public policy. This has effectively created a "second" Constitution that has been layered over, and in part contradicts, the original one. In our volume, scholars from different subfields of political science extend Tulis’s perspective to the judiciary and Congress; locate the origins of the constitutional change in the Progressive Era; highlight the role of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and the mass media in transforming the presidency; discuss the nature of demagoguery and whether, in fact, rhetoric is undesirable; and relate the rhetorical presidency to the public’s ignorance of the workings of a government more complex than the Founders imagined. This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

In the foundational document of modern public-opinion research, Philip E. Converse’s "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" (1964) established the U.S. public’s startling political ignorance. This volume makes Converse’s long out-of-print article available again and brings together a variety of scholars, including Converse himself, to reflect on Converse’s findings after nearly half a century of further research. Some chapters update findings on public ignorance. Others outline relevant research agendas not only in public-opinion and voter-behavior studies, but in American political development, "state theory," and normative theory. Three chapters grapple with whether voter ignorance is "rational." Several chapters consider the implications of Converse’s findings for the democratic ideal of a well-informed public; others focus on the political "elite," who are better informed but quite possibly more dogmatic than members of the general public. Contributors include Scott Althaus, Stephen Earl Bennett, Philip E. Converse, Samuel DeCanio, James S. Fishkin, Jeffrey Friedman, Doris A. Graber, Russell Hardin, Donald Kinder, Arthur Lupia, Samuel L. Popkin, Ilya Somin, and Gregory W. Wawro.This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

The complexity of the modern world makes it difficult to predict the effects of political actions. In his 1992 book, System Effects, Robert Jervis underscored this difficulty by pointing to various sources of complexity when people interact. For example, they may misperceive each other’s perceptions, leading their actions to backfire or create unintended side effects. In this collection, scholars of international relations, law, network analysis, political philosophy, and political science examine why questions of societal complexity have become unfashionable in some social sciences and fashionable in others. And they discuss whether complex social interactions tie our hands: if our actions are unpredictable, should we, and can we, stop acting? Among the contributors are noted legal theorist Richard Posner; Philip E. Tetlock, the world’s leading expert on the predictive shortcomings of "experts"; and Jervis himself, who contributes a retrospective look at his 1992 book and its lessons.This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

Hayek thought that all economic behavior (and by implication other human behavior) is based on fallible interpretations of what information is important and of its implications for the future. This epistemological idea animated not only his heterodox economic thought, but his ideal of the rule of law; his road-to-serfdom thesis; and his critique of the notion of social justice. However, the epistemological idea is a protean one that Hayek did not always handle carefully. This volume presents one of the most sophisticated critical reflections on Hayek ever assembled between two covers.This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review.

In the Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (1992), John Zaller set out one of the most influential models of opinion formation: he presented the public as a pliable instrument of political elites, who are able to garner support simply by sending "cues" through the mass media telling Republicans or Democrats, for example, what "the" Republican or Democratic position is on a given issue. Contributors to this volume critically examine Zaller’s model and its implications, empirical and normative. The introduction contrasts two different strands in Zaller’s book, one of which confines the impact of media messages to politicians’ cues, the other of which emphasizes the impact of journalists’ interpretive frames. Other chapters examine whether elite domination of public opinion is desirable and assess how well Zaller’s model has withstood two decades of research. Zaller himself contributes a long retrospective in which he modifies some claims, defends others, and sets out a bold new research agenda.This book was published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.