Podcast appearances and mentions of daniel treisman

Na zewnątrz wszystko wydaje się w porządku. Nikt nikogo nie wtrąca do więzień. Ludzie się bogacą. Na ulicach pokój. A jednak pod powierzchnią coś jest nie tak. Niektórzy piszą o tym zjawisku "cyfrowy populizm". Oczko wyżej są "Spin dyktatorzy". A na szczycie "Koncern autokracja". To wbrew pozorom jak najbardziej temat technologiczny, bo to właśnie serwisy społecznościowe, AI i technologie nadzoru wykorzystywane są do wpływania na opinie społeczne. A to ważne - zwłaszcza przed wyborami. Dlatego w tym, drugim odcinku naszego minicyklu o kampaniach wpływu, dalej sprawdzamy, jak próbowano osłabić demokrację, państwowość i wybory w Mołdawii i Rumunii. A przede wszystkim: czy zaobserwowane tam metody można zastosować także w Polsce. GOŚCINIE PODCASTU: Ionela Ciolan, researcherka ds. bezpieczeństwa w think-tanku Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies w Brukseli Taisia Haritonova z National Democratic Institute w Mołdawii Tatiana Cojocari, specjalistka ds. polityki zagranicznej Rosji oraz dezinformacji w organizacji WatchDog w Mołdawii Elena Calistru z Funky Citizens, rumuńskiej organizacji pozarządowej, która zajmuje się walką z dezinformacją. Diana Fimilion założyła rumuńską organizację Forum Apulum zajmują się polityką, technologiami i demokracją w kontekście ludzi młodych NA SKRÓTY: 04:48 Wprowadzenie 08:41 Sytuacja po wyborach 11:58 Serwisy społecznościowe 32:52 Odpowiedzialność platform 37:48 Wnioski dla Polski 42:05 Wybory w Polsce 48:55 Cyfrowy populizm ŹRÓDŁA: "Spin dyktatorzy. Nowe oblicze tyranii w XXI wieku", Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman, Wyd. Szczeliny, 2023, "Koncern. Autokracja", Anne Applebaum, Wyd. Agora, 2025, O niezadowoleniu Rumunów: https://www.romania-insider.com/ires-survey-scrapping-elections-jan-2025 O finiszu wyborów w Rumunii: https://www.osw.waw.pl/pl/publikacje/komentarze-osw/2025-04-24/wybory-dla-wybranych-rumunia-na-finiszu-kampanii-prezydenckiej O cheapfejkach: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/russian-experiments-with-disinformation-in-moldova/ O dezinformacji napędzanej AI: https://www.politico.eu/article/moldova-fights-free-from-russia-ai-power-disinformation-machine-maia-sandu/ O cyfrowym populizmie: https://www.politico.eu/article/moldova-fights-free-from-russia-ai-power-disinformation-machine-maia-sandu/ O tworzeniu relacji z wyborcami: https://www.iwm.at/publication/iwmpost-article/digital-governance-between-populism-and-technocracy

While Trump Brings Putin Out From the Cold of International Isolation, He Hangs Ukraine Out to Dry | An Assessment of What the Europeans Can Do to Help Ukraine As Trump Sells Out European Security | Will the Press Make a Stand as Trump Tries to Bring the AP to Heel? backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia bsky.app/profile/ianmastersmedia.bsky.social facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Daniel Treisman, co-author of Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century, discusses the new generation of dictators and how they weaponize information, bully with legal action and mobilize enablers to stay in power. Originally posted on May 24, 2023

Navalny Wanted to See "The Beautiful Russia of the Future" While Putin is Fixated on Historical Delusions of Reviving Russian Imperialism | Do Mike Johnson's Financial Ties Explain Why He is Cutting Off Aid to Ukraine? | A Country Held Hostage by Gun Violence backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

In this episode of the Liberal Europe Podcast, Leszek Jażdżewski (Fundacja Liberté!) welcomes Sergei Guriev, a renown political and economic analyst, Professor of Economics and Provost of Science Po, the co-author (together with Daniel Treisman) of "Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century", and the host of the podcast "Conversations with Sergei Guriev". They talk about the Russian economy and society, the structure of power in Putin's Russia, dictatorship and Putinism, the Russian war in Ukraine, and the future of Russia. This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.

On October 31st, Max moderated a conversation between Maria and Sergei Guriev on the ideology of Putinism. Does Vladimir Putin have an ideology? If so, will this ideology help him retain power in Russia? Maria recently co-authored a report on this same topic, and the paper's findings were the main topic of discussion. Dr. Sergei Guriev is the Provost at Sciences Po in Paris, and a renowned professor of economics. Previously, he led the New Economic School in Moscow from 2004-2013. Additionally, he served as the Chief Economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development from 2016-2019. Learn More: "The Ideology of Putinism: Is It Sustainable?" by Maria Snegovaya, Michael Kimmage, and Jade McGlynn "Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century" by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman

Spin dictators have fewer political prisoners, fewer political killings. This is good. This is really good. On the other hand, we want to tell everybody that they are still dictators.Sergei GurievAccess Bonus Episodes on PatreonMake a one-time Donation to Democracy Paradox.A full transcript is available at www.democracyparadox.com.Sergei Guriev is a professor of Economics at Sciences Po in Paris. He was a former chief economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the former rector of the New Economic School in Moscow. He is the coauthor (along with Daniel Treisman) of Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:46Spin Dictatorships and Fear Dictatorships - 3:12Popular Support - 25:21Putin - 39:44Beyond Spin Dictatorship - 43:49Key LinksSpin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman"Informational Autocrats" in the Journal of Economic Perspectives by Sergei Guriev and Daniel TreismanFollow Sergei Guriev on Twitter @sgurievDemocracy Paradox PodcastAnne Applebaum on Autocracy, IncLarry Bartels Says Democracy Erodes from the TopMore Episodes from the PodcastMore InformationDemocracy GroupApes of the State created all MusicEmail the show at jkempf@democracyparadox.comFollow on Twitter @DemParadox, Facebook, Instagram @democracyparadoxpodcast100 Books on DemocracySupport the show

Daniel Treisman, co-author of Spin Dictators:  The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century, discusses the new generation of dictators and how they weaponize information, bully with legal action and mobilize enablers to stay in power.

Guests featured in this episode:Sergei Guriev, Provost of Sciences Po in Paris. He's professor of economics there following an outstanding academic career at the New Economic School in Moscow. He was its Rector until 2013 when he was forced by political circumstances to leave Russia. Between 2016 and 2019, Sergei served as the chief economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. And he has held visiting professorships at MIT, Princeton. And in 2006, he was selected a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.His very broad research interests span various areas of political economics, developmental economics, labor mobility, corporate governance and contract theory. And besides numerous academic publications, he also writes for "The New York Times," "Financial Times," "Washington Post," and "Project Syndicate." His latest book, "Spin Dictators," written together with Daniel Treisman, is a fascinating account of the changing character of authoritarian politics. GlossaryWhat is China's “zero-COVID” policy?(23:25 or p.6 in the transcript)COVID-19, a highly contagious respiratory illness, was first detected in Wuhan, China, in 2019 and rapidly spread throughout the country and the world, giving rise to a multiyear pandemic that resulted in millions of deaths worldwide. In efforts to keep the disease from spreading, China implemented strict “zero-COVID” policies aimed at keeping the number of cases as close to zero as possible through measures including strict lockdowns, quarantines, and mass testing. As a result, infection cases and deaths were relatively lower in China compared with other wealthy countries. Despite residents' initial support of government policies and China's early success in containing the spread of the disease, many grew frustrated as the restrictions became harsher and longer due to an increased number of cases resulting from highly transmissible variants. Repeated lockdowns and testing disrupted residents' daily life and travel across the country. Some parts of China, such as Yining and Guiyang, experienced shortages of food and other essential items. The zero-COVID policies were eased in December 2022 following a rare protest by thousands of Chinese residents demanding that the government end the harsh policies, some even calling for the resignation of Xi Jinping. sourceWhat was the 2014 illegal annexation of Crimea?(25:10 or p.7 in the transcript)Almost immediately after the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine ended, armed men began occupying key facilities and checkpoints on the Crimean Peninsula. They wore Russian combat fatigues but with no identifying insignia. President Vladimir Putin at first flatly denied these were Russian soldiers, only to later admit that they were and award commendations to their commanders. The sizeable Ukrainian military presence in Crimea stayed in garrison. If shooting began, Kyiv wanted the world to see the Russians fire first. Ukraine's Western partners urged Kyiv not to take precipitate action. Since many enlisted personnel in the Ukrainian ranks came from Crimea, Ukrainian commanders probably had less than full confidence in the reliability of their troops. By early March, Russian troops had secured the entire peninsula. On March 6, the Crimean Supreme Council voted to ask to accede to Russia. The council scheduled a referendum for March 16, which offered two choices: join Russia or return to Crimea's 1992 constitution, which gave the peninsula significant autonomy. Those who favoured Crimea remaining part of Ukraine under the current constitution had no box to check. The conduct of the referendum proved chaotic and took place absent any credible international observers. Local authorities reported a turnout of 83 percent, with 96.7 percent voting to join Russia. The numbers seemed implausible, given that ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars accounted for almost 40 percent of the peninsula's population. (Two months later, a leaked report from the Russian president's Human Rights Council put turnout at only 30 percent, with about half of those voting to join Russia.) On March 18, Crimean and Russian officials signed the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Crimea to Russia. Putin ratified the treaty three days later. source Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:• Central European University: CEU• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD• The Podcast Company: Novel Follow us on social media!• Central European University: @CEU• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentreSubscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Fear pervades dictatorial regimes. Citizens fear leaders, the regime's agents fear superiors, and leaders fear the masses. The ubiquity of fear in such regimes gives rise to the "dictator's dilemma," where autocrats do not know the level of opposition they face and cannot effectively neutralize domestic threats to their rule. The dilemma has led scholars to believe that autocracies are likely to be short-lived. Yet, some autocracies have found ways to mitigate the dictator's dilemma. As Martin K. Dimitrov shows in Dictatorship and Information: Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China (Oxford UP, 2023), substantial variability exists in the survival of nondemocratic regimes, with single-party polities having the longest average duration. Offering a systematic theory of the institutional solutions to the dictator's dilemma, Dimitrov argues that single-party autocracies have fostered channels that allow for the confidential vertical transmission of information, while also solving the problems associated with distorted information. To explain how this all works, Dimitrov focuses on communist regimes, which have the longest average lifespan among single-party autocracies and have developed the most sophisticated information-gathering institutions. Communist regimes face a variety of threats, but the main one is the masses. Dimitrov therefore examines the origins, evolution, and internal logic of the information-collection ecosystem established by communist states to monitor popular dissent. Drawing from a rich base of evidence across multiple communist regimes and nearly 100 interviews, Dimitrov reshapes our understanding of how autocrats learn--or fail to learn--about the societies they rule, and how they maintain--or lose--power. Listeners interested in how authoritarian regimes gather information and use it to maintain political control should also check out the NBN interviews with Iza Ding, on how China's bureaucrats make a show of responsiveness even when they can't deliver, Jeremy Wallace, on the role of quantification in China's authoritarianism, Daniel Treisman, on how dictators around the world try to control their public image, Jennifer Pan, on how China uses its limited welfare state to hold power, journalists Josh Chin and Liza Lin on China's surveillance state, and Yao Li, Manfred Elfstrom, and Lynette Ong on China's protests. Martin K. Dimitrov is Professor of Political Science at Tulane University.  Peter Lorentzen is economics professor at the University of San Francisco. He heads USF's Applied Economics Master's program, which focuses on the digital economy. His research is mainly on China's political economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Fear pervades dictatorial regimes. Citizens fear leaders, the regime's agents fear superiors, and leaders fear the masses. The ubiquity of fear in such regimes gives rise to the "dictator's dilemma," where autocrats do not know the level of opposition they face and cannot effectively neutralize domestic threats to their rule. The dilemma has led scholars to believe that autocracies are likely to be short-lived. Yet, some autocracies have found ways to mitigate the dictator's dilemma. As Martin K. Dimitrov shows in Dictatorship and Information: Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China (Oxford UP, 2023), substantial variability exists in the survival of nondemocratic regimes, with single-party polities having the longest average duration. Offering a systematic theory of the institutional solutions to the dictator's dilemma, Dimitrov argues that single-party autocracies have fostered channels that allow for the confidential vertical transmission of information, while also solving the problems associated with distorted information. To explain how this all works, Dimitrov focuses on communist regimes, which have the longest average lifespan among single-party autocracies and have developed the most sophisticated information-gathering institutions. Communist regimes face a variety of threats, but the main one is the masses. Dimitrov therefore examines the origins, evolution, and internal logic of the information-collection ecosystem established by communist states to monitor popular dissent. Drawing from a rich base of evidence across multiple communist regimes and nearly 100 interviews, Dimitrov reshapes our understanding of how autocrats learn--or fail to learn--about the societies they rule, and how they maintain--or lose--power. Listeners interested in how authoritarian regimes gather information and use it to maintain political control should also check out the NBN interviews with Iza Ding, on how China's bureaucrats make a show of responsiveness even when they can't deliver, Jeremy Wallace, on the role of quantification in China's authoritarianism, Daniel Treisman, on how dictators around the world try to control their public image, Jennifer Pan, on how China uses its limited welfare state to hold power, journalists Josh Chin and Liza Lin on China's surveillance state, and Yao Li, Manfred Elfstrom, and Lynette Ong on China's protests. Martin K. Dimitrov is Professor of Political Science at Tulane University.  Peter Lorentzen is economics professor at the University of San Francisco. He heads USF's Applied Economics Master's program, which focuses on the digital economy. His research is mainly on China's political economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Fear pervades dictatorial regimes. Citizens fear leaders, the regime's agents fear superiors, and leaders fear the masses. The ubiquity of fear in such regimes gives rise to the "dictator's dilemma," where autocrats do not know the level of opposition they face and cannot effectively neutralize domestic threats to their rule. The dilemma has led scholars to believe that autocracies are likely to be short-lived. Yet, some autocracies have found ways to mitigate the dictator's dilemma. As Martin K. Dimitrov shows in Dictatorship and Information: Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China (Oxford UP, 2023), substantial variability exists in the survival of nondemocratic regimes, with single-party polities having the longest average duration. Offering a systematic theory of the institutional solutions to the dictator's dilemma, Dimitrov argues that single-party autocracies have fostered channels that allow for the confidential vertical transmission of information, while also solving the problems associated with distorted information. To explain how this all works, Dimitrov focuses on communist regimes, which have the longest average lifespan among single-party autocracies and have developed the most sophisticated information-gathering institutions. Communist regimes face a variety of threats, but the main one is the masses. Dimitrov therefore examines the origins, evolution, and internal logic of the information-collection ecosystem established by communist states to monitor popular dissent. Drawing from a rich base of evidence across multiple communist regimes and nearly 100 interviews, Dimitrov reshapes our understanding of how autocrats learn--or fail to learn--about the societies they rule, and how they maintain--or lose--power. Listeners interested in how authoritarian regimes gather information and use it to maintain political control should also check out the NBN interviews with Iza Ding, on how China's bureaucrats make a show of responsiveness even when they can't deliver, Jeremy Wallace, on the role of quantification in China's authoritarianism, Daniel Treisman, on how dictators around the world try to control their public image, Jennifer Pan, on how China uses its limited welfare state to hold power, journalists Josh Chin and Liza Lin on China's surveillance state, and Yao Li, Manfred Elfstrom, and Lynette Ong on China's protests. Martin K. Dimitrov is Professor of Political Science at Tulane University.  Peter Lorentzen is economics professor at the University of San Francisco. He heads USF's Applied Economics Master's program, which focuses on the digital economy. His research is mainly on China's political economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Fear pervades dictatorial regimes. Citizens fear leaders, the regime's agents fear superiors, and leaders fear the masses. The ubiquity of fear in such regimes gives rise to the "dictator's dilemma," where autocrats do not know the level of opposition they face and cannot effectively neutralize domestic threats to their rule. The dilemma has led scholars to believe that autocracies are likely to be short-lived. Yet, some autocracies have found ways to mitigate the dictator's dilemma. As Martin K. Dimitrov shows in Dictatorship and Information: Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China (Oxford UP, 2023), substantial variability exists in the survival of nondemocratic regimes, with single-party polities having the longest average duration. Offering a systematic theory of the institutional solutions to the dictator's dilemma, Dimitrov argues that single-party autocracies have fostered channels that allow for the confidential vertical transmission of information, while also solving the problems associated with distorted information. To explain how this all works, Dimitrov focuses on communist regimes, which have the longest average lifespan among single-party autocracies and have developed the most sophisticated information-gathering institutions. Communist regimes face a variety of threats, but the main one is the masses. Dimitrov therefore examines the origins, evolution, and internal logic of the information-collection ecosystem established by communist states to monitor popular dissent. Drawing from a rich base of evidence across multiple communist regimes and nearly 100 interviews, Dimitrov reshapes our understanding of how autocrats learn--or fail to learn--about the societies they rule, and how they maintain--or lose--power. Listeners interested in how authoritarian regimes gather information and use it to maintain political control should also check out the NBN interviews with Iza Ding, on how China's bureaucrats make a show of responsiveness even when they can't deliver, Jeremy Wallace, on the role of quantification in China's authoritarianism, Daniel Treisman, on how dictators around the world try to control their public image, Jennifer Pan, on how China uses its limited welfare state to hold power, journalists Josh Chin and Liza Lin on China's surveillance state, and Yao Li, Manfred Elfstrom, and Lynette Ong on China's protests. Martin K. Dimitrov is Professor of Political Science at Tulane University.  Peter Lorentzen is economics professor at the University of San Francisco. He heads USF's Applied Economics Master's program, which focuses on the digital economy. His research is mainly on China's political economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

Fear pervades dictatorial regimes. Citizens fear leaders, the regime's agents fear superiors, and leaders fear the masses. The ubiquity of fear in such regimes gives rise to the "dictator's dilemma," where autocrats do not know the level of opposition they face and cannot effectively neutralize domestic threats to their rule. The dilemma has led scholars to believe that autocracies are likely to be short-lived. Yet, some autocracies have found ways to mitigate the dictator's dilemma. As Martin K. Dimitrov shows in Dictatorship and Information: Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China (Oxford UP, 2023), substantial variability exists in the survival of nondemocratic regimes, with single-party polities having the longest average duration. Offering a systematic theory of the institutional solutions to the dictator's dilemma, Dimitrov argues that single-party autocracies have fostered channels that allow for the confidential vertical transmission of information, while also solving the problems associated with distorted information. To explain how this all works, Dimitrov focuses on communist regimes, which have the longest average lifespan among single-party autocracies and have developed the most sophisticated information-gathering institutions. Communist regimes face a variety of threats, but the main one is the masses. Dimitrov therefore examines the origins, evolution, and internal logic of the information-collection ecosystem established by communist states to monitor popular dissent. Drawing from a rich base of evidence across multiple communist regimes and nearly 100 interviews, Dimitrov reshapes our understanding of how autocrats learn--or fail to learn--about the societies they rule, and how they maintain--or lose--power. Listeners interested in how authoritarian regimes gather information and use it to maintain political control should also check out the NBN interviews with Iza Ding, on how China's bureaucrats make a show of responsiveness even when they can't deliver, Jeremy Wallace, on the role of quantification in China's authoritarianism, Daniel Treisman, on how dictators around the world try to control their public image, Jennifer Pan, on how China uses its limited welfare state to hold power, journalists Josh Chin and Liza Lin on China's surveillance state, and Yao Li, Manfred Elfstrom, and Lynette Ong on China's protests. Martin K. Dimitrov is Professor of Political Science at Tulane University.  Peter Lorentzen is economics professor at the University of San Francisco. He heads USF's Applied Economics Master's program, which focuses on the digital economy. His research is mainly on China's political economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Fear pervades dictatorial regimes. Citizens fear leaders, the regime's agents fear superiors, and leaders fear the masses. The ubiquity of fear in such regimes gives rise to the "dictator's dilemma," where autocrats do not know the level of opposition they face and cannot effectively neutralize domestic threats to their rule. The dilemma has led scholars to believe that autocracies are likely to be short-lived. Yet, some autocracies have found ways to mitigate the dictator's dilemma. As Martin K. Dimitrov shows in Dictatorship and Information: Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China (Oxford UP, 2023), substantial variability exists in the survival of nondemocratic regimes, with single-party polities having the longest average duration. Offering a systematic theory of the institutional solutions to the dictator's dilemma, Dimitrov argues that single-party autocracies have fostered channels that allow for the confidential vertical transmission of information, while also solving the problems associated with distorted information. To explain how this all works, Dimitrov focuses on communist regimes, which have the longest average lifespan among single-party autocracies and have developed the most sophisticated information-gathering institutions. Communist regimes face a variety of threats, but the main one is the masses. Dimitrov therefore examines the origins, evolution, and internal logic of the information-collection ecosystem established by communist states to monitor popular dissent. Drawing from a rich base of evidence across multiple communist regimes and nearly 100 interviews, Dimitrov reshapes our understanding of how autocrats learn--or fail to learn--about the societies they rule, and how they maintain--or lose--power. Listeners interested in how authoritarian regimes gather information and use it to maintain political control should also check out the NBN interviews with Iza Ding, on how China's bureaucrats make a show of responsiveness even when they can't deliver, Jeremy Wallace, on the role of quantification in China's authoritarianism, Daniel Treisman, on how dictators around the world try to control their public image, Jennifer Pan, on how China uses its limited welfare state to hold power, journalists Josh Chin and Liza Lin on China's surveillance state, and Yao Li, Manfred Elfstrom, and Lynette Ong on China's protests. Martin K. Dimitrov is Professor of Political Science at Tulane University.  Peter Lorentzen is economics professor at the University of San Francisco. He heads USF's Applied Economics Master's program, which focuses on the digital economy. His research is mainly on China's political economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the absence of regulation, we are ultimately at the mercy of social media platforms and their algorithms. This week, host Elisa welcomes Joshua Tucker, Professor of Politics at NYU, to discuss his extensive research on American elections, including voter influence through social media and how broad public opinions are formed on and off these platforms. How do you go about accessing this kind of data from platforms like Twitter, Facebook and TikTok? Does Youtube's algorithm push people towards extreme content? And how can we better regulate TikTok in particular, a Chinese controlled platform that's gained huge popularity in the U.S.? Joshua Tucker is Professor of Politics at New York University, Director of the Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia, Co-Director NYU Center for Social Media and Politics(CSMaP): https://as.nyu.edu/faculty/joshua-tucker.html References: NSLT Ep. 213, "Putin's State of Mind with Robert Dannenberg (Part 1). March 10, 2022: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/national-security-law-today/id1276946676?i=1000553603393 Persily, Nathaniel, and Joshua A. Tucker, editors. Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform. Cambridge University Press, 2020: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-media-and-democracy/E79E2BBF03C18C3A56A5CC393698F117 Prior, Markus. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press, 2010: https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Post-Broadcast-Democracy/Markus-Prior/9780521675338?id=8044355996728 Guriev, S. M., and Daniel Treisman. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century. Princeton University Press, 2022: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691211411/spin-dictators Eady, G., Paskhalis, T., Zilinsky, J. et al. Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior. Nat Commun 14, 62 (2023): https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35576-9 For a full list of Joshua Tucker's recent research, articles and book references: https://wp.nyu.edu/fas-joshuatucker/research/

In the age of information and with growing calls around the world for democracy, Vladimir Putin, Lee Kuan Yew and Alberto Fujimori are redefining what it means to be a dictator in the 21st century. Through the manipulation of information, media, and using censorship, this new breed of despots are covertly monopolizing power under the guise of democracy.  Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's new book, "Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century," explores these new methods of discipline, postmodern propoganda, and global pillage to control the masses, while counselling the way forward for democracies and the global community at large.  In his discussion with Robert Amsterdam, Guriev explains the difference between spin and fear dictators, and how free societies tendencies towards innovation can save democracy; as well as current political structures in Israel and Georgia, debating how they could be at risk of sliding into this new version of authoritarianism. His research highlights the importance of current democracies holding themselves accountable for missteps as a means to reduce whataboutism by these dictators for the purpose of mass manipulation. 

On this episode of The Global Exchange, Colin Robertson speaks to the Hon. John Manley, Gary Doer, and Jean Charest about what to look for in 2023. Participants bios: The Hon. John Manley, former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, chairs CGAI's Advisory Council – https://www.cgai.ca/advisory_council#Manley Gary Doer, former Premier of Manitoba and Ambassador to the United States, sits on CGAI Advisory Council – https://www.cgai.ca/advisory_council#GaryDoer Jean Charest, former Premier of Québec and Deputy Prime Minister, sits on CGAI's Advisory Council – https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/people/jean-charest Host bio: Colin Robertson is a Senior Adviser and a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute – https://www.cgai.ca/staff#robertson Read and Watch: Louise Penny – https://www.louisepenny.com/ Three Pines (TV Series) – https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15351648/ Breath by James Nestor – https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/547761/breath-by-james-nestor/ Spin Dictators by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman – https://spindictators.com/ Recording Date: 9 January 2022. Give 'The Global Exchange' a review on Apple Podcast! Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on Linkedin. Head over to our website www.cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Charlotte Duval-Lantoine. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

How do states coerce citizens into compliance while simultaneously minimizing backlash? In Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China (Oxford UP, 2020), Lynette H. Ong examines how the Chinese state engages nonstate actors, from violent street gangsters to nonviolent grassroots brokers, to coerce and mobilize the masses for state pursuits, while reducing costs and minimizing resistance. She draws on ethnographic research conducted annually from 2011 to 2019--the years from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, a unique and original event dataset, and a collection of government regulations in a study of everyday land grabs and housing demolition in China. Her research highlights one of the ways in which modern authoritarians conceal their actions in order to maintain their popularity among ordinary citizens, a theme also explored in my earlier interview with Daniel Treisman about his book Spin Dictators. Author Lynette Ong is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment at the Department of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy's Asian Institute. Her other books are The Street and the Ballot Box: Interactions Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics in Authoritarian Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Elements Series in Contentious Politics, 2022), and Prosper or Perish: Credit and Fiscal Systems in Rural China (Cornell University Press, 2012), She has published research articles in Perspectives on Politics, Journal of Comparative Politics, China Quarterly, China Journal, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and other prominent journals. Here research has also been covered in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the South China Morning Post. Host Peter Lorentzen is the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of San Francisco. His research focus is the political economy of governance in China and he is a member of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR) and USF's new Center on Business Studies and Innovation in the Asia-Pacific. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How do states coerce citizens into compliance while simultaneously minimizing backlash? In Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China (Oxford UP, 2020), Lynette H. Ong examines how the Chinese state engages nonstate actors, from violent street gangsters to nonviolent grassroots brokers, to coerce and mobilize the masses for state pursuits, while reducing costs and minimizing resistance. She draws on ethnographic research conducted annually from 2011 to 2019--the years from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, a unique and original event dataset, and a collection of government regulations in a study of everyday land grabs and housing demolition in China. Her research highlights one of the ways in which modern authoritarians conceal their actions in order to maintain their popularity among ordinary citizens, a theme also explored in my earlier interview with Daniel Treisman about his book Spin Dictators. Author Lynette Ong is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment at the Department of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy's Asian Institute. Her other books are The Street and the Ballot Box: Interactions Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics in Authoritarian Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Elements Series in Contentious Politics, 2022), and Prosper or Perish: Credit and Fiscal Systems in Rural China (Cornell University Press, 2012), She has published research articles in Perspectives on Politics, Journal of Comparative Politics, China Quarterly, China Journal, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and other prominent journals. Here research has also been covered in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the South China Morning Post. Host Peter Lorentzen is the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of San Francisco. His research focus is the political economy of governance in China and he is a member of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR) and USF's new Center on Business Studies and Innovation in the Asia-Pacific. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

How do states coerce citizens into compliance while simultaneously minimizing backlash? In Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China (Oxford UP, 2020), Lynette H. Ong examines how the Chinese state engages nonstate actors, from violent street gangsters to nonviolent grassroots brokers, to coerce and mobilize the masses for state pursuits, while reducing costs and minimizing resistance. She draws on ethnographic research conducted annually from 2011 to 2019--the years from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, a unique and original event dataset, and a collection of government regulations in a study of everyday land grabs and housing demolition in China. Her research highlights one of the ways in which modern authoritarians conceal their actions in order to maintain their popularity among ordinary citizens, a theme also explored in my earlier interview with Daniel Treisman about his book Spin Dictators. Author Lynette Ong is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment at the Department of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy's Asian Institute. Her other books are The Street and the Ballot Box: Interactions Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics in Authoritarian Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Elements Series in Contentious Politics, 2022), and Prosper or Perish: Credit and Fiscal Systems in Rural China (Cornell University Press, 2012), She has published research articles in Perspectives on Politics, Journal of Comparative Politics, China Quarterly, China Journal, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and other prominent journals. Here research has also been covered in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the South China Morning Post. Host Peter Lorentzen is the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of San Francisco. His research focus is the political economy of governance in China and he is a member of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR) and USF's new Center on Business Studies and Innovation in the Asia-Pacific. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

How do states coerce citizens into compliance while simultaneously minimizing backlash? In Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China (Oxford UP, 2020), Lynette H. Ong examines how the Chinese state engages nonstate actors, from violent street gangsters to nonviolent grassroots brokers, to coerce and mobilize the masses for state pursuits, while reducing costs and minimizing resistance. She draws on ethnographic research conducted annually from 2011 to 2019--the years from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, a unique and original event dataset, and a collection of government regulations in a study of everyday land grabs and housing demolition in China. Her research highlights one of the ways in which modern authoritarians conceal their actions in order to maintain their popularity among ordinary citizens, a theme also explored in my earlier interview with Daniel Treisman about his book Spin Dictators. Author Lynette Ong is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment at the Department of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy's Asian Institute. Her other books are The Street and the Ballot Box: Interactions Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics in Authoritarian Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Elements Series in Contentious Politics, 2022), and Prosper or Perish: Credit and Fiscal Systems in Rural China (Cornell University Press, 2012), She has published research articles in Perspectives on Politics, Journal of Comparative Politics, China Quarterly, China Journal, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and other prominent journals. Here research has also been covered in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the South China Morning Post. Host Peter Lorentzen is the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of San Francisco. His research focus is the political economy of governance in China and he is a member of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR) and USF's new Center on Business Studies and Innovation in the Asia-Pacific. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

How do states coerce citizens into compliance while simultaneously minimizing backlash? In Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China (Oxford UP, 2020), Lynette H. Ong examines how the Chinese state engages nonstate actors, from violent street gangsters to nonviolent grassroots brokers, to coerce and mobilize the masses for state pursuits, while reducing costs and minimizing resistance. She draws on ethnographic research conducted annually from 2011 to 2019--the years from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, a unique and original event dataset, and a collection of government regulations in a study of everyday land grabs and housing demolition in China. Her research highlights one of the ways in which modern authoritarians conceal their actions in order to maintain their popularity among ordinary citizens, a theme also explored in my earlier interview with Daniel Treisman about his book Spin Dictators. Author Lynette Ong is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment at the Department of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy's Asian Institute. Her other books are The Street and the Ballot Box: Interactions Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics in Authoritarian Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Elements Series in Contentious Politics, 2022), and Prosper or Perish: Credit and Fiscal Systems in Rural China (Cornell University Press, 2012), She has published research articles in Perspectives on Politics, Journal of Comparative Politics, China Quarterly, China Journal, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and other prominent journals. Here research has also been covered in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the South China Morning Post. Host Peter Lorentzen is the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of San Francisco. His research focus is the political economy of governance in China and he is a member of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR) and USF's new Center on Business Studies and Innovation in the Asia-Pacific. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

How do states coerce citizens into compliance while simultaneously minimizing backlash? In Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China (Oxford UP, 2022), Lynette H. Ong examines how the Chinese state engages nonstate actors, from violent street gangsters to nonviolent grassroots brokers, to coerce and mobilize the masses for state pursuits, while reducing costs and minimizing resistance. She draws on ethnographic research conducted annually from 2011 to 2019--the years from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, a unique and original event dataset, and a collection of government regulations in a study of everyday land grabs and housing demolition in China. Her research highlights one of the ways in which modern authoritarians conceal their actions in order to maintain their popularity among ordinary citizens, a theme also explored in my earlier interview with Daniel Treisman about his book Spin Dictators. Author Lynette Ong is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment at the Department of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy's Asian Institute. Her other books are The Street and the Ballot Box: Interactions Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics in Authoritarian Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Elements Series in Contentious Politics, 2022), and Prosper or Perish: Credit and Fiscal Systems in Rural China (Cornell University Press, 2012), She has published research articles in Perspectives on Politics, Journal of Comparative Politics, China Quarterly, China Journal, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and other prominent journals. Here research has also been covered in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the South China Morning Post. Host Peter Lorentzen is the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of San Francisco. His research focus is the political economy of governance in China and he is a member of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR) and USF's new Center on Business Studies and Innovation in the Asia-Pacific. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

How do states coerce citizens into compliance while simultaneously minimizing backlash? In Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China (Oxford UP, 2020), Lynette H. Ong examines how the Chinese state engages nonstate actors, from violent street gangsters to nonviolent grassroots brokers, to coerce and mobilize the masses for state pursuits, while reducing costs and minimizing resistance. She draws on ethnographic research conducted annually from 2011 to 2019--the years from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, a unique and original event dataset, and a collection of government regulations in a study of everyday land grabs and housing demolition in China. Her research highlights one of the ways in which modern authoritarians conceal their actions in order to maintain their popularity among ordinary citizens, a theme also explored in my earlier interview with Daniel Treisman about his book Spin Dictators. Author Lynette Ong is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment at the Department of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy's Asian Institute. Her other books are The Street and the Ballot Box: Interactions Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics in Authoritarian Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Elements Series in Contentious Politics, 2022), and Prosper or Perish: Credit and Fiscal Systems in Rural China (Cornell University Press, 2012), She has published research articles in Perspectives on Politics, Journal of Comparative Politics, China Quarterly, China Journal, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and other prominent journals. Here research has also been covered in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the South China Morning Post. Host Peter Lorentzen is the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of San Francisco. His research focus is the political economy of governance in China and he is a member of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR) and USF's new Center on Business Studies and Innovation in the Asia-Pacific. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How do states coerce citizens into compliance while simultaneously minimizing backlash? In Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China (Oxford UP, 2020), Lynette H. Ong examines how the Chinese state engages nonstate actors, from violent street gangsters to nonviolent grassroots brokers, to coerce and mobilize the masses for state pursuits, while reducing costs and minimizing resistance. She draws on ethnographic research conducted annually from 2011 to 2019--the years from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, a unique and original event dataset, and a collection of government regulations in a study of everyday land grabs and housing demolition in China. Her research highlights one of the ways in which modern authoritarians conceal their actions in order to maintain their popularity among ordinary citizens, a theme also explored in my earlier interview with Daniel Treisman about his book Spin Dictators. Author Lynette Ong is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, with a joint appointment at the Department of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy's Asian Institute. Her other books are The Street and the Ballot Box: Interactions Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics in Authoritarian Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Elements Series in Contentious Politics, 2022), and Prosper or Perish: Credit and Fiscal Systems in Rural China (Cornell University Press, 2012), She has published research articles in Perspectives on Politics, Journal of Comparative Politics, China Quarterly, China Journal, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and other prominent journals. Here research has also been covered in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the South China Morning Post. Host Peter Lorentzen is the Chair of the Economics Department at the University of San Francisco. His research focus is the political economy of governance in China and he is a member of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR) and USF's new Center on Business Studies and Innovation in the Asia-Pacific.

Military coup or orderly transition? Nothing lasts forever and in this edition of the podcast, Dmitri Alperovitch speaks to Daniel Treisman, professor of political science at University of California, who specializes on Russian politics and economics, about how Putin's multi-decade reign of Russia might end

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University.

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An alienated society divided into groups and classes suspicious of one another does not pose an especially great problem for an authoritarian regime that does not legitimize itself through fair elections. In contrast, democratic institutions presuppose a consensus about obeying common “rules of the game” and rely on a culture of trust and reciprocity. For democratic consolidation, citizens must respect and participate in shared democratic institutions. For instance, they should trust courts as the final arbiters in adjudicating disputes and respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. They should also recognize results of elections, even if their favorite candidate loses. – Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2010) This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Here are Monika's book recommendations and links to the articles mentioned in this interview: Anne Meng's Constraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes; Bryn Rosenfeld's The Autocratic Middle Class: How State Dependency Reduces the Demand for Democracy; Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman's Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century; Milena Ang and Monika Nalepa's chapter ‘What can Quantitative and Formal Models Teach us About Transitional Justice' Monika Nalepa and Barbara Piotrowskaw's article ‘Clean sweep or picking out the ‘bad apples': the logic of secret police purges with evidence from Post-Communist Poland'. See also Professor Nalepa's discussion with Miranda Melcher about her latest Cambridge University Press release - After Authoritarianism: Transitional Justice and Democratic Stability on the NBN. Monika Nalepa's research focuses on transitional justice, parties and legislatures, and game-theoretic approaches to comparative politics. She teaches courses in game theory, comparative politics, and transitional justice at the University of Chicago. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Politics today is much more about the circus than about the bread˝”, says Péter Krekó in this week's #Forum2000online Chat. Mr. Krekó, Director of the Political Capital Institute, joined Sascha Hannig, a journalist and Research Assistant at the Institute for Global Governance Research (GGR), Hitotsubashi University, Japan, to talk about Hungary, Viktor Orbán and the “informational autocracy”. Why are the losers of the regime the most enthusiastic supporters? Why is Orbán a model for illiberals in the world? According to Péter Krekó, you will learn that: The concept of “informational autocracy” or “spin dictatorship” has been coined by Sergei Guriyev and Daniel Treisman. The key to such regimes is the manipulation of information.  Modern dictators tend to use information today more than violence and direct repression to keep themselves in power. There are no mass imprisonments, no killed journalists or political opponents, no banned political parties. Rather than terrorizing the population, the rulers use the official media as a “highly efficient brainwashing machinery” that practically can bring citizens to a different reality. There are more and more autocrats that look like democrats. They wear suits and not military uniforms, but at the same time can aggressively distort reality. In countries like Hungary, the losers of the regime —those who sometimes have no jobs, no social benefits, no flat— are the most enthusiastic supporters. The regime can give them some kind of symbolic reward (national pride, entertainment through the clashes with the EU and the big globalist forces). “Politics today is much more about the circus than about the bread˝. Upper middle classes are less happy about Orbán's regime than the losers because they have more and better information and higher education. Autocrats learn much more from each other than democrats do. The “autocratic international” of the populist forces works well. Victor Orbán is increasingly a model for illiberals in the world because he shows the way to success. Donald Trump is still a great inspiration for many people. If citizens do not have access to the basic information and live in an Orwellian world, in a totally distorted information environment, they cannot make informed decisions. And without informed decisions we cannot talk about democracy. Regarding the situation in Ukraine, there are two stages in the reaction of the European politics to the war. The first stage was about sympathy, condemning Russia and moral outrage due to the genocide, but we are entering the second stage where interest about Ukraine is declining and energy prices and inflation are high. This gives more room for politicians such as Orbán, Salvini, Meloni or Le Pen who say “let's stop the sanctions, let's stop supporting Ukraine, let's defend our own people” The interview was recorded in Prague on September 1, 2022, at the 26th Forum 2000 Conference. For more information about our activities follow our web and social media: Web: https://www.forum2000.cz  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/forum.2000 Twitter: https://twitter.com/Forum_2000

Sergei Guriev is a Russian economist. He serves as provost and professor of economics at the Instituts d'études politiques (Sciences Po) in Paris. From 2016 to 2019, he was the chief economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He is the co-author, with Daniel Treisman, of Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century.  In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sergei Guriev discuss why Russia's economy failed to modernize over the last two decades; why sanctions on the Russian economy have not been as effective as hoped; and how to fight back against spin dictators (and other authoritarian leaders). This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community  Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With Evidence Against Trump Piling Up, Why is he Not in Jail? | Today's Witness Describes a Psychotic Trump Strangling His Bodyguard and Throwing Dishes | An Update on the G-7 Summit Just Ending and the NATO Summit Just Beginning backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

In this conversation with RevDem editor Ferenc Laczó, Daniel Treisman – co-author, with Sergei Guriev, of Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century – discusses how ‘spin dictatorships' differ from ‘fear dictatorships'; why such a new form of dictatorship has emerged and spread in recent decades; what might explain the at times notable popularity of such regimes and whether they are likely to represent the wave of the future; and why an informed citizenry should be seen as crucial to the defense of liberal democracy.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century by Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman How a new breed of dictators holds power by manipulating information and faking democracy Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators―and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad, as well as from masters of high-tech repression like Xi Jinping. Offering incisive portraits of today's authoritarian leaders, Spin Dictators explains some of the great political puzzles of our time―from how dictators can survive in an age of growing modernity to the disturbing convergence and mutual sympathy between dictators and populists like Donald Trump.

A book talk with Daniel Treisman, Professor of Political Science, UCLA

The Philippines' Strongman Problem With the Return of the Marcos Kleptocracy | With No End in Sight, Putin Will Turn to More Drastic Means in Ukraine | The Christian Nationalist Takeover of Our Judicial System backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

(4-4-22)Join us when author Daniel Treisman examines his book Spin Dictators. Which traces how leaders have pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. While they have cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” on this installment of Leonard Lopate at Large.

How does modern authoritarianism work? Daniel Treisman joins host Richard Aldous to talk Putin, Xi, Lee Kwan Yew, and the tools of modern state control—all discussed in his new book, co-authored with Sergei Guriev, Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century.

Ukraine Calls Up Reservists as Putin Moves Forces Into Donbas | Will Putin Cross the Line of Control and Provoke a Shooting War With Ukraine? | Will Rudy Giuliani Give up Others Except Trump to the January 6 Committee? backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

As the White House Hosts a Summit for Democracy, American Democracy is Under Attack by the GOP | An Assessment of Today's Biden and Putin Virtual Summit | The Chances of Success For Trump's Social Media Venture Headed by Dairy Farmer and Loyalist Devin Nunes backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

A panel discussion with political scientists and Russia experts Kathryn Stoner andamp; Daniel Treisman.

A panel discussion with political scientists and Russia experts Kathryn Stoner and Daniel Treisman

With presidential term limits for Vladimir Putin nullified, has Russia become more authoritarian? What is the difference between "overt" and "informational" dictatorships? Do democracies – or the West as a political and cultural concept - still have the appeal they once had for the countries that emerged from the former Soviet Union? Does the left-right divide still make sense in today's world? Russia File's Maxim Trudolyubov discusses this and more with Daniel Treisman, a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The world has been adjusting to the information age for the last 50 years now. And so have its autocracies, according to our guest today. Daniel Treisman, political scientist at UCLA, says that illiberal leaders are building modern authoritarian regimes with a new set of tools to keep themselves in power. In the Fall 2019 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Treisman and his coauthor Sergei Guriev described these so-called informational autocrats, which no longer terrorize their citizens like traditional autocrats—if they can avoid it. Instead, these dictators suppress widespread knowledge of their own incompetence and criminal activity by manipulating major media outlets, disguising themselves as democracies, and hiding their violence. In such an atmosphere, unflattering stories about leaders tend not to reach the general public. Professor Treisman recently spoke with the AEA’s Tyler Smith about how informational autocrats retain their power, why they had to adapt, and how new coalitions may be able to fight back.

Thanks to Daniel Treisman the content has to be good! Thanks to Brene Brown we dare greatly! Keeping the consultancy ideally from the heart to the heart. And Lewis Howes share the kind inspirational deeds too!

My guest today bought a website for $330,000 and plans on selling it for a Billion Dollars! Daniel Treisman is the owner of Inquisitr.com an internationally recognized news website read by more than 25 million unique visitors each month. He has around 200 remote employees working for him around the world. Daniel is also involved in other ventures including Guru Media, Lifed.com, DreamSmoke, Healthpro among many others And get this … he manages all this whilst being a father to 8 children!   What you will learn: How to generate tons of leads with affiliate marketing How much you can earn as an online affiliate Why building a network so crucial to success in business How to use highly targeted online ads to grow your business Why giving to charity is the real secret to success   Interesting highlights: Daniel bought a website for $330,000 which he plans on selling for a Billion Dollars! One of Daniel’s websites has over 25 million hits a month Daniel was named the #1 online affiliate generating $100,000 a day in revenue!   Daniel’s #1 practical advice:  “Learn how to give and you will learn how to be successful”Tweet This Resources & Links: Inquisitr (http://inquisitr.com/) Guru Media (http://gurumedia.com/) Life Daily (http://www.lifedaily.com/)   (https://www.facebook.com/groups/canipickyourbrain)   Thank You for Listening! I would like to personally thank you for listening to my podcast.  If you enjoyed today’s show, please share it with others. Just click on the social buttons below. Also, if you podcast on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/can-i-pick-your-brain/id1076916148?mt=2) , you would be joining me on my mission to help as many people as I can become really successful. And finally if you haven’t already subscribed podcast on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/can-i-pick-your-brain/id1076916148?mt=2) , so you can get automatic updates whenever another episode goes live!

Over the past decade and a half, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been an economic dynamo and a basket case, an imperfect democracy and a tightening tyranny, a constructive diplomatic actor and a serial military aggressor—sometimes all at once. The only constant has been surprise, as the zigging and zagging has left outside observers, and even many Russians, scratching their heads. Today on the podcast, we’re discussing Putin’s strategy of repression, the real state of the Russian economy, and whether Putin really has a clear foreign policy.  Featuring interviews with authors Maria Lipman, Sergei Guriev, and Daniel Treisman.  Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Podbean, and Stitcher.  Visit ForeignAffairs.com for a full transcript.

Center for Social Theory and Comparative History (CSTCH) colloquium with panelists Volodymyr Ishchenko, Sociology, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy; Daniel Treisman, Political Science, UCLA; Tony Wood, History, New York University. Discussant: P

Generations of western leaders have puzzled over how to manage their nation's relationship with Russia – and headlines in recent months, especially from Ukraine, have only deepened this long-standing challenge.

A panel discussion with Robert English, USC, Daniel Treisman, UCLA, and Edward Walker, UC Berkeley.

A panel discussion with Robert English, USC, Daniel Treisman, UCLA, and Edward Walker, UC Berkeley.

A panel discussion with Robert English, USC, Daniel Treisman, UCLA, and Edward Walker, UC Berkeley.

Please join us for a panel discussion regarding the current crisis situation in Syria with panelists RAND Political Scientist Dalia Dassa Kaye, Global Security Seminar Director Bennett Ramberg, and UCLA Political Science Professor Daniel Treisman. This pa

Please join us for a panel discussion regarding the current crisis situation in Syria with panelists RAND Political Scientist Dalia Dassa Kaye, Global Security Seminar Director Bennett Ramberg, and UCLA Political Science Professor Daniel Treisman. This pa

A panel discussion regarding the current crisis in Syria with panelists UCLA Law professor Asli Bali, RAND Political Scientist Dalia Dassa Kaye and UCLA Political Science professor Daniel Treisman. This panel was moderated by UCLA Burkle Center Director K

A panel discussion regarding the current crisis in Syria with panelists UCLA Law professor Asli Bali, RAND Political Scientist Dalia Dassa Kaye and UCLA Political Science professor Daniel Treisman. This panel was moderated by UCLA Burkle Center Director K

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, journalists, academics, and policymakers have sought to make sense of post-Soviet Russia. Is Russia an emerging or retrograde democracy? A free-market or crony capitalism? Adopting Western values or forever steeped in Asiatic mores? Is Russia in transition, and if so, transition to what? Usually the answers to these questions are rooted in Russophilia or Russophobia, colored by teleological assumptions and crude stereotypes. As if to reaffirm Churchill’s quip that “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” too many find the nature of today’s Russia remains elusive. The first lines of Daniel Treisman‘s new book The Return: Russia’s Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev (Free Press, 2011) signifies a change of tone. Whatever Russia is, Treisman asserts, one indisputable fact is clear: “Russia has returned. Not to the West, of which it was never truly a part. But to the world.” Tresiman’s text is a refreshing, unbiased, and erudite exploration of the journey Russia has taken over the last twenty years. The Return begins with Gorbachev’s attempts to save the moribund Soviet system and ends with a sober evaluation of its achievements and problems. In between are discussions of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, and Medvedev as political personalities, the collapse of the USSR, the economic turmoil of the 1990s, the war in Chechnya, and US-Russian relations. With each step the reader is urged to rethink, speculate, and reevaluate many of myths about Russia’s past, present, and future. For these challenges, Treisman has done a great service. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, journalists, academics, and policymakers have sought to make sense of post-Soviet Russia. Is Russia an emerging or retrograde democracy? A free-market or crony capitalism? Adopting Western values or forever steeped in Asiatic mores? Is Russia in transition, and if so, transition to what? Usually the answers to these questions are rooted in Russophilia or Russophobia, colored by teleological assumptions and crude stereotypes. As if to reaffirm Churchill’s quip that “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” too many find the nature of today’s Russia remains elusive. The first lines of Daniel Treisman‘s new book The Return: Russia’s Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev (Free Press, 2011) signifies a change of tone. Whatever Russia is, Treisman asserts, one indisputable fact is clear: “Russia has returned. Not to the West, of which it was never truly a part. But to the world.” Tresiman’s text is a refreshing, unbiased, and erudite exploration of the journey Russia has taken over the last twenty years. The Return begins with Gorbachev’s attempts to save the moribund Soviet system and ends with a sober evaluation of its achievements and problems. In between are discussions of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, and Medvedev as political personalities, the collapse of the USSR, the economic turmoil of the 1990s, the war in Chechnya, and US-Russian relations. With each step the reader is urged to rethink, speculate, and reevaluate many of myths about Russia’s past, present, and future. For these challenges, Treisman has done a great service. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, journalists, academics, and policymakers have sought to make sense of post-Soviet Russia. Is Russia an emerging or retrograde democracy? A free-market or crony capitalism? Adopting Western values or forever steeped in Asiatic mores? Is Russia in transition, and if so, transition to what?... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, journalists, academics, and policymakers have sought to make sense of post-Soviet Russia. Is Russia an emerging or retrograde democracy? A free-market or crony capitalism? Adopting Western values or forever steeped in Asiatic mores? Is Russia in transition, and if so, transition to what?... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, journalists, academics, and policymakers have sought to make sense of post-Soviet Russia. Is Russia an emerging or retrograde democracy? A free-market or crony capitalism? Adopting Western values or forever steeped in Asiatic mores? Is Russia in transition, and if so, transition to what? Usually the answers to these questions are rooted in Russophilia or Russophobia, colored by teleological assumptions and crude stereotypes. As if to reaffirm Churchill’s quip that “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” too many find the nature of today’s Russia remains elusive. The first lines of Daniel Treisman‘s new book The Return: Russia’s Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev (Free Press, 2011) signifies a change of tone. Whatever Russia is, Treisman asserts, one indisputable fact is clear: “Russia has returned. Not to the West, of which it was never truly a part. But to the world.” Tresiman’s text is a refreshing, unbiased, and erudite exploration of the journey Russia has taken over the last twenty years. The Return begins with Gorbachev’s attempts to save the moribund Soviet system and ends with a sober evaluation of its achievements and problems. In between are discussions of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, and Medvedev as political personalities, the collapse of the USSR, the economic turmoil of the 1990s, the war in Chechnya, and US-Russian relations. With each step the reader is urged to rethink, speculate, and reevaluate many of myths about Russia’s past, present, and future. For these challenges, Treisman has done a great service. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices