Thought I'd toss out this video of Stephen Cohen talking about his book (with Brad DeLong) The End of Influence. The discussion frustrated me, because both discussants kept talking about how important politics was in shaping economic outcomes without ever mentioning how it was important, why it was important, what politics had to do with outcomes, how political incentives shaped history, or really anything substantive about politics. It's difficult to pull out any one wrong thing in it to pick on, mostly because the discussion is too vague to pin down any clear, consistent argument beyond "being in debt is a bad thing for America", but also because there are half-truths and "yeah, but..." moments throughout. And also because it's an hour long and basically everything said in it is incomplete, wrong, or begs a question that it doesn't answer.
For example: the title of the book is The End of Influence, and yet nowhere in the interview does Cohen explain how America has lost its influence or even defend the notion that it has. At the very end he actually says the opposite: that despite the financial crisis nothing much seems to be changing at all. Earlier, he argues that China is unable to use its massive dollar holdings to exert much influence, because that would require domestic political tradeoffs that they are not prepared to make. Umm... if you're giving an interview to promote a book with a provocative title, shouldn't you defend the thesis instead of arguing against it? At least a little bit?
I don't have time these days to actually, you know, read the book (oh summer, come quickly), but if the sentiments expressed by Cohen in this interview (and in the FP book excerpt) are the same as those in the book then I'm with Drezner: I wish they'd talked to some actual political scientists, rather than just pay lip-service to their existence.
(ht: DeLong)
IPE @ UNC
IPE@UNC is a group blog maintained by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed on these pages are our own, and have nothing to do with UNC.
Bookshelf
Tags
Academia Adjustment Afghanistan Africa AIG America Argentina Austerity Bailout Banking Bargaining Basel Bernanke Bias Blogging Business cycle; recession; financial crisis Cap and Trade capital controls capital flows central banks; moral hazard Chavez China China Trade Climate Change Contentious Politics Cuba Currencies Currency Crises; financial crisis Current Account Data Debt Debt; China; United States; Decession Politics Decoupling Deflation democracy Democrats; Trade policy development Diplomacy Dollar; China; Currency Manipulation; Exchange Rates dollar; exchange rate policy ECB ECB; Fed; Monetary Policy Economic Growth Economics Egypt election EMU; monetary union Environment EU; Agriculture; Common Agricultural Policy Euro Europe; labor; immigration European Union Exchange Rates Farm Bill; Agriculture FDI Fed; Monetary Policy finance financial crisis financial crisis; subprime Fiscal Policy; monetary policy; elections Fiscal Stimulus Foreign Aid Foreign Policy France Free Trade Agreements G-20 G20 Summit Game Theory Germany global recession globalization Grand Theory Great Britain Greece health care reform Hegemony Human Rights Iceland imbalance IMF immigration Incentives income distribution income inequality; globalization India Inequality inflation institutions Interests international finance International Law International Monetary System International Relations Investment IPE Iran Iraq Ireland ISA Italy Japan labor markets Latin America Libya Macroeconomics Marxism Mexico Microfinance Miscellany monetary policy Monetary policy; Federal Reserve moral hazard Narcissism Networks Nobelist Smackdown North Korea Obama Oil PIGS Pirates Political Economy Political Methodology Political Science Political Survival Political Theory Power Protectionism Protests Public Choice Public opinion Rational Choice regulation Research Review Russia Sanctions Security Dilemma security threats Soccer Social Science Sovereign Debt Spain Sports Statistics stock markets Systems Tariffs TARP Taxes TBTF Technocracy technology terrorism Trade trade policy UNC Unemployment United States US-South Korea Venezuela WTO WTO; Doha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(478)
-
▼
February
(45)
- The Non-End of Influence
- International Relations
- Politics isn't the Dispassionate Quest for Truth
- Hell Freezes Over
- Economics of the Somali Pirate Business Model
- Who Wants to Elect a President?
- Tragedy of the Day
- Update on 4% Inflation Target
- A Little Light Game Theory (Greek Sovereign Debt E...
- It's the Economy, Stupid. Or Is It Politics?
- Inconsistent Thoughts on Time-Inconsistency Problems
- US Navy and Pirates!
- African Coups and Colonels
- Quote of the Day
- Envy, Altruism, and Trade Policy
- Transparency and Missing Data
- One Last ISA Post
- Fact of the Day
- Welcome
- ISA
- Why do governments buy companies when they could j...
- New Stata Data Repository
- Delayed Live-Blogging of the IR and Blogging Panel
- Game Day
- Where Dat?
- Damn Greeks (or Why Germany Never Wanted EMU in th...
- The IMF Doesn't Like Inflation Any More than the F...
- ISA
- Don't Make Governance Political
- The New Cold War
- Quote of the Day
- Vreeland on the "Bad Ass" Theory of Dictators and ...
- Quote of the Day
- Fly the Flag
- ECB on Wire
- Coulda Seen This One Coming
- Is Greece Too Big to Fail?
- PIRATES!
- It Depends on Your Posterior Distribution
- Predicting History
- No Way Out?
- What Does Unsustainable Mean?
- There Is No Resource Curse
- Courage
- Ice, Ice, Baby (or a Lesson in Bureaucracy)
-
▼
February
(45)
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The Non-End of Influence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Re: "basically everything said in it is incomplete, wrong, or begs a question that it doesn't answer."
For example?
I really can't recall when I have read a less substantive comment than this one...
Brad DeLong
Funny, the next two words after the ones you quoted are "For example", and then I give one. A pretty important one, I think, since I'm accusing your coauthor of arguing against his own thesis.
Or if you don't like that one, maybe you could try this one: if a parallel of the current US/China relationship is the US/Japan relationship of the 1980s (as Cohen claims), then on what grounds are you claiming the end of US influence? Are we all ruled by Japan now?
If you want substantive comments, then make substantive arguments. If you want to say that US policy has become a slave to SWF, then say so. If you want to say that US foreign policy is controlled by China, then say so. If you want to say that politics matters in determining economic policy, then say how it matters. Be explicit. Don't insinuate. And try not to contradict yourself. At least not in the same interview.
I shouldn't have to tell you this.
Post a Comment