Meet Our Researchers: Lisa Blaydes
Meet Our Researchers: Lisa Blaydes
Understanding how rulers, elites, and institutional incentives shape long-term political stability with Professor Lisa Blaydes.
The "Meet Our Researchers" series showcases the incredible scholars at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). Through engaging interviews conducted by our undergraduate research assistants, we explore the journeys, passions, and insights of CDDRL’s faculty and researchers.
Lisa Blaydes is a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University. She is the author of State of Repression: Iraq under Saddam Hussein (Princeton University Press, 2018) and Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak’s Egypt (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Professor Blaydes received the 2009 Gabriel Almond Award for best dissertation in the field of comparative politics from the American Political Science Association for this project. Her articles have appeared in the American Political Science Review, International Studies Quarterly, International Organization, Journal of Theoretical Politics, Middle East Journal, and World Politics. During the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic years, Professor Blaydes was an Academy Scholar at the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies. She holds degrees in Political Science (PhD) from the University of California, Los Angeles, and International Relations (BA, MA) from Johns Hopkins University.
Below is a summary of our conversation.
Could you share your academic trajectory — what initially drew you to the field and how that led to your work at Stanford and CDDRL?
Professor Lisa Blaydes explained that her initial interest stemmed from a broad curiosity about how the world operates politically. Early on, she was drawn to international relations, but later realized that her interests aligned more closely with comparative politics than with international conflict or policy. Encouraged by a faculty mentor, Prof. Blaydes pursued a PhD in political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she found a strong intellectual environment for comparative politics. Over time, her research interests evolved significantly, shaped both by academic exposure and later by experiences at Stanford University and a postdoctoral period at Harvard University.
Do students need to enter graduate school with clearly defined research interests? How did you navigate that process?
Prof. Blaydes emphasized that research interests are often shaped by the intellectual environment of graduate school rather than being fixed beforehand. In her case, the prominence of institutional analysis in the PhD program pushed research toward political institutions. Prof. Blaydes noted that research trajectories continue to evolve even at advanced career stages, both methodologically and theoretically.
Importantly, she highlighted that not knowing one’s exact research direction at the outset is not only acceptable but preferable. Many projects only became clear after engaging directly with fieldwork, archival research, or data collection. This allows research questions to emerge endogenously, reducing confirmation bias and enabling more grounded scholarship.
How should we understand the role of fragmentation versus centralization in state formation?
Prof. Blaydes argued that fragmentation plays a foundational role in the development of strong institutions. Specifically, fragmentation and decentralization reduce the power of centralized rulers, fostering a political culture of executive constraint. This culture is critical for the later emergence of durable institutions, including democracy.
However, Prof. Blaydes clarified that fragmentation alone is not sufficient. Strong states are still necessary for effective governance and capacity. The key lies in sequencing: societies benefit from an initial phase of fragmentation that establishes executive constraint, followed by the development of centralized state capacity. In Prof. Blaydes’s view, both elements are necessary, but fragmentation must come first to produce stable and accountable institutions.
How can political culture arguments avoid becoming essentialist?
Prof. Blaydes defined political culture not as something rooted in geography or religion, but as a set of incentive structures that enable elites to constrain rulers. In this framework, political culture emerges from institutional conditions rather than inherent societal traits.
Prof. Blaydes emphasized that such cultures can arise in diverse contexts, provided that power differentials between rulers and elites are sufficiently reduced. However, in historically entrenched centralized states, this process is more difficult because rulers tend to remain far above other elites, limiting opportunities for constraint.
Is geography deterministic in shaping political outcomes?
Prof. Blaydes rejected deterministic interpretations of geography. Instead, geography was described as having probabilistic effects — it increases the likelihood of certain political outcomes without making them inevitable. Terrain and resource distribution can shape whether states tend toward centralization or fragmentation, but institutional and historical contingencies remain critical.
Is there a trade-off between state capacity and institutional durability?
Prof. Blaydes suggested that the relationship is not necessarily a direct trade-off but can be understood in terms of differences in political structures and ruler–elite dynamics. Systems with strong central authority may achieve high capacity but lack mechanisms for constraint, whereas more decentralized systems may develop more durable institutions over time.
Why would rulers adopt systems of alien rule (e.g., Mamluks)?
Prof. Blaydes explained that rulers often adopt such strategies to secure loyalty. Foreign elites are less tied to local populations and therefore more dependent on the ruler, making them appear more reliable.
However, Prof. Blaydes noted that this creates long-term instability. While individual rulers may perceive these arrangements as beneficial, over time, such elites can coordinate and overthrow rulers. Individual rulers may not recognize this pattern due to short time horizons and limited information, meaning the instability only becomes visible in aggregate historical data.
Does leadership quality decline over time within dynasties?
Prof. Blaydes argued that leadership quality often declines across generations within dynasties. Founders tend to possess exceptional capabilities, but these traits are not consistently transmitted to successors. Drawing on Ibn Khaldun, Prof. Blaydes noted that ruling groups often lose their initial cohesion and strength over time, becoming vulnerable to replacement by new elites.
Prof. Blaydes also suggested that assimilation into society may contribute to this decline by enabling coordination among subjects against rulers.
Do religious institutions independently shape political outcomes?
Prof. Blaydes took an endogenous view, arguing that religion does not independently determine political outcomes. Instead, religious institutions reflect broader social and political dynamics. Religious elites may either constrain or reinforce the state depending on their relationship with political authority, particularly whether they possess independent sources of power or revenue.
