The competence of elected officials affects state performance and economic growth, yet it is often difficult to find high human capital, representative citizens willing to put themselves forward as political candidates. We analyze an intervention designed to address this challenge that combines structured community nominations, private screening of technocratic skills, and information provision to political parties in advance of local elections in Sierra Leone.  Estimates show that this successfully identifies individuals who are higher quality and enjoy broader local support than incumbents and status quo candidates.  While new to elected politics, these individuals remain elite, drawn from traditional chiefly families. One quarter of top nominees formally enter politics, positively self-selected on quality and boosted by an encouragement nudge.  Their entry improves the maximum quality observed in the potential candidate pool and among those selected onto the parties’ lists. These results provide proof of concept that there are better people out there willing to run.  

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Katherine Casey is a professor of political economy at Stanford Graduate School of Business and the faculty director of the King Center on Global Development. Her research explores the interactions between economic and political forces in lower-income countries, with particular interest in the role of information in enhancing political accountability, the influence of foreign aid on economic development, and the provision of local public infrastructure. Her regional focus is Sub-Saharan Africa.

Why did the Soviet Union organize regular elections, national and local, with one candidate and reported 99.9% support with 99.9% turnout? Were the Soviet citizens so stupid that they did not understand that they have no say in choosing their government? The Reverse Cargo Cult metaphor explains why dictators tell their citizens lies that citizens know to be lies: a verifiable lie told by a politician changes citizens' perceptions of politicians and reduces their willingness to replace them. The model explains the mechanics of authoritarian propaganda that puts much emphasis on persuading citizens about foreign politicians.

Konstantin Sonin is the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. His research interests include political economics, economic theory, and conflict. 

Sonin earned MSc and PhD in mathematics from Moscow State University and MA in economics from Moscow’s New Economic School (NES). Before joining the University of Chicago, he served on the faculty and as a vice-president of the New Economic School and HSE University in Moscow. Over two decades, he has guest-lectured in dozens of universities, summer schools, and high schools across Russia and worked part-time as a teacher of economics in a high school.

His research has been published in leading academic outlets in economics and political science. In addition to academic work, Sonin blogs, tweets, and op-eds on Russian political and economic issues. In May 2024, Russian authorities sentenced him to 8.5 years in prison (in absentia) for posting information about the atrocities committed by Russian occupying forces in the town of Bucha in Ukraine.

European state development is often used as a model for the emergence of modern nation-states and the international state system. Yet despite many accounts seeking to explain how the European state developed, there is disagreement about fundamental concepts, including what counts as “Europe” and which polities qualify as “states.” This paper examines the implications of different definitions of the European state for our understanding of political development. We give special consideration to political fragmentation, long viewed as a critical prerequisite for Europe’s development of pro-democratic and growth-promoting political institutions. We find that the distinct measures lead to very different conclusions, undermining the idea of European state formation as a uniform process.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Anna Grzymała-Busse is a professor in the Department of Political Science, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and the director of The Europe Center. Her research interests include political parties, state development and transformation, informal political institutions, religion and politics, and post-communist politics.

In her first book, Redeeming the Communist Past, she examined the paradox of the communist successor parties in East Central Europe: incompetent as authoritarian rulers of the communist party-state, several then succeeded as democratic competitors after the collapse of these communist regimes in 1989.

Rebuilding Leviathan, her second book project, investigated the role of political parties and party competition in the reconstruction of the post-communist state. Unless checked by a robust competition, democratic governing parties simultaneously rebuilt the state and ensured their own survival by building in enormous discretion into new state institutions.

Anna's third book, Nations Under God, examines why some churches have been able to wield enormous policy influence. Others have failed to do so, even in very religious countries. Where religious and national identities have historically fused, churches gained great moral authority, and subsequently covert and direct access to state institutions. It was this institutional access, rather than either partisan coalitions or electoral mobilization, that allowed some churches to become so powerful.

Drawing from the author’s latest book, Jordan: Politics in an Accidental Crucible (Oxford University Press, 2025), this talk explores how the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan incubates the historical struggle for democracy in the Arab world. Here, the authoritarian monarchy has never suffered revolution or regime change. Yet the economy struggles, there is neither water nor oil, and perpetual protests punctuate the streets. An invention of British colonialism, the kingdom’s fragile borders are still buffeted by refugee crises and regional conflict, and its geopolitical fate has become encaged by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Through it all, Jordan’s past and present deliver astonishing narratives of democratic resilience. Opposition forces within society have long battled to transform their autocratic regime—only to be blunted by repression, statecraft, and Western interests. Yet these dreams and demands persist today, making Jordan a surprising fulcrum for the balance of democracy in the Middle East.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Sean Yom is Associate Professor of Political Science at Temple University and Senior Fellow at Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN). His research explores the dynamics of authoritarian institutions, economic development, and US foreign policy in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Jordan, Morocco, and the Gulf. His most recent books include Jordan: Politics in an Accidental Crucible (Oxford University Press, 2025) and The Political Science of the Middle East: Theory and Research since the Arab Uprisings (co-edited with Marc Lynch and Jillian Schwedler; Oxford University Press, 2022).; Oxford University Press, 2022). He sits on the editorial board of the International Journal of Middle East Studies and the editorial committee of Middle East Report. He is also a former Stanford CDDRL Postdoctoral Fellow (2009-10). AB, Brown University (2003); PhD, Harvard University (2009).