Mark Blyth - Impact Interviews

Summary

---

LSE: Public Lectures and Events – Impact Interviews

Episode: Mark Blyth on Making Political Science Research Matter

Date: July 31, 2013
Host: Sierra Williams (LSE Film and Audio Team)
Guest: Mark Blyth (Professor of Economics, Brown University; Author, "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea")
Interviewer: Joel Suss (Editor, LSE Politics and Policy blog)

---

Overview

This episode explores how political science research can become more accessible and influential with policymakers and the public. Mark Blyth offers frank, insightful commentary on why economists often hold more sway than historians or political scientists, the pitfalls of academic insularity, and how research could be reshaped for real-world impact—especially in relation to economic policy and austerity debates.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Do Economists Get Heard More Than Historians or Political Scientists?

• Math as Authority:
  • Economists’ use of dense mathematics often lends an aura of certainty that policymakers find persuasive.
  • Historians, by contrast, tend to present nuanced, multi-factor explanations that feel inconclusive to non-specialists.
• Quote – The Power of Math:
  • “It's filled with math, it must be true... You pick up an econ paper... introduction's pretty straightforward... then it dissolves into math. So then you skip 20 pages, you get to the end and you say, I have shown conclusive evidence with a high R squared that this is what happens... It's just an easier digestible thing.”
    — Mark Blyth [01:01]
• Historians and Political Scientists:
  • Their work often lacks the simple, forceful presentation found in economics, making it less attractive and accessible to policymakers.

2. The Problem of Disciplinary Silos

• Academic Insularity:
  • Researchers often write only for academic peers, engaging in a kind of "Scholasticism" that is irrelevant to practical policy.
  • This inward focus is sustained by the academic publishing system—if not for graduate student requirements and bundled journal sales, many journals would not survive.
• Quote – On Disciplinary Echo Chambers:
  • “You get this kind of like Scholasticism, slash 19th century German philosophy, where it's Professor X's commentary on Professor Z's thesis about Professor Y's book, and nobody cares, right?”
    — Mark Blyth [02:02]
  • “If we actually had to sing for our supper, in terms of policy relevance, it would be a very, very different political science.”
    — Mark Blyth [02:46]

3. What Should Change?

• Clear Presentation:
  • Make arguments simple, direct, and meaningful beyond the academic community.
• Break From Disciplinary Conversation:
  • Step outside insular debates to engage issues of real-world importance using accessible language.
• Quote – On Prioritizing Policy-Relevance:
  • “Things are far too important to be left basically to abstract mathematicians.”
    — Mark Blyth [02:58]

4. Is Mark Blyth’s Work Having an Impact?

• It’s Difficult to Measure:
  • Blyth acknowledges that the influence of academic work on policy is often indirect and hard to quantify.
• Part of a Broader Movement:
  • He references other scholars—Paul Krugman, Stiglitz, Basu—who have been part of a growing, evidence-based critique against austerity.
• Challenging ‘Common Sense’ Economics:
  • The “intuitive” argument for austerity (reduce public spending to fix debt) must be questioned; he stresses the importance of explaining why economies are not like households, and how policy errors can be “self harm.”
• Quote – Breaking Through Misconceptions:
  • “There's something wonderfully intuitive about the story of, look, you've got too much debt, stop spending, but you need to take the next step and say... there's a paradox of thrift, there's a fallacy of composition... Economies are not like households.”
    — Mark Blyth [03:46]
  • “If this is really just self harm, let's just stop doing it. There's no good can come of it.”
    — Mark Blyth [04:30]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Feigned Certainty of Math in Economics
  “It's filled with math, it must be true.” — Mark Blyth [01:01]
• On Academic Insularity
  “If it wasn't for the existence of graduate programs where we make graduate students read our stuff, half the journals in the field would be dead.” — Mark Blyth [02:24]
• On the Need for Change
  “Things are far too important to be left basically to abstract mathematicians.” — Mark Blyth [02:58]
• On Changing Minds and Policy
  “There's something wonderfully intuitive about the story of, look, you've got too much debt, stop spending—but you need to take the next step...” — Mark Blyth [03:46] “If this is really just self harm, let's just stop doing it.” — Mark Blyth [04:30]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:25] – How can political science research be more accessible?
• [00:39] – Why economists are listened to and the ‘math effect’
• [01:01] – The gap between presentation in economics and history/political science
• [02:02] – The echo chamber and irrelevance of academic debates
• [03:07] – Is Mark Blyth's work having a policy impact?
• [03:46] – Explaining the flaws in intuitive economic “common sense”
• [04:30] – Final remarks on stopping self-defeating policies

---

Takeaways

• Academics must rethink how they communicate; clarity and relevance trump insular jargon.
• Economists’ dominance comes from perceived objectivity and simple presentation, not necessarily from more robust evidence.
• Policy-changing ideas require accessible, compelling arguments—and directly confronting popular misconceptions, especially on economic issues like austerity.

---

Transcript

[Sierra Williams]

You're listening to Impact Interviews. I'm Sierra Williams. Joel Suss, editor of our sister blog LSE Politics and Policy, recently sat down with Mark Blythe, author of the History of a Dangerous Idea and professor of economics at Brown University, to discuss how to increase the reach of political science research.

[Joel Suss]

First Twitter or Twitter followers to pose you some questions. Here's one from Matt Wood, a PhD researcher in governance at the University of Sheffield. He asks, how can political scientists make their work more accessible to policymakers and the public?

[Mark Blythe]

First one, Dress up in math. The funny thing is that there's a historian who made this point. I don't know who he is. He was a British historian and I heard the story and it makes so much sense. He said, why is it the historians who actually know stuff about planet Earth never got listened to, whereas economists who live in an entire world of mathematical theorems that actually may or may not gel onto the world at certain points in time, we could talk about that, but they're really powerful.

[Sierra Williams]

Now.

[Mark Blythe]

Is it because policymakers can read papers that need a knowledge of linear algebra and calc2? No. Can their advisors read that? More likely not. So what happens? Well, basically you pick up an econ paper and what it does, it says, here's a paper where I'm going to show that when you cut public spending, it actually leads to growth. And you get an introduction. It's pretty straightforward, it's pretty logical, whatever. And then it dissolves into math. So then you skip 20 pages, you get to the end and you say, I have shown conclusive evidence with a high R squared that this is what happens, blah, blah, blah. So it's just an easier digestible thing. It's filled with math, it must be true. Now you pick up a history paper and it says, you know, so what's really the truth about the Germans and the inflation phobia? Well, on the one hand, on the other hand, there's these factors and you could take this analysis and you plow through 50 pages and at the end of it you're still none the wiser. So a lot of it basically has to do with simple presentation of the argument. And that's why economists get listened to. I'm really convinced of this because it's certainly not because there's really robust evidence, because if you go through a lot of this stuff, particularly the cases of so called expansion asperity, it's simply not the case. What else do you need to do? Simplify. Stop the disciplinary conversation for a minute. It's fine that you basically want to talk to your peers. But the problem with disciplines is they create silos. And if all you're doing is responding to the latest theoretical bell and whistle that Professor X has produced, you get this kind of like Scholasticism, slash 19th century German philosophy, where it's Professor X's commentary on Professor Z's thesis about Professor Y's book, and nobody cares, right? At the end of the day, particularly for political science, frankly, if it wasn't for the existence of graduate programs where we make graduate students read our stuff, half the journals in the field would be dead. And if it wasn't for, like, the cable TV model of journal purchasing that makes libraries purchase hundreds of journals at once, most of them wouldn't be around. So if we actually had to sing for our supper, in terms of policy relevance, it would be a very, very different political science. I would like our model to change, to be more like that, because things are far too important to be left basically to abstract mathematicians. Thanks.

[Joel Suss]

I just. I guess one last quick question related to this is do you believe that your work, your publishing of this book, you know, the video that you prod, Is this having an effect on policy? Is it having an impact?

[Mark Blythe]

It's very hard to tell. But as Paul Krugman name drop, Paul Krugman name drop said in the New York Review of Books article, I mean, how the Case for Austerity Crumbled. This book is just one part of a whole series of academic and other studies that are coming out now that basically show that this doesn't add up. So you got Basu's book on the body, Economic How Austerity Kills. This one comes out poison. Paul Krugman's own earlier work, Stiglitz's work, all the rest of it, There's a whole bunch of people who have been pushing back on this. So this is just one part of it. I mean, I'm one voice in the chorus, but it's, you know, I hope it's powerful as an intervention. I hope. Most of all, I hope that it changes reasonable people's minds because there's something wonderfully intuitive about the story of, look, you've got too much debt, stop spending, but you need to take the next step and say, yeah, but there's a paradox of thrift. There's a fallacy of composition. What happens if we all stop spending? Then you just shrink the economy, end up with more debt. Economies are not like households. Households do not get to issue their own script. Right? The Blythe family does not get to import people into the family and tax their children three generations down the line. There is no secondary market in Mark Blythe debt that I issue to myself. So you've got to break through these utterly fallacious categories and change the tenor of the conversation. Because if it's really harmful, if this is really just self harm, let's just stop doing it. There's no good can come of it.

[Sierra Williams]

That was Professor Mark Blythe. You can hear more of Joel's interview with Mark on the British Politicast episode on [e-mail] and of course, for more on the visibility and diversity of social science research, visit lseimpact.com I'm Sierra Williams. Thanks for listening.

[Sam]

Sam.