Long time Scott fan. My favorite is Scott's early work on corruption which I assigned to a generation of policy students. That work explained the essential functions corruption played in development of some of our oldest democratic institutions. Quite a change from almost everything else scholars wrote about the topic. This idea that there were positive externalities to corruption drove many of the usual corruption scholars crazy. Like most of Scott's work he tried to explain things through the eyes average people, what people experienced rather than how elites hoped society was supposed to work.
I understood his early work as key part of a movement in political science to look at how people experienced government rather than just describing how what and why government did and how people got elected.
Another note: Scott began his academic career at Wisconsin where a number of scholars began looking at policy from the ground up. You can see similarities with Michael Lipsky's analysis of Street level Bureaucracy, Ken Dolbeare's look at how people experienced local courts, Scheingold's work on rights, Pressman's work on implementation etc.
Scott of course pushed this envelope further and probably more successfully than most. But we should not forget that he was part of movement that forced scholars to take a broader and in my opinion far better way look at how people experienced The State, government, public policy, etc
Regarding noncompliant bureaucrats: I have a lot of stories to tell—I work within the wider UN system which is subject to quixotic, and at times clumsy, but much needed reform efforts. Luckily, we are not exactly staffed by “mountain people”. Something will give.
Long time Scott fan. My favorite is Scott's early work on corruption which I assigned to a generation of policy students. That work explained the essential functions corruption played in development of some of our oldest democratic institutions. Quite a change from almost everything else scholars wrote about the topic. This idea that there were positive externalities to corruption drove many of the usual corruption scholars crazy. Like most of Scott's work he tried to explain things through the eyes average people, what people experienced rather than how elites hoped society was supposed to work.
I understood his early work as key part of a movement in political science to look at how people experienced government rather than just describing how what and why government did and how people got elected.
Another note: Scott began his academic career at Wisconsin where a number of scholars began looking at policy from the ground up. You can see similarities with Michael Lipsky's analysis of Street level Bureaucracy, Ken Dolbeare's look at how people experienced local courts, Scheingold's work on rights, Pressman's work on implementation etc.
Scott of course pushed this envelope further and probably more successfully than most. But we should not forget that he was part of movement that forced scholars to take a broader and in my opinion far better way look at how people experienced The State, government, public policy, etc
Outstandingly interesting conversation, thank you.
Regarding noncompliant bureaucrats: I have a lot of stories to tell—I work within the wider UN system which is subject to quixotic, and at times clumsy, but much needed reform efforts. Luckily, we are not exactly staffed by “mountain people”. Something will give.
Bureaucrats? Weapons of the weak? I have nooo idea what you mean.
In seriousness, fascinating discussion butting Scott’s work up against contemporary issues and technologies. Found it very valuable!
thanks for a great discussion