Politics

Writing for The Financial Times, Prof. Esther Duflo makes the case that the following the legislative elections in France, politicians must come up with a new vision for the country that “combines production, redistribution and protection of the environment; that promotes respect and dignity of all people; that has the courage to lead the way on the big projects that France, Europe and the world need. Chief among them: fiscal reform, a just green transition, and a way to distribute the gains of growth in a more equitable way to all.”

Prof. David Autor speaks with New York Times reporter Jim Tankersley about the economic implications of President Biden’s decision to codify and escalate tariffs on Chinese goods. Autor’s “latest research warns of the economic perils of poorly designed trade policy, but it also explains why presidents might keep pursuing it,” explains Tankersley. 

Prof. Adam Berinsky speaks with Boston Globe reporter Aidan Ryan about misinformation in the age of generative AI. “I don’t think that AI is necessarily going to make misinformation better, in the sense of making it more persuasive,” says Berinsky.“But it’s easier to create misinformation.”

Prof. Charles Stewart III speaks with The Guardian reporter Rachel Leingang and Votebeat reporter Jen Fifield about restoring faith in the U.S. election process. Of hand-counting ballots, Stewart explains: “I don’t see any evidence that something like this [hand-counting votes] would be the silver bullet that would restore confidence among the mass public.”

Writing for The Hill, Sloan Prof. Catherine Wolfram and UCLA Prof. Kimberly Clausing explore why they feel U.S. politicians should embrace carbon pricing. “2025 will be a big year for Congress to tackle longstanding fiscal issues and further climate policy efforts,” they write. “Before this can happen, politicians need to hear timely arguments backed by up-to-date evidence.”

Researchers at MIT and elsewhere have found that high exposure to implausible and outlandish false claims can increase the belief in more ambiguous-seeming ones, reports Chris Stokel-Walker for Scientific American. The researchers “conducted five experiments with nearly 5,500 participants in all in which they asked these individuals to read or evaluate news headlines,” writes Stokel-Walker. “Across all the experiments, participants exposed to blatantly false claims were more likely to believe unrelated, more ambiguous falsehoods.”

Prof. Charles Stewart III and Ben Adida PhD ’06 speak with Fast Company reporter Spenser Mestel about how to restore the public’s faith in voting technology. Adida discusses his work launching VotingWorks, a non-profit focused on building voting machines. VotingWorks is “unique among the legacy voting technology vendors," writes Mestel. “The group has disclosed everything, from its donors to the prices of its machines.”

Los Angeles Times reporter Gustavo Arellano spotlights Democratic Senator Alex Padilla ’94 and his political career in California. Padilla “realized the only way to make things better for the Valley’s growing Latino community, in an era of anti-immigrant sentiment across California, was to elect politicians who looked like them,” writes Arellano.

Prof. Jon Gruber speaks with GBH hosts Jim Braude and Margery Eagan about the impact of political corruption on economics worldwide. The United States “has an incredibly dedicated, professionalized civil government,” says Gruber. “People go into government and spend much of their careers serving really the public good.”

Brian Deese, an MIT Innovation Fellow, speaks with CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin about the state of the U.S. economy. “Perceptions of the economy have gotten increasingly polarized along political lines, and so when you look at that polling around sentiment and the economy one of the things it reflects is that increasing polarization that we are seeing everywhere and reflected in that data,” says Deese. “But number two, we do know historically that as economic data improves it leads to improved sentiment and in general, the incumbents benefit from that.”

Prof. Adam Berinsky speaks with MSNBC’s Morning Joe about the impact of misinformation on democracy and the upcoming 2024 election. “The larger issue is that there is this climate of distrust,” says Berinsky. 

Prof. Emeritus Frank Levy and Louisiana State Prof. Scott Abrahams have published a working paper titled “The Revival of U.S. Populism: How 39 Years of Manufacturing Losses and Educational Gains Reshaped the Electoral Map,” reports Thomas B. Edsall for The New York Times. The paper makes “the case that polarization and institutional gridlock have roots dating back more than four decades,” explains Edsall.

MIT researchers have found that users of a tool developed to fight misinformation on X were “much more likely to fact-check posts expressing political views that differ from their own,” reports Victoria Elliott and David Gilbert for Wired.  Prof. David Rand explains, “while around 80 percent of the tweets that users chose to annotate were, in fact, misleading, users overwhelmingly tended to priorities political content.” 

Prof. Charles Stewart III speaks with Matter of Fact host Soledad O’Brien to explain the role and history of the Speaker of the House. “In a nation of people who are naysayers and distrusting of authority, distrusting of institutions and political parties, the American Congress remains the most capable parliamentary institution on this planet,” says Stewart.

In an article for The Hill, Prof. Arnold Barnett and Arnaud Sarfati MBA ‘21 examine whether Americans can trust the polling system in the U.S. “To put it simply, believe the polls, and pay particular attention to the local polls in toss-up states,” they write. “Pollsters that were broadly successful in the last presidential election are unlikely to fail colossally in the next one.”