What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas.
The public intellectual, as a person and ideal, has a long and storied history. Writing in venues like the New Republic and Commentary, such intellectuals were always expected to opine on a broad array of topics, from foreign policy to literature to economics. Yet in recent years a new kind of thinker has supplanted that the thought leader. Equipped with one big idea, thought leaders focus their energies on TED talks rather than highbrow periodicals.
How did this shift happen? In The Ideas Industry, Daniel W. Drezner points to the roles of political polarization, heightened inequality, and eroding trust in authority as ushering in the change. In contrast to public intellectuals, thought leaders gain fame as single-idea merchants. Their ideas are often laudable and highly ending global poverty by 2025, for example. But instead of a class composed of university professors and freelance intellectuals debating in highbrow magazines, thought leaders often work through institutions that are closed to the public. They are more immune to criticism--and in this century, the criticism of public intellectuals also counts for less.
Three equally important factors that have reshaped the world of ideas have been waning trust in expertise, increasing political polarization and plutocracy. The erosion of trust has lowered the barriers to entry in the marketplace of ideas. Thought leaders don't need doctorates or fellowships to advance their arguments. Polarization is hardly a new phenomenon in the world of ideas, but in contrast to their predecessors, today's intellectuals are more likely to enjoy the support of ideologically friendly private funders and be housed in ideologically-driven think tanks. Increasing inequality as a key driver of this more than ever before, contemporary plutocrats fund intellectuals and idea factories that generate arguments that align with their own. But, while there are certainly some downsides to the contemporary ideas industry, Drezner argues that it is very good at broadcasting ideas widely and reaching large audiences of people hungry for new thinking. Both fair-minded and trenchant, The Ideas Industry will reshape our understanding of contemporary public intellectual life in America and the West.
How did this shift happen? In The Ideas Industry, Daniel W. Drezner points to the roles of political polarization, heightened inequality, and eroding trust in authority as ushering in the change. In contrast to public intellectuals, thought leaders gain fame as single-idea merchants. Their ideas are often laudable and highly ending global poverty by 2025, for example. But instead of a class composed of university professors and freelance intellectuals debating in highbrow magazines, thought leaders often work through institutions that are closed to the public. They are more immune to criticism--and in this century, the criticism of public intellectuals also counts for less.
Three equally important factors that have reshaped the world of ideas have been waning trust in expertise, increasing political polarization and plutocracy. The erosion of trust has lowered the barriers to entry in the marketplace of ideas. Thought leaders don't need doctorates or fellowships to advance their arguments. Polarization is hardly a new phenomenon in the world of ideas, but in contrast to their predecessors, today's intellectuals are more likely to enjoy the support of ideologically friendly private funders and be housed in ideologically-driven think tanks. Increasing inequality as a key driver of this more than ever before, contemporary plutocrats fund intellectuals and idea factories that generate arguments that align with their own. But, while there are certainly some downsides to the contemporary ideas industry, Drezner argues that it is very good at broadcasting ideas widely and reaching large audiences of people hungry for new thinking. Both fair-minded and trenchant, The Ideas Industry will reshape our understanding of contemporary public intellectual life in America and the West.
344 pages, Hardcover
Published April 3, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
June 19, 2017
In 2003 essays from Europe’s leading intellectual lights such as Jurgen Habermas and Jacques, Derrida appeared in magazines across the continent. The pieces examined Europe’s future in light of America’s invasion of Iraq. What was most unprecedented about them was not their subject or array of stars behind them, but rather that, unlike anytime in Europe’s recent past, they went largely unnoticed.
The decline of public intellectuals is not a new story, but it’s often a misunderstood one. In his fascinating new book The Ideas Industry, Dan Drezner tries to explain why. How is it that TED Talks are rapidly consumed yet academia is in decline? That we have more avenues for debate and opinion than ever before, but less and less respect for those with expertise?
Drezner, a wannabe public intellectual of credible claim, argues that eroding public trust in institutions, political polarization and especially rising inequality are changing how the ‘marketplace of ideas’ works in America. He charts the decline of think tanks, rise of corporate consulting and the —at best— stagnation of academia. Where some fields such as Economics boom and others like Political Science struggle to be heard.
This book is both bold and fair. Pleasingly, Drezner names names. He discusses the successes and failures of the Sachs’, Friedman’s, Ferguson’s, and Zakaria’s of this world. He traces how Heritage sold its credibility down the river, yet temporarily increased its policy influence. To his credit though, as Jill Lepore perceptively notes on the back cover, he never takes the cheap shot, but assumes at least a measure of good faith in most of those he discusses.
It is easy to mock TED talks. But the problem Drezner says is not the talkers themselves. Rather, it’s the lack of some form of review/discussant to strengthen reliability. There is also the problem of the audience themselves, particularly the wealthy elite whose funding largess is creating incentives for thinkers to become ‘thought leaders’ – single minded optimists with a plan— as opposed to ‘public intellectuals’ – dour critics who might range over a variety of fields.
Some of the trends described in this book have not yet reached Australian shores. Our think tank community remains small and particularly in foreign policy it strives for the non-partisan centre. Other forces, such as the rise of corporate consulting are still emerging. Though it’s already an avenue the Department of Defence heavily relies on. The book’s picture of academia however felt dead on. As someone in the same field as Drezner (International Politics), I found much to agree with in his descriptions of a discipline lost and confused about its relationship to government and society.
I have long thought that the focus on theory and jargon was an impediment to policy influence. But I’m increasingly persuaded by Drezner and other scholars that it need not be. Economics after all is far more technical and exclusionary to outsiders than the humanities, yet its influence has never been stronger. Indeed, despite the clear failures to predict the Global Financial Crisis, or advise a clear way back, Economics seems undimmed. It has become the sought after disciplinary foundation for aspiring intellectuals, in the way linguistic was a generation before.
All of these factors amount to a picture of an ‘ideas industry’ which is in trouble – and our society with it. In Part III of the book, Drezner makes an interesting move reminiscent of Karl Popper. Rather than focus on the need for greater justification of the pseudo-science claims that proliferate, he believes the real need for more elimination of bad ideas. He writes: ‘In the Ideas Industry as it is currently constituted, there are many booms, few busts, and even fewer intellectual bankruptcies.’
Change will be difficult, especially if it is as tied to broad social factors such as inequality as Drezner suggests (but doesn’t quite demonstrate). I would agree with him that responsibility must however fall first and primarily on universities and think tanks. These established institutions need to ‘revive their institutional prestige’, helping to act as one source of gatekeepers and arbiters of quality. This role does not mean preventing others from speaking, but it could help increase the intellectual churn that keeps those at the top honest and weeds out the bad and mendacious ideas. This role however means more not less public engagement, and fewer honorary degrees for sport stars.
I remain ultimately on the side of John Stuart Mill —who Drezner engages often. More contributions to our public sphere can only be a good thing, and while there are problems, I am confident we will find ways to improve. There was no golden age before, and the authoritarians lure of a quiet, contemplative future is a dangerous mirage. Give me this rambunctious environment any day. The problem is not so much that the ‘bad guys’ are fighting hard (they always do), it’s that the rest of us need to do more to push back. Being aware of the lay of the land is a necessary first step, and to that end, Drezner has produced a useful manuscript.
The decline of public intellectuals is not a new story, but it’s often a misunderstood one. In his fascinating new book The Ideas Industry, Dan Drezner tries to explain why. How is it that TED Talks are rapidly consumed yet academia is in decline? That we have more avenues for debate and opinion than ever before, but less and less respect for those with expertise?
Drezner, a wannabe public intellectual of credible claim, argues that eroding public trust in institutions, political polarization and especially rising inequality are changing how the ‘marketplace of ideas’ works in America. He charts the decline of think tanks, rise of corporate consulting and the —at best— stagnation of academia. Where some fields such as Economics boom and others like Political Science struggle to be heard.
This book is both bold and fair. Pleasingly, Drezner names names. He discusses the successes and failures of the Sachs’, Friedman’s, Ferguson’s, and Zakaria’s of this world. He traces how Heritage sold its credibility down the river, yet temporarily increased its policy influence. To his credit though, as Jill Lepore perceptively notes on the back cover, he never takes the cheap shot, but assumes at least a measure of good faith in most of those he discusses.
It is easy to mock TED talks. But the problem Drezner says is not the talkers themselves. Rather, it’s the lack of some form of review/discussant to strengthen reliability. There is also the problem of the audience themselves, particularly the wealthy elite whose funding largess is creating incentives for thinkers to become ‘thought leaders’ – single minded optimists with a plan— as opposed to ‘public intellectuals’ – dour critics who might range over a variety of fields.
Some of the trends described in this book have not yet reached Australian shores. Our think tank community remains small and particularly in foreign policy it strives for the non-partisan centre. Other forces, such as the rise of corporate consulting are still emerging. Though it’s already an avenue the Department of Defence heavily relies on. The book’s picture of academia however felt dead on. As someone in the same field as Drezner (International Politics), I found much to agree with in his descriptions of a discipline lost and confused about its relationship to government and society.
I have long thought that the focus on theory and jargon was an impediment to policy influence. But I’m increasingly persuaded by Drezner and other scholars that it need not be. Economics after all is far more technical and exclusionary to outsiders than the humanities, yet its influence has never been stronger. Indeed, despite the clear failures to predict the Global Financial Crisis, or advise a clear way back, Economics seems undimmed. It has become the sought after disciplinary foundation for aspiring intellectuals, in the way linguistic was a generation before.
All of these factors amount to a picture of an ‘ideas industry’ which is in trouble – and our society with it. In Part III of the book, Drezner makes an interesting move reminiscent of Karl Popper. Rather than focus on the need for greater justification of the pseudo-science claims that proliferate, he believes the real need for more elimination of bad ideas. He writes: ‘In the Ideas Industry as it is currently constituted, there are many booms, few busts, and even fewer intellectual bankruptcies.’
Change will be difficult, especially if it is as tied to broad social factors such as inequality as Drezner suggests (but doesn’t quite demonstrate). I would agree with him that responsibility must however fall first and primarily on universities and think tanks. These established institutions need to ‘revive their institutional prestige’, helping to act as one source of gatekeepers and arbiters of quality. This role does not mean preventing others from speaking, but it could help increase the intellectual churn that keeps those at the top honest and weeds out the bad and mendacious ideas. This role however means more not less public engagement, and fewer honorary degrees for sport stars.
I remain ultimately on the side of John Stuart Mill —who Drezner engages often. More contributions to our public sphere can only be a good thing, and while there are problems, I am confident we will find ways to improve. There was no golden age before, and the authoritarians lure of a quiet, contemplative future is a dangerous mirage. Give me this rambunctious environment any day. The problem is not so much that the ‘bad guys’ are fighting hard (they always do), it’s that the rest of us need to do more to push back. Being aware of the lay of the land is a necessary first step, and to that end, Drezner has produced a useful manuscript.
September 22, 2017
The most interesting thing about this book is that it challenges the reader to rate it lower. Is this intellectual or academic lite? Perhaps for all but a few people, those concepts are synonymous.
But not for Drezner, who looks at intellectuals and sees greater nuance. He divides ideas peddlers into (optimistic and energetic) thought leaders and (skeptical, probing) public intellectuals, a cute distinction. Seth Godin seems more thought leader than intellectual, while David Brooks is more intellectual than thought leader. Academics can be one or the other, but not both at the same time. Niall Ferguson, for example, used to be an intellectual but has cashed in as an oft discredited thought leader now. Ultimately, academics tend to be intellectual. TED talks, with their deafening applause but complete absence of questions, are thought leader events, and perhaps many other conventions are as well. Drezner would argue that there needs to be room for at least some form of peer review or critique.
One of my favorite sections is when Drezner uses this distinction to point out that economists may have more influence than political scientists because the former are more likely to be less sophisticated thought leaders. (Remember that thought leaders are also more likely to get paid. I wonder if we just listen to wealthy people and it turns into a feedback loop.) Political scientists are more likely to be intellectuals capable of speaking truth to both power and money.
Drezner is at his best assessing the current ideas industry and disarming critiques that it is barren of ideas. I found his argument that the current market is more crowded convincing. He argues that it gives the illusion that there are fewer major thinkers today. The opposite is true, but there are so many that they sort of crowd each other out from mainstream authority. I'd point out that the monoculture's fragmentation also means that intellectuals, no matter how convincing or thorough, will appeal to more of a niche market. He values autonomous universities and think tanks, but worries that both have become less independent.
There is a discussion of Twitter, but no mention of podcasts -- the academic always seems so far behind the times in this book. Because they take the time to assess structure and background, they take more time to say anything. Ironically, Drezner points out, based on his experience, that private industries and those who work in policy for the government often are ahead of academics -- not only faster but their analyses are more relevant, more convincing, and better presented. The best defense of the academy is that it looks at structure and often dismisses the individual. For better or worse, this is why individual plutocrats and political leaders dismiss academics -- no one wants to be told that they and their choices are irrelevant.
The conclusion includes anecdotal reflection in which Drezner outlines his career as a scholar, an intellectual, and as someone who worries that he is becoming a superficial but engaging thought leader. As I read this final account, I found myself thinking about Ryan Holiday's Trust Me I'm Lying. It's possible that both texts should be on a Media Literacy list. The book convinces the reader that intellectuals should enjoy a higher status in our society, while also convincing the reader that intellectuals should enjoy a lower status in our society.
But not for Drezner, who looks at intellectuals and sees greater nuance. He divides ideas peddlers into (optimistic and energetic) thought leaders and (skeptical, probing) public intellectuals, a cute distinction. Seth Godin seems more thought leader than intellectual, while David Brooks is more intellectual than thought leader. Academics can be one or the other, but not both at the same time. Niall Ferguson, for example, used to be an intellectual but has cashed in as an oft discredited thought leader now. Ultimately, academics tend to be intellectual. TED talks, with their deafening applause but complete absence of questions, are thought leader events, and perhaps many other conventions are as well. Drezner would argue that there needs to be room for at least some form of peer review or critique.
One of my favorite sections is when Drezner uses this distinction to point out that economists may have more influence than political scientists because the former are more likely to be less sophisticated thought leaders. (Remember that thought leaders are also more likely to get paid. I wonder if we just listen to wealthy people and it turns into a feedback loop.) Political scientists are more likely to be intellectuals capable of speaking truth to both power and money.
Drezner is at his best assessing the current ideas industry and disarming critiques that it is barren of ideas. I found his argument that the current market is more crowded convincing. He argues that it gives the illusion that there are fewer major thinkers today. The opposite is true, but there are so many that they sort of crowd each other out from mainstream authority. I'd point out that the monoculture's fragmentation also means that intellectuals, no matter how convincing or thorough, will appeal to more of a niche market. He values autonomous universities and think tanks, but worries that both have become less independent.
There is a discussion of Twitter, but no mention of podcasts -- the academic always seems so far behind the times in this book. Because they take the time to assess structure and background, they take more time to say anything. Ironically, Drezner points out, based on his experience, that private industries and those who work in policy for the government often are ahead of academics -- not only faster but their analyses are more relevant, more convincing, and better presented. The best defense of the academy is that it looks at structure and often dismisses the individual. For better or worse, this is why individual plutocrats and political leaders dismiss academics -- no one wants to be told that they and their choices are irrelevant.
The conclusion includes anecdotal reflection in which Drezner outlines his career as a scholar, an intellectual, and as someone who worries that he is becoming a superficial but engaging thought leader. As I read this final account, I found myself thinking about Ryan Holiday's Trust Me I'm Lying. It's possible that both texts should be on a Media Literacy list. The book convinces the reader that intellectuals should enjoy a higher status in our society, while also convincing the reader that intellectuals should enjoy a lower status in our society.
May 14, 2018
This is a super important book that could have been better-written. It's sort of all over the place and then the last third sort of gets to the point. The main problem is that the book isn't about the ideas industry at all or a take-down of TED talk phenomenon (which is what I thought it would be about according to the jacket). But what it is about is just as important--the bloated and cocky public intellectual circuit and the need for the likes of Ferguson and Friedman to be more humble. I also really liked what he had to say about the incentives in the academy to not make your work readable by the public and the media's distrust of the academy. I've felt both of those. But I wanted him to go deeper into each topic instead of bringing up a lot of important issues without going deeply into one. But in Drezner's defense, he says it's much better to be a fox than a hedge-hog. It's just that the book seemed like it was a hedge-hoggy type of tome.
April 28, 2021
If you work in the ideas industry you should read this book. If not, then sure read it but I'm in too deep to have any sense on whether you'll like it.
Drezner creates a useful framework by dividing ideas professionals into two categories: Public Intellectuals and Thought Leaders. (He provides appropriate caveats about the gray area between the two and that it is possible to bounce back and forth, but the framework is useful for analysis). In the ideas industry you generally have thought leaders offering solutions and public intellectuals critiquing those ideas.
Thought leaders are those with one big idea or “lens to explain the world, and then proselytize that worldview to anyone within earshot.” Also known as Hedgehog thinkers. Examples: Jeff Sachs, Clayton Christensen, Art Laffer. These tend to be big ideas people and optimists. But they also have a really big blind spots
Public intellectuals are more widespread, the focus on a lot of different ideas (e.g. your typical columnist, David Brooks). They tend to be critics, though they don’t have to be. They are Fox thinkers not too wedded to one worldview. They have fewer blind spots but tend to be pessimistic and not motivating.
3 trends are shaping the ideas industry market to be more favorable for thought leaders over public intellectuals at this time.
First: Erosion of trust in institutions. Previously if a big idea were proposed the public intellectuals at big institutions (NY Times, WSJ, The Fed, etc). could critique the idea and people would listen. It served to snuff out a lot of new ideas rather quickly. Today the declining trust in institutions means these critiques don’t carry weight, so thought leaders' ideas can take off more easily.
Second: Political Polarization creates segmented audiences that fervently support ideological purity. An ideologically pure thought leader can build a big audience that is willing to give time and money. At the same time, the thought leader is immune to any criticism from public intellectuals outside of her core audience. Even legitimate critiques get brushed aside as “they are attacking me cause I’m effective.”
Third: Income inequality. He argues income inequality means the wealthy have money to fund ideas while the poor do not. So thought leaders can be successful in catering to this audience of wealthy individuals. E.g Supply-side economics sounds really nice to a wealthy person. This doesn’t strike me as a new trend or change in the industry dynamic, it has always been the rich and powerful funding ideas. Sometimes those are rich from markets other times they are rich in power from politics and fund things via the public purse. Nonetheless, being cognizant of who is buying ideas and how that shapes the industry is important, in the US it is in fact a lot of wealthy individuals funding the ideas industry.
The result of these trends is an ideas industry very favorable to Thought Leaders—those with one big idea, theme, or solution that they prescribe to a range of issues. Public intellectuals have less power so there is less influence (and money) in critiquing new ideas.
He's humble in his solutions which I like in an author. It's a good book to understand the industry and come up with solutions or strategies that work for your career or organization.
Drezner creates a useful framework by dividing ideas professionals into two categories: Public Intellectuals and Thought Leaders. (He provides appropriate caveats about the gray area between the two and that it is possible to bounce back and forth, but the framework is useful for analysis). In the ideas industry you generally have thought leaders offering solutions and public intellectuals critiquing those ideas.
Thought leaders are those with one big idea or “lens to explain the world, and then proselytize that worldview to anyone within earshot.” Also known as Hedgehog thinkers. Examples: Jeff Sachs, Clayton Christensen, Art Laffer. These tend to be big ideas people and optimists. But they also have a really big blind spots
Public intellectuals are more widespread, the focus on a lot of different ideas (e.g. your typical columnist, David Brooks). They tend to be critics, though they don’t have to be. They are Fox thinkers not too wedded to one worldview. They have fewer blind spots but tend to be pessimistic and not motivating.
3 trends are shaping the ideas industry market to be more favorable for thought leaders over public intellectuals at this time.
First: Erosion of trust in institutions. Previously if a big idea were proposed the public intellectuals at big institutions (NY Times, WSJ, The Fed, etc). could critique the idea and people would listen. It served to snuff out a lot of new ideas rather quickly. Today the declining trust in institutions means these critiques don’t carry weight, so thought leaders' ideas can take off more easily.
Second: Political Polarization creates segmented audiences that fervently support ideological purity. An ideologically pure thought leader can build a big audience that is willing to give time and money. At the same time, the thought leader is immune to any criticism from public intellectuals outside of her core audience. Even legitimate critiques get brushed aside as “they are attacking me cause I’m effective.”
Third: Income inequality. He argues income inequality means the wealthy have money to fund ideas while the poor do not. So thought leaders can be successful in catering to this audience of wealthy individuals. E.g Supply-side economics sounds really nice to a wealthy person. This doesn’t strike me as a new trend or change in the industry dynamic, it has always been the rich and powerful funding ideas. Sometimes those are rich from markets other times they are rich in power from politics and fund things via the public purse. Nonetheless, being cognizant of who is buying ideas and how that shapes the industry is important, in the US it is in fact a lot of wealthy individuals funding the ideas industry.
The result of these trends is an ideas industry very favorable to Thought Leaders—those with one big idea, theme, or solution that they prescribe to a range of issues. Public intellectuals have less power so there is less influence (and money) in critiquing new ideas.
He's humble in his solutions which I like in an author. It's a good book to understand the industry and come up with solutions or strategies that work for your career or organization.
Read
March 19, 2017The figure depicting the results of a survey on most influential foreign policy intellectuals will stay with me as a reminder of white, American dude-fests still governing foreign policy and knowledge-making.
I enjoyed Drezner's approach and reflections, though I wish sometimes he had driven the points about power and credibility (and yes, the ways in which they are structurally hierarchical/gendered/radicalized etc) home. All in all, a valuable read for aspiring academics and/or foreign policy thinkers.
I enjoyed Drezner's approach and reflections, though I wish sometimes he had driven the points about power and credibility (and yes, the ways in which they are structurally hierarchical/gendered/radicalized etc) home. All in all, a valuable read for aspiring academics and/or foreign policy thinkers.
October 6, 2021
Easy to read book on the state of idea expression. It doesn’t focus on the conferences, as I initial believed. Instead, it focuses on the people behind the distribution of the ideas – the intellectuals and the thought leaders. The author distinguishes these two types, with the first being the kind that can apply intellectual thought anywhere and the kind that would in the past show up as the intellectual on, say, “The Dick Cavett Show”, on a regular basis and speaking on a variety of topics. The perfect talk show guest. The thought leader is more of a one-trick pony, focusing on a single topic. Think of the famous author who writes books that are very similar, never far afield from the previous one. There appears to be more one-trick ponies nowadays. But I wonder if there is a dearth of talk shows with intellectual hosts driving this conclusion. I’d read more by the author.
May 1, 2019
This is a book by a political scientist specializing in international relations. It was suggested in a recent book on new trends in socially oriented management (Winners Take All). The point is to chronicle the changes in the “Marketplace of Ideas” relating to political science that has made it more of a business in which the professors and pundits are more into selling their intellectual products or give lucrative speeches rather than they are in studying ideas and problems on their own terms. Due to the growth of the internet and social media, as well as such crises as the 2001 attacks and the 2008 financial crises, there have been changes in intellectual life that have led to the devaluation of traditional experts and the proliferation of thought leaders who are talking to specialized partisans and who are funded by the politically active 1% donors who sponsor customized bespoke research to fit their needs. The result of all this is that it has become increasingly difficult to scholars have their voices heard and to exercise that influence on policy that they once did. This in turn has led to a deterioration of public policy discourse and has results in poorer and poorer policy choices.
The book is useful in sorting out some of the dynamics by which policy scholars work. The discussion of the current landscape of experts, thought leaders, public intellectuals, policy makers is useful and mildly informative, especially how these trends have grown bigger since the financial crises and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The analysis of the relative prosperity of economics versus political science in the idea business is also reasonably on target. If a reader does not work in academia or its related fields, this is a decent introduction to how these strange businesses work.
Overall, I was hoping for more from the book. There has always been a tension between the academic and policy oriented sides of the social sciences. There has long been a lure of different side businesses that can supplement meager academic pay, including consulting, litigation support, writing for royalties, or even being a guru of some sort. The different academic disciplines differ among themselves in the opportunities available to their entrepreneurially minded members. The presence of these areas of activity beyond traditional academia are not new, however. Current developments in punditry, such as TED talks and the like, also have their antecedents such as the speaker circuits in the Guilded Age, although the current environment does appears to much higher stakes and stresses.
The book is well written and easy to follow. The author’s advice of how to avoid trouble on the Internet, blogs, and comment boards is reasonable and rings true. There is a bit too much personal reflection for my tastes. Overall, it was a worthwhile read.
The book is useful in sorting out some of the dynamics by which policy scholars work. The discussion of the current landscape of experts, thought leaders, public intellectuals, policy makers is useful and mildly informative, especially how these trends have grown bigger since the financial crises and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The analysis of the relative prosperity of economics versus political science in the idea business is also reasonably on target. If a reader does not work in academia or its related fields, this is a decent introduction to how these strange businesses work.
Overall, I was hoping for more from the book. There has always been a tension between the academic and policy oriented sides of the social sciences. There has long been a lure of different side businesses that can supplement meager academic pay, including consulting, litigation support, writing for royalties, or even being a guru of some sort. The different academic disciplines differ among themselves in the opportunities available to their entrepreneurially minded members. The presence of these areas of activity beyond traditional academia are not new, however. Current developments in punditry, such as TED talks and the like, also have their antecedents such as the speaker circuits in the Guilded Age, although the current environment does appears to much higher stakes and stresses.
The book is well written and easy to follow. The author’s advice of how to avoid trouble on the Internet, blogs, and comment boards is reasonable and rings true. There is a bit too much personal reflection for my tastes. Overall, it was a worthwhile read.
December 13, 2020
有時候覺得蠻可怕，自己竟然讀這種書會覺得有趣~這是所謂知識分子熱衷的話題嘛XD，難怪會跟普羅大眾脫鉤，幾年前心裡還不明白知識界到底在爭論什麼，盡是討論一些枯燥乏味又神祕難解的議題，當時就很想要搞清楚這種”境界”的感受為何? 現在終於弄清楚了，還可以來記錄一些心得，順便分享幾個自己的觀察。
(1)
我知道這本書是因為讀了《贏家全拿: 史上最划算的交易，以慈善奪取世界的假面菁英》，書中有提及本書，所以就把它加到待讀清單，沒想到這種書台灣也會有中文版，英文版太消耗腦力了，所以一直沒動力閱讀，既然有出版社願意翻譯引介，一定得捧場一下。重點是本書譯者的功力高超，如此艱深的內文竟然可以翻譯得如此流暢!! 這是一本高品質的翻譯，雖然有一些錯別字，但整體的閱讀體驗非常爽快!
(2)
如果多讀幾本類似主題的書，你會發現很多書會互相引用，可以串在一起。例如《贏家全拿》算是商業書籍，它也有出現在《開拓者：企業的力量是改變世界最好的平台》這本書裡，連科技大拿都在讀。我感覺國外的閱讀浪潮也是一陣一陣，每一段時間就會有幾本書引起大家的討論，連Goodreads上面的讀者也是跟隨同樣的潮流。
我在Goodreads有追蹤一個網友叫Marks54，我感覺他可能是某間商學院的教授，讀的書是那種最頂級有深度的著作，他選的書根本西方知識界閱讀的隱性指標，我因為追蹤他寫的書評，發現了許多優秀的書獎或書單，如果你有在用Goodreads可以去查一下這位老兄~而且他也是那種會”延伸閱讀”的人，例如這本《話語權的世紀角力》，他也是因為《贏家全拿》提到它，從那本書延伸閱讀過來。每一本書末的Further Reading其實都值得瀏覽一下，文本是一張不斷擴充的網，附錄就像一個節點，可以幫助自己把閱讀的視角望得更遠。
(3)
牛津大學出版社(Oxford University Press，簡稱OUP)的出版品非常有影響力，不愧是世界級的學術機構，連出版部門都可以影響全球閱讀的品味，我第一次點進去他們的網站探索，就是因為研究所要寫報告，一路探索下來，驚嘆人類的智慧結晶，也懾服於OUP出版物的深度與廣度。如果你喜歡知識上的成長，可以去認識一下他們出版的Very Short Introductions書系，這一套作品應該是全世界最有系統性、最完整的初學者指南(不過雖然說是entry level，讀起來還是很像在讀學術論文啦O_O)。
OUP在香港也有分部，他們連中文出版品都是如此的有”質感”，一般人應該不會主動從書架拿下來的那種文學書(例如:董橋先生的書)，這種智識上的享受的確是很高的境界，但也有點象牙塔裡自high的錯覺…除了自我陶醉，我還沒有辦法在現實生活裡找到可以分享這種感受的人。
提到OUP是因為這一本《話語權的世紀角力》也是他們家出版��書籍，這一兩年逛書店，我覺得台灣好像有越來越多出版物都來自OUP(隨便舉例: 《紅心戀歌：20世紀兩場革命中的跨國愛情體驗》)，會引入一定代表有人會買，而且會讀的人一定都很有內涵，那為什麼那麼少人分享讀後感呢?! (murmur一下，有蠻多評鑑都是給一顆星，然後留下一句什麼錯字很多、翻譯不好…唉，有中文翻譯版已經很幸福了，就別那麼嚴苛了嘛，你看看香港，以後想看這種書都沒得看了。)
(4)
本書探討的對象為”思想產業”，隨著網路的普及，大眾獲得資訊的管道變多，使得思想產業蓬勃發展。什麼是思想產業呢? 簡而言之即生產、販售知識維生的一群人，媒體、大學、智庫…都能算是其中的一員。資本主義很神奇，將所有人類活動分門別類，劃分為一個一個產業，以獲取金錢為目的，每個產業都有它獨特的供需法則。
人類與動物最大的區別是人類會思考(供給)，思考的成果即知識，可是空有知識沒辦法填飽肚子，所以需要有人接收知識(需求)，這就是知識產業的基礎。我們心中都明瞭知識的價值，知識代表文明、氣質、涵養...精神生活也是人生的重要組成，不過想歸想，思想家也是需要賺錢過生活，所以如何把這些知識轉換成商品，就變成了一門高深的學問。
舉例來說，高等教育說穿了也是一個”產業”，教授努力產出論文，校方想辦法吸引最好的學生，才有學費支撐高等教育的開銷。當然高等教育也有啟發智識的目的，但純粹從經濟學的角度出發，姑且不論那些教育的美談，大學也像一間企業，當政府的教育經費日漸枯萎時，必須想方設法開源節流，才能生存下去。
資本主義運作的邏輯是不帶任何感情的，個人、機構、企業首要的目標就是營利，唯有如此才能生存，才有話語權。這跟馬斯洛的需求金字塔本質上都是一樣的，這個年代有錢就是王道，有錢就能隨心所欲。這已經是當代社會運作的基礎，所以思想產業也必須轉型，讓思想家們能夠從中獲益。
這本書深度分析了當代的思想產業，我覺得作者真厲害，可以把這種很玄的東西探究得如此深入。書中的資訊量很大，我讀得很慢，因為讀完每一段都要停下來思考一下。讀完這本書，你會重新思考”自己思考的模式”，這種感受很微妙，因為本書的內容會刺激你去審視什麼叫做”思考”。
舉一個例子，現在很流行意見領袖，演講時似乎都要引用意見領袖的話語，在一般人的認知裡，你只要引用他們說的話，馬上就會讓自己的演講變得很有份量，大大增添演講的可信度。例如跟行銷有關的演講，一定會播放Simon Sinek的黃金圈法則，或者是Malcolm Gladwell的一些理論。如果你是那種比較愛critical thinking的人，可能會覺得疑惑，他們說的話其實像廢話，可是透過包裝或模型化就變成一種奧妙的定律，聽眾如癡如醉的鼓掌叫好，覺得受到了神諭般的啟示。為了避免讓自己顯得憤世嫉俗，你也必須從眾的點頭稱是，隱藏自己內心的困惑。
其實這種感受很弔詭，你當然也知道意見領袖說的話的確有參考價值，但又覺得受到過度的吹捧了，所以只好反過頭來質疑自己是否太自視甚高? 假如你也曾經有類似上述的感受，讀這本書會給你很多的啟發，它讓你從另一種角度認識思考的本質。三言兩語難以言喻，令自己驚訝的是，我逐漸強迫自己接受一種事實，過去景仰的眾多理論、人物、機構，若務實的放在資本主義的框架下檢視，他們的地位就似乎就沒那麼崇高了，這是一種理想和現實妥協的結果，令人唏噓，但也打開自己思想上的另一扇窗，跳脫了大眾習以為常的認知領域，反而能看到思想上更多元的面貌。
總之，本書是一本發人深省的好書，如果你很喜歡思考，不排斥嚴肅的論述，它應該會給你許多意想不到的知識和啟發。
(1)
我知道這本書是因為讀了《贏家全拿: 史上最划算的交易，以慈善奪取世界的假面菁英》，書中有提及本書，所以就把它加到待讀清單，沒想到這種書台灣也會有中文版，英文版太消耗腦力了，所以一直沒動力閱讀，既然有出版社願意翻譯引介，一定得捧場一下。重點是本書譯者的功力高超，如此艱深的內文竟然可以翻譯得如此流暢!! 這是一本高品質的翻譯，雖然有一些錯別字，但整體的閱讀體驗非常爽快!
(2)
如果多讀幾本類似主題的書，你會發現很多書會互相引用，可以串在一起。例如《贏家全拿》算是商業書籍，它也有出現在《開拓者：企業的力量是改變世界最好的平台》這本書裡，連科技大拿都在讀。我感覺國外的閱讀浪潮也是一陣一陣，每一段時間就會有幾本書引起大家的討論，連Goodreads上面的讀者也是跟隨同樣的潮流。
我在Goodreads有追蹤一個網友叫Marks54，我感覺他可能是某間商學院的教授，讀的書是那種最頂級有深度的著作，他選的書根本西方知識界閱讀的隱性指標，我因為追蹤他寫的書評，發現了許多優秀的書獎或書單，如果你有在用Goodreads可以去查一下這位老兄~而且他也是那種會”延伸閱讀”的人，例如這本《話語權的世紀角力》，他也是因為《贏家全拿》提到它，從那本書延伸閱讀過來。每一本書末的Further Reading其實都值得瀏覽一下，文本是一張不斷擴充的網，附錄就像一個節點，可以幫助自己把閱讀的視角望得更遠。
(3)
牛津大學出版社(Oxford University Press，簡稱OUP)的出版品非常有影響力，不愧是世界級的學術機構，連出版部門都可以影響全球閱讀的品味，我第一次點進去他們的網站探索，就是因為研究所要寫報告，一路探索下來，驚嘆人類的智慧結晶，也懾服於OUP出版物的深度與廣度。如果你喜歡知識上的成長，可以去認識一下他們出版的Very Short Introductions書系，這一套作品應該是全世界最有系統性、最完整的初學者指南(不過雖然說是entry level，讀起來還是很像在讀學術論文啦O_O)。
OUP在香港也有分部，他們連中文出版品都是如此的有”質感”，一般人應該不會主動從書架拿下來的那種文學書(例如:董橋先生的書)，這種智識上的享受的確是很高的境界，但也有點象牙塔裡自high的錯覺…除了自我陶醉，我還沒有辦法在現實生活裡找到可以分享這種感受的人。
提到OUP是因為這一本《話語權的世紀角力》也是他們家出版��書籍，這一兩年逛書店，我覺得台灣好像有越來越多出版物都來自OUP(隨便舉例: 《紅心戀歌：20世紀兩場革命中的跨國愛情體驗》)，會引入一定代表有人會買，而且會讀的人一定都很有內涵，那為什麼那麼少人分享讀後感呢?! (murmur一下，有蠻多評鑑都是給一顆星，然後留下一句什麼錯字很多、翻譯不好…唉，有中文翻譯版已經很幸福了，就別那麼嚴苛了嘛，你看看香港，以後想看這種書都沒得看了。)
(4)
本書探討的對象為”思想產業”，隨著網路的普及，大眾獲得資訊的管道變多，使得思想產業蓬勃發展。什麼是思想產業呢? 簡而言之即生產、販售知識維生的一群人，媒體、大學、智庫…都能算是其中的一員。資本主義很神奇，將所有人類活動分門別類，劃分為一個一個產業，以獲取金錢為目的，每個產業都有它獨特的供需法則。
人類與動物最大的區別是人類會思考(供給)，思考的成果即知識，可是空有知識沒辦法填飽肚子，所以需要有人接收知識(需求)，這就是知識產業的基礎。我們心中都明瞭知識的價值，知識代表文明、氣質、涵養...精神生活也是人生的重要組成，不過想歸想，思想家也是需要賺錢過生活，所以如何把這些知識轉換成商品，就變成了一門高深的學問。
舉例來說，高等教育說穿了也是一個”產業”，教授努力產出論文，校方想辦法吸引最好的學生，才有學費支撐高等教育的開銷。當然高等教育也有啟發智識的目的，但純粹從經濟學的角度出發，姑且不論那些教育的美談，大學也像一間企業，當政府的教育經費日漸枯萎時，必須想方設法開源節流，才能生存下去。
資本主義運作的邏輯是不帶任何感情的，個人、機構、企業首要的目標就是營利，唯有如此才能生存，才有話語權。這跟馬斯洛的需求金字塔本質上都是一樣的，這個年代有錢就是王道，有錢就能隨心所欲。這已經是當代社會運作的基礎，所以思想產業也必須轉型，讓思想家們能夠從中獲益。
這本書深度分析了當代的思想產業，我覺得作者真厲害，可以把這種很玄的東西探究得如此深入。書中的資訊量很大，我讀得很慢，因為讀完每一段都要停下來思考一下。讀完這本書，你會重新思考”自己思考的模式”，這種感受很微妙，因為本書的內容會刺激你去審視什麼叫做”思考”。
舉一個例子，現在很流行意見領袖，演講時似乎都要引用意見領袖的話語，在一般人的認知裡，你只要引用他們說的話，馬上就會讓自己的演講變得很有份量，大大增添演講的可信度。例如跟行銷有關的演講，一定會播放Simon Sinek的黃金圈法則，或者是Malcolm Gladwell的一些理論。如果你是那種比較愛critical thinking的人，可能會覺得疑惑，他們說的話其實像廢話，可是透過包裝或模型化就變成一種奧妙的定律，聽眾如癡如醉的鼓掌叫好，覺得受到了神諭般的啟示。為了避免讓自己顯得憤世嫉俗，你也必須從眾的點頭稱是，隱藏自己內心的困惑。
其實這種感受很弔詭，你當然也知道意見領袖說的話的確有參考價值，但又覺得受到過度的吹捧了，所以只好反過頭來質疑自己是否太自視甚高? 假如你也曾經有類似上述的感受，讀這本書會給你很多的啟發，它讓你從另一種角度認識思考的本質。三言兩語難以言喻，令自己驚訝的是，我逐漸強迫自己接受一種事實，過去景仰的眾多理論、人物、機構，若務實的放在資本主義的框架下檢視，他們的地位就似乎就沒那麼崇高了，這是一種理想和現實妥協的結果，令人唏噓，但也打開自己思想上的另一扇窗，跳脫了大眾習以為常的認知領域，反而能看到思想上更多元的面貌。
總之，本書是一本發人深省的好書，如果你很喜歡思考，不排斥嚴肅的論述，它應該會給你許多意想不到的知識和啟發。
November 12, 2017
Drezner offers a fascinating survey into how public policy ideas are created, nurtured, and spread in U.S. intellectual circles. It's a clash between "thought leaders" and "public intellectuals. In the current environment thought leaders with big ideas try to become brands, while public intellectuals nip at them with criticisms of their ideas. Right now, the thought leaders are winning.
Drezner takes us through the universities, think tanks, and the evermore influential private sector of management consulting firms and political risk consultancies to understand the incentives and constraints people with each type of organization has to generate useful ideas.
Drezner takes us through the universities, think tanks, and the evermore influential private sector of management consulting firms and political risk consultancies to understand the incentives and constraints people with each type of organization has to generate useful ideas.
November 9, 2017
Spoiler: I'm "in" the Ideas Industry. That's part of why I was so excited about this book. I've worked for a business association, which advocates pro-business policy, conducts research, publishes reports, and hosts events with thought leaders. It makes the practical and philosophical issues raised in this book v. relevant because they are played out, very frequently, across industries and institutions.
When you're writing about trade policy with China, or taxes, or how to fund scientific research, you have to think about some of the questions Drezner raises: how does this fit into our message? Is there a way we can narrow/broaden our reach? Should we "play" on this issue?
The Ideas Industry is good because it interprets why TedTalks are so "in", who gets to be a commentator on CNN, whether or not think tanks will go out of business. To me, the best chapter by FAR was the one about the private sector's role in the Ideas Industry. He touches a lot on McKinsey's work (heyo Dominic Barton and the government of Canada!), but there's a lot more than that. As part of someone in this kind of space, it's good to get a deeper understanding of its history. It's growing pretty quickly, as non-consultant private-sector players get into this space. I've come up with a name for them: ThinkBanks (TM). Please share this language widely.
One thing to note, and possibly why I'm a bit more cautious to recommend it to a broader audience: there's a lot of political science theory chatter in this. I'm not sure if you need to be in the field to understand it, but his background is in foreign policy, so an understanding of the intellectual background of the space will help with the read, especially on the chapters devoted to changing trends in thought leadership. This was also, by far, the weakest section of the book.
I *get* that it was written juuuuust after the 2016 eletion, but there's no real discussion on the role of Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, or Sean Hannity as thought leaders - just the old stalwharts of Niall Ferguson and other mainstream people. It loses a whole star for not really exploring how fragmentation of thought leadership. Twitter gets a shout-out, but not Youtube?
You should probably message me for more of my thoughts on this stuff, since I've been rambling on for a bit. I'm going to give it 4 stars because it makes me think a lot, and i'm not aware of other books in this kind of space. But I think it needed a better editor to hammer the point home.
When you're writing about trade policy with China, or taxes, or how to fund scientific research, you have to think about some of the questions Drezner raises: how does this fit into our message? Is there a way we can narrow/broaden our reach? Should we "play" on this issue?
The Ideas Industry is good because it interprets why TedTalks are so "in", who gets to be a commentator on CNN, whether or not think tanks will go out of business. To me, the best chapter by FAR was the one about the private sector's role in the Ideas Industry. He touches a lot on McKinsey's work (heyo Dominic Barton and the government of Canada!), but there's a lot more than that. As part of someone in this kind of space, it's good to get a deeper understanding of its history. It's growing pretty quickly, as non-consultant private-sector players get into this space. I've come up with a name for them: ThinkBanks (TM). Please share this language widely.
One thing to note, and possibly why I'm a bit more cautious to recommend it to a broader audience: there's a lot of political science theory chatter in this. I'm not sure if you need to be in the field to understand it, but his background is in foreign policy, so an understanding of the intellectual background of the space will help with the read, especially on the chapters devoted to changing trends in thought leadership. This was also, by far, the weakest section of the book.
I *get* that it was written juuuuust after the 2016 eletion, but there's no real discussion on the role of Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, or Sean Hannity as thought leaders - just the old stalwharts of Niall Ferguson and other mainstream people. It loses a whole star for not really exploring how fragmentation of thought leadership. Twitter gets a shout-out, but not Youtube?
You should probably message me for more of my thoughts on this stuff, since I've been rambling on for a bit. I'm going to give it 4 stars because it makes me think a lot, and i'm not aware of other books in this kind of space. But I think it needed a better editor to hammer the point home.
November 10, 2017
The Ideas Industry began as an examination of all of the various people and institutions involved in creating, curating, and disseminating foreign policy ideas. Over the course of the writing of the book, it gradually broadened its focus to ideas of all kinds.
There is a lot to be said for this book, first and foremost that it exists at all. There are any number of books which critique the news and opinion media, and others that critique academia, and an even smaller number that critique think tanks and the "institution" of the thought leader and public intellectual. There are not very many books which investigate all of them as curators and distributers of public policy ideas. So this book is a welcome addition, because it collates a lot of important critiques in a single place. It is really helpful to compare and contrast the role that each of these institutions plays in crafting foreign policy thought.
Unfortunately, this book glosses over important distinctions between the world of foreign policy thought, and the broader arena of policy ideas generally. To be sure, there is a great deal in common between them - but there are also important distinctions. Almost by definition foreign policy is less immediate and less likely to have tangible impacts for the average citizen in the US. As a result the average citizen really has no choice but to rely heavily on the foreign policy experts for their assessment of one idea or another; or to tune out foreign policy debates altogether. That is, engagement with these sorts of ideas is likely to be very much bimodal, whereas engagement with domestic policy ideas is likely to be more normal. I don't think that distinction totally up-ends everything written in the book, but it does probably mean that Drezner's critiques miss some of the softened impact that each of these institutions have in domestic policy circles.
It's also interesting that this book closely tracks the mechanics of idea curation and distribution, but doesn't really investigate the way those ideas behave in the real world. Reading this book one might think that containment and democratic adventurism were fairly successful - after all they both circulated reasonably well in foreign policy institutions in their time. Both of these ideas also gave rise to two of the most disastrous wars in the last 50 years, in Vietnam and Iraq respectively. So where is the accountability within the system? Drezner does sort of address this question when he takes apart the rise and fall of Clayton Christensen's blockbuster book on disruptive technology. His point there is well taken, but it's odd, for a book on foreign policy, to completely ignore some of these disastrous failures of foreign policy thinking. How deep does this crisis in idea curation go, and what responsibility do thinkers have for their ideas, once they are actually enacted? Difficult to say!
Drezner is deeply concerned, and rightly so, with the influence of deep pockets on the world of policy ideas. But for all that I think he's a little blind to just how deep that influence goes: he seems pretty happy to go along with the fact that lower trade barriers are unanimously endorsed by leading thinkers, without pausing to consider whether those endorsements might have just a tinge of bias to them. (And he also ignores the sharp critque leveled at this policy from economists like Dean Baker, union leaders, etc.)
Indeed, the title of this book not only supports but actually extends the central metaphor we use to talk about the mechanics of public policy ideation. Whereas we once talked about these mechanics as a marketplace of ideas, Drezner critiques the ideas industry. If you accept the notion that ideation is a primarily economic activity, then the title makes a certain degree of sense. After all, Drezner is concerned with the decline of public intellectuals - people capable of critiquing ideas from a wide variety of domains - and the concomitant rise of thought leaders who make their living by promoting a single idea over and over. It's all very clever - public intellectuals are the small-time shopkeepers in the marketplace of ideas, thought leaders are the factories of the ideas industry. The only problem is that ideation is not primarily an economic activity, and the success or failure of an idea can't be measured like a stock price.
Perhaps the single best example in recent times is the Affordable Care Act. It began life as a proposal from the conservative Heritage Foundation, a response to Bill Clinton's attempt to overhaul the health insurance system. Massachusetts implemented the proposal at a statewide level in 2006, the result of a compromise between Republican Governor Mitt Romney and Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. In 2010 the fundamentals of this idea became law when a Democratic House and Senate passed it, and of course Democratic President Obama signed it. In 2017, Republicans with control of Congress and the Presidency tried mightily to repeal it, and failed in the face of overwhelming opposition from the progressive movement. So what do we make of this strange idea? In terms of actual policy it's an enormous success, having touched the lives of millions of people and enjoying pretty good popularity in the polls. At the same time it's a success that its "owner", the conservative movement, completely and totally disavows. That's not exactly the behavior of a typical economic product, but I don't think it's such an unusual trajectory for a public policy idea.
My view is that this central metaphor underlying the world of public policy ideation is simply very flawed, and perhaps even contributes to the same problems that Drezner bemoans. If ideation is an industry, then absolutely it makes sense to become a thought leader who markets her own idea to the exclusion of everything else. On the other hand if we think about ideation as a different kind of endeavor, with a different sort of metaphor - for example, public policy ideas are a way to investigate of the world around us, and therefore the world of ideation is like a giant laboratory - then we perhaps encourage very different types of behavior. Certainly, it's not Drezner's job to single-handedly up-end decades of practices in the world of ideation, but it's a little curious that he doesn't really question them, and in fact endorses them to some degree.
All that said - I found this book really fascinating, particularly as relates to the minutae surrounding the actual work involved in idea curation and distribution. The chapter on leading thought leaders (Fareed Zakaria and Niall Ferguson) was fairly illuminating in that regard. I also appreciated learning the term "heuristict punch", which applies to ideas that are readily understood and powerfully persuasive - it really stuck out at me as succinctly capturing what is really a complex phenomenon in writing and thought. And I quite enjoyed the discussion of what I'd call the granularity of certainty: academic writing is full of nuance and careful consideration, whereas popular writing requires clear, forceful conclusions. The difficulty of translating between one and the other turns out to be a significant stumbling block in making academic findings readily available to the lay public, and has a major impact on the way we distribute ideas.
On the whole, I'd certainly recommend this book to anyone who is curious about the mechanics of policy thought - but I would add that it's a bit uneven.
There is a lot to be said for this book, first and foremost that it exists at all. There are any number of books which critique the news and opinion media, and others that critique academia, and an even smaller number that critique think tanks and the "institution" of the thought leader and public intellectual. There are not very many books which investigate all of them as curators and distributers of public policy ideas. So this book is a welcome addition, because it collates a lot of important critiques in a single place. It is really helpful to compare and contrast the role that each of these institutions plays in crafting foreign policy thought.
Unfortunately, this book glosses over important distinctions between the world of foreign policy thought, and the broader arena of policy ideas generally. To be sure, there is a great deal in common between them - but there are also important distinctions. Almost by definition foreign policy is less immediate and less likely to have tangible impacts for the average citizen in the US. As a result the average citizen really has no choice but to rely heavily on the foreign policy experts for their assessment of one idea or another; or to tune out foreign policy debates altogether. That is, engagement with these sorts of ideas is likely to be very much bimodal, whereas engagement with domestic policy ideas is likely to be more normal. I don't think that distinction totally up-ends everything written in the book, but it does probably mean that Drezner's critiques miss some of the softened impact that each of these institutions have in domestic policy circles.
It's also interesting that this book closely tracks the mechanics of idea curation and distribution, but doesn't really investigate the way those ideas behave in the real world. Reading this book one might think that containment and democratic adventurism were fairly successful - after all they both circulated reasonably well in foreign policy institutions in their time. Both of these ideas also gave rise to two of the most disastrous wars in the last 50 years, in Vietnam and Iraq respectively. So where is the accountability within the system? Drezner does sort of address this question when he takes apart the rise and fall of Clayton Christensen's blockbuster book on disruptive technology. His point there is well taken, but it's odd, for a book on foreign policy, to completely ignore some of these disastrous failures of foreign policy thinking. How deep does this crisis in idea curation go, and what responsibility do thinkers have for their ideas, once they are actually enacted? Difficult to say!
Drezner is deeply concerned, and rightly so, with the influence of deep pockets on the world of policy ideas. But for all that I think he's a little blind to just how deep that influence goes: he seems pretty happy to go along with the fact that lower trade barriers are unanimously endorsed by leading thinkers, without pausing to consider whether those endorsements might have just a tinge of bias to them. (And he also ignores the sharp critque leveled at this policy from economists like Dean Baker, union leaders, etc.)
Indeed, the title of this book not only supports but actually extends the central metaphor we use to talk about the mechanics of public policy ideation. Whereas we once talked about these mechanics as a marketplace of ideas, Drezner critiques the ideas industry. If you accept the notion that ideation is a primarily economic activity, then the title makes a certain degree of sense. After all, Drezner is concerned with the decline of public intellectuals - people capable of critiquing ideas from a wide variety of domains - and the concomitant rise of thought leaders who make their living by promoting a single idea over and over. It's all very clever - public intellectuals are the small-time shopkeepers in the marketplace of ideas, thought leaders are the factories of the ideas industry. The only problem is that ideation is not primarily an economic activity, and the success or failure of an idea can't be measured like a stock price.
Perhaps the single best example in recent times is the Affordable Care Act. It began life as a proposal from the conservative Heritage Foundation, a response to Bill Clinton's attempt to overhaul the health insurance system. Massachusetts implemented the proposal at a statewide level in 2006, the result of a compromise between Republican Governor Mitt Romney and Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. In 2010 the fundamentals of this idea became law when a Democratic House and Senate passed it, and of course Democratic President Obama signed it. In 2017, Republicans with control of Congress and the Presidency tried mightily to repeal it, and failed in the face of overwhelming opposition from the progressive movement. So what do we make of this strange idea? In terms of actual policy it's an enormous success, having touched the lives of millions of people and enjoying pretty good popularity in the polls. At the same time it's a success that its "owner", the conservative movement, completely and totally disavows. That's not exactly the behavior of a typical economic product, but I don't think it's such an unusual trajectory for a public policy idea.
My view is that this central metaphor underlying the world of public policy ideation is simply very flawed, and perhaps even contributes to the same problems that Drezner bemoans. If ideation is an industry, then absolutely it makes sense to become a thought leader who markets her own idea to the exclusion of everything else. On the other hand if we think about ideation as a different kind of endeavor, with a different sort of metaphor - for example, public policy ideas are a way to investigate of the world around us, and therefore the world of ideation is like a giant laboratory - then we perhaps encourage very different types of behavior. Certainly, it's not Drezner's job to single-handedly up-end decades of practices in the world of ideation, but it's a little curious that he doesn't really question them, and in fact endorses them to some degree.
All that said - I found this book really fascinating, particularly as relates to the minutae surrounding the actual work involved in idea curation and distribution. The chapter on leading thought leaders (Fareed Zakaria and Niall Ferguson) was fairly illuminating in that regard. I also appreciated learning the term "heuristict punch", which applies to ideas that are readily understood and powerfully persuasive - it really stuck out at me as succinctly capturing what is really a complex phenomenon in writing and thought. And I quite enjoyed the discussion of what I'd call the granularity of certainty: academic writing is full of nuance and careful consideration, whereas popular writing requires clear, forceful conclusions. The difficulty of translating between one and the other turns out to be a significant stumbling block in making academic findings readily available to the lay public, and has a major impact on the way we distribute ideas.
On the whole, I'd certainly recommend this book to anyone who is curious about the mechanics of policy thought - but I would add that it's a bit uneven.
Read
March 20, 2018interesting book where the outspoken professor Daniel Drezner gives a no-holds-barred commentary regarding what he sees as the current status of the marketplace of ideas- "the array of intellectual outputs about foreign affairs". It seems social science intellectuals are in conflict over a very scarce resource- their esteem in the eyes of the public and of policymakers, and the resultant prestige, funding, and clout their ideas and very profession hold in the world.
On the one side, the author says, there are thought leaders, his fundamental example being Jeffrey Sachs, who burst into popular acclaim for pushing a single Big Idea. This Big Idea is simplified and buzzy and capture their essence in a ten-minute TED talk; however, they are so popular they bulldoze over counterarguing data and skeptical study, although after widespread implementation they turn out to be have ineffective or catastrophic results. Prof. Drezner cites Jeffrey Sachs' touted Millennium Villages program which the prodigy Sachs promised would revolutionize development economics and eradicate global poverty through a single, buzzy idea of having Western countries devote $250 billion each toward global aid. A decade of celebrity support later and this idea has been tested and, well, debunked: more careful studies show strong, stable governmental institutions are necessary conditions for initial investment drops for technological aids to blossom.
I think Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos is another example of a thought leader. She had a single buzzy Big Idea of mass-testing for hundreds of diseases through a single finger prick that more importantly, would bypass the need for doctors and expert knowledge and interpretation of lab results. But her idea was oversold and did not work.
Prof. Drezner contrasts thought leaders with public intellectuals, who harp more closely to traditional models of the intellectual as an academic professor, with long-gained expertise over the entire trove of his subject, and harbors skepticism and carefulness as a result of his training.
This book contains quite interesting opinions. One chapter discusses the stardom of economists in the pyramid of social science prestige, and the low status of political scientists. Obviously, Prof Drezner is a political scientist and he is not very happy about this arrangement. There are many reasons why economists somehow managed to place themselves in the apex; among them, an embrace of opaque mathematical and statistical tools that makes them look like they know what they're doing. But Drezner thinks economists are thought leaders, not public intellectuals, per his classification. It's because he thinks economists push a single buzzy idea-- such as "Free Trade"-- but fail to predict or manage their idea's catastrophic effects, such as the 2008 housing crisis and economic recession. In contrast, he thinks political scientists are devoted to systemic study, refusing to attribute 'mover and shaker' status to a single idea or single world leader.
It's an interesting and funny book if you want to look at how academics and intellectuals belonging to different social science subjects and classes fight for their ability to win public esteem and guide opinion in the marketplace of ideas. But it's not really a very urgent read for a general audience.
On the one side, the author says, there are thought leaders, his fundamental example being Jeffrey Sachs, who burst into popular acclaim for pushing a single Big Idea. This Big Idea is simplified and buzzy and capture their essence in a ten-minute TED talk; however, they are so popular they bulldoze over counterarguing data and skeptical study, although after widespread implementation they turn out to be have ineffective or catastrophic results. Prof. Drezner cites Jeffrey Sachs' touted Millennium Villages program which the prodigy Sachs promised would revolutionize development economics and eradicate global poverty through a single, buzzy idea of having Western countries devote $250 billion each toward global aid. A decade of celebrity support later and this idea has been tested and, well, debunked: more careful studies show strong, stable governmental institutions are necessary conditions for initial investment drops for technological aids to blossom.
I think Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos is another example of a thought leader. She had a single buzzy Big Idea of mass-testing for hundreds of diseases through a single finger prick that more importantly, would bypass the need for doctors and expert knowledge and interpretation of lab results. But her idea was oversold and did not work.
Prof. Drezner contrasts thought leaders with public intellectuals, who harp more closely to traditional models of the intellectual as an academic professor, with long-gained expertise over the entire trove of his subject, and harbors skepticism and carefulness as a result of his training.
This book contains quite interesting opinions. One chapter discusses the stardom of economists in the pyramid of social science prestige, and the low status of political scientists. Obviously, Prof Drezner is a political scientist and he is not very happy about this arrangement. There are many reasons why economists somehow managed to place themselves in the apex; among them, an embrace of opaque mathematical and statistical tools that makes them look like they know what they're doing. But Drezner thinks economists are thought leaders, not public intellectuals, per his classification. It's because he thinks economists push a single buzzy idea-- such as "Free Trade"-- but fail to predict or manage their idea's catastrophic effects, such as the 2008 housing crisis and economic recession. In contrast, he thinks political scientists are devoted to systemic study, refusing to attribute 'mover and shaker' status to a single idea or single world leader.
It's an interesting and funny book if you want to look at how academics and intellectuals belonging to different social science subjects and classes fight for their ability to win public esteem and guide opinion in the marketplace of ideas. But it's not really a very urgent read for a general audience.
May 5, 2020
This book is pretty good, but not great. A lot of it is just restating the obvious. It's no secret that there has been a loss of respect for academia, that rich people pay to hear what they want to hear, that the rest of us flock to news sources that regurgitate our prejudices, that digital media has sometimes reduced the intellectual quality of discourse and that for-profit enterprises have moved in on areas that were previously the domain of academics and non-profits. Drezner draws a distinction between old style public intellectuals -- smart gadflies who were unafraid to speak the truth -- and new style thought leaders, who dumb down their message and cater to various constituencies who force the prophet to temper his jeremiad. I don't know. I agree that there are trends in the directions that Drezner points, but sometimes he sounds a little thought leadery himself with the clear and simple disctinction that he draws between old and new. The good old days were not so good. I remember the televised political discussions between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal when I was a kid. They were two very bright guys with strong opinions but The Bill and Gore Show was pure theater meant more to entertain than to stimulate thinking. And today I can get the highest quality intellectual opinions at the touch of a button on the internet, if I spend five minutes with Google looking for them instead of just going again and again to the same old sites that only tell me what I want to be told.
In fairness Drezner acknowledges that the developments that he discusses are not all negative, that today there is a broader interest in intellectual discussion than there used to be, even though it may sometimes be dumbed down, one-sided and polarizing. He says more than once that where we are today is part of the normal evolution of media and society, that it has good points and bad, but the overall tone of his book is still puts him firmly on the side of the good old days. I guess we all feel more comfortable in the world we grew up in than in the strange new worlds that time thrusts upon us as we age.
In fairness Drezner acknowledges that the developments that he discusses are not all negative, that today there is a broader interest in intellectual discussion than there used to be, even though it may sometimes be dumbed down, one-sided and polarizing. He says more than once that where we are today is part of the normal evolution of media and society, that it has good points and bad, but the overall tone of his book is still puts him firmly on the side of the good old days. I guess we all feel more comfortable in the world we grew up in than in the strange new worlds that time thrusts upon us as we age.
July 22, 2017
I gave this book a 5-star rating because I found that it gave a very useful perspective on my own experiences working in the space between academia and business. Although I have a PhD and I did 1.5 years of post-doc, I opted to not work in academia within the social sciences because I felt that the field of psychology did not have the capacity to adapt quickly enough to help solve the complex problems that organisations are facing. On the other hand, the management consulting field can respond rapidly to the changing business context, but I have concerns that they potentially have blind-spots that remain unchecked, particularly with the ongoing proliferation of "new ideas" that are sold to vulnerable businesses who have an underlying fear of not changing "fast enough" or in the "right way". My experience tells me that we absolutely need to slow our thinking down and really start to notice what is happening for organisations in the current "ideas industry" context. So I agree with Drezner that there is a space between the two worlds of the public intellectual and the thought leader that we need to explore and work hard to occupy.
January 1, 2018
I read this book because I like Drezner's twitter-feed. It's not a bad book, but I really didn't get much out of it.
Drezner's basic contention is that how policy ideas are formed have change. The old model had non-partisan public policy institutes, but that's going by the wayside due to the rise of a new generation of public thinkers. It's a shift from old school public intellectuals to new school thought leaders. Three main things cause this change: 1) erosion of trust of pretty much all existing institutions, 2) increasing political polarization, and 3) increasing economic inequality which allows super-rich plutocrats to fund public thinkers to come up with ideas they like. Drezner doesn't really take a side on which model of public thought is better/worse, but basically says each are bad in different ways.
Like I said, I didn't really get much out of it.
Drezner's basic contention is that how policy ideas are formed have change. The old model had non-partisan public policy institutes, but that's going by the wayside due to the rise of a new generation of public thinkers. It's a shift from old school public intellectuals to new school thought leaders. Three main things cause this change: 1) erosion of trust of pretty much all existing institutions, 2) increasing political polarization, and 3) increasing economic inequality which allows super-rich plutocrats to fund public thinkers to come up with ideas they like. Drezner doesn't really take a side on which model of public thought is better/worse, but basically says each are bad in different ways.
Like I said, I didn't really get much out of it.
January 11, 2019
Not sure what to make of this one and I kept wishing a sociologist or anthropologist had written it, someone who could unpack the idea of "expertise". I do think he does a good job of showing how extreme income inequality has created a new generation of patrons who fund speakers and thinkers to uphold the status quo, and it was interesting to read about the political economy of think tanks in the US. But he doesn't interrogate race or gender at *all*, an especially frustrating overlook considering one of his main points was that thought leaders work from their own experience. This overlook also prevented him from really interrogating the multiplicity of publics - he seems to assume there is one "public." I also don't really buy his argument that economists have more power because they are more confident.
July 21, 2021
This book was not what I expected, but it was pretty good. Theres some weirdness looking into the "Ideas Industry" as it stood in early 2017 from the vantage point of 2021. Theres literally nothing about race (even Coates is only mentioned once and in passing) and he's wildly wrong about the impact of Trumpism (he's hopeful that partisanship would go down!). Theres also some skew towards International Relations.
But overall I think this book does a good job teasing out and highlighting interesting aspects of think tanks and thought leaders. I think a deeper dive on Ted or Aspen could have been interesting. Meritocracy Trap rhetoric could have also been an interesting addition to this book.
Worth a listen I think
But overall I think this book does a good job teasing out and highlighting interesting aspects of think tanks and thought leaders. I think a deeper dive on Ted or Aspen could have been interesting. Meritocracy Trap rhetoric could have also been an interesting addition to this book.
Worth a listen I think
May 28, 2017
This was an interesting book that started out well. The idea of the public intellectual and the thought leader as juxtaposed to one another was really quite interesting. But then it devolved into an analysis of thought Leaders with only a little bit of attention paid to public intellectuals. As a result, we have a book that is more about thought leaders than anything else. Perhaps this is the way it should be, perhaps this is the only way it could be. However, this book is less interesting for the fact that it is mostly about Thought Leaders with little or no attention paid to public intellectuals.
July 25, 2017
Dan Drezner's book on the Ideas Industry, coming in the age of Trump, had been highly recommended by some very smart people. The book on the decline of the marketplace on ideas, where ideas would be rigorously challenged and debated, and the rise of the 'Ideas Industry', an industry broadly created to produce ideas to support an ideology starts really well but is unable to maintain the level of debate. The book does a fine job in explaining the rise and sometimes fall of various 'thought-leaders' as well as the challenges faced today and in the immediate future while being sufficiently self-aware to not dabble in divination.
January 25, 2018
The focus of the book is political science, economics and foreign policy ideas in the American public sphere but certain themes apply to a variety of disciplines including scholarly engagement on social media. I found the last few chapters particularly interesting as they analyze why particular individuals and ideas achieve public prominence in the marketplace of ideas. I would have been interested to hear more analysis of the impact of the changing academic job market on public intellectuals. The audiobook is well read by Adam Grupper.
November 18, 2022
Despite a seemingly rushed conclusion, this book does illuminate various aspects of public discourse, with noteworthy discussion on the history of think tanks, the role of academia in policy debates, and how economists are able to effect a relatively large amount of influence.
I appreciated the attempt to distinguish between thought leaders and public intellectuals, though I question the way the latter was defined. Public intellectuals were described mainly as critics, and there was too little discussion of their role in generating solutions.
I appreciated the attempt to distinguish between thought leaders and public intellectuals, though I question the way the latter was defined. Public intellectuals were described mainly as critics, and there was too little discussion of their role in generating solutions.
October 10, 2017
Livro muito interessante. Trata basicamente do ataque da economia da atenção ao mundo dos cabeções. Mas trata principalmente das raízes da crise do pensamento complexo num mundo onde todo mundo quer respostas simples imediatas para tudo - especialmente quem banca o show. Explica muito sobre como fomos chegar a uma situação em que um artista de reality show vira presidente dos EUA e um prefeito que deixa semáforo apagado por seis meses quer ser presidente com base em videozinhos no Facebook.
January 21, 2022
I found the book helpful for understanding the difference between the types of thought leadership and how, in particular, we have moved away from cautious, evidence-backed debate to the less complicated and challenging forms of thought leadership. The phenomenon is played out in other domains, as well - such as journalism. A single, robust essay may have been sufficient for capturing the bulk of the book's value.
May 11, 2018
Wonderful book. On paper, the book focuses on political science and the US foreign policy intellectual scene. In practice, the narrative perfectly describes academic and industry research in very different sectors, like IT. Highly recommended to whoever interacts with thought leaders, industry analysts, influencers, and so on.
December 31, 2019
I would say this book is a waste of ink and paper but in this case it's just a waste of precious pixels. The fact that Drezner has a following and people actually listen to him is completely amazing to me. I thought this would help inform my own book but all it did was inform me that someone could actually write a worse book than me, which was reassuring.
Want to read
June 20, 2017From an interview with the author on the Lawfare podcast 6/17/17: "I love TED talks. But I want TED talks with a five-minute rebuttal after them."
https://lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podca...
https://lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podca...
November 10, 2018
This is an application of Isaiah Berlin's distinction between "hedgehog" and "fox" to the American foreign policy circle. Drezner's style is dry, but the book contains great insights. Highly recommend if you care about the lives and responsibilities of intellectuals.
April 10, 2020
In a globalized world rich in independent media, think tanks, and academic fora, is the marketplace of ideas as creative as it should? It is less fertile than its resources would suggest, because the conservative players who dominate it have no interest in rethinking our systems.
May 7, 2020
Not good as an audiobook. Non-fiction audiobooks are now too close to radio or podcasts and commingled with them so as to make them less than they might be in other formats. This is a potential re-read. Very good prose, even as read.
June 20, 2022
I found this quite good and especially helpful. I’ve read an alarmingly small number of books about my professional industry so this will stick with me for a while. Thanks to Todd for the review which sparked my purchase!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews