Chris Blattman: evaluation

Transcript context

…But how’s this for a theory? Political speech really matters in cases where there’s no Solomonic solution where you can just split the baby. You can’t give Putin half of Ukraine. Taiwan can’t give China half of Taiwan. Then, in those cases, it actually indicates there might be a likely conflict. In other cases, there’s plenty of bargaining, right? Right. I think the problem, though, is actually the fact that we create a set of institutional or ideological rigidities that keep us from compromising. That hasn’t happened in Hong Kong. There are all these gradations of Chinese control over Hong Kong because there aren’t as many bright red lines. That’s why I wouldn’t predict violence in the case of Hong Kong. To the extent that you’re right, I don’t think it’s the statements that are the problem. I’d look for these institutional rigidities that cannot adapt to changing relative bargaining power. Given your understanding of the psychology behind decisions to go to war, what can we do to lower that risk? Other than just make people nicer — sort of tautological answers, but substantively?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.