is political science producing technically competent barbarians? bo rothstein August Ro¨has chair in Political Science, Go¨teborg University, Box 711, SE 405 30 Go¨teborg, Sweden E-mail: [email protected]

doi:10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210002

Abstract In a speech to the German Bundestag in 1998, the well-known Holocaust scholar stressed the role of intellectual elites and especially university professors in making the Holocaust possible. To this, he added the question: ‘If we have indeed learnt anything, it is whether we do not still keep producing technically competent barbarians in our universities’. This article is a reflection on the implications of this question for present- day teaching and research in political science.

Keywords holocaust; academics; political science; rational choice

ACADEMICS AS on the Holocaust organised by the Swed- PERPETRATORS? ish government in Stockholm in January 2000. In his talk, Bauer tries to summar- ometimes when I read things, I ise the ‘state-of-the-art’ when it comes to come across an argument that explaining the Holocaust. S strikes me directly.1 It is the kind Yehuda Bauer is one of the most of formulation that instantly makes one established and respected researchers in think in a completely new and different this particular field. He has been the way. This time, it was something that Director of the Yad Vashem Research made me rethink what I do in my day-to- Institute, devoted to the Holocaust, in day work as a teacher of political science. Israel, and he has published some of the The argument is taken from the last most well-known books and articles in chapter of a truly magnificent book writ- this field (Bauer, 1996a,b; Bauer and ten by Professor Yehuda Bauer (2001), Keren, 2001). As a scholar, he has been entitled Rethinking the Holocaust, which at the centre of the remarkable resur- contains a lecture that Bauer gave to the gence of Holocaust research that has German Bundestag on 27 January 1998. taken place since the mid-1980s, not The same lecture was, I believe, also least as an editor of the journal, Holo- delivered later to the special conference caust and Genocide Studies.

european political science: 4 2005 3

(3–13) & 2005 European Consortium for Political Research. 1680-4333/05 $30 www.palgrave-journals.com/eps In the aforementioned chapter, Bauer middle class. This created a demand for tries to summarise what he has learnt scapegoats, one that the Nazis were from a lifetime devoted to the study of happy and eager to meet (Weiss, 1996; this huge and difficult topic. The starting Friedla¨nder, 1997). Still others, such as point is that there is no final explanation (1996), have pointed for the final solution, and there probably to the existence already during the nine- never will be. On the contrary, there is still teenth century of an eliminatory anti- a fierce debate over how the Holocaust semitism in German culture and ideology. should be explained, assuming it is pos- Here, individuals are merely ornamental, sible to explain it at all. Bauer, for his part, or, as Goldhagen put it when interviewed argues that, as with all other historical by Ron Rosenbaum: ‘If not Hitler, some- events, the Holocaust is, in principle, one elsey’ This implies that the German amenable to explanation (Bauer, 2001). culture of eliminationist anti-semitism An excellent overview of the many would have produced someone like Hitler, different explanations that have been had he not existed (if, for example, he had put forward is given by Ron Rosenbaum been killed in the trenches during the First (1998) in his fascinating book, Explaining World War). Finally, the Nestor among Hitler, in which Bauer is interviewed Holocaust scholars, Raul Hilberg, has together with many other well-known pointed to the importance of the German scholars in this field. Just to name a few: state’s bureaucratic machinery, even if psychologists have focused on Hitler ‘the Hilberg has always been careful to avoid person’ and have tried to find explana- explaining why the German bureaucratic tions in his psyche, pointing to the im- machinery, rather than its equivalents in portance of the mentality of this single other even more anti-semitic countries individual, or, as another well-known such as France, Poland and Russia, car- scholar in this field, Milton Himmelfarb, ried out the Holocaust (Hilberg, 1985). At has put it, ‘No Hitler – no Holocaust’. a conference, a couple of years ago where Political scientists and others have em- Goldhagen’s book was discussed, one of phasised the weakness of the Weimar his critics said that if someone in, say, constitution, which made it impossible to 1910, had had the possibility of predicting form stable majorities that could protect that the Holocaust would take place in the Weimar Republic. Sociologists and Europe, most historians would have said cultural theorists such as Zygmunt Bau- something like: ‘Well, there seems to be man have singled out modernity and the no limit to the horrors the French can tradition of the Enlightenment (in my bring about’. view one of the most bizarre explana- There is thus no end to the number of tions, in close competition with some of explanations given. At times, it seems as the psychological ones). Yet others, for if every discipline in the social sciences example historians such as John Weiss and humanities is mustering its own and Saul Friedla¨nder, have stressed the favourite theory as ‘the cause’. In fact, importance of the traumatic political ex- there seems to be no end to the number periences that Germany suffered after of causes that have been suggested in 1918, beginning with the military defeat attempts to explain this defining event of (which seems to have come as a great the twentieth century. However, as Hil- surprise to most Germans, thus giving berg (1996) writes, in his very sad book substance to the ‘stab-in-the-back’ about his life as a Holocaust scholar, he myth), the harsh terms of the Versailles was ignored for almost twenty-five years. treaty, and the subsequent deep econom- Hilberg published his masterpiece, The ic crisis that ruined large segments of the Destruction of the European Jews – a

4 european political science: 4 2005 technically competent barbarians book that is now in its fifth edition and ‘Political scientists and that no serious scholar in this field can neglect – in 1961. It is difficult to under- others have emphasised stand today, but there was simply no the weakness of the interest in Holocaust research until the Weimar constitutiony’ mid-1980s. It is telling that Hilberg could not find a university press that wanted to publish his book back in the 1960s. As ideology, which means that even if struc- Judith Sklar put it, The Destruction of the tural factors are important for explaining European Jews was simply published too the Holocaust (for example, the economic early (Hilberg, 1996: 134). However, crisis, the obedient and technically so- when Hilberg’s book was finally translated phisticated bureaucratic machinery and into German in the 1980s, he was invited so forth), these factors existed elsewhere to Germany again and again to give but did not produce anything similar to lectures and interviews. A new generation the Holocaust. But what struck me so of Germans had become deeply inter- forcefully is how Bauer (2001: 268) de- ested in one specific question. As Hilberg scribes what made these structural and writes, on the last page of his book, one ideological factors translate into murder- young German asked him after one of his ous action on such a massive and unique lectures, ‘But, why did we do it?’ scale: I am not a Holocaust researcher and I never will be. I am part of the reading The determining factor was that the public, the interested consumer of this layer of intellectuals – the academi- research and memorial industry. How- cians, the teachers, the students, the ever, I can personally testify to the lack bureaucrats, the doctors, the lawyers, of interest in this topic that once existed – the churchmen, the engineers – joined even among those whose families had the Nazi party because it promised been murdered in this tremendous cata- them a future and a status. Through strophe. the fast growing identification of the What Yehuda Bauer does in Rethinking intellectual layers with the regime, it the Holocaust is to give a fascinating became possible to have the genocide overview of this theoretical question: easily presented as an unavoidable step How can the Holocaust be explained? Or towards the achievement of a utopian more precisely, he tries to answer the future. When Herr Doctor, Herr Profes- following question: How was it possible sor, Herr Director, Herr Priest or Pastor, for people of a culture that lived in the Herr Engineer became collaborators midst of Europe, and that had developed with genocide, when a consensus one of the greatest civilisations ever, to evolved, led by the semi-mythological subscribe to such an ideology, to instigate figure of the dictator, it became easy to a war of annihilation because of it and to convince the masses and to recruit stick to it until the bitter end? He goes on them to carry out the murders. to analyse the complicated theoretical (y) and methodological questions in a mas- The major role in this was played by the terful way, also showing his immense universities, the academics. I keep empirical knowledge of this field. returning to the question of whether At this point, I have to deliver some bad we have indeed learnt anything, news. When Bauer answers the young whether we do not still keep producing German’s question, this is what he has to technically competent barbarians in our say. First, he points to the importance of universities.

bo rothstein european political science: 4 2005 5 Let me point to a few things in this There are, of course, organisational as remarkable passage. First, Bauer is not well as normative explanations for this shy about what he wants to present to his development. The organisational expla- audience in the German Bundestag on nation is certainly related to the fact that this special occasion. Note that he speaks the field is now so huge that it has almost about the determining factor. Second, he become a discipline in its own right. As I points not only to the intellectual and mentioned earlier, this is a surprisingly societal elite in general, but more speci- recent phenomenon, but it has had the fically to the university professors (and to consequence that communications be- make sure that he has been understood, tween Holocaust research and ‘ordinary’ he repeats this in another passage in the research in the social sciences and huma- book). Moreover, he sends out a warning nities have almost come to an end. In my by asking whether we have learnt any- opinion, the very important results that thing or – I repeat – ‘whether we do not are flowing from Holocaust research do still keep producing technically compe- not find their way into other areas of the tent barbarians in our universities’. social sciences. This organisational seg- This last remark is important because in regation is unfortunately accompanied by recent years Bauer has become engaged a moral one. On the one hand, many in comparative genocide research. He Holocaust researchers argue that the concludes from this research that we Holocaust is a unique event that cannot need to see politically engineered geno- and should not be compared to similar cides (or, and this is a new term, demo- events, because there have never been, cides) as recurring political events, in and probably never will be, any other which intellectuals continue to play an similar such events. Often, such compar- important role (Bauer, 2002). I would like isons are criticised from a normative to mention here some recent analyses of position, implying that they are a sign of the Balkan civil war in the 1990s – disrespect for the victims of the Holocaust especially Jasna Dragovic-Soso’s (2002) (Rosenbaum, 1998). I agree with Bauer book, Saviours of the Nation: Serbia’s that this is a quite fruitless and logically Intellectual Opposition and the Revival of impossible argument. If genocides keep Nationalism, which points to the role happening, we need to make compari- played by a group of Serbian intellectuals. sons in order to understand them, explain them and hopefully, prevent them (Bauer, 2002). THE INTELLECTUAL On the other hand, many social scien- ISOLATION OF HOLOCAUST tists outside the Holocaust research field STUDIES argue in effect in the same manner. Every reference to, or comparison with the Before I continue, I would like to add one Holocaust, or the Third Reich, is seen as thing. The enormous increase in Holo- simply too much, as an exaggerated caust research is in many respects laud- accusation. If, for example, someone able. However, one rather unfortunate points out that an argument advanced in effect of this development has been the the course of a political debate is in fact intellectual isolation of this field of re- similar to the arguments put forward in search from ‘ordinary’ research in the Germany in the 1930 s in support of Nazi social sciences and humanities. Holocaust policies, this is seen as a sign of bad taste, researchers now have their own journals, regardless of whether it is true or not.For academic departments, museums, con- example, the arguments put forward for ferences and so on. quotas for academic positions by some

6 european political science: 4 2005 technically competent barbarians scholars in the multiculturalist camp in ‘ycommunications Sweden today are almost to a word similar to what the Nazis and especially between Holocaust the student organisations in Germany research and ‘ordinary’ asserted in 1933, namely, that there are research in the social simply too many of some ‘sorts’. This organisational and moral isolation sciences and humanities of Holocaust studies from other fields of have almost come to research is thus extremely unfortunate, an end’. because it makes it impossible to learn from research and to see the signs. Let me remind you of the work of Christopher Western liberal democracies are threa- Browning (2001) and Jan Gross (2001), tened by any fascist or similar develop- which showed that the actual killings were ment. There are problems in our carried out by ‘ordinary men’ or ‘the next democracies, absolutely, but nothing that door neighbour’. Or the work by Raul even remotely resembles Germany in the Hilberg, for that matter, which shows that 1930 s. History does not repeat itself. But the planning and organisation of the as political scientists, we, if anyone, Holocaust was, for the most part, done should know that evil things can go on in by the ‘ordinary bureaucrat’ (Hilberg, our societies that we as contemporary 1985). Second, the events that led to actors do not recognise. The Zeitgeist can the Holocaust, in particular the political make us blind. Let me just remind you of events that made it possible for the Nazi the many forced (or semi-forced) sterili- Party to seize power in 1932–1933, were sations of women that took place in not that spectacularly different from the Sweden not so long ago. It is easy to ordinary political events that we see and howl with the wolves today and point have seen in many other cases. The fingers at history; but thirty years ago, political figures who brought Hitler and hardly anyone (and especially not the the Nazis to power, Bru¨ning, von Papen professors) in this country saw the moral and the others, the ordinary people in the problem in what was taking place (Tyde´n, street who voted for or in some other way 2002). supported the Nazis in 1932–1933: none Second, as political scientists, we know of them could in all likelihood have one thing for sure, namely, that the road imagined in their wildest fantasies the to hell can be paved with the best of horror of the concentration and extermi- intentions. Let me take another case in nation camps. As brilliantly described by point. The Swedish government has in its Sebastian Haffner (2002) in his Defying development aid policy for long been Hitler, the nazification of Germany came supporting the Mugabe regime in Zim- about gradually. I think it is in this light babwe. When this regime started to that we should understand Bauer’s ana- wreak havoc on its own population a lysis, and the warning to us contained in couple of years ago, not least by mas- his question: ‘whether we have indeed sively infringing upon human rights and learnt anything, whether we do not still liberties, the support ended and there was keep producing technically competent a flood of regrets from the Swedish barbarians in our universities’. government and policy intellectuals over Now, I do not want to be an alarmist. I this sad development. The problem, how- do not think that a new Holocaust or ever, is that we (and the Swedish govern- anything similar is threatening us in our ment) long knew that the Mugabe regime part of the world. I do not think that the had no respect for democracy, did not

bo rothstein european political science: 4 2005 7 care about civil and human rights and the increased compartmentalisation that could imprison, torture and slaughter its characterises much of American political own citizens. Moreover, we knew, and the science has meant that, in his words, Swedish government knew, that this re- ‘technical proficiency becomes the metric gime had directed massive violence for evaluating quality’ (Pierson, 2004). against its own population back in the Instead of being driven by the desire to early 1980s when it sent the infamous grapple with real-world problems or inter- fifth brigade (trained by North Koreans) to esting intellectual puzzles, many young the Matabele province. But we, the policy scholars now see the way into a position intellectuals and the Swedish govern- in the discipline as a matter of mastering ment, decided to look the other way. some obscure technicality, be it a math- Sweden continued with its economic sup- ematical model, a statistical technique or, port to this regime, which has turned out for that matter, the obscure terminology to be extremely dangerous for its own of some incomprehensible post-modern people. On the Swedish left, the argu- deconstructionist. This problem has ment was that if you are going to bring reached such a magnitude in the US that about a revolution and free your country it has made it onto the pages of The New from colonialism, some unfortunate costs Republic, in an article entitled ‘The re- are inevitable. Or as this leftist variant of venge of the nerds’ by Jonathan Cohn utilitarian reasoning puts it: if you are (1999). Now, I have absolutely nothing going to make omelettes, you have to against methodological proficiency per se. crack a few eggs. The problem, it seems, In fact, some of my best friends do formal is that once a government has started to modellingy. But, the warning I take from crack eggs to make whatever type of Bauer is this: we should never forget that omelette, it gets into the habit of doing so. methods are the tools we use when we do research, not the goal of our research, or WHAT ABOUT THE our reason for being political scientists. DISCIPLINE OF POLITICAL Second, I would like to point to a SCIENCE? problem raised a couple of years ago by Elinor Ostrom, one of the laureates of the Aside from politics, the question is, of prestigious Johan Skytte Prize in political course, whether there are reasons for science. Ostrom, who studies social di- political scientists to take Yehuda Bauer’s lemma problems in real-world settings warning seriously. What will happen when (also known as common pool resource we have to ask ourselves: what is the problems), and often uses formal models moral calibre of the master’s students and to do so, has issued a serious warning to doctoral candidates we train in political the discipline. This warning concerns science? what may be called the ‘implicit curricula Again, I do not want to be an alarmist. on human nature in political science’. In They are usually good and decent people her address as President of the American – I happen to know quite a few of them. Political Science Association in 1998, she But let me point to at least two problems took issue with the standard argument in that I see. One is the ever-increasing rational choice theory about what moti- methodological and technical specialisa- vates human behaviour, namely, self- tion of our research. I would like to echo interest. Citing a great deal of research Paul Pierson, professor in the Department from surveys, field work, field experi- of Government at Harvard and a well- ments and laboratory experiments, she known scholar in the field of Comparative argued that the economic view of human Politics. In a recent article, he warns that beings can no longer be empirically sus-

8 european political science: 4 2005 technically competent barbarians tained, at least not in the realm of politics ‘ywe should never (including how people at the very local forget that methods are level manage to solve common pool resource problems). Behaviour based on the tools we use when we norms of reciprocity, trust and solidarity do research, not the goal is, according to Ostrom, much more of our researchy’ common than utility-based economic the- ory predicts. The well-known problem is, of course, much less in their governments. Given that if what the rational choice model the central role of trust in solving social preaches were true, most common pool dilemmas, we may be creating the very resource problems would most likely end conditions that undermine our own up in devastating social traps where democratic ways of life. we as humans, following our individual self-interest, destroyed the resources we If Ostrom is right, and if we think about need in order to survive. This is not an how popular rational choice and other insignificant problem. People like Ostrom similar economic theories have become (and myself) who study social dilemmas in our discipline, this is a real problem. Let are convinced that opportunistic, self- me add that there is experimental re- interested behaviour is the most serious search showing that students of econom- threat to every organisation and civilisa- ics are more likely to end up in disastrous tion. A case in point comes from recent social traps than students of other dis- archaeological research on how the once ciplines. The obvious paradox is thus that rich and thriving culture of Easter Island the more you are taught about econom- collapsed. Feuding clans seem to have ics, the less likely you are to create competed in cutting down the main re- efficiency, especially when it comes to source that their civilisation as a whole producing efficient solutions to social needed in order to survive, namely, the dilemmas. In short, insights into econom- giant palm trees that once existed on ics do not guarantee efficiency (Sen, the island (Diamond, 2004). Global 1979; Marwell and Dawes, 1981; Frank warming; the spread of deserts; tax et al, 1993, 1996; Frank and Schulze, evasion and the corruption that plagues 2000). The good news is that there is most developing countries; civil wars as nothing intrinsically wrong with young in the former Yugoslavia and countless people who choose to study economics. other places; the depletion of fish in the The available research shows that the Baltic Sea: these are all part of a never- causation goes in the other direction, ending list. Personally, I think that the because adding ethics to the study of Scandinavian welfare states, which are economics seems to solve the problem of heavily dependent on individual citizens’ massive inefficiency caused by not being solidarity not to abuse their generous able to produce enough collective action social insurance systems, now face this for the common good. problem. Again, I have nothing against econo- In any case, what Ostrom (1998) has to mists. In fact, I have some very good say is important. Let me quote from her friends and colleagues who are card- presidential address on what comes out of carrying economists. Also, some of my teaching political science: best friends in political science are using rational choice models. I certainly have We are producing generations of cyni- nothing against using economic theories cal citizens with little trust in one another, based on self-interest in political science,

bo rothstein european political science: 4 2005 9 r [email protected]

as long as they are seen as what they That is, so far, the bad news. Yes, we are, namely heuristic models, not true should take Bauer’s warning seriously and descriptions or, even worse, normative yes, there are a few, maybe minor but still ideals of human behaviour, and, if I may important, reasons for caution in our add, as long as the insight that individual discipline. rationality may easily result in massive irrationality for the collective is a central part of the message. The problem that THE MEDICINE WITHIN Ostrom points to becomes serious when, as is often the case, these models are The good news is that, unlike other confused with reality. Then things start to disciplines, I think we have the solution become slightly problematic regarding within our own field of research. This, I what comes out of our discipline. If believe, lies in reconnecting the norma- cynicism about the ability of politics to tive side of the discipline – that is, political handle social dilemmas, a general distrust philosophy – with the positive/empirical of our fellow citizens and narrow-minded side. Yes, I know that we teach political self-interested individuals are what we philosophy, and yes I know that there is a are producing, then we are in trouble. lot of good scholarship in political philo- Research shows that such attitudes and sophy. But, I think there is an organisa- values not only make people unhappy, tional problem here as well, which they also make it more difficult for them translates into a problem of intellectual to participate in finding solutions to the divisions if not to say segregation. Today, serious problem of handling social dilem- political philosophy is not only isolated mas. We have to face it: maybe, as a from positive/empirical political science discipline, we are preventing our students by having its own journals, conferences, from becoming good citizens. positions and courses. The problem is

10 european political science: 4 2005 technically competent barbarians that it is not properly used in the disci- ‘What we should take pline. If you read what is published on classical political theory in the major from political theory/ academic journals, you can see that political philosophy is scholars in this field approach it as if they the need to focus were curators at a museum. Close (some would say myopic) readings of the classi- on the problems cal texts are carried out to show that that plague every Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli or Hobbes system of shine even brighter in the new light that the authors in question have focused on governance.’ them. The favoured approach is to put them under new and maybe even more elegant glass covers so that readers, positive sides of the discipline and using the new lenses provided, see things also to avoid a concentration on narrow in the classical texts that they did not methodological specialisms. What we think existed (Locke on multicultura- should take from political theory/political lism, Hobbes on globalisation, queering philosophy is the need to focus on Machiavelli, and so on). This way of the problems that plague every system polishing the classics is all very fine, but of governance. We have not yet found in my view this museum and/or curator solutions to what Machiavelli had to approach to political theory actually be- say about corruption, Hobbes on social longs to departments of philosophy more peace, Aristotle on relations between than to departments of political science. political institutions and human virtues Unfortunately, much the same can be (and vices) and Plato on the difficult said about the analysis of more modern relationship between knowledge and political theory, for example the large- popular will in a democracy, just to scale discourse that has developed name a few (cf. Hermansson, 1990). Or, around the work of John Rawls. It should to take a more modern author, John be noted that like many modern political Rawls: how can we construct a political philosophers, Rawls actually writes about system that, by the very justice in real-world problems, social justice, for its institutional construction, in Rawls’ example. The major part of this discourse own words, ‘generates its own support’? concerns the question: what ought the (Rawls, 1971: 261). state to do? The problem, however, is that Colleagues, friends, honoured guests, political philosophers write about this in this is thus what I have to say: yes, we almost total intellectual isolation from should take Yehuda Bauer’s warning ser- empirical research on social and public iously, and yes, there are troubling signs policy, which, more or less, concerns the in our discipline. However, there is also related question: what can the state do? some good news. We have, in contrast to (Rothstein, 1998). most other disciplines, the remedy in our I think the remedy to Bauer’s warn- own medicine box. We just need to open it ing is to reconnect the normative and the up and use it, again and again.

Notes

1 This article is an edited version of the Stein Rokkan Lecture that was given, by the author, at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshops at the University of Uppsala on 15 April 2004.

bo rothstein european political science: 4 2005 11 References Bauer, Y. (1996a), ‘The Impact of the Holocaust’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 548, 14–22. Bauer, Y. (1996b), Jews for Sale? Nazi-Jewish Negotiations, 1933–1945, New Haven, Press. Bauer, Y. (2001), Rethinking the Holocaust, New Haven, London, Yale University Press. Bauer, Y (2002), ‘Holocaust and Genocide in the Wake of the Twin Towers’, Paper presented to the Aegis-FCO Genocide Prevention Conference, Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre, Newark, Nottinghamshire, UK, 23 January 2002. Bauer, Y. and N. Keren (2001), A History of the Holocaust, New York, Franklin Watts. Browning, C.R. (2001), Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, London, Penguin. Cohn, J. (1999), ‘The Revenge of the Nerds’, The New Republic, 15 October. Diamond, J. (2004), ‘Twilight at Easter’, New York Review of Books, 51:5, 4–7. Dragovic-Soso, J. (2002), Saviours of the Nation: Serbia’s Intellectual Opposition and the Revival of Nationalism, London, C. Hurst. Frank, B. and G.G. Schulze (2000), ‘Does Economics Make Citizens Corrupt?’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43, 101–113. Frank, R.H. et al. (1993), ‘Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7:1, 159–171. Frank, R.H. et al. (1996), ‘Do Economists Make Bad Citizens?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10:1, 187–192. Friedla¨nder, S. (1997), Nazi Germany and the Jews, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Goldhagen, D.J. (1996), Hitler’s Willing Executioners, New York, Knopf. Gross, J.T. (2001), Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jebwabne, Poland, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Haffner, S. (2002), Defying Hitler: A Memoir, New York, Farrar Straus and Giroux. Hermansson, J. (1990), Spelteorins nytta. Om rationalitet i politik och vetenskap, Uppsala, Statsvetenskapliga fo¨reningen. Hilberg, R. (1985), The Destruction of the European Jews, New York, Holmes and Meier. Hilberg, R. (1996), The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian, Chicago, Ivan R. Dee. Marwell, G. and R. Dawes (1981), ‘Economists Free Ride; Does Anyone Else?’, Journal of Public Economics, 15:2, 295–310. Ostrom, E. (1998), ‘A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action’, American Political Science Review, 92:1, 1–23. Pierson, P. (2004), ‘Why Americanists should be Buyers in the Marketplace of Ideas’, APSA–CP Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 15: 1. Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Rosenbaum, R. (1998), Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil, New York, Random House. Rothstein, B. (1998), Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sen, A. (1979), ‘Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory’, in F. Hahn and M. Hollis (eds), Philosophy and Economic Theory, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 237–335. Tyde´n, M. (2002), Fra˚n politik till praktik: de svenska steriliseringslagarna 1935-1975, Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell International. Weiss, J. (1996), Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany, Chicago, Ivan R. Publisher: Dee.

12 european political science: 4 2005 technically competent barbarians About the Author

Bo Rothstein is August Ro¨hss Professor in Political Science at Go¨teborg University. The argument in this article is developed from his book Social Traps and the Problem of Trust (Cambridge University Press, 2005). He has also published The Social Democratic State (Pittsburgh University Press, 1996) and Just Institutions Matters (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

bo rothstein european political science: 4 2005 13