Benjamin H. Bradlow

@bhbradlow.bsky.social

Assistant Professor of Sociology and International Affairs, @princeton.edu Visiting Researcher, Wits Southern Center for Inequality Studies CIFAR Fellow, "Humanity's Urban Future" Member, IAS School of Social Science, 2026-27 bradlow.princeton.edu

The answer I propose involves thinking about climate change as an issue of state-building in a transnational space. The analytical focus is on the interactions between the national environmental bureaucracy, opposing elites, and their ties inside and outside the nation-state.

Bild

I have a new short essay out in LIMN's special issue This Is Not a Platform titled "Platform Obscurantism: The Hidden Substrates of Machine Learning." ChatGPT is a platform. That may be the least interesting thing about it. limn.press/article/plat... 🧵

Platform Obscurantism - Limn

ChatGPT is a platform. The chatbot is infrastructure. Thousands of applications now build on OpenAI’s application programming interface, creating a dependent ecosystem of developers, startups, and ent...

limn.press

Excited to share a new paper on transformative statecraft. We start from a critique of the compensation consensus in climate politics/political science. Compensating losers works – plenty of evidence for that. But when the goal is transformation (not reform), we need to think about mobilization. 🧵

Title: Beyond compensation: Climate politics, mobilization, and transformative statecraft 

Authors: Benjamin Braun & Leah Downey 

July 8, 2026 

Abstract: Governments have pursued decarbonization through a combination of subsidies for capital and compensation for people. Political scientists have identified the compensation of those who incur losses from climate policies as the the central challenge in building green coalitions and achieving a just transition. However, a decarbonization path aimed at limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius en- tails transformative change for virtually everyone. We argue that, under such con- ditions, a compensation-based approach reduces green backlash to pocketbook concerns; citizens to bundles of fixed preferences; and evaluation to policy-by- policy assessment. Proposing to move beyond compensating existing preferences, we contend that transformative statecraft reshapes preferences through political mobilization. From this perspective, a technocratic approach—focused on calcu- lation and compensation—constitutes a binding constraint on green statecraft. We defend this mobilization-based approach against the objections of manipulation and deprivation of freedom and suggest that a democratic version of transforma- tive statecraft is possible.

Industrial policy is often in tension with competition - a problem I call "the dilemma of picking winners." In this essay and the associated working paper, I propose a framework for doing industrial policy without entrenching the winners. lpeproject.org/blog/the-dil...

The Dilemma of Picking Winners

Industrial policy will often require picking winners: if there were already many domestic firms capable of producing the desired output, there would be no compelling reason for subsidy or special…

lpeproject.org

P

Without a strategy to absorb the advanced technology associated with contemporary automobiles, overly restrictive local content requirements are no panacea. The US is looking increasingly like middle income countries struggling to keep up in this sector.

Patrick George@patrickgeorge.bsky.social · 2mo ago

"The 50% U.S. content proposal is likely to be viewed skeptically by many automakers, who would struggle to source half of their content from U.S. sources." www.wsj.com/politics/pol...

If you 👍 the Pope's recent Encyclical, you'll 😍 our new paper, shifting the conversation about "ethics" to one about political economy. Catch it here in pre-print before its release next month! #academicsky

danah boyd@zephoria.bsky.social · 2mo ago

In "Reckoning with the Political Economy of AI," @cyberlyra.bsky.social, Ben Shestakofsky, Alex Taylor, and I are particularly keen to understand how the project of AI involves numerous "decoys" that misdirect critics' attention, undermining efforts to hold AI to account. arxiv.org/abs/2604.16106