Theory of the Week

Max Weber and Politics as a Vocation

This week's episode examines Max Weber's 1919 lecture "Politics as a Vocation," delivered in Munich during a period of significant political instability between the German Empire and the Weimar Republic. We look at Weber's definition of politics as the pursuit of state power, his account of legitimate authority (traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational), and his distinction between "living for" politics and "living off" politics. Using the historical example of the British Parliament, we trace how access to political careers has been shaped by wealth and income. The episode closes with Weber's account of what distinguishes the politician from the bureaucrat, and the three qualities he saw as essential to political vocation: passion, responsibility, and judgement. Reading: Weber, M. (2021) Politics As a Vocation. Creative Media Partners, LLC. Available at: https://books.google.de/books?id=_9HpzgEACAAJ [https://books.google.de/books?id=_9HpzgEACAAJ]. Picture of Max Weber: Von Ernst Gottmann - https://cdn.britannica.com/49/39749-050-E773E614/Max-Weber-1918.jpg, Gemeinfrei, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=90183495 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com [https://astudentsnote.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Why Do People Stay Poor?

Hello and welcome to the eleventh episode of Theory of the Week, a weekly show from A Student’s Note where we explore a theory-esque concept each week. Last time, we looked at how labour markets in developed economies can trap people in a secondary tier of precarious, low-paid work — not because of a lack of effort or ability, but because of structural conditions that are self-reinforcing. This week we are turning to developing countries, where the concept of poverty traps originates. For this, we will look at a 2022 paper by Balboni and co-authors called « Why do people stay poor? », addressing the question of whether poverty can be explained through differences in fundamentals, such as abilities and so on, or in opportunities, that is, access to assets. But let us begin from the beginning. Sources Balboni, C., Bandiera, O., Burgess, R., Ghatak, M., & Heil, A. (2022). Why Do People Stay Poor? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(2), 785–844. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2007). The Economic Lives of the Poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(1), 141–167. Kraay, A., & McKenzie, D. (2014). Do Poverty Traps Exist? Assessing the Evidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 127–148. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com [https://astudentsnote.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Doeringer, Piore, and the dual labour market theory

Hello and welcome to the tenth episode of Theory of the Week, a weekly show from A Student’s Note where we explore a theory-esque concept each week. This and next week I want to talk about structural factors that keep people in poverty. Not poverty in the sense of not trying hard enough, but poverty in the sense of circumstances that make it nearly impossible to think beyond tomorrow, regardless of effort or ability. People who may well be working, but in conditions where structural factors beyond their control prevent them from ever finding a way out. I want to dedicate two episodes to this topic because poverty traps exist in both developed and developing countries, even though we are of course talking about very different levels and forms of poverty. For developed countries, we might expect reasonably efficient labour market outcomes. After all, these are highly developed economies with formal education systems, labour market regulations, and extensive welfare states. If we control for differences in human capital, meaning education, acquired skills, and general ability, we might expect outcomes to be largely unbiased. But then consider these questions. How can it be that people with precarious jobs tend to stay in precarious jobs? How can it be that two people with a similar educational background end up in very different wealth positions? And how can it be that someone’s likelihood of ever reaching stable employment depends so heavily on their starting point? Differences in individual behaviour and ability are one answer. But are those differences really independent of the conditions people grow up and work in? One theory that tries to answer these questions is the dual labour market theory, developed by Doeringer and Piore in 1971. It argues that there are in fact two distinct levels of the labour market: a primary and a secondary one. The primary sector is characterised by stable employment, good opportunities to advance, and relatively high pay with amenities like paid leave. The secondary sector, by contrast, is characterised by unstable employment and low pay. Neither employer nor worker invests much in the relationship because the employment is simply not designed to last. The jobs are precarious, offer little opportunity to progress, and are often short-term by design. People in the secondary sector are, in a meaningful sense, stuck. It is very hard to move from secondary to primary employment, and the precarious conditions of secondary work make it difficult to accumulate the things that primary employers look for. As we will see, it is far from random who ends up in which sector in the first place. References Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. D. C. Heath and Company. Xibao, G., Ping, L. (2025). Dual Labor Market. In: Yinxing, H. (eds) Dictionary of Contemporary Chinese Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4036-9_222 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com [https://astudentsnote.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Lipset, Rokkan, and the Cleavage Theory

Hello and welcome to the ninth episode of Theory of the Week a weekly show from A student’s note where we explore a theory-esque concept each week. This week I would like to introduce a macro-sociological approach to explaining voting behaviour. This means that we are discussion a theory which looks at the society, claiming that knowing about the social circumstances of different groups can help us to better understand their voting behaviour. We are going to explore Cleavage Theory, developed by Seymour Lipset and Stein Rokkan, which is still widely used today as a framework for explaining voter behaviour and party alignment. But let us start from the beginning. References Epstein, L.D. (1969) ‘Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, by Seymour M. Lipset, Stein Rokkan’, Political Science Quarterly, 84(1), pp. 158–159. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2147080 [https://doi.org/10.2307/2147080]. Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton University Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x18ck [http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x18ck] (Accessed: 27 March 2026). Kriesi, H. et al. (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. 1st edn. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790720 [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790720]. Lipset, S.M. and Rokkan, S. (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives. Free Press. Pappi, F.U. (1977) ‘Sozialstruktur, gesellschaftliche Wertorientierungen und Wahlabsicht: Ergebnisse eines Zeitvergleichs des deutschen Elektorats 1953 und 1976’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 18(2/3), pp. 195–229. Schmitt-Beck, R. (2007) ‘Seymour M. Lipset/Stein Rokkan (Hrsg.), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, New York/London 1967’, in S. Kailitz (ed.) Schlüsselwerke der Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 251–255. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90400-9_68 [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90400-9_68]. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com [https://astudentsnote.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Jean Jacques Rousseau and the general will

Hello and welcome to the eighth episode of Theory of the Week, a weekly show from A Student’s Note where we explore a theory‑esque concept each week. This week I would like to introduce another important contractualist—besides Locke and Hobbes, who we covered in the fifth episode. Today I would like to talk about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the most influential but also controversial figures in modern political philosophy. He was born in Geneva in 1712 and was markedly an intellectual outsider among his contemporary Enlightenment thinkers, because he was deeply sceptical of the progress and rationalism that figures like Voltaire celebrated. You may know him from the famous line “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Interestingly, while the diagnosis was condemned during his life, with both personal and intellectual consequences, it is the solution that became the subject of a later controversy. But let us start from the beginning. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit astudentsnote.substack.com [https://astudentsnote.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]