My comment wasn't about vulgarisation - it was about Freakonomics' loose approach to rigour and consequent debunking of, IIRC, most of the book.
A quick search for "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita" throws up similar debunkings[0] and yeah, I'll not be reading his books after seeing how grandiose his claims are compared with the actuality of what happened.
[0] Including one which recommends Dan Ariely - somewhat awkward nowadays.
This is a good intro by recognized researchers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook
If you want me to be more precise, I would say that clientelism and tribalism are especially rewarded for politicians in a multi-ethnic society.
Also a good definition: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/clientelism/E23ABE88...
"Michael C. Moynihan reviewing the book for The Wall Street Journal stated that the writing style is similar to that of Freakonomics."
Ouch. If someone said that about a book I'd written, I would simply move to a forest and never write a single word again. Quite the damning review.
I told you that it was an intro. Here is the more serious book, by the same authors:
https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/2425/The-Logic-of-Pol...
And there is nothing wrong with vulgarization, aside from comments from pedantic HNers.
> And there is nothing wrong with vulgarization
My comment wasn't about vulgarisation - it was about Freakonomics' loose approach to rigour and consequent debunking of, IIRC, most of the book.
A quick search for "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita" throws up similar debunkings[0] and yeah, I'll not be reading his books after seeing how grandiose his claims are compared with the actuality of what happened.
[0] Including one which recommends Dan Ariely - somewhat awkward nowadays.