Dr. Robert Gold is the Deputy Director of the Research Center “Innovation and International Competition” at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel). His research focuses on globalization, digitalization, entrepreneurship, and political economy. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena, and a Master’s degree in Political Science, Economics, and Sociology from the University of Passau.
Dr. Gold is currently a Research Economist at IfW Kiel, where he leads the project “Knowledge Spillovers in Industrialized Countries.” He previously held research positions at the Max Planck Institute of Economics and Friedrich-Schiller University and was a Visiting Scholar at Indiana University. His work has been published in leading journals, including the American Economic Review and The Economic Journal. In addition to his research, he has lectured on econometrics, risk & entrepreneurship, and experimental research methods at institutions like the University of Kassel and Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, where he also supervises Ph.D. and Master’s students.
In an era where evidence-based policymaking is challenged by populist narratives and emotional appeals, how can economists ensure that data-driven insights still influence public debate and decision-making?
Indeed, the populist approach of twisting facts and figures, often neglecting scientific findings, undermines the informational basis of constructive debates. Against this backdrop, academia must defend its role as independent and reliable source of factual information. But how to bring this information across? The task is challenging, since codes of conduct differ between academic and public debates. In academia, we interpret our findings very cautiously. Often, we spend more time on discussing methodical questions than on actual results. Understandably, the general public is not interested in these nitty-gritty details – it expects clear statements and concrete figures. This gap is not straightforward to bridge, specifically in the Social Sciences where research results are notoriously imprecise and inevitably uncertain. Still, I am convinced we should more actively reach out to the broader public, which implies simplifying our findings to their core message. At the same time, I think we should be very transparent on the uncertainties underlying our results and conclusions. At least, we should point out which statements rest on a sound research base, which conclusions we draw ad-hoc on the basis of our experience, and when we express our individual opinion only.
How do active industrial policies shape economic outcomes in structurally weak regions, and what impact do they have on voting behavior?
Our research shows that the structural decline of many European regions has contributed to the rise of populism. An obvious consequence is the stark regional differences in voting support of populist parties between urban centers and peripheral regions. We also see that public investments in lagging regions help to decrease populist support. The core question is which policies help to create new development perspectives for structurally weak regions. Industrial policy may help, but it is no panacea. More important is to generate development trajectories along the regions’ comparative advantages. Based on their specific characteristics, not all regions qualify as location for industrial production. For some, it may be more promising to concentrate on service provision, e.g. for the elderly, or to provide residence for commuters working in a nearby agglomeration. In any case, content with the democratic system increases if governments address economic inequalities, and when policy helps to increase the livelihood of regions struggling with structural change.
What challenges have you faced in conducting and communicating economic research, and how have you overcome them?
In short: Experience helps. One central challenge is the time span between the initial research idea and the eventual publication of an academic study. For an aspiring research project investigating truly novel questions, it may easily take 3-5 years to draft a research paper, and another 2-3 years to publish it. First, this creates a lot of uncertainty, which is particularly troubling for researchers at an early career stage. Second, once published, the results may already be outdated. Regarding the first point, I think it is extraordinarily relevant to regularly talk to people. Discuss preliminary results with your peers, present at conferences and workshops, and get feedback early on. Regarding the second point, it is increasingly common to publish discussion papers before submitting the manuscript to an academic journal. If done properly, the preliminary results will not change substantially over the publication process and can serve as basis for outreach activities to a broader public.
What skills and methodologies are becoming most important for young economists who want to contribute to evidence-based policymaking?
Currently, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing empirical research (vital for evidence-based policy making). This has two major consequences: First, Machine Learning techniques facilitate the collection and processing of ever-larger amounts of data. Second, AI is an extraordinarily helpful companion in writing code for statistical software, allowing to perform ever-more complex empirical analyses. Thus, mastering machine learning techniques and utilizing generative AI are about to become basic skills for empirical researchers. At the same time, somewhat paradoxically, I expect that knowledge of both economic and econometric theory will gain importance. AI and Machine Learning allow to customize empirical strategies to any specific research project, and to compile tailor-made unique datasets. Non-standard approaches are about to becoming the new standard. Thus, researchers need a profound understanding of the theoretical and methodical foundations of their analyses to generate valid results, as they cannot just follow precedent anymore.
The EU uses sanctions as a prominent foreign policy tool, particularly against Russia. Your research on the 2014 sanctions found that exposure to sanctions increased Putin’s vote share. With even tougher sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, how do you view their impact on popular support for Putin‘s regime in Russia?
Of course, sanctions do not primarily target popular support – their economic impact is more important. However, economic harm is just a means to achieving political goals. Essentially, sanctions are imposed to exert pressure on a foreign government to change its policies. While sanctions’ economic impacts are comparatively well understood, we know astonishingly little about their political consequences. Our research shows that the 2014 sanctions fed into the Russian Regime’s narrative of a ”hostile West” determined to keep Russia down. As a consequence, Russian voters united behind their president. Interestingly, the liberal opposition parties could not benefit from the economic havoc caused, not even in the more Western-oriented cities.
The current sanctions on Russia are difficult to compare, since they are meant to deteriorate the Russia’s military capabilities. I think it is fair to say that sanctions have helped to alienate Russian citizens from the West. This may be a prize worth paying – but we need more research to better assess such tradeoffs in sanction effects.
This week’s Friday’s Five was conducted by Nicolas Henriksson, this year’s Deputy Editor-in-Chief & Podcast Manager of The Governance Post.