Speaker: Ouyang Xin (Ph.D. candidate in Economics, Tsinghua University)

Date & Time: Wed.19, November 2025, from 10:00 to 11:30 (Beijing Time)

Place: Tongji Building A2101

ABSTRACT

A long-standing debate in the social sciences asks whether major social changes are driven primarily by broad structural forces or by influential individuals (Weber, 1947; Durkheim, 2019; Acemoglu and Robinson, 2013). A growing economics literature shows that charismatic figures can shape social norms, political attitudes, and collective action (Jones and Olken, 2005; Bertrand and Schoar, 2003; Bassi and Rasul, 2017). Recent studies find significant leader-driven effects in various contexts (Dippel and Heblich, 2021; Funke et al., 2023; Ottinger and Voigtländer, 2025). However, few studies address a fundamental identification challenge: observed “leader effects” might simply reflect the office, resources, or coercive levers that come with the position, rather than the individual charisma or influence per se.

This paper addresses that gap by examining a unique historical case: Frederick Douglass’s mid-19th-century anti-slavery oratory. Frederick Douglass (1818–1895) was an escaped slave who became a statesman famed for his eloquent speeches against slavery. Crucially, throughout the abolitionist movement Douglass held no official position or policymaking authority. He could not enact laws, command armies, or dispense patronage. Any influence he exerted came through rhetoric, moral authority, and personal charisma. This setting provides a quasi-

experimental opportunity to identify the effects of persuasive leadership in isolation from formal authority. Unlike generals or politicians, whose speeches carry implicit coercion or legal authority, Douglass’s appeals rested entirely on the power of his words.

We ask whether and how local exposure to Douglass’s oratory changed communities’ behavior and attitudes. In particular, we test whether hearing Douglass speak spurred listeners to think differently about slavery and race and to act differently? By studying this case, we shed light on the broader question of whether charismatic leadership and persuasion can catalyze change independent of structural or institutional forces.