The economist Milton Friedman continues to divide opinion from the grave.
Admirers believe that his free-market gospel helped to spur the greatest surge of global entrepreneurial activity and wealth production in the last 100 years. His critics say he provided an ideological alibi for the biggest upward redistribution of wealth in living memory, with a devil-take-the-hindmost attitude toward the non-rich.
So when the University of Chicago, whose economics department has been an incubator for the free-market creed, announced in May that a new institute would be named in his honor, it set off a fierce intellectual skirmish.
Seven committee members were appointed last year to formulate a plan for a research center on “economy and society.” Five were economists, the sixth came from the law school and the seventh was based at the business school.
“The economics department is small, compared to some of its rivals,” said Lars Hansen, the interim director of the new institute.
This is a chance, he believes, “to reach out and broaden” its approach, resources and influence.
The university is coughing up US$500,000 for start-up costs this fall and is seeking US$200 million more. Anyone donating a million or more is offered “privileged access” to the institute.
But 101 tenured professors — 8 percent of the teaching staff — have petitioned the university’s president, Robert Zimmer, to convene a meeting of all staff in the coming academic year to discuss the purposes of the institute. Zimmer has agreed.
Distinguished anthropologist Marshall Sahlins is among those who fear that the institute will operate as “a rich man’s club” and operate on the principle that “the people who have the most money have the most truth.”
Fellow petitioner Bruce Lincoln, a professor in the department of religion, anticipates that the institute will generate “a symbiosis of a certain kind of donor with a certain kind of institute” in what he calls a “feedback loop” to help the wealthy to become wealthier at the expense of everyone else.
“This is a big departure from the mission of the university,” Lincoln says.
Hansen responds: “To set up an institute with no criticism from outside would be silly to us. That’s not our ambition.”
Friedman, who died in 2006, was one of the very few economists to become a household name, partly due to writing in popular publications such as Newsweek, partly because of several TV series championing his market-knows-best ideology and partly as a result of his enormous appeal to conservatives.
In postwar America, Friedman’s market fundamentalism was regarded as lunatic-fringe stuff until overspending on the Vietnam War, the collapse of the gold standard in 1971, stagflation and oil crises. The problems seemed to be at least as political in nature as economic.
In the 1980s, US president Ronald Reagan invoked Friedman’s anti-governmental philosophy as the answer to the US’ economic woes — although Reagan heretically indulged in protectionism, corporate tax breaks and subsidies at the same time as he cut taxes and regulations.
The free-market case spread to Britain, too, where prime minister Margaret Thatcher was an ardent supporter. She shared the dislike of Friedman and his followers for regulation, trade unions, the welfare state and public works.
The institute debate reopens old sores on campus stretching back to a 1970s uproar about the “Chicago boys.”
They were hardcore proponents of the free market, trained at the university principally by Arnold Harberger and by Friedman himself. The latter also worked for General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, imposing free markets, critics say, at the point of a bayonet.
Sahlins says that the purpose of the Milton Friedman institute seems to be to “make the university safe for free markets the same way that the Chicago boys made the world safe for free enterprise.”
Institutes named after controversial people do not always emulate their views, but the founding committee’s mission statement sounds unequivocal: “Following Friedman’s lead, the design and evaluation of economic policy requires analyses that respect the incentives of individuals and the essential role of markets in allocating goods and services. As Friedman and others continually demonstrated, design of public policy without regard to market alternatives has adverse social consequences.”
The petitioners find this statement hard to square with reassurances of scholarly openness.
Committee member John Cochrane of the business school deems the lecturers’ petition “drivel” and wonders: “Just what is it that you good-thinking guys and gals have against human freedom?”
The center, Cochrane insists, is conceived of “pretty explicitly as an economic research institute without a particular ideology.”
Economist bloggers describe the petitioners as “pinks,” “pathetic” and “driven by purest envy.”
“That shows the contempt with which these people treat those who don’t share their orthodoxy,” Lincoln replies. “They feel entitled and dismissive.”
Critics believe independent academics would be unlikely to want to step into this fraught atmosphere. Most economists would give the new institute a wide berth, they fear.
A “really robust institute” would be one that explored all kinds of visions, Lincoln argues, and has a “place for Friedmanite theory within a larger spectrum.”
“The center contradicts the spirit of inquiry, openness and give-and-take that a university ought to be devoted to,” he said.
But the founding committee members say they are puzzled by all the fuss, and suggest that the petitioners are pushing against an open door.
The politics of research
• Construction of the George W. Bush library, museum and research center is due to begin at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas next year. A 12,500-signature petition says the institute is “utterly unacceptable.”
• The Hoover Institution, a neocon think tank on the Stanford campus in California, is not formally part of the university and has its own staff. Gary Becker, one of the founding committee members of the Milton Friedman Institute, is a member.
• The John M. Olin Foundation pumped more than US$300 million into conservative scholarship before shutting down in 2005. This included John M. Olin institutes at Harvard and Chicago.
• From 1970 to 2000, there was an increase from fewer than 70 to more than 300 think tanks, with two-thirds of the new ones being conservative in orientation, according to Andrew Rich, author of Think Tanks, Public Policy and the Politics of Expertise.
• In 1996, donors gave US$47.8 million to liberal institutes, US$169 million to conservative ones and US$319 million to places of no identifiable leaning.
• Most partisan research centers are unconnected to universities. The Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, on the right, line up against the Institute for Policy Studies, the Progressive Policy Institute and People for the American Way on the liberal left.
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Taiwan is facing multiple economic challenges due to internal and external pressures. Internal challenges include energy transition, upgrading industries, a declining birthrate and an aging population. External challenges are technology competition between the US and China, international supply chain restructuring and global economic uncertainty. All of these issues complicate Taiwan’s economic situation. Taiwan’s reliance on fossil fuel imports not only threatens the stability of energy supply, but also goes against the global trend of carbon reduction. The government should continue to promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as energy storage technology, to diversify energy supply. It