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.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
RSS