« Assorted links | Main | Top economic misconceptions of the lay people you wish you could correct? »
Eric Posner is now blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy
Eric is very, very smart and knows lots of economics. Here is his first post; excerpt:
The busy international legal activity that occurred during the post-Cold War era – the establishment of international courts, the involvement of the Security Council, the advance of international trade law – will slow down and perhaps even reenter the deep freeze into which it was shunted during the Cold War. The irony is that liberal internationalism could advance only as long as the United States was the sole superpower and in the mood to advance it.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 20, 2008 at 05:16 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
Yes, but the type of liberal internationalism that Posner recognizes was acceptable only as long as it was subservient to the whims of the American nation-state. That goes far toward explaining post-Cold War opposition to it.
Much better would have been a return to the type of liberal internationalism that existed in the pre-Wilson world. But that was never on the table.
Posted by: barry at Aug 20, 2008 5:38:52 PM
E. Posner's post lacks a reasonable context in which to analyze Russia-Georgia conflict and its implications. For anyone interested in such a context I recommend to read Thomas Madden's Empires of Trust, just published.
In particular, I think that the last paragraph of Posner's post is based on a false assumption about the progress of "public" international law (in civil law countries we distinguish between private and public international law). I remember a course on public international law that I took in 1958 in Universidad Nacional La Plata (Argentina) with Professor Díaz Cisneros who had contributed greatly to the formation of the League of Nations and therefore liked to argue that the League had been a great idea. When we questioned him about what the League of Nations actually achieved in terms of order, peace and cooperation he acknowledged that it had been a complete failure.
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Aug 20, 2008 5:59:40 PM
Yeah, but except for the setbacks to international trade law, aren't these good things? Looks like a 2-1 win to me.
Posted by: Alan Gunn at Aug 20, 2008 7:48:04 PM
THE TILTING YARD
By THOMAS FRANK
We’re Not All Friedmanites Now
August 20, 2008; Page A17
Once upon a time there was a master narrative, and a neater little theory-of-everything you never did see. In its 19th century heyday it rationalized the having of the haves and commanded the deference of the have-nots; it spoke from the pulpit, the newspaper and the professor’s chair.
Its name was market, and to slight it in even the smallest way was to take your professional life into your hands. In 1895, the economist Edward Bemis found this out when he was dismissed from John D. Rockefeller’s University of Chicago thanks to his “attitude on public utility and labor questions,” as he put it in a letter to Upton Sinclair. Professors elsewhere paid the same price for intellectual independence.
But the orthodoxy lost its power of life and death. Academia developed protections for scholars who pursued unpopular ideas. Rockefeller’s University of Chicago went on to become the pre-eminent research university in the land, a temple of free inquiry and a magnet for Nobel prizes. I studied there and loved its atmosphere of endless debate.
Today, though, that old master narrative is back in a softer form. The market doesn’t so much intimidate scholars as bend them in particular, profitable directions. For example, a contract between Virginia Commonwealth University and Philip Morris reportedly gives that company the right to veto publication of certain research done by VCU professors. The New York Times tells of a prominent Harvard child psychologist, a powerful advocate for certain drugs, who received large consulting fees from drug manufacturers. Further examples could be piled up by the dozen.
And now, courtesy of the University of Chicago, we get a glimpse of what might come next. As I mentioned a few months ago, the university has launched a $200 million academic enterprise called the Milton Friedman Institute, after the famous economist and Nobel laureate.
I have no problem with something being named after Milton Friedman. American University once had a building named after Adnan Kashoggi. At West Virginia University there is a Kmart chair of marketing. At the University of Memphis there is an Arthur Andersen Chair of Excellence in Accountancy.
What ought to alarm us, though, is the Milton Friedman Institute’s apparent plan to transform free-market orthodoxy into a bankable intellectual product. What is evidently going to reel in the dollars here is not research but ideology.
I say “apparent” and “evidently” because the Institute won’t open its doors until this fall. But the proposal which launched it fairly drips with politics. The Institute is to be concerned with economics, yes, but only with a specific sort of economics: with those that “reflect the traditions of the Chicago School and typify some of Milton Friedman’s most interesting academic work, including his . . . advocacy for market alternatives to ill conceived policy initiatives.”
Bruce Lincoln, a professor of the history of religions who is helping lead a faculty protest against the institute, told me the proposal “takes it as settled, once and for all, that the market is the only reasonable actor, while states, NGOs, and others just make a mess of things. . . . That’s an ideologically committed, narrow perpetuation of a right-wing orthodoxy.”
But what’s the point in defending free-market orthodoxy if there’s no free-market action for its defenders? The Milton Friedman Institute may have the answer, via an adjunct organization called the Milton Friedman Society — which, according to a University Web site, will confer upon “donors at the $1 million and $2 million level” the right to participate in institute proceedings.
Actually, those high-net-worth individuals aren’t giving, they’re giving back, rewarding the orthodoxy that secures their wealth. “When you think about the big battle between socialism and free markets,” mused Edward Snyder, dean of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, in a Bloomberg interview, Friedman “led the charge on behalf of the University of Chicago. There are a lot of people who will give back because of his name and effort and legacy.”
Will there be room at the Institute for true academic debate? University provost Thomas Rosenbaum assured me that the Institute would bring in Keynesian economists as well as traditional Friedmanites, and that it would “make the University of Chicago a destination place for scholars across the spectrum.” Furthermore, he said, “no intellectual enterprise at the university will ever be for sale.”
Still, considering Mr. Snyder’s remark about the “big battle,” one may doubt. All sorts of academic disciplines are concerned with economies; thinkers of every description have defensible ideas on the subject. But apparently the only debate that ever mattered was between socialism and markets, and now that debate is settled. The intellectual cartel is back in the saddle, and no doubt the haves will soon be toasting its brilliance just like in the old days.
Posted by: Happy Camper at Aug 20, 2008 8:37:13 PM
What's the matter with Thomas Frank?
Posted by: John S. at Aug 20, 2008 9:30:18 PM
Milton Friedman gets lots of love from everybody. Happy Camper, if you were born in the 19th century, you would protest against the establishment of large awards for scholarship because the gentleman who sought to establish them and name them after himself was the inventor of dynamite.
Posted by: Jason Armstrong at Aug 20, 2008 11:07:40 PM
At least Frank is coherent.
Notice that he is careful to tone down Lincoln's "right-wing orthodoxy" to "free-market orthodoxy." He is not as rabid as the other critics.
Posted by: PJ at Aug 21, 2008 1:39:24 AM
Oops!
I just should have said not rabid.
Posted by: PJ at Aug 21, 2008 1:49:01 AM
I think this is pretty established in political science - Hegemonic theory of free trade, ie one superpower has to give concessions in free trade in order to prevent the prisoner's dilemma of protectionism from taking over.
Posted by: Dave at Aug 21, 2008 3:28:24 PM
I think this is pretty established in political science - Hegemonic theory of free trade, ie one superpower has to give concessions in free trade in order to prevent the prisoner's dilemma of protectionism from taking over.
Posted by: Dave at Aug 21, 2008 3:28:41 PM
Gucci Replica Jewelry
Tiffany Jewelry
Replica Tiffany Jewelry
Tiffany Replica Jewelry/a>
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 18, 2009 9:15:57 PM
