Re: Conflict - Notre Dame and elsewhere

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

> In Mexico in March 2002 at the UN-sponsored NGOs' Conference on Financing
> for Development, I asked the senior IMF representative whether it really
is
> true, as it seems from the outside, that within IMF there is no internal
> debate to counter the neo-liberal orthodoxy. He answered, the neo-liberal
> policy package is the only game in town. That is, the only coherent body
of
> unified theory available for him and his colleagues to draw on.
>
> This is not true, but I can understand why it might appear that way.

Comment:

As an old IMF hand (1966-1989), I agree (a) "that within the IMF there is no
internal debate to counter the neo-liberal orthodoxy," and (b) that, in an
important sense, "the neo-liberal policy package is the only game in town."

The reason for (a) is not, as indicated by Stiglitz (?), that IMF economists
are "third rate" graduates of "first rate" economics departments - there is
no shortage of
first-class minds at the IMF.

Instead, the problem is that such minds arrive there trained in "third rate"
economics at university departments which are "first rate" in teaching such
"third rate" stuff.

As for (b), it was my impression during my time at the IMF that, as a
general proposition, papers on aspects of "the neo-liberal policy package"
prepared by IMF Research Department economists were analogous in approach to
monetary issues and techniques of analysis to the "industry" standard -
namely, useless.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Edwards" <g.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:29 AM
Subject: Conflict - Notre Dame and elsewhere


>
> My contribution to this debate over the need for a unified heterodox
theory
> is that, it depends on what particular individuals want to do with their
> knowledge and their lives. To those such as academics whose mission is to
> uncover new insights in extending the boundaries of knowledge, a degree of
> professional and theoretical rivalry may be a positive, if it stimulates
> original thought. But to those such as civil servants and politicians who
> wish to craft enduring public policy, intellectual hair-splitting is
> intolerable.
>
> In Mexico in March 2002 at the UN-sponsored NGOs' Conference on Financing
> for Development, I asked the senior IMF representative whether it really
is
> true, as it seems from the outside, that within IMF there is no internal
> debate to counter the neo-liberal orthodoxy. He answered, the neo-liberal
> policy package is the only game in town. That is, the only coherent body
of
> unified theory available for him and his colleagues to draw on.
>
> This is not true, but I can understand why it might appear that way.
>
> Critical to the progression of any new idea in the political arena is a
> corpus of intellectual reasoning which is able to be harnessed in support.
> When politicians and their advisers are casting around for solutions to
> their current problems, they will - barring overriding coercion - select
the
> most convincing and unified paradigm available at the time. If progressive
> economists wish to influence public policy, this is what they must produce
> and present.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Geoff Edwards
> PhD Student
> Griffith University
> Brisbane, Australia
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]  On
> Behalf Of Bill Mitchell
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:49 AM
> To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The conflict at Notre Dame
>
> Clifford wrote:
>
> >I would like someone to show an example where the use of either higher
> >mathematics or econometric modeling has provided a theoretical insight
that
> >made any substantial difference in how policy has been executed, and thus
> >led to an overall improvement in economic performance.
>
> all policy design is based on quantitative modelling of one sort or
> another. there is
> no other game in town and so progressive economists MUST develop
capacities
> in this area of the discipline. I don't subscribe to the view that the
> techniques are
> paradigm-specific and so must be rejected by progressives if the orthodoxy
> uses
> them.
>
> Properly executed quantitative studies are also essential to keep an
> effective
> level of debate going against the mainstream.
>
>
> >I doubt such an example exists. While not opposing the use of
quantitative
> >methods per se, I think that it is ill advised for heterodox economists
to
> >"ape" neo-classical economics. Method may be the distinguishing factor
that
> >gets new PhD's jobs or sends them to the unemployment line.
>
> yes but also being exposed to modern quantitative (econometric) techniques
> may also attract young PhDs to the progressive cause if they see it has
> some "substance". By this I mean that if they have been exposed to
orthodoxy
> first and are already leaning to the view that "science" requires
> "rigorous" foundations
> and sophisticated econometrics .... then a progressive economist with all
> the tools
> can show them (a) how vacuous orthodoxy is, and (b) how exciting a
> progressive
> applied agenda can be.
>
> >We should focus on what heterodoxers do best-exploring the historical,
> >evolutionary and institutional dimensions of economic systems. To the
> extent
> >that math can aid in that quest, all to the good. To the extent that we
can
> >use mere words-all the better.
>
> definitely.
>
> On the unified paradigm that Paul advocates: I see more division among
> progressives
> in many cases than across paradigms. Many progressives span the border
line
> between
> the orthodoxy and something else. I don't see any hope for uniting behind
a
> "keynes"-type
> basis, of the sort that Paul advocates. In that sense, I also think
> Clifford's recent post
> on the sterility of the party-line among progressives was interesting.
>
> best wishes
> bill
>
>
> William F. Mitchell
> Professor of Economics
> Director, Centre of Full Employment and Equity
> University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
> E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: +61-2-4921 5065
> Fax:   +61-2-4921 6919
> Mobile: 0419 422 410
>
> http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
> http://www.billmitchell.org
>
>