John Samples wrote:
>Krugman's underlying assumption (which, I think, Bill Dickens shares
>to some extent) was that there are two kinds of intellectuals writing about
>policy: objective scientists and biased ideologues.
I'm glad you say "to some extent." I don't agree that there are just two categories in
any meaningful sense. Nobody is completely objective and even the worst ideologues
always act as if they felt that facts place some constraints on the arguments they can
make. Whether or not we like to admit it, at least in Economics, an awful lot of
progress comes from ideological adversaries dukeing it out over the analysis and the
facts. Far more important to me than someone's ideology is their honesty and the
general quality of their work. I've often said that I typically learn more from
reading one of Arthur Jensen's writings than reading ten articles written by his
critics. Those who know me know that a large ideological gap separates us. So good
scientists vs. bad ideologues simply is not the issue at all.
>Brookings may be independent, but endowment income is not the cause.
>Consider three examples of institutions that have independent incomes and
>are heavily partisan: the Century Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation,
>and the Ford Foundation. There are many more throughout the political
>spectrum. (As an aside, it makes sense that endowment income produces
>shirking, not independence. Not true in Brookings's case but otherwise
>robust, I think).
(Thanks for the last comment John.) I think endowment income is neither a necessary
nor sufficient condition for independence. The NBER is pretty independent despite the
fact that it exists largely off corporate and government largess. John's point about
Ford and Rockefeller are telling. However, it does make a difference to me that I
never have to worry about getting some important funder angry by saying something that
he/she doesn't want to hear. When I first arrived at Brookings I was invited to
comment on a proposal for a huge jobs program for inner city youth that the
Rockefeller Foundation was pushing. I flew up to New York and told them in no
uncertain terms that I thought the idea was a political non-starter and that even if
it wasn't that it was a very bad idea. This is something that I don't think I would
have had the courage to do if I had been working somewhere where my job depended on my
ability to raise outside money for my projects.
>However, I happen to think Dickens is partially correct here. The fact that
>Bob Crandall and Pietro Nivola have neither been punished nor fired for
>their views suggests that Brookings does tolerate a degree of diversity.
(I think "tolerate" is a bit weak. I would say "seeks out and thrives on." I believe
both Pietro and Bob are quite happy here. Pietro and I are personal friends as well as
colleagues sharing a common interest in soccer. We read and comment on each others
work.)
>Jim
>Reichley also worked at Brookings for years, and Jim is about as
>conservative as anyone I know. Still, Brookings has heavy partisans like
>E.J. Dionne on board now.
We also have Diane Ravitch (a strong Republican partisan) running our education
program. I would prefer the organization try to be non-partisan as opposed to
bi-partisan, but we have moved more towards the latter in recent years.
>Brookings was also quite liberal more or less up and down the line back in
>the days when the country was quite left. Why have they become more
>moderate?
This is not the history of the institution the way I know it. I entered graduate
school shortly after the end of the Vietnam war. Most of my compatriots in graduate
school viewed Brookings as moderate defenders of the status quo. Pretty much the same
position on the political spectrum it occupies now. Joe Peckman was writing about
fundamental tax reform in a way that would have warmed the heart of most conservative
public finance people a long time ago.
>... In Brookings's case, the lessons
>learned were translated through the economics profession. Or at least that
>is my theory.
If what you are saying is that Brookings moved right with the profession I would agree
to a limited extent. Again, I think you overstate how far left Brookings was in the
past.
>"Further, the Brookings charter gives a very minimum of ideological
>guidance. Some people on this list might consider the institution's purpose
>of improving the operation of government ideological, but that's pretty
>broad guidance compared to the much narrower and less inclusive guidance in
>the charters of organizations like Cato, Heritage and AEI."
>
>On this point, see above: objective scientists versus biased ideologues.
>Funny how only organizations on the right are "much narrower and less
>inclusive."
1) I normally include PPI and EPI on my list of ideologically constrained institutions
because they certainly operate that way. I didn't here because I'm not familiar with
their charters. I happened to have had occasion recently to look at those of the three
institutions I listed and it was my sense that all three contained specific
ideological objectives identifiable with a restricted part of the political spectrum.
I wouldn't be surprised if the charters of EPI and PPI contained similar language, but
I don't know for sure. Am I wrong about this?
2) As I noted above, I don't see the world as divided between "biased ideologues vs.
true scientists."
3) But that said, isn't there a bit of truth to the notion that advocacy and research
are not fully complementary activities? The whole idea of research is that we don't
know the answer and want to find out. If you assume that you know the answers in any
sense before you start isn't that a bit antithetical to the idea of research? I'd be
the last to claim that there isn't a lot of good social science that is done by people
whose conclusions are 100% predictable. I also know many honorable people who choose
to work in organizations that stress advocacy over research. That said, I would never
want to work someplace where my conclusions were in any way circumscribed by an
institutional ethos. I didn't feel they were in academia and I don't feel they are
here at Brookings. I've written more that one paper that I'm sure would have gotten me
fired if I worked at EPI, and I don't imagine that AEI, Heritage, or Cato would ever
consider hiring me. Not because I'm so relentlessly centri!
st that I always fall in between the two extremes, but because on any given issue I
can find myself moving substantially left or right.
>The whole discussion of guns and social research raises deep and interesting
>questions. I am rather skeptical that any organization that produces writing
>and research on public issues will be neutral about values or politics.
>Brookings's good government/vital center/establishmentarianism is a
>political position too, one that is all the more effective because it says
>it's not a political position at all.
In one important sense I agree with you. From a libertarian perspective Brookings is
highly ideological and there is no point in denying it. Rather, I would argue that
considering the range of political views in this country, a much wider range of people
would feel comfortable working at Brookings than at most institutions with ideological
alignments either to our left or right. In that very real sense I think our
ideological bias is, as I said, less narrow more inclusive. Do you think I'm wrong?
As I noted above, I also think our environment is somewhat more conducive to research
though I would never make the claim that we do research and everyone else does
ideology. That would be silly. Everybody does both.
-- Bill Dickens
William T. Dickens
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 797-6113
FAX: (202) 797-6181
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AOL IM: wtdickens
