Re: JEP Schleiffer
Shleifer should get a chutzpah award, writing about ethics, given his history with USAID and Russia. He got fired from Harvard, no? At 09:43 PM 8/11/2004 -0700, you wrote: Paul deserves criticism for his summary of Shleifer -- he is far too gentle. Shliefer insists that market-induced competition does not create undesirable consequences. It is non-market corruption that is bad. And he is considered one of the bright lights of economics. Paul wrote: 2) Latest AEA/AER publication (San Diego Proceedings) has a choice article: Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior? by Andrei Shleiffer. Opening sentence: This paper shows that conduct described as unethical and blamed on 'greed' is sometimes a consequence of market competition. This builds on the author's article entitled Corruption in last year's QJE. I am sorry to kick someone when they are down, and also to criticize someone not on the list but... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: JEP Schleiffer
Robert Naiman wrote: Shleifer should get a chutzpah award, writing about ethics, given his history with USAID and Russia. He got fired from Harvard, no? Hey, it takes one to know one. Why do you think FDR made Joe Kennedy the first head of the SEC? Doug
Re: JEP Schleiffer
Did he get fired? Just from the development institute? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: JEP Schleiffer
BTW this is the Russian newspaper Izvestia commenting on Schleiffer's fall from grace. Izvestia August 10, 2004 HARVARD PROFESSOR'S SPOUSE LINED HER POCKETS IN PRIVATIZATION An update on the scandal around the so called Harvard Project. Author: Konstantin Getmansky [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] HARVARD PROJECT, A PROGRAM GENEROUSLY FINANCED BY THE US ADMINISTRATION, WAS SUPPOSED TO HELP RUSSIA MAKE A TRANSITION TO FREE MARKET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 1990'S. IN FACT, AMERICAN CONSULTANTS ANDREI SCHLEIFER AND JONATHAN HAY USED INSIDER INFORMATION ON PRIVATIZATION OF MAJOR RUSSIAN ENTERPRISES FOR PERSONAL ENRICHMENT Harvard Project, a program generously financed by the US Administration, was supposed to help Russia make a transition to free market in the middle of the 1990's. In fact, American consultants Andrei Schleifer and Jonathan Hay used insider information on privatization of major Russian enterprises for personal enrichment. Their wives participated. Nancy Zimmerman recompensed the US Administration for the damage estimated by attorneys at $1.5 million last Thursday. Zimmerman decided to pay up to avoid criminal charges. It happened a month after the verdict of the federal court of Massachusetts that convicted her husband, Harvard Professor of Economics Schleifer, for machinations and falsification of his reports on his activities in the capacity of adviser to the government of Russia. Schleifer spent between 1994 and 1997 in Moscow, involved with the already non-existent Harvard Institute of International Development within the framework of the American program of assistance to Russia in transition to free market economy. Along with everything else, Schleifer was a consultant of the Federal Commission for Securities that received hefty grants from the United States then for establishment of the securities markets in Russia. The first accusations concerning integrity of the professor and his wife appeared right upon his return to the United States in 1997. The prosecutor's office initiated criminal proceedings and an investigation only in 2000. When it was over, it filed lawsuit against Schleifer and Zimmerman demanding recompense to the US Administration for its losses. Investigation is convinced that Schleifer with the help from his wife used his position for personal enrichment. Using the insider information he was privy to, he and his wife established several dummy corporations through which they bought shares in Russian enterprises slated for privatization. The accord between the US Administration and Harvard expressly banned this. Aware of that and using their personal capitals, Schleifer and Zimmerman bought $464,000 worth of shares in Russian oil companies. Schleifer also used his relatives' fortunes to buy into Gazprom. This is blatant neglect of all norms of ethics, said Sarah Bloom, Massachusetts Assistant DA. Two experts hired to promote observance of the law, integrity and openness of market in Russia taught the Russians something altogether different. On June 28, the federal court of Massachusetts convicted Schleifer. Judge Douglas Woodlock did not set the sum Schleifer and Jonathan Hay (his colleague and former head of the Harvard Institute of International Development) are supposed to return to the US Administration. DA office insists on $102 million. The final verdict will be passed on September 13. As for Zimmerman, the court did not even begin. Last Thursday, he returned to the state $1.5 million worth of damage as estimated by the prosecution. Zimmerman is one of the owners of Farallon Fixed Income Associates, said Samantha Martin of the Massachusetts DA office. We believe that FFIA used the resources, personnel, and influence of the Harvard Project in Russia for its own investments in the Russian economy. Between December 1995 and June 1997, FFIA made use of all these resources and insider information on the activities of New World Capital. The company bought and sold shares in Russian companies using the arrangement that permitted it not to pay taxes to the Russian budget. This solution of the problem shows that the United States will always be after whoever uses government programs for his or her own benefit, said Massachusetts DA Michael Sullivan. We will not permit the use of taxpayers' money for personal enrichment. Translated by A. Ignatkin --- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did he get fired? Just from the development institute? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: JEP Schleiffer
Michael wrote: Paul deserves criticism for his summary of Shleifer -- he is far too gentle. Shliefer insists that market-induced competition does not create undesirable consequences. It is non-market corruption that is bad. Response Jim C: I have been invited to present a paper in Beijing at Tsinghua University at the upcoming conference on Sept 1-2 on The International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries. My paper is on the "The Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-Based Processes and Socialist Construction." The paper argues that capitalism requires certain fundamental institutions, values, norms, power relations/structures, etc (social capital) for its expanded reproduction and the requisite fundamental social capital of capitalism is fundamentally contradictory to those fundamental institutions, values, norms, power relations/structures requisite for socialist construction--even allowing for diverse definitions of what socialism and socialist construction is all about. The social capital of capitalism, as in the case of social capital in general, involves institutions designed to foster some degrees of trust, hope, cooperation, social cohesion and buying into the system on the part of the masses even as market-based forms and levels of competition, values and behaviors associated with methodological individualism--along with the core relations and survival imperatives in capitalist competition--undermine that social capital and objectively--and measureably--cause/reinforce mas! s cynicism, loss of hope, loss of social cohesion, social darwinism, loss of trust, fraud, environmental decay and inevitable trajectories/vicissitudes/trends that cause loss of mass belief in the system itself. The paper argues that the core imperatives and power-relations/structures of survival in capitalist competition are self-contradictory and undermine the requisite social capital of capitalism (necessary for its expanded reproduction) itself as well as being fundamentally in contradiction with--and hostile to--the requisite "social capital" of socialist construction The paper argues that socialism is about dictatorship of the proletariat, changing "human nature" itself and progressively pulling up the poisonous weeds of capitalism and pre-capitalism (productive relations, ideas, myths, traditions, institutions, power relations/structures, etc) and that although China faces myriad challenges and horrible historical legacies that must be addressed, along with increasing hostility and threatening machinations from U.S. imperialism thus making rapid development of material forces even more imperative for survival and socialist construction of China, all capitalist/market-based institutions are fundamentally contradictory to socialist construction and should be regrarded as tactical compromises (as Lenin honesty characterized the NEP in Russia) for the purposes of strategic advance and not a new model of socialist construction to be emulated elsewhere. I have been asked to moderate a workshop on the question of whether or not capitalism is being restored in China--or has already been restored in China--with proponents of the thesis--that capitalism is being/has been restored in China--(of which I am not one)invited to debate the question with scholars from Tsingua and other Chinese universities who anxiously await the debate. I also note, that the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard, originally one of the sponsors of the Symposium, is no longer listed as one of the sponsors and I wonder if the machinations of Schleiffer had something to do with that. Place: Tsinghua University, Beijing Time: September 1-2, 2004 The International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries INVITATION Dear Professor: I am very pleased to invite you to take part in the International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights Enterprise Development in Sino-Russian Economic Transition, which will be held in Beijing on 1-2 September, 2004. The participants will include some distinguished scholars of this field from China, Russia, the United States, Britain, Japan and other countries, about 20 from home and overseas separately; high officials from the National Development and Reform Commission, State -owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, Development Research Center of the State Council $B!$ (JFinance and Economics Commission of NPC, Law Commission of NPC, and distinguished entrepreneurs from both state-owned and private-owned enterprises and foreign corporations. Main topics of the
Re: JEP Schleiffer
1) I, for one, deeply regret the loss of JEP. I don't think anyone can really maintain that the new version is more socially useful, especially compared to the way JEP was before the 'great turnover', when the AEA itself was less monolithic. It seems that within the AEA, there is now a ruling dynamic that is far more concerned with promoting their ideology than with serving the public. 2) Latest AEA/AER publication (San Diego Proceedings) has a choice article: Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior? by Andrei Shleiffer. Opening sentence: This paper shows that conduct described as unethical and blamed on 'greed' is sometimes a consequence of market competition. This builds on the author's article entitled Corruption in last year's QJE. I am sorry to kick someone when they are down, and also to criticize someone not on the list but... 3) The two issues are part of a larger problem - AEA's role (or lack of role) in promoting ethics and a sense of public responsibility in the profession. I was struck by this at the San Diego ASSA and commented on it to the list at the time. AEA, and the economics profession in general, lags considerably behind other fields on this point. Paul At 08:55 AM 7/31/2004 -0700, you wrote: Shleifer is the editor; DeLong is gone. So the journal has become more technical, less topical. Its beauty, especially under Stiglitz, was that it could keep non-specialists informed about different fields and truly offer different, even dissident, perspectives. On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:47:51AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: [was RE: [PEN-L] Deeper Problems for Shleifer] Michael writes: Does anybody niotice the rapid decline in the Journal of Economic Perspectives? A right winger will take over the Journal of Economc Literature. I haven't been paying attention. Why do you think that the JEP is in decline? why do you think it went into that tailspin? who is the editor? is it still Brad deLong? who's taking over the JEL? replacing whom? jim d -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: JEP Schleiffer
Paul deserves criticism for his summary of Shleifer -- he is far too gentle. Shliefer insists that market-induced competition does not create undesirable consequences. It is non-market corruption that is bad. And he is considered one of the bright lights of economics. Paul wrote: 2) Latest AEA/AER publication (San Diego Proceedings) has a choice article: Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior? by Andrei Shleiffer. Opening sentence: This paper shows that conduct described as unethical and blamed on 'greed' is sometimes a consequence of market competition. This builds on the author's article entitled Corruption in last year's QJE. I am sorry to kick someone when they are down, and also to criticize someone not on the list but... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
JEP
[was RE: [PEN-L] Deeper Problems for Shleifer] Michael writes: Does anybody niotice the rapid decline in the Journal of Economic Perspectives? A right winger will take over the Journal of Economc Literature. I haven't been paying attention. Why do you think that the JEP is in decline? why do you think it went into that tailspin? who is the editor? is it still Brad deLong? who's taking over the JEL? replacing whom? jim d
Re: JEP
Shleifer is the editor; DeLong is gone. So the journal has become more technical, less topical. Its beauty, especially under Stiglitz, was that it could keep non-specialists informed about different fields and truly offer different, even dissident, perspectives. On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:47:51AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: [was RE: [PEN-L] Deeper Problems for Shleifer] Michael writes: Does anybody niotice the rapid decline in the Journal of Economic Perspectives? A right winger will take over the Journal of Economc Literature. I haven't been paying attention. Why do you think that the JEP is in decline? why do you think it went into that tailspin? who is the editor? is it still Brad deLong? who's taking over the JEL? replacing whom? jim d -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: JEP
--- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shleifer is the editor; DeLong is gone. So the journal has become more technical, less topical. The same Shleifer that was investigated b/c of his work in Russia? __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: JEP
Whoops, obviously yes. I hadn't read that post yet. --- Chris Doss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shleifer is the editor; DeLong is gone. So the journal has become more technical, less topical. The same Shleifer that was investigated b/c of his work in Russia? __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[PEN-L:1122] article in latest JEP
Out of curiosity, has anyone else read the article by J. David Richardson, "Income Inequality and Trade: How to Think, What to Conclude" in the latest JEP? Doesn't it rank as one of the most explicit instances of neoclassical bankruptcy? Richards gives us a simple 2x2x2 trade model with no money, no capital account, automatic and instantaneously clearing markets, and unique equilibrium, and derives from this the conclusion that only relative product prices and productivities matter for relative wages. Only to the extent that trade changes these can it have any impact on inequality. So he instructs us to *ignore* any empirical evidence that contradicts this! (Since the relationships in the data aren't in the model, they must be spurious.) Moreover, this idiocy is not simply presented as his own opinion, but as the "consensus" of all economists who are competent to discuss this issue. What a pathetic profession is economics. Peter Dorman
