----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
This is a comment on Nitasha Kaul's mail about RAND and ideology. 
 
I find the word 'ideology' very unhelpful. In the most general sense, it 
seems to mean any set of motivating or guiding beliefs. For example, my 
belief that it is worthwhile to read and contribute to the HES list, is 
presumably ultimately ideological. It is in this sense, I guess, that 
Nitasha Kaul claims that 'all work is ideologically committed'. But the 
claim that economists are 'disguising ideology as science', in the same 
mail, seems to involve a different definition - science is what I do; 
ideology is anything I disagree with. 
 
There is a fundamental problem with any claim that economists provide 
solutions that 'enhance or protect the interests of the privileged in 
society'. Suppose the ruling class want to use economics in this way. To do 
so, they need an economics that correctly predicts the results of policy 
choices in order to know which solutions will in fact protect their 
interests. This would have to be kept secret, while a parallel 
'ideological' economics provided rationalisations for public consumption. 
It is not impossible for this to happen, of course, but to think that the 
RAND worked like that would be verging on paranoia. 
 
Funders will, of course, seek research on questions they think are 
important (which might be disguised forms of 'what will best protect the 
interests of the privileged'). Researchers will present the projects they 
find interesting so as to make them appear to fit with what the funders say 
they want. This game is made more interesting when the funding comes via 
intermediate tiers of people who do not share their ultimate employers' 
interests but are better qualified to assess the research (e.g. the 
personnel and advisers of the NSF, ESRC etc.). 
 
Memory says that all sorts of weird and wonderful activities were funded by 
the US military in the 1950s and after. The internet was one result. 
 
To claim that economics is wholly detached from political issues and 
pressures is clearly absurd, but stigmatising it as 'the handmaiden (sic) 
of power' is equally inadequate. 
 
 
Tony Brewer  
University of Bristol 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]