This fascinating discussion about plagiarism continues to have wider
implications. As I see it, at stake is (1) the economist's ethical
responsibility (2) its enforcement (3) the rights of victims of
unethical conduct.
These are three different things. We may agree that economists should
be ethical, but disagree on how to regulate it. We may disagree about
regulation, but still protect the rights of victims. I am unpersuaded
that 'ethical' can be equated to 'what can be prevented'. I am
equally unpersuaded that if enforcement is lax, an abused victim
should be denied redress.
An example from another galaxy may help. The UN charter of Human
Rights, article 23, prescribes "the right to work, a decent wage,
rest, holidays, and reasonable working hours". Article 26 prescribes
that "Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.
Technical and professional education shall be made generally
available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on
the basis of merit". For that matter, the US constitution still
prescribes Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." These are
values, rights, ethical prescriptions. They are difficult to honour.
Nevertheless, we should only rescind them if we cease to regard them
as ethical. We should not negotiate them because they are difficult or costly.
I don't see any difference between this and ethical conduct in any
sphere, from which I see no reason to exempt economics. To the
contrary, a concept of ethics in economics is long-overdue, as
pointed out in Colander et al's must-read "The Financial Crisis and
the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics"
(<http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/papers/Dahlem_Report_EconCrisis021809.pdf>http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/papers/Dahlem_Report_EconCrisis021809.pdf).
Here they say: "In our view, economists, as with all scientists, have
an ethical responsibility ... Currently, there is no ethical code for
professional economic scientists. There should be one." I agree.
The full quote (which I have abbreviated) articulates a specific
ethical concern, the duty to communicate limitations. But the
principle is general: if it's ethically required, it should be
ethically prescribed. It should be codified. This introduces at least
the minimum requirement of accountability. If our profession were to
clearly and unequivocally pronounce (like Doctors, Architects,
Planner, Engineers, Lawyers, Accountants.....) what is right and
wrong conduct for an economist, then even if we ourselves can do
nothing about it, we would at least have a standard against which
economists, journals, HE institutions, public servants and for that
matter, banks, can be judged by the public.
Codification must be protected from enforcement. Yes, it is difficult
to protect against misrepresentation. It is also difficult to stop
climate change. Both are still wrong. This line cannot be blurred.
Equally, 'should the victim have redress?' is at least autonomous
from 'is it enforced?'. If a corrupt or lax regulator fails to
protect me from fraud, I am allowed civil redress to reclaim the
money of which I was defrauded. If we choose to throw up our hands
and announce we cannot prevent plagiarism, then injured parties -
whose entire careers are sometimes at stake, as this discussion has
shown - must have the right to seek redress. Any other idea is
morally inexcusable and ethically highly dangerous.
It was in this context I raised the use of copyright. It's an
imperfect instrument, and it wasn't devised to catch plagiarism. But
my advice to any victim is 'if it works, and if you need it to
enforce a right not honoured, then use it'.
Regards
Alan Freeman
|
