Many others I am sure find this ‘economists oath’ an attractive idea, but
fear that any disclosure demands will do little to curb the fundamental
problems history of economics faces, and that personal scholarly integrity
is all we have to cling to.  

Here I just thought to illustrate this matter with one of my own off beat
fishing trips, in case anyone finds it interesting:

Cold War Clientalism and Karl Popper (henceforward KRP)

I believe all the following claims can be reasonably supported:

KRP was a late 20th century figurehead in the defence of philosophical
objectivity itself.  He very prominently exposed the way political and
economic power were used to shape the fundamental philosophies of whole
societies in his “Open Society and its Enemies”   Yet KRP’s academic career
itself was based upon his promotion of false doctrine of “historicism”,
within a framework of political/economic patronage and funding.

Its clear from Hacohen’s biography of KRP’s life up to 1945 that his post of
professor at LSE was almost exclusively got by the efforts of Hayek.  Hayek
wanted a philosopher on his team, most especially one who would counter the
socialistic interpretations of logical positivism put about by Neurath. 
Broadly, when Popper turned up as an opponent of logical positivism, with
some hasty ideas concerning historicism, developed in opposition to then
popular ideas concerning state planning, Hayek started to seek ways to
assist him.  Specific discussion concerning historicism led fairly directly
to both the publication, (by Herbert Read) of OSE, and also KRP’s Chair at LSE.

The fly in this ointment comes after Popper’s death.  Munz was a philosopher
and historian, and one of the very few of Popper’s pupils who had not become
intellectually estranged from KRP.  Soon after KRP’s death in 1994 Munz
published a piece arguing that Popper’s whole thesis concerning Historicism
was misconceived, it was an empty quixotic enterprise.  I have myself always
felt that Popper’s historicism thesis did not stand up to scrutiny, and it
seems that all along Munz had felt the same, but chose not to publish the
fact until Popper was dead.

Munz does not link this philosophical flaw in any way to Popper’s career
development, nor to its intimate involvement in economic arguments.  Hacohen
does not cite Munz on this matter, and buries deep in his text a strong hint
that there are funding matters involved (not in the introduction, nor the
body of the text, but at the end of his acknowledgements!).  Thus the reader
must bring to this situation from elsewhere potentially vital understandings
of funding streams associated with Hayek personally, with the institution of
the LSE, and the Cold war funding associated with CCF.

Thus it seems to me that this complicated and troubling matter lies way
beyond the reach of any oath, because it is

a) intellectually too profound to be caught

b) If Munz is correct (and I think he is) then Popper deluded himself over
this matter.

c)  The funding streams, although vital, all indirectly assisted Popper. 
There is no cash he would have to declare.

Rob Tye