In response to Mason Gaffney's view that 'more balance' is needed, the
issue is surely that of independence - whether of the politicians or
of the robber-barons - moreover there is a difference between
independence in one's views and independence in what one does (witness
the number of heterodox economists who nevertheless deliver orthodox
courses).

In the UK I was informed by the tax-levied funder of Social Science
research, the ESRC, that in effect they do not fund independent
research on principle! As I wrote in the earlier post, a debate among
economists on 'the economics of being an economist' would be welcome.

On the specific points:

>  Gunning, Salerno, and Edwards ... claim that economists working for
>public universities are
>ipso-facto biased towards statism.

No -  but, by definition an employee carries out the employer's agenda
- presumably the contract of employment would be breached if that were
not the case? One could be employed by Microsoft (and thereby enacting
the Microsoft mission) while at the same time being intellectually
opposed to Microsoft. Which is more significant: the views one
professes or what one does?

>As to "taking the king's shilling", should one not also mention:
>         1. Leading private universities funded by robber barons,

The funding is not the issue, the issue is whose agenda is being
funded - the research agenda or the funder's agenda. Obviously a
situation is needed in which pure research is carried out
independently of its funding. Ideally research funding needs to be
freely made available to researchers as the likelihood of a double- 
coincidence of 'wills' between employers and employed is unlikely.

>.. I recommend a close reading of Upton Sinclair, The Goose Step.

I shall look it out. Are you aware that Upton Sinclair offered this
observation also: "It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ?
To the point, I think, for this discussion.

>         2. Dozens of modern think tanks and "charitable" foundations
>controlled by private persons of great wealth and obvious anti-statist
>orientation?

Agreed - That is a problem when control is vested in some other person
than the one active as a researcher.

>         3. Leading "scholarly" journals funded by #1 above, and edited by
>their personnel?

If 'their' implies possession of the individual by the institution in
such a way that the individual must surrender independence then I
understand the point.

Its not clear to me why one shouldn't be able to be funded 'from all
sides' as long as the strength of one's character is a match for the
temptation to bow to Caesar (or indeed Rockefeller).

I would be interested to know if anyone on this list has examples of
independent funded research (contemporary or historic). Is York
University, the host of this list, an example?

Arthur Edwards

PS Does public=state (as in public university) or is it the case that
a university is de facto a 'public institution' notwithstanding its
source of funding?