I certainly found Rob Tye's "fishing trip" interesting, having been a student in the LSE's philosophy department (MSc Logic and Scietific Method, 1986) at a time when there were still staff members who had known and/or studied with Popper. (I had the chance to observe the man himself in action at an alumnus event a few years later -- not an impressive spectacle.)

I also agree that codes of conduct may not succeed in catching the kind of unconscious (or semi-conscious) institutional and intellectual corruption that Rob finds in the details of Popper's career.

But it must be stressed that advocacy of codes of conduct has nothing to do with the Economist's Oath argued for by DeMartino in his book of that name.

Indeed, he explicitly *rejects* codes of conduct as a campaign objective for those seeking a socially-responsible economics profession, on the grounds that it will rouse the suspicion, hence opposition, of economists imbued with the prejudice that such codes, and their associated need for policing mechanisms, are simply a covert means of creating and enforcing professional cartels.

What DeMartino wants is a new academic discipline in the ethics of economics, the output of which would inform his proposed Oath (which would be a promise to uphold the ethical considerations it would refer to, *not* a commitment to be bound by a specific code of conduct).


Julian Wells


Dr Julian Wells

Director of Studies
School of Economics

staff web-page: http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/staff/cv.php?staffnum=287
personal web-site: http://staffnet.kingston.ac.uk/~ku32530

Principal lecturer
School of Economics
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Kingston University
Penrhyn Road
Kingston-upon-Thames
KT1 2EE
United Kingdom

+44 (0)20 8417 2341
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rob Tye [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 October 2011 11:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] "Inside Job" and code of ethics for economists

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

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.