Presentation to the Southern Economic Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, 21 November 2015.

1. First tell no untruth
Affirmative pluralism as the foundation of a civil
ethical code for political economy
Alan Freeman, Geopolitical Economy Research Group
www.geopoliticaleconomy.ca
www.geopoliticaleconomy.academia.edu

2. An ethical or a scientific failure?
“The IMF’s ability to correctly
identify the mounting risks was
hindered by a high degree of
groupthink, intellectual capture, a
general mind-set that a major
financial crisis in large advanced
economies was unlikely, and
incomplete analytical approaches”
- IMF Independent Evaluation Office. 2011. IMF
Performance in the run-up to the financial and
economic crisis: IMF surveillance in 2004-2007
• How did the IMF do harm?
• What caused this harm?
• What can prevent such
harm in the future?

3. Case 2: the Living Wage
• Mayor of London wanted a Living Wage
• Once you choose a method, you are locked in
• Two methods of calculating
• Cost of Living and ‘Family Supporting’
• 60% of Median
• Which is the ‘correct’ recommendation?
• We put both forward
• We explained the possible consequences
• We explain the presuppositions
• The politician decides
• The public judges
“A Fairer London: the Living Wage in London. Greater London Authority. November 2005”

4. Case 3: creative industries
• Mayor wanted to make London ‘a creative hub’
• Big deal: major wastage is possible
• Evidence-based decision-making with no proven precedents
• One conclusion: we know nothing so we should say nothing
• But harm can arise from saying nothing
• Economics abhors silence: it always has something to say
• Best practice: explore all possibilities
• Establish a scrutiny framework
• User-based scrutiny
• Co-responsibility and pluralism

5. How does an economist do harm?
• Her main function is to ‘tell the truth her employer wants’
• To present as truth, that which has not passed standards of scrutiny
• This allows the employer to evade responsibility for political decisions
• Note: the problem is not ‘telling falsehoods’
• We often have to make ‘best guess’ statements
• We don’t know if they are true until we have tried them
• This is not reducible to competence
• A competent practitioner can produce false results
• Many examples from other disciplines eg Malaria in Panama

6. So what is the problem?
• Certifying as true that which we are not justified in so certifying
• Failing to consider the alternatives
• Depriving the ‘consumers’ of choice

7. What professional standards are missing?
• The due consideration of alternatives
• The recognition that the only test is practice
• Co-responsibility for verifying the truth of economic statements
with those who may be harmed by them
• That is, systematic affirmative pluralism