However, political scientists Jacob Levy and Daniel Drezner have put forward alternative explanations based on interest group politics. Drezner argues that the protesting professors are unhappy because their departments aren't getting a big enough slice of the $200 million in research funds that will go to the new Institute. Most of the signatories to the petition are non-economists, he points out, and economists will probably reap the lion's share of the Institute's research grants. Levy, by contrast, suggests that the signatories are motivated not by a desire for more money, but by fear that the Institute will will cause their departments to lose status relative to economics professors:
[I]f you model academic behavior as rational, mutually-distinterested self-interest, you find that everyone should welcome an inflow of $200 million into another part of their university. You predict that there will be no opposition.
If, however, you model academic behavior as a status game, more concerned with relative position than with absolute position, and you find that your university is going to take the fields that are already very high-status in the world and relatively even higher status within your institution, and symbolically endow them with even greater status by making them more central to the institution's name and identity and campus and budget, then things look very different.
I'm a big fan of interest group explanations of political behavior. In this case, however, Drezner and Levy's clever arguments are unpersuasive. The key problem is that both imply that academics will always, or at least usually, oppose the establishment of big new research centers at their universities if the centers are going to fund work in fields other than the academics' own. Thus, economists should protest whenever a new political science center is set up, historians whenever literature profs get a new pot of gold, and so on. This is a necessary implication of both Drezner's theory of competition for funding and Levy's status argument. The only difference is that under Drezner's approach, the protestors will be motivated by a desire to get some of the new money for themselves, while under Levy's, the driving force is fear of loss of relative status. At the very least, both theories predict protest unless the university simultaneously grants additional funding to the departments from which the protesters are drawn.
In reality, of course, such protests almost never happen. In nearly all cases, academics tend to be indifferent or mildly favorable to the establishment of new research centers at their school if the centers fund fields other than their own. And I am nearly certain that such would have been the reaction at Chicago if the new economics research center were called the John Maynard Keynes Institute rather than the Milton Friedman Institute; if it were associated with pro-government views rather than libertarian ones.
In addition, Drezner and Levy's theories imply that Chicago professors outside of economics can be expected to oppose the creation of the Milton Friedman Institute regardless of their own ideologies. If Levy is correct and the new Institute causes, say, political scientists at Chicago to lose status, it will do so regardless of whether they are liberal, conservative, or libertarian. Similarly, under Drezner's theory, conservative and libertarian political scientists will have just as much reason to oppose the Institute as liberal ones. In reality, of course, as far as I can tell not a single conservative or libertarian professor signed the anti-Institute petition. All the protesters seem to be liberals or radicals (see here for the list).
The anti-Institute protesters are engaged in expressive politics, not interest group rent-seeking. They dislike libertarianism and free market ideology, and don't want to be associated with it even indirectly. Drafting and signing the petition is a low-cost way of expressing their views and dispelling any possibility that outsiders might think that they are pro-free market just because they teach at Chicago. In addition, they like - many people of all ideological persuasions - prefer to be surrounded by others who agree with their political views. They aren't happy that the Institute might attract more non-left wing scholars to Chicago, an institution which in the protesters' view already has too many faculty who dissent from academic orthodoxy. When they say that they are opposed to the Institute because of its supposed "neoliberal" (i.e. - free market) ideology, they mean it.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Why Ideology, Not Interest Group Politics, Explains Academic Opposition to the new Milton Friedman Institute:
- Chicago Opposition to MFI - Another View:
- Chicago Profs Oppose Milton Friedman Institute:
- The Milton Friedman Institute and Ideological Intolerance in Academia:
It could be. But that doesn't explain why faculty virtually never oppose other new research institutes for fields other than their own. It also doesn't explain why faculty often engage in ideological prejudice even when there's no money or relative status at stake.Thus, even if all three factors are at work here, ideological bias is probably far more important than the others.
The quote seems to be focused around this sentence, and, may be the essence of their objection: "...rejects alike facts without theory and theory without facts." Most of the signatories would seem to be from Departments that would be heavy on this type of logic.
chsw
I believe these guys are stating their actual reasons--they oppose whatever "ideology" one can assign to Friedman's work, and they oppose the "preference" given to that discipline over others.
As Ilya notes, even the opposition to the "preference" appears based on ideology, since devoting the money to other, more favored disciplines, presumably would not result in their opposition.
LOL...
that's an interesting idea but Becker's agenda is most aimed at taking over sociology (and to a lesser extent poli sci and cultural anthropology) but it has almost no implications for the humanities. by your model this would imply that sociology would be the core of resistance to the friedman institute but in fact the list has only two sociologists versus thirteen english professors.
As I understand it, Ilya's not an avowed conservative, he's a libertarian. There's a difference. Similarly, without commenting on whether there might be a better word to use than "radical" (there may be, there may not be), he's avoiding lumping the various professors, who likely come a broad spectrum of left-leaning or leftist ideological backgrounds, under one monolithic term. I don't think radical is pejorative, either, except insofar as a given person might disapprove of an ideology focused on fundamentally and drastically changing society.
If so, isn't it fair for others to act for the same reasons?
Well, that would be an essentially accurate characterization of libertarian ideology, would it not?
From the University of Chicago website:
"The goal of the Institute is to build on the University’s existing leadership position and make the Milton Friedman Institute a primary intellectual destination for economics by creating a robust forum for engagement of our faculty and students with scholars and policymakers from around the world," said President Robert J. Zimmer.
When a leftist uses a term like "robust forum for engagement", it is code for ""forum to promote our views and suppress everything else". I suspect this and similar assumptions are at least part of the basis for objections.
I don't see why the proper term for someone so opposed is "radical." I would have thought that described a "conservative."
Libertarians are certainly radicals.
If the objections to the Friedman institute are not being made on "ideological" grounds because Friedman did not have an "ideology" that was coherently left or right, liberal or conservative, then the objections may not be merely self-interested politics.
Rather, the objections may be against a post-"ideological" approach to research entirely.
Personally while I think Friedman was an important figure, it's completely reasonable to not want to name a department after such a politically polarizing figure.
No. Marx was a very important social thinker, but his economic theory was quite stupid. I can think of more than one university where a Marx Institute in political science would have clear sailing from the faculty (maybe not so much with the trustees and alumni)
The last line of my comment covers the participation of humanities professors - the liberals are trying to not lose their faculties.
chsw
1. As I hope you would agree, Marx's economic theories are now discredited; Friedman's are not. Thus, your comparison should be to creating a "Karl Marx Institute" at the height of Marx's influence.
2. I would also be somewhat more sympathetic to your analogy if the University that was establishing the Institute were one that Karl Marx taught at for 30 years.
3. I confess that I would be opposed to a Karl Marx Institute. But that is because I think it would produce shoddy scholarship, not because I think it would produce liberal, radical, or communist scholarship. Granted, my conception of what constitutes shoddy scholarship is clouded by my own ideology; but the critics of the Milton Friedman Institute do not contend that Milton Friedman or those who follow his footsteps produce shoddy scholarship (or at least they do not say it too loudly). They contend simply that Friedman produces right-wing scholarship, high quality right-wing scholarship, but right-wing scholarship nonetheless. It is the ideological bent, not the quality, that is the problem in their eyes.
In any case such protestations seems to go against the whole idea of a university. There should be room for a Milton Friedman Institute. It's not like our nation is awash in free-market oriented economic departments at major universities.
I do get a chuckle out of the way people throw around the word 'idealogy' or phrases such as 'rightwing' or 'conservative economics.'
Dont most educated people have an idea about how the world works or how it should be ordered? If so, aren't we all idealogues (notice the letters i-d-e-a in the word itself).
Or do we mean by the word idealogue someone who doesn't let the facts get in the way of his worldview? (That's what I would call an idealogue in a pejorative sort of way.)
I think most of us believe we change our views according to the facts and thus we do not consider ourselves idealogues. I am sure Friedman thought the same about himself.
As for rightwing economics, since when did "free" market economics become conservative? Free market economics freed Western citizens from arbitrary state-directed economies as the industrial revolution took hold. And free market economics constantly destroys things that some people want to 'conserve,' such as the local mom and pop business on Main Street.
Are we to believe that state-directed economies are more free than free-market economies? I find that very odd. A European-style social democracy may be more 'fair' or egalitarian, but it also constricts the freedom of many of its citizens.
if anything, the free market views espoused by Friedman are (classically) liberal, not conservative. It's the state-directed economies that are more "conservative" by stifling change and essentially recovering the modes of monarchistic governments that use to rule the day.
The truth is, most people these days who think of themselves as economically liberal are essentially semi-socialist in the manner of Europe's social Democrats.
That's not a value judgment -- Europeans are not all wrong and the U.S. is not all right about economic matters. It's simply a more accurate assessment.
As for conservative economics, talk to Pat Buchanan. Good luck making sense of what he means by it, though.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.