Larry Summers (or Lant Pritchard) said:
"The problem with the argument against all of these proposals for
more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral
reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be
turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank
proposal for liberalization."
I dunno, maybe I need a reality check again. Every once in a while I read this paragraph and think Summers might be telling the truth. I mean, weren't both he and Pritchard still considered World Bank liberals around the time this was written -- still on the same side as Stiglitz? And sometimes this paragraph seems like too perfect a reductio ad absurdam argument not to have been made that way on purpose. Essentially the memo argues that, if we follow out the logic of World Bank thinking to its ultimate conclusion, it would justify environmental degredation and shortening the lives of the poor. So conversely, if we think that's wrong, then there must be something wrong with the logic. And something to the objections, since any one we use to object in this case can be used to object across the board.
Somehow I can imagine Summer enjoying this sort of argument as an intellectual exercise -- almost as an ideal vindication of his relative criticalness within the bank -- and then continuing on with normal policy as if nothing had happened. It seems like the sort of thing theoretical economists do all the time: drop bombshells on basic assumptions, and then continue assuming them, since they can't do economics without them.
But maybe I'm taking this fairness thing too far.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com