There are important reasons for establishing standards of academic independence and independent assessment of the IFI's (and other govt institutions). But, to my mind these reasons should NOT require a suspicion that specific individuals are "in the tank". Surely the goal is to prevent things from getting to that point.
As we all know, the academic world has been transformed by the hunt for grants and consultantcies, raising serious issues as to the independence and role of the university. Less well known is the small revolution that took place in the Bretton Woods institutions starting around 15 years ago: large amounts of funds (and personnel recruitments) were poured into "external relations", mostly an effort to influence media, and academia. But having the IFI's develop financial relationships with those meant to provide independent oversight can be risky for the public interest and these institutions have few or none of the normal checks and balances on potential abuses (public budgets, foia laws, elected officials, public hearings, etc). [This was a cause of concern to the old guard like outgoing IMF M.D. Jacques de la Rossiere, or W.B. Pres. Barber Conable.]
The economics profession therefore finds itself in a particularly exposed position (particularly in the fields of development, trade, etc) and the AEA is caught in the middle. Here academic standards should lead one to ask some questions about rules and procedures of ASSA panels, some examples:
Should an independent discussant be the paid subordinate or consultant of the presenter?
Should panel participants disclose relevant financial relationships?
If a panel is evaluating an institution's performance should ALL of the participants have a direct financial relationship to the institution?
To be fair to colleagues, some were clearly embarrassed by the situation and stammered out a disclosure at the beginning of their comments. Others did not (although I knew of a financial relationship). This should not have been left to such personal and ad-hoc arrangements.
>Peter Orszag is our much admired fair-haired boy of the moment: he's
>brilliant, works like a dog, has the right pro-development and
>pro-egalitarian values, ......
This is where I am left utterly baffled. I don't wish to criticize one individual, especially behind his back - so let me expand I what I observed of the AEA 'Democrats' in general, particularly the younger ones. They helped preside over the largest shift to IN-equality in human history. [Yes, I know these mid-senior level policy posts don't feel like one is 'helping to preside', but that is another matter.] Personal responsibility aside, surely they should be greatly concerned where the country will wind up if it continues in this direction. In important ways it will produce a society (and the values and politics) that most Americans always found repugnant.
Yet this crowd showed NO signs of having re-assessed their ideas or their own weaknesses in implementing their apparent pro-egalitarian values. Indeed, the lack of personal reassessment aside, one saw from them no chagrin for the plight of those not favored by the new inequality. One DID see signs (in body language from the podium!) of disdain for the one or two people who did try to constructively raise the issue. One also did see lots of efforts to reassure the non-'Democrats' in the AEA 'establishment' that they were utterly conventional in their views and admiration for Greenspan, et al. The only flash of combativeness came not for human equality, but for the federal budget deficit and its potential impact on financial markets [I do not recall even an attempt to contrive a trickle-down linkage to reversing the massive shifts in inequality, not that one couldn't readily do so] .
We all know that there are large and powerful economic forces that must be tackled if one is to express 'pro-egalitarian values'. Won't those disadvantaged by the changes in the economy be wondering if they will get any more consideration from this group of policy makers than they were shown the last time they held power?
Paul