Would Americans be more concerned about the financial deregulations that helped trigger the Great Recession if they knew that some of the economists publicly advocating for them profited from their implementation?
It’s tough to know, because in op-eds and media appearances, academic economists often do not disclose their investments in or positions at private financial institutions that could bias their policy recommendations. But after two researchers exposed a rash of potential conflicts of interest among members of their profession, economists are now for the first time considering ethics rules that would require them to divulge any connection between personal finances and the public policies they advocate.
Late last year, University of Massachusetts Amherst economists Gerald Epstein and Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth published a paper titled “Financial Economists, Financial Interests and Dark Corners of the Meltdown.” They suggested a previously unexplored cause of the crisis: Economists didn’t see the collapse coming because many were profiting from the policies that led to disaster. “[E]conomists, like so many others, had perverse incentives not to recognize the crisis,” Epstein and Carrick-Hagenbarth wrote in the paper, which was published by their university’s left-leaning Political Economy Research Institute.
The study examined 19 unnamed academic financial economists whose opinions have been prominent in the media during the push for financial reforms before and after the market crashed. Thirteen of the academics had a stake in or held positions within financial institutions whose investments could have jumped in value if and when the economists’ suggestions became policy. Eight of those 13 did not report such conflicts of interest.
Epstein says economists’ silence about the dangers of deregulation can be partially attributed to those academics’ economic interests. “If you are a financial economist and can make thousands of dollars consulting for a financial firm, and they might be less likely to hire you if you come out publicly for financial reform, you might think twice about promoting such reform.”
In 2006, Frederic Mishkin, a professor at Columbia Business School and a former governor of the Federal Reserve Board, was paid $124,000 by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce to coauthor a study about Iceland’s finances, in which he explained away many of the factors that would soon implode the country’s economy. The 2010 Academy Award-winning documentary Inside Job tells how Mishkin changed the name of the study from “Financial Stability in Iceland” to “Financial Instability in Iceland” on his curriculum vitae.
The American Economics Association (AEA), the professional organization of academic economists, has no ethics rule prohibiting or requiring disclosure of such conflicts of interest, beyond some disclosure requirements for papers submitted to the organization’s journal. In fact, the body currently has no official ethics code at all.
Epstein and Carrick-Hagenbarth circulated a letter in January, signed by almost 300 economists, calling for the creation of such a code. “We believe this would be an important and necessary step toward enhancing the credibility and integrity of the profession,” they wrote in the letter.
It appears to have had some effect. At its January conference in Denver, the AEA announced the creation of a committee to develop ethics rules. (Ironically, the identities of the committee’s members have been kept secret, although Epstein says the body is planning to release their names in the near future.) AEA representatives declined to comment on the committee’s progress.
Other social science disciplines, like sociology, do have ethics provisions that require full disclosure of potential conflicts of interests in public speeches, articles and academic publications. Of course, Epstein knows an ethics code for economists won’t repair the country’s economy. But he claims it is a step toward more moral financial policies. “A code of ethics is no panacea,” he says. “But it can help create an environment where economics and economists can be held more accountable.”
Many nonprofits have seen a big dip in support in the first part of 2021, and here at In These Times, donation income has fallen by more than 20% compared to last year. For a lean publication like ours, a drop in support like that is a big deal.
After everything that happened in 2020, we don't blame anyone for wanting to take a break from the news. But the underlying causes of the overlapping crises that occurred last year remain, and we are not out of the woods yet. The good news is that progressive media is now more influential and important than ever—but we have a very small window to make change.
At a moment when so much is at stake, having access to independent, informed political journalism is critical. To help get In These Times back on track, we’ve set a goal to bring in 500 new donors by July 31. Will you be one of them?
Micah Uetricht is the deputy editor of Jacobin magazine and host of its podcast The Vast Majority. He is a contributing editor and former associate editor at In These Times. He is the author of Strike for America: Chicago Teachers Against Austerity (Verso 2014), coauthor of Bigger Than Bernie: How We Go From the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism (Verso 2020), and is currently at work on a book on New Leftists who “industrialized.” He previously worked as a labor organizer. Follow him on Twitter at @micahuetricht.