Is Economics in Violation of International Law? Remaking Economics As a Social Science
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IS ECONOMICS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? REMAKING ECONOMICS AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE Introduction The Inspiration and Need for this Piece DAVID LEMPERT, PH.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (HON.) Abstract This piece is in four parts following this abstract, the Table of Contents and a Short Introduction. Part I: Is Economics in Violation of International Law? Part I applies a set of systematic international legal principles found in international law to the doctrines of “neo-classical” mainstream economics to test whether the discipline is consistent with those legal principles or would be held to be in violation if brought to trial in an international court of law. The conclusion of this legal analysis is that the discipline is in violation. Part II: Is there a Current Social Science of Economics in Economics or Elsewhere that Meets the Requirements of Social Science? If Not, Why Not? Part II then holds the discipline of economics to scrutiny as to whether it meets the test of being a “social science” and also applies a similar test to the sub-discipline of “economic anthropology” that has been a response to the ideologies in the discipline of economics. Although both claim to be social sciences, the conclusion is that both have largely become ideological rather than scientific, serving to promote political views (in the case of neo-classical economics, a technical field of national production engineering combined with an ideology to promote it). Part III: The Rebuilding Process for the Discipline: Where Economics Fits and What is Missing. Part III goes back to the goals of the social sciences and humanities in terms of their areas of analysis and questions for individual disciplines and then offers a new framework for a scientific discipline of economics and a new humanities of economics linked with it. This new economics as an empirical social science for prediction links measures of consumption, production and distribution to biological and ecological principles and replaces the current starting assumptions that are culturally biased “moral precepts.” It moves the discipline forward, beyond its position within industrial market systems where it serves as an ideological and technical tool to promote economic interests of elites in those systems. Part IV: The Challenge of Institutional and Cultural Change in Academia The piece ends with a discussion pointing to the areas of society that would need to change in order for a scientific and international law compliant discipline to emerge. Author: Dr. Lempert is a Ph.D. social anthropologist, lawyer and M.B.A. with undergraduate training in Economics and Political Science who has taught undergraduate courses in the disciplines of international development, anthropology, sociology, law, and political science and has designed professional school curricula on four continents. He has worked as a non-profit executive, business and government management consultant and educator for 30 years in more than 30 countries for the UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCHR, UNHCR, World Bank, IFC, Ernst & Young, USAID, EC, Soros Foundation, and several other development organizations and companies on business and market solutions to development. He is also a strategic planner in the business and non-profit sectors. He has published several books and articles on university education and the disciplines and is the founder of several NGOs in education. Please direct all correspondence to: [email protected]. Is Economics in Violation of International Law?: Introduction Table of Contents Introduction: The Inspiration and Need for this Piece……………………………………... 95 Preface……………………….………………………………………………………........... 97 Previous Approaches: Critiques of Economics and Failed Oversight of the Discipline…...102 Part I: Is Economics in Violation of International Law?.................................................... 117 Method: Holding Economics to Legal Scrutiny………………………………………….. 118 Step 1: Identifying the Potential Criminal Acts: The Shared Doctrines…………………… 119 Step 2: Identifying the Source of the Legal Standards to Use............................................. 127 Step 3: The Judgment Process: Identifying the Elements of the Crimes…………………… 136 Applying the Law in Two Steps…………………………………………………………... 145 Step 4: Evaluating the Possible Verdicts……………………………………………………….. 145 Step 5: The Verdict and its Implications………………………………………………………... 162 Part II: Is there a Current Social Science of Economics in Economics or Elsewhere that Meets the Requirements of Social Science? If Not, Why Not? ………………………… 166 Overview: What Has Gone Wrong? Is Current Economics a Social Science, Technique, Mathematics or Theology?.................................................................................................. 167 The History and Evolution of the Discipline of Economics as a “Moral” Discipline Self- Described as a “Science”………………………………………………………………... 179 Economic Anthropology: Solution or Ideological Response?............................................ 192 Other New Disciplines, Filling the Gap?.............................................................................. 200 Part III: The Rebuilding Process for the Discipline: Where Economics Fits and What is Missing……………………………………………………………………………………. 204 Overview: Mapping the Social Sciences, Social Engineering and Social Philosophy Disciplines to See Where Economics Fits.....……………………………………………... 205 Remaking Economics as a Social Science along with a Complementary Economic Humanities………………………………………………………………………………… 216 Rebuilding Economics as a Humanities: A Necessary Corollary to Social Science……... 238 Part IV: The Challenge of Institutional and Cultural Change in Academia……………… 241 Why the Rebuilding is So Difficult: The Politics and Ideologies that Promote Theologies Over Science and that Distort Academia and Research………………………………… 242 Where Do We Go From Here?............................................................................................. 251 References………………………………………………………………………………… 253 96 Catalyst: A Social Justice Forum, 2018 Vol. 8, Issue 1 Preface Several years ago while teaching development studies in Washington, D.C., in the United States, I introduced what was considered then to be a controversial exercise testing the “development” approach of international banks and the international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) that partner with them on “income generation” and “poverty alleviation” projects. I asked students to test whether Germany’s government policy in the 1940s would be approved under contemporary “development” investment criteria and economic theory as taught in the university. The specific policy I asked them to test was that of the “public and private partnership” of government cooperating with industry to “relocate” Jews and Roma from their homes to labor camps and for human laboratory medical experiments and then to process the bodies for soap, wigs, and gold from their teeth while confiscating and selling their possessions. I pointed to the specific measures used to value and screen such projects today, noting how they met government objectives and provided for the greater good while increasing the gross domestic product (GDP) and promoting public health in accordance with government plans in a policy of “national sacrifice” to benefit the nation,. Most of the students, trained in economics, seemed to think that such form of economic development would be approved today unless the affected minority somehow had political leverage in the donor countries. They justified their decision on the following criteria that came out of doctrines in basic economics texts: The investment would increase productivity as measured by GDP, the standard measure of value, and possibly also promote export industries and trade balances, while also increasing per capita GDP; Unemployment figures in the country would drop and the project would “create jobs,” thus demonstrating positive achievements on the economic indicators that are routinely used show improvement; Eliminating minorities would reduce “political risk” to investors of internal instability and could also improve “sanitation” and value of the inner cities and former slum areas where minorities had lived, thus also bringing an economic boost to the country. This could also be considered a valuable increase in the value of the country’s “social capital” as would the increased solidarity and efficiency it would bring in other areas. The consumption and population balance would also fit new “sustainable development” criteria even though the initial productivity growth would not be sustained. The approach fit the contemporary development goals of promoting “business-government” (“public- private”) partnerships, having no negative impact on gender (the standard rights and screening criteria that is prioritized over other rights categories, including that of cultural protections), and would also meet environmental screening conditions. “Participatory rural appraisals” that include discussions with local groups would demonstrate that the majority highly favored the approach, thus validating the current criterion that INGOs use for political acceptability, “participation,” “democracy,” and “fit” with “local communities” and “cultures.” Though good arguments could be made about the long-term impact of this policy on productivity or on the country’s overall value and assets, the students noted that government and foreign decisions as well as those of the United Nations “Millennium Development