Moral turpitude

Or: To quote Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

Robert McNamara, architect of the Vietnam War, Donald Rumsfeld of the 1960s, died today at the ripe old age of 93. It had to happen at some point.

What I found most interesting, or revealing, was the reaction of some prominent economists. Libertarian Tyler Cowen, whose blog I read occasionally in spite of its insipid forays into culture, society, and politics, commented that:

But McNamara also had a huge influence on the economics profession, most of all through his 13-year presidency at the World Bank. He focused the Bank on poverty reduction, he brought Communist China into the Bank, he introduced the practice of five-year lending plans, he significantly increased the Bank's budget, he grew staff from 1600 to 5700, he favored sector-specific research, he raised money from OPEC, he strongly encouraged "scientific project evaluation," and he started a largely successful program to combat "river blindness"; the latter may have been his life's achievement. The Bank as a large, modern technocracy -- for better or worse -- dates largely from his tenure.

He probably shaped the Bank more than did any other single person. Here is one overview. The Bank, of course, continues to be a major employer of economists and a major influence on the theory and practice of development economics.

I am not entirely sure whether Cowen says this approvingly - while the Bank has been extraordinarily active in promoting neoliberal policies in poor countries, libertarians often view such state- and quasi-state-entities with suspicion. But note that he spends more time talking about McNamara's role in expanding employment opportunities for (neoliberal) economists than he does about his escalation of the Vietnam War. Although it isn't clearly stated, there is a strong suggestion that his work at the World Bank - which, judging by the above, has benefited rich-country economists more than actual Third World populations - has made amends for McNamara's role in the deaths of millions.

Fortunately, the Wall Street Journal clears up any ambiguity or need to read between the lines. Its Free Exchange blog quotes Cowen's commentary, and notes that it sees McNamara's changes to the World Bank as being "for better, in my view, though those most uncomfortable with Mr McNamara's actions in Vietnam will probably also be uncomfortable with his tenure as head of the World Bank."

Its view is that McNamara's hiring of thousands of economists, with little demonstrable benefit to the world's poor, was more noteworthy than the Vietnam War. In fact, it was such a praiseworthy action that the rest of that nastiness could be whitewashed over.

Going back to the Upton Sinclair quote above: Isn't it clear that the economics profession, or at least some respected voices within it, displaying moral blindness on this issue? Some of their fraternity receive paychecks from McNamara's organization, and so they tacitly approve of, or at least fail to comment on, McNamara's ghastly mistakes.