Originally appeared in Idei in Dialog
The book of Mrs. Naomi Klein, the Shock Doctrine disaster capitalism: Birth, has[1] a number of significant achievements, which explains (though not necessarily justify ii) best seller status. It's challenging, farm, written in an extremely fast paced (properties on the translation in English, fluency in style and true semantic, manages to keep them) and, especially, catch a wave of public perception. Definitely, a reading which repays the effort, especially when the reader is looking for a fantastic plot, worthy of a good COP, novel about political and economic tribulatiile of contemporary societies or when in need of a simple, anticapitalist catechism at hand to all, neinvadat and burdensome doubts interrogations.
After short period of muster 90th strategic, in the last decade has become fashionable again blaming free market (along with her supporters in the offices) for all imaginable evils. The shock doctrine certainly dedicated to the genre's recipe: a rhetorical force, unexpected connections, suspense, a theoretical and fundamentari, for more flavor, a spoonful of conspirationism.
When the ingredients mixed vigorously, to boil, add to taste a mischievous character, an archetypal figure close to the culprit.
The main thesis of the book is that economic liberalisation policies, because of their intrinsic nature impopulare, a company may be taxed only in special circumstances, in which public attention is distracted by catastrophic events, such as some natural disasters or social disasters (wars, revolutions, coups, etc.). Only one company located in the State of shock, up to the limit of the integrals of anihilarii reaction, can accept the free market. Moreover, there were organized groups dealing with the occurrence of such disasters, thus making the game those directly interested in a sudden and radical liberalisation, international financial institutions or the local oligarchies. And the father of the founder of this doctrine, the genius bad which theorized it, would be Milton Friedman.
Mrs. Klein's argument but dragged a couple of major drawbacks. From critical reactions throughout the CRS, as just noted, for solidity and minutiozitatea construction, article Johan Norberg (Cato Institute senior fellow) entitled "the doctrine of Klein: birth of devastating acrimony.[2]" Here are just a few of the obvious objections, without getting into details "fineness", which can be found in the article:
1. Both theoretical opinions, as well as the details of his biography Milton Friedman are presented in a massively distorted. Deformities are so serious that we cannot give but two possible hypotheses: either it is an intentionally malicious, rendering either there great work deficiencies of documentation undertaken by author. How else can we explain the citarile inaccurate or taken out of context of the blatant neadevarurile times? For example, Friedman, in spite of Mrs. Klein's portrait done, there was economic adviser of the Pinochet regime (was even a biting critic of authoritarianism), has not supported the war in Iraq (i even opposed public), not theorized the shock doctrine in which the expression is used in the paper, it had about the hiperinflatie position assigned to it, etc.
2. Facts are often distorted and mixed as described, in procuring with value judgements. Are used, rather, stories with anecdotica value, not empirical data obtained in a more rigorous manner, the kind, otherwise get it all ignored by the author. If, applying a principle of charity reading, I could say that sometimes absence is excused today's empirical (perhaps not always easily clickable data exist), but sometimes it is downright ridiculous. An example of the second type is cataloging the military dictatorship of Argentina in the period of the late ' 70s and early ' 80s as a test laboratory of liberal economic policy type. A simple consultation of the archive's annual report on economic freedom of the Fraser Institut[3]e would have provided Ms. Klein an epiphany baffling: Argentina's economy during the period in question was considerably less free than that of Sweden (country women often quoted as an example of "good practice" anticapitaliste) and somewhat more centralized than Poland or Romania (then belonging to Communist countries). Strange "junta of the Chicago boys"! … Just as it seems, a click away is sometimes too great when you need at any price to an ideological ilustrezi thesis. Moreover, even some anecdotal narratives are rather fanciful (ilustrativa is the discussion about the Tienanmen Square, the chronology of events that have succeeded reprimarii University is completely overturned).
3. Representations contained in theoretical work options are often far too purportedly stated. School of Economics in Chicago is far from having the appearance of a monolithic block suggested by Mrs. Klein. On the contrary, this umbrella was sufficiently wide to accommodate some economists with differing or even conflicting options, acomodand a broad spectrum that goes from interventionismul extended the State up to hyper-radical variations of anarcho-capitalism. Moreover, to be neoconservator and libertarianism are not one and the same, as we suggest in this paper, but two distinct positions, though perhaps with more affinities or less superficial.
In any case I don't want to suggest here, for example, that "Chile episode" Friedman's career should be taboo, beyond any criticism or you can't discuss other than positive about its effects. On the contrary, I think it's worth it clarified. Friedman himself, in his autobiography written with his wife Rose and published in 1999, feels the need to insist on the moment, confessing that "my visit six days proved to have consequences that you've ever anticipated and I was forced to face them for ten years, including protests organised against me almost everywhere I went, the most important being in Stockholm at the awarding ceremony of the Nobel prizes since 1976 "[4].
To review briefly the development of events: in 1975, Milton Friedman and Arnold Harbenger, both professors of Economics at Chicago, make a visit to Chile at the invitation of a local banks. Friedman you a lecture at the most important Chilean and two universities, on 26 March 1975, has a 45-minute meeting with the dictator Pinochet. According to Friedman's testimony, the latter asks an opinion regarding the way in which it could be stopped hiperinflatia (reached 800% in the previous year) and the economic recession. The opinion comes in the form of a letter sent in April 21, and Friedman's advice to the Chilean Government is an economic shock therapy ([5]which had reached the conclusion independently of economic consultants and employees with two years ago, most of the dial at the University of Chicago). What gives Friedman Pinochet is a confirmation of a diagnosis and justetii of treatment already prescribed.
In august 1976, shortly before the prize-giving ceremony, Orlando Letelier, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Allende, in exile in the u.s., publish an article in The Natio[6]n, in which he accuses Friedman of being the "intellectual architect and unofficial Adviser team of leading economists now chiliana economy", offering [7]support to the military dictatorship. A month later, Letelier is assassinated by an Intelligence operative of Pinochet, which amplify the popularity of its complaint.
The episode is certainly open to discussion. A good illustrative example of an extremely harsh criticism, but with intellectual honesty and formulated in a professional manner, is a recent article of Eric Schliesser, University of Leiden, called "positive economy and Friedman, the Chicago boys"[8]. For this series, Schliesser happenings illustrates a deep theoretical problem for friedmaniana economy, which affects even the methodological core tough: the fragility of the thesis according to which the economy is a po[9]sitive science, issued by any reports or regulatory order or asumptii. Even if you dismiss this thesis can open the role of some interesting speculation on the role of public intellectual (especially of the Economist) in relation to the power politics, the discussion is at stake other than that of the Shock Doctrine.
How has seen but Friedman involvement in Chilean episode? Definitely, not as a support system that categorizes as "worthy of contempt" (despicable) and "atrocious"[10]. His deep conviction, theoretically, was that there is a very close relationship between the economic and political freedom, the latter being a necessary condition for the first[11]. Economic reforms, once handled, those chances increase through political power centers of dispersion. This is the conviction that made him give the same advice as those Pinochet Governments of Yugoslavia or USSR, and do not know that any author of left to him being "accused" ever on Friedman's communism. Between the establishment of democracy through a population riot exasperate and saracite that will arise through medium-term effects of economic freedom, in a hypothetical situation of choice, Milton Friedman would have chosen without hesitation for the second option. In his own words, "what is really important in the Chilean episode is that free market has found its way to the establishment of a free society"[12].
Of course, not all the facts we are given in the book misrepresented Mrs. Klein. Of course, some of the more theoretical assumptions are plausible. Of course, some of the things described moods are as real as regrettable. For example, the connection between a Government expanded in all strata of society and the accumulation of power is entitled in the hands of large corporations, specify, economy is definitely one unfortunate. But it will be deplansa with just as much ready, so in a way that might seem paradoxical, some defenders of the free market, which would see this state of affairs rather than a threat to the fulfilment of etatismului promises of economic freedom.
I would like to conclude with a listing of those objections personal note about the treatment that should be subjected to the great characters of the history of economic thought. Neither Friedman nor Mises, Hayek or others not worth jignirea to be treated as untouchable idols. It would be an option that comes up against the principles of intellectual honesty that we have camera constantly. Them subject to critical research, even with his denunciations and ardor, is to treat them with respect. But even an elementary requirement-polite, if not intellectual rigor is to criticize for what it claimed, not for what we imagine as we would have liked to support.
_________
1 Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2007. Recent edition published in English: Naomi Klein, the Shock Doctrine disaster capitalism: Birth (trad. Bagasrawala Lafferty, Campbell), Sadani Vellant Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009.
2 Johan Norberg, The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics, "Cato Institute Briefing Papers, no. 102, 2008.
3 the Economic Freedom of the World (GENERAL), one of the most prestigious monitoring reports of economic freedom around the world. Archive of reports can be found at http://www.freetheworld.com/efw_previous.html a more detailed discussion of this example the programmatic override of the facts, together with other similar ones, can be found in Norberg's article quoted above.
4 Milton and Rose Friedman, Two Lucky People, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999, p. 400.
5 expression that has no connection with "the shock doctrine", as presented concept of Mrs. Klein.
6 the same publication in which Naomi Klein formulated for the first time (in April 2005, please see the full text at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050502/klein) the main argument from the Shock Doctrine, in an article in which, amazingly, is missing any reference to Friedman. "The killer" was caught in just two years!
7 text's Letelier may be consulted on the website of Transnational Institute, a think-tank, at address http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?page=letelier-docs_thenation
8, Eric s. Schliesser, "Friedman, Positive Economics, and the Chicago Boys" (2007). The article, in the course of publication, is still available as a working paper at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1142741 Schliesser offers a very useful timeline of events in Chile at the end of the article, the timeline is grateful to whom my submission and from which we learn, for example, that the agreement of cooperation on issues of economic policy between the University of Chicago and the Catholic University of Chile the USAID-funded work since 1955, long before Allende and Pinochet!
9 In its most radical form, this thesis is supported by Friedman in his receipt of the Nobel Prize.
10 Milton Friedman, "Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom" Conference held at California State University in 1991. Apud Norberg, op. cit., p. 4.
11 is not the place here to develop this argument. In its general lines, continued to join reconstruction which I proposed in section "Milton Friedman: Capitalism and freedom ', in L-S (ed.), dictionary of political writings, Humanitas, 2000, which can be consulted by readers of possibly interested.
12 Interview in 2000, whose transcript is available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/vid_miltonfriedman.html
