While this weblog invites the world to boycott Holland, it must be observed that the borders become blurred and that the clarity of the proposal is affected since the world also becomes contaminated from Holland.
Some good Dutch people who have already reduced their intake of Heineken and Gouda cheese discover that they might not be able to switch to Belgian beer because professor Paul de Grauwe from Belgium is failing, and that they cannot quite switch to French cheese because Christine Lagarde runs the IMF that hasn’t responded to this email to its Independent Evaluation Office. Due to that contamination, the world apparently must start boycotting parts of itself too, with needlepoint precision, like a complex embroidery.
The contamination spreads and spreads, like bird flu or a fashionable dance. Holland is oriented to the world. It is internationally minded. Foreign economists are invited for talks and temporary appointments, such as at the luxurious Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS). Another example is the Union of Greek students in Holland: just read how happy they are here in Holland, in the country that helps to destroy their homeland. And so on.
The key contamination is via the international audit committees that come to Holland to investigate the scientific conduct of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB). This weblog calls for a boycott of Holland because of the censorship of science by the directorate of that CPB. One would hope that such scientific audit committees would investigate that censorship. However, they don’t. Because of this failure to stop the censorship, these audit committees and their members become accomplices and develop a vested interest to deny and cover up the censorship.
In the first audit by Anton Barten cs. in 1997, I happened to meet professor Barten on a reunion of CPB employees, and by chance he mentioned that upcoming audit. I was actually invited to come and explain the main issue. The committee decided that the censorship was ‘old’, and hence they neglected the issue. However, the censorship started in 1990 and continues to this day. The reasoning by Barten cs. is hopelessly deficient and is a complete failure of an audit. See my report on the events.
The committee consisted of prof. dr. Anton Barten (emiritus Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), dr. Richard Blundell (The Institute of Fiscal Studies, London), prof. dr. Frank den Butter (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam), dr. John Martin (OECD, Paris), prof.dr. Frederic Scherer (Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA), prof. dr. Hans K. Schneider (emiritus University Köln / Cologne, and former chair of the Sachverstandigenrat).
Clearly all these economists are failing miserably on the integrity of economic science. Incidently, professor Blundell was in 2011 member of the Mirrlees committee on UK taxation, see my comments in the former weblog entry. The UK pays a high price for Blundell’s negligence.
The second audit in 2003 was by Klaus F. Zimmermann (president DIW Berlin and IZA Bonn), Daniel Gros (CEPS Brussels), Robert Haveman (University of Wisconsin), David Newbery (Cambridge UK), Rick van der Ploeg (Universiteit van Amsterdam and EUI Florence), Piet Rietveld (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), secretary Bart van Riel (SER, The Hague).
In this case I wasn’t invited and there wasn’t an affirmative response to my email (see here).
The third audit in 2010 was by Martin Hellwig (Max Planck Institute). In this case I only learned about the existence of the audit after the report had been finished. I did send an email to professor Hellwig, but did not get a reply. In terms of integrity of science, one might conjecture that professor Hellwig would have informed his audit committee about that (late) email. These members are: Torben M. Andersen (Aarhus University), Robin W. Boadway (Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario), Jørgen Elmeskov (OECD, Paris), Rachel Griffith (University College London, Institute of Fiscal Studies, CEPR), Sweder van Wijnbergen (University of Amsterdam), Secretary: Alexandra van Selm, assisted by Jante Parlevliet (both SER, The Hague).
If these members haven’t been informed by professor Hellwig, then they may still ask him. Or, they may also ask CPB or the former audit committees why they have been neglecting and destroying the integrity of economic science while the very object of the exercise was to enhance it. This third committee actually has a stronger challenge. The economic crisis since August 2007 confirms my analysis, and the CPB-directorate neglects to check into that confirmation.
The proper response for scientists would of course be to withdraw these reports.
Enfin. It is not just so that the UK pays a high price for professor Blundell’s negligence. The whole world suffers a huge economic crisis, that is crucially related to this censorship since 1990. Like things are developing now, the solution of the crisis first requires solution of that censorship.