It has been widely reported that Obama's cabinet choices reflect a pragmatic centrism designed to gather support and legitimacy while creating a team who can adequately address wars and the downward spiraling economy. Obama himself was overheard on his plane suggesting that "[he does not] want us to go lurching so far in one direction" - a clear indication that he is trying to avoid being classified as solely a liberal politician. It seems a sensible move- particularly when the situation in American politics is so dire.
Adding Lawrence Summers as director of the National Economic Council aptly illustrates striking poverty in the Obama team's strategy. Most recently Summers resigned from Harvard under pressure from his assertion that there are innate differences in the capacities of men and women, specifically in terms of math and science:
It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined.
Summers argued that what ever the cultural impacts gendered roles have, one can not account for the differences between men and women on these alone- meaning that within the axis of nature vs. nurture, nature in his estimation is winning. As a president of one of the most prestigious organizations in the world- one that claims to provide educational opportunities for all its students- to argue that a subset of his students and faculty lacked biological capacity to perform undermines precisely the mission that Harvard has set out to accomplish- notwithstanding his frustrated assertion has long lacked credibility in any scientific or social academic discipline. Furthering the difficulty of Summers' "logic", his argument's construction is analogous to those used to justify racism in the 19th and early parts of the 20th century claiming biological differences as the baseline for racist politics, a smarting irony for Obama.
Despite his shocking 1950s-esque views of gender and formative cultural forces, this pales in comparison to the 1991 memo he wrote as chief economist of the World Bank. Arguing that the "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that" Summers argued the essential line of economic liberalization- those with the least means should bare the brunt of the economic, social, and environmental consequences of the the industrialized world. His racist and Machiavellian perspective was an ideological precursor for the Clinton push for NAFTA and the WTO- polices that were highlighted during Obama's campaign.
What this means for the Obama administration does not bode well. While it is clear that Obama must find allies across the American political spectrum, Summers is a disturbing choice to outstretch a hand. In many ways Summers represents precisely the politics of Democrats and Republicans alike that Obama argued against during his campaign. Obama's statements to renegotiate NAFTA are an implausible policy position in relation to Summers' market liberalization stance. Obama's claims against NAFTA- accused by many organizations of being an "anti-democratic, anti-consumer, anti-environment, pro-poverty agenda"- are not reconcilable with Summers' position that "I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City."
The move to the center by Obama's team to create stability and legitimacy is a politically savvy move. The inclusion of Summers is not. Whether we see further appointments that depart from the principles that Obama expressed during his campaign remains to be seen though it seems unlikely that Obama could go more wrong than Summers.
The full memo that Summers wrote in 1991 is reposted here. I posted this in 2005 during the controversy over his misinformed and chauvinistic statements:
DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.
The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
- arthur's blog
- Log in to post comments
