On Academic Freedom

Abstract

[MWS 19.2 (2019) 246-259] ISSN 1470-8078 doi: 10.15543/maxweberstudies.19.2.246© Max Weber Studies 2019, Global Policy Institute, University House, Coventry University London, 109 Middlesex Street, London E1 7JF. Review Essay On Academic Freedom Max Weber, Hochschulwesen und Wissenschaftspolitik. Schriften und Reden 1895–1920, edited by M. Rainer Lepsius and Wolfgang Schluchter with the assistance of Heide-Marie Lauterer and Anne Munding (Max Weber Gesamtausgabe I/13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), xxxiii + 971pp. (hbk). ISBN 978-3-16153-432-4. €399.00. ‘Economics deals with ascertainable facts; ethics with valuations and obligations . The two fields of enquiry are not on the same plane of discourse’ (Lionel Robbins, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 1932). ‘As against Robbins, Economics is essentially a moral science. That is to say, it employs introspection and judgement of value’ (Lord Keynes, writing to Sir Roy Harrod).1 Where does Max Weber stand on the above argument between the two opposed camps of the science of economics in the twentieth century ? Robbins claimed authority from Max Weber directly—ours is a science of fact not judgements, said Weber.2 But Keynes is the more Weberian—sociology is a science that ‘concerns itself with the interpretive understanding of social action’;3 and it is not value free, but rather values are its major object of study, said Weber. 1. See Tony Atkinson’s discussion of these two principles: ‘Economics as a Moral Science’ in Lionel Robbins’ essay on the significance of economics as a science. 75th Anniversay Proceedings, ed. Frank Cowell and Amos Witztum (London: STICERD, 2005), pp. 38-56. 2. Robbins in An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (London: Macmillan, 1935) wrote ‘Economics deals with ascertainable facts; ethics with valuations and obligations. The two fields of enquiry are not on the same plane of discourse ’ (p. 148); ‘economic analysis is wertfrei in the Weber sense’ (p. 91). 3. Weber, Economy and Society (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), ch. 1, p. 4; MWG I/23, p. 149. Keynes would probably have agreed with the whole definition, which in Bruun’s translation runs: ‘a science that seeks to understand social action interpretatively, and thereby to explain it causally in its course and its consequences.’ See Max Weber: Collected methodological writings, ed H.H. Bruun and S. Whimster, trans. H. H. Bruun (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), p. xxviii. Whimster Review Essay 247© Max Weber Studies 2019. Robbins was seeking to move economics on from its nineteenth century philosophical modality as a moral science. The two main planks of classical economics were production and distribution; one concerned with wealth and property, the other with who gets what and why. Robbins asserted that economics was the science that ‘studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses’. Economics has the intellectual equipment—the analysis of markets and price behaviour—to reveal the optimal use of scarce means for a given end. Economics was a technique that avoided the moral standing of ends—the exploitation of nature, the exploitation of human labour, inequality. If we want cars, there is an optimal market structure and behaviour of the firm for achieving that end. This is the science of economizing as Robbins termed it, and how Weber termed it (‘Wirtschaften’) in Chap. 2 of Economy and Society. Weber appears to slide towards Robbins’ side of the argument. But Weber would also take an additional step in his analysis. Social scientists can debate the desirability of cars. Weber disliked them because they were noisy, smelt of fumes, were dangerous, and reappropriated roads for their exclusive use. And, on the other side, they increased economic efficiency—and as he later found out they are fun to drive. It’s a moral choice, which has to be laid out for citizen discussion . The economist does not preclude the discussion in favour of efficiency. Weber’s criticism of economists is that they unthinkingly take the side of efficiency. The science part of values is their analysis and display, not making premature value-judgements. The argument swings back to Keynes’ position. These are arguments that the neoliberal version of economics...