April 16 1997

Dear Committee,

With mixed feelings, I ask to be heard in your audit.

I’ll best give you some facts first:

• Tomorrow - April 17 - there will be a session of the High Court of Appeal in Utrecht, concerning, amongst others, my appeal against the decision of the minister of Economic Affairs and the directorate of the CPB to block the publication process of my analysis as economic researcher with the Bureau.
• Note that the Bureau has a line of Research Memoranda under the responsibility of the author. The directorate of the Bureau accepts my integrity and skill. Much of my work has been accepted also at other fora. However, on the blocked paper, the directorate states that the analysis has no quality. But it also ‘disagrees on content’ with my conclusion to an advice to a parliamentary inquiry; and my point is that I first would like the possibility of an internal discussion and the possibility to redraft based on that discussion, before an independent editorial board can make any quality judgement.
• Appendix 1 contains the statement - regrettably in Dutch only - by the NVMC Code of Conduct commission on the publication issue. The conclusion is that it seems that there has not been enough room for discussion at the Bureau.
• Appendix 2 contains pages 14 up to 17 of Cool (1996), "An institutional explanation of stuctural unemployment of low income labour," Presentation for the 7th Research Day of the Social Sciences, Amsterdam, ewp-oth/9605001. Page 16 (below) and page 17 (above) contain the issue before the High Court of Appeal. But see the other issues too.
• Appendix 3 contains some additional points of attention.

I cannot judge how much time your committee has planned to do its job. I would like to be given the opportunity to reflect with you on these two possibilities:

• You really look into the CPB and my case, and state your conclusions also in a general manner pertaining to the structure of economic policy making.

This approach will take much time. But you have been asked to perform an audit, and there are few occasions in history that that is being asked.
The major reason for this course of action is that the scientific community of economists is well advised to emphasize science and the integrity of science. Current structures for economic policy making have originated in political compromise, with different structures in different countries; and all allow too much room for interference that could be avoided under proper rules of science. See for example Paul Krugman, "Peddling prosperity", too.
If you take this route, you are well advised to advise the minister of Economic Affairs to suspend the CPB directorate of its duties, to name a temporary supervisor and to (temporarily) reinstall me at the Bureau, so that there is a level playing field again.
• You may concede the likelihood of a problem, but be severely restricted in your time. In that case you are well advised not to let yourselves be pressured into hasty conclusions.

First, then, you may look into my case in a summary manner. Then, you might try for a two-day international conference in September to discuss the problem of economic policy advice. I’ll gladly help you to select the issues to be discussed, and explain matters to the participants of the conference.
You then present your own conclusions against the backdrop of the conclusions and papers of that conference. Likely, then, you will conclude that the problem may be too large for a simple audit like yours, and that a parliamentary enquiry may likely be advisable.

Please note that I’ve been trying since December 1989 to get a serious hearing. (See appendix 3.) All Dutch economists will have heard some rumour, and biases against me abound. I am sorry to report that I have not met a Dutch economists of some reputation that appears seriously concerned about scientific freedom of speech and that is aware of the pitfalls that abound in judging my case. Of importance for your committee is the position of professor F.A.G. den Butter. Den Butter was chairman of a specific meeting of research economists (Ecozoek) where I presented my case concerning the CPB, and where I appealed for help from the scientific community. However, Den Butter mistook my appeal, misrepresented my case in a report to the director of the CPB (his then VU colleague professor Zalm), and actually helped to get me fired. It might interest you that different researchers present at that meeting have made different reports, but none supports Den Butter’s view.

Much of my work can be found on http://www.can.nl/~cool (including my resume) and on http://econwpa.wustl.edu

I do hope that these issues will get your unbiased attention.

Kind regards,
 

Thomas Cool

1. Other avenues of appeal and for change have failed. Notably:
1. There is no floor with the colleagues, since they are witnesses to the situation, and not participants. Also, even as witnesses, there is no procedure to get accurate statements.
2. An internal appeal at the CPB leads to an Internal Commission of Appeal, that however resides under the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Cases are treated as concerning normal civil servants, and not as concerning scientists.

In my case the internal commission was later corrected in court, on:
1. the commission thought my request for the publication process not ‘amenable to appeal’
2. the commission thought it proper that the directorate placed me out of my regular duties without giving a reason
3. the commission accepted the report on my performance, that had various errors.
3. Higher courts mainly look at procedural aspects, and less at content. For example, a court neglected the NVMC commission report.
4. There is no Dutch version of an Office of Scientific Integrity.
5. There could be a distinction between the Ministry of Economic Affairs (specific employment) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (civil servant in general). The last Ministry might defend the employee against abuses in the specific branch, but in practice it supports that abuse.
6. The economic research community (Ecozoek) declined any interest - even reported my appeal to the directorate, and thus helped to get me fired.
7. The Royal Academy of Sciences (KNAW) declines to interfere in matters of employer - employee relations, thereby giving ample room to employers to abuse of labour laws.
8. The EEA convention of September 1991 under the chair of professor Lindbeck refused to discuss the matter.
9. E.g. last year I wrote to professors Bruno Frey, Edmond Malinvaud, Richard Portes

and Arjo Klamer in regard of the conference "Economic Science: an art or an asset" and their presentations there. None showed much concern.
10. Others (e.g. newspapers) mostly treat me as a nut. The CPB has wide acclaim, but people do not recognise that my work helped to get that acclaim.
2. It may be that what the Bureau publishes has scientific quality. But, if a result is scientifically warranted, does the Bureau then publish it ? In other words, is the publication policy sufficiently shielded from management policy issues ?
3. The directorate of CBS Statistics Netherlands considers the CBS to be more independent than the CPB (H.K. van Tuinen, in personal communication). But the CPB already claims to be an independent institute. So some opinion has to give way.
4. Economic researchers in service of the government may not have the legal position to be able to say what they really think as scientists. The distinction "voice, exit, loyalty" comes to mind. The legal position of official researchers is weak, and "dissent" is quickly regarded as "disloyalty".
5. There is also a gap between "practical researchers" and "academic researchers", which makes that academics may be slow to understand and support views from official researchers (which phenomenon becomes especially important when an official develops a new and differing view). //