A few days after UNLV backed off its own study, the economist who oversaw the margin tax evaluation has responded, saying he will put a disclaimer on future studies.
And I was afraid this would chill academic freedom. Silly me.
Actually, Stephen Brown did not back away from the study. But a disclaimer? Really?
Here it is:
The Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) was established in 1975 to: (1) make
available academic expertise in research projects that assist in the development of the Nevada
economy, with special emphasis on the Southern Nevada business community and (2) assist
state and local agencies and private-sector enterprises in the collection and analysis of
economic and market data in a way that contributes to the diversification and growth of the
Southern Nevada economy. Many of our research and analysis services are conducted on a
contract basis. About two-thirds of CBER’s budget comes from funding outside the university—
including contract work, subscriptions, donations, etc. It has been CBER’s long-standing policy
not to offer public comments on work for clients, which I am temporarily setting aside with the
hopes of providing some clarity.
CBER’s July 31 report, An Economic Analysis of the Education Initiative, was contract work
conducted for Daniel M. Hart of The Education Initiative. The purpose of the work was to
estimate the educational and economic effects of the education initiative—including the
margin tax and the K-12 education spending it would support. We were not asked for nor did
we offer an opinion about whether the education initiative represents sound economic policy.
We assembled an expert team to conduct the work necessary for the report. CBER does a
considerable amount of contract work for business clients, and we always assemble expert
teams for our work. Sometimes experts disagree with each other, and we welcome an
independent peer review.
In academic circles, we often disregard disclaimers on our papers and reports. Academics
assume that most people will understand that their work represents the authors’ viewpoints
and not the official positions of their universities. That assumption likely is wrong. When I
worked in the Federal Reserve System, every staff publication carried a disclaimer indicating
that the views were those of the authors and not those of the Federal Reserve System.
Let me clarify. The views expressed in CBER’s report, An Economic Analysis of the Education
Initiative, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas or the Nevada System of Higher Education. We regret that our past
publications did not carry this disclaimer. All our future publications will.
A few days after UNLV backed off its own study, the economist who oversaw the margin tax evaluation has responded, saying he will put a disclaimer on future studies.
And I was afraid this would chill academic freedom. Silly me.
Actually, Stephen Brown did not back away from the study. But a disclaimer? Really?
Here it is:
The Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) was established in 1975 to: (1) make
available academic expertise in research projects that assist in the development of the Nevada
economy, with special emphasis on the Southern Nevada business community and (2) assist
state and local agencies and private-sector enterprises in the collection and analysis of
economic and market data in a way that contributes to the diversification and growth of the
Southern Nevada economy. Many of our research and analysis services are conducted on a
contract basis. About two-thirds of CBER’s budget comes from funding outside the university—
including contract work, subscriptions, donations, etc. It has been CBER’s long-standing policy
not to offer public comments on work for clients, which I am temporarily setting aside with the
hopes of providing some clarity.
CBER’s July 31 report, An Economic Analysis of the Education Initiative, was contract work
conducted for Daniel M. Hart of The Education Initiative. The purpose of the work was to
estimate the educational and economic effects of the education initiative—including the
margin tax and the K-12 education spending it would support. We were not asked for nor did
we offer an opinion about whether the education initiative represents sound economic policy.
We assembled an expert team to conduct the work necessary for the report. CBER does a
considerable amount of contract work for business clients, and we always assemble expert
teams for our work. Sometimes experts disagree with each other, and we welcome an
independent peer review.
In academic circles, we often disregard disclaimers on our papers and reports. Academics
assume that most people will understand that their work represents the authors’ viewpoints
and not the official positions of their universities. That assumption likely is wrong. When I
worked in the Federal Reserve System, every staff publication carried a disclaimer indicating
that the views were those of the authors and not those of the Federal Reserve System.
Let me clarify. The views expressed in CBER’s report, An Economic Analysis of the Education
Initiative, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas or the Nevada System of Higher Education. We regret that our past
publications did not carry this disclaimer. All our future publications will.
Stephen P. A. Brown, PhD
Director
Center for Business and Economic Research
Comments: