160 Packard Avenue - Tufts University - Medford, Massachusetts 02155-7082 USA - 617.627.3700
Comments to: FletcherWeb@tufts.edu
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
Fletcher School Convocation Remarks on Behalf of the Faculty by Professor Carsten Kowalczyk Dean Bosworth, Dean Lynch, Colleagues, Staff, and Students, Distinguished Graduates and Guests. I have been invited to offer some remarks on behalf of the faculty. And while my remarks are also personal, I am certain that I speak on behalf of everyone here today when sending our best regards to Walter and Kathy Wriston at this difficult time. We wish Walter a speedy and full recovery. Today we are launching an academic year during which we will also celebrate 70 years of instruction at Fletcher. Today, we are also celebrating excellence in diplomacy and in law, and the outstanding contributions of a most distinguished alumnus. Given this, I confess to feeling a bit uneasy about offering these remarks because, and I believe this may not have been advertised in the program that was circulated, I teach economics. Having a representative of the “Dismal Science” offer the faculty remarks at convocation – perhaps the point is to ensure that the mood today does not reach levels of “irrational exuberance” – if you will allow me to apply the now famous expression coined by Alan Greenspan in 1996. At this time of year some rituals plays out: Students return to campuses; and the winners of the Nobel Prizes are announced – with one category being “Economic Sciences.” And journalists will quote someone who is adamant that there is nothing scientific about economics. I do not want to give you the impression that economists are thin-skinned, far from it, but like physics, chemistry, etc., economics does require that assumptions and reasoning are consistent, and that any predictions – if the work is applied – have something to do with what we actually observe. This is true even if at times we use language and diagrams, or, if you wish, poetry and artwork, instead of equations to make our points. Moreover, the traditional critique that economics is not on par with such hard sciences as physics, chemistry, etc., because economists cannot conduct experiments – which at times the others can – is no longer entirely valid. For example, game theorists have in recent years been busy working on understanding how “negotiators get to yes.” The approach is basically to lock some undergraduates in a room – probably with no windows to make sure that no daylight gets in – and then observe how they negotiate over how to split some amount of money, $10 or so, or how they reach agreement on how to split a rapidly melting ice cream pie. Who gets how much and why? Do women reach agreement faster than men? Might it help to be on the wrestling or rowing teams? Do students who have studied economics take away more than those who haven’t? I will not, of course, reveal the answers to these intriguing questions here today – there will be no free-riding: you’ll have to pay the price of admissions by doing the readings and turning in the problem sets. But whether you find the thought of economists in white lab coats an appealing one or not – the word “science” when applied to economics should not be contentious. What about “dismal”? As many of you have undoubtedly experienced in your private or professional lives, it is rarely a popularity booster to inject the words “scarcity” or “costs” into a conversation. These words have a remarkable ability to create a widespread sense of dismay. But at times, recognizing scarcity and opportunity costs may lead to changes in practices, which in turn may lead to all-around gains or win-wins for all participants. It is, for example, an important proposition in international trade that in some circumstances all-round gains may exist if nations were to trade according to their comparative advantage. And if the changes lead to new investment or new technology, economic growth may ensue with possibly staggering consequences for standards of living. As emphasized by some economic historians, it is economic growth – that remarkable change in economic circumstances – that has allowed the average household in many countries today to realize levels and qualities of nutrition and health, and intellectual experiences that were not available even to rulers of nations in earlier centuries. And it is the lack of economic growth that defines the common experience of what constitutes today’s developing countries. It would therefore be important if we could identify what are the conditions that are helpful to economic growth. Regional studies and history tell of failed attempts as well as of successes and, together with political science, inform how other considerations may promote or hinder the collaboration that is so central to economic activity. Research on the environment provides a reminder that not accounting for all costs may be shortsighted. And rule of law, and quality of governance and institutions, have been identified as important factors for growth. Seventy years of instruction – and with a distinguished body of alumni and alumnae – Fletcher obviously works in practice. But does Fletcher work in theory? The answer is yes. And while my kaleidoscopic remarks do not constitute any formal proof, I do believe that they illustrate why the answer is yes: There are synergies. The founders of Fletcher identified diplomacy, business, law and economics as important for the study and practice of international affairs – and ever since, our work and the work of our graduates, whether regional or functional in scope, have been solidly grounded in these disciplines as they provide the tools for addressing not only the opportunities and challenges of today but also for addressing those of tomorrow. My colleagues and I look forward to sharing this terrific tradition with you in the coming year. |
 |
2002 The Fletcher School, Tufts
University |
|
|
| |