AT a high-powered development economics conference in Islamabad last week, I overheard a number of prominent academics and policymakers express disgust at the fact that their pristine discipline was being contaminated by ‘politics’. Their reference was to a sprinkling of individuals in the conference line-up who were perceived not to uphold the standards of ‘proper’ economics, and who unnecessarily introduced messy notions of power, history and so on into the discussion.

Quite aside from the disdain that natural scientists often express towards their peers studying different aspects of human society, economists like to distinguish themselves from other theorists of the social world. Indeed, economic ‘science’ is often contrasted with the wishy-washy methods of historians, sociologists, anthropologists etc.

One could digress and delve into the history of such disciplinary boundaries. I will point out only that the handful of world-renowned ‘economists’ widely considered to be the founding fathers of the discipline regularly described their field of study as ‘political economy’. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and David Ricardo all subscribed to this term, and dissident views such as those of Marx also fell into this broad disciplinary category.

It is dishonest to say that economics and politics can be separated.

Yet many mainstream economists in this country appear to be unaware of this history, or perhaps believe themselves to be performing a service to humankind by insisting on the separation of economics of politics.

To be fair, the economics profession in Pakistan reflects, to some extent, the global trend. Since the start of the neo-liberal epoch, a widespread belief has been inculcated that effective initiatives to improve society are those which are made independently of political considerations. ‘Good governance’ is the name of the game, and ostensibly apolitical technocrats are generally considered crucial cogs in the good governance wheel.

I have written before how contemporary populists contending for state power reinforce this orthodoxy; Imran Khan’s ‘anti-politics’ discourse revolves around the idea that narrow political considerations have destroyed institutions, and change will come when impartial and competent professionals are put into decision-making positions, replacing the politicos.

As compelling as this separation of ‘policy’ from ‘politics’ might appear, it is also untenable. In fact, it is intellectually dishonest to claim, as some economists do, that economics and politics can and/or should be separated. Even more nuanced economists who recognise that economics cannot be stripped of history, politics and culture often invoke the latter aspects selectively, and therefore, consciously neglect empirical details that render their explanatory models ineffective.

One of the headline acts at the conference mentioned at the outset was a pair of American academics — Acemoglu and Robinson — who have garnered significant acclaim for a book Why Nations Fail. Their argument, in short, is that countries with better, or ‘inclusive’ political and economic institutions prosper while those whose institutions are ‘extractive’ remain relatively underdeveloped.

An otherwise simple, forceful argument, Why Nations Fail is deceptive, and can even be considered an ode to capitalist imperialism. The US is, in the calculus of the authors, the epitome of ‘inclusive institutions’. Which is all good and well if one overlooks that country’s pillaging of the rest of the world, and that American society is still beset by inequality, racism and patriarchy.

Indeed, I wonder how the authors would respond to disclosures recently made about the unprecedented abuse of power by CIA operatives during the George W. Bush presidency. Or does the CIA get conveniently exclu­ded from the list of ‘institutions’ that make the model?

Of course, Pakis­tan would likely be placed by such ‘experts’ within the ‘extractive’ institutions category, and who would argue with that? Surely not our coterie of professional economists who are happy to subscribe to whatever orthodoxy is globally recognised at any particular historical juncture.

And so it is that they will continue to insist that the way out of our current state either entails ‘proper’ economic policy devoid of politics, or, at best, the building of ‘inclusive’ institutions. So let us all pray for Imran Khan’s success so that competence, merit and the ‘rule of law’ can stamp their collective mark on Pakistan and transform us from a failure into success.

But while we are devising the best set of fiscal and monetary policies, and the wider set of initiatives designed to ensure ‘good governance’, we should ensure we do not pay too much attention to pesky details like the fact that dumped bodies are now being discovered in Sindh, as they have been in Balochistan. We should concern ourselves only with the determinants of supply and demand, the enshrining of private property rights and unobstructed operation of the ‘free market’. Wishy-washy political considerations distract us from our epic task.

The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2014