Litan Leaves Brookings After It Says He Didn't Follow Rules on Independence
An economist and lawyer who has done research on net neutrality and other communications issues resigned from the Brookings Institution after it said he didn't follow its rules on independence, amid criticism related to a different regulated industry. Robert Litan had been a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings, its website said, and has been a special consultant at Economists Inc. according to EI's website. Organizations which Litan and the colleague who co-wrote the controversial paper continue to be affiliated have been involved in communications issues such as net neutrality. But despite this controversy, many times experts write papers without disclosing any more information, said a fan of such disclosure. A colleague who helped with Litan's research said best practices were followed.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Other than Brookings, Litan hasn't shed any other affiliations, nor has his co-author. Litan told us Wednesday that he remains in his current role at EI and also at the Korein Tillery law firm, where he is of counsel according to its website. Singer said he remains principal at EI. Litan is an independent affiliate there, said Dawn Higgins Perry, an office manager. She also confirmed that Singer's job title didn't change.
"Well-known, highly respected researcher" Litan "acknowledged that he made a mistake in not following Brookings regulations designed to uphold the independence of the institution," said Brookings President Strobe Talbott in a statement the group emailed us Wednesday. "We greatly appreciate all the good work Bob has done for Brookings over the 40-plus years he has been connected to this institution and the professional integrity he has brought to his scholarship.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had told Brookings that Litan didn't fully disclose industry funding tied to a study, written by him and Hal Singer of consultant EI, that criticized a Labor Department proposed rule on brokerage conflicts of interest. The paper had a "vague" disclosure that investment services firm Capital Group provided funding for it, said Warren's office in a news release Tuesday. She is on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, before which Litan testified in July about the research.
Answering Warren's posthearing questions, Litan said Capital Group commissioned EI for him and Singer to do the study, with the consulting firm paid $85,000, and his share $38,800, her office said. Capital Group provided "feedback on our initial outline and some editorial comments," Litan said, according to Warren's office. In a Monday letter, she asked Brookings about conflicts of interest on the "editorial and substantive content" of studies that carry Brookings' name. In a news release, EI had said Litan and Singer published a study critical of the Labor's cost-benefit analysis on a fiduciary rule. Singer is also a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, said the firm's website; he told us he is keeping his current affiliations. Brookings had no comment beyond Talbott's statement.
The controversy is much ado about nothing, Singer said in an interview. That the investment firm both funded and had editorial involvement with Litan and Singer's paper on the Labor proposal is normal in most any issue, Singer said. And the paper properly disclosed in the first footnote that the investment firm paid for the research, he said: It's Warren who is making a big deal out of what is essentially standard operating procedure and Brookings that caved within hours of the controversy's start. Warren's office and Capital Group didn't comment right away Wednesday.
It's routine to show a client an outline of research before it's conducted and to also share a draft, as likely occurred with the Labor rule paper, said Singer. "The notion that consultants don’t speak to their clients and don’t preview drafts or outlines is unbelievable. This is not a crime." Brookings' apparently new policy that appears to bar researchers affiliated with the group from listing their affiliations on such studies may not have been communicated to Litan, because he appeared not to have known about the policy, Singer said based on his discussions with Litan. In any case, Brookings would have known of the paper for months before he resigned -- under what Singer said was pressure from the think tank to quit -- Singer said. The think tank doesn't pay Litan, said Singer. "Either Bob will starve to death or he will do consulting work on the side. He chooses to eat food."
Such lack of complete disclosure of conflicts of interest as appeared to have occurred with the Litan/Singer paper on the Labor rule proposal is typical, but doesn't adhere to academic best practices that economists should abide by, said a longtime advocate for disclosure. Craig Holman, Public Citizen government affairs lobbyist, said the paper's disclosures fell short by not explicitly saying the funder had a direct conflict of interest. After facing past media and other scrutiny over disclosure of funding, Brookings "is particularly sensitive about" not "participating in research that is tainted, so it doesn’t surprise me that they reacted this quickly," said Holman. "Unfortunately, it does happen routinely among academics where they do not make it clear that there is a conflict of interest," Holman said of research in general.
Singer remains a senior fellow at PPI, a spokesman for that group told us Wednesday. In separate research, Litan and Singer have written at PPI about the hazards of FCC reclassification of broadband as a Title II Communications Act service (see 1412010035">1412010035). Litan, though a co-author of the net neutrality research, has never been affiliated with PPI, said its spokesman.