Ethics in Economic Research: Bias, Think Tanks, and Policy
This paper examines the ethical dimensions of economic research, with a particular focus on the role of think tanks and the potential for financial conflicts of interest to bias research outcomes. Using a Canadian case study involving the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) and its oil-company funding, the paper explores whether economic research can be truly objective when researchers depend on partisan funders. It considers the tension between economics as an academic science and as a professional or political discipline, discusses the EU Code of Ethics for Socio-Economic Research as a model, and argues that economists have a duty of care to the public that necessitates the adoption of a formal ethical code.
- Introduction: The Ethical Stakes of Economic Research: Why economic research ethics matters to society
- The AIMS Case: Competing Interests and Competing Research: Canadian gas-regulation dispute exposes researcher bias
- The Nature of Economic Research and Think Tank Bias: Think tank origins and structural conflict of interest
- Economics as Science Versus Economics as Profession: Tension between academic objectivity and political role
- The Case for a Code of Ethics: Duty of care argument for formal ethical standards
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a concrete, timely real-world case (the AIMS gas-regulation dispute) to ground abstract ethical arguments, making the discussion immediately accessible and credible.
- Acknowledges the bias on both sides of the debate — private think tank and publicly funded university economists — giving the argument intellectual balance rather than one-sided advocacy.
- Draws a productive analogy between economics and politics to test assumptions about bias, then challenges that analogy by invoking public expectations of scientific objectivity.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of case-based ethical reasoning: it introduces a specific controversy, extracts the underlying ethical principles at stake, tests those principles against broader conceptual frameworks (professional duty, academic objectivity, duty of care), and uses the case to justify a normative policy recommendation — the adoption of a code of ethics. This moves the argument from descriptive analysis to prescriptive conclusion in a structured way.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing why economic research matters ethically, then introduces the AIMS case as illustration. It broadens outward to examine the structural nature of think tanks and the origins of the think tank model (RAND Corporation, 1945). It then frames the central conceptual tension — science versus profession — before concluding with a normative call for a formal ethics code modeled on the EU's 2004 framework. The argument flows from specific case to general principle to policy recommendation.
Introduction: The Ethical Stakes of Economic Research
Economic research is embedded in much of the way our businesses and governments are run. The findings of economists can therefore have a profound impact on our lives. At the core of the ethical dilemma is whether economists conducting this research are doing so in fairness — to serve the greater good — or simply to serve the needs of their financial backers.
Some recent cases have put this issue front and center. In Canada, a back-and-forth debate took place with respect to a relatively minor study about the effects of gas price regulation on the prices consumers pay at the pump. On one side of the debate was the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), a conservative think tank; on the other side were newspapers owned by oil companies, the provincial utility board, and competing economists.
This case illustrates well the importance of discussing the ethics of think tank economics. Because the issue at hand is the price of gasoline and government intervention in that market, we can see directly how economic research guides public policy and touches subjects that affect our daily lives. The think tank's motives were publicly called into question on the basis of its financing structure. AIMS receives funding from seven different oil companies. Despite the AIMS report's claim that oil companies actually benefit from the price regulation in question, critics suspected that the oil companies had commissioned the report specifically to alter public opinion and bring about the end of price regulations.
This raises a couple of important ethical questions. The first is whether the choice of research subject was made at the request of the oil companies supporting AIMS. The second is whether the study was designed with the intent of demonstrating that gas price regulation has a negative impact on consumers. For its part, AIMS claims that the results of its research are unbiased.
The AIMS Case: Competing Interests and Competing Research
Complicating the issue is that the main critics of the AIMS report are managers involved with the government utility that established the regulation in the first place, as well as economists who produced research showing that the regulation works. These economists are employed by publicly funded universities and therefore receive their paychecks from the same government that enacted the price control regulations.
Debate between different economic researchers is common. There are many assumptions that must be made in the course of economic research, and economists will often disagree with one another about these assumptions. The ethical issue arises when those differences happen to coincide with the positions of the entities on which the researchers depend for their employment. Truly ethical research would be free of bias, yet in this case we have economists on both sides who each appear to carry a bias.
It can be argued that there is no compelling reason for either a private economist or a university professor to feel obligated to produce research that supports their financial backers' opinions. In both cases, the economist is not unemployable in the way that an unskilled laborer might be. Yet the question remains: does the money behind a report create a moral obligation on the part of the researcher to produce findings that support certain viewpoints?
Works Cited
Broome, John. (1999). Ethics out of Economics. Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, Milton. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York Times Magazine.
Resnick, David B. (2007). What is Ethics in Research and Why is it Important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Fetherling, George. (2008). In the Tank. The Walrus.
No author. (2009). Think Tank Denies Oil Money Influenced Gas Regulation Report. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
No author. (2009). Atlantic Canada's Drivers Pay More for Gas Regulation: Think Tank. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Dench, Sally; Iphofen, Ron & Huws, Ursula. (2004). An EU Code of Ethics for Socio-Economic Research. Institute for Employment Studies.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.