For my American friends, let me discuss George W. Bush and Iraq and the American economy.

I was a foreign exchange student in Burbank, California, in the Youth for Understanding exchange programme, 1972-73. This has created strong ties. Last year when I visited my American Mom, and when we visited friends in San Clemente, we passed that military training field there and we felt sympathy for the marines training there. My Mom also had her anxieties for her neighbour who has been sent out for the US Navy; fortunately he has returned safely.

It may be clear that the free world needs a strong defence and that the US has a special responsibility and hence vulnerability here, so that the US must count on the world’s understanding for its difficult position. It may also be clear, though for some people less so, that the war in Iraq is a huge mistake and policy lie. I do not have to extend on this since the case has been put forward by others more eloquently. Personally, I still allow for the fact (since who are we to know ?) that US intelligence has spotted some WMD by now but is slow in making this public. This does not change the major conclusions on transparancy and due process.

What is relevant for the current discussion is the common factor of the policy lie.

Advised reading then is Paul Krugman (2003), “The great unraveling”. It is a pleasure to read many of my own thoughts in his much more eloquent words. It is also good to observe Paul’s development. Earlier, he uttered “sheer intellectual outrage” when he noted that his own theory was politically abused. Now he exposes the system behind it. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson advises the general public to read this book:

“Paul Krugman’s is a lone voice, telling things as they are and debunking Washington policies that are neither compassionate nor conservative. Plutocratic democracy is in the saddle. Rx. Krugman twice a week. Buy. Read. Ponder. Benefit.”

I fully support this.

When the censorship at CPB is resolved, it will be clearer how the policy lies can be averted. Hence, boycott Holland. (And Mom, drop your Dutch stock holdings.)

This is not the place to extend on my views on the failing peace process in particular. But it occupies people, so two remarks can help. (1) I can repeat suggestions already made by others that are neglected at our peril. Translate “Allah” as “God”, and don’t say “moslim terrorists” but simply “criminals”. America isn’t in a “war on terrorism” but is “trying in joint co-operation with the international community to arrest terrorizing criminals”. Stuff like that. Clean language helps to focus on what you really want. (2) It is crucial that the EU is present in the US. Not by propaganda or whatever, but by simply being there as it is. The EU should establish a broadcasting channel in the US to show the diversity of the EU, for example by selections of what is broadcasted in the EU. The current American media appear too unbalanced and the world cannot afford that.

PM. Relevant texts from my website are:

(1) “Understanding 9-11 and its aftermath”, November 11 2001, at http://www.dataweb.nl/~cool/Papers/WarAndPeace/Understanding911.html

It may be recalled that at CPB in 1989-1990, I was removed from the team that eventually published the long term projection 1990-2015, Central Planning Bureau (1992ab), “Scanning the future”. Relevant here is the Global Crisis scenario where it is assumed that some particular events throw the world economy into shambles. My text “Understanding 9-11 and its aftermath” has been written with that in mind.

(2) “Economics and War & Peace” (general entry to other texts), at http://www.dataweb.nl/~cool/Papers/WarAndPeace/index.html

Krugman still is ignorant about my analysis (DRGTPE, first edition):

(a) the need for constitutional reform on the Economic Supreme Court,

(b) reform of the tax system and the return to full employment and growth.

The gap between me and Krugman is getting smaller though:

(a) Krugman abhors the current polical role of the CEA. Perhaps he sees the need for constitutional change towards an Economic Supreme Court.

(b) Krugman has a life-long aversion of taxation theory. But this is where the solution for unemployment can be found (otherwise he might have seen it already). Krugman advances the conclusion that income inequality furthered extreme right-wing conservatism. This provides fertile ground for my analysis on the tax void and the dynamic marginal tax rates.

I think that it is advisable that Krugman reads my work. Of course he is entirely free not to do so. We can even understand that since he hates tax theory so much. He is likelier to do so however when Holland is boycottted and when that circus draws his attention. Hence, boycott Holland. If Paul starts reading my work, he best starts with DRGTPE.

It is good to see the attention that the European Enlargement gets in the media these days.

My advice is to vote NO on the current proposals for a European Constitution.

The reason is that these proposals are scientifically unsound. For example, they lack an Economic Supreme Court, and they do not satisfy the conditions explained in Colignatus (2001) “Voting Theory for Democracy”.

Obviously, a vote is a political statement, and not something what science can determine. If people want a sloppy constitution then they are entirely free to do so. Science can only contribute to consistency between what is claimed for that constitution and what will be its true effect. Given the claims, vote NO.

My analysis on social welfare and voting is part of the censorship by the directorate of the CPB. Hence boycott Holland.

I already expressed the hope that you would not boycott me, my publisher and my internet provider (or those in general).

I have wondered whether I should also beg for such leniency for my family and friends. This would turn into quite a logistical operation. I have turned 50 this year, there is quite a trail. Also, I already told that I contacted some ‘other-globalists’ in Amsterdam with the question whether they would be willing to ask their foreign friends to boycott Holland: perhaps they should be absolved from harming themselves as well. Perhaps we can make a sticker or label “Don’t boycott me because I boycott Holland” and sell this, with the proceeds to the tropical rain forests (that also suffer from the censorship by the directorate of the CPB).

All this is rather complex and one can imagine that people ask why I don’t simply emigrate. But I hope that you agree that the censorship by the CPB directorate shouldn’t force me to depart from my loved ones.

It is decidedly simplest to boycott all Dutch. My loved ones might suffer, but the rational gamble is that the boards of Shell, Ahold, Baan, Unilever, KLM (Air France), ING, ABN AMRO, Numico, Philips, AKZO-Nobel, DSM, etcetera, and also the mayors of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Leiden, Delft, Maastricht, and even the rather sleepy mayor of Groningen wake up before that, and send out their envoys to Parliament to do something about this rather weird situation.

Yes, I have really tried everything else possible. My efforts have been listed in Colignatus & Hulst (2003), but a selection for an international audience is:

·         Dutch government has an Office of Integrity, but this has been installed only recently (suggesting that there were no solutions before?), and they don’t take ‘old cases’ (even though the directorate of the CPB still censors the analysis: I recently asked for some proper decisions, the court established that they should reply, and they replied as a censor does).

·         The Academy of Science (KNAW) sees no task to cover the official governmental research institutes that claim a scientific status, such as CPB, SCP, RIVM.

·         I’ve also asked my last employer, the Department of Public Health at Erasmus MC, whether they would support a suggestion to KNAW to investigate the CPB case because of its importance for the integrity of science. Professor Richard Gill of Utrecht University already supported that suggestion. If Erasmus MC thinks that I have some professional standing, as they renewed my contract in October 2003, perhaps they also value my judgement on this issue on the integrity of science. The censorship by the directorate of the CPB also has consequences for Public Health, not only in Holland, but via economic theory in all countries. To my regret, this discussion appeared difficult to resolve. For a longer discussion, see my website on the topic of public health.

·         I’ve written a string of newspaper articles in the beginning of the 1990s, but to no avail. This is about the same period when Fortuyn was put down by Kok and Melkert as well. Nowadays newspapers fundamentally neglect me, seem to regard me as some idiot who should stay in his cage. My recent book with Hans Hulst has had a decent and highly positive review in the magazine for Dutch teachers in economics, and similarly in a newsletter for socially involved workers in the Churches, but got a short negative put down in a social science journal, and has otherwise been neglected.

The censorship of science now takes almost 15 years. This year I turn 50, and that is a good moment to take stock. Institutions are stronger than people, what resources remain? I see no other prospects. So, alas, I must advise you to boycott Holland.

(May 1, 2004)

(Abstract and summary only)

http://www.dataweb.nl/~cool/Thomas/Nederlands/TPnCPB/Record/1990/12/18/index.html

Thomas Colignatus  *  December 18 1990

CPB internal note 90-III-38

A synthesis of economic theory is presented, the solution to unemployment is restated, the intellectual need for a parliamentary inquiry is established, and as an example to such inquiry the performance of the Centraal Planbureau is evaluated.

In Holland, mass unemployment persists already for about twenty years, and will continue to do so for many years to come.  Economists agree on the obvious solution, the reduction of labour costs. But for some reasons our decision making process doesn’t generate that decision. Policy measures that are taken, actually are troublesome, like the creation of a Centraal Bureau voor de Arbeidsvoorziening (CBA), or the recent ‘temporary and red tape’ ten percent subsidy on minimum wages (WLOM). The policymaking situation is analyzed in a more formal manner, to allow for more abstract reasoning. This requires a social welfare function, an income redistribution function, and a production function (for the unemployed cq. subsidized workers). In fact, we might attain the goals of high growth, price stability, full employment and a just income distribution, by means of monetary, fiscal and subsidy instruments. The conclusion however is that the present policy sclerosis derives from insufficient interest in and information about the form and location of those mentioned functions, and lack of interest In optimization itself; and this again may be caused by institutional weak spots. A review of the issue and of the policymaking process could be beneficial and actually logically needed. Among others, this would include a review of the Centraal Planbureau (CPB), that has not properly endogenised government behaviour in its models, projections and analyses. It is suggested that such review would be a task for parliament; and the logic for a so-called parlementaire enquete is compelling. Clarity on the issues is essential too for the European debate and our advice to the Eastern European countries.

*) The author is an econometrician at a government agency that has some involvement with the economic policy making process; the article expresses his own views only. This paper is adapted from a presentation at a parallel session at the conference in honour of prof. W. Albeda “The future of industrial relations in Europe” June 7-8 1990, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Considering all these arguments, I think that it is best that economists advise their parliaments to investigate these matters. The television cameras should not focus on the debate between the parties, for a while, but on the didactic discourse between politicians and scientists.

I like to thank Guido den Broeder for publishing my earlier work (1992b). I want to thank my friends of the Samuel van Houten Genootschap, Eric van Stappershoef and Fred Kromhout, for my earlier publication “Trias Politica & Centraal Planbureau” (1994b). I thank Hans and Auke Hulst for their 1998 “Werkloosheid en armoede, de oplossing die werkt” (“Unemployment and poverty, the solution that works”), written with my assistance. Hans and I wrote “De ontketende kiezer” (“The voter unchained”) in 2003. All these books were good products and provided the encouragement of a work well in progress.

I thank Stephen Wolfram and the people at Wolfram Research Inc. (WRI) for creating Mathematica, a system for doing mathematics on the computer. Without this, this book would have looked quite different, or not have been there at all. I thank Leendert van Gastel and André Heck of the - now no longer existing foundation - Computer Algebra Nederland (CAN), and Dick Verkerk of the - very existent - CANdiensten for the opportunity to visit CAN at that time. I thank Asahi Noguchi (1993) and Silvio Levy for originally creating the Mathematica package on Applied General Equilibirum analysis, and for giving their permission to rework it and to include it in my own Economics Pack (1999), that this book uses.

Specific thanks are also due to Bob Parks of the Economics Working Papers Archive (EconWPA) of the Washington university at St. Louis. Over the course of the years much of this work has been put there, and this has been very useful.

On content, I thank prof. dr. Jules Theeuwes (Leiden University), prof. dr. Hans Weddepohl (Amsterdam University) and prof. dr. Jan Siebrand (Erasmus University Rotterdam) for their comments on some of my earlier papers. A discussion with prof. dr. Henk Folmer (Wageningen University) contributed to more clarity in the argument as well. All responsibility is mine of course.

I like to thank my former colleagues at the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB). Without them I would not be the economist that I am now, and I can do them no greater compliment than by advising that the bureau should be promoted, with some modification, to an Economic Supreme Court. My special thanks go to Martin Vromans and Carel Eijgenraam.

I am also indebted to my close friends and family, both Dutch and American, without whose support this work could not have been created.

I think that I usefully state again that I protest against the abuse that has been inflicted onto me by the directorate of the CPB and that has hindered the due course of science.

Not that I entertain any illusion. Most people and organisations that I contacted have been particularly uninterested. Policy makers do not like the idea that the government itself contributes to stagnation. Voters seem to accept unemployment as a natural phenomenon. Academic economists are mainly interested in their own line of research and the possibility of publishing in some journal. Scientific truth, and the interest in scientific integrity in the policy making process, somewhere gets lost. So, having this experience since 1989, an educated guess would be that it might take many more years before my analysis is accepted and before there is any chance that the abuse can be corrected. The main worry of course is that unemployment and poverty hang in here too.

The body of the text explains the difference of and relationship between ‘economics’ and ‘political economy’. I propose that we all stick to those definitions. But it remains useful to relate to definitions provided by other authors.

Marshall (1890, 1947, p1 and 43) first equates Political Economy and Economics, and then splits them up again:

“Political Economy or Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of wellbeing.”

“Economics is thus taken to mean a study of the economic aspects and conditions of man’s political, social and private life; but more especially of his social life. The aims of the study are to gain knowledge for its own sake, and to obtain guidance in the practical conduct of life, and especially of social life. The need for such guidance was never so urgent as now; a later generation may have more abundant leisure than we for researches that throw light on obscure points in abstract speculation, or in the history of past times, but do not afford immediate aid in present difficulties.

But though thus largely directed by practical needs, economics avoids as far as possible the discussion of those exigencies of party organization, and those diplomacies of home and foreign politics of which the statesman is bound to take account in deciding what measures that he can propose will bring him nearest to the end that he desires to secure for his country. It aims indeed at helping him to determine not only what that end should be, but also what are the best methods of a broad policy devoted to that end. But it shuns many political issues, which the practical man cannot ignore: and it is therefore a science, pure and applied, rather than a science and an art. And it is better described by the broad term “Economics” than by the narrower term “Political Economy”.”

Here, ‘economic aspects and conditions’ refer to the provision for food and shelter, the working life etcetera. Nowadays we would tend to include more subjects, and still say that ‘economics’ is involved in it. To us, ‘economics’ sets in (as a sufficient but not necessary condition) as soon when some preference decision is to be made. Marshall’s tools, as for example the scissors of supply and demand, have been applied to this wider area of application too. This indeed may well be the luxury situation that he expected.

By consequence, it is useful to still use the name ‘economics’ for the wider subject areas, even though allowing for more subjects causes less ‘economic content’ than Marshall perceived. Economics thus is characterised by the approach, method and tools used. On the other hand, ‘political economy’ then concentrates on one particular subject: the management of the state. Much of Marshall’s “Principles” will, paradoxically, then be relevant for political economy.

Gambs and Komisar’s 1968 textbook  “Economics and man”, chapter 1, gives a nice overview of the various definitions that early economists have provided. A longer quote (of those quotes) usefully enriches our understanding of the definition of ‘political economy’.

“What is economics all about? It is often defined as the science of wealth or as the study of how mankind gets its living. Statements like this are certainly useful, but they are also too general. When we try to take the next step, we get into trouble. We meet difficulties in pinning economics down because its practitioners are in disagreement about the scope and nature of their science, and at­tempts to particularize lead to protests from opposing schools of thought. The only definitions on which agreement is possible are broad ones like those given above, or humorous ones like “Economics is whatever an economist wants to talk about.”

The reader may have misgivings about studying a science in which disagreements arise at the very start. His doubts are indeed well founded but should not too quickly turn him away. After all, there are still differences of opinion even in astronomy and phyics, chemistry and biology. Psychology remains a free-for-all. No considerable field of knowledge is so completely understood that all of its scholars speak with the same voice. The process of reaching a balanced conclu­sion often requires a sifting of the testimony of contradictory witnesses. In any event, stress on differences should not obscure the fact that all sciences, including even economies, agree on many things. There is, besides, an enormous store of historical and descriptive matter—economic facts—that is well worth knowing and concerning which there is little dispute. We shall hope that the burden placed on the reader of suspending judgment and viewing the same things in different lights will not be too heavy.

One of the dominant schools of the day looks upon economics as study of what happens when we try to reconcile the scarcity of things with the insatiable wants of human beings. Most things worth having, except the air we breathe are scarce — scarce enough, at least, to command a price and not to be available to all in generous quantity. Among the less dominant and dissenting schools is one that considers the study of the disposal of scarce goods too restrictive. Some mem­bers of this class focus their interest on the moral codes, business practices, social instimtions, legal framework, and the like under which we get our food, clothing, and shelter. They study an economic system — capitalism, for example — in much the same way that an anthropologist studies the Klamath Indians or some primitive tribe of a South Sea island. They ask, and try to answer, questions that have little to do with the disposal of scarce goods.

The student may find it helpful to examine the definitions given below. They represent the thought of several periods and schools. In these definitions the older phrase “political economy” is more or less equal to the modern word “economics.”

Oeconomy, in general, is the art of providing for all the wants of a family, with prudence and frugality …. What oeconomy is in a family, political oeconomy is in a state (Sir James Steuart, 1712-1780).

Writers on Political Economy profess to teach, or to investigate, the nature of Wealth, and the laws of production and distribution: including directly or remotely, the operation of all causes by which the condition of mankind, or of any society of human beings, in respect to this universal object of human desire, is made prosperous or the reverse (John Stuart Mill, 1896-73).

Political Economy treats chiefly of the material interests of nations. It inquires how the various wants of the people of a country, especially those of food, clothing, fuel, shelter, of the sexual instinct etc., may be satisfied; how the satisfaction of these wants influences the aggregate national life, and how in turn, they are influenced by the national life (Wilhelm Roscher, 1817-94).

Political Economy or Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of well being. Thus it is on the one side a study of wealth; and on the other, and more important side, a part of the study of man (Alfred Marshall, 1842—1924).

Economics is a study of the “community’s methods of turning material things to account” (Thorstein Veblen, 1857—1929)

Economics ... is concerned with that aspect of behavior which arises from the scarcity of means to achieve given ends (Lionel Robbins, 1898— ).

. . . Economics is ... a social science; that is, it deals with the behavior of men in organized communities. Its special province is the behavior of social groups in providing the means for attaining their various ends (Wesley Mitchell, 1874—1948).

The theory of economics … is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique of thinking, which helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions (John Maynard Keynes, 1883—1946).

A few comments on the above may help. The first definition, by Steuart was conceived before much formal and sustained thought by a succession of scholars had been given to what we now name “economics”. Steuart was a mercantilist, primarily interesed in the wealth of the British crown and its capacity to support a navy, pay soldiers, and build and maintain the King’s highways. His concern was not with the nation as a whole — the artisans, farmers, and other men of low degree. In contrast, the next definition, by Mill —  a very acceptable definition even today — does consider the society as a whole. It also calls attention to the “laws of ... production and distribution.” which are still at the forefront of economic interest. With the exception of the definition given by Lionel Robbins, all of the others reach down — like Mill — into the entire community. Veblen and Mitchell are dissenting economists (…) Yet both echo the phrase of Marshall, a major orthodox econ­omist, about “the attainment . . . of the material requisites of well being.” Marshall, Robbins, and Mitchell place emphasis on human behavior. This is a desirable emphasis, lest we forget because of our shorthand way of speaking that human beings are the cause of economic phenomena. For example, economists are much concerned about the rise and fall of prices; but prices do not rise and fall. Human beings mark them up or down. The majority of American standard or orthodox economists would endorse the definition given by Marshall, not only because it is a good one, but also because of his great authority. Yet Robbins’ — so completely different—would also meet with great favor. What economists like about this pithy definition is that it goes to the heart of an issue which engrosses many of them: how to reconcile scarcity or the niggardliness of nature with the unlimited desires of man. Economists like to say they will not be needed in heaven. The reason is that in paradise, wants are few and resources boundless. Its inhabitants will never have to decide how much to spend and how much to save, how heavily to tax, how much butter to give up in order to have guns.

The definition given by Keynes, the most widely acclaimed economist of the 20th century, is a rather puzzling one. Economics is here defined partly as a “technique of thinking.” What does this mean? Obviously, any organized body of knowledge directs the mind in ways that are foreign to other organized bodies of knowledge. The chemist thinks about how atoms combine, whether they combine explosively or quietly, what happens when you restructure the atoms of a molecule. In this sense, we get a unique “technique of thinking” in almost any specialized activity, including economics; indeed, even baseball, football, and other sports impose a special technique of thinking, But is his all that Keynes has in mind? Certain well-known techniques of thinking include induction and deduction. Behaviorist psychologists — at least in the early days—reduced thinking to in­audible speech; the philosopher John Dewey described thinking as problem solving. Without clarifying, Keynes seems to claim for economics a unique method of ascertaining truth—one which is either a substitute for or an addition to the more widely known methods suggested above; something you would not find in a book of logic, only in a book of economics. If this is his meaning, we must reject the definition, for the method of scientific investigation and techniques of thought are the same for all kinds of data; and in any case, there is a difference between the concerns and data of economics and the method of studying it — a difference which is not recognized in the Keynesian definition.

The question whether economics is really a science cannot be answered easily. Astronomy, chemistry and physics have spoiled us with their split-second accuracy and such infallibility of prediction that we are inclined to look with disdain at the social sciences. Biology has not scored the successes credited to the physical sciences, but it still outpaces economics by a good deal. If, however, science is thought of as an attitude, a willingness to put aside prejudice, self-interest, and the unverified wisdom of the authority, then economics will fare moderately well.”

This ends the longer quote.

Gambs and Komisar themselves state: “The economist’s job in our society - as it would be in simpler societies - is to study all of our decision-making forces, practices, and traditions, and to decide whether they are promoting the general welfare.” (p14)

My own notes on all of this: (1) Keynes’s quote likely refers to the ‘science’ claim for economics, and has less to do with its subject matter. See the discussion on Hicks in chapter 19. (2) Robbins’s definition, though popular as it is - since it focusses on a clear phenomenon that can be frequently seen - thus is inadequate on the whole. It is an engineering’s definition, a rephrasing of ‘efficiency’. It is useful to highlight some aspects, but no more. It neglects policy stagnation that causes a state of inefficiency to endure. It neglects evolution and power that for example affect the income distribution. Robbins’s definition is like defining a map as ‘a piece of paper that contains street names’, forgetting all the other useful things that map makers provide.

Mankiw (1998:4) defines: “Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce resources.”

This again mixes ‘economics’ (the approach) and ‘political economy’ (a subject). I am not in favor of this, see the introductory discussion. The ‘10 principles’ that Mankiw himself provides in his first chapter give a nice view on the economic approach to problems - quite like Keynes’s definition - but do not tell us much yet about the management of the state.

Piet de Wolff (1911-2000) introduced the distinction ‘macro-economics’ and ‘micro-economics’, in his 1941 article on elasticities, in The Economic Journal. His distinction is plain technical, and his ‘macro-economics’ appears to be just another word for ‘aggregate’. I surmise that the economics profession quickly adopted the word ‘macro-economics’ since it sounds more professional and less political than ‘Political Economy’. It sounds as a distinction that can be made within economics, without having to visit the other sciences. The problem with equating macro-economics with Political Economy however is that Political Economy also is interested in distributional aspects - while macro-economics by definition looks at the aggregate only. A problem with publishing a book on micro-economics (and using that word as the title) is that good micro-economics of course also includes the macro-economic feedbacks and constraints. So my suggestion is to use the ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ words as technical terms only (better sounding than ‘aggregate’ and ‘disaggregate’), and not write books with those titles or create professorial chairs on those ‘subjects’.

Quoting from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6681/montesqb.htm:

“Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de (1689-1755), French writer and jurist, born in the Chteau of la Brède, and educated at the Oratorian school at Juilly and later at Bordeaux. He became counselor of the Bordeaux parliament in 1714 and was its president from 1716 to 1728. Montesquieu first became prominent as a writer with his Persian Letters (1721; trans. 1961); in this work, through the device of letters written to and by two aristocratic Persian travelers in Europe, Montesquieu satirized contemporary French politics, social conditions, ecclesiastical matters, and literature. the book won immediate and wide popularity; it was one of the earliest works of the movement known as the Enlightenment, which, by its criticism of French institutions under the Bourbon monarchy, helped bring about the French Revolution. The reputation acquired by Montesquieu through this work and several others of lesser importance led to his election to the French Academy in 1728. His second significant work was Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur et de la décadence des Romains (Thoughts on the Causes of the Greatness and the Downfall of the Romans, 1734), one of the first important works in the philosophy of history. His masterpiece was The Spirit of Laws (1748; trans. 1750), in which he examined the three main types of government (republic, monarchy, and despotism) and states that a relationship does exist between an area’s climate, geography, and general circumstances and the form of government that evolves. Montesquieu also held that governmental powers should be separated and balanced to guarantee individual rights and freedom.” 

Note that his original name was Secondat, and that he inherited the title of Baron from his uncle in 1716. He also was elected to the Royal Society in 1730. See http://tqd.advanced.org/3376/Monty2.htm

Sir Isaiah Berlin: “Montesquieu advocated constitutionalism, the preservation of civil liberties, the abolition of slavery, gradualism, moderation, peace, internationalism, social and economic justice with due respect to national and local tradition. He believed in justice and the rule of law; detested all forms of extremism and fanaticism; put his faith in the balance of power and the division of authority as a weapon against despotic rule by individuals or groups or majorities; and approved of social equality, but not the point which it threatened individual liberty; and out of liberty, but not to the point where it threatened to disrupt orderly government.” (“Against the Current”) (Also taken from the internet.)

Source: Central Planning Bureau (January 2003)