philo of economics: Did I attack a 'bought' economist (Barro), way back when?

With all the recent revelations of academics for hire by dictators, I wondered about the following: Way back when, writing in Businessweek, Harvard Professor of Economics, Robert J. Barro, stated (2002), "China managed to liberalize slowly without losing control of the legal system and the political process. The often- condemned suppression of the Tiananmen Square student uprising in 1989 was a crucial part of this approach. Had the government yielded to the student protests, the likely result would have been political chaos and poorer economic performance. China has also advanced in legal rights . . . Even religious freedom is practiced – the suppression of the Falun Gong was not on religious grounds but
out of fear that the group would facilitate anti-government protests."

What is it about the Harvard economics department that attracts such noble human beings? (Recall my blogging here, here, and less morally repugnant but equally overconfident, here.) First, I cannot resist quoting my youthful rejoinder in a letter sent to the editor of Business Week, but not (I think) published: "Why is it that when otherwise sane academics visit China they lose their ability to think clearly and start pontificating on areas outside their competence? . . . For Adam Smith, a wiser economist, there was no doubt that stable, prosperity-producing political authority depended on the good-will of the citizens toward their government. It’s sad that Barro is using his cosseted life of academic tenure to become a spokesperson for continued tyranny."

I now wonder , was Barro bought so that his defense of dictatorship came more effortlessly? For, what part of economic science creates his confidence in predicting the consequences of counterfactual political policy choices in China? So, the question I should have asked is: what were his consulting/visiting fees before he wrote this material? (It would help explain, but not excuse his support of dictatorship.) Barro wrote more often as if the spokesperson of China. It's clear he he is a regular visitor to China, and according to his website he even is "honorary Dean" at a Chinese university. Is "Honorary Dean" the new code for, paid lobbyist?

In the column quoted above, this is Barro's closing remark: "On a recent trip to China, I visited Mao's mausoleum. I was surprised by the high esteem in which Mao is still held. To me, he is a great villain, responsible for millions of deaths and for keeping the country in poverty. It would be more suitable for Deng's picture, not Mao's, to adorn the gates of the Forbidden City. But Deng apparently believed that it was more important to look forward to better policies than to assign blame for past errors. So perhaps he was right on this count, as he was on many others." Perhaps, Barro was being prescient about wishing to forget things?