Month: September 2019

M.I.T. First core graduate macroeconomics. Syllabus, readings, exams. Domar and Harris, 1967-68

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-30

Four out of the five times that the first term of the macroeconomics sequence at M.I.T. (Theory of Income and Employment) was taught in the second half of the 1960’s, it was taught by Evsey Domar . Earlier posts with materials for Domar’s course include the reading list and final exam for 1960-61, reading list and exams for 1965-66 , the exams for 1968-69, and the course evaluations for 1967/68-1969/70.

Responsible for the course section in 1967-68 was the assistant professor John Rees Harris (b. 1934, d. 2018, 1967 Northwestern Ph.D. in economics) [copy of his c.v. archived 14 February 2019]. Here is link to a video lunchtime talk by Harris at the Boston University conference “Development that Works” (March 11, 2011). The picture is a screen-capture from the video.

______________________

M.I.T.
THE THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
1967-68
[first session]

I. ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS

1. Course number, my and Harris’s name, our office numbers, office hours Tu 2:30-3:30.
2. Sitting chart. No compulsory attendance.
3. Reading list. First part only. Required and recommended or optional. Responsible for all required reading, but not for the details. I don’t know them myself. Lectures are the skeleton of the course. Reserve in Dewey. Inform me if some books are absent.
4. The National Income problem. It is due….
5. Midterm exam in November. Final exam.
6. Other administrative problems?

II. THE PURPOSE AND NATURE OF THE COURSE

To fill in the gaps and bring everyone to a common denominator, without pulling anyone down. Hence, some will find it a bit boring. Attendance is not compulsory.

It is an introductory course. Almost everything will be discussed in other courses, except National Income, Index of Industrial Production, etc. Growth and fluctuations; monetary economics, consumption function, investment decisions, etc.

III. COMMENTS ON MACROECONOMICS

At the beginning, was a very hot subject—the most interesting part of economics. Two reasons: (1) it was new: (2) the greatest deficiency was in the macro area. Emphasis in those days was on full employment, not growth. Growth came in after the second world war.

The close connection between macro economics and governmental policies.

Three [sic] aspects:

(1) understanding of macro problems by economists

(2) persuading the public—easy in England, very difficult here.

(3) Forecasts of the future—improvement

(4) The effectiveness of methods—also part of forecasts.

On the whole macro-policy has been very successful, sometimes by design, sometimes by luck. The tax reduction of 1964 was the first one for fiscal policy specifically. Less fear of a deficit—witness the present situation. But the tax rise is still a test.

Next step—economic growth. First models—macro type with one kind of goods, and investment with capital coefficients. Still being used, but they don’t get us far.

Growth is to a considerable extent a micro-problem, or at least a mixture of the two. Much more difficult for the government to legislate. How does one improve efficiency? Evaluation of investment projects, of economic effects of education, etc.

Some exaggeration—but the traditional macro theory suffers from its own success.

PART I NATIONAL INCOME AND RELATED ITEMS

First—to state the objectives, such as welfare (whose?), capacity to produce (what?), national prestige, evaluation of policies, curiosity about growth, etc.

How to bring order out of the chaos? Which goods and services, which transactions are to be recorded?

Define the purpose of economic activity:

(1) Welfare of all people (or citizens) of a given area

(2) Welfare of some people only (slaves or relatives excluded). Weights?

(3) Welfare of animals? The old lady and her cat?

The definition of welfare may lead to a definition of activities to be included.

Special activities: warfare (Sparta), capital formation, police protection, etc.

Market vs. non-market goods. Imputed items.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers. Box 17, Folder “Macroeconomics. Theory of National Income and Employment”.

_________________________

THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
Fall Term 1967-68

E.D. Domar
J.R. Harris

READING LIST

The purpose of this list is to suggest to the student the sources in which the more important topics of the course are discussed from several points of view. His objectives should be the understanding of these topics and not the memorization of opinions and details.

The “optional” reading has been included for those students who wish to pursue some of the subjects in greater detail. Some of the items on the optional list may be more effective in their exposition, at least for some individuals, than those on the required list.

There exists a good (if a bit obsolete) textbook on macroeconomics—Gardner Ackley, Macroeconomic Theory (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1961). Its knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for passing the course. While several copies are on reserve at Dewey, the acquisition of private copies is recommended.

Students may also find it convenient to acquire the following books: Readings in Macroeconomics edited by M.G. Mueller (which contains a number of relevant articles) and possible the three National Income volumes published by the U.S. Department of Commerce and listed in Section I.

I. NATIONAL INCOME AND RELATED ITEMS
(September 19 – October 12)

REQUIRED

Ackley, Chapters 1-4.

Kuznets, S., National Income and Its Composition, Vol. I (New York, 1941), Chap. 1.

National Income 1954 Edition, A Supplement to the Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C., 1954), pp. 27-60, 153-58.

U.S. Income and Output, A Supplement to the Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D. C., 1958), pp. 50-105.

The National Income and Product Accounts of the United States, 1929-1965. U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C., 1966). Browse through the statistics tables of the three volumes to find out what is available where.

Bergson, A. The Real National Income of Soviet Russia since 1928, Ch. 3 on “Methods and Procedures”, (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).

Griliches, Z. “Notes on the Measurement of Price and Quality Changes”, in Models of Income Determination, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 28 by the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1964, pp. 381-418.

Leontief, W. W., “Output, Employment, Consumption and Investment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 58 (February, 1944), pp. 290-314.

Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy (New York, 1953), pp. 27-35.

Dorfman, R., “The Nature and Significance of Input-Output,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36 (May, 1954), pp. 121-33.

Domar, E. D., “On the Measurement of Technological Change,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 71 (December, 1961), pp. 709-29. [Read only pp. 709-14, 726-29.]

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Industrial Production 1959 Revision (Washington, 1960), pp. iii-41. [Look for the method, not for statistical details.]

Domar, E. D., “An Index-Number Tournament,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXXI (May, 1967), pp. 169-88.

Sigel, S. J., “A Comparison of the Structures of Three Social Accounting Systems,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Input-Output Analysis: An Appraisal, The Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 18 (Princeton, 1955), pp. 253-89.

OPTIONAL READINGS:

Jaszi, G., “The Statistical Foundations of the GNP,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 38 (May, 1956), pp. 205-14.

Lewis, Wilfred, Jr., “The Federal Sector in National Income Models,” and comments by Hickman and Pechman, in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Models of Income Determination (Princeton, 1964), Vol. 28, pp. 233-78.

Bailey, M. J., National Income and the Price Level (New York, 1962), pp. 269-300.

Kuznets, S., National Income and Its Composition (New York, 1941).

Ruggles, R. and N., National Income Accounts and Income Analysis (New York, 1956).

Ruggles, “The U.S. National Accounts,” American Economic Review, Vol. 49, (March, 1959), pp. 85-95.

National Bureau of Economic Research, The National Economic Accounts of the United States, Review, Appraisal and Recommendations, General Series 64, (Washington, 1958).

Organization for European Economic Cooperation, A Standardised System of National Accounts, (Paris, 1952).

Gilbert, M. and I. B. Kravis, An International Comparison of National Products and the Purchasing Power of Currencies, A Study of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy, Organization for European Economic Cooperation (Paris, 1954).

Gilbert, M., Comparative National Products and Price Levels, A Study of Western Europe and the United States, Organization of European Economic Cooperation, (Paris, 1958).

United Nations, Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics, the latest issue.

United Nations, National Income Statistics, the latest issue.

United Nations, World Economic Survey and other Economic Surveys.

Studenski, The Income of Nations. Theory, Measurement, and Analysis: Past and Present (New York, 1958). [A wealth of information, particularly of historical character.]

Nove, A., “The United States National Income A La Russe,” Economica, Vol. 23, 1956.

Bergson, A. The Real National Income of Soviet Russia Since 1928 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961). (The rest of the book).

Kravis, I. B., “Relative Income Shares in Fact and Theory,” American Economic Review, Vol. 49 (December, 1959), pp. 917-49.

Samuelson, P. A., “Evaluation of Real National Income,” Oxford Economic Papers (New Series), 1950, pp. 1-29.

Samuelson, “The Evaluation of ‘Social Income’: Capital Formation and Wealth,” in F. A. Lutz and D. C. Hague, editors, The Theory of Capital (London, 1961).

Leontief, W. W., The Structure of American Economy (New York, 1941).

Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy (New York, 1953).

Taskier, C. E., Input-Output Bibliography 1955-1960, United Nations (New York, 1961).

Evans, W. D., and M. Hoffenberg, “The Interindustry Relations Study for 1947,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 34, (May, 1952), pp. 97-142.

Stewart, I. G., “The Practical Uses of Input-Output Analysis,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 5, (February, 1958).

Dosser, D. and A. T. Peacock, “Input-Output Analysis in an Under-Developed Country: A Case Study,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 25 (October, 1957).

Input-Output Analysis: An Appraisal, Studies in Income and Wealth by the Conference on research in Income and Wealth, Vol. 18 (Princeton, 1955).

Solow, R. M. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 39 (August, 1957), pp. 312-20.

Abramovitz, M., “Resources and Output in the United States Since 1870,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 46 (May, 1956), pp. 5-23, reprinted as National Bureau of Economic Research, Occasional Paper 52 (New York, 1956).

Kendrick, J. W., Productivity Trends in the United States (Princeton, 1961).

Denison, E. F., Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us (New York, 1962).

Abramovitz, M., “Economic Growth in the United States,” American Economic Review, Vol. 52 (September, 1962), pp. 762-82. [This is a review of Denison’s Book.]

Moorsteen, R. H., “On Measuring Productive Potential and Relative Efficiency,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 75 (August, 1961), pp. 451-67.

Fabricant, S., The Output of Manufacturing Industries, 1899-1937 (New York, 1940), particularly Chapter 1.

United Nations, Statistical Office, Index Numbers of Industrial Production, St/Stat/ Ser/ F1 (New York, 1950).

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Flow of Funds in the United States 1939-53 (Washington, D. C., 1955).

Powelson, J. P., National Income and Flow-Of-Funds Analysis (New York, 1960).

Measuring the Nation’s Wealth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 29 (Washington, D. C., 1964).

READING LIST—SECOND INSTALLMENT
II. GENERAL AGGREGATIVE SYSTEMS—FIRST APPROXIMATION
(October 17 – October 31).

REQUIRED:

Ackley, Parts II and III.

Keynes, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London and New York, 1936). [Omit the appendixes to Chapters 6 and 19.]

Note: Neither book is arranged in the order of this reading list. Hence these two assignments apply to other sections of it as well.

Wells, P., “Keynes’ Aggregate Supply Function: A Suggested Interpretation,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 70 (September, 1960), pp. 536-42.

Johnson, H. G. and the discussants, “The General Theory After Twenty-five Years,” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 60 (May, 1961), pp. 1-25.

Klein, L. R., “The Empirical Foundations of Keynesian Economics,” in K. K. Kurihara, ed., Post Keynesian Economics(New Brunswick, N. J., 1954), pp. 277-319.

OPTIONAL READINGS:

Lekachman, Robert, Keynes’ General Theory: Reports of Three Decades, (New York and London, 1964).

Patinkin, D., Money, Interest, and Prices, Second Edition, (New York, 1965).

American Economic Association, Readings in Business Cycle Theory (Philadelphia, 1944), Essays 5, 7, 8.

American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution (Philadelphia, 1946), Essay 24.

Metzler, “Three Lags in the Circular Flow of Income,” in Income, Employment and Public Policy, Essays in Honor of Alvin H. Hansen (New York, 1948), pp. 11-32.

Harris, S. E., The New Economics (New York, 1947), Essays 8-19, 31-33, 38-46.

Lerner, A. P., Economics of Control (New York, 1944), Chapters 21-23, 25.K

Kurihara, K. K., Post Keynesian Economics (New Brunswick, N. J., 1954).

Klein, L. R., The Keynesian Revolution, (New York, 1947), Chapters 3-5.

Ellis, H. S., A Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. 1, (Philadelphia, 1948), Chapter 2.

Burns, A. F., “Economic Research and the Keynesian Thinking of Our Times,” in his The Frontiers of Economic Knowledge, (Princeton, 1954), or in the Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.(New York, 1946). See also the discussion by Hansen and Burns in the Review of Economic Statistics (November, 1947).

Dillard, D., “The Influence of Keynesian Economics on Contemporary Thought,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 1957.

Hutt, W. H., Keynesianism: Retrospect and Prospect (Chicago, 1963).

Friedman, Milton, and G. S. Becker, “A Statistical Illusion on Judging Keynesian Models,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 55 (February, 1957), pp. 64-75.

III. PRICE FLEXIBILITY AND EMPLOYMENT
(November 2-9)

REQUIRED:

Patinkin, D., Money, Interest, and Prices, Second ed., (New York, 1965), Chapters 9-11.

Pigou, A. C., “The Classical Stationary State,” Economic Journal (December, 1943).

Power, J. H., “Price Expectations, Money Illusion and the Real Balance Effect,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 67 (April, 1959).

Mayer, T., “The Empirical Significance of the Real Balance Effect,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 73 (May, 1959).

OPTIONAL READINGS:

Readings in Monetary Theory, Essay 13.

Schelling, T. C., “The Dynamics of Price Flexibility,” American Economic Review (September, 1949).

Lange, O., Price Flexibility and Employment (Bloomington, Indiana, 1944). [Get the main idea and omit the details.]

Friedman, M., “Lange on Price Flexibility and Employment,” American Economic Review (September, 1946).

Patinkin, D., Money, Interest, and Prices (Evanston, Illinois, 1956).

Hicks, J. R., “A Rehabilitation of ‘Classical Economics’,” Economic Journal, Vol. 47, (June, 1957).

IV. The Theory of Interest and the Demand for Money

Required:

Keynes, General Theory, Chapters 13-17.

Hansen, A., Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Chapters 3,4.

Hicks, J. R., Value and Capital, Chapters 11, 12.

Friedman, M., “The Quantity Theory of Money—A Restatement,” Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money.

Patinkin, D., Money, Interest and Prices, 2^nd ed., Chapters VIII, XV.

Tobin, J., “Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk,” The Review of Economic Studies, February 1958, pp. 65-86.

Optional:

American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution (Philadelphia, 1946), Essays 22, 23, 26.

American Economic Association, Readings in Monetary Theory, (New York, 1951), Essays 6, 11, 15.

Friedman, M. and A. J. Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960 (Princeton, 1963).

Gurley, J. G., and E. S. Shaw, “Financial Aspects of Economic Development,” AER, vol. 65, September 1955, pp. 515-38.

Gurley, J. G., and E. S. Shaw, Money in a Theory of Finance (Washington, 1960).

Hart, A. G., and P. B. Kenen, Money, Debt and Economic Activity, Third Ed., (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1961).

Lydall, H., “Income, Assets, and the Demand for Money,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 40, February 1958, pp. 1-14.

Lutz, F. A., “The Interest Rate and Investment in a Dynamic Economy,” AER, December 1945).

Matthews, R. C. O., “Liquidity Preference and the Multiplier,” Economica, vol. 28, February 1961, pp. 37-52.

Patinkin, D., “Liquidity Preference and Loanable Funds: Stock and Flow Analysis,” Economica, Vol. 25, November 1958.

Review of Economics and Statistics Supplement, vol. 45, February 1963, on “The State of Monetary Economics.”

Wright, A. L., “The Rate of Interest in a Dynamic Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 72, August 1958, pp. 327-50.

Reading List—Third Installment
V. Consumption and Saving

Required:

Clower, R.W., “The Keynesian Counterrevolution: A Theoretical Appraisal,” in Hahn and Brechling (eds.), The Theory of Interest Rates (Macmillan, 1965).

Davidson, P., “A Keynesian View of Patinkin’s Theory of Employment,” E.J., September 1967.

Leijonhufvud, A., “Keynes and the Keynesians: A Suggested Interpretation,” AER, May 1967.

Ackley, Chapters 10, 11, 12.

Keynes, General Theory, Chapters 8, 9, 10.

Hagen, E.,”The Consumption Function: A Review Article,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXVII, Feb. 1955, pp. 48-54.

Duesenberry, J. S., Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Chapters 3, 4.

Friedman, M., A Theory of the Consumption Function, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 9.

Ando, A. and Modigliani, F., “The ‘Life Cycle’ Hypothesis of Saving,” AER, March 1963, pp. 55-85; March 1964, pp. 111—113.

Farrell, M. J., “The New Theories of the Consumption Function,” E.J., vol. 69, December, 1959, pp. 678-96.

Lintner, J., “The Determinants of Corporate Saving,” Savings in the Modern Economy (W. Heller, ed.), pp. 230-55.

Lintner, J. and discussants, “Distribution of Income of Corporations Among Dividends, Retained Earnings, and Taxes,” AER, vol. 46, May 1956, pp. 97-118.

Friend, I., and Kravis, I.B., “Entrepreneurial Income, Saving and Investment,” AER, vol. 47, June 1957, pp. 269-301.

Lubell, H., “Effects of Redistribution of Income on Consumers’ Expenditures,” AER, vol. 37, March 1947, pp. 157-170.

________, “A Correction,” AER, vol. 37, December 1947, p. 930.

Domar, E. D., Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (New York, 1957), pp. 154-67, 195-201.

Bronfenbrenner, Yomana and Lee, “A Study in Redistribution and Consumption,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1955, pp. 149-59.

Tobin, J., “Asset Holdings and Spending Decisions,” AER May 1952, pp. 109-23.

Crockett, Jean, “Income and Asset Effects on Consumption: Aggregate and Cross Section,” and comments by D. B. Suits, in N.B.E.R., Models of Income Determination, pp. 97-136.

Tobin, J., “On the Predictive Value of Consumer Intentions and Attitudes,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 41, February 1959, pp. 1-11.

Optional

Bailey, M. J., “Saving and the Rate of Interest,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 45, August 1957, pp. 279-305. Reprinted in Landmarks in Political Economy, edited by E. J. Hamilton, A. Rees, and H.G. Johnson (Chicago, 1962), pp. 583-622.

Brown, B., and F. M. Fisher, “Negro-White Savings Differentials and the Modigliani-Brumberg Hypothesis,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 40, February 1958, pp. 79-81.

Brown, E. C., Solow, R. M., Ando, A., and J. Karekan, “Lags in Fiscal and Monetary Policy,” in Commission on Money and Credit, Stabilization Policies (Englewood Cliffs, 1963), pp. 1-165.

Clark, J.M., “Note on Income Redistribution and Investment,” AER, vol. 37, December 1947, p. 931.

Dennison, E. F., “A Note on Private Saving,” Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1958.

Dobrovolsky, S. P., Corporate Income Retention 1915-43 (New York, 1951). (Omit the details.)

Domar, E.D., Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (New York 1957), pp. 154-67, 195-201.

Ferber, R., “The Accuracy of Aggregate Savings Functions in the Post-War Years,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 37, May 1955, pp. 134-48.

Friedman, M., and G. Becker, “A Statistical Illusion in Judging Keynesian Models,” JPE, vol. 65, February 1957.

Friend, I., and S. Schor, “Who Saves?,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 41, May 1959, pp. 213-45.

Goldsmith, R. W., A Study of Saving in the United States, three volumes (Princeton, 1952).

Gordon, M. J., “The Optimum Dividend Rate,” presented at the sixth Annual International Meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences, Paris, September 1959. (On library reserve.)

Heller, W. W., Boddy, F. M., and C. L. Nelson, Savings in the Modern Economy, a Symposium (Minneapolis, 1953).

Katona, G., and E. Mueller, Consumer Expectations 1953-56 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1956).

Rees, and Johnson, H. G., (Chicago, 1962), pp. 583-622.

Klein, L. R., “The Friedman-Becker Illusion,” JPE, vol. 66, December 1958.

Klein, L. R., (ed.), Contributions of Survey Methods to Economics (New York, 1954).

Morgan, J. N., Consumer Economics (New York, 1955).

Modigliani, F., and R. Brumberg, “Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function: An Interpretation of Cross-Section Data,” in Kurihara, K. K., (ed.), Post Keynesian Economics (New Brunswick, N. J., 1954), pp. 388-436.

Mincer, J., “Employment and Consumption,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 42, February 1960, pp. 20-26.

Zellner, Arnold, “The Short-Run Consumption Function,” Econometrica, (October, 1957).

VI. Investment

Required

Ackley, Chapter 17.

Keynes, General Theory, Chapters 11, 12.

White, W. H., “Interest Inelasticity of Investment Demand,” AER, vol. 46, September 1956, pp. 565-587.

Knox, “The Acceleration Principle and the Theory of Investment,” Economica, August 1952, pp. 269-97.

Meyer, J., and E. Kuh, The Investment Decision, Chapters 2, 8, 12.

Eisner, R., “Investment: Fact and Fancy,” Jorgenson, D.W., “Capital Theory and Investment Behavior,” Kuh, E., “Theory and Institutions in the Study of Investment Behavior,”: all three in AER, May 1963, pp. 237-268.

Lovell, M.C., “Determinants of Inventory Investment,” in N.B.E.R., Models of Income Determination, pp. 177-216.

Solomon, E., ed., The Management of Corporate Capital, pp. 48-55, 67-73.

Witte, J. G., “The Microfoundations of the Social Investment Function,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 71, October 1963, pp. 441-56.

Optional

Andrews, P.W.S., “Further Inquiry into the Effects of Rates of Interest,” Oxford Economic Papers, February 1940, pp. 32-73.

Brockie, M.D., and A.L. Grey, “The Marginal Efficiency of Capital and Investment Programming,” Economic Journal, vol. 46, December 1956.

Cunningham, N.J., “Business Investment and the Marginal Cost of Funds,” Metroeconomica, vol. 10, August 1958.

Cunningham, N.J., “Business Investment and the Marginal Cost of Funds,” Part II, Metroeconomica, December 1958.

Duesenberry, J., Business Cycles and Economic Growth (New York, 1958), Chapters 4-7.

Ebersole, J.F., “The Influence of Interest Rates,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 17, 1938, pp. 35-39.

Foss, M.F., “Manufacturers’ Inventory and Sales Expectations—A Progress Report on a New Survey,” Survey of Current Business, August 1961.

Foss, M.F., and V. Natrella, “Ten Years’ Experience with Business Investment Anticipations,” Survey of Current Business, January 1957.

Foss, M.F., “Investment Plans and Realizations—Reasons for Differences in Individual Cases,” Survey of Current Business, June 1957.

Friend, I., and J. Bronfenbrenner, “Business Investment Programs and Their Realization,” Survey of Current Business, December 1950.

Grey, A.L., and M.D. Brockie, “The Rate of Interest, Marginal Efficiency of Capital and Net Investment Programming: A Rejoinder,” Economic Journal, June 1959.

Heller, W.W., “The Anatomy of Investment Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, March 1951, pp. 95-103.

Henderson, H.D., “The Significance of the Rate of Interest,” Oxford Economic Papers, October 1938, pp. 1-13.

Hirschleifer, J., “On the Theory of Optimal Investment Decision,” The Journal of Political Economy, vol. 66, August 1958, pp. 329-352. (An excellent but difficult paper.)

James, E., A Reconsideration of the Theoretical Criteria for Optimum Investment Planning (M.I.T. doctoral dissertation 1961).

Lerner, A.P., “On the Marginal Product of Capital and the Marginal Efficiency of Investment,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 51, February 1953, pp. 1-14. Reprinted in Landmarks in Political Economy edited by E.J. Hamilton, A. Rees, and H.G. Johnson (Chicago, 1962), pp. 538-58.

Lovell, M.C., “Determinants of Inventory Investment,” in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Models of Income Determination (Princeton, 1964), vol. 28, pp. 177-232.

Lutz, F.A., and V., The Theory of Investment of the Firm (Princeton, 1951).

Lydall, H.F., “The Impact of the Credit Squeeze on Small and Medium Sized Manufacturing Firms,” Economic Journal, vol. 47, September 1957.

Meade, J.E., and P.W.S. Andrews, “Summary of Replies to Questions on Effects of Interest Rates,” and “Further Inquiry into the Effects of Rates of Interest,” Oxford Economic Papers, No. 1, 1938 and No. 3, 1940.

N.B.E.R., The Quality and Economic Significance of Anticipations Data, A Conference of the Universities—National Bureau Committee for Economic Research (Princeton, 1960).

Penrose, E.T., The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (Oxford, 1959).

Penrose, E.T., “Limits to the Growth and Size of Firms,” AER Papers and Proceedings, vol. 45, May 1955, pp. 531-43.

Pitchford, J.D. and A.J. Hagger, “A Note on the Marginal Efficiency of Capital,” Economic Journal, vol. 48, September 1958, pp. 597-600.

Robinson, J., The Accumulation of Capital (London, 1956). (Wish we had time for it.)

Sayers, R.S., “Business Men and the Terms of Borrowing,” Oxford Economic Papers, February 1940, pp. 23-31.

Spiro, A., “Empirical Research and the Rate of Interest,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 40, February 1958.

Lintner, J., “Corporation Finance: Risk and Investment,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior (Robert Ferber editor), pp. 215-54.

Jorgenson, D.W., “The Theory of Investment Behavior,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior, pp. 129-55.

Miller, M.H. and F. Modigliani, “Estimates of the Cost of Capital Relevant for Investment Decisions under Uncertainty,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior, pp. 179-214.

Miller, M.H. and F. Modigliani, “Reply,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior, pp. 260-70.

Lovell, M.C., “Sales Anticipations, Planned Inventory Investment, and Realizations,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior, pp. 537-80.

Reading List—Fourth Installment
VII. Multiplier and Accelerator

Required

Kahn, R.F., “The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment,” Economic Journal, 1931. Republished in Hansen and Clemence, Readings in Business Cycles and National Income (New York, 1953), Essay 15.

Readings in Business Cycle Theory, Essays 9-12.

Haavelmo, T., “Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget,” Econometrica, 1945, reprinted in Readings in Fiscal Policy, pp. 335-343.

Salant, William A., “Taxes, Income Determination, and the Balanced Budget Theorem,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1957. Reprinted in Gordon and Klein (eds.) A.E.A. Readings in Business Cycles (1965).

Tsiang, S.C., “Accelerator, Theory of the Firm, and the Business Cycle,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 65, 1951.

Optional

Tinbergen, “Statistical Evidence on the Acceleration Principle,” Economica, vol. 5, 1938.

Eisner, R., “Capital Expenditures, Profits, and the Acceleration Principle,” and comments by G.H. Hickman, in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Models of Income Determination, (Princeton, 1964), vol. 28, pp. 137-176.

Peston, M.H., “Generalizing the Balanced Budget Multiplier,” and “Comment” by W.A. Salant, The Review of Economics and Statistics (August, 1958).

Bowen, W.G., “The Balanced-Budget Multiplier: A Suggestion for a More General Formulation,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1957.

Goodwin, R.M., “The Multiplier” in Seymour E. Harris, ed., The New Economics (New York, 1947), pp. 482-99.

Chenery, H.B., “Overcapacity and the Acceleration Principle,” Econometrica, vol. 20, January 1952, pp. 1-28.

Caff, J.T., “A Generalization of the Multiplier-Accelerator Model,” The Economic Journal, vol. 69, March 1961, pp. 36-52.

Kuznets, S., “Relation Between Capital Goods and Finished Products in the Business Cycle,” in Economic Essays in Honor of Wesley Clair Mitchell, (New York, 1935).

Knox, A.D. “The Acceleration Principle and the Theory of Investment: A Survey,” Economica, vol. 19, 1952.

Harrod, R.F., Towards a Dynamic Economics (London, 1948).

Hicks, J.R., A Contribution to the Theory of the Trade Cycle (Oxford, 1950).

Goodwin, R.M., “Problems of Trend and Cycle,” Yorkshire Bulletin, vol. 5, August 1953.

Ott, A.E., “The Relation Between the Accelerator and the Capital Output Ratio,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 25, June 1958.

Minsky, H., “Monetary Systems and Accelerator Models,” American Economic Review, vol. 47, 1957.

Friedman, M. and D. Meiselman, “The Relative Stability of Monetary Velocity and the Investment Multiplier in the United States, 1897-1958,” Stabilization Policies, Commission on Money and Credit (New Jersey, 1963), pp. 165-268.

Hester, D.D., “Keynes and the Quantity Theory: A Comment on the Friedman-Meiselman CMC Paper,” the reply by Friedman and Meiselman, and the rejoinder by Hester, The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. XLVI, November 1964, pp. 364-377.

VIII. Employment and Inflation

Required

Ackley, Chap. XVI.

Bronfenbrenner, M. and F.D. Holzman, “Survey of Inflation Theory,” American Economic Review, LIII (Sept., 1963), pp. 593-661.

Higher Unemployment Rates, 1957-60, “Structural Transformation or Inadequate Demand,” Subcommittee on Economic Statistics of the Joint Economic Committee, Washington, 1961.

Hines, G.G., “Trade Unions and Wage Inflation in the United Kingdom,” R.E. Studies (October 1964).

Killingsworth, C.L., “Automation, Jobs and Manpower,” from Nation’s Manpower Revolution, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 88^th Congress, 1^stsession, Washington, D.C., part 5, pp. 1461-1480.

Lipsey, Richard, “The Relation Between Unemployment and the Rate of Change in Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1862-1957: A Further Analysis,” Economica N.S. 27 (Feb. 1960). Reprinted in Klein and Gordon (eds.), Readings in Business Cycle Theory (1965).

Perry, George L., Unemployment, Money Wage Rates and Inflation (1966).

Phillips, “The Relation Between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates,” Economica (Nov., 1958), pp. 283-99.

Samuelson, P.A. and R. Solow, “Analytical Aspects of Anti-Inflation Policy,” American Economic Review (May 1960), pp. 177-94.

Solow, R.M., “The Case Against the Case Against the Guidelines,” in G. Schultz (ed.), Guidelines (1966).

Optional

Smithies, A., “The Behavior of Money National Income Under Inflationary Conditions,” Readings in Fiscal Policy, pp. 121-36.

Machlup, F., “Another View of Cost-Push and Demand-.Pull Inflation,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XLII, (May 1960), pp. 125-39.

Galbraith, J.K., “Market Structure and Stabilization Policy,” Review of Economics and Statistics (May 1957), pp. 124-33.

Hicks, J.R., “Economic Foundations of Wage Policy,” Economic Journal, (Sept. 1955), pp. 389-404.

Morton, W.A., “Trade Unionism, Full Employment and Inflation,” American Economic Review, (March 1950), pp. 13-39.

Slichter, S., “Do Wage-Fixing Agreements Have an Inflationary Bias,” American Economic Review, (May 1954), pp. 332-46.

Berman, B., “Alternative Measures of Structural Unemployment,” Employment Policy and the Labor Market, A.M. Ross, ed.

Joint Economic Committee, Higher Unemployment Rates, 1957-60, U.S. 87^th Congress.

Galloway, “Labor Mobility, Resource Allocation and Structural Unemployment,” American Economic Review (Sept. 1963), pp. 694-716.

Gordon, R.A., “Has Structural Unemployment Worsened,” Industrial Relations (May 1964), pp. 53-77.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers. Box 15, Folder “Macroeconomics. Old Reading Lists”.

______________________

The Theory of Income and Employment
14.451
E. D. Domar [and] J. R. Harris

Midterm Examination
November 30, 1967

(One hour and fifteen minutes)

Please answer all questions. Use a separate book for each question.

(25%) After the discovery that an hour of dancing a day increases a person’s efficiency, a hitherto unemployed dancing teacher was hired (to teach dancing to their employees or themselves) by the following units, one at a time;
1. A beginning sculptor
2. The Ford Foundation
3. Sears, Roebuck & and Co.
4. The Town of Concord
5. The Head of the Mafia
6. The Embassy of South Vietnam in Washington

Disregarding any indirect effects (such as the multiplier), indicate and explain how national income and product and the relevant subdivisions in money and in real terms are affected by this act on the assumption that (1) dancing is really effective, and (2) that it is not. Your reasoning is at least as important as your answer.

(20%) “The Federal Reserve-type index is a poor numerator for the measurement of the Residual (Total Factor Productivity), or of any other productivity.”
Comment fully.
A visitor to M.I.T. has suggested recently that if the Federal Reserve Board buys bonds in the open market in periods of unemployment, then real output, prices and the interest rate—all three—will increase.
Are these predictions consistent with those of Patinkin and Keynes? How would their predictions and your own results (you may or may not agree with those sages) be changed under conditions of full employment? Explain fully. (35%)
(20%) A Russian economist once stated that Keynes’ variables were as follows:

Independent variables	Dependent variables
1. Propensity to consume	1. Savings
2. Marginal efficiency of capital	2. Investment
3. Rate of interest	3. Level of employment
4. Liquidity preference

Comment. Be specific

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers. Box 17, Folder “Macroeconomics. Examinations (1 of 3)”.

______________________

THE THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
E. D. Domar [and] J. R. Harris

FINAL EXAMINATION
January 23, 1968

Three Hours

PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. THEY CARRY EQUAL WEIGHTS. USE A SEPARATE BOOK FOR EACH QUESTION.

(A) National Product is defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the sum of all final goods (and services), each multiplied by its price.

(B) National Income is defined by it as the sum of all net incomes of certain recipients.

Discuss the following questions:

1. What is a final good (or service) in (A)? What is the reason for this definition?
2. What is the rationale for multiplying each good (or service) by its price? What assumptions are implied in this procedure? Are they realistic?
3. Whose net incomes are aggregated? Why? What is a net income? What assumptions does this procedure imply? Are they realistic?
4. Could you suggest changes or improvements in the above procedures? Justify them.

1. “A high ratio of depreciation to investment is a sign of old age.”
2. Why is a special definition of money required in the “Price Flexibility and Employment” problems? What is the definition? What assumptions does it rest on?
3. “If the Balanced-Budget Multiplier is correct, isn’t Say’s Law also correct?

Assume that this country is being threatened by inflation and discuss the pros and cons of the following measures allegedly directed against it. Whenever you can, indicate the positions which several economists whose theories were discussed in the course would take on these measures:
1. (i) A temporary Federal sales tax on all goods and services, or
  (ii) a permanent tax of the same kind.
2. (i) A redistribution of income from wages to profits, or
  (ii) a more equal distribution of income.
3. Setting the rate of growth of labor productivity in each industry as the limit for the rate of increase of wages in that industry.
4. (i) Remitting domestic taxes on American exports, or
  (ii) a reduction in import duties.
5. A tax on all capital goods.

1. Define and discuss the applicability to investment decisions of the marginal efficiency of investment (also called marginal efficiency of capital, or the internal rate of return) and the discounted present value. Can they give different ranking of investment projects? Why? Which measure would you use?
2. What major modifications of investment criteria would be required if the investment was done by the U.S. Government in times of unemployment?
3. Same, if the investment was done by the government of some underdeveloped country?

Attempts to estimate the parameters of an aggregate consumption function for the U.S. have yielded the following results:
1. Cross-section and short-term series analyses estimate a marginal propensity to consume somewhere in the range of .55-.70, this magnitude being lower than the average propensity to consume.
2. Long-run time series analyses estimate a marginal propensity to consume equal to the average propensity of about .88.

Compare and contrast the assumptions, rationale and implications of the “Previous Peak Income”, “Permanent Income”, and “Lifetime Cycle” hypotheses, each of which purports to reconcile the above observations.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers. Box 17, Folder “Macroeconomics. Final Exams (2 of 3)”.

Image Source: Evsey D. Domar at the MIT Museum legacy website.

Tags Domar, HarrisJR

Bryn Mawr Columbia Economists Germany Pennsylvania

Columbia. Appointments of H. L. Moore, H. R. Seager, and A. S. Johnson, 1902

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-29

Memorial minutes of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science for both Henry L. Moore and Henry R. Seager have been transcribed earlier here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. This post takes us back to the start of their Columbia University careers, namely the 1902-03 academic year. Professor Richmond Mayo-Smith’s suicide in November 1901 left a significant gap in Columbia’s economics faculty which was then closed with the appointment of Henry L. Moore.

_______________________

Columbia Announcement of the appointments of Henry L. Moore (Prof.) and Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.), 1902

It seems fitting to introduce to the acquaintance of the readers of the QUARTERLY those who come from other universities to occupy professors’ chairs in our own. Professors Moore and Seager enter the service of the University in the School of Political Science…

Professor Henry L. Moore, who comes to us from Smith College, is thirty-two years of age; a native of Maryland and a graduate of Randolph-Macon College in Virginia. His special training in economics was received at the Johns Hopkins University, from which he received, in 1896, the degree of Ph.D., and in Vienna, where he was a pupil of Professor Karl [sic, “Carl”] Menger. He was appointed to an instructorship in economics in the Johns Hopkins University in 1896, and to a professorship in Smith College in 1897, though he continued after this, for a time, to give, in the Johns Hopkins University, lectures which treated of the application of mathematical principles to economic problems.

His chief published work is an essay on Von Thünen’s “Theory of Natural Wages,” which, beside throwing new light on a scientific problem, offers to the English reading student the best introduction to the study of the works of Von Thünen and of the extensive literature which has grown up about them.

Henry R. Seager, the new adjunct-professor of political economy, was graduated from the University of Michigan in 1890. During the next four years he studied at Johns Hopkins, Halle, Berlin, Vienna and the University of Pennsylvania, receiving the degree of Ph.D. from the last-named institution in 1894. From that date he was on the teaching force of the University of Pennsylvania, holding successively the titles of instructor and assistant professor of economics, till he accepted the call to Columbia. Professor Seager was for three years Secretary of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, and in 1900 he became editor-in-chief of the Annals, the magazine published by the Academy. His publications in periodicals have been numerous, and his more important works include “The Finances of Pennsylvania,” “The Teaching of Economics at Berlin and Vienna,” [JPE, March 1893] “The Fallacy of Saving,” and “The Teaching of Economics and Economic History.”

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, v. 4, June 1902, pp. 293-94.

_______________________

Announcement of the Columbia appointments of Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.) and Alvin Saunders Johnson (Reader), 1902

Columbia University.- Doctor Henry R. Seager has resigned his position of Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania, and has accepted the position of Adjunct Professor of Political Economy in Columbia University. His duties in Columbia University will begin with the opening of the coming academic year.

Mr. Seager has published the following papers:

“German Universities and German Student Life.” The Inlander, June, 1892.

“Economics at Berlin and Vienna.” Journal of Political Economy, March, 1893.

“Philippovich’s Grundriss der Politischen-Oekonomie.” ANNALS, July, 1893.

“Pennsylvania Tax Conference.” Ibid., March, 1894.

“Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association.” Ibid., March, 1895.

“Malloch’s Labour and the Popular Welfare, and Dyer’s The Evolution of Industry.” The Citizen, June, 1895.

“Cunningham’s Outlines of English Industrial History.” ANNALS, January, 1896.

“Bruce’s Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.” Ibid., 1896.

“The Fallacy of Saving.” Supplement to Economic Studies, American Economic Association, April, 1896.

“Smart’s Studies in Economics.” The Citizen, August, 1896.

“Stray Impressions of Oxford.” The Pennsylvanian, February, 1897.

“Higgs’ The Physiocrats.” ANNALS, July, 1897.

“Gibbins’ Industry in England.” Ibid., September, 1897.

“Bullock’s Introduction to the Study of Economics.” Ibid., November, 1897.

“The Consumers’ League.” Bulletin of American Academy, April, 1898.

“George’s Political Economy.” Political Science Quarterly, December, 1898.

“Devine’s Economics.” ANNALS, March, 1899.

“Hull’s The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty.” Ibid., May, 1900.

“Smart’s The Distribution of Income.” Ibid., July, 1900.

“Clark’s The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits.” Ibid., September, 1900.

Editorial. Ibid., January, 1901.

“Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid., March1901.

“Professor Patten’s Theory of Prosperity.” Ibid., March, 1902.

Editorial. Ibid.

“Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid.

“Crowell’s The Distribution and Marketing of Farm Products.” Report of United States Industrial Commission, Vol. VI, 1901. Political Science Quarterly, March, 1902.

Mr. Alvin Saunders Johnson, at present Reader in Economics at Bryn Mawr College, Pa., has been appointed Tutor in Economics at Columbia University, New York City. His work in Columbia will begin at the opening of the coming academic year.

Source: Personal Notes, Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 19 (May, 1902), pp. 103-104.

Image Sources: Henry Moore (left) Smith College, Classbook of 1902, p. 11. and Henry Seager (right) Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Tags JohnsonA, Moore, Seager

Economists Harvard Lecture Notes

Harvard. Tobin’s notes to lecture by Alvin Hansen on Keynes’ General Theory, May 1938

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-27

The following notes were taken by James Tobin at the end of his junior year at Harvard. The notes for this lecture by Alvin H. Hansen on Keynes’ General Theory were “filed” as loose-leaf pages inserted into a bound volume of Tobin’s handwritten course notes for Economics 41 (Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises, taught by John H. Williams and Seymour Harris). Hansen’s lecture might have been a guest lecture for that course since only a recitation section taught by Kenyon Edward Poole was included in the notes for that date.

Also on that date in history at Harvard: Gunnar Myrdal held the second lecture in his four-lecture Godkin public lecture series “The Population Problem and Social Security”.

__________________

Lecture
5/4/38
Prof. Alvin H. Hansen of Garver & Hansen
Littauer Professor of Political Economy

Keynes’ General Theory.

Not mainly concerned with trade cycle. Ch[apter] on trade cycle not very original. Cycle consists in fluctuation of rate of investment-purchase of capital-goods. Keynes holds that fluctuations in rate of invest[ment] due to fluctuations in the rate of prospective profits, in the marg[inal] efficiency of capital. Keynes emphasizes the rôle of expectations—psychology. Quick shift from prosperity to depression due to violent shifts in expectation from optimism to pessimism.

Mainly concerned with larger problem of full empl[oyment] of labor and the other factors of production. Could still have trade cycle but its booms would hit full employment. But also conceivable is a society in which ceiling of fluctuations is below full empl[oyment]—permanent under-employment. This long-run under-empl[oyment] Keynes mainly concerned with. Modern societies tend to be in a situation of chronic under-employment. He accuses classicals of working on assumption that society has long-run tendency to full empl[oyment]. Classical writers were concerned with pricing system and returns to different factors, and how much labor, etc., was used. R[ate] of int[erest] for example determined amount of saving cped [compared?] to consumption out of given income. This according to K[eynes] only goes with full empl[oyment] assumption. Rise in consumption in condition of under-empl[oyment] will lead to rise in investment as well. These are not alternatives until there is full empl[oyment]. This well realized by bus[isness] cycle theorists. Keynes applies it to long-run analysis.

What determines the volume of employment?

1) Rate of interest
2) Marg[inal] efficiency of capital. (Prospective rate of profit anticipated by bus[iness] man.)
3) Propensity to consume.

Nothing new about introducing rate of int[erest] as a determinant. Wicksell 1898 set forth determinants of expansion as prospective rate of profit on one side and r[ate] of int[erest] on the other side. Keynes adds the propensity to consume. dC/dY >0, <1, decreases. Rich societies have tendency to fail to maintain level of income once achieved. A society which consumes all of its income would have no difficulty in maintaining its level, because no deficiency in income-spending from incomes pd [paid] out to factors. If some part is not spent on consumers’ goods—just saved without a purchase of capital-goods – those who save are not actual investors-entrepreneurs—and there is not an equal amount of new investment, there is a tendency for incomes to fall. If propensity to consume is low, other determinants of employment must be very strong—high prospective rate of profit, low r[ate] of int[erest]—in order to balance saving.

“Classical” relation of r[ate] of int[erest] to saving. Later classical writers qualified argument: if r[ate] of int[erest] is very high, more saving; if low, less. But in between, there are the fixed-income savers. Keynes: determinant is level of incomes. Wouldn’t say no relation of saving to r[ate] of int[erest]. Given r[ate] of int[erest], determinant is level of incomes. There is for K[eynes] then no minimum r[ate] of int[erest], such as Cassel found: if int[erest] falls there because of shortness of human life people will say int[erest] is so low that not much income from it. Hence they will consume capital. At this p[oin]t tendency for saving to decrease, & consumption [to] increase. For K[eynes] there is another minimum point, below which there is not decrease of saving but an increase of hoarding. K[eynes] distinguishes mkt [market] & pure rates of int[erest]. Special risk in buying long-term commitment—risk is that r[ate] of int[erest] will rise a little bit in future, price of bond will drop so as to wipe out all int[erest] gain on it. Hence there is pt[point] where we won’t bother to buy securities but will hold cash. R[ate] of int[erest]not driven down below point of consump[tion] ncrease. What people will do is hold savings in liquid forms.

In rich community, marg[inal] efficiency of capital low; propensity to consume low; but rate of int[erest] can’t keep falling because of liquidity-preference. Hence there is not adequate volume of new invest[ment] to maintain full employment. R[ate] of int[erest] doesn’t drop to point where people stop saving & consume more, & rectify the difficulty; but is held up by liquidity preference.

Emphasizes largely r[ate] of int[erest]; Spiethoff thinks important thing in expansion is marg[ignal] efficiency of capital, which K[eynes] largely takes for granted. Spiethoff’s factors influencing prospective rate of profit on new invest[ment]: expanding market, increasing population, inventions & giant industries. All these associated with a young & growing capitalism, as in 19^th.—unique century, conquering the world and revolutionizing the industrial technique and expanding population. Now decline in population, and no new mkts [markets]. K[eynes] assumes this exploitation of opportunities & emphasizes the monetary rate of int[erest], not as Spiethoff on non-monetary influences on marg[inal] efficiency. Risk & uncertainty of modern world decrease the will to invest—and perhaps also the tendency to save w[oul]d be greater. Failure of invest[ment] outlet.

K[eynes]’s solutions:

1) Artificially create a low rate of interest.
2) Stimulate consump[tion] by redistribution of income.
3) Enlarge volume of public investment.

[Qualifications]

1) How far will stimulate invest[ment] doubtful.
2) Effects of taxation for this purpose may hurt private invest[ment]
3) Public invest[ment] may be offset by private invest[ment] decline.

Economic policies are choice among evils.

Source: Yale University Archives. Papers of James Tobin. Box 6, Loose pages in bound lecture notes for Economics 41 taken by James Tobin during the 1937-38 academic year at Harvard University.

Image Source: James Tobin senior year portrait in Harvard Class Album, 1939.

Tags Hansen, Harris, Myrdal, Poole, Tobin, WilliamsJH

Berkeley Chicago Faculty Regulations Harvard Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Rochester Stanford Uncategorized Yale

Harvard. Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-25

What makes this report on the general examination in the economics PhD program at Harvard particularly valuable is its brief survey of the practice at eight other universities: Yale, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Rochester, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, and Chicago.

_____________________

DRAFT

This draft is distributed in Professor Chenery’s absence to permit discussion at the next Department meeting, January 27, 1970.
Professor Chenery or other members of The Committee might wish to record further comments in preparation [of] a final report.

* * * * * * * *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02135
January 16, 1970

To: The Department of Economics
From: Committee on Graduate Instruction

REPORT ON THE GENERAL EXAMINATION FOR THE PH.D.

In response to a number of requests from students and faculty, the Committee has reexamined at considerable length the requirements for the General Examination. This report summarizes our general assessment in section I and makes specific recommendations for changes in section II. Some related issues needing further consideration are listed in section III.

Although for the past several years graduate students have criticized various aspects of the generals, the main source of dissatisfaction seems to be with the rigidity of “the system” rather than with any particular aspect of it. We have taken advantage of the fact that the Committee now has three student members to try to understand some of the effects of our present procedures on students’ choices and incentives. We have also tried to strike a better balance between preparation for the general examination and other aspects of a student’s training in his first two years.

As a background for our discussion, the secretary of the Committee compiled a useful summary of the regulations in effect at other leading universities, which is attached.

ROLE OF THE GENERAL EXAMINATION

The primary functions [sic] of the General Examination is to evaluate the student’s formal preparation in economics before he proceeds to more advanced phases of teaching and thesis preparation. It also serves as a screening device to weed out weak candidates, as a basis for subsequent recommendations for employers, and as an indirect way of organizing the student’s course work in his first two years. These multiple functions produce much of the debate over requirements at Harvard and elsewhere, since a system that is ideal for one purpose has weaknesses for another.

One of the main criticisms of the existing Harvard system is its psychological impact on the student. The need to satisfy the requirements in all fields within a period of several months inhibits most students from exploring non-required topics until after they have passed the generals. On balance, we are impressed with the desirability of adopting a more flexible timing that will encourage the student to get most of his tool requirements out of the way in the first year and use the second year to explore the fields of his special interest and get some taste of actual research. We have tried to maintain the undoubted benefits of an overall examination, however, as compared to a set of course requirements.

Our survey of other departments shows a significant trend toward breaking down the requirements into separate parts and focusing less on the culminating oral examination. Most departments use the qualifying examination in theory as a device for screening first year students, which also reduces the burden of preparing all fields in the second year. In most departments the minimum proficiency in quantitative techniques and economic history is demonstrated by a satisfactory course grade rather than by inclusions in the general examination. Although we have made our own judgements on these questions, we recommend movement in these directions.

Another consideration which makes greater flexibility desirable is the growing proportion of students who are already well prepared in one or more required fields. For many students, the present system therefore encourages too much review of material they have already covered. We feel that those who are adequately prepared on one of the required fields (theory, quantitative method, history) should have an opportunity to satisfy this requirement in their first year in order to make better use of their time thereafter.

Our recommendations are directed toward achieving greater flexibility in the timing of courses and examinations to allow the student to make more effective use of his time. This should enable many students to get started earlier on their optional fields and to make a better choice of their field of specialization. We do not envision any reduction in the total work done in the first two years or any lowering of standards of performance.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

General Principles

The general examination should be separated into four component parts—theory, quantitative method, economic history, and special fields—each of which would be graded separately.
The minimum requirement in quantitative method and economic history should be regarded as a “tool requirement” or “literacy test” as has become the practice in the quantitative field. Students wishing to specialize in these fields may offer them at a higher level as one of their special fields.
The term “general examination” would apply to the oral examination on the special fields. (The question of a general grade on all parts as at present was left open.)
There should be no prescribed timing of the four components, other than the stipulation that the required fields be either completed (or write-off courses in progress) at the time of the oral examination on the special fields. Qualified students would be encouraged to complete one or more requirements in the first year.
Two write-offs should be allowed rather than one.
A subcommittee would be set up for economic history (and retained in theory and quantitative method). The standards and ways of satisfying them in the three required fields should be proposed by the three subcommittees and ratified by the GIC and the Department.

The Theory Requirement

The present coverage (roughly 201a, 201b, 202a) should be retained. The examination would continue to be written.
The examination should be offered two or three times a year. (A straw vote by students showed a preference for June, September and January and a margin for September over January.) Most students would take the examination at the end of their first year—in June or September.

The Quantitative Requirement

The present de facto standard of the written examination should be accepted as the “literacy test”.
The requirement can be met either by the present type of written examination (given twice a year) or by a grade of B+ in 221b or 224a. (It is estimated that roughly 75% would be able to qualify by course examination.)

The Economic History Requirement

The history requirement be made parallel to the quantitative requirement in that:
1. It can be satisfied by course or special departmental examination.
2. It can either be offered at a minimum level or at a higher level as a special field.
The minimum requirement would be satisfied by a course grade that would allow a similar proportion to qualify in this way (B+ or A- pending further information).
Alternatives to the present 233 sequence (if any) to be established by the history subcommittee.
Minimum standards in both history and quantitative method could be demonstrated by course examination.

The Requirement in Special Fields

Two special fields would be required as the basis for the oral examination, which would also cover general analytical ability.
Advanced theory, econometrics and economic history would be eligible as special fields, but the first two could not both be included. (In the majority view, one applied field apart from history would be required in order to eliminate the possibility of a candidate offering only the three required fields.)
The candidate would be encouraged (or required?) to submit a research paper to be made part of the subject matter and record of the general examination (He is now “expected” to have presented a paper to a working seminar by the end of his second year.)
The general oral examination would normally be taken at the end of the second year, but could not be taken before the qualifying exams in theory, quantitative and history have been passed (or prospective write-offs are in progress.)

QUESTIONS OF GRADING

Should all examinations be either pass-fail or on a more limited grading scale than at present?
Should the passing standard for the course option in both quantitative methods and history be B+?
Should the four requirements be graded separately or combined (as at present) into an overall grade on the General Examination? (The committee favors first the alternative, but would also require “distinguished” performance in at least one area.)

* * * * * * * *

Examination Requirements at Other Places

Below I summarize examination requirements at eight other places, including Yale, MIT, Hopkins, Rochester, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan and Chicago. The main findings of the survey are:

It appears that the massive type of “generals” (where all fields and theory are combined in one session) has almost disappeared. With the exception of Hopkins, all of the above schools seem to settle the theory examination at the end of the first year, with special fields examined at the end of the second year.
Among the schools surveyed, only Yale has a written examination in history. Hopkins, Stanford, Chicago and Berkeley require a course, with “satisfactory” grade. MIT and Rochester have no requirement.
Only Yale gives a written in quantitative aspect of the generals. All the other schools have course requirements (satisfactory grade) only.
Practices vary with regard to number of special fields and type of examination. MIT and Hopkins require three, the others two special fields. Examinations at Yale are oral, at the other places written, in some cases both written and oral. In most places the special field examinations must be taken together, but in some (Rochester, Chicago) they can be separated. Throughout, these special examinations seem to be given by the department, and not merely as course examination.
Some provisions of special interest:
1. Chicago and Rochester’s second year research paper as part of general examination
2. Stanford’s requirement for distinction in at least one field.

I. Yale

Comprehensive Examination

Written examination in theory and econometrics, usually August or September after first year.
Written examination on economic history; usually late spring of second year.
Oral examination in two applied fields, chosen from six and in general analytical ability; late spring of second year. Given by four examiners. Student excused from general examination in special field courses at end of second year. Oral examination in theory, history, quantitative or field outside economics may be substituted for one of the applied fields if candidate has done year’s course work in applied field “with sufficient distinction”.

History and Quantitative

History—written, end of second year, and option to substitute for one special field.
Quantitative—written, end of first year, and option to substitute for one special field.

Other requirements

Has apparently been dropped.
One course credit of explicit research training, second year.
Dissertation to be completed in fourth year.

II. MIT

General examination

General examination in theory consists of two written papers—micro and macro, given in final exam period of first year. May be substituted for final examinations in theory courses.
General examination normally at end of second year. Consists of:
1. written examinations on three of 12 special fields. These may include advanced theory, econometrics or economic history.
2. oral examination in the three fields after written.
3. a fourth field is required but may be written off by B grade in full year course.

History and Quantitative

History—no requirement. May be a special field.
Quantitative—no generals examination. May be a special field.

Other requirements

Two languages

III. Johns Hopkins

First Year Oral Examination

A first year oral examination is given in the spring of the first year, covering the fields in which the student has worked during that year.

Comprehensive Examination

Normally taken in spring of second year. Consists of:

Two written examinations in theory, micro and macro.
Three written examinations in special fields, one of which may be outside economics.
Oral examination: Covers theory, special fields, statistics.

History and Quantitative

History—satisfactory work in course.
Statistics—satisfactory work in course.

Other Requirements

One language.
In addition to the departmental special examination, an examination is given by the graduate board, which includes members of other departments.

IV. Rochester

Qualifying Examination

Theory and econometrics courses are required but are not part of Qualifying Examination.
Qualifying Examination taken in May of second year. Consists of
1. Written examination in two fields. These may include mathematical economics and econometrics. Need not be taken simultaneously.
2. A second year research paper which is to be presented to a departmental seminar at the end of second year.
3. After (a) and (b) are met, an oral examination in the special fields.

History and Quantitative

Econometrics and mathematical economics requirements (courses), extent depending on fields.
No history requirement.

Other Requirements

Certain distribution requirement.
Language and mathematics.

V. Stanford

Comprehensive Examination

Written in micro and macro theory at end of first year. Cover course materials.
Selection of special fields under two plans:
1. If no minor subject is taken, student chooses four out of ten fields. These may include history, econometrics, mathematical economics. One field may be outside economics.
2. Student may choose a minor subject (in another department) and choose only one out of the ten special economics fields.

Comprehensive written examinations for each field scheduled annually, usually at close of course sequence. Must show distinction in at least one field.

History and Quantitative

History—Include at least two courses from offerings in economic history, history of thought, comparative economics, development.
Quantitative—Econometrics course required.

Other Requirements

Language or particular quantitative skills.
Two seminars and research papers.

VI. Berkeley

Departmental Examination in Theory

Must be passed by end of first year. Students with strong background take it in November of first term, others in June (end of first year).
Written qualifying examinations given in two out of thirteen special fields at end of second year. Examinations given twice a year, must be taken together.
Within one year after written qualifying examinations are completed, student presents himself for oral, based on prospectus (and interim results) of his thesis. General assessment of competence.

History and Quantitative

Course in economic history at 210 level.
Course in statistics at 240 level.

Other Requirements

No language.

VII. Michigan

Preliminary Examination

At end of theory courses in micro and macro, an “augmented examination” is given which serves as preliminary examination in theory.
Two fields of specialization are required. One field is satisfied by satisfactory grades in two courses. For the other field a written preliminary examination is required.
After this, oral examination on research topic and surrounding area.

Economic History and Quantitative

No history requirement.
Course requirement in statistics and econometrics.

Other Requirements

No general language requirement.

VIII. Chicago

Preliminary Examination

A “course [sic, “core” probably intended] examination” covering micro and macro theory is given twice a year (separate from course examinations) and is usually taken at end of first or middle of second year.
Two special fields are chosen. Written examinations in these fields, separate from course examinations. Need not be taken together.
Student presents a thesis prospectus before thesis seminar, usually in third year. Must pass on this for candidacy.

History and Quantitative

History course required as part of distribution requirements.
Course work in statistics required.

Other Requirements

Math, no languages.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard University Department of Economics: General Correspondence, 1967-1974 (2 of 3)”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1946.

Tags Chenery

Dartmouth Economists Germany Michigan Princeton Suggested Reading Syllabus

Princeton. Course readings for “Government and Business”. Frank Haigh Dixon, 1924-25

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-23

According to the Princeton catalogue for 1922/23, the undergraduate course Economics 407 “Corporations: Finance and Regulation” was taught by Professor Frank Haigh Dixon. The course was designated as a senior course that graduate students could attend with supplementary work and a weekly conference. Frank W. Fetter took Economics 407 (that appears to have had the title “Government and Business” during the first semester of the academic year 1924-25. In his papers at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University, one finds 47 pages of lecture notes for this course taken by Fetter (in which clear references to Dixon as the lecturer are found) plus about 40 pages of notes he took on his reading assignments.

This post is limited to providing links to the texts and the weekly reading assignments of Dixon’s course. The course outline is followed by a memorial faculty minute for Professor Frank Haigh Dixon that provides career and biographical information.

__________________

Princeton University, 1924-1925

Government and Business
Economics 407

Links to Course Texts

Gerstenberg, Charles W. Financial Organization and Management. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1924. [Revised in 1923, Second revised edition 1939, Fourth Revised Edition, 1959]

Jones, Eliot. The Trust Problem in the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1921.

Ripley, William Z. (ed.). Trusts, Pools and Corporations, rev. ed. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1916. [1905 edition]

Morgan, Charles Stillman. Regulation and the Management of Public Utilities. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, Riverside Press Cambridge, 1923. [Awarded second prize in Class A of the Hart, Schaffner & Marx competition]

Assignments

Sept. 26	Gerstenberg	Ch. 4-7
Sept. 30	Gerstenberg	Ch. 8-12
Oct. 6	Gerstenberg	Ch. 13, 18, 19, 22
Oct. 13	Gerstenberg	Ch. 27, 28, 29
Oct. 20	Gerstenberg	Ch. 30, 31, 32
Oct. 27	Gerstenberg	Finish book
Nov. 3	Jones Ripley	Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 19 old ed. pp. 244-249 rev. ed. pp. 465-470
Nov. 10	Jones Ripley	Ch. 13, 14 Ch. 1 and 2
Nov. 17	Jones Ripley	Ch. 5, 7 Ch 4 (rev.) or 5 (old) 8 (rev. only)
Nov. 24	Jones	Ch. 6, 9, 10.
Dec. 1	Jones	Ch. 17 & 18
Dec. 8	Jones Ripley	Ch. 8 Ch 18 (rev ed.) & pp. 545-549 (rev. ed)
Dec. 15	Jones Ripley Morgan	Ch. 15 Ch 19 (rev. ed.) Ch. 1 & 2
Jan. 12	Morgan	Ch. 3, 5
Jan. 19	Morgan	Ch. 6, 7

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Frank Whitson Fetter Papers, Box: 49, Folder: “Student Papers, Graduate Courses (Princeton University) EC 407 Government and Business Notes 1924-1925”.

__________________

Faculty Minute adopted March 6, 1944

FRANK HAIGH DIXON

The death, on January 27, 1944, of Frank Haigh Dixon, professor of economics, emeritus, closed a scholarly career of national distinction in his special field of transportation and public utilities. Professor Dixon was born in Winona, Minn., on October 8, 1869, the son of Alfred C. and Caroline A. D. Dixon. He pursued his collegiate studies at the University of Michigan until his attainment of the doctorate in 1895. This was followed by a year of study at the University of Berlin. Returning to Michigan, he served one year as an instructor in history before becoming an assistant professor of economics. At the University of Michigan he had the good fortune to have as his teacher and later as colleague that able economist and remarkable man, Henry Carter Adams, who at that time was organizing the uniform accountancy system of all the American railroads under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. As a young economist Dixon was thus attracted to the subject of transportation, in which he wrote his doctoral thesis. Declining an invitation to go to Cornell University, he in 1898 accepted a call to an assistant professorship at Dartmouth College.

Professor Dixon’s record of academic and public services is outstanding. Following a visit to England in 1900 to get information, he largely prepared the plans for the establishment at Dartmouth of a graduate school of commerce and business, the Amos Tuck School of Administration and Finance, of which he became the first director. In 1903 he attained full professorial rank. Giving up the Tuck School position, he retained the chairmanship of the department of economics and at the time of his resignation to come to Princeton was recognized as one of the most influential leaders in the Dartmouth faculty.

Professor Dixon came to Princeton in 1919 with ripe scholarship, broad experience and outstanding ability as a lecturer and teacher of college classes, as was further evidenced at once by the large enrollments in his Princeton courses. His coming put Princeton in the first rank of American universities for the distinction of its graduate work in this field. His Alma Mater, Michigan, tried in vain to lure him away from us. His services as chairman of the department of economics and social institutions from 1922 to 1927, on various faculty committees, and particularly in the building up of the Pliny Fisk Collection of research material in the fields of railroad and corporation finance, were marked by clear vision, practical judgment, and unwavering loyalty to the best interests of the University as a whole. In 1938, having reached the age for retirement, he became professor emeritus.

From the first of his career Professor Dixon was very active professionally outside the classroom. In 1907-1908 he served as a consulting expert for the Interstate Commerce Commission and in the following year in a similar capacity for the National Waterways Commission. During the first world war he was a special expert for the U.S. Shipping Board and he was a member of the executive board of the New Hampshire Commission on Public Safety. From 1910 to 1918, without giving up his college work, he was chief statistician of the Bureau of Railway Economics at Washington. For a full half century he was a member of the American Economic Association, serving repeatedly on its executive committee, and in 1927 he was vice-president of the Association. His writings, which with few exceptions were on transportation, are too numerous to be listed here. One of the most notable items in his bibliography was his authoritative text published after his coming to Princeton, “Railroads and Government: their Relations in the United States, 1910-1921.”

In 1900 Professor Dixon married Alice L. Tucker, daughter of the Rev. William J. Tucker, then president of Dartmouth College. In coming to Princeton Professor and Mrs. Dixon left in Hanover many close professional and personal friends. In turn they quickly won in Princeton many others whose number and regard have grown with the passing years. We rejoice that Mrs. Dixon is keeping the family residence among us. To her and to her three children, William Tucker, Roger Colt, and Caroline Moorhouse Dixon, the faculty of Princeton University wishes to express its deep sympathy as well as the high appreciation of the large contributions which Frank Haigh Dixon made to this University community.

Frank A. Fetter
William S. Carpenter
Stanley E. Howard, Chairman

Source: Princeton Alumni Weekly, Vol. 44 (April 28, 1922), p. 25.

Image Source: Frank Haigh Dixon faculty portrait Tuck School, Dartmouth College. Rauner Special Collections Library.

Tags AdamsHC, Carpenter, Dixon, FetterFA, FetterFW, Howard

Chicago Economists

Columbia. PhD alumnus. William J. Shultz, 1924

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-21

Today we meet a Columbia Ph.D. alumnus who was brought to the Department of Political Economy at the University of Chicago in 1926 by Paul H. Douglas. He was mentioned in the course description of the previous post. Both Douglas as well as the University of Chicago publications people consistently misspelled William J. Shultz’s last name as “Schultz”. We can be sure that the correct spelling of the last name is without the Chicago “c”. Cf. both the Columbia College yearbook of 1922 and his obituary in the New York Times (below).

While Shultz did not write a dissertation in economics, he immediately produced a work on inheritance taxation that won him the first prize in the Hart, Schaffner and Marx prize in economics. He went on to teach economics and later marketing.

While the New York Times obituary (see below) stated that Shultz was an assistant professor at the University of Chicago in 1926, the University of Chicago’s Annual Register covering the Academic Year Ending June 30, 1926, with Announcements for the Year 1926-1927 (p. 137) gives his rank as “instructor” for the summer quarter of 1926 and lists him as “lecturer” for the 1926-27 academic year.

Shultz is a nice specimen of the utterly brilliant young graduate whose great expectations resulted in just a pretty good career without leaving a lasting impression in the history of economics.

____________________________

Abstract of Shultz’s dissertation

“The book written by William J. Shultz introduces us to the Humane Movement in America that is dedicated to the protection of animals and children. It represents a continuation of an older work by Professor Roswell C. McCrea. At the present time in America there are 539 organizations with approximately 200,000 members active in this movement: 307 link the protection of animals with the protection of children and 175 are dedicated strictly to the protection of animals. The common motive here is the Prevention of Cruelty. The author documents the development of these organizations during the period 1910-1922, together with the organizational structures, methods of fund-raising and their inner-workings….”

Source: Own translation of the review by Agnes v. Zahn-Harnack published in Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 80(2), 379-380.

____________________________

Links to copies of books by William J. Shultz available on-line.

The Taxation of Inheritance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1926.

American Public Finance (3^rd edition). New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946.

Outline of Marketing. Ames, Iowa: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1956.

American Marketing. San Francisco: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1961.

____________________________

Paul Douglas on William J. Shultz (1925)

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

October 22, 1925

Professor J.A. Field
Faculty Exchange

My dear Field:

I quite forgot the other day in the Department meeting to suggest Dr. William J. Schultz [sic] as a person that I thought we ought to keep our eye on.

I got acquainted with Schultz’s work last year as a result of his application for an Amherst Memorial Fellowship and he seemed to me the most brilliant youngster that I have ever known, with the exception of Viner. Schultz took his Ph.D. at Columbia in 1924 at the age of 23. He wrote his dissertation on “The Humane Movement in the United States” which was published in the Columbia Studies. In addition to that, he has translated the important portions of Rignano’s book on the inheritance tax and Knopf has published this with an introduction by Seligman. On top of all this, in collaboration with another person he has written a history of commerce; while he submitted last June a manuscript on the inheritance tax in the Hart, Schaffner & Marx series, which Viner tells me was easily the best in its completed form. Viner thinks it was really a marvelous piece of work.

In addition to all this, Schultz is an accomplished musician and has command over some four or five European languages. He spent a summer in Mexico and has written on that country.

During the last year he was teaching at Hunter College but had some thought this year of going to Japan if he received an appointment at one of the universities there.

I met him and liked him very much. Seligman thinks him very brilliant, although one or two men at Columbia complained of his artistic temperament. I was in favor of his receiving an Amherst Fellowship, but the business men on the committee were afraid of his precocious brilliance and were fearful that he might “blow up.” It may be that he is somewhat unsteady, although I detected no signs of it. On the other hand, he is certainly close to being a genius, and there are all too few of those in economics. It would be a great card for us to get him in the Department, or in some way attached to the University of Chicago. It would be easier to get him before he wins the Hart, Schaffner & Marx prize, if he does.

He seems to be a person that we should fish for and that at the very least we should try to get him for next summer and then possibly we might also make connections with him for a later engagement.

Faithfully yours,

[signed] Paul H. Douglas

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 6, Folder 7.

____________________________

1922 Columbia College Yearbook
William J. Shultz….BROOKLYN, N.Y.

Freshman Fencing Team (1), Morningside (3), History Club (2)(3)(4), Junta (3), Assistant in History Department (4).

Bill enjoys the distinction of being the only Columbia man who raised a mustache at the age of eighteen. He is also quite proud of his curly locks. “That,” said Bill as he pointed to one of his raven curls, “is what makes ‘em fall.” Bill is also a history shark. He can tell you when Abe Lincoln first donned long trousers and what size collar Napoleon wore at Waterloo. If Bill can do other things as well as he can sell books, he will not only read history but also make it.

Source: The 1922 Columbian, p. 153.

____________________________

Obituary

WILLIAM J. SHULTZ OF BARUCH SCHOOL
The New York Times, May 29, 1970

Dr. William J. Shultz, economist and author, who retired in 1964 as professor of business administration at the Bernard M. Baruch School of Business Administration of the City University of New York, died Saturday of a heart attack in Camden, Me. He was 68 years old and lived in New Harbor, Me.

Dr. Shultz was the author of several books in his field, the last of which was “American Marketing,” published in 1961.

He was born in Brooklyn on April 25, 1902, and graduated in 1922 from Columbia College, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He received a Ph.D. degree from Columbia University in 1924 and an LL.B. degree from New York Law School in 1930.

Early in his career he lectured on history at Columbia and taught history at City College and social science at Hunter College. He was assistant professor of economics at the University of Chicago in 1926.

Dr. Shultz was a financial consultant to the National Industrial Conference Board from 1926 to 1930, and joined the faculty of Baruch School in 1932.

His widow, Luisa, survives.

Image Source: The 1922 Columbian, p. 153.

Tags Douglas, Field, McCrea, ShultzWJ, Viner

Chicago Courses

Chicago. Empirical seminar on wages announcement. Douglas, 1926

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-20

I had to consult the course announcements for 1926-27 to be sure that the course description I found in the files corresponded to that announced in the following letter from Paul H. Douglas to his chairman L. C. Marshall. We can be reasonably sure that the fifth person participating in the course was the recent Columbia Ph.D., William J. Shultz. I come to this conclusion because there is a letter in the same folder in which Douglas strongly recommends hiring William J. Schultz [sic]. The correct spelling turns out to be S-H-U-L-T-Z, and there is a New York Times obituary for William J. Shultz who was reported there to have taught economics at the University of Chicago in 1926.

____________________

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

July 23, 1926

My dear Mr. Marshall:

I enclose a brief and somewhat uninspired statement of a course on Wage Theory which I think may nevertheless serve as sufficient announcement to the students. Will you fill in the appropriate number of the course and the hours at which it is to be given? I would prefer two two hour sessions to four one hour.

I will meet with Millis, Stone, and Viner in the fall to get their cooperation in the matter.

With all best wishes,
Faithfully yours,
[signature by w] Paul H. Douglas
Paul H. Douglas

PHD-W

____________________

Econ. 443

SPECIAL STUDIES IN WAGES
[1926-27, Winter quarter]

An attempt to frame a theory of wages and of distribution and to ascertain inductively some of the forces which determine the rate of wages. After a review of various wage theories, such as those of the marginal productivity, wages fund, discounted marginal productivity, subsistence, bargain, employment and vulgar theories, an analysis of the problem will be made in terms of the relative elasticity of the supply cures of the factors of production and of their curves of imputed productivity. An attempt will then be made to trace inductively in so far as possible the supply curves of labor and capital. The effect of wages upon the short-run supply of labor will be tested as regards a number of factors including: (1) the age of entrance into industry, (2) the age of departure from industry, (3) the proportion of persons within the active age groups gainfully employed, (4) hours of work, (5) absenteeism and turnover, (6) intensity of effort, (7) changes in skill, (8) immigration. The effect of changes in real wages upon the long-time supply of labor will also be tested as regards its influence upon (1) the birth rate in Great Britain and the United States, (2) the rate of net fertility, (3) the effective labor supply, (4) the percentage of unemployment.

If time permits, investigations will also be carried through on the probable nature of the supply curve of capital. After a review of the doctrine concerning saving that have been advanced by such writers as Ricardo, Senior, Mill, Cairnes, Sargent, Rae, Böhm-Bawerk, Laundry, Fisher, Cassell, etc., inductive tests will be made of the relationship between changes in the interest rate and changes in the amount of capital saved. The movement of the interest rate in Great Britain and the United States will first be studied. Indexes of capital growth in Great Britain and the United States in physical terms will then be constructed and the rates of change in the volume of saving will be compared with the rates of change in the interest rate. The probable supply curves of natural resources and of management will also be considered but because of reason of time cannot be investigated in detail. It is hoped that the work will make the probably nature of the supply curves of the factors clearer and thus help to establish a more inductive basis for the theory of distribution.

Each student will be expected to do some piece of research upon a problem connected with the general investigation.

Prerequisites–Economics 211, 240 and 301. Professor Douglas, in charge, with Messrs. Millis, Viner, Stone, and [William J.] Schultz [sic, correct spelling is Shultz] cooperating.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 6, Folder 7.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-05851, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags Douglas, MarshallLC, Millis, Shultz, Stone, Viner

Chicago Economist Market Economists Teaching

Chicago. Laughlin’s observations on state of economics department, 1924

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-20

This post features a memorandum from 1924 that summarizes a conversation between the president of the University of Chicago and the first head of the department of political economy called in after retirement to help the department in covering a vacancy in its professorial ranks. Among other things we learn that Laughlin’s pension from the university was $3000/year.

Backstory 1: Shortly after being promoted to professor of economics, Harold G. Moulton left the University of Chicago in September 1922 to head the Institute of Economics established by the Carnegie Corporation in Washington, D.C. The department had trouble finding a successor, so among temporary measures it brought James Laurence Laughlin out of retirement during the academic year 1924-25 to help cover the money field. The last item transcribed below summarizes Laughlin’s observations on the state of the department ca. eight years after his retirement in 1916.

Backstory 2: L. C. Marshall’s request to resign both the Deanship of the school of Commerce and Administration [succeeded by W. H. Spencer] and school of Social Service Administration [succeeded by Edith Abbott] was accepted to take effect 31 December 1923. He agreed to continue on as Chairman of the Department of Political Economy under the condition that funds be provided for additional clerical services.

____________________

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to President Ernest D. Burton

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

June 1, 1924

My dear Mr. Burton:

The department of Political Economy sees no way of filling Mr. Moulton’s place in terms of the present situation. We turn, therefore, to temporary measures.

As one phase of the matter, will you approve of bringing Mr. Laughlin back for the Autumn Quarter, in case he is available? The 1924-25 budget contains the funds. I am at this same time asking Mr. Plimpton what would be involved as far as the relationship of stipend to retiring allowance is concerned.

A carbon of this letter is going to Mr. Tufts and Mr. Laing for their information.

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:OU

____________________

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to Nathan C. Plimpton, comptroller

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

June 2, 1924

My dear Mr. Plimpton:

In case Mr. J. L. Laughlin should be engaged to give work with us this coming Autumn Quarter would his compensation for this work be in addition to his retiring allowance for that period, or would the allowance be discontinued for that period?

The department is thinking in terms of a stipend of about $2500 if his allowance continues. If it does not, probably $3000 would suffice even though this would less than $2500 plus allowance.

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:OU

____________________

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to President Ernest D. Burton

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

May 29, 1924

President Ernest DeWitt Burton
The University of Chicago

My dear Mr. Burton:

This is a request to include in the Political Economy budget for the year 1924-25 the sum of $1,500.00 for clerical assistance.

In order that you may not need to consult files I give below an abstract of the situation up to the present time.

Along about January 1 you expressed a willingness to take up with the expenditures committee the provision of clerical assistance. While you were on your vacation I took the matter up through Mr. Dickerson and a sum was granted providing for clerical assistance during the remainder of this current budgetary year.
I asked Mr. Tufts to insert in the 1924-25 budget a request for $1,500.00 but he indicated the need of awaiting your return before taking action on the matter.
Sometime after your return I asked Mr. Tufts whether he wished to take the matter up with you or whether I should take it up. The reply received indicated that Mr. Plimpton was under the impression that you had some understanding on the matter.
The official copy of the budget received from Mr. Tufts a day or two ago contains no such item.

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:EL

____________________

Carbon copy of letter
from President Ernest D. Burton to L. C. Marshall

June 4, 1924

My dear Mr. Marshall:

In reference to your letter of May 29 I am glad to be able to state that the budget of next year as approved by the Board of Trustees carried with it an appropriation of $1500 for clerical service for your department. The statement sent to you by Mr. Tufts was intended to cover only the salaries of the teaching staff.

I am sure the Board of Trustees would approve the recommendation of the department that Mr. Laughlin be invited to give lectures in the autumn quarter. As respects his compensation, concerning which you wrote to Mr. Plimpton, the custom has been to add a stipend for such service to the retiring allowance which is continued without interruption. Mr. Small [Department of Sociology] and Mr. Coulter [Department of Botony] are both being retained next year on this basis, each of them rendering substantially half service throughout the year. The extra compensation is, in one case, $1500, in the other $2000. May I raise the question whether either sum would not be sufficient in Mr. Laughlin’s case also? In other words, $2000 for the special service, in addition to the $3000 of his regular retiring allowance?

Very truly yours,

Mr. L.C. Marshall
The University of Chicago

EDB:HP

____________________

Memorandum of Conversation with
Professor Laughlin
—November 19, 1924

On returning to the University Mr. Laughlin is struck with two things in respect to the Department of Political Economy.

1) The introductory courses are not as well conducted as they were in 1916. Then some of the abler men of the department were giving them. Now they are largely in the hands of instructors and assistants.

2) There has been a large increase in the number of graduate students.

There are four Universities that have graduate departments in Political Economy that need to be taken into account by us.

Columbia has the largest department.

Chicago is second in size.

Harvard is falling off.

Wisconsin is falling off.

The task of meeting graduate students and overseeing their work is an arduous one. We must, however, hold our own in dealing with this class of students. It would be desirable to raise the level of undergraduate work, but not at the expense of sacrificing our graduate work.

We must hold our present staff. Marshall, Clark and Viner are the best men. Wright is a good man. Field and Millis are pretty set in their ways, but this whole staff should be retained.

(In subsequent conversation with Marshall he said Field was the best man of the whole group, but that his Harvard inhibitions made it impossible for him to bring things to pass. He is afraid of what people will say and of the tendency of things. Millis is a good man, but no longer capable of much re-adjustment.)

Mr. Laughlin urges that we must get a first class man in money. He believes that the business interests should be asked to give money for this particular purpose.

The weakness of the undergraduate department is due to the lack of good men and salaries to pay them. C & A is doing most of the undergraduate work. This is not in itself objectionable. The spirit of C & A is good.

It is very desirable to unify the Department of Economics and the School of Commerce and Administration further.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Harper, Judson and Burton Administration Records. Box 23, Folder 6 “Department of Political Economy, 1894-1925) Part 2”

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03687, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags ClarkJM, Edith Abbott, Field, Laughlin, MarshallLC, Millis, Moulton, Viner

Columbia Economists Suggested Reading Syllabus

Columbia. National accounting. Course outline and readings. Barger, 1963-64

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-11
2 Comments on Columbia. National accounting. Course outline and readings. Barger, 1963-64

Harold Barger was, at least up through 2003, one of the last (if not the last) economics professor to teach in the interdisciplinary core course for Columbia undergraduates, Contemporary Civilization. Similar to the University of Chicago where undergraduate and graduate teaching in economics were strictly segregated, Columbia University’s economics faculty (see Peter Kenen’s description below) was either teaching for the college or for the university. Harold Barger was one of the few exceptions to work both sides of that street. In addition to the official Columbia obituary that gives some sense of the man, I provide a transcription of his syllabus on national economic accounts in this post.

____________________

Barger taught both undergrads and graduate students

Peter Kenen’s description of undergraduate economics education at Columbia at mid-century:

Unfortunately, the Economics Department at Columbia was different from most others there. It was divided sharply between those who taught graduate courses and those who taught undergraduates. There were exceptions. Harold Barger, who taught money and banking, also gave a graduate course on national-income accounting, and C. Lowell Harriss, who taught public finance, gave a graduate course on state and local taxation. But Columbia’s most prominent economists, Ragnar Nurkse, Carl Shoup, Arthur Burns and William Vickrey, to name only a few, did not teach undergraduate courses and did not encourage undergraduates to take their graduate courses. Furthermore, the undergraduate programme did not greatly emphasize econmic theory, because some of its members were overtly hostile to it. The senior seminar, conducted by Horace Taylor, was devoted mainly to the works of Thorstein Veblen, John R. Commons and other institutionalists.

Source: Chapter 12, “Peter B. Kenen” in Exemplary Economists: North America , Vol. 1 edited by Roger Backhouse and Roger Middleton (Edward Elgar, 2000), p. 259.

____________________

Harold Barger (1907-1989)
Columbia University Obituary

Harold Barger, former chairman of Columbia’s department of economics and the first director of the University’s Paris center, died Aug. 9 at his home in Kinderhook, N.Y., after a long illness. He was 82.

Barger taught at Columbia almost 40 years, beginning in 1937 as an instructor in economics. He became an assistant professor in 1943, associate professor in 1947 and professor in 1954. Chairman of the economics department from 1961 to 1964 and acting chairman from 1969 to 1970, he had been professor emeritus since his retirement in 1975.

Barger directed Columbia’s Paris campus, Reid Hall, for a year after it was acquired by the University in 1964. Located in the Montparnasse district of Paris, the center houses undergraduate programs of Columbia, Barnard and various other U.S. colleges and universities.

A faculty member of Columbia College from 1943 to 1975, Barger was assistant to the dean of the College from 1954 to 1959. From 1959 to 1964, he was a faculty adviser at the College.

“I remember Harold Barger most for his integrity and total devotion to the University, especially Columbia College,” said Columbia economics professor Donald Dewey. “He always looked out for the interests of students at the College.”

Albert Hart, Columbia professor emeritus of economics, said: “He had a very broad interest in the field of economics and his lectures were full of substance. He was very precise and knew how to organize material.”

Harold Barger was born Apr. 27, 1907, in London. He received the B.A. from Cambridge in 1930 and the Ph.D. from the London School of Economics in 1937. He was a lecturer at the University of London from 1931 to 1936 and from 1938 to 1939.

A specialist in monetary policy and income and employment theory, Barger served as a consultant to the U.S. Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Mines. He conducted studies for the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1940 to 1954 and served in the Office of Strategic Services of the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1945. From 1945 to 1946, he was an assistant division chief for the State Department.

Barger was the author of numerous articles and books on economics, including the textbook Money, Banking and Public Policy(1962). He coauthored his last book, College on Credit (1981), with his wife, Gwyneth.

Barger was married to the former Anne Macdonald Walls, who died in 1954. In 1955, he married Gwyneth Evans Kahn, who survives him. Other survivors include two nieces and a nephew.

A memorial service was held at Spencertown Academy in Spencertown, N.Y., on Aug. 26. In lieu of ﬂowers, gifts may be made to the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation of the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center or the Chamber Music Series of Spencertown Academy.

Source: Columbia University Record. Vol. 15, No. 1 (8 September 1989), p. 6.

____________________

ECONOMICS G4431x
Professor Barger
1963-1964

THE MEASUREMENT OF INCOME AND WEALTH

Students should possess the following books containing required readings (marked *):

Richard Ruggles, National Income Accounts and Income Analysis (2^nded. 1956, $6.50)

Survey of Current Business, Supplement, “US Income and Output,” 1958 (Government Printing Office, $1.50).

The following books also contain required readings (marked *):

Colin Clark, National Income and Outlay

International Association for Research in Income and Wealth,Income and Wealth, Series I, VIII.

National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vols. II, VI, VIII, XII, XLV, XX.

A.C. Pigou, Economics of Welfare, 3^rd(1929) or subsequent edition.

Richard Stone, Role of Measurement in Economics.

Simon Kuznets, Economic Change.

United Nations, National Income and its Distribution in Underdeveloped Countries (1951).

Milton Gilbert and I.B. Kravis, International Comparison of National Products (1954; reissued 1957 as Comparative National Products and Price Levels).

Alexander Eckstein, The National Income of Communist China.

Abram Bergson, The Real National Income of Soviet Russia Since 1928.

U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, “Comparisons of the U.S. and Soviet Economies,” Papers submitted by Panelists, Parts I and II, 1959 (Government Printing Office, $1.45).

The following books contain recommended readings:

John P. Powelson, Economic Accounting.

Harold Barger, Outlay and Income in the United States (NBER Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol IV).

James C. Bonbright, Valuation of Property, Vol. I.

Simon Kuznets, National Income and its Composition; National Income Since 1869.

Wassily Leontief, Structure of the American Economy.

National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vols. III, X, XVIII.

International Association for Research in Income and Wealth,Income and Wealth, Series II, III, IV.

Survey of Current Business, 1954 National Income Supplement.

INCOME
1. ELEMENTARY IDEAS: HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT: RELATION OF SOCIAL ACCOUNTING TO WELFARE
  1. *Ruggles, pp. 3-15
  2. *Clark, Chap. X
  3. *Pigou, Part I, Chaps. I, II
  4. Phyllis Deane in Economic Development and Cultural Change 1955, pp. 3-38
  5. Phyllis Deane, Economic History Rev. 1956, pp. 339-354; Apr. 1957, pp. 451-461
2. FUNDAMENTALS OF ACCOUNTING
  1. *Ruggles, pp. 16-44
  2. Powelson, Ch. 1-8
3. THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ACCOUNTS
  1. *Ruggles, pp. 45-106
  2. *Stone, “Functions and Criteria” in International Association Series I, or Stone, Role of Measurement, pp. 38-60
  3. Powelson, Chaps. 9, 10, 15, 16
4. GNP AND NATIONAL INCOME AS ACCOUNTING CONCEPTS
  1. *Ruggles, pp. 107-131
  2. *“U.S. Income and Output,” pp. 50-69; 114-116
  3. Powelson, Chs. 17-20
  4. Copeland in Studies, Vol. XX, pp. 19-111
5. RELATION OF NATIONAL INCOME ACCOUNTING TO INPUT-OUTPUT AND MONEY FLOW ANALYSIS
  1. *Ruggles, pp. 187-210
  2. Studies, Vol. XVIII, especially pp. 137-182, 253-320
  3. Leontief, Structure of the American Economy
6. THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING INCOME
  1. *Pigou, Part I, Chs. III, IV
  2. *Haberler and Hagen in Studies, Vol. VIII, pp. 3-31
  3. *Hance, in Studies, Vol. VI, pp. 238-270
  4. Kuznets, “Government Product and National Income” in International Association, Series I
  5. Kuznets, National Income and its Composition, Ch. I
  6. 1954 National Income Supplement, pp. 40-60
7. STATISTICAL MEASUREMENTS
  1. *Ruggles, pp. 158-186
  2. *“U.S. Income and Output,” pp. 70-105
  3. Goldsmith in Studies, Vol. III, pp. 220-244
  4. Kuznets, National Product since 1869, Parts I and II
    ______, National Income and its Composition, Chs. 3, 12
  5. 1954 National Income Supplement, pp. 61-152
  6. Barger, Ch. III and pp. 302-04
8. THE DEFLATION PROBLEM AND INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
  1. *Ruggles, pp. 131-143
  2. *Pigou, Part I, Chs. V-VII
  3. *Gilbert and Kravis, pp. 13-33, 61-95
9. NATIONAL INCOME MEASUREMENTS IN UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES
  1. *Kuznets, Economic Change, pp. 145-191, 216-252
  2. *United Nations, Chs. I and II
  3. *Kravis in Studies, Vol. XX, pp. 349-400
  4. *Eckstein, pp. 1-90
  5. Rao in International Association, Series III
10. NATIONAL INCOME IN SOVIET RUSSIA
  1. *Bergson, pp. 1-298
  2. *Joint Economic Committee, Part I (Campbell, Nutter, Turgeon) and Part II (Bornstein, Boddy)

WEALTH
1. THE ESTIMATION OF NATIONAL WEALTH
  1. *Kuznets in Studies, Vol. II, pp. 3-82
  2. *Goldsmith and Hart in Studies, Vol. XII, pp. 23-186
  3. *Goldsmith in Studies, Vol. XIV, pp. 5-73
  4. Goldsmith in International Association, Series II and IV
  5. International Association, Series VIII, pp. 1-59
  6. Bonbright, Vol. I, Chs. I-XII
  7. Kuznets, National Income since 1869, pp. 185-234

Source: Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library. William Vickrey Papers, Box 35, Folder “Columbia Correspondence, 1947-1969”.

Image Source: Harold Barger from J. W. Smit “Wisdom, Training and Contemporary Civilization”, Columbia College Today (November 2003).

Tags Barger, HarrissCL, TaylorH

Uncategorized

Wisconsin. Business Cycles Syllabus. Theodore Morgan, 1951

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-10

Theodore Morgan had a distinguished career as professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin. Rather unusual for someone going on for a Ph.D. in economics (even for the 1930s/40s) is that Morgan earned his A.B. and A.M. degrees in English. He shared this distinction with one of my Yale professors, the economic historian William Parker whose A.B. at Harvard was also in English. It would be interesting to have a list of other economists who began their academic journeys in the humanities before crossing over to economics.

Incidentally the business cycles syllabus transcribed below was found in Martin Bronfenbrenner‘s Papers at Duke’s Economists’ Papers Archive.

___________________

Harvard Economics Ph.D. (1941)

JOSEPH THEODORE MORGAN, A.B. (Ohio State Univ.) 1930, A.M. (ibid.) 1931, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1940. Subject, Economics. Special Field, Economic History since 1750. Thesis,”The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876.” Adjunct Professor of Economics, Randolph-Macon Woman’s College.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1940-41, p. 182.

___________________

[Pencil note: Morgan]
University of Wisconsin
Spring semester, 1950-51

Economics 181
Business Cycles

I. Business Cycles: History and Description

Feb 5 – 9	Achinstein: Introduction to Business Cycles, Chs. 14-16, 18-20	121 pp
	Kondratieff: “The Long Waves in Economic Life”, Ch. 2 in Readings in Business Cycle Theory	22
	Hansen: Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Ch. 1 (“The Historical Ratio of Money to Income”)	13
Feb 12 – 16	Schumpeter: “Railroadization”, in Business Cycles, Vol. 1, pp. 325-351	26
Feb. 19 – 23	Hansen: Business Cycles and National Income, Chs. 1-5	86
Feb. 19 – 23	– Optional: Schumpeter: “The Analysis of Economic Change”, Ch. I, in Readings in Business Cycle Theory Garvy: “Kondratieff’s Theory of Long Cycles”, Review of Economic Statistics, November 1943 Beveridge: Full Employment in a Free Society, Appendix A

II. Theories of Business Cycles

Feb 26 – Mar 2	Hansen: Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Ch. 2 (“The ‘Creation’ of Money”	26
	Achinstein, Chs. 1-5, 11-13	92
	– Optional: Hansen: Business Cycles and National Income, Chs. 13-20
Mar 5 – 9	Clemence and Doody: The Schumpeterian System	93
	Hansen: Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Chs. 9, 10	24
	– Optional: Hansen: Business Cycles and National Income, 13-24

III. The Measurement of Income, Output, and Employment

Mar 12 – 1	Achinstein, Ch. 17	23
Mar 12 – 1	– Optional: “How Much Unemployment?” symposium in the Review of Economics and Statistics, February, 1950 Morgan: Introduction to Economics, Ch. 25.

IV. Savings and Investment: the Keynesian, Robertson, and Swedish Approaches…The Keynesian System

Mar 19 – 23	Achinstein, Chs 6-10 (pp. 55-117)	62
	Keynes: General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, pp. 27-34, 245-249, Ch. 22 (pp. 313-332)	29
	Morgan: Introduction to Economics, Ch’s 30, 31; Ch. 32 to p. 583; Ch 28 to p. 505	68
	Skim: Keynes, Ch. 23 and 24
	– Optional: Dillard: The Economics of J.M. Keynes, pp. 59-71, and Ch. 5 (pp. 75-101) Duesenberry, in Income, Employment, and Public Policy Ch. 3 (“Income-Consumption Relationships and their Implications”, pp. 54-81) Haberler, Prosperity and Depression, 1941 ed., in Ch. 8 (“Some Recent Discussions Relating to the Theory of the Trade Cycle”), pp. 170-185 Hansen: “The Robertsonian and Swedish Systems of Period Analysis”, Review of Economics and Statistics, February, 1950. R.F. Harrod, J.A. Schumpeter, and P.M. Sweezy, “Keynes, the Economist: Three Views”, Chs. 8, 9, 10 of S.E. Harris, ed., The New Economics
Mar 26 – 30	G. Haberler and J.M. Keynes on The General Theory Chs. 14 and 15 of S.E. Harris, ed., The New Economics

V. The Stagnation Thesis

	Achinstein, Ch. 24 (pp. 373-387)	14 pp.
	– Optional: Terborgh: The Bogey of Economic Maturity

VI. Secular Trends, and Public Policy

May 7 – 11 14 – 18	Achinstein, Chs 21, 22, 25 (pp. 319-348, 388-409)	205
May 7 – 11 14 – 18	Hansen: Economic Policy and Full Employment, Chs. 5, 9, 10, and 11-22	205
May 21 – 25	Hansen: Business Cycles and National Income, Chs. 25-31 (pp. 501-605
	Skim: The Economic Report of the President, January 1951
	Schumpeter: Business Cycles, Vol. 2, pp. 1011-1050	39
May 28 – June 1	Clark, Kaldor, Smithies, Uri, Walker: National and International Measures for Full Employment (A United Nations Report, 1949), pp. 19-47, 75, 81-84. (can be found in Gayer, Hariss, Spencer: Basic Economics, pp. 437-457)	20

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists‘ Papers Archive. Martin Bronfenbrenner Papers, Box 25, Folder “Macro-economics: problems and exercises 1 of 2. 1961-70, n.d.

___________________

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION OF THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
ON THE DEATH OF PROFESSOR EMERITUS THEODORE MORGAN

Faculty Document 2138
5 October 2009

Theodore Morgan, age 98, died peacefully on Sunday, February 8, 2009. He had been in failing health following a stroke on December 4, 2008. He was an economist and writer, valued colleague, loving husband and father, and affectionate friend with a wry and gentle sense of humor.

Professor Morgan was born on May 31, 1910, in Middletown, Ohio, the youngest of three sons of Ben and Anna Louella (Knecht) Morgan. He grew up on the family farm and survived the flu he contracted in the great flu epidemic of 1917. His first two years of schooling occurred in a one-room school. He went on to complete his AB and MA (1931) in English at Ohio State University, with Phi Beta Kappa honors and a thesis on Joseph Conrad.

Shortly after graduating he was diagnosed with melanoma. The cancer was cured and never returned. At the time, however, he thought his life might be shortened, and he developed a sense of adventure. He sailed to Japan and China in 1934, working in the engine room of the SS President Coolidge. In the summer of 1935 he traveled by bicycle and train through Europe, observing the harsh economic conditions of the time and brewing political changes in France, Germany, and the Soviet Union. While there he took hundreds of photographs that vividly depicted the economic effects of the world-wide depression. A selection of these photos was published with commentary in the Wisconsin Academy Review (2004).

Professor Morgan’s teaching career began at the University of Hawaii-Manoa where he taught English from 1936-38. His stay in Hawaii began a life-long affection for the islands. It also gave him material for the first of many books. His curiosity about the causes of the Great Depression led him to shift from English to economics. He enrolled in Harvard University’s graduate economics program in 1938 and was awarded his PhD in Economics in June 1941. He spent the next year teaching economics at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia. He returned to teach at Harvard from 1942 to 1947. While teaching at Randolph-Macon, he met at a tennis match Catharine Moomaw, a painter and adjunct professor of art at the college. They were married in 1943.

In 1947 Professor Morgan joined the economics department at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and, with the exception of nine years abroad, taught there until his retirement in 1980. The year he joined the Wisconsin department Ted’s career received a major boost when he published Income and Employment, one of the first books to present the new approach to macroeconomics developed by John Maynard Keynes. His academic focus soon shifted, driven in part by a new emphasis in U.S. foreign policy to aid the underdeveloped countries of the world. In his early work he made important contributions in assessing the growth effects of changes in the terms of trade of developing countries and understanding the discrepancies between the export value of goods and services reported by these countries and the recorded import value of these goods reported by the countries receiving these goods.

Ted was skeptical of the theoretical models of economic development widely discussed in the 1950s and 1960s. He became one of the first development economists to assert that the complex process of economic development should reflect local priorities and values rather than imported Western theories. His views on economic development, published in numerous books and articles, were influenced by his years of work overseas. In addition to many articles in professional journals and reports on economic conditions in the countries where he worked, he authored or coauthored a number of books, including: Hawaii: A Century of Economic Change, 1778-1876 (1948); Introduction to Economics (1950); Readings in Economic Development (1963); Economic Planning in Southeast Asia (1965); and Economic Development: Concept and Strategy (1975). He published his last academic paper in 1995.

Professor Morgan’s overseas work began with service as economic adviser to the government of Ceylon and deputy director of the Central Bank of Ceylon from 1951-53. He directed the Wisconsin-Ford Foundation project and taught at Gadjah Mada University in Indonesia from 1959-60. In 1964-65 during the Johnson Administration, he served as a senior staff economist at the President’s Council of Economic Advisors in Washington, D.C. His other overseas posts included teaching at the University of Singapore (1967-69), advising the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Thailand (1970), and additional work in Kenya, Chile, Malaysia, and in Sussex and Manchester, England. Finally, in 1990 he taught economics at Nankai University in China, a decade after his retirement.

Throughout his career, Professor Morgan strongly supported the education of foreign graduate students in the United States, and he headed an American Economic Association committee that in the late 1950s established the Economic Institute in Boulder, Colorado, to prepare foreign students for successful graduate studies in economics. He maintained warm friendships with many of his former students and delighted in their accomplishments.

An enthusiastic athlete, Ted played a fine game of tennis, and enjoyed bicycling, skiing, swimming, and running. He loved hikes and walks, and took pleasure in gardening, especially growing tomatoes and begonias. As a student he learned by heart many poems of, among others, Tennyson, Browning, Shakespeare, and Swinburne, and could still recite them into his 99th year. His parents, his brothers Donald and Mark, and his wife of 57 years, Cathy, all died before him. He is survived by three daughters, Stephanie (Madison), Marian (Charlottesville, VA), and Laura (New York, NY); one grandchild Brihannala (San Francisco, CA); nephews and nieces, cousins, and many friends.

MEMORIAL COMMITTEE

Robert E. Baldwin
W. Lee Hansen, chair
David B. Johnson
James Stern
H. Edwin Young

Source: Theodore Morgan memorial. University of Wisconsin. Memorial resolutions presented to the Faculty Senate, 1999 February—2016 April.

Image Source: Portrait of Theodore Morgan. University of Wisconsin Archives. Images. UW-Madison Collection.

Tags Morgan

M.I.T. THE THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT 14.451 1967-68 [first session]

I. ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS

II. THE PURPOSE AND NATURE OF THE COURSE

III. COMMENTS ON MACROECONOMICS

PART I NATIONAL INCOME AND RELATED ITEMS

THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT 14.451 Fall Term 1967-68

READING LIST

I. NATIONAL INCOME AND RELATED ITEMS (September 19 – October 12)

READING LIST—SECOND INSTALLMENT II. GENERAL AGGREGATIVE SYSTEMS—FIRST APPROXIMATION (October 17 – October 31).

III. PRICE FLEXIBILITY AND EMPLOYMENT (November 2-9)

IV. The Theory of Interest and the Demand for Money

VI. Investment

Reading List—Fourth Installment VII. Multiplier and Accelerator

VIII. Employment and Inflation

The Theory of Income and Employment 14.451 E. D. Domar [and] J. R. Harris

Midterm Examination November 30, 1967

THE THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT 14.451 E. D. Domar [and] J. R. Harris

FINAL EXAMINATION January 23, 1968

Columbia Announcement of the appointments of Henry L. Moore (Prof.) and Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.), 1902

Announcement of the Columbia appointments of Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.) and Alvin Saunders Johnson (Reader), 1902

Lecture 5/4/38 Prof. Alvin H. Hansen of Garver & Hansen Littauer Professor of Political Economy

Keynes’ General Theory.

DRAFT

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

REPORT ON THE GENERAL EXAMINATION FOR THE PH.D.

ROLE OF THE GENERAL EXAMINATION

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

General Principles

The Theory Requirement

The Quantitative Requirement

The Economic History Requirement

The Requirement in Special Fields

QUESTIONS OF GRADING

Examination Requirements at Other Places

I. Yale

Comprehensive Examination

History and Quantitative

Other requirements

II. MIT

General examination

History and Quantitative

Other requirements

III. Johns Hopkins

First Year Oral Examination

Comprehensive Examination

History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

IV. Rochester

Qualifying Examination

History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

V. Stanford

Comprehensive Examination

History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

VI. Berkeley

Departmental Examination in Theory

History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

VII. Michigan

Preliminary Examination

Economic History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

VIII. Chicago

Preliminary Examination

History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

Princeton University, 1924-1925

Government and Business Economics 407

Links to Course Texts

Assignments

Faculty Minute adopted March 6, 1944

FRANK HAIGH DIXON

Abstract of Shultz’s dissertation

Links to copies of books by William J. Shultz available on-line.

Paul Douglas on William J. Shultz (1925)

The University of Chicago The School of Commerce and Administration

1922 Columbia College Yearbook William J. Shultz….BROOKLYN, N.Y.

Obituary

WILLIAM J. SHULTZ OF BARUCH SCHOOL The New York Times, May 29, 1970

M.I.T.
THE THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
1967-68
[first session]

THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
Fall Term 1967-68

I. NATIONAL INCOME AND RELATED ITEMS
(September 19 – October 12)

READING LIST—SECOND INSTALLMENT
II. GENERAL AGGREGATIVE SYSTEMS—FIRST APPROXIMATION
(October 17 – October 31).

III. PRICE FLEXIBILITY AND EMPLOYMENT
(November 2-9)

Reading List—Fourth Installment
VII. Multiplier and Accelerator

The Theory of Income and Employment
14.451
E. D. Domar [and] J. R. Harris

Midterm Examination
November 30, 1967

THE THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
E. D. Domar [and] J. R. Harris

FINAL EXAMINATION
January 23, 1968

Lecture
5/4/38
Prof. Alvin H. Hansen of Garver & Hansen
Littauer Professor of Political Economy

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Government and Business
Economics 407

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

1922 Columbia College Yearbook
William J. Shultz….BROOKLYN, N.Y.

WILLIAM J. SHULTZ OF BARUCH SCHOOL
The New York Times, May 29, 1970

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

SPECIAL STUDIES IN WAGES
[1926-27, Winter quarter]

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

Carbon copy of letter
from President Ernest D. Burton to L. C. Marshall

Memorandum of Conversation with
Professor Laughlin
—November 19, 1924

Harold Barger (1907-1989)
Columbia University Obituary

ECONOMICS G4431x
Professor Barger
1963-1964

[Pencil note: Morgan]
University of Wisconsin
Spring semester, 1950-51

Economics 181
Business Cycles

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION OF THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
ON THE DEATH OF PROFESSOR EMERITUS THEODORE MORGAN

Faculty Document 2138
5 October 2009