Category: Berkeley

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Economics Professors’ Salaries by Rank (6), 1965-66

 

 

This is the sixth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. In the previous five tables The Cartel reports median or average incomes or ranges of salary offers by ranks across departments. In this posting we have Table 6c from the summary report that gives the salary distributions by rank for 335 professors, 143 associate professors and 185 assistant professors from all 27 departments.

Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors across departments. Two previous postings have the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the anticipated range of salary offers for new Ph.D.’s for 1966-67.

Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

 

____________________

TABLE 6c

Salaries of Economists (9-10 month, academic year, 1965-66) in 27 of the 29 Departments of Economics (The Cartel):
N = Number of Persons

MID POINT OF RANGE PROFESSORS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS
26,750/and over 2
26,500 0
26,000 2
25,500 1
25,000 8
24,500 0
24,000 4
23,500 2
23,000 7
22,500 2
22,000 12
21,500 7
21,000 10
20,500 5
2,0000 22
19,500 10
19,000 13
18,500 11
18,000 24
17,500 8
17,000 19
16,500 23
16,000 27
15,500 20 1 0
15,000 21 2 1
14,500 14 2 0
14,000 22 10 0
13,500 10 12 0
13,000 10 13 1
12,500 7 18 2
12,000 6 20 1
11,500 3 21 7
11,000 3 13 9
10,500 0 18 18
10,000 0 9 35
9,750 1 9
9,500 2 28
9,250 1 11
9,000 0 24
8,750 0 8
8,500 0 13
8,250 2
8,000 15
7,750 1
N=335 N=143 N=185

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source:  “Me and my partner” by C. J. Taylor on cover of Punch, December 25, 1889. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

 

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Expected New PhD Starting Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (5), 1966/67

 

 

This is the fifth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Table 5c give figures for the anticipated range of salaries for “freshly completed PhD’s” for the coming academic year (1966-67) across the departments reporting. Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors. The previous posting has the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

The copy of this table in the Johns Hopkins University archives has a useful handwritten addition. It is noted that the median lower bound of the range is $9,250 and the median higher bound of the range is $10,000. Thus one might say a measure of the range of the anticipated, as of December 1965), 9-10 month salary offers for “freshly completed PhDs” for 1966-67 was ($9,250 — $10,000), though such a range was not necessarily anticipated by any one of the 27 departments responding to that question.

Compared to Table 4c, this table tells us that the range of offers for “freshly completed PhDs” was anticipated to move up $250 about a 2.67% nominal increase from 1965-66 to 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

 

____________________

TABLE 5c
Departments Expect to Have to Offer to Get
“Freshly Completed PhD’s for Next Year, 1966-67

 

MID-POINT OF RANGE

 FROM TO
13,000 0

0

12,500

 0 0
12,000 0

1

11,500

 0 0
11,000 0

6

10,500

 0 7
10,000 5

6

9,750

 0 0
9,500 8

4

9,250

 1 0
9,000 8

2

8,750

 1 0
8,500 1

1

8,250

 0 0
8,000 3

0

N=

 27

27

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source:  Caption under the drawing: “No class of labor feels the grip of grinding monopoly more than our underpaid, overworked ball-players.”  “The base-ball Laocoon” by L. M. Glackens. Cover of Punch, May 14, 1913. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

New PhD Starting Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (4), 1964/5-1965/66

 

 

This is the fourth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Table 4c give figures for the distribution of salaries for “freshly completed PhD’s” across the departments reporting. Previous postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors. The next posting has the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

______________________

TABLE 4c
Entering Salaries of “Freshly Completed PhD’s” of New Staff Members
in the Fall of 1965-66 1964-65

 

MINIMUM MEDIAN MAXIMUM
MID-POINT OF RANGE 1965-66 1964-65 1965-66 1964-65 1965-66

1964-65

Over 10,999

 0 0 0 0 1 0
10,500 0 0 0 0 2

1

10,000

 2 0 4 3 7 0
9,750 2 0 4 0 1

0

9,500

 4 1 2 0 2 4
9,250 1 2 3 3 1

3

9,000

 3 6 0 5 3 6
8,750 1 1 3 5 0

1

8,500

 4 5 3 5 2 5
8,250 1 1 0 2 0

1

8,000

 2 3 1 0 1 0
7,750 0 0 0 0 0

1

7,500

 0 1 1 2 0 1
7,250 1 1 0 0 0

0

N=

 21 21 21 25 20 23
Median $9,000 $8,500 $9,250 $8,750 $9,750

$9,000

Mean

 $8,952 $8,583 $9,190 $8,820 $9,600

$8,913

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

 

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Assistant Professors’ Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (3), 1964/5-1965/66

 

 

This is the third table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Tables 3c give figures for the distribution of assistant professor salaries across the departments reporting. Last posting gave the distribution for full-professors and the distribution for associate professors. The next posting has the distribution for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Also there is a table of the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

____________________

TABLE 3c
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(1)
Median Salaries
All Assistant Professors

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66 1964-65
Over 11,249 0

1

11,000

 0 0
10,500 3

0

10,000

 7 1
9,750 2

0

9,500

 6 6
9,250 3

2

9,000

 4 5
8,750 1

6

8,500

 1 2
8,250 1

3

8,000

 1 2
7,750 0

0

7,500

 0 0
7,250 0

1

N=

 29 29
Median $9,500

$8,900

Mean

 $9,402

$8,936

 

 

TABLE 3c
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(2)
Average Salaries
“Superior Assistance Professors”
(Top 1/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66 1964-65
Over 11,249 4

1

11,000

 3 2
10,500 8

5

10,000

 7 3
9,750 2

2
9,500 3 4
9,250 0

3

9,000

 1 3
8,750 1

3

8,500

 0 0
8,250 0

2

8,000

 0 0
7,750 0

0

7,500

 0 0
7,250 0

1

N=

  

29

  

29
Median $10,250

$9,500

Mean

 $10,333

$9,575

 

 

TABLE 3c
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(3)
Average Salaries
“Average Assistant Professors”
(Lower 2/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66 1964-65
Over 10,749 0

1

10,500

 1 0
10,000 5

0

9,750

 2 0
9,500 4

3
9,250 7 1
9,000 2

8

8,750

 4 3
8,500 1

5

8,250

 2 3
8,000 1

1

7,750

 0 2
7,500 0

1

7,250

 0 1
N= 29

29

Median

 $9,300 $8,800
Mean $9,251

$9,063

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source: Brussells conference, cartel magnate (detail). Postcard from 1902. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Associate Professors’ Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (2), 1964/5-1965/66

 

This is the second table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Tables 2c give figures for the distribution of associate professor salaries across the departments reporting. Last posting gave the distribution for full-professors. Future postings include the actual salary distributions for assistant professors and freshly completed PhD’s 1964/65 and 1965/66. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Also there is a table of the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

____________________

TABLE 2c
ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(1)
Median Salaries
All Associate Professors

MID-POINT
OF RANGE		 1965-66 1964-65
Over 13,749 3 0
13,500 2 0
13,000 2 1
12,500 6 3
12,000 5 2
11,500 4 3
11,000 3 11
10,500 2 4
10,000 0 0
9,750 0 1
9,500 0 2
N= 27 27
Median $12,000 $11,000
Mean $12,173 $11,093

 

 

TABLE 2c
ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(2)
Average Salaries
“Superior Associate Professors”
(Top 1/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE		 1965-66 1964-65
Over 16,249 0 1
16,000 1 0
15,500 1 0
15,000 2 0
14,500 2 0
14,000 5 2
13,500 6 4
13,000 4 6
12,500 3 3
12,000 0 4
11,500 1 3
 [sic, cell empty] 1 2
 [sic, cell empty] 0 1
N= 26 26
Median $13,000 $12,186
Mean $13,082 $12,159

 

 

TABLE 2c
ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(3)
Average Salaries
“Average Assoc Professors”
(Lower 2/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE		 1965-66 1964-65
14,500 0 0
14,000 1 0
13,500 0 0
13,000 4 1
12,500 4 1
12,000 2 2
11,500 3 2
11,000 7 8
10,500 3 4
10,000 2 4
9,750 0 1
9,500 0 2
9,250 0 0
9,000 0 0
8,750 0 1
8,500 0 0
N= 26 26
Median $11,265 $10,775
Mean $11,640 $10,760

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source: “The monopolists’ may-pole” by F. Opper.  Centerfold of Puck, vol. 17, no. 425 (April 29, 1885). Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Economists Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Professors’ salaries in U.S. economics departments (1), 1964/5-1965/66

 

 

From my March 2017 expedition to the Johns Hopkins University archives’ collection of material from the Department of Political Economy, I came across one of those documents that help to provide an empirical baseline for the history of the market for economics professors. It is worth savouring the sets of tables one by one. In all, this so-called “cartel” summary with information collected from 29 departments in October 1965 consists of eight sets of tables.

On the last page of this summary for full-professor salaries can be found the name of the presumable compiler of the tables: Francis M. Boddy, Graduate School, University of Minnesota. It is dated December 21, 1965.

Two documents later in the same folder I found the list of 30 members of the Chairmen’s Group, dated December 13, 1965. With 29 responses to the salary questionnaire from which the “cartel” data have been assembled, it leaves only to guess which department did not report back to the “cartel”. I do believe that the ironic self-designation of cartel is not entirely contrary to functional fact here.

The salary distributions across the participating departments for associate professors, assistant professors, and for the starting salaries for newly minted Ph.D. hires have been posted in the meantime. Also there is a table of the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

___________________________________

About Francis M. Boddy

Boddy, Francis M, 1115 Bus. Admin., West Bank, Dept. of Econs., U. of Minn., Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone: Office (612)373-3583;Home (612)926-1063. Fields: 020, 610. Birth Yr: 1906. Degrees: B.B.A., U. of Minn., 1930; M.A., U. of Minn., 1936; Ph.D., U. of Minn., 1939. Prin. Cur. Position: Prof. Emer. Of Econs., U. of Minn. At Twin Cities. 1975-. Concurrent/Past Positions: Acting Exec. Secy., Bd. Of Investment, State of Minn., 1978-79; Assoc. Dean of Grad. Sch. U. of Minn., 1961-73.

Source: “Biographical Listing of Members.” The American Economic Review 71, no. 6 (1981): p. 67.

___________________________________

Research Hint:
Boddy’s data go back to 1957/58

“I have, over the past six years, conducted an informal survey of some 30 of the leading departments of economics in the country, defined largely as being those departments which have been major producers of Ph.D.’s in economics.”

Source:  Boddy, Francis M. “The Demand for Economists.” The American Economic Review 52, no. 2 (1962): 503-08.

 

Also of interest from about the same time is the AER Supplement:

Tolles, N. Arnold, and Emanuel Melichar. “Studies of the Structure of Economists’ Salaries and Income” The American Economic Review 58, no. 5 (1968):

___________________________________

MEMBERS OF THE CHAIRMEN’S GROUP, 1965-66
December 13, 1965

  1. Professor Gerard Debreu
    University of California
    Berkeley, California 94720
  2. Dean R. M. Cyert
    Carnegie Institute of Technology
    Pittsburgh 13, Pennsylvania
  3. Professor Arnold C. Harberger
    University of Chicago
    1126 East 59th Street
    Chicago 37, Illinois
  4. Professor Carl McGuire
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, Colorado
  5. Professor William Vickrey
    Columbia University
    New York 27, New York
  6. Professor Douglas F. Dowd
    Acting Chairman
    Cornell University
    Ithaca, New York
    (Professor Frank H. Golay, the Chairman, is on leave in 1965-66.)
  7. Professor Robert S. Smith
    Duke University
    Durham, North Carolina
  8. Professor John Dunlop
    Harvard University
    Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
  9. Professor John F. Due
    University of Illinois
    Urbana, Illinois 61803
  10. Professor George Wilson
    Indiana University
    Bloomington, Indiana 47405
  11. Professor Karl A. Fox
    Iowa State University
    Ames, Iowa 50010
  12. Professor Carl F. Christ
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland
  13. Professor Robert F. Lanzilotti
    Michigan State University
    East Lansing, Michigan
  14. Professor Warren L. Smith
    University of Michigan
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
  15. Professor E. Cary Brown
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Cambridge 39, Massachusetts
  16. Professor Emanuel Stein
    New York University
    New York 3, New York
  17. Professor John Turnbull
    University of Minnesota
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
  18. Professor Ralph W. Pfouts
    university of North Carolina
    Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  19. Professor Robert Eisner
    Northwestern University
    Evanston, Illinois
  20. Professor Paul G. Craig
    Ohio State University
    Columbus, Ohio
  21. Professor Irving B. Kravis
    University of Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia 4, Pennsylvania
  22. Professor Richard A. Lester
    Princeton University
    Princeton, New Jersey
  23. Dean Emanuel T. Weiler
    Purdue University
    Lafayette, Indiana
  24. Professor Lionel McKenzie
    University of Rochester
    Rochester 20, New York
  25. Professor Edward S. Shaw
    Stanford University
    Stanford, California
  26. Professor Carey Thompson
    University of Texas
    Austin, Texas
  27. Professor James W. McKie
    Vanderbilt University
    Nashville, Tennessee
  28. Professor Alexandre Kafka
    Acting Chairman
    University of Virginia
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    (Professor Warren Nutter, the Chairman, is on leave in 1965-66.)
  29. Professor David B. Johnson
    University of Wisconsin
    Madison, Wisconsin
  30. Professor Raymond Powell
    Yale University
    New Haven, Connecticut

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

 

___________________________________

 

CARTEL
SUMMARY of the October-1965 Questionnaire to Departments of Economics in the United States

SUMMARY of the salary (1965-66 and 1964-65 academic years, 9-10 month basis) and other data of 29 (out of 29) Departments of Economics. N = Number of Departments reporting.

 

TABLE 1c
PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(1)
Median Salaries
All Professors

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66

1964-65

Over 20,249

 2 1
20,000 4

0

19,500

 0 1
19,000 3

1

18,500

 2 3
18,000 2

1

17,500

 3 1
17,000 2

4

16,500

 2 4
16,000 1

4

15,500

 2 0
15,000 2

1

14,500

 0 2
14,000 3

1

13,500

 0 1
13,000 1

4

N=

 29 29
Median $17,500

$16,500

Mean

 $17,377

$16,319

 

 

TABLE 1c
PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(2)

Average Salaries
“Superior Professors”
(Top 1/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66

1964-65

Over 23,749

 3 1
23,500 2

0

23,000

 0 0
22,500 3

0

22,000

 1 2
21,500 4

3

21,000

 1 2
20,500 4

2

20,000

 0 3
19,500 2

2

19,000

 2 4
18,500 1

0

18,000

 3 1
17,500 1

2

17,000

 0 0
16,500 2

1

16,000

 0 4
15,500 0

1

15,000

 0 0
14,500 0

1

14,000

 0 0
N= 29

29

Median

 $20,600 $19,500
Mean $20,677

$19,093

 

 

TABLE 1c
PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(3)

Average Salaries
“Average Professors”
(Lower 2/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66

1964-65

Over 18,749

 4 2
18,500 0

1

18,000

 3 1
17,500 1

1

17,000

 3 1
16,500 3

2

16,000

 5 8
15,500 1

4

15,000

 2 1
14,500 1

1

14,000

 2 0
13,500

2

2

13,000

 1 4
12,500 1

0

12,000

 0 1
11,500 0

0

N=

 29 29
Median $16,100

$15,390

Mean

 $16,192

$15,119

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image: From left to right: Monopolies, Uncle Sam, Trusts.

Taylor, Charles Jay, Artist. In the hands of his philanthropic friends / C.J. Taylor. , 1897. N.Y.: Published in Puck, March 10, 1897. . Retrieved from the Library of Congress, . (Accessed May 12, 2017). https://www.loc.gov/item/2012647652/

Categories
Berkeley Economists Harvard

Harvard Ph.D. Alumnus (1906) and Berkeley Professor Stuart Daggett

I have my eye out for such Faculty memorial minutes like the following from the University of California System for Berkeley professor Stuart Daggett. In the previous post you can find the list of fields chosen by Daggett for his doctoral examination.

___________________________

 

Stuart Daggett, Transportation Engineering: Berkeley
by E. T. Grether, I. B. Cross, and P. S. Taylor

Stuart Daggett was born on March 2, 1881, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His career ended on December 22, 1954, at his home in Berkeley. It was characteristic of him that on the same day on which his final illness struck him, he had been at the University collecting materials dealing with the St. Lawrence Seaway. Although he had just sent to his publisher the revised manuscript of the fourth edition of his monumental Principles of Inland Transportation, first published in 1928, he was already beginning another major investigation. His physician has remarked that it would have been mental and physical bondage for Stuart Daggett to have given up systematic scholarly pursuits.

Stuart Daggett received all three of his degrees, the A.B. in 1903, the A.M. in 1904, and the Ph.D in 1906, from Harvard University. During 1906 to 1909 he was Instructor at Harvard, but in 1909 accepted appointment to the University of California as Assistant Professor of Railway Economics on the Flood Foundation. From that day until his death he was a faculty member at Berkeley. When he came to the campus he joined that small, distinguished pioneering company of scholars in economics, which then included Adolph C. Miller, Wesley Clair Mitchell, Carl Copping Plehn, Lincoln Hutchinson, Jessica B. Peixotto, A. W. Whitney, and Henry Rand Hatfield. Professor Daggett was the last surviving member of this group. His notable contributions to teaching, research, scholarly writing, and University and public service over the years more than amply justified the wisdom of the University administration in bringing him into this extraordinarily able assembly of economists. Only six years after his arrival at the University, he was appointed Professor of Transportation on the Flood Foundation.

Professor Daggett was the author of numerous books, contributions to scholarly publications, and reviews. Among his most significant publications were Railroad Reorganization, Chapters on the History of the Southern Pacific, Principles of Inland Transportation (four editions), Railroad Consolidation West of the Mississippi River, and Structure of Transcontinental Railroad Rates.

Professor Daggett was often called upon to render federal, state, and local public service. In 1912 he served as expert for a committee to advise the governor of California on the equalization of taxes. During World War I, he was with the War Industries Board, Division of Planning and Statistics. In 1924 he was expert for the Presidential Committee on Coördination of Rail and Water Facilities. During World War II, he was public member of various War Labor Board panels. He also made important contributions to private industry in various ways, including publication in trade papers, participation in business conferences, and acting as private arbitrator.

Professor Daggett’s greatest influence, however, was through his services as a teacher, administrator, and colleague on the faculty of the University of California. In the classroom his lectures were marked by extraordinary care in preparation and presentation. Running through the orderly discussion were numerous evidences of subtle humor, much to the delight of those students whose thirst for knowledge included also an appreciation of the lighter touch. His judicious temperament and ability in carrying heavy responsibilities brought him many demands in University government and administration. From 1920 to 1927 he was Dean of the College of Commerce (replaced by the School of Business Administration in 1943). The truest evidence of his stature among his colleagues was his inevitable membership or chairmanship on those committees concerned with the most serious, urgent, and critical issues of University government. Over the years, he was a member or chairman of almost all of the leading committees of the Academic Senate, and in 1948 became its Vice-Chairman. In 1951, on the recommendation of the Senate committee, he was elected Faculty Research Lecturer, the highest accolade bestowed by the Academic Senate.

Stuart Daggett was truly one of the great statesmen of the University of California. In a sense, too, he may be characterized as a “professor’s professor,” for he possessed to a high degree so many of the talents and qualities characteristic of the academic scholar–objectivity, meticulous precision, unyielding integrity, high standards of performance and personal dignity. His intimates and members of his immediate family realized that behind his reserve and dignity there was also warm friendliness, kindliness, affection, and a high degree of sensitivity.

 

Source: Academic Senate of the University of California System. University of California: In Memoriam [1957], pp. 45-47.

Image Source:  University of California Yearbook. Blue and Gold, 1922.

 

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Economists

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus Henry Rand Hatfield, 1897

Henry Rand Hatfield (1866-1945) was among the first four Ph.D.’s in Political Economy at the University of Chicago in 1897. The following items present a reasonably complete picture of the life and career of this scholar. Numbers people can be sorted into accountants and statisticians. In the early years of graduate economics education they shared the same tidal pool on the eve of their respective evolutionary development paths. Hatfield had a long and distinguished career in accounting. Of particular interest to historians of economics is his paper “An Historical Defense of Bookkeeping,” originally published in The Journal of Accountancy, April 1924.

For an appreciation of his contributions to accounting, see the biographical note  from S.A. Zeff and T.F. Keller, eds. Financial Accounting Theory I: Issues and Controversies, Second edition. McGraw Hill, p. 502 (posted at the website Accounting Hall of Fame). 

____________________________________

 

660. HENRY RAND HATFIELD.

Brother of Nos. 368 [Emily Marcia Hatfield (Hobart)]  and 389 [James Taft Hatfield].

            Born 27 Nov. 1866, in Chicago. Prepared in Northwestern University Academy. A.B. [Northwestern, 1892]. Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1897. Adelphic. Beta Theta Pi; Phi Beta Kappa. Kirk contestant. Graduate student University of Chicago, 1892-94. Fellow in Political Economy, University of Chicago. Instructor, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., 1894-96 and 1897-98; Instructor in Political Economy, University of Chicago, 1898-1902; Assistant Professor of Political Economy, and Dean of College of Commerce and Administration, 1902 . Contributor to Journal of Political Economy.

Married Ethel A. Glover, 15 June 1898, at Washington, D. C.

Children—      John Glover, born 24 Jan. 1900.

                       Robert Miller, born 16 Aug. 1902.

Residence, 5825 Kimbark Ave., Chicago, 111.

 

Source: Northwestern University. Alumni Record of the College of Liberal Arts, 1903 (Charles B. Atwell ed.). Chicago: Lakeside Press, 1903, p. 225.

____________________________________

 

Henry Rand Hatfield, Accounting: Berkeley and Systemwide

Henry Rand Hatfield was born in Chicago, Illinois, on November 27, 1866, son of Reverend Robert Miller Hatfield and Elizabeth Taft Hatfield; and died on December 25, 1945 in Berkeley, California. He was married to Ethel Adelia Glover in 1898, and is survived by his widow and two children, John Glover Hatfield and Elizabeth Glover, and six grandchildren. A second son, Robert Miller Hatfield, died in 1927 at the age of twenty-five.

Professor Hatfield attended school in Evanston, Illinois and here, in 1884, he entered Northwestern University. After two years of college he withdrew to take employment in a bond house; but five years later he returned to complete work for a bachelor’s degree. Following this he enrolled at the University of Chicago where he received, in 1897, the degree of Ph.D. His chief college interest was in the classics. He studied economics and political science, however, at Northwestern and Chicago and these studies enabled him to accept an instructorship at Washington University, St. Louis, in 1893. In 1898 he was appointed instructor at the University of Chicago. Two years later, at the suggestion of the University but not at its expense, he visited Germany to observe the organization of business teaching in that country. The University of Chicago had established its College of Commerce and Administration in 1898, the same year in which he had joined its staff, and the survey of German practice was undertaken in the interest of this technical program. In 1902 he was appointed assistant professor and dean of the new college, serving until 1904.

His connection with the University of California began in 1904, when he was appointed Associate Professor of Accounting. Five years later, he was appointed Professor of Accounting and Secretary of the College of Commerce. In 1916 his title was changed to Dean of the College of Commerce–a position which he held until 1920. From December, 1915 to June, 1916; from May, 1917 to July, 1918; and from 1920 to 1923, he was Dean, Acting Dean, and Dean of the Faculties. As Dean of the Faculties he served as the principal administrative officer under the President of the University. As Secretary and Dean of the College of Commerce, he was able, during eleven years, to guide the development of the expanding College of Commerce. Emphasis upon sound fundamental training, broad, rather than highly specialized instruction, and insistence upon intellectual discipline were characteristics of his plans. In his capacity as teacher, he conducted classes in geography, economics, banking, international trade, and business organization, as well as in accounting and finance; but after 1917 he confined himself to accounting and finance. Perhaps his greatest interest was in the elementary course in accounting, in his advanced seminars in accounting problems, and in the history of accounting. In all he achieved more than ordinary results.

During World War I Professor Hatfield was on leave from the University of California from July, 1918 to June, 1919. For most of this time he was Director of the Division of Planning and Statistics of the War Industries Board–a responsible position in which his technical competence, his administrative ability, and his skill in establishing friendly relations with his associates, were displayed. After the War Industries Board ceased operations he remained in Washington for a few months as expert with the Advisory Tax Board, discussing the formulation of government policy during the period immediately following the war.

His friends and associates will always remember him as a shrewd, witty, and affectionate person, endowed with a breadth of interest which caused him to be helpful to many people in many ways. This was true of community and church matters to which he gave his time, and of University affairs in which he played a significant and sometimes a very influential role. His permanent reputation will, however, rest upon his contributions to accounting and to the accounting profession.

His contribution to the profession includes organization work of the first quality assisting in the reorganization of the State Board of Accountancy, and in the formation of the California State Society of Certified Accountants soon after he arrived in California. These new or revived institutions introduced new methods into local practice at a time when the morale of California accountants was at its lowest ebb.

His ideas upon accounting were even more significantly expressed in written form. Here his major work was the volume Modern Accounting, published in 1908, repeatedly reprinted, and in 1927 rewritten and enlarged under the title of Accounting, its Principles and Problems. Before 1908, when Modern Accounting was first issued, almost nothing above the level of discussion of technical rules and perfunctory procedures had been written on the subject for many years; Hatfield’s original and systematic discussion has been described as a white light in a previously rather dark landscape. By 1927 the situation had changed somewhat; but his fuller treatment was again welcomed with appreciation and respect, and the later volume has preserved its significance during the following years. In 1938 and 1940 he rounded out his contribution by preparing considered statements of accounting principles in collaboration with other writers.

Besides these major works, Professor Hatfield exerted influence through a long succession of reviews and articles providing selective, constructive, and critical discussion of accounting principles as they were stated and restated in England and in the United States over more than two decades. His concise and vigorous style, his clarity of thought and tinge of humor, and his practice of restricting each article to the consideration of a few points enlarged the impact of his ideas upon the accounting and legal professions for which he wrote.

Finally, and this amounted to more than a diversion in his long career, Professor Hatfield maintained a consistent interest in the history of his subject, which resulted in the accumulation of a substantial body of little-known material and in the publication of many articles. In this work he benefited from the classical training of his early days. It is probably safe to say that he was the best informed scholar on the history of accounting in the United States and perhaps in any country. His persistent historical studies and his sound general knowledge enabled him to trace the beginnings of practice and of theories upon which modern systems have been built. It is a loss to economic and to cultural history that the fruits of his research were never gathered together and comprehensively set forth.

Professor Hatfield, at one time or another, was president of the American Association of University Instructors in Accounting, vice president of the American Economic Association, delegate of the United States Government to the International Congress on Commercial Education, and Honorary Member of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants. From 1923 to 1928 he was Senator of Phi Beta Kappa. In 1928 Beta Alpha Psi, the national accounting fraternity, gave him an award for the most outstanding contribution to the literature of accountancy for that year. He was Dickinson lecturer at Harvard in 1942. He received the LL.D. degree from Northwestern University in 1923 and from the University of California in 1940. In conferring this last degree President Sproul referred to him as a “constant champion of the logical approach, the sane view, and the clear disclosure of the essential facts of goods and proprietorship; discoverer of scientific principles and sound philosophy in a field obscured by dogma and convention; one able to find life and even humor in the dust of ledgers.” The essential modesty of the man was a quality which endeared him to his friends, but it will be pleasant to remember that he received during his life some of the recognition which he so richly deserved.

Academic Senate Committee Stuart Daggett Ira B. Cross Lucy Ward Stebbins

 

Source: 1945, University of California: In Memoriam, pp. 98-102.

 

Image Source: Website Berkeley Heritage, Henry Rand Hatfield house (Berkeley’s Northside), 2695 Le Conte Ave. at La Loma, 1908.

 

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. Wesley C. Mitchell’s Methodological Thoughts, 1928.

The following excerpts from a typed copy of a letter from Wesley C. Mitchell to John Maurice Clark dated August 9, 1928 come from Mitchell’s papers with a hand-written note at the top of the first page, “Revised Feb 11, 1929”. The copy was made by Clark and perhaps given to Mitchell for further comment.

Mitchell begins with a longish response to a question posed by Clark regarding Mitchell’s own professional revealed preference for empirical investigation. This is followed by shorter responses to questions about the origin of his interest in business cycles, the relationship of “analytical description” to “causal theory”, and finally Mitchell’s confessed own perceived shortcomings in the use of statistical techniques for trend and seasonal analysis.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

Letter from Wesley C. Mitchell to John Maurice Clark
9 August 1928 (excerpt)

[…]

            Concerning the inclination you note to prefer concrete problems and methods to abstract ones, my hypothesis is that it got started, perhaps manifested itself would be more accurate, in childish theological discussions with my grand aunt. She was the best of Baptists, and knew exactly how the Lord had planned the world. God is love; he planned salvation; he ordained immersion; his immutable word left no doubt about the inevitable fate of those who did not walk in the path he had marked. Hell is no stain upon his honor, no inconsistency with love.—I adored the logic and thought my grand aunt flinched unworthily when she expressed hopes that some back-stairs method might be found of saving from everlasting flame the ninety and nine who are not properly baptized. But I also read the Bible and began to cherish private opinions about the character of the potentate in Heaven. Also I observed that his followers on earth did not seem to get what was promised them here and now. I developed an impish delight in dressing up logical difficulties which my grand aunt could not dispose of. She always slipped back into the logical scheme, and blinked the facts in which I came to take a proprietary interest.

I suppose there is nothing better as a teething-ring for a child who likes logic in the garden variety of Christian theology. I cut my eye-teeth on it with gusto and had not entirely lost interest in that exercise when I went to college.

There I began studying philosophy and economics about the same time. I found no difficulty in grasping the differences between the great philosophical systems as they were presented by our text-books and our teachers. Economic theory was easier still. Indeed, I thought the successive systems of economics were rather crude affairs compared with the subtleties of the metaphysicians. Having run the gamut from Plato to T. H. Green (as undergraduates do) I felt the gamut from Quesnay to Marshall was a minor theme. The technical part of the theory was easy. Give me premises and I could spin speculations by the yard. Also I knew that my “deductions” were futile. It seemed to me that people who took seriously the sort of articles which were then appearing in the Q.J.E. might have a better time if they went in for metaphysics proper.

Meanwhile I was finding something really interesting in philosophy and in economics. John Dewey was giving courses under all sorts of titles and every one of them dealt with the same problem – how we think. I was fascinated by his view of the place which logic holds in human behavior. It explained the economic theorists. The thing to do was to find out how they came to attack certain problems; why they took certain premises as a matter of course; why they did not consider all the permutations and variance of those problems which were logically possible; why their contemporaries thought their conclusions were significant. And, if one wanted to try his own hand at constructive theorizing, Dewey’s notion pointed the way. It is a misconception to suppose that consumers guide their course by ratiocination – they don’t think except under stress. There is no way of deducing from certain principles what they will do, just because their behavior is not itself rational. One has to find out what they do. That is a matter of observation, which the economic theorist had taken all too lightly. Economic theory became a fascinating subject – the orthodox types particularly – when one began to take the mental operations of the theorists as the problem, instead of taking their theories seriously.

Of course Veblen fit fitted perfectly into this set of notions. What drew me to him was his artistic side. I had a weakness for paradoxes – Hell set up by the God of love. But Veblen was a master developing beautiful subtleties, while I was a tyro emphasizing the obvious. He did have such a good time with the theory of the leisure class and then with the preconceptions of economic theory! And the economists reacted with such bewildered soberness! There was a man who really could play with ideas! If one wanted to indulge in the game of spinning theories who could match his skill and humor? But if anything were needed to convince me that the standard procedure of orthodox economics could meet no scientific tests, it was that Veblen got nothing more certain by his dazzling performances with another set of premises. His working conceptions of human nature might be a vast improvement; he might have uncanny insights; but he could do no more than make certain conclusions plausible – like the rest. How important were the factors he dealt with and the factors he scamped was never established.

That was a sort of problem which was beginning to concern me. William Hill set me a course paper on “Wool Growing and the Tariff.” I read a lot of the tariff speeches and got a new side-light on the uses to which economic theory is adapted, and the ease with which it is brushed aside on occasion. Also I wanted to find out what really had happened to wool growers as a result of protection. The obvious thing to do was to collect and analyze the statistical data. If at the end I had demonstrated no clear-cut conclusion, I at least knew how superficial were the notions of the gentlemen who merely debated the tariff issue, whether in Congress or in academic quarters. That was my first “investigation” – I did it in the way which seemed obvious, following up the available materials as far as I could, and reporting what I found to be the “facts.” It’s not easy to see how any student assigned this topic could do much with it in any other way.

A brief introduction to English economic history by A. C. Miller, and unsystematic readings in anthropology instigated by Veblen reinforced the impressions I was getting from other sources. Everything Dewey was saying about how we think, and when we think, made these fresh material significant, and got fresh significance itself. Men had always deluded themselves, it appeared, with strictly logical accounts of the world and their own origin; they had always fabricated theories for their spiritual comfort and practical guidance which ran far beyond the realm of fact without straining their powers of belief. My grand aunt’s theology; Plato and Quesnay; Kant, Ricardo and Karl Marx; Cairnes and Jevons, even Marshall were much of a piece. Each system was tolerably self-consistent – as if that were a test of “truth”! There were realms in which speculation on the basis of assumed premises achieved real wonders; but they were realms in which one began frankly by cutting loose from the phenomena can observe. And the results were enormously useful. But that way of thinking seem to get good results only with reference to the simplest of problems, such as numbers and spatial relations yet men practice this type of thinking with reference to all types of problems which could not be treated readily on a matter-of-fact basis – creation, God, “just” prices in the middle ages, the Wealth of Nations in Adam Smith’s time, the distribution of incomes in Ricardo’s generation, the theory of equilibrium in my own day.

There seem to be one way of making real progress, slow, very slow, but tolerably sure. That was the way of natural science. I really knew nothing of science and had enormous respect for its achievements. Not the Darwinian type of speculation which was then so much in the ascendant – that was another piece of theology. But chemistry and physics. They had been built up not in grand systems like soap bubbles; but by patient processes of observation and testing – always critical testing – of the relations between the working hypotheses and the processes observed. There was plenty of need for rigorous thinking, indeed of thinking more precise than Ricardo achieved; but the place for it was inside the investigation so to speak – the place that mathematics occupied in physics as an indispensable tool. The problems one could really do something with in economics were problems in which speculation could be controlled.

That’s the best account I can give offhand of my predilection for the concrete. Of course it seems to me rather a predilection for problems one can treat with some approach to scientific method. The abstract is to be made use of it every turn, as a handmaiden to help hew the wood and draw the water. I loved romances – particularly William Morris’ tales of lands that never were – and utopias, and economic systems, of which your father’s when I came to know it seemed the most beautiful; but these were objects of art, and I was a work man who wanted to become a scientific worker, who might enjoy the visions which we see in mountain mists but who trusted only what we see in the light of common day.

* * * *

            Besides the spice of rationalizing which doubtless vitiates my recollections – uncontrolled recollections at that – this account worries me by the time it is taking, yours as well as mine. I’ll try to answer the other questions concisely.

Business cycles turned up as a problem in the course of the studies which I began with Laughlin. My first book on the greenbacks dealt only with the years of rapid depreciation and spasmodic war-time reaction. I knew that I had not gotten to the bottom of the problems and wanted to go on. So I compiled that frightful second book as an apparatus for a more thorough analysis. By the time it was finished I had learned to see the problem in a larger way. Veblen’s paper on “Industrial and Pecuniary Employments” had a good deal to do with opening my eyes. Presently I found myself working on the system of prices and its place in modern economic life. Then I got hold of Simmel’s Theorie des Geldes – a fascinating book. But Simmel, no more than Veblen, knew the relative importance of the factors he was working with. My manuscript grew – it lies unpublished to this day. As it grew in size it became more speculative. I was working away from any solid foundation – having a good time, but sliding gaily over abysses I had not explored. One of the most formidable was the recurring readjustments of prices, which economists treated apart from their general theories of value, under the capitation “Crises.” I had to look into the problem. It proved to be susceptible of attack by methods which I thought reliable. The result was the big California monograph. I thought of it as an introduction to economic theory.

* * * *

            This conception is responsible for the chapter on “Modern Economic Organization.” I don’t remember precisely at what stage the need of such a discussion dawned upon me. But I have to do everything a dozen times. Doubtless I wrote parts of that chapter fairly early in other parts late as I found omissions in the light of the chapters on “The Rhythm of Business Activity.” Of course, I put nothing in which did not seem to me strictly pertinent to the understanding of the processes with which the volume dealt. That I did not cover the field very intelligently, even from my own viewpoint, appears from a comparison of the books published in 1913 and 1927. Doubtless before I am done with my current volume, I shall be passing a similar verdict upon the chapter as I left it last year.

* * * *

            As to the relation between my analytic description and “causal” theory I have no clear ideas – though I might develop some at need. To me it seems that I tried to follow through the inter-lacing processes involved in business expansion and contraction by the aid of everything I know, checking my speculations just as far as I can buy the data of observation. Among the things I “know” are the way in which economic activity is organized in business enterprises, and the way these enterprises are conducted for money profits. But that is not a simple matter which enables me to deduce certain results – or rather, to deduce results with certainty. There is much in the workings of business technique which I should never think of if I were not always turning back to observation. And I should not trust even my reasoning about what business men will do if I could not check it up. Some unverifiable suggestions do emerge; but I hope it is always clear that they are unverified. Very likely what I try to do is merely carrying out the requirements of John Stuart Mill’s “complete method.” But there is a great deal more passing back and forth between hypotheses and observation, each modifying and enriching the other, than I seem to remember in Mill’s version. Perhaps I do him injustice as a logician through default of memory; but I don’t think I do classical economics injustice when I say that it erred sadly in trying to think out a deductive scheme and then talked of verifying that. Until science has gotten to the stage of elaborating the details of an established body of theory – say finding a planet from the aberrations of orbits, or filling a gap in the table of elements – it is rash to suppose one can get an hypothesis which stands much chance of holding good except from a process of attempted verification, modification, fresh observation, and so on. (Of course, there is a good deal of commerce between most economic theorizing and personal observation of an irregular sort – that is what has given our theories their considerable measure of significance. But I must not go off into that issue.)

* * * *

           […] when writing the first book about business cycles I seem to have had no clear ideas about secular trends. The term does not appear to occur in the index. Seasonal variations appear to be mentioned only in connection with interest rates. Of course certain rough notions along these lines may be inferred; but not such definite ideas as would safeguard me against the errors you point out. What makes matters worse for me, I was behind the times in this respect. J. P. Norton’s Statistical Studies in the New York Money Market had come out in 1902. I ought to have known and make use made use of his work.

That is only one of several serious blemishes upon the statistical work in my 1913 volume. After Hourwich left Chicago, and that was before I got deep into economics, no courses were given on statistics in my time. I was blissfully ignorant of everything except the simplest devices. To this day I have remained an awkward amateur, always ready to invent some crude scheme for looking into anything I want to know about, and quite likely to be betrayed by my own apparatus. I shall die in the same sad state.

 

[…]

Ever yours,
Wesley C. Mitchell.
(Copy by J.M.C.)

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Wesley Clair Mitchell Collection, Box 8 “Ch-Ec”, Folder “Clark, John Maurice: v.p., 8 Apr 1926 & 21 Apr 1927. To Wesley C. Mitchell 2 a.l.s. (with related material)”.

Image Source: Foundation for the Study of Cycles.

Categories
Berkeley Columbia Economists

Columbia Ph.D. and Berkeley Professor, Charles Adams Gulick

In his review essay on Alexander Gerschenkron’s Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Albert Fishlow wrote: “a decisive point in [Gerschenkron’s] career, was the invitation from Charles Gulick, a Berkeley professor whom he had earlier helped in his research in Austria, to come to the United States. His acceptance marked the real beginning of his academic career that subsequently was to flourish over the rest of his life.”

Besides being the scholar who brought Gerschenkron to the U.S., Charles Adams Gulick had a life-long research interest in labor policy from his 1924 Columbia Ph.D. dissertation to the international bibliography on labor movements linked below. His two-volume work Austria From Habsburg to Hitler (1948), into which flowed some 12 months of intensive research and writing input from Alexander Gerschenkron, was “the great achievement of his scholarly career” according to the memorial note reproduced below.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

History and Theories of Working-Class Movements: A Select Bibliography. Compiled by Charles A. Gulick, Roy A. Ockert and Raymond J. Wallace. Bureau of Business and Economic Research and Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley, 1955. 392 pages.

______________________________

 

Charles Adams Gulick, Economics: Berkeley
1896-1984
Professor Emeritus

Charles Gulick was born and raised in Texas and had all his schooling there through the M.A. degree. The Texas influence on his speech and certain mannerisms of expression remained with him all his life. Certainly at the University of Texas he acquired key elements of his life-long economic and social philosophy. It was the Progressive era and he became committed to central themes of that movement–that the great aggregations of power must be controlled and humanized and that a larger measure of social justice must be won for the less privileged members of society. Not surprisingly, his first monograph, published in 1920 when he was 24, was on the subject, Open Shop vs. Closed Shop.

Having majored in modern European history for the B.A. and M.A. degrees in Texas, he moved to Columbia University to major in economics for the Ph.D., awarded in 1924. At Columbia, he became strongly influenced by the ideas and interests of Professor Henry Seager, a leading academic writer on the widely debated issue of what to do about the power of the large, rapidly growing industrial and financial corporations commonly known as trusts. Combining his growing interest in labor subjects with his interest in trust problems, Gulick’s doctoral dissertation was published as Labor Policy of the U.S. Steel Corporation. While serving as an instructor in Economics at Columbia, he continued to work with Seager and later co-authored with him a large volume on Trust and Corporation Problems. He also edited a volume of Seager’s essays.

Gulick joined the faculty of the Berkeley Department of Economics in 1926, where he served until his retirement in 1963. It was in the course of a trip to Germany for research purposes in 1930 that he almost by accident paid a visit to Vienna and acquired the interest in Austria that led him eventually to the great achievement of his scholarly career, Austria From Habsburg to Hitler, published in 1948 in two volumes running to 1900 pages. The sub-titles that Gulick gave the two volumes, “Labor’s Workshop of Democracy” and “Fascism’s Subversion of Democracy,” are expressive of the book’s major themes and of his twin interests in the contributions labor movements can make to democratic society and in the anti-democratic forces that citizens of democracies must continuously fight against. The German translation of this work was published in Vienna in 1950 and immediately won a large readership and wide acclaim. In the same year, the city of Vienna awarded Gulick a prize for “distinguished achievement in moral sciences,” an honor not ordinarily accorded to non-Austrians. In the years since, the book has continued to be esteemed as one of the authoritative accounts of the first Austrian republic and in 1972 the President of Austria presented a gold medal to Gulick for “Services to the Republic.” A somewhat abbreviated German-language edition of the book was published in Austria in 1976 and a new printing of the original English edition was issued in 1980. In keeping with his long preoccupation with the fortunes of the labor movement and democracy in Austria, most of the articles he contributed to academic journals dealt with labor questions or political issues in that country.

While Gulick served conscientiously on a variety of Academic Senate and administrative committees, his primary campus interest was in teaching and working with students, and many generations of undergraduate and graduate students knew Gulick as a dedicated teacher and adviser and as a friend and supporter. He was generous of his time in meeting with individuals and with groups of students. He also felt a responsibility to help improve student writing. It was perhaps prophetic that his first academic appointment as a graduate student in Texas was as Tutor in English. He became widely known among his students for his practice of sprinkling the pages of their papers with notations or corrections concerning spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation, and inaccurate quotations. He even enlisted his wife’s assistance in this work. He regularly held seminars in his home and he and his wife entertained students on many other occasions. It was appealing to students to find that Gulick shared many of their ideals for a good society and that he could voice in colorful language many of their criticisms of current social ills. An illustration of his outspokenness is his title for an article he wrote for a Vienna magazine after Ronald Reagan’s first election as governor of California, “The Political Landslide in California: Mass Lunacy, Fear and Hate.”

Charles Gulick died on August 27, 1984, leaving his wife, Esther, a daughter, two grandsons, and two great granddaughters.

Van Dusen Kennedy / Clark Kerr / Lloyd Ulman

 

Source: University of California History Digital Archives. University of California: In Memoriam, 1985, pp. 164-65.

Image Source: The Blue and Gold, 1922. University of California Yearbook.