Categories
Columbia Exam Questions

Columbia. Exam Questions for Economics Ph.D. Candidates, 1949

After reading this examination that provides prospective candidates ample opportunity to tailor their examinations to their own course work and interests, one cannot help but conclude that the examination was not intended to test mastery of a common core nor a familiarity with a wide-range of economics. Maybe the explanation is that this is merely the reflection of a committee of individuals too polite to insist on cutting questions outside of one’s own specialization yet too stubborn to allow cuts either.

Perhaps you would like to leave in the comments the list of five questions you would choose to answer (assuming that you are eager to maximize your grade on this exam). 

I’ll go first: (5, 8, 16, 22, 26).

Your turn! (Scroll down the page to add comment)

__________________________________

EXAMINATION
for
PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D. IN ECONOMICS

(May 7, 1949, 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.)

Questions on Specific Areas of Economic Study

Answer any FIVE but NOT MORE THAN FIVE questions.

A. Write all answers legibly in ink or on a typewriter.
B. Begin each question on a fresh sheet of paper. Write your name on all sheets used.
C. Be as specific as the question permits.
D. Be sure that your statements are relevant to the question.
E. Allow yourself time to reread your answers before handing in the sheets.

__________________________________

  1. What part do psychological and technological factors play in the propagation of business cycles?
  2. Is there a need for a separate theory of international trade, and if so, on what grounds?
  3. Some writers attribute the dollar shortage to the greater increase of productivity in the United States as compared to the rest of the world (including, particularly Western Europe). What do you think of this explanation?
  4. Discuss the origins of money (a) as means of payment, and (b) as means of exchange.
  5. Describe the present distribution of powers, among the various agencies concerned, over the American currency and commercial banking systems. In particular, who determines the volume of “money”?
  6. Describe and appraise both the theoretical and the historical arguments for the “stagnation” thesis.
  7. Discuss the main trends in Soviet foreign trade under the pre-war five-year plans.
  8. To what extent is the predominance of agriculture in the productive activities of a country correlated with a low level of income? Explain the relation between the level of income and the importance of agriculture.
  9. Explain the principal influences affecting the amount of capital in different countries.
  10. What was the role of fiscal policy in mercantilism?
  11. Give a critique of the role of marginalism in John R. Commons’ institutional economics.
  12. Discuss the place of the Most-Favored-Nation Clause in the French Commercial Policy in connection with the tariff legislation of 1892 and of 1919.
  13. Give an account of the organization of labor on the Soviet collective farm.
  14. Comment on the methods and conclusions of Seligman’s “Shifting and Incidence” in the light of recent developments in the field of economic analysis.
  15. Discuss the probably future role of “benefit taxation” in the light of prevailing trends of fiscal policy.
  16. Suppose that list prices of new automobiles had been raised by 15% above actual levels prevailing in 1946. What would have been the effect on used car prices?
  17. “There is a disposition on the part of the judiciary to emphasize the compensation of the injured person rather than the punishment of the guilty one.” Outline three major features of the workmen’s compensation laws that justify this generalization. Discuss one important exception.
  18. “The expanding commercial interests of the merchant capitalists of the New England colonies came into conflict with the great capitalistic interest of British West Indian sugar.”….”On the contrary, these two interests were not competitive but essentially complementary.” Write a careful statement of the problem raised by these two conflicting assertions.
  19. Assume that you were a capitalist in 1830 with money to invest in manufacturing either in Great Britain or in the United States. Indicate the considerations (other than patriotism) that you would have weighed in choosing between the two countries for your investment.
  20. What is the “parity” concept as it applies to agricultural prices? Discuss the implications, for economic processes at large, of the application of price parity to agricultural commodities, and give your appraisal of the parity program.
  21. Discuss the changes that have occurred in the United States since the First World War, in the volume and character of production and in productivity. What effect, if any, may these changes be expected to have on the operating characteristics of the American economy and on the problems involved in maintaining full employment?
  22. Explain how statistical evidence may be used in applying tests of significance in economic research. What is the logical justification of such tests? What constitutes “verification” or “proof” in scientific inquiry?
  23. In public utility rate making, how my one distinguish between differences in rates for various types of service that are “discriminatory,” and differences that are “non-discriminatory”?
  24. Distinguish between the capitalization (security structure) of (a) a typical manufacturing corporation, (b) a typical electrical utility company, and (c) a typical railroad company.
  25. Discuss the merits of the contention that, in the determination of the net income of a business enterprise, the allowance for depreciation should be based on the replacement cost of the depreciating asset rather than on original cost.
  26. “Wages are governed by the marginal productivity of labor.” Explain as specifically as possible what this means, in operational terms. Do you consider the statement valid?
  27. Assuming an industry consisting of a limited number of large producers selling a standardized product. Is it possible to construct a theory which will define the level to which price will naturally tend? Indicate one or more answers which have been given to this problem, and problems involved with respect to assumptions used.
  28. In what practical ways did the Wagner Act contribute to the growth of American unions since 1935?
  29. In what respect and why does the Taft Harley Act change the status of foremen in American labor law?

 

Source: Columbia University Library, Manuscript Collections. Albert Gailord Hart Collection. Box 62: “Teaching Materials 4. Columbia University.” Folder: Label “TEACHING Sec 4: Col Univ Ec 103/4 MICRO: EXAMS”.

Image Source: Alma mater before the old library of Columbia University from Historic Preservation Education Foundation.

Categories
Columbia Courses Exam Questions Suggested Reading Syllabus

Columbia. Core Economic Theory. Hart, 1946-47

Up through the academic year 1945-46, Arthur F. Burns offered the first core economic theory course, Economic Analysis (Economics 153-154), in the Columbia graduate program. The following year, 1946-47, the course was taught by the visiting professor of economics (who would be offered and accepted a regular appointment that same year), Albert G. Hart. In 1947-48 Economic Analysis was given a new course number, Economics 103-104, and taught in three sections by Hart, Stigler, Vickrey.
From Hart’s materials for Economic Analysis (1946-1947), I provide below transcriptions of “Introductory Notes” along with the “Prospectus and Background” and the “Outline of Economics 153—154” that includes reading assignments from a 92 page set of typed course notes. Midterms and final semester exams have been appended to this posting.

 

Introductory Notes

Prospectus and Background

Outline of Economics 153-154

Midterm exam, ca. late November 1946

First term final examination, January 21, 1947

Midterm exam, April 14, 1947

Final examination, May 22, 1947

_____________________________

*Economics 153-154—Economic Analysis. 3 points each session. Professor Hart.

M. and W. at 10. 301 Fayerweather.

Character, uses, and limitations of received economic theory. “Equilibrium” of economic units, markets, and clusters of markets; “process analysis.” Translation of policy problems into questions of theory, and of theory problems into questions of fact.

*Designed primarily for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics.

 

 

Economics 159—160—Economic Theory. 3 points each session. Mr. Vickrey.

Tu. and Th. at 9. 301 Fayerweather.

A systematic course in neoclassical economics, designed to prepare students for more advanced studies. Emphasis is placed on economic theory as a tool for analyzing economic changes.

[Note that Vickrey was listed in the Bulletin of Information that announced the courses for 1946-47. From the January 1947 examination below it is clear that Stigler taught either an additional section of Economics 153 or he taught Economics 159 instead of Vickrey in the autumn 1946 term. In any event the next year found all three (Hart, Stigler and Vickrey) teaching separate sections of the new core theory course, Economics 103-104.]

 

Source.   Columbia University Bulletin of Information, 46th Series, No. 37 (August 10, 1946). History, Economics, Public Law, Sociology, and Anthropology: Courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science (Winter and Spring Sessions, 1946-1947),p. 40-41.

 

_____________________________

 

Economics 153-154
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Outline

A. G. Hart, October 15, 1946

Economics 153—i
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Introductory Notes

The attached outline is aimed to clarify the general structure of the 153-143 course. Note that the topical outline becomes increasingly vague as to reading assignments toward the latter part of the course; this will be filled in later, as I get the feel of the class’s effective reading pace and as I improve my forecast of the time-table.

 

Arrangement of Outline

By way of orientation, the topical outline has been carried clear through to May. The detailed sentence outline, however, is brought only up to the current date; “to be continued”.

The sentence outline is intended to serve as at least a partial substitute for classroom notes. It is based on the notes from which I speak in class, and aims to carry the main thread of the argument. My own experience as a graduate student was that trying to get detailed notes interfered with thinking things through in classes; and I want to put the class in a position where class notes can be somewhat sketchy. If facilities can be managed, I hope at least part of the time to be able to give out installments of the sentence outline in advance, to maximize the extent to which I can accept interruptions in class without losing the thread.

From time to time there will be written exercises, supplementary reading suggestions, etc.

 

Why This Sequence of Topics?

The organization of the material is intended to minimize the chief normal learning-difficulty of economic theory, which arises from having to carry seemingly unrelated pieces of analysis some time in separate packages before they fit together. I am trying by my first and second “approximations” to keep the various special topics continuously in perspective; to fit in each piece almost as soon as it is developed; and to avoid carrying forward excess baggage in the way of gadgets which later prove useless.

The “first and second approximations” should not be identified with either “statics and dynamics” or “perfect and imperfect competition”. In my view, the best stopping-place for a first approximation is a good way short of a full account of “statics”; in particular, it leaves out a good many institutional insights which can be handled after a fashion in “static” terms. The “second approximation”, needless to say, will stop a good deal short of a well-rounded account of “economic dynamics”—for the very good reason that a satisfactory “dynamics” is not yet worked out. As to imperfect competition, some elements of the subject go into the first approximation; and a good many, to my taste, classify as useless gadgets and go out altogether.

 

Acquaintance with Authors

It is not a primary objective of the course to acquaint students with authors. But part of the process of learning theoretical analysis is to observe the theoretical frameworks set up by a few of the masters. The reading list will give the elements of the point of view of Marshall, Keynes, Hicks, Stigler or Boulding, and one aspect of the thinking of Lange; Fisher, Knight, Pigou and J. M. Clark will be represented only by fragments, and many other important writers not at all. The foregoing constitutes a minimum list of theorists whose mark should be represented in an economist’s bookshelf.

 

____________________________________

 

PROSPECTUS AND BACKGROUND

 

I. Conceptions of the Course. I propose to treat economic theory not as an auxiliary to the economist’s work (like statistical method), but as the core of economics.

A. It is tempting to think of economics as composed of two classes of sub-fields: subject-matter fields (money, international trade, labor, etc.) relating to particular sets of institutions and their working: tools (theory, statistics, history, perhaps law).
B. Theory has a claim to be the distinctive feature by which economics can be identified.
C. In essence, theory is a systematic check list of questions: an economist is one who knows the questions.
D. The course aims at coverage (an “advanced principles”) rather than at maximum proficiency on a small number of topics.
E. I refuse to accept the view that theoretical and institutional approaches are competitive:

1. Neither type of knowledge of economics makes the other dispensable.
2. Each type of knowledge contributes to the applicability of the other.

 

II. Content of Economic Theory. Economic theory is a way of dealing with economic quantities; but it deals also with people and social groups.

A. Considering that economics purports to be a social science, it is astounding how far it turns out to operate by manipulation of abstract quantitative symbols.
B. The human side of economics comes in through the choice of hypotheses; but the central questions economics asks about people are quantitative.
C. In general, economic theory deals with choice among alternatives; with substitution of one means to an end for others; and with compromises among partially conflicting goals by maximizing something. It has to criticize goals themselves, with an eye on the degree to which goals are set to make the game interesting.
D. The quantities with which economics deals are in the first instance events (final services, productive services, transactions). “Goods” turn out to be “bundles of services”: wealth has the dimensions rate-of-service X time.

 

III. Plan of the Course. The course is planned as a “spiral” progression across a wide range of topics:

A. Its first stage is an analysis of national income and product, following Hicks.
B. Beyond that stage, analysis will run in terms of:

1. The economic unit (firm or household)
2. Markets as inter-relations of units
3. Unemployment and fluctuations
4. “Welfare economics”

C. In the second stage, these four problems will be considered in “Statics”—i.e., they are carried up to the point at which anticipations and uncertainty take on importance, but not further. The idea is to postpone refinement of analysis till after looking at the theorist’s concept of a “system of economics”.
D. In the third stage, elements of uncertainty will be brought to the surface, and the more general theoretical consequences of institutionalist insights not recognized in the second stage will be drawn.
E. In view of numbers, class meetings cannot be conducted primarily as discussions; but I shall welcome questions and argument, and hope to provide much of the benefit of discussion via written assignments and conferences. Student reliance must be largely on learning cooperatively.

IV. Economics as a Field. The field of economics deserves the best of human intelligence; and the profession is one in which its members can take pride.

A. The critical importance of economics is visible in the policy field: whether or not our society cracks up depends largely on whether a minimum of wisdom (or good luck) guides our economic policy.
B. Waiving the question whether economics is “a science”, it is a field in which it takes a great deal of mental power, and a heroic effort to correct biases, to make major contributions.
C. Economics has its weaknesses and its record of failures (though nothing like as black a record as the public may think); but its professional standards deserve respect, and its prospects seem hopeful.

 

____________________________________

 

AGH—10/9/46

OUTLINE FOR ECONOMICS 153-154

[PART I]

I. Introduction. (Sept. 30-Oct. 2: 2 hours)

Required:

Hicks and Hart, Social Framework of American Economy, Chapter 1

Suggested Supplements:

Stigler, Economics of Price, Chapter 1

 

II. The Economic Process. (National Income and Output: Oct. 7, 9, 16: 3 hours)

Required:

Hicks and Hart, Parts I and IV; over II-III lightly.

Suggested Supplements:

F. H. Knight, teaching materials reproduced from Social Science II Syllabus (Univ. of Chicago Bookstore)

[PART II]

III. The Economic Unit: schematic view

A. The Firm and Costs (Oct. 18, 23, 25, perhaps 30: 3 to 1 hours hours)

Required:

Option:
Stigler, Chapters 7-9; 1st Section of Chapter 10 or
Boulding, Economic Analysis, Chapters 22-23, followed by 21

B. The Household (perhaps October 30; Nov. 4, 6, 11, 13,18, perhaps 20: 5 to 7 hours)

Required:

Option:
Stigler, Chapter V, or Boulding, chapters 29-30,
Hicks, Value and Capital, Chapters I-II
Marshall, Book III
Hicks, Note to Chapter II; Chapter III

 

IV. Inter-Relations of Units: “Markets”, First Approximation

A. Introduction: Interplay of units; aggregation; clearing the market (Oct. 30: 1 hour)

B. Monopoly: One unit versus many. (Nov. 4, 6

Required: Cournot, Chapter V

C. Perfect Competition on inter-related markets: factor markets; “general equilibrium”. (Nov. 18, 20, 25, 27: 3-4 hours)

Required: Cournot, Chapter V

D. Monopoly: One unit versus many. (Nov. 4, 6

Required:

Stigler, Chapter 10
Cassel, Theory of Social Economy
Hicks, Value and Capital, Part II (Chapters IV-VIII)

E. Variations on a Classical Theme: monopolistic competition (Dec. 2, 4, 9, 11: 4 hours)

Required:

Stigler, Part III (Chapters 11-15) (or alternative to be assigned)

Reserve of time: December 16, 18: 2 hours.

F. Inter-temporal and inter-spacial markets. (Jan. 6, 8, 13: 3 hours)

Required:

I. Fisher, or alternative to be assigned.
[Assignment: Irving Fisher, Theory of Interest, pp. 99-149, 178-230 or Rate of Interest, pp. 117-177. If possible, also Theory of Interest,pp. 231-315 or Rate of Interest, pp. 374-415 Cf. Stigler, Ch. 17, and Boulding, Ch. 33.]

Reserve of time: January 15: 1 hour.

 

V. Welfare Economics—First Approximation: (Feb. 3, 5, 10, 12: about 4 hours)

Losses through unemployment and through inefficient use of employed resources; equalization of returns at the margin as welfare criterion; system-wide external economies; inequality and incentives; substantial identity of welfare economics for capitalist and socialist economies.

Readings: Lange on Socialism; Lerner; Robbins-Kaldor-Hicks journal discussion; Simons.

[Marshall, Principles, Book V, Ch. XIII (pp. 462-476
A.P. Lerner, Economics of Control, pp. 1-105
O. Lange, Economics of Socialism (with Lippincott and Taylor; Lange essay) or “On the Economic Theory of Socialism”, Rev. Ec. Studies, Oct. 1936, pp. 53-71, and Feb., 1937, pp. 123-142
H. C. Simons, Positive Program for Laissez-Faire
L. Robbins, “Interpersonal Comparisons”, Econ. Jour., Dec., 1938, pp. 635-641
N. Kaldor, “Welfare Propositions” Ibid., Sept., 1939, pp. 549-552
D. H. Robertson, “Wage Grumbles” in Readings in Theory of Income Distribution, pp. 221-236
]

 

VI. Unemployment Fluctuations—First Approximation (Feb. 17, 19, 21, 26: about 4 hours)

Effects of general inadequacy of demand with limited price flexibility; “propensities” to save, invest, as influenced by government budgets, foreign trade, money, etc.; basis for expecting fluctuations in demand; the prescription of “Flexibility”.

 

Readings: Keynes, Lerner, NPA, A. F. Burns

[A. P. Lerner, Economics of Control, Chapters 22-23 (pp. 271-301)
Gardiner C. Means, Monetary Theory of Employment, Chapters V-VI (mimeographs; on reserve)
National Planning Association, National Budgets for Full Employment (pamphlet, Washington, 1945)

Additional stuff if time:

J. M. Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Books III-IV (pp. 89-254)
A. F. Burns, Economic Research and the Keynesian Thinking of Our Times (New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1946) pp. 3-29
Oscar Lange, Price Flexibility and Employment, Bloomington, Indiana, 1944

(following mentioned with regard to use of numerical Keynesian models for forecasting)

Nicholas Kaldor in Beveridge’s Full Employment in a Free Society, Smithies and Mosak in Econometrica, for critical discussion cf., the 1945-1946 volumes of American Economic Review]

 

PART III: FIRST STEPS TOWARD REALISM

VII. The Unit—Second Approximation (March 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19: about 6 hours)

Imperfect access to markets; anticipations and planning; uncertainty, flexibility and liquidity; qualifications to first approximation arising from fact unit is social group; “just prices”, confederations of units and price rigidity.

Readings: Knight, Hart, Keynes, Hicks, Berle and Means;_______________]

[Assignment:
Hicks, Value and Capital, Chapters IX-X; XIV-XVIII (pp. 113-140, 171-236)
Hart, Anticipations, Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning (Chicago, 1940)
Means, Monetary Theory of Employment (mimeo) Chapter V.
Ad lib., A. A. Berle and G. C. Means, Modern Corporation and Private Property]

 

VIII. Markets—Second Approximation (March 24, 26; Apr. 7, 9: about 4 hours)

Gradations of price rigidity; imperfect clearing of markets; peculiarities of markets for productive services, perishables and durables; consistency, and inconsistency of expectations and locus of surprises; unintended saving and investment; differences of opinion and speculation.

Readings: Lindahl, Hicks, Keynes;_________________________

[Assignment:
Means, Monetary Theory of Employment (mimeo), Chapter VI.
E. Lindahl, Money and Capital, pp. 21-69
Mentioned with respect to “locus of surprises”: Hart, AER, Supplement, March 1938 and Rev. Econ. Stat., May, 1937 “of a sketch by Lindahl mimeographed in 1934).]

 

IX. Unemployment and Fluctuations—Second Approximation (April 16, 18, 23, 25: about 1 hour)

Uses and limitations of “modes”; uncertainty and interest; “stagnations”; inevitability of fluctuations in major comments; the policy issues.

Readings: To be worked out.

[For details and bibliography see National Planning Association, National Budgets for Full Employment and Hart and Mosak in AER, 1945-46.]

 

X. Welfare Economics—Second Approximation (May 5, 7, 12, 14: about 4 hours)

The economists’ struggle against proposals to enable groups to “earn” more by producing less; “social justice”; economic warfare within the nation and conditions of disarmament; adaptation of economic policy to social structure; role of reason in contemporary society.

Readings: To be worked out.

Reserve of time: Nil! Whence it becomes urgent to jam V into January if possible, pushing all of IV back before Christmas. By bet is that this can’t be done, however, and that in consequence Part III (especially VIII) must be skimped.

 

____________________________________

 

ECONOMICS 153

[Undated but would fit into syllabus between Sections III and IV in November 1946]

Answer 4 questions:

1) What is Marshall’s theory of demand? In what direction has this theory been extended by modern research? What problems in demand theory deserve, in your judgment, the greatest attention in the years ahead? Why?

2) What are indifference curves? What can they contribute to the understanding of consumers’ behavior? To the understanding of producers’ behavior? To pure economic theory?

3) What does a demand curve of unitary elasticity mean? What does an average cost curve of unitary elasticity mean? Is the Marshallian demand curve equivalent to an average revenue curve, an average cost curve, or a marginal revenue curve? Why? Assuming a linear demand curve, indicate the elasticity of demand at ‘critical points’ on this curve. Will farmers benefit more from a short crop than from a bumper crop? Is there any conflict in this respect between the interests of farmers as individuals and as a class?

4)    (a) What, briefly, does the principle of diminishing return mean to Lucretius, Mill, Marshall, Stigler?

(b) Over what range of industry does ‘the’ principle of diminishing return apply? over what range of factors? over what range of output?

(c) What is ‘the’ principle of increasing return and how is it related to ‘the’ principle of diminishing return?

5) (a) Suppose that two factors of production are used in producing a certain commodity, one factor being fixed and the other variable. How much of the variable factor will a producer seeking the least-cost combination use, if the variable factor is free? If the fixed factor is free? if neither factor is free? if the price of both factors is doubled? if the price of the fixed factor is doubled while the price of the variable factor remains unchanged? Explain your answers.

(b) Suppose that both factors may be varied freely and that each costs money. How much of each factor will the producer use? Why?

(c) Same as (b), but suppose the number of factors is ten instead of two.

 

____________________________________

ECONOMICS 153-159

Composite Final Examination
January 21, 1947
306 Mines
1:10—4:00

Answer enough questions to add up to 120 “minutes”. Students in Stigler’s section must include question 1. Do not answer both 1 and 6, nor both 1 and 9.

1. (60 minutes) There are 100 each of A and B farms in a competitive economy. The product schedules of one farm are

Total Product
Number of Laborers A Farm B Farm
1 40 40
2 90 80
3 140 115
4 185 145
5 225 170
6 260 190
7 290 205
8 315 215

i. Determine wages and rents on both types of farms when there are 240 laborers.
ii. Determine wages and rents on both types of farms when there are 900 laborers.
iii. And 910 laborers, no laborer divisible.
iv. With 900 laborers, those on the A farms organize and succeed in setting a wage rate of 40.
v. And then they raise the standard rate to 47.
vi. Congress, dominated by radicals, levies a 20 per cent tax on wages. There are 900 laborers, and full competition.

 

2. (30 minutes) Explain as briefly as possible each of the following statements.

i. For a monopolist, marginal cost is greater than marginal revenue at any output at which the demand is inelastic.
ii. Demand has no influence on the price of the product of a competitive industry that uses no specialized resources.
iii. The elasticity of a straight line demand curve varies from point to point.
iv. The imposition of a license fee does not affect short-run normal price.

 

3. (30 minutes) Write a short essay on utility theory, in one of its variants, taking into account:

i. The need for “going behind” the demand curve to explain observable behavior.
ii. The empirical evidence that supports the utility theory.
iii. The uses, if any, to which the utility theory can be put.

 

4. (15 minutes) Define each of the following concepts and write a brief paragraph on its place in contemporary economic theory:

a) Opportunity cost
b) Economic rent
c) Net profit
d) Consumer’s surplus
e) Marshallian long-run
f) Quasi-rent
g) Factor of production

5. (15 minutes) Explain the difference between the “marginal utility” and “indifference curve” approaches to the theory of consumption, and evaluate the advantages attributed to the latter.

6. (30 minutes) Explain the meaning and implications of “constant returns to scale”, Under constant returns to scale, what is the relation between the amounts of the factors used, their respective marginal productivities, and the total product.
Illustrate the meaning of increasing, constant, diminishing and negative returns to one factor–amounts of other factor being held constant—within the framework of constant returns to scale. In a range where there are increasing returns to one factor, what is implied about returns to other factors?

7. (15 minutes) Give an exposition, illustrated as well as decorated by diagrams, of one of the standard special cases of monopolistic competition theory—such as (a) a price leader “holding up the umbrella” for a fringe of small “independents”; (b) product differentiation with free entry; (c) substitution of selling-cost competition for price competition; (d) cartel with enforceable output quotas but open membership; (e) spatial competition with free entry but tabu on price competition (gasoline stations with fixed per-gallon markup).

8. (15 minutes) Do the same for one other of these cases. DO NOT TREAT MORE THAN TWO ALTOGETHER.

9. (30 minutes) Suppose a perfectly competitive industry, with long-run constant costs, is in long-run equilibrium. Trace adjustment to a new short-run and long-run equilibrium when a tax per unit of output is put into effect unexpectedly but permanently.
What difference will it make if the tax is per unit of input instead (the input affected accounting for, say, ¼ the industry’s costs)?
Where the tax is per unit of output, what difference will it make if the industry is subject to long-run increasing costs?

10. (30 minutes) Suppose a household has its “income” given in kind—in a “commodity X” rather than in “money”. Draw up a diagram with “money” graphed vertically and “X” horizontally, and trace out the loci of accessible combinations of X and money (“opportunity paths” alias “budget lines”) for several different prices of X.
Assuming both X and money to be necessities (in the sense that the household will always prefer a some-of-each combination to any alternative comprising some of one and none of the other), is it possible to draw on this diagram a field of indifference curves so shaped that the points of maximum attainable satisfaction along these opportunity paths will show the household retaining more X (“supplying” less X) at higher prices than at lower prices of X? If so, draw such a field of curves; if not, show geometrically why it cannot be done.
Relate this analysis to the supply by households of agricultural commodities for which overhead costs overshadow variable costs (apples?). To the supply of labor (regarding X as leisure, of which less is retained as more time is devoted to work).

11. (15 minutes) Is the “law of diminishing returns”, construed in terms of variable proportions of inputs, a “law” of engineering, social relations, or individual psychology? (or is it strictly a parlor accomplishment for economists?) Justify your answer.

12. (30 minutes) (a) Economists generally accept a strong presumption that demand curves have a “negative slope”: i.e., that increasing a price reduces the amount demanded. What are the main pieces of evidence by which this presumption can be supported? Do you consider the evidence adequate?
(b) On the supply side, economists feel a much weaker presumption that increasing a price will increase the amount supplied, particularly where many of the suppliers have only one type of commodity (or service) to sell. What are the grounds for this difference in the strength of the presumption?

13. (30 minutes) Describe the Walrasian equations and discuss their significance in relation to the determinateness of the general equilibrium of a simple exchange economy.

14. (15 minutes) Discuss bilateral monopoly (monopolistic seller facing monopsonistic buyer) in relation to the efficiency of the bargaining and exchange process, the determinacy of the general equilibrium, and factors affecting the result.

15. (15 minutes) Distinguish between impatience and marginal time preference as a basis for interest. What other factors besides interest affect the supply of savings and capital?

16. (30 minutes) The following table shows the estimated yearly traffic over a proposed bridge at various rates of toll:

Toll Cars per year
$2.00 None
1.50 1,000,000
1.00 2,000,000
.50 3,000,000
.00 4,000,000

If the bridge can be built at an annual cost of $3,500,000 for interest, depreciation, and repairs, would it be worth while, from the point of view of the community as a whole, (a) if no toll is to be charged; (b) if a toll of $1 is to be charged, the balance of the cost coming from taxes. Can such a bridge be undertaken privately? If so, how?

If the bridge costs only $2,000,000 and a private company undertakes it, charging $1 toll, what is the net social loss as compared with operating without a toll? If the cost is $1,500,000 and the necessary toll is 50 cents? Discuss the qualifications, if any, to be attached to your conclusions. Note: Consider the demand curve to be continuous, not a series of steps; i.e., at a toll of $.10, traffic is 3,800,000, at $.20, 3,600,000, etc. Ignore wear & tear on bridge.

 

____________________________________

 

Economics 154
Hour Examination
April 14, 1947

  1. (30 minutes) Write a brief essay on “external economies and diseconomies of large scale production”, touching upon:

a) Economies external respectively to firm and to industry
b) Distinction between external economies operating via changes in production functions and via price changes
c) Effects analogous to external economies in the affairs of households
d) The Marshall-Pigou tax and subsidy proposal

  1. (20 minutes) Comment on the sense and degree in which “welfare economics” is handicapped by limitations on the “interpersonal comparison of utilities”.

 

____________________________________

 

Final Examination
Economics 151 and 160
May 22, 1947

Answer one question in each group and four questions in all.

Group I

1. Explain the following propositions:

a. If the proportion in which two factors of production are used in producing a commodity in a certain industry is not alterable, the industry’s demand for factor A will be less elastic (1) the less elastic is the demand for the commodity, (2) the smaller the proportion of total costs that factor A accounts for, and (3) the less elastic is the supply of factor B.

b. If the proportions in which the two factors are used can be altered, the demand for A will be less elastic the less easily it can be substituted for factor B.

2. What reasons are advanced by Adam Smith and J. S. Mill to explain persistent differences between the wages of labor in different occupations? Under what conditions would demand be important?

3. What deviations from the “social optimum” of welfare economics result from monopolistic competition? Discuss (a) the use of existing resources; (b) investment; (c) income distribution.

Group II

4. Explain two of the following propositions and indicate how imperfections in the loan market affect their validity.

a. To maximize their satisfaction from income, individuals borrow or lend in a volume that equates their marginal rates of time preference with the market rate of interest.
b. It pays investors to undertake all ventures in which the rate of return over cost (internal rate) is as high as the market rate of interest.
c. Current rates of interest for loans of different maturity imply specifiable expectations of rates of interest to rule in the future.

5. “For the individual, the rate of interest will determine the choice among his optional income streams (investment opportunities), but, for society as a whole, the order of cause and effect is reversed. The rate of interest will be influenced by the range of options open to choice.”

6. Which of the following statements about interest have been supported by which of the economists listed below, and which of the statements have not been supported?

a. Interest equates the supply and demand for capital.
b. Interest reflects the superiority of roundabout methods of production.
c. Interest represents the rate at which the total stock of capital in the community increases.
d. The rate of interest corresponds to the rate of decline of the marginal productivity of capital.
e. Interest is the reward for the sacrifice of liquidity.
f. Savings tend towards the point at which interest equals the marginal propensity to consume.
g. Interest arises from the exploitation of labor by capital.
h. Interest is a monopoly profit exacted by bankers through the exercise of the sovereign power to coin money.

Böhm-Bawerk, J. B. Clark, Commons, Fisher, Keynes, Marx, Nobody, Soddy, Veblen.

Explain the reasoning behind one of the statements.

7. What are the relations between the spot price of a commodity (cotton), the spot price expected to rule six months from now, and the (“futures”) price at which a contract will be entered into now for execution six months from now? Explain with allowance for uncertainty.

 

Group III

8. “…it is not the rate of interest, but the level of incomes which ensures equality between saving and investment.” Explain.

9. Expound and criticize Means’s doctrine of price rigidity as cause of unemployment.

10. Comment on F. H. Knight’s view that “in the absence of uncertainty the velocity of circulation of money would be infinite.” How far and what sense does uncertainty explain the “transactions, precautionary and speculative motives” to hold money?

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Albert Gailord Hart Collection, Box 62, Folder “Sec (4) Ec 153-154 Columbia = 103-104 Micro, grads”.

Image Source:  Obituary in The Columbia Spectator, October 3, 1997.

Categories
Columbia Courses Curriculum

Columbia. Report of the Dean of the School of Political Science, 1901

I reproduce here the report of the Dean of the School of Political Science at Columbia University for the academic year 1900-01 in its entirety so we have a fairly complete accounting of the graduate education activities of the entire administrative unit within which the Columbia economics department was embedded at the start of the twentieth century. The document provides enormous detail from course registration totals through seminar participants by name and presentations through the work of those on fellowships and finally to the job placements of its graduates. The structure of the report can be seen below from the links to its individual sections:

Course Registration Data
Seminar in European History
Seminar in American Colonial History
Seminar in American History
Seminar in Modern European History
Seminar in Political Philosophy
Seminar in Constitutional Law
Seminar in Diplomacy and International Law
Seminar in Political Economy
Seminar in Political Economy and Finance
Seminar in Economic Theory
Statistical Laboratory and Seminar
Seminar in Sociology
Work of Fellows
Publications under the Supervision of the Faculty
Educational Appointments
Governmental Appointments
Other Appointments

_______________________________________

[p. 114]

 

SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF THE DEAN
FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1901

To the President of Columbia University in the City of New York:

SIR:

I have the honor to submit the following report of the work of the Faculty of Political Science for the scholastic year 1900-1901. During the year 268 students have taken courses of instruction under the Faculty of Political Science, of whom 18 were women. Of these 68 students were also registered in the Law School, and 13 in the Schools of Philosophy, Pure Science, and Applied Science.

In the Report of the Registrar will be found tabular statements of the courses of study offered in the School, together with the attendance upon each, as follows:

Group I—History and Political Philosophy [page 270,  page 271]

A. European History. pages 270-271
B. American History, pages 270-271
C. Political Philosophy, pages 270-271

1900_01_HistPolPhilRegistrations1

1900_01_HistPolPhilRegistrations2

Group II—Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence [page 291]

A. Constitutional Law, page 291
B. International Law, page 291
C. Administrative Law, page 291
D. Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, page 291

1900_01_PublicLawRegistrations

Group III—Economics and Social Science [page 264]

A. Political Economy and Finance, page 264
B. Sociology and Statistics, page 264

1900_01_EconomicsRegistrations

[p. 115]

WORK IN THE SEMINARS

Seminar in European History

Professor Robinson. 2 hours fortnightly. 6 members.

The topic treated was the Development of the Papal Primacy to Gregory VII. Each student gave two or more reports on the various phases of the subject, dealing chiefly with the sources.

 

Seminar in American Colonial History

Professor Osgood. 2 hours a week. 27 members.

This course has been conducted as a lecture course and seminar combined. A paper was presented by each of the students and was discussed in the seminar. Among the subjects treated in these papers were:

Royal Charters and Governors’ Commissions;
Royal Instructions to Governors;
Salaries of Governors;
Agrarian Riots in New Jersey from 1745 to 1790;
Pirates and Piracy;
Paper Money in the Colonies;
Career of Robert Livingston;
Relations between the Executive in New York and the English Government;
Policy of the British Government toward the Charter Colonies subsequent to 1690.

A number of papers, also, were presented on subjects connected with Colonial defence.

 

Seminar in American History

Professor Osgood. 1 hour a week. 6 members.

In connection with the work of this Seminar the following Master’s theses have been prepared, read, and discussed:

System of Defence in Early Colonial Massachusetts, Sidney D. Brummer.
The Administration of George Clark in New York, 1736 to 1743, Walter H. Nichols.
The Relation of the Iroquois to the Struggle between the French and English in North America, Walter D. Gerken.

[p. 116]

Relations between France and England in North America from 1690 to 1713, Samuel E. Moffett.
France and England in America from 1713 to 1748, Henry R. Spencer.
Conflict between the French and English in North America, Walter L. Fleming.

 

Seminar in Modern European History

Professor Sloane. 6 members.

The following are the subjects which were discussed and upon which papers have been presented:

The Treaty of Basel, Guy S. Ford.
Hanover in the Revolutionary Epoch, Guy S. Ford.
The 18th Brumaire, Charles W. Spencer.
Beginnings of Administration under the Consulate, Charles W. Spencer.
Origins of the Continental System, Ulrich B. Phillips.
Development of the Continental System, Ulrich B. Phillips.
Napoleon and the Caulaincourt Correspondence, Ellen S. Davison.
Caulaincourt in Russia, Ellen S. Davison.
Custine in Metz, Walter P. Bordwell.
Hardenberg and Haugwitz, Paul Abelson.

 

Seminar in Political Philosophy

Professor Dunning. 1 hour a week. 1 member.

William O. Easton presented an elaborate paper on the Political Theories of Spinoza with Reference to the Theory of Hobbes.

 

Seminar in Constitutional Law

Professor Burgess. 1 hour a week. 27 members.

The work in this Seminar during the present year has been the study of the cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving private rights and immunities under the protection of the Constitution of the United States. Each member of the Seminar has prepared an essay upon the cases relating to a given point under this

[p. 117]

general subject, and has read the same before the Seminar, where it has been subjected to general comment and criticism.

 

Seminar in Diplomacy and International Law

Professor Moore. 2 hours a week. 12 members.

Papers were read as follows:

Decisions of the Courts in the United States on Questions Growing out of the Annexation of Territory, William H. Adams.
The Southwestern Boundary of the United States, James F. Barnett.
The Development of the Laws of War Walter P. Bordwell.
Treaties: Their Making, Construction, and Enforcement, Samuel D. Crandall.
The Diplomacy of the Second Empire, Stephen P. Duggan.
Blockades, Sydney H. Herman.
Diplomatic Officers, William C. B. Kemp.

 

Seminar in Political Economy

Professor Mayo-Smith. 1 hour a week. 9 members.

In addition to reading and discussing Marshall’s Principles of Economics, in which all the members of the Seminar participated, papers were read upon the following subjects:

Trusts in the United States Hajime Hoshi.
Trusts and Prices, Robert B. Olsen.
The Industrial Employment of Women, Charles M. Niezer.

 

Seminar in Political Economy and Finance

Professor Seligman. 2 hours fortnightly. 20 members.

The subject of work in this Seminar during the first term was “The Foundations of Economic Philosophy.” During the second term a variety of subjects was discussed. Each member of the Seminar also made a report at each meeting on current periodical literature in economics, including the literature of the following countries: United States, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan. The papers read were as follows:

[p. 118]

Natural Law and Economics, Robert P. Shepherd.
The Economic Motive, Holland Thompson.
The Law of Competition, Walter E. Clark.
The Theory of Individualism, Enoch M. Banks.
Social Element in the Theory of Value, John W. Dickman.
Theory of Insurance, Allan H. Willett.
Theory of Monopolies, Alvin S. Johnson.
Economic Doctrine of Senior, Albert C. Whitaker.
Bounties and Shipping Subsidies, Royal Meeker.
Legal Decisions on the Labor Question, Ernest A. Cardozo.
Commercial Policy of Japan, Yetaro Kinosita.
Early American Economic Theory, Albert Britt.
The Movement toward Consolidation, Robert B. Oken.

 

Seminar in Economic Theory

Professor Clark. 2 hours fortnightly. 12 members.

Papers were presented on the following subjects:

Labor as a Measure of Value, Albert C. Whitaker.
Value Theories of Say and Ricardo, Robert P. Shepherd.
Rent and Value, Alvin S. Johnson.
Monetary Theories, John W. Dickman.
The Influence of Insurance on Distribution, Allan H. Willett.
Early Socialism, Enoch M. Banks.
Louis Blanc, Royal Meeker.
Fabian Socialism, Albert Britt.
Commercial Crises, Ernest A. Cardozo.
Speculation, Yetaro Kinosita.
Labor Unions in North Carolina, Holland Thompson.
Welfare Institutions, Walter E. Clark.

 

Statistical Laboratory and Seminar

Professor Mayo-Smith. 2 hours fortnightly. 5 members.

The work of the year was devoted to developing the mathematical theory of statistics with practical exercises.

 

Seminar in Sociology

Professor Giddings. 2 hours fortnightly. 12 members.

The following papers were read and discussed.

Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Massachusetts, Edward W. Capen.

[p. 119]

Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Connecticut, William F. Clark.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial New York, George M. Fowles.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Pennsylvania, Andrew L. Horst.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Virginia, Robert L. Irving.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of North Carolina,Thomas J. Jones.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Kentucky, Edwin A. McAlpinJr.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Indiana, Daniel L. Peacock.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Wisconsin, Albert G. Mohr.
An Analysis of the Mental Characteristics of the Population of an East-Side New York City Block, Thomas J. Jones.
A Statistical Study of the Response to Lincoln’s First Call for Volunteers, Andrew L. Horst.
The Charities of Five Presbyterian Churches in Harlem, Robert L. Irving.
The Poor Laws of Connecticut, Edward W. Capen.
Parochial Settlement in England, Bertha H. Putnam.
A Critical and Statistical Study of Male and Female Birth Rate,s Daniel L. Peacock.

 

WORK OF FELLOWS

During the year the following persons have held Fellowships in subjects falling under the jurisdiction of this Faculty:

1. William Maitland Abell, Political Science.

Yale University, A.B., 1887; A.M., 1898.,New York University, LL.M., 1894. Columbia University, graduate student, 1898-1901; Fellow in Political Science, 1899-1900.

Mr. Abell, Honorary Fellow, continued his work in the Seminar in Constitutional Law, and made excellent progress in the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation.

[p. 120]

2. Walter Percy Bordwell, International Law.

University of California, B.L., 1898. Columbia University, graduate student, 1898-1901.

Mr. Bordwell, the holder of the Schiff Fellowship, worked under the direction of Professor Moore upon his Doctor’s dissertation: “The Development of the Laws of War since the Time of Grotius.” He also took part in the Seminars of Professors Moore and Sloane, presenting a paper in each of these Seminars. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

3. James Wilford Garner, Political Science.

Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College, B.S., 1892. University of Chicago, graduate student, 1896-99; Instructor in Bradley Polytechnic Institute, Peoria, Ill., 1899-1900. Columbia University, graduate student, 1900-01.

Mr. Garner worked under the direction of Professor Dunning in American Political Philosophy. Professor Dunning reports that his “Study of the Tendencies Manifested in the Amendments of State Constitutions from 1830-1860” is a noteworthy contribution to science. He also attended the Seminar in Constitutional Law and worked there upon the cases decided by the Supreme Court in the interpretation of private rights under the Constitution of the United States.

4. Alvin Saunders Johnson, Economics.

University of Nebraska, A.B., 1897; A.M., 1898. Columbia University, graduate student, 1899-1901; Scholar in Political Economy, 1899-1900.

Mr. Johnson read a paper in Professor Seligman’s Seminar on “The Theory of Monopolies.” He worked also in Professor Clark’s Seminar, and, in consultation with Professor Clark, upon the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation, “The Classical Theory of Rent.” He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

5. Thomas Jesse Jones, Sociology.

Marietta College, A.B., 1897. Student at Union Theological Seminary, 1897-1900. Columbia University, A.M., 1899; graduate student, 1897-1901.

Mr. Jones worked under the direction of Professor Giddings upon his Doctor’s dissertation, “A Sociological Study of the Population of a New York City Block.” Professor Giddings reports that this dissertation promises to be one of the most minute investigations of modern city life yet undertaken. Mr. Jones also made the annual revision of the list and description of social settlements in New York City which is regularly expected of a Fellow in Sociology. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

[p. 121]

6. Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, History.

University of Georgia, A.B., 1897; A.M., 1898. Tutor in History, 1899-1900. Columbia University, graduate student, 1900-01.

Mr. Phillips worked under the direction of Professor Dunning upon a “Study of the Political History of Georgia,” in connection with which he planned to make researches during the summer in the historical collections at Savannah, Atlanta, and other points in the State. Mr. Phillips also presented several papers on various phases of American Political Philosophy in connection with the course on that subject. He also worked in the Seminars of Professors Sloane and Robinson and presented reports in each.

 

7. Jesse Eliphalet Pope, Economics.

University of Minnesota, B.S., 1895; M.S., 1897. Columbia University, graduate student, 1897-1901: Fellow in Economics, 1898-1900.

Mr. Pope, Honorary Fellow, worked in Seminar with Professor Seligman, but took a less active part than he desired, owing to his having obtained a professorship in Economics at New York University. He had, however, passed his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree in May, 1900, and was busy through the winter in preparing his Doctor’s dissertation.

 

8. Charles Worthen Spencer, American History.

Colby University, A.B., 1890. Chicago University, Fellow in Political Science, 1892-94. Columbia University, graduate student, 1894-95, 1900-01. Colgate University, Professor of History, 1895-1900.

Mr. Spencer worked under the direction of Professor Osgood upon the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation, the subject of which is “New York as a Royal Province, 1690-1730.” He also read two papers in Professor Sloane’s Seminar, and participated generally in the work of this Seminar. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

9. Earl Evelyn Sperry, European History.

Syracuse University, Ph.B., 1898; Ph.M., 1899. Columbia University, Scholar in History, 1899-1900; graduate student, 1899-1901.

Mr. Sperry worked under the direction of Professor Robinson, and besides preparing several reports for the Seminar in European History, completed the first draft of his Doctor’s dissertation upon ” The Celibacy of the Clergy in the Mediaeval Church.” He also passed, in May, the oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

[p. 122]

11. Albert Concer Whitaker, Economics.

Stanford University, A.B., 1899. Columbia University, Scholar in Economics, 1899-1900; graduate student, 1890-1901.

Mr. Whitaker worked in Seminar with Professor Seligman and also with Professor Clark. He made considerable progress in the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation upon “The Entrepreneur,” and passed, in June, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

 

PUBLICATIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE FACULTY

Of the Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, under the editorial management of Professor Seligman, there have appeared during the year six numbers.

Vol. XIII.

No. 1. The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. By Professor Isidor Loeb.
No. 2. Political Nativism in New York State. By Louis Dow Scisco.
No. 3. Reconstruction of Georgia. By Edwin C. Woolley.

Vol. XIV.

No. 1. Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution. By Prof. Alexander C. Flick.
No. 2. Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. By Allan H. Willett.

Vol. XV.

No. 1. Civilization and Crime. By Arthur Cleveland Hall.

The sale of these monographs and volumes has increased considerably during the past few years and some of the early volumes are now out of print. The foreign demand has also developed to such an extent that arrangements have now been made with agents, both in London and Paris, for placing them upon the European market.

The Political Science Quarterly has continued to prosper. With the close of the year 1900 it completed its fifteenth annual volume. In order to make available for students the great mass of scientific matter contained in these fifteen volumes, a general index has been prepared, to be published in a separate volume. This index will appear during the summer.

[p. 123]

Two very successful public meetings of the Academy were held during the winter. The first was addressed by Professor Goodnow, who had served as a member of the Commission to Revise the Charter of New York City. Professor Goodnow presented a careful analysis of the report and recommendations of the Commission. The second meeting was devoted to a discussion of Trusts by Professor J. W. Jenks, who gave the chief results of the investigations made by him on behalf of the Industrial Commission.

The History Club has about thirty members, and, with invited guests, an average attendance of about fifty persons. During the year it has held eight meetings, of which three were conducted solely by the students. At the other meetings papers were read by James Ford Rhodes, Frederic Harrison, Professor Robinson, and Professor George B. Adams.

I reported in 1899 that a number of former students of the School of Political Science had obtained positions either as teachers or in the administrative service of New York State. I have the pleasure now to report that during the past two years a much larger number have obtained first appointments, or have been advanced to better positions, not only as teachers and as state officers, but also in the Federal Civil Service. The lists appended are probably incomplete, but they will serve to show the widening influence of the School. The dates immediately following each name indicate the period of residence in the School.

 

I.—EDUCATIONAL APPOINTMENTS

Carl L. Becker, 1898-99, Univ. Fellow, 1898-99,
Instructor in Political Science and History, Pennsylvania State College.

Ernest L. Bogart, 1897-98,
Associate Professor of Economics and Sociology, Oberlin College, Ohio.

Lester G. Bugbee, 1893-95, Univ. Fellow, 1893-95,
Adjunct Professor of History, University of Texas.

William M. Burke, 1897-99, Univ. Fellow, 1897-99; Ph.D., 1899,
Professor of History and Economics, Albion College, Michigan.

[p. 124]

Charles E. Chadsey, 1893-94, Univ. Fellow, 1893-94; Ph. D., 1897,
Lecturer on History, University of Colorado.

Walter E. Clark, 1899-1901,
Tutor in Political Economy, College of the City of New York.

Walter W. Cook, 1898-1900, A.M., 1899,
Instructor in Constitutional and Administrative Law in the University of Nebraska.

Harry A. Cushing, 1893-95, Univ. Fellow, 1894-95; Ph.D., 1896,
Lecturer on History and Constitutional Law, Columbia University.

Ellen S. Davison, 1899-1901, Cand. Ph.D.,
Lecturer on History, Barnard College.

Alfred L. P. Dennis, 1896-99, Ph.D., 1901,
Assistant in History, 1900-01, Harvard University; Instructor in History, Bowdoin College.

Stephen P. H. Duggan, 1896-1900, A.M., 1899; Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor in Political Science, College of the City of New York.

Charles F. Emerick, 1896-97, University Fellow, 1896-97; Ph.D., 1897,
Professor of Political Economy, Smith College, Mass.

Henry C. Emery, 1893-94, University Fellow, 1893-94; Ph.D., 1896,
Professor of Political Economy, Yale University.

John A. Fairlie, 1897-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1898,
Assistant Professor of Administrative Law, University of Michigan.

Guy S. Ford, 1900-01, Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor of History, Yale University.

Delmer E. Hawkins, 1899-1900,
Instructor in Political Economy, Syracuse University.

Allen Johnson, 1897-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1899,
Professor of History, Iowa College, Grinnell ; also Lecturer on European History in the University of Wisconsin, Summer Session, 1901.

Alvin S. Johnson, 1898-1901, University Fellow, 1900-01; Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant in Economics, Bryn Mawr College.

Lindley M. Keasby, 1888-90, Ph.D., 1890,
Professor of Economics and Social Science, Bryn Mawr College.

James A. McLean, 1892-94, University Fellow, 1892-94; Ph.D., 1894,
Professor of History and Political Science, University of Idaho.

Milo R. Maltbie, 1895-97, University Fellow, 1895-96; Ph.D., 1897,
Lecturer on Municipal Government, Columbia University.

Charles E. Merriam, Jr., 1896-98, Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1900,
Docent in Political Science, University of Chicago.

Walter H. Nichols, 1899-1901, Cand. Ph.D.,
Professor of History, University of Colorado.

Comadore E. Prevey, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; A.M., 1899; Cand. Ph.D.,
Lecturer on Sociology, University of Nebraska.

Jesse E. Pope, 1897-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Adjunct Professor of Political Economy, 1900-01, New York University; Professor of Political Economy, University of Missouri.

[p. 125]

Charles L. Raper, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D..
Lecturer on History, Barnard College, 1900-01; Assistant Professor of Economics and History, University of North Carolina.

William A. Rawles, 1898-99, Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor of Economics and Sociology, University of Indiana.

William A. Schaper, 1896-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1901,
Professor of Administration, University of Minnesota.

Louis D. Scisco, 1899-1900, Ph.D., 1901,
Teacher of History, High School, Stillwater, Minnesota.

William R. Shepherd, 1893-95, University Fellow, 1893-95; Ph.D.. 1896,
Tutor in History, Columbia University.

James T. Shotwell, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant in History, Columbia University.

William R. Smith, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor in History, University of Colorado.

Edwin P. Tanner, 1897-1900, A.M., 1898; University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Teacher of History, High School, Stillwater, Minnesota.

Holland Thompson, 1899-1901, University Fellow, 1899-1900; A.M., 1900,
Tutor in History, College of the City of New York.

Francis Walker, 1892-94, University Fellow, 1892-94; Ph.D., 1895,
Associate Professor of Political Economy, Adelbert College, Western Reserve University.

Ulysses G. Weatherby, 1899-1900,
Professor of Economics and Social Science, University of Indiana.

 

2.—GOVERNMENTAL APPOINTMENTS

Frank G. Bates, 1896-97, Ph.D., 1899,
State Librarian, Providence, R. I.

John F. Crowell, 1894-95, University Fellow, 1894-95; Ph.D.. 1897,
Expert Agent on Agricultural Products, Industrial Commission.

John H. Dynes, 1896-98, A.M., 1897; University Fellow, 1897-98,
Student Clerk, Division of Methods and Results, Twelfth Census.

Charles E. Edgerton, 1898-99,
Special Agent, Industrial Commission.

Frederick S. Hall, 1896-97, Ph.D., 1898,
Clerk, Division of Manufactures, Twelfth Census.

Leonard W. Hatch, 1894-95,
Statistician, Bureau of Labor, Albany, New York.

Isaac A. Hourwich, 1891-92, Ph.D., 1893,
Translator, Bureau of the Mint, Washington, D. C.

Maurice L. Jacobson, 1892-95,
Librarian, Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department, Washington, D. C.

William Z. Ripley, 1891-93, University Fellow, 1891-93; Ph.D., 1893,
Expert on Transportation, Industrial Commission.

Frederick W. Sanders, 1895-96,
Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico.

Nahum I. Stone, 1897-99,
Expert on Speculation and Prices, Industrial Commission, Washington, D. C.

[p. 126]

Adna F. Weber, 1896-97, University Fellow, 1896-97; Ph.D., 1899,
Chief Statistician, Bureau of Labor, Albany. N. Y.

Walter F. Willcox, 1886-88, Ph.D., 1891,
Chief Statistician, Census Office, Washington, D. C.

 

Dr. Max West, 1891-93; University Fellow, 1892-93; Ph.D., 1893, should figure in both of the preceding lists; for he has been appointed Chief Clerk in the Division of Statistics, Department of Agriculture, and has also become Associate Professor of Economics in the Columbian University, Washington, D. C.

The direction of organized charity is a field of labor for which our students in Sociology receive an excellent training; and I am glad to report that Mr. Prevey, whose appointment as lecturer in the University of Nebraska is noted above, has also been made General Secretary of the local Charity Organization Society. I have also to report that Mr. Thomas J. Jones, a student in the School during the past four years and Fellow in Sociology, 1900-01, has been appointed Assistant Head Worker in the University Settlement, New York City.

“To give an adequate economic and legal training to those who intend to make journalism their profession” has always been announced as one of the objects of the School of Political Science; and a considerable number of our graduates have become editors. It is more difficult, however, to keep track of journalists than of teachers and governmental officers, and the only recent appointment in this field of which I have been informed is that of Dr. Roeliff M. Breckenridge, Ph.D., 1894, as financial editor of the New York Journal of Commerce.

 

Respectfully submitted,

John W. Burgess,

Dean.

June 10, 1901.

 

Source: Twelfth Annual Report of President Low to the Trustees. October 7, 1901.

 

 

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Regulations for Ph.D. candidacy and general examination, 1916

This posting provides the menu of subject choices for the general examination to be admitted to Ph.D. candidacy in economics at Columbia as of 1916. We see that the history of economics and economic theory were still joined at the hip and that economic history was a compulsory field. Also interesting to note: the optional field “The labor problem”  included “Socialism”; two graduate courses in another social science or philosophy were required as was an ability to read at least one of French and German plus one additional language. 

To denote insertions in pencil, I have used bold-italics within square brackets. For text to be cut, I have included the original text, crossed-out.

__________________________________

[p. 410]

May 25, 1916

[…]

Professor Seligman, on behalf of the Committee on Instruction, recommended that the Faculty approve of the regulations governing admission to candidacy and the final examination for the doctorate of Philosophy as proposed by the various departments giving work under the jurisdiction of the Faculty of Political Science. This recommendation was adopted by the Faculty. The regulations of the several departments are as follows:

[…]

[p. 413]

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO CANDIDACY FOR THE DOCTORATE OF PHILSOPHY

Each [The] applicant for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Ph.D. whose subject of major interest lies in the field of Economics must satisfy the Department

  1. That he is qualified in the general principles of Economics as taught in Columbia College or a full equivalent thereof.
  2. That he is qualified in such advanced or graduate work in the general field of Economics as is represented by approximately six full graduate courses in Columbia University or the equivalent thereof.
  3. That he is qualified in two full graduate courses as given at Columbia or the equivalent thereof under one of the following Departments:

Politics

Psychology

Public Law

Anthropology

History

Sociology

Philosophy

  1. That he is able to read French and German and to use these languages in seminar work and in research. In the discretion of the Department another language may be substituted for French or German.
  2. That he is able to express himself in correctly written English.

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

Every student [The candidate] presenting himself for the degree of Ph.D. under the Department of Economics will be examined in the following three topics:

1) The history and theory of Economics

2) Statistics

3) Economic History

He will also be expected to present for examination four out of the following eight topics:

1) Public finance

2) Money and banking

3) The labor problem (including Socialism)

[p. 414]

4) Trade and transportation

5) Corporations and trusts

6) Business economics, including accounting, business organization and allied topics

7) Insurance

8) Agriculture

He will also be examined in such cognate fields as are intimately related to the special topic of his dissertation.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of The Faculty of Political Science, May 25, 1916.

Image Source: Museum of the City of New York. Kent Hall, Columbia University (1910). McKim, Mead & White.

 

 

Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Curricular Suggestions and Comments. 1945

In my examination of departmental records at Columbia, Chicago, Harvard and M.I.T. I have found relatively few written reflections on the rules/regulation/courses of the graduate programs. Today’s posting provides a memo of miscellaneous ruminations by Arthur F. Burns, Carter Goodrich and Carl Shoup who served as members of the Columbia Economic Department’s Curriculum Committee in 1945. Having a major field of comparative economic systems myself, I found Arthur Burns’ rather dismissive remarks about whether the graduate program should add a course in that field noteworthy.

_____________________________

April 30, 1945

To the Members of the Department of Economics:

During the year the Curriculum Committee has given thought to problems growing out of the Department discussions of last spring. Although the Committee is not prepared to place definite recommendations before the Department, I think it desirable that the members of the Department review certain suggestions and other changes that have been considered by the Committee. These suggestions, with comments of Committee members, are enclosed. There should be opportunity to discuss these at our meeting on me second. May 2.

Frederick C. Mills

_____________________________

SUGGESTIONS FOR CURRICULAR AND OTHER CHANGES
with comments by Committee Members

 

  1. We should formulate a more definite statement of requirements to be met by applicants for admission to the graduate department of economics.
    (Can we agree on basic requirements? Should we include mathematics, accounting, statistics, history, economic principles, English composition, psychology, one laboratory science?)

 

A. F. Burns

I doubt if much progress in this direction can be made this year or next. For one thing, there is likely to be slight unanimity among the staff. For another, each of us will have difficulty in convincing the others unless judgment be implemented by a canvas of experience. What do other graduate departments do? Would there be any advantage in drawing up a sample list of former graduate students in the department and analyzing the undergraduate training of those who proved especially “successful” and those who “got nowhere”?

 

Carter Goodrich

This is the point on which I am most doubtful of the general tendency. I do not believe we can agree on “basic requirements”. Even on recommendations I think we should be most cautious. We may be justified in making a strong recommendation for things we consider specific prerequisites, – perhaps economic principles, mathematics, accounting or statistics. I should see no justification for such specifications as “one laboratory science”. If we are to make a recommendation regarding preliminary training in economics, I feel strongly that it should be accompanied by a recommendation against over-specialization in economics at the undergraduate level. An excellent statement of this general point of view is contained in the Princeton catalog in a passage referring to pre-professional training.

 

Carl S. Shoup

As I see it, the Department faces two general alternatives. First, it can continue to admit graduate students who have had little or no economic training during their undergraduate days and who must therefore be given some general courses on a fairly elementary level. Owing to the number of students involved, these courses would presumably be of the traditional lecture type. Students who have already had substantial training in economics might be excused from these courses to take instead either special seminars designed for first-year students, or the usual advanced seminars. This alternative is inviting in many ways, but I fear that, inevitably, two undesirable consequences would follow: (1). Since our resources are not unlimited, even though they may be expanded from the present level, the use of some resources to give the rather elementary lecture courses would, necessarily, decrease the time and effort that the faculty members could otherwise give to the students entering with a good background in economics; (2) The fact that the graduate department would be supplying a pretty complete series of lectures in the various subjects on this level would tend to discourage the better undergraduate schools from maintaining high standards in their economics teaching. This would particularly be the case if students coming here with good undergraduate training in economics were required or allowed to attend these general lecture courses, and I think that experience indicates that this is what would happen: Word would get back to the undergraduate colleges that there is no particular point in working too hard on students who hope to go on for graduate economics work since they will have to, or will be induced to, or will allow themselves to spend a good deal of time in the graduate school going over, at much the same pace and with much the same intensity, the same material they covered in their undergraduate courses. To a certain extent, I believe this hypothetical situation I outlined has already developed in fact it will simply be intensified if we do not set up some sort of professional standards for admission.

The other alternative is to require that a student show a certain degree of proficiency in the elementary subjects of economics before he is admitted to the graduate school. This might be done simply on showing of courses taken and grades given, but I should prefer to work toward a system of entrance examinations without any requirements at all concerning specific undergraduate courses. We would be more sure that we were getting people with the kind of background desired and we would also thereby allow individuals to qualify, if they were able enough to do so, on the basis of study without taking courses. Assuming that the department had the same total resources and manpower is under the first alternative, these resources could then be thrown wholly into the training of graduate students in small groups through individual conferences, on research projects, etc. The resulting rise in the standard of our graduate teaching and in the quality of our product, as embodied in the successful Ph.D. Candidates — and also indeed, in those who get the Master’s degree — would, in my opinion, be marked. Moreover, since all of the graduate students would have shown proficiency in the elementary branches of economics, the could and should be encouraged to branch out in allied fields of graduate work: philosophy, psychology, etc. This alternative, however, has the disadvantage of borrowing from the graduate school able students who have taken little or no economics in their undergraduate days. I look upon this I look upon this as a necessary cost that must be paid if we are really to step up, in any marked degree, the quality and intensity of our graduate training. I wish it did not have to be paid, but I think that we shall be unrealistic if we think that we can change the present situation greatly without incurring that cost. It would, of course, still be possible for an able student, who had decided that he wanted to switch to economics, to get enough economics to pass the entrance examinations by six months or so of intensive study by himself. Only the very able ones could do this, but I doubt whether we should make much effort to get the merely average student who has had no economics at all in his undergraduate days.

 

 

  1. Standards of admission to graduate study in economics should be reviewed with the Office of Admissions. Tightening up may be possible, but fairly liberal principles of admission should prevail for the present.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I Agree.

 

Carl Goodrich

Yes

 

Carl S. Shoup

If we follow the first alternative outlined in number 1 above, I should agree that the general standards of admission should be tightened up somewhat. If the second alternative is followed, the nature of the qualifying examinations would pretty much settled this question.

 

  1. A nuclear program of first-year courses is to be planned. Provision should be made for some flexibility, but most students would be expected to take three or four basic first-year courses (including theory, statistics, money and banking, and economic history). Requirements in these courses would be fairly rigorous, and all students would take examinations and receive letter grades. A special reading course might be taken in view of a basic course by the student already reasonably well-prepared in that subject.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I agree with some interpretations and qualifications. (a) The essential thing is that in his first year a student attend to certain basic courses (a list to be discussed). (b) If a student has had satisfactory training at college in any one or all of these courses (the latter, of course, is rather unlikely), he should not be required to take them again. (c) Whether letter grades are to be given in these courses should be decided on the basis of the general policy in regard to letter grades. Note also that there are bound to be second-and third-year students in the basic courses. (d) Special reading courses are a very doubtful educational expedient, unless the faculty is willing to give real time to the work.

 

Carter Goodrich

On the whole, yes, as long there is 5 to provide flexibility and provided that at some stage we really encourage a considerable number of our students to take relevant work outside the Department.

 

Carl S. Shoup

The program of first-year courses is necessary only under the first alternative in number 1. A student who is already reasonably well prepared in a subject should not, I think, be required to take even a special reading course. He should, instead, be admitted at once to the advanced seminars.

 

 

  1. M.A. candidates should be required to have letter grades of B or better in courses carrying 21 points of credit. Department members should be requested to test first-year students systematically and grade rigorously.

 

A.F. Burns

I am inclined to agree, but I do not expect very much from this proposal. It may merely mean that we will now say B where we formerly said P.

 

Carter Goodrich

Like Walton Hamilton on monogamy, “I suppose I’d vote for it but I’ll be damned if I’d electioneer for it.”

 

Carl S. Shoup

I suggest that we give only a “P” grade with the understanding that the passing level is “B” rather than “C”. Under the first alternative in number 1, I would be willing to go so far as to require passing grades in all of the thirty points, both for candidates for M:A. and for those who are not taking the M.A. but want to go on to the Ph.D. If we are to assume real responsibility for the product that we turn out, I do not see how we can afford to give a degree to anybody who is not good enough to pass all of the courses that he takes. (Do the medical schools give degrees to people who are unable to pass all of the courses?)

 

  1. We should provide seminar courses for first-year students of outstanding ability and satisfactory preparation. Admission would be by consent of the instructor. Admission would be restricted to men of clear promise. Such a man might have a first-year program consisting of three basic courses and two seminars.

 

A. F. Burns

I think it is desirable to admit qualified first-year students to seminars. But it would be unwise and impractical to run one special seminar for first-year students and another for second-year students. It is an artificial distinction. (However, it might be well to organize a seminar for M.A. students who are writing their theses, one requirement (among others) for admission being that a student have a definite topic that he already has done a little work on and that he expects to complete within the year. This suggestion raises serious questions as to administration, teaching load, etc.)

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes. These seminars would not in all case have to be for first-year students only.

 

Carl S. Shoup

This problem is covered in the discussion under number 1 above. I should add that even under the second alternative, I should visualize fairly frequent and rigorous examinations of some kind or other to be sure that the graduate student was not losing his grasp of his tools of analysis and his basic information, and was, indeed, improving them as he went along.

 

  1. There should be a rigorous weeding out of graduate students at the end of the first graduate year. At the end of the spring term a committee of the department should review the records of all candidates for degrees. Only those of clear merit should be permitted to carry forward studies for the doctorate. We should have a restricted group of second and third-year graduate students of high ability.

 

A. F. Burns

I agree heartily.

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes, decidedly.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I agree with this proposal, whether under the first or second alternatives in number 1 above.

 

  1. We should consider introducing comprehensive written matriculation examinations, to come before more than 45 residence credits have been acquired.

 

A. F. Burns

I feel handicapped because I don’t know precisely what matriculation means or involves. Would the comprehensive examination come six months after a student has been encouraged to try for the doctorate? If so, is the interval too short?

 

Carter Goodrich

Not with this timing. It would be too late for the privileges of matriculation and I think too early for a comprehensive test. Possibly such examinations might supplement the oral on subjects and replace certification.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I agree that it is desirable to have comprehensive written examinations from time to time through the graduate work (see comments under numbers 4 and 5 above).

 

 

  1. Doctoral candidates should be required to pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position. This year should be given to rigorous research training, under the supervision of the department.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I agree if “Rigorous research training” means the writing of a dissertation on the premises, or at least working on it for a year under the supervision of the department. But there is a good deal to think through before making a definite proposal. For example, would the orals have to be taken before this research year?

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes, as an ideal to press for as rapidly as possible. In my judgment, this is the direction that promises the most significant improvement.

 

Carl S. Shoup

This is an excellent idea; if doctoral candidates would pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position, many of our difficulties at the thesis level would disappear.

 

 

  1. A sum equivalent to approximately 10 per cent of the departmental budget for salaries should be allocated to research. This would be available to members of the department for employment of research assistants on research activities approved by a departmental committee on research, and for meeting other research costs. It is to be expected that some portion of this research fund could be used for the employment of doctoral candidates during their period of internship.

 

Arthur F. Burns

Clearly, financial provision for research work is important. I am not sufficiently familiar with the needs of the department (even its boundaries: is the college included?) to have any judgment as to a specific figure. The whole problem should be surveyed before definite recommendations are made.

 

Carter Goodrich

I am not sure of the ten per cent, but I like the general idea. Something of this sort must be done to make 8 possible.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I do not think there would be a marked increase in the research work under this proposal (to allocate, say, 10 per cent of the departmental budget to research) since it does not touch what seems to me the real problem; namely, the desire of many faculty members — especially in the younger group — to supplement their University salaries by research fees and salaries. It is possible that the solution may be found in some form of split salary schedule whereby the faculty member is paid a certain basic amount, viewed as compensation chiefly for teaching services, and, upon application, might be granted an additional amount as compensation for devoting his time to unpaid research, thus foregoing outside paid activities. The tendency to grant the supplementary amount almost automatically to anybody who happened not to be doing outside work would be a real difficulty, but it might be met by having the supplementary amounts granted only upon approval by some outside board, specially constituted for this purpose.

 

 

  1. The department should consider adding the following courses to its curriculum:

1. First-year graduate course in money and banking
2. A course in accounting, designed to meet the needs of economists
3. A course in comparative economic systems (to be given in cooperation with the School of Business)
4. An additional course in international economics (subject matter to be adapted to that of the present course on international trade).

 

Arthur F. Burns

10a. Definitely yes

10b. Probably yes. But the man must precede the course.

10c. Probably, no. Who is an expert on such questions? I can’t think of any. I doubt if the department ought to try to develop one, and I doubt if it would succeed if it tried (the man, if he is any good, would soon specialize). If there is a gap here, we might perhaps try a lecture course to be given by several specialists and coordinated by some instructor. This has at least the negative advantage that the department’s hands will not be tied.

10d. Probably, yes. I would want to know the scope of the course before expressing a more definite opinion.

 

Carter Goodrich

Certainly d, probably the others.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I should like to discuss these prospective courses further before venturing an opinion, especially with respect to the first-year course in money and banking. I believe there is no unnecessary duplication in this field already than in almost other part of our curriculum.

 

 

Source: Columbia University Archives.Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 1. Folder: “Committee on Instruction”.

Categories
Columbia Economists Exam Questions

Columbia. History of Economics Exams. J.M. Clark, 1949-51

The successor to Wesley Clair Mitchell in teaching the history of types of economic theory at Columbia University was John Maurice Clark, the son of John Bates Clark. Because of the identical course descriptions printed in the official University Announcement, I figure it is reasonable transcribing the final exams for the Winter and Spring sessions from two different academic years (the only ones I was able to find for the courses, Econ 115 and 116, respectively). John Maurice Clark was a pack rat, but not a model of consistent filing, so there may be other copies to be found in his papers.

In a handwritten class list for Econ 115 (Fall, 1950) one finds 43 names of attendee–with grades noted for 26 of them. The grade distribution of those 26 students was: A (2), A- (6), B+ (5), B (6), B- (3), C+ (1), C (3). Of more than passing interest for historians of economics is that the author of Economic Theory in Retrospect, Mark Blaug, only received a grade of B minus (rank 22 of 26 graded)! Evidence for the slope of Blaug’s learning curve is seen in his grade for Econ 116 in 1951 where he received an A minus. The only other name I immediately recognize from the list was the later Library of Congress specialist on socialist economies, John P. Hardt (Ph.D., 1954). Hardt’s name will long be associated with the green volumes of Joint Economic Committee reports on the economies of China, USSR, and Eastern Europe) with “(vet)” noted after his name but without a grade.

____________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 115-116—Formative types of economic theory. 3 points each session. Professor Clark.
M. W. 12. [310 Fayerweather in Spring session; 1948/49 in 313 Fayerweather for Winter session, 1950/51]

Readings and critical discussion of outstanding examples of the parent stock of classical economics, with some regard to historical setting, and of subsequent outstanding contributions.

Source: Columbia University. Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science. Winter and Spring Sessions (1948-1949 and 1950-1951).

____________________________

Economics 115
Final Examination
January, 1951

Answer any two questions, taking about the time for the actual writing that a regular examination would take. Those who do the work during Christmas holidays will please return papers January 8; others Friday, January 26, unless otherwise specified.

—————–

  1. Do the views of ancient writers (Hebrew, Greek or Roman) afford the same kind of evidence as the writings of modern economists as to economic conditions and practices of their time?
  2. Discuss extent of applicability of medieval doctrine on price; variations or relaxations; and how far the doctrine was effective in practice.
  3. Explain and appraise Quesnay’s “Tableau Economique”.
  4. State key doctrines of the Physiocrats and indicate how they could be regarded as adaptations to an historical situation.
  5. Compare views of Smith and Ricardo on the relation of labor to value.
  6. Compare treatment of rent in Smith, Malthus and Ricardo.
  7. On what grounds did Adam Smith sanction departures from laissez-faire?
  8. Topic: dominant conceptions of what economic activity is for. Compare the dominant conception (or at most a few dominant conceptions) of as many of the following as you feel you can reasonably cover: typical Mercantilists, Physiocrats, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill.
  9. What does Bentham’s theory contribute to the basic rationale of economics, aside from his ideas on economic matters themselves? (Book V. of J. S. Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy” might contain hints.)
  10. State doctrines of Ricardo which had roots in historical conditions of the time, and indicate the connections.
  11. Compare Ricardo’s treatment of value with either Adam Smith’s or John Stuart Mill’s.
  12. What were the sources of J. S. Mill’s departure from strict Ricardianism?

Source: John M. Clark Papers. Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Box 24, Courses: Misc.

____________________________

ECONOMICS 116
Final examination
May, 1949

Answer two questions from the following list:

  1. If things do not exchange in proportion to their labor cost, in what sense does labor cost govern value, under the labor theory? Discuss
  2. Discuss the proper relation between historical and theoretical materials in the equipment of an economist.
  3. (a) What is the meaning of “utility”?
    (b) What difference does it make whether economic theory can or cannot make “interpersonal comparisons” of utility?
  4. State some form of theory of the relation of marginal utility to price. Is this a tautological truth? Approximately true or true with qualifications? Inaccurate enough to be misleading? Discuss.
  5. Define the meaning of marginal productivity as a basis for the division between labor and capital in industry. How, if at all, does it apply to added labor in a plant working below capacity?
  6. How does Marshall treat the problem of differences between different producers and their costs of production, in his theory of value? Compare treatment of same problem in Chamberlin and/or J. B. Clark.
  7. Compare Marshall and Chamberlin as to treatment of the element of time in normal price.
  8. Define various types of welfare economics. Select one and indicate the key problems and difficulties, and methods of dealing with them.
  9. Analyze the logic of the difference between J. B Clark and Veblen as to what are the normal tendencies of a system of business enterprise.
  10. Formulate some other significant question on the material covered in the course, and answer it.

Source: John M. Clark Papers. Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Box 35, History of Economic Thought; Folder (tab torn) “??—Cameral. epoch.”

Image Source: Portrait of John Maurice Clark from the collection of portraits of economists presented in 1997 as a gift to the Department of Economics of Duke University by Professor Warren J. Samuels of Michigan State University. Free use of these portraits in Web documents, and for other educational purposes, is encouraged: users are requested to acknowledge that the images come from The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Columbia

Columbia. Founding Father of Faculty of Political Science. Burgess, Bio 1893

The economics department at Columbia University was the product of an evolution that began in a heavily historical, interdisciplinary pool. As rare as the entrepreneurial spirit would appear in today’s deans (hey, some of my best friends have been/are deans and, through force of circumstance, I have had a sort-of “deandom” thrust upon me), in the beginning it took a builder and not an administrator of faculties. Over at Chicago the role was played by J. Laurence Laughlin. At Columbia it was the scholar of legal history, John William Burgess. While one would be hard-pressed to identify any appreciable direct influence of Burgess on, say, the post-World-War-II economics faculty of Columbia and how graduate training in economics has been organized in the meantime, nonetheless the house Burgess built served as childhood home for generations of economists trained at Columbia during the first half of the twentieth century.

_______________________

JOHN WILLIAM BURGESS, LL. D.

PROFESSOR BURGESS was born at Cornersville, Giles County, Tenn., August 26, 1844. He was educated at Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tenn., and at Amherst College, Mass, whence he graduated in 1867. He then took up the study of law, and was admitted to the bar of Massachusetts in 1869. In the same year he was appointed professor of English literature and political economy in Knox College, Galesburg, Ill. Serving in that capacity for two years, in 1871 he went to Europe to further prosecute his studies. He studied history and public law at Göttingen, Leipsic, and Berlin. Returning to this country, he was, in 1873, appointed professor of history and political science in Amherst College. In 1876 he was called to the chair of political history and public law in Columbia College. In 1880 Prof. Burgess founded the School of Political Science in that college, and became its Dean, the position which he now holds.

In literature, Prof. Burgess’s best known work is his treatise on “Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law,” issued in 1891, which has already given him an international reputation. The part of the work treating of Constitutional Law is regarded as authoritative; for his treatment of political science, and especially his definition and exposition of sovereignty, the work has been subjected to not a little criticism; but it is a curious fact that his severest critics are those whose ideas on that subject are most confused and clouded. The book is one of the most able treatises on both subjects ever written, and has already taken a leading position among works of that character.

Prof. Burgess’ life work began with his return from Germany in 1873 and his entrance upon the duties of Professor of History at Amherst College in that year. The methods and results of German university instruction in history had made upon his mind a most profound impression. The contrast between the broad, genial and productive educational spirit which characterized the work of the leading professors of history and political science at Berlin and elsewhere, with whom he had become acquainted, and the meagre and comparatively fruitless attempts at historical study in the United States, was indeed striking. Although that point is not yet twenty years behind us, it would probably not be a misstatement to say that practically no instruction was given in history and political science in any educational institution in America other than a small amount of text-book work.

Perhaps Prof. Burgess has never achieved a greater success than with his first class. Text books were not thought of, but Prof. Burgess proceeded to lay before his class day after day the essential movements of the Middle Ages, out of which the modern European states and modern political institutions were developed. Instead of something to be memorized, history showed itself something to be understood, and institutions were made to appear, not as arbitrary creations, but as living growths, almost as inevitable results. No stronger testimony to the personal power of an instructor can well be given than was afforded by the fact that five or six members of this class actually spent a year in post-graduate study under Prof. Burgess at Amherst, although there was at hand for them neither books nor other material, absolutely nothing but one instructor.

Prof. Burges’ call to Columbia in 1876 gave him at once a larger field, and future possibilities of a greater promise than could be found at Amherst. The traditions of the study of political science were in some measure associated with the College. Prof. Lieber, who had been for many years connected with the College, was a man of wide repute as a publicist, and his works on politics are still of great value. Prof. Dwight had been in the habit of giving a certain amount of instruction on positive constitutional law of the United States and England. In the minds of the President and Trustees of Columbia College, the time had come for a broader course of instruction in historical and political sciences.

Prof. Burgess adopted in Columbia essentially the same methods of instruction which he had successfully pursued elsewhere. His work was in so far successful that he was able, through the liberality of the Trustees, to associate with himself one or two capable adjuncts, and during the four years following his accession there was developed, organized and brought into existence the School of Political Science. This had long been a favorite conception of Prof. Burgess, and its policy, curriculum, organization and administration had been the subject of constant thought and consultation with him for many years. In the establishment of this school, with Prof. Burgess as Dean, Columbia College set an example which has since been followed by a considerable number of American colleges.

A glance at the curriculum as originally set forth in 1880 shows that the various fields of public law and theoretical political science were the branches deemed most important. The development of the school from that time to this has followed on these lines with larger additions, perhaps, in the field of economics. Of history proper as a science there appears but a small trace and only very recently and in a small degree has the study of pure history found place in the school; but, on the other hand, a historical method or a mode of investigation of all political and economic subjects which, dealing with their history, shows the origin, growth and natural development of political and economic institutions, has been unvaryingly followed. At no time has the institution in any field of political economic science been allowed to degenerate into an airing of mere theories.

Prof. Burgess and the other men associated with him in the duties of instruction aim to teach the student, as they teach themselves, to get a clear grasp of the leading and formative events and forces at work in the state and in society, and while recognizing clearly the province of history and science, have found it feasible to give historical instruction only so far as history carries with it the account of those events and political forces which have essentially made up the institutions of to-day.

The School of Political Science has never catered to popularity or aimed for mere numbers. Independence in research, healthy methods of investigation, a clear conception of scientific principles as they have developed themselves historically, have always been the ideals aimed at.

Prof. Burgess has either been signally wise or fortunate in his choice of colleagues and has recognized the necessity of entire independence and personal responsibility in the methods and largely in the material of instruction followed by each individual. The natural development of the School of Political Science on these lines has thrown Prof. Burgess more and more into the field of public law and away from pure history, until his present line of work seems essentially to be a presentation to the school of the theory of the state as it has been historically developed and as specifically illustrated in the constitutional law and history of the United States and Europe.

Not less important than the work of creating the School of Political Science has been Prof. Burgess’ influence in the entire re-organization of Columbia College. Thoroughly impressed with the necessity of American universities and conversant with European in their various forms, and with a clear conception of the nature and functions of a university, Prof. Burgess’ counsels and views have been largely influential in shaping the form and organization of the entire institution as it exists to-day.

 

Source: Columbia Law Times. Vol. VI, No. 5 (February, 1893), pp. 123 -125.

Image Source: Columbia Law Times. Vol. VI, No. 5 (February, 1893), Frontispiece.

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. Henry L. Moore’s Memorial Minute, 1959. Salary issue, 1924.

 

 

We begin with an example of the honored academic tradition of a faculty minute entered into the record following the death of a present or former colleague. In the year that the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was awarded to Angus Deaton, in part, for his work in applied consumption analysis, I post the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science memorial minute for Henry L. Moore.

I follow the Memorial Minute with a letter written by Moore to his chairman Edwin R. A. Seligman appealing for a pay raise on the grounds that his research performance had been undervalued relative to administrative work and teaching of a colleague.

________________________________

[Memorial Minute]

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

April 17, 1959

Henry L. Moore

Henry Ludwell Moore was born in southern Maryland in 1869, the seventh in direct male line of descent from a Henry Moore who settled in Virginia in 1635 and who later moved to Maryland. After obtaining a B.A. at Randolph Macon in 1892, he pursued his studies at the University of Vienna and later received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in 1896. After one year as instructor of economics at Johns Hopkins and five years at Smith College, he came to Columbia in 1902 as adjunct professor, continuing as Professor of Political Economy from 1906 to his premature retirement from professional activity for reasons of health in April, 1929. He died at the age of 88 on April 28, 1958.

Professor Moore was a pioneer in the application of statistical theory, founded on the calculus of probabilities, to the evaluation of economic relationships in a context of a mathematically developed economic theory. Under the influence of his colleague John Bates Clark, 22 years his senior, and of Karl Pearson, Moore developed a statistical verification and extension of Clark’s theory of distribution in his “Laws of Wages,” published in 1911. In his “Forecasting the Yield and the Price of Cotton,” published in 1917, the inherent brilliance of his use of multiple correlation techniques by which he was able to outpredict, in retrospect at least, the elaborate crop forecasting machinery set up by the Department of Agriculture is in no way diminished, though somewhat disguised by the fact that the advent of the boll weevil completely upset the older relationships and made his formulas useless for subsequent forecasting, though the techniques remained valid.

In addition to his interest in economics, Moore had a deep attachment to classical philosophy and an interest ranging over many other fields; one of his courses was entitled “Interrelations of Political Economy and Sociology.” His interest in astronomy is perhaps responsible for his ill-fated attempt to relate the eight year business cycle, which he considered to be well established, to a corresponding weather cycle, and thereby to the corresponding periodicity of the transits and near-transits of Venus. In this he demonstrated a willingness to look for hypotheses to test wherever the data seemed to lead him, regardless of how remote the connection may initially seem, a procedure which, however dangerous it may be for the individual, is salutary for the progress of a science that finds it easier to weed out error than to develop new truth.

Moore’s pioneering steps have been to a considerable extent eclipsed in the minds of the current generation of economists by the tracks of those who have used the methods he pioneered. Henry Schultz’ all too brief but important career was given its initial impetus under Moore’s tutelage. Among the many others whose work was strongly influenced by Moore are Holbrook Working, Hugh Killough, Bradford Smith, Edmund Daggit, Fred Waugh, Louis Bean, and Mordecai Ezekiel. Moore’s final work, “Synthetic Economics” provided a significant bridge between the now classic work of Walras and Pareto in the field of mathematical economics and the more recent formulations of Hotelling and Samuelson.

In the nearly 30 years that have elapsed since his retirement, most of those who knew him intimately have left the science; yet it is appropriate to recall once more the significant role he had in the advancement of quantitative economics before the onrush of his successors hides his work completely from view.

 

Source: Department of Economics Collection, Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Box 8, Faculty of Political Science Minutes 1913-1959; Folder, “Faculty of Political Science Minutes”.

________________________________

The following letter of Henry L. Moore reflects a severe salary structure problem within the Columbia economics department going into 1924-25. Professors Wesley C. Mitchell, Henry L. Moore and Vladimir G. Simkhovitch were all receiving $6,000 annual salaries whereas the second-highest paid professor, Henry R. Seager, was getting paid $7,500. Highest paid was the chairman, Edwin R. A. Seligman at $10,000. In his departmental budget request to Columbia President Nicholas Murray Butler (November 23, 1923), Seligman reminded Butler of an “understanding that the salaries of a number of professors now receiving $6,000 will be advanced next year to $7,500, the minimum, as everyone must agree, compatible with the maintenance of the standing of living desirable for Columbia professors” and made the case for pay raises for Mitchell, Moore and Simkhovitch. The pay raises were ultimately granted, not for 1924-25, but for the following year.

Henry L. Moore’s lament should probably be read as expressing as his disappointed hope and/or that he might have been unaware of Seligman’s efforts in 1923 to get him the parity with Henry R. Seager that he was petitioning for.

________________________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Faculty of Political Science

September 20, 1924

My dear Professor Seligman:

We are about to begin the work of another year and I am anxious to do all in my power to contribute toward the solution, within the Department, of the personal problem before us. I ask leave, therefore, to present to you and, if you think it advisable, to other members of the Department, a statement of the relative amounts received in salary by Professor Seager and myself from the University:

 

Year Prof. Seager Prof. Moore
1902-3 3000 3000 I have had to rely on my memory for the changes in Prof. Seager’s salary. The figures relating to my own income are taken from my records.
1903-4 3500 3500
1904-5 3500 3500
1905-6 3500 3500
1906-7 3500 3500
1907-8 3500 3500
1908-9 4000 4000
1909-10 4500 2800 Here Professor Seager’s salary went up $500 and mine down $1200
1910-11 4500 2800
1911-12 6000 2800
1912-13 6000 2800
1913-14 6000 2800
1914-15 6000 2800
1915-16 6000 2800
1916-17 6000 2800
1917-18 6000 2800
1918-19 6000 4500
1919-20 6000 4000
1920-21 7500 6000
1921-22 7500 6000
1923-24 7500 6000
$117500 $82200

Several facts in this table need comment:

(1) Our salaries and rank were the same until the year 1909-10 when, at my request, in order that I might devote more time to research, I was relieved of much teaching and administrative work. I gladly paid for the increased leisure by suffering a reduction of my salary from $4000 to $2800. The same year Professor Seager’s salary was increased from $4000 to $4500. This annual difference of $1700 continued until 1911-12.

(2) In 1911-12 Professor Seager’s salary was increased to $6000; mine remained at $2800. The annual difference of $3200 continued until 1918-19 when, during the War, I was transferred to Barnard College at a salary of $4500. Professor Seager’s salary was $6000.

(3) The next year, 1919-20, I was transferred to Columbia, with a salary of $4000. Professor Seager’s remained at $6000.

(4) In 1920-21 Professor Seager’s salary was increased to $7500 and mine to $6000. The annual difference of $1500 has continued to the present time.

It would appear from these figures that if no account be taken of the reduction in our pay when we have been on leave of absence, Professor Seager’s aggregate salary has exceeded mine by more than thirty five thousand dollars.

*   *

A few years ago there was a Convocation of the Faculties of the University to consider methods of promoting research. You made a memorable speech in which you went directly to the heart of the matter in saying: “The only way to promote research is to find a man who can do it and then let him alone”. You were absolutely right. But how does it work in the particular case of our own Department? For twenty odd years Professor Seager and myself, who entered Columbia together with the same rank and same salary, have pursued different ends. he has preferred administration and teaching and has justly prospered in honors and income. I have accepted the necessary isolation and incurred the risks of the investigator who attacks new problems and devises new methods, but after nearly a quarter of a century of unremitting labor I have received from the University some thirty thousand dollars less than my honored colleague.

*   *

I am grateful to the University for giving me the opportunity for creative thought, and you will bear witness that I have never evinced any other sentiment than pleasure in the progress of a colleague. But isn’t there a principle at stake? Is it just to permit the financial discrimination between us to continue?

Yours sincerely,

[signed]
Henry L. Moore

Source: Columbia University. Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Seligman Collection Box 37 (aggregation of original Seligman boxes 100-102). Folder: “Box 100, Seligman, Columbia 1924-30”.

________________________________

For more about Henry Moore, see George J. Stigler, Henry L. Moore and Statistical Economics. Econometrica, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1962), pp. 1-21.

Image Source: Precedes the Stigler article.

Categories
Bibliography Columbia Courses

Columbia. Fiscal policy. Depression deficits and war finance. Shoup, 1941

Carl S. Shoup (New York Times obituary) taught a course at Columbia in the business school with the title “The balancing of government budgets” that was listed with economics department course offerings as “Economics b114”. One finds this course listed in the annual Bulletin of the Faculty of Political Science beginning in the Spring session of 1938 and then every year through 1943 with the exception of 1940.

In this posting you will find his selected bibliographies on deficit financing in periods of depression and the special problem of financing defense and war.

______________________________

[Course Description]

Economics b114—The balancing of governmental budgets. 3 points Spring Session. Professor Shoup.

Tu. and Th. at 9. 415 Business.

An analysis of the factors governing the choice between normal recurring revenue, such as taxes, and extraordinary revenue such as loans, devaluation profits, etc. Particular attention is paid to the relations of public finance to money and banking in these problems.

Source: Division of History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science. Courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1940-41. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 40th Series, No. 29 (June 29, 1940), p. 38.

______________________________

In this posting I have assembled three selected bibliographies two of which are undated and all three are without attribution to Shoup or any university identification. Two of the bibliographies are identified as belonging to a course “Economics b114”. These bibliographies are found in two folders (“Student years” and “University of Wisconsin, Econ b114”) filed far apart (boxes 5 and 75, respectively) in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution.

Milton Friedman taught at Columbia up through 1939-40 followed by a year at University of Wisconsin in 1940-41. None of the courses that Friedman taught at Wisconsin for which I found material in the his papers had a prefix “b” before the course number and it seems pretty unlikely (one would really need to consult the course catalogues for the University of Wisconsin to be sure…I have not) that the course numbering between the Columbia business school and the Wisconsin economics department would coincide.

I have concluded that the part of the Shoup reading list dealing with defense and war related finance was filed by a Hoover archivist with Friedman’s course materials at Wisconsin (incorrectly) because the date on that selected bibliography coincided with Friedman’s Wisconsin years (and perhaps it was actually found with materials from his business cycle class, Economics 176, at Wisconsin).

________________________

 

Economics b114
Selected Bibliography on Deficit Financing in Periods of Depression

Chase, Stewart, Idle Money, Idle Men

Clark, J. M., Economics of Planning Public Works

Clark, J. M., “An Appraisal of the Workability of Compensatory Devices,” American Economic Review, March, 1939 Supplement (Proceedings), pp. 194-208

Clark, J. M., “Effects of Public Spending on Capital Formation”, in National Industrial Conference Board, Capital Formation and its Elements, 1939.

Colm, G. and Lehmann, F., Economic Consequences of Recent American Tax Policy, Supplement I to Social Research, 1938, 108 p.

Colm, G. and Lehmann, F., “Public Spending and Recovery in the United States,” Social Research, May, 1936, Vol. III, 129-66.

Dennison, H. S. and others, Toward Full Employment, 1938, 297 p.

Eccles, Marriner, Economic Balance and a Balanced Budget (Weissman, editor)

Galbraith, J. K., The Economic Effects of the Federal Public Works Expenditures, 1933-1938, 131 p. 1940.

Galbraith, J. K., “Fiscal Policy and the Employment-Investment Controversy”, Harvard Bus. Rev., Autumn, 1939.

Gayer, Arthur, “Fiscal Policies,” American Economic Review, March, 1938 Supplement (Proceedings), 90-112. (Reprints on reserve at Business Library).

Gayer, A. D. and Rostow, W. W., How Money Works, Public Affairs Pamphlets No. 45, 1940, 30 p.

Gill, C., Wasted Manpower: The Challenge of Unemployment, 1939, 312 p.

Graham, B. L., “Storage and Stability – A Plan for Monetizing the Commodity Surplus”, in Roberts, Geo., A Forum on Finance, 1940.

Haley, B. F., “The Federal Budget: Economic Consequences of Deficit Financing,” Am. Eco. Rev., Feb., 1941, 67-87.

Hansen, A. H., Full Recovery or Stagnation? 1938, pp. 267-329.

Hicks, U. K., “Balancing the Budget” (Ch. XVII) and “Taxation and the Trade Cycle” (Ch. XVIII), in The Finance of British Government, 1920-1936. (1938)

Jaszi, G., “The Budgetary Experience of Great Britain in the Great Depression,” in Public Policy: A Yearbook (Harvard), 1940.

Kahn, R. F., “The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment,” Economic Journal June, 1931.

Keynes, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Keynes, J. M., The Means to Prosperity

Keynes, J. M., NY. Times, Editorial page, June 10, 1934 (p. 1 of editorial section) and July 7, 1934.

Lerner, A. P., “Some Swedish Stepping Stones in Economic Theory,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Nov., 1940, espec. p. 574-80.

Lutz, H. L., The Business Man’s Stake in Government Finance, Stanford Univ. 1939, espec. pp. 16-20, 23-44, 45-66.

Lutz, H. L., “The Failure of the Spending Policy,” N. Y. Sun, Jan. 6, 1940

Meyers, A. L., “Government Borrowing and Creation of National Income,” Chap. IV, in Modern Economic Problems. 1939.

Myers, M. G., Monetary Proposals for Social Reform, 1940, 191 p.

Myrdal, Gunnar, “Fiscal Policies in the Business Cycle,” A.E.R., 1939 Proceedings, 183-93.

Pigou, A. C., “Inflation, Deflation and Reflation,” Ch. IV in Economics in Practice, 1936.

Round Table on “The Workability of Compensatory Devices,” A.E.R. 1939 Proceedings, 224-29.

Samuelson, P. A., “Theory of Pump-Priming Reexamined,” Am. Eco. Rev., Sept., 1940, 492-506.

Seltzer, L. H., “Direct versus Fiscal and Institutional Factors,” Am. Eco. Rev. Feb., 1941, 99-107.

Slichter, Sumner, “Is America Finished?” N.Y. Sun, Jan. 6, 1940

Slichter, Sumner, “Profits and Prosperity,” Atlantic Monthly, Nov., 1938.

Smith, D. T., Deficits and Depression

Smith, D. T., “Is Deficit Spending Practical?” Harvard Bus. Rev., Autumn, 1939.

Smith, D. T., “An Analysis of Changes in Federal Finance, July 1930-1938 Rev. Econ. Statistics, Nov., 1938.

Smith, D. T., Review of Haley’s Paper, ibid., 88-98.

T.N.E.C., Hearings, Part 9: Hansen, Currie, etc.

Twentieth Century Fund, Debts and Recovery, 1938, 366 p.

U. S. Treasury, Borrower,” Fortune, January, 1939.

University of Chicago, Round Tables. “The Economics of Pump-Priming.” May 1, 1938, “Purchasing Power and Prosperity,” July 31, 1938.

Vanguard Press, An Economic Program for American Democracy.

Williams, John H., “Deficit Spending”, Am. Eco. Rev. Feb. 1941, 52-66.

 

Source: Milton Friedman papers, Hoover Institution Archives. Box 5, Folder 12 “Student years”. [Note above my reasons to believe this folder also has material not from Friedman’s “student years”.]

______________________________

Economics b114
Bibliography of Recent Materials Dealing with the Financing of Defense and War
February 5, 1941

American Council of Public Affairs, Economic Mobilization

Bowen, I., and Worswick, G. D. N., “The Controls and War Finance,” Oxford Econ. Papers, Sept., 1940.

Brown, F. H., and others, War Finance in Canada, 1940.

Clarke, R. W. B., The Economic Effort of War, London, 1940.

Connely, E.F., “Financing our Preparedness Program,” Banker’s Mag., Aug., 1940.

*Durbin, E.F.M., How to Pay for the War, London, 1939.

Editorial Research Reports, Methods of Financing War, June 3, 1940.

George, E.B., “Prices and Profits in a Defense Economy,” Dun’s Review, Nov., 1940.

*Greer, Guy, “Arming and Paying for It,” Harpers, Nov., 1940.

Hardy, C.O., “War and Capital Formation,” in Capital Formation and Its Elements, National Industrial Conference Board, 1939, pp. 134-50.

*Hardy, C.O., “Wartime Control of Prices,” 1940.

*Hart, A.G., Economic Policy for Rearmament, U. of Chicago Public Policy Pamphlet No. 33.

Kazekevitch, V.D., “The War and American Finance,” Science and Society, Spring, 1940.

*Keynes, J.M., How to Pay for the War, New York, 1940.

Morgan, S., “Deficit Financing in Germany,” in Roberts (editor), Forum on Finance, New York, 1939, pp. 3-22.

*Moulton, Harold G., Fundamental Issues in National Defense, Brookings, Jan. 13, 1941.

National Industrial Conference Board, Consumption, Savings, and Defense Financing, and Fiscal Possibilities for National Defense, Supplements to Economic Record, 1940.

*New Republic symposium: How to Pay for Defense, July 29, 1940 (Groves, Keynes, Chase, Cooke, Soule).

Pigou, A. C., “War Finance and Inflation,” Economic Journal, Dec., 1940.

Radice, E.A., “Consumption, Savings, and War Finance,” Oxford Economic Papers, Sept., 1940.

Riches, E.J., “Deferred Pay: the Keynes Plan,” Inter. Labor Review, June, 1940.

Robbins, L., “How Britain Will Finance the War,” Foreign Affairs, April, 1940.

Staudinger, H., and Lehmann, F., “Germany’s Economic Mobilization for War,” National Industrial Conference Board Economic Record, July 24, 1940.

*U.S. Government, Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1942.

______________________________

The next page immediately follows the previous but it lacks a date and the formatting of the bibliography deviates from the previous two. Being alphabetically ordered and going from “Annals” to “Williams” with perhaps a quarter of empty page below, it is clearly a separate list. None of the titles are the same with the previous two lists, so I have presumed this is a likely update from the middle of the second session 1941.

______________________________

Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science: Billions for Defense, March, 1941, 1-215.

Bach, G.L., “Rearmament, Recovery and Monetary Policy”, American Economic Review, March, 1941, 27-41.

Eccles, M. S., “Economic Preparedness for Defense and Post Defense Problems, Federal Reserve Bulletin, Jan., 1941.

Gilbert, R. V., and others, “Exploring the Factors Involved in Reemployment of Labor and Capital”, Savings Bank Journal, Dec., 1940.

Hansen, A. H., “Defense Financing and Inflation Potentialities,” Review of Economic Statistics, Feb., 1941.

Hearings, Public Debt Act of 1941: Committee on Ways and Means, Jan. 29 and 30, 1941, 106pp: Subcommittee of Committee on Finance, Feb. 12, 1941 47p.

Musgrave, R. A., “Inflationary Dangers of the Public Debt and the Tax System”, Taxes, Feb., 1941

Paul, R. E., and others, “Exploring the Financing of National Defense and Its Economic Consequences,” Savings Bank Journal, Oct., 1940

Plumptre, A. F. W., “An Approach to War Finance,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Feb., 1941, 1-12.

Secretary of the Treasury, Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940.

Stewart, Maxwell, “How Shall We Pay for Defense?” Public Affairs Pamphlet, No. 52, 1941.

Williams, John H. “Economic and Monetary Aspects of the Defense Problem,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Feb. 1941

 

Source: Milton Friedman papers, Hoover Institution Archives. Box 75, Folder 2 “University of Wisconsin, Econ b114”. [Note above my reasons to believe this folder contains a reading list from the Shoup course at Columbia University.]

______________________________

Research Tip: Shoup Collection at Yokohama National University Library

“The Shoup Collection consists of 3,000 volumes of books, 100 titles of periodicals and enormous amount of documents held by an American economist Dr. Carl Sumner Shoup (1902-2000) who is known to have issued the report of Japanese tax system called “Shoup Mission.” In particular, the documents of his lecture notes, working memoranda and letters including those from Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for Allied Forces, and from Shigeru Yoshida, former Prime Minister, are precious inheritances that can only be found at this library.”

______________________________

Image Source: The Columbia Spectator Archive. March 8, 1967.

 

 

 

Categories
Bibliography Columbia Courses Economists

Columbia. Economic History Course taught by Simkhovitch. Attended by Friedman, 1933.

Of six graduate courses taken for credit at Columbia University by Milton Friedman, one was taught by the Professor of Economic History, Vladimir Gregorievitch Simkhovitch — Economics 119. According to Friedman’s own listing of his coursework in economics found in his papers at the Hoover Institution Archives, he took Simkhovitch’s economic history course during the winter semester of the academic year 1933-34.

Simkhovitch was a multifaceted character and Universalgelehrter which can be loosely translated as an academic “utility infielder”. Because of his relative (or even absolute) obscurity now in the history of economics, here a bit of biographical information to chew on.

V. G. Simkhovitch was born in Russia in 1874, received his doctorate from Halle-Wittenberg (Germany) in 1898, and emigrated to the U.S. after completing graduate work where he began a fellowship at Cornell. He was hired by Columbia University in 1904 to teach economic history. Besides his economic history courses, Simkhovitch also regularly lectured on the subjects of socialist economics and Marxism until retiring from Columbia in 1942. Of considerably more note than himself was his wife Mary Melina Kingsbury, whom he met in Berlin during their student years. They married in New York City in 1899 with Mary Simkhovitch going on to become a prominent housing reform and neighborhood activist. Greenwich House, still in existence, was a model settlement house that she founded. Husband and wife were prominent enough, mostly thanks to her, to have their 50th wedding anniversary reported in the New York Times (January 6, 1949). Objects from Vladimir Simkhovitch’s art collections were reported in his obituary (New York Times, December 10, 1959) to have been displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Pierrpont Morgan Library in New York as well as museums in Boston, Cleveland and Philadelphia. It is not difficult to find objects once owned by him in art auction house listings today.

__________________________

Eli Ginzberg’s recollections of Simkhovitch

In his brief memoir essay “Economics at Columbia: Recollections of the early 1930s” [The American Economist, vol. 34, No. 2, (Fall, 1990), 14-19], Simkhovitch does not come off well, certainly not personally.

“The hard core of the old department in addition to Seligman, Seager and Moore included Vladimir G. Simkhovitch who offered courses on socialism and economic history. Russian by birth and German by education, Simkhovitch, even with the perspective of time is not easy to characterize and even harder to evaluate. A collector of Chinese art and a grower of delphiniums in Perry, Maine, he was recognized as an expert in both fields. Most students, the bright as well as the dull, considered his lectures somewhat tedious distraction from serious work on contemporary economics; they had little interest in his exhaustion of the soil explanation for the decline of Rome or his Edward Bernstein-modified critique of Karl Marx. But a few of us recognized V.G.’s insightfulness and over looked his failings, defects which included a proneness for character defamation and vindictiveness as well as immature behavior toward female students.” p. 14.

“If the relations between the Graduate Economics Department and the School of Business were close and for the most part friendly, this was not the case with respect to the Graduate Economic Department’s attitude to the economists who taught in the undergraduate department headed by Rexford G. Tugwell. Tugwell fancied himself to be an expert in agricultural economics which may have brought him into conflict with Simkhovitch who devoted much of his time and energy to creating and maintaining feuds. The tension may have been nothing more than snobbery run riot. Tugwell did not teach any course in the Graduate Department of Economics. But I can personally attest to the fact that Tugwell was sensitive about collegial relations.” p. 17

Ahem…“immature behavior toward female students”!  Certainly not the first, nor regrettably the last…but definitely one of them.  It was good for Eli Ginzberg to have put that in the historical record. 

__________________________

[Course Description]

Economics 119—Economic history. 3 points Winter Session. Professor V. G. SIMKHOVITCH.
Tu., 2:10-3 in 401 Fayerweather and 4:10-5 in 302 Fayerweather.

A general survey of the chief phases of the economic development of classical antiquity, of the Middle Ages, and of modern times, as well as of historical approaches.

Source: History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for Winter and Spring Sessions, 1933-34. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 33rd Series, No. 26 (March 25, 1933)

__________________________

ECONOMIC HISTORY

V. Simkhovitch “Approaches to History”

I Political Science Quarterly, December 1929 S
II         [ditto]                             December, 1930 S
III       [ditto]                              September, 1932 R

Towards an Understanding of Jesus R
Rome’s Fall Reconsidered S
Hay and History S
Marxism v. Socialism Chapter on the Economic Interpretation of History

 

R         Roth Clausing The Roman Colonate 5-62

R         F. de Coulanges The Origin of Property in Land 1-73; 149-52

S          Buecher         Industrial Evolution 83-151

R         Edward Meyer Entwicklungsgeschichte des Altertums in Kleine Schriften Vol. 81-160

R         H. Bradley      Enclosures in England 11-45; 72; 85; 105-7

S         Seligman The Economic Interpretation of History 1-24; 146-186

R         Schoenberg “Zunftswesen im Mittelalter” Jahrbucher fur Nationaloekonomie und Statistik 1867

R         Renard           Guilds in the Middle Ages 1-26; 32-67; 73 -115

R         Brentano       History and Development of the Guilds

R         Cunningham Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Paragraphs 61, 72-7, 84, 103, 122, 128, 149-9

S          Ashley Introduction to English Economic Theory and History, Volume I pp. 1-113

R         Toynbee Industrial Revolution Chapters 7 and 8

R         Toutain          The Economic Life of the Ancient World Chapters 5-6

R  Read                      S   Study carefully

 

Source: Milton Friedman Papers. Hoover Institution Archives. Box 5, Folder 12, “Student years”.

__________________________

Image Source: Standing Royal Figure. Brooklyn Museum, Gift of Helena Simkhovitch in memory of her father, Vladimir G. Simkhovitch.