Categories
Economists Gender

Women’s Suffrage. Schumpeter in the Washington Post, 1914

 

 

The following article by Joseph Schumpeter was published in the Washington Post (March 22, 1914) along with four other short articles by different writers on the subject of women’s suffrage. While Schumpeter briefly indicates where he ultimately stands, “…the gallant fight for equality which our women are waging,” he displays all the passion of an early twentieth century “feminist of the chair”. Still an interesting tidbit of an artifact.

_______________________

Suffrage Coming, says Economist, Because of Changing Family Life

Institution of Marriage Modified, Declares Prof. Schumpeter, and Women Have Lost Their Old Employment—Traces History.

By Prof. Joseph Schumpeter
Austrian Exchange Professor to Columbia University,
Professor of Political Economy at the University of Gratz

If any public question is in process of being thrashed out, people soon cease to do any thinking of their own about it and have a way of settling down to repeating indefinitely sets of arguments which from the very fact of their logical weakness seem to derive an emotional force.

This we can always observe when large issues are fought out. What we think about them is only handmaid to what we feel about them. But this is specially true in the particular case of the gallant fight for equality which our women are waging, for hardly anywhere else is there so much room for vague hopes and fears, and hardly another issue has so nasty a spike for the feelings of many of us.

Now, I do not wish to argue on either side. All I want is to point out that all ideas and social institutions and habits which have anything to do with the relations and relative positions of the sexes are determined by, or have a tendency to adapt themselves to the general conditions under which a nation lives. We cannot hope—much as we may want to—to keep any social institutions—marriage, for instance—what it is at a given point of the long road of social evolution, if those conditions change. As a matter of fact, though the name may remain the same, the institution of marriage and what it really means and implies is forever changing.

Facts Change Faster Than Ideals.

There is as much difference between what it is to be married now and what it was to be married a few hundred years ago as there is between the Twentieth Century Limited and a saddle horse, although our legal definitions and our ideals of marriage have changed much less rapidly and thoroughly than the facts have. And there is some use in glancing over the historical evolution of the position of women to see how the necessities under which we have lived have sharpened, together with everything else, also this particular element of our lives.

Women in Primitive Times.

In primitive conditions the precariousness of the existence of the small clans that roamed about very much like herds of deer imposed on them the necessity of the strongest members of the group being always ready to fight an enemy or to hunt for food, specializing, as it were, in the profession of warrior and hunter and leaving everything else to the women.

This accounts for the position of women in primitive times. It is not quite exact to speak of their “subjection” or to style them “beasts of burden.” They simply had a sphere of activity cut out for them, from which men were debarred just as much as they were debarred from joining his hunting expeditions.

Family life as we know it came into existence only much later, when people settled down on the land. It owes its origin to the fact that the house had become an economic point, and that the ties of clanship lost steadily in importance. This, by the way, disposes of the argument that the family is the “cell” of the social group. The contrary is true. The family evolved out of a bigger group, it appeared comparatively late, and social groups have been able to get along without it for a very long spell of time.

No Old Maids Then.

Well, when the family, in our sense of the word, did come into existence, the place of the wife was again determined by inexorable necessities. And this meant, at that time, that the social position of women in general was so determined, for practically all of them were wives, a spinster being just as exceptional a phenomenon as a bachelor then was. They were, indeed, most unhappy exceptions, because married life was then the necessary basis of everything outside the walls of a convent. In their homes wives were supreme rulers.

They managed the whole of all those industrial functions which the rural household of the Middle Ages implied. They did what manufacturers and tradesmen do for them today.

Needless to say, those conditions have passed away or are passing away, and they will never return. What I have called their industrial function has been taken away from women and has been reduced, or is being reduced, to fussing about menus, table decorations, and similar problems. The peasant’s wife is happier in this respect, for she still lives, to some extent, under those old conditions. The laborer’s wife has never had much of a home. But all these women who have not got to go out to work now offer the most tragic case of unemployment ever witnessed, with all its effects on happiness and character.

Suffrage Bound to Come.

Whatever our works and ideals, it is absurd to call the women’s movement a whim, which will pass, provided only it is not taken seriously and provided its symptoms are sternly put down. It is a movement which it may be possible to guide, but which it is imperative to guide only toward its goal, for it will get there, anyway. Let us apply this to the particular question of suffrage, which is only one element of the much broader problem I have been speaking about and a comparatively insignificant one. Yet it is a step on a long road—a step which is absolutely unavoidable. The more men fight the suffrage the better the cause will prosper. All the resistance is good for is to show the power of the trend of things and to make the victory—which is sure to come—the more significant and dramatic.

 

SourceThe Washington Post, 22 March 1914. Copy in the on-line Schumpeter Archive.

Image Source: Josef Schumpeter portrait.  Austrian National Library. Bildarchiv und Grafiksammlung.

Categories
Columbia Economists Methodology New School

Columbia. Wesley Clair Mitchell’s remarks at Conference on Methods in Philosophy and the Sciences, 1937

 

In brief remarks intended to give non-economists a sense of the major methodological schools of economics at a 1937 conference at the New School for Social Research, Columbia professor Wesley Clair Mitchell distinguishes (i) orthodox economics dedicated to the understanding of the “pecuniary logic” of an agent within a capitalist market environment, (ii) institutional economics dedicated to the understanding of the evolution of economic organization, and (iii) a new, yet unnamed, type of economic theory that is clearly recognizable as being “behavioral economics”.

____________________

Conference Program

CONFERENCE ON METHODS IN PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENCES

New School for Social Research
66 West 12th Street
New York City, N.Y.

Saturday, May 22 and Sunday, May 23, 1937

PROGRAM

Saturday, May 22

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

9:30 A.M. – 11:00 A.M – Registration, Room 24, Fee – $1.00

11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. – First Session – Room 25

Chairman:  H. M. Kallen
Sidney Hook: The Current Philosophical Scene
John Dewey: A Possible Program for Libertarians and Experimentalists

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2:30 – 4:00 P:M: – Second Session – Room 25

Brief statements on various departments of philosophy and the sciences: Their assumptions, methods, histories of the different schools, etc.

Ernest Nagel: The Position in LOGIC and METHODOLOGY
W.M. Malisoff: The Position in the PHYSICAL SCIENCES

DISCUSSION

4:00 – 5:30 P.M. – Second Session Continued – Room 25

S. E. Asch: The Position in PSYCHOLOGY
Wesley C. Mitchell: The Position in ECONOMICS

DISCUSSION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

7:00 P.M. – DINNER, Gene’s 71 West 11th Street

Speakers: Bacchus, Dionysus, the Holy and other Spirits.
Appointment of Committees

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sunday, May 23

10:00 A.M. – 12 M. – Third Session, Room 25

Julius Lips: The Position in ANTHROPOLOGY
Meyer Schapiro: The Position in AESTHETICS
R. M. MacIver: The Position in SOCIOLOGY

DISCUSSION

12M. – 1:00 P.M. – Business Meeting

Election of Officers
Appointment of Permanent Committees
Unfinished Business
Adjournment

 

____________________

Handwritten Remark by Wesley Clair Mitchell
Economics

 

Conference on Methods in Philosophy and the Social Sciences

New School
May 22, 1937

Economics like Philosophy and the other Social Sciences is still in the stage of development marked by the existence of fairly distinct schools of thought, or as I like better to say Types of Theory.

These schools differ in method. But these differences in method arise from differences in the problems which are taken as the central concern of economics.

 

Orthodox economics concerns itself primarily with what I like to call pecuniary logic — what it is to the economic advantage of men to do under a capitalistic organization — and the ‘purer’ this theory becomes the more exclusive concentration on that problem becomes.

In dealing with pecuniary logic, the investigator employs the method of imaginary experimentation. That is, he sets up certain assumptions and seeks to think out what it is to the interest of men to do under the conditions supposed.

The theory is developed by varying these assumptions with reference to such matters as the factors in theory set which are allowed to change the length of the period considered in the problem, the degree of competition supposed, elasticities of demand, relations between unit costs and volume of output.

How far the conclusions apply to the actual world depends upon the character of the assumptions made. The correspondence between these assumptions and actual conditions is seldom investigated.

Hence the doubts about this type of theory are usually doubts, not about the correctness of the reasoning, but about how far they apply to the facts we wish to understand. May have uncertain ‘operational significance’.  Defence.—tool makers. Question about applicability not relevant.

This description applies less strictly to Marshall than to many of his pupils, to the later Austrians, and to mathematical economists.

 

Institutional economics concerns itself primarily with the evolution of economic organization.

To Veblen this meant study of the widely prevalent habits of thought.

To Commons it means study of social controls over induced action—primarily through the courts.

Methods employed combine ethnology or historical research with reasoning about how men with a certain set of habits ingrained in them by the social environment in which they have grown up and by the work they do will behave or how the social controls over induced behavior may be expected to work out.

Again there may be doubts about how far the reasoning concerning economic behavior applies to actual conditions.

 

A third type of economics seems to be developing though not represented as yet by systematic theoretical treatises.

It endeavors to learn by analytic studies of actual behavior how men conduct themselves. Its methods are closer kin to those of animal psychologists than to those of introspective psychologists.

Though these men show no reluctance to account for their observations by supposing that their subjects know the rules of the money-making and money-spending games. Here they go beyond outlook[?] of physical science— Supposes men have purposes: that they plan for future .

Large use of the mass observations afforded by statistics

Considerable emphasis upon method[?] analysis of these records.

Not confined to statistics.

Doubts here concern representative value [or volume?] of the data

Trustworthiness of the mathematical analysis.

Extent to which factors that are not recorded statistically may modify conclusions drawn. Work of this sort is primarily monographic. Since social phenomena are interdependent, the question concerning what is left out is highly important

Can’t be applied well except when mass observations are available.

Promises to develop in future because statistical observation is covering a wider range.

Danger of ‘mere fact finding’ Dewey. Yes, but the facts may have deep ‘operational’ significance. Relation to questions of policy.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. W. C. Mitchell Collection. Box 3, Folder “5/22/37 A”.

Image Source: Wesley Clair Mitchell from Albert Arnold Sprague’s and Claudia C. Milstead’s Genealogical Website.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Undergraduate

Harvard. Syllabus and final exam for National Income and its Distribution. Conrad, 1958

 

 

For this post I have transcribed the syllabus with reading assignments together with the final exam questions for Alfred H. Conrad’s undergraduate semester course, “National Income and its Distribution,” taught at Harvard during the 1958-59 academic year. As utterly important as the national income accounts have proven themselves to be, the data from these accounts are generally just taken for granted by the overwhelming majority of economists and woe be the instructor who tries to introduce such material in more than one or two sessions in their macroeconomics course. But I have always liked the stuff and so this course enters the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror collection.

While I can recall having heard of his pioneering econometric work on American slavery with John R. Meyer in an American economic history course I took many decades ago at Yale, I really knew nothing about Conrad’s career, other work, or his personal life. The biographical data from the members’ survey of the American Economic Association are undoubtedly the truth, but not the whole truth, which is why I have provided the link to his New York Times obituary and a story about his wife, the poet Adrienne Rich. Suicide sadly cut his career short but I am happy to enter these few artifacts into the historical record in his memory.

_______________

On Alfred H. Conrad and his wife, poet, Adrienne Rich

New York Times obituary for Alfred H. Conrad: October 20, 1970.

The Guardian article “Poet and Pioneer” by John O’Mahoney (15 June 2002) that provides a review of the work of Conrad’s wife, the poet Adrienne Rich, with a dozen paragraphs about their lives together.

_______________

American Economic Association
Member Biographic Entry, 1969

CONRAD, Alfred Haskell, academic; b. New York City, 1924; A.B., Harvard, 1947, M.A., 1949, Ph,D., 1954.

DOC. DIS. The Redistribution of Income and the Matrix Multiplier, 1953.

FIELDS 2ab, 3ab, Ic.

PUB. The Economics of Slavery and other studies in econometric history (with John R. Meyer), 1964; The Impact of Education and Research on Efficiency in CES Production Relations (with Murray Brown), 1967; Econometric Models and Development Planning, 1968.

RES. The Diffusion of Technological Innovations.

Asst. prof., Northwestern, 1955-56; asst. prof. econ., Harvard, high, 1956-59, mem. sr. research staff, Econ. Research Project, 1952-59, lectr. bus. adm., 1959-61, asso. prof. bus. adm., Grad. Sch., 1962-66; vis. prof., Netherlands Sch. Econ., 1961-62; prof. econs., City Coll., City U. of New York since 1966, exec. officer of Grad. Program since 1969.

Source: American Economic Association. Biographical Listings of Members. The American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No. 6, 1969. Handbook of the American Economic Association (Jan., 1970), p. 84.

_______________

Course Description

Economics 124. National Income and its Distribution

Half course (fall term). M., W., F., at 10. Assistant Professor Conrad.

Measurement of national income and income inequality; theories of distribution among factors and individuals; factor-shares and inequality in a general equilibrium explanation; inequality and growth in mature and in underdeveloped economies; government redistribution; testing the hypotheses.

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. LV, No. 24 (November 28, 1958), General Catalogue Issue, 1958-1959, p. 123.

_______________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 124. National Income and its Distribution. Assistant Professor Conrad. Half course (Fall).

Total, 12: 3 Seniors, 7 Juniors, 1 Sophomores, 1 Other.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1958-59. Page 71.

_______________

Economics 124
NATIONAL INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION
Fall, 1958

  1. National Income and Social Accounting.
    1. Introduction; conceptual framework for income accounting.

The definition and measurement of national income. Income inequality, growth, and ethical norms. The production accounts of the firm and the income accounts of the economy.

Readings:

Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, Kuznets, “National Income,” pp. 3-33.
Ruggles and Ruggles, National Income Accounts and Income Analysis, Chs. 1-4, pp. 3-68.
Hicks, Hart, and Ford, Social Framework of the American Economy, Chs. 16, 17, pp. 209-234.

    1. The construction of the national income accounts.

The problems of valuation and aggregation.

Readings:

Ruggles and Ruggles, Chs. 5-8, pp. 69-186.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Income, 1954 Edition, pp. 30-60, 160-165.
Hicks, Hart, and Ford, Ch. 15, pp. 198-208.

    1. Two special problems.

Maintaining capital intact.
The product of government.

Readings:

Hicks, Hart, and Ford, Ch. 10 and Appendix Note C, pp. 117-130, 296-300, and Ch. 13, pp. 173-185.

Reference:

Income and Wealth, Series I, ed. E. Lundberg, “Government Product and National Income” (Kuznets), pp. 178-245.

    1. A review of aggregate income trends and analysis.

Readings:

Ruggles and Ruggles, Chs. 10-12, pp. 213-303.
Income and Wealth, Series II, ed. S. Kuznets, “Long-Term Changes in the National Income of the United States Since 1870” (Kuznets), pp. 29-241. This study should be read by the time we reach section 8, below—not later than November 14.

  1. The Theory of Income Distribution.
    1. Introduction; income distribution in economic analysis.

Readings:

Readings, J. M. Clark, “Distribution,” pp. 58-71.
M. A. Copeland, “Social and Economic Determinants of the Distribution of Income,” AER, March 1947, pp. 56-75.

    1. The distribution of the product among the factors of production.

The classical descriptions and Marx.
The marginalists.
Market position and monopoly; the effectiveness of unions.
General equilibrium and employment theories.

Readings:

Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy, Chs. 4, 5, 6, pp. 88-127 (Sraffa edition).
Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, Chs. 4, 5, pp. 56-95.
Hicks, Theory of Wages, Chs. 1-5, pp. 1-111.
The Impact of the Union (ed. Wright), Samuelson, Ch. 15, pp. 312-342, and Friedman, Ch. 10, pp. 204-234.
Readings, R.A. Gordon, “Enterprise, Profits, and the Modern Corporation,” pp. 558-570.
L. C. Reynolds, “Impact of Collective Bargaining on Wage Structure,” Theory of Wage Determination, ed. J. T. Dunlop, pp. 194-221.

Reference:

Dalton, The Inequality of Incomes, esp. Parts II and III.
Douglas, Theory of Wages, esp. Part I and Ch. 8.
Wootton, The Social Foundations of Wage Policy.
Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution.

    1. The distribution of income among individuals.

The possession of skills and property.
Normal curves, Pareto’s Law, and chance.

Readings:

Studies in Income and Wealth, Volume XV, Garvy, “Inequality of Income; Causes and Measurement,” pp. 25-47.
A. D. Roy, “The Distribution of Earnings and of Individual Output,” Econ Journal, Sept. 1950, pp. 489-505.
A. D. Roy, “Some Thoughts on the Distribution of Earnings,” Oxford Econ Papers, 1951, pp. 135-

Reference:

Dalton, Part IV.

    1. The data on functional and personal distribution of income in the U.S.

Readings:

D. G. Johnson, “Functional Distribution of Income in the U.S.,” RES, May 1954, pp. 175-183.
G. H. Moore, “Secular Changes in the Distribution of Income,” AER, Papers and Proceedings, May 1952, pp. 527-544.
E. F. Denison, “Income Types and the Size Distribution,” AER, Papers and Proceedings, May 1954, pp. 254-269.
S. Goldsmith, et al, “Size Distribution of Income since the Mid-Thirties,” RES, February 1954, pp. 1-32.
H. Miller, Income of the American People, Chs. 3, 8, 9, pp. 16-33, 97-123.

References:

U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Income Distribution in the United States, Washington, 1953.
Kuznets, Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings.
M. J. Bowman, “A Graphical Analysis of Personal Income Distribution in the United States,” Readings, pp. 72-99.

III. [No section title]

    1. Income Inequality and Growth

Income, consumption and investment.
Technical change, capital formation, and income shares.
Income shares and industrial structure.

Readings:

Baumol, Economic Dynamics, Chs. 2, 3, pp. 11-35.
Duesenberry, “Income-Consumption Relations and their Implications,” in Income, Employment, and Public Policy, pp. 54-81.
Kurihara, “Distribution, Employment, and Secular Growth,” in Post-Keynesian Economics, Ch. 10, pp 251-273.
Kuznets, “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,” AER, March 1955, pp. 1-28.
Hicks, Theory of Wages, Ch. 6, pp. 112-135.
E. H. Phelps-Brown, “The Long-Term Movement of Real Wages,” in Theory of Wage Determination, ed. J. T. Dunlop, pp. 48-65.

Reference:

F. A. Hanna, “Contribution of Manufacturing Wages to Regional Differences in Per-Capita Income,” RES, February 1951.

    1. Inflation and Income Inequality.

Readings:

Keynes, “Social Consequences of Changes in the Value of Money,” Essays in Persuasion, pp. 80-104.
Bach and Ando, “Redistributional Effects of Inflation,” RES, February 1957, pp. 1-13.

Reference:

D. Seers, Changes in the Cost of Living and the Distribution of Income, Oxford, 1949.
Joint Committee on the Economic Report, Low-Income Families and Economic Stability, 1949.

    1. The State and the Distribution.

Who pays the taxes?
Redistribution through public expenditures.

Readings:

Conrad, “Redistribution through Government Budgets in the U.S.,” in Income Redistribution and Public Policy, pp. 178-267.
Conrad, “On the Calculation of Tax Burdens,” Economica, November 1955, pp. 342-348.

    1. Conclusion.

Readings:

Kuznets, in Studies in Income and Wealth, Volume XV, pp. 203-213.
Tinbergen, “Welfare Economics and Income Distribution,” AER, Papers and Proceedings, May 1957, pp. 490-503.

Reference:

Lampman, “Recent Thoughts on Egalitarianism,” QJE, May 1957, pp. 234-266.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 7. Folder “Economics, 1958-1959 (1 of 2)”.

_______________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 124
FINAL EXAMINATION
January 16, 1959

Answer Question 1 and any four others.

  1. (a) or (b):

(a) The Council of Economic Advisers, in their report to the President in January, 1953, stated:

“…the preferable general formula—once wages, prices and profits are in a workable relationship—is for money wages to increase with productivity trends in the whole economy.”

Discuss this suggestion in the light of your reading period assignment, bringing in relevant recent data on the effect of inflation upon factor shares to illustrate your argument.

(b) Describe briefly the law of proportional effect and discuss its application to the income generating process. Be careful to consider the economic relevance of the conditions and results of the statistical model.

  1. Describe the tendencies toward a falling rate of profit in (1) the “classical”, (2) the Marxian, and (3) neo-classical description of capital accumulation. How would the possibility of technological change affect this tendency?
  2. Who are the poor in the post-World War II United States?
  3. You are hired as a technical expert on national income accounts to advise a country in which economists, among other basic resources, are in short supply. In detail, discuss the statistics you will need to answer the following questions: (1) who saves? (2) what has been the trend the savings/income ratio?
  4. “One might thus assume a long swing in the inequality characterizing the secular income structure: widening in the early phases of economic growth when the transition from the pre-industrial to the industrial civilization was most rapid; becoming stabilized for awhile; and then narrowing in the later phases.” Write a concise explanation, in outline form if you like, for the declining inequality suggested here.
  5. How would you reconcile the marginal productivity theory of wages (as presented, say, by Hicks) with the collective bargaining explanation of Lloyd Reynolds or the inertia-displacement theory of Phelps Brown? You may include in your argument any other readings that seem to be relevant.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Social Sciences. Final Examinations, January 1959. (HUC7000.28, 122 of 284). Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, Government, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. January, 1959.

Image Source: Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Fellows page for Alfred Haskell Conrad.

Categories
Economists Teaching Undergraduate Williams

Williams. Leading Author of Political Economy Textbooks, Arthur Lathan Perry (1830-1905)

 

An earlier post mentioned the late 19th century economics textbook writer, Arthur Latham Perry, whose writings in the United States were rated by leading publishers in third/fourth place (behind Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill) in 1876. This post provides some biographical information, links to most editions of his three textbooks and two prefaces that describe his personal intellectual development as an economist. 

More about the economics professor Arthur Latham Perry:

Joseph Dorfman. Economic Mind in American Civilization, vol. 3 1865-1918. New York: 1949. pp. 56-63.

Stephen Meardon. A Tale of Two Tariff Commissions and One Dubious “Globalization Backlash”. Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department Working Paper 476 (November 2002), pp. 14-19.

________________________

Perry, Arthur Latham (1830-1905)
By Patrick J. McCurdy (Class of 2002)

Arthur Latham Perry, Williams Class of 1852, was born on February 27, 1830 and died on July 9, 1905. He was raised in poverty in New Hampshire but was able to attend Williams College, where he was one of the founders and charter members of the Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity.

After graduating, he taught in Washington for a year but returned immediately when offered a position at Williams as professor of history and political economy. He taught these subjects from 1854 to 1891. While at the college he also taught German language and literature 1854-1868. As a professor of Political Economy, 1859-1899, he wrote many textbooks and monographs and was considered a leading expert in the field of free trade.

For several years he toured the country during his summer holidays, giving lectures on the principle of free trade for The American Free Trade League. He also wrote important history books on Williamstown and Williams College, Origins of Williamstown (1894) and Williamstown and Williams College (1898).

In 1891 Professor Perry retired and acted as a consultant to the governors of Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut. It was for his great devotion to Williams College that the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity house was named in honor of him.

Perry married Mary Brown Smedley, whose ancestors were some of the first settlers of Williamstown and famous leaders of the Revolutionary War.  With her he had five sons and one daughter: Bliss, Arthur, Walter, Carroll, Lewis and Grace.  Papers for years to come would describe the brothers as a member of an old and distinguished Williamstown family.”

Source: Williams College. Special Collections Website: Perry, Arthur Latham (1830-1905) webpage.

Image Source: Arthur Latham Perry. Miscellanies. Williamstown, Mass.: Published by the Author, 1902).

________________________

Arthur Latham Perry
Links to Editions of his Three Text-books in Political Economy

Perry, Arthur Latham. Elements of Political Economy (New York: Charles Scribner and Company). 1st ed. (1866); 2nd ed. (1867); 4th ed. (1868); 5th ed. (1869) ; 6th ed. (1871); 7th ed. (1872); 10th ed. (1873); 11th ed. (1874); 13th ed. (1875); 14th ed. (1877);  15?th ed. (1878);
Title shortened to Political Economy: 18th ed. (1883); 19th ed. (1887); 20th ed. (1888); 21st ed. (1892); 22nd ed. (1895).

Perry, Arthur Latham. An Introduction to Political Economy (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Company). 1st ed. (1877); 2nd ed. (1880).

Perry, Arthur Latham. Principles of Political Economy. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons). 1st ed. (1891);

________________________

Arthur Latham Perry, LL.D.
Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College

PREFACE
14th edition (1877) of Elements of Political Economy

THE good reception given to my book in its previous editions by many practical teachers, as well as by the general public, has prompted me to subject it to another thorough revision, by verifying former statements of fact and introducing many new ones to bring the book abreast of the present time, and by enlarging the discussion of principles at some points and curtailing it at others in the interest of symmetry and completeness; and prompts me also to write, even at this late day, a preface to the book, since I have grounds for believing that some of its friends may be pleased to learn of the circumstances under which it was originally written.

I had taught Political Economy in this Institution [Williams College] for ten or twelve years without ever forming any purpose to try my hand at a treatise on the subject. I had used for my teachers and guides the English writers, particularly Smith, Ricardo, Senior, and Mill; and had familiarized myself also with the American writers, particularly Carey, Wayland, Bowen, and Bascom. Almost from the outset of my studies, however, and increasingly as the years went by, I felt a dissatisfaction with what seemed to me to be the lack of scientific generality common to nearly all these writers. I could see no solid reason why economical discussions should be confined to tangible commodities, and not include as well personal services rendered for pay, and also credits of all kinds. I discussed this point repeatedly with Professor Bascom, at that time my colleague, and my mind had almost reached the conclusion in which it has now rested for many years, when my late friend Amasa Walker, who was even then a political economist of reputation, although he had not yet published his “Science of Wealth,” recommended to me Bastiat’s “Harmonies of Political Economy.” I had scarcely read a dozen pages in that remarkable book, when, closing it, and giving myself to an hour’s reflection, the field of Political Economy, in all its outlines and landmarks, lay before my mind just as it does to-day. I do not know how much I brought to this result, and how much towards it was derived from Bastiat. I only know that from that hour Political Economy has been to me a new science; and that I experienced then and thereafter a sense of having found something, and the cognate sense of having something of my own to say. This was in 1863.

Subsequently I learned much from Bastiat. It is a pleasure to acknowledge, in the amplest manner, one’s indebtedness to such a quickening writer as he is; and whoever will compare carefully with his book the following chapters on Value and Land, will see how much I have profited by his discussions; and he will also see that I have made an independent, not a servile, use of them. I dare to hope that the relations of utility to value are even more clearly and ultimately put than he has put them. Not to have availed myself of the truths which he has actually established would be as unjust to science, as not also to have endeavored, in the chapters on Exchange and Foreign Trade to execute the commission which he left to his readers in these words:

I hope yet to find at least one among them who will be able to demonstrate rigorously this proposition: the good of each tends to the good of all, as the good of all tends to the good of each ; and who will, moreover, be able to impress this truth upon men’s minds by rendering the proof of it simple, lucid, and irrefragable.
[Sterling’s Translation of the Harmonies, page 92.]

Under the impression that I could now say something about Political Economy that the public might be willing to hear, I wrote over my initials a series of articles for the “Springfield Republican,” which attracted attention, and brought me letters alike from friends and from entire strangers, – notably from the late Sidney Homer of Boston, whose name I shall always hold in grateful remembrance for this and other reasons, – urging me to continue to write on this subject, and suggesting that a formal treatise might be acceptable to the public. Thus solicited and encouraged, – Mr. Bowles kindly adding his voice to the rest, — I ventured with diffidence upon the composition of this book. It was not at all the primary purpose to prepare a text-book for the use of college students. I thought, indeed, that I might use the book with my own classes; but the general public was in my eye throughout. The supposed needs of merchants’ clerks and farmers’ sons, for example, influenced the matter and form much more than those of people intellectually further advanced. Indeed, there was, for this reason, in the first edition, a familiarity of phrase and illustration which justly elicited criticism, and which has since been gradually eliminated. While the original design, to be intelligible to all classes of readers, may doubtless have betrayed me at times into too familiar a style, it has continued, nevertheless, to control the form of every new and every altered paragraph.

That which is original in my book is perhaps rather to be sought for in the book as a whole than in the specific parts of it. The entire plan is different from that of any book published prior to 1865. I attempted a self-consistent and symmetrical development of the one idea of Value in each of the three forms in which it manifests itself. That the outline at least is complete, is confirmed by the fact that I have found no occasion since for any other chapters than the sixteen originally sketched. I dropped entirely the long-maintained distinctions between the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth. So far as I know, I was the first to drop the technical use of the term Wealth, – a term that has always proved an invincible foe to every one trying to wrestle with it scientifically: even Bastiat, athlete as he was, was floored in this encounter. I believe that new light has been thrown on the value of land, on the delicate relations between money as a medium and money as a measure, on the whole line of objections to free trade, and on the nature of property as related to every form of taxation. The historical chapters of the book cost me very great labor. In sketching the history of American tariffs, I had not before me the tracks of even a solitary pioneer. The same remark applies in the same degree to the chapter on Currency in the United States, – a subject that has since been worthily developed into a volume by my friend Professor Sumner of Yale College. In the opening chapter on the History of the Science, I was aided somewhat by the Introductory Discourse prefixed by Mr. McCulloch to his edition of Adam Smith, and also somewhat by the article “Political in the New American Cyclopedia; but all the quotations from the classical writers, as well as those from Locke, Hume, and Bastiat, were made at first hand.

Two or three editions of the present treatise had been issued before I had seen any of the books of Henry Dunning Macleod, and to the numerous points of our independent coincidence have been added, in my later editions, many points of information in matters of fact, and some distinctions in matters of science, for which I wish here to express in general my obligations to him. Mr. Macleod, in the first volume of his “Principles of Economical Philosophy.” has done me the great honor to associate my name with Condillac, Whately, Bastiat, and Chevalier, — the heads of the third great school in Political Economy. His own name is more worthy than mine, and more likely than mine, to stand permanently in that distinguished list.

The most recent writers, whom I have consulted, and to whom I feel under obligations, – and every writer who is both competent and earnest puts his readers under obligations of some sort, — are ,Governor Musgrave of South Australia, Professors Price and Jevons of England, and General Walker of New Haven; the points of the latter in respect to the so called wages-fund have led me to modify my previous views on that subject.

I can not conclude this preface without expressing my sense of indebtedness to the successive classes of intelligent young men, to whom I have presented, and with whom I have discussed, now for almost a quarter of a century, the facts and principles of this fascinating science. It seems to me as if every possible objection to the leading points in this book has been raised, at one time or another, in my own lecture-room. Sometimes I have been convicted of error in minor points, and many times been fortified in the truth, through an attempt to remove objections started thus by students. Nearly every one of the objections to free exchange answered in the chapter on Foreign Trade was broached in this way; and I deem it of the greatest advantage to any political economist, — an advantage to which Adam Smith himself was much indebted, – to have the opportunity to test views and theories over and over again in the presence of fresh and bright minds. It has not infrequently happened in my experience that new light has been thrown out upon a subject by a young man just grasping the thought for the first time.

A. L. P.

Williams College,
July 4, 1876.

Source: Arthur Latham Perry. Elements of Political Economy, 14th edition (1877), pp. v-xi.

________________________

Arthur Latham Perry, LL.D.
Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College

PREFACE.
Principles of Political Economy (1891)

It is now exactly twenty-five years since was published my first book upon the large topics at present in hand. It was but as a bow drawn at a venture, and was very properly entitled “Elements of Political Economy.” At that time I had been teaching for about a dozen years in this Institution the closely cognate subjects of History and Political Economy; cognate indeed, since Hermann Lotze, a distinguished German philosopher of our day, makes prominent among its only five most general phases, the “industrial” element in all human history; and since Goldwin Smith, an able English scholar, resolves the elements of human progress, and thus of universal history, into only three, namely, “the moral, the intellectual, and the productive.”

During these studious and observant years of teaching, I had slowly come to a settled conviction that I could say something of my own and something of consequence about Political Economy, especially at two points ; and these two proved in the sequel to be more radical and transforming points than was even thought of at the first. For one thing, I had satisfied myself, that the word “Wealth,” as at once a strangely indefinite and grossly misleading term, was worse than useless in the nomenclature of the Science, and would have to be utterly dislodged from it, before a scientific content and defensible form could by any possibility be given to what had long been called in all the modern languages the “Science of Wealth.” Accordingly, so far as has appeared in the long interval of time since 1865, these “Elements” were the very first attempt to undertake an orderly construction of Economics from beginning to end without once using or having occasion to use the obnoxious word. A scientific substitute for it was of course required, which, with the help of Bastiat, himself however still clinging to the technical term “Richesse,” was discerned and appropriated in the word “Value” ; a good word indeed, that can be simply and perfectly defined in a scientific sense of its own; and, what is more important still, that precisely covers in that sense all the three sorts of things which are ever bought and sold, the three only Valuables in short, namely, material Commodities, personal Services, commercial Credits. It is of course involved in this simple-looking but far-reaching change from “Wealth” to “Value,” that Economics become at once and throughout a science of Persons buying and selling, and no longer as before a science of Things howsoever manipulated for and in their market.

For another thing, before beginning to write out the first word of that book, I believed myself to have made sure, by repeated and multiform inductions, of this deepest truth in the whole Science, which was a little after embodied (I hope I may even say embalmed) in a phrase taking its proper place in the book itself, — A market for Products is products in Market. The fundamental thus tersely expressed may be formulated more at length in this way: One cannot Sell without at the same instant and in the same act Buying, nor Buy anything without simultaneously Selling something else; because in Buying one pays for what he buys, which is Selling, and in Selling one must take pay for what is sold, which is Buying. As these universal actions among men are always voluntary, there must be also an universal motive leading up to them; this motive on the part of both parties to each and every Sale can be no other than the mutual satisfaction derivable to both; the inference, accordingly, is easy and invincible, that governmental restrictions on Sales, or prohibitions of them, must lessen the satisfactions and retard the progress of mankind.

Organizing strictly all the matter of my book along these two lines of Personality and Reciprocity, notwithstanding much in it that was crude and more that was redundant and something that was ill-reasoned and unsound, the book made on account of this original mode of treatment an immediate impression upon the public, particularly upon teachers and pupils; new streaks of light could not but be cast from these new points of view, upon such topics especially as Land and Money and Foreign Trade; and nothing is likely ever to rob the author of the satisfaction, which he is willing to share with the public, of having contributed something of importance both in substance and in feature to the permanent upbuilding of that Science, which comes closer, it may be, to the homes and happiness and progress of the People, than any other science. And let it be said in passing, that there is one consideration well-fitted to stimulate and to reward each patient and competent scientific inquirer, no matter what that science may be in which he labors, namely, this: Any just generalization, made and fortified inductively, is put thereby beyond hazard of essential change for all time; for this best of reasons, that God has constructed the World and Men on everlasting lines of Order.

As successive editions of this first book were called for, and as its many defects were brought out into the light through teaching my own classes from it year after year, occasion was taken to revise it and amend it and in large parts to rewrite it again and again; until, in 1883, and for the eighteenth edition, it was recast from bottom up for wholly new plates, and a riper title was ventured upon, — “Political Economy,” — instead of the original more tentative “Elements.” Since then have been weeded out the slight typographical and other minute errors, and the book stands now in its ultimate shape.

My excellent publishers, who have always been keenly and wisely alive to my interests as an author, suggested several times after the success of the first book was reasonably assured, that a second and smaller one should be written out, with an especial eye to the needs of high schools and academies and colleges for a text-book within moderate limits, yet soundly based and covering in full outline the whole subject. This is the origin of the “Introduction to Political Economy” first published in 1877, twelve years after the other. Its success as a text-book and as a book of reading for young people has already justified, and will doubtless continue to justify in the future, the forethought of its promoters. It has found a place in many popular libraries, and in courses of prescribed reading. Twice it has been carefully corrected and somewhat enlarged, and is now in its final form. In the preface to the later editions of the ” Introduction ” may be found the following sentence, which expresses a feeling not likely to undergo any change in the time to come: — “I have long been, and am still, ambitious that these books of mine may become the horn-books of my countrymen in the study of this fascinating Science.”

Why, then, should I have undertaken of my own motion a new and third book on Political Economy, and attempted to mark the completion of the third cycle of a dozen years each of teaching it, by offering to the public the present volume? One reason is implied in the title, “Principles of Political Economy.” There are three extended historical chapters in the earlier book, occupying more than one-quarter of its entire space, which were indeed novel, which cost me wide research and very great labor, and which have also proven useful and largely illustrative of almost every phase of Economics ; but I wanted to leave behind me one book of about the same size as that, devoted exclusively to the Principles of the Science, and using History only incidentally to illustrate in passing each topic as it came under review. For a college text-book as this is designed to become, and for a book of reading and reference for technical purposes, it seems better that all the space should be taken up by purely scientific discussion and illustration. This does not mean, however, that great pains have not been taken in every part to make this book also easily intelligible, and as readable and interesting as such careful discussions can be made.

A second reason is, to provide for myself a fresh text-book to teach from. My mind has become quite too thoroughly familiarized with the other, even down to the very words, by so long a course of instructing from it, for the best results in the class-room. Accordingly, a new plan of construction has been adopted. Instead of the fourteen chapters there, there are but seven chapters here. Not a page nor a paragraph as such has been copied from either of the preceding books. Single sentences, and sometimes several of them together, when they exactly fitted the purposes of the new context, have been incorporated here and there, in what is throughout both in form and style a new book, neither an enlargement nor an abridgment nor a recasting of any other. I anticipate great pleasure in the years immediately to come from the handling with my classes, who have always been of much assistance to me from the first in studying Political Economy, a fresh book written expressly for them and for others like-circumstanced; in which every principle is drawn from the facts of every-day life by way of induction, and also stands in vital touch with such facts (past or present) by way of illustration.

The third and only other reason needful to be mentioned here is, that in recent years the legislation of my country in the matter of cheap Money and of artificial restrictions on Trade has run so directly counter to sound Economics in their very core, that I felt it a debt due to my countrymen to use once more the best and ripest results of my life-long studies, in the most cogent and persuasive way possible within strictly scientific limits, to help them see and act for themselves in the way of escape from false counsels and impoverishing statutes. Wantonly and enormously heavy lies the hand of the national Government upon the masses of the people at present. But the People are sovereign, and not their transient agents in the government; and the signs are now cheering indeed, that they have not forgotten their native word of command, nor that government is instituted for the sole benefit of the governed and governing people, nor that the greatest good of the greatest number is the true aim and guide of Legislation. I am grateful for the proofs that appear on every hand, that former labors in these directions and under these motives have proven themselves to have been both opportune and effective; and I am sanguine almost to certainty, that this reiterated effort undertaken for the sake of my fellow-citizens as a whole, will slowly bear abundant fruit also, as towards their liberty of action as individuals, and in their harmonious co-operation together as entire classes to the end of popular comforts and universal progress.

A. L. PERRY.

Williams College,
November 25, 1890.

Source: Preface to Arthur Latham Perry, Principles of Political Economy (New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons), pp. vii-xii.

 

 

Categories
Economists Williams

Great-Granddad of Sam Bowles who encouraged Arthur L. Perry to write an economics textbook, 1860s.

 

That the economist Sam Bowles of the Sante Fe Institute and the CORE Project comes from a distinguished New England family is well-known. Today while tracking down different editions of the economics textbook written by the Williams College professor, Arthur Latham Perry, I stumbled upon his acknowledgement of the encouragement given him by the editor of the Springfield Republican, Samuel Bowles, to write an economics textbook. Putting on my genealogical gumshoes, I checked that the two Sams of the case were indeed related. It wasn’t hard work. This post shares the result of my queries.

About the economics professor Arthur Latham Perry:

Joseph Dorfman. Economic Mind in American Civilization, vol. 3 1865-1918. New York: 1949. pp. 56-63.

Stephen Meardon. A Tale of Two Tariff Commissions and One Dubious “Globalization Backlash”. Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department Working Paper 476 (November 2002), pp. 14-19.

________________________

Samuel Bowles, Great-Grandfather of economist Samuel Stebbins Bowles
(b. 9 Feb 1826; d. 16 Jan 1878)

Arthur Latham Perry’s expression of gratitude to Samuel Bowles
Preface to Elements of Political Economy (4th ed.)

Samuel Bowles of the “Springfield Republican” invited me, in 1864, to write a series of articles for his paper on some of the topics of Political Economy. These articles met the eye and the approbation of Sidney Homer of Boston, and of Amasa Walker of North Brookfield. Both these gentlemen communicated to me by letter their desire that I would continue to address the public on those subjects. Thus encouraged, and wishing also to furnish myself and other practical teachers with a manual in which the principles of the science should be laid down as I understand them, I proceeded to write this book. But the hazards of publication were not to be run without subjecting the work to the critical eye of a competent thinker. President Woolsey of Yale College very kindly rendered me this service.

To these four gentlemen, then, each of whom I am happy to reckon as my friend, is this fourth edition very cordially dedicated. My sense of obligation to many other friends, and to a generous public also, is expressed in an endeavor to make the book more worthy than before of their continued favor.

A.L.P.

Williams College, February, 1868.

Source: Arthur Latham Perry, Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College. Elements of Political Economy (4th ed.), p. iii. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1868.

Biography: George S. Merriam. The Life and Times of Samuel Bowles (Volume I; Volume II). New York: The Century Co., 1885.

Image Source: Portrait of Samuel Bowles. Mason A. Green. Springfield, 1636-1886. History of Town and City (Boston: C.A. Nichols & Co., 1888), following p. 542.

________________________

Charles Allen Bowles, Grandfather
(b. 19 Dec 1861; d. 14 Nov 1933)
&
Chester Bliss Bowles, Father of economist Samuel Stebbins Bowles
(b. 5 Apr, 1901; d. 25 May 1986)

Charles A. Bowles, Obituary

Charles P. Harris of Morris inn, West street, has received word of the death Friday at his home in Springfield, Mass., of his brother-in-law, Charles Allen Bowles, 71, second and last surviving son of Samuel Bowles. He was the grandson of the elder Samuel Bowles, founder of the Springfield Republican.

Besides his wife, Mrs. Nellie Seaver Harris Bowles, a daughter of the late Mr. and Mrs. Joel B. Harris of Rutland, Mr. Bowles leaves a daughter, Miss Dorothy Bowles of Springfield; two sons, Charles Allen Bowles, jr., of Springfield and Chester Bliss Bowles of New York: two sisters, Mrs. William H. King of Winnetka, Ill., and Mrs. Ruth S. Baldwin of New Canaan, Conn., and four grandchildren.

Mr. Bowles was born in New York December 19, 1861. He was a graduate of the Sheffield Scientific school of Yale university in the class of 1883. For many years he was in business in Springfield.

Source: Rutland Daily Herald (Rutland Vermont). 20 November 1933, p. 10.

 

Charles A. Bowles House, 81 Mulberry Street, Springfield, MA, ca. 1938-39.

This massive house is one of Springfield’s finest examples of Colonial Revival architecture, and was designed by Guy Kirkham, one of the city’s leading architects of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Completed in 1894, it was among his earliest works, and was designed for Charles A. Bowles, a paper manufacturer whose father, Samuel Bowles, had been the prominent editor of the Springfield Republican from 1851-1878. Charles’s older brother Samuel succeeded their father as editor after his death in 1878, but Charles went into the manufacturing business instead. He attended Sheffield Scientific School at Yale for a year, but did not graduate. Instead, he worked briefly for the Pennsylvania Railroad before entering the papermaking industry in 1884.

In 1885, at the age of 24, he married Nellie S. Harris of Rutland, Vermont, and early in their marriage they lived in a house nearby at 34 Avon Place. By the time they moved into this house on Mulberry Street in 1894 they had two children, Charles and Dorothy, and they would have one more son, Chester, who was born in 1901. During this time, Charles went into business for himself, becoming a partner in the firm of Dexter & Bowles, which sold paper pulp and other supplies for paper manufacturers.

Charles Bowles lived here until his death in 1933, but Nellie was still living here with her daughter Dorothy when the first photo was taken at the end of the 1930s. Dorothy was in her early 40s at the time, and she worked as a dressmaker, with a shop on Vernon Street. She lived here in this house until her mother’s death in 1943, and she subsequently moved to a house on Maple Court. In the meantime, Charles and Nellie’s older son, Charles, Jr., lived here with his parents until his marriage in 1917, and he and his wife Helen lived in Springfield’s Forest Park neighborhood until his death in 1946.

It was Charles and Nellie’s youngest child, Chester, who would go on to have the most prominent career, becoming a successful politician, diplomat, and advertising executive. He grew up here in this house and lived here until the mid-1920s, around the time that he married his first wife, Julia Fisk. He briefly worked as a reporter for the Springfield Republican from 1924 to 1926, but he saw limited opportunities for himself in a newspaper that was crowded with other family members. So, he moved to New York City and, in 1929, established the advertising agency of Benton & Bowles, which would go on to become highly successful in the early years of radio advertising. The firm introduced soap operas to radio programming, largely in an effort to advertise to housewives who listened to the radio at home, and during the 1930s the company’s clients included General Foods, Bristol-Myers, Colgate, Dr. Pepper, Prudential Life Insurance, Columbia Records, and Procter & Gamble.

However, Bowles left the advertising industry in 1941, and he went on to become a member of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration during World War II. From 1943 to 1946 he served as the administrator of the Office of Price Administration, and then served one term as governor of Connecticut from 1949 to 1951. Later in 1951, he was appointed as ambassador to India, and served until the end of Harry Truman’s administration in 1953. He served one term in Congress, from 1959 to 1961, and after being defeated for re-election he was appointed Under Secretary of State by John F. Kennedy. In 1963, Kennedy appointed him as ambassador to India again, and Bowles went on to serve in this capacity until the end of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency in 1969.

By the time Bowles was in the midst of his political and diplomatic career, his childhood home here on Mulberry Street had been converted into apartments. It would remain a multi-family home until 1991, when it was severely damaged by a fire that gutted the back of the house and destroyed much of the roof. For the next decade, the house stood vacant and exposed to the elements, and was nearly demolished by the city several times. However, it was sold in 2000 and restored the following year, earning an award from the Springfield Preservation Trust in the process. Today it hardly looks any different from when the Bowles family lived here 80 years ago, and it still stands as one of the finest homes in the Ridgewood Local Historic District.

Source: Derek Strahan, “Charles A. Bowles House, Springfield, Mass” at the Lost New England Website (Feb. 23, 2018)

Image Source: Samuel Bowles (2015). Wikimedia.

Categories
Bryn Mawr Columbia Economists Germany Pennsylvania

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

 

 

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

_______________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________

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

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

Mr. Seager has published the following papers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial. Ibid., January, 1901.

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

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

Editorial. Ibid.

Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid.

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

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

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

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

Categories
Economists Harvard Lecture Notes

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

 

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

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

__________________

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

Keynes’ General Theory.

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

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

What determines the volume of employment?

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

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

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

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

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

K[eynes]’s solutions:

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

[Qualifications]

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

            Economic policies are choice among evils.

 

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

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

Categories
Dartmouth Economists Germany Michigan Princeton Suggested Reading Syllabus

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

 

 

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

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

__________________

Princeton University, 1924-1925

Government and Business
Economics 407

Links to Course Texts

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

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

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

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

Assignments

Sept. 26 Gerstenberg Ch. 4-7
Sept. 30 Gerstenberg Ch. 8-12
Oct. 6 Gerstenberg Ch. 13, 18, 19, 22
Oct. 13 Gerstenberg Ch. 27, 28, 29
Oct. 20 Gerstenberg Ch. 30, 31, 32
Oct. 27 Gerstenberg Finish book
Nov. 3 Jones

Ripley

Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 19

old ed. pp. 244-249
rev. ed. pp. 465-470

Nov. 10 Jones

Ripley

Ch. 13, 14

Ch. 1 and 2

Nov. 17 Jones

Ripley

Ch. 5, 7

Ch 4 (rev.) or 5 (old)

8 (rev. only)

Nov. 24 Jones Ch. 6, 9, 10.
Dec. 1 Jones Ch. 17 & 18
Dec. 8 Jones

Ripley

Ch. 8

Ch 18 (rev ed.) &

pp. 545-549 (rev. ed)

Dec. 15 Jones

Ripley

Morgan

Ch. 15

Ch 19 (rev. ed.)

Ch. 1 & 2

Jan. 12 Morgan Ch. 3, 5
Jan. 19 Morgan Ch. 6, 7

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

__________________

Faculty Minute adopted March 6, 1944

FRANK HAIGH DIXON

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

SourcePrinceton Alumni Weekly, Vol. 44 (April 28, 1922), p. 25.

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

Categories
Chicago Economists

Columbia. PhD alumnus. William J. Shultz, 1924

 

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

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

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

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

____________________________

Abstract of Shultz’s dissertation

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

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

____________________________

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

Paul Douglas on William J. Shultz (1925)

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

October 22, 1925

Professor J.A. Field
Faculty Exchange

My dear Field:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faithfully yours,

[signed] Paul H. Douglas

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

____________________________

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

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

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

Source: The 1922 Columbian, p. 153.

____________________________

Obituary

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

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

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

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

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

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

His widow, Luisa, survives.

Image Source: The 1922 Columbian, p. 153.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Teaching

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

 

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

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

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

____________________

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

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

June 1, 1924

My dear Mr. Burton:

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

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

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

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:OU

____________________

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

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

June 2, 1924

My dear Mr. Plimpton:

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

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

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:OU

____________________

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

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

May 29, 1924

President Ernest DeWitt Burton
The University of Chicago

My dear Mr. Burton:

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

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

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

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:EL

____________________

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

June 4, 1924

My dear Mr. Marshall:

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

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

Very truly yours,

Mr. L.C. Marshall
The University of Chicago

EDB:HP

____________________

Memorandum of Conversation with
Professor Laughlin
—November 19, 1924

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

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

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

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

Columbia has the largest department.

Chicago is second in size.

Harvard is falling off.

Wisconsin is falling off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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