Category: Economists

Categories
Business School Chicago Economists

Chicago. Problem of Faculty Turnover, 1923

The Special Collections Research Center of the University of Chicago Library is putting scans of records from the respective administrations of Presidents Harper, Judson and Burton (1869-1925)  on-line (52 boxes of 91 boxes thus far!).  For today’s posting I have transcribed the introduction and conclusions of a summary “of the most imperative needs of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature” written in October 1923 as well as the section for the Department of Political Economy. Additionally I provide c.v. data for the economists named published in the Annual Register 1921-22 for the University of Chicago and additional biographical information (obituaries/memorials) to follow their post-Chicago careers.

 

____________________________________

The University of Chicago
The Graduate School of Arts and Literature

Office of the Dean

October 30, 1923.

Dean J. H. Tufts,
The University of Chicago.

Dear Dean Tufts:

I enclose a summary of the most imperative needs of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature. I have drawn it up only after a most careful examination of the condition of the Departments. I am convinced that it is only by making the new appointments which I have listed and providing the increases I have indicated that the School can hope to make any appreciable contribution to graduate studies in America or even to hold its own with the other Graduate Schools in the country. In the case of some departments the situation is almost inconceivably bad. It is so bad that it is only by making new appointments of strong men—major appointments that would command attention—and by increasing the salaries of many members of the teaching staff who are being tempted away that we can hope to regain our prestige. I hope that this will not sound like an exaggeration. It is not. It is a lamentable fact that some of the departments that ten or fifteen years ago were famous and attracted graduate students from all parts of the continent are now deplorably weak, while some of the others, though still doing efficient work, have recently suffered serious losses in their teaching staff and are threatened with still more. Let me speak of these in detail.

 

I. The Weak Departments:

  1. The Department of Psychology…
  2. The Department of the History of Art…
  3. The Department of German….
  4. The Department of Latin…
  5. Another notable example of weakness is found in Anthropology…
  6. The Department of General Literature…

 

[II.] The Other Departments:

  1. Romance Languages…
  2. History…
  3. Political Economy

The situation here is especially precarious. The instructional staff is an efficient one but extremely difficult to hold. Within recent years three men have gone: Moulton, Hardy and Lyon. Some of the men here now have received tempting offers of positions wither in government bureaus or in industries. The new appointment in Money and Banking is to fill the vacancy caused by Moulton’s going to Washington two years ago. Viner has had more than one call. Good men in Political Economy seem to be increasingly hard to get.

May I remind you also of the fine contribution that this Department, under Mr. Marshall’s inspiration, has made to that cooperative study of economic, social, and political conditions in Chicago that is being carried on by all the departments in the Social Science Group. This whole piece of work is, as you yourself know, a most interesting experiment, and in its detailed analysis of the characteristics of the Chicago community, will in all probability prove to be a model for the study of any large metropolitan area.

I hope you will pardon my writing at such length, but the situation seems to me to be critical. We cannot afford to delay remedial measures. The money that I am asking for is not simply for the University of Chicago, it is for Graduate Studies in the whole Middle West, which looks to Chicago for its teachers. Of all the new appointments that I have urged there is not one that would not influence higher education throughout the Mississippi Valley.

 

Yours very truly,

[signed]
Gordon J. Laing

 

Source: University of Chicago. Office of the President: Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations Records 1869-1925. Box 47, Folder 6 “Graduate schools, development, 1914-1924”.

 

____________________________________

 

Charles Oscar Hardy, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Financial Organization in the School of Commerce and Administration. [Resigned]

A.B., Ottawa University, 1904; Professor of History and Economics, ibid., 1910-18; Dean of the College, ibid., 1916-18; Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1916; Lecturer in the School of Commerce and Administration, ibid., 1918-19; Assistant Professor, ibid., 1919-22.

 

Harold Glenn Moulton, Ph.B., Ph.D., Professor of Political Economy. [Resigned]

Ph.B., University of Chicago, 1907; Assistant in Political Economy, ibid., 1910-11; Instructor, ibid., 1911-14; Ph.D., ibid., 1914; Assistant Professor, ibid., 1914-18; Associate Professor, ibid., 1918-1922; Professor, ibid., 1922.

 

Leverett Samuel Lyon, A.M., LL.B., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Commercial Organization in the School of Commerce and Administration.

Ph.B., University of Chicago, 1910; LL.B., Chicago Kent College of Law, 1915; Assistant in Commercial Organization in the School of Commerce and Administration, ibid., 1916-17; Instructor, ibid., 1917-19; A.M., ibid., 1918; Assistant Professor, ibid., 1919—; Ph.D., ibid., 1921.

 

Jacob Viner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Political Economy.

B.A., McGill University, 1914; A.M., Harvard University, 1915; Instructor in Political Economy, University of Chicago, 1916-19; Assistant Professor, ibid., 1919—; Ph.D., Harvard University, 1922.

 

Leon Carroll Marshall, A.M., LL.D., Professor and Chairman of the Department of Political Economy; Dean of the School of Commerce and Administration and of the Graduate School of Social Service Administration.

A.B., Ohio Wesleyan University, 1900; A.B., Harvard University, 1901; A.M., ibid., 1902; Assistant, ibid., 1902-3; Professor of Economics, Ohio Wesleyan University, 1903-7; Assistant Professor of Political Economy, University of Chicago, 1907-8; Associate Professor, ibid., 1908-11; Dean of the School of Commerce and Administration, ibid., 1909—; Professor of Political Economy, ibid., 1911—; Dean of the Senior Colleges, ibid., 1911-20; LL.D., Ohio Wesleyan University, 1918; Dean of the Graduate School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, 1920—.

 

 

Source: University of Chicago, Annual Register, 1921-1922, pp. 38, 40, 54, 57.

 

____________________________________

 

Life after the University of Chicago

“In Memoriam: Charles Oscar Hardy, 1884-1948”. American Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 3 (May, 1949), pp. 478-480.

“Harold Moulton, Economist, Dead. Ex-President of Brookings Institution in the Capital,” The New York Times, December 15, 1965, p. 48.

Engle, N. H., “Leverett Samuel Lyon”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 24, No. 1 (July, 1959), pp. 67-69.

“Dr. Jacob Viner, Economist, Dead: Princeton Professor was U.S. Adviser 4 Decades,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970.

Marshall, Leon Carroll, 1879-1966. Biographical notes. Social Networks and Archival Context (SNAC). [Webpage].

 

Image Source: Leon C. Marshall. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-04113, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Sociology and Political Economy. Laughlin Letter, 1894

1895 Laughlin and Small

In a handwritten letter to President William R. Harper, the head of the Department of Political Economy, Professor J. Laurence Laughlin, responds to a request for harmonizing the course offerings between his department and those of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology headed by (Sociology) Professor Albion W. Small.

Laughlin signals his interest in establishing mutually recognized borders between the disciplines and he appears to hint that because Professor Small believes “Social Science” (by which the Department of Sociology/Anthropology is apparently meant) is “the dome built on the pillars” of ethics, political science, jurisprudence, history and political economy, Small’s department imperially claims curricular turf in the named disciplines.

Laughlin wants to reassure Harper that reports that had apparently filtered to the university administration of personal animosity between Small and Laughlin have no real foundation but he remains firm about the principle of rendering to the department of political economy what is due political economy.

_______________________

Newman, N. Y.,
July 17, 1894

My dear Pres. Harper,

I have your letter of the 10th inst. [instante mense] in which you say: “I hope that it will be possible for you and Mr. Small to arrange the work of the departments in such a manner as that (1) there shall be no duplication, and (2) the courses may fit into each other to the best possible advantage”.

I think you will find both Mr. Small [Albion Woodbury Small, Head Professor of Sociology] and myself quite ready to do anything we can to save the University from any criticism. Both of us, however, will probably be struck by the lack of point in what has been said. I do not quite see what is meant by “harmony of work between the two departments”, as opposed to what now exists. As I understand Mr. Small, Social Science takes its data from the existing sciences, of which Political Economy is only one, the others being Philosophy (or Ethics), Political Science, Jurisprudence, and History. Social Science is the dome built on the pillars of all these sciences. The relations of Political Economy to Social Science are not other than the relations of Political Science, or Philosophy, or History—and there is no reason for singling out Political Economy. I can see, of course, that students of Social Science should have their Political Economy before they enter Social Science—under the above relations, and I have noticed that few students in Social Science are also taking Political Economy. But this probably quite as true of Social Science and Political Science.

I am speaking, of course, not of the sub-divisions of Anthropology, or Sanitary Science. They are not in question. And as to the study of dependent classes (Dr. Henderson’s [Charles Richmond Henderson, Associate Professor of Sociology in the Divinity School and University Chaplain] work) much of it is independent of economic data. So I have spoken only of Mr. Small’s work.

If there has been any discourtesy as to personal work, I shall do my best to stop it. But if any discussion exists relating to scientific work, independent of persons, such as that of the relations of the sciences, I believe it to be healthy, and I should welcome it so far as it relates to Political Economy. The proper University spirit demands it. And it is also to be remembered that the University of Chicago is the only institution in the world—so far as my knowledge goes—in which a division is made into Political Economy, Political Science, History, Social Science, and Ethics; and there must naturally be some questions arise [sic] to boundaries.

So far as reduplication goes the only case I know of is a course by Mr. Cummings [John Cummings, Reader in Political Economy; A.B. (1891), A. M. (1892), Harvard; University of Chicago (1894), Ph.D.] on the Utopias (similar to one by Mr. Thomas [William I. Thomas, Instructor in Ethnic Psychology; A.B. (1884), A.M. (1885), Ph.D. (1886) University of Tennessee]). I was ignorant of Mr. Thomas’s course when it was agreed to allow Mr. Cummings to give his. Before leaving Chicago, it happens that I had advised Mr. Cummings to drop that course, & he assented. Hence, although it appears in our programme, it will not appear in the quarterly calendar. Even though he expected to give it an economic treatment, I felt that the could use his powers better elsewhere. As to all the other courses they have a purely economic raison d’être; and when first sent to Mr. Small he found no difficulty in seeing clearly the line of demarkation between his field and mine.

That the courses should “fit into each other” in the two departments more than they do now, it would be our wish to arrange; but I think it would be difficult to do it better.

May it not be possible that the remarks you have heard have come from people who really know very little of the actual work of the two departments? Certainly in connection with the examinations of Mr. Cummings and Mr. Learned [Learned, Henry Barrett: A. B. (1890) Harvard; A.M. (1894) University of Chicago], Mr. Small was eminently fair & candid. If there is anything more explicit than you have written me, I should be glad to hear of it.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]
J. Laurence Laughlin

 

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations. Records. Box 57, Folder “Laughlin, J. Laurence, 1892-1917”.

____________________________

 

Department of Political Economy

Social and Economic Ideals. Plato. Aristotle. Aquinas. Machiavelli. More. Hooker. Hobbes. Locke. Modern schemes of social reformation. Reading and Reports.

4 hrs. a week, [Double major]. Autumn Quarter.
Dr. Cummings

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

The Historical Sociologies.—Exposition of significant classical, mediaeval, and modern attempts to interpret social phenomena. Criticism of data, methods, and conclusions.

[Double major] Summer and Winter Quarters.
Dr. Thomas [Fellow in Sociology].

 

Lecture-Study Department (University Extension Division)

Utopias: (1) Plato, The Republic. (2) More, Utopia, (3) Hobbes, The Leviathan. (4) Swift, Gulliver’s Travels. (5) Socialistic Dreamers: St. Simon, Fourier, Robert Owen, Cabet. (6) Bellamy, Looking Backward.

Daniel Fulcomer, A.M., Lecturer in Sociology.

Source: University of Chicago. Annual Register, 1893-1894, pp. 47, 63, 246

Image Source: University of Chicago. Cap and Gown, 1895.

Categories
Economists Fields Harvard

Harvard. Thirteen Ph.D. Examinees, 1915-16

For thirteen Harvard economics Ph.D. candidates this posting provides information about their respective academic backgrounds, the six subjects of their general examinations along with the names of the examiners, the subject of their special subject, thesis subject and advisor(s) (where available). Of particular note are the records for Harvard historian of early economic thought, Arthur Eli Monroe, and the soon to become distinguished Chicago (later Princeton) economist, Jacob Viner.

________________________________________

 

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS
EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D.
1915-16

Notice of hour and place will be sent out three days in advance of each examination.
The hour will ordinarily be 4 p.m.

 

Arthur Eli Monroe.

General Examination in Economics, Wednesday, October 13, 1915.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Taussig, Gay, Day, and Holcombe.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1904-08; Harvard Graduate School, 1913-February, 1916. A.B., Harvard, 1908; A. M., ibid., 1914. Teacher of Latin and German, Kent School, Connecticut, 1909-13; Assistant in Economics, Harvard, 1914-February, 1916; Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, 1915-February, 1916; Instructor I Economics, Williams College, February, 1916-.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Public Finance. 4. Statistical Method and its Application. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. Topic in the History of Economic Thought.
Special Subject: Some topic in the History of American Economic Thought.

 

Merton Kirk Cameron.

General Examination in Economics, Wednesday, November 17, 1915.
Committee: Professors Gay (chairman), Ripley, Taussig, Anderson, and Day.
Academic History: Princeton University, 1904-08; Harvard Graduate School, 1913-. A.B., Princeton, 1908; A. M., Harvard, 1914. Head of Department of History, Lanier High School, Montgomery, Alabama, 1911-13; Assistant in Economics, Harvard, 1915-.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Money, Banking, and Crises. 4. Transportation. 5. Economics of Corporations. 6. American History.
Special Subject: Economic History of the United States.
Thesis Subject: “The History of the Tobacco Growing Industry in the United States.” (With Professor E. F. Gay.)

 

Herbert Knight Dennis

General Examination in Economics, Tuesday, February 29, 1916.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Perry, Tozzer, Ford, Foerster, and Anderson.
Academic History: Allegheny College, 1907-08; Brown University, 1910-12; Princeton University, 1912-14; Harvard Graduate School, 1914-. Ph.B., Brown, 1912; A. M., Princeton, 1914; A.M. Harvard, 1915.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Ethical Theory and its History. 3. Poor Relief. 4. Social Reforms. 5. Sociology. 6. Anthropology.
Special Subject: Social Psychology.Thesis Subject: “The French Canadians—A Study in Race Psychology.” (With Professor Foerster.)

 

James Washington Bell.

General Examination in Economics, Wednesday, May 3, 1916.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Ripley, Munro, Anderson, and Copeland.
Academic History: University of Colorado, 1908-14; Harvard Graduate School, 1914-. A.B., Colorado, 1912; A.M., ibid., 1913. Assistant in Economics, University of Colorado, 1912-14.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Public Finance. 4. Labor Problems. 5. Sociology. 6. Municipal Government.
Special Subject: Public Finance.
Thesis Subject: “Taxation of Railroads in New England.” (With Professor Bullock.)

 

William Burke Belknap.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, May 4, 1916.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Gay, Ripley, Anderson, and Dr. Morison.
Academic History: Yale College, 1904-08; University of Chicago, 1913-14 (two terms); Haverad Graduate School, 1914-. A.V., Yale, 1908; A.M. Harvard, 1915.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Labor Problems. 4. Money and Banking. 5. American History since 1789. 6. Public Finance.
Special Subject: Public Finance.
Thesis Subject: “History of the State Finances of Kentucky.” (With Professor Bullock.)

 

Henry Bass Hall.

General Examination in Economics, Friday, May 5, 1916.
Committee: Professors Gay (chairman), Taussig, Turner, Day, and Anderson.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1904-05; Amherst College, 1906-07; Massachusetts Agricultural College, 1911-12; Harvard Graduate School, 1912-. S.B., Massachusetts Agricultural College, 1912.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Money and Banking. 3. International Trade. 4. Economic History since 1750. 5. Agricultural Economics. 6. American History since 1789.
Special Subject: Agricultural Economics.
Thesis Subject: “Economic History of Massachusetts Agriculture.” (With Professors Carver and Gay.)

 

Charles Cloyd Creekpaum.

General Examination in Economics, Monday, May 8, 1916.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Day, Anderson, Copeland, and Holcombe.
Academic History: University of Nebraska, 1908-12; Harvard Graduate School, 1914-. A. B., Nebraska, 1912. Principal of High School, Alvo, Nebraska, 1912-13; Principal of High School, McCool Junction, Nebraska, 1913-14.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Sociology. 4. Statistics. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. Public Finance.
Special Subject: Public Finance.
Thesis Subject: “the Financial Results of Public Ownership of Railways.” (With Professor Bullock.)

 

Mark Anson Smith.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, May 11, 1916.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Hart, Gay, Ripley, and Dr. Davis.
Academic History: Dartmouth College, 1906-10; University of Wisconsin, 1911-14; Harvard Graduate School, 1914-. A.B., Dartmouth, 1910; A.M., Wisconsin, 1913.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Money and Banking. 4. Economics of Corporations. 5. Public Finance. 6. American Government and Constitutional Law.
Special Subject: Public Finance.

 

John Emmett Kirshman.

General Examination in Economics, Friday, May 12, 1916.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Ripley, Gay, Munro, and Foerster.
Academic History: Central Wesleyan College, 1901-04; Syracuse University, 1907-08; University of Wisconsin, 1908-09; University of Illinois, 1914-15; Harvard Graduate School, 1915-. Ph.B., Central Wesleyan, 1904; Ph.M. Syracuse, 1908. Assistant Professor of History, North Dakota Agricultural College, 1909-14; Teaching Fellow in Economics, University of Illinois, 1914-15.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Public Finance. 3. Economic History since 1750. 4. Comparative Modern Government. 5. Economics of Corporations. 6. Socialism and Social Reform.
Special Subject: Public Finance
Thesis Subject: “Taxation of Banking Institutions.” (With Professor Bullock)

 

Zenas Clark Dickinson.

General Examination in Economics, Monday, May 15, 1916.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Gay, Yerkes, Day, and Dr. Burbank
Academic History: University of Nebraska, 1910-14; Harvard Graduate School, 1914-. A.B., Nebraska, 1914.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Statistical Method and its Application. 4. Public Finance. 5. Psychology. 6. Suitable Field in Economic Theory and its History, with special reference to Psychology.
Special Subject: Suitable Field in Economic Theory.

 

Arthur Harrison Cole.

Special Examination in Economics, Thursday, May 18, 1916.
Committee:
General Examination passed January 7, 1915.
Academic History: Bowdoin College, 1907-11; Harvard Graduate School, 1911-. A.B., Bowdoin, 1911; A.M., Harvard, 1913. Assistant in Economics, Harvard, 1913
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises. 4. Public Finance and Financial History. 5. International Trade and Tariff History. 6. Political and Constitutional History of the United States.
Special Subject: Economic History of the United States.
Committee: Professors Gay (chairman), Taussig, Turner, and Sprague.
Thesis Subject: “History of the Wool Manufacturing Industry in the United States, to the year 1830.” (With Professors Gay and Taussig.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Gay, Taussig, and Sprague.

 

Jacob Viner

General Examination in Economics, Friday, May 19, 1916.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Bullock, R. B. Perry, Anderson, and Gras.
Academic History: McGill University, Montreal, 1911-14; Harvard Graduate School, 1914-. A.B., McGill. 1914; A.M., Harvard, 1915.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. International Trade. 3. Public Finance. 4. Sociology. 5. Economic History since 1750. 6. Theory of Value (Philosophy).
Special Subject: International Trade.
Thesis Subject: “International Balance of Payments” (With Professor Taussig)

 

Percy Gamble Kammerer.

Special Examination in Economics, Monday, May 22, 1916.
General Examination passed May 14, 1914.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1904-06, 1910-12; Harvard Graduate School, 1912-. A. B., 1908 (1913).
General Subjects: : 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Ethical Theory. 3. Poor Relief. 4. Social Reforms. 5. Sociology. 6. The Labor Question.
Special Subject: The Family considered Historically and in its Relation to Social Institutions.
Committee: Professors Foerster (chairman), Ripley, Feguson, Tozzer, Ford, and Anderson.
Thesis Subject: “The Unmarried Mother: a Study of Case Histories.” (With Professor Foerster.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Foerster, Taussig, and Dearborn.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. (HUC 7000.70), Folder “Examinations for the Ph.D., 1915-1916”.

Image Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C. Digital ID:  cph 3c14486

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Invitations for guest lectures by Schumpeter and Rathgen, 1913

This exchange of letters between Frank Taussig and President Lowell of Harvard involves two pieces of business. The first is Taussig’s request for approval to use department lecture funds to invite Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Rathgen, who were both visiting Columbia University, to give lectures at Harvard. The second piece of business concerns a recommendation of two men to be considered for the presidency of the University of Washington, one of whom (L. C. Marshall who was the Dean of the University of Chicago Business School) the other, James Rowland Angell who would go on to become President of Yale and who also happened to be the father of the Columbia University economist James Waterhouse Angell.

__________________________________

 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
October 22, 1913.

F. W. Taussig
T. N. Carver
W. Z. Ripley
C. J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W. M. Cole
O. M. W. Sprague
Q. E. Rappard
E. E. Day
B. M. Anderson, Jr.
H. L. Gray
Dear Lawrence:

Two Germans are in this country, both at the present moment lecturing at Columbia, to whom we might appropriately show a little attention. One is J. Schumpeter, an Austrian with whom I have had correspondence, and a very well-known and highly respected scholar; the other is K. Rathgen of Hamburg, also well-known in the profession. Our friends at Columbia write that these men would be glad to look at this institution, and we are more than willing to show them a little civility. Would you authorize us to ask each of them to give a lecture, possibly more than one, the fee to be charged to the fund for lectures on Political Economy? Schumpeter speaks excellent English, and could certainly give an acceptable lecture. Rathgen might possibly have to speak in German, in which case we should ask him simply to talk to our Seminary.

You remember our talk about the presidency of the University of Washington. I enclose a letter from L. C. Marshall of Chicago about young Angell, the psychologist, who deserves to be considered among the possibilities. I enclose also a memorandum of my own about Marshall himself, who seems to me at least the equal of Angell. Make such use of these papers as you can, either for this opening or for others that may appear in the future. When inquiring of Marshall about Angell, I gave no intimation of the reason for asking him.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
F. W. Taussig

President A. Lawrence Lowell.

 

__________________________________

October 23, 1913.

Dear Professor Taussig:—

We should certainly be very glad to have either Schumpeter or Rathgen, or both, speak to the students in economics, at the expense of the fund for lectures in political economy. I do not know whether you want an appointment by the Corporation for this purpose, or merely an invitation by the department.

Thank you for the suggestions of presidents of Washington University. I am transmitting them.

Very truly yours,
[stamped]
A. Lawrence Lowell

Professor F. W. Taussig
2 Scott Street,
Cambridge, Mass.

__________________________________

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. President Lowell’s Papers, 1909-1914 (UAI.5.160), Box 15, Folder 413 “1909-14”.

Image Source: Karl Rathgen: Fotosammlung des Geographischen Institutes der Humboldt-Universität Berlin.    Schumpeter: Ulrich Hedtke, Joseph Alois Schumpeter. Archive.

 

 

Categories
Economists Oxford

Oxford. Travers Twiss, Lectures. 1847

While checking the titles of references in Henry Carter Adams’ Outline of Lectures upon Political Economy Prepared for the Use of Students at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD., and the University of Michigan (Baltimore, 1881), I came across “Travers Twiss, Lectures I, II, III, IV” in Adams’ Part I Historical/§1 Introduction: Thought before the 16th century/A. Rise of the System.

The exact reference should read:

Twiss, Travers. View of the Progress of Political Economy in Europe since the Sixteenth Century. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1847.

This I have just added to the collection at my “Rare Book Reading Room” page.

Having never heard of this particular Drummond professor of political economy at Oxford nor his lectures for that matter, I looked him up. Below you have the safe-for-work version of his biography from the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I’ve linked to the blog entry in the “Victorian Calendar” that provides a few of the juicy details of the scandal that led to his early retirement.

______________________

TWISS, SIR TRAVERS (1809-1897), English jurist, eldest son of the Rev. Robert Twiss, was born in London on the 19th of March 1809. At University College, Oxford, he obtained a first-class in mathematics and a second in classics in 1830, and was elected a fellow of his college, of which he was afterwards successively bursar, dean and tutor. During his connexion with Oxford he was, inter alia, a public examiner in classics and mathematics, Drummond professor of political economy (1842), and regius professor of civil law (1855). After he had forfeited his fellowship by marriage, he was elected to an honorary fellowship of University College. He published while at Oxford an epitome of Niebuhr’s History of Rome, an annotated edition of Livy and other works, but his studies mainly lay in the direction of political economy, law, chiefly international law, and international politics. In 1840 he was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn, and became an advocate at Doctors’ Commons. In the ecclesiastical courts he enjoyed a large practice, and filled many of the appointments incidental thereto, such as commissary-general of the city and diocese of Canterbury (1849), vicar-general to the archbishop (1852) and chancellor of the diocese of London (1858). He was professor of international law at King’s College, London (1852-1855). In 1858, when the Probate and Divorce Acts of 1857 came into force, and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Doctors’ Commons had passed away, Twiss, like many other leading advocates of Doctors’ Commons, became a Q.C., and in the same year he was also elected a bencher of his Inn. His successful career continued in the civil courts, and in addition to his large practice he was appointed in 1862 advocate-general to the admiralty, and in 1867 queen’s advocate-general. In 1867 he was also knighted. He served during his legal career upon a great number of royal commissions, such as the Maynooth commission in 1854, and others dealing with marriage law, neutrality, naturalization and allegiance. His reputation abroad led to his being invited by the king of the Belgians in 1884 to draw up the constitution of the Congo Free State. In 1871 Twiss became involved in an unpleasant scandal, occasioned by allegations against the ante-nuptial conduct of his wife, whom he had married in 1862; and he threw up all his appointments and lived in retirement in London until his death on the 14th of January 1897, devoting himself to the study of international law and kindred topics. Among his more notable publications of this period were The Law of Nations in Peace and The Law of Nations in War, two works by which his reputation as a jurist will chiefly endure.

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th ed). Vol. 27, p.493.

Image Source: The Victorian Calendar (March 13, 1872).

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Milton Friedman from Cambridge to T.W. Schultz. 29 Mar 1954

About a week ago I posted Milton Friedman’s letter from Cambridge, England to T. W. Schultz dated 28 October 1953. Today we have the next carbon copy of a letter to Schultz from Cambridge in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution in which Friedman discusses a range of issues from a one-year appointment in mathematical economics at Chicago, the Cowles’ Directorship appointment, and postdoctoral fellowships. The letter ends with a laundry-list of miscellaneous comments from Arthur Burns’ Economic Report to the President through the reception of McCarthy news in England. Friedman’s candid assessments of many of his fellow-economists make this letter particularly interesting.  More to come!

______________________

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

_____________________

Milton Friedman to T.W. Schultz
29 March 1954

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
March 29, 1954

 

Dear Ted:

Of the people you list as possible visiting professors while Koopmans is away, Solow of M.I.T. is the one who offhand appeals to me the most. I have almost no doubt about his absolute competence: I read his doctoral dissertation at an early stage and saw something of him last summer and the preceding summer when he was spending some time at Hanover in connection with one or another of Bill Madow’s projects. He has a seminal mind and analytical ability of a very high order. My only questions would be the other that you raise, whether he is broadly enough interested in economics. And here I am inclined to answer with an uncertain yes, relying partly on the fact that he is flexible and capable of being induced. I do not know Dorfman of California either personally or through his writings. My question about him is that I believe that we would do best if we could use this opportunity in general to bring in someone with a rather different point of view and who will provide a broadening of the kind of thing done under the heading of mathematical economics, and my impression is that Dorfman is very much in the same line as Koopmans – but here too, I don’t have much confidence in my knowledge. As you know, I think very highly of both Modigliani and Christ, but as of the moment for this particular spot, would prefer Solow, partly on grounds of greater differentiation of product.

One rather harebrained possibility that has occurred to me outside your list is Maurice Allais, the French mathematical economist who is Professor at École des Mines. Allais is a crackpot genius in many respects. He came out of engineering and is largely self taught, which means he holds the erroneous views he has discovered for himself as strongly as the correct ones. I have always said that if he had, at a formative age, had one year of really good graduate education in economics he might have become one of the really great names. At the same time, Allais is an exceedingly active and stimulating person who works in mathematical economics of a rather different kind than we have been accustomed to. I think it would be a good thing to have him around for a year – both for us and him – though I am most uncertain that it would be for a longer period. I don’t have any basis for knowing whether Allais would be interested.

I have tried to think over the other European mathematical economists to see if they offer other possibilities. There are others in France: Guilbaud [Georges-Théodule Guilbaud (1912-2008)], Boiteux [Marcel Boiteux (1922-)] (I don’t have that spelled right), but none seem to me as good as Allais for our purposes. There are Frisch and Haavelmo in Norway, Wold in Sweden; of these, Haavelmo would be the best. I find it hard to think of anybody in England who meets this particular bill, and would be at all conceivable. Dick Stone? Has just been over and is not primarily mathematical but might be very good indeed in some ways. Is certainly econometric minded and fairly broadly so. R.G.D. Allen? Has done almost nothing in math. econ. for a long time.*

*[handwritten footnote, incomplete on left side presumably because carbon paper folded on the corner:   “…real possibility here is a young fellow at the London School, A. W. Phillips…invented the “machine” Lerner has been peddling. He came to econ. out of ….good indeed. He has an important paper in the mathematics of stabilization (over) policies, scheduled to appear(?) in Econ. Journal shortly.”]

Getting back home, the names that occur to me have, I am sure, also occurred to you. Is Kenneth Arrow unavailable for a year’s arrangement? What about Vickrey? I don’t believe that in any absolute sense I would rate Vickrey above Christ, say, but for us he has the advantage of bringing a different background and approach.

The above is all written in the context of a definite one-year arrangement in the field of mathematical economics. I realize, of course, that this may turn out to be an undesirable limitation. This is certainly an opportunity to try someone whom we might be interested in permanently; and it may be possible to make temporary arrangements for math. econ. for the coming year – via DuBrul, Marschak, etc. The difficulty is that once I leave this limited field, the remainder is so broad that I hardly know where to turn. For myself, I believe we might well use this to bring someone in in money, if that possibility existed. If it did, I should want strongly to press on you Harry Johnson, here at Cambridge, but originally a Canadian educated at the University of Toronto, who is the one new person I have come to know here who has really impressed me.

One other person from the US left out of the above list but perhaps eligible even within the narrower limitations is William Baumol. Oughtn’t he be considered?

Within the narrower limitations, my own listing would, at the moment, be: Allais, Solow, Baumol, Arrow, Vickrey, Phillips. I would hasten to add that my listing of Arrow fourth is entirely consistent with my believing him the best of the lot in absolute competence, and the one who would still go to the top of this list for a permanent post.

I turn to the other possibility you raise in your letter, a permanent post a la the Tobin one. I am somewhat puzzled how to interpret the change of view, you suggest, I assume that the person would be expected to take over the directorship of Cowles. If this is so, it seems to me highly unfortunate to link it with a permanent post in the department. Obviously, the best of all worlds would be if there were someone we definitely wanted as a permanent member of the department who also happened to be interested in the Cowles area and was willing to direct, or better interested in directing, Cowles. In lieu of this happy accident, I would myself like to see the two issues kept as distinct as possible; to have the Cowles people name a director, with the aid and advice but not necessarily the consent, of the department; have the department offer him cooperation, opportunity to teach, etc., but without having him a full-fledged permanent member. I hope you will pardon these obiter dicta. I realize that this is a topic you have doubtless discussed ad nauseam; what is even more important, if after such discussion, you feel differently, I would predict that you would succeed in persuading me to your view; which is why I leave it with these dicta and without indicating the arguments – you can provide them better than I.

The issue strikes me particularly forcefully because I do feel that in terms of the needs of the department, our main need is not for someone else mainly in the Cowles area; it is for someone to replace either Mints in money, or me in orthodox theory, if I slide over to take Mints’ role.

For Cowles’ sake as well as our own, there might be much to be said for having the directorship be the primary post for whoever comes. It seems to me bad for Cowles to have that post viewed as either a sideshow or a stepping stone. For directorship of Cowles, some names that occur are: Herbert Simon; Dorothy Brady; with more doubt Modigliani. One possibility much farther off the beaten track is Warren Nutter, who has, I gathered, been a phenomenal administrative success in Wash. at Central Intelligence Agency; yet is an economist. Would Charlie Hitch, who has been running Rand’s economic division be completely out?

[Handwritten note: “You know, Gregg Lewis might be better than any of these if he would do it!]

If the post is to be viewed as primarily a professorship in the department, with Cowles directorship as a sideline, I have great difficulty in making any suggestions: I would not, in particular, be enthusiastic about any of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Arrow, yes, but he is apparently out. Simon Kuznets, yes, but he would be likely to make Cowles into something altogether different that it is. I feel literally stuck in trying to think of acceptable candidates. Perhaps I can be more useful in reacting to other suggestions.

Let me combine with this some comments on your March 15 letter, which I should have answered long since.

On the post-doctoral fellowship, I feel less bearish than you, primarily, I suppose because I am inclined to lay a good deal of emphasis on the intangible benefits from having a widespread group of people who have had a year at Chicago. It seems to me that a post-doctoral fellowship is more likely to do this than a staff appointment, both because it is likely to bring in a wider range of people to apply and because it is rather more likely to have a one or two year limit and so a more rapid turnover. What has disappointed me most is the limited number of people among whom we have been forced to choose. Why is it that we don’t get more applications? Is it because we do treat it now like a staff appointment? Do we advertise it as widely as we might and stimulate a considerable number of applicants? Or is it simply because the great increase in number of post-doctoral fellowships available (and decrease in quality of people going in for economics?) has lowered the demand for any one fellowship? I find it hard to believe that making it into a staff appointment would help much in providing more adequate review and appraisal – this is I believe a result of the limitations of time on all of us – but it might give it greater prestige and make it more valuable to the recipient in this way, though, it would cost him tax and limit freedom.

I believe that part of the problem you raise about the postdoctoral fellowship has little to do with it per se but is a general problem about the department. Is our own work subject to as much discussion and advice from our colleagues as each of us would like? The answer seems to me clearly no. The trouble is – and I am afraid it is to some extent unavoidable and common at other places – that we have so many other duties and tasks to perform that being an intellectual community engaged in cross-stimulation perforce takes a back seat. This disease is I think one that grows as the square of the professional age. From this point of view, I think that the more junior people around the better in many ways and I think this one of the real virtues of the development of research projects that will enable us to keep more beginners around.

On the whole, I continue to think that the fellowship idea is sound, in the sense that we ought to have a number of people around who have no assigned duties. I would defend the Mishan result in these terms. I think he was a most useful intellectual stimulant and irritant to have around even if his own output was not too striking. The virtue of the fellowship arrangement is that it enables you to shape the hole to the peg. I cannot of course judge about Prais. But I am surprised by your adverse comments on Dewey’s use of it; I would have thought his one of the clearly most successful post-doctoral fellowships so far.

As you have doubtless heard, Muth has decided to go to Cowles. I am sorry that he has. I think he is good. I am somewhat troubled about the general problem of recruiting for the Workshop at a distance. In addition to Muth, I had heard from Pesek, whom I encouraged but left the matter open because he would rather have a fellowship that he applied for that would pay his travelling expenses to Washington. My general feeling is that it would be a mistake to take anyone just because I am not on the spot, that it would be far better to start fairly slowly, and let the thing build up, adding people as they turn up next year. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I am delighted to hear about Fred’s ford project. I had a wire from Willits recently re Harberger and I assume it was in connection with his proposed project. Al Rees will be a splendid editor, I feel, and it is excellent to have him entirely in the department. I hardly know what to think of Morton Grodzins as Dean. I assume that his appointment measn that he was regarded as a successful administrator at the Press. Grodzins has great drive and energy, is clearly bright and intelligent, but whether he has the judgment either of men or of directions of development that is required, and the ability to raise money that Tyler displayed, is something I have less confidence in. Who is taking over the Press?

I enjoyed your comments on both Arthur Burns and McCarthy. With respect to the first, I thought the economic report extraordinarily good, both in its analysis of the immediate situation and in its discussion of the general considerations that should guide policy. It showed courage, too, I think in its willingness to say nasty things about farm supports and minimum wages to mention two. My views about the recession are indicated by the title of a lecture I am scheduled to give in Stockholm towards the end of April: “Why the American Economy is Depression-proof”. After all, there is no reason why Colin Clark should be the only economist sticking his neck out. It continues to seem to me that the danger to be worried about is over-reacting to this recession and in the process producing a subsequent inflationary spurt. Arthur seems to me to be showing real courage in holding out against action. To do something would surely be the easy and in the short run politically popular course.

McCarthyism has of course been attracting enormous attention here. Indeed, for long it has crowded almost all other American news into the background with the result that it has given a thoroughly distorted view of America to newspaper readers. I enclose a clipping in this connection which you may find amusing. it is not a bad summary, though I trust I put in more qualifications.

We have gotten an opportunity to go to Spain via an invitation to lecture at Madrid (Earl’s doing, I suspect), so Rose and I are leaving next week for a week there. Shortly after our return we go to Sweden and Denmark for a couple of weeks. We are very much excited by the prospects. Best regards to all.

Yours

[signed]
Milton

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder “194.6 Economics Department S-Z, 1946-1976”.

 

Image: Left, Milton Friedman (between 1946 and 1953 according to note on back of photo in the Hoover Archive in the Milton Friedman papers). Right, Theodore W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. Marx/Engels/Lenin Readings. Emile Burns (ed.), 1935

 

 

In 1935 the British Communist, Emile Burns, published A Handbook of Marxism that included just over one thousand pages of excerpts from key works by Marx, Engels, Lenin and (yes) Stalin. Reading assignments in the Burns volume can be found in four of the course syllabi from the Harvard economics department thus far included among the transcribed artifacts in Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. In the table below I note which chapters were assigned for the four courses.

That table is followed by the Table of Contents of the Burns Handbook along with links to available versions (not always the same translation however) of some of the works from which excerpts have been included. There is still work to do in putting links to most of the Lenin pieces and all those of Stalin, but at least all the Marx-Engels chapters have links to the complete works for now.

Chapter XXI consists of excerpts from chapters from the three volumes of Capital. I find it handy to have this short-list of chapters chosen by a practicing Communist of the 1930s. The Handbook is about 50:50  Marx & Engels (ca 500 pages) vs. Lenin & Stalin.

 Cf. the 1918 “Outline for the Study of Marxism” by Karl Dannenberg.

_______________________________________

A HANDBOOK OF MARXISM

being
a collection of extracts from the writings of
Marx, Engels and the greatest of their followers

selected
so as to give the reader
the most comprehensive account of Marxism
possible within the limits of a single volume:

the passages
being chosen by Emile Burns, who has added
in each case a bibliographical note, & an
explanation of the circumstances in which the
work was written & its special significance in
the development of Marxism : as well as the
necessary glossaries and index.

LONDON
VICTOR GOLLANCZ LTC
1934

_______________________________________

Harvard Economics Courses with Assigned Readings
in A Handbook of Marxism

Chapter

 Mason and Sweezy 1938 Sweezy 1940 Taylor 1948 Taylor 1950

I.

 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

II.

III.

IV.

 ✓

V.

 ✓

VI.
VII. ✓
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.

XIII.

 ✓ ✓ ✓

XIV.

 ✓
XV.

XVI.
XVII.

XVIII.
XIX.

XX.

 ✓ ✓ ✓
XXI. ✓

XXII.

 ✓
XXIII.

XXIV.
XXV.

XXVI.
XXVII.

XXVIII.
XXIX.

✓
XXX. ✓

 

Table of Contents
Emile Burns, A Handbook of Marxism (1935)

Introduction
Chap.
I. K. Marx and F. Engels. The Communist Manifesto
II. K. Marx. Address to the Communist League (1850)
III. F. Engels. Introduction to the Class Struggles in France (1848-50)
IV. K. Marx. The Class Struggles in France (1848-50)
V. K. Marx. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
VI. F. Engels. Germany: Revolution and Counter-Revolution
VII. K. Marx. The Civil War in France
VIII. F. Engels. Introduction to the Civil War in France
IX. K. Marx. The Crimean War [New York Tribune, 24 October 1854]
X. K. Marx. The British Rule in India [New York Tribune, June 25, 1853, p. 6];  The Future Results of British Rule in India [New York Tribune, August 8, 1853, p. 5.]
XI. K. Marx. Relations Between the Irish and English Working Classes
[5. The Question of the General Council’s Resolution on the Irish Amnesty]
XII.

F. Engels. The British Labour Movement

[A Fair Day’s Wages for a Fair Day’s Work; The French Commercial Treaty ; Social Classes—Necessary and Superfluous]
XIII.

K. Marx and F. Engels. German Ideology
XIV.

F. Engels. Ludwig Feuerbach
XV.

K. Marx. Theses on Feuerbach
XVI.

F. Engels. Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science (Anti-Dühring)
XVII.

F. Engels. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
XVIII.

F. Engels. The Housing Question [Parts I and II]
XIX.

K. Marx. The Poverty of Philosophy

[Chapter 2: The Metaphysics of Political Economy. Section 1: The Method]
XX.

K. Marx. A Contribution to “the Critique of Political Economy”
XXI.

K. Marx. Capital

(164 pages of excerpts from the following chapters of the Charles H. Kerr & Co., Chicago edition of the three volumes of English translation. Note the recommended order for volume I)

Vol. I, Ch. XXVI. The Secret of Primitive Accumulation;
Vol. I, Ch. XXVII. Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land;
Vol. I, Ch. XXIX. Genesis of the Capitalist Farmer;
Vol. I, Ch. XXX. Reaction of the Agricultural Revolution on Industry: Creation of the Home Market for Industrial Capital;
Vol. I, Ch. XXXI. Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist;
Vol. I, Ch. XXXII. Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation;
Vol. I, Ch. I. Commodities;
Vol. I, Ch. III. Money, or the Circulation of Commodities;
Vol. I, Ch. IV. The General Formula for Capital;
Vol. I, Ch. V. Contradictions in the General Formula of Capital;
Vol. I, Ch. VI. The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power;
Vol. I, Ch. VII. The Labour Process and the Process of Producing Surplus Value;
Vol. I, Ch. VIII. Constant Capital and Variable Capital;
Vol. II, Ch. XX. Simple Reproduction;
Vol. II, Ch. XXI. Accumulation and reproduction on an Enlarged Scale;
Vol. III, Ch. X. Market Prices and Market Values;
Vol. III, Ch. XIII. The Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit: The Theory of the Law;
Vol. III Ch. XIV. Counteracting Causes;
Vol. III, Ch. XV. Unravelling the Internal Contradictions of the Law;
Vol. III, Ch. LI. Conditions of Distribution and Production;
XXII. V. I. Lenin. The Teachings of Karl Marx
XXIII. V. I. Lenin. Our Programme
XXIV. V. I. Lenin. What is to be done?
XXV. V. I. Lenin. The Revolution of 1905
XXVI. V. I. Lenin. Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
XXVII. V. I. Lenin. The Historical Fate of the Teaching of Karl Marx
XXVIII. V. I. Lenin. Socialism and War
XXIX.

V. I. Lenin. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

[Ch. VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism;
Ch. VIII. Parasitism and the Decay of Capitalism;
Ch. IX. Critique of Imperialism]

 
XXX.

V. I. Lenin. The State and Revolution

[Ch. I. Class Society and the State;
Ch. V. The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State]
XXXI. V. I. Lenin. Letters from Afar
XXXII. V. I. Lenin. The Tasks of the Proletariat in our Revolution
XXXIII. J. Stalin. Report on the Political Situation, August 1917
XXXIV. V. I. Lenin. On the Eve of October
XXXV. J. Stalin. The October Revolution
XXXVI. V. I. Lenin. The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Renegade
XXXVII. J. Stalin. Foundations of Leninism
XXXVIII. V. I. Lenin. “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder
XXXIX. J. Stalin. The International Situation, August 1927
XL. J. Stalin. Report at Seventeenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1934
XLI. J. Stalin. Address to the Graduates from the Red Army Academy
XLII. The Programme of the Communist International
Appendices
Index

 

Image Source: Graham Stephenson website, Communist Biogs: Emile Burns.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Economists ERVM

Roosevelt College. Abba Lerner with a Phillips Moniac, 1951

I’ve got to crow. Recently entertained a group of students visiting Berlin from Roosevelt University in Chicago and was given a nice picture book about the history of their university in which there was a picture of Abba Lerner with the analogue Phillips Moniac computer. When I googled to find out whether that Moniac was still somewhere at Roosevelt, I stumbled upon an eBay ad for the photograph distributed with the article (link below) published December 7, 1951 in the Sarasota Herald Tribune. For $25 plus postage I scored an original glossy print of the picture seen in this screenshot from Google news, Abba P. Lerner with his Robot Professor.

1951_11_ScreenshotMoniac

 

______________________

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

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Friedman from Cambridge on Arrow, Tobin, Harry Johnson, Joan Robinson. 1953

Thank goodness for leaves of absence and sabbaticals! In an earlier age letters were actually exchanged between the lone scholar off to foreign groves of academe or government service and colleagues back at the home institution. When Milton Friedman went off to the University of Cambridge for the academic year 1953-54 (see Chapter 17 “Our First Year Abroad”  in Milton and Rose D. Friedman, Two Lucky People: Memoirs), he wrote detailed letters discussing departmental matters and impressions of Cambridge academic life to the chair of the department, Theodore W. Schultz. In this posting we encounter Milton Friedman’s views on possible candidates to take up the directorship of the Cowles Commission, his very positive impression of Harry Johnson, his utter shock regarding Joan Robinson’s views on China, and comparisons between Chicago and Cambridge training in economics. More to come:  Here a letter dated 29 March 1954.

______________________

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

_____________________

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
October 28, 1953

Dear Ted [Theodore W. Schultz]:

Many thanks for your letter of October 22. It contained a fuller budget of news then I had otherwise received. I am delighted to hear of the decision of the Rockefeller Foundation, and appreciate your taking the necessary steps including repairing my omission in not specifying the effective date. I am sorry to hear that the problems raised by my absence were still further complicated by Allen [W. Allen Wallis?]. The Harberger-Johnson [Arnold Harberger; D. Gale Johnson] arrangement seems, however, excellent.

It is certainly too bad about Arrow. Re Tobin, as you know, I have in the past had a very high opinion of his ability and promise though I would not have put him as high as Arrow. I regret to say, however, that my opinion fell somewhat this summer as a result of going over in great detail his article on the consumption function in the collection of essays in honor of [John Henry] Williams. As you may know, I drafted this summer a lengthy paper on the theory of the consumption function. One of the pieces of evidence I considered was Tobin’s paper, which reached conclusions in variance with most of the other evidence. On close examination, his conclusions turned out not to be justified by his own evidence, but rather to be a product of sloppy and incompetent statistical analysis. One swallow does not of course make a summer, but I am inclined to give this piece of evidence more weight than I otherwise would since it is the only bit of his work that I have gone over with sufficient care to feel great confidence in my judgment of it. My generally favorable opinion has been based on a rather superficial and casual reading of most of his other published work – indeed, on first reading, I had had an equally favorable opinion of the consumption paper. His memorandum on research that you sent me strikes me as being on the whole very sensible and very good.

In view of the above, I am very uncertain how to respond to your request for my “vote”. Everything obviously depends on the alternatives, and these are likely to vary if viewed in terms of the Cowles position in the department. Are either the former, Tobin may well be the best of the available people. Re: the latter, I much more dubious that he is than formerly. In view of my inability to participate in the discussion of the alternatives, the best thing seems to me to be to abstain from casting a definite vote either way, to make it clear that I shall cheerfully accept the decision of my colleagues, but to urge them strongly to canvass possible alternatives carefully and if possible to avoid letting an appointment to Cowles also commit the department to a permanent appointment in the department, unless the letter seems desirable on its own account.

May I complicate your problem further by introducing another name that the department ought to keep in mind in considering its long-run plans, namely Harry Johnson, now here at Cambridge, but originally a Canadian. Of the various younger people I have met around here, he impresses me as being by all odds the best and most promising, and as of the moment I would unhesitatingly rate him above Tobin. As you know, his specialty has been money and he lectures here on money and banking, but he has also been doing some work in international trade. More than most of the people here he has worked in technical and scientific economics instead of allowing himself to be diverted almost entirely to policy issues – which I suppose appeals to me partly because his policy position is so different from my own but impresses me partly also because I have been rather shocked by how large a part of intellectual activity around here is concerned almost exclusively with current policy issues. I have no idea whether Johnson would be interested in moving – he is certainly regarded as one of the clearly important and promising people at Cambridge and seems to have an assured future here – but the chance seems to me sufficiently great that we ought to keep him on our list.

Incidentally, back to Tobin, Dorothy Brady was having my piece on consumption typed up and was to send a copy to Margaret Reid when done, so that the detailed criticism of Tobin’s article that it contains could be made available to anyone who wanted to look at it.

Writing this paragraph just gave me a brainstorm – why not Dorothy for the Cowles post? In her case it would be easier to separate the appointment from a departmental commitment since she would almost certainly not demand tenure; she is a first-rate and experienced administrator; she has the necessary mathematical and statistical background; and she might give the research program a highly desirable shift toward closer contact with significant detailed empirical and economic problems – which is probably at the same time her strongest recommendation and the greatest obstacle to agreement.

On the other issue you raise, I am very much in favor – from our point of view – of Al Rees for the editorship. I think he would be an excellent editor. I am delighted that you were able to persuade Earl [Hamilton] to stay on for another year – I wish he felt able to keep it longer, as I am sure we all do, but Al seems to me clearly the next best alternative.

We have been enjoying Cambridge very much indeed, though I must confess that to date it has been too stimulating and active for me to have gotten much work done. I am enormously impressed – and in some directions, depressed – by the difference in atmosphere from the US. Educationally, the aim of education is to train the future ruling class rather than simply to educate people, which accounts for much more explicit emphasis in teaching and research on problems of immediate economic policy – economics is essentially taught as an art to be employed by rulers rather than as a science. There is enormous emphasis on form and cleverness, which reaches its peak in debates, of which I have participated in one (opposing the resolution “Yankee-eating baiting is unjustifiable and ungrateful” – tell me, how should I interpret the fact that on the vote of the audience, my side won?) And listening to another in the Cambridge Union. Surprisingly, the appeal is to the emotions rather than the reason; the level of wit and of phrasing is amazingly high, of intellectual content, abysmal. Politically, the atmosphere is incredibly redder than at home. This, I think, accounts for a good deal of the misunderstanding here of the state of civil liberties in the US. The right comparison to make is between tolerance of opinions equally deviant from the norm; the comparison that is made is between tolerance of the same opinion; but the normal opinion here would be regarded as clearly “left” at home, and moderately left opinion here is extremely radical; this difference in average opinion leads to the belief here that there is complete intolerance in the United States. These reflections are partly stimulated by a talk Joan Robinson gave on China a little over a week ago. It was an incredible talk to me; I was glad I went because I wouldn’t have believed anybody who had given me an accurate report, and you will have the same difficulty in believing mine. What is incredible is not alone that she sincerely believed the most extreme statements of the Chinese Communists about tremendous progress as a result of the “liberation”, but that she presented them without any examination of the internal consistency of her successive statements, without a sign of critical intelligence at work, without attempting to cite evidence of a kind she could have expected to acquire as a result of her brief visit there. Had the same talk been given by a faculty member in the US there undoubtedly would have been a fuss while here it passed over without a ripple. This difference may in part reflect a difference in tolerance of extreme opinions; but to a much greater extent it reflects the fact that her opinion is nothing like so extreme relative to British opinion as relative to American. The fair comparison is between the reception of her speech and one that, let us say, Maynard Krueger would make; and I doubt that there would be much difference in the reactions in that case.

The anti-American feeling is really extreme. It is widely accepted that America has concluded that war is inevitable, is no longer even interested in maintaining the peace and only waiting for an appropriate time to start a war. The American troops in England and Europe are said to be unwanted – though I’m sure an outcry would go up if they were to be withdrawn. England’s trade difficulties are America’s fault, because American productivity is growing so shockingly fast – this is a theme that in politer form is being increasingly put forth in academic circles, note especially Hicks in his inaugural address. All in all, these views, surprisingly enough, lead the left and not so left here to espouse essentially the Hoover-Taft position about the role America should play.

These are all of course first impressions for a highly biased segment of England, so I know you will take them with the mass of salt they deserve.

We’re all personally fine. The kids are quite happy in their schools. We are happy to be coming to the end of our month in a hotel – we move into the house we rented this Friday.

Our very best to everyone.

 

Yours,

[signed]

Milton

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder “194.6 Economics Department S-Z, 1946-1976”.

Image: Left, Milton Friedman (between 1946 and 1953 according to note on back of photo in the Hoover Archive in the Milton Friedman papers). Right, Theodore W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Suggestions for New Fields. Domar, Kuh, Solow, Adelman, 1967

The following set of memoranda from the MIT economics department is found in a folder marked “Correspondence: Peter Temin” in Evsey Domar’s papers. The bulk of the material in the folder are letters of support that Domar solicited for the committee he chaired (which consisted of Domar, Charles Kindleberger and Frank Fisher) to review Peter Temin for tenure. It thus appears that Domar’s proposal to strengthen economic history at MIT in February 1967 was seen (at least by him) to have led later to granting Peter Temin tenure at MIT. See Peter Temin’s reflections on “The Rise and Fall of Economic History at MIT.”

In response to a request by the Head of the department, E. Cary Brown, for input to a long-range plan (1967-1975), we have here not only Evsey Domar’s response but also memos from Edwin Kuh (more econometrics!), Robert Solow (“poverty-manpower” or “a really high-class macro-numbers man”) and M. A. Adelman (energy economics).

Even Robert Solow’s intradepartmental memos sparkle with wit!

_________________________________

February 7, 1967

MEMORANDUM

 

To: Members of the Economics Department
From: E. Cary Brown
Subject: Long-Range Departmental Plans

President H. Johnson has asked that Departments submit long-range plans – by two-year intervals through the academic year 1974-5. The basic constraints, other than budgetary, are that the undergraduate student body is to remain fixed at its present level and that graduate students at M.I.T. Grow at only a 3% rate per year. The projection desired is of the expansion in existing fields, into new fields, the population of the department – faculty, staff, students, post-doctorals, and administration and supporting staff.

In order to get a dialogue started, I suggest that each of you send me a note on the need for new fields, the expansion of existing ones, and your views about our undergraduate and graduate size. I can then prepare an agenda for a meeting or two on this matter.

_________________________________

 

[Evsey Domar response]

  1. New Fields, etc.
    1. Economic History. Could tie in very well with our economic developers. Also help to create a better balance in the Department.
    2. Economics and Technology (Mansfield, etc.) MIT should be just the place for it.
    3. I hope Max continues to be interested in South-East Asia. The US will be involved there for a long time. Any chances for a South-east. Asia Center or something?
  2. Number of Students
    No strong feelings. A larger number of both faculty and students allows us to offer a greater variety of courses.

As you know, Economic History is my main concern.

_________________________________

 

[Edwin Kuh response]

February 13, 1967

MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Professor E. Cary Brown
FROM:          Professor Edwin Kuh
SUBJECT:     Some Economics Department Needs in the Long Run

Let me first grind my own econometric axe. We need additional support in two econometric areas. The first pertains to support for quantitative theses; Frank Fisher, Bob Solow and I carry a heavy load in this connection, which is unlikely to diminish. Second, we ought to have more strength than we do in econometric time series analysis, an important topic not covered by existing faculty. Marc Nerlove, for instance, ranks high on both counts. Less senior individuals include David Grether who combines both aspects (Stanford Ph.D. going to Yale this fall) and possibly Joseph Kadane also at Yale, who is more the statistician. Jim Durbin and Bill Phillips would be fine, too, qua statisticians contributing to econometrics.

Next, suppose we are fortunate enough to attract both Ken Arrow and C. V. Wiesacker [sic] ; the net balance in favor of theory would then become heavy indeed. There will be no need to panic and for instance, proceed instantly to hire Arthur Burns. But even so, it will behoove the department to push relentlessly on expanding the more empirical side. Since all tenure slots by then will have been sewed up, I don’t see how this can readily be done.

Finally, the department ought to raise more finance for computation. The burden has been disproportionately assumed by the Sloan School, even though several Economics Department research projects have made highly welcome and substantial contributions to the installation downstairs. In this connection, the department should seriously consider acquiring the long run services of someone with a major interest [in] computer systems; very different and high qualified individuals such as Mark Eisner or Don Carroll come to mind. The department will lag behind seriously unless it expands in this direction.

This has not been a balanced presentation of needs. I shall leave that to more balanced individuals.

 

_________________________________

 

[Robert M. Solow response]

MEMORANDUM TO: E. Cary Brown, Head
FROM: Robert M. Solow
SUBJECT: Yours of February 7

 

  1. Undergraduate program. I suppose basically we just passively accept as many majors as come along. We might attract more by improving the teaching and brightening up the course offering. So far we have got along just fine with a pretty dreary undergraduate program, and previous attempts to Do Something have petered out. Is history trying to tell us something? The only reason I can think of for trying again is this: if the department faculty is going to state bigger, especially among assistant professors, then we probably need some decent undergraduate teaching for them to do. (Not only them – I would volunteer to do some too.) Why not let the assistant professors do the planning – they probably have more ideas. Suggestions: new undergraduate subjects in mathematical economics, econometrics, “poverty”, transportation (or public investment); cancel one of the current Labor subjects (or convert to “poverty”), maybe cancel 14.06, 14.09; organize research seminar on one-big-project basis; keep 3 or 4 of the best seniors on as PhD candidates as a matter of course.
  1. Graduate program. Does it have to expand to justify slightly enlarged faculty? If so, then accept universe, but fight like hell for adequate space, scholarships, research funds. If not, think carefully. If faculty enlarges and improves, we should be able to do better on admissions. There will always be some lemons admitted; but it is a question whether one would not prefer current size of enrollment with improved bottom half to enlarged enrollment with current quality. If we get Arrow and Weizsäcker, and keep half-dozen assistant professors, some growth of graduate student body probably inevitable. But I’d keep it slow, and in line with admission quality, space, scholarships, research money. Aim for entering class of 40 by 1975? Certainly no more.
  1. New fields. If MIT goes into Urban Studies, I think we ought to move too. This means some joint research, perhaps offering a few fellowships specifically in urban economics, some new appointments (transportation, poverty, local finance), probably young guys. (I’d like to see Mike Piore and Frank Levy free to start something.) (Would Bill Pounds like to hire Joe Kershaw?) Maybe we ought to start looking next fall. This complex could be a major counterweight to theory. We could make a senior appointment, but I doubt we could find a good enough man. We also lack a really high-class macro-numbers man – like Art Okun or Otto Eckstein or George Perry. Should we try Les Thurow? Or try eventually for Steve Goldfeld? Goldfeld would help with Money, but Thurow would fit into poverty-manpower bit. I think I might seriously favor going for Thurow now if we can afford it.

_________________________________

 

[M. A. Adelman response]

March 16, 1967

Memorandum to:     Professor E. Cary Brown
From:                         M.A. Adelman
Subject:  President H. W. Johnson’s request to submit long-range plans: industrial organization field

  1. Enrollment in the graduate course has declined to the point where it is best given in alternate years. Theses written have not decreased, and there are six now in preparation. I wish to use the time made available to teach the course on energy economics when Paul Rodan retires. The remaining time is best devoted to undergraduate teaching (see below).
  2. Undergraduate enrollment seems to be on the increase in 14.02, 14.04, and 14.22. With the appointment of Robert Crandall, we are fully staffed. I would wish to have 14.02 taught exclusively by lecture and sections (teaching assistants) except where the undergraduates’ program will not permit it. Where we are compelled to fill in with three-recitation sections, I strongly urge that they should not be taught by teaching assistants. Since the transfer to lectures economizes manpower, these two changes should be offsetting, but will take more of my own time.
  3. I have given a joint seminar with Harvard (Economics Department and Middle East Center) on Eastern Hemisphere Oil, and will repeat it next year. It is still an uncertain venture, however, in a sensitive area, and the fuss about CIA influence in academic research may kill it.
  4. I join in concern over our weakness in economic history. East European economics might best be treated as an expansion of our current offering in Soviet economics, since there is sufficient unity of geography and practice. I wish some encouragement could be given to East Asian especially Japanese studies, where English sometimes suffices, but would not care to have it as a field of specialization.

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Evsey D. Domar papers, Box 7, Folder “Peter Temin” [apparently misfiled].

Image Source: MIT 1959 Technique (Yearbook).