Category: Economists

Categories
Economists Irwin Collier M.I.T.

MIT. Samuelson at the Joint Economic Committee, 1973

Marina v.Neumann Whitman and Paul A. Samuelson

Backstory:

When I was an undergraduate I was extremely fortunate to have received an internship at the Council of Economic Advisers in Washington, D.C. Even though I was anything but a Republican and the semester-long internship began less than three months after the bungled Watergate break-in at the Democratic National Committee by the White House “plumbers”, I eagerly grabbed this opportunity when it was offered in August, 1972 to begin that September. I was assigned to two labor market economists, one of whom (June O’Neill) would be tasked to write chapter 4 “The Economic Role of Women” in the 1973 Annual Report of the CEA and for which I did all the tabulations and number-crunching at a time when research assistants at the Council had Wang calculators on their desks that were tethered to an “electronic package” with a data hose but that did possess the virtue of calculating logarithms (!) with a single keystroke. My bosses were sufficiently satisfied with my work that I was invited back for the Summer of 1973.

My time at the Council coincided not just with the Watergate scandal but also with some of the episode of wage-and-price controls. When concerned citizens wrote to the Council of Economic Advisers, their letters would be passed down the pecking order and most often landed on the desk of an intern to draft a polite, Econ 1 response. One of the women interns, came through the office in a rant because when she consulted Paul Samuelson’s Economics for some boiler-plate about shortages and price controls to include in a letter, she found a not untypical Samuelsonian wisecrack “Of course, there are always a few women and cranks, longer on intuition than brains, who blame their troubles on the mechanism of rationing itself rather than on the shortage.” Even though I was not even aware that I would be going to MIT myself a little more than a year later, I instinctively wanted to protect my hero, figuring my colleague consulted an old edition and times-have-changed-for-the-better. A nice thing about the Council of Economic Advisers is that it had economists of all generations in residence so that in a matter of no time we had multiple editions in which we could seek and then compare the offending passages. Indeed my intuition was correct, by the 1970 edition “women and cranks” was softened to “cranky customers” but to our procrastinating horror we discovered that the earliest edition referred to “women and soap-box orators” that was only later changed to the somewhat more offensive “women and cranks”.

Not long after this serendipitous discovery of Paul Samuelson’s personal journey in matters of gender awareness, I heard that Herbert Stein and Marina von Neumann Whitman were to testify before the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress in a set of hearings devoted to the “Economic Problems of Women” and that no less an economist than Paul Samuelson was to testify as well. I quickly wrote up a memo to my boss, June O’Neill, suggesting that perhaps this would be a cute opening remark for Marina Whitman, albeit at Samuelson’s expense, illustrating the gradual rise in consciousness of economists with respect to women’s issues.

Today’s posting includes the relevant part of Marina von Neumann Whitman’s testimony where the input from my memo can be seen. (Thank you for the memory FRASER!)

I was slightly disappointed when I read Paul Samuelson’s printed testimony, because he led off with a remark to the effect that “I am surprised, given the magnitude of the economic problems facing the United States, that the President’s Council of Economic Advisers would have the time to go back to uncover my past errors.” That statement did not get recorded in the official transcript however. My memory of his facial expression at the time was of unamused to slightly irritated. Later as a graduate student I never did have the courage to ask Samuelson if he remembered that particular moment in the hearing much less confess to my complicity.

My feeble attempt at a reparation for even providing the backstory to this Samuelson anecdote rather than mercifully allowing it to remain in the obscurity of a transcript from a JEC hearing is to place into my blog record a few paragraphs from near the end of Samuelson’s spoken testimony.

In today’s summer of the American white-male’s discontent Samuelson’s casual remarks about the differences in labor market experiences of men and women seem quite prescient. 

_______________________________

 

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF WOMEN

Tuesday, July 10, 1973.

Congress of the United States,
Joint Economic Committee,
Washington, D.C.

 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in room S-407, the Capitol Building, Hon. Martha W. Griffiths (member of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representative Griffiths and Widnall.

[…]

Mrs. Whitman. […] In fact, this fourth chapter of the 1973 Economic Report of the President represents the first time that the report of the Council of Economic Advisers has directed considerable attention to the economic problems of women. The formation of the Advisory Committee on the Economic Role of Women is another first for the Council. The economics profession has been slow in developing expertise on the special problems of women; and Federal data sources have only begun to tailor surveys so that they can yield appropriate statistics about women. One role of the Committee is to fill in some of the deficiencies and expertise on this subject for the Council. The association of the Committee with the Council provides a channel through which the interests of women are represented in economic policy decisions.

Indeed, we are glad to observe that finally women and economics are being included in the same breath without a knowing wink by the male economist. One sign of this is the change in a passage found in various editions of Professor Paul Samuelson’s well-known economics textbook. Lamenting the popular reaction to the results of rationing, Professor Samuelson wrote in his first edition (1948):

Of course, there are always a few women and soapbox orators, who are longer on intuition than brains and who blame their troubles on the mechanism of rationing itself rather than on the shortage.

In the seventh edition (1967), we find soapbox orders dropped and the sentence is changed to:

Of course, there are always a few women and cranks, longer on intuition than brains, who blame their troubles on the mechanism of rationing itself rather than on the shortage.

By the liberated eighth edition (1970) he writes:

Of course, there are always some cranky customers, longer on intuition than brains, who blame their troubles on the mechanism of rationing itself rather than on the shortage.

So by 1970 “women” had disappeared from that rather slighting reference.

We have asked to insert into the record chapter 4 of the 1973 economic report. I would like here simply to talk about a few highlights of the chapter and primarily to report on some additional information and analysis that we have been able to acquire and develop since the economic report…

[…]

Source: United States. Congress. Ninety-Third Congress, First Session. Joint Economic Committee. Economic Problems of Women: Hearings, Part 1 (July 10, 11, and 12, 1973), p. 33.

[…]

Representative Widnall.  Mr. Samuelson, you infer in your statement and in your chapter on discrimination in the new edition of your textbook that the economic problems of women are due to “confinement to a limited group of industries and occupations within those industries.”

Could you explain what other factors you theorize to be significant in creating the female-male differential in that field?

Mr. Samuelson. We have learned about some of the detailed studies that are made to break down the different factors that explain an obviously large differential. It seems to me that these studies are excellent, the studies done by the Council of Economic Advisors, in comparison with earlier councils. It seems to me that we need more of them. But they must not have a soporific effect upon us, because, as in the case of all discrimination, there is a self-fulfilling and a self-perpetuating circle involved in discrimination. Women have less experience than men, and therefore you explain away the differential. But you have to ask yourself. “Why is the world run in such a way that the women get less experience for the good jobs?” A white male apparently is what all of Darwinian evolution has set out to create. Out of the slime came DNA, and then a backbone or something of a backbone was created, and then humans came down from the trees, and all this to create a white male. For, by census analysis of my colleague, Prof. Robert Hall, the only group who get automatic advances with age in the community, let’s say, after the age of 25, 27, 29, are white males. Women don’t get it, whether they are white or black. Black men don’t get it.

There is little good reason for a woman to have continuity in the labor force. She is given a rotten job by and large; then she leaves; and when she comes back, she again gets a rotten job. For a man, it is usually different. Only this last recession was a recession which hit MIT graduates and other professionals. As my suburban neighbors said while they were polishing their cars, why it’s people like us who have been thrown out of work. For a long time prior to that, all they had done was go through the coffee breaks and funeral by funeral move up the promotion and salary ladder. Now, that does not happen to the rest of the community. That is why, when I do an analysis of wage variance, or when Prof. Mincer does it, we pick up these same facts of discrimination once again, yes, women lack capital. The curse of the poor is their poverty. They lack human capital. Human capital is the ability to earn a large amount of money. And if you haven’t got it, you don’t earn a large amount of money. These are all attitude conditioned.

Let me give an example. It used to be said – I don’t know what the full truth was – that Jews had a bad occupational outlook in engineering. There was said to be great discrimination against them. There were very few Jews in engineering. And it was said, they are really not fitted for it. They don’t like work for pay, they like to be their own boss, probably lending money at high interest rates, and other such nonsense. And then a great change came. After World War II, in contrast to after World War I, go out to Route 128, or to Pasadena or the bay area, or Seattle, and you find that suddenly these people who previously had no human capital in that engineering-science line, no wish for it, no proclivity, no talent, they turned out to be, I would say, well represented in any random sample.

Attitude becomes self-reinforcing, and the statistics then prove for you what you already know, if you understand the attitudes involved.

So we are only talking about the visible peak of the iceberg of custom and discrimination. There have to be great changes. A 1-year change in legislation of course is only the beginning of a very long process.

 

Source: United States. Congress. Ninety-Third Congress, First Session. Joint Economic Committee. Economic Problems of Women: Hearings, Part 1 (July 10, 11, and 12, 1973), pp. 66-67.

_______________________________

 Addendum from a 1964 Oral History regarding the Council of Economic Advisers &c.

Thanks to a tip from Paul Samuelson’s biographer, Roger Backhouse, we have the following Samuelson quote that is probably as much a wise-crack aimed at a President who would appear to have confused home-economics with economics as it is an example of the way even liberal M.I.T. economists expressed themselves in the men’s locker-room. 

Samuelson. “…President Johnson made some reference to how a consumer-minded woman might be a good member of the Federal Reserve. Do you remember that, at one of the press conferences that he had? It seemed to me that in the first place one of the big issues will always be whether there will be undue concern over inflation. Women are very estimable but the Federal Reserve is not necessarily the best place for them and a consumer-minded woman would not be what the economists would generally…” [Samuelson was cut off here and the interview moved to a different topic]

Source:  Council of Economic Advisers Oral History Interview (Interviewer: Joseph Pechman. Interviewed: Walter Heller, Kermit Gordon, James Tobin, Gardner Ackley, Paul Samuelson)–JFK#1, August 1, 1964, pp. 365-6.

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. HMS Pinafore parody about Milton Friedman

What is a faculty-student party without skits and songs in which popular texts are given a good burlesque once over? An even duller affair to be sure.

I am the first to admit that Economics in the Rear-View Mirror is a pretty dry boutique blog. Even my occasional attempts to liven things up are bound to fall flat for those who have not endured the rigors of graduate education in the dismal science. But in the genuine interest of preserving artifacts of graduate education in economics past, I have already included Professor William Parker’s hit parody of the hymn “Rock of Ages”, originally performed at a Yale skit party and later in 1976 at the Adam Smith Roast organized by M.I.T. graduate students of economics. This posting now adds a text (authorship unknown…any claimants out there?) from the University of Chicago. 

“A good parody is a fine amusement, capable of amusing and instructing the most sensible and polished minds; the burlesque is a miserable buffoonery which can only please the populace.” (translation from “Parodie” in Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, 12:73–74 (Paris, 1765)). 

Readers may judge for themselves where this artifact falls in the spectrum running from “good parody” to “miserable buffoonery”.

Milton Friedman kept one folder in his files dedicated to humor from University of Chicago skits and student publications. The following burlesque aimed at Milton Friedman himself was considered good enough in Chicago that it was recycled at least once. Both versions in the Friedman folder are undated and I welcome blog visitors to express their opinions as to which version might have preceded the other (with explanation).

For those who don’t know the original, here is a video clip of “When I was a Lad” from the operetta H.M.S. Pinafore by Gilbert and Sullivan.

_____________________________________

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….

_____________________________________

Version 1:

MEMBER OF THE FACULTY
(to the tune of “When I was a lad” from PINAFORE)

 

When I was a lad I served a term
Under the tutelage of A. F. Burns.
I read my Marshall completely through
From beginning to the end and then backward, too.
I read my Marshall so carefully that now I am professor at the U. of C.
(He read his Marshall so carefully that now he is professor at the U. of C.)

I learned the philosophy of “as if”
And now everything appears relatif.
Of exegesis I obtained such a grip
That soon I was granted a fellowship.
Oh, such a good fellow you never did see, so now I am professor at the U. of C.
(Oh, such a good fellow you never did see, so now I am professor at the U. of C.)

Since products all do clearly compete
From automobiles to babies sweet,
The very existence of monopoly
I explained away as sophistry.
This sophistry is so good for me, that now I am professor at the U. of C.
(This sophistry is so good for he, that now he is professor at the U. of C.)

Of Keynesians I can make mincemeat;
Their battered arguments now line the street.
I get them in their weakest assumption,
“What do you mean by consumption function?”
They never gave an answer that satisfied me, so now I am professor at the U. of C.
(They never gave an answer that satisfied he, so now he is professor at the U. of C.)

Of laissez-faire I am the champ,
Outstanding member of the liberal camp.
With social zeal I never have burned;
With feasibility I’m not concerned.
This ivory tower so suited me, that now I am professor at the U. of C.
(This ivory tower so suited he, that now he is professor at the U. of C.)

Now students all, whoever you may be,
If you want to climb the academic tree,
Stick close to your texts and never disagree
And you all may be professors at the U. of C.
(Stick close to your texts and never disagree
And you all may be professors at the U. of C.)

____________________________________________

Version 2:

MEMBER OF THE FACULTY:
(to the tune of “When I was a Lad” from H.M.S. Pinafore)

When I was a lad I served a term
Under the tutelage of A. F. Burns
I studied my Marshall completely thru
From beginning to the end and then backwards too
>
I studied my Marshall so carefully that now I am professor at the U. of C.

Chorus: (He studied his Marshall so carefully that now he is professor at the U. of C.)

[4 beats]

I learned the philosophy of “AS IF”
And now everything appears relatif
Of exegesis I obtained such a grip
That soon I was granted a fellowship
>
Oh, such a good fellow you never did see, so now I am prof. at the U. of C.

Chorus: (Oh, such ….)

Since every product does compete
From an automobile to a baby sweet
The very existence of monopoly
I explain away as sophistry
>
This sophistry is so good for me that now I am teaching at the U. of C.

Chorus: (This sophistry ….)

Of Keynesians I can make mincemeat
Their battered arguments now litter the street
I hit them in their weakest assumption
“What do you mean by consumption function?”
>
They never gave an answer that satisfied me, so now I am prof. at the U. of C.

Chorus: (They never….)

Of laissez-faire I am the champ
The outstanding member of the liberal camp
With social zeal I never have burned
With feasibility I am not concerned
X>
This ivory tower so suited me that now I am professor at the U. of C.

Chorus: (This ivory ….

Now students all whoever you may be
If you want to climb the academic tree
Stick close to your texts and never disagree
And you all may be professors at the U. of C.

Chorus: (And you …)

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 6 “University of Chicago, Miscellaneous”.

Image Source: HMS Pinafore performance by the Bryn Mawr Glee Club (April 1915).

 

 

Categories
Chicago Economists Yale

Chicago. James Tobin Autobiographical Letter from Faculty Meeting, 1950

The following autobiographical remarks by James Tobin were circulated among the University of Chicago faculty before its Monday, February 13, 1950 meeting. After discussing the “Old Business” of the Committee Report on Ph. D. Thesis requirements and Departmental policy on library acquisitions, a third item added by hand to the mimeographed agenda was “C. Appointment (Tobin)”. 

Cf. the Search Committee report on Tobin from Columbia University, also from 1950.

Robert Dimand has recently published the book James Tobin in the Palgrave Macmillan series Great Thinkers in Economics.

A list of major works and Tobin-related links are at the Gonseca History of Economic Thought Website.

_____________________________________

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….

_____________________________________

TO: Professor T. W. Schultz

DATE: January 27, 1950

FROM: J. Marschak

 

Following our conversation on Tuesday, I attach 20 copies of the biography of James Tobin, with the request that they be circulated among the members of the Department.

Please note that Tobin’s article “Tax Measures to Encourage Saving” has been published in the meantime in the recent issue of the American Economic Review.

Sincerely yours,

Jacob Marschak

 

 

JAMES TOBIN. (Letter of April 2, 1949)

I was born March 5, 1918, in Champaign, Illinois, attended the local schools and the University of Illinois High School. I went to Harvard College on a National Scholarship and was graduated in 1939. I majored in economics in college, and did two years of graduate work in economics at Harvard 1939-41. I worked at Washington at OPACS and WPB from June 1941 to April 1942, when I went into the Navy and served as a line officer on a destroyer. I was “separated” in January 1946 and returned to Harvard to write a thesis. I was a part-time teaching fellow until I received the degree of Ph. D. I am married and have one child, aged 8 months.

I have indicated my training in economics in the previous paragraph: it is better than my mathematical background. In college I had two years of calculus, and as a graduate student I took a half-year course in mathematical statistics and a half-year course in mathematical economics. One of my chief occupations as a Junior Fellow has been to try to improve my mathematical equipment, by attending some courses and by independent work. I have studied advanced calculus, probability, differential equations, modern algebra.

Publications: “Note on the Money Wage Problem,” QJE, LV, 1941, 508-15. “The Role of Statistical Forecasts in Planning for Defense,” Public Policy, III, 1942, 197-223. “Liquidity Preference and Monetary Policy,” Rev. Ec. Stat., XXIX, 1947, 124-131. “Rejoinder” (to Clark Warburton, on same subject), ibid., XXX, 1948, 314-317. “Money Wage Rates and Employment,” in The New Economics, 572-587. “The Fallacies of Lord Keynes’ ‘General Theory’” (By Jaccques Rueff): Comment,” QJE, LXII, 1948, 763-770. A note on “Tax Measures to Encourage Saving” will be published in the AER later this year.

My thesis was entitled “A Theoretical and Statistical Analysis of Consumer Saving.” In it I attempted to derive a saving function by using both budget data and time series—a device suggested by you—and to bring in variables other than income: asset holdings, capital gains, price level. An article based on the thesis is promised for the projected volume in honor of John H. Williams. I am very much interested in the problems involved in obtaining statistical demand functions and am at present completing work on one for food, again using both budget data and time series.

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 2 “University of Chicago Minutes, Economics Department, 1949-1953”.

Image Source: Yale University Manuscripts & Archives. Digital Images Database. “James Tobin in war uniform (1945-December)”.

Categories
Chicago Economists Harvard

Harvard. T.N. Carver’s link to US publicist of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 1921

Today’s posting assembles a few items from the garden of internet archival delights that I stumbled across last night.  

I’ll share in the actual sequence of “discoveries” just as one damn thing led to another. I’ll also lightly annotate with an indication of what I was thinking at each step of the way.

(1) The evening began, as it often does, with a refreshing dive into the Hathitrust.org digital archive, this time in search of artifacts related to the reception of/reaction to Marxian economics in American colleges and universities.

The first artifact that caught my eye (i.e. one that had either not come up before or I overlooked in previous searches) had the title “Making Socialists Out of College Students” by one Woodworth Clum, Western Reserve University (Class of 1900). The pamphlet had no explicit date but can be safely dated ca. 1921. The cover-art (posted above) from the San Francisco Bulletin by Ralph O. Yardley was simply irresistible. The purpose of the pamphlet was to name names of “pink” professors, i.e. socialist fellow-travelers and warn of their bad influence on their young students. Clum wrote: “…when I find a slow poison being secretly and successfully injected into our body politic through the class rooms, I do worry—and so should you.”

_____________________________________

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….

_____________________________________

 

[Woodward Clum identifies professors “valiantly fighting the socialist trend”. ]

            You must not get the impression that the teaching of socialism dominates in the sociological departments [“social science departments” is more likely Clum’s meaning] of our American universities,—but its teaching is going on apace. The fact that so many professors have been discharged from leading universities for their unsound economic theories is evidence itself that the presidents and boards of trustees of those universities are keenly alive to the developments. It is the duty of all real Americans to strengthen the hands of those professors who are valiantly fighting the socialist trend. Hunt them up in your own community—and help them defend America.

Among such thorough American professors who are doing a heroic work at this time are Professor T. N. Carver of the Department of Economics, Harvard University, and Professor Laurence Laughlin, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Professor Carver has written a very clear preface to Brasol’s “Socialism versus Civilization,” published by Scribners and which should be included in every’: American library. Professor Laughlin has recently published ten pamphlets, exposing not only the fallacy of socialism but also presenting some very excellent suggestions concerning . present industrial difficulties.

When we say that parents of boys and girls attending: school in America should ascertain what sort of economics their children are being taught, it is in the hope that support and encouragement will be given to those educators who are endeavoring to develop sound American economics—just as much as to expose the teaching of economic fallacy.

 

Source: Woodward Clum, Making Socialists Out of College Students. Los Angeles: 1921.

____________________________________

(2) Clum’s pamphlet reminds me of the first book of the young William Buckley, God and Man at Yale, that warned the world in general and Yale alumni in particular of the corrupting influences of atheist and/or Keynesian professors. Since both Thomas Nixon Carver (Harvard) and J. Laurence Laughlin (Chicago) have appeared multiple times in Economics in the Rear-View Mirror, my next step was to run down the books cited by Clum.

Boris L. Brasol. Socialism vs. Civilization with an Introduction by T. N. Carver, Professor of Political Economy at Harvard University. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920.

J. Laurence Laughlin. Tracts for the Times: Labor and Wages. New York: Scribner’s Magazine for March, 1920.

I The Solution of the Labor Problem
II Management
III The Hope for Labor Unions
IV Monopoly of Labor
V Is Labor a Commodity?
VI Socialism a Philosophy of Failure
VII Wages and Prices
VIII The British Industrial Crisis
IX British and American Labor Problems
X Extravagance

____________________________________

(3) It is patently obvious from the slightest familiarity with the writings of Carver and Laughlin that both were highly critical of socialist doctrine so that the new questions were (a) who was this anti-socialist, Boris Brasol, for whom Thomas N. Carver wrote an introduction, and (b) what was the nature of their professional relationship? From the tone of the introduction there is really no indication of a particularly close relationship between the Carver and Brasol. Carver merely provided anti-socialist boiler-plate, presumably intended as a favor for a good cause. 

And so who was Boris Brasol?  Archive.org provides two documents identified as having been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the U. S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI):

Freedom of Information Act Documents.

Brasol, Boris-HQ-1 ; Brasol, Boris-HQ-2

Only one plot-spoiler from these FOIA documents now. What struck my eye was that Boris Brasol was clearly identified by a reliable source as having played a role in the propagation of the English translation of the anti-semitic, forged “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the United States.

____________________________________

(4) Not just taking the FBI’s word for it, I found that the Anti-Defamation League (http://www.adl.org) identifies Boris Brasol as the publicist behind the publication of the Protocols:

American Debut

The Protocols were publicized in America by Boris Brasol, a former Czarist prosecutor. Auto magnate Henry Ford was one of those who responded to Brasol’s conspiratorial fantasies. “The Dearborn Independent,” owned by Ford, published an American version of the Protocols between May and September of 1920 in a series called ‘The International Jew: the World’s Foremost Problem.” The articles were later republished in book form with half a million copies in circulation in the United States, and were translated into several foreign languages.

By 1927 Ford had repudiated the “International Jew,” but hundreds of thousands of people around the world had been encouraged by his initial endorsement to accept the Protocols as genuine.

 

Source: Anti-Defamation League website.

____________________________________

At the end of the day I have to admit that I am not sure how much one should fault the economist Thomas Nixon Carver for having had any dealings with someone like Boris Brasol. At the least we can count this as a case of a failure of intellectual due diligence on Carver’s part.  Maybe Socialism vs. Civilization is not a bad book, but seeing where it has come from, I’ll leave reading it for now to historical experts mining the lunatic fringe of the American political right.

 

 

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. James Buchanan’s Dissertation Outline, 1947

James McGill Buchanan, Jr.’s Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago was awarded in the summer quarter of 1948. The title of his dissertation was “Fiscal Equity in a Federal State”. From the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution we have the following transcription of the mimeographed dissertation outline submitted by Buchanan that was discussed in the economics department faculty meeting of October 24, 1947. The agenda of that faculty meeting along with Milton Friedman’s handwritten additions (in square brackets) are included at the end of this posting. The procedure for admission to Ph.D, candidacy is described in a 1949 memo written by Milton Friedman to members of the Department’s Ph.D. Thesis Committee.

_____________________________________

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….

_____________________________________

 

2. Present Procedure
[1949, University of Chicago, Economics]

a. Admission to candidacy. As I understand it, we have no very formalized procedure or requirements. Students typically discuss possible thesis topics with one or more faculty members, construct outlines of the projected thesis, ordinarily get the reaction of one or more faculty members to it, revise it accordingly, and then formally submit the thesis topic and outline to the Department for approval and admission to candidacy. The submitted outline is occasionally extremely detailed, occasionally very general, and is sometimes accompanied by a general statement of objective and purpose, sources of material for the thesis, etc.

[…]

Source: Undated memo (early 1949) written by Milton Friedman to members of the Committee on Ph.D. Thesis Outlines and Requirements from Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 5 “University of Chicago Minutes, Ph.D. Thesis Committee”.

_____________________________________

Dissertation Outline, James M. Buchanan, October 1947

J. M. Buchanan

EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL ADJUSTMENT

I. The Problem —

A. The federal political structure

1. Federalism in political theory. Varying degrees of dual sovereignty. The question of the finality of a federal structure. Is it a final point in political organization or merely a stage in an evolutionary process?

2. The historical development of federalism in the United States. Trends toward centralization and opposing tendencies. The expanding role of government on the whole. The expanding sphere of activity of the central as opposed to subordinate units. Projection of future trends.

3. The case for federalism as a permanent political structure in the United States. Its value as a means of a division of power, as a protection against a tyranny of the majority, etc.

4. Statement of viewpoint on federalism taken in this study.

B. The national economy —

1. The historical development of the expanding scope of the economy. The extension of the market, the trend toward economic centralization, in the sense that the nation has become the unit which defines the area of the allocation of resources.

2. The extent to which the economy is national — increasing specialization, increased resource mobility, etc.

C. Conflicts which arise in the financing of government due to the superimposition of a federated political structure on a national economy.

1. The heterogeneity of the subordinate units of government. Resource heterogeneity. Cultural, social differences. Income disparities leading to differentials in tax burdens and service standards. The basic fiscal inequity inherent in such a structure.

II.            A Theoretical Solution –

A. What is fiscal equity in such a structure?

1. Definition and limitation. For present purposes concept narrowed to that of “equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals”. Abstraction from any attempt to determine equity as between unequals since such a concept not needed for problems considered.

B. Application of the concept —

1. Necessity of benefit calculation for any determination of equity among individuals in separate subordinate governmental units. Difficulties in benefit calculation, aside from special cases. Assumption of per capita general expenditure as best measure of benefit.

2. Definition of the “fiscal residuum” or “net tax” – Net value of services available less net value of taxes paid. Considerations of “government” as the total of all layers in structure, federal, state, and local.

C. Arithmetical Examples –

Examples illustrating possible application of the equity criteria in hypothetical cases. Illustration that “equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals” will impose geographical financial neutrality upon the individual.

III.           A study of Comparative Fiscal Treatment of Similarly Situated Individuals in High Income and Low Income States –

A. Selection of states considered – one with high per capita income, one with low. (Tentatively have selected New York and Mississippi.)

B. Assumptions and abstractions –

1. Assumption of the State-Local fiscal problem as solved or non-existent. Application of criterion to 2-level structure only. State-local considered as one unit. Seek only interstate differentials, not intrastate here.

2. Assumption of money income as measure of economic position. Abstraction from non-pecuniary advantages of geographical location. Individuals considered in similar economic circumstances if money income, pproperty value, same. Physical property same. Family obligations same.

C. Selection of hypothetical individuals to be compared. Determination of income ranges to be covered.

D.            Expenditure pattern of individuals considered.

1. Proportion of income saved, spent at various income levels.

2. Distribution of expenditure at various income levels.

3. Property holdings at different income levels.

E. Determination of tax burdens of individuals considered.

1. Examination of tax structures of states in question.

2. Assumptions as to final incidence of state taxes. More than one set of assumptions can be made and results collocated.

3. Tax burden of hypothetical individuals in each income group in each state can be determined by application of assumptions as to incidence to expenditure patterns.

4. Indication that validity of the study does not depend upon validity of the assumptions as to incidence since no attempt is made to compare dissimilarly situated individuals. (Such a comparison will necessarily show in the computation, however, and for this reason the assumptions should be as realistic as possible.)

F. Determination of value of benefits of government service provided —

1. Necessity to use per capita general expenditure as best benefit measure.

2. Use of value input only not value output. Value output will differ as administrative efficiency of state varies.

G. Calculation of fiscal residua of similarly situated individuals considered —

1. Possibility of abstracting from federal taxes and expenditures since similarly situated individuals supposedly treated similarly by federal government.

H.            Calculation of the interstate differential in fiscal residua of the hypothetical similarly situated individuals considered.

IV.           Existing and proposed attempts at solution.

A. Vertical Integration

1. Examination of the various proposals made to integrate and unify the whole financial structure; plans for realignment of functions, central collection, local administration, complete centralization, etc.

B. Horizontal Integration and Coordination –

1. Readjustment of geographical boundaries, consolidation of non-efficient units. The “regionalism” approach.

C. The grant-in-aid as the adjusting device.

1. The existing structure of grants-in-aid in the United States – a short summary of the more prominent characteristics of the system.

2. Proposals for extension of the system –

a.            Further use of the conditional grant

(1)  Merits of the conditional grant

(2)  Drawbacks

(a)  Effects on budgetary independence of subordinate units.

(b) Central direction and interference.

b.            The concept of a “minimum standard”

(1)  Idea of the “national interest”

(2)  Attempts at defining “minimum standards”

(3)  Violation of equity criteria

(4)  Federal assumption of a function.

D.            Realistic Appraisal of Various Proposals from Standpoint of Political and Administrative Feasibility.

V.            Policy Implications of the Criterion of Equity Proposed in this study.

A. The practicability of direct application.

1. Difficulty of measurement

2. Political and administrative barriers.

B. Effect of the Acceptance of the Theoretical Validity of the Criterion upon Practical Policy.

1. Early elimination of matching requirements in grant-in-aid distribution.

2. Early abandonment of the concept of “minimum standards”.

3. Broadening of purpose for which grants are made.

4. Further extension of so-called “equalization” grants.

5. Elimination of the idea of “charity” in intergovernmental fiscal adjustment.

6. Greater federal reliance on the income tax as a source of revenue.

C. The proposals of the Canadian Royal Commission and Possible Application of Similar Proposals to the United States.

VI.           Possible Objections to the Equity Criterion Proposed and its Policy Implications.

A. Theoretical Objections

1. The central government as the adjusting unit.

2. The inclusion of fiscal treatment by government in the criteria for the optimum allocation of resources.

3. The nation as the economic unit.

B. Administrative Objections.

1. Violation of principle of fiscal responsibility.

VII.          Conclusion.

____________________________

 

Department of Economics
AGENDA
Friday, October 24, 1947, at 3:30 p.m. in SS424

I. Students’ Business

A. Admission to Candidacy for the Ph.D. Degree

James M. Buchanan

Subject: Equity Considerations in Intergovernmental Fiscal Adjustment.
Field: Government Finance
Committee: [Blough, chairman, Perloff, Knight]

Henry Woldon Hewetson

Subject: An Examination of the Distance Principle of Railway Freight rate making with references to Canadian Conditions.
Field: [Transportation]
Committee: [Sorrell, Koopmans, Friedman]

[Inserted:

Harriett D. Hudson.

Progressive Mine Workers of America
Committee: Douglas, ch; Nef; (illegible name) Lewis]

Norman Maurice Kaplan

Subject: Models for Socialist Economic Planning
Field:
Committee: [Marschak, ch.; ch. Harris; A. P. Lerner; Friedman

Raymond H. McEvoy

Subject: Effects of Federal Reserve Policies, 1929-36
Field: Money, Banking, and Monetary Policy
Committee: [Mints, Hamilton, Metzler]

Wallace E. Ogg

Subject: A Study of Maladjustment of Resources in Southern Iowa
Field: Agricultural Economics
Committee: [Johnson, Hardin (pol sci), Lewis]

B. Admission to candidacy for the Alternative Master’s Degree (without thesis.)

Raymond H. McEvoy

C. Admission to candidacy for the Regular Master’s Degree

Peter Senn

Subject: Federal subsidization of the Banks
Field:
Committee:

D. Petitions

Guy Black—for permission to substitute work in Mathematics for the regular requirement of a second foreign language.

Keith O. Campbell—for approval to take Political Science as one of the fields for the Ph.D. Degree.

Gershon Cooper—to substitute the following courses in math. for the German language requirement for the Ph.D. Degree: Mathematics 216, 220, and 228.

Bernard Gordon—to substitute a mathematical sequence of Calculus I and Calculus II in place of one of the language requirements for the Ph.D. Degree.

Dale A. Knight—to use Political science as one field for the Ph.D. Degree.

Chih-wei Lee—to take English as the second language.

[John K. Lewis]

II. Encyclopedia Britannica Economic Articles

III. Language requirements for Foreign students.

IV. Report of Master’s Degree Committee, Spring and Summer, 1947

V. New Business

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 79, Folder “79.1 University of Chicago Minutes Economics Department 1946-1949”.

Image Source: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Biography of James M. Buchanan.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard

Joseph Schumpeter on Methodological Individualism, 1908

Thanks to V. L. Elliot, a member of the faculty of the National Intelligence University in Washington, D.C., Economics in the Rear-View Mirror has been provided the following English translation of Joseph Schumpeter’s chapter on methodological individualism from his 1908 book Das Wesen und Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie.

1908_Schumpeter_Ch6_MethodologicalIndividualism_1980EngTranslation

Ellliot writes:

[The chapter] was published in 1980 with the permission of E. B. Schumpeter, the author’s widow by an Institute in Belgium that subsequently ceased operations.  The publishing run appears to have been a short one.  Thanks to the great determination and professionalism of a wonderful librarian, Ms. Denise Campbell, I was able to acquire the PDF after a ten year search that began when I read Professor Klein’s contribution to a series of volumes on the work of Hayek (Hayek wrote the introduction to the pamphlet).

Professor Peter Klein described the book and pamphlet that is contained in the PDF file on his web site in 2009:

“The book made quite a splash in the German-speaking world and Schumpeter received many requests for an English translation, but he wouldn’t allow it, or to have the book reprinted in German. In 1980 a single chapter, “Methodological Individualism,” was translated and published in pamphlet form, with a short introduction by Hayek…. The pamphlet has been very difficult to get until now.”

In the meantime an English translation of the entire book by Bruce A. McDaniel has been published as The Nature and Essence of Economic Theory by Transaction Publishers in 2010.

_____________________________________

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
Berkeley Chicago Columbia Economists

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

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

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

_____________________________________

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

_____________________________________

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * *

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

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

* * * *

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

* * * *

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

* * * *

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

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

 

[…]

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

 

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

Image Source: Foundation for the Study of Cycles.

Categories
Berkeley Columbia Economists

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

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

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

_____________________________________

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

_____________________________________

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

______________________________

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Van Dusen Kennedy / Clark Kerr / Lloyd Ulman

 

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

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

 

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. 25th anniversary of Dept of Political Economy, 1916

In 1916 the department of political economy of the University of Chicago celebrated its 25th anniversary (coinciding with that of the university) with a privately printed pamphlet in which were listed the names of the 38 members of the instructional staff, 12 assistants, 98 fellows, 637 graduate students and 31 Ph.D.’s of its first quarter century. Note: some names are listed in more than a single category. Appended to the end of the pamphlet is a statistical record of instructional staff, graduate students and political economy course registrations annually for the period.

___________________________________

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….

___________________________________

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

DEPARTMENT
OF
POLITICAL ECONOMY.
1892-3.

OFFICERS OF INSTRUCTION:

J. LAURENCE LAUGHLIN, Ph. D.,

Head-Professor of Political Economy.

ADOLPH C. MILLER, A. M.,

Associate-Professor of Political Economy.

WILLIAM CALDWELL, A. M.,

Tutor in Political Economy.

___________________________________

 

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

 

JAMES LAURENCE LAUGHLIN
Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy
1892-1916

 

CHICAGO
PRIVATELY PRINTED
MCMXVI

___________________________________

 

JAMES LAURENCE LAUGHLIN
Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy, 1892-1916.

* * *

Edith Abbott

Special Lecturer in Political Economy, 1909-10.

William George Stewart Adams

Lecturer on Finance and Colonial Policy, 1901-2.

Trevor Arnett

Lecturer in Accounting, 1909-13.

John Graham Brooks

University Extension Lecturer in Political Economy, 1893-97.

William Caldwell

Instructor in Political Economy, 1892-94.

John Bennet Canning

Special Assistant in Political Economy, 1914; Assistant, 1914-15; Instructor, 1915-

John Maurice Clark

Associate Professor in Political Economy, 1915-

Carlos Carleton Closson

Instructor in Political Economy, 1895-96.

John Cummings

Reader in Political Economy, 1893-94; Assistant Professor, 1903-10.

Herbert Joseph Davenport

Instructor in Political Economy, 1902-4; Assistant Professor, 1904-7; Associate Professor, 1907-8.

Ernest Ritson Dewsnup

Professorial Lecturer on Railways and Curator of the Museum of Commerce, 1904-7.

Garrett Droppers

Professorial Lecturer, 1906-7.

Carson Samuel Duncan

Instructor in Commercial Organization, 1915-

Jay Dunne

Assistant in Accounting, 1913-14; Instructor, 1914-

James Alfred Field

Instructor in Political Economy, 1908-10; Assistant Professor, 1910-13; Associate Professor, 1913-

Worthington Chauncey Ford

Lecturer on Statistics, 1898-1901.

Frederic Benjamin Garver

Assistant in Political Economy, 1911-13; Instructor, 1913-14.

Elgin Ralston Lovell Gould

Professor of Statistics, 1895-96.

Stuart McCune Hamilton

Instructor in Political Economy, 1914-16.

Walton Hale Hamilton

Assistant Professor of Political Economy, 1913-15.

Henry Rand Hatfield

Instructor in Political Economy, 1898-1902; Assistant Professor, 1902-4.

Frank Randal Hathaway

Reader in Statistics, 1892-93.

William Hill

Associate in Political Economy, 1893-94; Instructor, 1894-97; Assistant Professor, 1897-1908; Associate Professor, 1908-12.

Isaac A. Hourwich

Docent in Statistics, 1892-94.

Robert Franklin Hoxie

Instructor in Political Economy, 1906-8; Assistant Professor, 1908-12; Associate Professor, 1912-

Alvin Saunders Johnson

Associate Professor of Political Economy, 1910-11.

John Koren

Professorial Lecturer on Statistics (Political Economy and Sociology), 1909-10.

Leon Carroll Marshall

Assistant Professor of Political Economy, 1907-8; Associate Professor, 1908-11; Professor of Political Economy, 1911-

Hugo Richard Meyer

Assistant Professor of Political Economy, 1903-5.

Adolph Caspar Miller

Associate Professor of Political Economy, 1892-93; Professor of Finance, 1893-1902.

Wesley Clair Mitchell

Assistant in Political Economy, 1900-1; Instructor, 1901-2.

Robert Morris

Instructor in Political Economy, 1904-7.

Harold Glenn Moulton

Assistant in Political Economy, 1910-11 ; Instructor, 1911-14; Assistant Professor, 1914-

Frederic William Sanders

Lecturer in Statistics, 1896-97.

Frederick Myerle Simons

Assistant in Industrial Organization, 1913- 15; Instructor, 1915-

Thorstein B. Veblen

Reader in Political Economy, 1893-94; Associate, 1894-96; Instructor, 1896-1900; Assistant Professor, 1900-06.

Chester Whitney Wright

Instructor in Political Economy, 1907-10; Assistant Professor, 1910-13; Associate Professor, 1913-

*   *   *

[Assistants]

Clarence Elmore Bonnett

Assistant in Political Economy, 1910-11.

Ezekiel Henry Downey

Assistant in Political Economy, 1909-11.

John Franklin Ebersole

Assistant in Political Economy, 1909-10.

Edith Scott Gray

Assistant in Political Economy, 1915-

Homer Hoyt

Assistant in Political Economy, 1915-

Edgar Hutchinson Johnson

Assistant in Political Economy, 1909-10.

John Curtis Kennedy

Assistant in Political Economy, 1908-11.

Robert Russ Kern

Assistant in Political Economy, 1908-9.

Hazel Kyrk

Assistant in Political Economy, 1913-14.

Duncan Alexander MacGibbon

Assistant in Political Economy, 1912-13.

Ernest Minor Patterson

Assistant in Political Economy, 1910-11.

Leona Margaret Powell

Assistant in Political Economy, 1915-

___________________________________

 

FELLOWS

Edith Abbott (1903-05)

William Harvey Allen (1897-98)

Eugene Charles deAndrassy (1913-14)

Charles Criswell Arbuthnot (1901-03)

Leon Ardzrooni (1910-13)

Trevor Arnett (1899-1900)

Edward Martin Arnos (1912-13)

Otho Clifford Ault (1913-14)

Edward Donald Baker (1912-14)

Sturgeon Bell (1906-07)

Clarence Elmore Bonnett (1912-13)

Donald Elliott Bridgman (1905-07)

Howard Gray Brownson (1906-07)

Francis Lowden Burnet (1912-13)

George Chambers Calvert (1894-95)

John Cummings (1893-94)

Rajani Kanta Das (1914-16)

Herbert Joseph Davenport (1897-98)

Katharine Bement Davis (1897-98; 1899-1900)

William John Alexander Donald (1911-12)

James Alister Donnell (1902-03)

Ezekiel Henry Downey (1908-09)

Ephraim Edward Erickson (1911-12)

Katharine Conway Felton (1895-96)

Albert Lawrence Fish (1899-1900)

Ralph Evans Freeman (1915-16)

Hamline Herbert Freer (1892-93)

Frederic Benjamin Garver (1910-11)

Marshall Allen Granger (1915-)

Homer Ewart Gregory (1915-)

Gudmundur Grimson (1905-06)

Willard Neal Grubb (1908-09)

Charles Kelly Guild (1911-12)

William Buck Guthrie (1900-01)

William Fletcher Harding (1894-95)

Sarah McLean Hardy (1893-95)

Henry Rand Hatfield (1897-98)

Chauncey Edward Hope (1912-13)

Albert Lafayette Hopkins (1905-06)

John Lamar Hopkins (1899-1900)

Earl Dean Howard (1903-05)

Robert Franklin Hoxie (1893-95; 1902-03)

Homer Hoyt (1913-15)

Howard Archibald Hubbard (1909-12)

Walter Huth (1912-13)

John Curtis Kennedy (1907-09)

Robert Russ Kern (1907-08)

Benjamin Walter King (1913-14)

William Lyon Mackenzie King (1896-97)

Delos Oscar Kinsman (1898-99)

Hazel Kyrk (1912-13)

Manuel Lippitt Larkin (1911-12; 1913-14)

William Jett I.auck (1903-05)

Ferris Finley Laune (1915-)

Stephen Butler Leacock (1900-02)

Mary Margaret Lee (1907-08)

Svanto Godfrey Lindholm (1900-02)

Simon James McLean (1896-97)

James Dysart Magee (1909-10)

Basil Maxwell Manly (1909-10)

Howard Sherwood Meade (1897-98)

Albert Newton Merritt (1905-06)

Frieda Segelke Miller (1912-15)

John Wilson Million (1892-93; 1894-95)

Harry Alvin Millis (1898-99)

Wesley Clair Mitchell (1896-99)

James Ernest Moffat (1915-)

Harold Glenn Moulton (1909-11)

Walter Dudley Nash (1901-02)

Robert Samuel Padan (1900-01)

Eugene Bryan Patton (1905-08)

Clarence J. Primm (1908-10)

Yetta Scheftel (1913-14)

D. R. Scott (1911-12)

Frederick Snyder Seegmiller (1909-10)

George Cushing Sikes (1893-94)

Selden Frazer Smyser (1901-02)

Lewis Carlyle Sorrell (1915-)

George Asbury Stephens (1908-09)

Worthy Putnam Sterns (1897-1900)

Henry Waldgrave Stuart (1894-96)

Laurence Wardell Swan (1914-15)

William Walker Swanson (1905-08)

Archibald Wellington Taylor (1909-12)

John Giffin Thompson (1903-04)

George Gerard Tunell (1894-97)

Helen Honor Tunnicliff (1893-94)

Victor Nelson Valgren (1911-12)

Cleanthes Aristides Vassardakis (1911-12)

Thorstein B. Veblen (1892-93)

Merle Bowman Waltz (1895-96)

Samuel Roy Weaver (1911-12)

Victor J. West (1908-09)

Henry Kirke White (1893-94)

Murray Shipley Wildman (1901-04)

Henry Parker Willis (1895-98)

Ambrose Pare Winston (1893-94; 1896-97)

Anna Pritchett Youngman (1905-06; 1907-08)

___________________________________

GRADUATE STUDENTS

Abbott, Edith

Agate, William Richard

Akers, Dwight La Brae

Allen, William Harvey

Alvord, Clarence Walworth

Andrassy, Eugene Charles de

Apel, Paul Herman

Appell, Carl John

Apps, Elizabeth

Arbuthnot, Charles Criswell

Ardzrooni, Leon

Arnett, Trevor

Arnos, Edward Martin

Atcherson, Lucile

Ault, Otho Clifford

Bacon, Margaret Gray

Baker, Edward Donald

Balch, Emily Greene

Baldwin, James Fosdick

Ball, Ernest Everett

Barden, Carrie

Barnes, Jasper Converse

Barnes, Mabel Bonnell

Baron, Albert Heyen Nachman

Barrett, Don Carlos

Barrett, Roscoe Conkling

Bassett, Wilbur Wheeler

Bealin, Nella Ellery

Beall, Cornelia Morgan

Belknap, William Burke, Jr.

Bell, Hugh Samuel

Bell, James Warsau

Bell, Spurgeon

Bender, Christian Edward

Bengtson, Caroline

Benson, Madison Hawthorne

Berghoff, Lewis Windthorst

Bernstein, Nathan

Beyle, Herman Carey

Bischoff, Henry J.

Blachly, Clarence Day

Black, John Donald

Blankenship, Harry Alden

Bliss, George Morgan

Blotkin, Frank Ernest

Board, Willis Marvin

Bolinger, Walter Allen

Bond, William Scott

Bonnett, Clarence Elmore

Borden, Edwin Howard

Bosworth, William Baeder

Bournival, Phillippe

Bouroff, Basil Andreevitch

Boyce, Warren Scott

Boyd, Carl Evans

Boyd, Charles Samuel

Boyd, William Edington

Bozarth, Maud

Bradenburg, Samuel Jacob

Bradley, Frederick Oliver

Bramhall, Frederick Dennison

Brandenberger, William Samuel

Breckinridge, Roeliff Morton

Breckinridge, Sophonisba Preston

Bridgman, Donald Elliott

Bridgman, Isaac Martin

Briggs, Claude Porter

Brister, John Willard

Bristol, William Frank

Bristow, Oliver Martin

Brooks, Samuel Palmer

Brown, Fanny Chamberlain

Brown, Samuel Emmons

Brownson, Howard Gray

Bryant, William Cullen

Buchanan, Daniel Houston

Buchanan, James Shannon

Buechel, Fred A.

Bulkley, Herman Egbert

Bullock, Theodore Tunnison

Burnet, Francis Lowden

Burnham, Smith

Bushnell, Charles Joseph

Butts, Alfred Benjamin

Byers, Charles Howard

Byram, Perry Magnus

Cable, Joseph Ray

Calhoun, Wilbur Pere

Calvert, George Chambers

Cammack, Ira Insco

Canning, John Bennet

Capitsini, George Peter

Carlton, Frank Tracy

Carmack, James Abner

Carroll, John Murray

Carroll, Mollie Ray

Cartwright, Lawrence Randolph

Cassells, Gladys May

Catterall, Ralph Charles Henry

Chamberlain, Elizabeth Leland

Chapin, Lillian

Chen, Huan Chang

Chen, Po

Cheng, Pekao Tienton

Cheu, Beihan H.

Church, Clarence Cecil

Church, James Duncan

Clark, Fred Emerson

Clark, Henry Tefft

Clarkson, Matthew Alexander

Cleveland, Frederick Albert

Clifford, Wesley Nathaniel

Cole, Warren Bushnell

Collicott, Jacob Grant

Collins, Laurence Gerald

Colton, Ethan Theodore

Colvin, David Leigh

Colvin, William Elmer

Conover, William Bone

Cordell, Harry William

Cox, William Edward

Craig, Earl Robert

Cross, William Thomas

Crowther, Elizabeth

Cummings, John

Curran, James Harris

Cutler, Ward Augustus

Daniels, Eva Josephine

Darden, William Edward

Das, Rajani Kanta

Davenport, Frances Gardiner

Davenport, Herbert Joseph

Davidson, Margaret

Davis, Blanche

Davis, Katharine Bement

Davison, Leslie Leroy

Davison, Madeline

Dawley, Almena

Day, James Frank

DeCew, Louisa Carpenter

Dies, William Porter

Dodd, Walter Fairleigh

Dodge, LeVant

Donald, William John Alexander

Donnell, James Allister

Downey, Ezekiel Henry

Duncan, Carson Samuel

Duncan, George Edward

Duncan, Marcus Homer

Duncan, Margaret Louise

Dunford, Charles Scott

Dunlap, Arthur Beardsley

Dunn, Arthur William

Durand, Alice May

Durno, William Field

Duval, Louis Weyman

Dye, Charles Hutchinson

Dyer, Gustavus Walker

Dymond, Edith Luella

Dyson, Walter Mitchell

Easly, Walter Irving

Easton, William Oliver

Ebersole, John Franklin

Edwards, Anne Katherine

Eidson, Lambert

Ellis, Charles Hardin

Ellis, Mabel Brown

Elmore, Edward Bundette

Engle, John Franklin

Erickson, Ephraim Edward

Eslick, Theodore Parker

Eyerly, Elmer Kendall

Felton, Katharine Conway

Fine, Nathan

Fish, Alfred Lawrence

Fitzgerald, James Anderson

Fleming, Capen Alexander

Fleming, Herbert Easton

Fleming, William Ebenezer

Flocken, Ira Graessle

Foley, Roy William

Forrest, Jacob Dorsey

Fortney, Lorain

Foucht, Pearl Leroy

Francis, Bruce

Franklin, Frank George

Frazier, Edgar George

Freeark, Frederick Aaron

Freeman, Helen Alden

Freeman, Ralph Evans

Freer, Hamline Herbert

Galloway, Ida Gray

Galloway, Louis Caldwell

Gamble, George Hawthorne

Gardner, Emelyn Elizabeth

Gardner, William Howatt

Garver, Frederic Benjamin

Gebauer, George Rudolph

Geddes, Joseph Arch

Genheimer, Eli Thomas

Gephart, William Franklin

Glover, Ethel Adelia

Going, Margaret Chase

Goodhue, Everett Walton

Goodier, Floyd Tompkins

Graham, Theodore Finley

Granger, Marshall Allen

Granger, Roy T.

Grant, Laura Churchill

Gray, Edith Scott

Gray, Helen Sayr

Gray, Victor Evan

Green, Martha Florence

Gregg, Eugene Stuart

Gregory, Homer Ewart

Griffith, Elmer Cummings

Grimes, Anne Blanche

Grimson, Gudmundur

Griswold, George C.

Gromer, Samuel David

Grubb, Willard Neal

Guice, Herman Hunter

Guild, Charles Kelly

Guildford, Paul Willis

Guthrie, William Buck

Hagerty, James Edward

Hahne, Ernest Herman

Hall, Arnold Bennett

Hamilton, John Bascom

Hamilton, Robert Houston

Hammond, Alva Merwin

Hand, Chester Culver

Hanks, Ethel Edna

Harding, William Fletcher

Hardy, Eric West

Hardy, Sarah McLean

Hargrove, Pinkney Settle

Harris, Estelle

Harris, Ralph B.

Hastings, Cora Walton

Hatfield, Henry Rand

Haynes, Fanny Belle

Hearon, Cleo Carson

Hedrick, Wilbur Olin

Herger, Albert August Ernst

Herndon, Dallas Tabor

Herron, Belva Mary

Hewes, Amy

Hidden, Irad Morton

Hill, Harvey Thomas

Hinton, Vasco Giles

Hitchcock, William

Hodgdon, Mary Josephine

Hodge, Albert Claire

Hodgin, Cyrus Wilbur

Holman, Guy

Holmes, Marion

Honska, Otto James

Hope, Chauncey Edward

Hopkins, Albert Lafayette

Hopkins, John Lamar

Horner, John Turner

Hotchkiss, Irma Helen

Hourwich, Isaac A.

Howard, Earl Dean

Howe, Charles Roland

Howerth, Ira Woods

Hoxie, Robert Franklin

Hoyt, Homer

Hubbard, Howard Archibald

Hughes, Elizabeth

Humble, Henry William

Humphries, Louis Kyle

Hunt, Duane Garrison

Hunter, Estelle Belle

Huntington, Ellery Channing

Huth, Walter

Ito, Jiniro

Jacobson, Henry Anthony

Jalandoni, Jose Ledesma

Johnson, Edgar Hutchinson

Johnson, Edna Margaret

Jones, Austin Franklin

Jordan, Elijah John

Juchhoof, Frederik

Jude, George Washington

Kaiser, Arthur

Kammeyer, Julius Ernest

Karsten, Eleanor G.

Keeney, George Albert

Kelley, James Herbert

Kellor, Frances Alice

Kelly, Arthur Caryl

Kennedy, John Curtis

Kern, Robert Russ

Kerr, Robert Floyd

Kester, Roy Bernard

Kibler, Thomas Latimer

Kilpatrick, Elizabeth Smith

King, Benjamin Walter

King, Harriet Gertrude

King, James Alexander

King, James Stanhope

King, William Lyon Mackenzie

Kinsman, Delos Oscar

Kirkham, Francis Washington

Kling, Henry Frank

Kobayashi, Kaoru

Koepke, Frank Oswald

Kyrk, Hazel

Lamar, Clyde Park

Lamborn, William Henry

Landis, George Butts

Lane, Elmer Burr

Lang, Ellen Flora

Lange-Wilkes, Friedrich Fred

Larkin, Manuel Lippitt

La Rowe, Eugene

Latourette, Lyman Ezra

Lauck, William Jett

Lauder, Charles Edward

Laune, Ferris Finley

Lavery, Maud Ethel

Leacock, Stephen Butler

Learned, Henry Barrett

Leavitt, Orpha Euphemia

Le Drew, Henry Herbert

Lee, Mary Margaret

Leff, Samuel

Lefler, Shepherd

Legh, Sydney Cornwall

Lenhart, Harry Hull

Lennes, Nels Johan

Leonard, Walter Anderson

Lewis, Henry

Lewis, Neil Madison

Lindholm, Svanto Godfrey

Lippincott, Isaac

Lipsky, Harry Alexander

Lobdell, Charles Walter

Logan, Harold Amos

Logan, John Lockheart

Loomis, Milton Early

Loveless, Milo James

Lowry, Russell

Lucas, William Hardin

Luehring, Frederick William

Lurton, Freeman Ellsworth

McAfee, Lowell Mason

McClintock, Euphemia E.

MacClintock, Samuel Sweeny

McCord, Robert Bryan

McCrimmon, Abraham Lincoln

McCurdy, Raymond Scott

McCutchen, George

McDonald, Julius Flake

McDonald, Neil C.

McElroy, Charles Foster

McGaughey, Hester Grier

McGee, Walter Scott

MacGibbon, Duncan Alexander

Machen, John Gresham

McIntosh, Donald Howard

McKenzie, Floyd Stanley

McKinley, Alexander Daniel

McKinley, Gertrude

Kinney, Winfield Scott

McLean, Earl

MacLean, Murdoch Haddon

McLean, Simon James

Maclear, John Fulton

McMullen, Samuel

MacQueary, Thomas Howard

Magee, James Dysart

Magee, James Edward

Mangold, George Benjamin

Manly, Basil Maxwell

Mann, Albert Russell

Marsh, Benjamin Clarke

Martin, Asa Earl

Martin, William Chaille

Marxen, William Bartenick

Matheny, Francis Edmund

Mather, Arlen Raymond

Matlock, Ernest

Maw, Vung Tsoong

Maynard, Archibald Benton

Meade, Edward Sherwood

Meek, James Rariden

Menge, George John

Merrell, Oscar Joe

Merritt, Albert Newton

Merry, Paul Horace

Miller, Christian A.

Miller, Clarence Heath

Miller, Edmund Thornton

Miller, Frieda Segelke

Miller, Roy Newman

Miller, Wiley Austin

Million, John Wilson

Millis, Harry Alvin

Mills, Florence Howland

Mitchell, James Ennis

Mitchell, Wesley Clair

Moffat, James Ernest

Monroe, Paul

Montgomery, Louise

Montgomery, Stafford

Moore, Blaine Free

Moore, Stephen Halcut

Morris, Robert

Mosser, Stacy Carroll

Moulton, Harold Glenn

Mumford, Eben

Munn, Glenn Gaywaine

Nagley, Frank Alvin

Nash, Walter Dudley

Naylor, Augustine Francis

Neff, Andrew Love

Neill, Charles Patrick

Nesbitt, Charles Rudolph

Newton, John Reuben

Nida, William Lewis

Niece, Ralph Harter

Northrup, John Eldridge

Norton, Elvin Jensen

Norton, Grace Peloubet

Nourse, Edwin Griswold

Noyes, Edmund Spencer

O’Brien, Charlotte Louise

O’Dea, Paul Montgomery

O’Hara, Frank

Okada, George F.

Olin, Oscar Eugene

Padan, Robert Samuel

Paden, Thomas Hosack

Parker, Bertrand De Rolph, Jr.

Parker, Norman Sallee

Parker, Robert Lincoln

Parker, Ulysses Simpson

Parish, Charles O.

Paschal, Rosa Catherine

Patterson, Ernest Minor

Patton, Eugene Bryan

Pattrick, John Hezzie

Payne, Walter A.

Peabody, Susan Wade

Pease, Theodore Calvin

Pease, William Arthur

Perrine, Cora Belle

Peterson, Otto Edward

Phillips, Ulrich Bonnell

Pierce, Paul Skeels

Polzin, Benzamin Albert

Porter, Nathan Tanner

Potts, Charles Shirley

Powell, Bert Eardly

Powell, Leona Margaret

Prescott, Arthur Taylor

Price, Maude Azalie

Primm, Clarence J.

Putnam, James William

Putnam, Mary Burnham

Quaintance, Hadley Winfield

Rabenstein, Matilda Agnes

Radcliffe, Earle Warren

Rainey, Alice Hall

Reasoner, Florence

Reed, Ralph Johnston

Refsell, Oscar Norton

Reighard, John Jacob

Remick, Mary Ethel

Remp, Martin

Renninger, Warren Daub

Reticker, Ruth

Rice, Dorothy Lydia

Richardson, Russell

Richey, Mary Olive

Richter, Arthur William

Riley, Elmer Author

Ristine, Edward Ransom

Robertson, James Rood

Rogers, May Josephine

Rosenberg, Edwin J.

Rosseter, Edward Clark

Rygh, George Taylor

Sanderson, Dwight

Sandwich, Richard Lanning

Schafer, Joseph

Scheftel, Yetta

Schloss, Murray L.

Schmidt, Lydia Marie

Schmidt, Otto Gustave

Schmitt, Ella

Schoedinger, Fred H.

Schroeder, Charles Ward

Scott, D. R.

Scott, Edward Lee

Scott, James M.

Seegmiller, Frederick Snyder

Selian, Avedis Bedros

Sellery, George Clark

Senseman, Ira Roscoe

Seward, Ora Philander

Shaw, George Washington

Shelton, William Arthur

Shepherd, Fred Strong

Shoemaker, Lucile

Shue, William Daniel

Sikes, George Cushing

Simons, Frederick Myerle

Sinclair, James Grundy

Singer, Martin

Skelton, Oscar Douglas

Slemp, Campbell Bascom

Smith, Almeron Warren

Smith, Gerard Thomas

Smith, Guy Carlton

Smith, Roy

Smith, Walter Robertson

Smyser, Seldon Frazer

Snavely, Charles

Sorenson, Alban David

Sorrell, Lewis Carlyle

Sparks, Edwin Erle

Spencer, Simpson Edward

Splawn, William Marshall Walter

Sproul, Alexander Hugh

Stark, William Belle

Stearns, Tilden Hendricks

Steiner, Jesse Frederick

Stephens, George Asbury

Stephenson, George Malcolm

Sterns, Worthy Putnam

Stevens, William Spring

Stone, Raleigh Webster

Stoneberg, Philip John

Stoner, Thurman Wendell

Stowe, Frederick Arthur

Stuart, Henry Waldgrave

Styles, Albert Frederick

Sullivan, Margaret Veronica

Sundstrom, Ingeborg

Sutherland, Edwin Hardin

Swan, Laurence Wardell

Swanson, William Walker

Swift, Elizabeth Andrews

Sydenstricker, Edgar

Tajima, Kazuyoshi

Takimoto, Tanezo

Tan, Chang Lok

Tanner, Alvin Charles

Tarr, Stambury Ryrie

Taylor, Archibald Wellington

Taylor, William G.

Temple, Frances Congdon

Teng, Kwangtang

Textor, Lucy Elizabeth

Thomas, David Yancey

Thompson, Carl William

Thompson, Charles Sproull

Thompson, Edwin Elbert

Thompson, John Giffin

Thorne, Florence Calvert

Thornhill, Ernest Algier

Thurston, Henry Winfred

Tiffany, Orrin Edward

Tilton, Howard Cyrus

Towle, Ralph Egbert

Towne, George Lewis

Treleven, John Edward

Tunell, George Gerard

Tunnicliff, Helen Honor

Turner, Mary

Updegraff, Elizabeth

Valgren, Victor Nelson

Varkala, Joseph Paul

Vassardakis, Cleanthes Aristides

Veblen, Thorstein B.

Vernier, Chester Garfield

Vogt, Paul Leroy

Vondracek, Olga Olive

Waldo, Karl Douglas

Waldorf, Lee

Waldron, George Burnside

Walker, Edson Granville

Walling, William English

Walrath, Albert Leland

Waltz, Merle Bowman

Wardlow, Chester Cameron

Ware, Richard

Warren, Henry Kimball

Warren, Worcester

Watson, Robert Eli

Watts, Cicero Floyd

Weaver, Samuel Roy

Webster, Arthur Ferdinand

Webster, William Clarence

Weisman, Russell

Wells, Emilie Louise

Wells, Oliver Edwin

West, Max

West, Victor J.

Westlake, Ruby Moss

Weston, Jessie Beatrice

Wethington, Joseph Francis

Whipple, Elliot

Whitaker, Hobart Karl

Whitcomb, Adele

White, Francis Harding

White, Henry Kirke

White, Laura Amanda

Whited, Oric Ogilvie

Wilcox, William Craig

Wildman, Murray Shipley

Willard, Laura

Williams, Arthur Rowland

Williams, Charles Byron

Williams, Frank North

Williams, John William

Williams, Pelagius

Willis, Henry Parker

Wilson, Eugene Alonzo

Winans, Clarence Henry

Winston, Ambrose Pare

Winston, James Edward

Wirt, William Albert

Witmer, John Earl

Woods, Erville Bartlett

Woolley, Edwin Campbell

Wright, Helen Russell

Yahn, Harold George

Yeisaku, Kominami

Youngman, Anna Pritchett

Zaring, Aziel Floyd

Zee, Treusinn Zoen

Zimmerman, John Franklin

___________________________________

 

DOCTORS OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Edith Abbott (1905)

A Statistical Study of the Wages of Unskilled Labor in the United States, 1830-1900.

Charles Criswell Arbuthnot (1903)

The Development of the Corporation and the Entrepreneur Function.

Donald Elliott Bridgman (1907)

Economic Causes of Large Fortunes.

John Cummings (1894)

The Poor Law System of the United States.

Herbert Joseph Davenport (1898)

The French War Indemnity.

Katharine Bement Davis (1900)

Causes Affecting the Standard of Living and Wages.

William John Alexander Donald (1914)

The History of the Canadian Iron and Steel Industry.

Henry Rand Hatfield (1897)

Municipal Bonding in the United States.

Earl Dean Howard (1905)

The Recent Industrial Progress of Germany.

Robert Franklin Hoxie (1905)

An Analysis of the Concepts of Demand and Supply in Their Relation to Market Price.

Edgar Hutchinson Johnson (1910)

The Economics of Henry George’s Progress and Poverty.

Stephen Butler Leacock (1903)

The Doctrine of Laissez Faire.

Isaac Lippincott (1912)

The Industrial History of the Ohio Valley to 1860.

Duncan Alexander MacGibbon (1915)

Railway Rates and the Canadian Railway Commission.

Simon James McLean (1897)

The Railway Policy of Canada.

James Dysart Magee (1913)

Money and Prices: A Statistical Study of Price Movements.

Albert Newton Merritt (1906)

Federal Regulation of Railway Rates.

Harry Alvin Millis (1899)

History of the Finances of the City of Chicago.

Wesley Clair Mitchell (1899)

History of the United States Notes.

Harold Glenn Moulton (1914)

Waterways versus Railways.

Edwin Griswold Nourse (1915)

A Study in Market Mechanism as a Factor in Price Determination.

Robert Samuel Padan (1901)

Studies in Interest.

Eugene Bryan Patton (1908)

The Resumption of Specie Payment in 1879.

Oscar Douglas Skelton (1908)

An Examination of Marxian Theory.

George Asbury Stephens (1909)

Influence of Trade Education upon Wages.

Worthy Putnam Sterns (1900)

Studies in the Foreign Trade of the United States.

William Walker Swanson (1908)

The Establishment of the National Banking System.

George Gerard Tunell (1897)

Transportation on the Great Lakes of North America.

Murray Shipley Wildman (1904)

The Economic and Social Conditions Which Explain Inflation Movements in the United States.

Henry Parker Willis (1898)

A History of the Latin Monetary Union.

Anna Pritchett Youngman (1908)

The Economic Causes of Large Fortunes.

___________________________________

 

A STATISTICAL RECORD OF GROWTH
1892-1916

1916_UCRecordGrowth

 

Source: James Laurence Laughlin, Twenty-Five Years of the Department of Political Economy, University of Chicago. Chicago: Privately printed, 1916.

Image Source: “JLL” initials from the title page, ibid.

 

 

Categories
Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Department of Economics Group Photo, 1976

Back Row:  Harold FREEMAN, Hal VARIAN, Jerome ROTHENBERG, Peter DIAMOND, Jerry HAUSMAN

4th Row: Paul JOSKOW, Anne FRIEDLAENDER, JOHN R. MORONEY (VISITOR TO DEPARTMENT)

3rd Row: Stanley FISCHER, Jagdish BHAGWATI, Rudiger DORNBUSCH, Robert SOLOW, Robert HALL

2nd Row: Edward KUH, Morris ADELMAN, Abraham J. SIEGEL, Richard ECKAUS, Martin WEITZMAN

1st Row: Evsey DOMAR, Paul SAMUELSON, Charles KINDLEBERGER, E. Cary BROWN, Franco MODIGLIANI, Sydney ALEXANDER, Robert BISHOP

1976_MITEcon_blogCopy

Apparently didn’t get the memo and/or not pictured: Michael PIORE, Frank FISHER, Peter TEMIN.

Thanks to Robert Solow, the photo-bomber standing to Solow’s left in the picture has been identified as a guest from Tulane University, John Moroney. It is possible that I forgot some other person not included in this faculty picture.

I note that the entire front row has gone to that great Department of Economics in the Cloud.

Source: A graduate student buddy of mine who entered the MIT Ph.D. program in 1975/76.

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled of which this is the 250th. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….