Categories
Bryn Mawr Gender Syllabus Wellesley

Wellesley. Outline of Economics by Emily Greene Balch, 1899

 

Emily Greene Balch (1867-1961) was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1946 together with John Raleigh Mott. She was recognized for her lifelong work for disarmament and peace. She joined the faculty of Wellesley College in 1896, becoming full professor of sociology and economics. However her contract was not renewed in 1919 because of her anti-war activism.

This post includes two items: the first is an excerpt from the autobiography of one of her American classmates who attended economics classes with her in Berlin during the year before Balch started teaching at Wellesley. The next item is a published outline of economics, presumably for instructional purposes. I have tried to match Balch’s indentation scheme here.

The Emily Greene Balch Papers are found at the Swarthmore College Peace Collection.

Addition: From the Program Bryn Mawr (1891), p. 11.

Emily Greene Balch, Holder of the Bryn Mawr European Fellowship, 1889-90.
Jamaica Plain, Mass. A.B., Bryn Mawr College, 1889. Collège de France and Sorbonne, 1890-91.

First stop in the secondary literature is the excellent paper by Robert W. Dimand: Emily Green Balch Political Economist published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,  Vol. 70 No. 2 (April, 2011), pp. 464-479.

_______________

Studying economics in Berlin 1895-96
and attending the International Socialist Trade Union Congress (July 1896) in London
From Mary Kingsbury Simkhovitch’s autobiography

Soon I met Emily Balch as a fellow student and we had many pleasant hours reading Kant in the park as well as meeting at lectures. Those were the days of Schmoller and Wagner. I attended their lectures and was admitted to their seminars, though no credits for degrees were given to women at that time in Berlin. Schmoller was the best-known exponent of the “historische Methode.” We were supposed to be very practical and realistic. One evening when we were pursuing the development of “die Stückerei,” little samples of worsted were passed around from hand to hand; everyone solemnly gazed at them until the American students began to laugh. However, our study of the worsted industry was really all to the good, and the analysis of processes induced an additional respect for detail that Lindsay and Ashley had already inculcated. No one is above detail. The person who has no detailed knowledge has no knowledge at all, and in this respect for meticulous care Schmoller grounded us day by day.

Adolf Wagner was more political-minded. He was always lecturing to crowded “publicums” about danger from the East (meaning Russia) and how Germany should be the central empire in Europe running from northern to southern shores. To see Wagner coming across the campus shaded by his famous little green umbrella was a memorable sight. They said of him that on his third wedding journey he finished his “collected works.” He was particularly caustic in regard to the so-called science of sociology, and when I was called upon in his seminar to review some sociological treatise he half sprung from his chair and said, “Ja, die Soziologie! Was heisst, aber, die Soziologie? Das heisst, meine Freunde, die Amerikanische Wissenschaft!” (What is sociology? That, my friends, is the American science.) With which blast he looked around to see whether we were duly squelched. But he was a kindly man, even though somewhat excitable, and his lectures were crowded with students from all over the world. Russians, Poles, Bulgarians, Italians, English, Japanese and Americans flocked to hear him. There were Fräulein Sonya Daszisskaia, who afterward interested herself in labor legislation in Poland, and Bertrand Russell, with his American wife Alice Pearsall Smith; Walter Weyl, to whom we owe New Democracy (1927); and Frank Dixon, later at Dartmouth, and Peter Struve, who played a big role later in Russia’s political life, were among the Americans who attended Wagner’s lectures. In the Russian group was my husband-to-be, Vladimir Simkhovitch, who went to Halle before coming to America in 1898.

Sering lectured on the American agricultural situation, of which he had personal as well as theoretical knowledge. He had many American friends to whom his scientific comments were enlightening and useful. Then too there was Georg Simmel, perhaps first among the social psychologists, whose analysis of human conduct under the impact of varying factors was fascinating. A famous anthropologist, Professor Bastian, used to get so excited that his shirt would get unfastened and a red flannel “chest protector” worn in that era would emerge. He would face the blackboard to write a few headings or illustrations and forget to turn around again, lecturing in a kind of ecstasy which took no note of his audience, whether we were many or few, or whether indeed we had not slipped out for the remainder of the hour.

The students of economics had a club of their own, and in this “Staatswissenschaftlicher Verein,” organized by my husband and two of his friends, great arguments went on, especially during the famous government strike of 1896. Liebknecht was just out of prison and he greeted enthusiastic audiences. Large public meetings were held, but it made the blood of the American and English students boil to see the two policemen sit on the platform to prevent any “Majestätsbeleidigung” (criticism of the emperor). We felt that this infringing of men’s liberties was intolerable. We had never seen, as we were to see in later days both in America and elsewhere, the intolerance and violence of wartime. This attitude, reinforced by the prevailing custom for civilians (women as well as men) to step aside to allow military officers right of way on the sidewalks, was repellent to us. We had no hint of how mild this bit of militarism was to seem in comparison with that of these later Nazi years. The period of German life from 1895 on was the time of great industrial upswing, of scientific advance, and yet no less of respect for culture. It was a golden period of prosperity, of ambition without hatred, an of welcome to students from all over the world, who came, as my teachers at Boston University and Radcliffe and later at Columbia had come, to thin and work as free scholars in an expanding world.

[…]

At the end of the last semester we left Berlin with great regret, and so to Paris and to London. There my mother left me to return home, and Emily Balch and I remained in London for the last great International Socialist TradeUnion Congress. Emily Balch had a press ticket, and through a London friend of Karl Marx, who revered his memory and told us tales of his life in England, I got one too. This gave us a wonderful chance to hear all the debates and see at close range famous labor and socialist leaders of that time. Jaurès was there and the Avelings, Marx’s daughter and son-in-law; from America Charlotte Gilman with her cameolike beauty, and Ferri from Italy — eight hundred delegates in all. One poor delegate had walked from Serbia to the Channel only to be turned back on his arrival at the Congress because he was an anarchist. The rules for admission were orthodox and strict. This was the first time that a Russian delegate appeared. I talked with a “bobby” about the Congress. Did he anticipate trouble? But he was frankly bored and said, “We let ’em talk as much as they like, ma’am.” I wondered if a meeting like this could take place in America, with so great indifference on the one hand, and at the same time sponsored by eminent economists. For the Webbs were there, and Shaw from the Fabian Society, and Keir Hardie from the Independent Labor party, as well as the leaders of the trade-unions. And at Percy Dearmer’s church every morning during the session the intention of the Mass was for the Congress and its members. This combination of persons and views so natural to the English was frankly surprising to a young American visitor who was accustomed to more definite line-ups.

It was the last session, however, of the old International. Divisive forces were at work, and soon many of the leaders died and their influence passed away. Prophecies of socialist writers failed to materialize. The prosperity of advancing capitalism was more marked than its adversities. The following decade saw great wealth amassed, inventions perfected, engineering problems mastered. It seemed as if the volume of production and the scientific advance that accompanied it, and which was at least part of its cause, were to bring in case and plenty for everyone.

 

Source:  Mary Kingsbury Simkhovitch, Neighborhood: My Story of Greenwich House. New York: Norton, 1938, pp. 50-3, 55-56.

_______________

OUTLINE OF ECONOMICS

EMILY GREENE BALCH

Wellesley, 1899
Cambridge: The Co-operative Press, 1899

CONTENTS

PART I. — PRELIMINARY

PART II. — PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMICS

Chapter I. Production

1. Natural Agents
2. Labor
3. Capital
4. Enterprise
5. Conditions affecting Production

Chapter II. Consumption

1. Individual Problem of Consumption
2. Social Problem of Consumption
3. Apportionment of Income

Chapter III. Value and Exchange

1. Determination of Value
2. Money
3. Credit
4. Prices

Chapter IV. Distribution

Population
Shares in Distribution

1. Rent
2. Interest
3. Profits
4. Wages

The Principle of Distribution

Chapter V. The Economics of Government

1. The Economic Functions of Government
2. Public Revenue

PART III.— SCOPE AND METHOD OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Chapter I. Development of Economic Thought

Chapter II. Scope and Method

 *  *  *  *  *

PART I.
Preliminary.

Political Economy, or Economics, treats of man in his relation to wealth. The subject is commonly divided into Production, Exchange, Distribution, and Consumption; (convenient headings, but an imperfect analysis).

Consumption, the gradual or instantaneous using up of a commodity, may be either

Direct (final) consumption,

Indirect (or productive) consumption.

Note that much final consumption is also productive.

Final consumption is the object of all production and of all indirect consumption. Final production which is also productive is doubly desirable.

Production, the production, by combination and re-arrangement, of utility; form utility, place utility, time utility, services.

Exchange, the transfer of commodities either directly by barter or indirectly by means of money; properly a kind of production. It involves questions of value, money and price.

Distribution, the apportionment of the product among those co-operating to produce it, whether personally, or indirectly by contributing the use of land or capital. Questions of rent, interest, wages and profits come under this head.

Correlation of economic activities.

The same individual consumes, produces, exchanges.

All these activities interact.

The conception of an economic organism — unconscious and conscious coöperation — how regulated.

Natural basis of economic phenomena:

Man’s wants, imperative and expansive;

Limited natural supply of means of satisfaction;

Consequent cost, in effort and sacrifice, to increase the supply.

The economic object of man is to secure the maximum of satisfaction with the minimum of cost. This necessitates comparison of utilities with one another and with costs, and of costs with one another. All economic action is determined by such comparisons.

Note psychological character thus given to the subject.

Wants: Primary, due to physical needs (subsistence wants).

Secondary, due to desire for pleasure (or avoidance of pain).

Note and criticize tendency to growth and diversification of wants.

The satisfaction of wants is progressive (Weber’s law).

Note recurrence of want after an interval.

New wants are substituted for those satisfied.

Utility: power to satisfy a want (even if satisfaction is ultimately injurious). Utility not an inherent quality, purely relative to human want, decreases as want is progressively satisfied.

Marginal utility (final utility): utility of last unit supplied.

Relation of marginal utility to amount of supply can be conveniently expressed by a diagram (“utility curve”).

Note that where supply is unlimited (i.e. more than is wanted) the marginal utility is nothing.

Cost may be either Effort or Sacrifice of something desirable. (It may be regarded as negative utility).

Labor — how far to be regarded as cost?

Sacrifice of alternative use of material, time or opportunity.

Note distinction between individual and social cost.

Wealth: means of satisfying wants are wealth

if not “free,”
if transferable.

PART II.
Principles of Economics.

CHAPTER I.— PRODUCTION.

Main forms of production; extractive industries, manufacturing, commerce.

Historical stages of production; Hunting and gathering of natural products, Pastoral life, Agriculture, Manufacture and Commerce.

Object of production; first Consumption, later Exchange (“household economy” versus “market economy”).

Note historical growth of the market (field of exchange).

Factors or agents of production:

Natural agents or resources, of which land is most important.

Note that word “land” often denotes this whole class.

Labor, or human agency.

Note that management or enterprise may be considered either as a kind of labor or as a fourth factor of production.

Capital; wealth produced by past labor used in producing more wealth.

1. Natural Agents.

Natural agents contribute site, energy, material.

Natural agents are

(1) Unappropriated (either because not appropriable or because not scarce);

(2) Appropriated.

Character of the supply:

Of the nature of a fund (measured by amount);

Of the nature of a flow (measured by rate).

Note that land as basis of agriculture partakes of both characters.

Moreover, the supply may be

Unlimited;

Limited absolutely;

Subject to increase by human effort.

Note that land as basis of agriculture belongs to last class.

Problem of the economic use of land as regards economic proportions of land, labor and capital (i.e.) how much labor and capital should be spent on a given piece of land).

Note that the following discussion refers to agriculture only.

On a given piece of land in a given state of agricultural art there is a certain expenditure of capital and labor which will give the greatest possible return per unit of expenditure.

Note that return is measured here by amount of product, not by value of product.

Note that capital and labor are reduced to common terms as expenditure.

If less than this had been expended an increase of expenditure would increase returns more than proportionately (“increasing returns”).

Note that expenditure and returns are not commensurable, but rate of increase of expenditure and rate of increase of returns are commensurable.

If more than the first amount had been expended the returns per unit of expenditure must have been less, i.e.beyond that point an increase of expenditure means diminishing returns.

Law of diminishing returns:

Expenditure of more than a given amount of labor and capital on a given piece of land results in a diminished amount of product per unit of expenditure.

The point of diminishing returns

is that degree of expenditure which cannot be exceeded without diminishing returns in proportion to cost.

Illustrate with three similar fields cultivated (1) up to this point, (2) not up to this point, (3) beyond this point.

Note 1.
The point of diminishing returns may differ
for every differing piece of land,
for every different use the land may be put to,
with every change in agricultural art.

Note 2. Soil may grow more or less fertile as it is used. Any change in fertility may alter the point of diminishing returns but there will be such a point in every case.
What would be the result if a field had no point of diminishing returns.”

Note 3. The value of the product may alter. This will alter the degree of expenditure which will pay best but not the degree of expenditure which will give the greatest proportion of product to expenditure. — Suppose a field yielding diminished returns with increased profits.

Consider the same problem with regard to other uses of land, e.g. for mining, building, fisheries, water power.

2. Labor.

Productive labor, that which conduces to the production of utility, is alone to be considered.

Note narrower sense given to the term productive labor by J. S. Mill (labor productive of wealth). What labor is excluded by the former definition? by the latter?

Production depends on the number of laborers, on the duration of their labor, and on its efficiency as regards quantity and quality of product.

Efficiency depends on personal causes and external causes.

Personal causes are chiefly the physical, mental and moral capacity and disposition of the worker, determined by his

Natural character and ability,

Training and education.

Standard of living,

Incentive (either economic or non-economic).

External causes of efficiency include

A. Organization and combination of labor in

Simple coöperation,

Division of labor (“division of employment”) as between different (i) Objects of production, (2) Processes or functions, (3) Localities.

Note narrow limits of efficiency of unaided individual.

B. Material for labor.

C. Auxiliaries;

Tools,

Machinery.

Note tendency to specialization of labor and elaboration of machinery. Advantages and disadvantages of each.

3. Capital.

Capital: wealth produced by past labor and devoted to production.

Note difference between this (“economic capital”, “social capital”) and capital in the ordinary sense of wealth used as a source of income (“private capital”).

Origin of capital in difference between amounts produced and directly consumed; capital may be multiplied by extension of production or by restriction of consumption.

Note use of the term “abstinence” or “saving” to characterize this. In what sense justified?

Object of capital: to make production more efficient by providing

Tools, Material,

Support for labor.

Note that indirect processes are often most efficient.

Note historical tendency of production toward more indirect, complex and “capitalistic” forms.

The consumption of capital, immediate or gradual, is involved in its use.

Circulating capital is consumed in one use.

Fixed capital is consumed gradually.

Note the necessity of replacement of capital at once or by a sinking fund to cover waste.

Note that the use of capital on the average adds to the efficiency of the product more than enough to pay for its consumption.

 4. Enterprise.

Enterprise: the contribution to production of the entrepreneur or responsible undertaker.

Forms of enterprise:

A. Individual; independent producer, slaveowner, employer.

Note tendency to differentiation of factors of production.

B. Collective; e.g. Cooperation, Partnership, Business Corporations, Public Administration (National, Municipal, etc.)

Note advantages and disadvantages. Note that Socialists desire to see the latter form supersede all others.

Large scale versus small scale enterprises.

Note relative advantages in Manufactures, Agriculture.

5. Conditions affecting Production.

Production is affected by almost everything that affects society but notably by legal institutions as to Property and Industrial Freedom.

Property:

Property in Slaves, ancient and modern.

Property in Land;

Collective,
Feudal,
Private.

Property in Capital.

Property in “consumers’ goods.”

Note the existence of property not embodied in any material thing but consisting of certain valuable rights.

Note limitations on private property and rights of society as regards it, e.g. right of taxation, eminent domain, alteration of property rights (including question of compensation for vested interests, question of damages and betterments).

Note economic advantages and disadvantages of private property of different kinds. Arguments for collective ownership of land and capital.

Industrial Freedom.

Historical tendency away from custom and regulation toward freedom.

Note restrictions imposed, even under regime of free contract, from considerations of finance, police.

 

CHAPTER II. — CONSUMPTION.

Consumption is determined by considerations of maximum net utility.

  1. Individual Problem of consumption.

Where no question of cost or limitation of supply is to be considered consumption will be carried to the point of complete satisfaction.

Where the only consideration is sacrifice of alternative satisfactions comparison of marginal utilities will determine consumption.

Where cost is involved the consumer must consider marginal utility, cost and the means of meeting cost. Consumption will be carried to the point where in each case the marginal utility secured at least equals the cost and where no further extension would in any case be worth while.

Note that the amount of a purchase will vary directly with the marginal utility, inversely with price, directly with wealth of purchaser.

Note similar comparisons of cost and marginal utility made to determine how far to carry production.

Where present and future satisfactions must be compared a want in the future regularly counts for less than the same want in the present.

Note that this is due to the uncertainty of the future and also, apparently, to a psychological disposition to undervalue the future; this tendency lessens with growth in intelligence and self-control.

Provision for future wants by

Hoarding;
Investment;
Insurance.

  1. Social Problem of Consumption.

Comparison of consumption by one person with consumption by another.

How far is such comparison possible?

Would equal consumption give maximum utility?

Note transfer of means of consumption from ethical motives, and vast amounts consumed through charity.

Possible divergence of estimate of utility and cost from individual and from social point of view.

Note responsibility of consumer for conditions of production. How far is purchase equivalent to an order to produce .”

Productive versus unproductive consumption.

What exceptions to the rule that the former is socially preferable?

Consider the limits and functions of luxury.

Collective consumption, advantages and disadvantages.

Regulation of consumption.

Note various motives, ethical, political, etc.

Note various methods, sumptuary laws, taxation, prohibition, etc.

  1. Apportionment of Income.

“Engels [sic] law” as to variation of relative expenditure with income.

Compare results of Le Play, Dr. E. R. L. Gould.

The economic function of the housewife.

Historical changes in standard of living.

The element of custom and fashion (advantages and disadvantages).

Waste: individual and social point of view.

The effect of insurance.

 

CHAPTER III. — VALUE AND EXCHANGE.

Origin of Exchange: Differences in desires, Differences in opportunities and abilities, Advantages of division of labor.

Note primitive peoples with no conception of exchange.

Note historical increase in importance of exchange.

Machinery of exchange: Numeration, Weights and measures, Standard of value. Medium of exchange, Transportation, Middlemen.

Note disadvantages of barter.

Value (“value in exchange”).

The value of a thing or a service is measured by what can be got in exchange for it.

Price is value in terms of money.

To have value a thing must have marginal utility (the supply therefore cannot be “free”).

1. Determination of Value.

A. Market Value (and Market Price): that which will result from a given state of the market, a particular relation of demand and supply.

Demand: the amount effectively demanded at a given price.

Note that demand is sometimes used to mean the aggregate price offered for a given amount.

The demand of the individual varies with marginal utility and wealth and inversely with price.

Market demand: the sum of the individual demands affecting a given market.

The demand schedule: the series of different amounts demanded at different prices. Demand is elastic or not according as it varies much or little with price.

Supply: amount offered for sale at a given price.

Note distinction of supply and stock (i.e. total amount available for sale).

Supply schedule.

Competition in Exchange.

If necessary, buyers overbid one another, sellers underbid one another.

Higgling of buyer and seller.

Perfect competition implies perfect intelligence, perfect information, perfect mobility and purely economic motives.

Note that in real life competition is never theoretically perfect. Where most nearly so?

Competition may be replaced, more or less completely, by custom or combination.

Law of Market Price.

The market price will be that which equalizes supply and demand.

Case I. Demand fixed, supply variable.
Case II. Supply fixed, demand variable.
Case III. Supply and demand both variable.

Note that at the market price all willing to sell for less and all willing to buy for more are provided for, so that competition has no tendency to either raise or lower the price from this point.

Note possibility of indeterminate price; of more than one market price.

Law of Indifference of price.

Apparent exceptions, (i) in imperfect market, (2) where dealers offer different guarantees of quality or different accessory advantages.

Note endeavor to get different prices by method of sale (auction, Dutch auction).

B. Normal value (and normal price): that which will result when time is given to adjust supply, the value in the “long period” (Marshall).

Note that normal value as distinct from market value only appears if the supply can be increased indefinitely (but not gratuitously).

Normal value will equal cost of production, (cost including sufficient profit to induce production).

Analyze employer’s cost and compare with social cost.
Note and criticize theorem that value equals labor cost.

(a) Where cost is uniform normal value equals this cost.

(b) Where an increase of supply is produced at greater cost normal value equals cost of most expensive part of the supply demanded and rises as demand increases (unless counteracted by other causes).

Note that the law of diminishing returns brings agricultural products under this head.

(c) Where an increase of supply decreases cost normal value falls as demand increases.

Note that manufactured products come generally under this head.

C. Monopoly price: where there is no competition among sellers the price can be fixed with sole regard to maximum net return (i.e. at the “revenue point”).

Note that this may coincide with the price under competition.

Note that if the monopoly price is higher than this the amount sold will be generally less.

Note that the seller may demand the higher price directly or produce it by restricting supply. Under what circumstances would it be advantageous to destroy part of the supply? Advantageous in what sense?

Varieties of monopolies:

Monopolies may be due to Personal advantages, Legal privileges, Possession of limited natural resources. Nature of certain enterprises, Combination.

Public policy in regard to monopolies.

Advantages and disadvantages of competition and of combination.

Consider Stuart monopolies, modern patent rights, business trusts, exclusive public enterprises.

D. Further modification of normal prices by

Custom;

Misadjustment of production;

Note case of overproduction when large fixed capitals are involved.

Joint production of several products (“by-products”);

Aggregate price must cover aggregate cost but the price with conditions of sale.

Rearrangement of prices for purposes of advertising;

Partial combination;

Legislation.

Note limits of possibility of regulation of prices by law.

Note that hitherto in discussing exchange, value and price have been treated indiscriminately on the tacit assumption of no change in the value of money.

2. Money.

Functions of Money: as medium of exchange, common measure of value, standard of deferred payments, store of value.

The material used for money should be valuable, portable, indestructible, homogeneous, divisible, of stable value, easily recognizable.

Note variety of historical mediums of exchange.

Government functions in regard to money; the government may monopolize coinage, regulate nature and amount of currency, declare certain moneys legal tender.

Note development of art of coinage.

Value of money.

The value of money is measured by the goods the money will buy. A rise of prices denotes a fall in the value of money and vice versa.

The value of money is determined in the short period like that of any commodity by the relations of demand and supply.

The demand for money depends on the total of the sales to be effected by means of money so that it is affected both by the goods to be sold and by the number of times they are sold.

The supply of money is, similarly, affected both by the amount of money available and the rapidity of its circulation.

Note that a general rise or fall of prices often occurs but a general rise or fall of values is impossible.

Note the difficulty of ascertaining the appreciation or depreciation of money; the conception of “the general level of prices.”

The value of bullion (the metal material of money) varies, like that of any other commodity, primarily with demand and supply, ultimately with cost of production.

The value of money equals the value of the bullion if coinage is free and gratuitous; it equals the value of bullion plus seigniorage if coinage is free but not gratuitous.

Note that the value of money thus follows the usual law, viz.: that where supply can be indefinitely increased value equals cost of production.

Note that cost of production is here cost of production where greatest (case (b) above).

Note the slowness and imperfection of adjustment of value to cost owing to durability of metal and slow increase of supply and to speculative nature of mining.

Note the mechanism of adjustment of supply of bullion to market conditions.

Changes in the value of money.

Effect on creditor, on debtor, of

Appreciation;
Depreciation.

Note injustice in each case.

Effects of rising and falling prices on business.

The problem of a standard of deferred payment.

Note the proposition of a tabular standard f multiple standard”).

Gresham’s law. “Bad money drives out good,”

If moneys of equal legal tender power and different actual value circulate together the less valuable will disappear.

Note however that a limitation of supply may give a coin of lesser bullion value an actual value equal to that of the better coin and that they may then circulate together.

Note that this is the principle on which the value of fractional coinage (token coinage) depends.

Note that it is only on condition of such limitation of supply that the simultaneous circulation of two metals (bimetallism) is possible.

3. Credit.

Forms of credit:

Promises; e.g.book credits, promissory notes, bank notes, stocks, government bonds, etc.

Orders; e.g. checks, bills of exchange and drafts (foreign and domestic), letters of credit, etc.

Use of credit: saves use of money except for payment of balance: best exemplified in “clearing” of checks, and in foreign exchange where money is shipped to settle the balance only. The rate of exchange indicates the amount of balance and to whom owed.

Note tendency to compensation in effect of export of money metal on prices and therefore on trade.

Note that credit operations are essentially barter.

Credit agencies.

The Bank.

Functions: Deposit, Discount, Issue of Notes.

The Clearing House.

Credit money (“representative money”).

Bank notes.

Government notes.

1. Paper money as a promise to pay, convertibility being maintained:

Advantages; saves waste of precious metals, convenient.

Disadvantages; danger of over issue, resulting in loss of precious metals and debasement (“inflation”). Danger increased by advantage of depreciation to debtors (including an indebted government), and by general ignorance of the subject.

2. Paper money as fiat money, inconvertible.

Theoretically it is possible to maintain its value if the issue is carefully limited. Practically there are the same dangers as above, only much aggravated.

Note historical experiments with paper money.

4. Prices.

Action of credit on prices: the use of credit replaces money and acts as the addition of an equivalent amount of money would do.

Trade tends to equalize prices as between countries and to distribute the precious metals accordingly.

Tendency to periodicity in business and recurring crises. Increase of production, rising prices and extension of credit are followed by glut of the market, falling prices and shrinkage of credit

Note in what sense “overproduction” is impossible.

Historical variations in prices due to changes in the supply of gold and silver.

Money famine of the middle ages.
Sixteenth century revolution of prices.
Nineteenth century discoveries of precious metal.

Note also widespread changes in prices due to modern methods of cheapening production.

 

CHAPTER IV. — DISTRIBUTION.

Distribution varies in its methods and results

with the stage of development of industry,
with the provisions of law and custom,
with the distribution of property,
with conditions as regards population.

The present study is confined to distribution under the conditions of modern industry, marked by

(1) private property in land and capital,
(2) competition and free contract,
(3) more or less complete differentiation of landlord, capitalist, undertaker and laborer,
(4) production for market not for use.

Note that distribution is here determined by competitive bargaining and that its problems are primarily special cases under the laws of exchange.

POPULATION.

Malthus first called attention to the question of the relation of the rate of growth of population to the rate of increase of the means of subsistence.

Malthusian theory.

Population tends to outstrip subsistence, but is kept in bounds by “positive checks” and to some degree by “preventive checks.”

Note[:]
(1) Importance of Malthus’ work as a matter of method;

(2) Explanation of exaggerations of Malthus by conditions in England in his time;

(3) Many historical movements referable to pressure of population;
(4) Relation of Malthusianism and law of diminishing returns.

Counteracting influences:

More land available,
Greater skill in using land,
Greater productivity in secondary pursuits,
Decreasing birth rate of advanced populations,
More favorable composition of population.

Note that a relative excess of population is possible where there is no absolute excess; a problem of adjustment.

Note tendency to increase of urban and suburban population.

SHARES IN DISTRIBUTION.

The net returns of production are distributed as Rent, Interest, Wages and Profits.

1. Rent.

Rent: the share of the product received in return for the use of land or other natural agents.

Note contrast of the technical sense with the ordinary sense of payment for anything hired.

The competitive rent of land will equal the difference between the value of its product and the cost of production (including in cost “ordinary” profits). The value of the product is determined in the “short period” by the demand and supply, in the “long period” by the cost of production of the most costly part of the supply demanded. This is the cost on the margin of cultivation, (extensive or intensive). Land on the margin of cultivation (extensive) bears no rent (“no rent land”). For exceptions see below.

Note effect of increasing population and rising demand on price, on margin of cultivation, on rent.

Ricardo’s law of rent (another form of statement of the above). The rent of any given piece of land is determined by the excess of the value of its product over that which the same application of labor and capital could secure from the least productive land in use.

Note Carey’s criticism (that instead of progressive recourse to poorer lands poorer lands are historically cultivated first).
How far is this valid as a criticism of the law of rent?

Where the supply of land for a given kind of production is so limited that the product is limited and sells for more than cost the rent will still equal the difference between the value and the cost of the product, but there will be no “no rent land.”

Note that where the poorest land that is good for one use bears rent for another use there is no “no rent land” for the first use.

Rent does not determine the price of the product (“enter into price”) but is itself determined by price except in the case of monopoly rent.

Monopoly rent: where a given kind of land is all controlled by one interest a rent may be asked that will force prices up; in this case rent determines price and is itself determined solely on the principle of maximum net advantage.

Note case of rent where land is used for building or business purposes;
case of quarries and mines;
case of improvements of land.

The selling price of land is a capitalization of its rental value.

Property in land.

The difference between property in land and other sorts of property has generally been recognized and modes of land-holding have varied widely in different times and places.

Compare the economic advantages and disadvantages of

communal tenure;
servile tenure;
peasant proprietorship;
metayage;
cotter holdings, as in Ireland;
tenant farmers as in England.

Note American conditions.

Criticism of private property in land.

The argument based on the “unearned increment,”especially in case of urban land.

Proposal of nationalization of land.

Proposal of a “single tax” on land equal to rental value.

2. Interest.

Interest: the share of the product received in return for the use of capital.

Note that capital may be “business capital,” not capital in the proper economic sense.

The market rate of interest is determined by demand and supply.

Demand depends on the marginal utility of capital in terms of the productivity of capital in productive use, or of preference for present over future use in consumption.

The normal rate of interest depends on the cost of supply in terms of sacrifice of productivity of capital in owner’s use, or of sacrifice of present for future use.

Note that the determining cost is the cost of the most expensive part of the supply required.

In addition to interest proper the borrower must generally pay insurance for risk (often as an indistinguished addition to interest rate).

Loans may be

Loans of capital (for instance in the shape of mortgages, investments in stocks and bonds, subscription to public loans, etc.);

Loans specifically of money. The rate is here determined by the demand and supply of money, i.e. the condition of the money market.

Note the rate of discount on business paper, the rates on money “on call,” etc.

Note the tendency to equal returns to capital in whatever shape, (short term loans, permanent productive investments, or leases of durable consumers’ goods).

History of Interest.

Middle ages — high rates of interest, all taking of interest condemned as usury; due (1) to misunderstanding of the nature of capital (originated with Aristotle, perpetuated by Aquinas), (2) to small scope for productive loans.

Note tendency of usury laws to raise the rate of interest. Usury laws are still on many of our statute books. Is there any justification for their retention?

Progressive decline of rate of interest (with fluctuations); due to lessening marginal utility of increased supply counteracted by new opportunities for use of capital.

Note that the effect on accumulation of a decline in the rate of interest may be either to lessen it or to stimulate it. The older economists allowed for the former effect only.

Socialist theory of interest as due to “exploitation” of labor, as unjustifiable both economically and ethically.

3. Profits.

Profits: the share received by the undertaker (entrepreneur) of a productive enterprise; consists of the excess of value over cost (i.e. undertaker’s cost).

Necessary or minimum profits (ordinary profits) include

Wages of management,
Insurance for risk.

Note that the capitalist and undertaker were formerly regularly one person and that the older economists (e.g. J. S. Mill) include interest, insurance on capital and wages of management all under the general head of profits.

Differential profits, or pure profits, appear when goods can be produced at less than normal cost or sold for more than normal price. Such profits, like rent, are the measure of differential advantage and do not enter into price.

Note. The term rent is sometime: used in a broad sense for all this class of receipts (“rent of ability”, “rent of opportunity”)

The advantage may be a passing one or relatively permanent.

Repeated profits above the ordinary tend to be cut down by competition unless protected (as e.g.by patent rights, ability).

Tendency of profits to an equality.

Profits tend to be equal as regards the same ability or opportunity but not as between different abilities or opportunities.

Note however that competition is here peculiarly imperfect owing to lack of information as to the profits obtainable.

Walker’s analysis of profits; the “no profits entrepreneur,” and his cost to society.

4. Wages.

Wages: the share of the product received in return for labor.

Different labor systems: (1) no division of product; extreme types — independent, self-employed (autonomous) labor and slavery; (2) product divided according to custom or contract; types — serfdom, wage labor, profit sharing, coöperation.

[The following discussion deals only with wages in the narrow sense of payment of hired labor under a regime of free contract.]

The wages of any particular kind of labor vary primarily with demand and supply.

The demand for labor arises from the difference between cost and utility to the employer. Where labor is employed to produce for the market the demand depends on

Productivity of labor,
Demand for product,
Cost of labor,
Available capital.

On what does the demand for labor for direct use (as e.g. of domestic servants) depend?

Wages fund doctrine, excessive emphasis on supply of capital.

How far is the wage fund a fixed amount?

Note effect of opportunities for self-employment on demand for labor.

Cost of labor is not measured by wages alone, low wages may mean dear labor.

Experiments of Brassey and others as to relation of cost and wages, “the economy of high wages.”

Note that there may be no inducement to the employer to pay “economic” wages; contrast free laborer with slave or domestic animal in this respect.

The supply of labor depends on (1) the number of laborers, (2) the kind of labor of which they are capable, (3) its duration, and (4) its intensity. The conditions governing the supply are peculiar in various respects,

(1) The number of laborers increases and falls off for non-economic reasons, though also affected by economic conditions.

The Malthusian theory of increase of labor leads to the Ricardian theory of wages (“iron law of wages”). Wages tend to fall to subsistence point because population increases, depressing wages, till checked by lack of subsistence.

Note that this theory assimilates labor to any freely producible commodity (normal price equal to cost of production).

Note the possibility of wages permanently below subsistence point.

Note that any given “standard of living” maybe substituted for mere subsistence if a class of labor refuses to reproduce itself except under conditions making this possible.

Note the tendency of a change from a given standard in either direction to perpetuate itself if long enough continued.

Distinguish real from nominal wages.

(2) The supply of labor tends to distribute itself among different employments so as to secure equal returns to equal efficiency, with compensation for outlay, risk and waiting, and with some allowance for peculiar advantages and disadvantages, but this adjustment is very imperfect.

Note that training is only partly controlled by economic motives. Causes of over investment in education, of under investment.

Note scarcity value of (1) work requiring higher grades of ability, (2) work accessible to a privileged group only, (3) work controlled by a combination, tacit or acknowledged.

Note relations of non-competing groups and cumulative competition in unskilled work; note conditions of adjustment of supply to changed demand.

(3) The supply of labor instead of shrinking with diminished demand often increases, especially in point of the number of hours worked.

Note desire to counteract this tendency, to “spread the employment,” by restricting hours either by law or agreement.

The wage contract.

Forms of wage contract are very various. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of time wage, piece wage, task wage, progressive wage, sliding scales, profit sharing, group payment and subcontracting, coöperation.

Restrictions on competitive regulation of labor contract.

Competition may under certain circumstances work injuriously with no tendency to compensation.

Note conditions of English factory labor early in this century; conditions in sweated industries.

This is partly due to peculiarities as regards the sale of labor — labor is inseparable from the laborer, labor cannot be stored, the laborer generally cannot afford to stand out long for better terms.

Competition may be controlled or replaced by

(1) Custom.

Note historical tendency to diminished influence of custom, fields in which still operative.

(2) Legislation. e.g.Statutes of Laborers.

Note limits to what law can effect.

Modern factory legislation.

Note that competition is not done away with, but that the plane of competition is controlled.

“Living wage” resolutions of public authorities,

(3) Combination.

(a) Combination of employers (cf. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, I, chap. viii).

(b) Combinations of employers and employed to control conditions in a given trade.

Cf. mediaeval gilds and some modem experiments.

(c) Combination of employees in trade-unions, etc.

Trade Union functions:

(1) Mutual insurance;

Note especially effect of “out of work” benefit.

(2) Regulation of labor contract;

Effort to regulate supply of labor by limiting (a) access to trade, (b) access to union, (c) output;

Efforts toward collective bargaining.

Weapons; the label, boycott, strike.

Conciliation and arbitration: Advantages and disadvantages of trade unions.

THE PRINCIPLE OF DISTRIBUTION.

Present principle — competitive bargaining with private property in land and capital; open to much just criticism. Other possible or proposed principles are —

Status (custom);
Equality;
Adjustment to services; (how measure?)
Adjustment to needs; (how measure?)

What do you mean by “justice “in distribution?

 

CHAPTER V. — THE ECONOMICS OF GOVERNMENT.

The point of view as regards wealth; distinguish private, governmental, social. The effort to harmonize private and public interest; the theory of natural harmonies.

Note the conception underlying the “Wealth of Nations.”

1. Economic Functions of Government.

Note assumption that government activity is inexpedient unless demonstrably expedient.

A. Protective functions:

Protection against outsiders,
Protection of person, property, contract, etc..
Protection against disease, physical and social.

B. Developmental functions:

Education,
Recreation,
Investigation,
Development of natural resources.

C. Industrial functions;

Grants of exclusive industrial privileges;
Conditional requirements for exercise of industrial activities; as

Proof of competency,
Payments.

Regulation of conditions of production or terms of contracts (in interest of equity, public health, morality, general welfare).
Public industrial administration;

Public domain,
Public industries.

2. Public Revenue.

Government activity almost inevitably involves expenditure which must in some way be provided for. “The Science of Finance, treats of public expenditures and public income,” (H. C. Adams).

Note that finance does not deal with economic considerations alone.

Public Revenue is of three kinds;

Direct, drawn from public domains and public industries;
Anticipatory, drawn from the use of public credit;
Derivative, drawn from the income of citizens, mainly by means of taxation.

Taxes.

Problem of equity in taxation:

Principle of equal payment;
Principle of payment according to cost of service;
Principle of payment according to benefit received;
Principle of payment according to means (proportional taxation);
Principle of progressive taxation.

Kinds of taxes:

Indirect taxes;
Direct taxes.

Subjects of taxation:

Polls;
Property;
Income;
Business;
Transactions;

Inheritance taxes.

Effects of taxation.

Incidence and shifting of taxes.

Taxation for ulterior ends, e.g. as a means of regulating

Commerce;
Production;
Consumption;
Distribution;

Protective tariffs.

 

PART III.
Scope and Method of Political Economy.

CHAPTER I. — DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT.

A. Previous to the eighteenth century there is only unsystematic thought on particular economic matters, closely limited by contemporary economic conditions.

(1) Classic antiquity.

Basis, slave economy,

Xenophon’s Oiconomicus.
Passages in Plato and Aristotle.
Technical treatises by Roman writers De Re Rustica.

(2) Middle ages.

Basis, household economy or else production by a close body of producers for a limited market.

Canonist writers — theories of just price, of usury.

(3) Mercantile school of sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Basis, widening markets, influx of precious metals, increased state need of ready money and interest of governments in commerce and industry as source of funds.

Characteristics, exaggeration of importance of money (“treasure”), effort to secure balance of trade, state regulation of industry, substitution of national for local economy.

A school of statesmen rather than theorists, (notably Colbert in France, Cromwell, Frederick the Great), and of commercial writers like Thomas Mun, Sir Josiah Child, and Charles Davenant in England.

Note beginnings of statistical study (e.g. Sir Wm. Petty, Essays in Political Arithmetick, 1691).

B. Systematic Period. Theories of Natural Liberty.

(1) Physiocrats (Economistes), France, eighteenth century. Believed in a beneficent natural order, reprobated interference (laissez faire, laissez passer); regarded land alone as productive, advocated a single tax on land, helped to bring about abolition of restrictions on trade and industry.

A school of French thinkers led by Quesnay, physician to Louis XV. Turgot attempted to realize these views in his reforms.

(2) Adam Smith and the English Classical (“Orthodox”) School.

The nineteenth century economists of this school believed that self interest under free competition tends to greatest general advantage; were influenced by growth of modern machine industry and modern business methods; were marked by a certain capitalistic bias.

Chief practical achievement abolition of restrictive legislation, especially the corn laws (Manchester Anti-Corn-Law League, led by Cobden, Bright, etc.; “Manchester School”).

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776 (first ed’n).

Rev. Thos. Robert Malthus, an Essay on the Principle of Population, etc., 1798 (first ed’n).

David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 1817.

The work of the school was summarized for England by John Stuart Mill, Principles of

Political Economy, 1848 (first ed’n).

Note the optimists H. C. Carey (American) and Frédéric Bastiat.

C. Critical period (the last half century).

Influenced by the development of modern industrial problems, by the failure of competition to always work to public advantage and by the obvious insufficiency of analyses of “classical” economics. Marked by criticism and modification (or rejection) of the older views; much fine constructive work done, but no generally accepted synthesis yet attained. Embraces very diverse tendencies; e.g.

Historical movement:

In Germany in the fifties led by Roscher, Hildebrand and Knies, continued at present by Schmoller, Brentano and others.

In England Cliffe Leslie and Bagehot did much to widen the range of economic thinking. Thorold Rogers, Cunningham and Ashley have made notable contributions to economic history.

Note that largely a question of method. See below.

Socialist movement:

German “scientific” socialism, Rodbertus, Karl Marx.
“Socialism of the Chair,” Adolph Wagner, Schaeffle,
English “Fabian” Socialism, Sidney Webb, Beatrice Potter Webb.

Ethical movement:

Increased interest in ethical and social bearings of economics widespread. Cf. influence of Arnold Toynbee, Ruskin.

Note relation of this tendency to the historical and socialist tendencies.

Theoretical work:

The most important contemporary work in economic theory is that based largely on subtler analysis of value and the conception of marginal utility originated (among others) by W. Stanley Jevons, and is represented

in England by Marshall and others,
in America by J. B. Clark and others,
on the continent (and most conspicuously) by the “Austrian School,” Böhm-Bawerk, and others.

Note the tendency of this school to psychological analysis and mathematical expression.

 

CHAPTER II— SCOPE AND METHOD.

A. Scope of Political Economy.

Different conceptions of the science at different periods; reflected in definitions and names.

Note etymology of economy.

Pure and applied economics (political economy as a science or an art).

How far can action be based on economic considerations alone?

Relation of economics to technology, ethics, politics, law, sociology.

[B.] Appropriate method.

Deduction versus induction.

The place of observation, hypothesis, experiment.
The postulates of political economy.
The conception of economic law. (Contrast with moral law, statute law).
Statistics.
Historical method, descriptive economics.
Mathematical methods.

 

Source: One of two copies deposited with the Library of Congress.  Emily Greene Balch, Outline of Economics (Wellesley College) published by The Co-operative Press of Cambridge (Massachusetts) in 1899.

Image Source: Emily Greene Balch in Hungary, c. 1900 from the Papers of Emily Greene Balch, Swarthmore College Peace Collection. From Website: massmoments, page “January 8, 1867 Emily Greene Balch Born“.

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Gender Wellesley

Chicago. Mary Barnett Gilson upon retirement, 1941

 

 

A late-starter for an academic career, Wellesley College alumna (1899) Mary Barnett Gilson attained her highest academic degree (A.M.) from Columbia at the tender age of about 49 years following a career in industrial relations.  She then spent ten years teaching economics at the University of Chicago before retiring as an assistant professor emeritus in 1942. In her exchange of letters with the president of the university, Robert M. Hutchins, that have been transcribed for this post, one reads of her frustration at not having had an opportunity to teach in her field of expertise, industrial relations, either in the business school or the Downtown College. She is also quite clear in her disappointment as not having been promoted to the rank of associate professor. She believed she had hit a gender glass-ceiling. It would be of interest to compare other non-Ph.D. faculty of the period at the University of Chicago and elsewhere who had been promoted to ranks of associate professor and higher. Still there can be little doubt that we have here an account of a woman who had encountered genuine discrimination.

Also of interest is to read “I’m very busy trying to enlighten the Mid-West and dispel some of the fog created by America First” written five days before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

She eventually moved to Chapel Hill, North Carolina where she spent the rest of her long life.

_______________

Mary Barnett Gilson, A.M. (1877-1969)
University of Chicago years

1931- 33 Instructor of Economics.
1933-34  Assistant in Economics
1934-41  Assistant Professor of Economics
1940-42 Assistant Professor of Economics in the College.
1942-     Assistant Professor Emeritus of Economics in the College.

[Apparently only taught during the second semester at Wellesley College 1942. Lecturer in Economics. Resignation and expired appointment June 1942, Wellseley College, as of June, 1942.]

_______________

Mary B. Gilson published a memoir in 1940
Papers at Wellesley College Archives

From a review of Mary Barnett Gilson, What’s Past Is Prologue. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940.

“Her ideas and feelings about industrial problems spring from varied experience as a branch librarian in a steel district, department-store salesgirl, vocational counselor, employment manager, research worker in labor problems, and university professor.”

Source:  William M. Leiserson. Review of What’s Past is Prologue by Mary Barnett Gilson in American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 47, No. 1 (July 1941), pp. 123-124.

*  * *  *  *

Mary B. Gilson Papers in Wellesley College Archives. Records of the Class of 1899, 1898-1954: a guide. 6C.1899.   Boxes 5-20, Oversize 2-4.

Apparently some of these items are on microfilm in the Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina. Mary Barnett Gilson Papers, 1909-1959Does not appear to have any University of Chicago or Wellesley College related material.

_______________

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation
Fellowship: 1939

GILSON, MARY BARNETT

Appointed for the preparation of a book to be entitled “Industry, Management and Labor: A record of thirty years”; tenure, twelve months from October 1, 1939.

Born: September 10, 1877, at Uniontown, Pennsylvania. 

Education:  Wellesley College, B.A., 1899; Columbia University, M.A., 1926. London School of Economics, 1935–36.

Engaged in industrial work in the fields of labor relations, employment and management, and consultant and research worker in industrial relations, 1912—.

Assistant Professor of Economics, 1931—, University of Chicago.

Publications: Unemployment Benefits in the United States (with others), 1930; Unemployment Insurance in Great Britain, 1931; Unemployment Insurance, 1932. Articles in International Labour ReviewEncyclopaedia of the Social Sciences.

 

Source:  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Website: Fellows/Mary Barnett Gilson.

_______________

Handwritten letter by Mary B. Gilson to President Hutchins

The University of Chicago
Department of Economics

April 17, 1941

Dear President Hutchins,

Perhaps you have been notified that my resignation will take effect at the end of this quarter. I have deeply appreciated the atmosphere of freedom at the University of Chicago and your part in preserving it.

Cordially yours,

Mary B. Gilson

*  * *  *  *

Attached slip of paper with handwritten notes:

[Secretary?:] She doesn’t say so but I know she wants very badly to see you.

[Hutchins?:] How do you know?

[Secretary?:] She told me so. She wants to tell you what is wrong with this institution. I think you should give her an opportunity for a parting shot.

[Hutchins?:] Will do some time. no hurry about it.–RMH

_______________

Handwritten letter by Mary B. Gilson to President Hutchins

Mary Barnett Gilson—1154 East 56thStreet—Chicago, Illinois

Nov. 24, ‘41

Dear Mr. Hutchins,

I am confident Ben Selekman would not object to my sending you his letter to me. Please destroy it when you have read it.

It is too bad that on a recent barn-storming trip of one night stands in Western Pennsylvania I left, somewhere en route, the two pamphlets Mr. Selekman sent me. You would enjoy the Atlantic Monthly reprint, I know you would! Will you have your secretary ask him for a copy or shall I?

If I had not promised that Pittsburgh men’s forum I would speak on “Strikes and Production” I can assure you I would not have chosen November 17th, 1941 A.M.[?] to speak on that subject. A lot of steel and coal and coke magnates from their Triangle offices were in my audience and when some of them as well as some labor leaders told me after my 45 minute broadcast and a subsequent 30 minute question period that I had been “fair” I breathed normally once more.

It seems queer to know I shall soon be “emeritus”. I wish I had had some opportunity to use my industrial experience more effectively here during the past ten years but either the Mid-West is no place for a woman in that field or [Carl F.] Huth and [William Homer] Spencer and Raleigh Stone et al don’t think it is! I’d like to have demonstrated I could retire from here as an emeritus associated instead of an emeritus assistant. I try to think titles don’t mean anything but people in academic circles seem to think they do!

Cordially yours,

Mary Gilson

*  * *  *  *

[handwritten note: “Please destroy”]

B. M. Selekman
24 Province Street
Boston, Mass.

November 3, 1941.

Miss Mary Gilson
Faculty Exchange #169
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Mary:

It is very kind of you to write me about the little screed in the Survey Graphic. I feel the whole thing very keenly and I am glad that you agree. I developed the same thought at somewhat greater length in the Atlantic Monthly. Apparently you missed it so I am sending you a copy as well as a reprint of another article in the Harvard Business Review which I think you will find interesting from the point of view of your own experience in labor relations.

Your piece in the current Survey Graphic touches also on the same theme that I tried to develop in the Business Review article.

Let me now tell you that I should have written you a long time ago how much I enjoyed your book. It just breathed your kindliness, human understanding and impatience with cant and stupidity.

We are both, naturally, disappointed in Hutchins. How can a person with his sensitiveness to the classic tradition fail to see the issue of humanism in the current world crisis as projected by the Nazis! I wish you could get him to read my Atlantic Monthly article, although one despairs of changing a point of view in a person as intelligent as he is. Sometimes I find the intelligent person the most closed mind. They live within a framework of thought which is so consistent to them that they do not see the complexities and subtleties in actual life about them.

I am happy to hear that you are out barnstorming in the interest of getting our mid-western neighbors to see the issues clearly in Hitler’s threat to us.

I am sorry to hear that you are to retire in another year. I should think that your first-hand-experience could have been put forth to students for a great many more years with profit to them.

It is good news, however, that you are thinking of settling in Boston or Wellesley. One is not quite so much in the hurly-burly of things as in New York. On the other hand one does get a better opportunity living in New England to think and reflect.

With affectionate greetings from both of us,

Ever yours,
[signed]
Ben

_______________

Carbon Copy of President Hutchin’s response to Gilson

November 27, 1941

Dear Miss Gilson:

Thank you for your kind note. As for Selekman, tell him that I am disappointed in him and that if he will read my speeches I will read his article.

I share your views on the anti-feminine leanings of this University and on the issue of academic rank. There is a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on University Policy now at work on a proposal to abolish academic rank in the University. If the suggestion ever gets out of the sub-committee it will be buried with a unanimous whoop in the Senate.

Come and see me some time.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT M. HUTCHINS

Miss Mary B. Gilson
Assistant Professor of Economics
The University of Chicago

_______________

Handwritten letter by Mary B. Gilson to President Hutchins

[Handwritten note: “no ans.”]

Mary Barnett Gilson—1154 East 56thStreet—Chicago, Illinois

Dec. 2 [1941]

Dear Mr. Hutchins,

You see I always get promoted in print, and when I lecture I spend the first five minutes telling my audience that I am not “Professor” and that I haven’t even a doctorate. That’s the chief reason I’d be in favor of doing away with titles! Program chairmen just can’t bear the ignominy of bringing an assistant professor to their groups. So I always get a promotion, which lasts until I get on my feet.

I surely shall accept your invitation to drop in to see you some day. Thanks ever  so much. I’m very busy trying to enlighten the Mid-West and dispel some of the fog created by America First. I’m sure you are busy, too.

I am playing with the idea of going to Becea[?] for Christmas vacation. I have always wanted to see it and this seems a possible time.

Please give my kindest regards to your beloved father. It was a joy to have a chance to become acquainted with him the summer of 1940.

Cordially yours,

Mary Gilson

_______________

Handwritten letter by Mary B. Gilson to President Hutchins

WELLESLEY COLLEGE
Wellesley, Massachusetts
Department of Economics

Friday, February 27 [1942]

Dear Mr. Hutchins,

I was sorry indeed to come away from Chicago without saying good-bye to you. As my beloved old [Wellesley College] teacher Vida Scudder said the other day, “Even if we don’t see eye to eye on present solutions of present problems, we agree down deep on fundamental issues.” Well, whether you and I agree on fundamental and also on less fundamental issues or not, I have a lot of respect for you and I regret deeply not having had a chance to say good-bye.

President McAfee’s s.o.s. to come here and take over a group of seniors in a course in industrial relations came so precipitately that I had little time for anything but packing and storing my household goods and attending to all those chores that must be done when one moves from one town to another. It all had to be done in a week.

I am having a grand time with twenty-five of the finest girls I’ve met for a long time. We meet around a big round table, which is an answer to the prayer I sent up every little while during the past ten years when those gloomy, repelling rooms in Cobb put a long face on this school arm. I always wanted a whack at an industrial relations course “on the side” at the U. of C., in the School of Business or Downtown College) but Deans [William Homer] Spencer and [Carl F.] Huth evidently thought a woman didn’t and shouldn’t know about the mysterious field of business and industry.

Please throw away the enclosures after you have read them. They are between you and me and the gate-post.

As you said, the last time I saw you, “God bless you!”

Faithfully yours,

Mary B. Gilson

*  * *  *  * *  *

Attachment 1
Typed Letter from Mary Anderson to Mary Gilson

[Anderson, Mary. Woman at work: The autobiography of Mary Anderson as told to Mary N. Winslow. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1951. Obituary: Mary Anderson, Ex-U.S. aide, dies; Directed Women’s Bureau in Labor Department, New York Times, January 30, 1964.]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WOMEN’S BUREAU
Washington

January 30, 1942

Dear Mary,

I am very much interested in your letter and it seems to me that instead of going to Wellesley you ought to be staying at Chicago University and teaching in this new class. [Gilson added “*” in the margin with a handwritten note at the bottom of this letter]

I am going to Chicago next week to speak at the American Management Association conference at the Stevens Hotel and I have been asked by Mr. Mitchell to stop off at Chicago University and give a talk on Thursday morning the 5th. I shall do so because I want to know what they are doing, what they are teaching and what they are preparing the people for. He says they have 150 men and 50 women in the class. The training classes are now being opened up to women all over because they realize that they will have to use them and that means of course that they will have to have training for women supervisors as well as production workers. [Gilson added comment to this sentence in margin: “But Chicago is training women for white collar jobs.”]

I hope you will find your place in Wellesley more to your liking. I suppose you won’t be coming to Washington now, since the Wage and Hour Division is moving to New York. We in the Department of Labor regret that moving very much. Of course we may find it will strike us.

With much love to you,

[signed]
Mary

Miss Mary Gilson
1154 East 56thStreet
Chicago, Illinois

[Handwritten note: *I told her I had never, in the ten years at U. of C., been called into the Business School or Downtown College for any sort of a contribution I might have made toward training women for anything. I think Raleigh Stone may think I’m a “red” M.B.G.]

*  * *  *  * *  *

Attachment 2
Mary Anderson typed letter to Mary Gilson

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WOMEN’S BUREAU
Washington

February 18, 1942

Dear Mary,

I was very glad to have your analysis of that class at Chicago University. There were 150 men and 50 women. The men were training mainly for supervisors in industry and the women were training for supervisors in offices. The attitude towards the women was the same as usual. [underlining by Gilson with marginal note “Usual white collar stuff for ladies!”] They asked me questions – if women ought to have the same wages as men, and would women get out of the factories after the men come back from the war. I told them that there was much more to it than just coming back from the war and getting the jobs back, that it was a question of converting the industries back to consumer goods and there was also the question of some of the industries that would not be working at all after the war as we would not need their material; then there is of course the cutting down on war material quite considerably, and then I said to the men, “Have you any idea how many of the men will come back from the war and how many of the men that come back will be able to take any jobs?” I said that was a very hard way of putting it but at the same time we were in a different war than we have been in and it is very difficult to tell what would happen, that after all if we are to win this war it will take men and women together, all of us, and that I think we would do well not to quibble over who is going to have the jobs after the war is over. [underlining by Gilson].

I didn’t see Mr. Mitchell, so I have no opinion of him. I thought the two women that were steering the class were very good, and earnest. One of the professors was giving a psychology lesson just before I spoke so I heard some of it, and it was a regular college psychology lesson. I don’t know what good it would do a class that will take positions in industry as supervisors. One of the women, however, (and I don’t remember their names) had a very bad attitude towards labor. She could not understand why labor wanted more money when the men that enlisted got only $21 a month. I told her that after all they got a great deal more than that, they got their clothes and their keep, which amounts to a great deal more; I didn’t think, however, they got enough fro what they were risking by any means, but that was no reason that the workers should not have a decent wage. They, too, were risking their all, and the employers in bidding on the contracts took the labor costs as well as the costs of material into consideration.

I had a grand time at the American Management Association and the training of women is now beginning. They were very much interested and they have written in for all kinds of information.

I think our work from now on will be that of seeing that women are not exploited and that labor standards are maintained.

With love to you,

[signed, “Mary”]
Mary Anderson, Director

Miss Mary Gilson
Claflin Hall
Wellesley College,
Wellesley, Mass.

_______________

Handwritten note by E.F. [Vice-President, Emery T. Filbey] attached to previous Gilson letter

Personally I would not pick either of the Marys for instruction in industrial relations unless I wanted to start a private war.

E.F.

[underneath: in a different handwriting “Nice long letter. How etc[?] we [??]  & so on.”

_______________

Carbon copy of typed letter from Hutchins to Gilson.

March 4, 1942

Dear Miss Gilson:

I could not hope for a more generous statement of good faith overlooking difference of opinion than that expressed in your letter of February 27. I cannot do better than return the sentiments with my regret that we had no opportunity to exchange them in person.

I hope that Wellesley will treat you as you would like, or in other words, that Wellesley will treat you as well as you deserve.

The enclosures you sent me lead me to believe that you and I do not disagree on fundamental issues. You and your friends are concerned about exploitation of our women and disintegration of our labor standards. I am concerned, as you are too, about exploitation of our citizens and disintegration of our democracy.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT M. HUTCHINS

Miss Mary B. Gilson
Department of Economics
Wellesley College
Wellesley, Massachusetts

 

Source:    University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 72, Folder “Economics Department, 1939-1943.”

Image Source:  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Website: Fellows/Mary Barnett Gilson.

 

Categories
Curriculum Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Radcliffe. Economics course offerings, 1910-1915

 

Here are five more installments in the series “Economics course offerings at Radcliffe College”…

Pre-Radcliffe economics course offerings and the Radcliffe courses for 1893-94,  1894-1900 , 1900-1905 , 1905-1910 have been posted earlier.

________________

1910-1911
ECONOMICS.

Primarily for Undergraduates:—

1. Dr. HUSE and DAY. — Outlines of Economics. — Production, Distribution, Exchange, Socialism, Labor, Railroads, Trusts, Foreign Trade, Money, and Banking.

45 Undergraduates, 6 Special students. Total 51.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates:—

3. Professor CARVER. — Principles of Sociology.—Theories of social progress. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor.

3 Graduates, 31 Undergraduates, 1 Unclassified student.  Total 35.
(1 Graduate, 2d half only).

6a1. Professor GAY. — European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century. Half-course. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor, 1st  half-year.

1 Graduate, 8 Undergraduates. Total 9.

6b2. Professor GAY. — Economic and Financial History of the United States. Half-course. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor, 2d half-year.

2 Graduates, 12 Undergraduates, 2 Special students, 2 Unclassified students. Total 18.

81. Dr. HUSE. — Money. A general survey of currency legislation, experience, and theory in recent times. Half-course. 3 hours a week, 1st half-year.

7 Undergraduates. Total 7.

82. Dr. DAY. — Banking and Foreign Exchange. Half-course. 3 hours a week, 2half-year.

5 Undergraduates, 1 Special student. Total 6.

14a1. Professor CARVER. — The Distribution of Wealth.  Half-course. 2 hours a week, 1st half-year.

2 Graduates, 11 Undergraduates, 2 Special students. Total 15.

14b2.  Professor CARVER. — Methods of Social Reform.—Socialism, Communism, the Single Tax, etc.  Half-course. 2 hours a week, 2half-year.

1 Graduate, 11 Undergraduates, 3 Special students, 1 Unclassified student. Total 16.

 

Primarily for Graduates:—

COURSES OF RESEARCH

20a. Professor GAY. — (a) The Millinery Trade in Boston. 1 Graduate. (b) The Small Loan Business in Boston. 1 Graduate.

Total 2.

**20b. Professor CARVER. — The Laws of Production and Valuation.

1 Graduate. Total 1.

[Note] The courses marked with two stars (**) are Graduate courses in Harvard University, to which Radcliffe students were admitted by vote of the Harvard Faculty.

 

Source:   Radcliffe College. Report of the President of Radcliffe College 1910-11, pp. 49-50.

_______________

1911-1912
ECONOMICS.

Primarily for Undergraduates:—

1. Dr. DAY and Mr. J. S. DAVIS. — Outlines of Economics. — Production, Consumption, Distribution, Exchange, Socialism, Labor Problems, Trusts, Money, Banking, and Public Finance.

43 Undergraduates, 8 Special students, 1 Unclassified student.
(1 Undergraduate, 1 Special student, 1 Unclassified student 1sthalf only.)  Total 52.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates:—

3. Professor CARVER. — Principles of Sociology. — Theories of social progress. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor.

4 Graduates, 18 Undergraduates, 6 Special Students. (1 Special student, 1st half only.)  Total 28.

6a1. Professor GAY. — European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century. Half-course. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor, 1st  half-year.

1 Graduate, 4 Undergraduates, 3 Special students, 1 Unclassified student. Total 9.

6b2. Professor GAY. — Economic and Financial History of the United States. Half-course. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor, 2d half-year.

2 Graduates, 9 Undergraduates, 3 Special students. Total 14.

14a1. Professor CARVER. — The Distribution of Wealth.  Half-course. 2 hours a week, 1st half-year.

3 Undergraduates, 1 Special student. Total 4.

14b2.  Professor CARVER. — Methods of Social Reform.—Socialism, Communism, the Single Tax, etc.  Half-course. 2 hours a week, 2half-year.

3 Undergraduates, 1 Special student. Total 4.

*18. Asst. Professor COLE. — Principles of Accounting. 3 hours a week.

6 Undergraduates. (4 Undergraduates, 1st half only; 1 Undergraduate, 2half only.)  Total 6.

 

Primarily for Graduates:—

COURSES OF RESEARCH

20a. Professor GAY. — (a) The Organization of the Boot and Shoe Industry in Massachusetts in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. 1 Graduate. (b) Economic Policy of England from 1625 to 1660. 1 Graduate. (c) Women in the Boot and Shoe Industry in Massachusetts. 2 Graduates.

Total 4.

20b. Professor CARVER. — Economic Theory.

1 Undergraduate. Total 1.

 

Source:   Radcliffe College. Report of the President of Radcliffe College 1911-12, pp. 53-54.

_______________

1912-1913
ECONOMICS.

Primarily for Undergraduates:—

1. Dr. DAY. — Outlines of Economics. — Production, Consumption, Distribution, Exchange, Socialism, Labor Problems, Trusts, Money, Banking, and Public Finance.

24 Undergraduates, 8 Special students, 4 Unclassified students.
(1 Special student, 1st half only.) Total 36.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates:—

2a(formerly 6a1). Professor GAY. — European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century. Half-course. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor, 1st  half-year.

3 Graduates, 4 Undergraduates, 1 Special student. Total 8.

2b(formerly 6b2). Professor GAY. — Economic and Financial History of the United States. Half-course. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor, 2d half-year.

3 Graduates, 5 Undergraduates. Total 8.

7 (formerly 14). Professor CARVER. — Theories of Distribution and Distributive Justice. 3 hours a week.

9 Undergraduates, 2 Special students. Total 11.

8 (formerly 3). Professor CARVER. — Principles of Sociology.—Theories of social progress. 3 hours a week.

27 Undergraduates, 2 Special students, 2 Unclassified students. (1 Undergraduate, 1st half only.)  Total 31.

9 (formerly 18). Asst. Professor COLE. — Principles of Accounting. 3 hours a week.

5 Undergraduates. Total 5.

 

Primarily for Graduates:—

I
ECONOMIC THEORY AND METHOD

**12(formerly 13). Professor CARVER. — Scope and Methods of Economic Investigation. Half-course. 2 hours a week, 1sthalf-year.

1 Graduate. Total 1.

**13 (formerly 4). Professor RIPLEY. — Statistics, Theory, method and practice. 2 hours a week.

3 Graduates. Total 3.

II
ECONOMIC HISTORY

**23 (formerly 11). Dr. GRAY. — Economic History of Europe to 1760. 3 hours a week.

1 Special student. Total 1.

[Note] The courses marked with two stars (**) are Graduate courses in Harvard University, to which Radcliffe students were admitted by vote of the Harvard Faculty.

 

COURSES OF RESEARCH

20a. Professor GAY. — Selected Topics in Modern European Economic History.

2 Graduates. Total 4.

20b. Professor CARVER. — Economic Theory.

1 Graduate. Total 1.

 

Source:   Radcliffe College. Report of the President of Radcliffe College 1912-14, pp. 42-43.

_______________

1913-1914
ECONOMICS.

Primarily for Undergraduates:—

1. Asst. Professor E. E. DAY and Mr. BURBANK. — Principles of Economics. 3 hours a week.

33 Undergraduates, 5 Special students, 2 Unclassified students.  Total 40.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates:—

2a(formerly 6a1). Professor GAY.— European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century. Half-course. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor, 1st  half-year.

1 Graduate, 10 Undergraduates, 2 Special students, 1 Unclassified student. Total 14.

2b(formerly 6b2). Professor GAY. — Economic and Financial History of the United States. Half-course. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor, 2d half-year.

2 Graduates, 9 Undergraduates, 1 Special student, 1 Unclassified student. Total 13.

7 (formerly 14). Asst. Professor ANDERSON. — Economic Theory: Value and Related Problems. 3 hours a week.

1 Graduate, 5 Undergraduates.  Total 6.

9 (formerly 18). Associate Professor COLE. — Principles of Accounting. 3 hours a week.

5 Undergraduates. Total 5.

 

Primarily for Graduates:—

I
ECONOMIC THEORY AND METHOD

**11. Professor TAUSSIG. — Economic Theory. Half-course. 3 hours a week.

1 Undergraduate. Total 1.

**14. Professor BULLOCK. — History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848. 2 hours a week, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor.

1 Graduate. Total 1.

II
ECONOMIC HISTORY

**24. Professor GAY. — Topics in the Economic History of the Nineteenth Century. Two consecutive evenings a week.

1 Undergraduate. Total 1.

 

[Note] The courses marked with two stars (**) are Graduate courses in Harvard University, to which Radcliffe students were admitted by vote of the Harvard Faculty.

 

COURSES OF RESEARCH

20a. Professor GAY. — Economic History.

2 Graduates (1 Graduate, 1st half only). Total 2.

 

Source:   Radcliffe College. Report of the President of Radcliffe College 1912-14, pp. 99-100.

_______________

1914-1915
ECONOMICS.

Primarily for Undergraduates:

1. Asst. Professor E. E. DAY. — Principles of Economics.

5 Seniors, 14 Juniors, 15 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 3 Unclassified students, 4 Special students.  Total 42.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates:

2ahfProfessor GAY. — European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century.

3 Graduates, 3 Seniors. Total 6.

2bhf.   Professor GAY. — Economic and Financial History of the United States

3 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior.  Total 6.

7. Professor CARVER. — Economic Theory.

1 Graduate, 3 Seniors, 3 Juniors, 2 Sophomores.  Total 9.

8. Asst. Professor ANDERSON. — Principles of Sociology.

6 Seniors, 3 Juniors, 1 Special student. Total 10.

Accounting

Associate Professor COLE. — Principles of Accounting.

5 Seniors, 1 Junior.  Total 6.

 

Economic Theory and Method

Primarily for Graduates:

**121hf. Professor CARVER. — Scope and Methods of Economic Investigation.

1 Graduate.  Total 1.

**13. Asst. Professor DAY. — Statistics: Theory, method, and practice.

1 Graduate.  Total 1.

Applied Economics

**33 hf. Professor TAUSSIG. — International Trade, with special reference to Tariff Problems in the United States.

1 Graduate.  Total 1.

**34. Professor RIPLEY. — Problems of Labor.

1 Graduate.  Total 1.

Course of Research

20ahf. Professor GAY. — Economic History.

2 Graduates.  Total 2.

 

[Note] The courses marked with two stars (**) are Graduate courses in Harvard University, to which Radcliffe students were admitted by vote of the Harvard Faculty.

 

Source:   Radcliffe College. Report of the President of Radcliffe College 1914-15, pp. 41-42.

Image Source: From front matter of the bound version of  The Radcliffe Bulletin, 1912-13 in the Harvard University Library.

 

 

Categories
Curriculum Economists Gender

Smith College. Henry L. Moore’s teaching, 1898-99

 

Looking for something quite different, I stumbled upon this picture of the young Henry Ludwell Moore from 1898 when he taught at Smith College. Since I very much like to display pictures of members of the economists’ pantheon from when they were young, I decided to look for some artifact associated with Moore’s teaching at Smith to include with the picture. For those interested in the history of economics education of women, such course catalogue excerpts from the traditional women’s colleges are of considerable interest.

_____________________

ECONOMICS.

Professor, Henry L. Moore.

  1. General Economics. A thorough course in the elements of the science. Lectures, recitations and papers. Text-book, Walker’s Political Economy (Advanced Course). Elective for Juniors, and, together with 2, alternate with History 5 or 8 in the group-system. Three hours a week for the first semester.
  2. Applied Economics. The Tariff; Railroad Transportation; Money. Lectures, recitations and debates. Elective for Juniors, and, together with 1, alternate with History 6 or 8 in the group-system. Three hours a week for the second semester.
  3. Modern Industrial Combinations. A study of Trusts, Pools and Corners. Elective for Seniors. Two hours a week for the first semester.
  4. Socialism and Social Reformers. A critical study of theories of the French and German Socialists, the Christian Socialists in England, the Fabians and the Nationalists. Elective for Seniors. Two hours a week for the second semester.

Source:   Official Circular of Smith College.  1898-99, p. 23.

Image Source:  Henry L. Moore in Classbook of 1898, Smith College.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Gender Undergraduate

Columbia. Economics and social science curriculum as of Dec. 1898

 

One of the duller parts of my project that covers roughly a century’s development (1870-1970) of undergraduate and graduate economics education is gathering information on the nuts-and-bolts of curriculum structure. Today, looking at a report of the Faculty of Political Science published in the December 1898 issue of Columbia University Quarterly, I saw the announcement that 1898-99 was the first time that women were admitted to graduate courses in history and economics. The report also presented an easy to follow outline of the four or five year curriculum in economics and the social sciences. The idea behind the curriculum was to provide an orderly and logical sequence of courses, yet with sufficient flexibility to serve the needs of undergraduates, graduates (a.k.a. specialists), and special students (those from outside the Faculty of Political Science).

_____________________________

Other Relevant Columbia University Artifacts

_____________________________

Highlights from the December 1898 report of the Faculty of Political Science

For the first time in its history women are admitted to its courses in history and economics, but only women who are graduates and who are competent to carry on the work of the courses. No women are admitted as special students or to the courses given to the undergraduates, the idea being to put the women graduate students on the same footing as the men, giving them the same opportunities.” p. 75.

“Several new volumes in the series of Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law are now completed, including volumes eight and nine. These studies comprise the most successful of the dissertations which are submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the doctor’s degree.”

Economics and social science curriculum (four or five years)

“Columbia University has attempted thus to formulate in the Department of Economics and Social Science a programme that shall be systematic, in the sense of orderly development and logical sequence (the course covers four or five years), and at the same time flexible, for the purpose of meeting the just demands of a great variety of students—the undergraduate, the specialist, and the special student.” p. 77.

Junior year economics:

“The undergraduate begins with the Economic History of England and America (Economics 1), which gives him that understanding of the evolution of economic institutions, such as the systems of land tenure, the factory system, the institutions of commerce and trade, which is necessary for any approach to economic discussion. That is followed by the Elements of Political Economy (Economics A), where the fundamental principles of the science are laid down and illustrated by contemporary events. These courses are usually taken during the Junior year, but may be taken a year earlier by students desiring to specialize in this direction. The lettered course is required of every student, and is in the nature of logical discipline for clear reasoning and a preparation for good citizenship. The College is held thereby to have discharged its duty to itself, in fulfilling the minimum required for the degree of A.B., and to the community, in inculcating sound principles in its graduates.” p. 76.

Senior year economics:

“For the majority of undergraduates these courses are but the preliminary sketch, the details of which are to be filled out by the more intensive study of Senior year. For this abundant opportunity is offered in the course on modern industrial problems, money, and labor (Economics 3), in the treatment of finance and taxation (Economics 4) and in the critical consideration of theories of socialism and projects of social reform (Economics 10 and 11). At the same time the elements of sociology (Sociology 15) furnish a broader foundation for generalization in regard to the fundamental principles of social life, and afford the student on the eve of graduation an opportunity to coordinate his knowledge of history, economics, philosophy, and ethics into a theory of society.

These courses of Senior year constitute the fundamental university courses, and are frequented by graduates of other colleges and by many students from the law school, the theological seminaries, and Teachers College, who find them valuable as auxiliary to their main lines of study. For the specialist and special student these courses in their turn are preliminary. They form the introduction to the university courses proper.” pp. 76-77.

Graduate (or specialist) economics:

“Here the specialist finds opportunity for development in economic theory (Economics 8, 9, and 10) and for further practical work (Economics 5 and 7), for sociological theory (Sociology 20, 21, and 25), for the treatment of problems of crime and pauperism (Sociology 22 and 23). and for the theory and practice of statistics as an instrument of investigation in all the social sciences (Sociology 17, 18, and 19). Crowning the whole are the seminars in political economy and sociology, and the statistical laboratory, where the student is trained for original work.” p. 77.

_____________________________

Faculty of Political Science
[Full Report for Dec. 1898 Columbia University Quarterly]

Department of History.—The late war seems to have had its effect on educational matters, and several resulting tendencies have been particularly marked at Columbia University. Thus, in the School of Political Science the attendance of students in the course on the general principles of international law has been very large and much interest is being manifested in the subject. Ordinarily this course, as well as a number of others treating of kindred subjects, is given by Professor Moore, who is at present in the service of the United States government. In his absence the course is being conducted by Mr. Edmond Kelly, who has lectured before the school on numerous occasions. Professor Moore’s course on diplomatic history is now being given by Dr. Frederic Bancroft, formerly librarian of the State Department, and a former lecturer in this Faculty.

The Faculty of Political Science has commenced the term with every indication of a most prosperous year. For the first time in its history women are admitted to its courses in history and economics, but only women who are graduates and who are competent to carry on the work of the courses. No women are admitted as special students or to the courses given to the undergraduates, the idea being to put the women graduate students on the same footing as the men, giving them the same opportunities.

The number of publications from the members of this faculty is constantly increasing, and several important works have recently been published or are in preparation. The Macmillan Company will soon publish Professor John B. Clark’s two-volume work on the distribution of wealth and the new edition of Professor Seligman’s Shifting and Incidence of Taxation. Several new volumes in the series of Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law are now completed, including volumes eight and nine. These studies comprise the most successful of the dissertations which are submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the doctor’s degree. Professor Robinson has just published a volume entitled Petrarch’s Letters, and Professor Munroe Smith’s Study of Bismarck has been issued from the University Press.

As Wednesday, October 19, was appointed Lafayette Day, President Low arranged for an address on “The Life and Services to this Country of Lafayette,” by Professor J. H. Robinson.

The department of history has enrolled about four hundred students from Columbia and Barnard. It offers a total of thirty-three courses. The new circular which explains fully its resources and gives a detailed account of its work can be had on application to the Secretary of the University. Professor Dunning is absent on leave. He is spending the winter in Rome, engaged in certain researches connected with the history of political theories and ancient institutions.

W. M. S. [William M. Sloane]

 

Department of Economics and Social Science.—The courses in this department have been so systematized as to meet the needs of both undergraduate and graduate students, while offering to other members of the University and of allied institutions the opportunity to broaden their studies by some knowledge of social theory and social problems.

The undergraduate begins with the Economic History of England and America (Economics 1), which gives him that understanding of the evolution of economic institutions, such as the systems of land tenure, the factory system, the institutions of commerce and trade, which is necessary for any approach to economic discussion. That is followed by the Elements of Political Economy (Economics A), where the fundamental principles of the science are laid down and illustrated by contemporary events. These courses are usually taken during the Junior year, but may be taken a year earlier by students desiring to specialize in this direction. The lettered course is required of every student, and is in the nature of logical discipline for clear reasoning and a preparation for good citizenship. The College is held thereby to have discharged its duty to itself, in fulfilling the minimum required for the degree of A.B., and to the community, in inculcating sound principles in its graduates.

For the majority of undergraduates these courses are but the preliminary sketch, the details of which are to be filled out by the more intensive study of Senior year. For this abundant opportunity is offered in the course on modern industrial problems, money, and labor (Economics 3), in the treatment of finance and taxation (Economics 4) and in the critical consideration of theories of socialism and projects of social reform (Economics 10 and 11). At the same time the elements of sociology (Sociology 15) furnish a broader foundation for generalization in regard to the fundamental principles of social life, and afford the student on the eve of graduation an opportunity to coordinate his knowledge of history, economics, philosophy, and ethics into a theory of society.

These courses of Senior year constitute the fundamental university courses, and are frequented by graduates of other colleges and by many students from the law school, the theological seminaries, and Teachers College, who find them valuable as auxiliary to their main lines of study. For the specialist and special student these courses in their turn are preliminary. They form the introduction to the university courses proper.

Here the specialist finds opportunity for development in economic theory (Economics 8, 9, and 10) and for further practical work (Economics 5 and 7), for sociological theory (Sociology 20, 21, and 25), for the treatment of problems of crime and pauperism (Sociology 22 and 23). and for the theory and practice of statistics as an instrument of investigation in all the social sciences (Sociology 17, 18, and 19). Crowning the whole are the seminars in political economy and sociology, and the statistical laboratory, where the student is trained for original work.

Columbia University has attempted thus to formulate in the Department of Economics and Social Science a programme that shall be systematic, in the sense of orderly development and logical sequence (the course covers four or five years), and at the same time flexible, for the purpose of meeting the just demands of a great variety of students—the undergraduate, the specialist, and the special student.

R. M.-S. [Richmond Mayo-Smith]

 Source: Columbia University Quarterly, Vol. 1 (December 1898), pp. 74-77.

Image Source:  Art and Picture Collection, The New York Public Library. (1890). Columbia University Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e0-cc6c-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

 

Categories
Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard-Radcliffe. Economics Ph.D. alumna, Eleanor Dulles, c.v. early 1960s

 

This morning I stumbled across a c.v. for the Radcliffe M.A. and Ph.D. alumna, Eleanor Lansing Dulles,  that I found earlier in the papers of Herbert Fürth (Gottfried Haberler’s brother-in-law and Federal Reserve Board economist) at the Hoover Institution archives. While there is no date on the c.v., it would appear that it could have been prepared around 1961, though one item (International Board for construction in Berlin) is listed as running through 1964.

Her obituary in the New York Times (November 4, 1996). Best quote:

”[The State Department] is a real man’s world if ever there was one,” she said in 1958. ”It’s riddled with prejudices. If you are a woman in Government service you just have to work 10 times as hard — and even then it takes much skill to paddle around the various taboos. But it is fun to see how far you can get in spite of being a woman.”

Worth viewing are the few minutes taken from the National Portrait Gallery’s video interview of Eleanor Dulles (at age 93) conducted by Marc Pachter on November 28, 1988. She was 101 years old at the time of her death.

The major collection of her papers are at George Washington University. Papers are also to be found at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and at Princeton University.

__________________

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Radcliffe College

Eleanor Lansing Dulles, A.M.
Subject: Economics.
Special Field: International Finance.
Dissertation: “TheFrench Franc Since the War.”

Source: Radcliffe College, Report of the Dean 1925-26, p. 25.

__________________

ELEANOR LANSING DULLES

Employment Record
(See also studies)
1917-1919 Refugee relief work—France
1920-1921 Employment Management—Steel Mill, etc.
1921-1922 London School of Economics—Investigation of English Industrial methods in 75 firms
1924-1936 Teaching 8 years

Simmons College
Bryn Mawr
University of Pennsylvania

Research 1925-26, 1928-1932
Study of Unemployment Insurance in England (for President Hoover) 1931
Economic advisor to investment counselor
New York City, 1932
Government
1936 Social Security Board

Director of Financial Research
(Tax, income, and investment studies)

Represented U.S. Government at Geneva Conference on Investment of Social Security Funds, 1938

1942-1961 Department of State

Postwar planning Germany, Austria, UNRRA, British balance of payments, etc.

Bretton Woods Banks (attended conference)

Vienna, Austria (1945-49) Financial Attaché

Berlin reconstruction, investment, (1952-1960)

Underdeveloped countries
(Studies of 60 Asian, African and Latin American countries, travelled in 42)

Detailed to National Production Board 1951-52

Representative on Petroleum Committee for Defense

Originator of Benjamin Franklin Foundation

International Board for construction in Berlin 1956-1964

Personal Rank of Minister—1960
Awards and Degrees
1934 Phi Beta Kappa, University of Pennsylvania
1950 LL.D., Wilson College
1955 Distinguished Service Medal, Radcliffe
1957 Dr. h. c. rerum, Political & Econ. Science, Free University of Berlin
1957 LL.D., Western College for Women, Oxford, Ohio
1957 Carl Schurz-Steuben Plaque for Distinguished Service in furthering German-American cultural relations, presented at Berlin
1959 Ernst Reuter Medallion for Service to Berlin
1960 Citation for Distinguished Service, Bryn Mawr College
Studies and Fellowships
1914-17 A.B. Bryn Mawr College
(First New England scholarship, 1914)
1919-20 M.A. Bryn Mawr College
(Fellow labor & industrial economics)
1921-22 London School of Economics
1922-26 M.A., Ph.D. Radcliffe and Harvard College
1925-27 Faculté de Droit, University of Paris
Other courses: Bonn, Germany; Geneva, Switzerland

Languages: French, German, Spanish

Public Relations
For many years I have been on the roster for public speaking for the Department of State.

I have given some 100 or more speeches mainly in this country and have appeared on television and radio.

Publications
The French Franc, 1914-1928.
MacMillan, New York, 1929, pp. 570

A study of inflation, public finance, speculation, and changing international financial relationships with consideration of political and economic factors.

The Bank for International Settlements at Work.
Macmillan, New York, 1932, pp. 631

The origins and early operations of the BIS, the hopes for a world bank, plans for international investment and clearance mechanism, bank policy in relation to the central banks of various nations.

The Dollar, the Franc, and Inflation.
MacMillan, New York, 1933, pp. 100

A short discussion of recurrent characteristics of inflation, the dangers to special groups, and to the economy as a whole.

Depression and Reconstruction—A Study of Causes and Controls.
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1936, pp. 340

A review of alleged causes of the depression of 1929 and subsequent years, an appraisal of major national and international maladjustments and areas of disturbance and relationships changing in the development of a dynamic policy.

Financing the Social Security Act, 1936

Basic study of the tax and benefit laws and formuli.

Fiscal Capacity of States

Planned (1938) and supervised a five year study in Social Security Board of the income and capacity to pay taxes of the states & localities.

Among the several hundred articles published are for instance:

The Evolution of Reparation Ideas
The French Franc, 1928-1934
The Export-Import Bank—The First Ten Years, 1943
War and Investment Opportunity
Inflation
The Impact of the United States on Europe
The Arithmetic (financial) of Postwar Occupation
Africa—Hopes and Contradictions

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives, Papers of J. Herbert Furth, Box 4.

Image Source:. World Bank webpage: The Bretton Woods Institutions turn 60/Breaking the Mold.

Categories
Agricultural Economics Gender Harvard

Harvard-Radcliffe. Economics Ph.D. alumna Barbara Benton Reagan, 1952

 

This post is another in the series “Meet an Economics Ph.D.” It offers several items about the life and career of Harvard economics Ph.D. (1952), Barbara Benton Reagan. A few years before she died, she was interviewed about the history of the economics department at Southern Methodist University. A link to the video is provided as the first item. A note in the University of Texas alumni magazine from 1966 is then followed by her 2002 obituary. Links (to jstor.org) for her work on women in economics are included at the end of the post.

Barbara Reagan was a founding member of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession.

Fun Fact:  Barbara Reagan’s daughter, Patricia, received a Ph.D. in economics from M.I.T. (1980) and went on to join the Department of Economics at Ohio State University. This is only the second mother-daughter  economist pair thus far at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror (the first was Nancy and Patricia Ruggles).

_____________

Oral history of Southern Methodist University’s department of economics

Betty Maynard  interviews Barbara Reagan, Professor Emerita of Economics, on October 27, 2000. (57 minute interview)

_____________

From the University of Texas Alumni Magazine

Lady home-farm economist

            The only woman on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Advisory Committee is Dr. Barbara Benton Reagan, BS in HE ’41 with honors, a professor at Texas Women’s University, Denton.
Dr. Reagan is also the only woman member of the advisory committee to the Agriculture Policy Institute, chairman of the research committee of the Texas Association of College Teachers, a member of the T.W.U. Graduate Council, and the author of many published analyses and studies.
The committee concerned with economic research is composed of 11 men and R. Reagan, and they recently reviewed more than $12,000,000 worth of research. The results of their surveys are used by nutritionists, marketing experts and others.
At T.W.U., she is professor of home management and family economics, as well as director of Ph.D. and M.A. theses programs.
A onetime Ferguson Fellow at Harvard, Dr. Reagan is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and is listed in Who’s Who of American Women, and the forthcoming Who’s Who in American Education.
Her husband, Dr. Sidney Reagan, BBA ’37 with honors, LL.B. ’41, is chairman of S.M.U.’s department of general business and has charge of the university’s real-estate program. They live in Dallas.

Source:  The Alcade (University of Texas Alumni Magazine), April, 1966, p. 37.

_____________

Obituary for Barbara Benton Reagan

[31 May 1920 San Antonio TX—9 Dec 2002 Dallas TX]

REAGAN, BARBARA BENTON, was born May 31, 1920, in San Antonio to Colonel William Benton and Cora Martin Benton. She was reared by her beloved aunt, Phoebe Benton Ulrich, after the death of her mother during the 1928 polio epidemic. She received her early schooling through high school in San Antonio and won a scholarship to Mary Baldwin College 1937. The following year she transferred to the University of Texas in Austin, where she served as President of the campus YWCA and was a member of the Kappa Alpha Theta sorority. She met her husband, Sydney Reagan, at a YWCA Retreat in New Braunfels in 1939 when he was President of the Student Body. She received her BS degree with honors in 1941. Barbara and Sydney Reagan were married September 1, 1941, in Indianapolis. They moved to Washington, D.C., where she earned an MA in Statistics from American University in 1947. They both attended Harvard University, where she earned a PhD in Economics in 1952. Her dissertation advisor was the eminent agricultural economist John D. Black. During her years at Harvard, she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She was a noted scholar specializing in employment and labor market discrimination. Barbara and Sydney returned to Washington, where they both served as economists in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Their daughter, Patricia, was born in 1954. Their son, Sydney, was born in 1955. The family moved to Dallas in 1955, when Sydney took as a position as Professor of Economics at Southern Methodist University. Barbara returned to work in 1959 as a Professor of Home Economics at Texas Woman’s University. She was named Professor of Economics at Southern Methodist University in 1967, where she remained until her retirement in 1990. She served as Department Chair 1984-1990. During her tenure at SMU, she served as Assistant to the President for Student Academic Services with line responsibility for the Office of Admissions, Registrar, and Financial Aid (1975-76). She was President of the Faculty Senate 1981-1982. Barbara published numerous articles in academic journals, including the American Economic Review and Journal of Economic Literature. She published several books, including one prepared for The National Academy Press. She was a founding member of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession, an influential organization within the American Economics Association. She served as President of the Southwestern Social Sciences Association, 1978-79. An active and respected member of the Dallas community, Barbara was a member of the Dallas Economists Club and Town and Gown since 1975. She was a Director of the Federal Home Loan Bank, Region IX, 1981-85. She served on the Board of Directors of American Savings Bank 1990-97. She was also on the Board of Directors of The Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation from 1991-97, serving as Chair 1994-95. Barbara was very active in the women’s rights movement, serving as Founder and Board Member of Women for Change, Dallas, and the Women’s Center of Dallas Advisory Board, where she was President in both 1981 and 1994. Barbara received numerous awards, including the M Award for Service to SMU in 1972, Outstanding Teacher SMU 1972, and the Willis M. Tate for Outstanding Faculty Member 1982. She received the Dallas Outstanding Women-Helping-Women Award in 1980, and the American Association of University Women Laurel Award 1983. She is listed in Who’s Who in Economics, American Men and Women of Science, Who’s Who of American Women, Who’s Who in American Education, Outstanding Educators in America, and Who’s Who in America. Barbara is a third-generation member of PEO active since 1941. She is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution as a descendant of Isaac Parker. Barbara is survived by her husband Sydney C. Reagan of Dallas, her son Sydney, daughter Patricia, and four grandchildren. Services with no viewing will be held at 11:00 A.M. Tuesday, December17, 2002 at Northhaven Methodist Church in Dallas. In lieu of flowers, contributions can be made to Northhaven United Methodist Church, 11211 Preston Road, Dallas, Texas 75230. These funds will be used in Barbara’s name to promote education among women….

Source: Dallas Morning News, December 14, 2002.

 

_____________

Selected papers

Reagan, Barbara B., and Betty J. Maynard. “Sex Discrimination in Universities: An Approach through Internal Labor Market Analysis.” AAUP Bulletin 60, no. 1 (1974): 13-21.

Reagan, Barbara B. “Two Supply Curves for Economists? Implications of Mobility and Career Attachment of Women.” The American Economic Review 65, no. 2 (1975): 100-07.

Martha Blaxall; Barbara Benton Reagan (1976). Women and the Workplace: The Implications of Occupational Segregation. University of Chicago Press.

Blaxall, Martha, and Barbara B. Reagan. “Preface.” Signs 1, no. 3 (1976): Viii-Ix.

Reagan, Barbara B., and Martha Blaxall. “Introduction: Occupational Segregation in International Women’s Year.” Signs 1, no. 3 (1976): 1-5.

Strober, Myra H., and Barbara B. Reagan. “Sex Differences in Economists’ Fields of Specialization.” Signs 1, no. 3 (1976): 303-17.

Reagan, Barbara B. “Stocks and Flows of Academic Economists.” The American Economic Review 69, no. 2 (1979): 143-47.

 

Image Source:  Southern Methodist University yearbook, The Rotunda 1976, p. 80.

 

Categories
Economists Gender Germany Irwin Collier M.I.T. Yale

Farewell lecture of Irwin Collier, FU-Berlin. July 4, 2018

The ceremonial bookends to a professorship in a German university consist of an inaugural and a farewell lecture. I spoke before a public that included the six disciplines represented in the John-F.-Kennedy Institute for North American Studies (besides economics: political science, sociology, history, cultural studies and literature) as well as colleagues from the economics and business faculty of Freie Universität Berlin. Those attending included first-year undergraduates through the oldest cohorts of emeritus professors. I needed a lecture to keep the filled hall alert for 45 minutes on a particularly warm Berlin summer afternoon. I chose the fourth of July because there was no World Cup soccer on the day to compete with.

The ceremony began with an introduction by the Institute’s director, Professor Christian Lammert, who provided a comparative analysis of the twitter activity of President Donald Trump and me. It is a great way to get laughs and a gentle way to roast an honoree. Try it at your next official function, you’ll be glad you did.

Next a local American folksinger, John Shreve, warmed up the crowd for me with two songs, after which I took to the lectern and presented the following remarks. 

________________________

“Reflections on academic communities, clans, and clubs”

Abschiedsvorlesung of Prof. Irwin Collier, Ph.D.

John-F.-Kennedy Institute for North American Studies
Freie Universität Berlin
4 July 2018

One of the self-granted privileges of age, is to talk about oneself under the altruistic guise of sharing experience. And for this I beg your indulgence. On the other hand this is a farewell lecture, what else could you really expect? Now you needn’t worry that I am about to spew the cumulated bile of an underappreciated, unfortunate scholar bitter at the prospect of sealing his academic obscurity with a ceremony where others are about to celebrate his exit. While as delightful as it would be to speak long-repressed truth to the powers-that-be, this occasion lends itself to thoughtful reflection. No, instead I’ll offer from my own experience a few simply illustrative stories that most of you can relate to either through direct personal experience or have heard within your personal information bubbles.

Before getting started, let me make one thing pedantically clear: when I use the words “community”, “clan”, and “club” in what follows, but especially those latter two words, they are only to be understood as short-hand, metaphorical labels. I trust there is no need for attempting Über-precision in what is after all only offered as a series of personal reflections. My intention in speaking of communities, clans, and clubs is to offer you a simple alliterative triad that has a better chance of surviving into long-term memory than, say, “communities, tribes, and networks”, though that is what I actually mean, to be honest.

When I say academic both as adjective and noun, it is in the sense of having to do with individual membership in “the Academy” broadly understood.  I have always liked how the words “scholar and scientist” fit comfortably within the single German word “Wissenschaftler” and the Academy for me has its foundation in the Humboldtian dual mandate of research and instruction. We, the scholars and scientists of universities, have answered the call to follow that dual mandate. Of course knowledge gets produced outside the hallowed halls of the university and there are plenty of institutions that exist with the sole mission of advanced instruction. As an economist I have mostly good things to say about such division-of-labor and specialization.  But personally, I have spent about a half-century studying or working within a university setting, and half that time here at Freie Universität, so my preference is clearly revealed to serve that dual mandate.

Having a career-long interest in the history of economics, I have often had occasion to consider the life of scholars among scholars. While the filiation of ideas typically takes center stage in histories of economics (by this I mean the chronicle of how Adam Smith’s ideas begat those of David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus, that in turn begat the ideas of John Stuart Mill, that begat innovations by William Stanley Jevons, on to the synthesis by Alfred Marshall and so on up to the present day), sometimes historians of economics explore the ideas of economists within particular historical contexts (e.g., the Progressive Era, the New Deal or the Thatcher-Reagan revolution) or within the specific policy debates of their times (protectionism, industrial policy, social insurance, monetary policy rules). This afternoon I will be guilty of thinking aloud about the social context of the creation and diffusion of scientific methods and knowledge generally. Since I am an economist, presumably what I have to say fits my home discipline best. Nonetheless I would wager at least one free lunch that the structures and mechanisms I have identified are present at least in some modified form elsewhere in the Academy.

Now somewhere in my unordered college papers that have followed me from New Haven to Cambridge, Massachusetts down to Princeton, then Houston and finally a transatlantic trip to Berlin in 1994, followed by three moves within the greater Berlin area there must be the original acceptance letter I received from Yale in the Spring of 1969.  One phrase in that letter has been etched into my memory, namely, that I was thereby welcomed into the “community of scholars”. I can smile now when thinking about the enthusiasm and naiveté of that boy turning man about to embark on his journey of academic life. A “community of scholars” turns out to have been what I had sought and what I was convinced I found in the undergraduate life of Yale College. When I first explored the stacks in the tower of Sterling Memorial Library and argued about philosophy and politics in beer-fueled bull-sessions into the night with my roommates and classmates, I felt at one with a much larger academic community, not merely that of the Yale microcosm but one extending to the authors of century-old books with uncut pages waiting to be discovered in the stacks. As far as the larger academic community in that thin slice of the historical present, well, I felt cosmopolitan to a fault. I saw no higher calling than that of the scholar/scientist. Excellence was not about winning a phi-beta-kappa key for display, it was about serving a higher purpose within that greater community of scholars. I believed that the true academic freely contributed and imbibed from the ever growing pool of human knowledge and was free from lesser motives. Life-work balance could not be an issue, the life and work of an academic were simply an identity.

Two modifications of my scholar’s life plan resulted from changes in scenery: an internship in Washington DC and later graduate school along the Charles River in Cambridge, Mass.

During my early undergraduate years I had little concern for applying knowledge for good, it seemed too much like engineering. Two spells in Washington, D.C. as an intern at the Council of Economic Advisers during the highpoint of the Watergate crisis taught me much about the importance of the work of policy wonks, a concept that only gained currency decades later during the Clinton Administration. My respect grew for the leaves of absence for public service or earlier work in the war effort (WWII) that I found was quite common among my professors.  Had plan A, serving the university dual mandate, not have worked, I probably would have pursued my personal happiness with a plan B, working as a government economist perhaps in the Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Labor Statistics or Bureau of the Census and this afternoon’s ceremony would most likely be taking place in some office building in the District of Columbia. But it was still clear under either Plan A or Plan B, I would need further training.

Graduate School at M.I.T. marked a transition to a higher concentration of economics than I would have ever considered possible and looking back can hardly believe I survived with any dignity. Graduate coursework was not conceived according to the tenets of liberal arts to broaden the mind. Quite to the contrary, the graduate coursework at M.I.T. was an intellectual boot-camp, where the brain got trained without ever so much as a doubt on the part of the drill-sergeants or the recruits themselves whether this was a good way to educate a professional economist.  You want to be a Navy Seal, OK, it’s your choice…and if it turns out to be too much for you to handle, ring the bell, take your M.A. and leave honorably. Of course I am exaggerating, but I do recall a West-Point graduate in my class who declared that graduate school was the most academic freedom that he had ever enjoyed. Incidentally, that M.I.T. classmate turns up in Michael Lewis’ The Big Short as having been the chief risk officer for Morgan Stanley during the financial meltdown in 2008. I’ll add here that another classmate was a principal in Long-Term Capital Management when that famous hedge fund crashed and burned in 1998. I became an expert on the East German economy and we all know what happened there in 1989. You can see the pattern, but I digress…

Clearly I wouldn’t be standing here before you today had I not survived the rigors of graduate school. In a meantime that spans not quite a half-century I have come to the realization that a “community of scholars” is actually only a Platonic ideal, something as unreal yet appealing as the Garden of Eden, the legend of King Arthur’s court in Camelot or the utopian socialisms that fired the imaginations of radical progressives in the second half of the 19th century. And yet, my experience from dealing in an academic setting, having had contact with many permutations of human natures and across a few societies, has not at all discouraged me from the quixotic quest of building or becoming a part of a genuine community of scholars. The fundamental question we all face is how to get nearer there from here. Plot spoiler: this is my farewell lecture so that can gets kicked down the road for you young folks here.

My thesis is that real existing research and instruction take place in a world spanned by two basic types of institutional frameworks, that we can call clans and clubs for short. Just as there is a spectrum of virtuous behavior along which we, our friends, rivals, and enemies can be placed, clans and clubs differ in the degree to which they help meet the criteria of a “community of scholars”.

So what constitutes an ideal or a genuine community of scholars? (1) Inclusivity. There is no frontier between us and them with respect to the search for knowledge and understanding other than a sharp boundary separating magical thinking from those in the community for whom the collection and honest interpretation of evidence and logical thinking constitute the supporting pillars for science and scholarship.  (2) Meritocratic. There is not a fixed caste system within the community of scholars. It is not a hive with a queen, drones and worker bees. Results from the mixture of individual genius, creativity, good fortune, insight, and discovery are recognized, appropriated, and honored by the community. The demographic fact of overlapping generations results in a natural ordering of junior to senior, but the filial piety of Confucianism must yield the right-of-way to the Wunderkinder in the community of scholars. (3) Self-critical. By this I mean members of a community of scholars share a categorical imperative with respect to criticizing our own work as we criticize that of others. This is important because the accumulation of knowledge and understanding is but an imperfect ratchet. Any one of us, repeat…anyone, has the capacity to pursue dead-ends, and even to forget lessons once learned.  (4) Team spirited. Yet even with all that humility we still have a capacity to cry Eureka upon discovery and other members of the community rejoice at the sound of that cry.

Undoubtedly I have missed a few items in my proposed check list of criteria. But it is easy to see their necessity to be included in any such list by considering what a university would look like when the polar opposite cases occur, where (1´) exclusivity (2´) impermeable stratification (3´) immunity from doubt and/or criticism (4´) Schadenfreude are the rule. Sounds a bit like a sequel to A Handmaid’s Tale without the dramatic costuming doesn’t it?

The essence of club and clan is captured in the Groucho Marx quip “I wouldn’t want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member” and the familiar expression, “You can choose your friends but not your family”.  While I grant that there is a process of selection and self-selection to graduate schools that bears a resemblance to the formal admission procedure for joining a club, there is a good reason to distinguish between the two. In the case of a club you are accepted or rejected for who and what you are.  When you enter, you are a member, a peer. In contrast for a clan, the selection criteria can be quite distinct from the requirements to attain full clan membership.  The network from club membership is valuable to you as a member, but the clan becomes a part of your identity.

But before we talk about this psychological transformation of identity, allow me a brief historical word here.

My research over the past several years has focused on the evolution of graduate training in economics. Both from my own experience but also from listening to colleagues as well as reading random biographical and autobiographical accounts, I became convinced that the critical transmission of the tools of research and the ultimate values that provide the background for the selection of “interesting” questions takes place in graduate schools and there the formation of scholarly character embedded within a network of graduates becomes recognizable as a “school”.  This interest led to an inaugural grant from the Institute for New Economic Thinking for me to begin exploring university archives for documentary material that would prove useful for marking the evolution of economic theories and methods actually acquired by successive cohorts of professional economists in different universities. The research question was to identify the forces that have contributed to the convergence of economics into a contemporaneous mainstream of common scope and methods.

It was in Germany where the modern university seminary for science and scholarship emerged and it provided the ultimate model for research training at the graduate level. And that academic DNA from those seminaries was carried across the Atlantic to the emerging great universities of the United States. Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago and points west all profited from the ambitious young scholars and scientists who had been “made in Germany”. The leading role played by Germany will come again when we turn to clubs.

The clan or tribe has played an enormous role in the history of economics. Just to name a few instances, there was the grand Methodenstreit between Carl Menger of Vienna and Gustav von Schmoller of Berlin in the late 19th century on the relative merits of deduction vs. induction (sort of chicken-or-the-egg debate). The debate was ultimately won in a scientific sense by Menger but the academic street-fighter Schmoller had much greater success in occupying the professorial chairs in the German-language areas of Europe for several generations.

Other notable debates between “schools” of economics include the capital debate between the “two Cambridges” of the 1950s and 1960s, Keynesian fiscalism vs. Chicago monetarism, especially in the 1960s, fresh- vs. salt-water macroeconomics more recently, and there is the always evergreen controversy between Austrian economics (which I note in its present form is neither Austrian nor economics) and wherever the mainstream happens to find itself.   There have been cases in economics where Saul turns into Paul well along in the career. But such late breaks, such as that from the Keynes critic hired by Harvard to the man who brought Keynes to America, Alvin Hansen, or from neo-classical darling to radical economist, Stephen Marglin in the 1960s, have been rare. These are news stories much as “man bites dog” is news, because “dog bites man” is considerably less newsworthy.  The correlation between where and how you have been trained and your research style/policy positions is strong and robust. But of course you ask, is it really causation or a case of post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc inference when there is really a background factor responsible for both?

So what leads me to assert the strong identification of scholar with the school? My pop-psychological explanation is that the intense training and focus of a graduate education brings a young scholar up to humanity’s frontier of knowledge for the first time. That frontier advances rapidly and only a few, certainly not all Ph.D.’s, will move fast enough or long enough to remain on that frontier. Nonetheless that moment of arrival at the hilltop and looking out on the vast, uncharted landscape before you for the first time is a profound life-altering experience in adulthood and there is a warm-fuzzy object that you bond with — it is not a parent, rather it is the collectivity of the professors from whom you have learned and been guided and the authors of the books and papers you have digested in the course of your studies. Sure, later we all pass through a form of intellectual puberty and develop a hypersensitivity to all our professors’ faults. I think back: God there were some really awful teachers, I have witnessed examples of narcissism unchained! Etc.  One of my dearest professors upon hearing that Herbert Simon was awarded a Nobel prize in economics actually said “He can’t be any good, I haven’t read anything he has written.” Later in our careers we might have our own Mark Twain moment: “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

OK, time for a quick summary of what I have been rambling on about thus far. It appears that I had the enormous good fortune to have stumbled into what seemed a virtual academic heaven on earth.  Following that formative period when I acquired my scholarly/scientific values together with a box of analytical tools, it was time for Hänschen-klein to march off into the real world. I was an apprentice turned journeyman sorcerer, a fledgling member of a clan of economists associated with the Yale-MIT axis. Had you asked me at the time what it meant, I would have answered it was really no more than a pedigree, if anything, a signal as to the quality of the people who taught me. Gradually, I learned as I interacted in a professional context with people trained at other places and in other traditions, this Yale-MIT axis signaled belonging to a well-defined clan. Think of West Side Story, the gangs of Sharks and Jets, just without the dancing.

The first inkling I had about the influence of where you learned your economics was as an undergraduate during my Council of Economic Advisers time when a fellow intern, a graduate student from UCLA, derisively commented on the fact that I had waited hours to watch the Watergate Hearing for Nixon’s chief-of-staff H.R. Haldeman, “queues are inefficient”. Subtext: a market should have been created to let a price mechanism allocate the scarce space to the highest bidders.  Since he was my first observation, I thought it was the individual effect talking, i.e., he was just a jerk. But then later another UCLA man, a senior professor at the University of Houston when I was an assistant professor there, nonchalantly dismissed a vast swath of applied economic analysis as we interviewed young people at the annual job market, “Nobody believes welfare economics…”  I recall my first serious encounter with German ordo-liberalism at the University of Siegen. Hearing so much praise for Walter Eucken and his Freiburg school that inspired the policy architects who brought us the German social-market economy led me to read some of his work.  I felt like I was listening to folks speaking German in some remote alpine valley.

The point of these examples is that it was beginning to look to me that how and where you were trained had a major impact on the sorts of questions you asked and the style of argument and the forms of evidence you accepted. Thinking back I expected the sorts of political differences and research strategies would be more-or-less randomly distributed across departments. People, and I stress economists are people, are a heterogeneous bunch, simply put, “a mixed bag”. But even allowing for concentration of the one or other paradigm for research, couldn’t we expect serious scholars to outgrow their apprentice years as they would become exposed to inter-university variation? In a statistical sense I interpreted what I observed, namely, knowing where someone had been trained had “too much” explanatory power for what a mature university research economist would think about economics. You could see a definite family resemblance across the clan. What I still don’t really understand was why academic disputes between clans have almost invariably escalated to the intensity of a shooting feud between the Hatfields and McCoys. But then again, I’m the sort of guy who is still shocked that people are so rude to each other on twitter. The working hypothesis perhaps is best expressed in the adage, “Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.”

Time for another short historical break before reflecting on networks or clubs that academics have established.

Economics became an easily identifiable collective pursuit of truth for the first time in the middle of the 18th century at the court of Louis XV at Versailles where the French Physiocrats coalesced into a self-conscious school for the purpose of enlightened economic policy. They actually called themselves les économistes and they even had their own journal. Their time on the world stage was brief, the French Revolution scattered the school to the winds, and one member, DuPont de Nemours settled in the United States where his son founded the gunpowder business that ultimately became the DuPont corporation. Incidentally Thomas Jefferson’s idealization of the yeoman farmer and contempt for the mercantile classes was a reflection of his reading Physiocratic texts. In England in the nineteenth century political economy was passionately debated among gentlemen in clubs. Members would read their Hume, Smith, Ricardo and Malthus to join the chatter and contribute to the literary magazines of the time debating economic policy.  From about 1935 through 1950 the gradual expansion of mathematical and statistical tools had become such a critical part of the kit of the professional economist that political economy or economics was no longer “clubbable” in the literal sense.

But even before the shift to mathematical and statistical methods had become complete, substitutes for the club were found in the extra-university learned societies, professional associations, and regularly recurring conference groups. All of these networks had established admission procedures to establish whether a potential peer brought the right stuff to the table.

Just as the modern research seminar goes back to the university seminaries of Germany, the Verein für Socialpolitik was officially founded at its conference in Eisenach in October 1873 a year after an initial conference a year earlier also in Eisenach on the “soziale Frage” (social question). This association brought economists, lawyers and government statisticians together. Now some twenty-three standing field committees span the scope of economic research in the German language area. Thanks to a retired colleague, Wolfram Fischer, I received an invitation to become a member of the standing committee for the history of economics. For these standing committees one is invited to present a paper and is voted membership.  The Verein itself used to be the sort of association that members had to propose candidates whose approval then was voted upon.

The very same American students who studied in the German seminaries of economics during the last third of the 19th century, returned to become founding members of the American Economic Society, that unlike the Verein für Socialpolitik, which was long to have a sharp anti-Manchester capitalism profile, reached out to their classic liberal colleagues who initially resisted joining forces. From its early years the American Economic Association was a bigger tent than the Verein für Socialpolitik.

Two other societies worth mention are the international Econometric Society that was dedicated to the use of mathematical and formal statistical modeling in economics. It was first organized in December 1930 in Cleveland, Ohio with Joseph Schumpeter chairing a meeting of sixteen people who elected Irving Fisher of Yale as its president. The Econometric Society then met officially for the first time the following September in Lausanne. Not quite four decades later dissatisfaction with the scope of mainstream economics that focused excessively on “plenty” and with too little attention to its distribution and almost none to issues of power and politics, the Union of Radical Political Economy was founded in 1968 (This year celebrating its fiftieth anniversary at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst).

In the course of the Allied Social Sciences Meeting every year, field associations organize their panels where the networks of colleagues meet.  Of course no list of clubs would be complete without mentioning the Mt. Pelerin Society founded by economists along with historians and philosophers at the invitation of Friedrich Hayek in 1947 and which formed a bedrock of neoliberalism, long before it was fashionable.

As we say, birds of a feather, flock together and the communication among researchers working on similar topics, using similar methods, interested in the same kinds of evidence is necessary for the success of the cooperative endeavor. These networks allow sub-fields to achieve scales impossible to expect in all but the largest and richest university settings. Indeed stepping back and regarding the research output of these professional clubs whose membership spans university, disciplinary, territorial bounds, few of us would want to go back to the high days of the London Political Economy Club or even the early days of the relatively exclusive professional societies requiring formal nomination for membership.

At this point I need to insert a big fat German “Aber…” (But…). The clans and clubs of economics (and economics is hardly unique here) have a diversity problem with respect to, I’ll limit myself to the United States here, race, ethnicity, and gender. In the course of my INET funded research, I have examined archived economics departmental records of M.I.T. from the 1970s dealing with the recruitment and subsequent performance of students from traditional black colleges and of women admitted to the program. Something that struck me was the sheer experimental willingness of this overwhelmingly white, male and politically liberal department to expand the numbers of blacks and women in the economics Ph.D. program. Of course M.I.T., sitting at the apex of the economics graduate programs at that time, was able to recruit easily. But after several years, the realization set in that to avoid the creation of a Zwei-Klassensystem (twin tracks) the recruiting pools needed to be equalized and this would require a strategic switch to recruiting aggressively and exclusively from elite undergraduate programs. Having been an observer-participant from a time that I can now witness again in an archival light, I appreciate the dilemma felt by the M.I.T. economics department then between increasing the inclusivity of the clan but only at the cost of an increased risk of failure for precisely those new groups who had been previously overlooked.

Let us shift focus now from entry to the clan to the issue of gender diversity in the clubs or professional networks.  [Due to unexpected turbulence, the captain has turned on the fasten seat belt sign.] Last year a dynamite paper originally submitted as a Berkeley senior thesis was published by Alice H. Wu “Gender Stereotyping in Academia: Evidence From Economics Job Market Rumors Forum”. Ms. Wu processed more than a million posts from the anonymous online message board econjobrumors.com.  It is as close to systematic eavesdropping around a water cooler that can be done legally. It turns out that the ordered list of the thirty words most uniquely associated with women were (warning: NSFW): [read list very quickly] “hotter, lesbian, bb (internet speak for “baby”), sexism, tits, anal, marrying, feminazi, slut, hot, vagina, boobs, pregnant, pregnancy, cute, marry, levy, gorgeous, horny, crush, beautiful, secretary, dump, shopping, date, nonprofit [?!], intentions, sexy, dated and prostitute”. The analogous men-words included: [read slower] “juicy, keys, adviser, bully, prepare, fought, wharton, austrian, checkers, homo [!], genes, mathematician, advisor, burning, pricing, philly, band, nobel, amusing, greatest, textbook, goals, irate”–with the singular exception of a homophobic slur, not nearly so much to be ashamed of in guy gossip…about guys. But even before the publication of Wu’s paper, the active standing Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession of the American Economic Association was addressing issues of sexual harassment and drafting of codes of conduct. Manels (i.e., panels consisting of only men) still occur quite regularly at professional meetings but the outcry cannot be overheard. Let us just say, the situation regarding the issue of gender falls seriously short of the Platonic community of scholars, but it is not hopeless. I say this as a member of Yale’s first four-year coeducational class — looking back a half-century the differences for the better are truly striking.

I see the shortfall in meeting the criterion of inclusivity less to be found either on the race or gender fronts where important corners have been turned. The greater problem seems to me to be one of a relentless trend in which we observe the homogenization of particular methods and approaches to the exclusion of others. For a five-year old with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Today’s heterodoxy can improve the quality of the flow in the mainstream as well as vice-versa. Loyalty to the clan is only a virtue to the extent that your clan is up to good. Besides the obligation to expose one’s future students to a wide-range of views, as good as we feel and as justly we might think that we can adequately summarize “the other side”, we Hatfields are probably a poor substitute for the real McCoy.

Calls for broadening the curriculum clash with the budgetary realities forcing faculties to choose a balance between breadth and depth in the coverage of fields and methods. But my decades in this business have led me to conclude that we have less to fear from the tragic constellation of beer budgets and champagne tastes than we have to fear from the narcissistic gene of scholars, present company excluded of course (I want to be able to eat lunch in Dahlem in the future!). That narcissistic gene leads even top scholars to attempt to clone themselves into entire faculties. My hope is that a pragmatic tolerance and taste for diversity in paradigms can trickle down from senior to junior and through all levels of instruction.

In their modern clubs scholars find kindred spirits, it is there scholars can find honest peer review.  So what could possibly go wrong?  Well here is where we need a second, a vertical dimension to understand what is happening. In a race for status, gatekeepers and judges play an important role. The old question necessarily arises, who will guard the guards? Can we be confident that the norms of the Platonic community of scholars will be able to weather the winds of rivalry for the zero-sum game of status or of self-interested competition for scarce resources?

One expects economists to talk about money. So let’s talk about it in this context. My father once wisely told me when he thought that I was getting too academically big for my real-world britches: brains don’t hire money, money hires brains.   Expressed in terms a Marxist might appreciate:  my father apparently believed that the reproduction cycle goes Money—Brains—Money rather than Brains—Money—Brains. Besides putting the horse (money) before the cart (brains), I can only mention en passant that large private concentrations of wealth can and have been used to support research programs of a particular political stripe just as an unequal distribution in wealth can and has been used for disproportionate political influence (i.e. violating the essential democratic symmetry of one citizen, one vote / one voice). I’ll just mention the documented ability of the Koch brothers to have funneled enormous funds into George Mason University that had strings attached with respect to faculty hires that no self-respecting faculty member could possibly support.

Before I start foaming at the mouth, I pause to bid my colleagues here this afternoon to reflect on the distance they perceive between the Platonic ideal of an academic community and their personal experience.

A lecture title that signals “reflections” is an open confession that no attempt has been made for rigorous argument. My somewhat random walk defies summary. Still I have been raised to think that it is prudent to leave one’s audience with a nugget to share when they leave, in the event that someone should ask what I, the speaker, had to say.

For me (and I am sure for many in this room) the happiest and most productive times were in those moments when I felt firmly embedded within an environment approaching a community of scholars. Academic life has taught me that such communities are mostly figments of some philosopher’s imagination. The work of a scholar, when not the fruit of a monastic life-style, is conducted within clans and clubs. My experiences from a career in university life and listening to the experiences of others have led me to the conclusion that “academic community” is analogous to genius, and when or if ever it really exists, it is extremely rare and probably the result of rather random dependent paths of history rather than the result of conscious human intention. My plea, especially to the undergraduate and graduate students in the room, is not to sink into cynicism once you discover for yourselves that your professors and their professors, that researchers in private or government laboratories, that senior researchers in think-tanks happen to display the shortcomings I have identified in clubs (especially, exclusivity regarding who gets admitted) and clans (especially, an allegiance where blood is thicker than water). Clubs can open themselves and clans can indeed coexist peacefully and even intermarry. Rival research programs need not have to end in blood feuds like the Hatfields and McCoys. While my pursuit of happiness is found in the pursuit of truth, due diligence demands that all of us sharing that pursuit keep a watchful eye on those serving as the gate-keepers of our clubs.

So much for my reflections. Allow me a few personal words in closing.

*  * *  *

One enters and remains in our imperfect community of scholars, in part on one’s own merits but more importantly due to those who trusted that ex post merit would justify ex ante support. These scholars, near colleagues, friends and family members are too numerous to mention outside of an extended written memoir. But without them the arc of my academic life would have ended far short of Freie Universität Berlin. Fostering the development of latent or raw talent made the difference for me and my hope is that I have played a similar role in the academic lives of others.

I have had the pleasure of working with both colleagues and staffs of the Faculties of Business and Economics and the John-F.-Kennedy Institute. Secretaries like our own Kerstin Brunke have provided that first line of defense known as the front office and they deserve medals for valor. Good cheer and a quite competency have served as a wonderful complement to my management-challenged ways of dealing with the world outside.  From the offices of administration in the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences to the bowels of the libraries, I have had a reasonably blessed time. Perhaps we only survive in a Burgfrieden, a truce in times of trouble, but I cannot say that I have suffered either severely or disproportionately. At this point of my professional life I am so happy for the continued emotional and intellectual support provided by my wife, the psychiatrist Prof. Isabella Heuser-Collier, whose own Abschiedsvorlesung at Berlin’s Charité I eagerly await some two years from now.

General Douglas MacArthur immortalized the refrain from an old barracks song in his farewell address to the U.S. Congress in April 19, 1951: “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” In that spirit, beginning this September at Bard College Berlin I shall fade to teaching half-time with an increased emphasis on the history of economics. This will give me significantly more time for transcribing and curating archival artifacts for my blog Economics in the Rear-view Mirror (www.irwincollier.com). I don’t really believe in the prospects of a happy hunting ground in the sky, but as a member of the greater academic community going forward, I find the prospect of my work surviving in a happy virtual cloud in the sky a spur for me to continue my work. I once toyed with the idea of slipping a $100 bill into the library copy of my M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation to reward an anonymous anybody who has decided to fish the dissertation from the safe obscurity of the Dewey library stacks. Now the thought occurs to me that perhaps leaving a bitcoin in the cloud somewhere buried in my blog would be a legacy worthy of a scholar of the early 21st century.

I thank you for your attention this afternoon but especially for being with me now at this cusp of my academic life-cycle.

 

Categories
Cornell Economic History Gender Harvard Home Economics

Cornell. Home Economics. Radcliffe economic history A.M. (1913), Blanche Hazard

 

Having returned from a trip to the U.S. that included participation at the History of Economics Society 2018 meeting in Chicago, I have gone now two weeks without posting. It is easy to explain away the first ten days that actually involved Michigan road-tripping followed by conferencing with colleagues when the opportunity cost of blogging exceeded the joy of welcoming visitors to the latest artifacts posted at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. The last several days have been more a matter of jet-lag recovery and of overcoming the inertia associated with this extended pause from an almost unbroken three year rhythm of select, transcribe, post and tweet. OK, an intertemporally-savvy blogger would have gradually built up an inventory of artifacts and maintained an uninterrupted flow, but that is not, alas, the way this scholar rolls.

This post ventures into the neighboring field of home economics, in particular, to touch upon the brief career of Cornell’s first professor of woman’s studies, Blanche Evans Hazard (1873-1966) who was trained as an economic historian at Radcliffe/Harvard, A.M. awarded by Radcliffe (1913). She lectured on her dissertation topic: “The Organization of the Boot and Shoe Industry in Massachusetts in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century” at the March 18, 1912 of the seminary in economicsHer economics professors included Thomas Nixon Carver and Edwin Francis Gay.While she did not complete the final examination for the Ph.D., her dissertation was published by Harvard University Press. Here a link to texts by Hazard at archive.org.

_______________________

Blanche Hazard, brief biography

Blanche Hazard came to Cornell in 1914 as an assistant professor of home economics, with a special responsibility to develop courses on the history of women and women’s work. After spending two years at Thayer Academy and two years at Radcliffe College, Hazard taught history in both public and private schools, and was head of the Department of History at Rhode Island Normal School from 1899 to 1904. During this period, she was also an officer of the New England Association of Teachers of History in Colleges and Secondary Schools. She became well-known for her lectures at teachers’ conventions on historical methods, as well as for her collaboration with Harvard’s Albert B. Hart on a book about children in the Colonial Era. In 1904, Hazard returned to Radcliffe, where she earned a B.A. in 1907 with first honors in history and government. In 1913, she completed a Ph.D.  at Harvard in history [sic, A.M., according to Earle (see below) who found that Hazard never actually completed the final examination for the Ph.D. though she did in fact complete and publish her dissertation]; her dissertation, The Organization of The Boot and Shoe Industry in Massachusetts Before 1875 (1921), was the first book written by a woman published by Harvard University Press. At Cornell, Hazard and Martha Van Rensselaer collaborated in creating an early version of women’s studies. Hazard taught courses on “Women in Industry,” “Women in the State,” and “History of Housekeeping.” She also wrote a number of pamphlets for the Farmers’ Wives Reading Course, including Civic Duties of Women (1918), which was widely used and reprinted as women prepared to exercise their suffrage. When she left Cornell in 1922 to return to New England and marry, Hazard was a full professor of home economics.

 

Image Source:   From the webpage of the History Center in Tompikins County, Ithaca, N.Y. announcing the March 3, 2018 lecture by Corey Ryan Earle, “Blanche hazard: Pioneering Local Suffragist & Women’s Studies Education”.

Source: Cornell University Library, Division of Rare & Manuscript Collection’s website: From Domesticity to Modernity, What was Home Economics (2001). Webpage: Faculty Biographies: Blanche Hazard.

_______________________

Blanche Hazard, longer biography

See the paper written by Corey Ryan Earle, “An Overlooked Pioneer: Blanche Evans Hazard, Cornell University’s First Professor of Women’s Studies, 1914-1922” that provides much detail, though unable to explain Hazard’s marriage and her withdrawal from academic life. The paper was written during the summer of 2006 when the author was supported by a Dean’s Fellowship in the History of Home Economics by the College of Human Ecology of Cornell University.

_______________________

Image Source: Faculty of Home Economics at Cornell. Cornell University Library, Division of Rare & Manuscript Collection’s website: From Domesticity to Modernity, What was Home Economics (2001). Webpage: Early Faculty Biographies. Note: second row, leftmost is Blanche Hazard.

Categories
Berkeley Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumna Alice Bourneuf, 1955

 

 

In the continuing series, meet an economics Ph.D. alumnus/a, we have here an obituary for the Harvard Ph.D. (1955), Alice Bourneuf, whose career milestones included early work in the IMF through the building up the economics department at Boston College. Paul Samuelson counted her among Schumpeter’s circle of graduate students at Harvard in the 1930’s.

_____________________

Alice Bourneuf (1912-1980)
Boston College Obituary

Alice Bourneuf, professor emeritus, dies
Instrumental in shaping economics department

Alice E. Bourneuf, Boston College economics professor emeritus, died Dec. 7 in Boston after a long illness. Bourneuf, 68, was the first woman to hold a tenured professorate within the College of Arts and Sciences and was instrumental in making the department of economics the distinguished unit it is today.

President Monan was with Bourneuf in her final moments and was principal celebrant of a memorial Mass at the Chapel of the Most Blessed Trinity, Newton Campus, Dec. 13.

Bourneuf was born in Haverhill on Oct. 2, 1912. Her career in education and public service spanned four decades.

She graduated from Radcliffe in 1933 and continued her studies there, receiving the MA in 1939 and the PhD in 1955. An authority on national and international economies, her main fields of research and writing were macroeconomic theory, money and banking, public finance, business cycles, unemployment and investment.

She participated in the formulation of international monetary plans for the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC from 1942 to 1946. From 1946 to 1948 she conducted research on exchange rates and internal financial problems for the International Monetary Fund. She was senior economist for the Marshall Plan in Norway and France from 1948 to 1953.

After teaching at Mt. Holyoke College and the University of California at Berkeley, Bourneuf joined the BC economics department as a tenured full professor in 1959. She retired in 1977.

Recalling Bourneuf, Assoc. Prof. Harold Peterson (Economics) said she was “one of the two or three people who’ve had a profound influence on my life.” He spoke of how she “revolutionized” and “modernized” the economics program here, bringing in new faculty to help her accomplish the task.

“Hers was a constant struggle,” Peterson added. “She showed us immense courage, both in her life and in her death.”

Prof. Michael Mann (Economics) called Bourneuf “a towering figure at BC.” Mann said she was an inspiration not only to her immediate colleagues, but to the entire university and the community-at-large as well. “Alice set standards for academic integrity—for good work, quality work,” Mann said. “Even those who disagreed with her respected her opinions.”

“The economics department at Boston College is now well-known,” said Harvard economist Richard E. Caves. “It’s rise is primarily attributed to Alice Bourneuf.”

MIT economist Paul Samuelson called Bourneuf “a magnificent person and economist.” Recalling Bourneuf’s recruitment activities on behalf of BC, Samuelson said, “When Alice Bourneuf and (economics professor) Fr. Robert McEwen appeared at American Economic Association conventions, department heads quaked for the ivory they were hoarding.”

In 1976, BC established the Bourneuf Award, which is given annually to the outstanding undergraduate in the field of economics. Bourneuf also received honorary degrees from Boston College (1977) and Regis College (1975) and was the recipient of numerous fellowships and honors during her lifetime. In October 1979 the University dedicated Bourneuf House, offices of the academic vice president. Asked about the honor at that time, Bourneuf said, “I can’t believe it or understand it. They should have named it after some famous person.” She leaves four sisters, two brothers and 18 nieces and nephews.

 

Source:   Boston College Biweekly, Volume 1, Number 8, 18 December 1980, pp. 1,4.

Image Source:  Webpage “Breaking the Mold” at the World Bank/IMF website: The Bretton Woods Institutions turn 60.