Categories
Exam Questions Harvard M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Basic graduate microeconomic theory. Chamberlin and Samuelson, 1956-1957

 

For some reason, Paul Samuelson was asked to help out with the teaching of Edward H. Chamberlin’s graduate theory course during the 1956-57 academic year. In Paul Samuelson’s papers at Duke I was able to find a letter from the Harvard economics chair, Seymour Harris, confirming his appointment as “Visiting Professor” for co-teaching Economics 201. The actual “allocation of subject matter” between Chamberlin and Samuelson is not clear from Samuelson’s papers, nor from the course outlines. Since the second semester reading list only has Chamberlin’s name on it, it seems likely that Samuelson’s participation was limited to the first semester of the course. Because Robert Bishop’s manuscript on Economic Theory (taught to generations of M.I.T. graduate students) was included in the first section of the fall semester reading list and we find questions for a one hour mid-term exam in Samuelson’s folder for the course, I am led to conjecture that Samuelson taught most or all of the first half of the fall semester of the course. As we can see from the internal M.I.T. department teaching records included below, Paul Samuelson continued teaching his courses at “Tech” that year.

Perhaps a future trip to Duke University’s David M. Rubenstein Rare Book Manuscript Library  to consult the Edward H. Chamberlin papers that were donated in 2019 will help to establish why Samuelson was needed at Harvard that year.

_________________________

Letter from Chairman Seymour Harris to Paul Samuelson
May 25, 1956

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

May 25, 1956

Professor Paul A. Samuelson
Department of Economics and Social Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

Dear Paul:

Economics 201 meets Tuesday, Thursday, and at the pleasure of the instructor Saturday at 10. It would be hard to change that hour because of the arrangement of other courses, and also because we must have the same hour for the second semester.

I hope that you would get together with Ed and discuss the allocation of subject matter. You can have [Richard] Gill as an assistant, and he would, I am sure, be willing to meet the class once a week when you think it necessary. You will find him a most adequate assistant.

I may add that the Dean has agreed to recommend your appointment as a Visiting Professor, which is an unusual appointment, for most appointments of this kind, inclusive of Tech, are Visiting Lecturers. This suggests the high regard in which we hold you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SEH/c
cc: Professor Chamberlin

P.S. I hope you will remember to bring my article on Saturday and any comments.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Paul Samuelson, Box 33, Folder “Ec201 Harvard Course, 1955-1956 [sic]”.

_________________________

From the M.I.T. economics department records for 1955-56

Paul Samuelson was teaching full time 1956-57. He taught Economics and Industrial Management (14.117) and Mathematical Approach to Economics (14.151) in the fall semester and Economic Analysis (14.122) and Economics Seminar (14.192) in the Spring semester.

Source:  M.I.T. Archives. M.I.T. Department of Economics Records, 1947—. Box 3, Folder “Teaching Responsibility”.

_________________________

Enrollment figures from Harvard President’s Report

[Economics] 201. Economic Theory. Professor Chamberlin and Professor Samuelson (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Full course.

(F) Total 38: 26 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 4 Radcliffe, 5 Others.
(S) Total 39: 27 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 3 Radcliffe, 6 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1956-1957, p. 70.

_________________________

Economics 201
Economic Theory
Fall 1956
READING LIST

I. Supply, Demand, Revenue and Cost

Marshall, Principles (4th edition or later), Book III, Ch. 3, 4, 6

Mill, Principles, Book III, Ch. 1-6

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 2

Schultz, H., Theory and Measurement of Demand, pp. 5-12

Bishop, Economic Theory Ms., Book II, Ch. 1, 2, 3

Viner, Cost Curves and Supply Curves (1930), AFA or Clemence Readings

Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch. 2

Suggested:

Ricardo, Political Economy (Gonner Edition or Sraffa Edition), Chapter I

Mills’ Autobiography or the Introduction to the Ashley edition of the Principles

Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, Chapters 3, 4

Keynes, “Alfred Marshall,” Economic Journal, September 1924 (Also in Keynes, Essays in Biography)

II. Production and Consumption Analysis

A. Production and Cost

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 8, Appendix B

Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, pp. 94-109.

Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories, Introduction

Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 7, 8

Suggested:

Douglas, P. Theory of Wages

Hicks, Value and Capital, Chs. 6, 7

Carlson, Sune, Theory of Production

Cassels, J. H, “On the Law of Variable Proportions,” in Explorations in Economics, essays in honor of Taussig

Schneider, E., Pricing and Equilibrium

B. Utility and Consumption Theory

Hicks, Value and Capital, Chs. 1, 2, 3

Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 5, 6

III. Welfare Economics

Boulding, K., “Welfare Economics,” Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. II

Hicks, J.R., “Foundations of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal, 1939

Pigou, A.C., Economics of Welfare, Preface, Part I., Chs. 3, 7, 8; Part II, Introductory, Ch. 9

Lerner, A. P., Economics of Control, Chs. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9

Source: Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003”, Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1956-1957 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

Economics 201
Hour Exam
November 3, 1956

  1. Define “external” and “internal” economies. What do we mean when we say these economies are (a) “pecuniary,” (b) technological”? (10 min.)
  2. What are the conditions of stable equilibrium of supply and demand as analyzed by (a) Walras and (b) Marshall? Explain the “apparent contradiction” between the Walrasian and Marshallian stability conditions. (20 min.)
  3. In the “Ricardian increasing cost” case, as described by Viner, what would be the effect on price, output, and rent to the fixed factor, of a tax of “x” cents per unit of output? Illustrate graphically. (20 min.)

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Paul Samuelson, Box 33, Folder “Ec201 Harvard Course, 1955-1956 [sic]”.

_________________________

1956-57
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Economics 201
Midyear examination. January, 1957.

Answer the first two (2) questions and any three (3) of the others. Be sure to allocate your time approximately as indicated.

  1. (Forty-five minutes). Assume two individuals (who act as pure competitors) and two commodities. Given the “production-possibility” or “transformation” curve for each individual and also his indifference map, indicate graphically: a) the equilibrium price; b) the equilibrium quantities of each good produced by each individual; and c) the quantity of each good exchanged.
  2. (Forty-five minutes). Discuss the scope and limitations of “Welfare Economics.” Illustrate your discussion with reference to one or two specific theoretical problems (e.g., the box-diagram).
  3. (One-half hour). A production function relates product (Q) to two factors, labor (L) and capital (C). Distinguish the “three stages” for each factor, and give an interrelations among them in a) the case of constant returns to scale (homogeneous production function) and b) the general case.
  4. (One-half hour). Distinguish “internal” and “external” economies and analyze the possibility of equilibrium under pure competition in each case.
  5. (One-half hour). A monopolistic firm can buy labor and land at fixed prices but sells its output in an impurely-competitive market. Now let it be subject to a tax of $X per unit of its output. On the oversimplified assumption that the tax leaves its factor prices, the consumer demand for its product, and its production function unchanged, compare the new equilibrium of output, price, and factor hirings with the old.
  6. (One-half hour). Define the “income” effect and “substitution” effect of a price change. Indicate, in terms of these effects, the likelihood of a) a backward-bending supply curve, and b) a positively-sloping demand curve.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 25. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. January, 1957.

_________________________

A twitter prayer.

_________________________

Economics 201
Spring Term, 1956-57
Economic Theory—Professor Chamberlin

I. Monopoly and Monopolistic Competition

Chamberlin, Monopolistic Competition, Chapters 1, 4,5, 9.

_________, “Monopolistic Competition Revisited,” Economica, November 1951.

Robinson, J., Imperfect Competition, Foreword, Introduction, Chapter 1.

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 3, Appendix A.

Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium T-heory, pp. 78-108.

Hall and Hitch, “Price Theory and Business Behavior,” Oxford Economic Papers, No. 2 (1939). (Also in Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism, T. Wilson, Editor).

Chamberlin, “‘Full Cost’ and Monopolistic Competition,” Economic Journal, May 1952.

_________, “The Product as an Economic Variable,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1953.

Monopolistic Competition, Appendix C, Chapters 6, 7.

Chamberlin, “Product Heterogeneity and Public Policy,” American Economic Review, May 1950.

Suggested:

Robinson, J., Imperfect Competition, Chapters 3-7.

Fellner, Competition Among the Few, Chapters 1-7.

Holton, Richard H., “Marketing Structure and Economic Development,” Q.J.E., August 1953.

Alsberg, C. L., “The Economic Aspects of Adulteration and Imitation,” Q.J.E., 46:1 (1931)

Brems, “The Interdependence of Quality Variations, Selling Effort, and Price,” Q.J.E., May 1948.

II. Income Distribution—General; Wages.

Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, 3.

Marshall, Principles, Book VI, Chapters 1-2.

Hicks, Theory of Wages, Chapters 1-4.

Readings, 12.

Monopolistic Competition, Review Chapter 8 and pp. 215-18, 249-52, (5th or later edition).

Hicks, Chapters 5, 6.

Marshall, Book VI, Chapters 3-5.

Taussig, Principles, 4th edition, Chapter 52 (or 3rd revised edition, Chapter 47).

E.H.C., “The Monopoly Power of Labor,” in The Impact of the Union.

Readings, 19.

Hicks, pp. 170-185.

Suggested:

1. Douglas, Theory of Wages, Chapter 2.

2. J.B. Clark, Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 7, 8, 12, 13.

III. Interest

Böhm-Bawerk, Positive Theory, Book I, Chapter 2; Book II; Book V.

Marshall, Principles, Book IV, Chapter 7; Book VI, Chapter 6.

Wicksell, Lectures, Vol. I, pp. 144-171, 185-195, 207-218.

Clark, J.B., Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 9, 20.

Suggested:

Fisher, I., Theory of Interest, Chapters 5, 6.

Readings, Chapters 20, 21.

IV. Rent

Ricardo, Chapter 2.

Marshall, Book V, Chapters 8-11.

Robinson, Imperfect Competition, Chapter 8.

V. Profits

Marshall, Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 7; Chapters 7,8.

Taussig, Principles  (4th edition), Vol. II, Chapter 49, Section 1 (3rd revised edition, Chapter 50, Section 1)

Veblen, Theory of Business Enterprise, Chapter 3.

Henderson, Supply and Demand Chapter 7.

Bernstein, P., “Profit Theory—Where Do We Go From Here?” Q.J.E., August 1953

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 5, Section 6; Chapter 7, Section 6; Appendices D, E.

Schumpeter, Theory of Economic Development, Chapters 1-4.

Suggested:

1. Readings, 27, 29.

Source: Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003”, Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1956-1957 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 201
Final Examination
May, 1957

A. Choose two of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

  1. Write a brief article on the subject of “oligopoly” designed for an encyclopedia of the social sciences, and therefore to be consulted and used mainly by non-specialists in the subject. (Consider well your objective before you begin.)
  2. Discuss excess capacity in the economy, its meaning and its compatibility with “equilibrium.” What are the chief forces tending (a) to bring about, and (b) to eliminate, excess capacity?
  3. (a) Discuss the issues involved in distinguishing between production costs and selling costs, and defend your own conclusions. (b) Are selling outlays, like production outlays, subject to the law of diminishing returns? Discuss, and illustrate your conclusion graphically.

B. Choose four of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

  1. “It is inappropriate to say that the marginal productivity of a certain type of labor determines its wage; wages, like the prices of all economic goods, are determined by both supply and demand.” Discuss with particular reference to the role of supply factors in an adequate theory of wages.
  2. Develop the role which you would give to either (a) monopoly, or (b) rent, in your own theory of wages.
  3. “Waiting is certainly not an element of the economic process in a static state, because the circular flow, once established, leaves no gaps between outlay or productive effort and the satisfaction of wants. Both are, following Professor Clark’s conclusive expression, automatically synchronized.” Discuss the several aspects of this quotation.
  4. Outline your own theory of land rent, with some critical discussion of writers with whom you are familiar. (Restrict your discussion to the problem of land income, without extending the analysis to other factors.)
  5. Write on risk as an element in the theory of profits, choosing such subdivisions or aspects of the problem as seem to you most significant. In what respects, if at all, would you regard a risk theory of profits as inadequate?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. June, 1957. In bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences—June 1957 (HUL 7000.28, 113 of 284).

Image Sources:

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, Edward H. Chamberlin, Fellow 1958.

M.I.T., Paul Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service.  Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final examinations in Political Economy courses, 1891-1892

 

HARVARD. ECONOMICS EXAMINATIONS, 1891-1892

With the start of the 2021-22 academic year Economics in the Rear-view Mirror resumes the careful transcription of documents for the digital record of the development of economics education.

The Harvard archives are full of exam materials across time and fields so I pick up with where I left off in that series. Edward Cummings joined the teaching staff that in 1891-92 only consisted of two professors (Dunbar and Taussig) and a pair of instructors (Edward Cummings and William M. Cole).

_______________________

Note to self: Still Missing for 1891-92.

Political Economy 3. Edward Cummings. Mid-year examination, 1892
Political Economy 4. William M. Cole. Mid-year examination, 1892
Political Economy 7. Charles F. Dunbar. Mid-year examination, 1892

_______________________

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 1.
Course Description and Enrollment.

Primarily for Undergraduates:—

[Political Economy] 1. Professor [Frank W.] Taussig, Mr. [William M.] Cole, and Mr. [Edward] Cummings.

— First half-year: Mill’s Principles of Political Economy. 3 hours.

— Second half-year:

Division A (Theoretical): Mill’s Principles of Political Economy. — Cairnes’s Leading Principles of Political Economy. 3 hours.

Division B (Descriptive): Lectures on Finance, Labor and Capital, Coöperation. — Hadley’s Railroad Transportation.—Dunbar’s Chapters on Banking. 3 hours.

Total 288: 1 Graduate, 47 Seniors, 102 Juniors, 91 Sophomores, 7 Freshmen, 40 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891-92, p. 54.

 

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 1.
Mid-Year Examination, 1892.

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions. Divide your time equally between the two parts of the paper.]

I.
[Omit one.]

  1. Mill says that “the laws and conditions of the production of wealth partake of the character of physical truths. . . . Whatever mankind produces must be produced in the modes, and under the conditions, imposed by the constitution of external things, and by the inherent properties of their own bodily and mental structure.” Is this true of the laws and conditions of production from land? of the laws and conditions of the accumulation of capital?
  2. Of things limited in quantity, it is said that “their value depends on the demand and the supply. . . . But the quantity demanded is not a fixed quantity, even at the same time and place; it varies according to the value; if the thing is cheap, there is usually a demand for more of it than when it is dear. The demand therefore partly depends on the supply. But it was before laid down that the value depends on the demand. From this contradiction, how shall we extricate ourselves? How solve the paradox, of two things, each depending on the other?”
  3. “Every fall in profits lowers in some degree the value of things made with much or durable machinery, and raises that of things made by hand; and every rise in profits does the reverse.” Explain.
  4. Is there any inconsistency between the propositions that the value of money depends,
    (1) on its cost of production at the mines;
    (2) on its quantity;
    (3) on the expansion and contraction of credit;
    (4) on the terms on which a country gets its imported commodities.
  5. Explain Mill’s reasoning (1) as to the manner in which an issue of inconvertible paper money drives specie out of circulation; (2) as to the manner in which, under a double standard, one metal [which one?] disappears from circulation. Are the results, in fact, brought about in the manner described by Mill?
  6. Explain carefully how a decrease in the foreign demand for a country’s exports causes loss to those who consume its imports.

II.
[Answer all, briefly.]

  1. Does nature give more aid to man in one kind of industry than in another?
  2. Are there grounds for saying that the necessity of restraining population is confined to a state of inequality of property?
  3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a currency composed of specie, as compared with one of equal amount composed of inconvertible paper money?
  4. What are the laws of value applicable to (1) silver bullion; (2) iron nails; (3) wool; (4) eighteenth century furniture?
  5. Does the benefit of foreign trade consist in its affording an outlet for the surplus produce of a country?
  6. Mill says the superiority of reward in certain occupations may be the consequence of competition, and may be due to the absence of competition. Explain which explanation holds good of the high wages (1) of laborers in whom much confidence is reposed; (2) of laborers in disagreeable employments; (3) of laborers whose education has been expensive.
  7. What is the nature of the remuneration received by (1) a manufacturer on a large scale; (2) an independent artisan; (3) a farmer tilling land which he has leased at a fixed rent; (4) the owner, of a building who receives rent from those using the building.

Source: J. L. Laughlin, Economics 1: A Synopsis of John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy (Cambridge, MA: W.H. Wheeler, 1892), pp. 101-103.

 

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 1.
Division A.

Final Examination, 1892.

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions.]

I.
[Omit one.]

  1. “It will be remembered that in a former portion of this work I criticized at some length the received doctrine of Cost of Production, which, as expounded by Mr. Mill and others, is represented as consisting in, and varying with, the wages and profits of producers. I stated then that this conception of cost was not reconcilable with the doctrine of international values upheld by the same authorities, which refers these phenomena, not to cost of production, but to the reciprocal demand of exchanging nations.” Why not reconcilable?
    [John Elliott Cairnes, Some Leading Principles of Political Economy Newly Expounded (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1874), p. 343. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t85h88k6k?urlappend=%3Bseq=351]
  2. “The actual price, therefore, of any given commodity will, it is evident, be the composite result of the combined action of these several agencies”—namely, reciprocal international demand, reciprocal domestic demand, and cost of production. Explain.
    [John Elliott Cairnes, Some Leading Principles of Political Economy Newly Expounded (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1874), p. 94. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t85h88k6k?urlappend=%3Bseq=102]
  3. “Assuming a certain field for investment, and the prospect of profit in this such as to attract a certain aggregate of capital, and assuming the national industries to be of a certain kind, the proportion of this aggregate capital which shall be invested in wages is not a matter within the discretion of capitalists, always supposing they desire to obtain the largest practical return upon their outlay.” Why?
    [John Elliott Cairnes, Some Leading Principles of Political Economy Newly Expounded (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1874), p. 186. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t85h88k6k?urlappend=%3Bseq=194]
  4. “We see, then, within what very narrow limits the possibilities of the laborer’s lot are confined, so long as he depends for his well-being upon the produce of his day’s work. Against these barriers Trades-unions must dash themselves in vain.” What, according to Cairnes, are the barriers?
    [John Elliott Cairnes, Some Leading Principles of Political Economy Newly Expounded (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1874), p. 283. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t85h88k6k?urlappend=%3Bseq=291]
  5. “Saving (for productive investment), and spending, coincide very closely in the first stage of their operations.” Explain Mill’s meaning.

II.
[Answer all.]

  1. Why is there a tendency of profits to a minimum?
  2. What is the effect of a rise in the value of money on debtors and on creditors?
  3. “Though laborers in certain departments of industry are practically cut off from competition with laborers in other departments, the competition of capitalists, as I have already pointed out, is effective over the whole field.” How is this consistent with the existence of large amounts of Fixed Capital?
  4. “And here this remark may at once be made: that as the course of price in the field of raw products is, on the whole, upward, so in that of manufactured goods the course is, not less strikingly, in the opposite direction. The reasons of this are exceedingly plain.” (Cairnes.) What are they?
  5. What would be the effect on wages and profits of the universal adoption of coöperative production? of profit-sharing ?
  6. How far did the premium on gold during the civil war measure the real depreciation of the paper?
  7. Compare Mill’s attitude on coöperation with Cairnes’s.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 3, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Roman Law, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College (June, 1892) in the bound volume: Examination Papers 1890-92.

Also J. L. Laughlin, Economics 1: A Synopsis of John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy (Cambridge, MA: W.H. Wheeler, 1892), pp. 106-108.

 

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 1.
Division B.

Final Examination, 1892.

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions]

  1. What is the fundamental objection to the issue of inconvertible paper money? What light is thrown on it by the experience of the United States during the civil war?
  2. Is a rise in the value of money advantageous to debtors or to creditors, or to neither? Why?
  3. What is the cause of the tendency of the rate of interest to fall?
  4. What would be the effect upon the price of food, and upon rent, of a tax of a fixed sum per acre upon agricultural land?
  5. Taking the two following accounts as representing the condition of a bank at different dates, state (1) what operations are most likely to have given rise to the changed condition, and (2) whether the bank is American or foreign, city or country, with your reasons for thinking so:—
I.
Capital 100,000 Government securities 5,000
Surplus 10,000 Other securities 50,000
Profits 3,000 Loans 255,000
Notes 20,000 Expenses 2,000
Deposits 250,000 Cash 71,000
383,000 383,000

 

II.

Capital 100,000 Government securities 5,000
Surplus 12,000 Other securities 50,000
Profits 2,000 Loans 260,000
Notes 20,000 Expenses 1,000
Deposits 270,000 Cash 88,000
404,000 404,000

 

  1. What is the sliding scale of discount? Name two countries in which it is used.
  2. Point out wherein there are differences, wherein similarities, in the legal provisions of the United States, England, and France, for the security, immediate and ultimate, of bank notes.
  3. Give a brief history of the small change (under one dollar) in the United States since 1850.
  4. What would be the effect upon the price of silver bullion of an act for free coinage of silver?
  5. What was the nature and purpose of the original restriction upon the amount of national bank notes in the United States? When and why was it repealed?
  6. Compare the main features of the silver acts of 1878 and 1890.
  7. How are profits divided in schemes for distributive coöperation? For credit coöperation? What is the important difference?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 3, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Roman Law, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College (June, 1892) in the bound volume: Examination Papers 1890-92.

_______________________

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
Course Description and Enrollment

For Graduates and Undergraduates:—

[Political Economy] 2. Professor [Frank W.] Taussig. — Economic Theory. — Examination of selections from leading writers. 3 hours.

Total 38: 9 Graduates, 17 Seniors, 8 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 1 Freshman, 2 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891-92, p. 54.

 

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
Mid-Year Examination, 1892.

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions]

  1. Are laborers paid out of the product of their own labor in cases where the employer sells the product before pay-day and pays the laborers out of the proceeds?
  2. “Whether wages are advanced out of capital in whole, or in part, or not at all, it still remains true that it is the product to which the employer looks to ascertain the amount which he can afford to pay: the value of the product furnishes the measure of wages. . . .
    It is the prospect of a profit in production which determines the employer to hire laborers; it is the anticipated value of the product which determines how much he can pay them.”
    Is this consistent with the wages-fund theory?
  3. Consider the following: —

“Given machinery, raw materials, and a year’s subsistence, does it make no difference with the annual product whether the laborers are Englishmen or East-Indians? Certainly if one quarter part of what has been adduced under the head of the efficiency of labor be valid, the difference in the product of industry arising out of differences in the industrial quality of distinct communities of laborers are so great as to prohibit us from making use of capital to determine the amount that can be expended in any year or series of years in the purchase of labor.”

  1. How does President Walker prove the existence of a no-profits class of business men?
  2. Wherein does President Walker’s theory of distribution differ from Professor Sidgwick’s?
  3. What grounds are there for saying that Political Economy is distinctly a modern science?
  4. “Let us suppose, for example, that in the greater part of employments the productive powers of labour had been improved to ten-fold, or that a day’s labour could produce ten times the quantity of work which it had done originally; but that in a particular employment they had been improved only to double, or that a day’s labour could produce only twice the quantity of work it had done before. In exchanging the produce of a day’s labour in the greater part of employments for that of a day’s labour in this particular one, ten times the original quantity of work in them would purchase only twice the original quantity in it. Any particular quantity in it, therefore, a pound weight, for example, would appear to be five times dearer than before. In reality, however, it would be twice as cheap.” — Wealth of Nations, Book I. ch. viii.
    Explain what Adam Smith meant; and what Ricardo would have said as to this passage.
  5. Explain Adam Smith’s conclusions as to the effect on wages, profits, and rent, of the progress of society; noting briefly the reasoning which lead to the conclusion in each case.
  6. Examine the following criticisms on Malthus: —
    1. that there is no such difference of law between the increase of man and of the organic beings which form his food, as is implied in the proposition that man increases in a geometrical, food in arithmetical ratio;
    2. that the adaptation of numbers to the means available for their support is effected by the felt or anticipated pressure of circumstances and the fear of social degradation, within a tolerable degree of approximation to what is desirable.
  7. Explain carefully Ricardo’s doctrine as to the effect of profits on value.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Frank Taussig’s Scrapbook of his examinations. Posted earlier in Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
Final Examination, 1892.

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions]

  1. Does the example of a laborer hired by a farmer, and paid by him at the close of the season, after the crop has been harvested and disposed of, present a case of labor paid, not out of capital, but out of the product of current industry?
  2. What do you conceive the relation of political economy to laissez faire to have been with Adam Smith? with Ricardo and his contemporaries? How would you state the relation yourself?
  3. “Ricardo never fairly appreciated that his notion of the laborer’s ‘necessaries’ stood for something subject to wide variation in different stages of civilization. It is true that in one passage he says with emphasis that the necessaries, which determine the natural rate of wages, depend on habits which vary with time and place; but elsewhere he sets up a distinction between gross and net income, which is tenable only if we put the laborer’s necessaries side by side with other elements of cost of production. The distinction loses its practical harshness, when he admits that the laborer may at times receive, over and above natural wages, some part of the community’s net income; but its theoretic shortcomings then become the more obvious.” (Cohn, National-oekonomie.)
    Explain Ricardo’s conception of natural wages and net income, here referred to; and examine the justice of this criticism.
  4. “The average rate of profits is the real barometer, the true and infallible criterion of national prosperity. A high rate of profit is the effect of industry having become more productive, and it shows that the power of society to amass capital, and to add to its wealth and population, has been increased.” (M’Culloch’s Political Economy.) What led to the adoption of this test by M’Culloch? Should you accept it?
  5. What were Ricardo’s views as to the effect of foreign trade on profits?
  6. “In the actual period of production, on a wages system, the existing supplies for laborers are distributed to laborers in wages, while they, with the help of fixed capital, till the ground and work up the raw materials, transforming the old capital into a new product. . . . The product is divided at the end of the period of production into the replacement of capital (support of laborers, raw material, and wear of fixed capital), profits, and rent. . . . Hence it is clear that wages and profits are not parts of the same whole. Wages were in capital at the beginning of the period of production; profits are in product at its close.” (W. G. Sumner.)“We may suppose that share of the National Dividend which goes as rent to be set on one side; and then there remains what would be produced by labour and capital if they were all applied under conditions no more favourable than those under which they were applied at the margin of profitable employment; and a proposal was made by the present writer, in the Economics of Industry, that this should be called the Wages-and-Profits Fund, or the Earnings-and-Interest Fund. These terms were suggested in order to emphasize the opinion that the so-called Wages-Fund theory, however it might be purified from the vulgar errors which had grown around it, still erred in suggesting that earnings and interest, or wages and profits, do not stand in the same relation to the National Dividend.” (Marshall.)
    Which of these seems to you the sounder view?
  7. Explain what is meant by Consumer’s Rent; and examine the effect on Consumer’s Rent and on the aggregate satisfaction of the community, of a tax on a community subject to the law of Diminishing Returns.
  8. Explain the grounds which lead Professor Marshall to believe that the forces by which the wages of different grades of laborers are determined, work by a process similar to that by which the expenses of production determine the value of commodities.
  9. Examine carefully Professor Marshall’s view of the part played by rent of natural ability in determining manager’s earnings.
  10. Wherein is there similarity, wherein difference, in the positions of Carey and Bastiat in the history of economic theory?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 3, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Roman Law, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College (June, 1892) in the bound volume: Examination Papers 1890-92.

Also found in Frank Taussig’s Scrapbook of his examinations. Posted earlier in Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

_______________________

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 3.
Course Description and Enrollment

For Graduates and Undergraduates:—

[Political Economy] 3. Mr. [Edward] Cummings. — The Principles of Sociology. — Development of the Modern State, and of its Social Functions. 3 hours.

Total 25: 8 Graduates, 9 Seniors, 6 Juniors, 2 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891-92, p. 54.

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 3.
Mid-year Examination, 1892.

[Not yet found]

 

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 3.
Final Examination, 1892.

[Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. Omit one.]

  1. “The liberty of the subject is only a means towards an end; hence, when it fails to produce the desired end, it may be set aside, and other means employed.”
    What do you conceive to be this “desired end”? On what is the prerogative in question founded?
  2. “When everything has been done to deter from crime or reform the criminal there will still remain a certain class whom it is hopeless to influence, and who must be dealt with in course of law, not for much result on themselves, but to carry out the principle of justice, and mainly to deter others.”
    Discuss the theoretical and practical validity of the principles of penal legislation here affirmed.
  3. “There are still two more weaknesses, which are peculiar to all states, not only to the modern elective State. From the strictly professional point of view, in the technical works which they direct; public functionaries have neither the stimulus nor the restraint of personal interest.”
    “Nearly every present acknowledged function of government has once been intrusted to private enterprise….Now, of all the enterprises which the state has thus appropriated to itself, there is not one which is not managed better and more wisely than it had been managed before by private parties. Most of them are such that the world has entirely forgotten that they were ever private enterprises.”
    What light is thrown on this controversy by the experience of continental governments in the management of railroads? Do the same arguments apply to railroads as to the telegraph, and the post? Why?
  4. State an criticize the theory of “surplus value.”
  5. “Let us suppose the whole field of industry covered by syndicates….Competition complained of by the Socialists would be largely gone, being merged within the syndicate; useless middlemen displaced; the employing capitalist with his too high wages replaced by a manager: all steps towards the Socialist goal. What is wanting chiefly?”
    Give a general outline of the Collectivist scheme, from the point of view of production, distribution and value.
  6. “But the bare labor-cost value, as it has been formulated up to now, invests the whole economy of socialism for the present with the character of a Utopia….It is remarkable, and even comforting, that all which is required to make socialism so much a matter of practical discussion, urges it to preserve, and even to intensify, the brighter elements of the liberal economic system.”
  7. “Moreover it is not difficult to deduce the necessity of State interference from Mr. Spencer’s own fundamental principles….The inspector is himself in fact, as Prof. Jevons says, a necessary product of social evolution and the division of labor.”
    Does expansion of public and municipal industry necessarily indicate the “gradual triumph of socialism”?
  8. Compare briefly the political and economic tendencies in Glasgow, London, and New York.
  9. What ground do you find for De Laveleye’s assertion that Socialism is pessimistic, while Political Economy is optimistic?
  10. State the arguments for and against municipal manufacture of gas in the United States.
  11. The systems of state education in the United States have been devised by the several states of the Union, and are exceedingly heterogeneous and defective. In certain States scarcely anything worthy of the name of education exists, while in others the systems have attained a high degree of perfection.”
    How in this respect does the United States compare with European countries.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 3, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Roman Law, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College (June, 1892) in the bound volume: Examination Papers 1890-92.

_______________________

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 4.
Course Description and Enrollment

Primarily for Undergraduates:—

[Political Economy] 4. Mr. [William M.] Cole. — Economic History of Europe and America since the Seven Years’ War. — Lectures and written work. 3 hours.

Total 132: 35 Seniors, 40 Juniors, 40 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 16 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891-92, p. 54.

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 4.
Mid-year Examination, 1892.

[Not yet found]

 

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 4.
Final Examination, 1892.

[Answer both the questions in Roman numerals, and eight of the nine in Arabic numerals.]

  1. Compare the facilities for transportation by land as they existed in 1700 with those of 1830 and those of 1890.
    Do the same, for the same periods, for water transportation, for cotton manufacturing, and for banking.
  2. Compare the growth in the numbers of population in the United States since 1790 with the growth in the density of population per square mile. If you find any discrepancies, explain them.
  1. How far has England’s policy regarding free trade been affected by the policy of other nations?
  2. What, in your opinion, would have been the status in the United States of slavery, as a system of producing wealth, if emancipation had not taken place? State your reasons.
  3. Explain the change in the position of the American merchant marine at about the time of the Civil War.
  4. What influence has the extensive investment of capital in foreign countries upon the need, for the world’s commerce, of specie?
  5. By what process, and in what way, did the payment of the German indemnity by France affect the Crisis of 1873?
  6. How was the United States able to accumulate enough gold for Resumption in 1879?
  7. Was the indemnity demanded of France by Germany in 1871 just? Give your reasons.
  8. By what sort of processes has the United States reduced the annual burden of its debt faster than the principal?
  9. Why has England become the natural clearing-house for the world?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 3, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Roman Law, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College (June, 1892) in the bound volume: Examination Papers 1890-92.

_______________________

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 5.
Course Description and Enrollment

For Graduates and Undergraduates:—

[Political Economy] 5. Professor [Frank W.] Taussig. — Railway Transportation. — Lectures and written work. 3 hours. 2d half-year.

Total 42: 3 Graduates, 22 Seniors, 10 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 6 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891-92, p. 54.

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 5.
Final Examination, 1892.

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions.]

  1. Compare the modes in which New York and Pennsylvania tried to secure communications with the West in 1825-1840.
  2. Sketch the salient events in the history of the New York Central Railway to the present time.
  3. Sketch the important provisions of the Thurman Act of 1878 in regard to the Pacific railroads, and the results which have ensued.
  4. Why was the railway mileage constructed in the United States in 1887 the largest yet reached?
  5. Why has the railway beaten the canal?
  6. Does the practice of charging what the traffic will bear result from the fact that railways present a case of industrial monopoly? Would it cease if competition were fully effective in railway operations?
  7. Discuss separately or together,
    (a) Whether the prohibition of railway pools is wise;
    (b) Whether there are grounds for permitting or prohibiting such combinations, which do not apply to attempts to bring about combination and monopoly in other industries.
  8. Point out wherein the schedules of maximum rates fixed by the State of Iowa resemble the German Reform Tariff, and wherein they differ from it.
  9. Explain what is the state of legislation as to long and short haul rates in the United States, England, France, and Germany; and state your opinion as to the desirability of preventing lower charges on the longer haul.
  10. Sketch the history of railway policy in Belgium.
  11. Why are railway pools and traffic agreements more stable in England than in the United States?
  12. Point out wherein the Railway Commission under the English Act of 1888 differs from the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 3, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Roman Law, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College (June, 1892) in the bound volume: Examination Papers 1890-92.

_______________________

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 6.
Course Description and Enrollment

For Graduates and Undergraduates:—

[Political Economy] 6. Professor [Frank W.] Taussig. — History of Tariff Legislation in the United States. 3 hours. 1st half-year.

Total 64: 7 Graduates, 32 Seniors, 13 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 10 Others.

 

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891-92, p. 54.

 

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 6.
Mid-year Examination, 1892.

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions. Be concise. Answer all questions.]

  1. Criticize the arguments by which Hamilton endeavored to show (1) that agriculture was not more productive than manufactures; (2) that the greater division of labor and use of machinery in manufactures made the introduction of manufacturing industries peculiarly advantageous to a country.
  2. How do you explain the change, between 1820 and 1840, in the arguments as to the bearing of high wages on the protective system?
  3. Sketch the growth of the international trade of the United States from 1820 to 1860.
  4. Are there good grounds for saying that the tariff act of 1846 led to a period of general prosperity?
  5. In what way have the duties on fine woolens been higher in recent years than those on cheap woollens? Does the difference explain the fact that the domestic production is confined mainly to the cheaper goods? Give your reasons carefully.
  6. Explain the difference (1) in character, (2) in probable effects, between the Continental sugar bounties and the present United States bounty.
  7. Wherein would there probably be differences between the effects of reciprocity treaties (1) with Great Britain, admitting iron free; (2) with Great Britain, admitting wool from Australia free; (3) with Germany, admitting refined sugar free?
  8. How far is it true that the high level of wages in the United States is an effective obstacle to the successful prosecution of manufacturing industries?
  9. What were the duties on coffee, cotton goods, pig-iron, and wool, in 1799, 1819, 1839, 1859, 1879? (Use tabular form, if you wish.)
  10. How far did the South secure what it aimed at from the tariff act of 1833?
  11. Sketch the tariff legislation of 1872.
  12. Is it true that the adoption of a policy of free trade in England dates from the abolition of the corn-laws?

_______________________

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 7.
Course Description and Enrollment.

For Graduates and Undergraduates:—

[Political Economy] 7. Professor [Charles F.] Dunbar.

— First half-year:

The Theory and Methods of Taxation, with special references to local taxation in the United States. 3 hours.

Total 30: 2 Graduates, 20 Seniors, 8 Juniors.

— Second half-year

Banking, and the History of the leading Banking Systems. 3 hours.

Total 38: 2 Graduates, 22 Seniors, 10 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 3 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891-92, p. 54.

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 7.
Mid-year examination (first half-year), 1892.

[not yet found]

 

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 7.
Final examination (second half-year), 1892.

A.
Of these five questions one may be omitted.

  1. Which of the three great banks, the Bank of England, the Bank of France, and the Reichsbank, appears to you to present the best model for a great national bank, — and why?
  2. What peculiarities in the Scotch banking system account for the high credit and extended usefulness of the Scotch banks, and make their issue of £1 notes both necessary and safe?
  3. The value of a currency is said to depend on (a) its quantity, rapidity of circulation, and the amount of transactions to be effected, and (b) on the cost of the precious metals. How is this reasoning to be made applicable to deposits, considered as a part of the currency?
  4. A recent pamphlet contains the following:—
    “The ‘Currency Principle’ was advocated by Lord Overstone and others, and held that, under a system of free banking, over-issue [of convertible notes] is possible and likely to occur, inflating the currency. In England, the principle of limiting the issues was adopted in the Bank Act of 1844. A different application of the same principle obtains in this country under the National Bank system.”
    Discuss the closing statement in the above extract.
  5. As saving banks and banks of deposit and discount are alike bound to pay their depositors on demand, on what ground can investments be treated as safe or suitable for one of these classes of banks and not for the other? This may be illustrated by reference to investments in mortgages, in bank stock, and in commercial paper.

B.
Of these five questions one may be omitted.

  1. Describe Mr. Goschen’s proposals for increasing the stock of gold in the Bank of England and issuing £1 notes, and state the objects to be gained by the plan and the objections to it.
  2. Discuss the propositions, laid down by Mr. Buckner, in his speech of April, 1882, in opposition to the Bank Charters Extension Bill,—
    1. That the currency ought to be issued by the government;
    2. That an elastic currency is mischievous, as introducing an element of uncertainty, and that the government should therefore issue a fixed amount of convertible notes.
  3. It is urged that the characteristics which insure the high credit and universal currency of the national bank circulation,—
    “are qualities which help to make its movements unnatural, artificial, and impart to it a roaming character, helping to force it away from the issuer, away from the country districts where it is needed, and consequently to induce its accumulation when out of active commercial employment in the great financial centres, and while there to foster and become more or less fixed in speculative ventures—that is, unresponsive to commercial influences when needed for commercial work.”
    Discuss the question whether issues having only local credit would remedy the difficulties suggested above?
  4. Discuss the following proposition for the issue of bank-notes under State authority:—
    1. Take off the present 10 per cent. tax from the notes of any bank complying with the following regulations:—
    2. Permit any State to tax circulation, in order to accumulate a fund to redeem notes of such of its own banks a may fail.
    3. Forbid any bank to issue notes in excess of two-thirds of its capital.
    4. Make notes a first lien on all assets of the issuing bank.
    5. Require coin redemption by the banks and a coin reserve of 25 per cent. of outstanding notes.
    6. Leave any State free to forbid or permit the issue of notes under the above regulations by banks within its jurisdiction.
      [Commercial and Financial Chronicle, May 14.]
  5. Discuss the following propositions for completely free banking, made by Courcelle-Seneuil (Traité des Opérations de Banque, Book IV., ch. ix., §3):—
    “Il vaudrait mieux donner au premier venu le droit d’émettre des billets à vue et au porteur sous certaines conditions définies par la loi….On doit supposer que le banquier sait mieux son métier que le législateur; celui-ci ne doit point réglementer ce qui est du métier; il doit se borner à prévenir la fraude, et il ne peut mieux y parvenir qu’en imposant au banquier un fort cautionnement envers le public, c’est-à-dire un fort capital….Les vérifications officielles de portefeuille ne peuvent présenter au public aucune garantie.”

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 3, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Roman Law, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College (June, 1892) in the bound volume: Examination Papers 1890-92.

_______________________

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 8.
Course Description and Enrollment.

For Graduates and Undergraduates:—

[Political Economy] 8. Professor [Charles F.] Dunbar. — History of Financial Legislation in the United States. 3 hours. 2d half-year

Total 50: 7 Graduates, 22 Seniors, 11 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 8 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891-92, p. 54.

1891-92
POLITICAL ECONOMY 8.
Final Examination, 1892.

Two questions may be omitted.

  1. What were the terms on which the different portions of the revolutionary debt were made redeemable by the act of August 4, 1790, and when and how was their redemption actually undertaken?
  2. What are the leading cases of suspension of specie payments in the United States since 1789, and what were the general causes in each case?
  3. What was the method by which specie payments were resumed in 1817?
  4. Von Holst says (II., p. 32), “Jackson did not come to Washington resolved to wipe out the bank.” What is probably the truth as to Jackson’s attitude towards the bank when he was inaugurated, and as to the breaking out of the bank war?
  5. What were the “branch drafts” issued by the branches of the second United States Bank, the reasons for their issue, and the objections thereto?
  6. What is the history of the following item in the general account of the Treasurer of the United States:—
    “Unavailable amount on deposit with the States, $28, 101,645.”
  7. What were Mr. Chase’s reasons for urging the establishment of the national banking system?
  8. How does the legal tender decision in Juillard vs. Greenman differ in principle from that in the earlier case of Knox vs. Lee?
  9. What were Mr. McCulloch’s reasons for wishing to establish the policy of contracting the currency without delay in 1865?
  10. What influences led Congress to restrict, and finally annul, Secretary McCulloch’s authority for retiring United States notes? Give approximate dates of the Acts.
  11. President Grant wrote, in 1874:—
    “I would like to see a provision that…the currency issued by the United States should be redeemed in coin…and that all currency so redeemed should be cancelled and never be re-issued.” [ To Jones.]
    How does this compare with the redemption actually practiced under the Resumption Act, and how came the present practice to be adopted?
  12. Sherman, speaking of the first Legal Tender Act, said:—
    “We agreed in that act that we would apply one per cent. of the principal of the debt to the payment of the debt. The debt is now $2,5000,000,000. One per cent. is $25,000,000, and that must not only be applied every year, but it must be applied in the nature of a sinking fund.” [Speeches p. 264.]
    How far has the government followed this interpretation of the act?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 3, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Roman Law, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College (June, 1892) in the bound volume: Examination Papers 1890-92.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard History of Economics

Harvard. Exam for undergraduate history of economic thought. Fellner, 1950-1951.

 

 

The transcribed exam below is the third in a series of posts for mid-twentieth century Harvard courses for which outlines and reading lists have been previously transcribed at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. 

Required readings for William Fellner’s history of economic thought course were taken from:

Gide, Charles and Rist, Charles, History of Economic Doctrines
Gray, Alexander, The Development of Economic Doctrine

The course outline together with the required chapter readings along with a list of over a hundred titles (most of which have been linked to digital copies) can be found at the link:

https://www.irwincollier.com/harvard-history-of-economic-thought-fellner-1950/

_______________________

Economics 100.
History of Economic Thought

Half-course (fall term). Tu., Th., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 9. Professor Fellner (University of California).

Source: Official Register of Harvard University. Vol. XLVII, No. 23 (September 1950): Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of the Arts and Sciences During 1950-51, p. 79.

_______________________

Mid-year final examination, January 1951

1950-51
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 100

Part I

Discuss the following question:

“Historical change in economic doctrine reflects changes in the orientation and the objectives of writers. However, it also reflects improvement in methods of approach.” Do you agree with this statement? Explain your position and illustrate it.

 

Part II

Discuss two questions and comment briefly on a third.

  1. Draw a contrast between mercantilistic and physiocratic thought and discuss the reaction of Adam Smith to both.
  2. In what respects was Malthus a “classical” economist and in what respects was he not?
  3. Discuss Ricardo’s views on comparative costs and appraise the bearing of this theory on the free trade doctrine.
  4. Is the Marxian value theory rooted in classical doctrine? What are the main differences? What is the significance of the Marxian value theory for the Marxian system as a whole?
  5. Trace the main stages in the development of the theory of rent from Adam Smith to about the end of the nineteenth century.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 17, Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, Government, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science, January 1951 (in bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences, Jan. 1951).

Image Source: Photo of William Fellner from Hoover Institution Archives, Gottfried Haberler Papers, Box 43, Blue Folder without label.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Semester exams for advanced economic theory. Fellner, 1950-1951

 

William Fellner from the University of California was called in to fill for Wassily Leontief’s graduate course in Advanced Economic Theory during the academic year 1950-51 at Harvard. Leontief had been awarded a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship.  Fellner also taught a  history of economics for undergraduates during his year at Harvard.

The outline and reading list for Fellner’s advanced economic theory course have been previously posted.

________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 202 (formerly Economics 102a and 102b). Advanced Economic Theory

Full course. Tu., Th., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 11. Professor Fellner (University of California).

Economics 201 or an equivalent training is a prerequisite for this course. Other properly qualified students must obtain permission to register from the instructor.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Courses of Instruction, Box 6, Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences During 1950-51, p. 83.

________________________

Mid-year Examination, June 1951

1950-51
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 202

Answer THREE of the following four questions:

  1. On usual definitions of rationality, the following is true of some types of market: Price and output can be derived from technological functions and utility functions or indifference maps (for a given distribution of income), without allowance for additional determinants such as “bargaining power” or “relative strength.” However, there exist important market structures of which this is not true. Do you agree with these propositions? Discuss them, appraising also the significance of the rationality assumptions for the proportion contained in the first sentence.
  2. According to equilibrium analysis for specific industries, monopoly output is (almost always smaller than competitive output. Discuss some of the difficulties standing in the way of applying this proposition directly to the socially significant questions of the “restrictive effects” of deviations from pure competition in the real world.
  3. Theories of market structures are concerned with groups of firms that may perhaps be loosely called industries. However, these do not coincide with industries in the conventional sense. Discuss.
  4. By what purpose are economists led in their attempt to “go behind” the demand curves of individuals and to derive these from underlying concepts (e.g. indifference maps)? How satisfactory are the results? Illustrate your views with reference to some specific aspect of the theory in question. Do you feel that economics would be poorer, in essential respects, if it regarded the demand functions of individuals as ultimate (“given”) data?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 17, Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, Government, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science, January 1951 (in bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences, Jan. 1951).

________________________

Final Examination, June 1951

1950-51
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 202

Discuss questions 1; 2 or 3; and 4.

  1. [Three parts]
    1. Describe how income and employment are determined in the Keynesian system.
    2. Discuss the effect of changes in the wage unit on the equilibrium level of income, introducing alternative assumptions concerning the elasticity of the liquidity preference function and that of the marginal efficiency function.
    3. How would the Keynesian analysis be affected by the assumption that consumption is a function of the supply of money as well as of the rate of income?
  2. Do you consider Irving Fisher’s income concept superior in some respects to those usually employed? If so, in what respects? How do you explain the fact that it is not used more frequently?
  3. If, along given production functions, the supply of one factor is increased in relation to the other, would you expect the relative share of the increasing factor to fall? Do you believe that in such circumstances innovations in general, and induced innovations in particular, are likely to influence the result?
  4. [Four parts]
    1. Explain the significance of time-preference and of the productivity of capital for the determination of “the” interest-rate.
    2. What is implied in the “classical” assumption that monetary factors do not influence the rate of interest in the long run?
    3. How can the monetary factors be worked into the theory if the assumption described in the preceding paragraph is not made (or if the analysis is concerned with the short run)?
    4. Do you suggest drawing a distinction between the “risk premia included in interest-rates (other than the pure or net rate) on the one hand, and profit on the other? Along what lines could this distinction be drawn?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 27, Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, Government, Economics, …, Air Sciences, Naval Science, June 1951 (in bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences, Jan. 1951).

Image Source: AEA portrait of William Fellner, Number 71 of a series of photographs of past presidents of the Association, in American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 1 (1970).

 

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Exams for first-year graduate economic theory. Haberler.

 

The first year graduate theory course at Harvard was jealously taught by Edward Chamberlin during the mid-20th-century. In 1950-51 Chamberlin sailed off to France as a Fulbright Exchange Scholar, leaving “his” course to be taught by the other alpha-theorist in the department, Gottfried Haberler. The outline and reading list for the two semester graduate introductory economic theory sequence (Economics 201) were transcribed and posted earlier. Today I just noticed that I hadn’t yet transcribed the exams for Ec 201 in 1950-51 that were copied during a later archival visit. So without further ado, I gladly (and proudly) add these exams to the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror collection.

_________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 201 (formerly Economics 101a and 101b). Economic Theory

Full course. Tu., Th., and (and the pleasure of the instructor) Sat at 10. Professor Haberler.

This course is normally taken by graduate students in their first year of residence. 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Courses of Instruction, Box 6, Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences During 1950-51,  p. 83.

_________________________

First Semester Final Exam, January 1951

1950-51
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 201a

Answer Five questions (Write legibly!)

  1. “Utility theory of the cardinal as well as of the ordinal type is a superstructure of questionable utility. It is much more sensible to start economic analysis with demand and supply curves and to forget about utility altogether.” (Cassel). Comment.
  2. In a price-quantity diagram we are given a demand curve for commodity A in terms of commodity B. Suppose we now look at this relationship as a supply of B in exchange for A. Show graphically what the supply curve of B will look like under the following assumptions:
    1. The demand curve for A is a sloping straight line.
    2. The demand curve for A has a constant elasticity of unity.
    3. The demand curve for A is infinitely elastic.
    4. The demand curve for A has an elasticity of less than one.
      Draw each supply curve alongside of the corresponding demand curve.
  3. It has been often argued, especially by Walras, that under free competition exchange produces an “optimum” situation. But it has also been stated that a discriminating monopolist can reach an “optimum” position as compared with a simple monopolist. Discuss the meaning and limitations of these statements with the aid of two superimposed indifference maps.
  4. Draw the short run and long run cost curves of an individual firm including marginal cost, average total cost and average variable cost curves.
    Indicate and discuss how the short run and long run supply curve of the firm is derived from or related to the cost curves.
  5. How do you derive an industry supply curve from the supply curves of the individual firms? Under what assumptions can that be done by simply adding horizontally the individual supply curves?
  6. Discuss the factors which may limit the size of a firm and the degree of vertical integration.
  7. Explain the meaning and the use of the production function. How would you derive a cost curve from the production function of a single product and two factors?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 17, Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, Government, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science, January 1951 (in bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences, Jan. 1951).

_________________________

Second Semester Final Exam, May 1951

1950-51
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 201

Write legibly

Part I (One Hour)

  1. Compare the interest theories of Schumpeter, Fisher, Knight, and Böhm-Bawerk.

 

Part II Choose four out of five (One Half Hour Each):

  1. Compare the theory of marginal productivity with Marshall’s theory of “joint demand.”
  2. Discuss some alternative explanations of profits. To what extent can the marginal productivity principle be used for the determination of profits?
  3. Discuss the principal contributions to price theory of the Oxford Study in Business Behaviour by R. L. Hall and C. J. Hitch.
  4. State and appraise critically the basic postulates of the so-called modern welfare economics, as compared with the “old” version.
  5. In what sense can it be said that (a) a monopolist in a product market and (b) a monopsonist in the labor market “exploit” their employees? Analyse the problem graphically.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 27, Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, Government, Economics, …, Air Sciences, Naval Science, June 1951 (in bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences, Jan. 1951).

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1950.

Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. Schumpeter opines on Germany’s future under Hitler, 1933

 

If memory serves me correctly, Larry Summers once commented on a paper by Bob Hall to the effect that the biggest home-run hitters also strike out the most (or did Hall say that about Summers? … whatever). In any event Joseph Schumpeter certainly went down swinging as a political pundit before setting sail to Europe in 1933 with Frank Taussig and his daughter.

 

__________________________

SAYS NAZI GERMANY TO “SETTLE DOWN”
Prof Schumpeter, Harvard, Sails With Prof Taussig

Germany, under Hitler, “looks much worse than she actually is; in a few months the Nazi Government will settle down to a more rational, conservative routine—and then Germany will become a power not only to respect but also, possibly, to fear,” asserted Prof Joseph A. Schumpeter, economics professor at Harvard and Minister of Finance in Austria in 1919, last night before he sailed for two months in Europe.
Boarding the Cunarder Scythia, in company with his superior in the Harvard economics department, Prof Frank W. Taussig, Dr Schumpeter declared that Hitler can conduct the Government on a sounder financial basis than would be possible under a parliamentary setup.
The two professors will spend the Summer visiting scholars and universities on the Continent. Prof Taussig is accompanied by his daughter, Dr Helen B. Taussig.

Source: The Boston Globe, May 27, 1933, p. 13.

Image Source: Harvard University Archives, from Schumpeter’s 1932 German passport.

Categories
Economists Gender Harvard

Radcliffe. Economics Ph.D. alumna, Elizabeth Boody, 1934

 

Joseph Schumpeter’s third wife, Romaine Elizabeth Firuski née Boody (1898-1953), was the first Radcliffe woman to be awarded the distinction of receiving a summa cum laude A.B. in economics. This post provides a few items from her undergraduate years as well as a brief biography that the Find-A-Grave website clearly copied from somewhere else, but which for our purpose here is still a useful summary. The wedding announcement “Mrs. E.B. Firuski Wed to Educator” from the New York Times (August 17, 1937) provides a wonderful detail regarding the location of the wedding luncheon–the Viennese Roof Garden of the St. Regis in Manhattan.

For much more detail about Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter’s life, career, and her personal and professional partnership with Joseph Schumpeter, see:

Robert Loring Allen, Opening Doors: The Life and Work of Joseph Schumpeter. Volume 2: America. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.

Richard A. Lobdell, “Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter (1898-1953)” in A Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists, Edited by Robert W. Dimand, Mary Ann Dimand, and Evelyn L. Forget. London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2000, pp. 382-385.

Richard Swedberg, Joseph A. Schumpeter: His Life and Work. Polity Press, 1991.

Elizabeth Boody received her Ph.D. in economics from Radcliffe in 1934. Her doctoral dissertation had the title “Trade Statistics and Cycles in England, 1697-1825”.

___________________________

Radcliffe College Yearbook, 1920

Source: Elizabeth Boody’s senior picture from the Radcliffe Yearbook 1920, p. 36

___________________________

Brief biography from the Find-a-Grave Website

Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter was an economist and expert on East Asia.

Born Romaine Elizabeth Boody on 16 August 1898 in Lawrence, Massachusetts, she was the daughter of Maurice and Hulda (Hokansen) Boody. She lived there with her family until she enrolled at Radcliffe College in the Fall of 1916.

At Radcliffe, Boody majored in economics, pursuing a special interest in labour problems. In the spring of 1920, she was awarded the college’s first summa cum laude AB degree in economics. After graduation, Boody worked as an assistant labour manager for a clothing firm in Rochester, New York. She returned to Radcliffe for graduate studies in economics, including coursework in statistics as well as economics, reflecting the field’s increasing interest in quantitative data and statistical techniques. Boody published her first scholarly article in 1924 in the Review of Economic Statistics, eventually becoming the first woman to serve as a contributing editor of that journal. She earned an M.A. in 1925 and joined the Harvard University Committee on Economic Research, where she was particularly interested in the statistical analysis of time series data and their use in forecasting business cycles. Resuming doctoral studies at Radcliffe, Boody spent 1926 and 1927 collecting English trade statistics for her thesis in London, where she was strongly influenced by Harold Laski and others at the London School of Economics.

Boody was appointed an Assistant Professor of Economics at Radcliffe. She also taught at Vassar (1927-1928) and at Wheaton College (1938-1939, 1948-1949). As a lecturer and author of articles on East Asian economics and politics, she advocated a “moderate isolationist” policy in the Pacific during the years preceding World War II. She was an assistant editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Boody completed her Ph.D. in 1934. From 1935 to 1940 she worked for the Bureau of International Research at Harvard University. There she directed two studies: one of English trade during the 18th century, and one on the industrialization of Japan and Manchukuo. These resulted in the publication of two books, one of them posthumous: The Industrialization of Japan and Manchukuo (1940) and English Overseas Trade Statistics, 1697-1808 (1960).

In 1937 she married fellow Harvard economist Joseph Alois Schumpeter. He died 08 January 1950 at their residence in the hamlet of Taconic, Town of Salisbury, Litchfield County, CT, where she ran a small nursery. She edited their posthumously published magnum opus, History of Economic Analysis (1954), based on his research.

Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter died of cancer 17 July 1953.

Her personal and professional papers, dating from 1938-1953, are archived at the Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

___________________________

THE THIRD DIVISION

Sarah Wambaugh, A.B. 1902, A.M. 1917
Romaine Elizabeth Boody, A.B. 1920

Sarah Wambaugh, author of “A Monograph on Plebiscites” and temporary member of the Administration Commission and Minority Section of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, is now an instructor in Political Science at Wellesley College. Romaine Elizabeth Boody graduated summa cum laude in Economics, and became Assistant Employment Manager for the Hickey-Freeman Company of Rochester, New York.

[High likely that Elizabeth Boody is one of the Radcliffe women in the picture below.]

A VISITOR in Cambridge having supper at the Cock Horse, once the home of Longfellow’s “Village Blacksmith,” may occasionally encounter a group of girls in deep discussion. They may be eagerly arguing some point with a man, whom one instantly labels a Harvard professor. The visitor is probably privileged to gaze upon an evening meeting of the Third Division Club of Radcliffe College. The issue may be the League of Nations, the tariff, a decision of the disarmament conference, or any other topic of the day.

The Third Division from which the Club takes its name includes the Departments of History, Government, and Economics. Students concentrating in these departments formed the club some three years ago with a double purpose — to increase the pleasant social intercourse of students and professors interested in the division and to prepare members to pass their final General Examination. When this examination was uppermost in mind, the Club was often unofficially known as the “Third Degree Club.”

Both to Harvard and to Radcliffe large numbers of students have always been drawn from far and wide by the authority and record for public service of the men who give instruction in these departments. But at Radcliffe, interest in these courses has increased greatly during the last few years, until in 1920 approximately one fourth of the Senior class chose this field of concentration. This impetus is traceable in part to the war and to the larger place women are occupying in industrial and social life, but especially to the stimulus of the chance to work under the guidance of men whose names are always in the public print, whose opinions have been anxiously sought at every juncture of the Great War and of the readjustment period.

Regardless of the actual quality of the instruction, is it not human nature to listen the more eagerly to the well-known expert who may come to class occasionally directly from the train from Washington where he has been acting as adviser to a congressional committee? The privilege of hearing and questioning a Thomas Nixon Carver robs the name “sociology” of any impractical flavor it may have had in pre-college days. The labor situation seems to require immediate attention when a Ripley stands ready to interpret it. The newspaper-reading undergraduate who finds Radcliffe her natural habitat is pulled with equal urgency to International Law with George Grafton Wilson, and Municipal Government with William Bennett Munro.

When making up the courses of study for the year it is evident that the fare provided by the Third Division is tantalizing to say the least. How hard it is to choose. How can failure to study under Albert Bushnell Hart, Professor Holcombe, or Professor Day be explained to parents, old teachers, or the neighbors at home? Will one regret the rest of one’s days the omission of Professor Taussig’s course? Most likely. Certain alluring pages in the catalogue must be hurried over. The world seems nothing but one renunciation after another.

In addition to Harvard instruction, Radcliffe students of History, Government, and Economics have the use of the great Harvard Library. They have access to the Boston Public Library and its splendid Americana, to the Boston Athenaeum, famous for its Washingtonia, the Massachusetts State Library, strong on foreign law, and the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, rich in local history and manuscript material.

These departments were the first to adopt the tutorial system and the general final examination. Useful as the new plan has proved in other departments, it is especially suited to the study of these subjects. In a literal sense these are living subjects, changing their aspect with each day’s news — news which cannot be correctly interpreted by isolated study but only by discussion. The wide reading necessary must be judiciously assimilated in order to develop the student’s appreciation and critical faculties. This can be done only with the help of some one who had already mastered the subject.

Under the new plan tutors guide and assist the students in preparing for the final examination, meeting those in their charge individually every week. The tutor is in no sense a coach, rather a friendly counselor whose aid is an enormous encouragement to the student in learning how to learn.

It would be interesting to know what these women concentrating in Division Three do after leaving college. After discussing the problems of our present political and industrial structure in the Liberal Club, the Debating Club, and the Third Division Club, do they ever apply their conclusions in practical work? After studying under men of ripe scholarship and wisdom, are they better qualified to take upon themselves the duties of citizenship? These questions are best answered by telling of the work of a few Radcliffe women.

The courses in International Law at Radcliffe have attracted a considerable number of those holding fellowships in the subject from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Two of these graduate students, Bernice V. Brown and Eleanor W. Allen, have subsequently held the Commission for Relief in Belgium Fellowship which means a year’s study in Brussels. A third, Alice Holden, is this year a member of the Department of Government at Smith College, and is giving the course in International Law at that institution.

Many students of economics are engaged in various forms of educational and service work in factories and other industrial establishments, and in administering philanthropies. Elizabeth Brandeis, 1918, is secretary of the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia. Nathalie Matthews, 1907, is the Director of the Industrial Division of the Children’s Bureau at Washington.

The strength of the Third Division lies not alone in the unrivaled quality of the instruction and the stimulus of being in touch with the tide of current history, but also in the type of student it brings to Radcliffe.

SourceWhat We Found at Radcliffe. Boston, McGrath-Sherrill Press, ca. 1921, pp. 7-10.

___________________________

Wedding Announcement

Mrs. E.B. Firuski Wed to Educator

Radcliffe College Research Fellow Married here to Joseph A. Schumpeter

Mrs. Elizabeth Boody Firuski of Windy Hill, Taconic, Conn., was married yesterday at noon to Dr. Joseph A. Schumpeter of Cambridge, Mass., Professor of Economics at Harvard University, in the Community Church of New York by the associate minister, the Rev. Leon Rosser Land.

The ceremony was followed by a luncheon in the Viennese Roof Garden of the St. Regis.

The bride, formerly Assistant Professor of Economics at Vassar College is a research fellow at Radcliffe College, working under the auspices of the Bureau of international Research of Harvard University. Her marriage [1929] to Maurice Firuski was terminated by divorce in Reno in 1933.

Dr. Schumpeter, a widower, was born in Austria, where he was Finance Minister in 1919. He formerly was a professor at the University of Bonn.

Dr. and Mrs. Schumpeter will make their home at Windy Hill until the reopening of the Fall session at Harvard.

Source: The New York Times, August 17, 1937, p. 22.

 

Image Sources: Elizabeth Boody’s senior picture from the Radcliffe Yearbook 1920, p. 36; Portrait of Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter, November 18, 1941. Harvard University Archives.

 

 

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Responses of Wassily Leontief to Questionnaire from Committee to Investigate Walsh-Sweezy Case, 1937

 

For background on the 1937 case involving the Harvard economics instructors Alan R. Sweezy (brother of Paul Sweezy) and John Raymond Walsh, whose appointments were not renewed in spite of positive recommendations from the department of economics, see

Lovejoy, Arthur O. “Harvard University and Drs. Walsh and Sweezy: A Review of the Faculty Committee’s Report.” Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1915-1955), vol. 24, no. 7, 1938, pp. 598–608. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40219387. 

The artifact of value that concludes this post is a draft of Wassily Leontief’s responses to fifteen questions sent out to junior instructional officers at Harvard by the Faculty Committee tasked to review the case and which ultimately released two reports:

Report on the terminating appointments of Dr. J.R. Walsh and Dr. A.R. Sweezy, by the special committee appointed by the President of Harvard University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.

Report on some problems of personnel in the Faculty of arts and sciences by a special committee appointed by the president of Harvard university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

__________________________

Conant Appoints Committee to Investigate Walsh-Sweezy Case
Dodd, Morison, Morgan, Perry, Murdock, Schlesinger, Shapley, Frankfurter, Kohler Named

The Harvard Crimson, May 28, 1937

The complete text of President Conant’s report to the Overseers may be found in column four. [next item below]

Admitting “the existence of substantial doubt within the University as to the justice or wisdom of the University’s action” in regard to the Walsh-Sweezy case, President Conant wrote a letter to the Overseers dated May 26th in which he announced he had appointed a committee to investigate the affair.

The committee will be made up of the nine professor who received a memorandum from 131 junior teachers requesting a report on the issues involved.

At the same time President Conant wrote both Walsh and Sweezy announcing that he very much regretted the misconstruction of the University’s April 6th statement “as a reflection on your teaching capacity and scholarly ability.” In the last paragraph of the letter the President pointed out that the committee will investigate not only the case of the two men but also “the larger questions involved in the promotion of younger men.

The text of the President’s letters to Walsh and Sweezy follow:

Text of Letter

“I understand that the University’s statement issued on April 6 has been misconstrued in some quarters as a reflection on your teaching capacity and scholarly ability. I very much regret this. No such reflection was intended; the statement in my opinion cannot justly be taken as implying that you are not an able teacher or scholar. All that was meant or implied was that your political views and activities outside the University had nothing to do with the decision and that the choice among several candidates was made according to academic criteria.

“I am writing you this letter, after appointing a committee to investigate your case and some of the larger questions involved in the promotion of younger men, in order that you may not be under any misapprehension as to my personal feelings toward you. “Very sincerely yours,   James B. Conant.”

__________________________

TEXT OF REPORT

The Harvard Crimson, May 28, 1937

“To the Board of Overseers:

“In view of the fact that there is not another stated meeting of the Board until Commencement Day, I am reporting to you in writing concerning the case of the two instructors in Economics which I discussed with the Board at the meeting on April 12.

“On May 18, I was informed by a group of senior professors that they had received a memorandum from 131 junior teaching officers of the University requesting them to report upon the issues raised by the University’s action in respect to Messrs. J. R. Walsh and A. R. Sweezy, instructors in Economics. The memorandum was addressed to the following nine professors: E. Merrick Dodd, Jr., Felix Frankfurter, Elmer P. Kohler, Edmund M. Morgan, Samuel E. Morison, Kenneth B. Murdock, Ralph B. Perry, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Harlow Shapley.

“This group informed me that they would prefer to have this inquiry conducted by a committee appointed by the President. I have replied that it is clear that the nine men to whom the memorandum was addressed have the confidence of the petitioners. For that reason I have requested them to make the investigation which the petitioners desire and have appointed them a committee for that purpose. I assured them that the University would make available any information they may desire, and I might add that the Chairman of the Department of Economics has informed me that he welcomes the inquiry.

“I expressed the hope that the report of the committee would he available by the middle of the coming academic year. Since the appointments of Dr. Walsh and Dr. Sweezy run for two years, there is ample time for me to reopen their cases if the committee’s report warrants it.

“Inasmuch as there has been some misunderstanding about a public statement issued on April 6, I have written letters to Dr. Walsh and Dr. Sweezy of which copies are appended.

“No further action or comment on my part would seem to be required until the committee have made their report. I should, however, like to say that the existence of substantial doubt within the University as to the justice or wisdom of the University’s action is sufficient ground for welcoming an inquiry.”

__________________________

 

Questionnaire of the Committee on the appointment and promotion of junior teaching officers at Harvard.

Interleaved with a draft copy of Wassily Leontief’s responses.

CONFIDENTIAL

September 20, 1937

Dear Sir:

The undersigned Committee has been appointed by the President to consider certain questions relating to the method of appointment and promotion of junior teaching officers in Harvard College. It will be of great assistance to the Committee if you will write frank answers to the questions below, together with any general comments you care to make on the broad problems involved, and send them before October 9, 1937, to the Secretary of the Committee, Kenneth B. Murdock, Master’s Lodgings, Leverett House, Cambridge. Your answers and comments will be regarded as strictly confidential and shown to no one except members of the Committee. If it seems desirable to quote from or refer to them in the Committee’s final report, this will be done anonymously.

  1. In your opinion, is the treatment of junior teaching officers at Harvard and the administrative policy and procedure in respect to their appointment and promotion satisfactory; or have you suggestions as to how it might be improved so as to create a better opportunity for intellectual development and professional advancement?

Leontief: For the lower ranks of the teaching staff the problem of creating a “better opportunity for intellectual development” is fundamentally a question of firing and not of hiring and promoting.
As long as the position of instructorship is considered to be a temporary one and while only a small proportion of the junior staff can be absorbed by promotion into the higher ranks, the position of the average junior officer will necessarily be precarious. No administrative devices can obviate the necessity of discharging annually a large number of tutors and instructors. At best it might be possible to secure new jobs for some of these the university could help the parting[?] men in their search[?] for new positions, In any case it is well to avoid in parting any at worst [it] should be possible to avoid unnecessary affront to their personal sensibilities. ([The] case Sweezy, Walsh is a good example of how it should not be done).

  1. Has any pressure been exerted upon you to publish, as a condition of your appointment or promotion at Harvard? If so, do you consider this pressure advantageous or harmful to your intellectual development? From whom has the pressure come?

Leontief: The pressure to publish comes from the fact that no man can be promoted without having shown some printed results of his scientific work. It is not personal pressure but pressure of “circumstances”. I find that this pressure is harmful only insofar as it is associated with the presumption that articles are not “real” publications and thus puts a premium on wordiness.

  1. Has your research and publication grown continuously out of your doctor’s thesis and graduate studies; or has there been a conflict or change of interest? If the latter, specify the causes and nature of the conflict or change.

Leontief: My research and publications developed rather continuously, without serious conflicts.

  1. Have you been given a clear definition of what you should do, in scholarly work and teaching, in order to merit appointment or promotion? By whom? Has such advice been helpful or misleading? In answering this question specify your relations to senior members of your Department, the Dean of the Faculty, senior colleagues or personal friends in other Departments.

Leontief: I never asked anybody for a clear definition of what to do to merit promotion. I was told, however, by the head of the department that since I am working in a rather new field it will be necessary to wait and see what the ultimate results will be before deciding whether or not I am to be kept on. I spoke with the Dean of the faculty once; I discuss my current academic problems with the head of the department two or three times a year; among my close friends I have senior as well as junior members of the department. My relations to all others are quite cordial.

  1. Have you felt any conflict between research and teaching, either in respect to the amount of time given to each, or the type of ability and interest required for each? Have you ever been advised to neglect one in favor of the other? If so, by whom? Can you give an approximate statement of the proportion of your time given to teaching, and the proportion to research?

Leontief: Considering the issue of teaching vs. research from a somewhat more general standpoint than that of your question I wish to call your attention to the fact that in the field of economics it acquires a quite peculiar aspect.
The problems, methods and the general body of knowledge change so frequently that one not actively engaged in the process of scientific work would most likely be ignorant of the most significant present day developments.
While a “good teacher” in physics or history can naturally be expected to command a solid, up to date knowledge of his subject, the “good teacher” in economics—if not engaged in active research—lacks with a very few exceptions this elementary prerequisite of pedagogical activity. This applies not only to graduate instruction but also to the higher type undergraduate courses. I personally have never experienced any conflict between my research and teaching activities for the simple reason that both coincided in their subject matter. Approximately one third of my time is devoted to actual teaching.

  1. To what extent have you received help and encouragement from your senior colleagues, in your teaching, and in your research?

Leontief: With some of my colleagues I maintain a very close contact in research as well as collaboration in teaching. In one instance, for example, we visit each other’s lectures (advanced courses) with a view to closer coordination of subject matter and methods.

  1. At what point in his career does it seem to you that a teacher at Harvard should have definite assurance of permanent tenure?

Leontief: [Blank]

  1. By what standards, and by whom, do you feel that your qualifications for permanent appointment are likely to be appraised? Do you feel confident that the appraisal will be just? If not, what method can you suggest for securing a just appraisal?

Leontief: So far as I know, in the department of Economics appointment to associate professorship is discussed and decided by a “committee of full professors” or the “executive committee” which comprises also associate professors. I have no reason to believe that an “appraisal” by such a committee would not be just.
I think that my standing as a scientist and teacher will determine the opinion of the senior members of the department in the first instance. Secondary considerations of “strategic” character however are also likely to influence in greater or smaller degree their attitude.
In order to achieve a greater uniformity of standards and reduce the influence of various subjective motivations to a minimum it would be advisable in my opinion to
a) define more rigidly the membership of the appointing committee.
b) to require each member of the committee to submit a written, motivating opinion (however short) which would be forwarded to the president of the university together with the final vote of the committee.

  1. Do you believe that serving at Harvard prior to any decision as to your permanent appointment has been beneficial to you as regards your teaching, your scholarship, and your professional career?

Leontief: Yes.

  1. Have you refused offers from other institutions since you have been at Harvard? What reasons led you to refuse them?

Leontief: No.

  1. Do you believe that your personal opinions, in relation to your own field or to other subjects, have in any way influenced your treatment at Harvard? If so, what evidence have you to support this belief? Has a regard for your position or advancement at Harvard limited your freedom of opinion either within or outside of your own field?

Leontief: I do not think that my personal opinion (as distinct from my “personality” in general) has influenced my position in Harvard, nor did a regard for my position or advancement influence or limit the freedom of my opinion.

  1. Have you engaged in any “outside activities”? If so, what proportion of your time have they occupied? How have they been related to your scholarly activities? Do you believe that such outside activities have in any way influenced or jeopardized your appointment or promotion at Harvard? If so, what evidence can you offer in support of this belief?

Leontief: I have hardly ever been engaged in any “outside” activity.

  1. Has your salary been sufficient to meet your living expenses? Has it seemed to you appropriate and just? In answering this and the following question, state whether you are married or unmarried; and, if married, give the size of your family.

Leontief: I am married and have one child. Since the time of my marriage five years ago I have been able to put aside $600. My wife’s medical expenses connected with an automobile accident absorbed all these savings. This financial situation is not typical because unlike most of my colleagues I do not receive any supplementary income from instruction in Radcliffe College or in the Harvard Summer School.

  1. Have you found living conditions, housing, schooling, etc. satisfactory in Cambridge?

Leontief: I find the cost of living comparatively high, the public schools inadequate and private schools beyond the reach of my budget.

  1. Have you been delayed in completing your research by inability to finance publication or by the cost of securing requisite materials not available in Cambridge? What remedy do you suggest?

Leontief: My research work is supported by the Harvard Committee for Research in Social Sciences which has nearly without exception granted all my requests for financial assistance.

In answering the above questions, the Committee hopes that you will support and illustrate your comments by specific citations from your own experience, or that of others.

Very truly yours,

Ralph Barton Perry, Chairman
Professor of Philosophy

Elmer Peter Kohler
Professor of Chemistry

William Scott Feguson
Professor of History

Felix Frankfurter
Professor of Law

Edmund Morris Morgan
Professor of Law

Edwin Merrick Dodd, Jr.
Professor of Law

Arthur Meier Schlesinger
Professor of History

Harlow Shapley
Professor of Astronomy

Kenneth B. Murdock, Secretary
Professor of English

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Wassily Leontief (HUG 4517.7). Box: Personal correspondence etc. Dates mainly from 1920’s and 1930’s. Folder: [W.L.-Personal]

Image Source: Wassily Leontief in Harvard Class Album 1934.

Categories
Harvard Radical Stanford UMass

University of Massachusetts. Hiring a flock of “radical economists”, 1973

 

One wonders what exact path was taken by the following memorandum from the Dean of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst for us to find a copy that landed the files of George Stigler at the University of Chicago. Anyhow it is fairly clear that Dean Dean Alfange, Jr. (not a typo, his first name is really “Dean”), a political scientist and then acting department head of the economics department, felt sufficient local push-back for his wholesale acquisition of the cream of academic radical economics that he put together a full paper-defense for the deal, including letters of support by Harvard’s John Kenneth Galbraith and Stanford’s John Gurley. 

Still, Chicago had no dog in this fight so I am modestly surprised that Stigler would have received and even kept his copy of the memo. I guess without academic gossip, faculty clubs would have one less excuse to serve booze to the senior and junior ranks of academic barflies.

A friend of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror writes:

“The most plausible reason the memo on U Mass hiring found it’s way to Stigler’s files is James Kindahl, a U Mass economist mentioned in the dean’s memo. He was Stigler’s PhD student, friend and co-author.”

____________________________

The U-Mass Dean’s Apologia

University of Massachusetts
Memorandum

Date: February 26, 1973

From: Dean, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
To: Members of the Department of Economics
Subject: Recruitment

Offers of appointment have now been formally extended to the following persons:

Rank

Effective Date

Term

Robert Coen

Professor

1973

Tenure

Richard Wolff

Associate Professor

1973

Tenure

Samuel Bowles

Professor

1974

Tenure

Richard Edwards

Assistant Professor

1974

3 years

Herbert Gintis

Associate Professor

1974

Tenure

I believe that you have already been notified that offers of appointment have also been extended to Stephen Resnick as Professor with tenure, effective September, 1973, and to Leonard Rapping as Visiting Professor for the Fall semester, 1973-74. The latter offer has been accepted. Earlier, offers were made to, and accepted by, Ronald Oaxaca, Thomas Russell, and Josephine Gordon at the Assistant Professor/Instructor level. An offer to Marilyn Manser as Assistant Professor/Instructor was extended, but has been declined.

If the offers currently outstanding are accepted, I do not think it would be either immodest or inaccurate for me to suggest that this will have been the most successful and effective recruiting year in the history of the department. We will have filled our long standing gaps in macroeconomics and monetary economics with excellent appointments, we will have added some very promising younger economists in applied fields, and we will have brought in a group of “radical” economists who are, by general agreement, the very best representatives of that school of economists in the United States.

I should have thought that these recruiting efforts needed no justification or defense. However, on the day when the five most recent offers listed above were sent out, I received a memorandum from Jim Kindahl suggesting certain reservations about the recruitment of the “radicals,” and asking me to explain my actions to the department. The remainder of this memorandum is written in response to that request.

First of all, it was suggested that the recruitment of the “radical” group was somehow carried on clandestinely. I am left rather puzzled by that because I hardly thought that the matter was a secret. Each of the members of this group visited the campus and spoke openly and frankly with many members of the department. I have also had occasion over the past few months to speak with a substantial number of the members of the department, and I found no one who was unaware of my recruiting intentions. Those members of the department who chose not to discuss personnel matters with me did so despite the fact that I invited discussion of such matters with faculty individually or in groups. Moreover, the question arose in the department meeting in January, and no one present seemed to me to be in the dark. It is true that I made no formal announcement of recruiting plans to the department, but it should be remembered that the department has no personnel committee, that it rejected my desire to establish an advisory committee on personnel matters, and that it certainly has not been the practice in the recent past to publicize and to encourage broad discussion of recruitment plans within the department as a whole.

Second, it was indicated that a substantial number of department members either have reservations regarding, or are definitely opposed to, the recruitment of the “radical” group. I suppose that to be true. The Department of Economics has not been known in the past for its ability to establish a broad consensus on significant personnel matters, and I assume that no meaningful step in any direction could be taken that a substantial number of members of the department would not either have reservations regarding or be opposed to. With knowledge of this circumstance, the department practice in the recent past has been deliberately to ignore this lack of consensus and to move ahead in the direction thought most advisable by the department leadership. While my strongest desire both as Dean and as acting department head is to establish a departmental consensus on fundamental issues, and my hope is that the work of the department head search committee can be an important vehicle in this regard, it nevertheless seems to me necessary, in the short run, to accept the lack of consensus as a given, and not to allow it to bring the development of the department to a standstill.

It was not my original intention to serve this year as acting department head, nor was it my intention to act without a personnel committee. I had hoped to appoint a member of the department to serve as acting head, but Vice-Chancellor Gluckstern prevailed upon me to act in that capacity after some members of last year’s personnel committee persuaded him that that arrangement would be preferable to having an acting head from within the department. The decision not to have a personnel committee was, of course, an action taken by an almost unanimous vote of the department with full knowledge that I would be serving as acting head. Following that vote, I sought to establish an informal advisory committee to assist me on personnel matters, but I abandoned that plan after protests arose within the department that such a committee would be, in effect, a de facto personnel committee, whose establishment would contravene the department vote not to have such a committee. The point is that I did not maneuver myself into the position that I have been in with relation to the Department of Economics this year. Instead, it would be accurate to say that I was maneuvered into it by departmental action. However, having found myself thrust into the position, I resolved to act vigorously in the area of recruitment in order to dispel the possible image of this department as one so riven by internal disagreement that it could not move forward.

It was obvious to me that the previous recruiting posture of the department—that one hired the best economists one could find, irrespective of field, and presumably also irrespective of whether the person hired would want to teach anything that any students would have any interest in taking—was arrant nonsense, and that it would have to be abandoned before it led to the creation of a department so totally out of balance that it would be incapable of, and uninterested in, meeting the needs of both graduate and undergraduate students. At the start of the year, it seemed to me apparent that there were four pressing recruiting needs to be addressed. First, it was necessary to seek to fill the persistent gaps in macroeconomics and monetary economics that had continued to exist despite the report of the visiting committee and despite the urging of many members of the department that special efforts be made to recruit in these areas in order to meet vital teaching needs. Second, it was necessary to strengthen the department in applied fields, where faculty were spread so thin that it was difficult for individuals to find colleagues with whom effectively to interact. Third, it was absolutely essential that the department become sensitive and responsive to the Affirmative Action program of the university, and that a concerted effort be undertaken to identify and recruit qualified female and minority group candidates. Fourth, it seemed to me impossible for the department to continue to remain insensitive to the ferment taking place within the discipline of economics, in which a substantial number of economists—including some of the most prestigious members of the profession—were challenging the dominant neo-classical paradigm, and calling into question the ability of the profession, utilizing that paradigm, adequately to deal with many of the most urgent social problems in the nation and the world. It is hardly for me to argue that the alternative Marxian paradigm of the “radical” economists is sound and potentially fruitful, and to seek to add “radicals” on that premise. However, it is equally inappropriate to seek to exclude the proponents of that paradigm from appointment in the department on the premise that their approach is demonstrably unsound. As James Tobin explained to me, it is not clear whether the “radicals” can devise the tools adequate to the task of coming to grips with the social problems on which they wish to work, but, on the other hand, it is manifest that conventional economists have as yet been unable to devise tools adequate to this task. In the meantime, an increasing number of younger economists and students have been gravitating toward the “radical” paradigm as more relevant and useful. In this context, a healthy department should, in my view, contain some proponents of the “radical” perspective.

My recruiting efforts this year have been focused in each of these four areas. Robert Coen, to whom an offer has now been extended, was identified by the visiting committee as typical of the macroeconomist that we lacked and needed. Thomas Russell, who has accepted a position in monetary economics, was recommended to me, in the strongest terms, by Dwight Jaffee of Princeton, among others. Additional strength in applied fields will be provided by the appointment of Ronald Oaxaca in labor economics and Josephine Gordon in urban economics, both of whom will also broaden the department from the standpoint of Affirmative Action. In the Affirmative Action area, I have, of course, been strongly assisted by the departmental committee that I appointed to identify female and minority group candidates. The work of this committee is by no means done, particularly since our offer to Marilyn Manser has not been accepted, and continued efforts toward the achievement of Affirmative Action goals may still be anticipated.

It is my manner of seeking to meet the fourth department need, however, that appears to have occasioned the controversy to which Jim Kindahl referred in his memorandum. I was, of course, never unaware that the appointment of “radical” economists to the department would be a controversial matter. I decided to proceed to recruit in this area despite this.  My experience with certain personnel issues in the department over the past couple of years, including the question of a visiting appointment for Sam Bowles this year, has satisfied me—although I know that others involved would conscientiously contend for differing interpretations—that what was occurring was a manifestation of what John Kenneth Galbraith described in his AEA presidential address in December as a “new despotism,” which “consists in defining scientific excellence as whatever is closest in belief and method to the scholarly tendency of the people who are already there. This is a pervasive and oppressive thing not the less dangerous for being, in the frequent case, both self-righteous and unconscious.” Because of this, I had no doubt that the department needed to be broadened and balanced in order to reflect more widely the professional views that are held in the discipline at large.

Sam Bowles, who was, of course, on the campus during the Fall semester, if not in the Department of Economics, assisted me in identifying potential appointees. I was immensely gratified when he himself expressed a willingness to be considered for a position, and his interest led to a similar interest on the part of others of the most outstanding “radical” economists in the United States. I had not initially contemplated the recruitment of a group of “radical” economists, as such, but when the quality of the individuals we might be able to attract became apparent to me, it was obvious that an unparalleled opportunity was at hand to make a major step forward in terms of the professional excellence of the department. As one very traditional member of the department said to me, “Who could have thought that persons of this ability would simply drop in our laps?” The idea of hiring a “radical” group was one that I found to have support among a number of prominent economists, and letters I received from two of these—John Kenneth Galbraith and John Gurley—are reproduced and appended to this memorandum. Still another economist of gigantic national reputation—who could certainly not be described as a “radical”—called me on his own initiative to commend me for my insight into the nature of the economics discipline and to praise me for my courage in going forward with my recruiting plans. While I was most flattered by these encomia, I did not feel that I had displayed either insight or courage, simply common sense. I was also equally aware, that, in the light of the intense divisions within the profession, a substantial number of extremely prominent economists might look with disfavor upon the recruitment of a “radical” group, but, as no attempt seems to have been made in the past to follow a course of recruitment that would have support across the spectrum of prominent economists, I was not deterred by that realization from following a course that I looked upon as a means of redressing the imbalance of the past. I sought, however, to insure that recruitment here would take into consideration the fields in which faculty could be most effectively utilized, and, thus, the “radical” group will add to our resources in the following fields in which added strength can readily be justified: economic development, economic history, industrial organization, and the economics of education.

I have spoken about the “radical” recruitment with a variety of members of the department, including some who would not want to be described as among my supporters. There were some expressions of uneasiness about the size of the group because of the fear that it might come to dominate the department and establish its own orthodoxy from which others would dissent only at their peril. Reservations were also expressed about one of the members of the group whose credentials were less conventional that those of the others. But, by and large, I received indications of support as long as standards of professional quality were maintained. I believe that the sentiments and concerns that were expressed to me were sincere and proper. I have tried to heed them. There is no question in my mind but that customary standards of professional quality have not only been met, but have been far surpassed in these cases. Of the four appointments at the two higher ranks, two, from every indication I received, had widespread support within the department and were extraordinarily well recommended by outstanding traditional economists. The third, although less well known to members of the department, received brilliant letters of recommendation and is regarded as a superb economist by those who have worked closely with him. Because of the reservations expressed with regard to the fourth member of the group, his credentials were subjected to exacting scrutiny, and I am fully satisfied that, despite his less conventional background, his, too, is a distinguished appointment. He has had an active and ongoing program of research; his publications have been well received by those who are most familiar with them, and, perhaps most importantly, the evidence is clear and uncontradicted that he is an extraordinary and gifted teacher.

There remains to be discussed the concern that was expressed regarding the establishment of a possible “radical” orthodoxy. I do not see how it would be possible for a relatively small minority of the department to gain control and establish an orthodoxy without my support, and I want to take this opportunity unequivocally to assure all members of the department that I do not intend to permit that to occur. I am committed as a matter of principle to the establishment of a balanced department and to the maintenance of an atmosphere of toleration for differing methodologies so that theorists and applied economists, neo-classicists and “radicals” can work together and flourish undisturbed by fears that their work will be judged, not by its quality, but by whether or not others in the department would do it in the same way. Education, at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, becomes merely indoctrination unless students are allowed to be exposed to all approaches and perspectives that are widely held within a discipline, and given the opportunity to select among them. It is my fervent hope that education, in the best sense of that term, can be given to students in economics at this institution.

Now that the offers discussed above have been formally extended on behalf of the university, it remains only for them to be accepted, and I have been led to believe that these acceptances may be expected. Since that is the case, I will suggest to all members of the department who do not share my enthusiasm over the success of this year’s recruitment that, at this stage, accommodations would be far more fruitful than recriminations. The Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts is now “on the map.” We are in a situation in which we can compete far more effectively with the most outstanding departments in the recruitment of faculty. I have been told that there are a sizeable number of graduate students at Harvard who are waiting only for word of the actual appointments of Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis before applying for transfer here, and that is only symptomatic of what may safely be expected to be an enormous increase in the number and quality of the applicants for admission to our graduate program. A corresponding increase in the undergraduate interest in our economics may also be anticipated. In short, I believe that if our outstanding offers are accepted, we will have reached the point at which the frustrations and the miseries of the past can at long last be put behind us. I have little doubt that, within a relatively few years, we will deservedly have the reputation of being one of the genuinely outstanding departments of economics in the United States.

[signed]
Dean Alfange, Jr.
Dean, Faculty of Social
and Behavioral Sciences

DA,Jr/jhg

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Box 3, Red Folder “U of C Econ., Miscellaneous”.

____________________________

The U-Mass Dean
Requesting Cover from Galbraith

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
University of Massachusetts
Amherst 01002

College of Arts and Sciences
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Office of the Dean

February 2, 1973

Professor John Kenneth Galbraith
Chalet Bergsonne
Gstaad, Switzerland

Dear Professor Galbraith:

I would like to express to you my very deep appreciation for your indirect encouragement of my effort to bring to the Economics faculty of the University of Massachusetts a group of “radical” economists to broaden the base of what has heretofore been an extremely narrowly focused department. I was particularly gratified by the kind words of support that you included in the letter of reference that you sent me on Herb Gintis.

By this time, Sam Bowles will probably have spoken to you about the possibility of your sending me a general letter of support for the appointment of the five-man group that we hope to recruit over the next two years—Steve Resnick and Rick Wolff in 1973, and Sam Bowles, Herb Gintis, and Rick Edwards in 1974. So that your memory may be refreshed on the accomplishments of this group, I am enclosing a vita for each of them.

I am now reasonably satisfied that my proposal will be supported at the campus level by the Provost and the Chancellor, and, while I have no reason to expect that any objections will be forthcoming from either President Robert Wood or the Board of Trustees, I believe that a letter from you could be instrumental in persuading people that this is a respectable venture, should any questions be raised in the President’s office or at the Board of Trustees. I have heard, indirectly, that a member of either the Harvard or MIT faculty has already written to President Wood advising him to be cautious in giving his approval to my proposal, and your letter would serve as a vital counterweight to that point of view.

I think it would be most useful if you could address the letter to me, rather than to President Wood, because it would then allow me to present it to him at the most propitious time, but I would certainly bow to your preference on this matter.

Once again, I am deeply appreciative of your support.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Dean Alfange, Jr.
Dean, Faculty of Social
and Behavioral Sciences

DA,Jr/smr

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith, Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526, Folder “Harvard Dept. of Economics. Discussion of appointments. Outside interests and reorganization, 1972-1973 (1 of 2)”.

____________________________

Galbraith Obliges

John Kenneth Galbraith
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

February 13, 1973

Dean Dean Alfange, Jr.
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
South College
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002

Dear Dean Alfange:

I was enormously impressed to hear of the proposed appointments—Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis together with Resnick, Wolff and Edwards—at the University of Massachusetts. I have always been proud of my association with the University—including that of an honorary alumnus—but never more than now. With one step you are putting the Amherst campus in the forefront of progressive economic thought in the United States. And this is at a time when discontent with the established modalities in economics—its divorce from reality, its commitment to small refinement—is notably strong among students, the aware public and within the profession itself.

As you surely know, Bowles and Gintis had the strong backing at Harvard of (with others) Kenneth Arrow, Wassily Leontief and myself—together we are three of the last four presidents of the American Economic Association and the only members of the Department to have held this position. Arrow, of course, is our currently active Nobel Prize winner. I know Renick and Wolff only by reputation—and their impressive vitaes—and Edwards only as one of our younger staff members, but they are all obviously men of interest and promise. All of them are concerned with breaking new ground—with bringing a searching and critical attitude to bear on existing ideas and institutions. At the same time all are committed to a rigorous methodology and all are strong defenders of the civil and tolerant tradition in our university and academic life. These matters seem to me important and especially, perhaps, the commitment to hard, diligent and rigorous work. There has been a dissenting tradition in university life in these last years which would liberate man from both physical and mental toil. These men have no part of such nonsense. And, in the end, it is always the critical, not the routine and sycophantic, work which wins respect and attention.

You will understand why, along with others, I regret that we will not have these scholars at Harvard. (I am especially disappointed about Gintis whose promotion the Department supported and who, I thought, would be ours.) I have found association with members of this group exceedingly agreeable, stimulating and specifically useful in recent years, and my own writing has benefited greatly therefrom. In case this seems like casual praise, may I say that I would personally welcome some opportunity for continued association with the seminar work which these men will be doing at Amherst or—better still—which they might be persuaded to offer at the Boston campus, if that is a practical possibility.

Let me again affirm my admiration for your initiative and congratulate you on your good fortune. As one of the most liberal states in the Union, it seems to me clear that Massachusetts and its University are worthy of each other.

Yours faithfully,
[signed]
John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG: mjh

Source:  Photocopy:  University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Box 3, Red Folder “U of C Econ., Miscellaneous”.
Carbon copy: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith, Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526, Folder “Harvard Dept. of Economics. Discussion of appointments. Outside interests and reorganization, 1972-1973 (1 of 2)”.

____________________________

Handwritten Note in Support of the U-Mass Hiring from Gurley

Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

Department of Economics

January 28, 1973

Dear Dean Alfange:

I have recently heard that the economics department at your university is considering hiring a group of younger economists—Bowles, Gintis, Woolf [sic], Resneck [sic], and Edwards—all of whom have contributed greatly to refashioning economics from its neo-classical form into a social science that has much more relevance to the present-day world. I admire the work of these young economists, some of which has already revolutionized certain areas of economics, and so I hope that they will in fact come to U. of M. as a group. If they do, the economics department there will soon become of the leading ones in the country so far as the younger generation of economists and graduate students are concerned.

I wish you and this undertaking the very best of luck.

Sincerely,
[signed] John G. Gurley
Professor of Economics

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Box 3, Red Folder “U of C Econ., Miscellaneous”.

Image Source: Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis at the Sydney Radical Education Conference,  Copy of “Education for Liberation” by Robert Mackie.

Categories
Chicago Economists Harvard

Chicago. Milton Friedman visits the Harvard Young Conservative Club, 1964

 

At the time of Milton Friedman’s talk at Harvard, reported below in the Harvard Crimson, the 1964 Republican Presidential primaries and conventions were running hot and Senator Barry Goldwater was taking a lot of flak for his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Milton Friedman can be seen here flying wingman for Goldwater on the issue.

________________________

Friedman Cautions Against Rights Bill
The Harvard Crimson, May 5, 1964

Milton Friedman, professor of economics at the University of Chicago and bogeyman of Ec 1, last night defended the “free-market principles” of “unanimity without conformity” against encroachments by the “coercive mechanism” of “the political method.”

In a talk sponsored by the Young Conservative Club, Friedman spent most of the evening criticising the Civil Rights Bill. “The majority in this country are prejudiced,” he stated, “and it is naive–no, it’s undemocratic,–to suppose you’re going to get people to vote against themselves.”

But he also found time to consider the tax cut (“naive”), legislation guaranteeing equal wages to women (“antifeminist”) the Federal Reserve Board (“it has never worked”), the draft (“an invasion of privacy”), legislation in general (“in case after case, laws have had the opposite effect of what was intended”), and the market mechanism (“protects the interests of minoriy groups”).

The Civil Rights Bill, said Friedman, is “wrong in principle,” because it attempts to make people “conform to the values of the majority.”

This bill is made worse, he said, because in actually there is only the “appearance of a majority” in favor of passing it. “The only reason the bill has a ghost of a chance,” he said, is that Northerners will vote for it thinking it applies to the “regional problem” of the South.

“It is extraordinary to see how naive one can be in this area” of legislation, he declared. “If we pass a law saying that race shall not be a factor in employment, then what grounds do we have for opposing a law that race shall be a factor?”

The most valid grounds, he continued, are “the general principle that the state shall not interfere in these matters.”

“The Negro is undoubtedly hurt” by segregation, said Friedman, and “the appropriate recourse is to try to persuade people that they are wrong.”

However, “the most important” solution is to eliminate “barriers” to equality, specifically, fair employment practices legislation. If the free market is allowed to operate, said Friedman, prejudice will result in lower wages for Negroes.

“Each of us separately,” he said, can then “try to offset the actions of others through our own economic activity.” By being unprejudiced and hiring Negroes, “we get things at less cost,” he said. “Not only does virtue triumph–it is even rewarded.”

SourceThe Harvard Crimson Archive.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06231, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.