“Modern Tendencies in Economic Economic Doctrine” was the title of the course taught by Oscar Lange in 1942 at the University of Chicago. According to the notes to the course taken by Norman Kaplan, the first two lectures appear to be Lange’s Apologia for the rationality postulate in modern economic theory that are then followed by lectures in which many themes of Hicks’ Value and Capital are addressed. Karl Marx, Max Weber and Talcott Parsons all get mention in his reflections on the rationality postulate. One can characterise Lange’s mission here and elsewhere as seeking to graft advances in economic theory from the marginal revolution that led to neoclassical economics to the trunk of (Marxian) classical economics.
______________________
If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….
_____________________________________
[Course Announcement, Economics 303, Spring 1942]
303. Modern Tendencies in Economic Doctrine.—A critical study of controversial questions in the general body of economic theory, and of some modern developments of that theory. The fundamentals of the theory of general equilibrium, the approach to dynamic economics, the foundations of welfare economics, the place of economics among the social sciences and problems of methodology will be discussed. Prerequisite: Economics 301 or equivalent. Spring, Tu., Th., 3:30-5:30, Lange.
Source: University of Chicago, The College and the Divisions for the Sessions of 1941-1942. Announcements Vol. XLI, No. 10 (April 25, 1941), p 307.
_____________________________________
Spring, 1942
ECONOMICS 303
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Required
J. R. Hicks. Value and Capital
H. Schultz. Theory and Measurement of Demand, chap. vi
J. Dean. “Department-Store Cost Functions,” Studies in Mathematical Economic and Econometrics, p. 222.
F. Lindahl. Studies in the Theory of Money and Capital, part I [(handwritten marginal note: (Read along with dynamic part of Hicks)]
H. Makower and J. Marschak. “Money and the Theory of Assets,” Economica (Aug. 1938)
M. Kalecki. “The Principle of Increasing Risk,” Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations
G. L. S. Shackle. “Expectations and Employment,” Econ. J. (Sept. 1939)
________________. “The Nature of the Inducement to Invest,” RES (Oct. 1940)
A. G. Hart. “Uncertainty and Inducements to Invest,” RES (Oct. 1940)
T. Scitovszky. “A Study of Interest and Capital,” Economica (Aug. 1940)
J. Tinbergen. “Econometric Business Cycle Research,” RES (Feb. 1940)
R. F. Harrod. “Essay in Dynamic Theory,” Econ. J. (March 1939)
R. F. Kahn. “Some Notes on Ideal Output,” Econ. J. (March 1935)
N. Kaldor. “Welfare Propositions and Inter-Personal Comparability of Utility,” Econ. J. (Sept. 1939)
J. R. Hicks. “The Foundations of Welfare Economics,” Econ. J. (Dec. 1939)
A. P. Lerner. “From Vulgar Political Economy to Vulgar Marxism,” JPE (Aug. 1939)
H. D. Dickinson. “A Comparison of Marxian and Bourgeois Economics,” The Highway 1937
Eric Roll. “The Social Significance of Recent Trends in Economic Theory,” Canadian J. of Economics (Aug. 1940)
Optional
F. H. Knight. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit
G. Tintner. “A Contributionof the Non-Static Theory of Choice,” QJE (Feb. 1942)
A. G. Hart. “Anticipations, Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning,” J. of Business of the U. of C. (Oct. 1940)
J. R. Hicks. “A Suggestion for the Simplification of the Theory of Money,” Economica (1935)
P. N. Rosenstein-Rodan. “The Co-ordination of the General Theories of Money and Prices,” Economica (Aug. 1936)
J. Tinbergen. A Method and its Application to Investment Activity, League of Nations
H. D. Dickinson. The Economics of Socialism
M. H. Dobb. Political Economy and Capitalism
A. P. Lerner. “Statics and Dynamics in Socialist Economics,” Econ. J. (June 1937)
Talcott Parsons. The Structure of Social Action, chap. iv
_____________________________________
ECONOMICS 303
Spring, 1942
I. Discuss briefly the relation of the analysis of consumers’ behavior in terms of indifference curves and in terms of traditional marginal utility theory. Explain
(1) the concept of the marginal rate of substitution and its relation to marginal utility.
(2) the relation between the law of diminishing marginal utility and the convexity (toward the origin) of indifference curves.
(3) the assumptions underlying measurability of utility.
(4) the consequences which dispensing with the hypothesis that utility is measurable has for the law of diminishing marginal utility and for the Edgeworth-Pareto distinction between substitute, independent and complementary commodities.
(5) whether the use of indifference curves and of the marginal rate of substitution requires that utility be immeasurable.
II. Explain the difference between “co-operant” factors of production in the sense of Pigou (i.e., “complementary” factors in the sense of Edgeworth-Pareto) and complementary factors in the sense of Hicks-Allen-Schultz. Show why in the case of only two factors used to produce a product both definitions are equivalent but cease to be so if more than two factors are used. What is the purpose of replacing in the theory of production “co-operancy” by complementarity in the Hicks-Allen sense?
III. Describe the way in which uncertainty of price expectations influences the production plans of firms and the consumption plans of households. Explain
(1) what features of uncertain price expectations influence the planning of sales and purchases.
(2) apply your explanation to the determination of forward prices.
(3) discuss how uncertainty influences the length of the economic horizon and how this accounts for the insensitiveness of current investment to changes in interest rates.
IV. State the conditions of stability of general economic equilibrium and try to link them up with the relation of changes in the quantity of money to changes in the demand for cash balances. Don’t worry if you cannot answer the second part of the question. If you can answer it, give an example of a behavior of the monetary system which will make general equilibrium unstable.
Source: University of Chicago Archives. Norman Kaplan Papers, Box 2, Folder 6.
Image source: Wikipedia/commons.