The successor to Wesley Clair Mitchell in teaching the history of types of economic theory at Columbia University was John Maurice Clark, the son of John Bates Clark. Because of the identical course descriptions printed in the official University Announcement, I figure it is reasonable transcribing the final exams for the Winter and Spring sessions from two different academic years (the only ones I was able to find for the courses, Econ 115 and 116, respectively). John Maurice Clark was a pack rat, but not a model of consistent filing, so there may be other copies to be found in his papers.
In a handwritten class list for Econ 115 (Fall, 1950) one finds 43 names of attendee–with grades noted for 26 of them. The grade distribution of those 26 students was: A (2), A- (6), B+ (5), B (6), B- (3), C+ (1), C (3). Of more than passing interest for historians of economics is that the author of Economic Theory in Retrospect, Mark Blaug, only received a grade of B minus (rank 22 of 26 graded)! Evidence for the slope of Blaug’s learning curve is seen in his grade for Econ 116 in 1951 where he received an A minus. The only other name I immediately recognize from the list was the later Library of Congress specialist on socialist economies, John P. Hardt (Ph.D., 1954). Hardt’s name will long be associated with the green volumes of Joint Economic Committee reports on the economies of China, USSR, and Eastern Europe) with “(vet)” noted after his name but without a grade.
____________________________
Course Announcement
Economics 115-116—Formative types of economic theory. 3 points each session. Professor Clark.
M. W. 12. [310 Fayerweather in Spring session; 1948/49 in 313 Fayerweather for Winter session, 1950/51]
Readings and critical discussion of outstanding examples of the parent stock of classical economics, with some regard to historical setting, and of subsequent outstanding contributions.
Source: Columbia University. Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science. Winter and Spring Sessions (1948-1949 and 1950-1951).
____________________________
Economics 115
Final Examination
January, 1951
Answer any two questions, taking about the time for the actual writing that a regular examination would take. Those who do the work during Christmas holidays will please return papers January 8; others Friday, January 26, unless otherwise specified.
—————–
- Do the views of ancient writers (Hebrew, Greek or Roman) afford the same kind of evidence as the writings of modern economists as to economic conditions and practices of their time?
- Discuss extent of applicability of medieval doctrine on price; variations or relaxations; and how far the doctrine was effective in practice.
- Explain and appraise Quesnay’s “Tableau Economique”.
- State key doctrines of the Physiocrats and indicate how they could be regarded as adaptations to an historical situation.
- Compare views of Smith and Ricardo on the relation of labor to value.
- Compare treatment of rent in Smith, Malthus and Ricardo.
- On what grounds did Adam Smith sanction departures from laissez-faire?
- Topic: dominant conceptions of what economic activity is for. Compare the dominant conception (or at most a few dominant conceptions) of as many of the following as you feel you can reasonably cover: typical Mercantilists, Physiocrats, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill.
- What does Bentham’s theory contribute to the basic rationale of economics, aside from his ideas on economic matters themselves? (Book V. of J. S. Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy” might contain hints.)
- State doctrines of Ricardo which had roots in historical conditions of the time, and indicate the connections.
- Compare Ricardo’s treatment of value with either Adam Smith’s or John Stuart Mill’s.
- What were the sources of J. S. Mill’s departure from strict Ricardianism?
Source: John M. Clark Papers. Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Box 24, Courses: Misc.
____________________________
ECONOMICS 116
Final examination
May, 1949
Answer two questions from the following list:
- If things do not exchange in proportion to their labor cost, in what sense does labor cost govern value, under the labor theory? Discuss
- Discuss the proper relation between historical and theoretical materials in the equipment of an economist.
- (a) What is the meaning of “utility”?
(b) What difference does it make whether economic theory can or cannot make “interpersonal comparisons” of utility? - State some form of theory of the relation of marginal utility to price. Is this a tautological truth? Approximately true or true with qualifications? Inaccurate enough to be misleading? Discuss.
- Define the meaning of marginal productivity as a basis for the division between labor and capital in industry. How, if at all, does it apply to added labor in a plant working below capacity?
- How does Marshall treat the problem of differences between different producers and their costs of production, in his theory of value? Compare treatment of same problem in Chamberlin and/or J. B. Clark.
- Compare Marshall and Chamberlin as to treatment of the element of time in normal price.
- Define various types of welfare economics. Select one and indicate the key problems and difficulties, and methods of dealing with them.
- Analyze the logic of the difference between J. B Clark and Veblen as to what are the normal tendencies of a system of business enterprise.
- Formulate some other significant question on the material covered in the course, and answer it.
Source: John M. Clark Papers. Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Box 35, History of Economic Thought; Folder (tab torn) “??—Cameral. epoch.”
Image Source: Portrait of John Maurice Clark from the collection of portraits of economists presented in 1997 as a gift to the Department of Economics of Duke University by Professor Warren J. Samuels of Michigan State University. Free use of these portraits in Web documents, and for other educational purposes, is encouraged: users are requested to acknowledge that the images come from The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University.