Overton Hume Taylor served as the Harvard economics department’s one-man show of PPE interdisciplinarity at both the undergraduate and graduate level for about two decades covering the middle of the 20th century. Materials from six of his courses have already been posted.
Econ 1. (with Leontief and Chamberlin) Honors Economic Theory, 1939-40
Econ 1b. Intellectual Background of Economic Thought, 1941, [Final Exam for the Course]
Econ 115. (with Leontief) Programs of Social and Economic Reconstruction, 1942-43
Econ 115. Economic and Political Ideas, 1948 , [Mid-year Exam for Economic and Political Ideas]
Econ 111. (with others) Economics of Socialism, 1950
Econ 111. Socialism, 1955
Here is a link to Taylor’s A History of Economic Thought (1960) that puts between two covers much, if not all, of what he had to say about the history of economics, politics and philosophy.
Kindred spirits are to be found behind the course syllabi by Louis Putterman at Brown (1995) and Michael Piore at M.I.T (1977) posted earlier.
_____________________
Course Enrollment
[Economics] 205a (formerly Economics 105a). Main Currents of Thought in Economics and Related Studies over Recent Centuries (F). Dr. O. H. Taylor.
Total 15: 4 Graduates, 3 Seniors, 6 Public Administration, 2 Radcliffe.
Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1948-49, p. 77.
_____________________
Course Syllabus
Main Currents of Thought in Economics and Related Studies over Recent Centuries
Economics 205a
1948-49
- September 30—October 7. Introduction: Plato and the Middle Ages; Hobbes and the Mercantilists
Reading: (1) Plato Republic, Book II; (2) Hobbes, Leviathan, Chs. 1, 6, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24; (3) One of the following: Sir T. Mun, England’s Treasure; Sir J. Child, Discourses in Trade; Sir D. North, Discourse on Trade; or Locke, Interest and Money
Thursday, September 30, Introductory lecture.
Tuesday, October 5. Plato and the ancient-medieval antecedents of modern-western culture and economic thought. Modernity vs. medievalism; 17th century England; and Hobbes vs. Plato
Thursday, October 7. 17th century English mercantilism and economic theory
- October 14—21. Liberalism; Locke, the Physiocrats, and Adam Smith; and Benthamism
Reading: (1) O. H. Taylor, 2 articles on natural law ideas and economics, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 44; (2) Locke, Civil Government, II, Chs. 2, 5, 7-12, inclusive; and (3) Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Chs. 1-7.
[Tuesday, October 12, Holiday]
Thursday, October 14. Liberalism and economic thought-varieties of former and their effects on latter—from early-modern times to the present
Tuesday, October 19. Ethical natural law and early-modern liberalism. Locke vs. Hobbes. Locke, Newton, and 18th century ideas of the natural order. Philosophies and economic theories of the Physiocrats and Adam Smith
Thursday, October 21. Benthamism. Utility and natural law. Utilitarian liberalism and classical economics
- October 26—November 4. Malthus and Ricardo; the Romantic Reaction: Comte; Early Socialism and J. S. Mill
Reading: (1) Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy, Chs. 11-6; (2) Sabine, History of Political Theory, Chs. 28, 29, 30, 34; (3) A. Comte, Positive Philosophy (translation, Martineau), Introd. Ch. 1; Book VI, 1, 2; and (4) J. S. Mill, Logic, Book VI.
Tuesday, October 26. (1) Malthus vs. the anarchist-socialists; (2) Ricardo’s Economic theory
Thursday, October 28. The romantic reaction against rationalism, science and liberalism. Political and economic ideas of the English romanticists. Special development of this outlook in Germany
Tuesday, November 2. Romanticism, positivism, and the main 18th century outlook-interrelations. The positivism of August Comte vs. liberalism and economic science
Thursday, November 4. (1) Pre-Marxian socialism; (2) J. S. Mill’s attempted synthesis
- November 9—18. Marxism
Reading: (1) Burns, Handbook of Marxism, Chs. 1, 13, 14, 22, 26, 29, 30; (2) Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Part I.
Tuesday, November 9. “Utopian” socialism, Hegel, Ricardo, and Marx; and the Marxian theory of history
[Thursday, November 11, Holiday]
Tuesday, November 16. The Marxian economics—theory of capitalism
Thursday, November 18. The Marxian vision of the future beyond capitalism; and concluding remarks on Marxism
- November 23—December 7. Victorian Conservative Liberalism and Neo-Classical Economics
Reading: A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book I, Chs. 1 and 2; Appendices A, B; Book III; Book IV, Chs. 1-3 inclusive and 8-13 inclusive; Book V, Chs. 1-5 inclusive
Tuesday, November 23. How in late 19th century the classical liberalism, originally a radical, became a conservative ideology. Social Philosophy of conservative liberalism, and new developments of economic theory in this context after 1870
[Thursday, November 25, Holiday]
Tuesday, November 30. Utility economics and utilitarianism—the free price system and economic welfare. Marginal productivity and distributive justice—Clark and Carver. And neo-classical theories about capital, money, business cycles, monopoly, and economic progress.
Thursday, December 2. The development, value, and limitations of mathematical economics
Tuesday, December 7. The special views and system of Alfred Marshall
- December 9—16. Veblen; Chamberlin; and Keynes
Reading: Max Lerner; The Portable Veblen (Viking Library), pp. 215-297; 306-349; 377-395; 431-467
Thursday, December 9. Thorstein Veblen’s philosophy and sociology (called economics) vs. the main-tradition economics. His contributions to “institutional economics,” and to the “New Deal” and latter-day American liberalism.”
Tuesday, December 14. Veblen vs. neo-classical theory of competition, and Chamberlin’s theory of monopolistic competition. Critique of latter as analysis, and in its bearings and problems of public policy.
Thursday, December 16. “Keynesianism” the decisive break with neo-classicism and the old economic-liberal orthodoxy. Its antecedents in the main tradition of economic theory, and relations to mercantilism, liberalism, and socialism. Its contribution to analysis and policy, and its limitations.
[Reading Period]
“Dr. Taylor will announce assignment in class.”
[Based on last examination question below, the reading period assignment would probably have been: David Wright, Democracy and Progress]
Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 4, Folder “Economics, 1948-1949 (2 of 2)”.
_____________________
Final Examination
ECONOMICS 205a
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1948-49
Write on four questions, including the first and last in the following list. Devote one hour to the first question, and one hour to one of the others, marking as such your two one-hour essays.
- Discuss the statements (a), (b), and (c) below—each in turn, briefly, indicating with reasons your agreement or disagreement. Then either select the one (if any) which you agree with, or otherwise state your own position on the problem; and apply (illustrate) that position through relevant comments on any two of the general patterns of political-and-economic thought considered in the course.
- “Historical study of the co-variation of economic with political thought refutes the scientific claims of economics. Economists have always divided into ‘schools,’ on political lines; and each ‘school’ has developed its own system of economic theory, in conflict with all others, and in a close tie-up with its own partisan, political philosophy.”
- “Economists have too often mingled and confused suggestions of their personal, philosophical and political opinions with their contributions to scientific, economic theory or analysis. But in reality the former have been irrelevant, the latter independent of them; and the competent economists of all political persuasions have converged to agreement in the field of the science itself.”
- “The political philosophies of economists have not as a rule made their economic theories by any means wholly unscientific or non-scientific, nor—however sharp the oppositions between the former—irreconcilable. But they have produced biased concentrations on the special groups of economic-scientific problems seen as important from the standpoints of the political philosophies; and made all economic theories partial analyses, disclosing means to desired ends.”
- “Unqualified adherence to the premise that ‘natural’ human behavior is simply rational pursuit of individual self-interest, would have logically obliged Adam Smith and the classical economists after him to follow Hobbes in supporting a ‘Totalitarian,’ despotic government as indispensable for civil peace and order; and to follow the ‘mercantilist’ writers in supporting economic controls by such a government, as indispensable for national prosperity and an orderly working of the national economy. The ‘liberal,’ political and policy views of Adam Smith and his followers required and had as their ultimate foundation, a belief—shared with Locke but not with Hobbes—that moral self-restraint in deference to the rights of others is a ‘natural,’ human disposition, capable of limiting self-interested action to what is consistent with it.” Discuss.
- “The entire main tradition of economic theory, in its development from the eighteenth through the nineteenth into the twentieth century, retained, in defiance of growing factual evidence, a strong optimistic bias about the free-competition market economy—identification of its equilibrium with a social-economic optimum—which had its sole origin in the eighteenth century’s optimistic, metaphysical belief in an harmonious, natural order.” Discuss.
- Discuss the apparent and often alleged intellectual debts or similarities of basic elements of (a) Ricardian classical economic theory, (b) the later body of ‘neo-classical’ theory emphasizing ‘marginal utility’ etc., and (c) Pigou’s and more recent theories of ‘welfare economics,’ to Bentham’s psychological, ethical, and social theories. What elements of each (a, b, and c) might appear to derive from ‘Benthamism,’ and what real similarities and significant differences do you see between them and the corresponding elements of the latter?
- Describe and discuss either (a) the English and German ‘romantic’ or (b) August Comte’s ‘positivistic’ line of attack upon the classical-liberal pattern of political-and-economic thought and its ‘eighteenth century philosophical foundation.’
- Compare and discuss Ricardo’s and Marx’s “labor theory of value”—explaining how each author developed, supported, construed, and used the theory; the points wherein you think they agreed or differed; and the points you would make in defense and/or criticism of each author’s theory.
- Outline, explain briefly, and discuss critically the main philosophical and economic-theoretical ingredients of the Marxian “dynamic” theory of evolving capitalism.
- “In the development of economic theory since its early classical period, the prevalence of a too single-minded pursuit of increasing logical precision and rigor, mistakenly conceived as the whole of scientific progress, has made theory increasingly abstract and decreasingly useful in the study of concrete, real problems.”
- Compare and contrast the Veblenian with the Marxian theory of the modern ‘capitalist’ culture, the ‘class’ conflict within it, why and how ‘business’ injures the economic welfare of society, and the kind of régime which should (and will or may) replace ‘capitalism’ in the future; and develop your own appraisal or critique of Veblen’s views on these matters.
- Write your own summary of and commentary on the central thesis of David Wright’s “Democracy and Progress,” concerning the historic method or secret of modern economic progress, and the cultural and political trends now menacing its continuance.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 16, Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions, Government, Economics,…Military Science, Naval Science, Feb. 1949.
Image Source: Overton Hume Taylor, Lecturer on Economics and Tutor. Harvard Class Album, 1939.