Besides the questions for the final exam in Fritz Machlup’s course on the methodology of economics from the first semester of the 1955-56 academic year at Johns Hopkins University, I include the following photo from the 1956 yearbook Hullabaloo (p. 15) that identifies neither the speaker nor the seminar. While this is about as generic a seminar photo as one can imagine, I have something more than a mere suspicion that we are looking at Fritz Machlup in action. Perhaps some visitor with a keener forensic eye can confirm or reject my tentative identification in a comparison of the above portrait of Machlup reading himself with the speaker in the mystery seminar. The third man on the right, counting from the speaker, sure looks like a young Evsey Domar.
My hunch is based on the following picture of almost certainly the same seminar room in 1963 from the Carl Christ memorial website at Johns Hopkins.
______________
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
METHODOLOGY
18.601
Professor Fritz Machlup
January 27, 1956
Answer five questions, one from each group.
Write on loose sheets of paper; start a new sheet for each question.
Identify each sheet by the Question Number in the left corner and your Examination Number (which you draw before the examination) in the right corner; your name should appear nowhere.
You are on your honor not to use notes or to give or accept advice.
I.
- According to Poincaré, “a priori propositions are irrefutable because they are really firm resolutions to carry on the scientific game according to certain rules or stipulations.” Nevertheless, Morris Cohen considers a priori principles as “methodologic or regulative principles which enable us to organize our factual knowledge” and as “expressive of the fundamental nature of things,” What light does this view throw upon the methodological discussions of Hutchison, Kaufmann, Mises, and Knight?
- “While the deductive method might be applicable to a simple and stationary condition of industry, it becomes valueless in face of the increasing complexity of the modern economic world.” What was John Neville Keynes’ reaction to this point of view?
- “Just as the same proposition may express both a universal and a historical, or both a verbal and a real judgment, so it may express both a positive and a normative judgment.” (Fraser, Economic Thought and Language). First explain each of the three sets of antonyms and then explain and illustrate the statement.
II.
- Contrast and compare the logical nature of introspectionism and sensationalism as expounded by Felix Kaufmann or Morris Cohen.
- Give a reasoned explanation of Kaufmann’s distinction between three meanings of probability, one “relating to empirical knowledge as such”, another relating “to synthetic propositions undecided in a given scientific situation,” and a third referring to “the relative frequency of an attribute” within a certain collective.
- Felix Kaufmann, having made a distinction between empirical laws and theoretical laws, states: “Whereas we have both types of laws in natural science, there are, as I see it, no empirical laws established in social science, and even the tendency to establish such laws is not very strong. But if we consider the significance of theoretical laws in natural science, we cannot regard this as constituting a fundamental difference between the methods of natural science and those of social science.” Explain and discuss this statement in a way intelligible to someone who has not read Kaufmann’s writings.
III.
- Explain what Ludwig von Mises means by ”methodological apriorism”, “methodological individualism”, and “methodological singularism”.
- “In the history of applied Economics, the work of a Jevons, a Menger, a Bowley, has much more claim on our attention than the work of, say, a Schmoller, a Veblen, or a Hamilton.” What is Robbins driving at with this [last word cut off, “statement?” matches the spacing of the tips to the letter “t” that are still visible]
- Hutchison implies that pure theory may help the analyst to formulate questions to be answered by empirical studies: “The constant object of the scientist…is to compel the facts of experience to answer his questions definitely ‘yes’ or ‘no’…” Robbins appears to reverse the relationship: “Realistic studies may suggest the problem to be solved….But it is theory and theory alone which is capable of supplying the solution.” Discuss the paradox from the point of view of any of the other writers on methodology.
IV.
- If the description or institutional part of economics is viewed by Professor Knight as lying in the domain of cultural anthropology rather than economics proper, does this mean that in institutional inquiries sense observation assumes greater emphasis than intercommunication and interpretation? If not, why does Knight distinguish institutional from theoretical economics?
- “There are no better terms available to describe the difference between the approach of the natural and the social sciences than to call the former objective and the latter subjective.” (Hayek, “Scientism and the Study of Society”.) Explain the meaning of the essential terms employed and the statement as a whole.
- Hayek said: “It is only in so far as some sort of order arises as a result of individual action but without being designed by any individual that a problem is raised which demands a theoretical explanation.” Explain.
V.
- “Economics is in fact the only science which enjoys the advantage of an automatic quantification of its subject matter.” (Parsons, “Sociological Elements in Economic Thought”). Explain and discuss.
- Parsons distinguishes the following ideal types of criticism of abstract economic theory: (1) supplementary positivistic empiricism: (2) radical positivistic empiricism; (3) romantic empiricism; (4) supplementary non-economic sociology. Characterize each in a brief statement illustrated by examples.
- Discuss Veblen’s principal categories of human action—especially the “pragmatic” versus the “workmanlike” type—and compare them with the general “rational” type and the narrower “economic” type used in the abstract theories of traditional economics.
- On what grounds do Professors Herskovits and Knight reject and defend, respectively, the concept of the “economic man” as a useful tool of economic analysis?
Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 6. Box 3/1. Folder: “Department of Political Economy, Graduate Exams, 1933-1965”.
Image Source: Johns Hopkins University yearbook, Hullabaloo, 1957, p. 28.