Johns Hopkins. Income Distribution Theory, Readings and Exams. Machlup, 1950’s

 

 

The following reading list on the theory of income distribution taught by Fritz Machlup in the mid-1950s at Johns Hopkins University was found in a file in the Evsey Domar papers marked “Macroeconomics, Old Reading Lists”. I hadn’t realized until this post that Machlup’s papers are archived at the Hoover Institution, where 45 boxes alone are filled with the archival remains of his academic career. OK, next time.

I remember that my dissertation supervisor, the same Evsey Domar, did not particularly “like” Fritz Machlup. The two of them were at Johns Hopkins in the 1950s, Machlup being a dozen years Domar’s senior. It is not that Evsey Domar would have actually trash-talked Fritz Machlup in front of a student of his, but I do have a vague recollection of Domar judging Machlup’s approach to economics as having been excessively concerned with terminological issues over substantive economics. Also I sensed that Domar considered Machlup to have viewed matters of academic rank and relative status with excessive seriousness. But these memories fall closer to the legend end of the historical spectrum than to those frequencies reserved for documented anecdotes. 

____________________

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
THE THEORY OF RELATIVE INCOMES
18-603, Fall Term 1954-55
Prof. Fritz Machlup

READING LIST

Texts:

1. American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution. (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1946)
2. Any one of the books on the list below.

 

1. General Background

Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (London: Macmillan, 8^th ed. 1936) Books V and VI.

[Handwritten note, “theory of derived demand exp. Ch. 1-6”, apparently referring to Marshall, Book V (“derived demand” found in Chapter 6 of Book V)]

Eugen v. Böhm-Bawerk, Positive Theory of Capital (London: 1891; Reprinted New York, Stechert, 1940) Book III, Ch. X; Book IV, Ch. VII.

Philip H. Wicksteed, The Common Sense of Political Economy. London: Routledge, 1933) Vol. I, Book I, Chapter IX.

Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston: 1921, Repreinted London School of Economic) Part II.

John R. Hicks, Value and Capital (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939) Part II.

 

2. General Equilibrium Theory

Gustav Cassel, A Theory of Social Economy (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1924) Chapter IV.

Bertil Ohlin, Interregional and International Trade (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1933) Appendix I.

George Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (New York: Macmillan, 1941) Chapter IX and XII.

Joan Robinson, “Euler’s Theorem and the Problem of Distribution” Economic Journal, Vol. XLIV (1934).

 

3. Marginal Productivity and Substitution

John Bates Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (New York: Macmillan, 1900) Chapter XII and XIII.

Joan Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition (London: Macmillan, 1934) Books VII, VIII, IX.

John R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages (London: Macmillan, 1935) Chapter I and VI.

Paul H. Douglas, The Theory of Wages (New York: Macmillan, 1934) Chapter III.

Paul H. Douglas, “Are There Laws of Production?” American Economic Review, Vol. XXXVIII (1948).

Fritz Machlup, “The Commonsense of the Elasticity of Substitution,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. II (1935).

Richard A. Lester, “Shortcomings of Marginal Analysis for Wage-Employment Problems.” American Economic Review, Vol. XXXVI (1946)

Fritz Machlup, “Marginal Analysis and Empirical Research” American Economic Review, Vol. XXXVI (1946).

Articles by Cassels, Stigler, Chamberlin, Machlup, Robinson, Lange, and Kalecki in A.E.A. Readings.

 

4. Wage

John R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages Chapters II, III, IV.

Paul H. Douglas, The Theory of Wages Chapter X.

Edwin Cannan, “The Demand for Labour”, Economic Journal, Vol. XLII. (1932)

Fritz Machlup, The Political Economy of Monopoly (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1952) Chapters IX and X.

Articles by Robertson, Robbins, Bloom, Rolph, Reynolds, Lerner, Tarshis, and Dunlop in AEA Readings.

 

5. Rent

David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1^st ed. 1817) Chapter II.

Hubert D. Henderson, Supply and Demand (Cambridge: University Press, 1922, Revised, 1932) Chapter VI.

Joan Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Chapter VIII.

Gordon F. Bloom, “Technical Progress, Costs, and Rent”. Economica IX, New Series (1942)

Articles by Buchanan, and Boulding in AEA Readings.

 

6. Interest

Eugen v. Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital, Books II, V, VI, and VII.

Knut Wicksell, Lectures on Political Economy (New York: Macmillan, 1934) Vol. I, Part II, Ch. 2.

John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London: Macmillan, 1936) Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Friedrich A. Hayek, The Pure theory of Capital (London: Macmillan, 1941) Chapters III, V, VI, VIII, XI-XIV.

Fritz Machlup, “Professor Knight and the ‘Period of Production’”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. XLIII (1935).

____________ “The Rate of Interest as Cost Factor and as Capitalization Factor”, American Economic Review, Vol. XXV, (1935)

Articles by Hayek, Knight, Keynes, Robertson, Hicks, Somers, and Lutz, in Readings.

 

7. Profit

Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Chapters IX-XII.

Joseph Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934) Chapter IV.

Robert Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940) Chapter V.

Fritz Machlup, The Economics of Sellers’ Competition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1952), Chapters VII and VIII.

Articles by Knight, Hart, Gordon, and Crum, in Readings.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Project, Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 15, Folder “Macroeconomics, Old Reading Lists”.

____________________

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
The Theory of Relative Incomes
18-603

January 21, 1953

Professor Fritz Machlup

Answer three 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.(I.

1. Describe in words, without using any symbols, the Walrasian system of general equilibrium, stating the essential assumptions, the variables assumed to be given, and the unknowns to be derived.

II.

2. Discuss the influence of different types of inventions on the marginal productivity of labor. Indicate also their probably effects on the total income of the labor class and on its relative share in the national income.
3. Dennis H. Robertson divides the effects which “an artificial raising of the wages” is apt to have upon employment into “two analytically separable reactions”, first, “a movement along the existing [marginal productivity] curve,” and second, “a cumulative lowering of the curve”. Explain the two reactions and indicate what assumptions concerning other factors of production, especially capital, are involved.

III.

4. State the three grounds on which Böhm-Bawerk bases his explanation of the existence of interest and discuss whether each or any of them constitutes a necessary and/or sufficient condition of the existence of interest. (You may avoid committing yourself to the arguments expressed by attributing them to “some writers”.)
5. Without indicating your own opinions or inclinations, present both sides in the controversy between Frank H. Knight and the “Austrians” with respect to the following points:
   1. that all capital is conceptually perpetual or conceptually non-permanent;
   2. that economic progress may result in a “shortening” of the investment period;
   3. that an increase in the supply of capital need not change the original factors of the remote past.

Source: Johns Hopkins University. Eisenhower Library, Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 6, Exams, 1956-62. Box 3/1, Folder “Graduate Exams, 1933-1965”.

____________________

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
THEORY OF RELATIVE INCOMES
18.603

January 1957

Professor Fritz Machlup

Answer four questions, one from each part.

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.

PART I.

1. A product, X, is made from three “ingredients” or factors of production, A, B, and C, all of which are necessary and can be used only in a fixed proportion. Total output of X is 1000 units per unit of time; the product sells at a price of $100 per unit. The factor costs per unit of product are $60 for A, $30 for B, and $10 for C. The supplies of A and B are perfectly elastic to the industry. The demand for X has an elasticity of -2. The industry is competitive both in its buying and selling.
   Assume that the quantity of C which is available to the industry is reduced by 20 per cent. Calculate the elasticity of the industry’s derived demand for C. Show your reasoning step by step.
2.      a. Define or explain the concept of elasticity of substitution as it is used by Mrs. Robinson.
   2. Is it “technical” substitution or “total” substitution which is involved in Mrs. Robinson’s concept? What is the difference between the two substitutabilities?

PART II.

3. Discuss various concepts of “bargaining power” in the labor market, commenting on the selection of criteria, the problem of measurability, and the uses to which the concepts are put.
4. Ricardo says in the chapter “On Rent” of his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation: “If the high price of corn were the effect, and not the cause of rent, price would be proportionately influenced as rents were high or low, and rent would be a component part of price. But that corn which is produced by the greatest quantity of labor is the regulator of the price of corn; and rent does not and cannot enter in the least degree as a component part of its price.” Discuss. Take account of the possibility that land has other uses besides the production of corn.

PART III.

5. Without indicating your own opinions or inclinations, present both sides in the controversy between Frank H. Knight and the “Austrians” with respect to the following points:
   1. that all capital is conceptually perpetual or conceptually non-permanent;
   2. that economic progress may result in a “shortening” of the investment period;
   3. that an increase in the supply of capital need not change the original factors of the remote past.
   4. that it is not possible to identify the contributions of the original factors of the remote past.
6. On p. 208 of his Lectures, Vol. I, Wicksell quotes the following statement by Gustav Cassel: “A man who attaches the same importance to future needs as to present ones, if he expects to be able to provide for his needs in the future just as easily as he does now, has no reason for setting aside anything of his present income.” According to Wicksell, “Cassel is not quite correct” inasmuch as his “argument actually presupposes the absence of any rate of interest.” Explain.

PART IV.

7. What, if anything, does general-equilibrium theory contribute to the understanding or development of income-distribution theory?
   In order to facilitate a thoughtful discussion of this question it is suggested that you treat it in three parts:
   1. The function of a theory of relative incomes. (What is it designed to do? What kind of general principles or conceptual schemes seem to be useful in developing a theory of income distribution?)
   2. The essentials of general-equilibrium theory. (What is it designed to do and how? What do we learn from it?)
   3. The contribution, or lack of it, of general-equilibrium systems to the theory of relative incomes.

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. Eisenhower Library, Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 6, Exams, 1956-62. Box 3/1, Folder “Graduate Exams, 1933-1965”.

Image Source:  Fritz Machlup page  at the website Austrian Economics Center.