Princeton. History of Economic Thought General Exams for Ph.D. 1981, 1986

I believe the history of economics is too important to be left exclusively in the hands of either historians or economists, but I also believe that not a whole lot would get done if we had to wait for scholars with the right blend of talents and skills, given the constraints of time and the institutional realities of modern universities. Nonetheless there has been the one or other colleague who actually contributed to the development of economics in a scientific sense and has thought long and hard about the ideas of those upon whose shoulders we all stand. William J. Baumol was one such economist. The history of economic thought was one polished arrow in his teaching quiver.

This post provides a transcript of the two Ph.D. field exams in the history of economic thought at Princeton that I found in Baumol’s papers at the Economists’ Papers Archive in Duke University’s Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. The 1981 exam appears to have only run one page and just might be missing a few questions on a second page not seen, though I find that possibility less likely than it only was one page long.

In an earlier post you can find the field exam from January 1987 and a reading list for his course from the fall semester of 1988.

________________________

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
History of Economic Thought

October 1981

3 hours

1. Discuss Ricardo’s “93 percent Labor Theory of Value.”
   1. In what sense was the Labor Theory taken to approximate the true determination of equilibrium price relationships?
   2. How does this relate to Ricardo’s views about the relationship between wages and profits?
2. Describe Marx’s use of the Tableau Économique.
   1. Briefly describe the working of the tableau.
   2. Describe the working of the Marxian model that emerged from the tableau.
   3. Indicate at least one use that has been made of the Marxian model.
3. In one sentence for each, give some information about the work of the following writers:
   1. Nassau Senior
   2. Jules Dupuit
   3. John Bates Clark
   4. Enrico Barone
   5. Knut Wicksell
4. Classical and neoclassical economists considered free trade to be superior to protectionism from the viewpoint of the general welfare.
   1. How did Pigou measure the general welfare in this sort of analysis?
   2. When the free trade issue was discussed by earlier writers did they usually discuss this measurement problem to any substantial degree?
   3. On what grounds was the Pigouvian approach criticized?
   4. What alternative was offered in the “new welfare economies2 of Hicks and Kaldor?

________________________

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
History of Economic Thought

Time: 3 hours

January 1986

1. (for Peter Rathjens) Earlier writings on rent focussed on rent payments as a reward to units of superior quality that was attributable to the heterogeniety of the resource. Thus, land was alone among inputs in the focus upon its heterogeniety. Discuss the role of this issue in later writings and the degree to which they did or did not treat land as essentially different from all other inputs which of them, if any, concluded that there is such a thing as an “absolute” rent (in contradistinction to differential rent)?
2. (for Jai-June Kim) Validity of the infant industry argument for tariffs as a benefit to the general public required that when the industry grows up it not merely yield net benefits, but that they be more than sufficient to offset the welfare lost during the period of protection. Was this point recognized by those who wrote on the subject? If so, by whom? Discuss what other qualifications some of the writers raised in relation to the argument and how they treated the way in which the issue had been analyzed by others.
3. Discuss the role of alienation in Marx. In which of his writings was it discussed? Does the term always refer to the same phenomenon? How might it relate to accumulation and, consequently, to the “Laws of motion of capitalism?”
4. Ricardo’s test of the labor theory of value was whether a rise in wages will change the relative prices of commodities. Explain the logic of this test. What does Ricardo conclude from the test about the validity of the labor theory in reality? Why was this way of looking at the matter of importance to Ricardo?
5. Describe the tasks that Adam Smith considers to constitute the proper roles of government. Was he an extreme or a moderate advocate of laissez-faire? What is the logic of his arguments for governmental economic activity? How do they compare with modern analysis of the subject?
6. In one sentence each characterize some of the work of the following:

a) Cantillon
b) Quesnay
c) Menger
d) Wesley Mitchell
e) Kondratieff

7. (Jeehwan Rhee) Summarize some of Malthus’ arguments on the issue of general overproduction. Indicate (giving specific examples) to what extent Malthus’ arguments anticipate those of Keynes.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams 1980-89”.

Image Source:  Cropped from portrait of William J. Baumol in 1981 published in his obituary published in The New York Times, May 10, 2017.