Categories
Exam Questions Princeton Theory

Princeton. General Exams on Theory for Economics PhD. 1953 through 1972

My curating strategy generally has been to post individual artifacts one by one with each limited to a specific university, a particular point in time and a single course/field. But sometimes, just sometimes, I stumble upon a relatively complete, long-run of comparable artifacts to warrant lining them up into a single post. 

In William J. Baumol’s papers in the Economists’ Papers Archives at Duke University, we find about two decades’ worth of post-war Ph.D. general exams in economic theory at Princeton. 

But wait, there is more…

Scans of the microeconomic theory general exams for 1987-1989 and 1990-1994 at Princeton can be downloaded from the Ed Tower Collection at Duke.

____________________________

May 1953

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Social Institutions

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Theory

May, 1953

Part I

Answer any three

I

Discuss the problem of cost calculation and pricing in a multi-product firm, touching on problems like overhead costs and technical variability and invariability of output proportions.

II

Is there a theory of wages? Describe what has been done in the literature on the subject and indicate why the initial question might be raised at all.

III

“Monopoly tends to restrict output to undesirably small levels.” Discuss.

IV

How would you show by indifference curve analysis that out of larger incomes larger amounts will be saved. Is such a proposition empirically plausible.

Part II

Define any four

    1. Cross elasticity of demand
    2. Economic horizon
    3. Marginal efficiency of capital
    4. Average period of production
    5. Consumer’s surplus
    6. Linear programming.

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

May 1955

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
May 1955

Economic Theory

Answer any four. Try to be brief and to the point.

I

If a monopolist sells in two separated markets with similar costs but different demand curves, prove that it will be profitable to charge a lower price in the market where the elasticity of demand is greater.

II

Explain the relation between the rate of interest and the price of bonds and show how Keynes uses this in arguing that there is a floor to interest rates.

III

Construct a contract curve. Show that for any point on the contract curve a) the marginal rates of substitution between the two commodities will be equal for both parties,  b) no change can benefit one of the two parties without adversely affecting the other.

IV

Keynes argues that a fall in money wages will not reduce real wages because prices will fall proportionately. Explain how this could come about considering that labor costs are only a fraction of total costs and that workers provide only a fraction of the demand for goods.

V

Discuss the argument that a nationalized industry ought to sell its output at a price equal to its marginal cost.

VI

Discuss the policy implications of the monopolistic competition theory of the output and pricing by the firm.

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

October 1955

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ECONOMIC THEORY

Mr. George K. Chacko
October, 1955
(Time: three hours)

Answer any three

I

  1. On what ground has it been argued that a nationalized industry should charge a price equal to its marginal costs?
  2. Why has it sometimes been argued that this rule will produce undesirable results unless all industries are nationalized?
  3. How would the presence of external economies or diseconomies affect this rule?

II

  1. Define a contract curve.
  2. Show its geometric construction.
  3. Show that corresponding to any point off the contract curve there is a point on the curve which represents an improvement to both parties.
  4. Show that no move from a point on the contract curve can possibly represent an improvement to both parties.

III

  1. Define the acceleration principle.
  2. Show that it implies a one quarter cycle lag in consumption behind investment.
  3. How can this get the underconsumptionists out of an embarrassing position?

IV

  1. Define price elasticity of demand.
  2. Assuming nothing but the definition prove that a fall in price will raise a consumer’s expenditures on an item if his demand for it is elastic.

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

January 1956

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

January, 1956

Economic Theory

Answer any four questions.

  1. Outline a) Keynes’ interest analysis and
    b) one classical analysis of the determination of the rate of interest.
    c) Show how a neo-classicist might accept the Keynesian position for the short and yet argue consistently that in the long run the rate of interest will be determined by “real” relationships.
  2. a) What is the marginal condition for the equilibrium of exchange of two commodities between two consumers?
    b) Show that if the conditions are not satisfied it is possible for these consumers to arrange for a mutually beneficial exchange.
    c) Show these results diagrammatically.
  3. a) Show the circumstances under which price and quantity sold on a competitive market for the product of one industry will tend toward their supply demand equilibrium values.
    b) When will they not tend toward equilibrium?
    c) What is the significance of this point for practical application of the static equilibrium analysis?
  4. a) What are external economies of scale?
    b) Show how they can prevent achievement of an ideal allocation of resources in a competitive free enterprise economy.
    c) Show how they might lead to a misallocation of resources by a competitive industry though they might have no analogous effect on a monopolistic firm which takes over that industry.
  5. a) Describe the Neumann-Morgenstern index of utility.
    b) How does it differ from utility measurement in the classical sense?
    c) What is meant by measurement unique up to a linear transformation, i.e., what does the mathematician mean by cardinal measurement?
  6. a) Define the income effect on the quantity of x of a change in the price of x.
    b) Show that in the case of the sale of a commodity out of a fixed total supply, the income effect on the amount offered by the supplier will usually be opposite in sign from the substitution effect.
    c) Show how this may be used to account for union demands for a shorter work week despite higher hourly wages.

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

October 1956

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October, 1956

Economic Theory

Time: 3 hours
Answer any three questions.

I

  1. Show how in Keynesian theory an increase in money supply will have some effects in common with a fall in money wages.
  2. What difference can be expected in their effects on expectations?
  3. Why does Keynes argue for one against the other?
  4. What is the Pigou effect?

II

  1. In terms of indifference curves show the effects of a tariff on the terms of trade.
  2. What is the relation to the contract curve?
  3. Show why the point of competitive equilibrium in the absence of tariff is supposed to lie on the contract curve.

III

  1. Describe the Neumann-Morgenstern utility index.
  2. What is meant by its being cardinal?
  3. Prove the relevant properties.

IV

Discuss the stability of equilibrium under Marshallian and Walrasian assumptions including such considerations as long run vs. short run and forward falling vs. backward rising supply curves.

V

Show why it is maintained that ideal output can be achieved when price is everywhere equal to marginal cost.

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

January 1957

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

January, 1957

Economic Theory

Part I

Answer any three questions.

I

Show that the Laspeyres index of real income for an individual will always be correct when it shows his real income has fallen but may be wrong when it indicates his real income has risen.

II

Describe the identification problem and indicate what can be done about it. Use the Keynesian model rather than the supply-demand diagram as an illustration.

III

Describe the marginal and second order conditions of equilibrium for the output of two commodities produced by a single firm under pure competition (i.e. when will the relative outputs of the two items be optimal?) Show why these conditions are valid, and illustrate in a diagram.

IV

Describe the loanable funds and liquidity preference theories and some of the attempts to show that they amount to the same thing.

Part II

Answer any question.

I

What does Patinkin mean by the real balance effect? Why does he state that the price level will be indeterminate in its absence? Where does this leave the quantity theory?

II

What is ideal output? What price conditions are usually said to be enough to assure its achievement? Explain and criticize.

III

What is the point input-point output case in capital theory? Why is it particularly easy to define an average period of production in this case?

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

May 1957

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1957

Economic Theory

Time: 3 hours

PART I
(Answer all questions)

  1. (a) Explain how for close substitutes the marginal utility of X might fall as the quantity of X in increased but that of Y is increased.
    (b) Give a concrete illustration.
    (c) Explain intuitively why the consumer in not in equilibrium if the marginal rate of substitution of A for B is not equal to the ratio of their prices.
  2. (a) Explain why in the Keynesian system a fall in taxes will shift the savings curve to the right (Hint: Here the savings figure is based on income before)
    (b) Why does this result appear paradoxical?
    (c) Show diagrammatically that this shift in the savings curve will increase equilibrium national income.
  3. (a) Show diagrammatically how prices are determined in its two markets by a discriminating monopolist.
    (b) Why must equilibrium marginal revenue be the same in both markets?
    (c) Will discriminating monopoly output tend to be higher or lower than under simple monopoly? Briefly indicate an intuitive reason for your answer.

PART II
(Answer one question)

  1. Discuss the issues in the marginal cost controversy.
  2. Describe the theory of marginal pairs.
  3. Discuss the Scitovsky and Kaldor criteria.
  4. Discuss the average period of production and its use in interest theory.

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

October 1958

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October, 1958

Economic Theory

Time: Three hours

I

Discuss the relationship of Say’s Law, Walras Law and the determinateness of the price level in a General Equilibrium system.

II

Describe and evaluate any two standard duopoly or bilateral monopoly models.

III

State and explain the basic assumption of the revealed preference analysis of consumer behavior. Derive at least one theorem with its aid and describe its implications for index number theory.

IV

What is the real balance (Pigou) effect? How does it enter the analysis of effects of a general wage cut on employment? Discuss the relevant interest rate mechanism.

V

What are external economies and diseconomies? How do they make possible competitive equilibrium in an industry in which the average cost curve is downward sloping? What are the implications of external economies for the relationship between competitive and “ideal” resource allocation?

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

October 1959

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October, 1959

Economic Theory

Time: 3 hours

I. (answer four questions)

1. —

    1. What is the real balance (Pigou) effect?
    2. Explain its role in the determination of the price level.
    3. What is its role in the relation between wages and employment?

2. —

    1. Define the income effect.
    2. Show that the substitution effect involves a fall in the demand for a commodity when its price increases.
    3. Draw an indifference map which corresponds to a positively sloping demand curve.

3. Describe two oligopoly models in detail.

4. —

    1. Draw a curve of marginal fixed costs and explain its shape.
    2. What does this result imply about the effect of a change in fixed costs on the price and output of a profit maximizing firm? Explain.
    3. Does the same result necessarily hold for a firm with other objectives? Explain.
    4. Derive and criticize the theorem that perfect competition yields an ideal allocation of resources.

[note: file only has this first page of the October 1959 exam. Presumably there was at least a Part II and perhaps Part III/IV….?]

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1950-59)”.

____________________________

January 1960

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

January, 1960

Economic Theory

PART I
(Answer all Questions)

  1. [Linear homogeneous production function]
    1. Define “Linear homogeneous production function.”
    2. Name two areas in economies in which such functions occur in the literature and indicate their role briefly.
  2. Keynes at some point appears to assert that a fall in money wages does not reduce real wages.
    1. How may this be explained (in your answer take account of the fact that labor cost is only a part of total cost)?
    2. Does Keynes ever indicate that a fall in money wages might increase employment? If so, how would the process work?
  3. Compare the analyses by Lange and Patinkin of the role of money in neo-classical systems.
  4. Assume a purely competitive system with only one non-produced, scarce factor—labor. Also, assume the only capital in the economy is in the form of a single type of machine.
    1. in every industry using the machine it is “productive” in the sense that for given amounts of cooperating labor and intermediate goods, more is produced with it than without it. Is this necessary for interest to be paid to owners of the machines? Is it sufficient?
    2. if machines are only labor and are sold at long-run average coat, how can their owners get more from them than the recovery of these costs?
    3. “Wicksell was misleading in his explanation of interest, because he placed so much emphasis upon the productivity of the machine in the above example, while Böhm-Bawerk was misleading because he placed so much emphasis upon consumer psychology. Both elements are necessary to an explanation of the level of the interest rate.” Do you agree? Explain.

PART II
(Answer any two questions)

  1. Discuss the welfare effects of monopoly from the point of view of resource allocation.
  2. (a) Describe and discuss the “minimum critical effort” thesis in the theory of economic development. (b) What is the role of external economies in the literature of economic growth?
  3. Compare and contrast the major theories of profits.
  4. Discuss each of the following statements:
    1. “Marx was right in stressing that labor should receive its average. If all factors are given their average, rather than their marginal products, the product will be exhausted and we need not worry about whether the production function is or is not linear and homogeneous.”
    2. “It is fundamentally impossible to determine how much of a product has been produced by the labor contained in it, how much by the capital, and how much by the land. Any distribution theory must, therefore, be fortuitous in spite of any seeming scientific quality. It cannot be based on relative contributions by factors to the product.”
    3. “To instruct me to pay every laborer his marginal product is not to tell me how much labor to hire. Suppose I am a farmer. The first man I hire at $40/per week, his marginal product. The second man I hire for $38.20, his marginal product, and so forth. But the theory of marginal productivity tells me to go on hiring in this way indefinitely.”

WJB-REK: rhm

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

May 1960

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics and Sociology

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1960

Economic Theory

Answer all questions.

I.

“Keynes’s General Theory is merely a subcase of the neoclassical theory of employment. In the latter, if the money wage-rate is inflexible downward, unemployment can result. The introduction of the rigid money wage-rate by Keynes yields such rigidity and unemployment. If one removed the assumption that the supply of labor was a function of the money wage-rate, and assumed instead it was related to the real wage-rate, no underemployment equilibrium could exist in Keynes’s model.” Discuss.

II.

(a) Assume that capital goods are fixed in quantity, are indestructible, and non-producible. Assume, also, the existence of a stationary state. Further, abstract from all monetary phenomena,

    1. Under what conditions would capital goods receive returns? How would such returns differ from rents to natural resources?
    2. Would an interest rate exist in this economy? If so, would it be positive or negative?

(b) Assume, now, that capital goods are subject to wear and tear, must be replaced if the capital stock is not to decline, and are producible. The stationary state is again assumed, and monetary phenomena are abstracted from.

    1. Schumpeter believed the interest rate in such an economy would be zero. How could this occur?
    2. Capital goods are “productive.” If the interest rate were zero, so that their owners received no net returns, would this contradict the proposition that capital goods contribute a net product to the society?
    3. Wicksell believed the interest rate in this economy would be positive. But, since capital goods are merely land and labor in a different physical form, this would imply that amounts of land and labor in one form would be paid more than the same amounts in merely different physical form. Explain.

III.

Briefly:

    1. What is the level of current United States gross national product at an annual rate?
    2. What proportion of it goes for consumption, gross investment, and all-levels-of-government usage?
    3. What is the current rediscount rate at the Federal Reserve Banks?

IV.

“Let A, B, C, and D be four baskets of goods, and Ua, Ub, Uc, and Ud be von Neumann-Morgenstern ‘utility’ measures of an individual’s preferences among them. These utility measures are ordinal for choices under conditions of certainty, but cardinal for choices under conditions of risk.”
Do you agree or disagree? Explain.

V.

“For a firm with no effect on product or factor prices, maximization of profits requires that marginal physical products of all factors be proportionate to factor prices. Yet sometimes it is said that maximization of profits requires that marginal value products be equal to factor prices. These conditions are not equivalents and one or the other does not hold when profits are maximized.”
Explain.

VI.

Answer either (a) or (b).

(a) A firm sells two products, A and B, which it may produce jointly by two linear, infinitely divisible processes whose vectors are given below:

Process 1

\left[ \begin{matrix}1{}^{x}a=1\\ {1}^{x} b=2\\ 1^{xc}=-.5\\ {1}^{x} d=-.2\\ {1}^{c} 1=-3\\ {1}^{c} 2=-4\end{matrix} \right]

Process 2

\left[ \begin{matrix}2{}^{x}a=3\\ {2}^{x} b=1\\ 2{}^{xc}=-.6\\ {2}^{x} d=-.3\\ {2}^{c} 1=-4\\ {2}^{c} 2=-2\end{matrix} \right]

where inputs are treated as negative quantities, and:

(1) jxa and jxb are outputs of A and B from process j;

(2) jxc and jxb are inputs of labor and capital into process j;

(3) jc1 and jc2 are inputs of plant and warehouse capacity into process j.

The firm has given plant capacity of 200 units per period and warehouse capacity of 1000 units per period. Prices are given at

pa = 4, pb = 6, pc = 3, pd = 1.

What are the firm’s optimal process levels?

(b) A Leontief [1 – a] matrix is given below:

\left[ \begin{matrix}.95&-.30&-.50\\ -.40&.98&-.36\\ -.50&-.60&.90\end{matrix} \right]

                  What levels of gross output are required to produce the following bill of goods:

\left[ \begin{matrix}27\\ 30\\ 15\end{matrix} \right]

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

May 1961

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1961

Economic Theory

  1. (a) State and explain the basic premise of the revealed preference theory.
    (b) Explicitly use this premise to derive the sign of the substitution effect.
    (c) Under what circumstances would you expect the premise to be violated in practice?
  2. (a) What is “Walras’ Law” and what is its rationale?
    (b) How is it related to Say’s law?
    (c) How is Walras’ law employed in the basic equilibrium model?
    (d) How is it employed in Patinkin’s central argument?
  3. (a) Explain the basic multiplier formula.
    (b) Explain the multiplier geometric series.
    (c) Discuss the balanced budget multiplier theorem.
  4. Why is marginal cost pricing sometimes recommended as a rule for nationalized industries and what are its limitations?
  5. In not more than one paragraph for each give a (necessarily) superficial characterization of
    (a) Nassau Senior’s contribution to interest theory
    (b) Marshall’s “two blades of the scissors”
    (c) The wages fund doctrine
    (d) The German academic position on economics at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

May 1962

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1962

Economic Theory

Time: 3 hours

Do not write your name on any of your examination papers, but identify them with a Code Letter which you obtain in the Office of the Department of Economies.

Start a new paper or book for each question so that the examinations can be assembled by question rather than by candidate. Be sure that your Code Letter appears on each sheet or book.

    1. Define Pareto optimality
    2. Given two commodities A and B and two consumers 1 and 2, prove that if both commodities are bought by both consumers the situation will not be Pareto optimal unless
      (1) MUa1 / MUb1 = MUa2 / MUb2
      where MUa1 is the marginal utility of commodity A to consumer 1, etc.
    3. What happens to condition (1) if consumer 1 purchases same of B but none of A and consumer 2 purchases some quantity of each item? (Give the new condition and explain briefly.)
    4. Show that if the prices of A and B are arbitrarily fixed at any levels, Pa and Fb respectively, and if both consumers are rational and each buys both items that condition (1) will automatically be satisfied without any direct central intervention, planning or rationing.
    5. Indicate briefly what this means, and what it does not mean, about the desirability of a price system.
    1. Assuming that the demand for money is dependent on the rate of interest and on the level of real income, show diagrammatically how a change in the quantity of money will affect the levels of investment, consumption, income and employment.
    2. State the grounds on which it is sometimes argued that a change in the rate of interest is unlikely to have a significant effect on the level of investment.
    3. Describe the process by which, according to Keynes, a fall in wages may increase the level of employment.
    4. Describe an alternative mechanism whereby a wage reduction can have this effect.
    5. How do these mechanisms conflict with the identity-form of “Say’s law”?
  1. Assume that men and women are equally efficient in a certain occupation but the conditions of supply of men and women workers are different; that it is possible for the employer to pay different wage rates to men and women; and that there are no trade unions. With the marginal net productivity curve and the two labor supply curves given, show in a graph the wage rates the employer will pay and the numbers of men and of women he will employ.
    (Exact geometric construction is essential.)
  2. Reasoning along the lines of Böhm-Bawerkian capital theory, assume that land is abundant and that there are two, and only two, alternative ways of using labor in the production of consumers goods: one without any roundabout-ways and another with an average investment period of one year. With the latter method, labor is 20 per cent more productive than with the former.
    1. that the rate of interest will be 20 per cent;
    2. that the interest rate will be zero, and wages will be determined by the productivity of labor used in the more productive way;
    3. that the rate of interest might be anything between zero and 20 per cent;
    4. that the rate of interest might be well above 20 per cent.

Discuss each of these alleged possibilities and state any additional assumptions needed for it to be realized.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

October 1962

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October, 1962

Economic Theory

3 hours

    1. Define the acceleration principle.
    2. Describe some alternative hypotheses about the determination of aggregate investment by decision makers.
    3. Prove that if fluctuations are perfectly regular and symmetrical, a constant accelerator coefficient will yield an investment cycle which anticipates fluctuations in investment output by precisely 1/4 of a cycle.
    1. Describe the determination of wages as a bilateral monopoly process.
    2. Describe the role of linear homogeneous production functions in the theory of distribution.
    3. Discuss briefly why it has been considered appropriate to develop a theory of capital which is distinct from the general theory of distribution.
    1. Argue by numerical example that if for two commodities, x and y,  MUx/Px > MUy/Py it will normally pay the consumer to purchase more of x. here Px is the price of x, MUx, is the marginal utility of x, etc.
    2. Show the same result diagrammatically.
    3. Under what circumstances does MUx/Px > MUy/Py become an equilibrium condition?
    1. Write out a two constraint three variable cost minimization linear programming problem.
    2. Give an economic interpretation of the constraints and all the variables (including slack variables).
    3. Write out the dual of your problem.
    4. Interpret all of its variables economically.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

May 1963

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1963

Economic Theory

Time: 3 hours

    1. Define the “Real Balance Effect”.
    2. Explain the grounds on which Patinkin maintains that it is necessary for consistency of a classical monetary system.
    3. Describe its role in the mechanism which equilibrates the price level.
    4. Evaluate the significance of the real-balance effect in the real world. What are some of the other mechanisms which may help to stabilize the price level in practice?
    1. Outline the Lutz-Hicks analysis of the structure of interest rates.
    2. How does this analysis account for the fact that long rates are frequently higher than short rates?
    3. What does this analysis assume about expectations?
    4. On what grounds can the analysis be criticized?
    1. Explain in terms of an indifference map how one might obtain a backward-rising supply curve of labor. (You need not draw the indifference map if you do not want to).
    2. Why in the case of the supply of a commodity are the income and substitution effects more likely to work in opposite directions, than in the case of demand?
    3. Do you believe that the supply curve of labor is typically backward sloping in practice? What evidence can you muster?
  1. — Consider the following simplex matrix arising out of a problem of product line selection under profit maximization.

\begin{gathered}\begin{gathered}\begin{matrix}&&Q_{1}&Q_{2}&Q_{3}&\end{matrix}\\ \begin{matrix}\Pi\\ U_{1}\\ U_{2}\end{matrix} \left\vert \overline{\begin{matrix}0&3&6&1\\ 9&-1&-3&-3\\ 12&-1&-2&-1\end{matrix}} \right\vert \begin{matrix}\\ V_{1}\\ V_{2}\end{matrix}\\ \overline{\begin{matrix}\alpha&\  L_{1}&\  L_{2}&\  L_{3}\end{matrix}}\end{gathered}\\ \end{gathered}

    1. Go through one pivoting step to find the next simplex matrix.
    2. Give the primal and dual solutions corresponding to your calculated matrix.
    3. Give an economic interpretation of each of the variable values in these solutions.
    4. State two of the duality theorems and show that they are satisfied by these solutions.
  1. — Write one paragraph about each of the following:
    1. Von Thunen
    2. Nassau Senior
    3. Friedrich Bastiat.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

Undated, 1964-66[?]

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Economic Theory

    1. Demonstrate geometrically the basic characteristics of the contract curve in the box diagram representing exchange between two parties.
    2. Show that the offer curves of the two parties will intersect at some point on the contract curve.
    3. What is the welfare significance of result (b)?
    1. Define: local maximum, global maximum, corner maximum, 2nd order maximum conditions.
    2. In which of the three preceding types of maximum will the marginal (first order) equilibrium conditions normally break down (and why)?
    3. What is the relevance of the second order conditions for local and global maxima?
    4. In intuitive terms, what is the relationship, if any, between second order conditions and stability of equilibrium?
  1. — “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.”
    1. Who might have written this?
    2. Does this statement imply that the author supported either the theory of “differential rent” or of “scarcity rent?” Give reasons.
    3. What qualifications, if any, of the statement will be appropriate if corn production is only one of several possible uses of land?
    1. Discuss briefly the manner in which Say’s Law decomposes a general equilibrium model into real and monetary sectors.
    2. Relate briefly the Patinkin criticism of the neoclassical Invalid Dichotomy to your answer in 4 a.
    3. Relate briefly Walras’ Law to your answers in 4 a. and 4 b.
    1. What is the acceleration principle?
    2. Derive the multiplier formula.
    3. Discuss the multiplier effects of a balanced budget.
    4. Show how the accelerator can lead to a lagged relationship between investment and consumption.
  2. — In not more than two sentences each characterize some of the work of the following:
    1. Jevons
    2. Bastiat
    3. Henry George
    4. Quesnay.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

May 1967

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1967

Economic Theory

Time: 3 hours

Do not write your name on any of your examination papers, but identify them with a Code Letter which you will have obtained from Mrs. Kwok.

Start a new paper or book for each question so that the examinations can be assembled by question rather than by candidate. Be sure that your Code Letter appears on each sheet or book.

Part I.

Answer two questions. (15 points each)

  1. Why is the measured government surplus not a good indicator of government fiscal policy actions to stimulate the economy? Does the size of the government surplus that would be realized at full employment serve to indicate unambiguously the amount of fiscal policy stimulus? Discuss the reasons for your answers.
  2. One theory of investment emphasizes the importance of changes in output through the accelerator. Can this be incorporated within the view of investment as determined by the intersection of the marginal efficiency schedule and the marginal cost of funds schedule? Explain both theories in your answer.
  3. In what sense do “vintage” capital models suggest that it is easier to change the capital intensity of the economy than did earlier models? How is labor allocated over different vintages if there is substitutability ex post as well as ex ante? Only ex ante substitutability?

Part II.

  1. Discuss the following syllogism. (15 points)

Assumption. All markets are purely competitive.

Definition 1. Surpluses to factors are payments above the opportunity costs of those factors.

Definition 2. Profits are surpluses paid to entrepreneurs.

Major premise: in the long-run surpluses to factors do not tend to disappear.

Minor premise: profits are a type of surplus.

Conclusion: in the long-run profits do not tend to disappear.

  1. Answer two of the following questions. (12½ points each)
    1. How does the Hicksian static analysis of the stability of equilibrium in multiple market economies differ from a dynamic stability analysis of such an equilibrium?
    2. Describe the structure and use of a Leontief static open input-output model.
    3. Does the income effect of a price change affect the behavior of a consumer in exactly the same way that it affects the behavior of a firm? Explain.

Part III.

Answer both 1. and 2. (15 points each)

    1. Explain with the aid of a numerical example why it would pay Sam Pfapfnfnik to readjust his allocation of money between bread and ink if the ratio of their two prices were unequal to the ratio of their marginal utilities to him.
    2. The price of ink falls but Sam does not change his ink purchases. Explain what is happening in terms of Sam’s indifference map between ink and other commodities.
    3. Assume that all of the increase in Sam’s purchasing power resulting from the fall in the price of ink is taxed away and that he consequently does not change his purchase of any commodity. The following would then appear to hold; the marginal utility of no commodity would have changed;
      Pi, the price of ink has fallen, so that if in the initial equilibrium—
      Px/Pi = MUx/MUi then in the equilibrium position after the price fall it must be true that Px/Pi does not equal MUx/MUi . How do you reconcile this result with your answer to part (a) of this question?
  1. In one sentence for each, indicate something about the contribution of each of the following individuals:
    1. H. Gossen
    2. H. von Thunen
    3. Cairnes
    4. James Mill
    5. J. B. Clark
    6. E. Barone

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

October 1967

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October, 1967

Economic Theory

Time: 3 hours

Do not write your name on any of your examination papers, but identify them with a Code Letter which you will have obtained from Mrs. Kwok.

Start a new paper or book for each question so that the examinations can be assembled by question rather than by candidate. Be sure that your Code Letter appears on each sheet or book.

Part I.

Answer two questions.

  1. Define:
    1. income effect
    2. corner maximum
    3. homogeneity of degree zero
    4. Cobb-Douglas function
    5. revealed preference (a is revealed preferred to b)
    6. integrability (of an indifference map)
    1. Show precisely how, in a perfect capital market, the rate of interest enters the formula for the discounted present value of a stream of payments.
    2. Explain precisely why the rate of interest enters the formula in this way.
    3. If the capital market is imperfect so that the interest rate rises with the amount obtained by a borrower, how is your previous discussion affected?
    1. The cost and demand curves are linear and the same in two industries, one operated by a monopoly and one under pure competition. Precisely how will the magnitudes of the two outputs compare? Prove your answer.
    2. Explain how external economies make possible a decreasing long-run supply curve for a competitive industry.

Part II.

Answer any two questions.

  1. What, in meant by the expressions “shocking” or “displacing the equilibrium of” a model and what can be learned by such procedures? Illustrate your answer with the standard income-substitution effect analysis of consumer theory. Discuss also the limitations of the techniques we now have for performing these displacements.
  2. The following is an input-output model of the form
    [I – a][X] = [Y] for a two-sector economy:

\left[ \begin{matrix}.8&-.3\\ -.4&.9\end{matrix} \right] \left[ \begin{matrix}X_{1}\\ X_{2}\end{matrix} \right] =\left[ \begin{matrix}Y_{1}\\ Y_{2}\end{matrix} \right] .

Suppose [Y] = [10,20]. Solve the system for [X] and interpret your answers in economic terms.
Solve the system when [I – a] is as given below:

\left[ \begin{matrix}.4&-.8\\ -.2&.4\end{matrix} \right] ,

And interpret in economic terms.

  1. Discuss the various concepts of “stability” in general economic systems analysis, including in your discussion the following comparisons:
    1. equilibrium vs. system stability
    2. global vs. local stability
    3. Hicksian vs. dynamic stability.

Part III.

Answer question No. 3 and either 1 or 2.

  1. Give possible reasons for the existence of money illusion in each of the following Keynesian functions: consumption, labor supply, demand for money. How does the presence or absence of each of these effects alter the response of the Keynesian model to an open market purchase of bonds by the Central Bank?
  2. For a non-monetary economy, what is the level of the interest rate in the classical stationary state, and why? Define carefully an analogous state for a growing economy. What factors determine the level of the interest rate? What is the “Golden Rule”, and what is its significance (if any)?
  3. Assume that the President’s proposed 10% tax surcharge would raise personal and corporate tax liabilities by $3 billion each in fiscal 1968. Using multipliers that you think are reasonable, estimate the impact of this action on GNP and describe in words the way in which this impact will work itself out. You may assume that the Federal Reserve System’s goal is to keep the rate of inflation below 3% and that in the absence of monetary or fiscal restraint money GNP would grow at an annual rate of 8% (the CEA forecast).

Part IV.

In one sentence each characterize the writings of three of the following:

  1. E. Barone
  2. H. H. Gossen
  3. F. Bastiat
  4. Henry George
  5. J. B. Clark.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

May 1968

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1968

Economic Theory

Time: 3 hours

Do not write your name on any of your examination papers, but identify them with a Code Letter which you have obtained from Mrs. Kwok.

Start a new paper or book for each question so that the examinations can be assembled by question rather than by candidate. Be sure that your Code Letter appears on each sheet or book.

Part I. (25%)
Answer any two questions.

  1. Present the essential points of the theories of income distribution expounded by
    1. Karl Marx,
    2. John Bates Clark (or another neo-classical writer),
    3. Michael Kalecki, and
    4. Nicholas Kaldor.
  2. It has been said that the marginal-productivity theory of income distribution rests largely on technological facts (or assumptions), whereas aggregative theories of income distribution of the Kaldorian type rest chiefly on psychological facts (or assumptions). Attempt first to defend and then to criticize these contentions.
  3. If the physical efficiency of labor increases in some industries but not in others, how would you expect the marginal productivities of labor in the various industries to change, assuming perfect mobility of labor and pure and perfect competition in all markets? After you have answered this question and explained your answer, proceed to point to the qualifications required (a) if mobility is restricted, (b) if some wage rates are fixed on the basis of collective bargaining with strong labor unions, and (c) if some industries enjoy a high degree of monopoly.
  4. “Rent, like all prices, is a test, even though an imperfect one, of social need: its payment roughly ensures the most economical distribution of land between different uses; and its remission, by a land-owning State, to those in a position to pay it, whether private persons or public enterprises, would in general promote waste.” Explain every part of this statement.

PART II. (25%)
Answer question 1 and either 2 or 3.

  1. Analyze the combined net impact of the two following actions:
    1. In a period of full employment with rising prices, the government raises transfer payments to the poor, financing the resulting deficit by selling Treasury bills to the Federal Reserve System. The Fed keeps the discount rate above the bill rate.
    2. The government also cuts spending on space programs by the same amount as it raises transfer payments, using the resulting savings to retire debt held by little old ladies who put the money in savings accounts.
  1. While economists differ on the proportion of economic growth to attribute to investment in tangible capital, education, and research into new techniques, many would agree that these factors may be complementary with each other or complementary through time. Discuss the possible complementarities that may occur, identifying clearly the relationships and the effects such complementarities may have on the evaluation of investment policies.
  2. Consider an economy in a classical stationary state with a positive interest rate determined by the interaction of productivity and time preference. If the discovery of the key to immortality wipes out time preference, while at the same time generating positive population growth, describe the resulting time path of the economy to a new “golden age” equilibrium.

PART III. (25%)
Answer two of the following questions.

  1. Assume an economy with fixed amounts of two inputs, both of which are used in the production of each of two final goods.
    1. A necessary condition for efficient production is that the ratios of the marginal products of the inputs in the production of both goods be equal. Explain in economic terms why this must be true.
    2. Show how the production possibility frontier — the whole set of efficient output mixes — can be derived from the condition in (a) above.
  2. Discuss each of the following statements. They are meant to be discussed separately.
    1. “In a purely competitive market economy a stationary state can exist only if the interest rate is zero, for every investment opportunity must be exhausted to have stationarity.”
    2. “Land in an economy with a zero interest rate must (a) have an infinite value and (b) earn a zero rate of return. These are contradictory, and so the interest rate can never be zero in a market economy.”
    3. “Marx was right. Labor sells its services for their discounted marginal product in an economy with positive interest rate. This is less than it creates, and therefore labor is exploited.”
  3. Discuss the meaning and significance of the following concepts in general equilibrium theory:
    1. the law of conjugate pairs,
    2. the theory of second-best,
    3. the stability of a general economic system,
    4. balanced-growth equilibrium in a general system.

PART IV. (25%)
Answer question 1 and one of questions 2, 3, or 4.

    1. If demand is inelastic marginal revenue is ____________.
    2. If demand for a firm’s product is inelastic, a rise in its price
      1. will always increase profits.
      2. will always increase revenues but may not increase profits.
      3. we cannot tell from the information given.
    3. The price elasticity of a linear supply curve through the origin
      1. is unity.
      2. depends on the slope of the curve.
      3. will be higher the more firms in the industry.
      4. will be lower in the short-run.
      5. none of the above.
    4. Draw the indifference map for an item such as matches with perfectly inelastic demand for any price reduction.
    1. Make up a small linear programming problem.
    2. Write out its dual.
    3. Discuss in detail the economic interpretation of the dual.
    4. How might the values of the dual variables be used in economic planning?
  1. The imposition of any arbitrarily chosen prices will mean that as far as exchange between any two consumers is concerned the Pareto optimality condition must be satisfied. Explain, proving any theorem you need for the purpose.
  2. State three theorems on linear homogeneous production functions and prove one of them.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

May 1969

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1969

Microeconomic Theory

Time: 2 hours

Do not write your name on any of your examination papers, but identify them with a Code Letter which you have obtained from Mrs. Kwok.

Start a new paper or book for each question so that the examinations can be assembled by question rather than by candidate. Be sure that your Code Letter appears on each sheet or book.

Instructions: The examination consists of two parts which will be given equal weight. Spend about one hour on each part.

PART I.

  1. Define:
    1. identification
    2. saddle point
    3. gross and net complements
    4. law of diminishing returns
    5. substitution effect
    6. Walras’ law
    7. lexicographical ordering.
  2. Equilibrium of the firm under Chamberlinian monopolistic competition requires tangency between the firm’s average cost and demand curves. What do we know about the firm’s marginal cost and marginal revenue at that output? Prove your answer.
  3. Describe one of the following:
    1. Kaldor’s model of distribution
    2. Arrow’s possibility theorem
    3. Fisher’s analysis of allocation of resources between present and future.
  4. (Peak and off-peak pricing) An electric company plans for its output level x1,…x24 during each of the 24 hours of the day. Its operations are limited by its hourly generating capacity y so that its decisions are subject to the constraints

xi < y  (i = 1, … , 24)

The firm’s prices are required by regulation not to vary with output

\left( \frac{\partial \underline{p}_{\underline{i}}}{\partial \underline{x}_{\underline{i}}} =0 \right)

It seeks to maximize its profits, knowing its total operating cost function

C = f(x1, … , x24),

and the total cost of expanding its capacity

K = g(y)

    1. Prove that in any period in which the firm is not operating at capacity (an off-peak period) its profit maximizing price will be equal to its marginal operating cost. (Assume all outputs are positive: xi > 0.)
    2. Prove that for peak periods the payments over and above marginal operating costs will sum up to the marginal cost of increased capacity.
  1. In one sentence each characterize some of the work of the following economists:
    1. Henry George
    2. Thorstein Veblen
    3. H. H. Gossen
    4. F. Bastiat
    5. K. Wicksell.

PART II.

  1. Give an example of an economic situation which does not satisfy the following hypotheses (using a separate example for each hypothesis):
    1. The consumption set for the ith consumer is convex.
    2. The preference relation of the ith consumer is strongly convex.
    3. The demand correspondence is upper semi-continuous.
  2. Explain concisely why stability is a desirable property of general equilibrium models.
  3. Consider a pure trade economy involving two individuals, Mr. A and Mr. B, and two commodities, 1 and 2. Assume that their initial holdings are

\left( {x}_{1A}^{o} ,{x}_{2A}^{o} \right) =\text{ and } \left( {x}_{1B}^{o} ,{x}_{2B}^{o} \right).

respectively, where

{x}_{1A}^{o} +{x}_{2B}^{o} +{x}_{2A}^{o} +{x}_{2B}^{o} =\  6.

Suppose their indifference curves are specified by the utility functions:

\begin{gathered}u_{A}\left( x_{1A},x_{2A} \right) =\text{min } \left( x_{1A},2x_{2A} \right)\\ u_{B}\left( x_{1B},x_{2B} \right) =\text{min } \left( 2x_{1B},x_{2B} \right) .\end{gathered}

    1. Show all Pareto-optimal states of the economy on an Edgeworth-box diagram.  Explain your answer.
    2. Find all initial holdings, for which

\left( \overline{x}_{1A} ,{\overline{x}}_{2A} \right) =\left( 4,2 \right) \text{ and } \left( \overline{x}_{1B} ,{\overline{x}}_{2B} \right) =\left( 2,4 \right)

constitute a competitive equilibrium at some nonnegative prices (p1, p2). Graph your answer on an Edgeworth-box diagram.

  1. Explain in concise terms the role of fixed point theorems in the theory of general economic equilibria.
  2. What are the three main sources of comparative statics theorems?
    (EXTRA CREDIT: Give one example of each type of theorem.)

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Economics 506: History of Thought…1968-1990” [note: filed in incorrect folder].

____________________________

October 1969

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October, 1969

Microeconomic Theory

Time: 2 hours

Do not write your name on any of your examination papers, but identify them with a Code Letter which you have obtained from Mrs. Kwok.

Start a new paper or book for each question so that the examinations can be assembled by question rather than by candidate. Be sure that your Code Letter appears on each sheet or book.

PART I.

Answer THREE questions ONLY (20 ea)

  1. Explain (5 ea)
    1. the relationship, between cost and the supply curve of the competitive firm.
    2. the relationship between cost and the supply curve of the competitive industry.
    3. What is the role of rent in the preceding relationship?
    4. How can the competitive industry be in equilibrium if its long run average cost curve is falling?
  2. Describe one of the following:
    1. the Cournot duopoly model;
    2. the solution to a zero sum two person game;
    3. the notions of producers’ and consumers’ surplus and their graphic representation.
  3. Construct a simple general equilibrium model discussing (7 ea)
    1. the significance of the number of equations as compared to the number of unknowns;
    2. the role of inequalities;
    3. the definition of existence end uniqueness and their significance.
    1. Define and discuss the significance of stability for general equilibrium models.
    2. State two non-trivial theorems about such stability.
  4. Describe the Neumann-Morgenstern utility measure and its purpose.

PART II. (15 ea)

Answer every question.

    1. The elasticity of a straight line supply curve through the origin is __________.
    2. Prove the preceding answer.
    1. Give the formula for a Cobb-Douglas function.
    2. List two of its properties.
    3. Prove one of the two properties listed in (b).
  1. Derive one of the following:
    1. The Slutsky theorem for a firm under perfect competition;
    2. The necessary conditions for optimal distribution of two commodities between two individuals..
    1. Nassau Senior
    2. F. H. Knight.
    3. John Bates Clark
    4. J. Dupuit
    5. Karl (sic) Menger

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1960-69)”.

____________________________

May 1970

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May, 1970

Microeconomic Theory

Time: 2 hours

Do not write your name on any of your examination papers, but identify them with a Code Letter which you have obtained from Mrs. Kwok.

Put PART I in one book and PART II in another. Be sure that your Code Letter appears on each sheet or book.

PART I. (50%)

  1. Answer one question.
    1. Describe briefly one real and one monetary interest theory. Show how they can be reconciled.
    2. Explain the analysis leading to the conclusion that pure competition tends to yield an optimal allocation of resources.
    3. Describe the nature of the optimal solution to a zero sum two-person game including the notion of optimal mixed strategy.
  2. Answer one question.
    1. A firm’s demand and average cost functions are linear with the general slopes usually assumed for them. Prove that the profit maximizing output will be half as large as the zero profit output, q0 , where q0 > 0.
      What are the second-order conditions here and what is their relevance?
    2. Prove that the feasible region for a linear programming problem is convex.
  3. Answer both questions.
    1. Explain briefly the grounds on which the area under a demand curve above the level representing the market price is said to represent consumers’ surplus.
    2. In one sentence each, characterize some of the best known work of each of the following:
      1. the physiocrats
      2. The Austrian school
      3. Henry Wicksteed
      4. Wesley Mitchell
      5. James Mill

PART II. (50%)

Please answer four questions out of the following. Try not to spend any more than fifteen minutes on each question. Show all of your work. If you attempt more than four questions, then the best four will count.

  1. The following assumptions are usually made in formulating a general equilibrium model. Give concise definitions of each and discuss their plausibility:
    1. nonincreasing returns-to-scale;
    2. no interdependence of decisions among economic agents;
    3. divisibility of goods and services.
  2. What relationships can you identify between (linear and nonlinear) programming and the existence proofs for general equilibrium?
  3. Illustrate graphically a case in which the competitive mechanism is not Pareto satisfactory. Describe in words how this case might occur in the real world.
  4. State two general cases of economies in which global stability is always valid.
  5. Distinguish between gross substitution and pure substitution. State a theorem in comparative statics that is a consequence of gross substitution.
  6. Discuss the value of the models of general equilibrium theory for an economist who does not believe in the capitalist system. Comment on the criticism that such models merely “justify capitalism.”

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Exams (1970-79)”.

____________________________

October 1972

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

October, 1972

Microeconomic Theory

Time: 3 hours

Do not write your name on any of your examination papers, but identify them with a Code Letter which you have obtained from Mrs. Coleman.

Start a new paper or book for each question so that the examinations can be assembled by question rather than by candidate. Be sure that your Code Number appears on each sheet or book.

Answer three questions in Part I and three in Part II.

PART I.

    1. Given a nonlinear demand curve illustrate graphically how the corresponding marginal revenue curve can be constructed (no verbal explanation necessary).
    2. Give a rigorous proof of the validity of your construction procedure in a).
    1. Define the substitution effect on x of a change in the price of x.
    2. Prove the Slutsky Theorem about the sign of the substitution effect.
  1. Given linear demand curves in two markets for a firm’s product, and a linear marginal cost curve for its output, show geometrically the prices and outputs in the two markets if the firm maximizes its profits and
    1. if it cannot discriminate in price between the two markets; and
    2. if it does discriminate.
    1. Explain the concept of Pareto optimality.
    2. In an Edgeworth box diagram show the locus of Pareto optimal points.
    3. What can be said about the desirability of a randomly chosen point off the locus relative to that of a randomly chosen point on the locus?
    1. Prove that if demand is inelastic a fall in price will reduce total expenditure.
    2. Describe the identification problem and show its implications for the empirical determination of a demand relationship.

PART II

    1. What is Say’s Law?
    2. What is homogeneity of degree zero in prices?
    3. Explain briefly how the two preceding assumptions cause difficulties for monetary theory.
    1. What is the issue of existence and uniqueness in a general equilibrium system?
    2. What is the relevance for this issue of the number of equations and the number of unknowns in the system? Illustrate your conclusion with concrete examples of equations, specifying their coefficients.
    1. Describe the Ricardian rent model, distinguishing between the extensive and the intensive margin.
    2. Show from this analysis why a tax on pure differential rent is not shiftable.
    1. What is the basic theorem of linear programming?
    2. Show diagrammatically why it does not hold in nonlinear programming.
    3. Explain in economic terms how the theorem is affected by the presence of diminishing returns.
    1. Define the acceleration principle.
    2. Draw a graph that assumes total output over the course of a cycle and has the form of a sine curve. Show then how investment must vary over time if it is determined by the acceleration principle.
    3. Show how your graph can mislead the unwary observer about the reasons for a downturn.

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economist Papers’ Archive. William J. Baumol Papers, Box 20, Folder “Economics 506: History of Thought…1968-1990” [note: filed in incorrect folder].

Image Source: John E. Sheridan, Princeton Poster, c. 1901 . Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Exam Questions Math Princeton

Princeton. Mathematics for Economics Grad Students Exam. 1960

Before one gets too smug about the modest level of mathematical sophistication revealed in the following examination that was taken in 1960 by ten Princeton economics graduate students and only passed by half of them, it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the examination appears only to have been to permit economics students to substitute mathematics for a foreign language as a formal requirement to be awarded a Ph.D. degree. As far as I am aware, by 1960 the exams to test a reading knowledge of a foreign language (at least those administered by an economics department itself) were rather low hurdles hardly capable of tripping any diligent student and generally a waste of time for all but the area specialists and economic historians. Still five of the ten economics grad students at Princeton failed the mathematics exam transcribed below!

__________________________

On Harold W. Kuhn

Princeton University obituary for Harold W. Kuhn (1925-2014).

Autobiographical sketch in WIKIMIZATION.

__________________________

MEMORANDUM

To: Members of the Economics Department
From: H. W. Kuhn
Re: Mathematics Examination for graduate students.

Attached is a copy of the first Mathematics Examination for graduate students in Economics which, as you know, can substitute for one language examination. This memorandum is to describe what the examination was intended to test, report on the performance of the students who took it, and invite comments from you concerning the design of future examinations. (Will Baumol is writing the next one now.)

By agreement of those charged with the conduct of the examination (Baumol, Coale, Kuhn, Okun, and Quandt), it deals only with two subjects, calculus and matrix algebra. The level of the calculus that is assumed is thoroughly elementary and could be acquired in a one-year course. However, it should be augmented by those calculus tools peculiar to economics such as Lagrange multipliers, partial derivatives, and optimization conditions. Study of R. G. D. Allen’s “Mathematical Analysis for Economists” is recommended. The level of matrix algebra is harder to specify. Almost any standard course is too much. Two indications of the level of proficiency demanded are the matrix algebra sections of “Finite Mathematics” by Kemeny, Snell, and Thompson or the Appendix to Dorfman, Samuelson, and Solow. Another book appropriate for study would be “Mathematical Economics” by R. G. D. Allen

The following is an explanation of the first test, question by question, with remarks on the performance of the ten students who took it.

  1. Straightforward translation of economic terms from words to formulas and back. Four parts out of five was par for the course.
  2. The definition of matrix multiplication and of a production matrix. All answers were correct.
  3. A test of understanding of the first and second order conditions for a maximum. Very poor performance; much confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions.
  4. A test of their acquaintance with an indispensable mathematical tool, the Lagrange multiplier. The first pages of “Value and Capital” will give an example. Good performance.
  5. This was intended to draw out the linear case in which solvability is stated in matrix terms. Good performance.
  6. The proper method was by means of partial differentiation. From the variety of answers (mostly weak), this should have been clued.
  7. This model is reproduced almost verbatim from “Finite Mathematics.” The question is intended to test the ability to translate matrix relations into meaningful economic conditions. The average was about half right.

The test was graded on a strict percentage basis, with 70% a passing grade. Five passed and five failed. This may be somewhat hard on those who failed but reflects my own belief that requirements are better too hard than so easy as to be meaningless.

COMMENTS INVITED

__________________________

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Department of Economics
Mathematics Examination

October 26, 1960

Please spend no more than two hours on this examination. No books or papers may be consulted. Please attempt all of the questions.

  1. Let y = f(z) be a production function, where y denotes the quantity of output for a quantity of input z. Let c = g(y) be the associated cost function. Let P = F(y) define the demand schedule.

Give the common names for

    1. dy/dz
    2. dc/dy
    3. Py

Give formulas for the

    1. marginal revenue
    2. price elasticity of demand.
  1. The number of tubes and the number of speakers used in assembling three different models (a), (b), (c) of TV sets are specified by a parts-per-set matrix.

\begin{gathered}\\ \begin{matrix}(a)&(b)&(c)&\  \  \  \  \  \  \  \ \end{matrix}\\ \left[ \begin{matrix}13&18&20\\ 2&3&4\end{matrix} \right] \begin{matrix}\text{tubes}\\ \text{speakers}\end{matrix}\end{gathered}

The number of orders received for the three different models in January and February are specified in a sets-per-month matrix

\begin{gathered}\begin{matrix}\  \  \ &\text{Jan.}&\text{Feb.} \  \ \end{matrix}\\ B=\  \left[ \begin{matrix}12&6\\ 24&12\\ 12&9\end{matrix} \right] \begin{matrix}(a)\\ (b)\\ (c)\end{matrix}\end{gathered}

Express the number of parts used per month as a matrix C in terms of A and B. How many tubes were used in February?

  1. Let y = f (x) be a differentiable function defined for

a ≦ x ≦ b. Let a < c < b.

    1. The conditions f'(c)=0 and f”(c)< are necessary and sufficient for f(c) to be a local maximum value for f. True or false? (Give explanation.)
    2. Describe a method for finding the absolute maximum value of f.
  1. Lagrange multipliers are used to solve what class of calculus problems? Give at least one example from economic theory.
  2. Discuss the assertion: Every system of n equations in n unknowns has a unique solution. (It is clearly false; show this by example and modify the statement to be useful.)
  3. The following formula gives the profit P in dollars as a function of the quantities x1, and x2 of two commodities.

P = x150 x235 + x185

When x1 = x2 = 100, P = 2 • 10170
Approximate P when x1 = 101 and x2 = 100

  1. Consider the following economic model: A set of n goods are produced (jointly by m activities. The ith activity requires aij units of good j and produces bik units of good k.
    Let x = (x1,…,xm) represent the levels of the activities
    and yt = (y1,…,yn) represent the prices of the goods, while A and B denote the input and output matrices. Suppose α and β are non-negative numbers. Give common English interpretations of the following equilibrium conditions:

    1. x (B – α A) ≧ 0
    2. (B – β A) y ≦ 0
    3. x (B – α A) y = 0
    4. x (B – β A) y = 0
    5. x B y > 0

What condition on A would insure that every process uses some good as input?
What condition on B would insure that every good can be produced in the economy?

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive.  William J. Baumol Papers, Box 10, Folder “Princeton University 1952-69”.

Image Source: Harold W. Kuhn, ca. 1961. Wikimization website.

Categories
Exam Questions History of Economics Princeton Suggested Reading Syllabus

Princeton. History of Economic Thought. Reading List, General Exam. Baumol, 1987-1988

What I find useful about the syllabus on classical economics from William Baumol’s Princeton course transcribed below is that it provides a lean and precise list of original text reading assignments to work through. Full-blown bibliographies have their use for students when writing term papers, but this butcher’s choice of filet cuts provides a wholesome main course that will last a semester and provide pleasant memories for a lifetime.

Here you will find other postings at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror that offer material from courses in the history of economics.

_______________________

Alan B. Krueger’s Interview with William J. Baumol in Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Summer 2001), pp. 211-231.

_______________________

Princeton University
Department of Economics

Economics 506
History of Economic Thought

Fall Term 1988

Professor W.J. Baumol

Smith, Adam, Wealth of Nations, 1776, Book I, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 (first 20 pages), 10 (first 17 pages); Book II, Chapter 3; Book IV, Chapters 1, 2, 8.

Malthus, T.R., An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798, Pelican Edition, 1970, Introduction by Anthony Flew, Chapters 1-5, 18, 19.

Ricardo, David, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, London, 1817, Chapters I-X, XIX-XXI, XXX-XXXI.

*Ricardo David, Notes on Malthus, Piero Sraffa, editor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951, Editor’s Introduction and pp. 300-382.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party.

Marx, Karl, Capital (3 volumes), New York: International Publishing Company.

Volume I: Author’s Prefaces; Chapter 1; Chapter 3, Sections II a, b; Chapter 5; Chapter 6; Chapter 7, Section 2; Chapter 8; Chapter 9, Sections 1, 3, 4; skim Chapter 10; Chapter 15, Section 6; Chapter 16; Chapter 24, Sections 2, 3, 5; Chapter 25.

Volume II:Preface; Chapter 9; Chapter 16, Part 3; pp. 390-396 (Chapter 17, last 6 pages on Simple Reproduction); Chapter 20; pp. 576-9 (Chapter 21, I, Accumulation in Department 1 (1) formation of a hoard).

Volume III: Preface; Chapters 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 22, 27, 37, 38, 48.

*Marx, Karl,  A Critique of the Gotha Program, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1937.

*On reserve at Firestone Library.

Source: Edward Tower (compiler). Economics Reading Lists, Course Outlines, Exams, Puzzles & Problems, Vol. 24. History of Economic Thought. Durham, NC: Eno River Press, August 1990, page 38.

_______________________

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

History of Economic Thought
January 1987

Time: 3 hours

  1. Distinguish the roles of the labor command and the labor content discussions of value in Adam Smith. What was Smith’s general model of the determination of long run exchange value under competition?
  2. In terms of the formal Ricardian model, explain the consequences of elimination of a tariff on grain (corn) (a) in the short run; (b) in the long run.
  3. (a) Explain why, in Marx’s view, profits under capitalism can be expected to decline with the passage of time. (b) Why did he reject Ricardo’s model leading to the same conclusion? (c) On what grounds has Marx’s model of the declining profit rate been criticized?
  4. In one sentence each, characterize some of the main work of the following:
    1. Jeremy Bentham
    2. Frederick Bastiat
    3. J.B. Clark
    4. J. R. McCulloch
    5. Enrico Barone
  5. (for Arthur Moretti) Describe the logic of the Hayek business cycle model. What role is played by technological elements? by monetary elements? What is the pertinence of the “Ricardo effect?”
  6. (for Kin Yip Louie) Explain the source of Marshall’s error in using consumers’ surplus to argue that increasing returns industries should be subsidized. Would the Hicksian analysis of the four consumers surpluses have helped ra avoid the error? Why or why not?
  7. (for Susan Skeath [“Susan Skeath van Mulbregt”, Princeton Ph.D., 1989; Professor of Economics at Wellesley College]) Explain the role played by utility in J. S. Mill’s value theory. Does his utility concept lead him to particular policy conclusions? How do Mill’s views on the appropriate role of government differ from those of his classical predecessors?
  8. (for Teow-Hock Koh [“Winston Teow-Hock Koh”, Princeton Ph.D., 1988; Professor at Singapore Management University; died 2013]) (To what extent does Malthus’ contradistinction to his analysis conclusions) structure anticipate the of the Keynesian model? In provide a answering this, summary of the workings of the pertinent parts the Keynesian analysis. What features of Marxian Theory overlap with the Keynesian model?
  9. (for Vicente Morales) a) Describe any of the mathematical solutions to the transformation problem showing how prices and the rate of profit are related to values and the rate of surplus value. b) Explain Samuelson’s criticism of the entire analysis and Morishima’s reply.

Source: Edward Tower (compiler). Economics Reading Lists, Course Outlines, Exams, Puzzles & Problems, Vol. 24. History of Economic Thought. Durham, NC: Eno River Press, August 1990, pp. 266-267.

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

Categories
Curriculum Economics Programs Yale

Graduate Training in Economics. Report of Panel Discussions at Yale. 1956

 

 

 

During the fall and early winter of 1954-55, Richard Ruggles and colleagues in the Yale economics department organized a series of interviews with representatives of business, government, international organizations, and universities to review the ultimate goals of a graduate education in economics and to identify future desirable directions the evolution of economics training might take. The interviews were followed by panel discussions in the Spring of 1955 attended by, among others, seven future economics Nobel prize winners. Today’s posting is a transcription of the final report printed in 1956. 

I came across a preliminary draft of the report in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution Archives filed among his correspondence with Richard Ruggles and wondered whatever happened to the project. The report was never really published and survives as part of the “pamphlet literature”.  Only recently did I find a printed copy of the final report in John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. The relative obscurity of this report can perhaps be attributed to its “Smoothie” style that has managed to blend panel member ideas and opinions into mere minutes of discussions sans quote or illustration. The report’s temporal proximity to the 1953 Bowen report (Graduate Education in Economics, AER, September 1953) could have left journal editors cold as well.

Since the primary goal of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is to assemble artifacts to help us follow the historical development of the education of economists in the United States, the Ruggles Report of 1956 is worth rescuing from its undeserved obscurity in archival vaults.

________________________________

 

[1]

GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS
A Report on Panel Discussions at Yale
YALE UNIVERSITY
1956

 

[2]

A restudy of graduate education in economics has recently been undertaken at Yale, with the aid of a grant from the Ford Foundation. This study involved two steps. First, economists in universities, government, and business were interviewed to determine what they thought the major problems in training economists were at present. These views were summarized in the form of an agenda, which was then discussed by five panels of economists. This report presents the views of the panel members, as developed in these discussion groups.

The following people participated in the panel discussion and in the revisions of the report.

Panel members:

Robert Adams, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey
Sydney Alexander, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University
G.L. Bach, Carnegie Institute of Technology
William Baumol, Princeton University
E. G. Bennion, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey
Henry Bloch, United Nations
Howard Bowen, Grinnell College
Sune Carlson, United Nations
Gerhard Colm, National Planning Association
Ross Eckler, Bureau of the Census
Solomon Fabricant, national Bureau of Economic Research
Milton Friedman, University of Chicago
Albert Hart, Columbia University
Leonid Hurwicz, University of Minnesota
Dexter Keezer, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Simon Kuznets, Johns Hopkins University
Stanley Lebergott, Bureau of the Budget
Wassily Leontief, Harvard University
Ben W. Lewis, Oberlin College
John Lintner, Harvard Business School
Edward S. Mason, Harvard University
James Nelson, Amherst College
Donald Riley, Bureau of the Budget
Paul Samuelson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert Strotz, Northwestern University
Clair Wilcox, Swarthmore College

 

Yale committee:

Richard Ruggles, Chairman
Wight Bakke
William Fellner
Kent Healy
John Miller
John Sawyer
James Tobin
Robert Triffin

 

[3]

The Role of Graduate Education in Economics

THE OBJECTIVES OF GRADUATE EDUCATION IN ECONOMICS which were most frequently mentioned by the panel members were (1) to develop economists who can push back the frontiers of economics; (2) to prepare economists for teaching, not only at the undergraduate level but also in graduate economics departments and business schools; (3) to train individuals who are capable of carrying out research for business, government, labor, and other research organizations; (4) to develop economists who can serve in policy guidance positions in business, government, and labor unions. The panel members agreed that the curriculum of graduate education in economics can no longer be organized exclusively about scholars; it has become essential to produce economists who can do, not just know. Primary emphasis in the past has been placed upon the production of teachers, and although this is an important function, focusing on it may develop a more restricted concept of education than is appropriate today.

The frontier of economic knowledge.

The continual emergence of economists who are capable of contributing to the substance of economics is essential for the vitality of the field. Of course, every student who goes through a graduate school should not be expected to make such a contribution; many are needed to practice the art and science of economics for more immediate objectives in teaching, in applied economics in business and government, and in less basic research in the academic world, business, and government. Nevertheless, the graduate school program should be such as to encourage research of a basic nature and to acquaint students with it. Only by such investment can economics be expected to develop. Such an orientation is useful also for those who do not go on to make substantial new contributions. It provides a [4] necessary perspective as to the current status of economic knowledge and the bases on which it resets, and points up gaps in economic knowledge and the process by which the evolution of economic thought comes about. Accent on the encouragement of basic research should not be construed, however, as implying that large amounts of learning and scholarship should be the aim. Rather it implies that the creative talents of the individual should be stimulated, and that the individual be trained in the necessary tools to do such research. These aims are complementary to the other objectives of graduate training, not competitive with them.

Research training for business and government.

In recent years, there has been an increasing use of economists for research purposes in business and government. Projections of future demand, analyses of the impact of various market forces, problems of taxation and government expenditure, analyses of productivity changes, studies of business fluctuations, and various international problems related to trade and foreign economic policy all have required that a considerable amount of economic research be carried out. Graduate schools have not generally taken specific cognizance of the needs of these groups so that new Ph.D.’s going into these areas often require a considerable training period before they become useful to their organizations. When the organization does not have available senior staff capable of carrying out such training on the job, the result is that lower grade work is turned out. It is recognized, of course, that schooling cannot entirely substitute for experience, and that some training on the job will always be necessary, but the question still remains whether the present graduate school training is as appropriate as it might be for meeting the research needs of business and government.

Policy and administrative guidance in business, government, and labor.

Besides the technical research uses of economists in business, government, and labor, economists are needed in a more operating [5] capacity, where day-to-day decisions and advice are required without any formalized research work. Advisors are required at the policy level in large corporations. Banks, insurance companies, large manufacturing firms, and labor unions are employing more and more people in this capacity. Government and international organizations need trained economists to serve as administrators of various programs. These needs are growing in importance as the complexities of economic life increase. Again, most graduate schools have not been particularly attuned to meeting this sort of need.

Teaching.

To a very large degree, teaching is a derivative of the other purposes of economic training. Teachers should be expected to be able to teach those things which are useful in the training of economists. Thus, at the graduate level the objectives outlined above would be pertinent; teachers should be trained to meet these objectives. The problem of undergraduate teaching of economics may at first appear to pose somewhat different requirements, but closer examination indicates that its objectives should be closely allied with the objectives cited above, lest it become too academic and unrelated to the current practice of economics. Undergraduate teachers need to be trained broadly and to have a good general perspective about economics. The development of teachers who are interested in the furthering of economics as a science is necessary in order to prevent the teaching of economics from becoming a sterile academic exercise. The crucial question here is the ability to teach effectively, and to keep on doing it through time—to keep alive, stimulated and stimulating.

 

[6]

Requirements Posed by the Objectives of Graduate Training in Economics

THE OBJECTIVES OF GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS are largely complementary in the requirements they pose; there seems little ground for suggesting that individuals expecting to go into different areas of economics should have greatly different and unrelated programs. It was thought that the basic requirements common to all the objectives could be classified into four major categories: (1) a common core of economic knowledge; (2) the ability to present ideas coherently; (3) the ability to do research; and (4) the specialized training in the area of the student’s greatest interest.

No strong line of distinction can in fact be drawn between knowledge, on the one hand, and the ability to present ideas coherently and the ability to do research, on the other hand. A person who does not have the ability to express ideas coherently or the ability to do research cannot be said to possess knowledge of his subject. True knowledge is more than the capacity for parrot-like repetition of what this, that, or the other economist said, and what this, that, or the other formula is, and unless research is narrowly defined as the analysis of empirical data of a limited kind, really operative knowledge is included under either the ability to present ideas coherently or the ability to do research or both. Thus, the teaching involved in imparting the common core of knowledge (as well as that involved in specialized training) should be such as to produce in the student clarity of thinking which should make clear writing a necessary consequence; and, also, the teaching involved in imparting the common core of knowledge (and specialized training) should be such as to leave the student with a clear idea of what research means, and how the interplay of hypotheses with tests based on empirical data results in acceptable knowledge.

In spite of the obvious interrelationship of the four major [7] categories listed above, however, it will be useful to consider them one at a time.

 

COMMON CORE OF ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE

All economists should have a general acquaintance with the basic ideas in economics, and all should be equipped with the tools and the general empirical knowledge about modern economic systems that will provide a basis for economic research, policy guidance, and teaching. The common core consists of (1) a set of analytical tools, (2) a way of handling the tools in research and problem solving, and (3) certain institutional knowledge about the economic world. This common core is necessary not only to meet the above objectives, but also so that economists will be able to communicate with each other, and so that mobility among different uses of economists will be preserved. The substance of economics itself will be enriched if individuals can move freely from one area to another. For example, it is beneficial for the development of the profession if economists can move between business and government, on the one hand, and teaching, on the other. Similarly, research individuals should have the same sort of general background as those who are faced with administrative problems. The existence of a common core helps to ensure this, and is some protection against excessive compartmentalization and overspecialization in the profession. The problem of core training is one of balancing the desirability of having a number of essential requirements included in each student’s program with that of having the minimum amount of formal requirements.

With respect to the nature of the common core, there was fairly general agreement among those participating in the panels, and the conclusions reached are not strikingly different from the current practice in many graduate schools or the objectives expressed in the Bowen Report. There was a general feeling that some reorientation and redesign within the accepted framework might be in order, but that the general framework itself [8] need not be significantly altered. The content envisaged would include economic theory, economic history, mathematics, and statistics.

Economic theory.

The theory requirement in the common core should probably be the most intensive of all the requirements. At least one and probably two full years of formal classwork in economic theory were considered necessary, supplemented by outside reading to fill in gaps not taken up in the formal courses. The courses themselves would not be entirely devoted to a formal presentation of certain specialized areas of theory, but should give students the ability to use theory effectively in handling problems. The work should cover modern theory in most areas of economics, and it should also be tied in with both the history of economic thought in these areas and some of the historical and institutional background that provides the context for the theory.

Economic history.

Economic history as a core component should be distinguished from economic history as a special field. The purpose of the economic history requirement should be one of literacy, to insure that the student has some perspective with respect to how economics is related to various aspects of human development. This requirement can provide the thread of continuity and integration which is normal lacking from work at graduate level. The growth and development of economic institutions in the various specialized areas should be treated in relation to each other, together with the relation of social and political history to economic development and the role of geographic location as a determinant of economic development.

Mathematics.

The purpose of the mathematics requirement as a part of the core is partly to serve as a necessary tool for the mathematical economics and statistics, and partly for general literacy. It would [9] be desirable, of course, for students to have a proper mathematical background when they enter graduate school. Unfortunately, such a requirement is not easily enforced at this time, and it will generally be necessary for this deficiency to be made up either while a student is taking other work in graduate school or during the summers. In view of the specialized nature of the mathematics required for economists, it may well be that a specialized course drawn up specifically for economists or for social scientists would be the most efficient way to meet the need. Such a course would not be intended as a shortcut, but rather would attempt to give the student those areas of mathematics which are relevant to social science and to relate them to problems in economic theory, game theory, statistics, and econometrics. Literacy in the area of mathematics is important so that students will not be frightened by economics which is cast in symbolic terms. If there is to be communication among members of the profession, it is essential that all economists should have enough mathematics so that they can tell in a general way what articles in a mathematical form are about. This does not mean that those students who are not mathematically inclined should be forced to achieve mathematical fluency. However, all students should at least be required to have some minimum competence in mathematics.

Statistics.

As in the case of mathematics, statistics is partly a tool requirement and partly a literacy requirement. As a tool, students should be able to employ statistics for economic research. The traditional topics such as probability theory, statistical tests, and index numbers would all be covered. In addition, however, the student should learn how to handle basic empirical material in a systematic and orderly manner. The uses of accounting data, together with the meaning of various accounting classifications and accounting methods, should be studied. The student should also have a general knowledge of the sources of economic data, such as the kind of material contained in the various censuses of [10] the U.S., the national income statistics, and the types of economic information provided by the other agencies in the government. They should be familiar with the empirical work provided by non-governmental research institutions such as the National Bureau, and by international organizations. All of these are useful research tools, and they are also required for literacy in this area, so that the student will be able to appraise and evaluate empirical research.

Interdisciplinary training as related to the core of economics.

Considerable attention has been focused recently upon the desirability of having students know about fields other than economics, so that useful cross-fertilization can take place among the disciplines, and so that economics can be used more effectively in helping to handle public and private policy problems. It is argued that training in other disciplines will give the student greater breadth and make his economics training more meaningful. There was a general consensus among the members of the panels, however, that elementary survey courses in other disciplines would be of limited usefulness, and would expand the common core to a point where it would seriously infringe upon the freedom of students to follow lines of their own interest. Undergraduate training supposedly gives a student breadth; if it has failed in doing this the lack should be recognized as a gap in the student’s training. It is questionable, however, whether a graduate school should take formal cognizance of such gaps, as it does in the case of mathematics, and make provision in the graduate school curriculum for filling them. Where the gaps are extremely serious, the student should probably be encouraged to attend summer school, an/or do special reading, to make up the deficiencies. But it does not seem that the subject matter of interdisciplinary training and the deficiencies of preparation in the students are sufficiently clearly defined to make courses in them practical. Experiments might usefully be tried in this area, but they should be regarded strictly as experiments, [11] which might eventually yield elements that should be incorporated into the common core.

The extent and timing of the common core.

In terms of formal requirements, the common core should probably not exceed four or five year courses, depending upon whether or not the student can anticipate the mathematics requirement. In addition to this formal work, however, it might be desirable to provide for some sort of tutorial instruction to fill in gaps not covered in the courses and to follow up lines of special interest to the individual student. Such tutorial instruction would provide an element of flexibility not obtainable in formal classwork. With respect to timing, it seems logical that the major portion of the core would be covered in the first year, inasmuch as it provides tools used at later stages in graduate work. On the other hand, some time should be left in the first year for students to take courses of their own selection. Students should have an opportunity to sample several specialized areas before finally determining the area in which they are most interested.

The Ability to Express Ideas Coherently

The economist should have the ability to express his ideas coherently, and to move easily between the abstractions posed by economic analysis and the empirical elements of the problems with which he deals. This requirement is more than that of being able to write grammatical English; it involves training in the organization of ideas and the development of perspective. Rigor and clarity is essential if the profession is to serve its many potential functions. One of the major complaints of people who hire economists in business and government is that the products of graduate schools whom they hire do not have this ability to present their ideas coherently. They often express the opinion that economists who are intending to go into business and government should receive special training in this respect. However, [12] it is not any less important that individuals going into pure research or teaching should be trained to express their ideas coherently. Perhaps the reason teaching and academic research have not appeared to suffer as much in this respect lies in the lack of direct supervision of such individuals by supervisors who bear the responsibility for their written and oral presentations.

As already indicated, the ability to express ideas coherently is not merely a problem of correct grammar, but rather involves the organization of ideas in a meaningful manner. Unless a student can express an idea clearly, he does not really understand it. Thus, the ability to express ideas coherently is highly related to the problem of substance, and is properly the responsibility of a graduate school. Some students have difficulty in writing because they have little or nothing to say. They have not developed habits of creative thinking, and do not know how to approach a subject.

Because the economist usually crystallizes the results of his work in written form the writing itself is a tool, and is part of the basic methodology of the profession. In other disciplines such methodological tools are given explicit consideration. For example, in the sciences, students are thoroughly trained in laboratory work. In mathematics, students are drilled in working through problems. In law, briefs and case studies are written. In medicine, the internship trains the student in the handling of actual medical cases. Few graduate schools of economics, however, have considered writing explicitly as a tool of the profession, and therefore relatively little accent has been placed upon training the student adequately in this function.

The Ph.D. thesis, traditionally the masterpiece of a student being trained for the doctorate, does not fulfill this need. All too often it is instead a traumatic experience which leaves the student scarred but untrained. In a great many instances, furthermore, the thesis is done by the student out of residence, and the supervision of the writing of it leaves much to be desired. The student often attempts to write the thesis while he is pursuing another job on a full-time basis, and the writing may take [13] a period of five or six years. The hurdle is so great, as a matter of fact, that a large proportion of students who have completed everything but the thesis never finish it. Also, the moral pressure on professors to approve theses of students who have spent a large number of years on them is very great, with the result that the thesis itself need only show effort and length to be acceptable. In other words, the Ph.D. thesis is quite unsatisfactory for teaching students how to write, and because of the institutional considerations involved this failure cannot be corrected merely by exhorting students and teachers to greater effort and higher standards.

The members of the panels believed that the solution to the problem of training students to write coherently lies in the direction of more writing practice early in the graduate training program, and reliance on a larger number of shorter papers (5 to 10 pages) rather than a small number of major papers. This process should intimidate the student less, offer him more practice in organizing material, and make the task of criticizing and evaluating any given paper simpler.

One important aspect of training students to write, now largely neglected, is provision for revising and reworking papers. So much effort goes into the original writing of a lengthy paper, and the task of reworking it is so great, that most of the student’s writing tends to be a single-shot experience. In many cases the student never even seriously re-reads what he has written after he finishes it. In order to promote the reading and criticism of papers, it was suggested that some of the papers be duplicated and discussed in essay seminars attended by both students and faculty. Students should learn from such a procedure not only when their own work is presented but also from the problems encountered by other students. In this connection also, all papers need not be written in the confines of formal courses. The tutorial function spoken of in the previous section might well bear some of the brunt of criticizing short papers.

Courses involving group research would provide an opportunity for students to prepare papers in conjunction with each [14] other. Such joint papers would force the students to discuss the organization and presentation of the material, so that an agreed-upon version may be arrived at. This practice will prepare students for the sort of writing experience they are likely to encounter in business, government, or other group research.

If the writing of papers is to be stressed as a part of the graduate training program, it is only proper that it should assume a more significant role in the grading system. The student who can produce a first-class report at this own leisure, using the materials freely available to him, may well be a better economist than one who is more facile in showing his learning well in an examination but who may also be less proficient in turning out an independent piece of research. Present grading systems rely heavily upon examinations, which may test the student’s leaning ability but do not ordinarily test his ability to produce a well-conceived and well-executed report. The comprehensive examinations weigh very heavily in determining whether students are permitted to proceed and what kind of financial aid they are given. At both the course level and at the comprehensive examination level, it would be possible to give greater weight to written reports in the grading scheme. For the comprehensive examination, the student might be required to present what he considered the best two or three papers he had written. An evaluation of these papers would add a significant new dimension to the judgment of the abilities of students at this stage. By giving reports and papers a significant weight in the grading structure of the graduate school, students would be encouraged to revise and rework their manuscripts to a greater extent than they now do. Originality would be rewarded just as learning ability is now rewarded.

Research Competence

Because so many economists are required to do research of some sort in their work, and because all economists must be able to analyze and evaluate the results of such research, research [15] training is essential. The tools of economic research are, of course, necessary at least in some degree, but fully as important as the teaching of tools is the actual training of students to do research by doing it. The student emerging from graduate school should be able to carry through a piece of research in a systematic and meaningful manner. Students must be trained to set out a problem, design their work program with reference to this problem, carry out the basic work utilizing pertinent sources and appropriate methods, and finally, evaluate the results of this research, relating them to the original problem and appraising their validity.

A number of members of the panels felt that economic research generally suffered from a lack of respect for discipline and rigor. Casual empiricism, rather than scientific testing of hypotheses, is all too frequent. In many major pieces of research the sources and methods behind the results are not indicated adequately. These faults, they believed, are the result of inadequate teaching of research methods.

The misapplication of research tools, or the failure to apply suitable tools, is also widespread in much current economic research. The research worker may carry extremely unreliable estimates out to a number of decimal places, causing an inordinate amount of computational effort and lending a spurious appearance of accuracy. At the same time, this same research worker may gloss over important characteristics of his material which should have been tested for bias or general inconsistency by the use of fairly ordinary and straightforward statistical testing procedures.

The lack of research competence is also evident in the formulation of research problems. Often the reader of a research paper is at a loss to discover just what is being undertaken, and whether it was in fact achieved. This confusion often stems from a lack of clarity on the part of the original research worker in the conception of his problem, even more than from his presentation of it. It is very important that those embarking upon research recognize the importance in the research process of the original [16] conception of the problem and the design of the research to fit the problem.

These faults in economic research, combined with indecisiveness on the part of the individual research worker, lead to a considerable amount of floundering and waste motion. It is frequently necessary to re-do a piece of research because the formulation of the problem was inadequate. The failure to apply the proper tools at the proper time in the research process also may require that much of the work be redone, to make adjustments the need for which becomes obvious at a later stage in the research process. The prevalent lack of discipline and rigor makes all these revisions of portions of the research process extremely difficult, so that in fact the work usually must be completely redone, very often with quite different results.

In the light of these difficulties, research training should start early in the student’s graduate career and continue throughout its duration. Although in his first year the student will not have the necessary background and tools to do very much economic research, even at this early date practice with simple research problems would be useful in acclimating students to the various problems that research poses earlier in their careers rather than later. More of the student’s time can then be focused at a later stage on problems of a more substantive nature. It is well known that the greater part of time now spent on the Ph.D. thesis is spent in floundering around trying to select a problem and decide just how to carry it out. More and earlier practice in research might avoid much of this floundering.

The assignment of a larger number of short research subjects seems generally preferable, at least in the earlier part of the graduate training, to concentration on a few more substantial topics. If a number of different subjects are assigned, the student is faced again and again with the problem of how to formulate the research objectives and how to design the research. A larger number of projects also will serve to introduce the student to a number of different areas of economics, rather than to concentrate his attention solely in one direction. The question of [17] whether specific research topics should be assigned or whether the student should be allowed to choose his own is not an easy one to answer. Probably some of each approach should be used. Assignment of topics has the advantage of training the students to write for a customer. Freedom of choice in topics, on the other hand, has the advantage of allowing students to follow areas of special interest—and also gives them practice in arriving at a decision.

One of the major objectives of research training should be practice in the handling of empirical material of all sorts. The student should become used to dealing with historical material, economic statistics from all kinds of sources, and also material from other disciplines. He should gain experience in the critical evaluation of definitions and concepts, and in the manipulation and recasting of material.

The form of research training should probably differ at different stages of the graduate training process. In the early stages it may well take the form of special workshop courses, together with some for the work done for tutorial purposes. At a later stage, internship in various research projects within the university might be advisable. If possible, summer internship programs with business, government, or economic research foundations would also be desirable. Finally, individual research relationships with the faculty members on the basis of research assistantships or apprenticeships would serve a valuable role.

The Ph.D. thesis should serve a major function in research training, and should provide a test of whether the student has achieved research competence. But the primary research training should be begun much earlier in the student’s career; it should not fall upon the thesis alone. The thesis may well emerge as an outgrowth of some earlier research project.

Specialization

Specialized training in specific fields is necessary so that economists can usefully bring to bear both the more detailed knowledge [18] of the institutions pertinent to the special area and the latest developments of economic analysis in this area. Without special field training, a student will not approach the frontier of any field, and will not have any training in depth. Specialized training, therefore, not only serves to equip a student to handle problems in a special area, but it also gives him training in depth as a background for understanding the process of research and appreciating the development of economics in general. In many special fields, economics alone will not be sufficient. Other disciplines are often required to enable the economist to deal with the specialized problems. In the area of corporate finance, law and accounting may be necessary. Law may also be necessary for public finance, labor, and international trade. Psychology or sociology may be pertinent to studies of consumer demand and labor. Each special field will necessarily entail the study of those portions of other disciplines which are germane to the set of problems encountered.

Under present circumstances specialization often tends to be somewhat superficial. The first year of graduate work is usually spent on the basic tool courses or general survey courses, and specialization is possible only during the second year of course work. A cumulative build-up of work within a special area is often impossible since the student finishes his term of residence at the end of the second year. Specialization may thus consist of one or two courses taken concurrently in the second year of graduate study.

The charge is often made that the areas of specialization offered tend to be too academic. Theory is extolled, and the actual work done by the student is largely confined to the library. Knowledge of the institutional setting of the special field tends to be slighted. There is little or no opportunity for internship in the special field during the period of graduate work.

Specialization may be conceived of as a highly detailed study of some small segment of economics or it may be conceived of as embracing a general area of problems for which other disciplines besides economics may also be relevant. Unfortunately, [19] present graduate training seems to emphasize only the first conception of specialization, but if the products of graduate schools are expected to serve as professionals in these areas the narrow concept of specialization must give way to the broader concept.

Finally, it is argued by representatives of both business and government that graduate training does not prepare students for the kind of work required in business and government. Unlike the conclusion in the previous sections with respect to the common core of economics, the ability to express ideas coherently, and the ability to do research, where it was concluded that the requirements are the same irrespective of whether the student wants to go into academic work, business, or government, additional training will depend upon the field the student decides to enter. The criticism that graduate schools at the present time do not offer appropriate specializations for students interested in business and government in the role of professional economists appears to be justified. The kinds of courses that would be required for such a specialization would cover such topics as projections, studies in demand and cost, and general economic accounting.

In order to correct the tendency toward superficiality, the student should customarily take two or three courses in a given special area, over a period of at least two years. This would provide the student with an opportunity to work in the area over a longer period, and so would permit a cumulative build-up.

Research work involving the handling of empirical material and/or field work should be undertaken simultaneously with the course work. Such research work might be part of an internship program, a workshop course, or an apprenticeship as a research assistant. In some cases, suitable summer employment might serve as part of the program.

As already indicated, training in related disciplines should accompany the work in the special field. Generally speaking, survey courses in related disciplines will not meet the need. Either courses especially designed to suit the area being studied or relatively advanced work within the other disciplines would be [20] appropriate in giving greater breadth to the program of specialization.

In order to meet the needs of business and government, a number of courses in fields not now generally offered could usefully be added. Such things as the problems of making projections, studies in cost and demand analysis, operations research, and economic accounting are all appropriate subjects, which could serve either as specialties in their own right or as valuable tool adjuncts in such fields as industrial organization, labor, and international trade.

The Role of the Ph.D. Thesis

In viewing the Ph.D. thesis as both a test of and a means of acquiring core knowledge, clarity of expression, and research competence, the panel members felt that the form of the thesis required some reconsideration.

The desirability of having the thesis written in residence is well recognized. Furthermore, the panel members generally agreed that it would seem sufficient as a requirement if students could turn out an article-length paper which would be of publishable quality. Such a short thesis could be examined and criticized in greater detail by the faculty, and, if needed, revised more often and more basically by the student. This does not mean that long Ph.D. theses should be prohibited; a student should have the right to undertake any task he wants to. Still, it does not seem unreasonable to require that even in the case of a long thesis the student shall, in order to meet the thesis requirement, present some piece of material not longer than 30 to 50 pages which can stand as an independent piece of writing, aside from possible appendices on sources and methods. Whatever he wants to do over and above this, of course, he can. It may well be argued that the short thesis should not be compulsory, but that it may be enough to announce to students that short theses are not only acceptable but encouraged. Several panel members felt that the short thesis might be inappropriate [21] for specific topics, and that the way should be left open so that the student could write a longer thesis if he chose to do so. There is danger in this approach, however, in that students may take the safe way out and write a long thesis much on the same basis that they write long answers to exam questions covering every possible facet of the question. In such a case the tendency to judge theses by the pound might continue.

If the requirement that the thesis be of publishable quality is seriously intended, it might be desirable to consider having the university undertake the actual publication, in the form of an annual series. If the theses are in fact held to a length of 30 to 50 pages, the cost of publishing them would not be excessive. Such an arrangement would have several advantages. First, it would tend to make the students more careful of what they offer, since in most instances it would represent their first published work. Second, it would provide the student with copies of his thesis at nominal cost in the form of reprints. This would be very useful for job applications. Even when prospective employers were not sent a reprint by the student they would be able to obtain the thesis series from most libraries, and so could have access to a sample of the student’s work. Furthermore, the faculty would feel more conscientious with respect to the supervision of theses, since it would be evident to other institutions and members of the profession generally what caliber of work was being done. Finally, the work involved could be arranged to accord the students themselves with experiences in publishing in much the same way a law review does in law school. The argument against such a series is that the better theses or redrafts of them will be worth publication in the regular professional journals, and that this would be much preferable. There is also no guarantee that the university series would offer any substantial incentive to high quality, but may well have the opposite effect.*

[22]

The General Form of Graduate Instruction in Economics

These requirements partially dictate the general form of graduate education in economics. For one thing, a certain degree of formality will be required in education at the graduate level. This formality comes about because the entering graduate student usually does not possess the background necessary for graduate work in economics. Unlike the sciences and medicine, it is not practical to require that all entering students possess training in specific areas. The decision by students to become economists almost invariably is made very late in their undergraduate careers, so that it is usually impractical for them to acquire more advanced training in this area while they are undergraduates. Students should, of course, be encouraged to acquire the background at the undergraduate level insofar as possible, and the graduate curriculum may be modified to accelerate students who are adequately prepared. Nevertheless, there will still be a considerable area of the common core to which almost all students should be subjected.

Students who are capable of good work in one direction but find some other area extremely difficult may perhaps be permitted to waive certain of the requirements. The exceptional students, furthermore, need not necessarily be only those brilliant students who excel in economic theory. Students of more specialized interests, such as those primarily interested in the filed of labor, economic history, or corporation finance, should be given consideration fully as much as the theorists.

To a considerable extent, flexibility of graduate training can be secured by more individual attention in the form of some sort of tutorial and/or internship training in graduate school. Such a tutorial and/or internship would make the individual needs of the students known to the faculty, and it would give the student more opportunity to go his individual direction, either filling in gaps in his knowledge or pursuing lines of special interest. It would not always be necessary that senior faculty members be used as tutors. Younger staff members who [23] were themselves more recently graduate students may make more suitable tutors, in that they are closer to recent graduate training and are generally freer with their time.

Finally, it seems necessary to maintain some form of certification as a function of graduate education, as long as the number of students trained is substantial. People hiring students will want to know the kind and caliber of work done by the student in question. It has been suggested that the certification problem can be lessened by relying for purposes of recommendation and scholarship evaluation on more lengthy comments written by the student’s supervisors.

The Period of Graduate Training

It is the present practice of many graduate schools to concentrate the tool courses in the first year of graduate studies. Such an arrangement tends to make a somewhat regimented, formal, and uninspired first year of graduate work. The beginning student is left little room to follow lines in which he is interested or to explore areas to see whether he would find them interesting.

The specialization that takes place in the second year, as noted in the preceding section, often means only a single course in the special field. As a result, a survey course within an area is considered advanced work in that area. This specialization, furthermore, occurs at the same time the student is preparing for his comprehensives, and usually more attention is given to the comprehensives than to the specialization.

The thesis is often not started until after the student has finished his second year of graduate work and passed his comprehensive examinations. As a result, not only the writing of the thesis but the conception of it as well may be done after the student has served his time in residence and left. The consequent lack of supervision, the relegation of the thesis to a part-time task, and the prolongation of the thesis period to a number of years all tend to reduce the quality and usefulness of the thesis.

[24] The panel was generally agreed that the distinction in timing between tool courses, specialization, and the thesis should be less sharp than is current practice. In the first year, the student should be allowed to do some browsing. Some of the tool courses should be postponed until the second year, so that more of a cumulative development in the tools themselves would be possible.

The preliminary work on the thesis should not be put off until the third year of graduate work, and the thesis itself should be completed while the student is in residence. Initial work might start in a thesis seminar in the second year of graduate study. Rather than spending full time on the thesis at any point in his graduate work, the student would be expected to work on his thesis along with other course or seminar work.

Internships, research assistantships, and other such programs may mean that the student will interrupt or prolong the period of graduate work, or he may spend some of his summers in such activities. Programs such as these, however, should be planned in terms of the student’s total graduate training, and should be carried out as part of it. They should not be devised solely in terms of the faculty’s manpower needs—as at present is sometimes the case.

These requirements indicate that a minimum of three years in residence will be required by graduate students to complete the work. Generally speaking, four years will be more usual, so that the student can get practical experience as well as formal training into his graduate training. For the student’s own good, a period of more than five years in residence between entrance and the obtaining of the doctorate is probably undesirable. Should the student contemplate a more ambitious program than this, it should be of a post-doctoral nature. It would be useful for this purpose if universities could set up programs whereby post-doctoral students could obtain internships in business and government for a year, and then return to the university in a teaching position for a year following the internship. Such an arrangement would encourage business and government to take [25] students on an internship basis, and would at the same time give the individual student an opportunity to get established after having served his internship.

Summary and Conclusions

  1. The familiar concept of giving all graduate students in economics basic training in a common core appears to be a useful device, and should be kept as an integral part of graduate training in economics. This common core, if properly conceived, has the advantage of providing some breadth to the student’s training, not only making him more literate, but also giving him a better perspective within which to place his more specialized training. The common core also makes it easier for economists to communicate with each other insofar as they have had the same type of general training. Finally, mobility within the profession is promoted, so that it is possible for economists to move between business, government, and academic work to a much greater extent than might otherwise be so.
  2. The inadequacy of the current training of economists in writing and research was considered to be one of the greatest gaps in graduate training. The ability to express ideas coherently and the ability to carry through research work in a skillful manner should both be considered major tools of the economist. The graduate program, therefore, should take account of both these needs early in the period of graduate training, and attention should continue to be directed to them throughout the graduate program. Both writing and research should be weighted more than is done at present in the grading structure of the graduate program. One of the primary objectives of graduate schools should be to produce people who do not just know, but who can do as well, and the grading structure should be changed to assist in bringing this about. Special programs to promote research training, such as internships in the university or outside of it, should be developed to give the student more research experience under supervised conditions.
  3. Specialization in graduate school should equip the student [26] with more advanced training in various areas. It is important that this training not be too narrowly conceived nor too superficial. Instances where a single advanced course and little outside work is supposed to make a student a specialist are all too frequent. Specialization requires a longer build-up of cumulative work, and may involve going into related areas outside of what is generally considered to be economics. Graduate schools should give more careful attention to the specialized training students receive and whether this training does in fact meet the requirements for genuine specialization.
  4. Graduate training normally takes place over a very extended period. Students often work part time while trying to get their doctorate. It is thought that much would be gained if, as in the case of the professional schools, graduate training in economics could take place in an unbroken period of concentrated effort. If the common core is to be retained as is suggested in item 1 above, and more emphasis is to be placed upon writing, research, and specialization, as suggested in items 2 and 3 above, it seems very probable that the total effort going into graduate training in economics by the student will have to be increased. The concentration of studies into a period of three or four consecutive years on a full-time basis will do much to increase the efficiency of the students’ training and permit these objectives to be met. Summer programs of research or internship training may also be of considerable aid in fulfilling these objectives without extending graduate training further.
  5. The present form of the Ph.D. thesis is not an optimal device for achieving these objectives. It was thought that short theses, which could be reworked more easily and which could generally be made available in published form, would be more manageable and would provide a more effective training device. Such a thesis could be integrated into the graduate training program, and could generally be expected to be written while a student was still in residence; the doctorate would be granted directly upon completion of the period of residence and the thesis.

 

___________________________________

*One panel member has suggested that in cases where a mediocre short thesis is written only an M.A. be granted, and the Ph.D. reserved for theses of exceptional quality.

 

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. Personal Papers of John Kenneth Galbraith, Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 517, Folder “General Correspondence 8/7/56—12/10/57”.

Categories
ERVM Suggested Reading

St. Petersburg. Daniel Bernoulli’s paper, Latin original. 1738

 

Latest addition to the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror Rare Book Reading Room: a link to the Latin original of Daniel Bernoulli’s paper for his solution to the St. Petersburg paradox.

From the English translator’s note: “I am also grateful to Mr. William J. Baumol, Professor of Economics, Princeton University, for his valuable assistance in interpreting Bernoulli’s paper in the light of modern econometrics”.

Visitors must drop down this page to the comments section to enjoy the material shared by Olav Bjerkholt that he found in the Econometrica files regarding the publication of the English translation of the Bernoulli paper. Fabulous stuff!

____________________

1738

Bernoulli, Daniel. Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis, Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis PetropolitanaeTomus V. St. Petersburg, 1738, pp. 175-192.
Repository: Natural History Museum Library, London.

German translation by Alfred Pringsheim with introduction by Ludwig Fick. Leipzig: Duncker & Mumblot, 1896.

English translation (link requires access to jstor) by Dr. Louise Sommer published as “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk” in Econometrica, Vol. 22, No. 1 (January, 1954), pp. 23-36.

Image Source: New York City Public Library Reading Room, ca. 1911. From Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Milton Friedman from Cambridge to T.W. Schultz. 29 Mar 1954

About a week ago I posted Milton Friedman’s letter from Cambridge, England to T. W. Schultz dated 28 October 1953. Today we have the next carbon copy of a letter to Schultz from Cambridge in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution in which Friedman discusses a range of issues from a one-year appointment in mathematical economics at Chicago, the Cowles’ Directorship appointment, and postdoctoral fellowships. The letter ends with a laundry-list of miscellaneous comments from Arthur Burns’ Economic Report to the President through the reception of McCarthy news in England. Friedman’s candid assessments of many of his fellow-economists make this letter particularly interesting.  More to come!

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________

Milton Friedman to T.W. Schultz
29 March 1954

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
March 29, 1954

 

Dear Ted:

Of the people you list as possible visiting professors while Koopmans is away, Solow of M.I.T. is the one who offhand appeals to me the most. I have almost no doubt about his absolute competence: I read his doctoral dissertation at an early stage and saw something of him last summer and the preceding summer when he was spending some time at Hanover in connection with one or another of Bill Madow’s projects. He has a seminal mind and analytical ability of a very high order. My only questions would be the other that you raise, whether he is broadly enough interested in economics. And here I am inclined to answer with an uncertain yes, relying partly on the fact that he is flexible and capable of being induced. I do not know Dorfman of California either personally or through his writings. My question about him is that I believe that we would do best if we could use this opportunity in general to bring in someone with a rather different point of view and who will provide a broadening of the kind of thing done under the heading of mathematical economics, and my impression is that Dorfman is very much in the same line as Koopmans – but here too, I don’t have much confidence in my knowledge. As you know, I think very highly of both Modigliani and Christ, but as of the moment for this particular spot, would prefer Solow, partly on grounds of greater differentiation of product.

One rather harebrained possibility that has occurred to me outside your list is Maurice Allais, the French mathematical economist who is Professor at École des Mines. Allais is a crackpot genius in many respects. He came out of engineering and is largely self taught, which means he holds the erroneous views he has discovered for himself as strongly as the correct ones. I have always said that if he had, at a formative age, had one year of really good graduate education in economics he might have become one of the really great names. At the same time, Allais is an exceedingly active and stimulating person who works in mathematical economics of a rather different kind than we have been accustomed to. I think it would be a good thing to have him around for a year – both for us and him – though I am most uncertain that it would be for a longer period. I don’t have any basis for knowing whether Allais would be interested.

I have tried to think over the other European mathematical economists to see if they offer other possibilities. There are others in France: Guilbaud [Georges-Théodule Guilbaud (1912-2008)], Boiteux [Marcel Boiteux (1922-)] (I don’t have that spelled right), but none seem to me as good as Allais for our purposes. There are Frisch and Haavelmo in Norway, Wold in Sweden; of these, Haavelmo would be the best. I find it hard to think of anybody in England who meets this particular bill, and would be at all conceivable. Dick Stone? Has just been over and is not primarily mathematical but might be very good indeed in some ways. Is certainly econometric minded and fairly broadly so. R.G.D. Allen? Has done almost nothing in math. econ. for a long time.*

*[handwritten footnote, incomplete on left side presumably because carbon paper folded on the corner:   “…real possibility here is a young fellow at the London School, A. W. Phillips…invented the “machine” Lerner has been peddling. He came to econ. out of ….good indeed. He has an important paper in the mathematics of stabilization (over) policies, scheduled to appear(?) in Econ. Journal shortly.”]

Getting back home, the names that occur to me have, I am sure, also occurred to you. Is Kenneth Arrow unavailable for a year’s arrangement? What about Vickrey? I don’t believe that in any absolute sense I would rate Vickrey above Christ, say, but for us he has the advantage of bringing a different background and approach.

The above is all written in the context of a definite one-year arrangement in the field of mathematical economics. I realize, of course, that this may turn out to be an undesirable limitation. This is certainly an opportunity to try someone whom we might be interested in permanently; and it may be possible to make temporary arrangements for math. econ. for the coming year – via DuBrul, Marschak, etc. The difficulty is that once I leave this limited field, the remainder is so broad that I hardly know where to turn. For myself, I believe we might well use this to bring someone in in money, if that possibility existed. If it did, I should want strongly to press on you Harry Johnson, here at Cambridge, but originally a Canadian educated at the University of Toronto, who is the one new person I have come to know here who has really impressed me.

One other person from the US left out of the above list but perhaps eligible even within the narrower limitations is William Baumol. Oughtn’t he be considered?

Within the narrower limitations, my own listing would, at the moment, be: Allais, Solow, Baumol, Arrow, Vickrey, Phillips. I would hasten to add that my listing of Arrow fourth is entirely consistent with my believing him the best of the lot in absolute competence, and the one who would still go to the top of this list for a permanent post.

I turn to the other possibility you raise in your letter, a permanent post a la the Tobin one. I am somewhat puzzled how to interpret the change of view, you suggest, I assume that the person would be expected to take over the directorship of Cowles. If this is so, it seems to me highly unfortunate to link it with a permanent post in the department. Obviously, the best of all worlds would be if there were someone we definitely wanted as a permanent member of the department who also happened to be interested in the Cowles area and was willing to direct, or better interested in directing, Cowles. In lieu of this happy accident, I would myself like to see the two issues kept as distinct as possible; to have the Cowles people name a director, with the aid and advice but not necessarily the consent, of the department; have the department offer him cooperation, opportunity to teach, etc., but without having him a full-fledged permanent member. I hope you will pardon these obiter dicta. I realize that this is a topic you have doubtless discussed ad nauseam; what is even more important, if after such discussion, you feel differently, I would predict that you would succeed in persuading me to your view; which is why I leave it with these dicta and without indicating the arguments – you can provide them better than I.

The issue strikes me particularly forcefully because I do feel that in terms of the needs of the department, our main need is not for someone else mainly in the Cowles area; it is for someone to replace either Mints in money, or me in orthodox theory, if I slide over to take Mints’ role.

For Cowles’ sake as well as our own, there might be much to be said for having the directorship be the primary post for whoever comes. It seems to me bad for Cowles to have that post viewed as either a sideshow or a stepping stone. For directorship of Cowles, some names that occur are: Herbert Simon; Dorothy Brady; with more doubt Modigliani. One possibility much farther off the beaten track is Warren Nutter, who has, I gathered, been a phenomenal administrative success in Wash. at Central Intelligence Agency; yet is an economist. Would Charlie Hitch, who has been running Rand’s economic division be completely out?

[Handwritten note: “You know, Gregg Lewis might be better than any of these if he would do it!]

If the post is to be viewed as primarily a professorship in the department, with Cowles directorship as a sideline, I have great difficulty in making any suggestions: I would not, in particular, be enthusiastic about any of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Arrow, yes, but he is apparently out. Simon Kuznets, yes, but he would be likely to make Cowles into something altogether different that it is. I feel literally stuck in trying to think of acceptable candidates. Perhaps I can be more useful in reacting to other suggestions.

Let me combine with this some comments on your March 15 letter, which I should have answered long since.

On the post-doctoral fellowship, I feel less bearish than you, primarily, I suppose because I am inclined to lay a good deal of emphasis on the intangible benefits from having a widespread group of people who have had a year at Chicago. It seems to me that a post-doctoral fellowship is more likely to do this than a staff appointment, both because it is likely to bring in a wider range of people to apply and because it is rather more likely to have a one or two year limit and so a more rapid turnover. What has disappointed me most is the limited number of people among whom we have been forced to choose. Why is it that we don’t get more applications? Is it because we do treat it now like a staff appointment? Do we advertise it as widely as we might and stimulate a considerable number of applicants? Or is it simply because the great increase in number of post-doctoral fellowships available (and decrease in quality of people going in for economics?) has lowered the demand for any one fellowship? I find it hard to believe that making it into a staff appointment would help much in providing more adequate review and appraisal – this is I believe a result of the limitations of time on all of us – but it might give it greater prestige and make it more valuable to the recipient in this way, though, it would cost him tax and limit freedom.

I believe that part of the problem you raise about the postdoctoral fellowship has little to do with it per se but is a general problem about the department. Is our own work subject to as much discussion and advice from our colleagues as each of us would like? The answer seems to me clearly no. The trouble is – and I am afraid it is to some extent unavoidable and common at other places – that we have so many other duties and tasks to perform that being an intellectual community engaged in cross-stimulation perforce takes a back seat. This disease is I think one that grows as the square of the professional age. From this point of view, I think that the more junior people around the better in many ways and I think this one of the real virtues of the development of research projects that will enable us to keep more beginners around.

On the whole, I continue to think that the fellowship idea is sound, in the sense that we ought to have a number of people around who have no assigned duties. I would defend the Mishan result in these terms. I think he was a most useful intellectual stimulant and irritant to have around even if his own output was not too striking. The virtue of the fellowship arrangement is that it enables you to shape the hole to the peg. I cannot of course judge about Prais. But I am surprised by your adverse comments on Dewey’s use of it; I would have thought his one of the clearly most successful post-doctoral fellowships so far.

As you have doubtless heard, Muth has decided to go to Cowles. I am sorry that he has. I think he is good. I am somewhat troubled about the general problem of recruiting for the Workshop at a distance. In addition to Muth, I had heard from Pesek, whom I encouraged but left the matter open because he would rather have a fellowship that he applied for that would pay his travelling expenses to Washington. My general feeling is that it would be a mistake to take anyone just because I am not on the spot, that it would be far better to start fairly slowly, and let the thing build up, adding people as they turn up next year. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I am delighted to hear about Fred’s ford project. I had a wire from Willits recently re Harberger and I assume it was in connection with his proposed project. Al Rees will be a splendid editor, I feel, and it is excellent to have him entirely in the department. I hardly know what to think of Morton Grodzins as Dean. I assume that his appointment measn that he was regarded as a successful administrator at the Press. Grodzins has great drive and energy, is clearly bright and intelligent, but whether he has the judgment either of men or of directions of development that is required, and the ability to raise money that Tyler displayed, is something I have less confidence in. Who is taking over the Press?

I enjoyed your comments on both Arthur Burns and McCarthy. With respect to the first, I thought the economic report extraordinarily good, both in its analysis of the immediate situation and in its discussion of the general considerations that should guide policy. It showed courage, too, I think in its willingness to say nasty things about farm supports and minimum wages to mention two. My views about the recession are indicated by the title of a lecture I am scheduled to give in Stockholm towards the end of April: “Why the American Economy is Depression-proof”. After all, there is no reason why Colin Clark should be the only economist sticking his neck out. It continues to seem to me that the danger to be worried about is over-reacting to this recession and in the process producing a subsequent inflationary spurt. Arthur seems to me to be showing real courage in holding out against action. To do something would surely be the easy and in the short run politically popular course.

McCarthyism has of course been attracting enormous attention here. Indeed, for long it has crowded almost all other American news into the background with the result that it has given a thoroughly distorted view of America to newspaper readers. I enclose a clipping in this connection which you may find amusing. it is not a bad summary, though I trust I put in more qualifications.

We have gotten an opportunity to go to Spain via an invitation to lecture at Madrid (Earl’s doing, I suspect), so Rose and I are leaving next week for a week there. Shortly after our return we go to Sweden and Denmark for a couple of weeks. We are very much excited by the prospects. Best regards to all.

Yours

[signed]
Milton

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder “194.6 Economics Department S-Z, 1946-1976”.

 

Image: Left, Milton Friedman (between 1946 and 1953 according to note on back of photo in the Hoover Archive in the Milton Friedman papers). Right, Theodore W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.