Tag: BurnsAR

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. Excerpt from Dean’s Report dealing with faculty of political science. 1930-1931

The previous post was a backward look from October 1930 at the first fifty-years of Columbia’s Faculty of Political Science (home of its graduate economics department). The following excerpts from the annual report of the Dean of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science give us a snapshot of the Faculty of Political Science for the year 1930-31.

__________________________

FACULTIES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND PURE SCIENCE

REPORT OF THE DEAN
FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1931

To the President of the University

Sir:

As Dean of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science, I submit the following report for the academic year ending June 30, 1931.

The year was marked by a number of events of interest and importance to the Graduate Faculties. Scarcely was it under way when the University celebrated with appropriate dignity and simplicity the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Founding of the Faculty of Political Science. The details of this celebration, having been elsewhere recorded in print, need not be repeated here. The presence on that occasion of the venerable founder of the Faculty, Emeritus Professor John William Burgess, still in vigor of mind and of personality, gave it peculiarly interesting and dramatic focus. It was a fortunate circumstance that this expression of the University’s homage and debt to him was given at that time. Only a few months thereafter, deservedly honored and mourned, he passed from the earthly scene.

As a permanently useful memento of this celebration there was published a Bibliography of the Faculty of Political Science containing the list of the several thousand books and important articles written by its members as well as the titles of the nearly seven hundred doctoral dissertations that have been prepared and published under its guidance. Important to our University life as the integrity and unity of this Faculty is both historically and presently, it is regrettable that because of this fact this Bibliography falls far short of including the total of our contributions to the field of the social sciences. A complete bibliography of our publications in this wide field would have included numerous books and articles by members of other faculties, notably the Faculties of Business and of Law.

But while the Faculty of Political Science momentarily paused on the threshold of the year to celebrate its semicentenary, to look back upon its achievements and modestly to rejoice in its traditions, its spirit was in 1930, as in 1880, the spirit of youth. Professor Burgess himself was only thirty-five when he fathered the Faculty. And of the early famous small group whom he called to aid him in his high adventure in scholarship Professors Mayo-Smith and Munroe Smith were only twenty-six, and Professors Goodnow and Seligman twenty-four. Even among later arrivals Professor John Bassett Moore was only thirty-one, Professor Dunning thirty-two, Professor Osgood thirty-five, and Professor Giddings thirty-seven, when they joined the Faculty. It was a youthful company courageously and energetically facing the future.

And so this Faculty continues. It was the Department of Economics that was especially called upon this year to take thought of tomorrow. It had suffered severe losses. Professor Henry L. Moore retired in the spring of 1930. Professor Seager died in August of the same year. Professor Seligman retired at the end of the year. Inevitably the School of Business and the Department of Economics have been developing along many related lines of teaching and research. It would have been calamitous had they developed at cross purposes or in ungenerous rivalry. Happily no such misfortune befell. From the inception of the School of Business these two units have been held to common purpose by ties of common sense and of that fine spirit of loyalty and of friendship that is so much a part of the Columbia spirit. But the breach in the ranks of the Department of Economics seemed an appropriate occasion for welding these separate units, at least in so far as graduate work is concerned, into closer organic integration. Everybody recognizes that under our more or less arbitrary, but certainly unavoidable, scheme of departmentalization there are subjects and interests appropriate to a professional school of business that might not properly be included under a graduate department of economics. Conversely, there are manifestly subjects and interests that not only may be, but also should be, included under both. We severed the knot of this difficult problem of University organization by asking five members of the Faculty of the School of Business to become members of the Department of Economics and accept seats in the Faculty of Political Science. These were Professors Bonbright, Haig, McCrea, Mills, and Willis. This is no mere paper arrangement; it means a vital amalgamation of intellectual forces working toward common ends.

In recognition of the growing rapprochement between law and the social sciences it seemed fitting also that two members of the Faculty of Law, whose fields of interest are considerably economic, should be invited into this enlarged departmental membership. Professors Llewellyn and Berle were in consequence drawn into the unit. This was in line with the historic dual relationship that has so long prevailed with profitable results to teaching and scholarship between the Department of Public Law and the School of Law.

In addition to these internal realignments several new members were added to the Department of Economics. These are: Leo Wolman, eminent economist and practitioner in the field of labor problems; Carter Goodrich, whose special field for development will be American economic history; and Harold Hotelling, a distinguished mathematician turned economist. Arthur R. Burns, Lecturer in Economics in Barnard College, will henceforth devote himself to graduate instruction and research upon problems of industrial and business organization. Michael Florinsky, working upon recent economic developments in Europe, and Joseph Dorfman upon the development of American economic thought, have been made Associates in the Department. The remolding of this important Department at a moment of unprecedentedly swift change in the economic world augurs for the years ahead rich results in scholarship and in service.

In the closely related Department of Social Science the appointment of Robert S. Lynd, distinguished sociological investigator and for some years past Secretary of the Social Science Research Council, is likewise an omen of certain promise. It can scarcely fail to quicken, expand, and deepen the activities of our sociologists in this great laboratory of society in which we live, the city of New York.

[…]

I express the deep grief of the University over the death in August, 1930, of Henry Rogers Seager, Professor of Political Economy, and in June, 1931, of Franklin Henry Giddings, Professor Emeritus in Residence of Sociology and the History of Civilization. For a quarter of a century or more here at Columbia, Professor Seager studied with and expounded to his students the problems of labor in a changing industrial society and the economic problems of corporations and trusts. Scholar, teacher, writer, humanitarian, active participant in welfare movements and organizations, he died at the age of sixty, depriving us of many years of companionship and service upon which we had never thought not to count. Beloved of both students and colleagues, his deep personal interest in and influence upon the former will not be easily supplied by another. His loss to the latter is irreparable.

Professor Giddings’ death brought to its close a long, rich life of labor, of profound reflection, and of purposeful achievement. Trail blazer in an almost unexplored and unstaked field of social inquiry he more than any other American gave meaning to the term sociology and direction to its course. His numerous writings attest the catholicity of his interests, the depth of his penetrating scholarship, and the clarity of his thinking on social problems and developments. Scholars the world over acclaimed him, while the large company of his students and the small company of his immediate colleagues held him in the affectionate regard which his rich humanity and his fineness of spirit inspired and compelled.

The end of the academic year brought with it the retirement from active service to the University of Edwin R. A. Seligman, McVickar Professor of Political Economy, and of Edward Delavan Perry, Jay Professor of Greek. Professor Seligman’s enormous and varied contributions to modern economic thought, especially in the field of public finance, as well as his numerous public and quasi-public services are so widely and so favorably known that it seems quite as useless as it is impossible summarily to estimate them here. His name is known and his views are valued wherever informed men in almost any land discuss problems of finance, and many are the important laws embodying fiscal policies of city, state, and nation that bear in their contours the impress of his studious acumen and practical genius. A scholar in affairs he was and continues to be. Happily he tarries with us in residence as active and as interested as ever. For him relief from classroom instruction can but mean an increase of productive scholarship and of public activity, if such a thing be conceivable.

[…]

Respectfully submitted,
Howard Lee McBain,
Dean

June 30, 1931

Source: Columbia University. Annual Report of the President and Treasurer to the Trustees…for the year ending June 30, 1931. Pp. 202-204; 208-209; 214.

Image Source: Low Memorial Library, Columbia University from the Tichnor Brothers Collection, New York Postcards, at the Boston Public Library, Print Department.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

Columbia. Language Requirements for PhD Report, 1951

In 1950 the economics department of the Faculty of Political Science at Columbia University was able to amend the foreign language requirement for a Ph.D. in economics to allow mathematics to substitute for one of the two required non-English languages. In 1951 the sociology department wanted to follow suit but this led to a faculty meeting discussion “so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it” ending in a special committee being formed to consider the matter further. The eleven page report of that committee has been transcribed for this post. It follows the excerpt from the minutes of the faculty meeting that would lead to the appointment of the special committee.

The portions of the report that explicity address the issue of the substitution of mathematics literacy for additional foreign language literacy have been highlighted for convenience. Connoisseurs of the discourse of academic rule-making will find much to savour in the minutes and report below. I find it hilarious that a three person committee speaks of  “majority” and “minority” recommendations when the humble fact was that “two of the committee members” disagreed with “the other one”.

It is unfortunate that I happened to have stopped my collection of faculty minutes with the year 1951, so that at the present moment I don’t know the ultimate fate met by the report’s recommendations at a later general meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, presumably sometime in early 1952.

___________________

Excerpt from the Minutes of the annual meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, April 27, 1951.

…Professor Lazarsfeld [Paul Felix Lazarsfeld, Professor of Sociology] offered a resolution to permit students in Sociology and Economics to substitute Mathematics for one of the two foreign languages normally required for the Ph.D. degree. In the discussion Professor Wuorinen [John H. Wuorinen, Professor of History] asked to be enlightened on the tendency of the motion. The answer was that Mathematics is a language and one far more necessary to the statistical student of society than any of the languages that consist of words.

Professor Evans [Austin Patterson Evans, Professor of History] opposed the motion on two grounds: first, the principle that all Doctors of Philosophy in Columbia University are rightly deemed able to use the literature of their fields in two foreign languages besides their own; second, the technicality that any change in the requirement must be approved by all three faculties.

From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality. Professor Angell [James W. Angell, Professor of Economics] urged the far greater range of ideas available in his field through mathematical formulations; Professor Bonbright [James Cummings Bonbright, Professor of Finance] uttered the suspicion that our language requirement was not really effective, and implied that a mathematics requirement would be. Dean Krout rose to reinforce Professor Evans’ point that we could not take separate action as a Faculty.

Professor Evans introduced an amendment of which the effect was to reduce the requirement to one language for all fields. The amendment was not accepted by the first mover and Professor Angell called for a test vote on the original motion. It was carried 25-10; but given the Faculty lack of power to act independently on this matter, Professor Angell moved the appointment of a committee to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree. This suggestion was powerless to stem the debate. Professor Stigler [George Joseph Stigler, Professor of Economics]urged that all departments be treated equally. Professor Wuorinen questioned the relevance of mathematics to the purpose served by the linguistic equipment. Professor Davis [Kingsley Davis, Asssociate Professor of Sociology] wondered how much mathematics would equal one language. Dean Krout likewise wished to know what would be meant by “mathematics”. Professor Lazarsfeld replied that a committee exists and has expressed itself on the nature of the mathematical equipment required by social scientists. Professor Angell revealed that the Department of Economics has the specifications all worked out. Professors Macmahon [Arthur W. Macmahon, Eaton Professor of Public Administration] and Shoup [Carl Sumner Shoup, Professor of Economics] both agreed in considering mathematics a language and raised the spectre of a three-language requirement.

Finally the question was called for, and Professor Angell’s motion to appoint a committee was passed 26-9.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962, pp. 1039-40.

___________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
[Nov. 5, 1951]

Summary

Findings of Fact:

  1. The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements of faculties and departments.
  2. Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees retain residual powers which they may exercise when they wish.
  3. Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the requirements.
  4. The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirements, and they differed widely.
  5. In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took account of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages. The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-editing of the language requirement. Thus was established without specific discussion a Faculty rule requiring two languages.

Conclusions:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faculty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

A minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

 

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PH.D. DEGREE

By letter, dated October 1, 1951, Dean John A. Krout constituted the undersigned as a Special Committee of the Faculty of Political Science to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree.

The Special Committee was asked to treat the subject generally in its report and to give special attention to the following questions: (1) Is it wise for the Faculty to permit its Departments to modify the existing language requirement; and (2) If the Faculty determines that it is wise to permit Departmental modification, should the Faculty recommend to the University Council such a change in the language requirement rules without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

A third question emerges from a reading of the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on April 27, 1951. Some of the members expressed the question in terms of debate over the authority of the Faculty of Political Science under the currently existing “constitutional law” of the University to take action on the language requirement without reference to the University Council for approval.

In an effort to answer the three questions raised, the Special Committee has divided its study into its component parts, namely (1) Have the Departments and the Faculty of Political Science present authority under the Statutes of the University, the resolutions of the Trustees and of the University Council and accepted. practice to change the language requirements for the Ph.D. degree; (2) From a policy point of view, should a change be made; and (3) From a policy point of view, should such a change be made without concurrence of the Faculties of Pure Science and Philosophy?

The Findings of Fact

(a) Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees here residual powers which they may exercise as they wish.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Trustees of the University have supreme authority over the “educational policy” of the University. No proposal involving a change in this policy may take effect until after approval of the Trustees, or until after the termination of the second meeting following the introduction of the proposal, in the event that the Trustees remain silent on the subject.

This is so by virtue of the terms of Article 24 of the Statutes of the University, which reads as follows:

Chap. II. The University Council

Art. 24. LIMITATION OF POWERS. No exercise of the powers conferred upon the Council which involves a change in the educational policy of the University in respect to the requirements of admission or the conditions of graduation, shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting of the Trustees shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

The University Council has the right under the Statutes of the University to consider every proposal, submitted by the Faculties which involves a change in the educational policy of the University.

This is so by virtue of Articles 33 and 142 of the Statutes of the University, which read as follows:

Chap. III. Faculties and Administrative Boards

Art. 33. LIMITATION OF POWERS. Every proposed exercise of the power conferred on any of the Faculties, which involves a change in the educational policy of the university in respect to the requirements of admission, the program of studies or the condition of graduation shall be submitted to the University Council before being recommended to the Trustees, and such recommendation shall not be laid before the Trustees until the Council has acted thereon, or until another meeting of the Council has been held, subsequent to that at which the recommendation was submitted. No exercise of such power by any Faculty shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

Chap. XIV. Faculty of Political Science

Art. 142. DEGREES. (b) Ph.D. Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall be qualified to receive that degree upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by the University Council by concurrent action with the Faculty of Political Science.

While the authority of the Trustees and the University Council is clearly superior to that of the Faculties in matters concerning the “educational policy” of the University (which would seem to include the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree), the record seems to indicate that this authority has been delegated to the Faculties. The second finding of fact, is therefore:

(b) The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements for faculties and departments.

The finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute book of the University Council contains the following resolution, dated April 18, 1916, which reads as follows in its pertinent provisions:

“A student admitted to the University under the jurisdiction of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy or Pure Science, who wishes to become a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which his research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

    1. The student must have satisfied the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the faculty prescribe.

Such an interpretation of, the meaning of the resolution of the University Council, dated April 18, 1916, is supported by the action of the Faculty of Political Science in years subsequent to the adoption of the University Council’s resolution. The record is sufficiently clear on this score to permit the Special Committee to make the third finding of fact:

(c) Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the language requirements.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

On various occasions the Faculty has altered the language requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as will be indicated later in this report, but after April 18, 1916, the Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science and of the University Council are silent as to any reference of changes in the language requirement to the University Council. References to the University Council appear in the minutes before April 18, 1916.

Compare the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on February 25, 1916 (Minute Book, page 404), with the minutes of the meetings of the Faculty of Political Science, held on March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468) and on February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488).

While the Faculty has established a practice of acting on language requirements without reference to the University Council, a minority of the Special Committee feels it desirable to raise with the Faculty the question of whether it might not be courteous to inform the University Council of changes in the future, with an indication that the change has been made under the provisions of the delegation of authority under the resolution of April 18, 1916. There would then be no possibility of a misunderstanding. The majority of the Special Committee believe such informative procedure unnecessary.

The record of the action of the Faculty of Political Science on the language requirements is sufficiently clear to permit the special Committee to make the following fourth finding of fact.

(d) The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free up until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirement, and they differed widely.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute Book of the Faculty of Political Science records the following action of the Faculty on language requirements for the Ph.D. degree.

(1) December 12, 1913: (Minute Book, page 371)

“The Dean then presented to the Faculty for its consideration certain resolutions of the Joint Committee on Instruction of the several graduate faculties, as follows:

…After the completion of at least one year of residence…..students may present themselves for examination in any two of the subjects, of graduate instruction. The satisfaction of this examination together with a demonstration of ability to read French and German or such other languages as may be accepted will entitle them to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ……”

The matter was referred to the Committee on Instruction for consideration and report.

The Committee on Instruction reported at, the meeting of January 23, 1914, and the following was ordered entered upon the Minutes of the Faculty: (Minute Book page 375).

“…. (2) Each department shall prescribe, by regulations approved by the faculty and by the dean, the subjects and languages in which the student must show himself proficient and the manner in which his proficiency shall be determined.”

(2) February 25, 1916: (Minute Book, page 404)

“The Dean then recommended to the Faculty the adoption of the following revised regulations for the control of the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:

Students who wish to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which their research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

….2. The candidate must satisfy the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the Faculty prescribe.”

The recommendation was adopted by the Faculty and referred to the University Council. It was this resolution which evoked from the University Council the resolution quoted above in connection with the discussion of the powers of the Faculty.

(3) March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468)

“The following were moved as a substitute for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy approved by the faculty at its meeting of May 25, 1916.

    1. Admission to Candidacy.

“2. Languages. The applicant shall demonstrate his ability to read at least one modern European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally the requirements in the several fields are as indicated in the list of subjects below. The language requirement must be satisfied at least one academic year prior to the admission of the applicant to candidacy for the degree.”

(4) February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488)

A substitution in the requirements approved on March 28, 1919 was moved and accepted:

“4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at least one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department, be deemed essential for each subject as indicated in the following paragraphs:”

There were then listed a considerable number of subjects with varying language requirements for each. There were as much as four languages required of those obtaining their degree in Ancient History, and in American Government, always in addition to English.

(5) April 19, 1940 (Minute Book, page 865)

The Faculty voted to rephrase the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to read as follows, In the pertinent section:

“6. Matriculation as a Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. After not less than one year of graduate residence, after satisfying the department that he is proficient in such languages as it prescribes for a candidate and after satisfying the department that he is prepared to undertake research under its direction, the prospective candidate will be recommended by the department to the Dean for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.”

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1940-1941 continued to carry without change the paragraph adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, and quoted under (4) above. See Announcement for 1940-1941 at pp. 12-13. An examination on the list of subjects with the language requirements for each indicates that there was no longer a single subject which required but one language other than English. All required two languages or more.

The crucial change in Faculty practice on the language requirement occurred in 1941. The Special Committee finds it possible to make the following fifth finding of fact.

(e) In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took count of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages.

The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-edited language requirement. In effect there was established in this manner a Faculty rule requiring two languages when no general Faculty rule requiring a specific number of language had existed previously.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1941-1942 changed one word in the paragraph which had been adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, namely the word “one”. This word was changed to “two”, making the statement on languages read as follows: “The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to read at least two languages other than English…” The list of subjects, which had been printed in the Announcement in previous years, continued to appear, there being varying requirements for each subject, but none less than two languages.

No Minute of Faculty action concern specifically the question of the language requirement.  Professor Austin P. Evans, who was Chairman of the Faculty’s Committee on Instruction at the time, has informed the Special Committee that he recalls making the change in editing the Announcement. He noted that all of the subjects listed required two languages, and to avoid any confusion on the part of students in reading a general rule requiring only one language and a list of subjects in which all required at least two languages; he made the change. The Announcement was then submitted, for adoption by the Faculty, so that the change in the general statement of the language requirement was adopted as a new Faculty rule.

In the Announcement for the following year, 1942-1943, the list of subjects with the specific foreign languages required of candidates for the Ph.D. degree in each field was dropped. The list has never reappeared, leaving the sole statement of the language requirement the paragraph which has been altered for the Announcement of 1941-1942.

No Faculty action has been found authorizing requirement by subject. It is possible that the deletion occurred as a part of the campaign of the Secretary of the University for shortened Announcements to save money. Whatever the reason, the change strengthened the rule, as amended in the previous year, and removed any indication that the rule had originally been a summarizing of the requirements as established by each department for the subjects under its control.

Conclusions

Having made the above five findings of fact, the Special Committee believes it possible to conclude at this point the following:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Considerations Underlying Recommendations

In seeking to find the basis for appropriate recommendations to the Faculty, the Special Committee has examined the report of the special committee for the review of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, appointed by the President of the University in the autumn of 1937, under the Chairmanship of Professor Woodbridge. The “Woodbridge Committee” report is the most recent of the exhaustive studies of the subject of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Reference was made to the language requirement, and this reference seems pertinent to the matter under discussion in this report.

In a preliminary report, dated May 12, 1937 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 349) the Woodbridge Committee proposed that no one should be admitted to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until he had passed an examination. In stating the ground to be covered by such an examination, the Woodbridge Committee included “command of English usage, and ability to read such foreign languages as the department may require”. The Committee suggested further that “The examination including that in foreign languages shall be written, and the quality of the writing be used as a test of the student’s command of English.”

In its final report, dated April 21, 1939 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 361) the Woodbridge Committee reaffirmed the recommendation of its preliminary report that there be an examination of prospective candidates, but said that it had changed its mind as to the manner of administration and was now of the opinion that the type of examination to be given should be determined by the department concerned and not by any central authority.

Parts of the Woodbridge Committee report were adopted by the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science in March, 1939. The resolution of the Faculties, as set forth in the record of the University Council (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 373) reads, as follows, in its pertinent provisions:

“1. An applicant may be admitted as a regular graduate student only after he has satisfied, in addition to the general University requirements for admission, any further requirements which may be specified by the Department of his major interest, and which may relate especially to the content and the quality of his prior studies and to his ability in the use of foreign languages.”

The practice of other Universities also seems appropriate to consideration of recommendations. The Special Committee has been informed of the results of a surrey of 18 Universities conducted by the Department of Economics of the University Oregon communicated to Dean John A. Krout by letter dated July 26, 1951. It reads as follows:

“About half of the Universities allow no substitutions or restrict substitutions, such as by prohibiting use of two romance languages. Five Universities have provided for substitution of subjects for a language. These are Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, Minnesota and Stanford, the substitutions being allowed mainly on economics in the first three institutions. Mathematics and statistics are the usual substitutes, though the practices vary. Ohio State requires only one language of candidates with a high competence in one language. The faculty of the University of Oregon was not disposed to allow any modification of language requirements, although the Economics Department and some other departments were seeking modification.”

The Special Committee has considered whether it is desirable that the Faculty of Political Science prescribe minimum language requirements for all departments, and the majority has decided in favor of such a minimum. Such a provision minimizes the probability of subsequent intervention by the Faculty in the affairs of the departments. It is believed also that a large number of the members of the Faculty share the majority’s view that, in so far as it is feasible, there should common minimum standards for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy throughout the Faculty. Prior to 1941 when departments were autonomous in the matter of language requirement they had in fact arrived at a common minimum which became a matter of Faculty decision thereafter.

The establishment of a minimum requirement involves the level of the minimum. The minimum resulting from the decisions of the separate departments prior to 1941 and thereafter endorsed by the Faculty was two foreign languages. For the majority of the students in the Faculty this still seems to be the minimum number of languages required for competence in their fields, especially to give them access to the work of eminent scholars of the past and present. In some fields of study there is a growing body of ideas in mathematical form. It seems desirable therefore, to acknowledge the increasing importance of this means of communication by permitting students to present mathematics in place of one language. We do not suggest that this substitution be permitted by all students but that it be allowed by the departments only where it appears to be especially appropriate to the individual student’s program of study. In fields where statistical analysis is important or desirable this option will assist the student who desires to acquire the mathematical basis for graduate work in statistical methods. It will also facilitate the use of analysis in mathematical form.

There may remain students who appear to need neither mathematics nor foreign languages as suggested above. The Special Committee is somewhat doubtful whether there are such  students because in most fields there are works in the basic theory or philosophy in foreign languages or mathematics to which the student should have access. Furthermore, the Doctor of Philosophy degree should certify more than competence in a selected and possibly narrow field of study. It should indicate also a measure in a cultural maturity. Finally students trained by the Faculty are likely to participate in increasing numbers in international associations, private and public, and the University should do nothing, especially at the present time, to discourage the acquisition of a knowledge of languages, except where it is necessary to permit some students to participate competently in the use of mathematical forms for the communication of ideas. These considerations all suggest the maintenance of the present requirement of a minimum of two languages apart from the exception above mentioned in favor of mathematics.

A minority of the Special Committee, while accepting in full the majority’s argument as to the importance of language for any scholar, dissents on the method proposed for enforcing the requirement. The minority finds that language requirements were dictated successfully by the departments without Faculty intervention prior to 1941. The development of the Faculty rule in 1941 seems not to have been caused by any abuse of autonomy by the departments. On the contrary it followed departmental action, which in several cases went beyond it. Its origin as the result of re-editing of the Announcement seems to the minority to have presented no occasion for thoughtful consideration of the change in principle involved. The minority would prefer to return to the procedure existing prior to 1941 when the departments set their own requirements, subject always to the authority of the Faculty to veto the proposal of a department if it seems to have been made without adequate consideration of the issues.

Such a return to departmental autonomy, subject to a reserved right of faculty veto seems to conform to the spirit of the Woodbridge Report. It also seems to have merit in that it would render unnecessary the present attempt of some departments to reduce the language requirements for their students by attempting to fit some other requirement for scholarship in the discipline under the rubric of “language”. Although the minority appreciates that there is reason to argue that some of these substitutions may aid communication between scholars, the minority would prefer calling the subjects what they are, and leaving the departments free to adopt them, whether they be mathematics, statistics, political theory or historiography, without attempting to call them a “language.”

To the minority the mixing of mathematics with the language requirement seems only to becloud the issue, which can be kept clear if no rigid Faculty rule of two foreign languages is set. The departments in the past indicated that they could be trusted. The Faculty has ample power through the veto to restrain any department in the future which exceeds the bounds of the “reasonable”. In consequence the minority prefers the return to the pre-1941 situation, with reservation in the Faculty of the veto with which it can maintain the uniformity as seems to be required.

Recommendations

In the light of the foregoing, the majority of the Special Committee makes the following recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faulty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

The minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

Action by the Faculty Alone

One question asked of the Special Committee remains unanswered, namely, Should the Faculty recommend to the University Council a change in the language requirements without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

Since the Faculty’s Special Committee is recommending no change in the existing the Special Committee, the question is academic, but if the Faculty should vote with the minority, the question would be pertinent.

Even if the Faculty should vote to change the rule, there appears to be necessity for parallel action by the three graduate faculties, in view of the delegation of power by University Council in 1916 to the faculties. As the requirements for competent training in the three faculties differ markedly, it is desirable to permit each to deal independently with this problem.

Respectfully submitted

Arthur R. Burns
John N. Hazard
Richard B. Morris

November 5, 1951

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962.

Image Source: From Roberto Ferrari, “August Rodin and The Thinker“, Columbia University Library Blog. June 8, 2014.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economist Market Economists

Columbia. Early Industrial Organization. Career of Arthur Robert Burns, husband of Eveline M. Burns

In the previous post we encountered social security pioneer Eveline Mabel Burns née Richardson at the point in her career when the Columbia University economics department signaled a definitive end to any hopes for promotion from the rank of lecturer to a tenure track assistant professorship in economics for her with them. In this post we follow the parallel case of her economist husband, Arthur Robert Burns (and no, not the Arthur F. Burns of Burns-Mitchell fame!), who cleared the promotion to assistant professor hurdle at Columbia relatively easily, but was stuck at that rank for nine years, in spite of repeated proposals by the department to promote him sooner.

The heart of this post can be found in the exchange between the  Arthur Robert Burns and then economics department head R. M. Haig in November 1941. Biographical and career backstories for Arthur R. Burns through 1945 can be found in excerpts posted below from budgetary proposals submitted by the economics department over the years. Burns was seen as a pillar of Columbia University’s Industrial Organization field at that time and remained at Columbia through his retirement (ca. 1965) while his wife took up a professorship in Social Work.

____________________________

From: Seligman’s 1929-30 budget recommendation to President Butler (December 1, 1928)

“During [Clara Eliot’s] absence [from Barnard College)  Mr. A. R. Burns has been acting as substitute. In our judgment he has been a valuable addition to the staff, and we recommend that he be reappointed as instructor. In Miss Eliot’s absence the course in statistics has been reduced from two semesters to one. There is a distinct demand for an additional course, though it would be on a different basis from formerly, and our proposal is that Miss Eliot be appointed solely to give two three-point courses in statistics, conducting a statistical laboratory as part of this work. This would relieve Mr. Burns from the course in statistics, and enable him to offer a new course of a somewhat more theoretical character than any now given at Barnard, on “the price-system and the organization of society”, a course which would distinctly help to round out the present offerings in Economics”.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Biographical and professional background through 1930-31
of Arthur R. Burns

…Arthur R. Burns was born in London, in 1895. He served in the army from September, 1914, to April, 1917, when he was discharged as no longer fit because of wounds. He entered the London School of Economics at once, took his B.Sc. degree with honors in 1920, taught economics in King’s College for women (University of London) for four years, and took his doctor’s degree in 1926. The award of Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowships brought Dr. Burns and his wife to this country, where they traveled somewhat widely for two years, studied competitive conditions in industries characterized by large business units, and where they were induced to stay by Columbia.

Dr. Burns has now been a lecturer in economics at Barnard College for three years. Members of our department have thus had an opportunity to become well acquainted with his quality. We think that he is by native ability, temperament and training an investigator, and that, given such opportunities as the graduate department affords, he will make significant contributions to economic science. His publications include several technical papers and two books: Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times, 1926, (a learned treatise on the origin and early history of coinage and monetary practices), and The Economic World, 1927 (written in collaboration with Mrs. Burns).

Source: Letter outlining plans for the future development of the economics department by Wesley C. Mitchell to President Butler. January 16, 1931. In Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 667, Folder 34 “Mitchell, Wesley Clair, 10/1930 – 6/1931”. Carbon copy also in Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Department recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
already in 1937-38
[Note: actual promotion only occurred Apr. 3, 1944]

[…] I would make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1937-1938]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1937-1938”.

____________________________

Department again recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
[Note: Burns was given the salary increase this time]

[…] I would respectfully make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1938-1939]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1938-1939”.

____________________________

Department then begins unsuccessfully to push for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 28, 1938]

[…] I respectfully recommend budgetary changes for the coming academic year 1939-1940, involving increase of compensation to the following members of the staff:

[…]

3. Arthur R. Burns from $4,000 to $4,500;

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has established himself as an authority in his chosen field, and it is the desire of his colleagues that he be advanced to a full professorship as rapidly as university resources will allow. His tenure has already been long, and his advancement slow. It is our thought that he be given current recognition and enccouragement, with hope of promotion to rank commesurate with his repute among economists.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, “Economics Budget 1938-1939”. [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Requesting unpaid leave for a Twentieth Century Fund project

March 1, 1939

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.
President of Columbia University

Dear President Butler:

Professor Arthur R. Burns has been invited to take the directorship of a study of the public utility industry, under the auspices of the Twentieth Century Fund. We of the Department think it wise that he do this and recommend that he be granted leave of absence without pay for the academic year 1939-40. I shall be prepared before long to make recommendation of some outstanding person to serve as a partial substitute for Professor Burns during the coming academic year with a stipend which will absorb approximately three-fifths of Professor Burns’ current compensation.

Very sincerely yours,

Executive Officer
Department of Economics

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940”.

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 18, 1939]

[…] I respectfully make the following recommendations affecting the budget of 1940-41:

[…]

6. That Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be granted added compensation of $500 [i.e. from $4,000 to $4,500].

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has served a long apprenticeship with subordinate rank in the Department. At the moment, either from the standpoint of scholarly attainment or from that of efficiency in graduate instruction he suffers not at all by comparison with the best endowed and most effective of his colleagues. Because of his merits and of the importance of the field he covers, he should be advanced rapidly to full professorial status.

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940” [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary reducing  promotion to Associate Professorship
[October 27, 1941]

MEMORANDUM
Department of Economics
October 27, 1941

[…]

Arthur R. Burns. Proposed: Advancement–assistant professor to associate professor.
Present salary $4,500
Proposed salary. $5,000

[…]

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

Arthur R. Burns demands promotion to the rank of professor

3206, Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

November 1st 1941.

Dear Professor Haig,

As I shall not be in New York this year to talk about the departmental plans for next year I must write. It seems to me that the question of my status in the department now calls for definitive action. Doubtless the unsettled times will be advanced as a reason for postponing promotion. At the outset, therefore, I wish to emphasise that I should regard any such attitude as entirely unfair. If the University is to go through hard times (as well it may) its misfortunes should be shared equitably among all the members of the faculty. To be frank, I feel that I have already been asked to bear an altogether unreasonable share of such financial stringencies as the University may have suffered. There have been many occasions in the past thirteen years on which I have been told that my promotion has been recommended (and more in which I have been told that it would have been recommended) but that no action has been taken for general financial reasons. I fully expect to bear my share of the burden of contemporary events but I feel that the time has come for my position to be given special consideration irrespective of those events, no matter how serious.

Various reasons have been given to me during my thirteen years of service to the University for its failure to promote me. But I think I am justified in believing that there has been less than the usual amount of criticism of my scholarship or my teaching capacity. The number of my students who have progressed in the outside world (sometimes already beyond my own rank and salary) indicates that I have been reasonably effective. Furthermore, I think that you will find that in recent years there has been an increasing number of graduate students coming to Columbia to work with me.

I now ask you, therefore, to have my academic status reviewed, whether or not the University wishes on principle again to avoid promotions. And after this long delay promotion only to an associate professorship will not, in my opinion, be compatible with my professional reputation and status. For six or seven years now my recognition outside the University has been widely at variance with my academic rank. My salary as Director of Research for the Twentieth Century Fund was $10,000 per annum. I have recently been invited to join the Anti Trust Division of the Department of Justice at a salary of $8,000 per annum. I am now the Supervisor of Civilian Allocation in the Office of Production Management. I suggest that this evidence justifies promotion to a full professorship. If economies are necessary, I am ready, as I have said, to accept them on the same basis as my colleagues.

I have written to you with complete frankness because I have been keenly disappointed with the disposal of suggestions for my promotion and I am anxious that you shall be clearly informed as to my feelings. I gather that for a number of years now there has been no serious objection but also no vigorous effort in my behalf. I now feel that if after all these long delays Columbia is unwilling to take special action to recognize my professional status I had better know before I am much older. I am now forty six years of age and if I must seek academic recognition elsewhere I must obviously begin to take the necessary steps without delay. I would of course prefer to stay with Columbia. I think you will agree that these long years of patient waiting are evidence of my loyalty but I think you will also agree that I cannot continue much longer to accept the present wide discrepancy between my status inside and outside the University.

Very sincerely yours,

[signed]

Arthur R. Burns

Professor Robert Murray Haig,
Chairman,
Department of Economics,
Fayerweather Hall,
Columbia University,
NEW YORK CITY

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department responds to Burns’ demands:
Associate professorship when your rejoin the faculty

November 22, 1941

Professor Arthur R. Burns
3206 Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Professor Burns:

Last night our group met at dinner to consider the budget. This afforded an opportunity to comply with your request that your academic status be reviewed. I wish you could have listened to the discussion that took place. It was highly friendly and appreciative in tone, but at the same time it was pervaded by a deep sense of responsibility for the ultimate objectives for which we are striving. I am sure that it would have impressed you, as it did me, with the essential soundness of the policy of placing heavy dependence upon the deliberate, critical judgment of one’s colleagues in considering questions of promotion.

Your letter of November 1st, which I read to the brethren in full, arrived at a time peculiarly unfavorable for the consideration of finalities and ultimatums. Moreover, I regret to have to report some of the statements and implications of that letter were not altogether fortunate in the reactions they inspired. Let me elaborate on this last statement first.

(1) You state that you gather that in the past there has been “no vigorous effort” in your behalf. I can speak with full knowledge only regarding last year. If the implication is that your failure to secure more adequate recognition is ascribable to lack of vigor on the part of your colleagues as a group, or of the chairman of the Department in particular, I wish to state that I know it to be untrue with respect to last year and have reason to believe it to be untrue of several previous years. As a matter of fact, last year as the program moved forward from the Faculty Committee on Instruction, the recommendation for your promotion was placed at the very top above all others in the Faculty of Political Science. Until the very end, when the Trustees at their March meeting ruthlessly scuttled the program, I had high hopes that the effort would be successful. The only budgetary changes last year in this entire Department of 32 members were a) a $300 increase for which the College authorities had obligated themselves to secure for Barger and b) the temporary allocation of $600 to Wald for one year only from a sabbatical “windfall”.

(2) The citation of the salaries and fees you have been able to command in the government service and in the service of private research organizations as evidence that “justifies promotion to a full professorship” does not greatly impress your colleagues. We rejoice in the recognition and rewards that have come to you in return for your efforts while on leave of absence from your post at Columbia. Certainly the work of the Department has been carried on under a distinct handicap when your courses haven manned by part-time substitutes and we should like to believe that the sacrifices involved had borne rich fruits in professional and material rewards to you personally as well as to the general cause of science. However, you will readily agree, I take it, that our promotion and salary policy cannot be based on the principle you seem to suggest, viz., that the University must be prepared to match, dollar for dollar, the potential earning power of the staff on outside jobs. The rate of compensation for such outside work is, to my certain knowledge, likely to run over four or five times the rate of University compensation. Indeed, I can think of many of our colleagues who, on the basis of such a principle, could cite evidence even more convincing than your own.

(3) In the next place your letter seems to imply an understanding of the nature of the University connection that is not in complete harmony with our own. While it may be the policy elsewhere that mere length of service by a person who joins the staff at an early age, even though that service be reasonably effective and untouched by unfavorable criticism, carries assurance of promotion to the highest rank, this is definitely not the policy at Columbia University. Theoretically, at least, the University retains complete freedom of action to withhold advancement subject to a continuing critical appraisal of the individual’s value to the institution, against the background of changing circumstances, among which the University’s ability to supply funds must be listed near the top. Everyone is continually on trial to the very end of his career. This is evidenced in the practice regarding early retirement, the working of which I have recently had an opportunity to observe. Assurance regarding stability of tenure at a given level is a different point and mere humanitarian considerations are given generous weight. However, fundamentally the University connection is to be regarded as an opportunity (an opportunity, incidentally, of which you, in the opinion of your colleagues have, on the whole, made very good use) and promotion and early retirement are certainly affected and, in many cases at least, determined by the manner in which a member of the staff rises to that opportunity. Moreover, when such heavy dependence is placed upon the continuing critical appraisal by one’s colleagues, each man must have regard for his responsibility for the long-run interests of the department and of science. If, as the years roll along, the department is to contain a reasonably large percentage of intellects of the highest order, the critical appraisal must be a continuing process and sufficient freedom of action must be retained in promotion and salary policy to enable the group to make reasonably effective its collective judgment as to what is best for the department in the light of the individual’s developing record and the fluctuations of the resources available for supplying opportunities. I hope that you will forgive me for laboring this point but it is important that you understand what I am certain is the sentiment of the group of which you are a valued member, viz., that no matter on what basis of rank you may return to us, say, for example, as an associate professor, further recognition in rank or salary will be dependent upon decisions reached in harmony with the general policies outlined above.

I now revert to my earlier statement that your letter arrived at a peculiarly unfavorable time.

(1) On November 13th a letter was received from the President of the University indicating that Draconian economies were indicated for this year’s budget. Our own enrolment in the graduate department of economics has shrunk this year about 25 per cent and this shrinkage is on top of last year’s substantial shrinkage. Even in advance of the preparation of the formal budget letters, the department chairmen were summoned before a special committee at the behest of the trustees and urged by the elimination of courses and other means to contract the normal budget to smaller proportions. Consequently only in emergency cases where the interests of the University are considered to be vitally affected, will serious consideration be given to recommendations involving an increased expenditure.

(2) With the retirement of McCrea, the question of the future of the School of Business has been thrown open for discussion. Under the new Dean a radical revision of policy is being formulated, including as one item the transfer of the School to a strictly graduate level. The intimate interrelationships of staff and curriculum between our department and the school are being reexamined. Plans are still in a state of flux but your particular field of interest is involved. So highly dynamic is the situation that the budget letters of both the Department and the School are to be considered tentative documents, subject to modification as decisions of policy are taken during the weeks that lie ahead.

(3) The situation is further complicated by the fact that within our Department itself we have reached the stage, which arises every decade or so, when long-time plans require consideration. Not only are we faced with an important retirement problem, but we are also asked to have regard for the situation that will result if the present trend toward lower enrolments continues. To deal with this situation, a special committee has been set up in the department, headed by Professor Mitchell, to formulate plans for the future. A series of meetings is being held at which the present and probable future importance of the various subjects falling within the scope of the departments are being discussed and questions of staff and curriculum are being intensively studied. Here also important decisions are in the making but definite conclusions have not yet been reached.

I am writing at such length in order that you may understand clearly and fully the background against which we were called upon to consider your letter and the reasons underlying the action that was taken in your case.

The recommendation that I am instructed by our colleagues to include in the budget letter is that I renew the recommendation made last year that you be promoted to the rank of associate professor at a salary of $5,000. I realize that this will be a disappointment to you. You have stated that you consider this degree of recognition, if we are successful in securing it for you, would not be compatible with your professional reputation and status. I infer from your letter that you consider it so inadequate that you are not prepared to accept it. However, you do not make yourself unequivocally clear on this point. If your mind is definitely made up, it will simplify the procedure if you will inform me of the fact at once. On the other hand, there is no disposition to press you for an early answer in case you are not as far along toward a decision as your letter would seem to imply.

In considering the problem of your probable future with us, as compared with the various flattering alternatives open to you, I feel that I should make the following statements:

(1) I have no assurance that the recommendation will be adopted. It will carry the vigorous support of the department and of the Chairman. I have already raised the question informally before the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty and am happy to be able to report that this committee is warmly friendly to your cause. Frankly, however, I am not as optimistic as I was last year at this time regarding the outlook for a favorable outcome when the trustees finally take action.

(2) I should report that, in view of all the circumstances, including the state of ferment that exists at the moment regarding future plans for the department, your colleagues would not be willing to urge your appointment to a full professorship immediately, even if they were convinced that such a recommendation would stand a chance of acceptance by the trustees. You are highly regarded and much appreciated. Your colleagues regret the harsh circumstances that have made it impossible to give you more recognition than you have already received. They consider you an excellent gamble for the long future. They consider the fields of your special interest important. However, it is hoped and believed that you have not yet reached a full development of your potentialities. When faced with the question as to whether they are convinced that, on the record to date, you are reasonably certain to be generally regarded, during the next twenty years, as one of the dozen or so most distinguished economists in active service, there is a general disposition to reply “not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Although they have no illusions about the difficulty of carrying out this policy with success, they have decided to take the position that they will henceforth recommend for a full professorship no one who does not meet such a test. They prefer to have you return with the clear understanding all around that the final issue, the question of the full professorship, shall not be decided in your case until more evidence is in. They take this position with the best of will and with a considerable degree of confidence that the final decision will be favorable. In connection with this, they feel that the important work upon which you are now engaged should contribute substantially to your “capital account” and should have a highly favorable effect upon your future record as a scholar and teacher.

You paid me the compliment of writing me a candid and forthright letter. In return I have attempted to lay before you with complete frankness all the considerations I know of that bear upon the question you have to consider.

Finally, I should like to say, speaking both in a personal capacity and as the chairman of the department, that I hope you will find it possible to send me word that you desire to continue as a member of our group under these conditions. We have an interesting and important task before us. I believe that you have a rôle to play in its accomplishment. If, unhappily for us, your decision takes you away from us, we shall sincerely regret the termination of our close association with you. To a remarkable degree you have earned for yourself not only the respect but the affection of your colleagues at Columbia.

Faithfully yours,

R.M. HAIG

P.S. At your early convenience will you be good enough to send me a note of any items that should be added to your academic record for use in my budget letter.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

From: Economics Department’s Proposed Budget for 1946-1947
November 30, 1945
[Burns recommended for professorship]

[…]

We recommend that Arthur Robert Burns, now an associate professor at a salary of $5,000, be promoted to a professorship at $7,500. Professor Burns, who has been connected with the University since 1928, was appointed an assistant professor in 1935, an associate professor in 1944. He has returned this year to his academic work, after a six-year leave of absence devoted to research and to important governmental service. His war-time activities have included service as Chief Economic Adviser and deputy Director of the Office of Civilian Supply, Deputy Administrator of the Foreign Economic Administration, and a mission to Europe in 1945 as a member of the American Group of the Allied Control Commission, advising on economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.
Professor Burns is carrying one of the fundamental graduate courses on Industrial Organization. He has agreed to offer one of the courses that will be central in the curriculum of the School of International Affairs–a course on “Types of Economic Organization”. His close acquaintance with the organization of the economies of the United States, Britain, and Germany, and his scholarly background in the field are of great value in this development of systematic academic work on comparative economic systems. Burn’s scholarly reputation is high. His study of The Decline of Competition, which is accepted as a standard in the field, is one of the major products of the Columbia Council on Research in the Social Sciences. He has served the country in recent years in administrative and advisory posts of high responsibility. We believe that he should have the rank of full professor.

[…]

Annex C

ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS

Academic Record

1918. Gladstone Memorial Prize, London School of Economics, London.
1920. B.Sc. (Economics) degree with First Class Honors, University of London.
1926. Ph.D. degree, University of London.
1926-28. Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowship.

Teaching

1922-26. University of London.
1928-31. Lecturer in Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University.
1931-35. Lecturer in Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1935-44. Assistant Professor of Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1939. Special Lecturer, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Leaves of absence without salary for 1940-41 through 1944-45.
1944-45. Promoted to Associate Professor of Economics
Returned to Columbia University for 1945-46.

Published Work

“Indian Currency Reform.” Economica, about 1925.
“The Effect of Funding the Floating Debt,” Economica, about 1933.
“Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times.” London: Kegan Paul & Co., 1927. About 650 pp.
“The Economic World.” London, University of London Press, 1928. [sic: co-authorship of wife Eveline M. Burns was not included in the citation].
“The Quantitative Study of Recent Economic Changes in the United States.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 31: 491-546, April, 1930.
“Population Pressure in Great Britain.” Eugenics, 3: 211-20, June, 1930.
“The First Phase of the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933”. Political Science Quarterly,  49:161, June, 1934.
“The Consumer under the National Industrial Recovery Act.” Management Review, 23:195, July 1934.
The Decline of Competition. New York, McGraw Hill, 1936. 619 pp.
[not listed: “The Process of Industrial Concentration” 47 Q.J.E. 277 (1933)]
“The Anti-Trust Laws and the Regulation of Price Competition.” Law and Contemporary Problems, June, 1937.
“The Organization of Industry and the Theory of Prices.” Journal of Political Economy, XLV: 662-80, October, 1937.
“Concentration of Production,” Harvard Business Review, Spring Issue, 1943.
“Surplus Government Property and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, April, 1945.

Unpublished Studies

1935-38. Investigation of the pricing of cement with special reference to the basing point system (in collaboration with Professor J. M. Clark).
1939. Report on the pricing of sulphur.
1938-39. Study of distribution costs and retail prices.
1939-41. Director of Research, Twentieth Century Fund study of “Relations between Government and Electric Light and Power Industry.” Has been completed and is now in hands of the Twentieth Century Fund.

Other Work

1935. Alternate member. President’s Committee to report on the experience of the National Recovery Administration.
1938-39. Chairman, Sub-Committee of Price Conference on Distribution Costs and REtail Prices.
1939-41. Member of Board of Editors, American Economic Review.
1941. Supervisor of Civilian Supply and Requirements, Office of Production Management.
1942. Chief Economic Adviser, Office of Civilian Supply, War Production Board.
1942 (July-August). Member of mission to London to study British methods of concentration of industry.
1943. Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Supply.
1943. Director of Planning and Research, Office of Civilian Requirement
1943, December to March, 1945. Special assistant to Administrator, Deputy Administrator to the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945-continuing. Consultant to Enemy Branch of the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945, Summer. In Europe with the American Group of the Allied Control Commission to advise on the economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budget ’46-47 and related matters”.

___________________________

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economists Gender

Columbia. Eveline M. Burns parts ways with the economics department. 1941-1942

This post is the first of two-parts dealing with a married economics couple who taught at the Columbia economics department during the second quarter of the twentieth century, Eveline Mabel Burns and Arthur Robert Burns. [Warning: not Arthur F. Burns!] Both of the Burns felt themselves relatively undervalued by their Columbia colleagues, but the case for Eveline Burns is particularly clear. She was the weaker spouse but in hindsight the stronger economist of the two. This post presents the end-game correspondence for Eveline Burns with respect to the Columbia economics department. She was quite remarkable, someone who  can be credited as being the midwife for the birth of the U.S. Social Security System (to use a gendered metaphor for a gendered case). The post closes with a list of her publications and her c.v. that is conclusive (ex post) documentation of just how wrong the Columbia economics department got it in the early 1940s. Brava, Eveline Burns!

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Meet your glass ceiling

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

December 9, 1940

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
2121 Virginia Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

My dear Dr. Burns:

As you may have heard, Professor McCrea is retiring at the end of the current academic year and the chairmanship of our Department has been passed along to me. After extensive conferences to ascertain the sentiment of our colleagues, I have prepared my first budget letter. In fairness to you as well as to the Department, I feel that I should report to you in very definite terms the attitude of your colleagues toward your future as a member of the staff.

I understand that you are well aware that in previous years opposition has developed to the proposal to advance you from your present position as Lecturer to that of Assistant Professor, an advancement which would carry with it, of course, some intimation of an intention to promote you later to still higher rank and to a permanent career in the Department. I regret to say that in the course of the budget discussions this year it has become apparent that this opposition has not diminished. It is indeed now so substantial that clearly it will be necessary for you to plan your future on the assumption that there is no possibility of advancement to professorial rank or to permanent status in the Faculty of Political Science.

Since I share the admiration that your colleagues in the Department feel for your many admirable qualities and your many impressive achievements, it is not an easy thing to send this message, which, in spite of previous notice, will doubtless cause you pain and disappointment. The plain fact is, however, that even your most enthusiastic friends agree that viewing the situation in all its aspects, you should not be encouraged to believe that your connection can be made more permanent, or that your rank can be advanced. This conclusion has been reached after extended consideration and will not, I feel certain, be modified by further discussion or debate.

In the budget letter you are being recommended for an appointment for the academic year 1941-42 as Lecturer at a stipend of $3,000.

Faithfully yours,

ROBERT M. HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Eveline Burns was not amused

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Resources Planning Board
Washington, D.C.

January 21, 1941

Professor Robert M. Haig
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, N.Y.

My dear Professor Haig:

I have now had an opportunity of reading with more care your letter of December 9th which you handed to me yesterday and I find it is of a nature which obviously calls for a formal acknowledgment from me. Will you therefore please accept this letter as such? Since no reasons are given for the decision you have conveyed to me there is clearly no comment that I can make, ever were any comment appropriate.

I understood you to say that it would be unnecessary for me formally to give you in writing my reasons for being unwilling to accept a full time appointment as lecturer at a stipend of $3,000, and that you would explore the possibilities of a part time arrangement.

There is, however, one phrase in your letter to which I must take exception for the purposes of the record. In the last paragraph but one of your letter you use the words “in spite of previous notice.” I should like to state formally that to the best of my knowledge no such clear statement of the intentions of the faculty has ever been given to me. On the contrary, on each occasion when I have sought a clarification of the situation from the Dean or, at his suggestion, from other members of the faculty, I have always been given to understand that the individual approached was personally sympathetic to my cause and anxious to see my position regularized but that it would take time for this result to be achieved because of certain admitted difficulties which it was hoped would ultimately be removed.

At varying times I have been informed that there were difficulties because of: (a) my sex, (b) the fact that my husband was also on the staff, (c) the personal objections of an individual faculty member; or that it was undesirable to make a formal recommendation at the time because: (a) a recommendation was being made in favor of my husband and it would be unwise to make recommendations for both husband and wife simultaneously, or (b) that there were staff members, junior to myself, whose economic situations were more pressing than mine, or (c) that it would be advisable to wait until my book on British Unemployment Relief was published, or (d) that there was a general shortage of funds in the university.

In these circumstances I feel that it was not unreasonable for me to draw the conclusion, especially in view of the evident validity of the last consideration cited, that the problem was one of “when”, rather than “whether”, my position would be regularized.

The only occasion on which I was given any indication that this might not be the correct interpretation was in December 1938 when Professor McCrea informed me that while the Department was anxious to expand the work in Social Security, there was some disposition on the part of certain members with whom he had talked to feel that they would like to bring in some outside person to head up the work. I immediately offered my resignation to the Dean, on the ground that for me to continue at Columbia University under such circumstances would not be consistent with my standing in my field and the fact that I had for so long been teaching this subject. Moreover, I pointed out that such a decision implied the negation of any hopes of promotion that I might have formed.

At the request of the Dean, I withdrew my resignation until he could call a meeting of the faculty to discuss the question of my future in the University and at his request I furnished him with a list of my professional activities and publications and the names of outstanding experts in my field from whom he could obtain an opinion as to my standing. That meeting was held in January or February of 1939 and I subsequently received a letter from the Dean (which I do not have with me in Washington) informing me that the decision had been “favorable to my cause” or words to that effect. In those circumstances I felt, wrongly as it now appears, that I was justified in not proceeding with my resignation.

I wish to make it very clear that I am calling attention to these facts solely for the purposes of the record. Even had your letter not emphasized the finality of the judgment, I feel that if my colleagues were prepared to reach such a decision after my thirteen years of service without giving me any reasons therefor, it is unrealistic to expect that their attitude would be changed by any reminder of the facts that I have reported. Nor have I any desire to claim, on the grounds of obligation, expressed or implied, a recognition which the faculty is unwilling for other reasons to give me.

May I say how very sincerely I appreciate your frankness and friendliness yesterday in performing a task which I know could not have been a pleasant one for you. I cannot but feel that had my other colleagues displayed an equal candor and courage during the last seven or eight years, the problem of planning my professional and personal life would have been greatly simplified.

Yours very sincerely,

Eveline M. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Terms of ex-dearment

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

February 15, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
2121 Virginia Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Eve Burns:

This is to report to you that on behalf of the Department I have today sent to the Provost of the University a recommendation that you be appointed Lecturer for the academic year 1941-1942, on a part-time basis, at a stipend of $2,500. This, I understand, conforms to your wishes. This appointment contemplates that you will offer one course and will be available for dissertation, essay, and general Departmental work within the area of your special field. It is understood that the arrangement is for a single year, with no commitment by either of us for the period beyond June, 1942.

I have placed your letter of January 21st in the University file.

I had thought of the New York School of Social Work, but I am told that, for the present at least, there is no opening there that would be attractive to you. There is, however, an opening at Hunter College (which may involve the chairmanship of the Department at $6,000 or more) and I have suggested you name to them.

Faithfully yours,

[unsigned, presumably Robert M. Haig]

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Eveline Burns to Department
Roger that.

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Resources Planning Board
Washington, D.C.

February 27, 1941

Dr. Robert M. Haig
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Haig:

I wish to thank you for your letter of February 15th stating that you have sent forward a recommendation for my appointment as Lecturer for the academic year 1941-42 on a part-time basis at a stipend of $2,500. I have also noted your statement that the arrangement is for a single year with no commitment for the period beyond June 1942.

Sincerely yours,

Eveline M. Burns

Director of Research, Committee on
Long Range Work and Relief Policies

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (appreares to have been dictated) no signature, no printed letterhead):

November 22, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Que [sic] Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Doctor Burns:

Last January, after you had expressed your unwillingness to accept reappointment as full-time lecturer at $3,000, the part-time arrangement presently in force was made with the understanding that it involved no commitment beyond June, 1942.

In accordance with a decision reached at a conference of members of the department last night, I have included in the budget letter a recommendation that no provision be made for the continuance of your connection with the department beyond the end of the current academic year.

As I send you this communication I am certain that I speak for all of the members of the department in expressing regret for the circumstances which have prevented the realization of some of our hopes and in expressing appreciation of the contribution you have made to our joint product during the period of your association with Columbia.

With renewed assurances of my personal esteem, I am

Faithfully yours,

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 2  Folders “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Repeat: you quit, you were not fired

December 22, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Q Street N.W.,
Washington D.C.

My dear Dr. Burns:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of December 10th.

My understanding of the course of events in your case, based on the written record and upon my recollection of our conversation on January 20th, 1941, is this:

            1) You demanded promotion and expressed an unwillingness to return to us as a full time lecturer at $3,000;

            2) You were then told, both orally and in writing, that there was no possibility of advancement to professorial rank or to permanent status in the Faculty of Political Science;

            3) Thereupon you suggested a special arrangement for 1941-2, stated, both orally and in writing, to be temporary in character, and to involve no commitment on either side beyond June 30, 1942.

            It would seem to be correct to describe what happened as a voluntary withdrawal by you from your position as lecturer because of your dissatisfaction with that status and your unwillingness to continue in it in the face of the University’s inability to promise advancement. It would seem to be incorrect to describe it as a “dismissal”. We decline to regard it as such in our discussions with you and certainly shall not describe it as such in any communications with outsiders who may have an interest in you.

Since, according to my understanding, you were not dismissed, but withdrew, I cannot supply you with the reason for your “dismissal”. You insisted upon promotion. Your colleagues regretfully decided that it was not possible to encourage you to expect promotion to professorial rank and a permanent career in the department.

With respect to the confidential character of the statements at the decisive meeting, I should like to make it clear that, while we agreed not to report each others’ remarks at the meeting, there was no agreement that would preclude any individual who felt so inclined from giving you his own opinion of your qualities in such detail as he might desire.

Yours truly,

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 2  Folders “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
We said: you weren’t fired, you quit

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

January 6, 1942

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Q Street N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Burns:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of December 30th, 1941. [Not found in my files]

I am sorry that my recollection of what occurred at our oral interview on January 20th, 1941 does not substantiate in all particulars the statements you make in this letter. My recollection of what occurred is set forth in my letter of December 22d, 1941.

Yours truly,

ROBERT M. HAIG.

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Salary Structure of Economics Staff at Columbia and Barnard
1941-42

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
The Budget as Adopted for 1941-42

Office or Item

 Incumbent

1941-1942
ActualAppropriations
McVickar Professor Political Economy Robert M. Haig $9,000.
Professor of Political Economy Leo Wolman $9,000.
Professor of Economic History V. G. Simkhovitch $9,000.
Professor Wesley C. Mitchell $9,000.
Professor John Maurice Clark $9,000.
Professor James Waterhouse Angell $7,500
Professor Carter Goodrich $7,500
Professor Harold Hotelling $7,500
Professor Horace Taylor $6,500
Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns $4,500.
Assistant Professor Robert L. Carey $3,600.
Assistant Professor Boris M. Stanfield $3,600.
Assistant Professor Joseph Dorfman $3,600.
Honorary Associate Richard T. Ely ($1,000.)
Instructor Hubert F. Havlik $3,000.
Instructor C. Lowell Harriss $2,400.
($300.)
Instructor Walt W. Rostow $2,400.
Instructor Courtney C. Brown $2,700.
Instructor Harold Barger $3,000.
Instructor Donald W. O’Connell ($2,400.)
Lecturer Carl T. Schmidt $3,000.
Lecturer (Winter Session) Robert Valeur ($1,500.)
Lecturer Eveline M. Burns $2,500.
Lecturer Louis M. Hacker $3,000.
Lecturer Michael T. Florinsky $2,700.
Lecturer Abraham Wald $2,400.
($600.)
Visiting Lecturer Arthur F. Burns ($2,000.)**
Departmental appropriation $800.
Assistance $1,200.
$118,400.

** Chargeable to salary of Prof. Mitchell, absent on leave.

BARNARD COLLEGE:
Economics Budget for 1941-42

Associate Professor Elizabeth F. Baker $5,000.
Assistant Professor Raymond J. Saulnier $3,600.
Instructor Donald B. Marsh $2,400.
Instructor Mirra Komarovsky $2,700.
Lecturer Clara Eliot $2,700.
Assistant in Economics and Social Science Mary M. van Brunt $1,000
$17,400.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folders “Economics Budget, 1940-1941” and “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

But don’t cry for Eveline M. Burns
She did very well for herself.

A Festschrift was published in honour of Professor Burns in 1969 under the title: Social Security in International Perspective: Essays in Honor of Eveline M. Burns, Ed. Shirley Jenkins, New York and London, Columbia University Press.

____________________________

Eveline M. Burns’ Publications:

“The French Minimum Wage Act of 1915” in Economica, III, 1923;

“The Economics of Family Endowment” in Economica, V, 1925;

Wages and the State: A Comparative Study of the Problems of State Wage Regulations, London, P. S. King and Son, 1926;

The Economic World: A Survey (with A. R. Burns), London, Oxford University Press, 1927;

“Achievements of the British Pension System” in Old-Age Security: Proceedings of the Second National Conference, New York, American Association of Old-Age Security, 1929;

“Planning and Unemployment” in Socialist Planning and a Socialist Program, Ed. H. W. Laidler, New York, Falcon Press, 1932;

“Misconceptions of European Unemployment Insurance” in Social Security in the United States: 1933, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1933;

“Lessons from British and German Experience” in Social Security in the United States: 1934, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1934;

“Can Social Insurance Provide Social Security?” in Social Security in the United States: 1935, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1935;

“The Lessons of German Experience with Unemployment Relief” in Lectures on Current Economic Problems, Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Graduate School, 1936;

“Basic Principles in Old-Age Security” in Social Security in the United States: 1936, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1936;

Memorandum on “Wall Street Journal” Articles, Washington, Bureau of Research and Statistics (Memorandum No. 3), 1936

Towards Social Security: An Explanation of the Social Security Act and a Survey of the Larger Issues, London, Whittlesey House, and New York, McGraw-Hill, 1936;

“Social Realities versus Technical Obfuscations” in Social Security in the United States: 1937, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1937;

The Arguments for and against the Old-Age Reserve, Washington, Social Security Board, 1938;

“Some Fundamental Consideration in Social Security” in Social Security in the United States: 1940, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1940;

British Unemployment Programs 1920-38 (Report prepared for the Committee on Social Security), Washington, Social Science Research Council, 1941;

Security, Work and Relief Policies (Report of the Committee on Long-Range Work and Relief Policies to the National Resources Planning Board: Eveline M. Burns, Director of Research), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942;

“Building for Economic Security—Six Foundation Stones” in The Third Freedom: Freedom from Want, Ed. H. W. Laidler, New York, League for Industrial Democracy, 1943;

“Equal Access to Health” and “Equal Access to Economic Security” in National Resources Development Report for 1943 (Part I), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943;

Discussion and Study Outline on Social Security, Washington, National Planning Association (Planning Pamphlets No. 33), 1944;

“Social Security” in Economic Reconstruction, Ed. S. E. Harris, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1945;

“Economic Factors in Family Life” in The Family in the Democratic Society, New York, Columbia University Press, 1949;

“How Much Social Welfare Can America Afford?” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1949, Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New York, Columbia University Press, 1950;

“Social Insurance in Evolution” in Readings in Labor Economics, Ed. F. S. Doody, Cambridge (Mass.), Addison Wesley Press, 1950;

The American Social Security System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2nd edition, 1951;

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1950: An Appendix to The American Social Security System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1951;

“An Expanded Role for Social Work” in Social Work Education in the United States, Ed. E. V. Hollis and A. L. Taylor, New York, Columbia University Press, 1951;

“Fifteen Years under the Social Security Act: An Evaluation” in Current Issues in Social Security, Ed. L. MacDonald, New York University, Institute of Labor Relations and Social Security, 1951;

“The Doctoral Program: Progress and Problems” in Social Work Education in the Post-Master’s Program. No. 1: Guiding Principles, New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1953;

Comments on the Chamber of Commerce Social Security Proposals, Chicago, American Public Welfare Association, 1953;

Private and Social Insurance and the Problem of Social Security, Ottawa, Canadian Welfare Council, 1953;

“Significant Contemporary Issues in the Expansion and Consolidation of Government Social Security Programs” in Economic Security for Americans: An Appraisal of the Progress made from 1900 to 1953, New York, Columbia University Graduate School of Business, 1954;

“The Role of Government in Social Welfare” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1954, Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New York, Columbia University Press, 1954;

“The Financing of Social Welfare” in New Directions in Social Work, New York, Harper, 1954;

America’s Role in International Social Welfare (Editor), New York, Columbia University Press, 1955;

Social Security and Public Policy, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956;

“Welfare Assistance” in A Report to the Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the City of New York, by the New York City Fiscal Relations Committee, New York, The Committee, 1956;

Papers and Proceedings of the Conference on Social Policy and Social Work Education, Arden House, April 1957 (Editor), New York, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University, 1957;

“Social Policy and the Social Work Curriculum” in Objectives of the Social Work Curriculum of the Future, by W. W. Boehm, New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1959;

“The Government’s Role in Child and Family Welfare” in The Nation’s Children, Vol. III: Problems and Prospects, Ed. Eli Ginsberg, New York, Columbia University Press, 1960;

“A Salute to Twenty-Five Years of Social Security” in Social Security: Programs, Problems and Policies, Ed. W. Haber and W. J. Cohen, Homewood (Illinois), R. D. Irwin, 1960;

“Issues in Social Security Financing” in Social Security in the United States: Lectures Presented by the Chancellor’s Committee on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Social Security Act, Berkeley, University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations, 1961;

A Research Program for the Social Security Administration, Washington, U.S. Government Printer, 1961;

“Introduction” in Federal Grants and Public Assistance: A Comparative Study of Policies and Programmes in U.S.A and India, by Saiyid Zafar Hasan, Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1963;

“The Functions of Private and of Social Insurance” in Studi sulle assicurazione raccolti in occasione del cinquanterario dell’Istituto Nazionale della Assicurazioni, Ed. A. Giuffre, Milan, 1963;

“The Determinants of Policy” in In Aid of the Unemployed, Ed. J. M. Becker, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965;

“Social Security in America: The Two Systems—Public and Private” in Labor in a Changing America, Ed. W. Haber, New York, Basic Books, 1966;

“Income Maintenance Policies and Early Retirement” in Technology, Manpower, and Retirement Policy, Ed. J. M. Kreps, Cleveland, World Publishing Co., 1966;

“The Challenge and the Potential of the Future” in Comprehensive Health Services for New York City (Report of the Mayor’s Commission on the Delivery of Personal Health Services), New York, The Commission, 1967;

“Foreword” in Poor Law to Poverty Program, by Samuel Mencher, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967;

“The Future Course of Public Welfare” in Position Papers and Major Related Data for the Governor’s Conference, Albany (New York), New York State Board of Social Welfare, 1967;

Social Policy and the Health Services: The Choices Ahead, New York, American Public Health Association, 1967;

“Productivity and the Theory of Wages” in London Essays in Economics, Ed. T. E. Gregory and H. Dalton, London, G. Routledge, 1927; republished, Freeport (New York), Books for Libraries Press, 1967;

Children’s Allowances and the Economic Welfare of Children (Editor and Contributor), New York, Citizen’s Committee for Children, 1968;

“Needed Changes in Welfare Programs” in Urban Planning and Social Policy, New York, Basic Books, 1968;

“Social Security in Evolution—Towards What?” in Unions, Management and the Public, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 3rdedition, 1968;

“A Commentary on Gunnar Myrdal’s Essay on the Social Sciences and their Impact on Society” in Social Theory and Social Invention, Ed. H. D. Stein, Cleveland, Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1968;

“Welfare Reform and Income Security Policies” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1970, Proceedings of the National Conference on Social Welfare, New York, Columbia University Press, 1970;

“Health Care System” in Encyclopedia of Social Work, New York, National Association of Social Workers, 1971

____________________________

Eveline Mabel Burns
C.V.

Vital information:

Born: Eveline Mabel Richardson on March 16, 1900 in Norwood, London.

Married: Arthur Robert Burns (b. December 2, 1895; d. January 20 1981) of London, 1922.

U.S. Citizenship: 1937.

Died: September 2, 1985 in Newton, Pennsylvania.

Education:

B.Sc. (Econ.), Ph.D. (London), Honorary D.H.L. (Western College; Adelphi; Columbia), Honorary LL.D. (Western Reserve University). Professor Emeritus, Columbia University, since 1967; and Consultant Economist, Community Service Society, New York, since 1971.

Streatham Secondary School, 1913-16; London School of Economics and Political Science, 1916-20; London County Council Tuition Scholarship; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1st Class Honors in Economics, 1920; Ph.D., 1926; Adam Smith Medal for outstanding thesis of the year, 1926.

Positions Held

(1)  Normal Full-time Positions

Title of Position. Name of Institution/Organization. Years of Tenure. Compensation

Junior Administrative Officer. Ministry of Labor, London, England. 1917-21. £ 250

Assistant Lecturer, London School of Economics, University of London. 1921-28 (On Leave 1926-8). £ 350

Lecturer, Graduate Department of Economics, Columbia University. 1928-42 (on leave 1940-2). $ 3000-3500

Chief, Economic Security and Health Section, National Resources Planning Board, Washington, D. C. 1940-3. $ 7500

Professor of Social Work and Chairman and Administrative Officer, Doctoral Committee, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University. 1946 to [retired 1967] $ 9500

(2)  Special Assignments

London School of Economics. Asst, Editor, Economica, 1922-6.

University of London Social Security Committee. Senior Staff Officer, 1937-9. $6500

Social Science Research Council

National Planning Association, Washington, D. C. Consultant on Social Security, 1943-4. $7000

(3)  Visiting Professorships

Anna Howard Shaw Lecturer, Bryn Mawr College, 1944
Visiting Professor, Bryn Mawr College, 1945-6
Visiting Professor, Princeton University, 1951

I have also given short courses or individual lectures at the following institutions:

Department of Economics, University of Chicago
Smith College School for Social Work
Littauer Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard Univ.
School of Applied Social Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
School of Applied Sciences, Western Reserve University

For several years I have conducted the Advanced Seminar arranged by the Social Security Administration for its senior staff, and have given brief seminars for foreign social security experts brought to this country by the Mutual Security Agency

(4)  Consultantships

Consultant, Committee on Economic Security, Washington, 1934-5
Principal Consulting Economist, Social Security Board, 1936-40
Consultant, Social Security Administration, 1948 to date

I have also served as consultant on specific issues to the:

United States Treasury
The Federal Reserve Board
The Works Progress Administration
The New York State Department of Labor

OTHER DISTINCTIONS

Adam Smith Medal for outstanding thesis of the year, 1926
Laura Spelman Rockefeller Fellowship, 1926-8
Guggenheim Fellowship, 1954-5
Florina Lasker Award (“for outstanding contributions in the field of Social Security”), 1960
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Western College, 1962
Honorary LLD, Western Reserve University, 1963
Honorary Fellow, London School of Economics, 1963
Bronfman Lecturer, American Public Health Assn., 1966
Ittelson Medal (“for contributions to Social planning”), 1968
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Adelphi University, 1968
Woman of Achievement Award, American Assn. of University Women, 1968
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Columbia University, 1969

POSITIONS OF CIVIC OR NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, MEMBERSHIP OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, ETC.

Member American Economic Association (Member of Executive Ctte, 1951-3  and Vice-President, 1953-4)
National Conference on Social Welfare (Secretary, 1955, First-Vice President, 1956 and President, 1957-58)
American Public Health Association (Vice-President, 1969-70)
Vice-President and President, Consumers’ League of New York, 1935-8
Member and Chairman of various committees, Federal Advisory Council on Employment Security, 1952-70
Member, Legislative Policy Committee, American Public Welfare Assn., 1956-68
Member, Steering Committee, White House Conference on Children, 1959-60
Member, Federal Advisory Committee on Area Redevelopment, Subsequently the National Committee on Regional Economic Development, 1961-69
Member, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Hobby’s Advisory Committee on Coverage Extension of the Social Security Act, 1953-4
American Delegate to International Conference on Social Welfare, 1958, and member of Steering Ctte and Vice-Chairman of Commission I
Chairman, Social Security Administration Advisory Committee on Long Range Research, 1961-5
Member, President Johnson’s Task Force on Income Security Policy, 1964
Member of Sub-Committee on Social Policy for Health Care and member of its Executive Committee, N. Y. Academy of Medicine 1964 to date
Member, Mayor Lindsay’s Commission on Delivery of Health Service in New York City, 1967-8
Member, National Council, American Assn. of University Professors 1961-4

Original Source: Eveline Burns Papers. Box 1. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Social Welfare History Archives. Minneapolis, MN.

Transcribed and posted on line: Davidann, J. & Klassen, D. (2002). Eveline Mabel Richardson Burns (1900-1985) — Social economist, author, educator and contributor to the development of the Social Security Act of 1935. Social Welfare History Project.

Image: Eveline Mabel Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Salaries Teaching

Columbia. Due to exploding graduate economics enrollments, Stigler hired as visiting professor, 1946

 

 

The graduate economics courses at Columbia University were swamped by registrations one year after the end of the Second World War. Over 160 students were registered for the two graduate economic theory courses offered by A.G. Hart and William S. Vickrey. The executive officer of the economics department, Carter Goodrich, requested the central university allow the department to hire a visitor to ease the burden on Hart and Vickrey. That victory won with the visiting appointment for George Stigler (then a professor at Brown), Goodrich next pushed for an increase in the general budget for teaching assistants as well as for hiring Dorothy Fox assist him in his U.S. economic history class.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

September 30, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal
Acting President, Columbia University
Low Memorial Library

Dear Mr. President:

The extremely heavy enrollment for the graduate work in economics raises serious questions for the future staffing of the Economics Department. I should very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these with you when the final figures are in, and when we can assess the situation more fully.

Meanwhile, however, there is one question on which emergency action at once seems essential. We advise the great majority of our students to take a general, systematic course in economic theory or economic analysis. We offer this year two such courses: Economics 153-4, given by Prof. A.G. Hart; and Economics 159-60, given by Mr. William S. Vickrey. Prof. Hart and Mr. Vickrey have between them over one hundred and sixty students registered. The work in these courses cannot be given on a mass lecture basis in a way that would meet the standards of any first-rate institution. It would not serve the purpose for which the Department intends it if there were not at least some degree of individual instruction.

I wish, therefore, to request an additional man to take one section of this basic course. I should like authority to approach Prof. Arthur Smithies, who taught Economic Theory at the University of Michigan, but who is at present in the Bureau of the Budget, at Washington. The proposal would be that the class should meet for two hours one day a week. I suggest $2500 for the year as the appropriate compensation. If preferred, $500 of this might properly be described as traveling expenses.

The money is available in the present budget, partly from the salary allotted for the professor of international economics on which only a half-time appointment was made for the present year, and from the money available for the unfilled position on economic history. Both these salaries, I should add, will be needed next year.

I should be most grateful if you would give me a decision on this at once, since the step must be taken immediately if it is to bring effective relief.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich

CG:jg

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 14, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. President:

This time the report is not wholly negative. Following our conversation of Thursday afternoon, I invited Prof. George J. Stigler, of Brown University, to come to help us in the emergency situation in Economic Theory. Prof. Stigler has agreed to come for the first semester, but is not as yet prepared to commit himself for the entire year. I am therefore enclosing a form for his appointment for the Winter Session on the terms agreed. The salary for the first semester is available from the unused portion of the salary of Professor A.F. Burns.

I hope that we may be able to persuade Prof. Stigler to continue the work throughout the year. If not, there is a possibility that Prof. Smithies may be able to come for the second semester.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich

______________________

[Carbon Copy]

October 18, 1946

Professor Carter Goodrich
Fayerweather

Dear Professor Goodrich

I have your letter of October 14 in regard to the appointment of Stigler as Visiting Professor and will see that the appointment goes through the next meeting of the Trustees.

Maybe I had better point out that there is no money available in Prof. Burns’ position. In addition to his own half pay, the salaries of Vickrey ($2000) and Alexander ($1700) have already charged against that. However, we will make the appointment against the balance remaining in the vacant professorship.

Very truly yours

Frank D. Fackenthal
Acting President

VS

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 22, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. President:

I very much appreciate your action on the Stigler appointment.

The second paragraph of your letter of October 18 puzzled me, since I had never heard of Alexander. We have tracked the matter down and it appears to be an appointment in Contemporary Civilization, chargeable to a budget of Dean Carman’s. It should not be a charge on the Department of Economics.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer, Department of Economics.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 24, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library,
Columbia University

Dear Mr. President:

In my letter of September 30th I spoke of the problems raised for the Economics Department by the extremely heavy enrollment in the graduate school. Now that the final enrollment is in, I wish to recommend two further measures, in addition to the emergency adjustment in Theory which you have been good enough to authorize. The total registration in the graduate courses borne on the budget of the Department of Economics for this session is double that for the Spring Session of 1946, which in turn was very much larger than that for the Winter Session of 1945. In 22 courses last spring there were 788 registrations; in 24 courses this session there are 1578. 7 of these courses have enrollments of more than 100 students (Angell, 112; A. R. Burns, 127, 153; Bergson, 142; Goodrich, 141; Nurkse, 130; Wolman, 140.)

To meet this situation I request, first, that the appropriation for Assistance be raised from $1,000-$1,500. Prof. Taylor estimates the needs of the College department, which has in the past used the greater part of the Assistance fund, as $500. Professors Angell, Bergson, A.R. Burns, Nurkse, and Wolman have all asked this year for reading assistance and will certainly need it in these courses.

Second, I request the appointment of Mrs. Dorothy G. Fox as an assistant in Economics to aid in my own course Economic history of the United States, so that a part of the time may be given to discussion in sections of a reasonable size. Mrs. Fox is at present an instructor in Economic principles in University Extension. I propose a salary of $700 for the academic year.

Money for these adjustments may be taken, if necessary, from what remains in the salary allotted to the vacant professorship. I should add, however, that these adjustments are made necessary solely by the extraordinary enrollment and that making them would not in any way diminish the long-run needs of the Department.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer of the Department of Economics.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

January 15, 1947

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
Columbia University

Dear Mr. President:

I beg to request the appointment of Dr. Moses Abramovitz as Visiting Lecturer in Economics for the Spring Session, at a compensation of $1,000. This is a further adjustment to meet the emergency situation in economic theory. As indicated in my letter of October 14th, 1946, Professor Stigler, of Brown University, agreed to come for the first semester, but was not prepared to commit himself for the entire year. He has informed us, much to our regret, that he cannot continue and I am therefore proposing a substitute. Dr. Abramovitz is one of the very best of the recent Ph.D.’s in this Department and holds a responsible research position with the National Bureau of Economic Research. He taught the same course in this Department during 1940-1941 and 1941-1942.

The total compensation for Professor Stigler, as you recall, was $1,250, of which $250 was counted as traveling expenses. The $1,000 requested for Dr. Abramovitz is available, $500 from the unused portion of the salary of Professor Arthur F. Burns and $500 from the funds for the vacant professorship.

I am enclosing the form for Dr. Abramovitz’ appointment and I very much hope you will be able to make it.

Respectfully yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer, Department of Economics.

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-. Box 406, Folder “Goodrich, Carter. 1/1”.

Image Source: Low Memorial Library, Columbia University from the Tichnor Brothers Collection, New York Postcards, at the Boston Public Library, Print Department.

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard NBER Stanford

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. alumnus. Moses Abramovitz, 1939

 

 

The professional career of Moses Abramovitz shows what a blend of Harvard and Columbia training in economics crowned by an NBER post-doc could get you back in the day. His contributions to the study of long-term growth and to the Stanford economics department’s rise to prominence are truly important legacies.

The first item of the post gives us Abramovitz’s personal quarter-century report to his Harvard classmates of 1932. This is followed by excerpts from Abramovitz’s memoir for his family that provide a rich account of his economics training at Harvard and then Columbia. A link to download the entire memoir is provided below. The post closes with a memorial resolution written by Abramovitz’s Stanford colleagues. But the real treat, is found in Moses Abramovitz’s description of his economics education and economists important for his development. Among other things we learn, the chairman of the Harvard economics department, Harold Burbank, was indeed anti-Semitic enough for Abramovitz not to have dignified him by name. Also we learn that in 1934 “Milton [Friedman] was much less ideological then than he later became, so he was a very pleasant and agreeable companion.”

_______________________

From the 25th reunion report of the Harvard Class of 1932

MOSES ABRAMOVITZ

Home address: 543 W. Crescent Drive, Palo Alto, Calif.
Office address: Dept. of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
Born: Jan. 1, 1912, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Parents: Nathan Abramovitz, Betty Goldenberg.
Prepared at: Erasmus Hall High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Years in College: 1928-1932.
Degrees: A.B. summa cum laude, 1932; Ph.D. (Columbia Univ.), 1939.
Married: Carrie Glasser, June 13, 1937, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Child: Joel Nathan, July 19, 1950.
Occupation: Professor of economics, Stanford University; member research staff, national Bureau of Economic Research.
Offices Held: Member editorial board, American Economic Review, 1951-54.
Member of: American Economic Association; American Statistical Association; American Economic History Association; Royal Economic Society; American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Publications: Price Theory for a Changing Economy; Inventories and Business Cycles; The Economics of Growth; “Capital Formation and Economic Growth,” editor; The Growth of Public Employment in Great Britain (with Vera Eliasberg).

I LEFT Harvard supported by a Sheldon Fellowship and exhilarated by the prospect of a year in Europe—no small piece of luck at any time and a pot of good fortune in 1932. Together with Dave Popper, I saw Paris and the Rhine country as they were before the second deluge. We saw our first Storm Trooper rallies in Heidelberg and, if we were not too innocent, we were certainly too full of good spirits to be greatly disturbed. But those charming days were suddenly cut short. From Nuremberg, I was called home by my father’s death.

Back in New York I began graduate work in economics at Columbia and continued there until 1935. In 1936, I was lucky enough to be brought back to Harvard as an instructor for two years and had the fun and satisfaction of being again in Cambridge as a teacher while my memories of life at college were still warm. At Columbia I had met another young economist whom I had known years before. I shall stick to the essentials. The young economist was a woman. We were married in 1937, so Carrie has had a year at Harvard, too.

In 1938, we were back in New York again, this time to work at the National Bureau of Economic Research. In the years that followed I learned what I know about scientific investigation from Wesley Mitchell and Arthur F. Burns. Together they were in the midst of their wide-ranging investigation of business cycles. They set me to work studying inventory fluctuations. In the fullness of time I got some results and published a book, a hefty volume called Inventories and Business Cycles. It got some notice and caused some controversy, and a certain number of copies continue to serve as ballast for bookcases that might otherwise be disturbed by a fresh breeze.

Early in 1942, I went to Washington to help Bob Nathan and the W.P.B. Planning Committee, first to goad the military into laying out programs big enough to make use of a national productive capacity they could not believe existed, and then to keep them from losing the munitions they really needed under the load of programs too large for even our capacity. A year later I was at O.S.S. working for Professor Langer and Dean Mason on German economic intelligence. My particular job was probably of little use during the war itself, but it produced a collection of materials and a few more or less knowledgeable individuals, and both were needed after the German defeat. I became involved in the negotiations about German reparations and in that way came to see Moscow in the months right after V-E Day. Our work, as we all now know, foundered in the general wreck of American-Soviet relations. Together with many other stalemated delegations on many other subjects, ours eventually came to Potsdam to be witnesses at the beginning of the partition of Germany and Europe.

Since 1948 I have been a professor at Stanford. We have one child, a boy now six. We think living here near San Francisco as comfortable and delightful as it can be; so I rush back east as often as I can to disgorge the lotus and discharge my guilt.

My chief activity is still, as it has been for many years, research in economics—a stubborn, unyielding, frustrating and altogether exasperating subject from which I don’t know how to shake loose. What do I believe? One’s bent of mind is shaped by one’s work. Mine is inclined to skepticism, not beliefs, still less belief. Very likely I have much to learn. Oh yes! I believe both parties are right – in what each says about the other.

Source:  Harvard Class of 1932, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report (1957), pp.6-8.

_______________________

Undergraduate and graduate student days: memories of Harvard and Columbia

…My fourth course [freshman year at Harvard] was different. It was elementary economics. I was lucky. I drew an excellent instructor named Bigelow. Using Frank W. Taussig’s Principles, he introduced us to the general logic of the neoclassical theories of relative prices of commodities and of the factors of production, land, labor, and capital, to the distribution of income among these primary factors, to the theory of international trade, and to the virtues of free markets. He offered us a list of supplementary readings, one of which was called simply Supply and Demand, by an English economist, H.D. Henderson. It was a thin book, but it was a notable example of the lucid presentation of the logic of the economics of value and distribution. One could see all around one examples in ordinary life of the validity and importance of the theory. The way in which the various parts of the subject hung together in an interdependent system seemed not only analytically deep; it emerged as a beautiful structure, an aesthetic as well as a logical and tested structure. More than any other experience, it was this little book that drew me to go on with economics. When I returned to Harvard in September 1929, therefore, I chose economics as my field of concentration. And, indeed, when the economy began its collapse in October of that year, it confirmed me in my choice. It was a decisive experience.

Concentrating in Economics

Having chosen to concentrate in economics, I was assigned a tutor. Here again I was lucky. He was Edward S. Mason, then a still young assistant professor. But he was destined for both academic leadership and, as my story unfolds, for a real influence on practical affairs. Even more important for me, however, was the fact that this young man was already recognizably “wise,” a man of good judgment in both scholarly decisions and practical matters. He took a liking to me, and he remembered his friends! He was due to turn up with support and help at several critical junctures in my story.

My very first meeting with Mason was an exciting moment. It was late September or early October in 1929, that fateful year. We chatted, and then, more brash than usual, I said, “Well, Professor, when is the stock market going to break?” He answered, without hesitation, “Almost immediately.” And when I returned for our second meeting, it had happened. And then, still brash, I said, “Well, Professor, you must have made a mint of money.” And then I learned something about him and perhaps most academics of the time. He said, “Are you crazy? I have never owned a share of stocks in my life.”

… Like many, but not all, of the young economists of the time, who had no deep commitment to mainstream economics, I saw clearly enough that mainstream theory offered us no guidance in understanding the Great Contraction and Depression, and it was consequently a poor basis for public policy. Something new was needed, a theory that dealt more adequately with recurrent recessions and expansions of business and particularly with the very serious depressions and eventual recoveries which in the U.S. had succeeded one another at intervals of about 15 to 20 years since the 1830s. For the moment, I did not get beyond dissatisfaction with the older wisdom, Real enlightenment came only in 1936 with the publication of J.M. Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. When I had absorbed Keynes’s reasoning, I became an enthusiasticKeynesian and I remain so to this day.

There was also a quite personal effect of these developments on my own work history. They prepared me to join the National Bureau of Economic Research when the chance came in 1937 and to do empirical research on business cycles under the direction of Wesley Mitchell and Arthur Burns, the most notable people doing such work at that time.

Still an undergraduate in 1929, however, at the beginning of the economic contraction and depression, I still had three years of undergraduate work to do. Guided by Mason and later by Douglas V. Brown, I took Taussig’s famous course in price theory at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Taussig was then the leading American price theorist of his time and by far the most influential person in the Economics Department. In these courses, conducted by Socratic methods, he clearly formed a good opinion about me. I am sure he was of help to me behind the scenes at several junctures. I also remember two enlightening courses, Sumner Slichter on Labor Economics and John Williams on Money and Banking. In Williams’s course, I read Keynes’s earlier books and began to become familiar with his way of thinking. Anyhow, I did well in all these courses and in others in economics, history, and in one really interesting course in literature. That was Irving Babbett on Rousseau and Romanticism. I was apparently a natural-born good student and exam taker. The upshot was that I was graduated summa cum laude and I was given a Sheldon Traveling Fellowship.

For me, this last was more than an honor and more than a year of support and European travel and study at a time when money was so scarce and jobs for new college graduates almost nonexistent. My tutors and professors, including the influential Taussig, had already been encouraging me to think about going on to graduate study in economics and to an eventual academic career. To my parents and my brother, such a course was strange and uncertain. Abe began to call me “meshugana Moishele.” But it was clear that in the end they would support me in any decision I made. And the fellowship, which was tangible proof of the good opinion of the Harvard faculty, confirmed me in a career choice I had already more than half made: It was a decisive event.

[late June of 1932 left for Europe but Moses Abramovitz’s father died in September 1932]

… I resigned my scholarship and in that September of 1932 walked along Nostrand Avenue to Eastern Parkway and took the subway (IRT, Broadway and 7th Avenue Line) to Broadway and 116th Street. Half a block away, one entered Columbia. I walked in and registered and began three years of graduate work in economics. This was a big departure from the program I had thought lay before me, but I cannot remember any feeling of distress or resistance. I was glad to provide some degree of solid continuity for my mother, and I felt confident about the future. Columbia would also be a good start.

 

Columbia as a School of Economics

By forgoing Vienna, Cambridge, and Harvard, I had made a bigger change than I realized when I started in Columbia. Vienna, Cambridge, and Harvard were all centers in which understanding of the domestic economy of a country and of its international economic relations was squarely based on theoretical economics. This, in turn, was a doctrine logically derived from certain basic primary assumptions: that economic agents (consumers, savers, business firms, investors generally) were well informed, foresighted, and rational, and acted to promote their own individual interests, that they faced competitive markets and, as business firms, acted under the pressures of competition; they operated subject to the constraints of income and wealth and of market prices which they could not by their own actions significantly influence. Actions in this context were perceived as leading to an equilibrium of prices, wages, profits, etc., and of consumer satisfactions in which change might be harmful to some but would be more than offset by benefit to others. Thus, there was no room or occasion for public action except such as was necessary to enforce contracts, maintain competition, prevent or punish fraud and generally keep the peace. Changes in technology and in consumer tastes would lead to a new equilibrium of prices, rewards, incomes, etc., but such changes were viewed as “exogenous,” not the result of economic action or motivation and beyond the ken of economics.

The Columbia economists, however, rejected this structure of theory or, at least, its general application. They conceded its usefulness in explaining very simple matters: why a grand piano cost more than a pair of shoes, and, in general, why there is a rough association between the prices of commodities and their costs of production. They were skeptical, however, about the theoretical assumptions that agents were foresighted, well-informed, and rational. They saw markets as characterized by various degrees of monopoly power, with business firms capable not only of profiting by constraining production and raising prices more than costs alone would justify; they also often had the power to shape consumer tastes, for example by advertising, and, most important, to invest in research and development and so to advance and sometimes to retard—technological progress. They tended to see the economy as a whole, not as tending to an equilibrium, but as generating long-term growth of productivity, income, and wealth. This tendency did not, however, emerge continuously and at a stable rate but subject to recurrent fluctuations, loosely called “cyclical,” in which advance was sometimes fast,sometimes slow, and sometimes negative.

As I absorbed all this, I saw the justice of the Columbia outlook and came to appreciate its radical departure from the economics in which I had been trained as a Harvard undergraduate. Columbia economics, as it stood in the Thirties, however, had its own serious limitations. It was well advanced in its understanding of two subjects. One was in the study of the behavior of firms that had acquired and enjoyed various kinds and degrees of monopoly power. This was the province of Arthur Robert (“Columbia”) Burns—not the Arthur Frank (“Bureau”) Burns with whom I later did research on business cycles.

The other subject was another sphere of monopoly power, that of labor unions. Why were they so much less important in the U.S.A. than in Europe? What activities were successfully unionized and which not? And why? This was the area over which Leo Wolman ruled. Wolman later played a considerable role in the Roosevelt Administration, especially in connection with the disorders in the labor market stemming from the organizing drives of the AFL/CIO. He worked as chairman of the Automobile Labor Board, where he tried to keep the peace in that important industry—an effort that won him no friends in the unions. Wolman’s teaching, however, was as far from academic as can be imagined. It came directly from his own experience with labor unions. Although a professor at Columbia, he also worked as the economic advisor of Sidney Hillman, the president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, the men’s clothing union. Wolman learned as much as he advised. He saw clearly that in the flexible and mobile population conditions of the American continent, the only unions that could exercise strong and stable monopoly power were those operating in industries frozen in location. The newsprint industry was an example. The book print industry was not. Where the industry could move, it could flee from a union whose wage and other demands were excessive. Such a condition faced the Amalgamated, and Wolman used his influence to restrain labor’s demands. Even so, the industry moved from New York City to upstate New York, then down South, then to Chicago and on to California. It was the barrier to movement posed by small nation-states that made European unions stronger and more stable than America’s.

These subjects then were well taught at Columbia, and I felt I learned much from A.R. Burns and Leo Wolman. The basic academic tone of the faculty, however, stemmed from Wesley Mitchell. He had been the dominating influence on the faculty since he joined it just before the First World War. According to Mitchell’s own view of himself, his outlook stemmed in part from his early Midwestern origins. He was the son of a physician who was a small town practitioner in central Illinois. The down-to-earth pragmatism of the neighboring family farmers ran strongly in his personality. It was quite natural, therefore, that he should have been drawn to the philosophical schools of William James and John Dewey when these became prominent. Experience, not the logical implications of some generalized ideal, had to be our guide to life. He told about teasing his good Baptist grandmother and her conception of a God of Love who could yet condemn unbaptized infants to the torments of Hell.

[…]

Mitchell carried out his scheme and reported his findings, together with his evidence, in a large book with the simple title, Business Cycles. The book began with a summary of earlier work relevant to the subject together with the “speculations” (one of Mitchell’s favorite characterizations of largely theoretical but inadequately verified ideas). He used these as suggestions of subjects needing investigation. There followed Mitchell’s own quantitative studies of these and other subjects: production (agricultural and other), income, sales, retail, wholesale, manufacturing, etc., commodity prices, the prices of stocks and bonds, and the profits and interest rates they paid. Mitchell’s quantitative descriptions involved tracing the fluctuations of the behavior in these activities and of their long-term trend and seasonal fluctuations so that the fluctuations connected with business cycles could be seen free of the influence of trends and seasonal factors. The book ended with a statement of Mitchell’s views of how the concatenation of the behavior of the separate activities led to expansions of business activities in general followed by similarly general contractions, which in turn produced the conditions that generated another business expansion.

Mitchell’s book made a notable impression on economists. This was partly because now, for the first time, students of economics could base their attempts to explain business cycles and to develop a theoretical model based on definite quantitative information about the typical behavior of the major business activities. But it was partly, perhaps mainly, because it gave economists at large a new vision of how economic research could be carried on. It need not mainly consist of logical deductions from a set of preannounced assumptions. It could instead take the form of observed behavior, together with empirical tests of the hypotheses so formed based on fresh observations independent of those from which the hypotheses originally proposed had been drawn. It was this vision of an empirically based economics that was the spirit of the Columbia program, and it stood in sharp contrast to the program at Harvard, where I was introduced to the subject, and, indeed, with the economics then taught in the other leading universities.

I did not give up my allegiance to Harvard easily. Two episodes illustrate my resistance. Mitchell gave a course on business cycles. I chose to take it. It was a course that, in a sense, was a duplicate of his 1913 book, refreshed by data not available in 1913. But as I listened to Mitchell’s “analysis” of one time series after another—amplitude, lead or lag relative to the “reference” peak or trough (that is, relative to the peak or trough of the general business cycle), rates of expansion or contraction in successive thirds of the fluctuations, and more—I could make nothing of it. After some weeks I dropped the course. Mitchell signed the necessary form without demur and, apparently, never held it against me—a characteristic of his liberal and tolerant attitude.

In other respects, my year was pleasant and rewarding. I found Eli Ginzberg and began a lifelong friendship, the closest and most intimate in my life. Like other graduate students, I occupied a “cubicle” on the top floor of the new Butler Library—just enough space for a table, chair, and file cabinet. A friend said: “It’s all right if I am in there alone, but if I get an idea, I have to move into the corridor.” One day, there was a knock on my door, and in walked Eli. He had just returned from a scholarship, traveling the country and interviewing business executives, union bosses, politicians, etc. On his return, he asked Mrs. Stewart, the all-knowing department secretary, what new people were interesting. She mentioned me, and there he was. He sat down and began to tell me about his travels, the first of many sessions on the same subject.

One early reward of my new friendship was to come to know his parents. They occupied an eighth-floor apartment on 114th Street, directly behind the Butler Library. Eli’s father, Louis Ginzberg, was a professor in the Jewish Theological Seminary at 120th Street. He was perhaps the most notable Jewish scholar of his time, a specialist in Talmudic history and interpretation based on a wide knowledge of ancient Middle Eastern languages and in the history of its peoples. Eli began to bring me to their Friday evening suppers. I found old Louis to be a wise and humorous man, a fine companion and host for a pleasant evening.

On one of my first visits, Eli took me into Louis’s study to show me a lampshade that one of Louis’s students had made. The parchment shade was decorated. All around the shade were drawn the spines of books, and on each spine there appeared the title of one of Louis’s books, perhaps 14 or 15 in all. And then the student had an inspiration. He added one more spine and on it drew the title of Eli’s first book, his Ph.D. dissertation, The House of Adam Smith. At the time, we wondered whether Eli could duplicate his Father’s achievement. In fact, he did so many times over, in quantity at least, if not always in depth—something to which Eli did not aspire.

[…]

Now back to my struggle between Harvard and Columbia economics. In that second year at Columbia, the internal conflict found two new exponents. On the Columbia side was Eli. He was someone of great personal interest to me, but as an economist, he was an eccentric. He was a skeptic about anything theoretical and served mainly as an exemplar of Columbia’s tolerance for talent in whatever way it showed itself. On the Harvard side, there now appeared a powerful supporter. He was Milton Friedman, who had come to Columbia on a scholarship for a year of graduate work. We soon became good friends. It emerged that we two were the only Columbia students who had had a real training in neoclassical price theory, the very bedrock of the economics of the time. The faculty, moreover, refused to sanction a course in the subject, and the students realized what they were missing. Milton and I undertook to do something to fill the gap. We organized a student-run seminar, worked out a list of topics, assigned students to prepare papers, and guided the presentation and discussion. The other students benefitted and so did we. We were having our first teaching experience. For the moment, however, it helped keep my mind running in the grooves of my Harvard training

My friendship with Milton was solidified when a Columbia classmate invited us to join him in a long holiday in his family’s fishing camp on the French River in Northern Ontario, still a wild and unsettled area. It turned out, however, that our friend was ordered to work in his family’s business concern for the summer. We were invited to use the camp ourselves, and we did. So we spent a wonderful six weeks together. We drove north in my Model A Ford roadster until we reached a tiny settlement on the French River called Bon Air. There we parked the car at a general store where we hired some cots, some cooking utensils, a gasoline cookstove, and a canoe, and where we bought some canned and packaged foods as well as eggs and Canadian back bacon. The general store owner piled all these objects in his motorboat and, with the canoe in tow, took us out to our camp 3½ miles down the river on a tiny island in the stream. We were the only inhabitants. There he literally threw our stuff on the shore and took his leave. From now on, we had to depend on our canoe to get back and renew supplies at Bon Air.

Neither of us at first knew anything about canoeing, but we had good teachers by example in the Indians from a reservation across the river. Watching them, we soon learned the J stroke and became fairly competent. We canoed to Bon Air twice weekly and soon organized our camp. We had a privy some 50 yards away. We had the usual first experience trying to cook rice, but we learned to get along. We swam twice a day, and, as we gained confidence in the canoe, took overnight canoe trips down the river. These were fun, especially because of occasional rapids which we could run going down the river but had to portage around on the way back. The one thing we did not try was fishing. In fact, we became known along the river as those strange boys who did not fish, so many men returning in the late afternoon would throw us a fish or two. We had a valuable supplement to our diet of canned goods.

The thing we did do all day long, every day, was talk—about everything, but mostly economics. Milton was much less ideological then than he later became, so he was a very pleasant and agreeable companion; that was especially important in 1934, in the depths of the Depression when Roosevelt’s New Deal was just taking shape, when it included so much that was controversial, and when the menace of Hitler was becoming clearly visible.

As things turned out, however, the most important thing for me in that academic year of 1933-34 was the advent of Carrie [whom he would marry]. But that belongs in a chapter of its own.

…When I finished my graduate course work in 1935, I was given an instructorship at Harvard, I owed it to the sponsorship of Ed Mason, my old tutor. With all this arranged, we determined to get married. I was to have a first year to get started at Harvard, and Carrie was to have a year to complete her Columbia course. We would marry in June 1937. We told our parents and friends. Everyone was pleased.

…You will recall that on completing my graduate work at Columbia, I returned to Harvard as an instructor and tutor in 1936. I spent the first year on my own; then, following our marriage, Carrie joined me there. We lived in a comfortable little apartment at 31 Concord Avenue, near the RadcliffeYard.

It turned out to be an unsatisfactory time, which brought each of us into our only serious confrontations with discrimination. For Carrie it was a brush with what would now be called “sexism.” She heard that Wellesley was looking for a young instructor. She thought correctly that her graduate work and teaching experience qualified her. She appeared for an interview, which was conducted by John Dunlop, a Harvard professor. They reviewed her background, and, he conceded, she was qualified. And then he told her, with expressions of regret, that her application could go no further. Wellesley, a women’s college, wanted only a male.

My own problem was an example of that anti-Semitism that still infected Harvard and most other universities. During my time back at Harvard, I had taught Ec A and a course in Labor Market Economics, and I had tutored a full quota of economics majors in my tutorial rooms in Dunster House. I thought it had gone pretty well.

To this I should add the tale of an amusing development. When I returned to Cambridge in September 1937 together with Carrie, I was told by the department chairman that my salary, then $2,500 a year, would be raised by $200. And then he carefully explained that that was not because, as a married man, my expenses were higher. It was because I was married that he could add Radcliffe girls to my list of tutees. Needless to say, the relation of women to men has since changed radically. Harvard and Radcliffe are now fully merged. Women and men are now equally Harvard professors and Harvard students. The days when Radcliffe girls were thought to be at special and intolerable risk if they met an unmarried tutor have long gone.

In the spring of 1938, I received another summons from the chairman [Harold Burbank]. He received me cordially, and after the usual preliminary politenesses, he explained that it was time we discussed my future at Harvard. His opening was itself a warning about what was to come. “Now, Moe, we are both men of the world.” And then he went on to say that I had done well. I had a promising future. “But you must understand; we could not promote Jakey, so you must not expect to stay on here.” I had formed no such expectation, but I understood perfectly. “Jakey” was Jacob Viner, a truly notable economist. He had done brilliant theoretical work early. He was Taussig’s favorite student. Clearly, Harvard’s president at the time was a bar. He would not accept the appointment of Jews, something widely whispered. They might be scholars, but, by Lowell’s Boston Brahmin standards, they could not be gentlemen. So all this was hardly a complete surprise. But my chairman’s quiet but open expression of anti-Semitism was a shock.

I have often wondered whether it was not really a subtle way of ending my appointment without saying that I simply had not measured up. Perhaps, but that could hardly apply to Viner, who went on to do brilliant work, and who ended his career as a colleague of Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Had a Nobel Prize for Economics existed at the time, he would certainly have been a Nobel laureate.

So I left the interview knowing that I had to make plans to move. My opportunity was not long in coming. Later that same spring, I appeared again at Columbia for the defense of my dissertation, the last step on the way to the doctorate. The committee was chaired by Wesley Mitchell, the man whose course on business cycles I had dropped six year earlier. It made no difference to the examination. Apparently, I passed easily. Indeed my thesis won the Seligman Prize for the best of the year. When the committee adjourned, Mitchell asked me to stay behind. He wanted to ask me whether I would be willing to join the National Bureau to work with him on the Bureau’s business cycles project. My salary would be $3,500 year, a thousand dollars above my Harvard salary. In my circumstances it did not take me long to decide. In a couple of days he had my answer. I would be delighted. So now, after our first summer in Maine, Carrie and I moved to New York. I can guess now how the Bureau appointment had come about. My friend Milton Friedman (see Chapter Six), had just joined the Bureau with an appointment like my own, but to work on another subject. Milton was a friend and also the favorite student of Arthur F. Burns, at the time Mitchell’s chief assistant, who was already the really effective head of the business cycles work. My guess is that Milton became aware of Burns’s interest in finding an associate for business cycles to work especially on the cyclical role of inventories. My dissertation included a chapter on inventories. So he probably told Burns, and then events took their course.

 

Source:  Moses Abramovitz, Days Gone By: A Memoir for my Family (2001), pp. 32-34, 41-49, 77-79. (Link to download the memoir as .pdf)

_______________________

Stanford Faculty Memorial Resolution

MOSES ABRAMOVITZ
(1912-2000)

Moses Abramovitz, William Robertson Coe Professor of American Economic History Emeritus, died December 1, 2000, at Stanford University Hospital, just one month before reaching his eighty-ninth birthday.

Known by his family, friends, and colleagues as “Moe,” Abramovitz was one of the primary builders of Stanford’s Department of Economics. He taught at Stanford for almost thirty years, taking leave only during 1962-63 to work as economic advisor to the secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. He served as chair from 1963 to 1965, and from 1971 to 1974, both critical junctures in the department’s history. During his tenure at Stanford and after his retirement in 1976, Moe gained international renown and admiration for his pioneering contributions to the study of long-term economic growth.

Moe was born in Brooklyn, New York, to a Romanian Jewish immigrant family. After graduating from Erasmus Hall High School, he entered Harvard in 1928. Like many of his generation, Moe’s interest in economics was stimulated by the experience of the Great Depression. So, in 1932 he continued his undergraduate studies of the subject at Columbia University, where he received his Ph.D. in 1939. At Columbia, Moe began a lifelong friendship with Milton Friedman. In later years, Moe liked to joke that he had been debating with Friedman for more than fifty years, and consistently winning — except when Milton was present. Columbia connections also led Moe to join the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1937, where he helped to launch the business cycle studies for which the Bureau became famous, working with such figures as Wesley Mitchell, Simon Kuznets and Arthur Burns.

Also at Columbia, Moe became re-acquainted with his Erasmus classmate Carrie Glasser, who was also working for her doctoral degree in economics. Moe and Carrie were married in June of 1937, and were devoted to each other until Carrie’s death in October 1999. When Moe came to Stanford in 1948, Carrie began what became a highly satisfying and successful career as a painter, sculptress and collage artist. Their only son, Joel, born in 1946, is a practicing neurosurgeon in Connecticut.

During World War II, Moe served first at the War Production Board, working with Simon Kuznets to analyze the limits of feasible production during wartime. He then moved to the Office of Strategic Services as chief of the European industry and trade section. During 1945 and 1946, he was economic advisor to the United States representative on the Allied Reparations Commission. Moe’s modest but strong character was well displayed in an episode during the postwar reparations debate. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau had proposed a plan to deindustrialize the German economy. An OSS research team headed by Moe wrote a memorandum arguing that this plan would destroy Germany’s capacity to export, leaving it unable to pay for food and other essential imports. At a meeting with Moe and two other OSS economists, Ed Mason and Emile Despres, Morgenthau angrily asked: “Who is responsible for this?” Moe recalled: “Mason looked at Despres, and Emile looked at me. I had no one else to look at. The buck stopped with me. So, rather meekly, I said I was responsible.”

This anecdote and many others may be found in a charming memoir that Moe completed shortly before his death, “Days Gone By,” accessible on the Stanford Economics Department website.

At Stanford Moe began the studies of long-term economic growth that established his reputation among professional economists. A 1956 paper provided the first systematic estimates showing that forces raising the productivity of labor and capital were responsible for approximately half of the historical growth rate of real U.S. GDP, and close to three quarters of the growth rate of real GDP per capita. Subsequently he made seminal contributions in identifying the factors promoting and obstructing convergence in levels of productivity among advanced and developing countries of the world. For these studies and others, Moe received many academic honors. He was elected to the presidency of the American Economic Association (1979-80), the Western Economic Association (1988-89), and the Economic History Association (1992-93). From abroad came honorary doctorates from the University of Uppsala in Sweden (1985), and the University of Ancona in Italy (1992); he took special enjoyment from an invitation to become a fellow of the prestigious Academia Nazionale de Lincei in 1991 — “following Galileo with a lag,” he said, with a characteristic self-deprecatory twinkle.

Committee:

Paul A. David
Ronald McKinnon
Gavin Wright

Source: Stanford Report, July 9, 2003.

Image Source: Harvard Class of 1932, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report (1957).

 

 

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. Economics department in WWII. Excerpt from letter to President Butler, Nov. 1942

 

There is a lot of information packed into the annual budget requests submitted by an economics department. Below I have limited the excerpt from the November 30, 1942 budget submission by the head of the economics department to Columbia President Nicholas Murray Butler to a brief introduction that provides an executive summary of the state of staffing and enrollment one year into the Second World War for the U.S. 

_____________________

Excerpt from R. M. Haig’s Budgetary Requests for 1943-44

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

File: R. M. Haig
November 30, 1942

President Nicholas Murray Butler
Columbia University

My dear Mr. President:

[…]

Introductory

Before turning to the detailed proposals, it may be helpful to outline certain facts regarding the general situation we face.

  1. The war has made heavy inroads on both our staff and our students. Two ([James W.] Angell and [Arthur R.] Burns) of our ten regular professor offering graduate instruction are in Washington on war service and most of those who remain are devoting a substantial portion of their time to the war effort. The staff of Columbia College has been even more heavily hit. Of the men giving instruction in the college in 1940-1941, [Carl Theodore] Schmidt and [Charles Ashley] Wright are now army officers, [Hubert Frank] Havlik, [Clement Lowell] Harriss, [Walt Whitman] Rostow and [Donald William] O’Connell are in war work in Washington, and [Robert] Valeur is devoting most of his time to aiding the Free French. However, we have been exceedingly fortunate in the substitutes we have been able to secure and (especially as compared with other institutions) we present a strong front in spite of our losses.
  2. It was apparent a year ago that the demand from Washington for persons with graduate training would sweep large numbers of our students from their classrooms before the completion of their courses. Requisitions for economists continue to arrive in almost every mail although we have long since placed in positions everyone on our eligible lists. Yet, as we anticipated last year, our body of graduate students still remains at a figure that makes it desirable and necessary to offer substantially all of our fundamental courses. The decline in the number of our students since our peak year (1938-1939, when 340 were registered) has been very great. However, we still are the largest graduate department of economics in the country by a wide margin. I am told that at Harvard, where there were 115 students last year, only 33 are in attendance this semester, and that at Chicago a similar loss has been suffered. In my letter dated December 30, 1941, it was suggested that we might have as many as 150 graduate students registered in our department this year. The latest count shows 130, with a fair prospect that the figure of 150 will be reached in the Spring session. A poll of the staff shows that, in the opinion of some, the number will be fully as large next year and the consensus is that the number will not be less than 100. Moreover all agree that with the coming of peace we shall be faced with an influx of students which may easily swamp the facilities of our graduate staff. For Columbia College, where this year the enrollment has been large, the outlook for economics in 1942-1943 is very obscure. At this time, it appears probable that the regular offering of courses, at least in skeleton form, will be required to serve a small number of regular students. Fortunately the commitments of the University to individuals on the College staff are such that the situation is highly flexible and can be accommodated with relative ease to whatever special program may be adopted for the undergraduates. In this budget, request is made for appropriations in blank for several instructorships, to be utilized only in case the need for them develops as plans for the college become more definite.
  3. Because of retirements, actual or more or less immediately impending, the department is faced with a serious problem of wise replacement of staff in its graduate division, if we are to maintain in the future the position of eminence we have held in the past. In view of this problem, it has seemed wise to make a virtue of our necessities and to utilize the need for temporary replacements for professors absent on leave during the emergency as an opportunity to invite as visiting professors certain men whom we rate high in the list of possible future staff members. This year we have three such men on the campus ([Oskar] Lange, Arthur F. Burns and [Clarence Arthur] Kulp). We believe that it will be wise to continue this policy of exploration and experimentation next year with funds released from the appropriations for the salaries of [James W.] Angell and Arthur R. Burns, in case the war continues and they do not return to their regular posts.
  4. As an incident to the policy referred to in the preceding paragraph, we have been able this year to offer a remarkably strong series of courses in the field of economic theory. However, we are this year relatively weak in economic history, socialism and industrial organization, offering no courses at all in the last-named subject. The chief embarrassment experienced this year by the unsettled staff situation has been in connection with the supervision of student research. Some of our students who have dissertations in progress have been seriously inconvenienced by the absence of the professors under whom they initiated their studies.

[…]

Source: Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-. Box 386, Folder “Haig, Robert Murray 7/1942—1/1943”.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economists Gender Salaries

Columbia. Pay raise for Barnard lecturer Clara Eliot supported, 1941

 

Columbia economics Ph.D. alumna (1926), Clara Eliot published her dissertation as The Farmer’s Campaign for Credit (New York: D. Appleton, 1927). Looking at the Columbia Department of Economics budget proposal from 1941, I saw a statement of support for a salary increase for Clara Eliot and promotion to the rank of assistant professor at Barnard. A brief annex to the budget introduces Eliot. I have added at the end of the post her 1976 New York Times’ obituary to round out her life story.

Since I was looking at Columbia economists’ salaries, I thought it worth seeing how her actual 1941-42 salary of $2,700 and the proposed assistant professor salary for 1942-43 of $3,600 fit into the structure of salaries paid to men at those ranks. It turns out (see the attached budget lines for lecturers and assistant professors), there was salary parity at both ranks. I have been unable to confirm yet whether Clara Eliot actually got her promotion with that pay raise at Barnard then.

The other woman economist, Eveline M. Burns, and her husband Arthur R. Burns were both quite unhappy with the ceilings to their respective advancement in 1940/41. Their story is worth a future post or two. Today is dedicated to Clara Eliot.

_____________________________________

Women in the Columbia Economics Department Budget Proposal
November 26, 1941

[…]

(2) Last year my colleagues directed me to inform Dr. Eveline M. Burns that they found themselves unable to offer her any ground for hope that she could be granted professorial status and she indicated her unwillingness to continue on the basis of a full-time lecturer at the stipend available (viz., $3,000). Thereupon a temporary arrangement was entered into for part-time service for the current academic year, with the specification that no commitment was implied beyond June, 1942. In this budget letter it is recommended that the connection of Dr. Burns with the Department be terminated at that date. The question of the future of her field of social insurance in the departmental plans is being studied by the Mitchell Committee mentioned above. Moreover, this is a field in which the School of Business has an interest…It is therefore suggested that for the present the sum that has in previous budgets been allocated to Dr. Burns be tentatively reserved pending the formulation of a definite proposal which should be forthcoming within perhaps a fortnight [reduced from $2,500 to $2,300 reserve in final budget].

[…]

Should the Barnard budget, when submitted, include a recommendation that recognition be given Clara Eliot, such a recommendation would be supported by the department to the extent of promotion to an assistant professorship and an increase in salary of $900 (Miss Eliot is now a lecturer in Barnard College at $2, 700).

(See Annex G)

[…]

ANNEX G

Statement concerning the Professional Preparation
and Experience of Clara Eliot

 

A. B. 1917, Reed College (major in sociology)

1917-1918, Instructor in Sociology, Mills College, Calif.

1918-20, Research Assistant to Prof. Irving Fisher, Yale Univ.

1920-23, Assistant in Economics, Barnard College (salary, $1,000)

1923-28, Instructor in Economics, Barnard College
(salary: 1923-25, $2,000; 1925-27, $2,200; 1927-28, $2,400)

1926, Ph.D. in Economics granted by Columbia.

1928-29 On leave without pay, travel and study abroad — in Germany and Austria.

1929-36, Lecturer in Economics, Barnard (part-time) (salary, $1,200)

From April 1st, leave of absence without pay to join the Consumer Purchases Study (on a salary basis of $5,600). Despite urging by Dr. Monroe, Chief of the Economics Division of the Bureau of Home Economics, leave could not be continued in the Fall because of the situation in the Barnard Department, with others on leave or ill)

1936—to date, Lecturer in Economics , Barnard College (full-time)
(salary: 1936-37, $2,400; 1937-40, $2,400; 1940-41, $2,700)

 

Projected research:

  1. An analysis of family expenditure data (scale of urgency, “income elasticity of demand”, etc.).
  2. Compiling of materials for use in connection with an introductory course in statistics, non-mathematical, stressing the possibilities and limitations of the quantitative method, stating hypotheses in quantitative terms, illustrating problems of interpretation, relating statistics to logic.

 

Source: Department of economics budget proposal for 1942-43 (dated November 26, 1941) submitted to Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler by Robert M. Haig, Chairman, Department of Economics (pp. 2, 6 and Appendix G). Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-. Box 386, Folder “Haig, Robert Murray 7/1941—6/1942”.

_____________________________________

ANNEX A

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
The [Revised] Budget as Adopted for 1941-1942
Compared with the Budget as Proposed for 1941-1942.
December 30

 

Office or Item

 Incumbent 1941-1942
Appropriations

1942-43
Proposals
Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns

$4,500

$5,0001
Assistant Professor Robert L. Carey

$3,600

$3,600
Assistant Professor Boris M. Stanfield

$3,600

$3,600
Assistant Professor Joseph Dorfman

$3,600

$3,600

1Promotion to rank of associate professor recommended.

 

Office or Item

 Incumbent 1941-1942
Appropriations

1942-43
Proposals
Lecturer Carl T. Schmidt

$3,000

$3,000
Lecturer (Winter Session) Robert Valeur

($1,500)

—
Lecturer Eveline M. Burns

$2,500

—1
Lecturer Louis M. Hacker

$3,000

$3,6002
Lecturer Michael T. Florinsky

$2,700

$3,000
Lecturer Abraham Wald

$3,000

$3,6004

1Not to be reappointed.
2Promotion to rank of assistant professor recommended.
3 Promotion to rank of assistant professor recommended.

 

Source: Department of economics revised budget proposal for 1942-43 (dated December 30, 1941) submitted to Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler by Robert M. Haig, Chairman, Department of Economics. Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-. Box 386, Folder “Haig, Robert Murray 7/1941—6/1942”.

 

_____________________________________

Clara Eliot (1896-1976)

Prof. Clara Eliot, who taught economics and statistics at Barnard College, Columbia University, for almost 40 years until her retirement in 1961, died Saturday in Palo Alto, Calif. She was 80 years old.

Dr. Eliot, who used her maiden name professionally, was the wife of Dr. Robert Bruce Raup, professor emeritus of philosophy of education at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Dr. Eliot contributed to research in consumer economics. She was the author of “The Farmer’s Campaign for Credit,” a study of basic issues in credit theory as they were involved in United States agricultural policies early in this century.

She graduated from Reed College in 1917 and received her doctorate from Columbia in 1926. After teaching at Mills College in 1917-18 she was economics secretary to Prof. Irving Fisher at Yale University from 1918 to 1920.

Surviving, besides her husband, are a son, Robert B. Raup Jr.; three daughters, Joan R. Rosenblatt, Ruth R. Johnson and Charlotte R. Cremin; two brothers, a sister and eight grandchildren.

Source:  New York Times, January 19, 1976 (page 32).

Image Source: Barnard College, Mortarboard 1950.

 

 

Categories
Columbia Computing

Columbia. Statistical Lab Equipment for Economics Faculty Request, 1948

__________________________

One detects George Stigler’s style in the justification below for the purchase of two pieces of calculating equipment for the use of economics faculty at Columbia in 1948: “…the economist requires more than a library, a pen, a desk, and possibly a crystal-ball to prosecute his studies. He requires empirical material, lots of it, and this material is often numerical.” In the same budget request we also find a list (with current costs) of mundane faculty office furniture items, classroom accessories, and a dictionary for the department administrator.

Cf. An earlier posting for the purchase of a calculator by Henry Schultz at the University of Chicago in 1928.

__________________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

January 13, 1948

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. President:

I beg to submit the requests of the Department of Economics for fixed equipment and physical changes for the fiscal year 1948-49. The greater part of the sum asked is for non-recurring items. The total request is for $1,465, divided as follows:

1) New furniture necessitated by recent alterations in Fayerweather and Hamilton Halls

$270.00

2) Ordinary needs for 1948-49

$195.00

3) Statistical equipment for Economics Faculty

$1000.00

            Item 1) represents furniture equipment urgently needed as a result of the alterations in the two halls. The details are given on the following page. A part of this equipment has already been asked for during the present fiscal year and all of it should, if possible, be provided at once and paid for on the present budget.

Item 2) is explained on the second page following.

Item 3) represents a request for technical equipment which would be of great service in the work of members of the Department. This request is explained and justified in detail in the appended statement prepared by a Departmental committee consisting of Professor Stigler, chairman, and Professors Haig and Harriss.

Respectfully yours,
[signed] Carter Goodrich

__________________________

1) [New furniture]

Item For Cost
Book shelves A. R. Burns $30.00
Clothing tree A. R. Burns $ 5.00
Club chair R. Nurkse $75.00
Legal size filing cabinet R. Nurkse $75.00
6 straight chairs H. Taylor $30.00
Swivel chair C. L. Harriss $15.00
4 coat racks H. Taylor $20.00
Small table O. Hoeffding $20.00
[Total] $270.00

2)        Ordinary needs for 1949-49

Item For Cost
Wall map of Europe R. Nurkse $   20.00
Grid-panel blackboard in classroom W. S. Vickrey $   20.00
Dictionary G. D. Stewart $     5.00
Other needs $150.00
[Total] $195.00

 

3) Proposal of a Statistical Laboratory for Faculty in Economics

$1,000.00

  1. The need

Contrary to a widely held opinion, the economist requires more than a library, a pen, a desk, and possibly a crystal-ball to prosecute his studies. He requires empirical material, lots of it, and this material is often numerical. Statistical analysis, broadly defined, is the social scientist’s laboratory, and in principle the social scientist must spend more time in his laboratory than the natural scientist in his because the social scientist’s findings become obsolete even in the absence of improved techniques and doctrines. The statistical method is important in all branches of economics; it is noteworthy that the present proposal is energetically supported by five teachers of economic theory.

Granting the necessity for quantitative work, and noting the frequency with which such work leads to fairly extensive computations, the faculty requires access to computational equipment (and, one is tempted to say, assistance). At present this access is small and fortuitous. The available computational equipment is being used extensively by students, and it is common to be unsuccessful for several days before obtaining use of a machine. Since the department of economics has no such equipment, a protracted use of the machines (that is, more than say 6 hours a week) is properly objected to by the administrator of the laboratory, but usually this is an unattainable limit.

  1. The detailed proposal

1.  Equipment. We propose to purchase two machines:

Underwood Sundstrand, tape adding machine, Model 1014p
Marchant Calculator, Model ACT – 10M

2. Cost. The purchase price of these machines would be:

Sundstrand: $330 less 10 percent plus 6 percent = $316.80
Marchant:     $750 less 15 percent plus 6 percent = $682.50,

a total of $999.30. The annual cost of servicing the machines would be (1) nothing the first year, (2) $18 for the Sundstrand and $36 for the Marchant thereafter. In addition there would be the cost of the tapes for the Sundstrand, electricity, and space.

These machines will last, at a very conservative minimum, 10 years. Hence, the pro-rate annual cost of the laboratory would be on the order of $170 (of which $100 is depreciation), or $10 per member of the department.

  1. Administration. The machines would be most generally useful if they were placed in some small room to which the faculty had access. A much less efficient alternative would be to keep them in the departmental office when not in use.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives, Central Files 1890- (UA#001). Box 406. Folder “1.1.313 (1/4);  Goodrich, Carter; 7/1946 – 6/1948”.

Image Source: Marchant Calculator, Model ACT-10M. Smithsonian. The National Museum of American History.

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. History of Economics Department. Luncheon Talk by Arthur R. Burns, 1954

The main entry of this posting is a transcription of the historical overview of economics at Columbia provided by Professor Arthur R. Burns at a reunion luncheon for Columbia economics Ph.D. graduates [Note: Arthur Robert Burns was the “other” Arthur Burns of the Columbia University economics department, as opposed to Arthur F. Burns, who was the mentor/friend of Milton Friedman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, etc.]. He acknowledges his reliance on the definitive research of his colleague, Joseph Dorfman, that was published in the following year:

Joseph Dorfman, “The Department of Economics”, Chapt IX in R. Gordon Hoxie et al., A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.

The cost of the luncheon was $2.15 per person. 36 members of the economics faculty attended, who paid for themselves, and some 144 attending guests (includes about one hundred Columbia economics Ph.D.’s) had their lunches paid for by the university.

_____________________________

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

March 25, 1954

 

Dear Doctor _________________

On behalf of the Department of Economics, I am writing to invite you to attend a Homecoming Luncheon of Columbia Ph.D.’s in Economics. This will be held on Saturday, May 29, at 12:30 sharp, in the Men’s Faculty Club, Morningside Drive and West 117th Street.

This Luncheon is planned as a part of Columbia University’s Bicentennial Celebration, of which, as you know, the theme is “Man’s Right to Knowledge and the free Use Thereof”. The date of May 29 is chosen in relation to the Bicentennial Conference on “National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad” in which distinguished scholars and men of affairs from the United States and other countries will take part. The final session of this Conference, to be held at three p.m. on May 29 in McMillin Academic Theater, will have as its principal speaker our own Professor John Maurice Clark. The guests at the Luncheon are cordially invited to attend the afternoon meeting.

The Luncheon itself and brief after-luncheon speeches will be devoted to reunion, reminiscence and reacquaintance with the continuing work of the Department. At the close President Grayson Kirk will present medals on behalf of the University to the principal participants in the Bicentennial Conference.

We shall be happy to welcome to the Luncheon as guests of the University all of our Ph.D.’s, wherever their homes may be, who can arrange to be in New York on May 29. We very much hope you can be with us on that day. Please reply on the form below.

Cordially yours,

[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Chairman of the Committee

*   *   *   *   *   *

Professor Carter Goodrich
Box #22, Fayerweather Hall
Columbia University
New York 27, New York

I shall be glad…
I shall be unable… to attend the Homecoming Luncheon on May 29.

(signed) ___________

Note: Please reply promptly, not later than April 20 in the case of Ph.D.’s residing in the United States, and not later than May 5 in the case of others.

_____________________________

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

May 6, 1954

 

TO:                 Departments of History, Math. Stat., Public and Sociology
FROM:            Helen Harwell, secretary, Graduate Department of Economics

 

Will you please bring the following notice to the attention of the students in your Department:

            A feature of Columbia’s Bicentennial celebration will be a Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad, to be held May 27, 28 and 29.

            The final session of the Conference will take place in McMillin Theatre at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 29. The session topic is “Economic Welfare in a Free Society”. The program is:

Session paper.

John M. Clark, John Bates Clark Professor. Emeritus of Economics, Columbia University.

Discussants:

Frank H. Knight, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
David E. Lilienthal, Industrial Consultant and Executive
Wilhelm Roepke, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute of International Studies, University of Geneva

 

Students in the Faculty of Political Science are cordially invited to attend this session and to bring their wives or husbands and friends who may be interested.

Tickets can be secured from Miss Helen Harwell, 505 Fayer.

_____________________________

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29th, 1954

President Kirk, Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Department of Economics I welcome you all to celebrate Columbia’s completion of its first two hundred years as one of the great universities. We are gratified that so many distinguished guests have come, some from afar, to participate in the Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad. We accept their presence as testimony of their esteem for the place of Columbia in the world of scholarship. Also, we welcome among us again many of the intellectual offspring of the department. We like to believe that the department is among their warmer memories. We also greet most pleasurably some past members of the department, namely Professors Vladimir G. Simkhovitch, Eugene Agger, Eveline M. Burns and Rexford Tugwell. Finally, but not least, we are pleased to have with us the administrative staff of the department who are ceaselessly ground between the oddity and irascibility of the faculty and the personal and academic tribulations of the students. Gertrude D. Stewart who is here is evidence that this burden can be graciously carried for thirty-five years without loss of charm or cheer.

We are today concerned with the place of economics within the larger scope of Columbia University. When the bell tolls the passing of so long a period of intellectual endeavor one casts an appraising eye over the past, and I am impelled to say a few retrospective words about the faculty and the students. I have been greatly assisted in this direction by the researches of our colleague, Professor Dorfman, who has been probing into our past.

On the side of the faculty, there have been many changes, but there are also many continuities. First let me note some of the changes. As in Europe, economics made its way into the university through moral philosophy, and our College students were reading the works of Frances Hutcheson in 1763. But at the end of the 18th century, there seems to have been an atmosphere of unhurried certainty and comprehensiveness of view that has now passed away. For instance, it is difficult to imagine a colleague of today launching a work entitled “Natural Principles of Rectitude for the Conduct of Man in All States and Situations in Life Demonstrated and Explained in a Systematic Treatise on Moral Philosophy”. But one of early predecessors, Professor Gross, published such a work in 1795.

The field of professorial vision has also change. The professor Gross whom I have just mentioned occupied no narrow chair but what might better be called a sofa—that of “Moral Philosophy, German Language and Geography”. Professor McVickar, early in the nineteenth century, reclined on the even more generous sofa of “Moral and Intellectual Philosophy, Rhetoric, Belles Lettres and Political Economy”. By now, however, political economy at least existed officially and, in 1821, the College gave its undergraduates a parting touch of materialist sophistication in some twenty lectures on political economy during the last two months of their senior year.

But by the middle of the century, integration was giving way to specialization. McVickar’s sofa was cut into three parts, one of which was a still spacious chair of “History and Political Science”, into which Francis Lieber sank for a brief uneasy period. His successor, John W. Burgess, pushed specialization further. He asked for an assistant to take over the work in political economy. Moreover, his request was granted and Richmond Mayo Smith, then appointed, later became Professor of Political Economy, which, however, included Economics, Anthropology and Sociology. The staff of the department was doubled in 1885 by the appointment of E. R. A. Seligman to a three-year lectureship, and by 1891 he had become a professor of Political Economy and Finance. Subsequent fission has separated Sociology and Anthropology and now we are professors of economics, and the days when political economy was covered in twenty lectures seem long ago.

Other changes stand out in our history. The speed of promotion of the faculty has markedly slowed down. Richmond Mayo Smith started as an instructor in 1877 but was a professor after seven years of teaching at the age of 27. E. R. A. Seligman even speeded matters a little and became a professor after six years of teaching. But the University has since turned from this headlong progression to a more stately gait. One last change I mention for the benefit of President Kirk, although without expectation of warm appreciation from him. President Low paid J. B. Clark’s salary out of his own pocket for the first three years of the appointment.

I turn now to some of the continuities in the history of the department. Professor McVickar displayed a concern for public affairs that has continued since his time early in the nineteenth century. He was interested in the tariff and banking but, notably, also in what he called “economic convulsions”, a term aptly suggesting an economy afflicted with the “falling sickness”. Somewhat less than a century later the subject had been rechristened “business cycles” to remove some of the nastiness of the earlier name, and professor Wesley Mitchell was focusing attention on this same subject.

The Columbia department has also shown a persistent interest in economic measurement. Professor Lieber campaigned for a government statistical bureau in the middle of the 19th century and Richmond Mayo Smith continued this interest in statistics and in the Census. Henry L. Moore, who came to the department in 1902, promoted with great devotion Mathematical Economics and Statistics with particular reference to the statistical verification of theory. This interest in quantification remains vigorous among us.

There is also a long continuity in the department’s interest in the historical and institutional setting of economic problems and in their public policy aspect. E. R. A. Seligman did not introduce, but he emphasized this approach. He began teaching the History of Theory and proceeded to Railroad Problems and the Financial and Tariff History of the United States, and of course, Public Finance. John Bates Clark, who joined the department in 1895 to provide advanced training in economics to women who were excluded from the faculty of Political Science, became keenly interested in government policy towards monopolies and in the problem of war. Henry R. Seager, in 1902, brought his warm and genial personality to add to the empirical work in the department in labor and trust problems. Vladimir G. Simkhovitch began to teach economic history in 1905 at the same time pursuing many and varied other interests, and we greet him here today. And our lately deceased colleague, Robert Murray Haig, continued the work in Public Finance both as teacher and advisor to governments.

Lastly, among these continuities is an interest in theory. E. R. A. Seligman focused attention on the history of theory. John Bates Clark was an outstanding figure in the field too well known to all of us for it to be necessary to particularize as to his work. Wesley C. Mitchell developed his course on “Current Types of Economic Theory” after 1913 and continued to give it almost continuously until 1945. The Clark dynasty was continued when John Maurice Clark joined the department as research professor in 1926. He became emeritus in 1952, but fortunately he still teaches, and neither students nor faculty are denied the stimulation of his gentle inquiring mind. He was the first appointee to the John Bates Clark professorship in 1952 and succeeded Wesley Mitchell as the second recipient of the Francis A. Walker medal of the American Economic Association in the same year.

Much of this development of the department was guided by that gracious patriarch E. R. A. Seligman who was Executive Officer of the Department for about 30 years from 1901. With benign affection and pride he smiled upon his growing academic family creating a high standard of leadership for his successors. But the period of his tenure set too high a standard and executive Officers now come and go like fireflies emitting as many gleams of light as they can in but three years of service. Seligman and J. B. Clark actively participated in the formation of the American Economic Association in which J. B. Clark hoped to include “younger men who do not believe implicitly in laisser faire doctrines nor the use of the deductive method exclusively”.

Among other members of the department I must mention Eugene Agger, Edward Van Dyke Robinson, William E. Weld, and Rexford Tugwell, who were active in College teaching, and Alvin Johnson, Benjamin Anderson and Joseph Schumpeter, who were with the department for short periods. Discretion dictates that I list none of my contemporaries, but I leave them for such mention as subsequent speakers may care to make.

When one turns to the students who are responsible for so much of the history of the department, one is faced by an embarrassment of riches. Alexander Hamilton is one of the most distinguished political economists among the alumni of the College. Richard T. Ely was the first to achieve academic reputation. In the 1880’s, he was giving economics a more humane and historical flavor. Walter F. Wilcox, a student of Mayo Smith, obtained his Ph.D. in 1891 and contributed notably to statistical measurement after he became Chief Statistician of the Census in 1891, and we extend a special welcome to him here today. Herman Hollerith (Ph.D. 1890) contributed in another way to statistics by his development of tabulating machinery. Alvin Johnson was a student as well as teacher. It is recorded that he opened his paper on rent at J. B. Clark’s seminar with the characteristically wry comment that all the things worth saying about rent had been said by J. B. Clark and his own paper was concerned with “some of the other things”. Among other past students are W. Z. Ripley, B. M. Anderson, Willard Thorp, John Maurice Clark, Senator Paul Douglas, Henry Schultz and Simon Kuznets. The last of these we greet as the present President of the American Economic Association. But the list grows too long. It should include many more of those here present as well as many who are absent, but I am going to invite two past students and one present student to fill some of the gaps in my story of the department.

I have heard that a notorious American educator some years ago told the students at Commencement that he hoped he would never see them again. They were going out into the world with the clear minds and lofty ideals which were the gift of university life. Thenceforward they would be distorted by economic interest, political pressure, and family concerns and would never again be the same pellucid and beautiful beings as at that time. I confess that the thought is troubling. But in inviting our students back we have overcome our doubts and we now confidently call upon a few of them. The first of these is George W. Stocking who, after successfully defending a dissertation on “The Oil Industry and the Competitive System” in 1925, has continued to pursue his interest in competition and monopoly as you all know. He is now at Vanderbilt University.

The second of our offspring whom I will call upon is Paul Strayer. He is one of the best pre-war vintages—full bodied, if I may borrow from the jargon of the vintner without offense to our speaker. Or I might say fruity, but again not without danger of misunderstanding. Perhaps I had better leave him to speak for himself. Paul Strayer, now of Princeton University, graduated in 1939, having completed a dissertation on the painful topic of “The Taxation of Small Incomes”.

The third speaker is Rodney H. Mills, a contemporary student and past president of the Graduate Economics Students Association. He has not yet decided on his future presidencies, but we shall watch his career with warm interest. He has a past, not a pluperfect, but certainly a future. Just now, however, no distance lends enchantment to his view of the department. And I now call upon him to share his view with us.

So far we have been egocentric and appropriately so. But many other centres of economic learning are represented here, and among them the London School of Economics of which I am proud as my own Alma Mater. I now call upon Professor Lionel Robbins of Polecon (as it used sometimes to be known) to respond briefly on behalf of our guests at the Conference. His nature and significance are or shall I say, is, too well known to you to need elaboration.

[in pencil]
A.R. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Bicentennial Celebration”.

_____________________________

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

 

BURNS, Arthur Robert, Columbia Univ., New York 27, N.Y. (1938) Columbia Univ., prof. of econ., teach., res.; b. 1895; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1920, Ph.D. (Econ.), 1926, London Sch. of Econ. Fields 5a, 3bc, 12b. Doc. dis. Money and monetary policy in early times (Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co., London, 1926). Pub. Decline of competition (McGraw-Hill 1936); Comparative economic organization (Prentice-Hall, 1955); Electric power and government policy (dir. of res.) (Twentieth Century Fund, 1948) . Res. General studies in economic development. Dir. Amer. Men of Sci., III, Dir. of Amer. Schol.

Source: Handbook of the American Economic Association, American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4 (July, 1957), p. 40.

 

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.