Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1941-1946

This post adds the Chairman’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the World War II years to the series:

Department of Economics Reports to the Dean of Harvard, 1932-1941

More about Harvard during WWII: Coreydon Ireland, “Harvard Goes to War,” The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

_______________________

1941-42

October 15, 1942

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

The only honor conferred upon a member of the Department during this period has been the election of Professor Leontief to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Several books have been published by members of the Department, including Professor Harris’s two major works (appearing, I believe, not more than a month apart), The Economics of American Defense and Economics of Social Security; Professor Black’s Parity, Parity, Parity; Professor Hansen’s Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles; and Professor Haberler’s Consumer Credit and Economic Fluctuations. Professor Haberler’s Prosperity and Depression has also gone through a third edition. Professor Crum was co-author of Fiscal Planning for Total War. The list of articles, pamphlets, reviews, and other items seems unusually long. Professor Hansen has listed thirteen items, Professor Slichter eight, and Professor Black six. The Harvard Economic Studies has expanded from 70 to 72 volumes during the year.

The contribution of the Department to the war effort has been substantial. Professor Mason continues on leave of absence with the Office of Strategic Services, and Professor Harris has recently been granted full time leave to serve as Director of the Division of Export-Import Price Control in the Office of Price Administration. Among those in the Department who are more or less active as Consultants or in other part time war activities are Professors Black, Crum, Hansen, Leontief, and Slichter, and Dr. Butters. Numerous younger men have, of course, entered the war services or have declined possible reappointment at Harvard in order to accept administrative and research positions in Washington.

The problem of maintaining instructional standards has, of course, been aggravated by the war. Fortunately, exceptions to the two-thirds rule have been granted in many cases; otherwise it would have been literally impossible in the face of competing wartime opportunities to recruit a staff of younger men at all. Out of the present staff of fifteen teaching fellows eleven are on more than two-thirds time, and almost without exception these men would not have been available (that is, not even at two-thirds time) if exceptions to the rule had not been made. The average experience of the Economics A staff has improved owing to a policy of putting more experienced men into Economics A and breaking in new men either in tutorial work or in the Statistics and Accounting courses. 36% of concentrators in Economics are tutored by new men this year; 60% by men of one year or less experience. The very sizeable staff in Statistics and Accounting is made up almost entirely of new appointees.

In view of the desperate need for trained economists in the expanding activities of the United States Government, the Department has announced for the current year an Undergraduate Training Program in Economics for Government Service which has attracted a substantial enrolment. The program has been opened to non-honors as well as to honors candidates. It has been carefully designed to give advanced training of a type which will enable them to undertake with a minimum of delay and adaptation administrative and research positions in the government service. It includes, in addition to a substantial corps of standard courses in Economics, three new courses, namely, Economics 7a and 7b, Research in Market Organization, Commodity Distribution, and Prices; Economics 19a, Research in Money and Finance; and Economics 22b, Government Statistics. One striking indication of the merits of this program might appear in the fact that a program of training announced by the Department of Government seems to consist essentially in normal concentration Government plus an election from these new courses in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

E. H. Chamberlin

Dean Paul H. Buck

_______________________

1942-43

October 21, 1943

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith the report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year.

The war effort has continued to deplete our staff. Since the opening of the academic year Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and Dr. Dunlop have been granted leave of absence to undertake work in war agencies in Washington. However, Professor Crum resumes his work with the Department after leave of absence from the University to conduct an investigation on Fiscal Planning for the National Bureau of Economic Research of which he is currently the Chairman. Also Associate Professor Seymour Harris has returned to the University after a year and a half of service with the Office of Price Administration where he served as Director of the Office of Import-Export Price Control. A very small fraction of the once large junior staff now remains. By the end of the coming term it is expected that not more than four Annual Instructors will be active in instruction.

The incidence of war activities on research and publication has been two-fold. In some instances long-time research projects have been put aside, but concurrently much effort has been applied to projects concerned with war and post-war problems. Having in mind the inevitable interruptions of the war period, it is gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses and reports have been in about the same number as the average of the immediately preceding years.

Of the major publications during the year the following should be mentioned:

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development

Edwin Frickey, Economic Fluctuations in the United States: a Systematic Analysis of Long-Run Trends and Business Cycles, 1866-1914

S. E. Harris, Economics of America at War

S. E. Harris, Editor, Postwar Economic Problems

A. P. Usher, The Early History of Deposit Banking in Mediterranean Europe has just left the press.

J. T. Dunlop, Cost Behavior and Price Policy

It is also indicative of the demands of war activities that some forty or fifty articles directly related to the war and post-war economy have been published by members of the Department. In addition numerous reports have been issued to or under the auspices of various war agencies such as Professor Harris, “O.P.A. Manual of Price Control” and his “Reports on Anti-Inflationary Programs in South America,” and Professor Crum’s memorandum on Fiscal Planning for Reconstruction and Peace for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics has continued successfully through another year, bringing the total volumes of this publication to 57. The Review of Economic Statistics now in its 25th volume is continuing under the editorship of Professor Harris. The Harvard Economic Studies is now publishing its 75th volume.

The rapid reduction in the numbers of the teaching staff has been met in part by the increased activity of those remaining. With the very active cooperation of the members of the staff we have been able to offer a reasonably full and well balanced program of instruction. On the graduate level flexibility of instruction has been more necessary than in previous years because of the cosmopolitan group now in attendance –not less than a dozen different nationalities are represented. This flexibility is being achieved largely by increased individual supervision and instruction.

The sharp decline in the undergraduate body together with the presence of a small but able and experienced staff of teachers has made possible a degree of experimentation in the introductory course in Economics which should lead to significant changes in the conduct of this course in the post-war period. Also at the present time some attention is being given to a question which has been in the minds of a number of members of the staff for some year—the so-called quiz section. It has been a quite common practice, in the conduct of middle group courses to provide for two lectures and one section meeting each week. On occasion five lectures are followed by the section meeting. For many years the usefulness of the section meeting has been in question. It is to be admitted that it does relieve the instructor of a lecture, but whether or not it provides equivalent or better instruction is debatable. At the present time Professor Crum and Dr. Smith are conducting a controlled experiment in the section meetings connected with their offering Government Control of Industry and Public Utilities. In the course time they will report their findings to the Department.

At this point I should like to mention the interesting and valuable “experiment” which Professor Slichter has called The Trade Union Fellowship Project. I am enclosing Professor Slichter’s report on this project which, I believe, you will find of interest. We regard the experiment as not only highly successful from both the point of view of the University and the Unions, but the experience furnishes a good deal of evidence regarding educational processes which may prove to be highly significant.

Very sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

_______________________

1943-44

October 13, 1944

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year.

In the main, this report is a continuation of the report sent to you a year ago. In spite of the multifarious wartime activities of the member of the staff, the Department has maintained a well balanced offering of courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level. Course elections have continued to be surprisingly large, but I believe that the decline we have been expecting will actually begin with the Winter Term. The large proportion of foreign students on the graduate level, together with our inability to give complete offerings each Term, has necessitated an unusual amount of individual instruction.

Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave for the entire year. Professor Haberler resumed his work with us for the Summer Term.

I can repeat from my report of last year that the incidence of war activities on research and publication has been twofold. Most of our long time research projects have been put aside, but currently many projects concerned with war and postwar problems have been initiated and some of them completed. Although publication has been diminished by war activities, it is still gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses, and reports—although not in quite the same quantity as in the prewar years—have nevertheless appeared in substantial numbers. Progress on the publication of books has shown a more definite interruption, but four books have been published during the year and not less than six books are now either actually in the press or are nearing form for publication. The books published during the year were:

J. D. Black, Food Enough

A. H. Hansen, (with H. S. Perloff), State and Local Finance in the National Economy

S. H. Slichter, Present Savings and Postwar Markets

J. H. Williams, Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays

Both of our periodicals — the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics — have been able to continue publication without interruption and have been able to maintain their high standards. The difficulties encountered by scientific periodicals during these years are very real. One other volume has been added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

In my last report I mentioned the experimentation, particularly in the Introductory course, which had been initiated. I am very happy to be able to report that this experimentation has continued through another year with very gratifying results. A very interesting problem is involved in the attempt to present adequately the introductory material in Economies. Most of us who have been intimately concerned with the problem believe that a single course can serve both for those who will concentrate in Economics and for those whose main, interest lie elsewhere. The content of such a course, and the effective presentation of the material, is now being studied.

I might add here—because fundamentally it is experimentation in methods and relationships—that the Trade Union Fellowship Project has been conducted successfully for another year. At various times I have sort you Professor Slichter’s reports on these projects. We believe that a very interesting and productive educational experiment is being carried on with the Trade Union men.

Also in the sane connection I should like to record that during the last year we were presented with a variety of problems by the numerous South American students who came to us on the graduate level.We gave these students particular attention. By the end of the year we had learned that it would be highly profitable to develop for such students some specialized instruction which would overcome the difficulties under which all of them labored in their first term or two of residence. Their educational background, following European patterns, is such that it is necessary for us to present to them in concentrated form certain types of qualitative and quantitative analysis with which they are unfamiliar and which is not now offered on the graduate level.

The members of the Department have continued to discuss and to arrive at decisions regarding course instruction in the postwar years. In sone respects, we will strengthen the instruction offered mainly for the specialist in Economics, but we are more concerned with broader offerings which will prove to be desirable, and we hope necessary, for the college at large. Our permanent staff is large and versatile. We hope to be able to utilize to the full the resources we possess. In connection with the enrichment of our teaching, we expect to utilize more effectively in our instruction the material forthcoming from a number of proposed seminars.

It seems unnecessary to mention in detail the wartime activities of our staff members. Practically every member of the staff is actively engaged in some type of war activity. Without exception, each officer is utilizing his special aptitudes and training in connection with the various Federal agencies concerned with economic problems.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
University Hall 5
Cambridge, Massachusetts

_______________________

1944-45

October 24, 1945

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the Department of Economics for the last year.

As in the preceding war years, the Department has been able to present a very respectable offering of courses, both on the graduate and undergraduate level. The number of graduate students continued to be unexpectedly large, necessitating a rather more elaborate course offering for them than we had planned. To a somewhat larger extent than in the two preceding years the students enrolled represent such a diverse background of training and experience that sone new types of instruction were involved. Some seventeen nationalities were represented. We are inclined to believe that this is not altogether a temporary and war situation. Even after the European universities are reestablished, we expect to draw many students with foreign background and training. If this expectation is fulfilled, our wartime experience with foreign students will have been of considerable value.

Even before the war the Department was concerned with the reorganization of its instruction. Our discussions continued throughout the year materializing in a curriculum in theoretical and applied Economics which tends to utilize to the full the unusual capacities of the members of the staff. Our present position, however, is by no means definitive. We have always relied heavily upon the stimulating intellectual activities of the younger members of the staff. When recruitment is again possible we expect to strengthen our position markedly through the cooperation of these younger members.

The reorganization of instruction has been concerned mainly with the content and coverage of courses, but in some cases it has dealt with the actual methods of classroom instruction. The introductory course has been completely recast, involving new types of material and new methods of presentation. The full effects of these changes will have to wait upon the enlargement of our junior staff. Also, some of our plans involving quantitative instruction necessarily are held in abeyance until the questions regarding a statistical laboratory have been settled.

The war effort of many officers of the Department continued through the year. Professor Mason and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave from the University devoting their entire time to their respective wartime assignments. Professor Chamberlin returned to Cambridge in February from his post with the office of Strategic Services. Other members of the Department, particularly Professors Hansen, Slichter, Harris, Leontief and Black, while meeting their University obligations also served in various capacities with wartime agencies.

The incidence of this wartime service upon research and publishing activities of the group was marked. Both books and articles were fewer in number than in the normal year and in the main reflected the particular war activities of the authors. However, in all some

34 articles and 7 books were published. It should be noted that at least three volumes which the authors had expected to complete in the last year are now being prepared for the press.

The difficulties involved in the publication of scientific journals have been great but not insurmountable. We have been able to continue the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics without reduction in size and without omission of numbers. In the Harvard Economic Series [rest of line blank] that some four volumes either in the hands of the press or the Department were ready for publication but because of the war restrictions were not actually published.

Latterly the Department has been concerned with the vexing problems of the definition of objectives of students on the graduate level and the adjustment of these objectives to the various higher degrees offered. We are concerned with the administration not only of the Ph.D. degree in Business Economies, the Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government, and in part with the Ph.D. in Public Administration which may be conferred through the Littauer School of Public Administration. The problems involved in defining and administering each of these degrees will receive continued attention.

Although no honorary degrees have been reported by members of the staff, Professor E. H. Chamberlin was elected Membre Correspondent de L’Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, May 1945, and Professor S. E. Harris was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Very sincerely,

[H.H. Burbank]

_______________________

1945-46

September 30, 1946

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the Department of Economics for the academic year 1945-46.

Although the Department of Economics had anticipated to a considerable extent the problems that would be presented by the post-war situation, it found the academic year 1945-46 presenting difficulties for which there, was no immediate solution.

Fortunately we had devoted a great deal of time and thought to our course offering and to methods of instruction. We were moderately well prepared to take up the new work involved in new instruction and also the work involved in changing the content of, old courses. Again we were fortunate in being able to meet most of the difficulties presented by the unprecedented number of graduate students. With all of the permanent members of the staff in residence, we were able to meet the graduate situation although it taxed our resources to the limit. Many of our most insistent problems were concerned with the difficulties we met in assembling and training an adequate junior staff. We began the fall term with 2 Assistant Professors (Faculty Instructors), 3 Annual Instructors, and 7 Teaching Fellows. The staff was increased during the year but it was far from adequate to meet the course work, involved in our offering. However, this would seem to be a problem of relatively short duration. A few young scholars are being brought from other institutions and occupations and our Graduate School contains a number of most promising young scholars whose development is proceeding rapidly.

During the fall of 1945 the Department surveyed repeatedly the obligations it had undertaken. We were committed to an elaborate course offering. He realized that the permanent personnel of the Department could not be expanded and we recognized that in the range of the junior staff immediate and extensive increases in personnel also were impossible. Because of the irreducible demands upon our limited resources, we reconsidered repeatedly our efforts in the area of tutorial instruction and eventually voted to suspend tutorial instruction for a period with the stipulation that the subject be reconsidered at such time as the Department might see fit and in no event not later than two years.

The foregoing remarks have indicated that all members of the staff are carrying much heavier loads than in pre-war days. The burden necessarily is apportioned unevenly but all are affected. The main incidence of this situation is on research. For some officers it means that research must be put aside temporarily. For others, less than ordinary progress is being made. However, as the following titles indicate, the contributions have been substantial:

Black, John D., and a committee consisting of M. R. Benedict, S. T. Dana, and L. K. Pomeroy; Credit for Small Timberland Owners, Including Farmers with Woodlands; A Report on Forest Credit. (In press)

Black, John D., with some guidance from Jorge Ahumada of Chile, Roberto Arellano Bonilla of Honduras, and Jorge Alcazer of Bolivia; Farm Cost Analysis, with Some Reference

Black, John D.; Clawson, Marion; Sayre, C.F.; Willcox, W. W.; Farm Management. The Macmillan Company (in press).

Chamberlin, E. H.; Fifth edition of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Chapter added). Translation of the above book into Spanish.

Crum, W. L., and Schumpeter, J. A.; Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians. McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. H.; America’s Role in the World Economy. W. W. Norton.

Hansen, A. H.; The United States After the War. Cornell Uiv. Press.

Hansen, A. H.; Financing American Propsperity. 20th Century Fund.

Harris, S. E.; Price Control in the International Field. (In press)

Harris, S. E.; National Debt. (In press)

Mason, E. S.; Controlling World Trade; Cartels and Commodity Agreements. McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, T.; The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876. Stanford Press. (In press)

In addition to the above books, some 72 articles have been contributed to scientific journals. We feel particularly happy in having been able to carry our publications, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics, through the war period without serious alterations. Both publications are in sound financial condition. Actually, the Review of Economic Statistics will be in a much sounder position financially at the end of the current fiscal year than at the beginning of the war. However, increased publication costs are a matter for concern.

We have added two volumes to the Harvard Economic Series and published a revision of one. Three more volumes are now in the press. Again, increasing publication costs constitute a serious problem.

As mentioned above, all of the permanent officers of the Department had returned to active duty in Cambridge at the beginning of the year. A few officers have maintained contacts with various Washington departments and on occasion are called upon for consultation. In this connection, Professor John D. Black has served as Chairman of the Committee on Food Supplies for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council and also has served actively with at least four other agencies. Professor John T. Dunlop has served as Consultant in the Office of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion. Professor Seymour E. Harris has served as Consultant for the office of Price Administration. Professor Edward S. Mason has served as Consultant for the Department of State.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

_______________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

Image Source: A Harvard Army ROTC unit on parade along Memorial Drive, July 1943. From the Harvard Archives published in: Coreydon Ireland,  “To Honor the Living and Dead“, The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Chair annual reports to Dean, 1932-1941

 

This post takes us from the trough of the Great Depression to the eve of the U.S. entry into the Second World War. The items below are transcriptions of copies of reports written by the Harvard economics department chairmen of the time (Harold Hitchings Burbank (a.k.a. Burbie to his Buds) and Edward Hastings Chamberlin. Some chest-thumping, some whining, no notes of irony and definitely no flashes of wit…we all know this art form. Nevertheless some raw intelligence of value for working historians of economics of the present and future.

____________________________

November 12, 1932

Dear Dean Murdock,

Under the Faculty vote of December, 1931, the Chairman of each Department is requested to report in each half year to the Dean of the Faculty on the working of the plan recommended by the Committee on Instruction concerning Hour Examinations and Other Course Requirements. My report for the Department of Economics follows.

Acting on the Report from the Committee on Instruction, the Department of Economics on January 12, 1932 voted to observe the recommendations of the Committee. Following the Department meeting, I reported to you to the effect that the requirements of the Department of Economics were substantially in accord with the principles laid down by the Committee on Instruction. Ordinarily, we require not more than one Hour Examination in any one half year; ordinarily, we require not more than one thesis or report in any one half year. It is the standing rule of the Department of Economics and of the Division of History, Government, and Economics, that Senior candidates for Honors, who are writing Honors theses, shall be excused from the writing of any theses in courses within the Division. After a long discussion and with considerable reluctance, the Department voted that for Seniors who are candidates for Honors in the Division, Hour Examinations in courses within the Department shall be optional.

The vote of the Department was made known immediately to the students and observed in all of our undergraduate course (not of an introductory nature) during the second half of last year, and it is being observed in the current half year.

In the Division of History, Government, and Economics, we have had for many years a rule that all Seniors in good standing shall be exempted from final examinations in courses within the Division in their last half year. The result has been, of course, that after the April Hour Examinations, Seniors have paid little attention to courses within in the Division, and their attendance has been hardly more than occasional. The members of the Department who are more interested in courses than in General Examinations, and who perhaps doubt the efficacy of General Examinations, view this situation with increasing criticism.

When the Department voted the making of Hour Examinations optional for Seniors who are candidates for Honors, the doubting members were highly critical, fearing that our courses elected largely by Seniors would be entirely disrupted. From all that I can learn, I cannot see that there have been any untoward or undesirable results. In most of our “Senior” courses, the attendance until the Easter recess was satisfactory. Honors candidates attended lectures and, I believe, completed most of the required readings. Their records on the General Examinations were excellent. The Honors theses were among the best we have ever had.

A number of members of my Department and not a few members of the Departments of History and Government are strongly opposed to the new order. They make the point that we have in substance permitted an additional reduction in courses, that Senior Honor candidates are simply required to register in courses, but they have nether to attend them nor to do the work. All of these allegations are true enough, but it seems to me they are beside the point. To the extent that we have confidence in our examiners and tutors, I do not believe that in effect the requirements regarding the quality and quantity or work have been reduced.

The Department of History has recommended to the other departments of the Division the consideration of a motion which would require all senior candidates for Honors to complete whatever courses in History they elect. I think that probably the departments of the Division will consider in full detail the questions this motion involves.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

1933
[not found]

A copy of the report is not found with the others included in this post: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1934

Dear Dean Murdock,

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics:

In this period of rapid economic evolution the problems presented to a group of university economists are both stimulating and perplexing. The changing pattern of our social and economic structure offers new data for analysis and at the same time calls for a testing of principle that involves new fields for both teaching and research.

There have been few periods in modern history more difficult to interpret, yet the responsibility for interpretation seems foremost among the duties devolving upon educational institutions. For many years the keystone of the introductory course in economics has been that the community has the right to expect political and economic leadership from the graduates of its colleges. Our undergraduate courses are directed toward the attainment of this end. But the teaching of political economy is an art not easily mastered even by those who give abundant evidence of intellectual leadership. In the instruction of undergraduates and in the training of teachers and scholars in our graduate school, the difficulties inherent in our subject must not be overlooked. The presentation of the data of economics makes demands upon the staff not felt in many other departments of the University. Looking toward the strengthening of our undergraduate instruction, the Department is now associating a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are now in charge of the large lecture courses. In Money and Banking, in the Relations of Government to Industry, and in Public Finance, this experiment is advanced sufficiently to indicate its desirability.

At the same time that our teaching problems have become intensified the need for the results of research is pressing. In periods of accelerated social evolution involving political and economic experimentation, the demand for accurate data is insistent. Relatively, economics is a young science. The foundations of fact are still being established. Investigations that may have an important bearing upon government policy should not be delayed. The economists of this University have contributed largely to their subject, but always with scant facilities in material equipment and in time.

Among the many problems confronting us as a group, that of securing the time necessary for research is perhaps the most troublesome. To our exacting teaching requirements must be added the demands for public service. Since the establishment of this Department, the requests for such service heave been continuous. Of late the increasing calls have raised a question which must be considered by the University administration. The opportunities for service to governments are gratifying. Undoubtedly these services belong among the necessary functions of a university. But obviously they do divert a considerable part of our time and energy from our strictly defined duties. Over the years the University is enriched by such services, but at any given time the responsibilities attaching to teaching and research are interrupted. If the University Includes public service among its important functions, the personnel of the staffs affected should be so adjusted that the work can be performed without overtaxing our internal activities.

During the past your, the leave of absence of Professor John M. Williams was continued to allow him to serve as Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to advise on monetary and credit policies, and to direct research. In the latter part of the year, Professor Williams was called by the Department of State to investigate certain conditions in Brazil, Uraguay [sic], Argentina, and Chili [sic]  and to formulate policies of exchange controls. Daring the second half-year, Assistant Professor Edward H. Chamberlin was granted leave of absence to work with the Committee on Government Statistics and Information Services in Washington. Also, during the second half-year, though leave was not requested, Assistant Professor William T. Ham was in Washington frequently, serving as a member of the staff of the Labor Advisory Board of the National Recovery Administration. And also, though no leave was requested, Professor John D. Black devoted a substantial part of the year to public service. He served on a number of committees connected with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and land utilization. At the request of Secretary Wallace, he organized and directed the activities of committees outlining programs of economic research in (1) the marketing of farm products and (2) farm population and rural life. Also at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, he served with two others to coordinate the work of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture. In the summer months, Drs. Alan Sweezy and Lauchlin B. Currie were called to the Treasury Department to serve as special investigators.

Owing to his illness, Professor Emeritus William Z. Ripley was unable to fulfill his duties as President of the American Economic Association. In his absence, Professor Abbott P. Usher, first Vice-President of the Association, was in charge of the December, 1933 session.

Notable among our publications of the year were Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy, by S. E. Harris, and The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, by E. H. Chamberlin. Because of its significance for immediate practical application, I am including at this point the Report of the Committee on Model State and Local Taxation, by Professor C. J. Bullock’s committee of the National Tax Association. Also at this point, mention should be made of Economics of the Recovery Program, by seven members of the Department. In the course of the year, about forty-five articles were contributed to scientific journals by various members of the Department.

Within the limitations described above, the research work of the staff is going forward at a satisfactory rate. Investigations in the following subjects are well advanced: History of the Industrial Revolution; Development of Banking and Credit in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; Evolution of English Company Law; Economic Fluctuations; Nature and Effects of Inflation; Index Numbers; Municipal Ownership of Public Utilities; State and Local Taxation; Unbalanced Budgets; The National Income; New England Agriculture; The Economics of Agricultural Production; German Trade Unionism; The Fundamentals of Sociology; Economics and Politics; Socialism as an International Movement.

A considerable number of these projects are nearing completion and should be ready for publication shortly. A large project on the relation of Government to Industry involving the efforts of a number of the staff is in its initial stages. This subject is of such immediate importance that other plans for research are being put aside until it can be carried to its completion. The Quarterly Journal of Economies has continued its usual high standard. During the year, five substantial volumes were added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

Again I would press the point that the potential research capacity of the Department is severely handicapped by the demands of teaching and public service.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 18, 1935

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

In the report of last year the effects of the contemporary political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research were discussed briefly. More than ever we are aware of the responsibilities incumbent upon the teacher of Economics in this period of rapid and far-reaching change. Our undergraduate instruction had been, and is, receiving particular attention. A few years ago we began experimentally the association of a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are nominally in charge of the larger lecture courses. We are quite convinced that this method of instruction is most effective. Also there is a positive, although perhaps incidental, advantage in this arrangement in that it relieves the pressure for the multiplication of undergraduate courses.

I find it necessary to stress again the problem presented by the demands upon our staff for services to the public. We believe that public service belongs among the necessary functions of a university. But under existing conditions large demands for public service at any given time bring serious interruptions to both research and instruction. “If the University includes public service among its important functions the personnel of the staffs affected should be so adjusted that the additional work can be performed without taxing severely our internal activities.”

I am very happy, to write that Professor Chamberlin’s “The Theory of Monopolistic Competition”, published somewhat over a year ago, has won immediate recognition as a foremost contribution to economic theory. During the past year two books of unusual importance have appeared,—Professor John D. Black, “The Dairy Industry and the A.A.A.”, and Professor Sumner Slichter, “Towards Stability”. Six manuscripts have been completed, and should appear in book form during the present year. It is significant that five of these books have been written by the younger members of our Department whose teaching duties have been mainly of a tutorial nature. Among the publications I should note the report submitted to the Treasury Department on the “Objectives and Criteria of Monetary Policy” by Dr. Alan Sweezy, and the report to the State Department on “Foreign Exchange Control in Latin America” by Professor John Williams.

In addition to the above volumes and reports the members of the Department published somewhat over fifty articles in the scientific journals of our subject. Some of these contributions are of major importance.

The investigations of the staff are being carried forward as satisfactorily as possible with the limited facilities that are at our disposal. Two researches on a very large scale have to do with the general subject of the Trade Cycle and the Relation of Government to Industry. Numerous important, but less extensive, investigations are in process.

Perhaps I should note here that a generous grant from the Rockefeller Foundation enabled the Department to undertake the continuation of the Review of Economic Statistics and the fundamental research that is involved in this publication, The Quarterly Journal of Economics long published by the members of this Department, together with the Review of Economic Statistics, are among the more important activities of the Department. In the course of the year three volumes more added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

As in my last report, I would again bring to your attention the disturbing fact that the potential research capacity of the Department is handicapped severely by the demands of administration, teaching, and public service.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1936

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

I find it necessary to emphasize again the effects of the contemporary political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research. It had been necessary to bring these matters to your attention in both of the preceding years, since they present such important problems to us. We feel an increasingly positive responsibility regarding out undergraduate instruction in this period of rapid and far-reaching change.

We have continued the experiment begun some few years ago of the association of a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are in charge of the large lecture courses. We believe that we are improving our instruction by this method, and at the same time this arrangement tends to relieve the pressure for the multiplication of undergraduate courses.

Perhaps as a result of the general social situation the elections of our undergraduate courses and the number of concentrators in Economics have increased very heavily. The problems of instruction presented by these overwhelming numbers are intensified perhaps by the personnel situation in which the Department finds itself. During the last dozen years the personnel of this Department—one of the largest in the University—has been changed completely. For a quarter of a century a group of eminent economists brought great prestige to the University. With the resignation of Professor Gay the active services of this group has come to an end. One cannot speak of replacing these scholars. They were unique both as individuals and as a group. Their leadership and their scholarship has left a lasting impression on the development of Economics. In the course of the passing of this group a now Department has been brought together. This new and younger Department is assuming full responsibility at the very time when questions of teaching and new methods of research are becoming insistent.

The demands upon members of our staff for public service continue. It has seemed expedient to encourage some few members to give their time and energy for public purposes. But with a minimum teaching force it has not been possible for all members of the Department to comply with the requests made. The public service relations of faculty members remains a question for the University to consider.

The Quarterly Journal of Economics celebrates this year its fiftieth anniversary. For forty years this Journal has won and held its prestige under the editorship of Professor F. W. Taussig. Professor Taussig, now emeritus, has graciously consented to continue as editor during the present year, but very shortly it will be necessary for us to provide for the editorial direction of this very important publication.

In an earlier report to you I indicated the activities of the Department in connection with the Review of Economic Statistics. The scientific work underlying this publication, as well as the journal itself, is now under the direction of a committee of the Department. The Review continues as a vehicle of publication of the results of investigations here and elsewhere regarding the business cycle. We have ambitious plans for the Review, and we have every reason to believe that its scientific usefulness will increase.

There is little question that, the research activities of practically all members of the staff have been curtailed by the heavy teaching loads which have been imposed. However, the research programs of various members and of various groups within the Department have shown marked progress in the past year. As I have indicated in an earlier report the research activities of our members are of two somewhat different types. Numerous members of the staff working altogether independently are pursuing their own researches while others working as a group are developing particular aspects of a well devised project in research. In the social sciences this latter type of work is rapidly assuming importance. In general it is this type of research which receives the support of the large foundations. Within our own group there are a number of projects of this character. Messrs. Mason, Chamberlin, Wallace, Cassels, Reynolds, and Alan Sweezy are developing Industrial Organization and Control. In the process of the exploration of this subject numerous independent volumes and studies will appear. Professors Mason, Chamberlin and Dr. Wallace are already well advanced in their study of monopolistic combinations and expect to complete it in about one year. Professor Cassels and Dr. Reynolds expect to finish their study on Canadian combinations this year, and Dr. Alan Sweezy is at work on investment policies. Dr. Wallace’s monograph, Market Control in the Aluminum Industry, is now going to press, and Dr. Abbott’s monograph on The Rise of the Business Corporation has just appeared and is being, used by our undergraduate courses. The full development of this program will take a number of years, but its completion will mark, I believe, a very significant chapter in research in the relation of government to industry.

Another cooperative project on the Farm Credit Administration is being carried on by Professors Black and Harris and Dr. Galbraith, largely with the assistance of grants from the Committee on Research in the Social Sciences. Professor Black is working on the cooperative aspects of the Farm Credit Administration’s policies. Professor Harris is working on the monetary and recovery aspects of the Farm Credit Administration’s loan operations. Dr. Galbraith is working on the structural aspects of the Farm Credit Administration and the mortgage, credit and production loan policies. Numerous articles resulting from this research have been published in scientific periodicals.

Professors Crum, Wilson, and Black are conducting a study of the relation of weather and other natural phenomena with the economic cycle. This study is partly financed by the United States Department of Agriculture.

I believe I have mentioned to you and to President Conant in conversation the plans which are being developed for large research projects in collaboration with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In addition to these cooperative projects all members of the Department are pursuing work along the lines of their individual interests. Professor Schumpeter’s study of time series and cyclical fluctuations is practically completed, and he hopes to send it to press by December. Professor Haberler’s major contribution—The Theory of International Trade and Its Application to Commercial Policy has been translated and is now available in English. For the past two years Professor Haberler has been working at Geneva on the Nature and Causes of the Recurrence of Economic Depressions which is soon to be published by the League of Nations. We are hoping to provide facilities for him so that the important research may be continued at Harvard. Professor Frickey’s study on a Survey of Time Series Analysis and Its Relation to Economic Theory is well advanced. The statistical work on the first volume has been completed, and he hopes to have it written by the middle of this present academic year. The statistical work on the second volume has been completed in part. Already two significant articles have been published. Professor Cole’s recent study in Fluctuations in American Business, written in collaboration with Professor W. B. Smith, was published late in 1935. Dr. Oakes’ investigations in Massachusetts Town Finance, the winner of the Wells Prize for 1935-36, is now being printed. Professor Chamberlin has continued to elaborate his Theory of Monopolistic Competition which is winning wide recognition among economist the world over. Numerous articles, some sixty in number, from members of the staff have appeared in various scientific periodicals in the course of the year.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

[Separate sheet following: I should have included Professor Harris’ Exchange Depreciation, Its Theory and History. We believe that this new book, which is being published today, will take Its place beside the significant contributions Professor Harris has made in the last half-dozen years, particularly his Monetary Problems of the British Empire and Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy.]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 21, 1937

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

Previous reports of the Department of Economics have brought to your attention the effect of the political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research. It is still necessary to point out that the positive responsibility of the Department regarding undergraduate instruction has not lessened.

The election of our undergraduate courses remains at substantially the high level of recent years, while the number of concentrators continues to increase.

Last year I mentioned that with the resignation of Professor Gay the active services of the senior members of this Department, had come to an end. At this point it seems necessary to put into writing a matter I have discussed with you in conversation which has important ramifications. Coincident with the resignation of Professor Gay there were increased elections in certain of our courses that involve a large degree of individual instruction and also on an increase in the number of students demanding tutorial supervision. To meet these latter problems it was necessary to add to our staff a group of young men to carry on the instruction in the elementary course, Accounting, Statistics, Money and Banking, and so on. With increased numbers in courses demanding increased instruction, increased cost cannot be avoided; but it seems to us that this increasing cost because of increasing should not result in less effective intellectual leadership. To transfer a considerable part of the salary released by a retiring professor of distinguished accomplishment to the support of routine instruction in middle group courses seems to us not to be wise University policy.

Professor Taussig has resigned as editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economies. For the time being, committee of the Department will undertake the editorial direction of this publication.

The Review of Economic Statistics, which appears under the direction of a committee of the Department, is financed by funds from the Rockefeller Foundation. Should the grant be continued, it is expected that the research activities of the committee will be increased.

Not less than ten members of the Department are concerned with the activities of the Graduate School of Public Administration. In some instances—as in the case of Dean Williams—their work in the School has been compensated by a reduction of work in the Department, but for the most part the activities in the new School are simply in addition to the duties of the staff members.

The Committee on Research in the Social Sciences, of which Professor Black is Chairman, is working in close cooperation with the National Bureau of Economic Research and its cooperating University agencies. Principle among them is the project upon Fiscal Policy for which Professor Crum is acting as Chairman.

The responsibilities and activities of members of the Department tend in some instances to change the direction of our research, but in only too many instances they also tend to retard our research.

In all directions, however, the research activities of the members of the Department were sustained, with six books and approximately sixty articles appearing. Special mention should he made of the following books:

Three Years of the AAA by John D. Black

A Study of Fluid Milk Prices by John M. Cassels. Wells Prize Essay of 1934-35

Professor Chamberlin’s significant volume, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition has been revised.

Prosperity and Depression by Gottfried Haberler

Exchange Depreciation by S. E. Harris. (Came from the press last fall, and mentioned a year ago.)

Studies in Massachusetts Town Finance by E. E. Oakes. Wells Prize Essay of 1935-36

Professor Schumpeter’s book on Business Cycles has been completed, and is now ready for the press.

Economic History of Europe since 1750 by Usher, Bowden, and Karpovich

Explorations in Economics. Essays in Honor of F. W. Taussig contains contributions by most of the members of the staff.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1938

Dear Dean Birkhoff,

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

As in previous years I am very happy, to be able to record that the research activities of the officers of the Department have been sustained. In the last two years I have been, able to enumerate an unusually large number of books actually published together with numerous contributions to our periodical literature. In the present year the number of volumes is smaller since the research activities of our staff are still in process. The most notable volumes are Professor Hansen’s Full Recovery or Stagnation and Professor Wallace’s Market Control in the Aluminum Industry. Professor Haberler devoted the major part of the year, and spent the summer abroad, revising his Prosperity and Depression. Also the volume by Professor Crum and Associates on Economic Statistics has been revised.

In all, some fifty or sixty periodical contributions have been made by members of the staff. Notable among these contributions have been the articles by Professor Slichter on “The Downturn of 1937” in the Review of Economic Statistics for August, 1938.

It fell to the lot of the officers of this Department, together with the officers of the Department of Government, to develop instruction in the Littauer School of Public Administration during the past year. Without going into the details of the principles upon which this instruction is based, it may be noted that research courses of a very advanced nature constitute the core of the work of the School. Professors Williams, Hansen, Black, Mason, Slichter, and Wallace are devoting a considerable proportion of their time to this work. It is expected and hoped that these activities will result in an increase in our contributions.

The grant of funds from the Rockefeller Foundation to subsidize the research underlying the Review of Economic Statistics expired with the closing of the fiscal year. This contribution made it possible to continue the Review, and to maintain the scholarly level of the contributions. In the course of the year the Review published a number of the contributions of the staff. Other contributions are nearing completion, and will be published in the present year. The accomplishments or Professors Crum and Haberler as Managing Editors of the Review should be noted. They have succeeded in restoring the very high level of scholarship which characterized the Review a decade ago. We believe that the Review in its present form adds materially to the prestige of the Department and the University.

Also I am happy to note that the Quarterly Journal of Economics under its new editorial staff is maintaining its high position.

There is little to be added to the points which have been discussed in previous reports. The Department finds itself fully occupied with the continuation of its traditional activities and the assumption of such new duties as are involved in the Graduate School of Public Administration. If the personnel of the Department remains constant, it will be necessary to reduce our activities, either in research, in teaching, or in both.

Last fall at a dinner of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics I reported in some detail regarding the increasing activities of members of the Department. This report led to the appointment of a committee to investigate the budgetary situation of the Department. The investigation conducted under the direction of Mr. George May of Price, Waterhouse, made some very interesting disclosures regarding the increasing load of the Department.

I believe that problems of undergraduate and graduate instruction, the tutorial situation, and the public service contributions of our members have been discussed sufficiently in previous reports. I can only repeat that “there is little question that the research activities of practically all members of the staff have been curtailed by the heavy loads of teaching and administration.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 16, 1939

Dear Dean Ferguson:

In accord with your recent request, I submit herewith a report of the work by the Department of Economies for the past year.

Honors have been bestowed upon members of the Department as follows: Professor Schumpeter has received an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Sofia, Bulgaria, and Professor Leontief has been elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society. Professor Williams was elected a Vice-President of the American Economic Association.

In the field of publications, the outstanding event is the final appearance of Professor Schumpeter’s two volume work on Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalistic Process. The fruition of years of study and research, this book is of especial interest as the first major work of Professor Schumpeter in the English language, his well-known Theory of Economic Development having appeared first in German before its translation into English much later. Other books actually appearing within the academic year (the fall of 1938) were referred to in our last report, such as Professor Hansen’s Full Recovery or Stagnation?, a revision of the volume on Economic Statistics by Professor Crum and associates, and a new, enlarged and revised edition of Prosperity and Depression by Professor Haberler (published by the League of Nations). During the year arrangements have been completed for the translation into Japanese of A History of Mechanical Inventions by Professor Usher. For some years Professor Emeritus F. W. Taussig has been at work on a thorough-going revision of his textbook on the Principles of Economics. Volume I appeared last spring, Volume 2 is in the press and will appear very shortly. This much needed revision (the last was in 1921) may regain for Professor Taussig’s text some of the preeminence it held in an earlier period before it had become so badly out of date. Politics, Finance and Consequences by Professor Emeritus C. J. Bullock, the result of continuing research since his retirement, has been published during the past year in the Harvard Economic Studies. A book of which Mr. Paul M. Sweezy was a prominent co-author, An Economic Program for American Democracy, is popularly supposed to have been influential in putting the stamp of economic authority upon recent economic policies of the Federal Government. Finally, some sixty-odd articles, addresses, and reviews by members of the Department have appeared in journals, both professional and popular, during the past year.

A matter not mentioned in our last report was a new policy adopted by the Quarterly Journal of Economics of publishing at intervals of approximately one year a series of supplements devoted to articles and studies of interest to scholars but of such length as to make their publication in the regular issues impractical. These supplements are sent to subscribers without charge, and additional copies are sold separately. The first of these appeared in May 1938, Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians by Professor Crum. Two other manuscripts have been accepted and will appear shortly.

The Committee on Problems of the Business Cycle has carried on the publication of the quarterly Review of Economic Statistics but because of the expiration of its grant of research money many of its new research investigation have been greatly curtailed. Quarterly issues of the Review of Economic Statistics, in addition to carrying the studies of current economic history which present a quarterly record of economic statistics for the United States with their interpretation, have published a wide range of articles on various aspects of the trade cycle problem. Several of these articles have been contributed by foreign specialists but more than half were produced by American writers (in this connection we may note that about one-fourth of the subscribers are located abroad). In addition to the normal research activities involved in studying current history the Committee has financed during the year a continuation of the special investigation by Dr. J. B. Hubbard of the remarkable developments in the issuance of securities since 1933. A further article in Dr. Hubbard’s series will appear in the issue of November 1939.

Mention has been made in previous reports of the burden placed upon particular members of the Department and thus upon the group as a whole by the responsibilities of public service. These responsibilities have continued and expanded during the past year. The adjustment of this burden is a pressing problem. Its immediate influence upon both teaching and research is adverse, yet no ready solution appears at hand. The additional burden of uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration presents an even more serious problem. For the most part the seminars and other activities of this School constitute a net additional load for those members of the Department responsible for them, and inevitably throw a heavier burden of administrative and other work upon others not directly concerned. Budgetary allowance for courses given within the School is an obvious answer to this problem, whenever it may become possible.

You have asked, among other things. for an account of “any changes in the methods of instruction”, of the Department. The changes here have been revolutionary. Over a long period of years there has been built up in the Department a staff of trained instructors and tutors, carrying on established traditions of teaching and constantly experimenting in the adaptation of methods to new problems. These men were sifted constantly, and the best of them retained for a substantial period, after which, if not advanced, they were without exception placed to advantage elsewhere. In view of the singular success with which in the past the personnel problem has been handled in Economics, it is not surprising that the Department is unanimous in viewing with dismay and discouragement the situation in which we now find ourselves. Fifteen teachers and tutors at the instructor or assistant professor level have left us within the past year, seven the preceding year. The general effect upon teaching may be indicated by the tutorial situation. Sixty-seven per cent of the students concentrating in Economics this year are tutored by men of two years or less experience, forty-three per cent by men of no tutorial experience whatsoever, Furthermore, it has been our policy in the past to stagger new men as between tutoring and Economics A, having them start in with either one alone and take up the other the following year. This fall we have been obliged to take on five men who are both teaching Economics A and tutoring for the first time. It has been our policy also to provide more experienced instruction in middle group courses through a period of apprenticeship in Economics A. This fall we have been obliged to put men of no classroom experience whatever directly into middle group courses. We are already experiencing in acute form the devastating effects upon instruction of a rapid turnover, brought on by the mass exodus of last year.

It takes time (and patience on the part of someone) to train men in the discussion method of teaching Economics which has been developed with such success in Economics A at Harvard University. Much is learned by slow experience, by making mistakes and by discussing techniques with fellow instructors, especially with those who have been through the mill. It is impossible to assimilate new men unless the collective experience of the group is maintained at a fairly high level. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that anyone in the Department will be interested in training them unless a substantial portion stay long enough to make it worth while.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

I submit herewith a report of the work by the Department of Economics for the past year. There is very little to report—no events or changes of outstanding importance, and only a few isolated items which might be of interest.

Professor Black has been elected to honorary membership in the Swedish Royal Society of Agriculture. Professor Slichter has been honored by appointment as Lamont University Professor.

In the field of publications there is the usual long list of articles in the professional periodicals, but no major work of importance by any member of the Department. Professor Usher’s History of Mechanical Inventions was during the year translated into Japanese. Also in the field of publications it is of interest that there has been begun under the supervision of a committee in the Department and financed in part by a grant from the A. W. Shaw Fund a new series entitled The Harvard Studies in Monopoly and Competition. The first two volumes of this series appeared within the year, — the first, Corporate Size and Earning Power, by Professor W. L. Crum, and the second, Control of Competition in Canada, by Lloyd Reynolds.

The Committee on Problems of the Business Cycle has continued publication of the quarterly Review of Economic Statistics. In place of the general reviews of current economic developments in the United States, which in earlier years had been regular features of each quarterly issue, the Review introduced this past year the policy of presenting each quarter an article pertaining to some specific problem of current interest. The November 1939 issue contained a study of the impact of the war on America commodity prices; the February 1940 number included a study of the current gold problem and the American economy; a review of recent developments in agriculture and the influences of the war on American agriculture appeared in May; while the August 1940 issue presented a comparison and evaluation of various estimates of unemployment in the United States. These studies have been made by members of the Department, with the Committee staff contributing assistance, whenever it was desired, in the preparation of the articles for publication. As in previous years, the Review has also presented articles covering a wide range of studies on various trade cycle problems; and the Review staff has continued the compilation of selected current economic series which have been used in research studies by Department members and graduate student within the Department.

There have been no important changes in policy in the year by the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The policy begun the previous year of publishing occasional supplements sent to subscribers without charge has been continued. Two supplements appeared during the year, Exchange Control in Austria and Hungary and Exchange Control in Germany, both by Professor Howard S. Ellis. Through an arrangement with the Harvard Economic Studies they will shortly appear in that series as a single volume.

During the year Professor Emeritus Frank W. Taussig attained his eightieth birthday. A tribute and greeting was presented to him on this occasion signed by some two hundred of his former students.

I call attention again to the continuing problem of the added burden to members of the Department for uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration. The situation here remains substantially as described in my last report. It remains one of the most serious problems which the Department has to meet in maintaining the standards of its instruction.

The quality of instruction given by the Department continues to suffer from the heavy losses in the junior personnel during the past few years. Sixty-four per cent of the students concentrating in Economics this year are tutored by men of two years or less experience, fifty-five per cent by men of one year or less. The difficulties of maintaining satisfactory instruction with such a rapid turnover remain almost insuperable, and concentration in Economics which has fallen off steadily over the past four years slumped most disastrously for the year 1940-41. Although most of the liquidation of our more experienced instructors and tutors had taken place before the year on which I am reporting, we have during that year again lost a number of our best men because of the limited inducement which could be offered for them to remain with us even for a short period.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1941

Dear Dean Ferguson:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

Professor Slichter has been elected President of the American Economic Association. This is the third time in the past five years that this honor has gone to an economist from Harvard, Professor Sprague having been elected in 1937-38 and Professor Hansen in 1938-39.

In the field of publications there have appeared, in addition to the usual long list of articles, several books of possible importance. I should mention especially Professor Slichter’s Union Policies and Industrial Management, Professor Leontief’s The Structure of American Economy: An Empirical Application of Equilibrium Analysis, and Dr. Triffin’s Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory. The latter appeared in the Harvard Economic Studies of which there have now been published 70 volumes, four within the past year. The new series of Harvard Studies in Monopoly and Competition has been augmented by two new volumes during the past year, bringing the total to four. Professor Usher’s History of Mechanical Inventions has again been translated, this time into Spanish. During the past year an arrangement was made with the Rockefeller Foundation (for the current year only) which if continued may prove to be of real importance to the members of our Department. Professor Crum has been relieved of one-half of his teaching duties for research through the payment by the Foundation of the salary of someone to replace him in his teaching assignment. In addition to providing possibilities for research to members of the Department, such an arrangement would have the added advantage of making it possible to invite to Harvard for short period either possible candidates for permanent appointments or others whose presence here for one year would prove stimulating to our students.

Again I call attention to the problem of the added burden to members of the Department for uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration. This has been from the beginning a serious matter in maintaining standards of instruction. It is especially a factor in concentrating the activities of the older members of the Department in the graduate field, leaving undergraduate instruction to be taken care of in undue degree by younger men whose experience on the average seems to decline further each year.

The quality of instruction by the junior staff continues to be a grave concern to our Department. Last year I mentioned that 64 per cent of the students concentrating in Economics were tutored by men of two years or less experience. This year the percentage has increased to 72, and the problem of finding enough experienced and competent tutors in the right fields for distinction seniors has become impossible to solve. The general situation is reflected also in Economics A where the percentage of new instructors has jumped alarmingly for the current year. For the five years 1936-41 the sections taught by new men averaged 24 per cent of the total. For the current year 39 per cent of the sections are taught by new men. For the same five years the sections taught by men of one year or less experience averaged 45 per cent of the total. For the current year this figure has advanced to 61 per cent. The large volume of complaints on the part of students as to the inexperience of their tutors and Economics A section instructors leaves no doubt in the minds of the Department that the continuing decline in concentration in Economies is mainly a reflection of this situation. In view of the competing opportunities for our younger men which have repeatedly been pointed out the problem for our Department continues to be not to maintain a high rate of turnover as the present rules of tenure seem designed to do, but to be able through more flexible arrangements both with respect to tenure and to salaries to maintain a staff sufficiently experienced to give satisfactory instruction to our undergraduates. Such instruction is clearly not being given at the present time.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

Image Source: Harold Hitchings Burbank from the Harvard Class Album 1934.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics Transcript for Edward Hastings Chamberlin, 1922-1927

In the previous post we have the academic backstory found in Edward Hastings Chamberlin’s application to the economics graduate program at Harvard. This post provides the academic record of Chamberlin while a graduate student at Harvard. He entered Harvard with an M.A. degree in economics from the University of Michigan which probably is sufficient explanation for his seemingly light graduate coursework at Harvard.

Edward Hastings Chamberlin’s papers can be consulted at Duke University’s David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library’s Economists’ Papers Archive. It is interesting to note that he seems to have audited Allyn Young’s Ec 15 course (which does not appear on his graduate transcript) since notes to that course are included in Chamberlin’s papers.

___________________________

Ph.D. in Economics Awarded 1927

Edward Hastings Chamberlin, S.B. (State Univ. of Iowa) 1920, A.M. (Univ. of Michigan) 1922, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1924.
Subject, Economics. Special Field, Economic Theory. Thesis, “The Theory of Monopolistic Competition.”
Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1926-1927, p. 102.

___________________________

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Record of Edward Hastings Chamberlin

Years: 1922-23, 1923-24, 1924-25, 1925-26, 1926-27

[Previous] Degrees received. Where? When?

S.B. State Univ. of Iowa 1920
A.M. Univ. of Michigan 1922

First Registration: 25 Sept. 1922

1922-23

Grades
First Year Course

Half-Course

Economics 11

A

Economics 41

A-

Division: Economics
Scholarship, Fellowship:
Assistantship:
Austin Teaching Fellowship:
Instructorship:
Proctorship:
Degree attained at close of year:

 

1923-24

Grades
Second Year Course

Half-Course

Economics 14

inc./exc.

Economics 23

exc.

Government 6

exc.

Marketing Problems

85%

Passed General Exam. in Economics,
22 May 1924

Division:
Scholarship, Fellowship: Henry Lee Mem’l Fellow
Assistantship:
Austin Teaching Fellowship:
Instructorship:
Proctorship:
Degree attained at close of year: A.M.

 

1924-25

Grades
Third Year Course

Half-Course

Economics 20 (A.A.Y.)

Division:
Scholarship, Fellowship:
Assistantship:
Austin Teaching Fellowship:
Instructorship: in Economics
Proctorship:
Degree attained at close of year:

 

1925-26

Grades
Fourth Year Course

Half-Course

Economics 20 (A.A.Y.)

A

Division:
Scholarship, Fellowship:
Assistantship:
Austin Teaching Fellowship:
Instructorship: in Economics.

Tutor in the Div. of History, Government, and Economics

Proctorship:
Degree attained at close of year:

 

1926-27

Grades
Fifth Year Course

Half-Course

Economics 20 (A.A.Y.)

A

Division:
Scholarship, Fellowship:
Assistantship:
Austin Teaching Fellowship: $1500
Instructorship: in Economics.

Tutor in the Div. of History, Government, and Economics $1200.

Proctorship:
Degree attained at close of year: Ph.D.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Record Cards of Students, 1895-1930, Burtt—Cook. Record Card of Edward Hastings Chamberlin.

___________________________

Course Names and Instructors

Pro-tip for linking course numbers to course names and instructors.

Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Course of instruction. 1879-2009.

1922-23

Economics 11. Economic Theory. Professor Frank W. Taussig

Economics 41. Statistical Theory and Analysis. Professors Allyn Abbott Young and Edmund Ezra Day

1923-24

Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848. Professor Charles Jesse Bullock

Economics 23. Modern Economic History since 1750. Assistant Professor Abbott Payson Usher

Government 6. History of Political Theory. Professor Charles Howard McIlwain.

Marketing Problems. [First Year, First Half course at the Graduate School of Business Administration]

1924-27.

Economic Research. Graduate students pursuing research may register in the following course, which has the same status as any of the other graduate courses in Economics. Such research will be under the direction of members of the Department, and may lie within any of the fields recognized as appropriate for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Economics 20. Professors Taussig, Carver, Ripley, Gay, Bullock, Young, and Persons. Members of the Faculty of the Graduate School of Business Administration will also guide research lying within their respective fields

___________________________

Image Source: Faculty picture of Edward H. Chamberlin from the Harvard Class Album, 1932.

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard Iowa Michigan Undergraduate

Harvard. Application for Admission to Economics Ph.D. Program. Edward H. Chamberlin, 1922

 

The archived student records of the Graduate School of Arts and Science at Harvard University provide us material needed to write a prequel to a Ph.D. economist’s professional biography. To illustrate the the richness of such material, I have transcribed Professor Edward Hasting Chamberlin’s application materials that he submitted to Harvard. Judging from a couple of issues of Iowa’s “The Hawkeye Yearbook”, it does appear that Edward Chamberlin was quite a Busy Man on Campus during his undergraduate years.

Pro-tip. More information about the faculties and courses of instruction during Chamberlin’s pre-Harvard  university days can be culled from the respective university catalogues archived at  hathitrust.org:

Catalogues of the State University of Iowa.
Catalogues of the University of Michigan.

Fun-fact: Edward H. Chamberlin played the role of Geoffrey Rawson in the production of Mrs. Bumpstead-Leigh performed May 12, 1920 at the Englert Theatre (joint production of the Erodelphian Literary Society and Irving Institute). The Hawkeye Yearbook, 1921.

_____________________________________

POLITICAL ECONOMY, SOCIOLOGY,
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

532 Thompson St.
Ann Arbor, Mich.
April 11, 1922.

Mr. George W. Robinson, Secretary
The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences,
Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Sir:

Enclosed with this letter are transcripts of my work at the State University of Iowa and at the University of Michigan and my application for admission to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics at Harvard University. Under separate cover I am making marked copies of the University of Michigan and the State University of Iowa. In some cases the catalogues do not indicate the work taken on account of changes. In these instances I have tried to duplicate the needed information in the margins.

I am making my application early so that I may know in advance as much as possible about the work I must take for my degree I presume that individual courses are not settled upon until after a conference. I shall be glad if I may know this spring how much credit will be allowed me for previous work, how much additional coursework will be required, and in what general branches.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Edward H. Chamberlin

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
ARTS AND SCIENCES

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO CANDIDACY FOR A DEGREE IN ARTS OR PHILOSOPHY

NAME:  E. H. Chamberlin

DATE   April 1922

DEGREE APPLIED FOR Ph.D.

SUBJECT Economics

COLLEGE State U. of Iowa and U. of Mich.

REMARKS

B, except for French

25 Apr. 1923: French O.K.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Application for Admission to Candidacy for a Degree in Arts or Philosophy

[Note: Chamberlin’s responses in his application have been highlighted using boldface.]

Return this application, with certificates of other evidences of scholarship and character, to the Secretary of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, No. 24 University Hall, Cambridge, Mass.

Applications for the degree of Master of Arts or Doctor of Philosophy will be received as late as the fifteenth day of January of the academic year in which the degree is to be taken; but candidates are urged to file their applications at the beginning of the year or ealirer, so that they may receive timely advice with reference to the work that will be expected of them for the degree.

The application should be accompanied by a Recorder’s or Registrar’s certificate of the applicant’s college or university work, and also, if possible, by a college catalogue or catalogues in which the studies he has taken are clearly marked. Final admission to candidacy for a degree is always conditional upon satisfactory official certification of the facts stated in the application.

Applications for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy should be filed, if possible, at the beginning of a student’s Graduate work for the degree.

An applicant for the degree of Master of Arts, who wishes to take later the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, should state the fact in his application for the Master’s degree, which will then be considered with reference to both degrees.

  1. Full name. Edward Hastings Chamberlin
  2. Post-office address. (Give prompt notice to the Secretary of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of any change.). 532 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
  3. Date and place of birth. La Conner, Wash. May 18, 1899.
  4. High schools or other preparatory schools attended, and periods of attendance. Iowa City (Iowa) High School. 4 years
  5. Colleges and universities attended and periods of attendance. What course did you take (classical, literary, scientific, etc.)? Univ. of Iowa. 1916-1920. Commerce; Univ. of Michigan. graduate. 1920-1922.
  6. If you are an undergraduate, state: (a) What degree you expect, and when. [left deliberately blank]. (b) Rank or average standing in class [left deliberately blank]
  7. If you have received a degree, state what degree, from what college, and when. B.S. in Commerce, Univ. of Iowa, June, 1920; M.A. University of Michigan, June, 1922.
  8. If you have been a Graduate student at any college or university, state where, when, and in what subjects. State University of Iowa, summer sessions 1920 and 1921. Income Tax. Pol. Science; Univ. of Michigan 1920-1921, 1921-1922, Economics, Philosophy.  and name your principal teachers in those subjects. Iowa. Prof. R. A. Stevenson [Associate Professor of Accounting, Russell Alger Stevenson, B.A. Michigan, 1913; M.A. Iowa, 1915; Ph.D. Michigan, 1918], Prof. Jacob Van der Zee [Assistant Professor of Political Science Jacob Van der Zee, B.A. Iowa, 1905; B.A. Oxford, 1908; M.A. 1913; LL.B. Iowa, 1913]; Michigan, Prof. F. M. Taylor [Professor of Political Economy and Finance Fred Manville Taylor, Ph.D.], Prof. I. L. Sharfman [Professor of Economics Isaiah Leo Sharfman, A.B., LL.B.], Dean Alfred H. Lloyd [Professor of Philosophy and Dean of the Graduate School Alfred Henry Lloyd, Ph.D.].
  9. Honors or other evidences of high scholarship awarded to you. Phi Beta Kappa. Beta Gamma Sigma.
  10. For what degree (or degrees) do you wish to be a candidate, and when? Doctor of Philosophy in Economics, September 1922.
  11. Of the following branches, underscore once those which you have studied in college, and [mark with an asterisk (*)] those in which you have done advanced work. This information should be supplemented by a carefully marked and annotated catalogue or calendar.
Hebrew Government Physics
Sanskrit *Economics Chemistry
Greek Sociology Botany
Latin *Philosophy Zoölogy
English Composition Education Geology
English Literature Fine Arts Physiography
German Architecture Mineralogy
French Music Mining
Italian Mathematics Anthropology
Spanish Astronomy Subjects not classified above.
History Engineering Psychology
Journalism
  1. (a) State which of the languages named below you have studied, and how long in each case. German 1 1/2 yrs. high school; 2 yrs. Univ.  French [deliberately blank], Greek [deliberately blank], Latin 2 years high school. Any modern foreign language other than German and French. Spanish.  (b) Do you know German and French well enough to be able to consult works on your subject in these languages? German-yes; French-no.
  2. In what subject do you wish to be considered as a candidate for a degree? State in detail your previous work in this subject.

Economics

Industrial History
4 sem. hrs.
Intro. to Econ. Theory
6 sem. hrs.
Research in Accounting
2 sem. hrs.
Commercial Geography
4 sem. hrs.
Cost Accounting
4 sem. hrs.
Railroads
3 sem. hrs.
Prin. of Economics
6 sem. hrs.
Public Utility Accounting
2 sem. hrs.
Essentials of Ec. Theory (continued)
2 sem. hrs.
Prin. of Accounting
6 sem. hrs.
Income Tax
2 sem. hrs.
 

*The course in Ec. statistics had nothing to do with statistics but dealt with the nature of income and sundry other subjects.

 

Business Efficiency
4 sem. hrs.
Essentials of Econ. Theory
2 sem. hrs.
Corporation Finance
4 sem. hrs.
Commercial Law
4 sem. hrs.
Banking
2.6 sem. hrs.
*Economic Statistics
4 sem. hrs.
Problems of Peace and Reconstruction
1.3 sem. hrs.
Studies in Econ. Theory
(History of Econ. Thought)
2 sem. hrs.
Industrial History
4 sem. hrs.
Intro. to Econ. Theory
6 sem. hrs.
  1. Present occupation. (State definitely.) Instructor in Economics, University of Michigan.
  2. If you are, or have been a teacher, what positions have you held? at what institutions? in what subjects? and during what periods of time? Instructor, University of Michigan (1920.-1921; 1921-1922) and University of Iowa (Summer Session 1921); Economics and Accounting—Sept. 1920 to June 1922.
  3. From whom can information as to your previous work be obtained? Prof. F. M. Taylor [Professor of Political Economy and Finance Fred Manville Taylor, Ph.D.], and Prof. I. L. Sharfman [Professor of Economics Isaiah Leo Sharfman, A.B., LL.B.], Ann Arbor, Mich.; Prof. F. H. Knight [Associate Professor of Economics Frank Hyneman Knight, B.S. Tennessee, 1913; A.M. 1913; Ph.D. Cornell, 1916], University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
  4. List of printed and written documents submitted with this application. Catalogue, University of Michigan—separate cover; Catalogue, University of Iowa—separate cover; Certified record of courses pursued from Iowa and Michigan

Signature. [signed] Edward H. Chamberlin
Place of writing this application. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Date. April 11, 1922

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
IOWA CITY

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

of Edw. Hastings Chamberlin
College Liberal Arts

Secondary Credits Accepted from Iowa City, Iowa

Units

Latin

2

French
German

English

4

History—Gv.—Econ.

2

Algebra

P. & S. [Plane & Solid] Geometry

Science

2

Draw.

2

16

Entrance conditions: none

Degree B.S.C. Conferred [date] 6-15-20

This is a true statement of the credit earned by Edw. Hastings Chamberlin in the college of Liberal Arts of the State University of Iowa.

[signed] [?Signature illegible], Asst Registrar
Date 7/31/20

1916-17

Cat No

Subjects 1st Sem 2nd Sem
Hrs Gr Hrs

Gr

Drill

excused

½

B

Phy Training

excused

½

Cr

Fresh. Sect.

1

C

1, 2 Eng. (Rhet.)

2

A 2

B

13, 14 German (Interm.)

5

C 5

C

5 Math. (Trig. Alg.)

5

A

3 Econ (Ind.Hist.)

4

B

4 Econ. (Com. Geog.)

4

B

6 Math. (An. Geom.)

5

A

1917-18

Cat No

Subjects 1st Sem 2nd Sem
Hrs Gr Hrs

Gr

Drill

.5

Cr .5

Cr

1 Econ (Prin.)

1(2)

3

B 3

C

7 Econ. (Elem.Acc.) 7(8)

3

A 3

A

21 Eng. (Lit.) 21(22)

3

B 3

B

51 Spanish (Elem.)

51(52)

5

A 5

A

179 Eng. (Editing) 179

2

C

Phy. Tr.

.5

C

1918-19

Cat No

Subjects 1st Sem 2nd Sem
Hrs Gr Hrs

Gr

Psych. (Elem.)

1,2

2

B 2

B

Span. (2d yr.) 54,55

2

A 2

A

Econ. (Efficiency) 167,168

2

B 2

A

Econ. (Corp. Finance) 143,144

2

B 2

B

Econ. (Banking) 165,166

1.3

B 1.3

A

Econ. (Prob. Peace & Recon.)

50

1.3

C

Officers’ Training Course, Fort Sheridan, Ill. 6 s.h.
Service in the U.S. Army 7-18-18 to 1-15-19 10 s.h.
1238

1254

10-11-19

1919-20

Cat No Subjects Fall Winter Spring
Hrs Gr Gr Gr Hrs Gr
Com. (Intro. Econ. Theory) 135

2

A 2 A 2

A

Com. (Cost Account) 131

2

B 2 A

Com. (Com. Law) 189

1.3

B 1.3 B 1.3

A

Math. (2d yr. L.A. Math) 3

2.7

A 2.7 A 2.7

A

Com. (Pub. Ut. Acc’t) 132

2

A

 

Summer Session 1920

Cat No

Subjects July
Hrs

Gr

Econ VI

2

A

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Summer Session 1921

Cat No

Subjects August
Hrs

Gr

Pol Sci 11S

1.6

P

Pol Sci 117S

.4

P

[Summer Session 1921 from a card from the State University of Iowa, Iowa City. Registrar: H. C. Dorcass [University Examiner and Registrar Herbert Clifford Dorcas, B. Ph. Iowa, 1895; M.A. Columbia, 1903] 9/19/21]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ANN ARBOR

GRADUATE SCHOOL
OFFICE OF THE DEAN
[Transcript of courses taken
by Edward H. Chamberlin]

April 7, 1922.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that Mr. Edward H. Chamberlin, B.S. in Commerce, University of Iowa, was admitted to this Graduate School in the fall of 1920 as a candidate for the Master’s degree. During his residence in the School, Mr. Chamberlin has pursued the following courses:

First Semester, 1920-21

Course

No. Credit

Grade

Economics

8 2 hrs. B
Economics 13d 2 hrs.

A

Economics

17 1 hr. A

Second Semester, 1920-21

Economics

7 2 hrs. A
Economics 8a 2 hrs.

B

Economics

18 1 hr. A

First Semester, 1921-21

Philosophy

9a 3 hrs. A
Economics 6 3 hrs.

A

German

*9c —— B

Second Semester, 1921-22

Economics

8 2 hrs. Now taking.
Philosophy 9b 3 hrs.

Now taking.

German

*10c —— Now taking.

A=Excellent, B=Good, C=No graduate credit,  *Undergraduate course

Mr. Chamberlin was granted credit towards the Master’s degree at this University for graduate work done at the State University of Iowa. Upon the satisfactory completion of the work now being pursued, the degree of Master of Arts will be conferred upon Mr. Chamberlin in June, 1922.

[signed] Alfred H. Lloyd
Dean, Graduate School.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Carbon Copy of Reply to Chamberlin’s Application of 11 April 1922

13 April 1922

My dear Sir:

Your application for admission to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences as a candidate for a higher degree has been received and examined. The obvious difficulty in your case is your deficiency in French. I accordingly advise you to devote as much time as possible to work in this language between now and next fall. In the meantime you will do well to look over the scheme of subjects from which selections are made, in preparation for the general or preliminary examination for the doctorate, and at the beginning of the year you should consult Professor Charles H. Haskins, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, as to the arrangement of your work. i see no specific deficiency in your preparation other than the French, and I see no reason to doubt that you can arrange a satisfactory plan of work for the doctorate in consultation with Dean Haskins and with the Department of Economics. It is impossible at present to make any very definite estimate of the length of time that your work would require. I should suppose that you ought to plan for two solid years at least, with the idea that if your work is not completed by the end of that time you may perhaps be able to finish up your thesis in absentia, and then to come back for your final examination. If a part of your time during either of the two years is devoted to work as assistant or instructor, at least a  third year in residence would presumably be necessary.

Very truly yours,
[Carbon copy unsigned]

Edward H. Chamberlin

Source: Harvard University Archives. GSAS student folders (UAV161.201.10), Box 117, Folder: E. H. Chamberlin.

Image: Edward Chamberlin. University of Iowa. The Hawkeye 1920, p. 37.

 

Categories
Austria Economists Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. Ludwig von Mises visits the economics department, 1940

“Money as a Dynamic Factor” was the title of the talk given by Ludwig von Mises Thursday evening, December 5, 1940 at the Harvard department of economics. From a memo written by Paul Sweezy [transcribed for the following post] we know that the cocktail committee added sherry and whiskey to the selection of hard drinks served as refreshment that evening.

________________________

Carbon copy of letter from Chamberlin to Mises

November 20, 1940

Dear Dr. von Mises:

            The Department of Economics at Harvard would like to offer their graduate students the privilege of meeting you and hearing you while you are in this country. Would it be possible for you to speak at Harvard on the evening of either December 5 or December 12? If so, I should be glad to receive from you suggestions as to possible subjects. We should hope, too, that you would be able to remain in Cambridge for a day or so in order to give students and others a chance to talk with you informally. An honorarium of $100 will be paid (from which you would be expected to meet your own travelling expenses).

            I very much hope you will be able to accept this invitation.

Sincerely yours,

 

E. H. Chamberlin

Dr. Ludwig von Mises
599 West End Avenue
New York City

________________________

Mises’ Reply to Chamberlin

 Ludwig Mises

New York, Nov. 23, 1940

Dear Professor Chamberlin:

Thank you very much for your kind invitation. I shall be very pleased to address the graduate students of your Department.

            I hope that nothing will prevent me from delivering my address on the first of the two days you suggested in your letter (i.e. December 5) and to have informal talks with the students on the following days.

            Would you consider as a suitable topic for my address: “Money as a dynamic factor”?

Sincerely yours

[signed] L. Mises

________________________

Department Announcement
of Lecture by Mises

Department of Economics

Professor Ludwig von Mises, formerly of the University of Vienna and of the Institute for International Studies at Geneva, will speak on “Money as a Dynamic Factor”, in the Littauer Lounge at 8 P.M., Thursday, December 5 [1940].

(Open to members of the University)

________________________

Thank you note from Mises

New York, December 11, 1940

Dear Professor Chamberlin

Thank you for your kind letter of December 9. May I express once again my gratitude for the warm reception you and your colleagues accorded me. It was a great pleasure to me to have the opportunity to meet the distinguished members of your department.

Sincerely yours

Ludwig Mises

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961. Box 25 (Visiting Committees-Whippen), Folder: “Possible Visitors to Econ. Department”.

Image Source:  Ludwig von Mises (1935) at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Digital website.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Basic graduate microeconomic theory. Chamberlin and Samuelson, 1956-1957

 

For some reason, Paul Samuelson was asked to help out with the teaching of Edward H. Chamberlin’s graduate theory course during the 1956-57 academic year. In Paul Samuelson’s papers at Duke I was able to find a letter from the Harvard economics chair, Seymour Harris, confirming his appointment as “Visiting Professor” for co-teaching Economics 201. The actual “allocation of subject matter” between Chamberlin and Samuelson is not clear from Samuelson’s papers, nor from the course outlines. Since the second semester reading list only has Chamberlin’s name on it, it seems likely that Samuelson’s participation was limited to the first semester of the course. Because Robert Bishop’s manuscript on Economic Theory (taught to generations of M.I.T. graduate students) was included in the first section of the fall semester reading list and we find questions for a one hour mid-term exam in Samuelson’s folder for the course, I am led to conjecture that Samuelson taught most or all of the first half of the fall semester of the course. As we can see from the internal M.I.T. department teaching records included below, Paul Samuelson continued teaching his courses at “Tech” that year.

Perhaps a future trip to Duke University’s David M. Rubenstein Rare Book Manuscript Library  to consult the Edward H. Chamberlin papers that were donated in 2019 will help to establish why Samuelson was needed at Harvard that year.

_________________________

Letter from Chairman Seymour Harris to Paul Samuelson
May 25, 1956

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

May 25, 1956

Professor Paul A. Samuelson
Department of Economics and Social Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

Dear Paul:

Economics 201 meets Tuesday, Thursday, and at the pleasure of the instructor Saturday at 10. It would be hard to change that hour because of the arrangement of other courses, and also because we must have the same hour for the second semester.

I hope that you would get together with Ed and discuss the allocation of subject matter. You can have [Richard] Gill as an assistant, and he would, I am sure, be willing to meet the class once a week when you think it necessary. You will find him a most adequate assistant.

I may add that the Dean has agreed to recommend your appointment as a Visiting Professor, which is an unusual appointment, for most appointments of this kind, inclusive of Tech, are Visiting Lecturers. This suggests the high regard in which we hold you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SEH/c
cc: Professor Chamberlin

P.S. I hope you will remember to bring my article on Saturday and any comments.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Paul Samuelson, Box 33, Folder “Ec201 Harvard Course, 1955-1956 [sic]”.

_________________________

From the M.I.T. economics department records for 1955-56

Paul Samuelson was teaching full time 1956-57. He taught Economics and Industrial Management (14.117) and Mathematical Approach to Economics (14.151) in the fall semester and Economic Analysis (14.122) and Economics Seminar (14.192) in the Spring semester.

Source:  M.I.T. Archives. M.I.T. Department of Economics Records, 1947—. Box 3, Folder “Teaching Responsibility”.

_________________________

Enrollment figures from Harvard President’s Report

[Economics] 201. Economic Theory. Professor Chamberlin and Professor Samuelson (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Full course.

(F) Total 38: 26 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 4 Radcliffe, 5 Others.
(S) Total 39: 27 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 3 Radcliffe, 6 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1956-1957, p. 70.

_________________________

Economics 201
Economic Theory
Fall 1956
READING LIST

I. Supply, Demand, Revenue and Cost

Marshall, Principles (4th edition or later), Book III, Ch. 3, 4, 6

Mill, Principles, Book III, Ch. 1-6

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 2

Schultz, H., Theory and Measurement of Demand, pp. 5-12

Bishop, Economic Theory Ms., Book II, Ch. 1, 2, 3

Viner, Cost Curves and Supply Curves (1930), AFA or Clemence Readings

Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch. 2

Suggested:

Ricardo, Political Economy (Gonner Edition or Sraffa Edition), Chapter I

Mills’ Autobiography or the Introduction to the Ashley edition of the Principles

Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, Chapters 3, 4

Keynes, “Alfred Marshall,” Economic Journal, September 1924 (Also in Keynes, Essays in Biography)

II. Production and Consumption Analysis

A. Production and Cost

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 8, Appendix B

Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, pp. 94-109.

Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories, Introduction

Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 7, 8

Suggested:

Douglas, P. Theory of Wages

Hicks, Value and Capital, Chs. 6, 7

Carlson, Sune, Theory of Production

Cassels, J. H, “On the Law of Variable Proportions,” in Explorations in Economics, essays in honor of Taussig

Schneider, E., Pricing and Equilibrium

B. Utility and Consumption Theory

Hicks, Value and Capital, Chs. 1, 2, 3

Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 5, 6

III. Welfare Economics

Boulding, K., “Welfare Economics,” Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. II

Hicks, J.R., “Foundations of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal, 1939

Pigou, A.C., Economics of Welfare, Preface, Part I., Chs. 3, 7, 8; Part II, Introductory, Ch. 9

Lerner, A. P., Economics of Control, Chs. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9

Source: Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003”, Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1956-1957 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

Economics 201
Hour Exam
November 3, 1956

  1. Define “external” and “internal” economies. What do we mean when we say these economies are (a) “pecuniary,” (b) technological”? (10 min.)
  2. What are the conditions of stable equilibrium of supply and demand as analyzed by (a) Walras and (b) Marshall? Explain the “apparent contradiction” between the Walrasian and Marshallian stability conditions. (20 min.)
  3. In the “Ricardian increasing cost” case, as described by Viner, what would be the effect on price, output, and rent to the fixed factor, of a tax of “x” cents per unit of output? Illustrate graphically. (20 min.)

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Paul Samuelson, Box 33, Folder “Ec201 Harvard Course, 1955-1956 [sic]”.

_________________________

1956-57
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Economics 201
Midyear examination. January, 1957.

Answer the first two (2) questions and any three (3) of the others. Be sure to allocate your time approximately as indicated.

  1. (Forty-five minutes). Assume two individuals (who act as pure competitors) and two commodities. Given the “production-possibility” or “transformation” curve for each individual and also his indifference map, indicate graphically: a) the equilibrium price; b) the equilibrium quantities of each good produced by each individual; and c) the quantity of each good exchanged.
  2. (Forty-five minutes). Discuss the scope and limitations of “Welfare Economics.” Illustrate your discussion with reference to one or two specific theoretical problems (e.g., the box-diagram).
  3. (One-half hour). A production function relates product (Q) to two factors, labor (L) and capital (C). Distinguish the “three stages” for each factor, and give an interrelations among them in a) the case of constant returns to scale (homogeneous production function) and b) the general case.
  4. (One-half hour). Distinguish “internal” and “external” economies and analyze the possibility of equilibrium under pure competition in each case.
  5. (One-half hour). A monopolistic firm can buy labor and land at fixed prices but sells its output in an impurely-competitive market. Now let it be subject to a tax of $X per unit of its output. On the oversimplified assumption that the tax leaves its factor prices, the consumer demand for its product, and its production function unchanged, compare the new equilibrium of output, price, and factor hirings with the old.
  6. (One-half hour). Define the “income” effect and “substitution” effect of a price change. Indicate, in terms of these effects, the likelihood of a) a backward-bending supply curve, and b) a positively-sloping demand curve.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 25. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. January, 1957.

_________________________

A twitter prayer.

_________________________

Economics 201
Spring Term, 1956-57
Economic Theory—Professor Chamberlin

I. Monopoly and Monopolistic Competition

Chamberlin, Monopolistic Competition, Chapters 1, 4,5, 9.

_________, “Monopolistic Competition Revisited,” Economica, November 1951.

Robinson, J., Imperfect Competition, Foreword, Introduction, Chapter 1.

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 3, Appendix A.

Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium T-heory, pp. 78-108.

Hall and Hitch, “Price Theory and Business Behavior,” Oxford Economic Papers, No. 2 (1939). (Also in Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism, T. Wilson, Editor).

Chamberlin, “‘Full Cost’ and Monopolistic Competition,” Economic Journal, May 1952.

_________, “The Product as an Economic Variable,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1953.

Monopolistic Competition, Appendix C, Chapters 6, 7.

Chamberlin, “Product Heterogeneity and Public Policy,” American Economic Review, May 1950.

Suggested:

Robinson, J., Imperfect Competition, Chapters 3-7.

Fellner, Competition Among the Few, Chapters 1-7.

Holton, Richard H., “Marketing Structure and Economic Development,” Q.J.E., August 1953.

Alsberg, C. L., “The Economic Aspects of Adulteration and Imitation,” Q.J.E., 46:1 (1931)

Brems, “The Interdependence of Quality Variations, Selling Effort, and Price,” Q.J.E., May 1948.

II. Income Distribution—General; Wages.

Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, 3.

Marshall, Principles, Book VI, Chapters 1-2.

Hicks, Theory of Wages, Chapters 1-4.

Readings, 12.

Monopolistic Competition, Review Chapter 8 and pp. 215-18, 249-52, (5th or later edition).

Hicks, Chapters 5, 6.

Marshall, Book VI, Chapters 3-5.

Taussig, Principles, 4th edition, Chapter 52 (or 3rd revised edition, Chapter 47).

E.H.C., “The Monopoly Power of Labor,” in The Impact of the Union.

Readings, 19.

Hicks, pp. 170-185.

Suggested:

1. Douglas, Theory of Wages, Chapter 2.

2. J.B. Clark, Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 7, 8, 12, 13.

III. Interest

Böhm-Bawerk, Positive Theory, Book I, Chapter 2; Book II; Book V.

Marshall, Principles, Book IV, Chapter 7; Book VI, Chapter 6.

Wicksell, Lectures, Vol. I, pp. 144-171, 185-195, 207-218.

Clark, J.B., Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 9, 20.

Suggested:

Fisher, I., Theory of Interest, Chapters 5, 6.

Readings, Chapters 20, 21.

IV. Rent

Ricardo, Chapter 2.

Marshall, Book V, Chapters 8-11.

Robinson, Imperfect Competition, Chapter 8.

V. Profits

Marshall, Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 7; Chapters 7,8.

Taussig, Principles  (4th edition), Vol. II, Chapter 49, Section 1 (3rd revised edition, Chapter 50, Section 1)

Veblen, Theory of Business Enterprise, Chapter 3.

Henderson, Supply and Demand Chapter 7.

Bernstein, P., “Profit Theory—Where Do We Go From Here?” Q.J.E., August 1953

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 5, Section 6; Chapter 7, Section 6; Appendices D, E.

Schumpeter, Theory of Economic Development, Chapters 1-4.

Suggested:

1. Readings, 27, 29.

Source: Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003”, Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1956-1957 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 201
Final Examination
May, 1957

A. Choose two of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

  1. Write a brief article on the subject of “oligopoly” designed for an encyclopedia of the social sciences, and therefore to be consulted and used mainly by non-specialists in the subject. (Consider well your objective before you begin.)
  2. Discuss excess capacity in the economy, its meaning and its compatibility with “equilibrium.” What are the chief forces tending (a) to bring about, and (b) to eliminate, excess capacity?
  3. (a) Discuss the issues involved in distinguishing between production costs and selling costs, and defend your own conclusions. (b) Are selling outlays, like production outlays, subject to the law of diminishing returns? Discuss, and illustrate your conclusion graphically.

B. Choose four of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

  1. “It is inappropriate to say that the marginal productivity of a certain type of labor determines its wage; wages, like the prices of all economic goods, are determined by both supply and demand.” Discuss with particular reference to the role of supply factors in an adequate theory of wages.
  2. Develop the role which you would give to either (a) monopoly, or (b) rent, in your own theory of wages.
  3. “Waiting is certainly not an element of the economic process in a static state, because the circular flow, once established, leaves no gaps between outlay or productive effort and the satisfaction of wants. Both are, following Professor Clark’s conclusive expression, automatically synchronized.” Discuss the several aspects of this quotation.
  4. Outline your own theory of land rent, with some critical discussion of writers with whom you are familiar. (Restrict your discussion to the problem of land income, without extending the analysis to other factors.)
  5. Write on risk as an element in the theory of profits, choosing such subdivisions or aspects of the problem as seem to you most significant. In what respects, if at all, would you regard a risk theory of profits as inadequate?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. June, 1957. In bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences—June 1957 (HUL 7000.28, 113 of 284).

Image Sources:

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, Edward H. Chamberlin, Fellow 1958.

M.I.T., Paul Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service.  Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Exams for first-year graduate economic theory. Haberler.

 

The first year graduate theory course at Harvard was jealously taught by Edward Chamberlin during the mid-20th-century. In 1950-51 Chamberlin sailed off to France as a Fulbright Exchange Scholar, leaving “his” course to be taught by the other alpha-theorist in the department, Gottfried Haberler. The outline and reading list for the two semester graduate introductory economic theory sequence (Economics 201) were transcribed and posted earlier. Today I just noticed that I hadn’t yet transcribed the exams for Ec 201 in 1950-51 that were copied during a later archival visit. So without further ado, I gladly (and proudly) add these exams to the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror collection.

_________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 201 (formerly Economics 101a and 101b). Economic Theory

Full course. Tu., Th., and (and the pleasure of the instructor) Sat at 10. Professor Haberler.

This course is normally taken by graduate students in their first year of residence. 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Courses of Instruction, Box 6, Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences During 1950-51,  p. 83.

_________________________

First Semester Final Exam, January 1951

1950-51
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 201a

Answer Five questions (Write legibly!)

  1. “Utility theory of the cardinal as well as of the ordinal type is a superstructure of questionable utility. It is much more sensible to start economic analysis with demand and supply curves and to forget about utility altogether.” (Cassel). Comment.
  2. In a price-quantity diagram we are given a demand curve for commodity A in terms of commodity B. Suppose we now look at this relationship as a supply of B in exchange for A. Show graphically what the supply curve of B will look like under the following assumptions:
    1. The demand curve for A is a sloping straight line.
    2. The demand curve for A has a constant elasticity of unity.
    3. The demand curve for A is infinitely elastic.
    4. The demand curve for A has an elasticity of less than one.
      Draw each supply curve alongside of the corresponding demand curve.
  3. It has been often argued, especially by Walras, that under free competition exchange produces an “optimum” situation. But it has also been stated that a discriminating monopolist can reach an “optimum” position as compared with a simple monopolist. Discuss the meaning and limitations of these statements with the aid of two superimposed indifference maps.
  4. Draw the short run and long run cost curves of an individual firm including marginal cost, average total cost and average variable cost curves.
    Indicate and discuss how the short run and long run supply curve of the firm is derived from or related to the cost curves.
  5. How do you derive an industry supply curve from the supply curves of the individual firms? Under what assumptions can that be done by simply adding horizontally the individual supply curves?
  6. Discuss the factors which may limit the size of a firm and the degree of vertical integration.
  7. Explain the meaning and the use of the production function. How would you derive a cost curve from the production function of a single product and two factors?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 17, Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, Government, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science, January 1951 (in bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences, Jan. 1951).

_________________________

Second Semester Final Exam, May 1951

1950-51
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 201

Write legibly

Part I (One Hour)

  1. Compare the interest theories of Schumpeter, Fisher, Knight, and Böhm-Bawerk.

 

Part II Choose four out of five (One Half Hour Each):

  1. Compare the theory of marginal productivity with Marshall’s theory of “joint demand.”
  2. Discuss some alternative explanations of profits. To what extent can the marginal productivity principle be used for the determination of profits?
  3. Discuss the principal contributions to price theory of the Oxford Study in Business Behaviour by R. L. Hall and C. J. Hitch.
  4. State and appraise critically the basic postulates of the so-called modern welfare economics, as compared with the “old” version.
  5. In what sense can it be said that (a) a monopolist in a product market and (b) a monopsonist in the labor market “exploit” their employees? Analyse the problem graphically.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 27, Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, Government, Economics, …, Air Sciences, Naval Science, June 1951 (in bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences, Jan. 1951).

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1950.

Categories
Economists Harvard War and Defense Economics

Harvard. Reactions to Galbraith’s call for students to boycott professors doing classified government research, 1967

 

Looking through my files of material from the Gottfried Haberler papers at the Hoover Institution Archives, I came across an unpublished, heavily sarcastic “letter to the editor” of the Harvard Crimson by the economic historian Alexander Gerschenkron in reaction to John Kenneth Galbraith’s statement at an anti-war event at Radcliffe in which he suggested that students could reasonably consider boycotting the classes of professors engaged in classified research to protest that war. One of Galbraith’s targets was clearly his colleague Arthur Smithies. (“I assume that Professor Smithies would suppress all protest. Many will doubt the wisdom of this course as also, I trust, the wickedness of the secret work on which he is engaged.”) While the rules of English grammar are such that Galbraith did explicitly state “many will doubt…the wickedness of [Smithies’] secret work…”, it is a pretty cheeky way to simultaneously mention that there are indeed some who will see Smithies’ secret work in a wicked light.

The post ends with a later Harvard Crimson article that reports on Smithies’ career, with considerable emphasis on his work for the U.S. government (including the C.I.A.) on South Vietnam’s economy. We also see below that Thomas Schelling was so little amused by Galbraith’s boycott proposal as to have written a letter for actual publication in the Harvard Crimson.

_________________________

“Galbraith Asks Campus Blacklist of Recruiters”

The Boston Globe. 14 November 1967 pp. 1,9.

            Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith urged Monday that college students oppose the Vietnam War by publicly blacklisting war-linked campus recruiting agencies and by boycotting professors engaged in classified government research.

Speaking at Radcliffe College, Galbraith explained his blacklist as a “proclamation” on which signatories would state their intention to refuse to work for agencies, such as Dow Chemical Co. or the C.I.A.

A boycott of professors engaged in classified research, he said, would be a “particularly effective way of expressing your opposition.”

The former U.S. ambassador to India, publicly backed “moderate” student demonstrations before a packed Harvard Radcliffe group in Hilles Library.

He cautioned the students against protests that are “violent or in egregiously bad taste.”

These, he said, would “provide a welcomed handle for the opposition.”

Galbraith said he had discussed his blacklist and boycott proposals with colleagues and many found them favorable. He called both courses “legitimate means of dissent within the university framework of conduct rules.”

He originated the black-list concept at talks with business and government leaders who indicated that recruiters are “greatly concerned with campus recruiting demonstrations,” Galbraith said.

Turing to anti-war referenda, Galbraith advised they would have more chances of success if they were worded “for political reality rather [than] for candor.”

The San Francisco anti-war referenda would have had a good chance for approval had it been stated in “milder” terms, he said. (This referendum, which asked: ‘should the U.S. immediately withdraw from Vietnam?’ drew a 38 percent affirmative response.)

“It would be an enormous mistake to assume your protest efforts have been futile,” he told students. Only three years ago, he said the State and Defense Departments” would have assumed wide spread acceptance of escalation.

“But now, in the wake of widespread university opposition to the war, there has been a snowballing effect of mounting opposition.”

His talk was sponsored by the Committee for Effective Action, a student group “opposed to the war but frustrated by the means of opposing it,” explained its spokesman. This was the first of an expected four or five meetings with the faculty.

_________________________

Letter from John Kenneth Galbraith

The Harvard Crimson, November 16, 1967

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

My distinguished colleague may be out of touch with recent discussion, but the issue is probably worth explaining. Students here and elsewhere have been told how they may not react to university involvement in military activities of which they disapprove. With other Faculty members I assume that this carries an obligation to say how they may react. I suggested (initially in Michigan and later here) that they organize to avoid employment in corporations of whose products they disapprove and classes of professors whose secret contracts they deplore. (I also suggested that this last was inapplicable under Harvard policy and that there be combined effort to find other forms of legitimate and effective protest.) I assume that Professor Smithies would suppress all protest. Many will doubt the wisdom of this course as also, I trust, the wickedness of the secret work on which he is engaged.

John Kenneth Galbraith
Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics

_________________________

Unsent, but circulated, reaction to Galbraith’s proposal
by Alexander Gerschenkron

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

M-7 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Alexander Gerschenkron
Walter S. Barker Professor of Economics

November 16, 1967

The Editor
The Crimson
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Sir,

It is with greatest possible interest that I have read of Professor Galbraith’s suggestion that students should boycott lectures of those members of the Faculty who are known to engage in classified research. This is a most original and stimulating idea, which is not surprising as nothing less novel and exciting could be expected from Professor Galbraith’s fertile mind.

The only thing that disturbs me are problems of implementation. Professor Galbraith abstained from discussing them, probably feeling that what mattered was to cast abroad a fine idea, while the rest could be safely left to more pedestrian minds. May I try to fill out the gap? Obviously, the first thing that is needed is to provide some machinery in order to discover just who is engaged in classified research. I suggest therefore, that the Student-Faculty Committee should immediately establish a special Sub-Committee charged with carrying out the requisite investigations. It should be called “Student-Faculty Sub-Committee on Un-Left Activities.” This Sub-Committee should interrogate members of the faculty. A difficulty to be faced will no doubt stem from the lack of subpoena powers on the part of the Sub-Committee. But the problem should not be insoluble. The Administration should be put under pressure to agree that those members of the Faculty who 1) refuse to appear before the Un-Left Sub-Committee or, 2) if appearing, refuse to name those colleagues whose connection with classified research is known to them, or 3) refuse to answer questions concerning their own classified research, should be informed by the Administration that such refusals constitute contempt of the Un-Left Sub-Committee, and, by the same token, must be regarded as acts of gross misconduct. In all fairness, the offenders should be given a fortnight to reconsider, but should they stubbornly persist in their hostile attitude, their connection with the University should be severed without further delay.

On the other hand, should the Administration hesitate to accede to the Sub-Committee’s fair and reasonable demands, which as Professor Galbraith likes to say are surely justified by the extraordinary situation in which the country finds itself, occupation of University Hall by the students should be the first natural step, if necessary, to be followed by other more stringent measures.

Thus Professor Galbraith’s idea appears to be altogether practicable. In conclusion, I cannot help praising his wise restraint. He could have suggested, for instance, that also lectures of those Faculty members who either themselves express Un-Left opinions or associate with colleagues who have expressed Un-Left opinions should be boycotted by the students. That he failed to make such suggestions agrees well with the sapient counsels of moderation which informed his speech.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Alexander Gerschenkron

AG:dod

Note: For reasons well within this writer’s control, the foregoing epistle has failed to reach the editorial office of The Crimson.

Source: The Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Gottfried Haberler, Box 12, Folder “GH—Alexander Gerschenkron”.

_________________________

Letter from John Kenneth Galbraith

The Harvard Crimson, November 16, 1967

To the Editors of The CRIMSON:

I am persuaded that at some risk of repetition I should be sure that there is no misunderstanding of my recent remarks on legitimate and non-violent forms of student protest as these concern University involvements with military activities. Two or three weeks ago in Detroit I was asked to comment on prospective efforts to obstruct physically the Willow Run laboratories operated on contract by the University of Michigan and engaged, I am told, on development of highly secret materiel for use in Vietnam. I urged not alone the futility but the adverse public effects of such action; I said that a better remedy lay against the Faculty members who ran this enterprise. Students might organize to avoid their classes, i.e., peacefully to boycott them. Last Monday evening at the meeting in the Hilles Library arranged by [Radcliffe] President Bunting to discuss legitimate forms of protest I repeated (along with others) this suggestion and added that this particular one would not be without effect on those who sponsored such work in a university but that it did not have application at Harvard where, wisely, the Administration frowned on secret contracts. I confess that I did not think of the possible application of my suggestion to confidential or secret consulting work or research by individual Harvard professors. A member of the Faculty has since invited the attention of those who are, with sufficient reason, sensitive to the association between the University Community and this war. Additionally, my reference to boycott, which of course means peaceful abstention, was evidently taken to mean some kind of physical action.

I would like to urge in the most earnest possible fashion that there be no effort by anyone, students in particular, to identify and oppose in any manner the individual participation by Faculty members in confidential or secret tasks of the government. There is a radical difference between this varied and individual work and the classified contracts for weapons development which I had in mind. This individual work covers a wide range of matters and much, or most, has no bearing on military activity. Most of it is the work of those Faculty members with the strongest instinct for public service. An effort to discriminate between approved and disapproved work would import into the academic community an improper concern for the extra-curricular pacifists who are so engaged as to those who are otherwise disposed. It could also be a most disagreeable source of tension and suspicion.

As members of the Harvard community will be aware, I am not indifferent to the Vietnam war. I regard it as an appalling tragedy; to no other matter of my adult life have I devoted more effort than to opposing the war. But I would be profoundly and also greatly embarrassed were anyone to take my remarks at Radcliffe as an invitation to any form of opposition to the participants of individual Faculty members, on a public or confidential basis, in government activities. Needless to say, none of this impairs in any way my promise at the Radcliffe meeting to work with concerned Faculty members and students to devise other effective, legitimate and non-violent forms of protest.

John Kenneth Galbraith
Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics

_________________________

Letter from Thomas Schelling in response to Galbraith’s boycott proposal

The Harvard Crimson, December 5, 1967

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

While I’ve seen no indication that Professor Galbraith’s proposed boycott of professors who do classified research for the government is going to stimulate a new movement, it does raise important questions about the personal activities of faculty members and the ways they may be involved with the government, and about the appropriate selection of target for protest. May I explain why I think his proposal is probably not workable and, if not workable, objectionable?

Let me first point out that Professor Galbraith did not propose that students boycott those professors whose research is objectionable, nor did he clarify what research would be objectionable. His reference was merely to “classified” research. I’m sure that by almost anyone’s standards of wickedness (Galbraith’s term) some classified research would be found unobjectionable. People concerned about the dissemination of nuclear technology, about the limitation of weapons, even about ways of ending the war in Vietnam, often require classified information to do their work or, at least, have to be exposed to classified information in doing their work and cannot do it unless they are willing to safeguard what the government calls “security.” Even if the character of everybody’s classified research could be ascertained, drawing the line between the objectionable and the unobjectionable, or between what any reasonable man would consider objectionable and what some reasonable men might consider to be in the public interest, would require subjective judgments. (Most classified research, incidentally, is probably unrelated to Vietnam.)

Second, much of the unclassified research that goes on would be objectionable to people who oppose any kind of war-related research; and to exclude such unclassified research would be arbitrary discrimination.

Third, “research” itself is difficult to define. Many faculty members are occasionally consultants or members of advisory boards in various agencies, or participants in government-sponsored conferences, sometimes classified, sometimes unclassified. Whether their influence is benign or malignant would be hard to judge; so would the degree of support or implied approval in attendance at a meeting at which one criticizes a government program or decision.

And if unclassified contributions had to pass the same strict test as classified work, to qualify for boycott or immunity from it, one would have to ask whether an activity like the Peace Corps is to be treated as a propaganda arm of the Johnson administration or as a benign and constructive activity. Again a judgment depends on a complex evaluation of the different purposes that a government program may serve.

Finally, are Faculty members who are unaffiliated with the government in any fashion, classified or unclassified, but who openly support the administration’s policy toward Vietnam, to qualify for boycott? It seems strange to exclude them; but again the line would be hard to draw for those who neither wholly support the conduct or the war nor are wholly committed to one drastic alternative. (It is unclear to me on which side of the line Professor Galbraith would be placed.)

I could go on multiplying the difficulties of finding a reasonable line to draw between the non-university-administered activities of professors that are objectionable and those that are not, whatever one’s standards of wickedness; and, further, I doubt whether there is enough consensus on standards to make it possible to draw an agreed line, even if some people think they know where to draw it. If I’m right about this, any line has to be arbitrary, as Professor Galbraith’s line was arbitrary. (If Professor Galbraith interprets his original proposal as applying only to university-administered research, the line is clearer but only because more arbitrary.)

If, though, the line is arbitrary–if its purpose just to mark out an identifiable target without regard to the nature of the research itself or of the non-research activity–then, aside from the likelihood that an embarrassingly large number of angels will be caught in the netful of devils, there is the question of what is being objected to and what the purpose of the boycott is. The purpose can no longer be described as bringing pressure to bear to get objectionable activities terminated. Rather, it would look–to me, at any rate–as though a boycott were being used to induce a particular group of professors to join a boycott against the government, or to embarrass them for declining to join a boycott.

Whatever my feelings about Professor Galbraith’s protest movement, I resent his proposal that students organize to coerce me into joining it. And I hope nobody stays away from Professor Galbraith’s classes in a vain organized attempt to embarrass him into changing his politics.

T.C. Schelling
Professor of Economics

_________________________

An Academic [Arthur Smithies] in the War
By Seth M. Kupferberg

The Harvard Crimson, May 23, 1975

Edward F. Chamberlin, superintendent of Kirkland House, tells a story about a Kirkland celebration that took place some years back, when Arthur Smithies was House master. Smithies was pouring drinks for the members of the victorious House crew team, starting with the bow man and working towards the stern of the shell, and as he reached the stroke, someone brought word that he had just become a grandfather.

“He kept right on—he just said, ‘Coxswain!'” Chamberlin recalls, chuckling. ‘”Coxswain, take your wine…’ We almost died.”

Smithies–Ropes Professor of Political Economy and a long-time adviser in the Saigon bureau of the Agency for International Development—gave up his mastership—”certainly Harvard’s best job,” he says—last spring. (“You can stay on past 66 as a professor but you have to retire as a master,” he grouses. “It should be the other way around—the brain deteriorates before the body does.”) But the story of the Agassiz Cup celebration still seems characteristic of him—both in content and in style, for a certain kind of sharp, logical humor as well as, perhaps, a certain cheerful indifference to happenings that would excite or upset or change the attitudes of many people. It’s a style, arguably, that found expression in Smithies’s work in Vietnam as well as his praise of the Agassiz Cup winners—and there, it was likely to have larger effects and meanings, since it served a side in an internecine war instead of an intramural regatta.

At the simplest, most straightforward level, the Agassiz Cup story is characteristic because it’s about crew—the sport that in 1929 helped bring Smithies, a 22-year-old Australian law student, the great-grandson of the first Methodist minister in western Tasmania, a Rhodes Scholarship. Finding England “too structured for my taste,” Smithies went on to discover “the fleshpots of the United States” with a Commonwealth Fellowship and a Model A Ford, earn a quick Harvard doctorate in economics, return to Australia briefly to work in its treasury department, then settle in the United States for good.

Smithies accepted tenure at Harvard in 1949—partly “so I could take up rowing again”—and continued to work at budgetary and fiscal economics. He also demonstrated an idiosyncratic kind of firmness—”I’m a believer in strict academic requirements, but for something important, like seat-races, I would make an exception,” he once told a Kirkland House oarsman. In its more political manifestations, many students came to find Smithies’s firmness objectionable. “People used to go around screaming ‘CIA Agent!’ and things at me,” he recalls. For when anti-ROTC students occupied University Hall in April 1969 and opened the files of then dean of the Faculty Franklin L. Ford, one of the letters they released to The Old Mole, the underground Cambridge newspaper that folded in 1970, was from Smithies. Dated December 7, 1967, it read: “The Central Intelligence Agency has instructed its consultants to inform their official superiors of this connection with the Agency. I hereby inform you of my connection of ten years duration. I wish I could, add that there is something subtly interesting or sinister about it.”

The tinge of self-mockery—the impatience of a person who takes certain things for granted, maybe—was typical: the same slight aloofness you sense when Smithies says he spends his free time “rowing boats and toiling in my garden,” as though the joys of domesticity in Belmont, like England, are a little too structured for his taste. But that didn’t stop the CIA letter from kicking up a minor storm.

“The CIA is divided sharply into two parts—covert and overt,” Smithies—who says he was most recently consulted by the agency, regarding a report on the future of the Vietnamese economy, last year—explains now. “For about ten years I’d go down there and review their papers on national economic matters: I’ve never been the cloak-and-dagger type. But naturally they made a big fuss about it,” he concludes, with something close to approval. “That’s good tactics.”

It was partly an exclusive attention to improving tactics—rather than more fundamental questions about the Vietnam war—that the University Hall occupiers and other Harvard radicals objected to in Smithies, even before they discovered his CIA letter, Smithies traces his service as an Agency for International Development consultant, advising the Republic of Vietnam on its fiscal policy and rates of international exchange, to previous foreign-affairs interests that included involvement in administering the Marshall Plan. He says he was regarded as a liberal both as a young teacher at the University of Michigan, where he defended the Michigan Daily‘s right to take leftist editorial stands, and in his early years in the Harvard Economics Department, where Keynesians like him were still an embattled minority.

And he still offers qualified praise for radical economists like Stephen A. Marglin ’59 or other members of the Union of Radical Political Economists—for aiming at a historical perspective on economic systems. “I think if they’d let me I’d be more of an ally than I am,” he says. “I don’t like a narrow concentration on Marx—I think it should also include Weber and people like that. I also and not a socialist, and URPE people generally are socialists—I firmly believe in the mixed economy.” For his part, Marglin says he agrees with Smithies’s stress on “the historical nature of economic theory and the fact that neo-classical theory is not the pinnacle of economic thought.” But he claims that Smithies shares orthodox economists’ bias toward marginal improvements that don’t call basic assumptions into question—”that perspective divides him pretty fundamentally from most URPE people,” he says.

Even setting aside Smithies’s belief in a mixed economy, Marglin’s criticism isn’t too surprising—budgetary economics by definition focuses on evaluating means, not ends, which it takes more or less for granted. Smithies’s book, The Budgetary Process in the United States, begins by calling a description of the ways the government sets its priorities “quite enough for one volume and one author,” and it offers only one assumption about how the budgetary process should end up—that “government decision-making can be improved by the clear formulation of alternatives.” Like his work on the budget, Smithies’s work on Vietnamese fiscal policy took its basic political framework more or less for granted.

And like the Agassiz Cup celebration, it was carried on with a certain quiet bravado, even in defiance of what many people might think of as reflex reactions to human events. Apart from his consulting work for AID—which kept him in.

During the height of campus anti-war activity, Smithies recalls, “People used to go around screaming ‘CIA Agent!’ and things at me.” Saigon most summers—Smithies wrote several reports, comparable to other American economists’ and political scientists’ attempts to improve the Saigon government’s chances and provide scientific descriptions of its progress.

Like these other writers, Smithies’s descriptions often reflected Saigon’s assumptions and interests, and so worked to limit debate in the United States and thus to keep the Saigon government strong. Not all American analysts acknowledged this political effect of their writing, but to many of their critics. It was its most important aspect. For the politics underlying questions of Vietnamese economic development included more even than questions about who should manage development and profit from it. The human, political context AID economists could all but ignore also included the struggle over these questions that was killing people and making them homeless, the struggle in which the government AID belonged to was playing an increasingly dominant part.

In a 1971 report commissioned by the Institute for Defense Analyses, called “Economic Development in Vietnam: The Need for External Resources,” and based on a “planning assumption” of “military stalemate and withering away of the war, a process that can last for a decade or more.” Smithies called for $500 million a year in American aid to the Saigon government “during the next decade,” and $700 million more in financing, preferably from an international consortium of countries, “for the indefinite future.” And while noting some of the bad effects of the war on South Vietnam’s economy—such as an unfavorable balance of trade, governmental corruption, the destruction of bridges and the defoliation of forests—Smithies also took note of countervailing factors, such as “the increase in the expectations of the Vietnamese people,” which he suggested would remain after “the horrors of war” had faded.

“The war has provided Vietnam with paved highways from end to end, with more airfields than it can possibly use, with spectacular harbors, with an elaborate communications system, with power plants, and with potable water in Saigon,” Smithies wrote.” …While it is impossible to make an accurate inventory of the changes in the infrastructure during the war, the impression is inescapable that the plusses greatly outweigh the minuses.” It was the kind of report that led Frances Fitzgerald ’62 to call AID economics “perhaps the ultimate expression of American hubris.”

Today, Smithies—who says he grew to like Saigon very much, despite a “very rarefied atmosphere” that necessitated weekly trips to the provinces for a reminder that there was a war going on—is naturally less sanguine. “Whatever the merits of the cause. I’m deeply disturbed to see the U.S. forced into a position of unconditional surrender under any circumstances,” he says. “And it’s not clear to me that there is still a clear direction to foreign policy.”

“I wouldn’t have gone there unless I thought the objective of a free and independent South Vietnam was a worthwhile one,” he continues, “and it’s fairly obvious that we didn’t pursue that role at all effectively.” Nevertheless, Smithies stresses American advisers’ accomplishments in such areas as improving rice strains—”whatever side you’re on politically, this was a useful thing,” he says—and the importance of combating “the impression that everyone connected with Vietnam was a scoundrel.”

“I think the economic staff there was really doing a good job,” he says. “In the economic and financial areas there were some very good Vietnamese and some very devoted and sincere Vietnamese—extremely able and also extremely patriotic. I can’t say the same for some of the corps commanders—but in the welter of recriminations there’s a tendency to forget what was good.”

* * *

It took just a few days after the Provisional Revolutionary Government’s victory last month for Smithies’s acquaintances to stop asking him, as at least one had the first day, about “the end of those summers in Saigon.” In the burgeoning New England spring, Saigon seemed very far away. It seemed more appropriate to remember smaller-scale settings for imperturbability in the face of exciting or famous or upsetting people or events—the Agassiz Cup celebration, say, or the Kirkland House dinner two years ago at which Smithies gave President Bok a long, pointed introduction, replete with references to “the days when the University was interested in education—before the present administration took office.” (“These occasions can get very stolid if you don’t liven ’em up a bit,” Smithies explains now. “I think one ought to be mildly provocative—what do you think?”)

At most, it seemed in keeping with the intoxicating spring weather to remember Smithies’s 1969 visit to occupied University Hall—the only one by a master, possibly helping to inspire his belief that by playing a “civilizing role,” “the House system vindicated itself in 1969 as I haven’t seen it do before or since.” Smithies says the visit was mostly a matter of bravado, “rather foolish. I suppose,” but he still seems proud of it—he’s supposed to have informed an occupier who called him an administration spy that he had “rather more right to be here than you do.” The occupiers voted to expel Smithies, but they allowed him to speak first. “It was rather reassuring, in a way,” he said, but the occupiers evidently weren’t sympathetic—”all I remember just what he said, but the occupiers evidently weren’t sympathetic—”all I remember is that it was philosophically weird,” one of them said recently.

Meanwhile, Smithies continued to teach macroeconomic theory, scull on the Charles, lunch in the Kirkland dining hall, even be mildly provocative, if only because senior English majors in the House were taking general exams, on such moderately unlikely subjects as the poetry of T.S. Eliot ’10. “My wife and I used to be very fond of Eliot—I think we still are,” Smithies explained later, but at lunch, he didn’t seem so sure.

“But is it poetry–the broad-backed hippopotamus?” he asked his companions, a little quizzically. Then he proceeded to rattle off three or four stanzas: The broad-backed hippopotamus Rests on his belly in the mud; Although he seems so firm to us He is merely flesh and blood…

“Is that poetry–or is it just a jingle?” he asked again. No one offered an immediate answer: things were back to normal.

Steven B. Geovanis

Image Sources:  Left to right. Smithies and Galbraith from Harvard Class Album 1958; Gerschenkron from Harvard Class Album 1957.

Categories
Computing Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Fields Harvard

Harvard. Discussed at Faculty Meeting. Computer Access and “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as Optional Field, 1959

 

Notes from a faculty meeting in my experience are more often a list of items, resolutions, motions, and votes than a narrative of the actual discussion. The transcribed notes in this post come from a 1959 Harvard economics faculty meeting that had two items on the agenda. The first was John R. Meyer’s report on how to manage graduate student computing needs if the department were to lose access to IBM-650 services. The second discussion was a continuation of a debate in the department whether a new Ph.D. oral examination field “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” should be introduced (plot spoiler: the resolution was tabled, at least for the time being).

_____________________

Economics Faculty Meeting Minutes
December 8, 1959

The Department of Economics met on Tuesday evening, December 8 [1959] at the Faculty Club. Those present: Messrs. Bergson, Chamberlin, Dorfman, Dunlop, Gerschenkron, Leontief, Mason, J. R. Meyer, Smithies (Chairman), Taylor, Black, McKie, Artle, Erbe, Daniere, Gill, Lefeber, Anderson, Baer, Gustafson, Hughes, Jones, Kauffman, Wilkinson, Mrs. Gilboy, and Miss Berman.

Abandonment of IBM-650

Professor John Meyer explained that with cheaper time available on newer computers within and outside the University the market for IBM-650 services is waning. A deficit on operations can be expected within a few months, and it will, therefore, be impossible to retain the machine. The problem the Department now faces is that of making available to students a computer training device comparable to the 650. The Harvard Univac can serve this purpose well although it is likely to disappear in the near future through the competition of better machines.

Professor Smithies called the attention of the meeting to two further effects of withdrawing the IBM-650:

(a) Students without outside financing will not, as in the past, be able to solve their problems by making use of free 650 time.

(b) It will no longer be possible to handle problems requiring a succession for short programs with some elements of trial and error; every program will have to be handed to an operator and the results, good or bad, will not be available until days later.

Both Professor Dorfman and Meyer vouched that, even under these impediments, the cost of most computations would be far lower through such a machine as the 704 than with the 650.

With respect to student training and student problem financing, Professor Leontief expressed the opinion that if scientific departments at Harvard can receive funds for the purchase of materials and equipment needed in the training of their students the Administration should certainly be ready to offer similar help in the social sciences. After hearing from Professor Meyer that the Dean’s offices had not been particularly responsive to this suggestion, Professor Leontief suggested than an arrangement could be entered with IBM by which we could contract at a discount for a large block of 705 time at their Cambridge Street laboratory with the understanding that we would sell some of the time to financially able Harvard users and utilize the remainder for training and computing students’ problems.

Professor Meyer agreed that this might become feasible in the near future when, with the appearance of an IBM-709 at the Smithsonian Institute and other 704’s in the neighborhood, IBM may face a buyers’ market. His proposal for the time being was to turn to Univac while it is still on our premises and to divert some of the departmental contributions now going to the support of the Littauer Laboratory to subsidize student training and to some extent student problems on the 704.

 

Introduction of a field labeled “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as an optional field for the oral Ph.D. examination

Professor Dorfman reintroduced his motion that “a field called ‘Mathematical Economics and Econometrics’ be one of the optional fields for the Ph.D. examination.” He recalled his previous arguments, i.e., that both Mathematical Economics and Econometrics become legitimate specialties in the general field of economics with a literature sufficiently abundant and specialized that a student well versed in economic theory and statistics will not generally know the former fields and that no student can become thoroughly familiar with them in his two years of graduate work unless his load is otherwise reduced. The substance of the proposed examination would be the literature in which relatively advanced methods of mathematical analysis are applied to economic theory and advanced methods of statistical analysis are applied to the processing of data relevant to economic problems.

The discussion centered around two objections: (1) to the extent that proficiency in economic theory is a prerequisite to mathematical economics and that an advance knowledge of statistics is required in econometrics, students who are examined in both the new field and one or both of the older fields of theory and statistics will obtain double credit for what is a single specialization and (2) an essential requirement of our Ph.D. is breadth of preparation in economics. As it is, nothing under the motion would prevent a student from presenting the following five fields: theory, statistics, mathematical economics and econometrics, mathematics and history. This clearly represents a narrow preparation and cannot be acceptable under our standards. The second objection, voiced most effectively by Professor Dunlop, was immediately recognized as valid, and Professor Dorfman amended his motion to include the condition that mathematics could not be presented jointly with the new field. He insisted, however, that students offering mathematical economics and econometrics are of such a type that, even without the amendment, they would not have taken advantage of the mathematics loophole. Their insistence on a mathematics examination is based entirely on the recognition that they cannot become proficient in their specialty while carrying in addition the same load as their colleagues.

Three different suggestions were offered as alternatives to the proposed motion.

(1) Professor Dunlop accepted the introduction of the new field as long as examinations in any or all of the three fields of theory, statistics, and mathematical economics and econometrics would not count toward more than two of the five fields required.

(2) Professor Chamberlin did not change the present field listing but proposed that a student could by previous arrangement ask to be examined in theory with emphasis on mathematical analysis, the requirements be correspondingly milder with respect to traditional theory and history of thought.

(3) Professor Bergson offered a variation of Professor Chamberlin’s proposal pointing out that, even without the introduction of mathematical analysis, economic theory is now a broad and somewhat ill-defined field so that, in order to better test the students’ analytical scale, fields of concentration should perhaps be agreed upon before the Ph.D. examination. He also emphasized that students do not after all stop learning after their oral examination and that since a student proficient in mathematics can be expected to make use of mathematical techniques in his thesis work the special examination might be the best time to test him on his ability in this field.

Professor Leontief injected a fatalistic note indicating that the problem will solve itself in the future as more and more students join the graduate school with a mathematical preparation such that the theory courses can make use of mathematical tools. For the present it would be unfortunate to have students neglect economic theory for the purpose of acquiring mathematical proficiency. We should, however, provide adequate training facilities for those who because of superior ability or previous preparation can benefit from courses in mathematical economics and, to the extent that recognition may be helpful, include a mention of their special skill in their records.

In view of the lack of agreement evidenced by the meeting, Professor Dunlop asked that the motion be tabled. All were in favor.

Andre Daniere
Secretary

Dictated 12/14/59

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961 and some earlier. (UAV349.11), Box 13.

Image Source: Harvard Faculty Club from JDeQ’s August 2, 2013  blog entry “Dinner at the Harvard Faculty Club“.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading

Harvard. Readings and Exams. Public Utilities and Transportation. 1935-37.

This post has been assembled around a list of books used in courses on transportation that were taught at Harvard in the mid-1930s. While the courses covered public utility regulation for the most part, I have not yet found complete course outlines or syllabi for the two courses considered. So paired with the final examinations for the course, the partial reading lists are all we can go on for now regarding the course content.

In the following post we meet the economics Ph.D. alumnus (Harvard, 1931), Donald Holmes Wallace who assisted Edward H. Chamberlin in teaching these courses at the time. Wallace put the lists together in response to an inquiry from a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission (see below).

_____________________________

Related Harvard Course Posts

1931. Economics of Transportation

1934. The Corporation and its Regulation Syllabus

1939-40. Regulation of Public Utilities and Transportation

1940-41.  

_____________________________

Course Announcements

1935-36

Economics 4c 2hf. Public Utilities (including Transportation)

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Associate Professor Chamberlin and Drs. Wallace and Abbott.

Economics 4a [The Corporation and its Regulation] is a prerequisite for this course.

[Economics 48. Economics of Public Utilities]

Wed., 4 to 6 (and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor). Professor Crum and Associate Professors Mason and Chamberlin.

Omitted in 1935-36.

Source: Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1935-36, in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. 32, No. 7 (March 4, 1935), pp. 135, 139.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

1936-37

Economics 63b 2hf. (formerly 4c). Public Utilities (including Transportation)

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Associate Professor Chamberlin and Drs. Wallace and Abbott.

Economics 61a [The Corporation and its Regulation] is a prerequisite for this course.

Economics 163. (formerly 48). Economics of Public Utilities

Wed., 4 to 6 (and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor). Professor Crum and Associate Professors Mason and Chamberlin.

Source: Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1936-37, in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. 33, No. 5 (March 2, 1936), pp. 141,145.

_____________________________

Course Enrollments

[Economics] 4c 2hf. Associate Professor Chamberlin and Drs. Wallace, Abbott and Baker. — Public Utilities (including Transportation).

Total 74: 2 Graduates, 30 Seniors, 40 Juniors, 2 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1935-36, p. 82.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

[Economics] 63b 2hf. (formerly 4c) Associate Professor Chamberlin and Dr. Wallace. — Public Utilities (including Transportation).

Total 43: 1 Graduate, 25 Seniors, 13 Juniors, 3 Sophomores, 1 Other.

[Economics] 163. (formerly 48). Associate Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Dr. Wallace.—Economics of Public Utilities (including Transportation).

Total 10: 4 Graduates, 4 Seniors, 2 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1936-37, pp. 92, 94.

_____________________________

Harvard University
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Department of Government

Cambridge, Massachusetts
October 19, 1936

Miss C. C. Tatnall
Department of Economics
41 Holyoke House
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Miss Tatnall:

Professor [William Y.] Elliott has had an inquiry from a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission about the books which are being used in the courses on transportation in the University. Have you a bibliography, or could a bibliography be prepared, of the material in use in the courses Economics 63b and 163? We shall appreciate any material you are able to collect.

Do you know if there are any other courses in the College which deal with transportation?

Thanks so much for your trouble.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
[first name?] Dolan

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

List of Books used in Economics of Transportation
October, 1936
D. H. Wallace

Undergraduate course entitled Public Utilities including Transportation:

Locklin: Economics of Transportation

Mosher and Crawford: Public Utility Regulation

Daggett: Principles of Inland Transportation

Owen: Highway Economics

Bauer and Gold: Public Utility Valuation for Purposes of Rate Control

Bonbright and Means: The Holding Company

Reports of the Federal Coordinator.

Graduate course students make use of the following

Cunningham: American Railroads

Grodinsky: Railroad Consolidation

Jones: Principles of Railway Transportation

Miller: Inland Transportation

Ripley: Railroads 

Ripley: Report on Consolidation for I.C.C.

Sharfman: American Railway Problem

Sharfman: Interstate Commerce Commission

Simnett: Railway Amalgamation in Great Britain

Vanderblue and Burgess: Railroads

I.C.C.: Annual Reports

I.C.C.: Decisions

Clark: Economics of Overhead Costs

Chamberlin: Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Duopoly and oligopoly)

Pigou: Economics of Welfare (Discrimination)

Robinson: Economics of Imperfect Competition (Discrimination)

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 25. Folder “Suggested Readings”.

_____________________________

Reading Period Assignment
May 4-26, 1936

Economics 4c: Read one of the following:

  1. First Report of the Federal Coordinator of Transportation, pp. 1-37.
    Third Report of the Federal Coordinator of Transportation, pp. 3-129.
  2. Stuart Daggett, Principles of Inland Transportation (revised edition), Chs. 36-38
    and H.E. Dugall, two articles on French railways, Journal of Political Economy, June, 1933, pp. 289-333 and June, 1934, pp. 385-392.
  3. Bauer, J. and Gold, N., Public Utility Valuation for Purposes of Rate Control, pp. 155-362.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003. Box 2, Folder “Economics, 1935-36”.

_____________________________

1935-36
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 4c2
[Final Examination]

Answer questions 1 and 5 and TWO others. All questions are of equal weight.

  1. Answer the question appropriate to your Reading Period choice.
    1. Discuss the alternatives for a national policy toward the transportation problem in this country and explain which measures should in your opinion be included in such a program.
    2. Compare the chief developments in railway regulation in France and the United States during the past fifteen years.
    3. “The concept of ‘present value’ represents an unreal combination of judicial prejudice and economic abstraction.” Discuss.
  2. The economic surgery required by the provisions of the Public Utility Holding Company Act compelling realignment of companies into integrated regional systems is no less deplorable than an appendicitis operation upon a boy who has eaten too many green apples. A much more sensible policy was adopted in the consolidation provisions of the Transportation Act of 1920 which enabled a judicious mixture of private and public planning of combination.” Discuss.
  3. “The original cost method of valuation cannot provide a satisfactory way of determining rate bases in the case of competing railroads built at different times over different terrains. Under such circumstances the use of original cost will result either in robbing the stockholders of one road of the advantages of perspicacious management, or in forcing shippers to reward the stockholders of the other for building an expensive road.” Discuss.
  4. You are asked by one of the political parties to prepare a memorandum to serve as a basis for a plank concerning public utilities. It is requested that you explain specifically: (1) the economic criteria which seem to be the most useful for distinguishing industries which should be subjected to public ownership and operation or public regulation of investment, prices, and earnings; and (2) the legal principles used by the courts in recent cases involving the rights of Federal or state governments to regulate investment, prices, or earnings.
  5. Discuss two of the following quotations.
    1. “The ordinary consumer of utility services is interested only in price and quality of service. His disposition to leave to investors all concern over security structures, holding companies, and service charges finds a sound basis in the fact that these things affect only the division of the profits.”
    2. “Whatever may be urged to the contrary, regulation of transportation agencies in the United States has been imposed as a result of unfair treatment of the shipping public.”
    3. “Personal discrimination is bad enough in that it confers an unwarranted favor upon one of two producers located in the same place; long and short haul discrimination is worse because it gives an undue advantage to the producer who is located farther away from raw materials or markets.”

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers, Finals 1936. (HUC 7000.28, Vol. 78).

_____________________________

Reading Period Assignment
May 10-June 2, 1937

Economics 63b: Read one of the following:

  1. First Report of the Federal Coordinator of Transportation, pp. 1-37,
    and
    Third Report of the Federal Coordinator of Transportation, pp. 3-129.
  2. Stuart Daggett, Principles of Inland Transportation (revised edition), Chs. 36-38
    and H.E. Dugall, two articles on French railways, Journal of Political Economy, June, 1933, pp. 289-333 and June, 1934, pp. 385-392.
  3. Bauer, J. and Gold, N., Public Utility Valuation for Purposes of Rate Control, pp. 155-362.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003. Box 2, Folder “Economics, 1936-37”.

_____________________________

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 63b2
[Final Examination]

Write on four questions, including the first and the last. Divide your time about equally between them.

  1. Choose either (a) or (b):
    1. “The fact that ‘charging what the traffic will bear’ develops under unregulated competition is no excuse for permitting the practice when rates are regulated by public authority. It is simply another form of discrimination which it is the duty of the I.C.C. to put down.” Discuss.
    2. Comment on the following figures for the electrical industry for 1935:

Customers
Per cent
Consumption
Per cent
Revenue
Per cent
Domestic: 82.6 18.0

36.6

Commercial:
   Retail

14.9

18.3

28.0

   Wholesale

2.0

53.1

27.5

Municipal, Street railways and miscellaneous

0.5

10.6

7.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

  1. “With the Act of 1920 the policy of regulation of railroads reached its highest development. If that policy fails, the only alternative is public ownership.” Discuss.
  2. Discuss the merits and defects of the policies adopted in in this country for public planning of operating systems either in electricity supply or in railroad transportation.
  3. “In the last analysis, it has been the presence or absence of monopoly which determined whether or not an industry was held to be a public utility. Actually, there are several other elements which ought to be given important consideration.” Discuss.
  4. Answer the question appropriate to your reading period choice:
    1. (Eastman report.) Do you think that all agencies of transport should be subjected to the same or to different sorts of regulation? Explain.
    2. (Bauer and Gold.) Explain briefly what you understand by “fair value” according to the law of the land and discuss its significance for the regulation of earnings of public utilities.
    3. (Foreign railways.) What significant comparisons may be made between the post-war railroad problems of France, Germany and England? What light has your reading here thrown upon the problems of this country?

Source: Harvard University, Examination Papers, Finals 1937. (HUC 7000.28, Vol. 79).

_____________________________

Reading Period Assignment
January 4-20, 1937

Economics 163: Read the following:

Bonbright and Means, The Holding Company.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003. Box 2, Folder “Economics, 1936-37”.

_____________________________

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 163
[Mid-Year Examination]

All six questions are of equal weight. Answer the first question, the last question, and any two among questions 2 to 5.

  1. The Public Utility Act of 1935 authorizes an examination of holding company systems with a view to determining “the extent to which such holding company systems and the companies therein may be simplified, unnecessary complexities therein eliminated, voting power fairly and equitably distributed among the holders of securities thereof, and the properties and business thereof confined to those necessary or appropriate to the operations of integrated public utility systems.” What facts with respect to these questions would you expect such an examination to disclose?
  2. Discuss either of the following statements by Burns:
    (a) “Vertical integration thus dictated by the opportunity to secure technical economies of production is not directly caused by the decline of price competition although it may contribute to that decline.”
    (b) “In common with all forms of integration, however, this type (of the production of commodities requiring similar selling organizations) hinders the comparison of costs and prices for each separate branch of production.”
  3. Discuss either of the following statements:
    (a) “Closely related and also a chief point of controversy, was the effect of limitation of liability upon the position of the creditor.” Hunt (commenting upon the Royal Commission Report of 1854).
    (b) “It is to be noted that hardly anywhere in these reports (those of 1837, 1850, 1851, and 1854) was a pure measure of limited liability discussed. What was discussed at great length was this mixed form (of the en commandite type) with unlimited and limited partners.” Shannon.
  4. (a) Discuss the significance and usefulness of either ratio analysis, with illustrative comment upon important types of ratios, or analysis by use of so-called statements of source and disposition of funds.
    (b) Outline the major arguments against enforced publicity of corporate accounts.
  5. (a) Discuss the effect of each of the following devices in bringing about separation of control from ownership in corporations: (i) the stockholder’s proxy, (ii) classification of stock.
    (b) Outline the main considerations determining a corporation’s dividend policy.
  6. Write on either (a) or (b):
    (a) What difficulties, if any, are created by the corporate form of organization for the theory of profits?
    (b) What effect do you think a sizeable tax on the transfer of securities (say 1 or 2 per cent of the market price) would have on the behavior of security prices?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Mid-year examinations, 1852-1943. Box 13, Folder “Mid-year examinations, 1936-1937”.

_____________________________

Reading Period Assignment
May 10—June 2, 1937

Economics 163: No additional assignment.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003. Box 2, Folder “Economics, 1936-37”.

_____________________________

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 163
[Final Examination]

Write on four questions, including number 6. Divide your time about equally between them.

  1. “To justify the principle of discrimination is not to justify either particular instances or particular types of discrimination.” Discuss.
  2. Discuss the possibilities for regulating the earnings of public utilities either (a) with, or (b) without, valuation.
  3. Discuss the possible effects of regulation upon efficiency. What suggestions as to public policy can you make for strengthening the incentives towards efficient operation?
  4. “The arguments for and against public ownership are the same as the arguments for and against regulation.” Discuss.
  5. Discuss the problems of public planning for the size and structure of operating units and the relations between them, with reference to either (a) railroad transport, or (b) electricity supply.
  6. Write on transport coordination: its meaning, significance and possibilities.

Source: Harvard University, Examination Papers, Finals 1937. (HUC 7000.28, Vol. 79).

Image Source: Cover of the 1946 Harvard Album.