Categories
Harvard Regulations

Harvard. Written vs. Oral Exams. Gerschenkron vs. Chamberlin, 1958

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final exam for transportation economics. Chamberlin, 1932

 

 

Every year from 1927/28 through 1931/32, Edward Chamberlin taught a semester-long course on the economics of transportation. The course outline with reading assignments was posted earlier. This posting provides us with a short course description published in the annual announcements of the Division of History, Government, and Economics, 1929-30, followed by the final examination questions for the last time Chamberlin taught economics of transportation.

_____________________________

 

Course Description [1929-30]

[Economics] 4a 1hf. Economics of Transportation

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Asst. Professor Chamberlin

An historical outline will be followed in turn by discussion of the problems in rates, finance, and legislation, domestic and foreign.

 

Source: Harvard University. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXVI, No. 36 (June 27, 1929). Division of History, Government, and Economics 1929-30, p. 67.

_____________________________

 

Final Examination
Economics of Transportation
Assistant Professor Edward H. Chamberlin

1931-32
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 4a

I

(One hour)

Choose the question relating to the reading period assignment which you have read.

  1. (Waterways.) Write on the St. Lawrence Navigation and Power Project as an agency for: (a) agricultural relief; (b) the relief of traffic congestion; and (c) railway rate control. Do you think the project is economically justified?
  2. (Rates.) Explain, illustrate, and contrast the equalization and the distance principles in rate making. What new light is thrown on the problem of rates by Clark’s analysis of railway costs?
  3. (Valuation.) The “final value” of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac railroad has been announced by the Interstate Commerce Commission since the Supreme Court decision in the St. Louis and O’Fallon case, and the Commission has begun recapture proceedings against the road. The case may soon be appealed to the Supreme Court. On purely economic grounds, what basis of valuation do you think the Commission should have adopted? How, if at all, would your answer be different, taking into account legal reasons, especially in light of the O’Fallon decision?

 

II

The Act of 1920 provided that the Interstate Commerce Commission should have the power (a) to fix minimum rates; (b) to establish just divisions of joint rates; and (c) to permit pooling. Explain briefly the importance of each of these provisions.

 

III

Is there a need for regulation of motor transport (a) to protect the public from unfair rates? (b) to protect the railroads from unfair competition? Why or why not in each case?

 

IV

Hearings are now being held in Washington on the consolidation of all the railroads in trunk line territory into four large systems. What advantages and disadvantages may accrue (a) to the individual railroads concerned, and (b) to the public, if the project is approved by the Commission and carried through?

 

V

Write briefly on TWO of the following

  1. The significance of the back haul in railroad rate making.
  2. The importance of the ratio of stocks to bonds in railroad finance.
  3. Railway consolidation policy in England.

 

Final, 1932.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28, 74 of 284). Examination Papers, Finals , 1932.

Image Source: Edward H. Chamberlin from Harvard Class Album 1932.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Exam Questions for Second Term of Honors Theory, 1940

 

This is one of those cases where one sorely misses the final examination for the first-term of a two-term course. Next time I go to the Harvard archives, I’ll have to check whether I have systematically overlooked the mid-year exams, or the keepers of the Harvard record merely limited themselves to mostly just collecting the exams administered at the end of each academic year. Maybe some visitor to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror happens to check this and let us all know by posting a welcome comment.

Anyhow, this posting continues the current series of exams that correspond to syllabi and course reading lists already transcribed since I have set up shop (not quite two years ago). The 1939-40 undergraduate honors course in economic theory at Harvard was taught by the team of Edward Chamberlin, Wassily Leontief and Overton Taylor.

_____________________________

 

 

Final Examination
Economic Theory (Honors degree candidates)
Professor Chamberlin, Dr. O. H. Taylor, and Associate Professor Leontief

1939-40
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 1

Answer SIX questions, including number 7 or 8.

  1. Explain the concept of the “period of production” in its connection with the theory of interest.
  2. Is the marginal productivity theory applicable to piece wages? Answer and discuss.
  3. Explain the relation between the wage rates and marginal physical productivity in the case in which the entrepreneur sells his product in a competitive market but at the same time holds the position of a monopolist on the labor market.
  4. Discuss the effect of increased interest rates upon the employment of labor as compared with the use of machines.
  5. How would the height of rent be determined if all land were of the same quality?
  6. “Pigou has tried in vain to build a useful ‘economics of welfare’ on the false assumptions, that society is a collection of (a) purely selfish and (b) perfectly rational individuals, who infallibly maximize their private gains and satisfactions; and that such a society can, nevertheless, develop a regime of institutions, laws, and policies under which there will be a complete agreement of all private interests with the public interest, and an economic process working automatically to maximize collective welfare.” Discuss the validity of that interpretation and condemnation of Pigou’s assumptions, and the problem, as you see it, of achieving ‘realism’ in the basic ideas of a theory of ‘welfare economics’.
  7. Explain, and discuss critically one of the following: (a) Knight’s thesis concerning the ‘limitations of scientific method in economics’; (b) Wolfe’s demand for a ‘functional welfare economics, using a generally accepted, psychologically grounded, norm of welfare’; or (c) Clark’s ‘experiments in non-Euclidean economics’.
  8. “Profits are a special type of differential income”. Discuss.

 

Final. 1940.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28, Box 5). Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science, June 1940.

Image Source: From left to right: Chamberlin, Leontief, Taylor from the Harvard Class Album, 1939.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Exam Questions for “The Corporation and its Regulation”, 1935

 

 

While the Harvard archives collection of printed final examinations has a few serious gaps and is sometimes incomplete (especially with respect to the mid-year exams for year-long courses), it is truly a great resource, especially when the exams get paired to the corresponding syllabus/reading-list found elsewhere in the archives. I’m am now roughly a third of the way in matching exams to course syllabi/reading-lists that I have already posted. Once I catch up, I’ll be posting the combinations regularly from thereon out.

Today takes us back to the extremely popular (in the mid-1930s) Harvard course co-taught by Messrs. Crum, Mason, and Chamberlin on the corporation and its regulation. It is interesting to note that Henry Simons’ pamphlet “A Positive Program for Laissez-Faire” (1934) while not be included in the reading list was important enough to account for 50% of the examination (Q. 1) below. 

_____________________________

 

Final Examination
The Corporation and its Regulation

Professors William Leonard Crum, Edward Sagendorph Mason, and Edward Hastings Chamberlin

1934-35
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 4a1

1. Note: Allow about an hour and a half for this question. Discuss any two of the following proposals:

A recently published programme for a liberal economic policy proposes in part:

  1. That no corporation which engages in the manufacture or merchandising of commodities or services shall own any securities of any other such corporation.
  2. That corporations may issue securities only in a small number of simple forms prescribed by law, and that no single corporation may employ more than two (or three) of the different forms.
  3. That investment corporations (including holding companies) shall hold stock in operating companies without voting rights, and shall be prohibited from exercising influence over such companies with respect to management.

2. Write on any three of the following:

  1. “The Securities Act is merely an attempt to make the corporation lawyer and financier the scapegoats of the depression.” Discuss.
  2. “It is not possible in a modern corporation to discover who performs the entrepreneurial function, nor to apply to a modern corporation any theory of profits based on the assumption that individual proprietorships and partnerships are the typical forms of business enterprise.” Discuss.
  3. Distinguish between earned and capital surplus. What is the importance of the distinction? In what various ways may a capital surplus arise? Discuss the declaration of dividends out of surplus.
  4. “One of the largest textile mills in the United States found itself in 1932 with $2,000,000 cash, no bonds, and hardly any current obligations. Its stock was quoted at $30 a share, though the corporation had nearly $35 in net quick assets. Accordingly, it purchased some of its own shares. Obviously, by whatever course of reasoning we proceed, this was of advantage not only to the corporation, because it reduced the number of shares upon which it must pay dividends in order to maintain its investment credit, but also to the great body of stockholders, because it increased the available equity of each share. We may add that it was of advantage to the individual shareholder who was forced to sell his shares, in that it increased the number of purchasers.” Discuss.

 

Final. [February] 1935.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Examination Papers—Finals, 1935 (HUC 7000.28, 77 of 284).

Image Source: Crum, Mason and Chamberlin from Harvard Album 1934.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Examinations for Graduate Economic Theory. Chamberlin, 1948

 

From the Harvard archives I have transcribed the final examinations for the both semesters of a two-semester course in graduate economic theory taught in 1947-48 by Edward H. Chamberlin. The syllabus/reading-list for that course was transcribed in an earlier posting.

___________________________

 

Enrollments

[Economics] 101a. Professor Chamberlin—Economic Theory, I (F).

Total 84: of which 32 Graduates, 11 Seniors, 4 Junior, 17 Public Administration, 12 Radcliffe, 8 Others.

[Economics] 101b. Professor Chamberlin—Economic Theory, I (S).

Total 88: of which 37 Graduates, 10 Seniors, 1 Junior, 21 Public Administration, 8 Radcliffe, 11 Others.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1947-48, p. 90.

_____________________________

Final Examination
Economic Theory I
Professor Edward H. Chamberlin

1947-48
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 101a

Write on the first question (one hour) and any four of the others (1/2 hour each). (The first question will receive double weight).

  1. (one hour) The Marshallian analysis of monopoly required only the demand curve for the monopolist’s product, and the cost curve for the monopolist’s production, in order to determine the price-output combination which would make profits a maximum for the firm. In what respects does monopolistic competition theory replace or supplement the earlier analysis? Was the earlier analysis logically wrong, incomplete, or both?
  2. (1/2 hour) Mill gave great importance to the category of constant cost in his theory of value. More recently, as a result of the Marshallian analysis, some have concluded that constant cost is of no importance whatever, whereas others would retain it as a major category. Discuss the issues involved and give your own conclusion.
  3. (1/2 hour) Suppose a firm already to possess a certain plant, and to contemplate its expansion. Using a diagram, distinguish between, and relate to each other, the following six curves:
    1. The average and marginal cost curves for the original plant.
    2. The average and marginal cost curves which would be relevant to deciding on the expansion policy.
    3. The average and marginal cost curves after the expansion has taken place.

Explain the most significant principles involved in this analysis.

  1. (1/2 hour) Explain Marshall’s concept of “quasi-rent,” distinguishing it from the concept of “rent.” Explain the analytic use to which Marshall puts the concept, and give an illustration (preferably one of your own).
  2. (1/2 hour) A production surface may be regarded as a hill which may be “sliced” in various directions. Draw a diagram, or “indifference map,” which shows the following “slices,” all passing through the same point:
    1. Constant product
    2. Constant outlay
    3. Constant proportions of factors
    4. One of the two factors constant.

Show also (5) a “scale line” passing through this same point.
Explain in each case the meaning of the curve you have drawn.
What is the relation of this diagram to the cost curve analysis?

  1. (1/2 hour) “There is no use discussing whether or not we measure utility. The alternative to measurement is chaos, and since markets are not chaotic, there must be measurement.” Discuss the issues involved in this quotation and in measuring utility generally. To what extent are they solved by the use of indifference curves instead of demand curves?
  2. (1/2 hour) What is the essential feature of oligopoly which makes the behavior of an oligopolistic firm so intractable to ordinary analysis? Indicate at least one technique whereby the problem of price determination under oligopoly (or, in the special case of two: duopoly) has been reduced to manageable proportions and some conclusion reached. Criticize this technique and the conclusion.

Final. January, 1948.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final examinations, 1853-2001. HUC 7000.28, Box 15 of 284. Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations in History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. January, 1948.

_____________________________

 

Final Examination
Economic Theory I
Professor Edward H. Chamberlin

1947-48
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 101b

Please write on the cover of your bluebook the numbers of the questions you have answered, in the order in which they appear in the book.

Part I

Answer both questions, allowing 45 minutes each.

  1. Discuss any three specific problems involved in defining the marginal product of a factor of production. You may discuss particular factors, as well as the general problem.
  2. Discuss the major issues in “welfare economics” with respect to any three of the following subjects:
    1. The significance of “perfect competition” in welfare economics
    2. The production and exchange conditions for maximum economic welfare
    3. Equality of incomes
    4. Interpersonal comparisons
    5. Elements of monopoly
    6. Economic vs. non-economic welfare

Part II

Answer any three questions, allowing 30 minutes each.

  1. “Interest is a payment necessary to induce people to give up part of their current income to make capital formation possible. In a static state no capital formation takes place; therefore the interest rate in a static state would be zero.” Discuss.
  2. Outline a theory of profits taking into account all the factors which in your opinion influence both total profits and the earnings of particular Define your terms.
  3. Explain and contrast either Ricardian or Marshallian rent with Robinsonian rent. What is your own view on the main issues involved?
  4. Assume that trade unions consider the demand for the labor of their members in determining their wage objectives. Suppose a number of craft unions in an industry (say, the building industry) to be amalgamated into a single union. How would you expect this amalgamation to affect their wage objectives? (Do not discuss the question of bargaining strength).
  5. Discuss the equilibrium of the firm under conditions such that selling outlays are profitable.

 

Final. May, 1948.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final examinations, 1853-2001. HUC 7000.28, Box 15 of 284. Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations in History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. May, 1948.

Image Source: Edward H. Chamberlin in Harvard Class Album 1946.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Examination Questions for Chamberlin’s 2nd Semester Graduate Theory, 1939

My original enthusiasm for the trove of old Harvard economics examinations was slightly dampened when I noticed that mid-year examinations (i.e. in February) for full-year courses were not apparently included in the collections I saw during my recent archival visit. Today’s posting provides only the June examination questions for the second semester of Edward H. Chamberlin’s two-semester graduate economic theory course at Harvard during the 1938-39 academic year. The course syllabus for both semesters of Economics 101 with many links to the readings was transcribed and posted earlier. Maybe someone gets lucky and finds a copy of the February, 1939 exam to add here. Better yet, maybe someone finds a copy of Chamberlin’s own or some graduate student’s notes for the course.

_________________________

Welcome to  Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. If you find this posting interesting, here is the list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have already assembled for you to sample or click on the search icon in the upper right to explore by name, university, or category. You can subscribe to this blog below.  Also you will find an opportunity to comment as well….

_________________________

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 101

Answer SIX questions. (Please do not depart from the order in which they are listed.) Each question will receive equal weight.

  1. What minimum conditions are necessary to discrimination? What further conditions are necessary in order to make discrimination profitable? What further conditions would be necessary in order to have discrimination in the highest (“first”) degree? Describe the general conditions of equilibrium for a discriminating monopolist. Is it possible to say whether, from the point of view of society as a whole, price discrimination is desirable or not? Why or why not?
  2. Discuss the following quotations from Hicks, individually, and in relation to each other:

“In the short run, particular men may be displaced by an increase in saving; but in the long run, the accumulation of capital is always favorable to the interests of labor.”
“Now…inventions of this type…may reduce not only the relative share of labor, but also its absolute share.”

  1. “Under a régime of private property and competitive industry, doubtless all that unionism can achieve in raising wages is to aid in bringing them to the full marginal productivity of labor.” Discuss.
  2. Are production and consumption “synchronized” by capital in a static state? Discuss fully and explain what importance (if any) you think this issue has for the theory of interest.
  3. Compare and contrast the interest theory of Boehm-Bawerk with that of either Wicksell or Indicate and defend your own view on the most important points of difference.
  4. “Jevons asks: ‘If land which has been yielding £2 per acre rent, as pasture, be ploughed up and used for raising wheat, must not the £2 per acre be debited against the production of wheat?” The answer is in the negative.” Discuss.
  5. What rôle, if any, do you assign in your own theory of profits to each of the following: (a) marginal productivity, (b) risk, (c) innovation, (d) monopoly, and (e) the separation of ownership and control in the modern corporation?
  6. Discuss critically Knight’s analysis of cumulative inequality as a factor in economic and political evolution.

Final. 1939.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations, History, History of Religions, … ,Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. June, 1939. (HUC 7000.28) Box 4 of 284.

Image Source: Professor Edward H. Chamberlin in Harvard Class Album 1939.

 

Categories
Courses Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Junior Year Economic Theory, Chamberlin. 1940

 

 

The last time the undergraduate course Economics 1 (Economic Theory) was offered as a full year course (1939-40), it was taught as an honors course by Professor Edward Chamberlin, Associate Professor Wassily Leontief and Instructor O.H. Taylor. Starting in the academic year 1940-41, Harvard’s Economics 1 was split into back-to-back semester courses Economics 1a (Chamberlin: Economic Theory) and 1b (Taylor: The Intellectual Background of Economic Thought). Two years later the second semester course 1b was taught by Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Leontief under the title “Theory of Production and Distribution of the National Income” (1941-42).

________________________________

Course Enrollment

*1a 1hf. Professor Chamberlin.—Economic Theory.

Total 63: 1 Senior, 56 Juniors, 6 Sophomores.

 

Source: Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1940-1941, p. 58.

________________________________

ECONOMICS 1a
1940-41
Revised Outline

  1. The Law of Supply and Demand. Meaning and Generality. Relation to the Law of Cost. Cost curves and supply curves. Relation to monopoly and to competition. Pure and perfect competition. Market problem illustrating deviations from “equilibrium” as defined by perfect competition. Equilibrium vs. the equation of supply and demand.

Mill—Principles, Book III, chapters 2, 3, 5.
Chamberlin—Monopolistic Competition, chapters 1, 2.
Henderson—Supply and Demand, chapters 1,2.
Marshall—Principles, pp. 348-350; p. 806 note.

  1. Competitive theory, illustrated by Marshall.

Marshall—Principles, Book V, chapters 1-5; book IV, chapter 13; Book V, chapters 8, 9, 10, 12.

  1. The effect of small numbers in the market.

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 3.

  1. Product differentiation. Co-existence and blending of monopoly and competition. Output (sales) as a function of price, “product” and selling outlays. Price-quantity relationships examined in some detail, selling costs and products as variables more briefly.

Monopolistic Competition, chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 (pp. 130-149), Appendices C, D, E.
Alsberg, C. L.—“Economic Aspects of Adulteration and Imitation,” Q.J.E., Vol. 46, p. 1 (1931).

  1. Production and Distribution. Diminishing returns. Diminishing marginal productivitiy. The laws of cost. General effect of monopoly elements on the analysis.

Garver & Hansen—Principles, chapter 5.
Viner, J.—“Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, 1931.
Monopolistic Competition, Appendix B.

  1. Theory of Wages.

Hicks, J. R.—Theory of Wages, chapters 6, 7.

  1. Profits.

Henderson, Supply and Demand, Ch. 7.

________________________________

ECONOMICS 1a
1940-41

  1. The Law of Supply and Demand. Meaning and Generality. Relation to the Law of Cost. Cost curves and supply curves. Relation to monopoly and to competition. Pure and perfect competition. Market problem illustrating deviations from “equilibrium” as defined by perfect competition. Equilibrium vs. the equation of supply and demand.

Mill—Principles, Book III, chapters 2, 3, 5.
Chamberlin—Monopolistic Competition, chapters 1, 2.
Henderson—Supply and Demand, chapters 1,2.
Marshall—Principles, pp. 348-350; p. 806 note.

  1. Competitive theory, illustrated by Marshall.

Marshall—Principles, Book V, chapters 1-5; book IV, chapter 13; Book V, chapters 8, 9, 10, 12.

  1. The effect of small numbers in the market.

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 3.

  1. Product differentiation. Co-existence and blending of monopoly and competition. Output (sales) as a function of price, “product” and selling outlays. Price-quantity relationships examined in some detail, selling costs and products as variables more briefly.

Monopolistic Competition, chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 (pp. 130-149), Appendices C, D, E.
Alsberg, C. L.—“Economic Aspects of Adulteration and Imitation,” Q.J.E., Vol. 46, p. 1 (1931).

  1. Production and Distribution. Diminishing returns. Diminishing marginal productivitiy. The laws of cost. General effect of monopoly elements on the analysis.

Garver & Hansen—Principles, chapter 5.
Viner, J.—“Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, 1931.
Monopolistic Competition, Appendix B.

  1. Theory of Wages.

Hicks, J. R.—Theory of Wages, chapters 6, 7.

  1. Theory of Capital and Interest.

Clark, J. B., The Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 9 and 10.
Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital, Book II, Chs. 2 and 5, Book V.

  1. Profits.

Marshall, Book VI, Ch. 5, section 7; Chs. 7, 8.
Taussig, Principles, Vol. II, Ch. 50, section 1.
Henderson, Supply and Demand, Ch. 7.
Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation, Book IV.
Chamberlin, Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 5, section 6; Ch. 7, section 6; Appendices D, E; Ch. 8.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. (HUC 8522.2.1) Box 2, Folder “Economics, 1940-1941”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1946.

Categories
Courses Economists Fields Harvard

Harvard. Edward Chamberlin Lobbies to Teach a Graduate Theory Course. 1935

 

 

With the retirements of Charles J. Bullock and Frank W. Taussig in 1935 Edward H. Chamberlin saw his opportunity to start to break out of his designated field box “government and industry” and into “theory”. We have here a letter that Chamberlin wrote to the head of the economics department, Harold H. Burbank. The letter is of the putting-this-conversation-into-the-written-record variety. His deference to Burbank and recognition of the established claims of other colleagues to the theory field are complemented with a dash of false-modesty—“Perhaps I may, however,…put in my own ‘claim’ (if such it may be called) for whatever consideration it deserves.”

In any event, from the subsequent shuffle in instructional assignments for the 1935-36 academic year, we see that Chamberlin succeeded in joining Schumpeter and Leontief at the Harvard theory table.

________________________

Letter from Associate Professor Chamberlin to Chairman Burbank
Requesting to teach a graduate course in theory

 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

14 Ash Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts
February 26, 1935

Professor H. H. Burbank, Chairman
Department of Economics,
Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass.

 

Dear Burby:

This is to confirm our conversation of the other day. I should like to ask if arrangements could possibly be made at this late date for me to give a graduate half course next year on “Contemporary Value Theory.”

I have been asked by several people recently why it was that, although the theoretical problems which Mrs. Robinson and myself have raised are the subject of lively controversies in numerous other universities, one finds them very much in the background at Harvard. There does seem to be a general interest in the subject, and, since I have a strong continuing interest in it myself, the occasion seems to present itself of offering to graduate students at Harvard a better opportunity than they now have to study and discuss this set of problems and others related to it.

I realize that others than myself have claims to theory courses and that the problems of fitting the members of the Department to courses are not easy. Perhaps I may, however, even for this very reason, put in my own “claim” (if such it may be called) for whatever consideration it deserves. My work in Public Utilities and Industrial Organization could be reduced without difficulty. Donald Wallace could take my part in Economics 49 with Professors Crum and Mason, and, I am sure, would do an excellent job of it. This arrangement, together with a slight reduction in my tutorial load, would give me the time for another half course and I should continue in the undergraduate 4a and 4c. I should have, even then, only one-fifth of my time in theory, the other four fifths in the practical field of government and industry.

You have recently intimated in conversation that I might soon be given a share of the work in theory. I hope it may be next year, and also that a way can be found to arrange for it without interfering with the work which others are now doing or plan to do in the field.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Edward H. Chamberlin

________________________

Copy of letter from Chairman Burbank to Dean Murdock
with changes to 1935-36 course announcements

April 17, 1935

Dear Dean Murdock,

Owing to the retirement of Professor Taussig, several changes in the Course Announcement for the coming year will have to be made. The Department recommends the following:

*Economics 7b1. Theories of Value and Distribution. [listed as “Modern Economic Thought” in Report of the President of Harvard College 1935-36, p. 82; ]

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 11. Associate Professor Chamberlin.
[Replacing Taussig, Schumpeter and Sweezy who taught in 1934-35]

Economics 8a2. Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economics.

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., 4-5. Asst. Professor Leontief.
[Replacing Schumpeter who taught in 1934-35]

Economics 11. Economic Theory.

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2. Professor Schumpeter.
[Replacing Taussig and Schumpeter who taught in 1934-35]

Economics 14b2. History of Economic Thought since 1776.

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 11. Dr. Monroe.
[Replacing “History and Literature of Economics from the Physiocrats through Ricardo” taught by Professor Bullock in 1934-35. Bullock retired from Harvard September 1, 1935.]

Sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

 

 

Source: Harvard University Archives, Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 23, Folder “Course offerings 1926-1937”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1939.

Categories
Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. Economics of Transportation. Chamberlin, 1931

______________________________

Every year from 1927/28 through 1931/32, Edward Chamberlin taught a semester-long course on the economics of transportation. He took over the course that had been previously taught by Professor William Zebina Ripley, who continued teaching the next semester course in the sequence on the economics of corporations. In the following year these two courses morphed into the full-year course “Monopolistic Industries and their Regulation” co-taught by Chamberlin and Edward S. Mason.

The final examination questions for 1932 have been transcribed for this course.

______________________________

 

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 4a 1hf. Asst. Professor Chamberlin.—Economics of Transportation.

Total: 149. 5 Graduates, 46 Seniors, 85 Juniors, 7 Sophomores, 6 Other.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments, 1931-1932. p. 71.

______________________________

 

ECONOMICS 4a
1931-32

Lectures: Section Meetings:
Oct. 1-17 inclusive

Nov. 3-19 inclusive

Dec. 8-15 inclusive

Oct. 19-27 inclusive.

Nov. 20-Dec. 1 incl.

Dec. 16-22 inclusive

Assignments

Before Oct. 20

Chapter

Historical Sketch

Taussig—Principles of Economics

62, 63

Ripley—Railroads, Rates and Regulation

1

Ripley—Railroad Problems 

1,2

Rates

Jones—Principles of Railroad Transportation

4-9 inclusive

Jones and Vanderblue—Railroads, Cases & Selections

VIII

Traffic Geography

Jones and Vanderblue—Railroads, Cases & Selections

II

Daggett—Principles of Inland Transportation

8-14 inclusive

Finance

Jones

2, 16, 18

Jones and Vanderblue

XX, Section 1

Hour Examination October 29

Before Nov. 21

History of Regulation to 1917

Ripley—Railroads, Rates and Regulation

13-17 inclusive

Jones

14

Sharfman—American Railroad Problem

pp. 51-64

Federal Operation During the War

Sharfman

3, 4, 5

 

Nationalization

Sharfman

6

The Act of 1920

Sharfman

pp. 347-357

Sharfman

11

Valuation

Jones

15

Jones and Vanderblue

IV

Motor Truck Transport

Daggett

6, 34

Peterson—“Motor Carrier Regulation and Its Economic Basis”—Quarterly Journal of Economics—Aug. 1929

Inland Water Transport

Daggett

2, 33

Hour Examination December 3

Before Dec. 17

Consolidation

Jones

17

Daggett

22, 23, 24

Jones and Vanderblue

XXIV Sections 1 and 2

Foreign Experience
Daggett

30, 31

 

Reading Period

Read one of the following:

  1. Rates

Vanderblue and Burgess—Railroads, Rates, Service, Management. Chs. 5-12 inclusive.
Clark—Economics of Overhead Costs. Chs. 13, 14

  1. Valuation

Glaeser—Outlines of Public Utility Economics. Chs. 14, 19, 21. 
I.C.C. Finance Docket #3908 (O’Fallon Case)
Sup. Ct. Opinion #131, 132. October, 1928.

  1. Waterways

Moulton—St. Lawrence Navigation and Power Project. pp. 1-240
Journal of Political Economy—Feb. 1930, pp. 86-107; June 1930, pp. 345-353
Moulton—Waterways vs. Railways. Chs. 2, 3, 20.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 2, Folder “Economics, 1931-1932”.

Image Source:  Edward Chamberlin, Harvard Class Album 1932.

Categories
Agricultural Economics Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. William H. Nicholls, 1941

___________________

In his file at the President’s Office of the University of Chicago one finds a carbon copy of William H. Nicholls’ section 18 “Education, Employment, Publications” from what looks to be his U.S. Federal Civil Service application, perhaps required for his consultancy for the Office of Price Administration, Meats Section Washington in 1941-42. We have here a very complete accounting of his activities covering his graduate school years 1934-1940, both coursework and employment.

This post also includes a biographical sketch at his Kentucky alma mater’s Hall of Fame together with a memorial piece in his honor at the department of economics of Vanderbilt University where he was on the faculty for thirty years.

___________________

[Carbon Copy from Federal Civil Service Application(?) ca. January 1941]

18. EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, PUBLICATIONS, ETC.

18(a). Chronological Record.

Education

1930-34
(School-years)
University of Kentucky A.B., 1934 Graduated “with high distinction”, Phi Beta Kappa.
1934-37
(School-years)
Harvard University A.M. in Economics, 1937 Also part-time assistantships (see “Employment” below[)].
Feb., 1941 Harvard University Ph.D. in Economics, 1941 Thesis completed in absentia.

 

Foreign Travel

Summer, 1931         Travel in 12 countries of Europe.

 

Employment (Part-time= *)

Place of Employment Dates Institution Immediate Employer Title Salary
Washington, D.C. June-Sep. 1934 Tobacco Section, AAA Dr. J. B. Hutson
Chief
Statistical Clerk $1800.
Cambridge, Mass. Sep.1934-June 1935 Harvard Univ. Dr.John D. Black Research Assistant $600.*
Harrodsburg, Ky. June-Sep. 1935 Farm H.F. Parker Farm hand Room & board
Cambridge, Mass. Sep.1935-June, 1936 Harvard Univ. Dr. John D. Black Research Assistant $720.*
New England (Boston) June-Sep.1936 Bureau of Agri. Econ., U.S.Dept. of Agriculture Mr. R.L. Mighell Field Agent $2000.
Cambridge, Mass. Sep.1936-June 1937 Harvard Univ. Dr.John D. Black Research Assistant $500.*
New England (Boston) June-Oct., 1937 Bureau of Agri. Econ., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Mr. R.L. Mighell Field Agent $2000.
Cambridge, Mass. Oct.1937-Jan.1938 (Independent Research at Harvard University)
Ames, Iowa Feb. 1938-July 1939 Iowa State College Dr. T.W. Schultz Research Assistant & Instructor $2430.
Ames, Iowa July, 1939-July, 1940 Iowa State College Dr. T.W. Schultz Research Assistant & Instructor $3000.
Ames, Iowa Iowa State College Dr. T.W. Schultz Assistant Professor $3300.

 

 

18(b). Graduate Courses at Harvard University and Research

Graduate Courses at Harvard University

Professor Title of Course Grade
F. W. Taussig Economic Theory A-
Joseph Schumpeter Economic Theory
W. L. Crum Theory of Statistics B, A
C. J. Bullock History of Economic Thought Audit
John H. Williams Theory of Money and Banking A-
E. F. Gay Economic History B plus
John D. Black Economics of Agriculture A-
O. H. Taylor Scope and Method of Economics A
John D. Black Interregional Competition A
John D. Black Commodity Prices and Distribution A-

 

  1. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Field Agent, June-September, 1936.

Supervisors– Ronald L. Mighell, Senior Agricultural Economist, and Dr. John D. Black, Harvard University.

Nature of Work– The project concerned Interregional Competition in Dairying, and was a cooperative endeavor of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and Harvard University. The work consisted of taking farm-survey records on dairy farms in Vermont and Connecticut. The applicant was also responsible for collecting background material on milk marketing problems, including local hauling, operation of milk plants, milk prices and price plans, rail and truck transportation, governmental programs, and cooperative organization.

  1. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Field Agent, June-October, 1937.

Supervisors– Ronald L. Mighell Dr. John D. Black, Harvard University.

Nature of Work– This was a continuation of the project outline above. The applicant was in charge of the marketing phases of the study in New England. This work consisted primarily of a study of milk distribution and milk control problems in Hartford, Worcester, and Boston, involving contacts with distributors, cooperative officials, administrators of milk control boards, and health officials in those milk markets, as well as research workers in milk marketing at the state colleges of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. A manuscript of 189 pages was prepared, bringing together and analyzing the data gathered. Although this was to be used primarily as service material to the larger study of which it was only a part, it will later be published in some form.

  1. Research Assistant to Dr. John D. Black, Harvard University, September 1934-June, 1935: September, 1935-June, 1936; September, 1936-June, 1937.

Supervisors– Dr. John D. Black, Dr. John M. Cassels, and Dr. J. K. Galbraith, all of Harvard University.

Nature of Work- The duties of these part-time assistantships required some 20-27 hours a week, while the applicant carried a ¾ time graduate study program concurrently.

During the school-year 1934-35, he was responsible for a considerable part of the statistical work on Dr. Black’s book, “The Dairy Industry and the AAA”, as well as two articles in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by J. K. Galbraith and John M. Cassels, respectively.

During the school-year 1935-36 he assisted Dr. Black in the construction of index numbers and the study of farmers’ supply response to price, and made a brief study of tobacco marketing for use in Dr. Black’s course in Prices and Distribution.

During the school-year 1936-37 the applicant made an intensive study and analysis of the dairy-farm records and marketing data collected during the summer of 1936 on the Bureau of Agricultural Economics project. This work was supervised by Dr. Black.

  1. Independent Research, Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 1937-Jan. 1938.

Advisors– Dr. John D. Black and Dr. John M. Cassels of Harvard University.

Nature of Work-During this period, the applicant was working independently on a proposed Ph.D. thesis tracing the historical development of the marketing of manufactured dairy products. This period was one of an extremely intensive survey of the literature on dairy marketing since 1870 in libraries at Harvard and Washington, D. C. It also included several weeks of consulting with the staff of the Dairy Section of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. This project was dropped as a thesis subject in January, 1938, in order that the applicant might accept a position at Iowa State College. This work served as the foundation for several Iowa Experiment Station research publications at a later date (see next item).

  1. Member of Staff, Department of Economics, Iowa State College, Feb. 1938 to date.

In February, 1938, the applicant became a member of the staff of the Department of Economics, Iowa State College, of which Dr. T. W. Schultz is department head. His initial rank was “Research Assistant” at a salary of $2430. His duties involved full responsibility for initiating and carrying out a aresearch study of the price and production policies in the meat-packing industry. During the following year, largely outside of office hours, the applicant produced manuscripts on the butter and cheese industries, based on data collected just previous to his employment at Iowa State College, which were deemed worthy of publication as research bulletins (see “list of publications”).

The objective of the study of the eat-packing industry was to make a comprehensive survey of the industry, with intensive study of those phases which would shed light on the nature of competition and monopoly elements in the industry.

The procedure was divided into four parts:

(1) Conditions in the livestock and meat markets.

The purpose of this phase of the work was to compile background descriptive material such as was necessary as a foundation for the later, more important phases of the project. This general survey was completed, covering such things as the nature of supply of livestock, demand for meats, the marketing mechanism for livestock and for meats, the composition and degree of concentration in the industry, accounting methods in the industry, and the economics of large-scale plant and firm in the industry.

            (2) Price and production policies followed in the meat-packing industry.

The procedure here was to survey past attempts at control of monopoly in the industry, covering a period of some 50 years. The status of individual packers was examined, as well as the effects on competition of such policies as market sharing, price leadership, price discrimination, advertising and branding, handling of by-products and produce, storage, and trade associations. This program necessitated two important steps: (a) the examination of leading agricultural processing-distributing industries better to determine the true nature of competition in such industries, and the applicability to problems faced by the worker in agricultural marketing research of recent developments in the economic theory of monopolistic competition. The studies of the butter and cheese industries contributed a great deal in this direction, in addition to a full year’s empirical work on the packing industry. (b) the adaptation and extension of the existing theory of monopolistic competition to the somewhat peculiar requirements of the agricultural processing-distributing industries as opposed to the strictly “manufacturing” industries, which have been the main interest of the general economist. It should be realized that the applicant is working in an entirely new field—imperfect competition in agricultural processing and distribution and has, therefore, constantly had to develop or adapt new research techniques and tools.

As a result, under the encouragement of Dr. T. W. Schultz and Dr. John D. Black, the applicant devoted the year 1939-40 primarily to developing the pure theory of imperfect competition, with special application to the agricultural processing-distributing industries. In order to make this theory of as general application as possible, not only were problems of immediate concern in the meat-packing project covered, but the theoretical considerations were broadened to include the theoretical aspects of competition in fluid milk among local country-buying units, and under short-run dynamic conditions as well. Particular emphasis was given to the theory of market-sharing, price leadership, and price discrimination, with major attention to the markets between the farm and the processing-distributing “bottleneck”.

A 460-page manuscript, “A Theoretical Analysis of Imperfect Competition, with Special Application to the Agricultural Industries” resulted. This manuscript represented four times redrafting after critical reading by Professors Black and Mason of Harvard; Professor Stigler of Minnesota; Professors Schultz, Hart, Shepherd, Reid, Lynch and Tintner of Iowa State College; Dr. Frederick V. Waugh and Dr. A. C. Hoffman of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics; and Dr. Harold B. Howe, of the Brookings Institution. All of these critics are highly qualified general or agricultural economists, and their reactions have been generally favorable.

In September, 1940, the manuscript was submitted as a Ph.D. thesis at Harvard University, and has since been accepted by Professors Black and Chamberlin. Professor Chamberlin, the leader in this phase of economic theory, states in a letter of December 23, 1940, that it is “a very fine piece of analysis and a very much worthwhile one…….an chievement of first order ……I can honestly say that I have spent more time in going over and working through some of the complex arguments that I have ever spent on any preceding doctor’s theses. This was partly because I was naturally interested in the subject and also because the thesis itself merited. it.” The plan is to push the manuscript toward publication during the next few months. The applicant expects formally to receive his Ph.D. degree before February 15, 1941.

Beginning July 1, 1939, the applicant’s salary was advanced to $3000 per annum. During the school-year 1939-40, he taught elementary Principles of Economics one-quarter time. On July 1, 1940, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Professor at a salary of $3300, continuing to teach one-quarter time and pursue research three-quarters time. In the spring of 1941, he is scheduled to initiate a course for graduate students on Imperfect Competition in Agricultural Processing and Distribution.

Concurrently with other work previously outlined, the applicant prepared and presented a paper (unpublished) before a round-table of the American Farm Economic Association on December 28, 1938, entitled “A Suggested Approach to a Research Study in Price and Production Policies of an Agricultural Processing Industry”. Through the combination of theoretical hypotheses and empirical support, as based on the previously described work, he presented a second paper before the American Farm Economic Association in December, 1939. This paper, “Market-Sharing in the Packing industry”, presents statistical data for 1931-37 showing that the four dominant packers still buy relatively fixed proportions of hogs and cattle on the terminal markets as they did in 1913-17. It indicates how this may be evidence of oligopsonistic behavior in buying, the possible limitations of “market-sharing” as a monopolistic device, and how it may affect producer and consumer. This paper, the first published results of the meat-packing project, represents that balanced combination of empirical and theoretical analysis which the applicant considers the ideal research method.

In the December, 1940, issue of the Journal of Political Economy, another article (“Price Flexibility and Concentration in the Agricultural Processing Industries”, pp. 883-88) was published, growing out of previous empirical and theoretical work. This paper discusses the terminology concerning price “Flexibility” and alleged relationships between price flexibility and concentration of control in a given industry. It is argues that, in the agricultural processing industries (where short-run control of the supply of the food product is impossible), unlike the manufacturing industries, flexibility of margins is the important consideration, not flexibility of prices. Previous work of Means, Backman, and others in this field have failed to recognize the necessity for making this important distinction.

The great bulk of the descriptive phases of the price and production policies in the meat-packing industry has been completed. The basis no exists, in the applicant’s opinion, for a much clearer understanding of the nature of competition in the industry. Two important steps yet remain, however:

            (3) The RESULTS of these policies.

This will involve the financial analysis of the leading firms (partially completed), the examination of the relationship of such monopolistic practices as do exist to market price differentials, costs and margins, the method of buying of livestock, and the results in terms of the effects on farmer and consumer. In other words, how far do actual results as to prices, profits, employment, and investment—depart from “ideal” results under more nearly perfect competitive conditions?

(4) Practicable solutions to eliminate any ill-effects on farmer and consumer which are found to exist.

This will involve the consideration as to whether or not reform is necessary. If it is, such alternatives as government regulation, distribution as a public utility, dissolution of large firms, cooperation, government competition, etc., will have to be considered.

 

18(c). List of Publications

“Marketing Phases of Interregional Competition in Dairying”, 189-page manuscript, 1937, to be published.

*Post-War Developments in the Marketing of Butter, Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta., Res. Bul. 250, Feb. 1939, 64 pages.

*”Some Economic Aspects of University Patents”, Journal of Farm Economics, May, 1939, pp. 494-98.

“Short-Circuiting the Butter Middlemen”, Iowa Farm Economist, Jan., 1939, pp. 13-14.

*Post-War Developments in the Marketing of Cheese, Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta., Res. Bul. 261, July, 1939, 100 pages.

“Concentration in Cheese Marketing”, Iowa Farm Econmist, April, 1939, pp. 5[?]-6.

*”Post-War Concentration in the Cheese Industry”, Journal of Political Economy, Dec. 1939, pp. 823-45.

“Suggested Approach to a Research Study in the Price and Production Policies of an Agricultural Processing Industry”, paper read at Round-table on Marketing Research, American Farm Economic Association, Detroit, Dec., 1938, 14 pages, to be published.

*”Market-Sharing in the Packing Industry”, paper read at Annual Meeting, American Farm Economic Association, Philadelphia, Dec., 1939. Published in Proceedings, Journal of Farm Economics, Feb., 1940, pp. 225-40.

Review of Malott and Martin, “The Agricultural Industries”, in American Economic Review, March 1940, pp. 147-48.

*”Price Flexibility and Concentration in the Agricultural Processing Industries2, Journal of Political Economy, Dec., 1940, pp. 883-88.

** A Theoretical Analysis of Imperfect Competition, with Special Application to the Agricultural Industries, Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, accepted in December, 1940; 460 pages. To be published on Iowa State College Press by summer of 1941.

 

* Copy available for submission upon request.
**Topical table of contents or summary available upon request.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 284. Folder “Economics 1943-47”.

___________________

Hall of Distinguished Alumni
[University of Kentucky]

William Hord Nicholls

Born in Lexington, Ky., on July 19, 1914. Died, August 3, 1978. University Professor and Administrator. University of Kentucky, A.B., magna cum laude, 1934.

Serving as President of the Southern Economic Association (1958-59) and the American Farm Economic Association (1960-61), his expertise in the area of farm economics has been recognized also by governmental agencies and by a number of professional journals and societies.

After graduating magna cum laude (A.B., 1934) from the University, he then earned an M.A. degree at Harvard University (1938), the Ph.D., (1941) also at Harvard, and did post-doctoral work as a Fellow at University of Chicago (1941-42).

He was instructor, assistant professor and associate professor of economics, Iowa State College, 1938-44; assistant professor of economics, University of Chicago, 1945-48, and went to Vanderbilt University as a professor of economics in 1948. He became Chairman of the Department of Economics and Business Administration there in 1958, serving until 1961, serving the following year as visiting professor of economics at Harvard University. From 1965-77, he was Director of the Graduate Center for Latin American Studies at Vanderbilt, and was Harvie Branscomb Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt, 1973-74.

He served briefly in 1934 as a statistical clerk for the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Tobacco Section, Washington, D.C. During the summers of 1936 and 1937, he was field agent for the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, New England. He was research fellow and research assistant to Prof. John D. Black at Harvard, 1934-37, and a consultant, Office of Price Administration, Meats Section Washington, 1941-42. He was managing editor of “Journal of Political Economy,” 1946-48, and a visiting lecturer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, summer of 1947.

He also was a member of the faculty, Salsburg (Austria) Seminar in American Studies, summer of 1949; economist and co-editor of “Mission Report,” “Turkish Mission,” “International Bank of Reconstruction and Development,” Turkey and Washington, in 1950; economist, Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisers, Washington, 1953-54; technical director, Seventh American Assembly on U.S. Agriculture, Columbia University, 1954-56; consultant on Latin America,, Ford Foundation, Brazil and New York, 1960-64; agricultural economist, Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, during the summers of 1965, 1968 and 1970, and for a period in 1963 and early 1964, and guest consultant, Instituto de Planejamento Economics e Social, Ministry of Planning, Rio de Janeiro, 1972-73.

He has served on the board of editors of three professional journals, on a number of national committees and advisory boards, and has won a number of additional honors given by agencies he served in various ways.

His book, “Imperfect Competition Within Agricultural Industries,” (1941) went into a second printing in 1947. He also wrote numerous articles for professional publications, as chapters to books, as papers to be delivered at various professional meetings and as policy reports to various agencies.

William Hord Nicholls was named to the Hall of Distinguished Alumni in February 1965.

Source: Hall of Distinguished Alumni, University of Kentucky website.

___________________

Vanderbilt University Memorial

William H. Nicholls was born in Lexington, Kentucky on July 19, 1914, and died in Nashville on August 4, 1978. Professor Nicholls did his undergraduate work at the University of Kentucky and his graduate work at Harvard University, where he received the Ph.D. in 1941. His doctoral dissertation, published that same year, on Imperfect Competition Within Agricultural Industries, established his reputation as one of the country’s leading agricultural economists. He began his teaching career at Iowa State University in 1938 and moved to the University of Chicago in 1945. While serving as assistant professor at the University of Chicago, he edited one of the major professional journals in economics, the Journal of Political Economy. Nicholls came to Vanderbilt as a full professor in 1948, where he continued his prodigious output of books and articles. He was president of the Southern Economic Association in 1958-59 and presidentof the American Farm Economic Association in 1960-61. He received the Centennial Distinguished Alumnus Award of the University of Kentucky in 1966 and was Harvie Branscomb Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt in 1973. He chaired the Department of Economics and Business Administration from 1958 to 1961 and directed the Graduate Center for Latin American Studies at Vanderbilt from 1965 to 1977.

Distinguished Professor Nicholas Gerogescu-Roegen, writing in support of Professor Nicholls’ nomination for the Harvie Branscomb Distinguished Professorship, said of him, “He is the originator of the field of regional development. One would be justified in speaking of a Nicholls’ school, which has attracted numerous doctoral students to our Economics Department, and has enhanced the prestige of the University. His works in the area of agricultural economics have no equal. They reflect a unique combination of theoretical power with a keen insight of the relevant aspects of actuality. The best example is supplied by his (now a classic) volume Imperfect Competition Within Agricultural Industries, in which Bill has created some new and efficient tools for the analysis of monopolistic structure.

“His scholarly interest in agricultural economics and its relation to economic development brought him in contact with the problems of Latin America, with Brazil in particular. Here, again, Bill showed his imaginative approach and his scholarly grip of difficult problems. The excellent name our own department (and implicitly the University) has in Latin America and among the specialists on Latin American Economics, is due in the greatest part to Bill’s contributions”.

Source: Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University, full biography link from the In Memorium webpage.

Image Source: Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University, in Memorium webpage.