Tag: Colin Clark

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Gender

Chicago. Notes on conversation with U Chicago president Colwell by T.W. Schultz, 1946

Biblical Greek Scholar/Theologian Ernest Cadman Colwell served under Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins as the president of the University of Chicago from 1945 to 1951. Theodore W. Schultz was the relatively new head of the Department of Economics who met with Colwell in late September 1946 to brief the president on developments in the economics department, especially with respect to efforts being made in pursuit of several economists needed to fill the gaps left by Henry Simons’ death (1946), Chester W. Wright’s retirement (1944), resignations by Jacob Viner (1946) and Simeon E. Leland (1946), and Oskar Lange’s leave of absence (1945-).

We see in the memorandum of conversation transcribed below that John and Ursula Hicks posed a spousal hire issue needing a creative solution before an actual offer could be made and that sixty year old Frank Knight was due some sort of a “senatorial courtesy” to get him on board with the majority of the department who badly wanted to extend an offer to thirty-one year old Paul Samuelson. 

_________________________

Chicago Economics in 1946

Mitch, David. “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946.” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (2016): 1714–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549915. Especially the online supplemental materials, where the following memo is quoted in part.

_________________________

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

Harro Maas, “Making Things Technical: Samuelson at MIT” in E. Roy Weintraub (ed.) MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014), pp. 272-294.

Roger Backhouse. Founder of Modern Economics: Paul A. Samuelson. Vol. I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948 (Oxford University Press, 2017), Chapter 28 “Commitment to MIT.”

_________________________

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

This discussion with President Colwell was highly satisfactory in that we considered in some detail and carefully, a number of important developments affecting the Department of Economics as follows:

1. I indicated to Mr. Colwell that the role of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago should be reviewed, with the view of achieving a better division of labor among universities within the U. S. and internationally. An increasing number of universities can do creditable undergraduate work in economics, and also satisfactory graduate work up to and beyond the master’s. There are upwards of two score of such institutions in the U. S. Meanwhile, the number of students seeking training at the undergraduate level, and also in graduate work, has increased rapidly, and the post war promises further growth in numbers. Meanwhile, many Western countries are looking to the U.S. for some of their advanced education in other fields as well as in economics), this along with the development that is taking place within the U. S., suggests that the time has come for the University of Chicago to allocate its resources even more largely to the most advanced reaches of economics. I proposed that we examine carefully the implications of this kind of refocusing of our program. I was pleased that Mr. Colwell found himself drawn to the kind of analysis I was presenting. He made several contributions to it and concurred with the analysis itself. He very cordially urged the Department to examine this thesis and reconstitute itself to serve more effectively, taking full account of the division of labor within American academic institutions.

2. I reviewed in some detail the state of the Department, pointing out the losses that have come as the result of the death of Simons, the retirement of Wright, the resignations of Viner and Leland, and the leave of absence of Lange. I expressed our pleasure in achieving the appointment of Friedman and Blough, and reaffirmed my confidence in our judgment in seeking these appointments.

With regard to additional appointments, the following individuals were discussed.

(1) Mr. and Mrs. Hicks. I reviewed the agreements we had with Mr. Hutchins, which were the foundation of negotiations last spring. I indicated that the Hicks would arrive this week to be with us the fore-part of the fall quarter. If as a result of this opportunity of being together during part of the fall quarter, the Hicks see a real opportunity for their professional efforts at the University of Chicago, and we continue to be genuinely interested in bringing them to this University, would we be permitted to offer Mr. and Mrs. Hicks the salaries and positions that we had discussed last spring realizing we might have to go higher in the case of Mr. Hicks, for I was convinced his standing warranted our paying the maximum. Mr. Colwell said he was willing to authorize an offer of $10,000 to Mr. Hicks, and probed with me for a while the merit of making it higher instead of offering a position to both individuals. It was my judgment that our bargaining power would be at a maximum if we would offer both individuals a position, but that we could escape the liability of dual membership in one family by making the offer to Mrs. Hicks a term appointment — perhaps that of a Lecturer or Research Associate, say for three years at $3,000, and then reconsider at the end of three years, where she would have the privilege of withdrawing or redefining her relationship, and the Department would likewise have that privilege. Thus, the commitment would be permanent in the case of Mr. Hicks, but meaningful in terms of time turned into professional task to Mrs. Hicks and yet allowing flexibility in her case. Mr. Colwell accepted my proposal to proceed with an offer to both Mr. and Mrs. Hicks along the lines I have outlined.

(2) I reported Mr. Viner’s observations that it was not likely Mr. Robbins would leave the London School of Economics, and that, at least for a year, there was no point in making an indirect approach again to see whether or not he might feel free to accept an appointment in this country. Mr. Colwell fully concurred.

(3) I reviewed our offer to Mr. Colin Clark to come to the University of Chicago as guest professor for a year. I also pointed out we had included in the offer $1000 for travel expenses. I Indicated further that several of my colleagues were disposed to feel that we should now make an offer of a permanent appointment to Mr. Clark, since he is not able to obtain leave of absence to come as visiting professor. I then indicated why I felt, although tentatively, that it was unwise to make this move for a permanent relationship with the Department until we had a chance to become personally acquainted with Mr. Clark, although I continue to have a high regard for his professional work as evidenced by his major writings. Mr. Colwell concurred with the view I expressed, namely, we should not make an appointment on a permanent basis, but should try to get Mr. Clark to come as a visiting professor, if not this year, perhaps next year.

(4) I reviewed the case of Albert G. Hart, indicating that he had accepted a position at Columbia before we could approach him with an offer, and that it was important to his own growth to take the position at Columbia for a year. My plan is to approach him at the end of the year, let him weigh alternatives, including the opportunities as he sees them at Columbia. My proposal to Mr. Colwell was that we approach Hart along in February or March in order to induce him to come to Chicago. We discussed Hart’s background in some detail, Mr. Colwell concurred in the procedure I outlined to him.

(5) I then outlined at some length the case of Paul Samuelson of M.I.T. Mr. Colwell had not had the privilege of visiting with Samuelson at the time he was here. Samuelson visited with Hutchins and Gustavson, as far as Central Administration was concerned. I stated it was my judgment that Samuelson is one of the younger men in economics who has a high probability of achieving a distinguished career as an economist, and that in this respect his promise is most outstanding; that I had no doubt of the merits of the case intellectually and would press for an appointment, were that the only consideration, without delay, but that I had to achieve, however, an acceptance of Mr. Samuelson in the Department, not that a majority was lacking; a mandate existed satisfying the University administrative requirements. But the obstacle lies in what in substance is a matter of “senatorial courtesy” in behalf of the most distinguished and senior member of the Department, Professor Frank Knight. I expressed the hope it would be possible to have Professor Knight concur in the appointment and feel it was being made without any discourtesy to him and his professional role and standing in this University and in the profession. I felt this end must and could be achieved and that I was going to give a great deal of effort to it in the coming months. Pending the full exploration of what can be done in this connection I wanted to reserve decision as to whether or not to recommend the appointment of Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Colwell discussed at some length his own appraisal of the problem I had presented. He seemed to be pleased with the approach that was implicit in what I was relating to him. He made the point, and made it explicitly, that if the intellectual stature of Samuelson is as high as my judgment indicated, that it was exceedingly important the University move toward an appointment. I felt sure, though, that he was disposed to await the wishes of the Department, weighing carefully the factors I had tried to describe to him.

  1. At this point Mr. Colwell took me back to my general thesis, namely, the refocusing of the goals of the Department and the use of its resources, urging me to give active attention to this task. Whereupon I suggested the achievement of this role might well mean the setting up of 5 to 7 positions in the Department for individuals to spend 2 to 5 years at this university in what would be essentially a post-doctoral role as scholars, then accept positions elsewhere consistent with their accomplishments and promise. Mr. Colwell was drawn to the proposal as I had put it and referred briefly to similar planning and developments in other fields.

T. W. Schultz.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder “3”.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard and Columbia. President of Harvard headhunting conversation regarding economists. Mitchell and Mills, 1936

The following typed notes were based on a conversation that took place on February 21, 1936 regarding possible future hires for the Harvard economics department. President James B. Conant (or someone on his behalf) met with Columbia university professors Wesley C. Mitchell and his NBER sidekick, Frederick C. Mills. This artifact comes from President Conant’s administrative records in the Harvard Archives.

In the memo we find a few frank impressions of members of the Harvard economics departments together with head-hunting tips for established and up-and-coming economists of the day.

An observation that jumps from the paper is the identification pinned to the name Arthur F. Burns, namely, “(Jew)”. Interestingly enough this was not added to Arthur William Marget (see the earlier post Harvard Alumnus. A.W. Marget. Too Jewish for Chicago? 1927.) nor to Seymour Harris.  

________________________

[stamp] FEB 25, 1936

ECONOMICS

Confidential Memorandum of a Conversation on Friday, February 21, with Wesley [Clair] Mitchell and his colleague, Professor [Frederick Cecil] Mills (?) of Columbia

General impression is that the Department of Economics at Harvard is in a better state today than these gentlemen would have thought possible a few years ago. The group from 35-50 which now faces the future is about as good as any in the country. [Edward Hastings] Chamberlin, [John Henry] Williams,[Gottfried] Haberler and Schlichter [sic, [Sumner Slichter] are certainly quite outstanding. Very little known about [Edward Sagendorph] Mason;  he seems to have made a favorable impression but no writings. [Seymour Edwin] Harris slightly known, favorable but not exciting.

[John Ulric] Neff admitted to be the best man in economic history if we could get him. Names of other people in this country mentioned included:

[Robert Alexander] Brady — University of California, now working on Carnegie grant on bureaucracy; under 40.

Arthur [F.] Burns at Rutgers (Jew) now working with the Bureau of Economic Research and not available for 3 or 4 years. Said by them to be excellent.

Henry Schultz of Chicago, about in Chamberlin’s class and age, or perhaps a little better.

[Arthur William] Marget of Minnesota, Harvard Ph.D., I believe; well known, perhaps better than Chamberlin. Flashy and perhaps unsound. (Mitchell and Mills disagree to some extent on their estimate of his permanent value but agree on his present high visibility).

Winfield Riffler [sic, Winfield William Riefler], recently called to the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, probably one of the most if not the most outstanding of the younger men.

Morris [Albert] Copeland of Washington; good man but not so good as Chamberlin.

Giddons [sic, Harry David Gideonse?] of Chicago, very highly thought of by Chicago people but has not written a great deal; supposed to be an excellent organizer.

C. E. [Clarence Edwin] Ayres, University of Texas, about 40; in N.R.A. at Washington. Mitchell thinks very highly of him.

England

[Theodore Emmanuel Gugenheim] Gregory, at London School of Economics, about 50, same field as Williams but not so good. Mills more favorable than Mitchell.

Other outstanding young Englishmen:

[Richard F.] Kahn, Kings College, Cambridge

F. Colin [sic, Colin Grant] Clark, of Cambridge

Lionel Robins [sic, Lionel Charles Robbins] of London, age 35, rated very highly by both Mills and Mitchell

F. A. Hayek, another Viennese now in London; spoken of very highly by both Mills and Mitchell.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 54, Folder Economics, “1935-1936”.

Image Sources: Wesley Clair Mitchell (left) from the “Original Founders” page at the website of the Foundation for the Study of Business Cycles; Frederick C. Mills (right) from the Columbia Daily Spectator, Vol. CVIII, No. 68, 11 February 1964.

Categories
Cowles Economists Seminar Speakers

Cowles and IMF seminars on social welfare functions. Abba Lerner, 1952

 

In this post we have material related to a seminar on social welfare functions that Abba Lerner gave on at least two occasions in the fall of 1952–once at the I.M.F. and once at the Cowles Commission. The three items transcribed below come from a single folder in the “Abba P. Lerner Papers” at the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. The first two items are typed notes Lerner kept for himself followed by a page of handwritten notes that presumably were his presentation notes (his class lecture notes are seldom, if ever, more than a page per lesson and often no more than a list of key words). Where I have been forced to guess a word, I use boldface. Simple typos and spelling mistakes have been corrected without fanfare, Lerner was a pretty lousy typist.

Transcribed notes for Abba Lerner’s five lectures about labor (1949) can be found in an earlier post.

__________________________

SOME ASPECTS OF WELFARE ECONOMICS
IMF 9-19-52
[Lerner’s own typed notes, followed by handwritten notes]

Western Humanism—Efficient use of resources for satisfying human wants.

adding utilities, measuring utility, complementarity, weighting

For analysis avoid by indifference curves, more generally, by ordering

For Welfare Economics avoid by social welfare function also an ordering.

Democracy means deriving social decision from individual preferences.

Bergson and Samuelson seem to suggest possibility of getting social ordering from individual ordering

Arrow on the derivation. The Paradox.

More generally. Five conditions. Free choice, positive, irrelevance non-dictatorial, non-imposed.

Serious for Democracy how much consensus is needed? (Single peaked pref[erences]s.)

Much Math. Reviewers gingerly defer and repeat the paradox.

Too loose. Too severe. at the same time.

Voting is weighting. cf. “unweighted index numbers” voting excluded.

If voting should be consistent. 1+1 =1. (single peaked prefs avoid the triangle)

The third postulate. Men, not preferences, born free and equal.

Majority rule not = democracy. (tho not minority rule)

must be checked for significance of the preference to the individual.

PR [preference revelation?] as concentrating of voting.

Scale of ordering.-1-100 (voting by differences between votes)

Republican Editorial after Democratic Conference.

Must weigh individuals. Must allow individuals to weigh their preferences.

voting and pricing

[Bottom half of paper has the following handwritten notes:]

Social Welfare Function vs. process for social division.

One Commodity World

 A B C Total
x 3 1 2

6

y

 2 3 1 6
z 1 2 3

6

the middle one cannot be the worst

“indifference” [not the same as] “cannot say”

consensus about rules, not content
values vs. prefs?

__________________________

Social Welfare Functions
Discussion at Cowles Commission 10-9-52
[Lerner’s own typed summary of comments he received]

The essence of Democracy is not giving everybody equal influence or voting power but the recognition of uncertainty so that policies can be corrected. Not the determination of policy but the election of official to whom authority can be delegated. Houthakker.

How can the greater needs of some be protected? One cannot rely on those majorities who care little about anything being prevented from oppressing minorities by devoting only a little of their voting power to the oppression—what if there are not many decisions but only one which matters very little to the majority but is very important to the minority? Koopmans

The conditions for a successful democracy do include some restrictions on the preference of the members of society. If conflicts are so strong that they mean more than the preservation of the unity of the society or the keeping of the rules then the democracy cannot persist. Koopmans

Arrow’s third postulate is unnecessarily strong. His purpose would be served by having a social welfare function derived from some set of “complete” private orderings which would then continue to be used even when some of the alternatives have disappeared.  Chairman

Economics is where division between the satisfaction of the desired of different individuals is possible. Each can then get (buy) what he wants without this affecting others. Where there is an indivisibility or a non-separability of the effects on different individuals we have political rather than economic problems. Discussion after the meeting with Colin Clark.

Where there is indivisibility we have to have government and must sacrifice freedom. Colin Clark

 

Source:  Library of Congress. Manuscript Division. Papers of Abba P. Lerner, Box 21, Folder 5 “Welfare Economics, Undated”.

__________________________

The following handwritten sheet was not stapled to the previous two which were stapled together, but it does have what appear to be matching staple holes, as if the notes had been taken and used for another lecture at some other time.

Welfare Economics—Social Welfare Functions
[Lerner’s handwritten notes
(boldface indicates uncertain transcription)]

Present concerns—Sustaining Forces—Psych[ological] Warfare

deeper to Basic Ec[onomic] Analysis, Basic Political Philosophy.

                        Keynes, Adam Smith              Wilson, Jefferson, Socrates

Democratic Society. Voting. Arrow Paradox. Social ordering from individual orderings.

Is democracy possible? (Single peaked pref[erence]s, single commodity)

Political Ec[onom]y—Welfare Economics—preferred in to “Economics”.

conforming

Summation & Measurement of U[tility]. Social Welfare Function. Social States

Behaviorism + ordering OK.

If no comparison unanimity reasoning. voting means comparing – weighting.

Analyze paradox — inconsistent w[eigh]ting 1 + 1 = 1. (all preferences born equal)

(unweighted)

1 + 1 = 2 give rank ordering (not reasonable—adjust pref[erence]s equal)

\left( \text{another case  }xyz\text{  or  }zxy\,\,\to \,\,\bar{x}\bar{z}\,,\,\bar{z}\bar{y}\text{  but  }xy \right)

diff[erent] low votes is the influencing power not [number] of votes (cf P.R. [preference revelation?] etc) or majority rule

add cardinal utilities (which must also be comparable) to get social ordering

How much for each individual? How democratic

S.W. Function really impor[tant]. But do we need one?

All we need is a democratic decision

Equal influence — given a democratic result

Principle of relevance—different use of voting power. Not a S.W. Function

Inconsistency ceases to be irrational—diff[erent] circumstances

 (games, influence, voting, force, smudged-word)

Over-ambition—cf compensation issue “can’t tell” or “indifference”

output and distribution.

Democracy depends on multiplicity of items.

Consensus + Possibility of Democracy.

 

Source:  Library of Congress. Manuscript Division. Papers of Abba P. Lerner, Box 21, Folder 5 “Welfare Economics, Undated”.

__________________________

From the Cowles’ record of Commission Seminars

Oct. 9 [1952] Abba P. Lerner, Roosevelt College, “Social Welfare Functions”

Source: Yale University. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics. Webpage: Commission Seminars, 1943-1955.

Image Source: Publicity photo of Abba Lerner as Guest Speaker February 25, 1958 in the Beth Emet 1958 Forum. Library of Congress. Papers of Abba P. Lerner, Box 6, Folder 8.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

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

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

______________________

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

_____________________

Milton Friedman to T.W. Schultz
29 March 1954

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
March 29, 1954

 

Dear Ted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours

[signed]
Milton

 

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

 

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