Tag: Daniere

Categories
Courses Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. Course description and outline. Economic Theory. Daniere, 1963-1964.

 

 

Edward Chamberlin had a lock-hold on the first graduate economic theory course at Harvard in the 1950s, Economics 201. Towards the end of the decade, Chamberlin began to co-teach the course with Leontief’s student, assistant professor André Lucien Danière (Harvard economics Ph.D., 1957). In 1963-64 Danière solo taught “Chamberlin’s” course and the outline to his own version of the course is transcribed below. No exams for Daniere’s Economics 201 were included in the official Harvard printed exam collection in the archives. After his term as assistant professor at Harvard, André Danière moved on to the economics department at Boston College where he worked on the economics of higher education and development economics. 

______________________

Course Announcement

A. General Courses

Economics 201. Economic Theory

Full course. Tu., Th., (S.), at 10. Assistant Professor Daniere.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction for Harvard and Radcliffe, 1963-1964, p. 107.

______________________

Course Description
and Outline

                           Harvard Economic Project Research
André Danière
September 12, 1963

Economics 201
Description of the course

The first half is meant to be a self-contained basic course in micro-theory, with emphasis on the “useful”, for the benefit of students both in the department and in connected fields requiring some knowledge of economic theory. The techniques used will not go beyond elementary algebra and geometry, although some generalizations will be cast in terms requiring acquaintance with basic calculus and elements of modern linear algebra. The reading under each topic will consist in general of one modern article or book chapter selected mostly for its clarity of exposition, and one or two references to earlier classical or neo-classical literature.

The second half is integrated with the first in what is believed to be a logical overall plan, but treats of topics which either are of less urgency or are not normally included as such in –“theory” courses. For instance, a fair amount of time will be spent on central planning, with particular emphasis on “indicative” planning of the French variety. The last section on distribution will be an exercise in the history of economic thought, mostly neo-classical.

First semester

Note: Bracketed topics will be treated in no more than one lecture and are introduced only for purposes of completeness and connectedness.

  1. Framework of Economic Decisions
    1. Objectives of Economic Policy

Selected readings in chronological order from Turgot to Tinbergen.

    1. Modern Theory of Production

1) Input-Output; Linear Options; “Smooth” production function.

2) Time in the production function.

3) Definition of an “industry” production function.

    1. The Transformation Function; General Equilibrium in Production

1) Static assumptions

—with Constant Cost industries,
—with some Decreasing Cost industries,
—with jointness; external economies.

2) Dynamic models with capital accumulation

3) Semi-Aggregative models — Cobb Douglas type functions.

    1. Modern Theory of Consumption

1) Household Consumption and Income

—Utility maximization under static assumptions,
—Utility maximization over time,

2) Characteristics of Collective Consumption.

    1. Social Welfare

1) Efficiency criteria — Pricing as a tool.

2) Social vs. individual welfare

—Interpersonal comparisons; “aggregate” efficiency;
—Collective benefits in the welfare calculus
—[Basic theory of taxation]
—Philanthropy.

3) Pricing in Public utilities

4) Social investment criteria

5) [Special problems of growth in underdeveloped economies]

  1. The market economy
    1. Theory of the firm under free enterprise
    2. Alternative forms of competition

1) Industry behavior in the purely competitive model

2) Industry behavior under monopolistic competition

—Balanced competition of large numbers
—Oligopoly situations
—Public utilities

3) The determinants of competitive behavior.

    1. Welfare implications of alternative forms of competition

1) Welfare analysis

—Welfare properties of the purely competitive model
—Effect of monopoly power with fixed number of commodities
—Product differentiation.

2) [Social control and regulation of market behavior]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

ECONOMICS 201
Second Semester (summarized)

Note: Bracketed topics will be treated in no more than one lecture and are introduced only for the purposes of completeness and connectedness.

    1. Theory of investment of the firm.
    2. [The Capital market] Money and General Equilibrium
    3. [Elements of National Income Analysis]
      [Growth and Business Cycles] (sample model)
  1. Central Economic Planning
    1. [Budgetary and monetary planning]
    2. Structural planning

1) “Marginal” planning of public services — Projection models

2) “Indicative” planning (France) — “Consistent” forecasting models.

3) “Compulsive” target planning

4) Regional planning

  1. Distribution

1) Theory of rent

2) Theory of wages

3) Theory of interest

4) Theory of profits.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 8, Folder “Economics, 1963-1964”.

Image Source: Boston College Association of Retired Faculty. Bulletin (Summer 2014). Photo of André Daniere on page 2.

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Economist Market Economists Harvard M.I.T.

Chicago. Three casual letters from Cambridge, Mass. regarding young talent, 1957-59

 

In the three letters to Theodore W. Schultz transcribed for this post we witness the old-boy network at work in Chicago’s search for young talent.  Mason and Harris from Harvard share the enormous respect that Harvard Junior Fellow Frank Fisher had won from the senior professors there.  Evsey Domar hedges somewhat in his assessment of Robert L. Slighton but more or less places him in a spectrum running between Marc Nerlove and Martin Bailey closer to the latter. Other now familiar (and less familiar) names are tossed in for good measure.

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Office of the Dean

Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

December 27, 1957

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Ted:

In addition to [John] Meyer, [James] Henderson and [Otto] Eckstein, I would also name Franklin Fisher and Daniel Ellsberg as among our really promising young men. Fisher and Ellsberg are, at present, both junior fellows. Fisher is something of a wunderkind, having graduated summa cum laude from Harvard at the age of 18. He published a mathematical article on Welfare Economics when he was a senior, and those who can understand it say it’s good. He is only 20 now, and, of course, it is difficult to say how he is going to turn out. He may be another Paul Samuelson, and on the other hand he may not. Ellsberg is another one of our summas and a very good man, indeed. I don’t think he measures up to John Meyer, but is probably in the Henderson and Eckstein category. Since I promised you six names, I will add that of [???] Miller who came to us this year from California. I have really seen nothing of him, and consequently, can no give you a first-hand judgement. My colleagues, however, think he is very good.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Ed
Edward S. Mason
Dean

ESM:rrl

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

January 5, 1959

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

It was good to see you even though it was for a very short period. As you know, we include on our list of available men only those who have requested to be put on the list or who have given us their permission to have their name included in the list. It represents men who are either already Ph.D.’s or will receive their Ph.D. within the year, and who are actually available for the coming year.

[Daniel] Ellsberg will be getting his Ph.D. this year, but he is going to Rand at a salary of about $10,000. [Franklin] Fisher will not have his Ph.D. until June 1960. He is just out of college three years and has been offered an assistant professorship at Carnegie Tech. We have now promised him a similar appointment, and in fact he said he would prefer to be at Harvard.

Among other young men of talent who are now here but are not on our permanent roster are the following: Leon Moses who teaches half time in the department and does research with the [Wassily] Leontief project half time. There is a good chance that Moses will go to Pittsburgh, particularly in order to work on the metropolitan project with [Edgar M.] Hoover. Moses is an excellent man in every way and certainly of permanent quality: the same holds for Alfred Conrad who is in somewhat the same position as Moses. Incidentally, both of them have a leave for next year: There is also André Daniere who will be an assistant professor next year and who works primarily with Leontief. Daniere is another good man, though probably not quite as good as the others.

Then there are Otto Eckstein, James Henderson, Jaroslav Vanek and Louis Lefeber. They are all excellent men and in the running for a permanent appointment. Actually, during the next few years we will have but one or two openings and obviously we cannot keep all these men. There is little to choose among them and we will have a tough time making a decision. Please keep this in the highest confidence.

With kind regard, I am,

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SHE/jw

____________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

January 14, 1959

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

Your letter of January 6, regarding [Robert L.] Slighton is not quite easy to answer. I do not know [Daniel] Elsberg [sic] or [Franklin] Fisher well enough to make comparisons, but I will try to compare Slighton with [Martin J.] Bailey and [Marc] Nerlove. From the point of view of statistical and mathematical ability, Nerlove stands in a class all by himself, and I do not think that Slighton’s comparative advantage is in those fields. As far as Bailey is concerned, he may have flashes of ideas at times superior to Slighton’s. On the other hand, I would credit Slighton with greater solidity, more common sense and better judgment. As far as long-run contributions are concerned, I don’t know on whom of the two I would bet at the moment, but Slighton would be a serious contender in any such betting.

Lloyd [Metzler]’s session went quite well. He was greeted by the audience most warmly and was pleased about the whole works very much. I am very happy that that meeting was arranged and that I could participate in it.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Evsey D
Evsey D. Domar

EDD:jr

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 9.