Tag: Dunlop

Categories
Economics Programs Graduate Student Support Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Chairman’s Report to the Dean. Harris, 1956

 

The previous post provided transcriptions of the annual reports to the Dean by the chairman of the economics department from 1932 through 1941. This post skips ahead to the middle of the 1950s to give us a glimpse of the post-war Harvard economics department. Seymour Harris’ big take-aways from his 45 year survey of undergraduate and graduate economics courses taught by Harvard economics faculty: (i) “the proportion of undergraduate courses given by full professors has fallen from 75 to 35 percent” and (ii) “graduate courses are relatively 5 times as numerous as they were in 1909-10.” (from July 3, 1956 cover letter to Dean McGeorge Bundy that accompanied the report transcribed below).

It is also interesting to note that the economics department’s continues to plead for more funds to compensate it for “…about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account[ing] for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis)…”. Harris wrote this report two decades after the Graduate School of Public Administration had opened for business.

____________________________

CONFIDENTIAL

June 30, 1956

Report to the Dean of the Faculty for the Academic Year 1955-56
by Seymour E. Harris, Chairman of the Department of Economics

Contents

Undergraduate Instruction

  1. More Mature Staff for Economics 1.
  2. Contents of Economics 1.
  3. Staff Meetings of Economics 1.
  4. Lectures in Economics 1.
  5. Economics Tutorial.
  6. High Honors Concentrators.
  7. Seminars for Honors Graduates.

Allocation of Resources

  1. Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa.
  2. Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  3. Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  4. Table 1 – Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  5. Table 2 – Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank.
  6. Table 3 – Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate.
  7. The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction.
  8. Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members of Faculty.
  9. Ibid., Statistical Summary.
  10. Number of Faculty by Rank.

Relations with G.S.P.A.

  1. Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A.
  2. Contributions of G.S.P.A. to Economics Department.
  3. Overall Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars.

Library Problems

  1. Library Problems.

Fellowships

  1. Inadequate Fellowships.
  2. Campaign for Additional Money.
  3. Outside Fellowships.

Research and Personnel Problems

  1. Competition of Research Fellowships for Potential Teachers.
  2. Research Projects.
  3. Financing of Pay of Director of Research Projects.
  4. Small Research Grants.
  5. Secretarial Help.
  6. Personnel Changes.
  7. Honors, etc.

 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Undergraduate Instruction

The Department is especially concerned with the problem of undergraduate instruction. Confronted with a trend away from economics the country over (see my Memo to the Alumni of the Harvard Graduate School in Economics, May, 1956, p. 4) and the competition of an unusually able corps of undergraduate teachers in competing fields at Harvard and notably in history and government we are paying increased attention to our undergraduate instruction. In the last year we have taken the following steps:

  1. More Mature Staff for Economics 1. We are using a larger proportion of instructors and assistant professors in Economics 1. We expect that half the Economics 1 staff will consist of instructors and assistant professors in 1956-57 as compared with 20 per cent in 1955-56.
  2. Contents of Economics 1. We are revising Economics 1 for 1956-57. Economics 1 has become too technical. One advantage of increasing the average age of the staff is that the older men are less inclined to teach the highly technical economics they get in graduate courses. Probably less than 20 per cent of those enrolled in Economics 1 are, or are likely to become, concentrators in economics; and no more than 1-2 per cent will become economists. Our major responsibility is to give the student in Economics 1 relatively simple economic theory and relate it to the major issues of public policy. We intend to devote more time to integrating our economics with history and political science. Macroeconomics will continue to receive a major part of our attention, but less time will be given to the economics of the firm.
  3. Staff Meetings of Economics 1. The Chairman now meets with the Economics 1 staff for 1½ hours every 2 weeks and in every possible way is trying to make the teaching fellow and other junior members, who contribute so much time and enthusiasm to our teaching program, feel as though they are an important part of our department staff.
  4. Lectures in Economics 1. This year we doubled our lectures in Economics 1 — a lecture every other week. In these lectures we try to go over ground not covered in the readings and also incidentally to give the undergraduate an opportunity to listen to some of the top economists in the country. We are now not disposed to increase the number of lectures further but we shall continue the experiment. Of this I am convinced — lectures are not likely to be as important in Economics 1 as in the elementary course in government and history (Social Science). The undergraduate probably gets much more from discussions of economics in small sections than from lectures.
  1. Economics Tutorial. Tutorial in economics is not as good as it ought to be. We are wrestling with this problem. We intend to have more meetings of tutors and to impress upon them the importance of tutorial. At one of our Executive Committee meetings, we had a frank discussion with the seven masters and several senior tutors concerning our tutorial work. Our Junior tests, tied to house tutorial, seem to be working well. This year we prepared an extensive reading list for Sophomore tutorial; and next year we intend to integrate tutorial and Economics 1 more than in the past. We hope that tutorial in the second half of the Sophomore year will deal with some of the theoretical problems that will be excluded from Economics 1.
  1. High Honors Concentrators. This year we had periodic meetings with all first and second group men in economics. At these meetings (one evening every two weeks) we try to encourage discussions of important problems in the seminar manner.
  1. Seminars for Honor Graduates. Economics 100 and 102 are two new courses (to be introduced in 1956-57 and 1957-58) to be open to Junior and Senior honors students. They will be run on a seminar basis, limited in enrollment, and will be integrated with tutorial. The student will get an opportunity to deal with theoretical problems and their empirical counterpart.

Allocation of Resources

  1. Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa. Here are some tables which throw some light on the allocation of resources between undergraduate and graduate courses. Generally courses for undergraduates and graduates are taken primarily by undergraduates, and courses for graduates primarily by graduates. Hence, we assume that the courses for undergraduates and graduates are in fact courses for undergraduates and courses for graduates are in fact courses for graduates. (In the spring term 1956 the percentage of Arts and Science graduate enrollment in courses for undergraduates and graduates was 14 or 1 per cent of the 1181 enrolled in these courses; the enrollment of undergraduates in courses primarily for graduates was 10 of 482, or 2 per cent).
  2. Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. Table 1 reveals relatively unimportant changes in the number of courses for undergraduates; and the net change in the number of courses for undergraduates and graduates (in fact undergraduate courses) in the last 40-50 years has not been large. In 1909-10, there were 10½ undergraduate courses (inclusive of half courses for undergraduates and graduates and exclusive of bracketed courses); in 1955-56, there were 14½ of such courses.
  3. Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. It is especially in graduate courses that the rise has been spectacular. In 1909-10 there were 1½ graduate courses in Economics (exclusive of bracketed ones); by 1929-30, there were 11; by 1939-40, there were 12½ courses; by 1949-50, there were 21½ courses; and by 1955-56, there were 24. All these totals include half courses.
  1. Table 1 — Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56*
    (Refers to Units of Full Courses)
  1909-10 1919-20 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Rank U G U G U G U G U G U G
Full Prof. 8 1 3 7 4 ½ 7 7 ¼ 16 ¾ 8 15 ¼ 5 18
Assoc. Prof. — — — — 3 3 3 ¼ 1 ¾ 1 3 ¼ 3 2 ½
Asst. Prof. 1 ½ ½ 3 ½ 2 ½ 1 — ½ — 2 ½ — 4 2
Instructor & Lecturer 1 — 3 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 3 3 2 ½ 1 ½
Total 10 ½ 1 ½ 9 ½ 10 ½ 10 11 12 ½ 19 ½ 14 ½ 21 ½ 14 ½ 24
  1. Table 2 — Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank*
    (Refers to Nearest Decimal point)
  1909-10 1919-20 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Rank U G U G U G U G U G U G
Full Prof. 76 66 32 67 45 64 58 86 55 73 35 75
Assoc. Prof. — — — — 30 27 26 9 7 14 21 10
Asst. Prof. 14 — 36 24 10 — 4 — 17 — 27 8
Instructor & Lecturer 10 34 32 9 15 9 12 5 21 13 17 7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

* U = “undergraduate” and “undergraduate and graduate”;  G = “graduate”.
Source: Compiled from Course of Study Volumes.

  1. Table 3 — Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate
Total No. of Courses % of Total Courses
(Exclusive of Bracketed Courses)
“Undergraduate” and
“Undergraduate & Graduate”		 Graduate
(Inclusive of G.S.P.A. Economics Courses)
1909-10 12 88 12
1929-30 21 56 44
1939-40 32 39 61
1949-50 36 41 59
1955-56 38½ 38 62

From 1909 to 1929-30 the percentage of graduate courses was up from 12 to 44 per cent; but since 1929-30 the rise has been less spectacular. In Table 2, we note the courses, both undergraduate and graduate, given by men of various rank, from 1909-10 to 1955-56. The following points should be noted.

  1. The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction. In 1909-10 there were but 1½ out of 12 courses, or 12 per cent, graduate courses. By 1929-30 courses were roughly evenly divided between graduate and undergraduate. By 1939-40 and 1949-50 the ratio was about 60 per cent graduate courses; and by 1955-56, 62 per cent of all courses were graduate courses, or 5 times as much relatively as in 1909-10.
  2. Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members Faculty. Whereas in 1909-10 full professors accounted for 76 per cent of undergraduate course work, by 1955-56 they gave only 35 per cent of these courses; and there has been a marked decline since 1949-50. The total of undergraduate courses taught by them dropped from 1949-50 to 1955-56 by 3, or 37 per cent, and of graduate courses rose by 2¾ or 18 per cent. A similar trend is evident for associate professors, though from 1949-50 to 1955-56, the percentage of undergraduate courses taught by associate professors rose. It is a striking fact that in 1955-56, full professors taught 37 per cent less undergraduate courses and 1700 per cent more graduate courses than in 1909-10. In the former year there were 4 full professors, each responsible on the average for 2 full undergraduate courses and ¼ graduate courses. In 1955-56, 13 full professors averaged 1/3 of 1 undergraduate course and 1.4 graduate courses. (All 13 were not on full time). It is clear that the trend is away from undergraduate teaching for permanent members of the Department.
  3. Ibid., Statistical Summary. As might be expected, the percentage of all graduate courses taught by full professors tends to rise and of undergraduate courses to fall — the latter courses taught by professors declined from 76 per cent in 1909-10 to 45 per cent in 1929-30, and to 35 per cent by 1955-56.
  4. Number of Faculty by Rank. In this connection, the number at different ranks is of some interest. The full professors account for a somewhat larger proportion (teaching fellows omitted) than 50 years ago; but permanent appointments are an increased percentage.
  1909-10 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Professors 4 5 12 13 13
Assoc. Professors — 3 3 2 4
Asst. Professors 1 2 1 4 4
Lecturers and Instructors 3 2 3 4 3
Visiting, etc. Professors 2
(part-time)		 3
(part-time)		 — — 1
Total (excl. Visiting) 8 12 19 23 24
———— ———— ———— ———— ———— ————
% Full Prof. (excl. Visiting) 50 42 63 57 54
% Permanent (incl. Permanent Lecturers) 50 67 89 74 75

Relations with the Graduate School of Public Administration

  1. Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A. Our relations with the G.S.P.A. are of great importance. It is now close to 20 years since the G.S.P.A. was founded and yet the Department of Economics has never taken a long look at our relations. The Economics Department accounts for about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis).
  2. Contributions of G.S.P.A to Economics Department. The G.S.P.A. has made an important contribution towards the Economics Department. It provides some research and secretarial help, good physical facilities, useful library, central facilities for students and faculty, an opportunity to give our students excellent seminars, and to meet outstanding scholars and practical men in government.
  3. Over-all Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars. It may be that a decision should be made concerning the number of seminars. We tend to add one at a time, and the numbers now are at such a level that we may be putting a disproportionate amount of energy into these seminars. At any rate, net additions should be considered with care, given our available manpower. At present only 6 of the 18 permanent members of our faculty are not associated with the G.S.P.A.; and of the 6, Professors Dorfman and Duesenberry are about to participate. Of 27 courses to be given by permanent members of the Department, 7¼ will be as seminars in the G.S.P.A.

Library Problems

  1. Library Problems. Professor Arthur Cole retires this year. He has for many years been responsible for the acquisition of books in economics. Unless this responsibility is assumed by another, our economic collection will deteriorate. So far we have not been able to work out an arrangement acceptable to the Dean and the Director of the library. In my opinion, there is need for a central responsibility for library acquisitions in economics.

Fellowships

  1. Inadequate Fellowships. One of our most serious problems is fellowships. A study of fellowship funds announced as available to students suggested that Harvard was falling way behind. In a recent period of 5 years, five institution which are our strongest competitors had 30, 23, 20, 10, and 5 times as much money available for fellowships per Ph.D. granted in these five years. Increasingly we are losing the best students to rival institutions.
  2. Campaign for Additional Money. We have discussed this problem with Dean Bundy and Dean Elder, and also with our Visiting Committee. We have set up a committee consisting of Dean Mason, Professors Slichter, Dunlop and Harris to seek aggressively more fellowship funds. We are seeking these funds in the expectation that the major part of new funds will be available as additional funds for the Economics Department. Our goal is 6 fellowships at $2500 per year, or $15,000 per year additional. We discovered last year that by offering large fellowships to a limited number, we were more successful than in the past in attracting the more able candidates.
  3. Outside Fellowships. Our fellowship problem is eased by the availability of fellowships given by outside groups — governments, foundations etc. For example, Harvard received 5 of the 15 Wilson National fellowships for 1956-57. But it should be observed that there is often pressure to deny applicants access to the major universities and especially to Harvard. There is pressure to distribute widely, Moreover, a large proportion of these fellowship holders are often below our usual fellowship standards.

Research and Personnel Problems

  1. Competition of Research Fellowship Money for Potential Teachers. It is becoming increasingly easy for graduate students writing theses to receive fellowships that generally pay at least as much as a teaching fellowship. This year we lost 10 potential teachers as a result of these lucrative fellowships.
  2. Research Projects. Many of the Senior members of the staff are associated with large research projects, some of them of great significance. At least 9 of these projects may be classified as giant projects, three of them involving outlays of one half million or more dollars in the next 3-5 years. In 1955-56, Professor Leontief received almost one half million dollars to continue the projects of the Harvard Economic Group, and Dean Mason received $450,000 for a study of the New York Metropolitan area.
  3. Financing of Pay of Directors of Projects. It has always seemed to the Chairman, at least, that the foundations ought to pay part of the salary of the faculty members who direct these projects. When these projects are the major interest of those responsible for them, a case could be made for the foundation paying part of the salary of the relevant members of the faculty.
  4. Small Research Grants. It would be helpful to get some help from the Ford Foundation for small research projects especially for those who do not participate in the giant projects. I have had some preliminary discussion with the Ford Foundation, and I believe they would look with favor on an application for $25,000-30,000 per year for research help. Grants might vary from a few hundred dollars to $1,000-2,000 and be tied with specific projects. The great danger here is abuse of the privileges. Hence any such grant would have to be carefully administered – with some representation of outside economists on the committee.
  5. Secretarial Help. A related problem is that of secretarial help. Most of the Senior members, through administrative posts, control of seminars, editorial work, and research grants, manage to get the minimum amount of secretarial help. But 5 of our permanent members have virtually no access to secretaries and this is also true of most of our assistant professors. It would be helpful if some provision could be made for secretarial help for those without it. We realize this raises serious problems of finance.
  6. Personnel Changes. Professor Hansen retires this year and Professor Williams next year. We thus lose the best combination in money, cycles, and fiscal policy available anywhere. It is going to be difficult to fill this gap. Professor Black’s departure has also left a serious gap. We have added 2 very able assistant professors, Drs. J. Henderson and Valavanis, aside from two appointments (Drs. Moses and Conrad) in which the Economics Department shares one quarter of the cost. For 1957-58 and 1958-59, the Economics Department will have the services of Dr. E. Hoover for 3/7 of his time. We probably have the most able group of assistant professors in our history. It is not going to be easy to fill the gaps noted above, and make the most effective use of the young talent now in the Department. The Visiting Committee is again raising the question of a Professor of Business Enterprise, a matter to which we should give earnest attention. President Conant and Provost Buck were apparently prepared at the last discussion of this problem to provide an additional appointment for this purpose.
  7. Honors, etc. Dean Mason received an honorary degree from Harvard, and was a United States Representative at the United Nations Conference in Geneva on Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy.

Professor Hansen gave the Walgreen lectures at the University of Chicago.

Professor Harris served as Chairman of the Nor England Governors” Textile Committee,

Professor Galbraith advised the Indian Government on their Five Year Plan.

Professor Smithies was a Visiting Professor at Oxford and Professor

Kaysen at the London School of Economics.

 

Books:

Galbraith and Holton: Marketing Efficiency in Puerto Rico.

Harris: Keynes: Economist and Policy Maker.

Harris: New England Textiles and the New England Economy: Report to the Conference of New England Governors.

Kaysen: United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation: An Economic Analysis of an Anti-Trust Case.

Kaysen and Harris were two of the four co-authors of the American Business Creed.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2,  Folder: “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean, 1955-”.

Image Source: Seymour E. Harris in The Harvard Class Album 1957.

 

Categories
Computing Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Fields Harvard

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

 

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

_____________________

Economics Faculty Meeting Minutes
December 8, 1959

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

Abandonment of IBM-650

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andre Daniere
Secretary

Dictated 12/14/59

 

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

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

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard Radical

Harvard. Leontief and Galbraith report on conflict within department, 1972

In December 1972 the conflict about opening the Harvard economics faculty to include “broader and necessarily ‘softer’ questions of social structure, social functions and social reform” exploded beyond the confines of the economics department. This post provides two letters/memos sent to Harvard’s President Derek C. Bok written by Wassily Leontief and John Kenneth Galbraith, respectively, that supported curriculum reform involving the continued appointments of young radical economists. It would appear from Leontief’s account that a relatively silent majority of the younger mathematical economists in the department was able to block the recommendation of their more senior colleagues to expand course offerings to meet the demand of students for courses outside the confines of “orthodox technical economics”…a revolution that devoured its own parents.

_____________________

Background tip:

Talk presented by Tom Weisskopf “The Origins and Evolution of Radical Political Economics” (September 25, 2012).

_____________________

Photocopy Leontief to Harvard President Derek C. Bok

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Wassily Leontief
Professor of Economics

309 Littauer
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-2118

December 21, 1972

Mr. Derek Bok
President
Harvard University
Massachusetts Hall 1

Dear Derek:

I am writing in response to your request for my views on the conflict that for some time has been straining the relationships within the Executive Committee of our Department on the one hand and Executive Committee and the graduate student body on the other. It developed along rather familiar lines and finally broke into the open.

The controversy, as I see it, centers on the question whether the Department of Economics should widen the range of its intellectual concerns and of its teaching responsibilities beyond the narrowly delineated field of orthodox technical economics by inclusion of broader and necessarily “softer” questions of social structure, social functions and social reform: questions raised for example in the old Marxist and the new radical economics.

While a minority in the Executive Committee favors a move in this direction, arguing that it would reflect the natural growth and extension of our discipline, the majority opposes it on the grounds that this would amount to politicalization of the field and lowering of intellectual standards. Somewhat paradoxically, the minority favoring a change comprises mostly senior members of the Department while the core of the majority group consists of the younger mathematical economists. Needless to say, the students are on the side of the minority. While the minority did most of the talking, the majority was content with voting.

Last spring a mixed faculty-student committee appointed by the Chairman proposed a modest curriculum reform that would reflect the interest in the new subjects. After a stiff fight, the report was first accepted, then watered down, and finally scuttled.

The division within the Department was clearly reflected in a series of votes on new appointments. Three years ago, the junior staff contained four radical economists: Herb Gintis, Tom Weisskopf, Art MacEwan and Sam Bowles. All were let go. Gintis is now lecturer in the Department of Education, Tom Weisskopf was avidly acquired by the Department of Economics of the University of Michigan, Sam Bowles failed a week ago to receive a permanent appointment, and Art MacEwan was denied this week a second three-year appointment. The slate is clear except for Steve Marglin, who was elevated to full professorship before his interests had shifted into the field of institutional analysis and criticism.

Adverse votes are invariably based on lack of intellectual distinction and creditable contributions to knowledge by the candidate; this notwithstanding the fact that several permanent slots were filled in the past by scholars of admittedly indifferent stature on the ground that a vacancy had to be filled in some narrowly defined specialized field.

Reluctantly the minority on the Executive Committee came to the conclusion that its advice and counsel will be disregarded in the future as it was in the past; that crucial decisions will be made on the basis of an often silent, but invariably effective majority vote. The rising tension finally led to acrimonious exchanges at the last meeting of the Executive Committee.

The obvious frustration of the graduate students finds its expression in sharp verbiage used by the radical minority and sullen indifference and cynicism among the rest. I hardly need to add that the students are quite aware of the division within the Executive Committee.

This is where we stand now. At best one could observe that as a whole the senior teaching staff of the Economics Department is much less effective than one could have expected it to be considering the distinction of its individual members. At worst, the continuation of the conflict might result in resignations and damage all around.

After you called me up, Jim Duesenberry asked several members of the Department to serve on a committee that would review the intellectual problems involved and try to find some way out. The proposed composition of the committee (Arrow, Bergson, Dorfman, Galbraith and me) assures that its report will give full weight to the minority point of view.

I myself feel that nothing short of a clear-cut reversal in the present trend can prevent further deterioration of the situation. Needless to say, I will do all I can to bring about a constructive and peaceable solution of the difficult problems we are facing. Some counsel and some help from you and John [probably economist John T. Dunlop who was serving as Dean] most likely will be needed. Let me add that some of my colleagues who up to now held an opposing point of view have offered their full cooperation.

I have dictated this letter but had no time to proofread it since Estelle and I are leaving for London two hours from now. In case of need, please do not hesitate to call me. My secretary, Mary Conley, will know all the time where I can be reached.

With best wishes from Estelle and me to Sissele and you.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Wassily Leontief

WL:mc

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Carbon copy Galbraith to Harvard President Derek C. Bok

December 22, 1972

President Derek C. Bok
Massachusetts Hall

Dear Derek:

This I hope will diminish the concern you may have had following my telephone call of the other evening. My personal anger, as usual, has been difficult to sustain although I surely intend to stay with this problem until things are put right. I’ve met with the young radicals and I think they are persuaded that Toronto is not a good forum and that neither Arrow nor I is the man they most want to embarrass. John has operated with usual skill and panache. He accepts the idea of a commission to consider and act before things get worse, and I am drafting up the terms of reference for discussion with Jim Duesenberry. I’ve gone over the rough outlines with Wassily. With considerable approval, I’ve raised the question of conflict of interest with external corporate enterprises. I enclose a document on that subject.

In any case, a Merry Christmas.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:kv

Enclosure

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard Dept. of Economics, Discussion of appointments, outside interests and reorganization, 1972-1973 (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Wassily Leontief from Harvard Class Album 1957.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Galbraith’s Proposal to Split the Economics Department, 1973

 

During the early 1970s the Harvard economics department went through an identity crisis in which the orthodox mainstream was challenged by a not-so-silent minority of proto-heterodox economists and a dissatisfied graduate student body. The following three artifacts from the discussion of that time come from John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers. I would not exclude the possibility that some/much of the December 26, 1972 memo from the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences was inspired, if not directly penned, by Galbraith.

Galbraith was incapable of writing even an intrauniversity memo without flashes of wit as both the draft and final versions of his memo clearly demonstrate. And yet, there remains an overwhelming pathetic, quixotic note to his proposal of dividing the economics department in order to save its diverse, social elements.

____________________________

When the Dean Asks
How to Fix the Harvard Economics Department

December 26, 1972

From: THE DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

To: THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Re: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A STUDY OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Recent developments and discussions suggest problems of some concern in the Department of Economics. In the belief that such problems, if attacked in timely fashion and a spirit of goodwill, will be more readily resolved than if allowed to persist and be aggravated, I am proposing action which I trust will meet with the approval of all concerned. I shall first identify those matters on which, I believe, there will be general agreement and then suggest terms of reference for the appropriate action.

  1. The Department of Economics has become very large. In the current catalogue I count 25 tenured members, 56 non-tenured members, 5 visiting professors and 13 economists in associated departments principally the Kennedy School, in addition to the large force of teaching assistants. It is not surprising that so large a body should have problems in maintaining a sense of common purpose and identity.
  2. There has of late been a deep difference of view on appointments in the Department. This has led to the suggestions that the Department, its size notwithstanding, is not emphasizing an adequate representation of diverse, socially unpopular or methodologically different positions, and that standards for promotion operate to exclude or minimize the representation of such views.
  3. There will be agreement that a majority may be less urgently seized of the need for representation of a minority view than the minority.
  4. In recent years there has been dissatisfaction among students, principally graduate students, with instruction in the Department. Again I state the fact without passing on the merits of the position. I do note that, historically, students have found satisfaction and pride in their association with the Department.
  5. The question has been raised whether some appointments are being appraised in accordance with contribution or non-contribution to or effect on corporate profit-making which, however useful and legitimate, is external to the scientific work and teaching of the Department.

In light of the foregoing I propose to ask the three past presidents of the American Economic Association together with the two American Nobel Prize winners who are engaged in active teaching (one of whom is also current President of the American Economic Association), together with the Chairman of the Department of Economics to examine the Department as a matter of urgency and to report. The following are the terms of reference for this examination:

  1. The group shall be denoted the Special Study Committee, and hereafter as the Committee.
  2. In its deliberations the Committee will consult to the fullest extent with students of the Department as well as with tenured and non-tenured members of the Department, and will discuss its provisional findings with students and faculty.
  3. The Committee will consider and report on whether the present personnel of the Department reflects an appropriately broad spectrum of method and view and, as necessary, on corrective steps. Corrective steps may specifically include recommendations for change in past action.
  4. The committee will consider whether the present teaching of economics is sufficiently broad, and specifically whether there should be a second and alternative track to a doctorate in economics embracing both course work and examinations and in which the primary emphasis would be on history of economic thought, institutional economics and socialist thought, or subject matter disciplines not required by the present framework.
  5. The Committee shall consider possible division or subdivision or other reorganization of the Department to provide greater knowledge of candidates for appointment or promotion, greater corporate responsibility for instruction and other possible gains from smaller size. In this connection special attention should be given to the relationship with the Kennedy School of Government.
  6. The effect of external corporate or other activities of Departmental members as these may bear on appointments, teaching or research, shall be examined with recommendations.
  7. The report of the Committee shall be made public and, in the absence of specific and fully-supported objection, it is my hope that its conclusions will be found acceptable to the Department. There is no intention to alter the constitutional arrangements by which tenured members, as now or in a suitably reorganized or subdivided Department, if that is the decision, are responsible for appointments and instruction.

____________________________

Galbraith Draft Statement (undated)
[handwritten additions in bold italics]

Draft #2

MEMORANDUM

MEMO:

The President
The Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Members of the Department of Economics

From: John Kenneth Galbraith

 

In these last weeks tensions long present in the Department of Economics at Harvard have come to the surface. The consequences are attracting interest and discussion well beyond the confines of the Department and the University. It is doubtful if anyone, and certainly any active participants, can state the issues with complete impartiality but some of the basic circumstances admit of agreement. They are.

(1) The Department has become very large—the current catalogue lists twenty-five regularly tenured professors, thirty-five nontenured professors, thirteen members in an adjunct relationship from other parts of the University and five visiting professors. In addition there are a large number of teaching assistants. The Department has become a parliamentary and not a corporate body. Long before the recent explosion I expressed my concern not only to my colleagues but also to the top management over our increasingly ungainly and ineffective mass and its dangers. I encountered little or no disagreement.

(2) The Department has for some years been deeply divided in its views. There has been an ineffective and mostly unchanging minority, and an effective and largely unchanging majority.

(3) While the basis of the division is diverse, including the polemical folk-tendencies of academic life, our learned delight in self assertion, our sensitivity to the intellectual shortcomings of others, differences in reaction to change, political attitudes, it is also a difference in the view of economics. I doubt that any statement of this difference can avoid prejudice. I shall content myself with being dull. It partly involves the acceptance or rejection of the established economic institutions; partly acceptance or rejection of accustomed preconceptions of economic thought, partly the trade-off between precision in established modalities and lesser precision in more innovative, critical or experimental work; partly it has to do with the degree of commitment to measurement and mathematics.

(4) While the underlying fact is a difference in the view of the subject (including the importance of representing the minority views) the argument over appointments invokes competence. Each side with no slight sense of moral righteousness defines competence in its own image. What is unscientific or soft to one side is irrelevant or unreal or unuseful to the other. Certainty in these positions is enhanced by the effect of professional esteem on ego. The members of the majority rightly reflect on the high regard in which precision and excellence of their work is held in their particular spheres of econometric, mathematical or applied work. The members of the minority rejoice similarly on their standing in the profession generally. Given these attitudes, the likelihood that one side will yield gracefully to the other is (if possible) even further reduced. Thus the absolute certainty of continued conflict.

(5) The difference comes to a head over appointments. This reflects a clear view of the reality. It is recognized by all that it is people who determine what is taught and investigated—and wholly so in such an unstructured environment as Harvard. The majority, not unnaturally, has prevailed. In this context a minority should not be expected to acquiesce. To do so is to accept eventual extinction. No one who is serious about his views or methods should countenance that.

(6) The students, once pridefully associated with the Department, are discontented. Their affiliation is largely, although by no means completely, with the minority. As a consequence some members of the majority hold or harbor the thought that the minority is acting less out of conviction than a desire to seek popularity or appease student opinion. Members of the minority react with a strong (and in my own case previously undisclosed) concern for the quality of our institution.

(7) There is a question as to the bearing of subjective judgments formed in connection with the business activities of members—or in consequence of those activities—on promotion of those whose disposition or work leads to criticism of cherished and remunerative economic institutions.

Aggravated problems sometimes allow of simple choices. This is so in the present case. One course is to continue as now, and enjoy the acrimony and continue to invite, by our public bickering, disesteem for the subject, the Department, the University, our students and ourselves. The other is to move to the obvious and forthright resolution, on which will be to the benefit of all concerned.

The solution is to divide the present vast Department into two parts. One part, a Department or Division of General Economics*, would reflect the specialized interests and scientific purpose of the majority, including those whose identification with the minority has been based not on identity of professional interest but concern for academic diversity. A second part would be the Department of Social Economics. This initially much smaller Department would consist of those tenured and untenured members whose active identification with the social issues of planning, economic structure, criticism, or socialism or institutionalism leads them to make the transfer. The new Department, born out of a need to ensure diversity, would itself be under the normal academic obligation to perpetuate diversity. It would develop an undergraduate and graduate curriculum and degree requirements compromising nothing in depth and rigor, in accordance with the interests of its members and of students. Subject to established ad hoc procedures—and its resources—it would make its own promotions and appointments.

*No difficulty should be made over a name. The parent Department could be called the Department of Economics.

The initial resources of the new Department would consist of the present financial commitment to those making the change. There would, some minor administrative costs apart, be no added burden on the University budget. I would make the transfer and make the revenues from the Paul M. Warburg Professorship, including the supporting research revenues (on neither of which I have drawn in net amount in recent years) available for a new professorial appointment. I believe, not without knowledge, that money for one or two added professorships as well as for research could be raised from sources not presently open either to the University or the Department. Scholarship funds would be divided in accordance with student demand. I am willing to commit a good share of personal time in the next year to money raising, a task in which, unlike my economics, my competence has been sufficiently established.

May I note in summary the advantages of the foregoing proposal.

(1) The basic cause of distress and conflict in the present Department of Economics would be removed. Each of the new Departments or Divisions will be in a position to develop the subject in full accordance with its own lights. Neither will be in the academically repellant position (however agreeable in practice) of imposing its standards or preferences on the other.

(2) The problem of excessive scale and consequent diminution in sense of communal responsibility for teaching, research and appointments is solved in the case of the new small Department or Division. It is alleviated for the larger parent Department.

(3) The Department of Social Economics if it is to attract, retain and place its graduate students, will have to demonstrate itself in competition with its older and more prestigious parent. This competition will be exceedinglyhealthy for both. This is an appealing point. While businessmen favor competition more often in principle than in practice, this is not an error into which any good economist will allow himself to fall.

(4) Undergraduate instruction in the new Department will benefit no alone from the members’ commitment to their subject matter but also from the greater sense of community as between teaching assistants, tenured and non-tenured faculty in a much smaller department and the present Department will be better. In the present Department not even all tenured and untenured members are known to each other. Teaching assistants are known only to a fraction of the faculty members and even less is known about their performance. And again in undergraduate teaching the vigorous competition of the new Department will be good for the older one.

(5) Problems associated with the corporate business activities of professors will be at least partly resolved. No question of concern for attitudes of business clients, however subjective, will be thought to influence those who are passing on appointments in the new Department. Subject no doubt, to appropriate safeguards the activities of present members of the Department with their potential for useful employment, income and information could perhapsremain.

(6) The two Departments through a coordinating committee might [illegible word] combine for the time being on the elementary course.

(7) The creation of the new Department with an admixture of old and new members intent on developing both old and new lines of inquiry will affirm, as nothing else, Harvard’s avidly proclaimed commitment to free inquiry by people of the highest calibre and to whatever result.

(8) Nothing is forever. If, after say ten years, there is demand for reunification, why not.

With so much to be gained—and also so much trouble to be avoided—I hope that we can proceed to consider this solution with a minimum of delay. Needless to say—perhaps on the basis of past departmental performance it is very necessary that I say—I am ready at any notice to lend a hand.

____________________________

Memo On Splitting the Harvard Economics Department
[Apparent Final Draft]

June 18, 1973

From:  JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

To:

PRESIDENT DEREK C. BOK
DEAN-DESIGNATE HENRY ROSOVSKY
PROFESSOR JAMES S. DUESENBERRY
MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Re: THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

The Department of Economics is, I would judge, entering into a period of considerable calm and tranquility. The older dissidents and heretics in the Department will, with one or two exceptions, soon be retiring. And, in any case, they are now a harmless minority. Within a year or so the younger generation of dissidents will be safely gone. Thus the expectation of a period of scholarly calm.

My purpose in this memorandum is to suggest that the prospect is not as happy as these developments imply. And it is to suggest some steps which, without unduly disturbing the equanimity of the situation, the Department and the Administration would be wise to consider. May I note that these are matters on which I have no personal, as distinct from general, professional concern. I am one of those who will be contributing, however modestly, to a more seemly, tranquil and comfortable life by a comparatively early departure.

The problems remaining after the prospective changes are two. There is first the fact that, while faculty affairs have been generally arranged to the satisfaction of all, the students remain deeply dissatisfied. Let no one doubt this or seek, by the usual academic rationalizations, to explain it away. I was much exposed to this in the special seminar last autumn; I determined then to inform myself in a minor way during the spring, which I have done. The students, over a wide political spectrum, deeply dislike their work and the Department. This is especially true of the first-year students who, in a puzzling exercise in public relations reflecting an odd attitude toward education, are now blithely told at the outset to expect the worst year of their lives. Those who have been here two or three years also look back with discontent on their educational experience. My first year of graduate work was one of the most vital and interesting of my life. So, I believe it was with most of my generation.

The complaint of the students is straitforward. They are squeezed, especially in their first year but increasingly as a test in later work, into a narrow model-building, problem-solving, quasi-mathematical routine that they find boring and unrelated to the world in which they live. The emasculated careerist may accept the routine and do well. The student who thought that economics was a window on the problems of the world is abjectly disappointed.

These student reactions are heavily discounted by most although not all of the senior faculty. The rationalization is that such student attitudes are inevitable—that the modern student is inherently lazy, feckless, radical and dissatisfied. It is even suggested, not without scholarly vigor, that those who express concern about students are courting a student popularity in a sadly unscholarly tradition. As I say, this rationalization seems to me unwise and something that very soon will have a more practical consequence. A bad reputation in these matters is not easily kept a secret. It could happen that eventually the Department will have very few graduate students of indigenous origin of any consequence, a few committed careerists, mathematicians and model-builders apart. Numbers and quality of applicants will decline. In consequence, the ratio of faculty to active, teachable graduate students, which is now approaching one to one, will pass that point and will widen as a ratio of students to teachers. This is not hyperbole. A course was recently described to me by a graduate student in which he was the only participant along with three faculty members. We have a fair number of seminars with only a handful of students, sometimes but one. Faculty life will continue in comfort. Workshops will serve, as already now, to disguise the shortage of students. But still there will be nervousness.

There is another and more subjective danger. The harmony which one now foresees is based on a general commitment to neoclassical economics or its applied refinements. Accomplishment in model-building and refinement is, I think nearly all will agree, an increasingly stern requirement. We would not again hire a labor economist who, like Professor Dunlop or Professor Slichter, made his career out of a practical association with the unions and the problems of labor mediation. Professor Leontief, were he now showing the experimental tendencies that marked his early career, would be in trouble. Even his work, when firmly established, was not strongly supported. We would not have an economist who was too much preoccupied with the practical details of tax reform—unless he protected his flank by suitable theoretical or econometric exercise. My own past tendencies would certainly not be acceptable for promotion—although on the merits of this, with characteristic tact, I disqualify myself. What is not in doubt is that we are now very strong in the journals but much less strong in the obscenely practical matters on which many people, including many students, expect economists to be useful. This could be damaging to the reputation of the Department. The latter has always depended in appreciable measure not on the great scientists but on its vulgar practitioners.

Now let me say a word on reform. Mention of reform leads to thoughts of reform of the Department—so it is with faculty and also students. The present course of instruction is wrong. Let us find the right one. The problem is that no one line of graduate economic instruction can now serve all interests, reflect all points of view. Nor does it deal with the highly important fact that instruction is far less important than the inclination of the people who guide it. The Department is now a vast parliamentary body. So long as there is only one educational track, as a matter of course it will reflect the preferences of the majority. All of us, in the oldest of academic traditions, appraise excellence using ourselves as the yardstick. Reform requires that we begin to provide real choices as to teachers and as to work. Three possibilities occur to me:

  1. We should have in the Department of Economics two tracks to two Ph.D.’s. One of these would be in economics, another in (say) social economics. Professors in the Department would be grouped into two broad Executive Committees around these tracks. And each of these two Executive Committees would have responsibility not only for developing graduate work in its track and for examination therein but also for recruitment and promotion. This would broaden the choice for students; would mean that we would have two more nearly corporate bodies rather than one parliamentary body to guide instruction and appointments; would foster the kind of competition which all economists intrinsically and devoutly applaud; and would reduce by half the present parliamentary tendency to exclude the minority view. The first track would continue the present program with all of its neoclassical and model-building rigor. The second track would be experimental, humane and with a much stronger orientation to the emerging issues of our time. It would not, and this must be emphasized, involve any less effort.
  2. The second possibility would be to establish within the Department an institute—an Institute for Economic Innovation. This would enlist the members of the senior faculty so inclined, would develop a program purely of graduate instruction and would lead also to a degree which would reflect its own course of instruction. The purpose of constituting this as an institute would be twofold: to get the energy and attention of one man who would see the institute as the projection of his own efforts, and to use the institute as a device for raising new funds for both chairs and research. It is my near certainty, based on some experience as a medicant, that this enterprise, properly presented, would be very attractive to donors. I am not sure, however, that given the present size of the Department, it would not be wiser simply to allot some Graustein appointments to the Institute for the next few years.
  3. The third and final possibility would be to have two Departments of Economics—one Department of Economics and one Department of Social Economics. There are advantages to this—again the healthy competition in which all economists theoretically rejoice, elimination of the present diseconomies of scale, the much more clearly defined differentiation of purpose. It would not be as difficult a solution as seems at first glance. Those who approve of the Department as it is would remain with the Department of Economics. The rest would make the new Department. It would form its character from those who join it in the feeling that a more strongly innovative, humane and applied—in the modern sense—approach to economics is in order. The problem is, of course, that it involves the largest disruption in established institutional arrangements. That is not something to be undertaken lightly. Sometimes, though, that is good.

I am persuaded that in one or another of the above arrangements lies the only hope for a satisfactory future. For a while the tranquility that is in prospect will be greatly enjoyed. Given the sterile tendencies of the accepted economics and the attitudes of the students, it will be, if not the tranquility of the tomb, certainly that of a kind of somnambulant decay.

J.K.G.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Memorandum on Reorganization of the Department of Economics”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1958.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate economics concentrators dropped over 50% in 1950s.

 

This post provides some backstory to the next post that features the reading lists for Harvard’s junior year tutorial in macroeconomics (Arthur Smithies) and microeconomics (Edward Chamberlin) used in 1960-61. The following Harvard Crimson article describes the undergraduate program in crisis (as seen in the massive drop in economics concentrators). The fall in numbers was attributed to the observation that economics “instruction gyrates widely from verbal triviality to mathematical incomprehensibility”.  Now one might say that much economics instruction gyrates from verbal incomprehensibility to mathematical triviality.

Alfred Marshall tried to design his own Cambridge Curriculum to address two classes of students, those needing general economics training for leadership careers in business and government and those needing advanced training for research careers in economics. Integrated training of the two classes within a single program at Harvard appears to have reached its limits by the second half of the twentieth century. 

Marshall, Alfred. The New Cambridge Curriculum in Economics. London: Macmillan, 1903.

________________________

Economics: Undergraduate Program Undergoes Extensive Re-Evaluation
By Michael Churchill

The Harvard Crimson, November 14, 1959

C. P. Snow, British scientist and author, recently called attention to what he termed the problem of two cultures in our society–the gap in understanding between the traditional humanities and social sciences on the one hand and modern science and technology on the other. Both exist side by side, yet remain intellectually divorced in our modern society. This dichotomy serves well in considering the difficulties surrounding the discipline of economics, for its midway position in such a scheme is indicative of its problems.

The subject matter of economics is the productive system, with all its relations to the world of technology. The concern of economics, however, is this system’s role in society and its effect on men, their livelihood, and their institutions. Not an integrator of the two cultures, nevertheless it must span the separation.

The Economics Department is currently undergoing a crisis. It has failed up to now to accommodate both elements in a coherent program. The result is strikingly demonstrated by the flight of undergraduate concentrators from the field. In less than a decade the number has declined by over half; from 709 in 1949 to 340 in 1958. Although the decline may partially reflect a nationwide tendency, it also is the result of the confusion and frustration attending the undergraduate program here, as the instruction gyrates widely from verbal triviality to mathematical incomprehensibility.

Though economics stands mid-way between two cultures, it is its similarity to the natural sciences that causes the greatest problems. Professional economics shares with the sciences an analytic technique “remote from the common experience of the layman and a language that is principally mathematical,” to use the words the Bruner Committee applied to the natural sciences. And to judge from the current trend this will become increasingly so.

Another similarity with science is that the study of economics is often cumulative, thereby necessitating an extensive introduction to provide the requisite basic knowledge. These are the same problems with which the Bruner Report was concerned in the teaching of natural sciences in a liberal arts program. That report dealt primarily with the problem of the non-concentrator in science–the General Education courses in natural sciences. The Economics Department, however, because of the interest of its concentrators, encounters the same problems throughout its program.

Some of the concentrators are presumably economists, and the Department little wishes to discourage their interests. The vast majority, however, will be lawyers, doctors, and even, despite the Department’s hostility, businessmen.

A final similarity with the sciences lies in the difficulty both areas have in getting the proper senior faculty to teach undergraduate courses. Because of the vast gap between the level of professional work and the elementary nature of undergraduate work–a gap so great that the difference is not only of degree of sophistication but of content–many professors are either reluctant to teach undergraduates or incapable of making the transition.

The combination of the inherent difficulties in teaching economics in a liberal arts college plus the almost total neglect of the undergraduate program in past years has resulted in the precipitous decline in concentrators. The hope of halting that decline lies at the bottom of the Department’s plans to re-design the undergraduate program, which are now under way.

Arthur Smithies, Chairman of the Department, met frequently this summer and again this fall with a Department Committee on Undergraduate Education appointed last spring. Headed by Professor Dunlop, members of the group are Professors Chamberlin, Duesenberry, and Meyer, Assistant Professors Gill and Lefeber, and instructors Baer and Berman.

The results of this increased attention are already apparent in changes made this year in Economics 1 and Junior tutorial, Ec. 98. Historical and topical subjects have gained emphasis at the expense of some of the more theoretical and analytical material, which is now consigned to Sophomore tutorial. In former years economic theory was presented in a historical vaccum without any consideration of the evolution of the economic system from a local medieval subsistence economy to the modern international productive system. The first month of Economics 1 is now devoted to filling this gap. Other changes include an increased emphasis upon the problem of underdeveloped countries and the substitution of a three-week study of the economy of the Soviet Union for the former week’s survey of comparative economic systems.

Along with these changes in content have come those of organization. Gone is the “parade of stars” which formerly masqueraded as lectures. Instead there are now blocs of integrated lectures covering single aspects of the course, for example the series of lectures the first month that Professor Gill gave on economic history. Another long-standing distinguishing trait of the course, its extensive use of teaching fellows, is also on the way out.

The changes are clearly tending to make the course less an introduction into the Department and more a General Education course in the social sciences. The stress, in the attempt to interest the non-concentrator through presentation of historical and topical issues, is now upon political economy rather than upon economics. In a liberal arts college such a solution to the problems affecting the discipline seems to be the most logical and rewarding for an introductory course.

Faced, however, with the task of teaching its concentrators some of the methods and techniques of the economist, the department has moved towards increasing utilization of Sophomore and Junior tutorial for this purpose. The analytic material ejected from Ec. 1 has found refuge in Sophomore tutorial, while Ec. 98 (Junior tutorial) although heavily biased towards the empirical is the only course in the Department offering an overall view of the field.

But there is this year, in addition, an increased amount of attention towards policy questions and topical economic issues in both courses, a reflection of the prevalent belief that meaningful economics on the undergraduate level should relate, as Smithies said, “to the great public issues of the day.” In practice these two elements–the analytical tools and the social framework in which they must fit–still remain divorced in these courses, but at least the attempt is being made to integrate them.

The most perplexing problems facing the Department occur in the area of the middle group courses. To some extent they are aggravated by the Department’s quantative approach to the number of concentrators, with its concern to retain the marginally interested student within the Department. And again the nature of the field, with its disparity between advanced professional techniques and an undergraduate approach, intensifies the problem that confronts many other departments in the College–that of withstanding the polar attractions of pre-professional orientation or of superficiality. Concerning the middle course group area, Dunlop’s committee has only just begun its discussions, but the major alternatives are well known.

There is general agreement, according to Dunlop, that the undergraduate program as part of a liberal arts program should not be a pre-professional training. Disagreement, however, becomes manifest quickly after that statement. Many members of the department, for instance, feel that the best concentrators, the potential future economists, should be allowed to take courses on the graduate level, and indeed should be encouraged to do so. In effect these students would be obtaining a pre-professional training, but the supporters of this proposal feel that this is the only way whereby the interest of the economics-oriented student can be prevented from obstruction by the triviality of normal undergraduate economics courses. At present many undergraduates already take graduate level courses, but the new plan would make a sharper distinction between those who do and do not.

Another group in Department, however, voices the opinion that the College student should not clutter his schedule with pre-professional courses, but rather use his time to study such fields as music, literature, and mathematics. If a student does do graduate work later in economics he will have no trouble picking up whatever advanced analytic tools he needs at that time, while if he does not intend to do so there is no sense in wasting his time with a lot of specialized technique, this bloc maintains.

One proposal, approved by nearly all and sorely needed, is to introduce a greater flexibility into the program through increased use of half-year courses. Presently over half of the seventeen courses offered run from September to June. Many of these, it is admitted, could be pared down to a half-year.

This leads to the proposal for a new type course to replace the far-flung surveys. They would probe smaller areas, but penetrate deeper. Based on the combined desire to attract more students, and the premise that the goal is a more intelligent understanding of the public issues of the past and present, the courses would be designed around the topical approach. Examples would be courses on the corporation, on the economic impact of government activity, the present course on the Soviet Union, a half-year course on underdeveloped countries. In discussing this approach, Dunlop stressed that these would not be “watered down versions of the analytic approach but a new crosscut.” It should be noted that, while not analytical, these courses would still include some quantitative analysis or even simple economic models, but these methods would not become ends or major concerns of the courses.

Another proposal is to set up a core program in the Department. There is, in fact, almost one already. Ec. 141–Money and Banking, Ec. 161–Industrial Organization, and Ec. 181–Industrial Relations, cover the major areas of the field and at least two of them are necessary to handle Generals well. A real core program where all concentrators would progress from one level of the next has many advantages; it provides a common background which the lecturer can assume, gives a common training, and insures that a student will not neglect a vital aspect of the field. But it also has disadvantages, the primary one being the difficulty of handling non-concentrators who have not had this core. Separate sections in a course might be a simple answer here. A more difficult problem is that of time. Ec. 1, 98, and 99 already constitute three-fifths of the required courses. A central core program of another three semesters would aggravate the present lack of flexibility.

For the Economics Department this is a time of discussion, but it must soon reach the hour of decision. Certainly the present situation is not tolerable. By its over-concern with theoretical models and tools, the Department has separated itself from the true materials of a liberal arts education in economics. It should not, however, allow itself to reach the other extreme, in its quest for concentrators, of reducing the content of the courses to a point where an economics student is no more qualified to discuss and solve an issue of political economy than an intelligent government concentrator.

There is little question of the importance of economics today, with its strategic position between the technological productive system and the literary tradition of the social sciences, and with its unique combination of the empirical and theoretical. It remains only to be taught well.

 

 

Categories
Economists Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. Galbraith’s Special Tuesday Evening Seminar, 1973

 

One of the delights of working with the papers of John Kenneth Galbraith is that the man was simply incapable of writing a straight memo. Some flash of wit or felicitous use of the English language always breaks in. The following announcement gives us some insight into the sort of university service that Galbraith most gladly provided. Soft power was his instrument of choice for departmental politics.

___________________

SPECIAL TUESDAY EVENING SEMINAR

As in earlier years, Professor Galbraith will conduct a series of evening discussions for first year graduate students and others who are interested. Meetings will be in the Littauer Lounge at 7 o’clock, and participants are urged to arrive reasonably on time. They may leave when they wish. Following very brief introductory comments by Professor Galbraith and guests, the subject will be open for discussion. No competently presented argument, however inconvenient, will be denied a hearing. Discussion will continue as long as the audience or the supply of useful ideas endures. This year’s subject and dates are listed below. The guest list is still tentative.

 

October 2, 1973—THE ECONOMICS OF THE PRESENT INFLATION

Guests:
Hendrik S. Houthakker
James S. Duesenberry
John Dunlop

October 16, 1973—THE CORPORATION: IS IT RESPONSIBLE: HAS IT BOUGHT THE COUNTRY

Guests:
Theodore Levitt
Marc Roberts
Abram Chayes
Richard Caves

October 30, 1973—WHAT AND HOW SHOULD ECONOMICS BE TAUGHT AND A Ph.D. EARNED OR ACQUIRED

Guests:
Dale Jorgenson
Robert Dorfman
Sam Bowles
Art McEwan

November 13, 1973—WHAT ARE THE ECONOMICS OF SEX DISCRIMINATION, ARE WOMEN ECONOMIC ARTIFACTS

Guests:
Carolyn Bell
Betsy Munzer
Hazel Denton
Arthur Smithies
Lester Thurow

December 4, 1973—ECONOMICS AND THE PUBLIC PURPOSE

An evening for or against the book. (On this evening, a reasonable quantity of champagne of indifferent quality will be supplied from the accrued royalties, if any)

Guests:
John Kenneth Galbraith
Steve Marglin
Zvi Griliches

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Box 78. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Folder: “Courses, Non-credit seminar1973”.

Image Source: John Kenneth Galbraith in academic regalia from the Harvard Class Album, 1968.

Categories
Funny Business Harvard M.I.T.

Harvard or MIT. Economics graduate student skit, ca. 1963.

 

Because of the reference to Jaroslav Vanek’s leaving Harvard, we are able to date the following script to 1962-63 since Vanek left Harvard to work at the State Department in 1963. Almost everything about this script would lead me to conclude that it was used in a Harvard graduate student skit that somehow wound up in the folder for the Graduate Student Association at the Department of Economics of M.I.T. The folder is otherwise filled with clearly M.I.T. skit material from the 1960s. One of the students is identified as “David” another “Bob” and the third looks like “Les”.  

Lester Thurow did get his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1964 and came to M.I.T. in 1968 so it is not inconceivable that the following transcription is indeed based upon his personal typed script copy with original pencil stage directions that made its way into the folder. 

One thing that I find rather surprising about the text is just how many Harvard professors’ names have been misspelled.

__________________________

D—This is a review with a message—a message no economist can afford to ignore. The year is 2000 A.D. 16 years have now passed since 1984, that Armageddon of the economics profession when Professor Wassily Leontief finally established that the world really was homogeneous of degree one. The then President of the United States, Mr. Norman Mailer, immediately issued the great Marginal Product Proclamation. Everyone was to receive their marginal product.

B— But there was nothing left over for the economists. Economists became the hand-loom weavers of the 20th. century.

L—Arthur Schlesinger Jr. vividly described their position in a 17-volume work entitled “The Coming of the Raw Deal.” Economists everywhere, after the first shock, set out upon new careers. Tonight we shall discover what happened to some of those whom we know and love.

D—Several of them went into the movie industry and we will now let you hear the soundtrack of the preview of one of their movies.

(Epic Music—Bruckner?)

[Insert: Stand]

L—Ladies and Gentlemen, 21st Century Fox are proud to present Arthur Smithies and Joan Robinson in….The Big Push, the story of the unbalanced growth of an economist….

B—Production by Karl [sic] Kaysen

D—Copyright by Edward Hastings Chamberlain [sic]

L—All labor disputes on location and with Elizabeth Taylor arbitrated by John Dunlop.

B—Continuity by Simon Kuznets

L—Editing by Seymour Harris, of course.

D—Costumes by Robert Dorfman.

B—This is the story of Ragnar Maynard von Eckstein (his parents had always wanted him to be an economist). After many struggles at last he got to Harvard Graduate School.

L—It is a tale of |horror. See him now at a seminar on the economics of Medical Care…..

D—This after-noon I am going to discuss the economics of Blood-banking. One of the crucial problems in this field is what proportion to maintain of liquid assets. In this category we have blood [Insert:   L. What about near blood] near-blood. We also have non-liquid assets—bonds in the form of pounds of flesh. Another problem is the current shortage of tellers, for we can only employ vampires with a strong liquidity preference. If we cannot get more it will clot up the flow of funds and reduce the velocity of circulation.

L—It is a tale of |ambition…..

B—Coming from a family whose marginal product was zero, Ragnar Maynard realized that to get on quickly he must publish something. But what? He had not written anything. But our resourceful hero saw a way out: he would publish his first book before it was written. It was called First Draft, a revised tentative, preliminary, provisional text. It was based on Photostat copies of his blackboard notes.

L—It is a tale of |love….

D—Ragnar Manyrd fell passionately in love with a beautiful capital theorist, played in the movie by ravishing Joan Robinson. His demand for her love was infinitely elastic; her supply could not meet him—at least not at his price. The price was to join him in his exhausting search over peaks and through troughs for the elusive U-shaped cost curve.

L—It is a tale of |excitement

B—See Ragnar Maynard trying to free himself from the dreaded liquidity trap.

Insert: D—It’s true, it really is thicker than water

L—All this and more you can see in this movie—The Big Push is a take-off point in the development of the motion-picture.

B—See the exciting attempt on Professor Leontief’s life (with a 202 rifle) to try to prevent him revealing his startling discovery of a constant returns world.

D—See the world’s largest input-output table which proved it—drawn by the Economic Research project in the sand of the New Mexican desert.

L—You cannot afford to miss this motion picture. Filmed in wonderful new—Solocolor. An introducing revolutionary—Rostowscope.

(concluding epic music)

[Insert: Sit]

D—But the movies could not accommodate everybody…

[Insert: Bob in middle]

[Insert: one illegible word]

L—Professor Leontief, having escaped with his life, and using his input-output table from Scientific American as a testimonial, got into the business of designing bathroom tiles.

B—Professor Duesenbery [sic] was well qualified to go into the demonstration business. He drove Cadillacs around low-income districts to stimulate demand. And changed his name to Jones so that it would be him that everyone was keeping up with.

D—In England many economists went to work for the government where they produced a remarkable effect. Before 1984 political speeches had sounded something like this.

B—Good evening; I’m the Prime Minister. My name is….. [insert: ad lib] etc.

D—But now all this has changed…

B—Good evening…[insert: ad lib] etc.

L—Professor Tom Schelling took up a career in Madison avenue. It was he who was responsible for some of the following products…

D—Ladies, now you can wear the most powerful and alluring perfume in the world—First Strike—the only perfume with complete credibility. It also contains the only deodorant with overkill.

B—Now at last there is a product to take away the smell of deodorant—it is called Counterforce. Only Counterforce gives you 24-hour protection against odorlessness. [Insert: 5120 or S120]

[Insert: STAND]

L—For years girls have been searching for a perfume which will attract the men and yet prevent them from taking liberties—now they have it in the form of Deterrence—the perfume which is effective [Insert: only] if you don’t use it.

D—He also introduced a city wide deodorant campaign under the title of Civil defence.

L—And the only really safe method of birth control—Early Warning.

B—Meanwhile Professor Dunlop had become a truck driver and a shop steward for Jimmy Hoffa.

D—And Professor Kuznets took to selling abacuses.

[Insert: Some economists, not from Harvard opened a cafeteria.]

[Insert: Bob-Les—come forward]

L—Professor Galbraith first thought of becoming a rice farmer. But he soon saw that since there was no more need for economists he could now come into his own. After a coup d’etat he took over the Littauer building and changed it into the department of Affluent Studies. The idea was the ultra-popularization of economics; the main qualification for admission was to be a good phrase-monger. The new department published books like…

B—The Economics of Sex, with an appendix on the second derivatives of Jayne Mansfield. A geometric interpretation with diagrams.

D—The department became identified with a new theory of economic decline, published as a non-Rostovian manifesto. All countries, it said, tend to decline, and their speed of decline is determined by their relative degree of economic advancement. Its five stages of decline started with the age of mass consumption, through the age of preconditions for decline, coming then to the crucial landing stage.

B—Other books appeared like ‘The Naked Truth about Public Squalor, and so on.

[Insert: Pause—back to audience]

L—Only one of the redundant economists took the highest calling of all. Let us now eavesdrop on a sermon by [Insert: his eminence] Archbishop Gerschenkron…

[Insert: seated]

B—You know, when I was an economist one of my graduate students wrote a very good paper for my course. Matthew, [Insert: I said] why don’t you publish this paper, no, really why don’t you publish. But you know youll have to change the title. What journal is going to publish a paper called ‘the First Gospel’? But you know it really was a very good paper. There was a lot of interesting material about the farm problem in Egypt and about the almost miraculous elasticity of supply of loaves and small fishes in Gallillee [sic]. Then there was a very good section about Christ throwing the money-changers from the temple. Well, you see, the rate of interest was very high then. Don’t you think that the real reason why Christ did this was to reduce the rate of interest and to stimulate investment. You see, I wanted Matthew to rewrite his paper for the Quarterly Journal and call it ‘Christ as a proto-Keynsian’ [sic] But no, he was a very strong-willed boy and he brought it out in a syposium [sic] edited by Seymour Harris, called the Bible, essays in honor of God. But, you know, it was still required reading for my course.

D—Professor Harberler [sic] took to song writing, and here is a sample…

[Insert: stand behind table]

(tune: God bless America)

[Insert: All:] God bless free enterprise,
[Insert: MOC or HOC or NOC] System divine,
Stand beside her and guide her,
Just as long as the profits are mine.
[Insert: Salute]
Corporations may they prosper
Big business, may it grow!
[Insert: MOC or HOC or NOC] God bless Free Enterprise,
The Status quo!

L—Well, David, I guess that’s it. Do you think they’ll throw us out?

D—I dont know. But I dont suppose we’ll ever be allowed to pass generals. There are still some jobs you can get without a Ph.D.

B—No chance at all is there? I mean about generals….

D—Well they were all in it weren’t they—all the generals board.

L—What about Professor Vanek? He emerged unscathed.

D—That’s true but he’s leaving.

B—That’s fair, of course.

L—Yes, he hasn’t done much since he’s been here really.

D—Half a dozen good articles…

B—4 books, or is it 5?

L—He’s become an acknowledged expert on at least two major fields of economics…

D—A clear and stimulating teacher…
And a nice guy…

L—Not much really. [Insert: Clearly not a Harvard type]

B—Not surprised they’re letting him go

D—Well, that’s it then.

B—One more thing actually…The perpetrators of this entertainment would like it to be known that any resemblance of characters in this review to any person or persons living or half-dead is purely intentional.

L—So be it.

All—In the name of the Holy Trinity:

D—Dorfman,

L—Samuelson,

B—and Solow.

All—Amen

 

Source:   MIT Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 2, Folder “GEA 1961-67”.

 

Categories
Curriculum Harvard Uncategorized Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergrad economics program described in The Harvard Crimson, 1953

 

 

The Harvard Crimson has a really useful search function that can get you a student’s perspective on undergraduate economics education in Harvard’s ivy-covered (well, sometimes) lecture halls. I added links to courses and professors for a bit of value-added. Otherwise the article speaks for itself.

_______________________

The Harvard Crimson
April 22, 1953

Economics
Number of Concentrators: 331.
1952 Commencement Honors: cum, 17; magna, 20; summa, 1; 2 cums in General Studies.

The fact that Economics can boast one of the top faculties in the country, and probably has more nationally known professors than any other department in the College, is one of the main drawbacks to the concentrator. For few undergraduates are able to claim having really studied under any of them.

Most of the courses are conducted under the lecture system which does allows the undergraduate little contact with the men who divide their time between Washington and Cambridge.

The mistake should not be made that a concentrator in Economics will be trained in how to make his first million, no illusions should be developed that Economics is just another term for business administration. What the Department of Economics attempts to do is quite simple: the development of the economic background to present day social and political issues.

Tutorial

Economics I, required of every concentrator, is designed to introduce the student to the field. Its main criticism is that it is too general. But in the past it has been quite efficient in preparing students for the more advanced courses.

In an attempt to introduce some personal contact, the Department has now extended tutorial to all sophomores and juniors. According to Departmental chairman Arthur Smithies, its purpose is threefold: 1) to make specific things brought up in classes more concrete, 2) to tie the various fields of economics together, 3) to bring out the close relationship between economics and the other social sciences.

Tutorial in the junior year, usually limited to honors candidates, is now open to non-honors candidates also. Called “presumptive honors tutorial,” it meets in sessions conducted along honors tutorial lines. The program was opened last year with the hope of inducing more concentrators to apply for honors in their senior year. According to Ayers Brinser ’31, Head tutor of Economics, a great majority of the juniors who enter the junior tutorial with no intention of being an honors-candidates, change their minds during the junior year. By offering the presumptive tutorial, the department enables students who did not sign for honors to change in their senior year.

Basic Courses

Requirements for concentration do not impose too great a restriction on the concentrator’s program. Four Economic courses including Economics I are a must for non-honors men, while honors candidates are held for five. Three of the courses must be chosen from the basic courses: Economics 101, Economic Theory and Policy; Economics 141, Money, Banking and Economics Fluctuations; Economics 151. Public Finance; Economics 161, Business Organization and Public Regulation; Economics 171, Economics of Agriculture; and Economics 181a and b, Trade Unionism and Collective Bargaining, Public Policy and Labor.

Honors candidates may elect to take tutorial for credit for one semester of their senior year, while they work on their 40,000 word theses. Currently, more than a third of the concentrators are honors candidates.

The department also requires all concentrators to take full courses in Government, History, Social Relations or the second group Social Science courses.

Most popular of the advanced courses last year was Economics 161. Professors Kaysen and Galbraith divided last year’s schedule. The course deals with the structure and character of business and their markets; the attitude of the public toward combination and regulation, including the transportation industry and the public utilities; and the problems of resource conservation and industrial mobilization.

Labelled by most concentrators as the most difficult of the basic courses, Economics 141 crams a great deal into its program. Most concentrators prefer to get this one out of the way in their sophomore or junior year, since it is a good foundation for other courses in the field.

Labor Economics

One of the most popular professors teaching an undergraduate courses, John Dunlop will be back to give the two semesters of Labor Economics. Different from the other basic courses in that it emphasizes more human aspects, Economics 181 combines human and legal aspects of the labor movement as well of the economic foundation.

Economics 101, the basic theory course for undergraduates, is restricted to honors candidates in their last year of study.

Source: The Harvard Crimson, April 22, 1953.

 

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final examination questions for Collective Bargaining, Labor, and Public Policy. Dunlop, 1947-48

 

 

 

The course outlines and reading lists (very extensive!) for the two-term sequence “Trade Unionism and Collective Bargaining” and “Public Policy and Labor” taught by John Dunlop at Harvard in 1947-48 have been posted earlier along with figures for the respective course enrollments. Following the memorial minute from Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences next,  the transcriptions of the final examination questions for each of these courses from the Harvard University Archives will be found.

_____________________________

At a Meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences May 18, 2004, the following Minute was placed upon the records.

John Thomas Dunlop

John Dunlop was an extraordinary labor economist, dean, colleague, and mentor to students and practitioners in the world of labor. He was extraordinary because he was more than an economist, and because he was driven by a moral vision of what economists and academics should do to make the world better.

John saw the world through his own eyes and experience. You might think that all good social scientists see the world in that way, but in fact economics provides a particular set of glasses that exaggerates some parts of reality and hides others. Some of us need these glasses to see. John did not put on those glasses. John could see without them.

He looked at data and made his own judgment. In doing so, he helped set a foundation stone of labor economics which is deeply empirical. John’s first major academic publication on real wages over the business cycle forced Keynes to admit that the General Theory was wrong on its assessment of this issue: Real wages fall in recessions not in booms, contrary to simple marginal productivity analysis.

Throughout his career, Dunlop followed his own vision. His book Wage Determination Under Trade Unions modeled unions as optimizing organizations. He engaged in a famous debate with Arthur Ross about treating unions as economic or political organizations. Later, John decided that the optimizing model was not a useful path to follow, and reversed direction. His book Industrial Relations Systems sought to develop a broader perspective on how labor relations fit into economics. In the 1980s, Dunlop carped at economists for failing to see what he could see in the labor market. Much of the economics profession might be marching off to “natural rate of unemployment” or to firm-specific human capital, but not John. More often than not, he was right.

Dunlop approached his work – from advising presidents and cabinet officials, to telling academics about the real world and telling practitioners about academic theory and testing of propositions – with one goal: to help solve problems. A classic example was John’s response to a 1978 request from Murray Finley, President of the Mens Garment Workers Union, to explore what might be done to increase the productivity of American apparel workers. John visited dozens of plants, investigated automation, and met with all the practitioners: academic design engineers, industry production experts, suit manufacturers, textile firms, a chemical firm, the Union, the apparel retailers, and the Federal Department of Commerce. His vast knowledge and curiosity, combined with his ability to convince people that it was in their best interest to work together, led to the formation of the non-profit firm [TC]2, designed to help the U.S. apparel industry survive, and later to the formation of the Harvard Center for Textile and Apparel Research. This was just one of John’s many extra-curricular activities that enriched both the University and the world.

His legacy in the University is immense. His legacy to labor economics is immense, both for his ideas and for his being the intellectual “father” and “grandfather” of many labor economists. His legacy in the world is immense. The moral principle that guided him – that academics should use their knowledge and skill to help solve problems faced by real people, by workers and firms, and governments – represents Harvard at its best in dealing with the world outside of academia. His legacy in labor economics and economics more broadly – to look at the world with your own eyes and experience, with direct knowledge of the institutions and practitioners – represents social science at its best in interpreting and analyzing the world.

Those of us who were close to John miss his curmudgeonly criticisms and vast knowledge. We will keep alive his legacy of applying our knowledge to the world to help understand and solve social problems. This is the greatest memorial the University can give to him.

Respectfully submitted,

Frederick Abernathy
Caroline M. Hoxby
Lawrence Katz
Richard B. Freeman, Chair

Source:  Harvard Gazette, September 16, 2004.

_____________________________

 

Final Examination
Trade Unionism and Collective Bargaining
Associate Professor John Dunlop
1947-48
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 81a

  1. Develop what you consider to be the differences, if any, in the functions and role of trade unions in capitalist, socialist, and communist societies.
  2. The Webbs, in their “Industrial Democracy,” stated that “to competition between overlapping unions is to be attributed nine-tenths of the ineffectiveness of the trade union world.”
    A recent writer in the American Economic Review states:
    “Leadership rivalry is the lifeblood of unionism in the United States. After all, the American trade union is pragmatic to the core. It is neutral in ideology and weak in political purpose. In the absence of competition for the allegiance of workers, there would be little else to ensure its militance and guarantee its role as an agency of protest. Moreover, rivalry has been the most effective stimulus to organize the unorganized. Let the reader ask himself if the labor movement would be as far along as it is today, in terms of total membership, had there not occurred the split between the A.F.L. and the C.I.O. in the 1930’s.”
    In the light of your reading of trade union history, which of these statements do you consider more accurate?
  3. “From the point of view of the whole economy, monopoly, in business or in labor, will always result in a misallocation of resources and will usually result also in an under-utilization of resources. Business monopolies do not raise the ‘general’ rate of profits and labor monopolies do not raise the ‘general’ rate of wages. Both raise the incomes of minorities, reducing the income of the rest by more than they themselves can gain through their ‘restrictive policies’.”-Professor Fritz Machlup.
    Does this statement constitute an accurate appraisal of the impact of a trade union on the labor market?
  4. The policies developed by the parties in collective bargaining in regard to (a) seniority in layoffs and (b) methods of wage payment have been significantly shaped by the economic environment. Illustrate this generalization by reference to specific industries.
  5. Case Background:
    The Committeeman in Zone 1 of the Hyatt Bearings Division several times requested that additional time studies of particular operations be made following failure to adjust certain disputes. He further requested that he be permitted to be present at such studies on the ground that Paragraph 79 of the Agreement should permit him this privilege.Paragraph 79:
    “When a dispute arises regarding standards established or changed by the Management, the complaint should be taken up with the foreman. If the dispute is not settled by the foreman, the committeeman for that district may, upon reporting to the foreman of the department involved, examine the job and the foreman or the time study man will furnish him with all the facts of the case. If there is still a dispute after the committeeman has completed his examination, the foreman or the time study man will then reexamine the operations in detail with the committeeman on the job. If the matter is not adjusted at this stage, it may be further appealed as provided in the Grievance Procedure.

    Position of the Union    :
    While the Union did not cite a specific instance of failure of Management to abide by Paragraph 79, it was indicated that the grievance had been filed following a disagreement on an actual case. The Union claimed that Management has often refused to make additional time studies on disputed operations, and has not permitted the committeeman to be present in instances when studies have been made as part of a re-examination of a job following a dispute. The Union states that it has appealed this case to the Umpire in order to “get the correct interpretation of Paragraph 79.”Position of the Company:
    Management takes the position that Paragraph 79 of the Agreement permits the committeeman to “re-examine the operations” or to be present with the foreman or the time study man “to review the operations.” Management maintains that nothing in Paragraph 79 can be construed as giving the committeeman the right to be present when actual time studies are being made.

    1. Does the contract require the Company to permit a representative of the Union to be present when time studies are made?
    2. Would the Company be wise, as a matter of policy, to ask the Union to have a representative present?

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: History, History of Religions,…Economics,…Military Science, Naval Science. January, 1948.

_____________________________

 

Final Examination
Public Policy and Labor
Associate Professor John Dunlop
1947-48
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 81b

  1. In Alternative to Serfdom Professor John Maurice Clark develops the problems of a modern community in terms of the conflict between competition and monopoly and between progress and security.
    1. What are the principal aspects of this conflict?
    2. What resolution of these problems does Professor Clark suggest?
    3. How do you appraise his position?
  2. Discuss the economic implications of a chronic state of “over full employment”, i.e., a situation in which the demand for labor exceeds the supply of labor, in terms of the probably effects upon
    1. the absolute and relative money wage rates
    2. the allocation of the labor force
    3. the size and composition of the labor force
  3. Contrast the National Labor Relations Act with the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, with respect to the following
    1. the right of the employer to speak to employees in favor of or against a labor organization
    2. the right of employees to go out on strike
    3. the rights of non-union employees.
  4. The following case arose under the unemployment compensation system:
    “The claimant, 72 years old and a union carpenter for 27 years, was referred to a non-union job. He refused to take the job because it would violate the rules of his union. Union rules provided for a fine for working on a non-union job. The Ohio statute disqualifies an individual who ‘has refused to accept an offer of work for which he is reasonably fitted’ and further provides that ‘…no individual otherwise qualified to receive benefits shall lose the right to benefits by reason of a refusal to accept new work if: as a condition of being so employed he would be required to join a company union, or to resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor organization, or would be denied the right to retain any membership in and observe the lawful rules of any such organization’,”

    1. State concisely the issue involved in this case.
    2. How would you decide the case, indicating the basis for your decision?
  5. In the provision for old age in the community, what are your views concerning the relative roles of a federal program a unilateral company pension system, a system of pensions negotiated in collective bargaining, and individual savings?

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. Examinations. Papers Printed for Final Examinations in History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. May, 1948.

 

Image Source: Museum of the City of New York, Cigar Box Label “Union Workers”.

 

Categories
Courses Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Labor and Public Policy Syllabus Dunlop, 1948

The following course outline and syllabus come from the second term of a two term course in collective bargaining and public policy offered by John Dunlop at Harvard in 1947-48.  Material for the first term was posted earlier. The final examination questions for both terms will be posted soon.

______________________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 81b. Associate Professor Dunlop.–Public Policy and Labor (Sp).

Total 147: 2 Graduates, 85 Seniors, 37 Juniors, 11 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 11 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1947-1948, p. 90.

______________________________

Economics 81b
Spring 1948

LABOR AND PUBLIC POLICY

  1. Introduction
    1. General Setting of the Problems of the Course
    2. Governmental Attitude toward Labor and Employer Organizations
    3. Organized Labor’s Relation to Government
  2. Issues of Public Policy
    1. The Extent of “Public” Encouragement to Organization
    2. The Regulation of Labor Organizations
    3. The Machinery for the Settlement of Disputes
    4. The Treatment of the Parties to a Dispute
    5. The Status of Labor Organizations under the Anti-trust Laws
    6. Minimum Wage and Hour Regulation
    7. The Risk of Unemployment
    8. Old Age Insurance
    9. The Risks of Accident and Sickness
  3. The Process of “Public Policy” Formulation
    1. The Determination of Community Values
    2. The Operation of “Pressure Groups”
    3. The Role of the Press
    4. The Legislative Sphere
    5. The Influence of Administrative Agencies; Board Members, Administrators, and Staff

______________________________

SOME FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY

  1. Does the process of collective bargaining between labor organizations and employers give assurance that the “public interest” will be best served? How do you evaluate the possibility of collective bargaining resulting in continuing warfare or “combination” against the “public interest”?
  2. “The threat of strike and lockout, and probably some work stoppages, are vital to the functioning of collective bargaining.” Do you agree? Do you have “vigorous” or “healthy” labor and management organizations where there have been no work stoppages for long periods? How can the “public” be made to understand the necessity for the social costs of voluntarism?
  3. Do you think it is possible to prohibit strikes by law? May not workers always bring equal pressure by turning out a smaller quantity of work? How do you distinguish between the right to strike and the right of an individual to refuse to work? Are the concepts identical? Are “wildcat strikes” and similar spontaneous walkouts, in part at least, a desirable social safety valve?
  4. Is it possible to have private collective bargaining when bargaining units become in effect National in scope as in the railroad and steel industries? Do you think the parties in such cases are likely to reach settlements without governmental intervention? Is it possible to keep the Government out of such disputes? If not, do you think it follows that the “government” is required to adopt some explicit wage policy in peacetime?
  5. The Department of Labor was established to “promote the interests of wage earners.” The mediation and conciliation functions of the Government were located in the Department of Labor? Do you believe employers had any valid objections to this arrangement? What should be the relation of the two assistant Secretaries of Labor, “representing” the AFL and CIO, to the administration of the Department of Labor?
  6. For the purposes of “public concern” with the “internal affairs” of a labor organization, would you regard a union more like a “private club” or a “public utility”? Does the presence of a Governmental guarantee of the right to organize affect the answer to this question?
  7. How is “public policy” in fact formulated? Contrast, for example, the mechanics used in formulating: the old age insurance program, the “cooling-off period” of the War Labor Disputes Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  8. What mechanism would you propose to formulate working compromises between agriculture and organized labor? Consider the interest of agriculture in industrial employment for “surplus population” and in cheap prices of industrial goods; also consider the interest of organized labor in food prices and in extending the area of organization.
  9. Where would you draw the line between “management personnel” and “labor” for the purpose of determining the rights to self-organization and protection from “unfair labor practices”? How would you constructively treat the issue of the “organization of supervisors” from the point of view of management? From the point of view of the labor movement?
  10. Do you think it possible to extend gradually the area of labor-management agreement fast enough to preclude the necessity of legislation to prescribe in detail the rights and duties of both sides? How would you speed up the process of agreement? Consider this question in the light of American experience in contrast to that in England, Sweden, Germany and Australia.
  11. How would you define the “legitimate” interests of management in the organization of its employees? What criteria would you establish to draw lines between cases of coercion on the one hand and the exercise or the expression of the “legitimate” interests of management you have defined?
  12. How would you define the area on which you would allow an employer as a matter of public policy, to deal with an employee as an individual rather than through the collective bargaining agent? Does the union have the right to insist that individual merit increases be “negotiated or bargained” with the union? May the company install a pension plan without “bargaining”?
  13. Can the Federal Government avoid having a “wage policy”? Are labor and management organized along lines which would facilitate the formulation of a national wage policy? What are the dimensions or ingredients you would suggest for a national wage policy—the rate of change of the wage level, wage rate differentials, etc.?
  14. Under a system of unemployment compensations how would you define “availability for work”? Should men on strike be allowed benefits? May one refuse to accept a lower wage rate and still draw benefits? How far away must a job be before refusal of the job is a bar to benefits?
  15. What different concepts of the labor force, employment and unemployment do you regard as essential to public policy-making?
  16. What procedures would you recommend to formulate public policy on a health program?

______________________________

Economics 81b

LABOR AND PUBLIC POLICY

I. INTRODUCTION

  1. General Setting of the Problems of the Course
    1. Conflicts of interests in a political democracy
    2. The meaning of “public policy formation”
    3. Fundamental issues of public policy in this field

Required Reading

Sumner H. Slichter, Trade Unions in a Free Society

Twentieth Century Fund, Trends in Collective Bargaining. A Summary of Recent Experience, 1945, pp. 1-33; 188-211; 215-50. (Students who have had Economics 81a need only read pp. 215-50.)

Henry C. Simons, “Some Reflections on Syndicalism”, Journal of Political Economy, March 1944, pp. 1-25. (To be read by students who have not taken Economics 81a)

Frederick H. Harbison and Robert Dubin, Patterns of Union—Management Relations, pp. 3-178.

Richard A. Lester, “Reflections on the ‘Labor Monopoly’ Issue”, Journal of Political Economy, December 1947, pp. 513-36.

Recommended Reading

Élie Halévy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, translated by Mary Morris, 1928, pp. 89-150; 249-310.

Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of Business Enterprise, Chapter 8, “Business Principles in Law and Politics”.

Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1942.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 2, pp. 158-61; 177-91; (Alfred A. Knopf, 1945 edition)

Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Industrial Democracy.

  1. Governmental Attitude toward Labor and Employer Organizations
    1. The evolution of public policy.
    2. The present status of both types of organization
    3. The role of the Department of Labor

Required Reading

Charles O. Gregory, Labor and the Law, pp. 13-82.

Pendleton Herring, The Politics of Democracy, 1940, pp. 368-90.

D. O. Bowman, Public Control of Labor Relations, 1942, pp. 3-57.

John Lombardi, Labor’s Voice in the Cabinet, A History of the Department of Labor from its Origin to 1921, pp. 15-95.

Recommended Reading

Felix Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court, Chapter 1, “Property and Society”, pp. 13-48.

Edward S. Corwin, The Twilight of the Supreme Court, pp. 52-101.

Leo Wolman, “The Turning Point in American Labor Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, June 1940, pp. 161-75.

H. Samuels, The Law of Trade Unions.

Calvert Magruder, “A Half Century of Legal Influence upon the Development of Collective Bargaining”, Harvard Law Review, May 1937, pp. 1071-1117.

James M. Landis and Marcus Manoff, Cases on Labor Law, (1942 edition) Chapter 1, “Historical Introduction”, pp. 1-40.

Charles O. Gregory and Malcolm Sharp, Social Change and Labor Law.

U. S. Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards, Federal Labor Laws and Agencies, Bulletin 79.

Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew, pp. 182- 336.

 

II. ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY

  1. The Extent of “Public” Encouragement to Organization
    1. The Wagner Act and the NLRB
    2. The Labor Management Relations Act, 1947
    3. Selected problems of policy determination

Required Reading

The Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 and The Conference Report

Herbert Unterberger and Max Malin, The Taft-Hartley Act in Operation

E. E. Witte, “Labor-Management Relations under the Taft-Hartley Act”, Harvard Business Review, Autumn 1947, pp. 554-75.

Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., “The Open Window and the Open Door”, California Law Review, Vol. 351, pp. 336-51.

C. O. Gregory, Labor and the Law, pp. 223-52; 289-33.

Carl Raushenbush and Emanuel Stein, Labor Cases and Materials, 1941, pp. 286-370.

D. O. Dowman, Public Control of Labor Relations, pp. 133-186.

Recommended Reading

La Follette Committee Reports

Lewis L. Lorwin and Arthur Warbnig, Labor Relations Boards, 1935.

E. Merrick Dodd, “The Supreme Court and Organized Labor, 1941-45”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 58, pp. 1018-71.

Joseph Rosenfarb, The National Labor Policy and How It Works.

National Labor Relations Board, Government’s Protection of Labor’s Right to Organize, Bulletin No. 1.

E. B. McNatt, “The Appropriate Bargaining Unit Problem”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1941.

Robert R. R. Brooks, Unions of their Own Choosing, 1939.

William E. Mosher and J. Donald Kingsley, Public Personnel Administration, 1941, pp. 558-85.

David Ziskind, One Thousand Strikes of Government Employees

Gordon R. Clapp, Employee Relations in the Public Service, A Report Submitted to the Civil Service Assembly, 1942.

National Labor Relations Board, Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.

Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. The New Labor Law

Herbert O. Eby, The Labor Relations Act in the Courts.

Paul Herzog, “Labor Relations Acts of the States”, Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Sciences, November 1942.

Report and Findings of a Panel of the National War Labor Board in Certain Disputes Involving Supervisors.

Harold W. Metz and M. Jacobstein, National Labor Policy, 1947.

National Labor Relations Board, Annual Reports

  1. The Regulation of Labor Organizations

Required Reading

Florence Peterson, American Labor Unions, 1945, pp. 84-126.

Recommended Reading

Joel Seidman, Union Rights and Union Duties, 1943.

Neil Chamberlin, “Judicial Process in Labor Unions”, Brooklyn Law Review, 1940

Henry V. Rothschild, “Government Regulation of Trade Unions in Great Britain”, Columbia Law Review, 1939.

American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy in Trade Unions

Report on Certain Aspects of Labor Union Responsibility and Control

O. de. R. Foenander, Industrial Regulations in Australia, pp. 169-216.

Clyde W. Sumners, “The Admission Policies of Labor Unions”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Nov. 1946.

Ludwig Teller, A Labor Policy for America, A National Labor Code

  1. The Machinery for the Settlement of Disputes
    1. Types and characteristics of disputes related to methods of settlement
    2. Mediation, conciliation, and arbitration
    3. The railroad machinery
    4. Wartime machinery for settlement of disputes
    5. The fact-finding procedure
    6. Recent legislative proposals

Required Reading

C. O. Gregory, Labor and the Law, 378-412; 413-46.

U. S. Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards, Arbitration of Grievances, Bulletin 82 (scan only)

Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations in Great Britain, 1938, pp. 1-25.

Twentieth Century Fund, How Collective Bargaining Works, pp. 318-80.

Paul Fisher, “The National War Labor Board and Postwar Industrial Relation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1945, pp. 483-523.

The President’s National Labor-Management Conference, Summary and Committee Reports, (Division of Labor Standards Bulletin 77) pp. 1-71.

Report of the Governor’s Labor Management Committee, Massachusetts, 1947

Recommended Reading

T. R. Fisher, Industrial Disputes and Federal Legislation, pp. 141-53; 154-86.

Kurt Braun, The Settlement of Industrial Disputes, 1944.

Howard S. Kaltenborn, Governmental Adjustment of Labor Disputes, 1943.

Frances Kellor, Arbitration in Action, 1941.

J. J. Robbins, The Government of Labor Relations in Sweden, 1942.

J. Henry Richardson, Industrial Relations in Great Britain, 1938.

Herbert R. Northrup, Labor Adjustment Machinery.

Ducksoo Chang, British Methods of Industrial Peace.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 287, The War Labor Board Report of the National Defense Mediation Board.

The Reports and Proceedings of the Labor Management Conference

The Fact-Finding Reports: General Motors, Oil Companies, and the Meat Packing Companies

John T. Dunlop, “Fact-Finding in Labor Disputes”, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, May 1946, pp. 64-74.

B. M. Stuart and Walter J. Couper, Fact-Finding in Industrial Disputes.

Ludwig Teller, A Labor Policy for America, A National Labor Code.

Clarence M. Updegraff and Whitley P. McCoy, Arbitration in Labor Disputes.

Herbert R. Northrup, “The Railway Labor Act and Railway Labor Disputes in Wartime”, American Economic Review, June 1946, pp. 324-43.

C E. D. Research and Policy Committee, Collective Bargaining: How to Make it More Effective, Feb. 1947.

  1. The Treatment of the Parties to a Dispute
    1. The Injunction
    2. Boycott and Picketing
    3. The Use of Seizure

Required Reading

C. O. Gregory, Labor and the Law, pp. 83-199; 334-77.

Harry A. Millis and R. E. Montgomery, Organized Labor, pp. 613-29; 629-51.

Recommended Reading

Carl Raushenbush and Emanuel Stein, Labor Cases and Materials, 1941, pp. 5-213.

Samuel Yellen, American Labor Struggles

Felix Frankfurter and N. Greene, The Labor Injunction

  1. The Status of Labor Organizations under the Anti-trust Laws

Required Reading

C. O. Gregory, Labor and the Law, pp. 200-22; 253-88.

C. D. Edwards, “Public Policy toward Restraints of Trade by Labor Unions: An Economic Appraisal”, American Economic Review, Supplement, March 1942, pp. 432-48.

E. E. Witte, “A Critique of Mr. Arnolds Proposals”, American Economic Review, Supplement, March 1942, pp. 449-59.

Recommended Reading

Thurman Arnold, The Bottlenecks of Business, Chapter XIX

A. T. Mason, Organized Labor and the Law

Carl Rauschenbush and Emanuel Stein, Labor Cases and Materials, 1941, p. 46-62.

  1. Minimum Wage and Hour Regulation
    1. Conditions Leading to Legislation
    2. Economic Principles and Consequences
    3. Administrative Agencies and Procedures
    4. Problems of Administration and Policy-Making

Required Reading

The Fair Labor Standards Act

Harry Millis and R.E. Montgomery, Labor’s Progress and Some Basic Labor Problems, pp. 324-56.

Recommended Reading

Richard B. Morris, Government and Labor in Early America

Dorothy Sells, British Wage Boards

Paul H. Douglas and J. Hochman, “Fair Labor Standards Act,” Political Science Quarterly, LIII (491-515); LIV (29-55)

Marion Cahill, Shorter Hours, A History of the Movement since the Civil War

E. Merrick Dodd, “The Supreme Court and Fair Labor Standards, 1941-45,” Harvard Law Review, February 1946, pp. 321-73.

E. M. Burns, Wages and the State

E. J. Riches, “Conflicts of Principles in Wage Regulation in New Zealand”, Economica, August 1938.

Orme W. Phelps, The Legislative Background of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure, Administrative Procedure in Government Agencies.

Wage and Hour Division, Annual Reports.

Bureau of National Affairs, Wage and Hour Manual, Cumulative Edition 1944-45

US. Department of Labor, Maximum Hour Regulation in France, 1936-40

U. S. Department of Labor, Wartime Regulation of Hours of Labor and Labor Supply in Great Britain.

Bureau of National Affairs, Your Working Time Problem under the Wage and Hour Law.

  1. Labor Supply and Unemployment
    1. Characteristics of the Labor Market
    2. Definitions and Measurement of Employment, Labor Force and Unemployment
    3. Employment Exchanges
    4. Unemployment Compensation

Required Reading

E. Wight Bakke, The Unemployed Worker, A Study of the Task of Making a Living Without a Job, pp. 1-34.

S. H. Slichter, “The Impact of the Social Security Program upon Mobility and Enterprise,” American Economic Review, March 1940.

Lloyd G. Reynolds, “The Supply of Labor to the Firm”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1946, pp. 390-411.

Louis J. Ducoff and M. S. Hagood, Labor Force Definitions and Measurements, Current Issues, Social Security Bulletin, pp. 1-35.

Recommended Reading

Dewey Anderson and Percey E. Davidson, Recent Occupational Trends in American Labor

G. E. Bigge, “Strength and Weakness of our Unemployment Compensation Program,” Social Security Bulletin, February 1944, pp. 5-11.

W. S. Woytinsky, Three Aspects of Labor Dynamics

Joan Robinson, “Mobility of Labor” in Essays in the Theory of Employment

A. C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare, pp. 488-511, 656-70.

Elizabeth Gilboy, Applicants for War Relief, pp. 31-46; 69-83; 98-122

W. S. Woytinsky, “Controversial Aspects of Unemployment Estimates in the United States,” Review of Economic Statistics, May 1941, pp. 68-77.

Henry H. Collins, Jr., America’s Own Refugees, pp. 89-180; 249-67

E. Wight Bakke, Citizens without Work, A Study of the Effects of Unemployment upon the Workers’ Social Relations and Practices, pp. 71-106, 283-306.

W. H. Beveridge, “An Analysis of Unemployment”, Economica, November 1936, pp. 357-86.

Harry Malisoff, “The Emergence of Unemployment Compensation,” Political Science Quarterly, 1939 (3 parts)

Harrison Clark, Swedish Unemployment Policy—1914-1940

Atkinson, R. C., Adencrantz, L. C., and Deming, B., Public Employment Service in the United States, Chs. 1 and 3.

Breckinridge, Sophonisba, Public Welfare Administration in the United States, Selected Documents (2nd edition)

Abbott, Edith, Public Assistance, Vol. 1, American Principles and Policies

Pilgrim Trust, Men without Work, Report

Huntington, Emily, Doors to Jobs

Matscheck, W., and Atkinson, R. C., Problems and Procedures of Unemployment Compensation in the States

White, R. C., Administering Unemployment Compensation

Kulp, A. C., Social Insurance Coordination, An Analysis of British and German Organization

F. N. Ball, Statute Law Relating to Employment, 1946 (English experience)

8,9 Security Against Accident, Ill Health, and Old Age

Required Reading

Harry Millis and Royal E. Montgomery, Labor’s Risks and Social Insurance, pp. 187-270; 353-420.

E. E. Witte, “Postwar Social Security” in Postwar Economic Problems, edited by S. E. Harris, pp. 263-77.

Bernhard J. Stern, Medicine in Industry, pp. 17-48 and 133-56.

“Union Health and Welfare Plans”, Monthly Labor Review, February 1947, pp. 191-214

Recommended Reading

J. Douglas Brown, “Economic Problems in the Provision of Security against the Life Hazards of Workers, American Economic Review, Supplement, March 1940

Twentieth Century Fund, More Security for Old Age, pp. 1-18; 69-86.

Seymour E. Harris, Economics of Social Security, pp. 161-279

Barbara Armstrong, The Health Insurance Doctor, pp 1-98

Heinrich, H. W., Industrial Accident Prevention

National Research Council, Committee on Work in Industry, Fatigue of Workers

Federal Security Agency, Social Security Board, Annual Reports

Abraham Epstein, Insecurity—A Challenge to America

Stewart, Maxwell S., Social Security

Davis, Michael M., America Organizes Medicine

William Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society

E. Wight Bakke, “America and the Beveridge Plan,” Yale Review, June 1944, pp. 642-57.

Social Security Bulletin, “A Basic Minimum Program of Social Security,” January 1944, pp. 3-12.

Franz Goldmann, Public Medical Care, Principles and Problems

Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 79th Congress 1st Session, Issues in Social Security.

Verne Zimmer, “New Developments in Workmen’s Compensation”, Social Security Bulletin October 1944.

 

 

THE PROCESS OF “PUBLIC POLICY” FORMULATION

(The reading in this Section is to be distributed throughout the term rather than concentrated at the end of the course. The study of the Process of “Public Policy” Formulation must be interwoven with the actual problems of public policy.)

Required Reading

Neil W. Chamberlain, The Union Challenge to Management Control, (Pages to be assigned)

R. A. Gordon, Business Leadership in the Large Corporation, pp. 67-188.

Peter F. Drucker, Concept of the Corporation, pp. 1-114 (Optional)

Paul H. Appleby, Big Democracy, 1-144.

Walter Gellhorn, Federal Administrative Proceedings, pp. 1-40

Fritz Marx, Editor, Elements of Public Administration, pp. 314-338, 365-80

John M. Gaus, Reflections on Public Administration, (Optional)

Dorwin Cartwright, “Public Opinion Polls and Democratic Leadership”, Journal of Social Issues, May, 1946, pp. 3-12.

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1893-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1), Box 4, Folder “1947-48 (2 of 2)”.

Image Source: John Dunlop in Harvard Class Album 1950.