Categories
Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Industrial organization. Reading List, Kaysen and Peck, 1955

 

I have had the enormous good fortune of having excellent mentors during the course of my own economics education. The first was Professor Merton J. Peck who taught the double credit course “Early Concentration Economics” during the fall semester of my freshman year at Yale (1969-70). He liked a paper I wrote enough to show it to his colleague James Tobin who thought it was good enough to be written by a graduate student, or at least so I was told. With such a boost to my self-esteem, how could I not have continued in economics?

Mr. Peck (at Yale professors are addressed without the honorific “Professor”) offered me a job to be his bursary boy, a 10 hour a week student assistantship, with a variety of tasks spanning photocopying articles and chapters to editing his rough drafts (what humility, allowing a sophomore/junior at Yale to improve his writing!) When I complained to Mr. Peck once that there was no course in the History of Economics at Yale at that time, he told me to give “Willy Fellner” a call. That led to my second Yale mentor and the beginning of my education in the history of economics (a two semester tutorial reading economic classics). There were two major projects that Mr. Peck was working on during my years working for him: on industrial/technological policy in Japan for a Brookings book Asia’s New Giant and Economic Aspects of Television Regulation (with Roger Noll and John McGowan). 

Incidentally, in Robert Litan’s book (Trillion Dollar Economists, p. 103) I discovered to my delight that my mentor had spotted the talent in the young Frank Fisher and forwarded Fisher’s undergraduate paper to his colleague Carl Kaysen. 

As I was looking at my collection of syllabi from Harvard this evening, I spotted the course below co-taught by Carl Kaysen and Merton J. Peck. This syllabus is my first tribute to the memory of my mentor Joe Peck. I have appended his official Yale obituary. He is also of interest for my project on graduate education, having received a Harvard Ph.D. (1954).

_______________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Spring Term 1955

Economics 161
Professor Kaysen and Dr. Peck

 

  1. Markets of Large Numbers (2 Feb. – 28 Feb.)

General introduction
Agriculture
Crude oil
Women’s clothing

R. Schickele, Agricultural Policy, Ch. 9-11, 13-17.
J.K. Galbraith, Basic Factors in Farm Price Policy (mimeo.)
K. Brandt, Farm Price Supports, Rigid or Flexible?
N. Ely, “The Conservation of Oil,” Ch. 11 in Readings in the Social Control of Industry.
E.V. Rostow, A National Policy for the Oil Industry, Part II.
“Adam Smith on 7th Avenue,” Fortune, Jan. 1949.

 

  1. The Regulated Industries (2 March – 30 March)

Electric Power
Transportation

Twentieth Century Fund: Electric Power and Government Policy, Ch. I-IV, X
M.L. Fair and E.W. Williams, Jr., Economics of Transportation, Ch. 18-23, 25, 30, 32.

  1. Economic Mobilization (11 April – 18 April)

D.H. Wallace and L.V. Chandler, Economic Mobilization and Stabilization, Ch. 1-5, 23-26.

 

  1. Nationalization and Planning (20 April – 27 April)

J.E. Meade, Planning and the Price Mechanism.
R.W. Lewis, British Planning and Nationalization, Ch. 1-3.
H.A. Clegg and F.E. Chester, The Future of Nationalization, Ch. 1, 3.

 

Reading Period

A.A. Berle, 20th Century Capitalist Revolution.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1955-1956 (2 of 2)”.

_______________________________

In memoriam: Merton Joseph Peck

YaleNews, March 6, 2013

Merton Joseph Peck, the Thomas DeWitt Cuyler Professor Emeritus of Economics, died March 1, at age 87. He resided in Florida and had been ailing for quite some time, according to his family.

Peck was a specialist in industrial organization, and wrote on a variety of topics including the aluminum industry, transportation, the defense industries, and cable and television. He also wrote about the transition to a market economy in the Soviet Union, as well as technological change.

He served in the U.S. Defense Department under Robert McNamara 1961–1963 as director of systems analysis, and he was designated by Time Magazine as one of the “Pentagon Whiz Kids” in 1962. Peck returned to Washington in 1968 to serve on Lyndon Johnson’s Council of Economic Advisors.

At Yale he served as department chair in various years throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, setting a record for number of years in that post. He also served as director of graduate studies, director of undergraduate studies, and acting dean of the Yale School of Management. He was a fellow of Pierson College at Yale.

Peck was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1925. Much of his very early youth was spent in Germany and Strasbourg in Alsace France. His father, Kenneth Peck, was head of European production for American Rake and Hoe. Both his parents died before he was 12, and he was subsequently raised by his aunts and grandmother in various small towns in Ohio. During World War II, Peck served in the Army Signal Corp and participated in the occupation of Japan. After leaving the army, he attended Oberlin College and graduated in 1949. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1954 under the tutelage of Edward Mason.

Peck taught at Michigan (1955-1956) and Harvard (1956-1962) before coming to Yale, where he served on the faculty 1963–2002. He was also associated with the Rand Corporation and Brookings Institution.

He is survived by his children Richard, Katherine, Sarah, and David; and four grandchildren. His wife of 55 years, Mary Bosworth Peck, predeceased him in 2004.

Source:  YaleNews, March 6, 2013.

Image Source:  ditto.

Categories
Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Suggestions for New Fields. Domar, Kuh, Solow, Adelman, 1967

The following set of memoranda from the MIT economics department is found in a folder marked “Correspondence: Peter Temin” in Evsey Domar’s papers. The bulk of the material in the folder are letters of support that Domar solicited for the committee he chaired (which consisted of Domar, Charles Kindleberger and Frank Fisher) to review Peter Temin for tenure. It thus appears that Domar’s proposal to strengthen economic history at MIT in February 1967 was seen (at least by him) to have led later to granting Peter Temin tenure at MIT. See Peter Temin’s reflections on “The Rise and Fall of Economic History at MIT.”

In response to a request by the Head of the department, E. Cary Brown, for input to a long-range plan (1967-1975), we have here not only Evsey Domar’s response but also memos from Edwin Kuh (more econometrics!), Robert Solow (“poverty-manpower” or “a really high-class macro-numbers man”) and M. A. Adelman (energy economics).

Even Robert Solow’s intradepartmental memos sparkle with wit!

_________________________________

February 7, 1967

MEMORANDUM

 

To: Members of the Economics Department
From: E. Cary Brown
Subject: Long-Range Departmental Plans

President H. Johnson has asked that Departments submit long-range plans – by two-year intervals through the academic year 1974-5. The basic constraints, other than budgetary, are that the undergraduate student body is to remain fixed at its present level and that graduate students at M.I.T. Grow at only a 3% rate per year. The projection desired is of the expansion in existing fields, into new fields, the population of the department – faculty, staff, students, post-doctorals, and administration and supporting staff.

In order to get a dialogue started, I suggest that each of you send me a note on the need for new fields, the expansion of existing ones, and your views about our undergraduate and graduate size. I can then prepare an agenda for a meeting or two on this matter.

_________________________________

 

[Evsey Domar response]

  1. New Fields, etc.
    1. Economic History. Could tie in very well with our economic developers. Also help to create a better balance in the Department.
    2. Economics and Technology (Mansfield, etc.) MIT should be just the place for it.
    3. I hope Max continues to be interested in South-East Asia. The US will be involved there for a long time. Any chances for a South-east. Asia Center or something?
  2. Number of Students
    No strong feelings. A larger number of both faculty and students allows us to offer a greater variety of courses.

As you know, Economic History is my main concern.

_________________________________

 

[Edwin Kuh response]

February 13, 1967

MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Professor E. Cary Brown
FROM:          Professor Edwin Kuh
SUBJECT:     Some Economics Department Needs in the Long Run

Let me first grind my own econometric axe. We need additional support in two econometric areas. The first pertains to support for quantitative theses; Frank Fisher, Bob Solow and I carry a heavy load in this connection, which is unlikely to diminish. Second, we ought to have more strength than we do in econometric time series analysis, an important topic not covered by existing faculty. Marc Nerlove, for instance, ranks high on both counts. Less senior individuals include David Grether who combines both aspects (Stanford Ph.D. going to Yale this fall) and possibly Joseph Kadane also at Yale, who is more the statistician. Jim Durbin and Bill Phillips would be fine, too, qua statisticians contributing to econometrics.

Next, suppose we are fortunate enough to attract both Ken Arrow and C. V. Wiesacker [sic] ; the net balance in favor of theory would then become heavy indeed. There will be no need to panic and for instance, proceed instantly to hire Arthur Burns. But even so, it will behoove the department to push relentlessly on expanding the more empirical side. Since all tenure slots by then will have been sewed up, I don’t see how this can readily be done.

Finally, the department ought to raise more finance for computation. The burden has been disproportionately assumed by the Sloan School, even though several Economics Department research projects have made highly welcome and substantial contributions to the installation downstairs. In this connection, the department should seriously consider acquiring the long run services of someone with a major interest [in] computer systems; very different and high qualified individuals such as Mark Eisner or Don Carroll come to mind. The department will lag behind seriously unless it expands in this direction.

This has not been a balanced presentation of needs. I shall leave that to more balanced individuals.

 

_________________________________

 

[Robert M. Solow response]

MEMORANDUM TO: E. Cary Brown, Head
FROM: Robert M. Solow
SUBJECT: Yours of February 7

 

  1. Undergraduate program. I suppose basically we just passively accept as many majors as come along. We might attract more by improving the teaching and brightening up the course offering. So far we have got along just fine with a pretty dreary undergraduate program, and previous attempts to Do Something have petered out. Is history trying to tell us something? The only reason I can think of for trying again is this: if the department faculty is going to state bigger, especially among assistant professors, then we probably need some decent undergraduate teaching for them to do. (Not only them – I would volunteer to do some too.) Why not let the assistant professors do the planning – they probably have more ideas. Suggestions: new undergraduate subjects in mathematical economics, econometrics, “poverty”, transportation (or public investment); cancel one of the current Labor subjects (or convert to “poverty”), maybe cancel 14.06, 14.09; organize research seminar on one-big-project basis; keep 3 or 4 of the best seniors on as PhD candidates as a matter of course.
  1. Graduate program. Does it have to expand to justify slightly enlarged faculty? If so, then accept universe, but fight like hell for adequate space, scholarships, research funds. If not, think carefully. If faculty enlarges and improves, we should be able to do better on admissions. There will always be some lemons admitted; but it is a question whether one would not prefer current size of enrollment with improved bottom half to enlarged enrollment with current quality. If we get Arrow and Weizsäcker, and keep half-dozen assistant professors, some growth of graduate student body probably inevitable. But I’d keep it slow, and in line with admission quality, space, scholarships, research money. Aim for entering class of 40 by 1975? Certainly no more.
  1. New fields. If MIT goes into Urban Studies, I think we ought to move too. This means some joint research, perhaps offering a few fellowships specifically in urban economics, some new appointments (transportation, poverty, local finance), probably young guys. (I’d like to see Mike Piore and Frank Levy free to start something.) (Would Bill Pounds like to hire Joe Kershaw?) Maybe we ought to start looking next fall. This complex could be a major counterweight to theory. We could make a senior appointment, but I doubt we could find a good enough man. We also lack a really high-class macro-numbers man – like Art Okun or Otto Eckstein or George Perry. Should we try Les Thurow? Or try eventually for Steve Goldfeld? Goldfeld would help with Money, but Thurow would fit into poverty-manpower bit. I think I might seriously favor going for Thurow now if we can afford it.

_________________________________

 

[M. A. Adelman response]

March 16, 1967

Memorandum to:     Professor E. Cary Brown
From:                         M.A. Adelman
Subject:  President H. W. Johnson’s request to submit long-range plans: industrial organization field

  1. Enrollment in the graduate course has declined to the point where it is best given in alternate years. Theses written have not decreased, and there are six now in preparation. I wish to use the time made available to teach the course on energy economics when Paul Rodan retires. The remaining time is best devoted to undergraduate teaching (see below).
  2. Undergraduate enrollment seems to be on the increase in 14.02, 14.04, and 14.22. With the appointment of Robert Crandall, we are fully staffed. I would wish to have 14.02 taught exclusively by lecture and sections (teaching assistants) except where the undergraduates’ program will not permit it. Where we are compelled to fill in with three-recitation sections, I strongly urge that they should not be taught by teaching assistants. Since the transfer to lectures economizes manpower, these two changes should be offsetting, but will take more of my own time.
  3. I have given a joint seminar with Harvard (Economics Department and Middle East Center) on Eastern Hemisphere Oil, and will repeat it next year. It is still an uncertain venture, however, in a sensitive area, and the fuss about CIA influence in academic research may kill it.
  4. I join in concern over our weakness in economic history. East European economics might best be treated as an expansion of our current offering in Soviet economics, since there is sufficient unity of geography and practice. I wish some encouragement could be given to East Asian especially Japanese studies, where English sometimes suffices, but would not care to have it as a field of specialization.

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Evsey D. Domar papers, Box 7, Folder “Peter Temin” [apparently misfiled].

Image Source: MIT 1959 Technique (Yearbook).

Categories
Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Department of Economics Group Photo, 1976

Back Row:  Harold FREEMAN, Hal VARIAN, Jerome ROTHENBERG, Peter DIAMOND, Jerry HAUSMAN

4th Row: Paul JOSKOW, Anne FRIEDLAENDER, JOHN R. MORONEY (VISITOR TO DEPARTMENT)

3rd Row: Stanley FISCHER, Jagdish BHAGWATI, Rudiger DORNBUSCH, Robert SOLOW, Robert HALL

2nd Row: Edward KUH, Morris ADELMAN, Abraham J. SIEGEL, Richard ECKAUS, Martin WEITZMAN

1st Row: Evsey DOMAR, Paul SAMUELSON, Charles KINDLEBERGER, E. Cary BROWN, Franco MODIGLIANI, Sydney ALEXANDER, Robert BISHOP

1976_MITEcon_blogCopy

Apparently didn’t get the memo and/or not pictured: Michael PIORE, Frank FISHER, Peter TEMIN.

Thanks to Robert Solow, the photo-bomber standing to Solow’s left in the picture has been identified as a guest from Tulane University, John Moroney. It is possible that I forgot some other person not included in this faculty picture.

I note that the entire front row has gone to that great Department of Economics in the Cloud.

Source: A graduate student buddy of mine who entered the MIT Ph.D. program in 1975/76.

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled of which this is the 250th. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

Categories
Columbia Economists Funny Business M.I.T.

Columbia. Kindleberger remembers Simkhovitch, mid-1930s

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

__________________________

We met the curious Columbia University Professor Vladimir Gregorievitch Simkhovitch in an earlier posting. To recall briefly, Simkhovitch was a Russian born, German-trained economic historian who taught economic history and the course on socialist economics (more like anti-Marxian socialist economics) that he took over from John Bates Clark at Columbia. Milton Friedman took Simkhovitch’s economic history course.

Simkhovitch, Vladimir G. Marxism vs. Socialism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1913. Book first published in installments 1908-12 in Political Science Quarterly.

Charles Kindleberger was both a gentleman and a scholar who was respected and loved by his colleagues and former students. Upon the occasion of his eightieth birthday (he went on to live to the age of 92), he was presented a bound volume of brief reminiscences from everybodys who are (famous) anybodys to somebodys who are (relative) nobodys but who were all touched in some way by Kindleberger.

Today’s posting provides an assist to Professor Frank Fisher, the volunteer “custodian of [part of the Kindlberger] oral tradition”. One detail gets incorrectly transmitted in the Fisher rendition—Kindleberger was never a colleague of Simkhovitch, the two of them overlapped when Kindleberger was a Columbia graduate student in the mid 1930s.  In his reminiscence for the birthday volume, Fisher wrote:

“When Charlie Kindleberger retired from M.I.T., he asked at his party, “Who will tell my Simkhovitch stories?” I don’t know whether Charlie heard me, but I said I would.

Simkhovitch, who was Charlie’s colleague at Columbia, is the principal character in two stories (so far as I know). I have given both of them a good home and it seems appropriate that I should use them today.

In story number one, the young Kindleberger, having carefully planned out his lectures for the term, finds that with some time left to spare in his first lecture he has used up all the material for the course. After vamping for the rest of the lecture period, he seeks Simkhovitch’s advice and is told: “Recipe for education: take teaspoon full of ideas and five gallons water. Stir. Dispense with eye dropper.”

…In story number two, a student is on the verge of failing his Ph.D. exams and the department is debating what to do. Simkhovitch says: “This man want degree. We got plenty degrees. Give him degree.”

 

 

Source: Excerpt from Frank Fisher’s contribution to the collection: Reminiscences of Charles P. Kindleberger on his Eightieth Birthday, October 12, 1990 in the Charles P. Kindleberger Papers, Box 24, MIT Libraries, Institute Archives and Special Collections.

Image Source: Charles Kindleberger in MIT Technique, 1950.