Tag: Galbraith

Categories
Development Economist Market Economists Harvard Toronto

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus William Edmund Clark, 1974

Ed Clark once a 'Trudeaucrat' and then a Financial Master of the Universe

 

During the 1973-74 academic year Dale Jorgenson served as the placement officer for 34 Harvard economics Ph.D.s (in hand or anticipated) planning to go on the market. A fifth year student offering  the field of economic development with a thesis on government investment planning in Tanzania hoped to spend his first post-doc year at Harvard. Jorgensen apparently offered him a discouraging word, leading William Edmund Clark to approach John Kenneth Galbraith for help. Galbraith’s note to the department chair, James Duesenberry, is transcribed below. Galbraith could not pass up the opportunity to lend a helping hand simultaneously with a discrete back-of-the-hand at Jorgenson. 

Archival artifacts from the feud involving Jorgenson and Galbraith, inter alios, in the Harvard economics department at this time were the subject of an earlier post.

Curatorial due diligence demanded that I track down whatever happened to the Harvard economics Ph.D. alumnus William Edmund Clark. It turns out that he went back to his native Canada where he entered government service. He became much more than another faceless government economist. He rose rapidly through the bureaucratic ranks and within a decade “enjoyed” sufficient notoriety to become a Trudeaucratic target of Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney’s new government in the mid-1980s to be purged from the ranks of the civil service. From there Clark went on to an enormously successful career as a financial mover-and-shaker over the following three decades. “Red Ed” Clark also went on to make his mark in philanthropy.

The details of Clark’s truly remarkable life after his Harvard Ph.D. can be found in his Wikipedia article. John Kenneth Galbraith must have seen something that Dale Jorgenson either failed to see or didn’t want to encourage.

__________________________

Galbraith Tries an End-Run
around Jorgenson

December 20, 1973

Professor James Duesenberry
Littauer M-8
Harvard University

Dear Jim:

W. E. Clark, vitae attached, was in to see me the other day. He would like to stay on at Harvard; he has been told by Jorgenson that, in effect, there isn’t much interest in him. I find it difficult to plead we lack interest in anybody with this kind of record. I continue to suspect Mr. Jorgenson of an influence on our enterprise that is both inimical and evangelical. Couldn’t there be some corrective action without some fuss.

Yours faithfully,
John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG: efd

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

William Edmund Clark
Curriculum Vitae
  1. Born: October 10, 1947
  2. Marriage Status: Married
  3. Children: One Son
  4. Education:

Honors B.A., University of Toronto 1969. Economics
A.M. Harvard University 1971. Economics
Ph.D. Expected Harvard University. 1974 (Summer) Economics

  1. Awards, Grades:
    1. Stood first in class last three years at University of Toronto
    2. Received Excellent Minus on written Theory for Ph.D.
    3. Received Excellent on Orals for Ph.D.
      Topics: Economic Development; Theories of Social Change
    4. Woodrow Wilson Scholar
  2. Thesis. Pattern of Government Controlled Investment in Tanzania
    Thesis Advisors: A. O. Hirschman; A. MacEwan
  3. Teaching Experience:

Summer Course, Acadia University, Nova Scotia 1970
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University 1971/72.

  1. Other Work Experience:

Researcher, Center of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1966 (summer)
Researcher, Ford Foundation Project on Higher Education, University of Toronto, 1968 (summer)
Head, Research Project on Student Aid, Financed by Ontario Government and Ford Foundation, 1969 (summer)
Member, University of Toronto Tanzania Project, 1971-73
Team head, University of Toronto Tanzania Project, 1972-73

  1. Publications:

“Access to Higher Education in Ontario” joint article with D. Cook and G. Fallis

  1. Address: 11 Peabody Terrace Apt. 702 Cambridge, Mass. 02138
    Telephone: 617-492-0416
  2. References:

A.O. Hirschman, Harvard University
A. MacEwan, Harvard University
D. Nowlan, Dept. of Economics, University of Toronto
D.F. Forster, Provost, University of Toronto
A. Sinclair, Chairman, Dept. of Economics, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard Economics Dept. of Economics: General correspondence, 1967-74 (1 of 3)”.

Image Source: “Turbulence follows former ‘Trudeaucrat”,  National Post (Toronto), Aug 9, 1999.

Categories
Development Exam Questions Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. Economic Development, Theory and Problems. Hainsworth, Bell and Papanek, 1960-1961

Gustav Papanek during a trip to Asia

The announced cast of instructors for “Theories and Problems of Economic Development” offered at Harvard in 1960-61 was headlined by Professors Edward S. Mason and John Kenneth Galbraith. With the election of John F. Kennedy to the U.S. Presidency, all sorts of staff adjustments became necessary in the economics department and the graduate school of public administration, e.g. Galbraith took leave beginning the second semester to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to India. I don’t know why Mason changed his teaching plans, but I figure his Dean duties might have played a role.

The actual staffing for this course in 1960-61 is recorded in the staffing and enrollment information published in the annual report of the President of Harvard College also transcribed here. The course was the economics department offering that ran parallel to the Graduate School of Public Administrations seminar on the same subject.

This post begins with biographical information for the three course instructors: Geoffrey Brian Hainsworth, David E. Bell and Gustav Papanek.

The course outline and reading list is probably what had been originally planned/approved by Mason and Galbraith, though that is merely a presumption to be sure. Only the final exam for the first semester was found in the collection of economics exams in the Harvard Archive.

In preparing this post I learned that Gustav Papanek had been one of many academics purged from government service during the McCarthy years. The 2019 BBC story “How we endured the McCarthy purges in US” mentions his case and is the source of the photo of young Gus Papanek.

__________________________

Who’s Who
1960-61

HAINSWORTH, Geoffrey Brian, academic; b. Bramley, Yorkshire, Eng., 1934; B.S. in Econ., London Sch. of Econ., 1955; Ph.D., U. Calif. at Berkeley, 1960.
DOC. DIS. “Classical Theories of Overseas Development,” 1960. PUB. Japan’s Decision to Develop, 1969; Economic Development in South-East Asia, 1969; “The Lorenz Curve as a General Tool of Economic Analysis,” Econ. Record, Sept. 1964:
RES. Manufacturing Development and Economic Growth in Southeast Asia; Text on Economic Development with special reference to Asia.
Instr. econ., Harvard, 1958-61, tutor Lowell House, 1958- 61; asso. with Pakistan and Iran Advisory Project, 1958-61; research fellow, Australian Nat’l U., 1961-65; asst. prof., Williams Coll., 1965-68, U. British Columbia since 1968.

Source: American Economic Association, List of Members, 1969 p. 173.

In Memoriam:
Professor emeritus Geoffrey Hainsworth
1934 – 2011

Geoffrey was born in Bramley, Yorkshire. In 1952 he received a state scholarship to attend the University of London, graduating from the London School of Economics in 1954 and receiving the Allyn Young Honours Prize. A Fulbright Scholars grant enabled him to obtain his PhD at the University of California at Berkeley, his thesis being classical theories of overseas development, a subject he pursued throughout his working life. He taught at Harvard from 1958 to 1960 while supervising the study program for foreign service fellows under the Harvard Development Advisory Service, along with participation in Pakistan’s Second Five‑Year Plan. He spent 1960 to 1965 as a research fellow and instructor at the Australian National University in Canberra, with research work in Papua New Guinea. His three children were born in Canberra. Returning to the US, he taught at Williams College in Massachusetts while supervising specially selected mature foreign student fellows at the Centre for Economic Development. Geoffrey started his career at UBC in 1968, where he founded the Centre for Southeast Asia Studies, retiring as its director in 2001. He was one of a select Canadian Educators Group invited in 1976 to visit institutions in China. He organized the first international conference for Southeast Asian Studies in 1979 and was twice elected president of the Canadian Council for Southeast Asian Studies. He was greatly respected and valued by colleagues in Canada and abroad, having lived in Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam working with their governmental agencies and their universities. Dedicated to equality, justice and compassion, he touched the lives of many. Learning, understanding and laughter was his way.

Source: The University of British Columbia Magazine.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

PAPANEK, Gustav F., academic; b. Vienna, Austria, 1926; B.S., Cornell U., 1947; M.A., Harvard, 1949, Ph.D., 1951.
DOC. DIS. Food Rationing in Britain, 1939-1945, 1950.
PUB. Pakistan’s Development – Social Goals and Private Incentives, 1967; Development Policy – Theory and Practice (ed.), 1968.
RES. Development Policy II – The Pakistan Experience. Dep. chief, Program Planning for S. & S.E. Asia, Dept. of State, Tech. Cooperation Adm., 1951-54; actg. project dir. & advr., Harvard Advisory Group to Planning Commn., Pakistan, 1954-58; dep. dir., Dev. Advry. Service, 1958-65, dir. since 1965.

Source: American Economic Association, List of Members, 1969 p. 332.

Gustav Fritz Papanek
d. September 20, 2022

Professor Gustav Fritz Papanek, died peacefully at his home in Lexington, MA on September 20, 2022. Gus, the husband of the late Hanna Kaiser Papanek was born in Vienna, Austria on July 12, 1926, the son of the late Dr. Ernst Papanek and Dr. Helene Papanek. His father was a committed social democrat and educator who was forced into exile in 1935 as the impending storm approached in Germany and Austria. His mother, a physician, looked after Gus and his late brother, George as Ernst evaded persecution. As Socialists and Jews, the family fled initially to France where Ernst ran homes for refugee children. Gus met his future wife Hanna when they were 13 years old in one of the children’s homes. With the impending fall of France, the family knew that Europe was no longer safe for them and in 1940 with the support of the International Rescue Committee they made it to New York. Gus frequently reminisced about teaching English during the journey and sailing into New York Harbor past the Statue of Liberty.

 

Gus graduated from high school at age 16 and went to Cornell University – initially studying agriculture and working his way through school with farm jobs. His college years were interrupted by WWII – he enlisted in the army and was trained in the infantry and artillery until the army realized that a native German speaker was more valuable in military intelligence. Gus trained at the well-known Fort Ritchie in Maryland and was then deployed to Germany where he assisted in finding Nazi war criminals. He was always proud of his military service.

 

When he returned home, he graduated from Cornell. Gus and Hanna married soon after their college graduation. Gus went on to study economics at Harvard University under John Kenneth Galbraith, receiving his Ph.D. In 1952. Hanna received her Ph.D. in Sociology at Harvard, and their careers and work were entwined for the duration of their nearly 70-year marriage. Gus went on to take a job in the US State Department in Washington, DC working with the Agency for International Development – however it was the height of the McCarthy era and Gus was fired for his socialist beliefs. He rebounded and returned to Harvard where he began his life’s work of studying income distribution, employment, and poverty in developing countries. He and Hanna moved to Karachi, Pakistan with daughter Joanne and son Tom, returning to Harvard in 1958. Gus worked in many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America – advising governments on developing effective economic policies Gus ultimately specialized in Asian economies where he was recognized as a pre-eminent expert on Pakistan and Indonesia. He developed strong ties in both countries as a friend and trusted advisor. During the struggle for the independence of East Pakistan, Gus was an active advocate testifying before the US Congress and recognized by the government of Bangladesh as a Friend or the Liberation War Honor.

 

In 1974, Gus moved to Boston University as Chair of Economics, building a renowned department with strong interests in development economics. During his career, Gus trained two generations of economists who would go on to take important leadership positions in their home countries. After achieving emeritus status at BU, Gus continued his consulting work through his company the Boston Institute for Development Economics – working on books, papers and giving invited university lectures until several months ago. This year, he sent his last two books to the publisher – one a blueprint for the Indonesian economy and the last a memoir drawn from a series of talks that he gave to family and friends this past spring.

 

Gus was devoted to his family – teaching his son and daughter to ski, white-water kayak and hike in New Hampshire and Maine, and snorkel the reefs of the Caribbean. For over 40 years, Gus and Hanna’s vacation home in Brownfield, ME was a focal point of family life for their children and grandchildren. As Gus traversed the globe, he always ensured that his itinerary included Chicago to spend time with Tom, Doris, and their children. He and Hanna traveled widely – often visiting family and drawn overseas by interests in other cultures and landmarks. They instilled their love of travel in their grandchildren, who accompanied them on many journeys over the years. Meals were the focal point of family gatherings – with long, spirited and often political conversations – always concluding with chocolate in some form.

 

Gus is survived by his son Tom Papanek (Doris Wells Papanek) of Barrington, IL, daughter Joanne Papanek Orlando (Rocco Orlando, III) of South Glastonbury, CT, grandchildren Jessica Papanek, Julia Papanek, Rocco Orlando, IV (Katie Moran), Alexander Orlando, great granddaughters Brooke and Willow Orlando as well as his nephew Michael Papanek, niece Deborah Ferreira (Chris). His niece Susan Papanek McHugh (Steve) pre-deceased him recently.

Source: Gustav Fritz Papanek of Lexington, Massachusetts, 2022 Obituary. Anderson-Bryant Funeral Home (September 30, 2022).

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

David E. Bell, the Clarence James Gamble Professor of Population Sciences and International Health Emeritus, died Sept. 6, 2000, after a brief illness. He was 81.
An economist who served as special assistant under President Truman and as director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget and of the Agency for International Development (USAID) under President Kennedy, Bell headed the Harvard Advisory Group to Pakistan from 1954 to 1957, an effort that later evolved into the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) and more recently the Center for International Development (CID). From 1957 to 1960, he taught economics at Harvard.
In the 1960s and ’70s, Bell led the international work of the Ford Foundation. He returned to Harvard in 1981, becoming director of the Center for Population and Development Studies at the School of Public Health (HSPH). He became emeritus in 1988, but continued to work at the Center on a daily basis, making himself available to students, fellows, and faculty who were able to benefit from his experience and wisdom.
University Provost Harvey Fineberg said of Bell: “David Bell lived a life dedicated to public service and to education. His leadership was the bedrock for programs in population and international health at the School of Public Health and the Center for Population and Development Studies. He was an invaluable guide to a generation of students and to colleagues at every stage of their careers. Anyone privileged to work with him became better by the experience.”
Lincoln Chen, formerly the Taro Takemi Professor of International Health at HSPH and currently executive vice president for program strategy at the Rockefeller Foundation, had this to say of his former colleague:
“David Bell was a supreme global public servant, bringing his talents, skills, and commitments to solving some of the world’s most pressing problems — health, population, economic development. Due to his modesty and despite his extraordinary history of work, David Bell’s contributions are imbedded in the people and institutions he helped create, nurture, and grow. He did little to aggrandize his own name or reputation; indeed, his stature and wisdom were such that it was not necessary.”
Derek Bok, the Three Hundredth Anniversary University Professor and Harvard President Emeritus, called David Bell “one of the finest human beings I have been privileged to know during my 40 years at Harvard. His combination of experience, judgment, compassion, and impeccable ethical standards are simply irreplaceable.”
Born in Jamestown, N.D. in 1919, Bell earned his bachelor’s degree in 1939 from Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., and his master’s degree from Harvard in 1941. His pursuit of a doctoral degree was interrupted when he agreed to direct the Harvard Advisory Group to Pakistan.
A fellowship was established in his honor at the Center in 1991, helping to host fellows with the objective of preparing scholars, managers, and policy makers for leadership roles in developing countries. The David E. Bell Lecture Series was inaugurated in 1999.
He leaves his wife of 56 years, Mary Barry Bell; his daughter, Susan Bell of Putney, VT; his son, Peter Bell of Watertown, MA; his sister, Barbara Bell Dwiggins of San Luis Obispo, CA.; seven grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.

Source:  Ken Gewertz, “Economist David Bell dies at 81,” The Harvard Gazette, September 21, 2000.

__________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 169 (formerly Economics 108). Theory and Problems of Economic Development, I
Half course (fall term). M., W., (F.), at 12. Professor [Edward S.] Mason, Dr. [Gustav] Papanek and Mr. [David] Bell.

A systematic survey of the subject, including consideration of theories of growth for both advanced and underdeveloped economies, the different historical paths to development, and the problems of technological change, capital accumulation, and economic planning. Intended for advanced undergraduates and graduates.
Prerequisite: Economics 98a.
[Junior year tutorial for credit dealing with macroeconomic theories and policies. The course serves as preparation for more specialized training in the subject matter in Group IV graduate and undergraduate courses. The course consists of both lectures and tutorial, normally with one lecture and one tutorial session per week. It was taught by Professor Smithies in 1960-61.]

Economics 170 (formerly Economics 108). Theory and Problems of Economic Development, II
Half course (spring term). M., W., (F.), at 12. Professor [John Kenneth] Galbraith, Dr. Hainsworth and Mr. [David] Bell.

A continuation of Economics 169. Prerequisite: Economics 98a or 169.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction, 1960-1961. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. 57, No. 21 (August 29, 1960), pp.97-98.

__________________________

Course Enrollments and Staffing

[Economics] 169 (formerly Economics 108). Theory and Problems of Economic Development, I. Dr. Hainsworth and Mr. Bell. Half course. (Fall)

Total 58: 12 Graduates, 8 Seniors, 4 Juniors, 3 Sophomores, 4 Radcliffe, 27 Others.

[Economics] 170 (formerly Economics 108). Theory and Problems of Economic Development, II. Dr. Papanek. Half course. (Spring)

Total 58: 10 Graduates, 8 Seniors, 9 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 3 Radcliffe, 26 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President, 1960-61, p. 77.

__________________________

Course Outline and Reading Assignments

Economics 169
Theories and Problems of Economic Development (I)
Fall 1960

  1. Introduction:

Scope and method of course, definition and measurement of economic development, characteristics of underdeveloped countries.
(September 26-30)

Assigned reading:

W. A. Lewis, Theory of Economic Growth, Ch. 1 and appendix

S. Kuznets, Six Lectures on Economic Growth, Lectures I and III

Suggested reading:

E. E. Hagen, “Some Facts About Income Levels and Economic Growth,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Feb. 1960

M. Abramovitz, “The Welfare Interpretation of Secular Trends in National Income and Product,” in The Allocation of Economic Resources (Stanford, 1959)

  1. Evolution of Growth Theories in Advanced Countries
    (October 3-28)

Assigned Reading:

Meier and Baldwin, Economic Development, Chs. 1-4

H. Mint, Theories of Welfare Economics, Ch. 1

Allyn Young, “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,” Economic Journal, Dec. 1928, reprinted in R. V. Clemens, Readings in Economic Analysis, Vol. I, Ch. 6.

W. J. Baumol, Economic Dynamics: An Introduction, Ch. 2

W. Fellner, Trends and Cycles in Economic Activity, Chs. 4-9

Suggested Reading:

E. Domar, Essays in the Theory of Econmic Growth, Ch. 1

K. Boulding, “In Defense of Statics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Nov. 1955.

J. M. Letiche, “The Relevance of Classical and Contemporary Theories of Growth to Economic Development,” American Economic Review, Proceedings, May 1954.

  1. Historical Patterns of Economic Development
    (October 31 – November 25)

Assigned Reading:

Meier and Baldwin, op. cit., Chs. 7,8,9.

H. F. Williamson (ed.) The Growth of the American Economy, Chs. 1, 5, 17, 34, 48.

B. Higgins, Economic Development, Chs. 9 and 10.

A. Bergson (ed.), Soviet Economic Growth, Chs. 1 and 2.

W. W. Lockwood, Economic Development of Japan, Chs. 1 and 10.

Suggested Reading:

W. Rostow, Stages of Economic Growth.

T. S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830.

W. Ashworth, A Short History of the International Economy 1850-1950, esp. Chs. 1, 2, 3.

E. A. J. Johnson and H. E. Knoos, The Origins and Development of the American Economy.

Committee for Economic Development, Economic Growth in the United States, Feb. 1958

  1. Theories of Underdevelopment and How Development Can be Started
    (November 28 – December 21)

Assigned Reading:

B. Higgins, Economic Development, Part IV.

Suggested Reading:

P. Baran, “The Political Economy of Backwardness,” The Manchester School, Jan. 1950

E. Hagen, “How Economic Growth Begins,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall, 1958.

A. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development.

H. Leibenstein, Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth.

H. Myint, “An Interpretation of Economic Backwardness,” Oxford Economic Papers, June 1954.

H. Oshima, “Economic Growth and the ‘Critical Minimum Effort’”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, July 1959

W. Rostow, “The Take-off into Sustained Growth,” Economic Journal, March 1956.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Economics 170
Theories and Problems of Economic Development II
Spring 1961

  1. Political, Social, Cultural Factors – Organizations and Institutions
    (February 6-10)

Assigned Reading:

W. A. Lewis, Theory of Economic Growth, pp. 57-162, 408-418

P. Baran, “The Political Economy of Backwardness,” The Manchester School, January 1950. (Reprinted in Agarwala and Singh, op. cit.)

G. A. Almond and J. S. Coleman (Eds.), The Politics of the Developing Areas, pp. 536-544

Suggested Reading:

S. Frankel, Economic Impact on Underdeveloped Societies, Chapter 8

M. Levy, “Some Social Obstacles to Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Areas,” in Capital Formation and Economic Growth, (Princeton 1955)

T. Parsons, [title left blank] in The Challenge of Development (Tel Aviv 1957)

  1. Productivity, Technology and Technical Change
    (February 13-24)

Assigned Reading:

Lewis, Chapter 4

C. P. Kindleberger, Economic Development, Chapters 6 & 10

Suggested Reading:

C. Kerr, “Productivity and Labor Relations,” in Productivity and Progress, (Proceedings of the Summer School, Australian Institute of Political Science, 1957)

R. Eckaus, “Factor Proportions in Underdeveloped Areas,” American Economic Review, September 1955, (Reprinted in Agarwala and Singh, op. cit.)

G. Ranis, “Factor Proportions in Japanese Development,” American Economic Review, September 1957

W. Moore, Industrialization and Labor

T. Scitovsky, “Two Concepts of External Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, April 1954

J. A. Stockfisch, “External Economics, Investment, and Foresight,” Journal of Political Economy, October 1955

A. Hirschman, “Investment Policies and ‘Dualism’ in Underdeveloped Countries,” American Economic Review, September 1957

  1. Capital Accumulation
    (February 27 – March 22)

Assigned Reading:

Lewis, pp. 201-244

R. Nurkse, Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Countries, Chapters 1-3

N. Kaldor, Indian Tax Reform: Report of a Survey (New Delhi, 1956)

Bernstein and Patel, “Inflation in Relation to Economic Development,” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 1952

T. Schelling, “American Aid and Economic Development: Some Critical Issues,” in International Stability and Progress (The American Assembly, 1957)

Suggested Reading:

R. Mikesell, Promoting U. S. Private Investment Abroad, (National Planning Association Pamphlet, 1957)

M. Bronfenbrenner, “The Appeal of Confiscation in Economic Development,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, April 1955

S. Kuznets, “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,” American Economic Review, March 1955

  1. Planning and Resource Allocation
    (March 24 – April 19)

Assigned Reading:

G. Haberler, International Trade and Economic Development, (National Bank of Egypt Lectures, 1959)

E. Mason, Economic Planning: Government and Business in Economic Development(Fordham University Lectures 1958)

J. Tinbergen, The Design of Development, (Johns Hopkins, 1958), pp. 1-58

G. Papanek, Framing a Development Program, (International Conciliation, March 1960), p. 307-337

Suggested Reading:

R. Nurkse, “Reflections on India’s Development Plan,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1957

W. Nicholls, “Investment in Agriculture in Underdeveloped Countries,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May 1955

W. A. Lewis, “On Assessing a Development Plan,” Economic Bulletin, (Ghana), May – June 1959
(Mimeographed copies are on reserve in Lamont and Littauer Libraries)

D. Bell, “Allocating Development Resources: Some Observations Based on Pakistan Experience,” Public Policy IX, (Yearbook of the Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard University, 1959)

  1. Case Studies
    (April 21 – May 1)

Note:
This is a preliminary list only. Other countries may be added and the assignments for the countries now listed will be changed to some extent.

Assigned Reading:
The assigned reading for this section of the course is the material listed below for one country only. (Students coming from underdeveloped countries are requested to read the material for a country other than their own. Please note that there will be one question on the final examination calling for an answer in terms of the country selected.
There will be no additional assignment during the reading period.

Indonesia

Background:

L. Fischer, The Story of Indonesia

Development Problems:

B. Higgins, Indonesia’s Economic Stabilization and Development

B. Higgins, Economic Development, pp. 50-58, 730-741

India

Background:

M. Zinkin, Development for Free Asia

Development Problems:

Government of India, Second five Year Plan, Chapters 1-7

Government of India, Second Five Year Plan Progress Report, 1958-59 (April 1960), pp. 1-28

M. Brower, “Foreign Exchange Shortage and Inflation Under India’s Second Plan,” Public Policy IX, 1959

W. Malenbaum, “India and China, Contrasts in Development,” American Economic Review, June 1959

R. Nurkse, “Reflections on India’s Development Plan,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1957

Pakistan

Background:

M. Zinkin, Development for Free Asia

Development Problems:

Government of Pakistan, Second Five Year Plan (June 1960), pp. 1-118, 397-414

Government of Pakistan, Planning Commission, Report of the Panel of Economists on the Second Five Year Plan (August 1959)

F. Shorter, “Foodgrains Policy in East Pakistan,” Public Policy IX, 1959

Ghana

Background:

D. Apter, The Gold Coast In Transition

Development Problems:

Government of Ghana, Second Development Plan (March 1959)

Government of Ghana, Economic Survey 1958

W. A. Lewis, “On Assessing a Development Plan,” Economic Bulletin, June-July 1959 (Mimeographed copies on reserve in Lamont and Littauer Libraries).

Western Nigeria

Background:

IBRD Mission, The Economic Development of Nigeria, 1955

Government of Western Nigeria, Development of the Western Region of Nigeria 1955-60

Government of Western Nigeria, Progress Report on the Development of the Western Region of Nigeria, 1959

Government of Nigeria, Economic Survey of Nigeria 1959

  1. Summary and Conclusions
    (May 3)

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 8, Folder “Economics, 1960-1961 (2 of 2)”.

__________________

ECONOMICS 169
Final Examination
January 25, 1961

Answer five questions, one from each part of the examination. Observe the time allocation of each part: weight in grading will be apportioned in correspondence with this allocation.

Part I (30 minutes)

Answer ONE of the following questions:

  1. Compare and contrast the analysis of “the limits to the production of wealth” in the writings of two of the following authors: A. Smith, D. Ricardo, J. S. Mill.
  2. “The classical theory of economic policy was not simply a doctrinaire adherence to the prescription: ‘Laissez-faire’. It is better regarded as a series of individual and practical suggestions on how an underdeveloped country might best achieve economic growth.”
    Discuss the above quotation with reference to the recommendations for economic policy of either a leading classical economist, or the classical economists in general.
Part II (45 minutes)

Answer ONE of the following questions:

  1. Give a brief account of the views of two of the following authors on the subject of capital and its investment (and, where possible, on innovation), and compare their relevance to the conditions of present-day underdeveloped countries: Karl Marx, J. A. Schumpeter, J. M. Keynes, W. Fellner, E. Domar (or R. F. Harrod).
  2. “Both neoclassical and modern theories of the determination of national output are greatly dependent upon the institutional structure of the countries whose economic operations they were devised to explain. Both sets of theory, therefore, are very limited in their application to other institutional frameworks — particularly those of 20th century underdeveloped countries.”
    To what extent do you believe the above to be a valid criticism of attempts to apply either neoclassical or modern economic theory to underdeveloped countries? Is any attempt made to qualify such theory when it is so applied?
    (You may illustrate your answer by reference to the structure of a presently underdeveloped country.)
    Can you suggest any major respects in which neoclassical or modern theory might be amended when applied to such a context? Or is the criticism valid to the extent of making such attempts at amendment futile?
Part III (30 minutes)
  1. Give an account of the influence of one of the following components in the economic development of either the United Kingdom in the 18th and 19th centuries, or the United States in the 19th and early 20thcenturies:
    1. land use and ownership
    2. location of industry
    3. capital formation
    4. transport and communications
    5. staple industries
    6. foreign commerce.

Note: In dealing with either the U.K. or the U.S. experience, it is permissible to draw upon the experience of the other country for purposes of comparison or contrast.

Part IV (30 minutes)
  1. You are economic advisor to the Prime Minister of Pogoland, a recently independent country with 60 million inhabitants. It has little industry in the modern sense; an agriculture that produces enough rice for home consumption; a per capita income of $50; small exports of pepper use to finance its very limited import needs (luxury goods for the small wealthy class, and some capital goods largely for the transport system). The country has some raw materials for industry, but not much. It can increase agricultural production, and there is a good international market for some of its agricultural products.
    The Prime Minister, who is a highly intelligent and able man with a degree in Elizabethan poetry from Oxford, has been impressed by the rapid and successful development of Japan and Russia. He would like you to outline very briefly (he is both busy and intelligent) what major aspects of either the Japanese or the Russian experience he can apply in his country, and what aspects he cannot apply, and why or why not. He is notinterested in receiving direct recommendations for Pogoland as such, only in the major aspects of Japanese or Russian experience which could, or could not, be useful to him.
Part V (45 minutes)
Reading Period Assignment
  1. As announced in lecture before Reading Period, you are expected to give a critical appraisal of a recent contribution to the discussion of one of these issues in development theory:
    1. Population.
    2. Dual economies, or the problem of backwardness.
    3. Motivation, or’ other social/cultural factors.
    4. Balanced vs. unbalanced growth.
    5. The “big push” or “critical minimum effort.”
    6. Stages of economic growth, the concept of take-off.

Note: Pleaase indicate clearly at the beginning of your discussion the contribution (article, articles, etc) you have selected for appraisal.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions,.., Economics,…Naval Science, Air Science. January 1961. In the bound volume: Social Sciences, Final Examinations, January 1961.

Image Source: (Young) Gustav Papanek during a trip to Asia. From BBC “How we endured the McCarthy purges in US” (12 May 2019).

 

Categories
Bibliography Development Harvard

Harvard. Seminar Bibliography on Economic Development. Mason and Galbraith, 1960-61

Edward S. Mason (left), John K. Galbraith (right)

When John Kenneth Galbraith received a phone call on December 7, 1960 from President-elect John Fitzgerald Kennedy asking him to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to India, he was approaching the end of the first semester of a two semester seminar on problems of economic and political development that he led together with with his colleague, the Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration, Edward S. Mason. The seminar was a joint production of the Department of Economics and the Graduate School of Public Administration and originally brought on line by Galbraith.

As can be seen in the official staffing/enrollment information given in the Harvard President’s Report for 1960-61, the spring semester was not offered, almost certainly as the result of Galbraith taking a leave of absence beginning in the spring semester. The handwritten date on the seminar bibliography in the Harvard archives is “October 10, 1960”. At that time both Mason and Galbraith would have presumed the seminar would run for both the fall and spring semesters. For this reason, I believe it is reasonable to assume both professors were responsible in some part for the the bibliography as transcribed below. One may also assume  that Gustav Papanek, who later headed Harvard’s Development Advisory Service from 1962-1970, probably also had a hand in drafting the bibliography.

________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 287. Seminar: Problems of Economic and Political Development (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Public Administration)

Full course. Tu., 2-4. Professors Mason and Galbraith; Drs. Papanek and Hainsworth; Mr. Bell.

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. LVII, No. 21 (August 29, 1960), Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Courses of Instruction, 1960-1961. p. 102.

________________________

Staffing and Enrollments
in Economics 287

1952-53

No enrollment figures given for that year.
Not listed in the course announcements

However in Galbraith’s papers one finds a reading list dated 1952-53 along with typed notes for the first meeting of the seminar.

1953-54

[Economics] 287. Seminar on Problems of Economic and Political Development (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Public Administration). Professor Galbraith.
Full course.

Fall.

Total 12: 6 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 2 Other Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Radcliffe, 1 Other.

Spring.

Total 14: 6 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 5 Other Graduates, 1 Senior, 1 Radcliffe, 1 Other.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1953-54, p. 103.

1954-55

[Economics] 287. Seminar on Problems of Economic and Political Development (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Public Administration). Professor Galbraith.
Half course. Fall.

Total 18: 7 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 8 Other Graduates, 3 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1954-55, p. 94.

1955-56

Not offered

1956-57

[Economics] 287. Seminar on Problems of Economic and Political Development (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Public Administration). Professor Galbraith.
Half course. Fall.

Total 14: 5 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 7 Other Graduates, 1 Senior, 1 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1956-57, p. 73.

1957-58

Economics] 287. Seminar on Problems of Economic and Political Development (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Public Administration). Professor Galbraith and others.
Full course.

Fall.

Total 21: 7 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 14 Other Graduates.

Spring.

Total 22: 8 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 14 Other Graduates.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1957-58, p. 85.

1958-59

Economics] 287. Seminar on Problems of Economic and Political Development (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Public Administration). Professors Galbraith  and Kuznets (Johns Hopkins University); Drs. Hainsworth, A. J. Meyer and Papanek; Mr. Bell.
Full course.

Fall.

Total 33: 5 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 24 Other Graduates, 1 Senior, 3 Radcliffe.

Spring.

Total 36: 6 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 25 Other Graduates, 2 Seniors, 2 Radcliffe, 1 Other.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1958-59, p. 74.

1959-60

Economics] 287. Seminar: Problems of Economic and Political Development (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Public Administration). Professors Mason and Galbraith, Drs. A. J. Meyer, Papanek and Mr. Bell.
Full course.

Fall.

Total 23: 6 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 13 Other Graduates, 1 Senior, 1 Radcliffe, 2 Others.

Spring.

Total 23: 6 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 12 Other Graduates, 1 Seniors, 2 Radcliffe, 2 Other.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1959-60, p. 86.

1960-61

[Economics] 287. Problems of Economic and Political Development (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Public Administration). Professor Mason; Drs. Papanek and Hainsworth.
Half course. Fall.

Total 28: 12 [Arts and Sciences] Graduates, 14 Other Graduates, 1 Radcliffe, 1 Other.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1960-1961, p. 80.

________________________

ECONOMICS 287
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
[21 October 1960]

The following bibliography is a selected list of books and articles intended to cover most of the major theoretical and empirical studies concerned with economic growth in underdeveloped areas, that have been published in recent years. No attempt has been made to include (a) major work in the historical evolution of economic thought (Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Schumpeter, etc.); (b) modern theoretical work on economic growth in advanced countries (Harrod, Domar, Fellner, Duesenberry, etc.); or (c) empirical work dealing with the growth of the advanced countries — all of which may be very useful in the attempt to understand the problems of underdeveloped countries and what can be done to assist their economic progress.

The purpose was to produce a short list. Necessarily, many interesting and useful items have been omitted. No major contributions have been omitted intentionally, however, and the users of the bibliography are requested to bring such omissions to the notice of those in charge of the seminar.

The principle of selection has been indicated above. The limits of coverage were set largely in accord with the practice of the Seminar on Economic Development. That is, the focus is primarily on economic issues, with the word “economic” interpreted fairly broadly. In addition, some attention is given to political, social, and cultural matters insofar as they are directly related to economic development. This gives a coverage which overlaps to some extent the fields of government, sociology, and anthropology, and perhaps other disciplines. It might be well to make clear that this bibliography is not intended to cover the works in those other disciplines which are concerned with social, political, and cultural change as such, but only the relationships of such types of change to economic development.

All suggestions for improvement will be welcome.

________________________

CONTENTS
  1. Selected Bibliography on Economic Development
    1. General
      1. Primarily Theoretical
      2. Primarily Historical and Descriptive
    2. Planning
      1. Primarily Theoretical
      2. Primarily Descriptive
    3. Mobilization of Resources
      1. Domestic Resources
      2. Foreign Private Investment
      3. Foreign Public Grants and Loans
    4. International Trade
    5. Land and Agriculture
    6. Labor
    7. Entrepreneurship
    8. Population
    9. Measurement of National Income
    10. Political, Social, and Cultural Factors in Economic Development
  2. Other Bibliographies
  3. Some Major Compilations of Statistical Information

________________________

  1. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
    1. GENERAL
      1. Primarily Theoretical

Baran, Paul, “On the Political Economy of Backwardness,” The Manchester School, January 1950.

Bauer, P. T., Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Countries, (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1957).

Borts, G. H., “Returns Equalization and Regional Growth,” American Economic Review, June 1960.

Burtle, J., “Parametric Maps of Different Types of Economic Development,” Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1960.

Dupriez, L. H. (ed.), Economic Progress, (Papers by Kuznets, Cairncross, and others), (Louvain: 1955).

Hagen, E. E., “How Economic Growth Begins: A General Theory Applied to Japan,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 1958.

Higgins, Benjamin, Economic Development, (New York: Norton, 1959).

Hirschman, Albert O. The Strategy of Economic Development, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958).

Leibenstein, Harvey, Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957).

Lewis, W. Arthur, The Theory of Economic Growth, (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1955).

Mason, E. S., Economic Planning in Underdeveloped Areas: Government and Business, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1958).

Myint, H., “An Interpretation of Economic Backwardness,” Oxford Economic Papers, June 1954.

Myrdal, Gunnar, An International Economy, (New York: Harpers, 1957).

North, Douglass G., “A Note on Professor Rostow’s ‘Take-off’ into Self-Sustained Economic Growth,” The Manchester School, January 1958.

Nurkse, Ragnar, Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Countries, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953).

Oshima, H. T., “Underemployment in Backward Economies: An Empirical Comment,” Journal of Political Economy, June 1958.

Oshima, H. T., “Economic Growth and the ‘Critical Minimum Effort’,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, July 1959.

Rao, V.K.R.V., “Investment, Income and the Multiplier in an Underdeveloped Economy,” Indian Economic Review, February 1952.

Rosenstein-Rodan, P., “Problems of Industrialization of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe,” Economic Journal, June-September 1943.

Rostow, W. W., “The Take-Off into Self-Sustained Growth,” Economic Journal, March 1956.

Scitovsky, T., “Two Concepts of External Economies,” Journal of Political Economy, April 1954.

Sheahan, John, “International Specialization and the Concept of Balanced Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1958.

Singer, H. W., “The Mechanics of Economic Development, A Quantitative Model Approach,” Indian Economic Review, August 1952.

Solow, R., “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1956.

Stockfisch, J. A., “External Economies, Investment and Foresight,” Journal of Political Economy, October 1955.

Swan, T. W., “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation,” Economic Record, November 1956.

Tinbergen, J., International Economic Integration, (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1954).

U. N. — Processes and Problems of Industrialization in Under-Developed Countries, (New York: 1955).

Villard, H. H., Economic Development. (New York: Rinehart, 1959).

Young, Allyn, “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,” Economic Journal, December 1928.

      1. Primarily Historical and Descriptive

Abramovitz, Moses, Resource and Output Trends in the United States Since 1870, (National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.: Occasional Paper 52, 1956).

Bergson, A., Soviet Economic Growth: Conditions and Perspectives, (Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1953).

Boeke, Julius H., Economics and Economic Policy of Dual Societies as Exemplified by Indonesia, (New York: International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1953).

Felix, David, “Profit Inflation and Industrial Growth. The Historic Record and Contemporary Analogue,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1956.

Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective,” Hoselitz, Bert (ed.), The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952).

Griliches, Z., “Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations,” Journal of Political Economy, October 1958.

Hagen, Everett B., The Economic Development of Burma, (Washington: National Planning Association, 1956).

Higgins, B., Indonesia’s Economic Stabilization and Development, (New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 1957).

Hoeffding, Oleg, “Soviet State Planning and Forced Industrialization as a Model for Asia,” (RAND Corporation, August 1958).

Houthakker, H. S., “An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns,” Econometrica, October 1957.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The Economic Development of Mexico, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1953).

Kuznets, Simon, “Underdeveloped Countries and the Pre-Industrial Phase in the Advanced Countries: An Attempt at Comparison,” Proceedings of the World Population Conference, 1954, (Papers, Volume V, United Nations, New York).

Kuznets, Simon, “Toward a Theory of Economic Growth,” in Lekachman (ed.), National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1955).

Kuznets, Simon, “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,” American Economic Review, March 1955.

Kuznets, Simon, Six Lectures on Economic Growth, (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1959).

Kuznets, Simon, “Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations,” Economic Development and Cultural Change: “I. Levels and Variability of Rates of Growth,” October 1956; “II. Industrial Distribution of National Product and Labor Force,” July 1957; “III. Industrial Distribution of Income and Labor Force by States, United States, 1919-21 to 1955,” July 1958; “IV. Distribution of National Income by Factor Shares,” April 1959; “V. Capital Formation Proportions: International Comparisons for Recent Years,” July 1960.

Li, Choh Ming, Economic Development of Communist China, (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1959).

Lockwood, W. W., The Economic Development of Japan: Growth, and Structural Change, 1868-1938, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954).

Malenbaum, Wilfred, “India and China: Contrasts in Development,” American Economic Review, June 1959.

Ranis, Gustav, “Factor Proportions in Japanese Economic Development,” American Economic Review, September 1957.

Reubens, E. P., “Opportunities, Governments, and Economic Development in Manchuria, 1860-1940,” in H.G.J. Aitken (ed.), The State and Economic Growth, (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1959).

Rostow, W. W., The Stages of Economic Growth, (Cambridge University Press, 1960).

“The Satellites in Eastern Europe,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, May 1958.

Schultz, T. W. “Capital Formation by Education,” to be published in the Journal of Political Economy, December 1960.

Solomon, Morton, “The Structure of the Market in Underdeveloped Economies,” in Shannon, Lyle W. (ed.), Underdeveloped Areas: a Book of Readings and Research, (New York: Harper, 1957).

Solow, R., “Technical Change and The Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1957.

Thompson, C. H. and Woodraff, H. W., Economic Development in Rhodesia and Nyasaland, (London: Dennis Dobson, 1955).

U.N. — Economic Survey of Africa since 1950, (New York: 1959).

U.N. — Structure and Growth of Selected African Economies, (New York: 1957).

Zinkin, M., Development for Free Asia, (Fairlawn, New Jersey: Essential Books, Inc., 1956).

    1. PLANNING
      1. Primarily Theoretical

Bator, F. F., “On Capital Productivity, Input Allocation, and Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1957.

Chenery, H. B., “The Application of Investment Criteria,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1953.

Chenery, H. B., “Development Policies and Programmes,” Economic Bulletin for Latin America, March 1958.

Chenery, H. B., “The Interdependence of Investment Decisions,” in The Allocation of Economic Resources, Essays in Honor of B. F. Haley, (Stanford University Press, 1959).

Dobb, M., Economic Growth and Planning. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1960).

Eckaus, R. S., “The Factor Proportions Problem in Underdeveloped Areas,” American Economic Review, September 1955.

Eckstein, O., “Investment Criteria for Economic Development and the Theory of Intertemporal Welfare Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1957.

Galenson, W. and Leibenstein, H., “Investment Criteria, Productivity and Economic Development,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1955.

Lewis, W. A., The Principles of Economic Planning, (London: Dennis Dobson, 1952).

Lewis, W. A., “On Assessing a Development Plan,” The Economic Bulletin, (Ghana) June-July 1959.

Muranjam, S. K., “The Tools of Planning,” Indian Economic Journal, January 1957.

Sen, A. K., “Some Notes on the Choice of Capital-Intensity in Development Planning,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1957.

Sen, A. K., “Choice of Capital Intensity Further Considered,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1959.

Tinbergen, J., “The Optimum Rate of Saving,” Economic Journal, December 1956.

Tinbergen, J., The Design of Development, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1958).

Tinbergen, J., Optimum Savings and Utility Maximization Over Time,” Econometrica, April 1960.

U. S. Department of State, Office of Intelligence Research, “Use of the Capital-Output Ratio in Programming and Analyzing Economic Development,” February 1956.

      1. Primarily Descriptive

Aubrey, Henry, “Small Industry in Economic Development,” Social Research, September 1951.

Baer, Werner, “Puerto Rico: An Evaluation of a Successful Development Program,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1959.

Bicanic, Rudolph, “Economic Growth Under Centralized and Decentralized Planning — A Case Study,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, October 1957.

Gadgil, D. R., “Prospects for the Second Five-Year Plan Period,” India Quarterly, Vol. XIII, (January-March 1957), p. 5.

Government of Ceylon, National Planning Council, Papers by Visiting Economists, (Colombo: 1959).

Hsia, R., Economic Planning in Communist China, (New York: International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1955).

Government of India, Planning Commission, “Memorandum of the Panel of Economists and Note of Dissent by Prof. B. R. Shenoy,” and “The Plan Frame,” Papers Relating to the Formulation of the Second Five Year Plan, (Delhi: 1955).

Government of India, Planning Commission, “Development of the Economy,” and “Approach to the Second Five Year Plan,” Second Five Year Plan, (Delhi: 1956).

Komiya, R., “A Note on Professor Mahalanobis’ Model of Indian Economic Planning, Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1959.

Government of Pakistan, National Planning Board, “Planning the Development Programme,” and “Putting the Development Programme into Operation,” First Five Year Plan, 1955-60, (Karachi: Government of Pakistan, 1957).

    1. MOBILIZATION OF RESOURCES
      1. Domestic Resources

Bernstein, E. M. and Patel, I. G., Inflation in Relation to Economic Development (International Monetary Fund, 1952).

Bloomfield, Arthur I., “Monetary Policy in Underdeveloped Countries,” Public Policy, Vol. VII, (Cambridge, Mass.: Graduate School Public Administration, 1956).

Bronfenbrenner, M., “The Appeal of Confiscation in Economic Development,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, April 1955.

Diamond, W., Development Banks, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1957).

Froomkin, Joseph, “A Program for Taxation and Economic Development — The Indian Case,” (Review article of Report of Indian Taxation Enquiry Commission, 1953-54), Economic Development and Cultural Change, January 1958.

Government of India, Planning Commission, “Finance and Foreign Exchange,” Second Five Year Plan, (Delhi: 1956).

Kaldor, Nicholas, Indian Tax Reform: Report of a Survey, (New Delhi: Indian Ministry of Finance, 1956).

Lewis, W. A., “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour,” The Manchester School, May 1954.

Martin, A. M. and Lewis, W. A., “Patterns of Public Revenue and Expenditure,” The Manchester School, September 1956.

Oshima, H. T., “Share of Government in Gross National Product for Various Countries,” American Economic Review, June 1957.

Government of Pakistan, National Planning Board, “Internal Financial Resources,” and “Public Savings,” First Five Year Plan, 1955-60, (Karachi: 1957).

Sturmthal, Adolph, “Economic Development, Income Distribution, and Capital Formation in Mexico,” Journal of Political Economy, June 1955.

Wald, H. P., Taxation of Agricultural Land in Underdeveloped Economies, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959).

      1. Foreign Private Investment

Finnie, David H., Desert Enterprise: The Middle East Oil Industry in its Local Environment, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958).

Mikesell, Raymond F., Promoting U. S. Private Investment Abroad, (Washington: National Planning Association, 1957).

Wolf, Charles and Sufrin, Sidney, Capital Formation and Foreign Investment in Underdeveloped Areas, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1955).

      1. Foreign Public Grants and Loans

The American Assembly, International Stability and Progress: United States Interests and Instruments, (New York: Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 1957).

Cairncross, Alec, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, (Princeton University Essays in International Finance, No. 33, March 1959).

Friedman, Milton, “Foreign Economic Aid,” Yale Review. Summer 1958.

Millikan, Max F. and Rostow, W. W., A Proposal, Key to an Effective Foreign Policy, (New York: Harper Bros., 1957).

Report of The President’s Committee to Study the United States Military Assistance Program, (Washington: August 17, 1959).

Sapir, M., The New Role of the Soviets in the World Economy, (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1958).

Wolf, C., Foreign Aid: Theory and Practice in Southern Asia, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960).

    1. INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Bauer, Peter T., West African Trade, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954).

Haberler, G., Campos, R., Meade, J., and Tinbergen, J., Trends in International Trade, (Geneva: General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1958).

Haberler, G., International Trade and Economic Development, (Cairo: National, Bank of Egypt, 1959).

Mikesell, R. F., Foreign Exchange in the Postwar World, (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1954).

Myint, H., “The Classical Theory of International Trade and the Underdeveloped Countries,” Economic Journal, June 1958.

Nurkse, R., et. al, “The Quest for a Stabilization Policy in Primary Producing Countries: A Symposium,” Kyklos, 1958

Nurkse, R., Patterns of Trade and Development, (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1959).

U. N. — Instability in Export Markets of Underdeveloped Countries, (New York: 1952).

    1. LAND AND AGRICULTURE

Baldwin, K. D. S., The Niger Agricultural Project, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957).

Black, John D. and Stewart, H. L., Economics of Agriculture for India, (Delhi: Government of India, 1954).

Darling, Malcolm L., The Punjab Peasant in Prosperity and Debt (New York: Oxford University Press, 1925).

Gaitskell, Arthur, Gezira. A Story of Development in the Sudan, (London: Faber and Faber, 1959).

Johnston, Bruce, The Staple Food Economies of Western Tropical Africa, (Stanford University Press, 1958).

Mellor, John W. and Stevens, Robert D., “The Average and Marginal Product of Farm Labor in Underdeveloped Economies,” Journal of Farm Economics, August 1956.

Neale, Walter C., “The Limitations of Indian Village Survey Data,” Journal of Asian Studies, May 1958.

U. N. — “Productivity of Labour and Land in Latin American Agriculture,” Economic Survey of Latin America, 1956.

U. N. — Food and Agriculture Organization, Uses of Agricultural Surpluses to Finance Economic Development, (Rome: 1955).

Warriner, Doreen, Land Reform and Economic Development in the Middle East, (London: 1957).

Wickizer, V. D. and Bennett, M. K., The Rice Economy of Monsoon Asia, (Stanford University Press, 1941).

    1. LABOR

de Buey, P., “The Productivity of African Labour,” International Labour Review, August-September 1955.

Galenson, W. (ed.), Labor and Economic Development, (New York: Wiley, 1959).

Husain, A. F. A., Human and Social Impact of Technological Change in Pakistan, Vol. 1, (Pakistan: Oxford University Press, 1956).

Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. C., Myers, C. A., Industrialism and Industrial Man, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960).

Moore, Wilbert Ellis, Industrialization and Labor, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1952).

Sayigh, Yusif A., “Management-Labour Relations in Selected Arab Countries: Major Aspects and Determinants,” International Labour Review, June 1958.

Myers, Charles, Problems of Labor in the Industrialization of India, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958).

    1. ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Aubrey, Henry G., “Industrial Investment Decisions: A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Economic History, December 1955.

Eckstein, Alexander, “Individualism and the Role of the State in Economic Growth,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, January 1958.

Harbison, Frederick, “Entrepreneurial Organization as a Factor in Economic Development,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1956.

Prakesh, O., “Industrial Development Corporations in India and Pakistan,” Economic Journal, March 1957.

UNESCO, “Economic Motivations and Stimulations in Underdeveloped Countries,” International Social Science Bulletin, Vol. VI, No. 3, 1954.

    1. POPULATION

Coale, A. and Hoover, E. M., Population Growth and Economic Development in Low-income Countries, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958).

Hagen, E. E., “Population and Economic Growth,” American Economic Review, June 1959.

Taeuber, Irene, The Population of Japan, (Princeton: 1958).

U. N. — Department of Social Affairs, The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends, (New York: 1953).

U. N. — Technical Assistance Administration, Asia and the Far East: Seminar on Population, (New York: 1957).

    1. MEASUREMENT OF NATIONAL INCOME

Abramovitz, M., “The Welfare Interpretation of Secular Trends in National Income and Product,” in The Allocation of Economic Resources, Essays in Honor of B. F. Haley, (Stanford University Press, 1959).

Deane, Phyllis, Colonial Social Accounting, (Cambridge University Press, 1953).

Goldsmith, Raymond and Saunders, Christopher, (ed.), “The Measurement of National Wealth,” Income and Wealth Series VIII, (London: Bowes and Bowes, 1959).

Income and Wealth: Series III, (International Association for Research in Income and Wealth), (Cambridge: Bowes and Bowes, 1953), especially contributions by Frankel, Benham, Rao, and Creamer.

Kravis, I. B., “The Scope of Economic Activity in International Income Comparisons,” in Problems in the International Comparison of Economic Accounts, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 20, (Princeton University Press, 1957).

Kuznets, Simon, Economic Change, (New York: Norton, 1953).

    1. POLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL FACTORS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Almond, Gabriel A. and Coleman, James S., The Politics of the Developing Areas, (Princeton University Press, 1960).

Banfield, E. C., The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958).

Baster, Janes, “Development and the Free Economy — Some Typical Dilemmas,” Kyklos, Vol. VII, 1954.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew, “The Politics of Underdevelopment,” World Politics, October 1956.

Dike, K. O., Trade and Polities in the Niger Delta, (Oxford: 1956).

Dube, S. C., India’s Changing Villages, (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1958).

Farmanfarmaian, Khodadad, “Social Change and Economic Behavior in Iran,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, February 1957.

Hoselitz, Bert F. (ed.), The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas, (University of Chicago Press, 1952).

McClelland, David C., “Some Social Consequences of Achievement Motivation,” in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, (University of Nebraska Press, 1955).

McKitterick, T. E. M., “Politics and Economics in the Middle East,” The Political Quarterly, January-March 1955.

Oliver, Henry M., Economic Opinion and Policy in Ceylon, (Durham: Duke University Press, 1957).

Shea, T. W., “Barriers to Economic Development in Traditional Societies: Malabar, A Case Study,” Journal of Economic History, December 1959.

Singer, Milton, “Cultural Values in India’s Economic Development,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, May 1956.

U. N. — “Three Sociological Aspects of Economic Development,” Economic Review of Latin America, 1955.

Weiner, M., “Changing Patterns of Political Leadership in West Bengal,” Pacific Affairs, September 1959.

  1. OTHER BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Hald, Marjorie, A Selected Bibliography on Economic Development and Foreign Aid, (Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation, 1957).

Hazelwood, Arthur, The Economies of ‘Under-Developed’ Areas, (London: Oxford University Press, second edition, 1959).

Trager, Frank N. “A Selected and Annotated Bibliography on Economic Development, 1953-57,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, July 1958.

  1. SOME MAJOR COMPILATIONS OF STATISTICAL INFORMATION

U. K. Government, Board of Trade, Overseas Economic Surveys.

International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics.

International Labour Office, International Labour Review — Statistical Supplement.

United Nations, Statistical Office, Statistical Papers (various series).

United Nations, Statistical Office, Statistical Yearbook.

United Nations, Statistical Office, Demographic Yearbook.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Public Finance Information Papers.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Economic Surveys (for various regions).

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003.Box 8, Folder “Economics 1960-61 (2 of 2)”.

Images: Portrait of Edward S. Mason (ca. 1960) from the Harry S. Truman Library. Portrait of John Kenneth Galbraith from the Harvard Class Album 1959.

 

Categories
Agricultural Economics Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Syllabus, readings, exams for agricultural economics. Galbraith, 1938-39

John Kenneth Galbraith, not quite 25 years of age

The first association made in one’s mind upon hearing the name John Kenneth Galbraith is certainly not “agricultural economics”, but that was the field in which his academic career began and indeed it was what got his foot into the door at Harvard. In his papers at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library one can find some material for his courses that is not to be found in the Harvard archives, such as the course outline and reading assignments for his year-long course taught in 1938-39 to undergraduates and graduate students, “Economics of Agriculture”. 

Economics in the Rear-View Mirror tops off Galbraith’s syllabus and reading list with enrollment figures and semester exams transcribed from material in the Harvard Archives.

_____________________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 72. Dr. Galbraith—Economics of Agriculture.

Total 41: 2 Graduates, 33 Seniors, 5 Juniors, 1 Other.

Source: Annual Report of the President of Harvard College 1938-1939, p. 98.

_____________________________

Outline of the Course.
Three objectives.

  1. Some idea of the agriculture of the United States and Western Europe—that which one is likely to encounter. Two aspects:
    1. Type of production
    2. Kind of agricultural organization. Meaning.
  2. An understanding of the economics of the agricultural industry.
    Previous experience with economic theory
    Parts of a course such as this to see if it can be clothed with factual material and made useful.
    Peculiar advantages of agriculture.
  3. Building on the previous two stages, we turn to agricultural policy. What is agricultural policy? The farm problem.
    —we examine the factors underlying economic difficulties of agriculture in recent years, the causes of distress. The way the United States has attempted to meet is farm problem and the various policies which may be contemplated in the future.
    —we will attempt to compare this with the policy of other countries.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Economics 71
(First half year)
Reading List

Persia Campbell, American Agricultural Policy, pp. 1-55.

President’s Report on Farm Tenancy in the U.S., pp. 35-49, 3-20. [cf. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.31924074241344 ]

C.O. Brannen. Relation of Land Tenure to Plantation Organization. U.S.D.A. Bulletin 1269, 1924-25, p. 3, 8-38, 60-67.

The Future of the Great Plains. Report of the Great Plains Committee, pp. 1-89.

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Pp. 1-116.

Dennison and Galbraith. Modern Competition and Business Policy, pp. 1 to 109.

Garver and Hanson. Principles of Economics, Chapter V.

Black and Black. Production Organization, pp. 109-145, 255-260 inc.

Cassels, J. M. On the Law of Variable Proportions in Explorations in Economics, p. 223.

Galbraith and Black, Maintenance of Agricultural Production, Journal of Political Economy, June, 1938.

ECONOMICS 71
Syllabus – 1938-39

Chapter I.
A General Survey of Agricultural Production

    1. The agriculture of the United States. The livestock and crop production of the different regions of the United States. The classification of American agriculture by “type-of-farming”. A review of the type-of-farming map of the United States.
    2. The agricultural systems of the United States. The family farm. Ownership und tenancy. Part-time agriculture in the East. Large-scale and corporation forms in the Great Plains and West. Plantation and cropper agriculture in the South. Retrograde and decayed agricultural production in in the southern Appalachians.[Hand-written marks on the carbon copy indicate that (c) and (d) were not covered.]
    3. English agriculture. Character of agricultural production in England. The large land-owners and tenant farming. Independent ownership in England.
    4. Western Europe and the Danube Basin. (i) a survey of the agricultural map and agricultural production of Western Europe. (ii) The agricultural systems of the Continent. Peasant agriculture and types of peasant culture and organization. The distinction between peasant and farmer. Estate or Junker agriculture.

Chapter II
The Competitive Structure of Agricultural Enterprise as a Whole

    1. Monopoly, monopolistic — and pure competition. Review of the theoretical categories of competitive organization. Comparison of competitive organization in agriculture with that in industry. Comparisons of competitive structure in agricultural production with that in the supply of agricultural production goods.
    2. the significance of “pure” competition in agriculture

— in relation to agricultural price behavior
— in relation to behavior of agricultural production
— in relation to the variability of agricultural income.

Chapter III
The Organization of the Individual Farm Enterprise

    1. Theoretical differences between the adjustment of industry and agriculture to economic change. the significance of the coincidence of marginal with average revenue in agriculture.
    2. The combination of the factors of production. Diminishing returns. The highest profit combination in agriculture.
    3. Practical considerations in achieving optimum returns. The combination of enterprises. Budgeting technique. the effect of the period of production and the problem of price forecasting.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Economics 71
Outline and Reading List
Second Half-Year, 1938-39

Chapter IV.
The Financing of Agriculture

    1. the nature of the financial requirements of the farmer. Land purchase credit; credit for durable capital; production credit.
    2. Recent trends in the development of agricultural credit institutions. The transition from private to public institutions.
    3. The riddle of public credit policy.

Readings:

Farm Credit Administration. Annual Report 1937. Pp. 15-83.

Galbraith. The Farmer’s Banking System; Four Years of F.C.A. Operations. Harvard Business Review. Spring 1937.

Galbraith. The Federal Land Banks and Agricultural Stability. Journal of Farm Economics, February, 1937.

Chapter V.
Agricultural Land

    1. The development of American land policy; the transition from free land to private ownership and full utilization.
    2. The problem of optimum utilization. The margin of desirable use. The reasons for sub-marginal utilization. The alternative uses of sub-marginal farm lands and the techniques for controlling land use.
    3. The economic aspects of the erosion problem.

Readings:

Hibbard, B. H. A History of the Public Land Policy, Chapters I, XIII, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XXVII, XXVIII.

National Resources Board. Part II. Report of the Land Planning Committee. Pp. 108-134, 154-202. A general rather than a detailed examination of this report is expected. Attention is called to other sections of the report.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. To Hold This Soil. Misc. Publication 321. 1938. Copies may be obtained from U.S.D.A, or Congressman.

Chapter VI
Agricultural Labor.

    1. General character of agricultural labor force. Family labor, the individual worker, seasonal and spring labor. Trade union organization in agriculture. Ownership aspirations of the agricultural laborer and the so-called agricultural ladder.

Readings:

Social Problems in Agriculture. I.L.O., 1938. Pp. 23-38, 40-54, 57-71, 72-97.

[International Labour Office. Studies and Reports, Series K (Agriculture) Social Problems in Agriculture. Record of the Permanent Agricultural Committee of the I.L.O. (7-15 February 1938). Geneva]

Chapter VII
The Agricultural Policy of the United States

    1. Proposal and legislation for farm relief during the 1920’s.
    2. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the farm program of the New Deal.

Readings:

Nourse, Davise, Black. Three Years of the Agricultural Adjustment, pp. 1-245.

Report of the Secretary of Agriculture 1938. pp. 1-68. This may be obtained from Office of Information, U.S.D.A. or a Congressman.

[There is a bracket for Chapter VIII hand-marked on Galbraith’s personal copy, from this and the final exam it appears that these topics were likely not covered in the course.]

Chapter VIII.
Comparative Aspects of Foreign Agricultural Policy

    1. The agricultural policy of Great Britain.
    2. The agricultural policies of Sweden and Denmark.
    3. Autarchial agricultural policy in Germany and Italy.
    4. The determinants of agricultural policy in review.

Readings:

Bonow, M. Agricultural Policy: Lessons from Sweden.

Denmark. Agriculture. The Agricultural Council. Look over and cf. particularly pp. 9-26, 287-316.

Marquis Child. Farmer-Labor Relations in Scandinavia. Yale Review, Autumn, 1938.

Karl T. Schmidt. The Plough and the Sword, pp. 1-175.

R. A. Brady. Spirit and Structure of German Fascism. Pp. 213-291.

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 71
Mid-year Examination
1938-39.

  1. (Reading period material.) Write for about three-quarters of an hour on one of the following topics:
    How the United States government has disposed of its land.
    Proposed measures for farm relief in the 1920’s.
    The objectives and methods of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration 1933-36.
  2. What do you understand by the phrase “a system of agriculture”? With reference to your statement, outline the major systems of agriculture in the United States.
  3. Discuss the competitive organization of the agricultural industry and indicate the economic possibilities and limitations upon collective action by farmers for increasing their income.
    Cite relevant examples where possible.
  4. What difficulties would you expect to encounter in endeavoring to determine the cost of producing milk in New England assuming that farmers are ready to furnish you all available data?
  5. How does agricultural output behavior differ from that of industry during depression and why? Enter fully upon the theoretical aspects of this question and discuss critically.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Bound volume Mid-Year Examinations—1939 in Harvard University, Mid-year examinations 1852-1943. Box 13.

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 71
Final Examination
1938-39.

  1. (Reading period material.) Write for about three-quarters of an hour on the application of the ideas of either Henry George or Thorstein Veblen to the problems of present day agriculture.
  2. “The agricultural laborer is truly the forgotten man. Unorganized, isolated, ill-paid and over-worked his plight is not even sufficiently well-known so that it bothers the nation’s conscience.”
    Discuss fully and critically
  3. Discuss and contrast the effects of (a) a too generous and (b) a too niggardly supply of farm mortgage credit under various conditions of agricultural prosperity and depression. Do not present an historical material that is not relevant to your answer.
  4. Explain as you see it, the relationship between private ownership of land and the problems of conservation and soil erosion.
  5. Is production control by the Federal government necessary to the well-being of American agriculture? Justify your answer fully.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science (June, 1939) in Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 4.

Image Source: Photo of John Kenneth Galbraith attached to his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States submitted on June 16, 1933 in Oakland California.
Fun fact: JKG weighed in at 180 pounds (81.65 kg) with a height of 6 ft 8 inches (2 m, 3 cm).  BMI = 19.8.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1946-47 to 1949-50

 

This post adds the Chair’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the early post-WW II years to previously posted reports for 1932-33 through 1945-46. 

Reports to the Dean of Harvard
from the Department of Economics.
1932-1941
1941-1946

___________________________

1946-1947

September 29, 1947

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year 1946-47.

This report necessarily follows much the same pattern as the report for last year. Again our work has been dominated by the number of students, undergraduate and graduate, and the lack of a trained junior staff.

The number of undergraduates of course is entirely so beyond our control. In Economies A and in most of our “middle group” courses, the elections taxed our capacity for effective instruction. Under the most propitious conditions the crowded classrooms would have presented many problems but with a dearth of trained teaching fellows and annual instructors the load carried by the senior staff was unduly heavy. Foreseeing this range of problems, the Department voted on February 19, 1946 [sic, 1947 probably correct. In December 1946 departments wereallowed to withdraw from offering tutorials] to suspend tutorial instruction for a period of two years. It may be stated here that this was probably a wise decision. Concentration in Economics appears to have resumed the trend apparent before the war. In the current year the number of concentrators will approach, or perhaps exceed 800. Even should no consideration be given to the expenditure involved, the possibility of finding and training effective tutors even for honors candidates seems somewhat remote.

On the graduate level the problems of instruction were even more difficult. During the year the number of graduate students receiving instruction was approximately 286. Our course offering on this level is large. Nevertheless, the principal graduate courses were crowded to a point where the maintenance of standards was difficult. After the graduate student has completed his preliminary program and has been accepted as a candidate for the Ph.D, degree, the instruction is largely individual. In the last year we were just coming into the situation where a considerable proportion of the students were receiving such instruction. The full impact of this situation will be felt in the current year. Most members of the senior staff will be directing the theses of some 10 to 15 students. Some officers will be responsible for even larger numbers. With the numbers we are attempting to handle on the graduate level the single task of examining candidates in the general and special examinations becomes a major consideration. During the last academic year the staff conducted general and special examinations. Such an amount of examining and of individual instruction on the graduate level has its bearing on tutorial instruction for undergraduates.

The Department voted to accept the large number of graduate students now on our rolls only after considerable investigation and discussion. It is my own personal opinion that we have set our limit altogether too high. However, the pressure upon us for admission has been very strong and our obligations to the Littauer School, where the pressure is hardly less, just be observed.

This matter of the size of the Graduate School in the immediate future is one of our most difficult problems. It will receive our attention in the current year.

In the last two or three years these reports have noted certain experiments in instruction, especially in connection with Economics A. Such experiments are dependent upon the presence of a considerable number of able and mature young men with adequate teaching experience, as well as upon a margin of free time. Both of these factors are lacking to such a degree that substantial and outstanding progress could not be expected but the plans were active and some progress was made.

If full tutorial instruction is not resumed by the Department, experimentation in undergraduate courses is imperative and this we have planned. It is our expectation that a good deal in the way of individual guidance can be accomplished in connection with Economics A and some of our middle group courses. We believe that we can make our instruction more efficient with a much smaller personnel and at much less expense than the tutorial system would involve. However, a definitive decision has not been reached on all of these matters.

It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the heavy instructional demands discussed above affected our research projects. Furthermore, the officers of this Department are severely handicapped by the lack of research funds. This dearth of research funds is a question which has been placed before our Visiting Committee.

In spite of the difficulties involved, the contributions of the members of the Department were substantial. The following books were published:

Teoria de la Competencie Monopolica, by E. H. Chamberlin, Mexico, 1946. (Spanish translation of The Theory of Monopolistic Competition)

Economic Policy and Full Employment, by A. H. Hansen. McGraw-Hill. 1947.

The New Economics, S. B. Harris, editor and contributor Knopf. 1947.

The National Debt and the New Economics, by S. E. Harris. 1947.

Income and Employment, by T. Morgan. Prentice-Hall. 1947.

New enlarged edition of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, by J. A. Schumpeter.

The Challenge of Industrial Relations, by S. H. Slichter, Cornell University Press, 1947.

Postwar Monetary Plans and other Essays, by J. Williams. Knopf, 3rd edition. 1947.

articles were published.

Although we are able to record only one new volume and one republication of an older volume in the Harvard Economic Series for the past year, four other volumes are in the hands of the printer and will appear in the current year.

In the area of distinctions or honors, I believe the only items to be noted concern Dean Edward S. Mason. Last spring he was appointed Economic Advisor to Secretary of State Marshall at the Moscow Conference. In July he was appointed a member of President Truman’s Committee on Foreign Aid.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1947-1948

September 30, 1948

Dear Provost Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year 1947-48.

The report on the work of the Department for the last year can be given in part in the same terms that have been employed in the last three reports. Our major problems have been quantitative and have presented the same difficulties that were emphasized in the other post-war reports. However, we believe that the last year did reach the peak of the load and that the pressure of numbers will abate steadily. The problem of building and maintaining an effective junior staff was hardly less than in the preceding years. Crowded classrooms and insufficiently trained assistants imposed unduly severe burdens upon the senior teachers responsible for course instruction. Some improvement, especially in the middle group courses, is in prospect for the coming year but it is probable that two to three years more will be necessary before these courses will be adequately staffed. In the introductory course which relies heavily upon a large number of young instructors and teaching fellows, the situation is still serious but latterly we have been able to utilize young men with more satisfactory preparation and training. Because of the heavy demands for the services of these young men by other institutions, the turnover is large leaving us each year with a relatively inexperienced staff.

Graduate instruction continues to make unusual demands upon the time and energy of the senior staff. During the past year we conducted 109 general examinations and 26 special examinations. Examining and the related task of directing the research of candidates for the higher degrees undoubtedly have an incidence upon undergraduate instruction which raises questions of fundamental importance. It is encouraging that the number of graduate students is, through the action of the Department, declining.

In spite of the difficulties presented by the numbers of undergraduates and graduates, the Department, perhaps belatedly, has given particular consideration to its commitments in the Areas and in General Education. A report on General Education is enclosed.

Also, the Department has considered at length and in detail various problems of instruction, particularly undergraduate instruction. These considerations will be continued in the current year. By completely revising the content of our basic courses it may be possible to increase the effectiveness of our instruction and reduce somewhat the number of courses offered. A preliminary report on this aspect of our work is included.

A year ago I noted that many of our senior officers were handicapped severely by the lack of research funds. As you know, it can now be recorded with sincere satisfaction that a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and that several projects under the auspices of the Research Marketing Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Charles H. Hood Dairy Foundation, the Ferguson Foundation Fund, and the Carnegie Corporation Fund, meet the situation effectively for some of our officers. The set-up of these projects promises not only to be of great value to the professors in charge of the research but it contributes heavily to the training of our most promising graduate students and younger officers.

The following books were published by members of the Department:

How Shall We Pay for Education? by Seymour Harris. Harpers.

Stabilization Subsidies by Seymour Harris. Historical Report Series, U.S. Gov’t.

Price Control of International Commodities by Seymour Harris. Archives Volume, Historical Records Office.

International Monetary Policies, by Gottfried Haberler (with Lloyd Metzler and Robert Triffin). Postwar Economic Series, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors.

Problemas de Conjuntura e de Politica Economica, by Gottfried Haberler. Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janiero.

Production in the United States, 1866-1914, by Edwin Frickey. Harvard University Press.

Seventy-eight articles have been published. Three books were published in the Harvard Economic Series during the past year. Five volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year.

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin has been appointed to succeed Dr. Arthur B. Monroe as Managing Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Both the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics are well established intellectually and financially. With the demands of instruction and research, the editing of the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics, as well as the direction of the Harvard Economic Series, raises questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

 In the area of distinctions or honors, Professor Joseph A. Schumpeter was chosen to be President of the American Economic Association for 1948. Dean Edward S. Mason was awarded an honorary degree, D. Litt, from Williams College, June, 1948.

Very sincerely,
H. H. Burbank

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1948-1949

September 28, 1949

Dear Provost Buck:

The pattern of the report of the Department of Economics on the work of the last year is essentially the same as the other reports for the post-war years. Indeed, not a little of the introduction to the report of a year ago could be utilized in the current report. The quantitative side of our work has been among our major problems. I think I was correct in predicting that the peak of the load would be passed in 1948-49. For the year 1949-50, numbers, particularly on the graduate level, will be approximately less although the total is still beyond the capacities of our senior staff.

Again I can repeat that the problem of building and maintaining a junior staff presents great difficulties. We have strengthened our position on the level of the assistant professor but we are unable to hold our most promising young Ph.D’s for appointment at the instructor level. All of our undergraduate instruction suffers because of this factor, but Economics 1 (the introductory course) is affected particularly. The demand for these young men by other institutions continues at a high level resulting in a high rate of turnover and leaving us sech year with a relatively inexperienced staff. [end of p. 1]

[Note: need to replace unfocussed image of page 2]

[p. 3 begins ] …expectation that we will be able to revise our general examination effectively.

In the post-war years the Department has been striving to meet its obligations to General Education and to the areas. We believe that we have made an excellent beginning in both General Education and in the Russian Area. We are still actively engaged in the attempt to strengthen our position in the Chinese Area. This is exceedingly difficult but I believe that some progress is being made.

Last year we were able to record with great satisfaction that some research projects were being established satisfactorily. These projects under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation and under the auspices of various groups interested in agriculture and marketing are now going forward successfully and up proving to be important for us not only as research projects but also because of their general effect upon a relatively large group of our graduate students. We can now give a type of training to our most promising men which would have been impossible without such projects. It should be emphasized at this point that other areas of interest need research funds.

The following books were published:

Collective Bargaining: Principles and Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1949, by John I. Dunlop.

Labor in Norway by Walter Galenson. Harvard University Press, 1949.

Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, by Alvin Hansen McGraw-Hill, 1949.

The European Recovery Program, by Seymour E. Harris. Harvard University Press.

Foreign Economic Policy for the U.S., edited by Seymour E. Harris, Harvard University Press.

Price Control of International Commodities, by Seymour E. Harris. Archives Volume for Historical Records Office.

Saving American Capitalism, edited by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Economic Planning, by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Post-war Monetary Plans and Other Essays, by John H. Williams. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

The American Economy, Its Problems and Prospects, by Sumner H. Slichter. Knopf.

There were 62 articles published by members of the Department during the past year. Five books were published in the Harvard Economic Studies and two volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year. There has been a total of 86 books published in the Harvard Economic Studies to this date.

It should be recorded that both the Quarterly Journal of Economics under the editorship of Professor Chamberlin and the Review of Economics and Statistics have prospered during the year. Again I do feel it necessary to refer to the fact that editing the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics and the carrying forward of the Harvard Economic Studies continues to raise questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

In the area of distinctions and honors, Professor Slichter was awarded honorary degrees (LL.D.) from the following universities: Lehigh University, Harvard University, University of Rochester, University of Wisconsin and Northwestern University. Professor

Haberler was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Economics (“Doktor der Wirtschaftswissenschaft honoris causa”) from Handelshochschule, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Dr. Galbraith was awarded the President’s Certificate of Merit, Medal of Merit Board, for services in Price Control and Economic Stabilization during the war.

Sincerely
[Harold H. Burbank]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

___________________________

1949-1950

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950
Professor Burbank

In each of the reports for the last three years, emphasis has been placed upon two matters; our efforts to handle the increased numbers incident to the war, particularly on the graduate level, and our attempts to revise and improve our instruction, particularly on the undergraduate level.

With a good deal of satisfaction we are able to report that for the last year substantial progress has been made in each of these areas. Immediately after the war the number of our graduate students increased from approximately 100 to nearly 300. By raising the standards of admission and giving the most careful scrutiny to applications, the numbers on the graduate level are now well under 200, and will be reduced somewhat more for 1950-51.

The work of supervising and directing graduate students falls very unevenly upon the various members of the senior staff. Even with not over 150 graduate students some members of the staff will carry an inordinate part of individual instruction and of examining for the higher degrees. Further, large graduate classes tend to dilute the instruction.

On the undergraduate level the Department has revised its requirements for concentration, including the content of many of our key courses. This plan has been accepted by the Faculty and is now in operation. It is an ambitious scheme that involves not only a change in the content and coverage of our key courses but it also involves the strengthening the staff in these courses and an integration of course work with tutorial work. Undoubtedly it will take some years to complete this plan. Much depends upon our ability to build a strong junior staff, especially on the annual instructor level. When this reorganized instruction is in full operation it is expected that a number of courses now offered for undergraduates may be deleted.

Also it is with a good deal of satisfaction that after a period of suspension tutorial instruction has been reestablished and is developing steadily. The period of suspension was unfortunate but probably inevitable. We are now approaching a position with respect to both graduate and undergraduate instruction that at least approximates a normal situation, with a possibility of a carefully planned and well integrated system of undergraduate instruction. As a part of this plan increased attention has been given to reestablishing the General Examinations on something approximating the level of earlier years. Since we are lacking experienced tutors the establishment of tutorial instruction is a very real task but it is believed it can be done successfully.

We have been fortunate to have been able to attract to the Graduate School a group of unusually able young men. The very top of this group represents ability of the very highest order. Unfortunately only rarely can we retain the services of these young men even on the assistant professor level. However, the Department is keenly aware of the difficulties it faces in recruitment and every effort is being made to follow the progress of the product of other schools as well as the progress of our own young scholars.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1949-1950

January 5, 1951

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

I am now somewhat belatedly submitting the report of the Department of Economics for 1949-50.

I. Undergraduate Instruction

Four hundred eighty-two Harvard and Radcliffe students concentrated in economics in 1949-50 as compared with 608 in the previous year. The enrolment in Economics 1 was 402 as compared with 546 in the previous year. Seventy-seven students graduated with honors; 20 obtaining magna cum laude and 57 cum laude.

The entire senior staff gave courses at the undergraduate level— a practice that distinguishes Harvard sharply from institutions such as Columbia and Chicago which restrict the activities of some of the most talented members of the staff to graduate instruction. Nevertheless, the strength of our undergraduate teaching has depended very largely on the unusually fine group of assistant professors we now have on our staff.

During the past couple of years the Department has been gradually moving toward restoration of the tutorial system and last spring it decided finally to give tutorial instruction to all honors students in their junior and senior years,

II. Graduate Instruction

Two hundred graduate students in economics were in residence last year as compared with 234 the previous year. The Department gave 58 general examinations for the Ph.D. and 47 special examinations.

The number of graduate students is still too large to handle effectively with the present staff. The students themselves justifiably complain that they cannot see enough of the members of the faculty. However if they did see as much of the faculty as they wanted to, the faculty would have little time for reading and research and the quality of instruction would decline. We are planning to deal with this problem as far as possible by making sure that more graduate students attend reasonably small seminars and do have an opportunity to get to know at least one faculty member reasonably well.

I believe that the quality of our graduate work has suffered through overemphasis on course work and preoccupation with grades. We tend to make graduate instruction too much of a prolongation of undergraduate instruction. We also tend too much in the direction of specialization and provide too little encouragement for students to become coordinated in the whole economic field. The remedy for this state of affairs depends more upon the general attitude of the Department rather than any specific measures of reorganization. We shall do whatever is possible to encourage students in the feeling that their main function here is to acquire the maturity that is essential for scholarship rather than to accumulate a collection of pieces of isolated information.

III. Research

Professors Mason, Leontief, Black, Galbraith and Dunlop are all conducting organized research projects within the Department. Apart from their substantive value, these projects give a considerable number of graduate students an opportunity to take part in organized research activity. I believe these projects have an important part to play in the future of the Department as a whole rather than as special interests of individual members. However, I do not share the view that most of our intellectual activities should be directed towards organized research. There is danger that we may become a research bureaucracy and that the merits of individual scholarship may achieve less recognition than they deserve. While the research project is invaluable in training the students in specialized activity, it does little to cultivate the maturity that should be one of the most important products of our graduate training.

IV. The Staff of the Department

Professor Schumpeter’s death has meant a loss to the Department that cannot be covered by any individual that we now have on the staff or could get from the outside. The only way to make up for his absence is for the present members of the faculty to direct part of their attention to the aspects of economic thought in which Schumpeter was particularly interested. This has in part been done. I think it is true to say that since Schumpeter’s death his own work has received more attention in Harvard classrooms than it received while he was alive.

The only new additions to the to the staff at the professorial level in 1949-50 were assistant professors Orcutt and Sawyer. Orcutt is giving a course at the graduate level and the undergraduate level on empirical economies in which he stresses the quantitative aspects of economic theory. He is also a first-class statistician. Since the resignation of Professor Crum we have had only one professional statistician in the Department, and it seems highly desirable to have at least two. Sawyer will add considerable strength to the Department’s work in economic history although he will spend half of his time in the General Education program.

VI. [sic] Distinctions

Members of the Department received the following distinctions:

Professor Edward Chamberlin — An honorary degree (Dr.) awarded by the Universita Catholica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. December 1949.

Professor Sumner Slichter — President, Industrial Relations Research Association.

Professor Gottfried Haberler — President, International Economic Association for 1950 (held by Professor Schumpeter at the time of his death).

I am attaching a bibliography of the writings of the members of the Department. [not included in this folder]

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Smithies

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

Images Source: Burbank (left) from the Harvard Class Album 1946, Smithies (right) from the Harvard Class Album 1952.

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard

Harvard. The Data Resources Inc. connection. Galbraith asks Eckstein, Feldstein, Jorgenson. 1972

 

“As Ed Mason tactfully hints, I’ve had enough lost causes for one year.”–Galbraith

In the following exchange of letters initiated by John Kenneth Galbraith in December 1972 we find multiple instances of seething rage barely concealed under veneers of formal academic politeness. Critical hiring and firing decisions regarding the subtraction of radical voices from the economics department faculty went overwhelmingly for the consolidation of mainstream economics earlier that month and Galbraith appears to have sought a vulnerability of this counterrevolution in its potential for conflicts of interest as he imagined coming from Otto Eckstein’s start-up, Data Resources, Inc. Eckstein’s response provides us with some interesting backstory to DRI. Feldstein and Jorgenson offered their witness testimony regarding this early episode in what would ultimately result in the so-called empirical turn in economics. 

But even after suffering this tactical defeat, Galbraith’s strategic point was to be confirmed by history:

“I do have one final thought. In accordance with the well-known tendencies of free enterprise at this level, one day one of these corporations is going to go down with a ghastly smash. It will then be found, in its days of desperation or before, to have engaged in some very greasy legal operations. The Department and the University will be held by the papers to have a contingent liability. It will be hard to preserve reticence then. It would have been better to have taken preventative action now.”

The conflict of interest cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000 against economics professor Andrei Shleifer and the Harvard Institute for International Development resulted in a settlement that required Harvard to pay $26.5 million to the U.S. government.

_____________________________

On behalf of the Department,
Galbraith wants to know more about DRI

JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS

December 20, 1972

Professor Otto Eckstein
Littauer Center

Professor Martin S. Feldstein
1737 Cambridge Street

Professor Dale W. Jorgenson
1737 Cambridge Street

Dear Otto, Marty and Dale:

It will hardly be news that I have been deeply concerned over the several recent actions of the Department of Economics on appointments as well as the academically less consequential problem of the less than gracious response to those of us who have expressed alarm.

There is an impression, of which you will undoubtedly be sensitive, that the positions of some of those favoring the recent action could reflect, however subjectively and innocently, their corporate involvement in conflict with their academic responsibilities. I do not wish in any way to prejudge this matter or even to be a source of embarrassment. The problem does seem to me sufficiently somber so that in the interest of everyone you no less than the rest of us the circumstances should be clearly known. In this spirit I raise the following questions:

  1. Could you indicate the nature of Data Resources, Inc? I have reference to assets, sales, employees, services rendered, identity of corporate clients and charges.
  2. I believe it can fairly be assumed from general knowledge that the Corporation owes part of its prestige and esteem to association with members of the Harvard Department of Economics. The foregoing being so and reputation being a common property of the Department and Harvard University, could I ask as to your ownership or other interest or other participation of whatever sort and return?
  3. Has the Corporation employed students and nontenured members of the Department of Economics and would you indicate the names?
  4. Could I ask if you have participated in the past in the consideration of Harvard promotion of any such employees, consultants or people otherwise associated with the Corporation and in what cases?
  5. Could past service or inferior service or present or potential utility to the Corporation or extraneous judgment based on business as distinct from academic performance create, again perhaps subjectively, the possibility of a conflict of interest in your passing on Harvard promotions? How have you handled this conflict in the cases in which people with an association, past or present, with the Corporation have been up for Harvard promotion, always assuming that there have been such cases?
  6. In the recruiting of clients for the Corporation, what of the danger that they will be affected by the close relation between the Corporation and the Department? Specifically could there be effort, however subjective, to quell their fears? The radical economists come obviously to mind. But, as you are perhaps aware, even I am not a totally reassuring figure to many businessmen department with too many people of my viewpoint might also evoke alarm. Does safety here suggest that one with major corporate interest disqualify himself on all appointments?
  7. Is there a possibility — I by no means press the point that the kind of economics that serves corporate interest will take on an exaggerated importance when some of our ablest faculty members, and students are working on such problems?

Let me repeat that I ask these questions only for a clarification in which we share a common interest. I do not of course raise the more general question of outside activity. This would come with very poor grace from me — it is indeed the reason why I have sought not to be a charge on university resources,

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

CC: Professor James S. Duesenberry

Dean John T. Dunlop

JKG:mih

_____________________________

Eckstein provides his answers to Galbraith’s “interesting questions”

Otto Eckstein
24 Barberry Road
Lexington, Mass. 02173
January 8, 1973

Professor J. Kenneth Galbraith
Department of Economics
Harvard University
207 Littauer Center
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Dear Ken:

Pursuing the habits of a lifetime, you raise interesting questions in your letter of December 20th. Let me answer them by giving you an account of the origins and development of Data Resources, Inc., and of its relations to Harvard. I believe this will respond to all of your questions.

(1) Origins of DRI

As you know, my professional career has largely been devoted to the application of the techniques of economics to actual problems of the U.S. economy. After my most recent period of full -time government service in 1966, my views on the economy were sought by business and financial organizations. I quickly discovered that they made little use of macro economics or econometrics. The gap between macro and micro was unbridged. They typically ignored the overall situation. Econometrics, which always looked to me to be a very practical way to establish quantitative relationships, received little use and remained an academic plaything. I had already discovered in the government that even macro-decisions were made on the basis of very crude quantitative work, without the benefit of the thirty years of methodological development of econometrics.

In mid-1967, I had the idea that the technology of the time-sharing computer provided the missing link that would make it possible to use the modern techniques to improve private and public planning on a day-to-day basis. The time-sharing technology had the potential of overcoming the mechanical hurdles of programming, data punching, batch runs, etc. which had made econometrics a slow process open only to economists of exceptional mechanical aptitude. The time-sharing technology had the potential of bringing high quality data bases to researchers of providing them with the programs that would allow them to develop individual equations and to combine these equations into simulation models, and to evaluate their “satellite” models for historical analysis, contingency analysis and micro-forecasting. Such satellite models might encompass revenues and costs of their own industries or products, the detailed composition of unemployment, regional incomes, and the tax collections of governments.

These satellite models are constructed by users, at their own remote locations, combining their own data with the national data banks on the central computers. The programs allow the construction of the models and their on-line linkage to the centrally managed national models. Once the models are built, the particular company or government can quantitatively assess its own demand, costs, production, etc., assuming a particular macro-situation. It can see its own revenue and cost outlook assuming the central forecast, or alternatively what would happen if the economy should do better or worse. The micro-implications of changes in fiscal or monetary policy are also made apparent.

Besides making the tools that are our main stock-in-trade widely useable in the actual economy, the existence of such a system could accomplish these goals:

(1) There would be a rationally decentralized structure of information flows. The national data banks would be large and accessible, but local private information would remain where it belonged — in the confidential hands of the local analysts best equipped to use it.

(2) Analysis itself would be rationally decentralized. National forecasting could be done centrally with the use of lots of resources and with the benefit of an enormous data base and model collection. Micro forecasting would be done by the user organization itself.

(3) Micro-analysis would consider macro-environments as quantitative inputs. If the macro-forecasts are better than the crude assumptions previously made, the errors in micro-decisions should be reduced.

(4) As a result, the stability of the economy should be enhanced. There should be fewer and smaller mistakes in private and public economic decisions. Some of the benefits of indicative planning are realized without the political risks.

Once the basic ideas were clear, how was it to be done? The obvious possibilities were (1) a foundation financed project at Harvard; (2) persuade the government to undertake this work; (3) go to a large company  such as a computer manufacturer or bank; or (4) organize a new, small private enterprise. After some reflection, I decided that the new, small private enterprise form was the only suitable one. A Harvard project was ruled out immediately because of the poor experience with the Harvard Economic Barometers of the late 1920’s, an episode with which I was familiar from reading the archives of The Review of Economics and Statistics. Also, the system would require considerable operating staff for the computers, data banking, service and marketing. A university is not a good employer for such a staff nor a good working environment for these functions. I knew from my government experience that such a project was beyond the capacities of public agencies, at least in the United States, and budget stringency would have made federal funding unlikely, The large company would have posed difficult personal and political questions. Further, I felt that if the scheme were successful — and I had a good deal of faith in it — it could grow and reach its full potential by generating its own revenues. Finally, the idea of ultimately supporting my family from my main activities rather than “moonlighting” was attractive.

In 1968, Mitchell, Hutchins and Company, an investment firm with whom I was consulting, found the venture capital, an amount in seven figures. Donald Marron, its President, and I then co-founded DRI. The largest fraction of the capital was provided by First Security Corporation, an asset management group under the leadership of Mr. Robert Denison, a summa graduate of Harvard College and the Business School. The Board of Directors of the company are Mr. Marron, Mr. Denison, myself, and Mr. Stanton Armour, the Chairman of the Operating Committee of Mitchell, Hutchins.

The project required managers, econometricians, programmers, and computer experts. Mitchell, Hutchins managed the organization of the company, provided the initial business background and management, recruited personnel, etc. Dr. Charles Warden, previously special assistant to several chairmen of the CEA joined the company and took on many of its managerial burdens. Later on the company was organized into three divisions, each headed by a Vice-President.

Given the complexity and ambition of the scheme, I recognized that I needed the collaboration of the very best econometricians in terms of ideas, review and quality control. Mr. Marron and I, therefore, put together a founding consulting group, consisting of Jorgenson, Nerlove, Fromm, Feldstein, Hall and Thurow. This group made major contributions in the design stage. Today, the academic consultants mainly direct policy studies that DRI has been asked to undertake by government agencies and foundations. At all stages, the largest part of the work of developing and operating the DRI system and forecast was done by full-time professional employees of the company.

To help assure the widest application of the new techniques and to be able to offer alternative model forecasts, DRI entered into an agreement with the Wharton model group directed by Lawrence Klein. We continue to collaborate with them, and the Wharton model and its forecasts are maintained on the DRI computers. Subsequently, we have entered into arrangements with the model building group at the University of Toronto and with Nikkei, the sponsors of the Japan Economic Research Center.

As for the distribution of ownership, about half of the equity is in the hands of the institutions who provided the capital. Professional employees have ownership or options on another substantial fraction of shares, and my children and I own about a fifth of the shares. The academic consulting group has about 5% of the shares, received at the time of the founding of the company. All of the stock is restricted; it is not registered with the SEC and hence not saleable. The academic consultants are paid on a per diem basis as they actually spend time. In order to give the company a better start, I did not take any pay in the first three years; last year I began to receive a modest compensation.

(2) The Status of DRI Today

On the whole, my hopes and aspirations for DRI have been realized The economic data bases are the most comprehensive in existence and their accuracy is unquestioned. The econometric models have advanced that art in certain respects. The forecasts have been good and are now followed and reported quite widely. The people — management, research economists, service consultants, data processing and programming experts, and marketing — are capable and the organization is strong. While it inevitably takes time for new concepts and techniques to gain acceptance and be widely adopted, more than half of the fifty largest industrial companies and a large fraction of the financial institutions utilize the DRI system. Every major government agency involved in macro economic policy as well as every major data producing government agency is a user of the DRI system. The research environment created by the DRI data banks, software, models and computers has proved so attractive that even organizations with considerable internal facilities find it useful to have access. DRI as an organization has no political views, though individuals associated with the company can take any position they wish.

Our system has also been used by ten universities and colleges and we have just begun to develop special services for the state governments. As DRI is becoming better known and our communications network to our computers spreads to cover a far greater number of communities, we expect that more colleges and universities will find it possible to take advantage of these research facilities.

The company reached the break-even point in the twentieth month of operation after expending the larger part of the venture capital to create the initial version of the DRI system. It is now moderately profitable and earnings are advancing rapidly. Thus far, the capitalists have earned no return of dividends or interest. They have been extraordinarily forbearing in not pressing for quick returns, preferring to let the company use all of the resources in these early years to bring the DRI concept to full fruition. The probabilities are good that the investors will be handsomely rewarded over the next few years. Having taken the risk and waited, they will have earned their return.

(3) The Relation of DRI to Harvard University

Recognizing the sensitivity of this issue from the beginning, I have made sure that Data Resources produced a flow of benefits to Harvard and that Harvard would not provide resources to DRI. The Board of Directors, heavy with Harvard alumni, formally instructed me early in our development to provide free use of the DRI system to Harvard students. Quite a few have done so, including students on my small NSF project on prices and wages. This Fall, for the first time, I have a graduate working seminar in econometric model building. Each of the seven students enrolled is building his own model, simulating it, and writing a paper. The projects include the first econometric model of Ghana, a small scale two-country model of Canada and the United States, an exercise in policy optimization using the DRI model, a study to use macro models to estimate the changing distribution of income, a study of tax incidence using translog production functions, and a model of Venezuela. If this experimental seminar is successful, a lot more can be done, of course.

In terms of relations with professors, Feldstein and Jorgenson were members of the original academic consulting group, along with professors at MIT, Chicago, Brookings and Wharton. I direct and take responsibility for the DRI forecasts, working with full -time employees. The others have focussed on policy studies, including three major studies for the Joint Economic Committee which received considerable attention. They have also done studies for the U.S. Treasury, the Ford Foundation, etc. These studies have not been a significant source of profit to the company, but they surely help to build Data Resources as an authoritative source of economic analysis and serve the public interest.

DRI has had very limited relations with the non-tenured faculty in the Harvard Economics Department. We cooperated with the Department in January 1969 to make it possible for Barry Bosworth to assume his appointment a semester early when he wished to leave the Council of Economic Advisers. He did some useful research that spring and summer, most of which reached fruition in his subsequent papers at The Brookings Institution. His half-time support was transferred to a project at Harvard after one semester. Mel Fuss collaborated in the early stages of our analysis of automobile demand sponsored by General Motors. Bill Raduchel has done some consulting in the programming area with us, but this was always was a very minor part of his activities. While it would be improper to recount the precise role of myself or Feldstein and Jorgenson in the promotion considerations of these three men, it is perfectly obvious and easily documented that there is no substantive historical issue of DRI considerations entering into Harvard appointments. Bosworth went to Brookings before his appointment came up; Fuss and Raduchel were not promoted.

Perhaps this is the point to digress on my philosophy on Harvard promotions. I believe that assistant professors should be selected on the basis of professional promise, their potential contribution to the undergraduate teaching program and whatever publication record they already possess. Promotion to associate professor should mainly be based on research accomplishments as well as teaching performance, with both prerequisites. I have always strongly felt that collaboration in the research projects of senior professors should be given no weight in non-tenured appointments because of the considerable risk that the Harvard appointment thereby becomes a recruiting device for the personnel of these projects. In my years at Harvard, I have never asked the Department to appoint anyone whose presence would be useful to me, and I never will make such a request. To the best of my knowledge, Feldstein and Jorgenson have pursued the same policy. I recommend adoption of procedures that would assure that all of us avoid such appointments.

There are more intangible relations between DRI and Harvard which are hard to assess and easy to exaggerate. If I did not possess a professional reputation which has been enhanced by my professorship here my career would have been different, and I might not have received my extraordinary opportunities of public service. As far as the development of DRI is concerned, my greatest institutional indebtedness is to the Council of Economic Advisers. It was this experience which made me appreciate the importance of accurate and quick information and of the tremendous potential of using econometrics to bridge the gap between macro- and micro-economics. As far as the relations with our private and public clients are concerned, a sophisticated group containing numerous Harvard graduates, they understand perfectly well the tremendous diversity of people and ideas present at Harvard. They know that Harvard has no institutional position on political questions or on the merits or demerits of the existing social, political or economic system. It is also clear to them that Data Resources is a totally distinct entity. I am not responsible for your views and you will not be tainted by mine.

Your final question, whether “the kind of economics that serves corporate interest will take on an exaggerated importance when some of our ablest faculty members and students are working on such problems” is a deep philosophical one which I can only attempt to answer in this way. The Harvard Economics Department has always contained individuals with widely varying concepts of their role in life and preferences in their professional activities. Compared to its historical position, the Department at this time is exceptionally heavy in abstract theory and methodology, and in social philosophy and criticism of the existing order. I represent a different point of view that has always been common in our department. It is my aim to apply economics to the country’s problems in the belief that the existing system can be made to meet the needs of the good society. The development of Data Resources is my current personal expression of this philosophy.

Sincerely yours
[signed] Otto
Otto Eckstein

OE/gc

_____________________________

Feldstein reports being a satisfied user of DRI services

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

MARTIN S. FELDSTEIN
Professor of Economics

1737 CAMBRIDGE STREET, 617
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02128

January 9, 1973

Professor J. K. Galbraith
Department of Economics
Harvard University
Littauer 207

Dear Ken:

Although I was surprised by your letter, I am happy to describe my relations with Data Resources. I have been an “economic consultant” to DRI since it was organized. I would describe both the amount of work that I have done and my financial interest as very limited. Last year, my only DRI work was a study of the problem of unemployment that I did for the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. The Committee contracted with DRI for the study. DRI provided the use of the DRI model and data bank and the special computing facilities. Professor Robert Hall of MIT, another DRI consultant, worked on the study for a few days. The study, Lowering the Permanent Rate of Unemployment, was used as the background for hearings in October and will be published by the Committee this year. I am enclosing a copy for your interest. I might also note that although the work on this for DRI is now complete, I am planning to continue on my own to do research on some of the problems that I examined in this study. A graduate student who helped me during the summer became so interested in some of the questions of labor force participation that he is considering doing his thesis on that subject.

Before last year I worked on developing the financial sector of the Data Resources model. The basic work here was building a bridge between the usual Keynesian analysis and the Fisherian theory with its emphasis on the expected rate of inflation. My work here started as direct collaboration with Otto Eckstein; we published a joint paper, “The Fundamental Determinants of the Interest Rate,” in the 1970 Review of Economics and Statistics. This research led me to consider the importance of expected inflation in all studies of the impact of interest rates; I described my work on this in “Inflation, Specification Bias, and the Impact of Interest Rates” (Journal of Political Economy, 1970). Although further work on the financial sector is now done primarily by members of the DRI full-time staff, I did some work in 1971 on extending the analysis of expectations and testing alternative econometric models of expectations. This work is described in a recent paper, “Multimarket Expectations and the Rate of Interest” with Gary Chamberlain, that has been submitted for publication.

I have described my DRI studies in such detail to give you a sense of both the substance and nature of the work. It has been scientific research on substantively and technically interesting questions of macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy. I have also found the access to the DRI facilities, particularly the macroeconomic model system and data bank, to be useful in my other research and teaching.

I cannot believe that my association with DRI could create any of the problems that you indicate in your questions 5, 6 and 7. I believe that Otto is writing to you about the specific points that you raised about DRI in your questions 1 through 4. I hope that all of this material reassures you about the relations between DRI and members of our department.

Please call me if you have any further questions,

Sincerely,
[signed] Marty
Martin S. Feldstein

MSF:JT

Enclosure

_____________________________

Galbraith to Feldstein: You did not address my concern about “problems of conflict of interest”

January 19, 1973

Professor Martin S. Feldstein
Room 617
1737 Cambridge Street

Dear Marty:

Many thanks for your detailed — and good-humored — response. I’m grateful also for the JEC Study of which Otto spoke and which I am taking to Europe for my own reading. I have taken the liberty of giving a copy of your letter to Ed Mason who, as you perhaps know, is making a study of this whole problem.

As you can guess, I am untroubled by work done directly or through DRI for the government. I am concerned about the problems of conflict of interest that seem to me to arise when a corporation which owes its esteem to members of our Department markets profit-making services to other corporations. But this is something on which I should like to reserve comment until Ed Mason has come up with his conclusions.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:mjh

_____________________________

Jorgenson: I think you are barking up the wrong tree

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

January 22, 1973

DALE W. JORGENSON
Professor of Economics

1737 CAMBRIDGE STREET, ROOM 510
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138
(617) 495-4661

Temporary Address until 6/30/73:
Department of Economics
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

Professor John Kenneth Galbraith
Littauer 207
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear Ken:

Many thanks for your letter of December 20 and your note of December 21. Let me take this occasion to thank you for the copy of your AEA Presidential Address you sent to members of the Department. It was a masterpiece of the genre and will be long remembered by its readers. I am very sorry that I was unable to attend your oral presentation at Toronto.

I share your deep concern over recent actions of the Department of Economics on non-tenure personnel, even though our views on these matters do not always coincide. In view of the strong feelings involved I found the discussion to be remarkably free of personal considerations. I hope that I have not been a party to what you describe as a less than gracious response to vour own views. If I have, I hope that you will accept my apologies.

Since your letter is addressed to Otto Eckstein, Martin Feldstein and myself, I will limit this response to my own role in DRI. I am a stockholder and consultant to DRI and have been for almost four years. In my work for DRI, I have acted as a consultant to several U.S. government agencies and to the Ford Foundation. I have had only one corporate client for my services. My main current activity for DRI is a study of energy policy for the Ford Foundation.

DRI provides a unique environment for certain types of research in applied econometrics. My current work on energy policy would be infeasible without the DRI system. The computer software, computerized data bank, and econometric forecasting system have been indispensable in modeling the energy sector and in studying the effects of economic policies related to energy. The facilities available at DRI have reduced the burden of data processing and computation for econometric model-building by several orders of magnitude.

To my mind the two most important features of the DRI system are its high quality from the scientific point of view and its ability to assimilate the results of research and to make them available for routine application. The data bank is unparalleled in scope and reliability and is constantly expanding as new sources of data are made available. The computer software package is highly sophisticated and is under continuous development as new econometric methods are designed. The forecasting system is the core of DRI’s operations and has undergone a process of improvement and extension that has continued up to the present.

The performance of the DRI system is the main source of attraction for DRI’s clients. This is certainly the case for my study of energy policy. You raise a general question about the concerns of DRI’s clients and the views of members of Harvard’s Department of Economics. In my experience there is no connection, either positive or negative. The clients of DRI are buying the services of DRI. As I have already indicated, this is a rather unusual product, unavailable at any university economics department, including Harvard’s.

On the issue of non-tenured members of the Department of Economics who are also employee-consultants of DRI, I have not employed any non-tenured members of the Department in my work for DRI, as I indicated in our telephone conversation. I find it difficult to envision circumstances in which any conflict of interest related to junior appointments could arise from my DRI association. There have been no such circumstances in the past.

I hope that these observations help to clarify the issues you raise

Yours sincerely,
[signed] Dale
Dale W. Jorgenson

DWJ: cg

cc: E. Mason, J. Dunlop, H. Rosovsky, R. Caves, J. Duesenberry, O. Eckstein, M. Feldstein

_____________________________

Galbraith back to Jorgenson: we need to avoid even the appearance of a  “conflict of interest”

Gstaad. Switzerland
February 13, 1973

Professor Dale W. Jorgenson
Department of Economies
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

Dear Dale:

Many thanks for your letter and for your nice comments. I hope life goes well for you at Stanford. I am writing this from Switzerland where I am on the final pages of what I intend shall be my last major effort on economics. When I get tired I propel myself across the snow and think how good the mountains in the winter would be in a world where one did not feel obliged to take exercise.

I must say that my attention after writing was shifted to yet another of our corporations of which, to my annoyance, I was unaware. It functions currently, I gather, as a subsidiary of the antitrust problems of IBM.

I do feel that there are serious problems here. Participation in the management of the Department, especially in the selection and recruitment of personnel, and in the management of a profit-making enterprise are bound to involve if not the reality of conflict of interest then the appearance of conflict. Appointments, it will be held, are influenced by what influences corporate customers or needs. This must be avoided. It is especially clear if the corporation sells such services as antitrust defense. But it is also the case if the corporation becomes large and successful —, as I would judge, DRI is certain and deservedly to be.

The proper course, as I have suggested to Ed Mason and informally to Otto, is not to deny any professor the right to participation in a profit-making enterprise. Rather it is to separate the two management roles. A man should be free to have an active ownership role in a corporation or an active position in Department management. He should not do both. This would obviate problems of conflict or seeming conflict and protect the positions of all concerned. Needless to say, I would have the same rule apply to all.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:mjh

cc: E. Mason, J. Duesenberry, O. Eckstein, M. Feldstein, R. Caves, H. Rosovsky, F. Ford

_____________________________

“Economics Dept. Reports On Faculty’s Outside Ties”
by Fran R. Schumer. Harvard Crimson, March 20, 1973

A committee in the Economics Department reported yesterday that business connections between Economics professors and outside corporations do not interfere with hiring decisions and teaching practices.

James S. Duesenberry, chairman of the three-man committee, said yesterday that business ties do not impose a conservative bias on the Department’s hiring practices and do not limit the faculty’s teaching time.

Complaints

The committee’s investigation was prompted by complaints raised last term by John Kenneth Galbraith, Warburg Professor of Economics.

Galbraith attributed the Department’s “conservative hiring practices” to faculty members’ ties with business firms. “The fact that the Department sells its services to American business firms biases its administrative decisions,” Galbraith said.

Despite the committee’s negative findings, Otto Eckstein, professor of Economics and president of Data Resources Inc., a consulting firm, has requested to go on half-time status at Harvard, effective September 1.

Eckstein said yesterday that his decision resulted from Galbraith’s complaints and a new rule prohibiting professors from spending more than one day a week consulting. The rule, previously implicit, was formally written into University law this year.

Galbraith voiced objections to faculty members’ business ties several weeks after the Department’s decision last December not to rehire two radical economists.

At that time, Galbraith told Duesenberry that “business ties necessarily impair the faculty’s ability to impartially judge economists, especially radical economists.”

Galbraith also complained that the Department’s decision last December not to promote William J. Raduchel, assistant professor of Economics, was based on the quality of Raduchel’s work for an outside Resources had little influence on the consulting firm and not on his research and teaching abilities in the Department.

Raduchel is a consultant for Data Resources Inc. and is also a sectionman for Galbraith’s course, Social Science 134, “The Modern Society.”

The committee, composed of Duesenberry, Arthur Smithies, Ropes Professor of Political Economy, and Richard E. Caves, Stone Professor of International Trade, reported last January that Raduchel’s work for Data Resources had no influence on the Department’s decision.

The committee also reported that outside ties do not prejudice the Department’s hiring decisions and do not interfere with normal administrative functioning.

The committee reported its findings only to Duesenberry, the chairman of the Economics Department. Committee members refused to comment on how they investigated the problem.

Duesenberry attributed Galbraith’s objections to the Department’s decision not to promote Raduchel. “Galbraith is annoyed because his boy didn’t get promoted,” he said.

Raduchel told The Crimson last month that he was satisfied with the Department’s decision not to promote him. He said that the decision had “nothing to do with my connection to Data Resources, and was based on my academic work.”

Eckstein agreed with Duesenberry’s conclusion that Raduchel’s work at Data Resources had little influence on the Department’s decision.

Explaining his own position at Data Resources Inc. Eckstein said that his case is no different than that of other faculty members who do consulting work.

Currently, at least three senior faculty members and one junior faculty members do consulting work at Data Resources.

Eckstein described consulting work an inevitable product of Harvard’s hiring policies. “Harvard naturally attracts people who get involved in the outside world,” he explained.

He said that he has a “clear conscience” about the work he is doing at Harvard.

_____________________________

Galbraith to Chairman Duesenberry:

Gstaad, Switzerland
March 27, 1973

Professor James S. Duesenberry
Littauer M-8

Dear Jim:

Herewith some good-humored thoughts on our final talk the other day about our corporate affiliates. As you request, I will now leave the problem to the President, Steiner and whomever.

  1. Although both you and Henry Rosovsky had earlier expressed discomfort about our corporation and some action now seems in prospect, you say I’m severely viewed for raising the issue. Isn’t this a little hard? The important thing, I suggest, is to get things right. However, although given my sensitive soul it has been difficult, I have steeled myself over the years to the idea of not being universally loved.
  2. You say that the bias from combining business entrepreneurship with professorial activities in the eye of some of our colleagues is not greater than that deriving from my (or Marc Roberts’) support of George McGovern. I somehow doubt that the faculty would agree. There is indication of difference, I think, in the way one reacts. I do not find myself shrinking especially from identification even with anything now so widely condemned as the McGovern campaign. I detect a certain desire to avoid public discussion of our corporations.
  3. In keeping with the desire for reticence, I told Ed Mason I wouldn’t talk with the press. The Crimson tells me that you have explained that I raised the issue only out of pique over the non-promotion of Raduchel. Isn’t this a bit one-sided? However, beyond denying any such deeply unworthy motive, I’ll stick to my agreement, always reserving the right of self-defense.
  4. As to my motives, so far as I can judge them, I did feel that Raduchel got judged on his corporate work, while — as Smithies and I both complained — there was no consultation with those who best knew about his teaching. His teaching has been very good. I suggest that we are always in favor of improving undergraduate teaching in principle but not in practice. Also I do not agree that he was unpromotable. He has a lively, resourceful mind and has worked hard for the University and the students. I think him far, far better than the dull technicians we do carry to the top of our nontenured ranks, possibly even beyond.
  5. But, as I probe my soul for the purest available motive, it was not Raduchel. I simply think that, when a professor speaks or acts on a promotion, we should know that he is doing it as a professor and not as a businessman.
  6. I had thought that the separation of our business arrangements from the Department management might be a solution, with the proposed withdrawal of voting rights from the aged as a precedent. This, I gather, will not wash, so I subside. As Ed Mason tactfully hints, I’ve had enough lost causes for one year.

I do have one final thought. In accordance with the well-known tendencies of free enterprise at this level, one day one of these corporations is going to go down with a ghastly smash. It will then be found, in its days of desperation or before, to have engaged in some very greasy legal operations. The Department and the University will be held by the papers to have a contingent liability. It will be hard to preserve reticence then. It would have been better to have taken preventative action now.

Conforming to your wish that I restrict communications on this subject, I’m not circulating this letter. But would it trouble you If I added it discreetly to the file in the President’s office? Do let me know.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:mjh

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 Sources: John Kenneth Galbraith (1978), Harvard University Archives; Otto Eckstein (April 1969), Harvard University Archives; Martin Feldstein (ca. 1974), Newton Free Library, Digital Commonwealth, Massachusetts Collections Online; Dale Jorgenson. (1968). John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.

Categories
Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Radcliffe. Economics Ph.D. alumna, Rosemary Coward Griffith, 1961

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is interested not merely in the lives of prominent economists, but also in sampling the lives and careers of the vast majority of trained professional economists. Sometimes the careers have been cut short, as was the case of Radcliffe graduate Rosemary Coward Griffith who died three years after receiving her Radcliffe Ph.D. Many of the details for this post come from documents easily accessible through the genealogical website ancestry.com but also from the website newspapers.com.

_________________________

Born in Texas

Rosemary Coward was born 16 August 1927 in Dallas, TX to parents Allen C. Coward (dentist) and Georgia Coward née Hurt.

_________________________

First Marriage

Married to Jack D. Summerfield June 1, 1947.  They were divorced in Marion County, Alabama in April 1957. He later worked as a producer for WGBH (Radio/television) in Boston, MA.

_________________________

Undergraduate degree

Rosemary Summerfield was admitted to Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Texas, Austin. Class of June 1948.

_________________________

Correspondence with John Kenneth Galbraith

In John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers at the John F. Kennedy Library, Box 34, General correspondence “Griffith, Rosemary Coward Summerfield. 19 May 1954 to 26 March 1955.”

_________________________

Marriage to Charles Ray Griffith

From The Santa Fe New Mexican, October 23, 1959:

Reported that the two new residents of Santa Fe were married September 12, 1959 at Appleton Chapel, Harvard University. Charles Griffith was appointed to the staff of the state Health Department, Division of Mental Health. He received his Ph.D. in cultural anthropology at Harvard.

Note: This was his second marriage. His first marriage (September 15, 1948) to Katherine Perry apparently ended in divorce, she married Raymond A. Bowman in 1957.
After Rosemary’s death Charles Ray Griffith Married associate professor of nursing at the University of New Mexico (The Santa Fe New Mexican May 29, 1966). It is worth noting that she is not mentioned in his obituary (Albuquerque Journal, May 2, 1999) whereas his first two wives were.

The Santa Fe New Mexican reported July 2, 1964 that Charles R. Griffith would resign effective August 31 to accept an appointment at the University of New Mexico College of Education as associate professor in education and research anthropologist.

_________________________

Ph.D. CONFERRED IN 1960-61

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Rosemary Coward Griffith, B.A.

Subject: Economics.
Dissertation: “Factors Affecting Continental United States Manufacturing Investment in Puerto Rico.”

Source: Radcliffe College. Report of the President,  1960-61, p. 80.

_________________________

Probably Last Job

From The Albquerque Tribune of May 29, 1953 (page 11). In an article about recent developments at the University of New Mexico.

Contracts have also been approved for Rosemary Griffith as temporary assistant professor of economics.

_________________________

Hospitalized about six weeks before her death

From The Santa Fe New Mexican, March 23, 1964:

Mrs. Rosemary Griffith, 1934 Kiva Rd. admitted to hospital

From The Santa Fe New Mexican, March 23, 1964:

Dismissed from Hospital. Mrs. Rosemary Griffith.

_________________________

Funeral Notice

From The Santa Fe New Mexican, May 14, 1964:

Funeral Service to be held Friday [May 15, 1964]. Cremated remains to Memorial Gardens.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Memo to Provost supporting Galbraith appointment. Black, 1947

 

As surprising as it might sound, the Harvard economics department couldn’t always get whom they wanted (Theodore Schultz). As a consequence we are able to observe an aggressive strategy employed by a member of one side in the departmental hiring dispute.  Professor John D. Black attempted to play the rebound in re-pleading his case for John Kenneth Galbraith’s appointment to a newly established professorship. Indeed by writing directly to the Provost, Black could have been charged with at least an additional count of “working the ref”. The episode is well summarized in Richard Parker’s biography of Galbraith (John Kenneth Galbraith: his life, his politics, his economics, pp. 226-227). Still, there is nothing quite like the pleasure of watching sharp elbows at work in the service of intradepartmental politics as revealed in the complete letter posted below.  Black was not afraid to push nativist buttons in referring to anti-Galbrathians among his colleagues: “European clique” (cf. Haberler in 1948 on Galbraith vs Samuelson), “the monetary-fiscal policy axis” and “gaudy Keynesian trappings”.

A cynical nose can detect more than a whiff of a self-serving plea to strengthen the prospects of Black’s own field and style of research. 

Archival note: Parker refers to a copy of the letter in Black’s papers with the Wisconsin Historical Society, this post is based on a copy of the letter I found in Galbraith’s papers at the JFK Presidential Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provides the outlines and exams for Black’s courses on the marketing of agricultural commodities from 1947-48).

____________________

December 22, 1947

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

As you are no doubt aware, it was I who last year nominated Galbraith for the joint professorship to the School of Public Administration and in the Department of Economics. It was my judgment at that time that in view of his experience in public affairs and acknowledged great ability he surely should be considered for this position. The voting last year confirmed my judgment surprisingly. Excluding Schultz, to whom the appointment was offered, and Tinbergen from the Netherlands, he ran neck and neck with Yntema for top place in all of the balloting, with Samuelson next, and Smithies in seventh place. Tinbergen owed his strength to the European clique in the Department of Economics (by no means all European born), who have a European idea of the function of a university, und would have been a misfit in this appointment.

The voting of course reflected in large measure the conceptions of the voting members as to the needs of the appointment. A majority of my colleagues in the Department of Economics thought of it in terms simply of getting another high-grade technical economist, with little thought for the needs of the School of Public Administration. To meet this situation, I prepared and read at one of last year’s joint meetings on the appointment, the following statement, which I now I now submit anew, as still describing the conditions of the appointment:

The decision as to an appointment in economics at this time raises the whole question of the future of the Graduate School of Public Administration and its meaning for the Departments of Economics and Government.

The first point to make under this head is that the two departments named, without the Graduate School of Public Administration, are destined to become conventional departments in these fields, not distinguishable from similar departments in other universities, except for probably having better faculties than most of them. Even the latter distinction could easily fade in the next decade or two. With the Graduate School of Public Administration working with them, they both have possibilities of becoming super-graduate departments, by building on top of the usual graduate offerings in these fields a type of advanced graduate instruction that deals with problems of the sort that arise in the higher levels of policy-making in government. The seminars now given are well worth while from this point of view, but they fell much sort of realizing their possibilities. The two departments therefore very much need the Graduate School of Public Administration. It offers them a real opportunity to achieve greatness and become important influences in our national life. On the other hand, the School can get nowhere without the regular graduate work of the two departments as a foundation. The School and the two departments should therefore work closely together, each helping the others at each step in their advancement.

This means looking at a problem, such as that of the new appointment, as a common problem, and asking the question what kind of an appointment now will promote best the progress of the departments and the School?

Before answering this question, we need to go back and consider the basis on which the School was conceived. Those who formulated the program for the School finally settled down on training in policy-making as the great opportunity for a school of public administration at a university like Harvard. They exhibited a kind of prescience and inner wisdom in so doing that would almost seem like a miracle except for the fact that it did grow almost inevitably out of the situation.

In the two or three years following the founding of the School, much actual headway was made in realizing the objective of training for policy-making. The program of the School and it method made a strong impression in government circles and in the world of education. Since then, the School has lost considerable of the advantage of such a splendid start. If it does not take hold with vigor again and press forward along the lines laid out, it will lose it entirely in five or ten more years and become nothing more than a minor adjunct of the two conventional departments of the University. This the departments themselves cannot afford to let happen. Neither can Harvard University.

Looking at the present problem in this light, there can be no doubt that the great weakness in our present situation is in persons qualified to train advanced graduate students in policy-making, who have the aptitude for it as well as the background. The interests of the departments are in such an appointment at this time. The training in policy-making, comparatively speaking, is not suffering now, and will not suffer for several years, because of deficiencies in the preliminary graduate training needed as a foundation for it.

Also needing to be considered are important and somewhat similar relations to other departments of Harvard University, particularly to the Graduate School of Business Administration, to the Law School, and to the new Department of Social Relations. The School can add something of high importance to each of these if its seminars in the policy-making function are adequately developed; and in turn its contribution will be much enriched by what workers in these fields have to offer.

An appointment at this time of one new professor qualified as indicated will not of course take us far alone the way we need to go. But it will make a good start. We shall need mainly two things in addition: A. Additional research funds for the different seminars — to be used in employing research associates, financing field work, statistical laboratory work, etc., B. Some appointments wholly on the faculty of the School. Funds for both of these, especially the first, can be obtained if sought in earnest.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the School has made a start exactly along the right lines. It does not need in the least to back up and take a fresh start, but instead only to pick up what it has and go forward with it.

You, Provost Buck, do not need to be told that since I made this statement, the School has done exactly what I was hoping for. Almost certainly now at least three of the major seminars of the School will have research projects combined with them, each with small staffs of research associates. Steps are being taken to bring the School into effective working relations with the Law school and the Department of Social Relations. The need for an appointment that will strengthen its instruction in the policy-making function has in consequence become even more urgent then it was a year ago.

When it came time to offer nominations again this year, I felt that in view of the strong vote for Galbraith last year, surely he should be considered again. The third men in the top three this year, Smithies, has been substituted for Samuelson by those who supported Samuelson last year, apparently for two reasons: one, they now admit Samuelson’s shortcomings in the policy role, and consider Smithies a better candidate from this point of view; two, they expect to have Samuelson appointed to the full professorship now vacant in the Department of Economics. There seems to be more general acceptance than year ago of my conception of the needs of the appointment.

It has been necessary for me to make this last statement because it is the basis for the most important factor in the whole situation as it now develops, namely, that to appoint both Smithies and Samuelson at this time would further unbalance the work in economics at Harvard in the direction of the monetary-fiscal policy axis, since both of these men work mainly along these lines. The simple fact of the matter is that the men working in money and banking, fiscal policy and international trade, plus a few (in theory mostly) who vote with them on appointments, already constitute a voting majority in the Department of Economics. (You will remember that they did their utmost to prevent Dunlop’s appointment two years ago.) To add one more to this axis at this time would be highly unfortunate. It is, of course, not their voting which is most important — it is the narrowing effect which they have on the teaching and research in economics at Harvard. Those two appointments would contribute more than usual to such narrowing, since they are Keynesians in addition.

Of course none of these in this axis considers that he is narrow. In their discussions, to be sure, they draw in all phases of the economy. But they organize it all in terms of a single framework of reference. They pour it all, as it were, through one narrow funnel, and do some sieving in the process. As to how much they may mislead themselves in so doing, — and unfortunately some of the policy-makers of the nation; we have had abundant evidence in the past two years.

We can be reasonably certain that within ten or fifteen years, the Keynesian system of economic thinking will have been pretty well taken in stride. It would be unfortunate if at that time Harvard found itself with a faculty in economics too largely clothed in outworn habiliments. The economies of that day will have a different cast then the pre-Keynesian; but it will have lost much of its gaudy Keynesian trappings.

One of the first stories told me about Harvard when I arrived in 1927 was of President Eliot’s having been asked why Harvard University’s Department of Psychology had never developed a “school” of thought in that field, as had the Departments of Cornell and Columbia, and of his having answered that if he had discovered that his Department of Psychology was becoming dominated by one school of thought he would have hastened to appoint the strongest man he could find of an opposing school.

Of course this last point is no argument for the appointment of Galbraith. It is merely an argument against appointing Smithies if Samuelson is going to be appointed to the Department of Economics — and the pressure for Samuelson’s appointment is very strong in the Department of Economics.

I do not propose to present any strong affirmative arguments in support of Galbraith’s appointment. I nominated him because I believed that he should at least be considered. It has been the votes of my colleagues that has put him in the running, and I prefer that they tell you their reasons. I would not want him appointed if in their judgment, and that of the ad hoc committee, he is not the strongest man for this joint appointment.

I say this even though I would hope that if Galbraith were appointed he could spare a small fraction of his time to helping me give the two year courses which I now give in Commodity Distribution and Prices (ordinarily called Marketing.) Even though I am now giving these two courses, with the help of one-fifth of the time of an annual instructor, in addition to three full year courses in the Economies of Agricultura (with help of part of the time of one visiting lecturer) besides supervising a score of doctor’s theses, I shall manage somehow if I can get some other regular help with the three courses in the Economics of Agriculture.1

____________

  1. The undergraduate course in marketing had 90 students in the fall term, and the graduate course had 12 plus 8 auditors. This course was offered to Harvard undergraduate in 1946-47 for the first time, except for sone special instruction in food marketing given to armed service prospects during the war. The graduate course has been given since 1933.

    ____________

It may also be of interest that 12 of the 120 Ph.D’s reported as conferred in Economics in the United States in 1946-47 (12 months) were to candidates writing theses under my direction. (See September 1947 American Economic Review.)

There have, however, been some statements made about Galbraith in faculty discussions that must be commented upon in the interest of truth and sound decision. It has been said of him that he is “not a highly competent technical economist.” All this means is that he has published no articles in which he has applied methods of statistical and mathematical analysis, to the development of refinements of economic and monetary theory. I have no doubt of Galbraith’s ability to do this when this is the important thing for him to do. The simple truth is that a man of his breadth of comprehension is likely to find himself mainly absorbed in dealing with broad fundamental economic relationships; and this is especially true in times as disturbed as those in which he has been doing his writing. When asked, in the summer of 1947, to read a paper on the current economic situation, I entitled this paper “Fundamental Elements in the Current Agricultural Situation,” and I wrote as follows:

“The day and the hour seem to call for analysis in terms of broad fundamentals. This is no occasion for the refinements of theory and their application; but rather for over-simplification and over-emphasis on a few vital elements. Something of accuracy is lost in consequence; but this is not relatively important in the emergency that confronts us. There are wild horses loose in the world and the first task is to bring them to leash. Later we can break them to the plow and the cart.”

This statement is truer today than it was in 1942. If any economist of today is turning out articles or books presenting analysis of refinements, he is doing it because he lacks real power of analysis of the larger issues of the day, or as a by-product of such analysis, or as relaxation from the steady grind of his regular job. No doubt some of Smithies’ articles fit into these latter descriptions. Galbraith’s writings of the past ten years have covered the larger aspects of a very broad range of subjects.

Another criticism has been that he is not a good speaker. It is true that he often speaks haltingly when extemporizing. He needs time to find the exact word he wants. But he writes excellent papers, and reads them very effectively. (John Williams reported at a recent faculty meeting that his paper and Ed Mason’s were the outstanding papers at a full meeting in Philadelphia. His paper at the Atlantic City meeting in December 1946 was an outstanding performance.) In fact, he has become a very effective writer. To have a man in the Graduate School of Public Administration who can write as effectively as Galbraith on public questions of the day will be a highly valuable asset.

It needs to be added that he is effective in the classroom in spite of halting for a word now and then. The secret of this is that he has an uncanny sense for the vital points in a classroom discussion the same in analyzing public issues, and for putting these in their proper perspective. He is also a very stimulating influence among students in private discussion.

Rating higher in my scale of values than in those of many other academicians is capacity. Some of my colleagues do twice as much teaching, research and writing as some others, and do it fully as well or better. Galbraith has demonstrated a high order of capacity.

The other adverse report concerning Galbraith is not so easy to analyze. It is that he does not handle public relations well, nor even his relations with colleagues and subordinates. Surely a man of Galbraith’s type needed a man of different sort to work alongside him and handle the difficult public relations of OPA. And surely Leon Henderson was not that man. He was less apt at it even than Galbraith. The public relations man for OPA had to say “No” very often; and Galbraith does not have the ease of manner for such an assignment. Given time enough to plan for it in advance, he is able to differ with his colleagues and associates in a pleasant and gracious manner; but not in haste and under pressure, and especially when some body is trying to “put something over”.

No doubt a factor in his relations with others has been his urge to get on with the job and not waste too much time talking about it. I must confess a kinship with him in this respect. He no more than I should be assigned task a with many administrative decisions.

On this point, I am ready to predict without any hesitancy that Galbraith’s relations with his colleagues in the School and in the Department of Economics, should he receive this appointment, would be more congenial by a wide margin then those now generally prevailing in these departments; also that in the role of a Harvard professor, his relations with the public and with government officials would be unusually cooperative and friendly.

Perhaps a word is in order as to why I did not vote for Yntema. Most of all, I do not want to take a chance on either of two things (1) that he will prefer to continue with his present job, thus postponing our filling this appointment for another year: (2) that he will accept the appointment, but will want to continue a tie-us with CED that will remain his main interest. We cannot afford any more such tie-ups. Second, he seems to be so well fitted to his present assignment that I do not believe he would fit ours.

Very truly yours,

John D. Black

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Box 519. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Folder: “Correspondence Re: Appointment of JKG as Professor of Economics. 12/22/47—3/22/50”.

Image Source:  Professor John D. Black in Harvard Class Album 1945.

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
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Chair annual reports to Dean, 1932-1941

 

This post takes us from the trough of the Great Depression to the eve of the U.S. entry into the Second World War. The items below are transcriptions of copies of reports written by the Harvard economics department chairmen of the time (Harold Hitchings Burbank (a.k.a. Burbie to his Buds) and Edward Hastings Chamberlin. Some chest-thumping, some whining, no notes of irony and definitely no flashes of wit…we all know this art form. Nevertheless some raw intelligence of value for working historians of economics of the present and future.

____________________________

November 12, 1932

Dear Dean Murdock,

Under the Faculty vote of December, 1931, the Chairman of each Department is requested to report in each half year to the Dean of the Faculty on the working of the plan recommended by the Committee on Instruction concerning Hour Examinations and Other Course Requirements. My report for the Department of Economics follows.

Acting on the Report from the Committee on Instruction, the Department of Economics on January 12, 1932 voted to observe the recommendations of the Committee. Following the Department meeting, I reported to you to the effect that the requirements of the Department of Economics were substantially in accord with the principles laid down by the Committee on Instruction. Ordinarily, we require not more than one Hour Examination in any one half year; ordinarily, we require not more than one thesis or report in any one half year. It is the standing rule of the Department of Economics and of the Division of History, Government, and Economics, that Senior candidates for Honors, who are writing Honors theses, shall be excused from the writing of any theses in courses within the Division. After a long discussion and with considerable reluctance, the Department voted that for Seniors who are candidates for Honors in the Division, Hour Examinations in courses within the Department shall be optional.

The vote of the Department was made known immediately to the students and observed in all of our undergraduate course (not of an introductory nature) during the second half of last year, and it is being observed in the current half year.

In the Division of History, Government, and Economics, we have had for many years a rule that all Seniors in good standing shall be exempted from final examinations in courses within the Division in their last half year. The result has been, of course, that after the April Hour Examinations, Seniors have paid little attention to courses within in the Division, and their attendance has been hardly more than occasional. The members of the Department who are more interested in courses than in General Examinations, and who perhaps doubt the efficacy of General Examinations, view this situation with increasing criticism.

When the Department voted the making of Hour Examinations optional for Seniors who are candidates for Honors, the doubting members were highly critical, fearing that our courses elected largely by Seniors would be entirely disrupted. From all that I can learn, I cannot see that there have been any untoward or undesirable results. In most of our “Senior” courses, the attendance until the Easter recess was satisfactory. Honors candidates attended lectures and, I believe, completed most of the required readings. Their records on the General Examinations were excellent. The Honors theses were among the best we have ever had.

A number of members of my Department and not a few members of the Departments of History and Government are strongly opposed to the new order. They make the point that we have in substance permitted an additional reduction in courses, that Senior Honor candidates are simply required to register in courses, but they have nether to attend them nor to do the work. All of these allegations are true enough, but it seems to me they are beside the point. To the extent that we have confidence in our examiners and tutors, I do not believe that in effect the requirements regarding the quality and quantity or work have been reduced.

The Department of History has recommended to the other departments of the Division the consideration of a motion which would require all senior candidates for Honors to complete whatever courses in History they elect. I think that probably the departments of the Division will consider in full detail the questions this motion involves.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

1933
[not found]

A copy of the report is not found with the others included in this post: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1934

Dear Dean Murdock,

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics:

In this period of rapid economic evolution the problems presented to a group of university economists are both stimulating and perplexing. The changing pattern of our social and economic structure offers new data for analysis and at the same time calls for a testing of principle that involves new fields for both teaching and research.

There have been few periods in modern history more difficult to interpret, yet the responsibility for interpretation seems foremost among the duties devolving upon educational institutions. For many years the keystone of the introductory course in economics has been that the community has the right to expect political and economic leadership from the graduates of its colleges. Our undergraduate courses are directed toward the attainment of this end. But the teaching of political economy is an art not easily mastered even by those who give abundant evidence of intellectual leadership. In the instruction of undergraduates and in the training of teachers and scholars in our graduate school, the difficulties inherent in our subject must not be overlooked. The presentation of the data of economics makes demands upon the staff not felt in many other departments of the University. Looking toward the strengthening of our undergraduate instruction, the Department is now associating a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are now in charge of the large lecture courses. In Money and Banking, in the Relations of Government to Industry, and in Public Finance, this experiment is advanced sufficiently to indicate its desirability.

At the same time that our teaching problems have become intensified the need for the results of research is pressing. In periods of accelerated social evolution involving political and economic experimentation, the demand for accurate data is insistent. Relatively, economics is a young science. The foundations of fact are still being established. Investigations that may have an important bearing upon government policy should not be delayed. The economists of this University have contributed largely to their subject, but always with scant facilities in material equipment and in time.

Among the many problems confronting us as a group, that of securing the time necessary for research is perhaps the most troublesome. To our exacting teaching requirements must be added the demands for public service. Since the establishment of this Department, the requests for such service heave been continuous. Of late the increasing calls have raised a question which must be considered by the University administration. The opportunities for service to governments are gratifying. Undoubtedly these services belong among the necessary functions of a university. But obviously they do divert a considerable part of our time and energy from our strictly defined duties. Over the years the University is enriched by such services, but at any given time the responsibilities attaching to teaching and research are interrupted. If the University Includes public service among its important functions, the personnel of the staffs affected should be so adjusted that the work can be performed without overtaxing our internal activities.

During the past your, the leave of absence of Professor John M. Williams was continued to allow him to serve as Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to advise on monetary and credit policies, and to direct research. In the latter part of the year, Professor Williams was called by the Department of State to investigate certain conditions in Brazil, Uraguay [sic], Argentina, and Chili [sic]  and to formulate policies of exchange controls. Daring the second half-year, Assistant Professor Edward H. Chamberlin was granted leave of absence to work with the Committee on Government Statistics and Information Services in Washington. Also, during the second half-year, though leave was not requested, Assistant Professor William T. Ham was in Washington frequently, serving as a member of the staff of the Labor Advisory Board of the National Recovery Administration. And also, though no leave was requested, Professor John D. Black devoted a substantial part of the year to public service. He served on a number of committees connected with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and land utilization. At the request of Secretary Wallace, he organized and directed the activities of committees outlining programs of economic research in (1) the marketing of farm products and (2) farm population and rural life. Also at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, he served with two others to coordinate the work of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture. In the summer months, Drs. Alan Sweezy and Lauchlin B. Currie were called to the Treasury Department to serve as special investigators.

Owing to his illness, Professor Emeritus William Z. Ripley was unable to fulfill his duties as President of the American Economic Association. In his absence, Professor Abbott P. Usher, first Vice-President of the Association, was in charge of the December, 1933 session.

Notable among our publications of the year were Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy, by S. E. Harris, and The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, by E. H. Chamberlin. Because of its significance for immediate practical application, I am including at this point the Report of the Committee on Model State and Local Taxation, by Professor C. J. Bullock’s committee of the National Tax Association. Also at this point, mention should be made of Economics of the Recovery Program, by seven members of the Department. In the course of the year, about forty-five articles were contributed to scientific journals by various members of the Department.

Within the limitations described above, the research work of the staff is going forward at a satisfactory rate. Investigations in the following subjects are well advanced: History of the Industrial Revolution; Development of Banking and Credit in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; Evolution of English Company Law; Economic Fluctuations; Nature and Effects of Inflation; Index Numbers; Municipal Ownership of Public Utilities; State and Local Taxation; Unbalanced Budgets; The National Income; New England Agriculture; The Economics of Agricultural Production; German Trade Unionism; The Fundamentals of Sociology; Economics and Politics; Socialism as an International Movement.

A considerable number of these projects are nearing completion and should be ready for publication shortly. A large project on the relation of Government to Industry involving the efforts of a number of the staff is in its initial stages. This subject is of such immediate importance that other plans for research are being put aside until it can be carried to its completion. The Quarterly Journal of Economies has continued its usual high standard. During the year, five substantial volumes were added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

Again I would press the point that the potential research capacity of the Department is severely handicapped by the demands of teaching and public service.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 18, 1935

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

In the report of last year the effects of the contemporary political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research were discussed briefly. More than ever we are aware of the responsibilities incumbent upon the teacher of Economics in this period of rapid and far-reaching change. Our undergraduate instruction had been, and is, receiving particular attention. A few years ago we began experimentally the association of a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are nominally in charge of the larger lecture courses. We are quite convinced that this method of instruction is most effective. Also there is a positive, although perhaps incidental, advantage in this arrangement in that it relieves the pressure for the multiplication of undergraduate courses.

I find it necessary to stress again the problem presented by the demands upon our staff for services to the public. We believe that public service belongs among the necessary functions of a university. But under existing conditions large demands for public service at any given time bring serious interruptions to both research and instruction. “If the University includes public service among its important functions the personnel of the staffs affected should be so adjusted that the additional work can be performed without taxing severely our internal activities.”

I am very happy, to write that Professor Chamberlin’s “The Theory of Monopolistic Competition”, published somewhat over a year ago, has won immediate recognition as a foremost contribution to economic theory. During the past year two books of unusual importance have appeared,—Professor John D. Black, “The Dairy Industry and the A.A.A.”, and Professor Sumner Slichter, “Towards Stability”. Six manuscripts have been completed, and should appear in book form during the present year. It is significant that five of these books have been written by the younger members of our Department whose teaching duties have been mainly of a tutorial nature. Among the publications I should note the report submitted to the Treasury Department on the “Objectives and Criteria of Monetary Policy” by Dr. Alan Sweezy, and the report to the State Department on “Foreign Exchange Control in Latin America” by Professor John Williams.

In addition to the above volumes and reports the members of the Department published somewhat over fifty articles in the scientific journals of our subject. Some of these contributions are of major importance.

The investigations of the staff are being carried forward as satisfactorily as possible with the limited facilities that are at our disposal. Two researches on a very large scale have to do with the general subject of the Trade Cycle and the Relation of Government to Industry. Numerous important, but less extensive, investigations are in process.

Perhaps I should note here that a generous grant from the Rockefeller Foundation enabled the Department to undertake the continuation of the Review of Economic Statistics and the fundamental research that is involved in this publication, The Quarterly Journal of Economics long published by the members of this Department, together with the Review of Economic Statistics, are among the more important activities of the Department. In the course of the year three volumes more added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

As in my last report, I would again bring to your attention the disturbing fact that the potential research capacity of the Department is handicapped severely by the demands of administration, teaching, and public service.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1936

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

I find it necessary to emphasize again the effects of the contemporary political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research. It had been necessary to bring these matters to your attention in both of the preceding years, since they present such important problems to us. We feel an increasingly positive responsibility regarding out undergraduate instruction in this period of rapid and far-reaching change.

We have continued the experiment begun some few years ago of the association of a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are in charge of the large lecture courses. We believe that we are improving our instruction by this method, and at the same time this arrangement tends to relieve the pressure for the multiplication of undergraduate courses.

Perhaps as a result of the general social situation the elections of our undergraduate courses and the number of concentrators in Economics have increased very heavily. The problems of instruction presented by these overwhelming numbers are intensified perhaps by the personnel situation in which the Department finds itself. During the last dozen years the personnel of this Department—one of the largest in the University—has been changed completely. For a quarter of a century a group of eminent economists brought great prestige to the University. With the resignation of Professor Gay the active services of this group has come to an end. One cannot speak of replacing these scholars. They were unique both as individuals and as a group. Their leadership and their scholarship has left a lasting impression on the development of Economics. In the course of the passing of this group a now Department has been brought together. This new and younger Department is assuming full responsibility at the very time when questions of teaching and new methods of research are becoming insistent.

The demands upon members of our staff for public service continue. It has seemed expedient to encourage some few members to give their time and energy for public purposes. But with a minimum teaching force it has not been possible for all members of the Department to comply with the requests made. The public service relations of faculty members remains a question for the University to consider.

The Quarterly Journal of Economics celebrates this year its fiftieth anniversary. For forty years this Journal has won and held its prestige under the editorship of Professor F. W. Taussig. Professor Taussig, now emeritus, has graciously consented to continue as editor during the present year, but very shortly it will be necessary for us to provide for the editorial direction of this very important publication.

In an earlier report to you I indicated the activities of the Department in connection with the Review of Economic Statistics. The scientific work underlying this publication, as well as the journal itself, is now under the direction of a committee of the Department. The Review continues as a vehicle of publication of the results of investigations here and elsewhere regarding the business cycle. We have ambitious plans for the Review, and we have every reason to believe that its scientific usefulness will increase.

There is little question that, the research activities of practically all members of the staff have been curtailed by the heavy teaching loads which have been imposed. However, the research programs of various members and of various groups within the Department have shown marked progress in the past year. As I have indicated in an earlier report the research activities of our members are of two somewhat different types. Numerous members of the staff working altogether independently are pursuing their own researches while others working as a group are developing particular aspects of a well devised project in research. In the social sciences this latter type of work is rapidly assuming importance. In general it is this type of research which receives the support of the large foundations. Within our own group there are a number of projects of this character. Messrs. Mason, Chamberlin, Wallace, Cassels, Reynolds, and Alan Sweezy are developing Industrial Organization and Control. In the process of the exploration of this subject numerous independent volumes and studies will appear. Professors Mason, Chamberlin and Dr. Wallace are already well advanced in their study of monopolistic combinations and expect to complete it in about one year. Professor Cassels and Dr. Reynolds expect to finish their study on Canadian combinations this year, and Dr. Alan Sweezy is at work on investment policies. Dr. Wallace’s monograph, Market Control in the Aluminum Industry, is now going to press, and Dr. Abbott’s monograph on The Rise of the Business Corporation has just appeared and is being, used by our undergraduate courses. The full development of this program will take a number of years, but its completion will mark, I believe, a very significant chapter in research in the relation of government to industry.

Another cooperative project on the Farm Credit Administration is being carried on by Professors Black and Harris and Dr. Galbraith, largely with the assistance of grants from the Committee on Research in the Social Sciences. Professor Black is working on the cooperative aspects of the Farm Credit Administration’s policies. Professor Harris is working on the monetary and recovery aspects of the Farm Credit Administration’s loan operations. Dr. Galbraith is working on the structural aspects of the Farm Credit Administration and the mortgage, credit and production loan policies. Numerous articles resulting from this research have been published in scientific periodicals.

Professors Crum, Wilson, and Black are conducting a study of the relation of weather and other natural phenomena with the economic cycle. This study is partly financed by the United States Department of Agriculture.

I believe I have mentioned to you and to President Conant in conversation the plans which are being developed for large research projects in collaboration with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In addition to these cooperative projects all members of the Department are pursuing work along the lines of their individual interests. Professor Schumpeter’s study of time series and cyclical fluctuations is practically completed, and he hopes to send it to press by December. Professor Haberler’s major contribution—The Theory of International Trade and Its Application to Commercial Policy has been translated and is now available in English. For the past two years Professor Haberler has been working at Geneva on the Nature and Causes of the Recurrence of Economic Depressions which is soon to be published by the League of Nations. We are hoping to provide facilities for him so that the important research may be continued at Harvard. Professor Frickey’s study on a Survey of Time Series Analysis and Its Relation to Economic Theory is well advanced. The statistical work on the first volume has been completed, and he hopes to have it written by the middle of this present academic year. The statistical work on the second volume has been completed in part. Already two significant articles have been published. Professor Cole’s recent study in Fluctuations in American Business, written in collaboration with Professor W. B. Smith, was published late in 1935. Dr. Oakes’ investigations in Massachusetts Town Finance, the winner of the Wells Prize for 1935-36, is now being printed. Professor Chamberlin has continued to elaborate his Theory of Monopolistic Competition which is winning wide recognition among economist the world over. Numerous articles, some sixty in number, from members of the staff have appeared in various scientific periodicals in the course of the year.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

[Separate sheet following: I should have included Professor Harris’ Exchange Depreciation, Its Theory and History. We believe that this new book, which is being published today, will take Its place beside the significant contributions Professor Harris has made in the last half-dozen years, particularly his Monetary Problems of the British Empire and Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy.]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 21, 1937

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

Previous reports of the Department of Economics have brought to your attention the effect of the political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research. It is still necessary to point out that the positive responsibility of the Department regarding undergraduate instruction has not lessened.

The election of our undergraduate courses remains at substantially the high level of recent years, while the number of concentrators continues to increase.

Last year I mentioned that with the resignation of Professor Gay the active services of the senior members of this Department, had come to an end. At this point it seems necessary to put into writing a matter I have discussed with you in conversation which has important ramifications. Coincident with the resignation of Professor Gay there were increased elections in certain of our courses that involve a large degree of individual instruction and also on an increase in the number of students demanding tutorial supervision. To meet these latter problems it was necessary to add to our staff a group of young men to carry on the instruction in the elementary course, Accounting, Statistics, Money and Banking, and so on. With increased numbers in courses demanding increased instruction, increased cost cannot be avoided; but it seems to us that this increasing cost because of increasing should not result in less effective intellectual leadership. To transfer a considerable part of the salary released by a retiring professor of distinguished accomplishment to the support of routine instruction in middle group courses seems to us not to be wise University policy.

Professor Taussig has resigned as editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economies. For the time being, committee of the Department will undertake the editorial direction of this publication.

The Review of Economic Statistics, which appears under the direction of a committee of the Department, is financed by funds from the Rockefeller Foundation. Should the grant be continued, it is expected that the research activities of the committee will be increased.

Not less than ten members of the Department are concerned with the activities of the Graduate School of Public Administration. In some instances—as in the case of Dean Williams—their work in the School has been compensated by a reduction of work in the Department, but for the most part the activities in the new School are simply in addition to the duties of the staff members.

The Committee on Research in the Social Sciences, of which Professor Black is Chairman, is working in close cooperation with the National Bureau of Economic Research and its cooperating University agencies. Principle among them is the project upon Fiscal Policy for which Professor Crum is acting as Chairman.

The responsibilities and activities of members of the Department tend in some instances to change the direction of our research, but in only too many instances they also tend to retard our research.

In all directions, however, the research activities of the members of the Department were sustained, with six books and approximately sixty articles appearing. Special mention should he made of the following books:

Three Years of the AAA by John D. Black

A Study of Fluid Milk Prices by John M. Cassels. Wells Prize Essay of 1934-35

Professor Chamberlin’s significant volume, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition has been revised.

Prosperity and Depression by Gottfried Haberler

Exchange Depreciation by S. E. Harris. (Came from the press last fall, and mentioned a year ago.)

Studies in Massachusetts Town Finance by E. E. Oakes. Wells Prize Essay of 1935-36

Professor Schumpeter’s book on Business Cycles has been completed, and is now ready for the press.

Economic History of Europe since 1750 by Usher, Bowden, and Karpovich

Explorations in Economics. Essays in Honor of F. W. Taussig contains contributions by most of the members of the staff.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1938

Dear Dean Birkhoff,

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

As in previous years I am very happy, to be able to record that the research activities of the officers of the Department have been sustained. In the last two years I have been, able to enumerate an unusually large number of books actually published together with numerous contributions to our periodical literature. In the present year the number of volumes is smaller since the research activities of our staff are still in process. The most notable volumes are Professor Hansen’s Full Recovery or Stagnation and Professor Wallace’s Market Control in the Aluminum Industry. Professor Haberler devoted the major part of the year, and spent the summer abroad, revising his Prosperity and Depression. Also the volume by Professor Crum and Associates on Economic Statistics has been revised.

In all, some fifty or sixty periodical contributions have been made by members of the staff. Notable among these contributions have been the articles by Professor Slichter on “The Downturn of 1937” in the Review of Economic Statistics for August, 1938.

It fell to the lot of the officers of this Department, together with the officers of the Department of Government, to develop instruction in the Littauer School of Public Administration during the past year. Without going into the details of the principles upon which this instruction is based, it may be noted that research courses of a very advanced nature constitute the core of the work of the School. Professors Williams, Hansen, Black, Mason, Slichter, and Wallace are devoting a considerable proportion of their time to this work. It is expected and hoped that these activities will result in an increase in our contributions.

The grant of funds from the Rockefeller Foundation to subsidize the research underlying the Review of Economic Statistics expired with the closing of the fiscal year. This contribution made it possible to continue the Review, and to maintain the scholarly level of the contributions. In the course of the year the Review published a number of the contributions of the staff. Other contributions are nearing completion, and will be published in the present year. The accomplishments or Professors Crum and Haberler as Managing Editors of the Review should be noted. They have succeeded in restoring the very high level of scholarship which characterized the Review a decade ago. We believe that the Review in its present form adds materially to the prestige of the Department and the University.

Also I am happy to note that the Quarterly Journal of Economics under its new editorial staff is maintaining its high position.

There is little to be added to the points which have been discussed in previous reports. The Department finds itself fully occupied with the continuation of its traditional activities and the assumption of such new duties as are involved in the Graduate School of Public Administration. If the personnel of the Department remains constant, it will be necessary to reduce our activities, either in research, in teaching, or in both.

Last fall at a dinner of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics I reported in some detail regarding the increasing activities of members of the Department. This report led to the appointment of a committee to investigate the budgetary situation of the Department. The investigation conducted under the direction of Mr. George May of Price, Waterhouse, made some very interesting disclosures regarding the increasing load of the Department.

I believe that problems of undergraduate and graduate instruction, the tutorial situation, and the public service contributions of our members have been discussed sufficiently in previous reports. I can only repeat that “there is little question that the research activities of practically all members of the staff have been curtailed by the heavy loads of teaching and administration.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 16, 1939

Dear Dean Ferguson:

In accord with your recent request, I submit herewith a report of the work by the Department of Economies for the past year.

Honors have been bestowed upon members of the Department as follows: Professor Schumpeter has received an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Sofia, Bulgaria, and Professor Leontief has been elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society. Professor Williams was elected a Vice-President of the American Economic Association.

In the field of publications, the outstanding event is the final appearance of Professor Schumpeter’s two volume work on Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalistic Process. The fruition of years of study and research, this book is of especial interest as the first major work of Professor Schumpeter in the English language, his well-known Theory of Economic Development having appeared first in German before its translation into English much later. Other books actually appearing within the academic year (the fall of 1938) were referred to in our last report, such as Professor Hansen’s Full Recovery or Stagnation?, a revision of the volume on Economic Statistics by Professor Crum and associates, and a new, enlarged and revised edition of Prosperity and Depression by Professor Haberler (published by the League of Nations). During the year arrangements have been completed for the translation into Japanese of A History of Mechanical Inventions by Professor Usher. For some years Professor Emeritus F. W. Taussig has been at work on a thorough-going revision of his textbook on the Principles of Economics. Volume I appeared last spring, Volume 2 is in the press and will appear very shortly. This much needed revision (the last was in 1921) may regain for Professor Taussig’s text some of the preeminence it held in an earlier period before it had become so badly out of date. Politics, Finance and Consequences by Professor Emeritus C. J. Bullock, the result of continuing research since his retirement, has been published during the past year in the Harvard Economic Studies. A book of which Mr. Paul M. Sweezy was a prominent co-author, An Economic Program for American Democracy, is popularly supposed to have been influential in putting the stamp of economic authority upon recent economic policies of the Federal Government. Finally, some sixty-odd articles, addresses, and reviews by members of the Department have appeared in journals, both professional and popular, during the past year.

A matter not mentioned in our last report was a new policy adopted by the Quarterly Journal of Economics of publishing at intervals of approximately one year a series of supplements devoted to articles and studies of interest to scholars but of such length as to make their publication in the regular issues impractical. These supplements are sent to subscribers without charge, and additional copies are sold separately. The first of these appeared in May 1938, Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians by Professor Crum. Two other manuscripts have been accepted and will appear shortly.

The Committee on Problems of the Business Cycle has carried on the publication of the quarterly Review of Economic Statistics but because of the expiration of its grant of research money many of its new research investigation have been greatly curtailed. Quarterly issues of the Review of Economic Statistics, in addition to carrying the studies of current economic history which present a quarterly record of economic statistics for the United States with their interpretation, have published a wide range of articles on various aspects of the trade cycle problem. Several of these articles have been contributed by foreign specialists but more than half were produced by American writers (in this connection we may note that about one-fourth of the subscribers are located abroad). In addition to the normal research activities involved in studying current history the Committee has financed during the year a continuation of the special investigation by Dr. J. B. Hubbard of the remarkable developments in the issuance of securities since 1933. A further article in Dr. Hubbard’s series will appear in the issue of November 1939.

Mention has been made in previous reports of the burden placed upon particular members of the Department and thus upon the group as a whole by the responsibilities of public service. These responsibilities have continued and expanded during the past year. The adjustment of this burden is a pressing problem. Its immediate influence upon both teaching and research is adverse, yet no ready solution appears at hand. The additional burden of uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration presents an even more serious problem. For the most part the seminars and other activities of this School constitute a net additional load for those members of the Department responsible for them, and inevitably throw a heavier burden of administrative and other work upon others not directly concerned. Budgetary allowance for courses given within the School is an obvious answer to this problem, whenever it may become possible.

You have asked, among other things. for an account of “any changes in the methods of instruction”, of the Department. The changes here have been revolutionary. Over a long period of years there has been built up in the Department a staff of trained instructors and tutors, carrying on established traditions of teaching and constantly experimenting in the adaptation of methods to new problems. These men were sifted constantly, and the best of them retained for a substantial period, after which, if not advanced, they were without exception placed to advantage elsewhere. In view of the singular success with which in the past the personnel problem has been handled in Economics, it is not surprising that the Department is unanimous in viewing with dismay and discouragement the situation in which we now find ourselves. Fifteen teachers and tutors at the instructor or assistant professor level have left us within the past year, seven the preceding year. The general effect upon teaching may be indicated by the tutorial situation. Sixty-seven per cent of the students concentrating in Economics this year are tutored by men of two years or less experience, forty-three per cent by men of no tutorial experience whatsoever, Furthermore, it has been our policy in the past to stagger new men as between tutoring and Economics A, having them start in with either one alone and take up the other the following year. This fall we have been obliged to take on five men who are both teaching Economics A and tutoring for the first time. It has been our policy also to provide more experienced instruction in middle group courses through a period of apprenticeship in Economics A. This fall we have been obliged to put men of no classroom experience whatever directly into middle group courses. We are already experiencing in acute form the devastating effects upon instruction of a rapid turnover, brought on by the mass exodus of last year.

It takes time (and patience on the part of someone) to train men in the discussion method of teaching Economics which has been developed with such success in Economics A at Harvard University. Much is learned by slow experience, by making mistakes and by discussing techniques with fellow instructors, especially with those who have been through the mill. It is impossible to assimilate new men unless the collective experience of the group is maintained at a fairly high level. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that anyone in the Department will be interested in training them unless a substantial portion stay long enough to make it worth while.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

I submit herewith a report of the work by the Department of Economics for the past year. There is very little to report—no events or changes of outstanding importance, and only a few isolated items which might be of interest.

Professor Black has been elected to honorary membership in the Swedish Royal Society of Agriculture. Professor Slichter has been honored by appointment as Lamont University Professor.

In the field of publications there is the usual long list of articles in the professional periodicals, but no major work of importance by any member of the Department. Professor Usher’s History of Mechanical Inventions was during the year translated into Japanese. Also in the field of publications it is of interest that there has been begun under the supervision of a committee in the Department and financed in part by a grant from the A. W. Shaw Fund a new series entitled The Harvard Studies in Monopoly and Competition. The first two volumes of this series appeared within the year, — the first, Corporate Size and Earning Power, by Professor W. L. Crum, and the second, Control of Competition in Canada, by Lloyd Reynolds.

The Committee on Problems of the Business Cycle has continued publication of the quarterly Review of Economic Statistics. In place of the general reviews of current economic developments in the United States, which in earlier years had been regular features of each quarterly issue, the Review introduced this past year the policy of presenting each quarter an article pertaining to some specific problem of current interest. The November 1939 issue contained a study of the impact of the war on America commodity prices; the February 1940 number included a study of the current gold problem and the American economy; a review of recent developments in agriculture and the influences of the war on American agriculture appeared in May; while the August 1940 issue presented a comparison and evaluation of various estimates of unemployment in the United States. These studies have been made by members of the Department, with the Committee staff contributing assistance, whenever it was desired, in the preparation of the articles for publication. As in previous years, the Review has also presented articles covering a wide range of studies on various trade cycle problems; and the Review staff has continued the compilation of selected current economic series which have been used in research studies by Department members and graduate student within the Department.

There have been no important changes in policy in the year by the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The policy begun the previous year of publishing occasional supplements sent to subscribers without charge has been continued. Two supplements appeared during the year, Exchange Control in Austria and Hungary and Exchange Control in Germany, both by Professor Howard S. Ellis. Through an arrangement with the Harvard Economic Studies they will shortly appear in that series as a single volume.

During the year Professor Emeritus Frank W. Taussig attained his eightieth birthday. A tribute and greeting was presented to him on this occasion signed by some two hundred of his former students.

I call attention again to the continuing problem of the added burden to members of the Department for uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration. The situation here remains substantially as described in my last report. It remains one of the most serious problems which the Department has to meet in maintaining the standards of its instruction.

The quality of instruction given by the Department continues to suffer from the heavy losses in the junior personnel during the past few years. Sixty-four per cent of the students concentrating in Economics this year are tutored by men of two years or less experience, fifty-five per cent by men of one year or less. The difficulties of maintaining satisfactory instruction with such a rapid turnover remain almost insuperable, and concentration in Economics which has fallen off steadily over the past four years slumped most disastrously for the year 1940-41. Although most of the liquidation of our more experienced instructors and tutors had taken place before the year on which I am reporting, we have during that year again lost a number of our best men because of the limited inducement which could be offered for them to remain with us even for a short period.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1941

Dear Dean Ferguson:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

Professor Slichter has been elected President of the American Economic Association. This is the third time in the past five years that this honor has gone to an economist from Harvard, Professor Sprague having been elected in 1937-38 and Professor Hansen in 1938-39.

In the field of publications there have appeared, in addition to the usual long list of articles, several books of possible importance. I should mention especially Professor Slichter’s Union Policies and Industrial Management, Professor Leontief’s The Structure of American Economy: An Empirical Application of Equilibrium Analysis, and Dr. Triffin’s Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory. The latter appeared in the Harvard Economic Studies of which there have now been published 70 volumes, four within the past year. The new series of Harvard Studies in Monopoly and Competition has been augmented by two new volumes during the past year, bringing the total to four. Professor Usher’s History of Mechanical Inventions has again been translated, this time into Spanish. During the past year an arrangement was made with the Rockefeller Foundation (for the current year only) which if continued may prove to be of real importance to the members of our Department. Professor Crum has been relieved of one-half of his teaching duties for research through the payment by the Foundation of the salary of someone to replace him in his teaching assignment. In addition to providing possibilities for research to members of the Department, such an arrangement would have the added advantage of making it possible to invite to Harvard for short period either possible candidates for permanent appointments or others whose presence here for one year would prove stimulating to our students.

Again I call attention to the problem of the added burden to members of the Department for uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration. This has been from the beginning a serious matter in maintaining standards of instruction. It is especially a factor in concentrating the activities of the older members of the Department in the graduate field, leaving undergraduate instruction to be taken care of in undue degree by younger men whose experience on the average seems to decline further each year.

The quality of instruction by the junior staff continues to be a grave concern to our Department. Last year I mentioned that 64 per cent of the students concentrating in Economics were tutored by men of two years or less experience. This year the percentage has increased to 72, and the problem of finding enough experienced and competent tutors in the right fields for distinction seniors has become impossible to solve. The general situation is reflected also in Economics A where the percentage of new instructors has jumped alarmingly for the current year. For the five years 1936-41 the sections taught by new men averaged 24 per cent of the total. For the current year 39 per cent of the sections are taught by new men. For the same five years the sections taught by men of one year or less experience averaged 45 per cent of the total. For the current year this figure has advanced to 61 per cent. The large volume of complaints on the part of students as to the inexperience of their tutors and Economics A section instructors leaves no doubt in the minds of the Department that the continuing decline in concentration in Economies is mainly a reflection of this situation. In view of the competing opportunities for our younger men which have repeatedly been pointed out the problem for our Department continues to be not to maintain a high rate of turnover as the present rules of tenure seem designed to do, but to be able through more flexible arrangements both with respect to tenure and to salaries to maintain a staff sufficiently experienced to give satisfactory instruction to our undergraduates. Such instruction is clearly not being given at the present time.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

Image Source: Harold Hitchings Burbank from the Harvard Class Album 1934.