Tag: Gill

Categories
Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Junior Year Seminar/Tutorial Reading Assignments. Caves, 1964-1965

The evolution of the Harvard tutorial system as an integral aspect of its undergraduate economics program is a subject worthy of a long essay. For now we simply add the following snapshot of the “Tutorial for Credit, Junior Year” that Richard Caves had been tasked to reform when he joined the Harvard faculty in the 1962-63 academic year. This post provides the reading lists for the third iteration of Caves’ seminar/tutorial model that replaced the earlier lecture/tutorial model.

As far as content goes, the 1964-65 version of Economics 98 can be seen to have attempted an ambitious, advanced intermediate coverage of mainstream micro- and macroeconomics.

Harvard’s Memorial Minute for Richard Earl Caves (1931-2019).

____________________________

Course Announcement

*Economics 98a. Tutorial for Credit — Junior Year

Half course (fall term). Tu., 2-4, and tutorial meetings to be arranged. Professor Caves, Assistant Professor T. A. Wilson, Dr. Brunt and other Members of the Department.

*Economics 98b. Tutorial for Credit — Junior Year

Half course (spring term). Tu., 2-4, and tutorial meetings to be arranged. Professor Caves, Assistant Professor T. A. Wilson, Dr. Brunt and other Members of the Department.

Economics 98a will deal with micro-economic and 98b with macro-economic theories and policies. These seminars will serve as preparation for more specialized training in their subject matter in Group IV graduate and undergraduate courses. Economics 98a and 98b are required of all honors candidates and are open to non-honors candidates with the permission of the instructor.

The courses will consist of both seminar and tutorial, normally with one seminar and one tutorial session a week.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction for Harvard and Radcliffe, 1964-1965, p. 106.

____________________________

Harvard Crimson Article on the New Junior Seminars
May 16, 1962

Ec. 98 Will Be Taught in Small Seminar Units
Lecture Format Found Unwieldy

By Richard B. Ruge

The Economics Department announced yesterday that four seminar-groups of approximately 20 students each will replace the once weekly lectures in Ec. 98, or tutorial for credit, and that an associate professor at the University of California has been appointed to head the new junior tutorial program.

John T. Dunlop, chairman of the Department, said that increased enrollment in 98 had made lecture presentation of the subject matter — the central core of economic concepts — ineffective. Since Gill Plan opened tutorial for credit all concentrators, the number of students in the course has jumped to 80.

Dunlop declared that the use of two-hour, smaller seminar discussion groups meeting once a week is “more properly the spirit of tutorial, will improve a level of instruction, and will allow the students and professors to develop their own interests more thoroughly and participate in good give-and-take discussions.”

The seminars will split into smaller groups of four of five students, meeting once a week for 90 minutes to present and discuss papers. These groups will focus on the major aspect of economic thought considered in the larger seminars.

Caves to Head Program

Heading the program will be [Richard] Caves, who will become professor of economics on July 1. An expert on industrial organization, Caves worked on a new foreign trade program as deputy special assistant to the President in 1961. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard before joining the faculty at California.

Source: The Harvard Crimson, May 16, 1962.

____________________________

Tutorial Assignments for Ec 98a Fall 1964

Harvard University
Department of Economics

Economics 98a
List of Suggested Tutorial Assignments
August 17, 1964

This list includes items which tutors may find helpful as assignments for discussion in tutorial sections, bases for small projects or papers, and the like. Many but not all have been used successfully for these purposes in the past. A few items contain mathematical or statistical complexities that make them suitable only for students with special backgrounds. Make sure that you check any item before using it.

If time permits, a more complete list will be prepared and issued at the beginning of the semester. Suggestions for additions from the tutors would be appreciated, as would reports of adverse experiences with any of the following items.

R.E.C.

  1. Consumer behavior [sic, “1. Introduction” not included here]

Becker, Gary S., “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, February, 1962, 1-13

Houthakker, H.S., “An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns, Commemorating the Centenary of Engel’s Law,” Econometrica October, 1957, 532-551

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletins on Demand Analysis, No. 1253 (meat), 1168 (dairy products), 1136 (wheat)

Alchian, A., “The Meaning of Utility Measurement,” American Economic Review, March, 1953, 26-50

Ellsberg, D., “Classic and Current Notions of Messurable Utility,” Economic Journal, September, 1954, 528-556

Friedman, M., and L.J,. Savage, “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Am. Econ. Assn., Readings in Price Theory, chap. 3

  1. Theory of the firm

Hirshleifer, J., “An Exposition of the Equilibrium of the Firm: Symmetry between Product and Factor Analyses,” Economica, August, 1962, 263-268

Scott, R.H., “Inferior Factors of Production,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1962, 86-97

Apel, H., “Marginal Cost Constancy and Its Implications,” American Economic Review, December, 1948, 870-886

Hitch, C.J., and R.N. McKean, The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age, chaps. 7, 8

Cookenboo, Leslie, Jr., Crude Oil Pipe Lines and Competition in the Oil Industry, chap. 1

F.T. Moore, “Economies of Scale: Some Statistical Evidence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1959, 232-245; also discussion August, 1960, 493-499

Alexander, Sidney, “The Effect of Size of Manufacturing Corporation on the Distribution of the Rate of Return,” Review of Economics and Statistics, August, 1949, 229-235

Johnston, J., Statistical Cost Analysis, chap. 4 (secs, 1, 3, 4); chap. 5; chap. 6 (pp. 186-194)

Staehle, Hans, “Measurement of Statistical Cost Functions,” American Economic Review, June, 1942; Readings in Price Theory, chap. 13

Eiteman, W.J., and G.E. Guthrie, “The Shape of the Average Cost Curve,” American Economic Review, December, 1952, 832-839

Hall and Hitch, “Price Theory and Business Behavior,” in T. Wilson, ed., Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism

Earley, J.S., “Recent Developments in Cost Accounting and the ‘Marginal Analysis’,” Journal of Political Economy, June, 1955, 227-242

Earley, J.S., “Marginal Policies of ‘Excellently Managed Companies,” American Economic Review, March, 1956, 44-70

Grayson, C.J., Decisions under Uncertainty, pp. 233-278

  1. Competitive product and factor markets

Vernon L. Smith, “An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, April, 1962, 111-137

Ezekiel, M., “The Cobweb Theorem,” Am, Econ, Assn., Readings in Business Cycle Theory, chap. 21

Richardson, G.B., Information and Investment.

Friedman, M., Price Theory: A Provisional Text, chaps, 7-9

Lester, R.A., and Machlup, F., marginalist controversy, reprinted in R.V. Clemence, ed., Readings in Economic Analysis, Vol. 2, chaps, 6-9

Bachmura, F.T., “Man-Land Equalization through Migration,” American Economic Review, December, 1959, 1004-1017

  1. General equilibrium and welfare

Stone, Richard, and G. Croft-Murray, Social Accounting and Economic Models, chaps. 1-3

Lange, Oscar, On the Economic Theory of Socialism, B. Lippincott, ed.

Hirshleifer, J. et al., Water Supply: Economics, Technology, and Policy, chap. 8

Nelson, J.R., ed., Marginal Cost Pricing in Practice, chaps. 1, 2, 3, 5 (skip pp. 110-123), 6, 7

  1. Imperfect competition: product markets
    1. Monopoly

Neale, Walter C., “The Peculiar Economics of Professional Sports,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1964, 1-14

Olson, M., and D. McFarland, “The Restoration of Pure Monopoly and the Concept of the Industry,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November, 1962, 613-631

Wallace, D.H., Market Control in the Aluminum Industry, Part II

Davidson, R.K., Price Discrimination in Selling Gas and Electricity

    1. Monopolistic competition

Stigler, G.J., Five Lectures on Economic Problems, Lecture 2

Chamberlin, E.H., Towards a More General Theory of Value, chap. 15

    1. Oligopoly

Peck, M.J., Competition in the Aluminum Industry, 1945-1948

Markham, J., Competition in the Rayon Industry

Weiss, L.W., Economics and American Industry, chaps, 7, 8

Modigilani, F., “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” Journal of Political Economy, June, 1958, 215-232

Shubik, M., “A Game Theorist Looks at the Antitrust Laws and the Automobile Industry,” Stanford Law Review, July, 1956

Marris, Robin, “A Model of the ‘Managerial’ Enterprise,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1963, 185-209

  1. Imperfect, competition: factor markets

Fellner, W.J., “Prices and Wages under Bilateral Monopoly,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1947, 503-532

Segal, Martin, “The Relation between Union Wage Impact and Market Structure,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1964, 115-128

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Harvard University
Department of Economics

DRAFT Reading List
Economics 98a
Fall Term, 1964

Students will be requested to purchase W.J.L. Ryan, Price Theory (London: Macmillan, 1958). Seminars may vary in the extent that they depend on Ryan for the basic exposition of micro theory. The following list assumes complete dependence on Ryan. Other readings are very tentatively included, and the list probably errs on the side of containing too much.

  1. Introduction

Lange, Oscar, “The Scope and Method of Economics,” in Arleigh P. Hess et al., Outside Readings in Economics, pp. 1-20

Knight, Frank, The Economic Organization, pp. 3-66

    1. Consumer behavior

Ryan, chaps. 1, 6

Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book III (or a textbook treatment of utility theory, such as D.S. Watson, Price Theory and Its Uses, chaps 4, 5)

One of the following:

Duesenberry, James S., Income. Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, pp. 6-39

Leibenstein, H., “Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects In the Theory of Consumers’ Demand,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1950, 183-207

Frisch, Ragnar, “Some Basic Principles of Cost of Living Measurements,” Econometrica, October, 1954, 407-421

Fisher, Irving, The Theory of Interest, pp. 61-124.

  1. Theory of the firm

Ryan, chaps. 2, 3

Chamberlin, E.H., The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Appendix B

Dean, Joel, Managerial Economics, pp. 257-313

Universities—National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, Business Concentration and Price Policy, pp. 213-238

Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, pp. 4-21, 26-43

Bierman, Harold, and S. Smidt, The Capital Budgeting Decision, chaps, 1-6, 9

  1. Competitive product and factor markets

Ryan, Chap, 4

Chamberlin, chap. 2

Marshall, Book V, chaps. 1-5; Book IV, chap. 13

Working, E.J., “What Do Statistical Demand Curves Show?”, in American Economic Association, Readings in Price Theory, chap. 4

Robinson, Joan, “Rising Supply Price,” Readings in Price Theory, pp. 233-241

    1. General equilibrium and welfare

Ryan, chap. 9

Boulding, Kenneth, “Welfare Economics,” in B.F. Haley, ed, for American

Economic Association, A Survey of Contemporary Economics, pp. 1-34

Bator, Francis M., “The Simple Analytics of Welfare Maximization,” American Economic Review,March, 1957, 22-44 (omit 44-59)

Scitovsky, Tibor, “Two Concepts of External Economies,” Journal of Political Economy, April, 1954, 143-151

McKean, R.N., Efficiency In Government through Systems Analysis, chaps, 1-5 (or something else on benefit-cost analysis)

  1. Imperfect competition: Product markets

Ryan, chap. 9

    1. Monopoly

Ryan, chap. 10

Bain, Joe S., Price Theory, pp. 208-247

Weiss, L.W., Economics and American Industry, chap. 5

    1. Monopolistic competition

Chamberlin, chaps. 1, 4, 5

Triffin, Robert, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, pp. 78-89

Weiss, chap. 9

    1. Oligopoly

Ryan, chap. 11

Fellner, William, Competition Among the Few, chap. 1

Sweezy, Paul, “Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly,” Readings in Price Theory, chap. 20

Bain, pp. 297-332

Duesenberry, James S., Business Cycles and Economic Growth, chap. 6

Baumol, W.J., Business Behavior, Value, and Growth, pp. 27-32, 45-46

  1. Imperfect competition: factor markers

Chamberlin, chap. 8

Dunlop, John T., “Wage Policies of Trade Unions,” American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, chap. 19

Cartter, A.M., Theory of Wages and Employment, chaps. 7, 8

Friedman, Milton, “Some Comments on the Significance of Labor Unions for Economic Policy,” The Impact of the Union, D. McC. Wright, ed., pp 204-234

____________________________

Tutorial Assignments for Ec 98b Spring 1965

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Economics 98b
Reading List
Spring Term, 1965

All selections listed below should be considered as assigned, although the leaders of Individual seminars may choose either to add or subtract items. Students may wish to purchase Gardner Ackley, Macroeconomic Theory (New York: Macmillan, 1961), which will be assigned in part, especially at the beginning of the semester, and will serve as a general reference for issues which arise during the course. R.C.O. Matthews, The Business Cycle, will also be used extensively.

  1. Introduction of macro-economics (two weeks)
    1. The national income

Gardner Ackley, Macroeconomic Theory, chaps. 1-4.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, July, 1964, pp. 7-40.

S. Rosen, National Income, pp. 172-187.

    1. Prices and employment: pre-Keynesian background

Ackley, pp. 105-167.

  1. Income and employment determination (seven weeks)
    1. Effective demand

J.M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, chaps. 1, 2.

A.H. Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, pp. 25-35.

P. Wells, “Aggregate Demand and Supply: An Explanation of Chapter III of the General Theory,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXVIII (Nov., 1962), pp. 585-59.

    1. Consumption function and the multiplier

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, pp. 67-85.

J.S. Duesenberry, Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, chaps. 3, 5,

J. Tobin, “Relative Income, Absolute Income, and Saving,” Money, Trade and Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of J.H. Williams, pp. 135-156.

M. Friedman, A Theory of the Consumption Function, 220-229, 233-239.

Ackley, chap. 10.

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, pp. 86-114.

A.H. Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income, chap. 12.

W.J. Baumol and M.H. Peston, “More on the Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget,” American Economic Review, XLV (March, 1955), 140-148.

    1. Investment

Keynes, chap. 11.

Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income, chap. 9.

J.M. Clark, “Business Acceleration and the Law of Demand: A Technical Factor in Economic Cycles,” in American Economic Association, Readings in Business Cycle Theory, chap, 11.

R.C.O. Matthews, The Business Cycle, , chaps. 3-5.

J.S. Duesenberry, Business Cycles and Economic Growth, chaps. 4, 5.

J.R. Meyer and R. Glauber, Investment Decisions, Economic Forecasting, and Public Policy, pp. 1-22.

    1. Interest

Keynes, pp. 165-185, 195-209.

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, chap. 6.

L.R. Klein, The Keynesian Revolution, pp. 117-123.

    1. The Keynesian system

Keynes, pp. 257-271.

H.G. Johnson, Money, Trade and Economic Growth, chap. 5.

V. L. Smith, “A Graphical Exposition of the Complete Keynesian System,” Southern Economic Journal, XXIII (October, 1956), 115-125.

Ackley, chap. 15.

D. Patinkin, “Keynesian Economics Rehabilitated: A Rejoinder,” Economic Journal, LXIV (Sept.,1959), pp. 582-587.

D. Patinkin, “Price Flexibility and Full Employment,” American Economic Association, Readings in Monetary Theory, pp. 252-283

A.P. Lerner, “Comment,” American Economic Review, LI (May, 1961), pp. 20-23.

  1. Models of growth, fluctuations, and inflation (three weeks)
    1. Economic growth and fluctuations

Duesenberry, Business Cycles and Economic Growth, chap, 2.

W.J. Baumol, Economic Dynamics, chaps. 2, 3.

Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income, chap. 11.

D.B. Suits, “Forecasting and Analysis with an Econometric Model,” American Economic Review, LII (March, 1962), 104-132 (pp. 118-31 optional).

Matthews, chaps. 2, 13.

    1. Inflation

A.C.L. Day and S.T. Beza, Money and Income, chaps. 19-21.

Keynes, pp. 292-304.

M. Friedman, “Some Comments on the Significance of Labor Unions in Economic Policy,” Impact of the Union, D. McC. Wright, ed., 204-234.

S. Slichter, “Do the Wage-Fixing Arrangements in the American Labor Market Have an Inflationary Bias?” American Economic Review, XLIV (May, 1954), pp. 322-346.

C. Schultze, Recent Inflation in the United States (Study paper No. 1, Employment, Growth and Price Levels), pp. 1-77. Joint Economic Committee

O. Eckstein and T.A. Wilson, “Determination of Money Wages in American Industry,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXVI (August, 1962), 379-409.

    1. Coordinating Policy for Growth and Stability

J. Tinbergen, Economic Policy: Principles and Design, pp. 1-37.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 8, Folder “Economics 1964-1965 (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Harvard Square, 1961. From the Cambridge Historical Commission, image in the Photo Morgue Collection. Online: Digital Commonwealth.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Basic graduate microeconomic theory. Chamberlin and Samuelson, 1956-1957

 

For some reason, Paul Samuelson was asked to help out with the teaching of Edward H. Chamberlin’s graduate theory course during the 1956-57 academic year. In Paul Samuelson’s papers at Duke I was able to find a letter from the Harvard economics chair, Seymour Harris, confirming his appointment as “Visiting Professor” for co-teaching Economics 201. The actual “allocation of subject matter” between Chamberlin and Samuelson is not clear from Samuelson’s papers, nor from the course outlines. Since the second semester reading list only has Chamberlin’s name on it, it seems likely that Samuelson’s participation was limited to the first semester of the course. Because Robert Bishop’s manuscript on Economic Theory (taught to generations of M.I.T. graduate students) was included in the first section of the fall semester reading list and we find questions for a one hour mid-term exam in Samuelson’s folder for the course, I am led to conjecture that Samuelson taught most or all of the first half of the fall semester of the course. As we can see from the internal M.I.T. department teaching records included below, Paul Samuelson continued teaching his courses at “Tech” that year.

Perhaps a future trip to Duke University’s David M. Rubenstein Rare Book Manuscript Library  to consult the Edward H. Chamberlin papers that were donated in 2019 will help to establish why Samuelson was needed at Harvard that year.

_________________________

Letter from Chairman Seymour Harris to Paul Samuelson
May 25, 1956

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

May 25, 1956

Professor Paul A. Samuelson
Department of Economics and Social Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

Dear Paul:

Economics 201 meets Tuesday, Thursday, and at the pleasure of the instructor Saturday at 10. It would be hard to change that hour because of the arrangement of other courses, and also because we must have the same hour for the second semester.

I hope that you would get together with Ed and discuss the allocation of subject matter. You can have [Richard] Gill as an assistant, and he would, I am sure, be willing to meet the class once a week when you think it necessary. You will find him a most adequate assistant.

I may add that the Dean has agreed to recommend your appointment as a Visiting Professor, which is an unusual appointment, for most appointments of this kind, inclusive of Tech, are Visiting Lecturers. This suggests the high regard in which we hold you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SEH/c
cc: Professor Chamberlin

P.S. I hope you will remember to bring my article on Saturday and any comments.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Paul Samuelson, Box 33, Folder “Ec201 Harvard Course, 1955-1956 [sic]”.

_________________________

From the M.I.T. economics department records for 1955-56

Paul Samuelson was teaching full time 1956-57. He taught Economics and Industrial Management (14.117) and Mathematical Approach to Economics (14.151) in the fall semester and Economic Analysis (14.122) and Economics Seminar (14.192) in the Spring semester.

Source:  M.I.T. Archives. M.I.T. Department of Economics Records, 1947—. Box 3, Folder “Teaching Responsibility”.

_________________________

Enrollment figures from Harvard President’s Report

[Economics] 201. Economic Theory. Professor Chamberlin and Professor Samuelson (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Full course.

(F) Total 38: 26 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 4 Radcliffe, 5 Others.
(S) Total 39: 27 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 3 Radcliffe, 6 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1956-1957, p. 70.

_________________________

Economics 201
Economic Theory
Fall 1956
READING LIST

I. Supply, Demand, Revenue and Cost

Marshall, Principles (4th edition or later), Book III, Ch. 3, 4, 6

Mill, Principles, Book III, Ch. 1-6

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 2

Schultz, H., Theory and Measurement of Demand, pp. 5-12

Bishop, Economic Theory Ms., Book II, Ch. 1, 2, 3

Viner, Cost Curves and Supply Curves (1930), AFA or Clemence Readings

Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch. 2

Suggested:

Ricardo, Political Economy (Gonner Edition or Sraffa Edition), Chapter I

Mills’ Autobiography or the Introduction to the Ashley edition of the Principles

Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, Chapters 3, 4

Keynes, “Alfred Marshall,” Economic Journal, September 1924 (Also in Keynes, Essays in Biography)

II. Production and Consumption Analysis

A. Production and Cost

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 8, Appendix B

Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, pp. 94-109.

Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories, Introduction

Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 7, 8

Suggested:

Douglas, P. Theory of Wages

Hicks, Value and Capital, Chs. 6, 7

Carlson, Sune, Theory of Production

Cassels, J. H, “On the Law of Variable Proportions,” in Explorations in Economics, essays in honor of Taussig

Schneider, E., Pricing and Equilibrium

B. Utility and Consumption Theory

Hicks, Value and Capital, Chs. 1, 2, 3

Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 5, 6

III. Welfare Economics

Boulding, K., “Welfare Economics,” Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. II

Hicks, J.R., “Foundations of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal, 1939

Pigou, A.C., Economics of Welfare, Preface, Part I., Chs. 3, 7, 8; Part II, Introductory, Ch. 9

Lerner, A. P., Economics of Control, Chs. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9

Source: Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003”, Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1956-1957 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

Economics 201
Hour Exam
November 3, 1956

  1. Define “external” and “internal” economies. What do we mean when we say these economies are (a) “pecuniary,” (b) technological”? (10 min.)
  2. What are the conditions of stable equilibrium of supply and demand as analyzed by (a) Walras and (b) Marshall? Explain the “apparent contradiction” between the Walrasian and Marshallian stability conditions. (20 min.)
  3. In the “Ricardian increasing cost” case, as described by Viner, what would be the effect on price, output, and rent to the fixed factor, of a tax of “x” cents per unit of output? Illustrate graphically. (20 min.)

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Paul Samuelson, Box 33, Folder “Ec201 Harvard Course, 1955-1956 [sic]”.

_________________________

1956-57
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Economics 201
Midyear examination. January, 1957.

Answer the first two (2) questions and any three (3) of the others. Be sure to allocate your time approximately as indicated.

  1. (Forty-five minutes). Assume two individuals (who act as pure competitors) and two commodities. Given the “production-possibility” or “transformation” curve for each individual and also his indifference map, indicate graphically: a) the equilibrium price; b) the equilibrium quantities of each good produced by each individual; and c) the quantity of each good exchanged.
  2. (Forty-five minutes). Discuss the scope and limitations of “Welfare Economics.” Illustrate your discussion with reference to one or two specific theoretical problems (e.g., the box-diagram).
  3. (One-half hour). A production function relates product (Q) to two factors, labor (L) and capital (C). Distinguish the “three stages” for each factor, and give an interrelations among them in a) the case of constant returns to scale (homogeneous production function) and b) the general case.
  4. (One-half hour). Distinguish “internal” and “external” economies and analyze the possibility of equilibrium under pure competition in each case.
  5. (One-half hour). A monopolistic firm can buy labor and land at fixed prices but sells its output in an impurely-competitive market. Now let it be subject to a tax of $X per unit of its output. On the oversimplified assumption that the tax leaves its factor prices, the consumer demand for its product, and its production function unchanged, compare the new equilibrium of output, price, and factor hirings with the old.
  6. (One-half hour). Define the “income” effect and “substitution” effect of a price change. Indicate, in terms of these effects, the likelihood of a) a backward-bending supply curve, and b) a positively-sloping demand curve.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 25. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. January, 1957.

_________________________

A twitter prayer.

_________________________

Economics 201
Spring Term, 1956-57
Economic Theory—Professor Chamberlin

I. Monopoly and Monopolistic Competition

Chamberlin, Monopolistic Competition, Chapters 1, 4,5, 9.

_________, “Monopolistic Competition Revisited,” Economica, November 1951.

Robinson, J., Imperfect Competition, Foreword, Introduction, Chapter 1.

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 3, Appendix A.

Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium T-heory, pp. 78-108.

Hall and Hitch, “Price Theory and Business Behavior,” Oxford Economic Papers, No. 2 (1939). (Also in Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism, T. Wilson, Editor).

Chamberlin, “‘Full Cost’ and Monopolistic Competition,” Economic Journal, May 1952.

_________, “The Product as an Economic Variable,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1953.

Monopolistic Competition, Appendix C, Chapters 6, 7.

Chamberlin, “Product Heterogeneity and Public Policy,” American Economic Review, May 1950.

Suggested:

Robinson, J., Imperfect Competition, Chapters 3-7.

Fellner, Competition Among the Few, Chapters 1-7.

Holton, Richard H., “Marketing Structure and Economic Development,” Q.J.E., August 1953.

Alsberg, C. L., “The Economic Aspects of Adulteration and Imitation,” Q.J.E., 46:1 (1931)

Brems, “The Interdependence of Quality Variations, Selling Effort, and Price,” Q.J.E., May 1948.

II. Income Distribution—General; Wages.

Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, 3.

Marshall, Principles, Book VI, Chapters 1-2.

Hicks, Theory of Wages, Chapters 1-4.

Readings, 12.

Monopolistic Competition, Review Chapter 8 and pp. 215-18, 249-52, (5th or later edition).

Hicks, Chapters 5, 6.

Marshall, Book VI, Chapters 3-5.

Taussig, Principles, 4th edition, Chapter 52 (or 3rd revised edition, Chapter 47).

E.H.C., “The Monopoly Power of Labor,” in The Impact of the Union.

Readings, 19.

Hicks, pp. 170-185.

Suggested:

1. Douglas, Theory of Wages, Chapter 2.

2. J.B. Clark, Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 7, 8, 12, 13.

III. Interest

Böhm-Bawerk, Positive Theory, Book I, Chapter 2; Book II; Book V.

Marshall, Principles, Book IV, Chapter 7; Book VI, Chapter 6.

Wicksell, Lectures, Vol. I, pp. 144-171, 185-195, 207-218.

Clark, J.B., Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 9, 20.

Suggested:

Fisher, I., Theory of Interest, Chapters 5, 6.

Readings, Chapters 20, 21.

IV. Rent

Ricardo, Chapter 2.

Marshall, Book V, Chapters 8-11.

Robinson, Imperfect Competition, Chapter 8.

V. Profits

Marshall, Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 7; Chapters 7,8.

Taussig, Principles  (4th edition), Vol. II, Chapter 49, Section 1 (3rd revised edition, Chapter 50, Section 1)

Veblen, Theory of Business Enterprise, Chapter 3.

Henderson, Supply and Demand Chapter 7.

Bernstein, P., “Profit Theory—Where Do We Go From Here?” Q.J.E., August 1953

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 5, Section 6; Chapter 7, Section 6; Appendices D, E.

Schumpeter, Theory of Economic Development, Chapters 1-4.

Suggested:

1. Readings, 27, 29.

Source: Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003”, Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1956-1957 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 201
Final Examination
May, 1957

A. Choose two of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

  1. Write a brief article on the subject of “oligopoly” designed for an encyclopedia of the social sciences, and therefore to be consulted and used mainly by non-specialists in the subject. (Consider well your objective before you begin.)
  2. Discuss excess capacity in the economy, its meaning and its compatibility with “equilibrium.” What are the chief forces tending (a) to bring about, and (b) to eliminate, excess capacity?
  3. (a) Discuss the issues involved in distinguishing between production costs and selling costs, and defend your own conclusions. (b) Are selling outlays, like production outlays, subject to the law of diminishing returns? Discuss, and illustrate your conclusion graphically.

B. Choose four of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

  1. “It is inappropriate to say that the marginal productivity of a certain type of labor determines its wage; wages, like the prices of all economic goods, are determined by both supply and demand.” Discuss with particular reference to the role of supply factors in an adequate theory of wages.
  2. Develop the role which you would give to either (a) monopoly, or (b) rent, in your own theory of wages.
  3. “Waiting is certainly not an element of the economic process in a static state, because the circular flow, once established, leaves no gaps between outlay or productive effort and the satisfaction of wants. Both are, following Professor Clark’s conclusive expression, automatically synchronized.” Discuss the several aspects of this quotation.
  4. Outline your own theory of land rent, with some critical discussion of writers with whom you are familiar. (Restrict your discussion to the problem of land income, without extending the analysis to other factors.)
  5. Write on risk as an element in the theory of profits, choosing such subdivisions or aspects of the problem as seem to you most significant. In what respects, if at all, would you regard a risk theory of profits as inadequate?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. June, 1957. In bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences—June 1957 (HUL 7000.28, 113 of 284).

Image Sources:

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, Edward H. Chamberlin, Fellow 1958.

M.I.T., Paul Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service.  Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

 

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

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

 

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

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

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

________________________

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

The Harvard Crimson, November 14, 1959

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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