Tag: Harberger

Categories
Econometrics Exam Questions Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins. Final Exams for “Econometrics”. Christ and Harberger, 1951-1952

 If you have ever wondered why the journal Econometrica has always published much content with next to no “econometrics” (in the sense of mathematical statistics with special application to economics), the final exams for the Johns Hopkins graduate course “Econometrics” taught by Carl Christ and Arnold Harberger in 1951-52 provide us with a ready explanation. We can see that their course offered a combination of mathematical modeling and econometrics, narrowly defined. At mid-20th century economists regarded “econometrics” as the union of mathematical economics and mathematical statistics rather than as the intersection of the two fields.

Fun fact: Marc Nerlove, who entered the Johns Hopkins graduate program in economics in 1952, was in Carl Christ’s econometrics course. This fact and the photo of Christ and Harberger come from Nerlove’s note included on the In Memoriam page for Carl Christ (1923-2017).

________________________

EXAMINATION
ECONOMETRICS

Friday, January 25, 1952 — 2-5 p.m.

Dr. Christ
Dr. Harberger

  1. A monopolist produces Z goods, X1 and X2, under constant unit costs C1 and C2 respectively. The demands for his products are

x1 = x10 – a11 (P1 – C1) – a12 (P2 – C2)
x2 = x20 – a21 (P1 – C1) – a22 (P2 – C2)

Find the Outputs of X1 and X2 which the monopolist will produce in order to maximize profits. What condition on the a’s must be satisfied if your solution is to reflect a true maximum?

  1. Prove Euler’s theorem for homogeneous functions of the first degree.
  2. Consider the utility functions

(1) U1 = ху
(2) U2 = logex + logey

For each function state:

      1. whether the marginal utility of each good is increasing, decreasing, or constant.
      2. whether the marginal utility of one good is independent of the amount of the other good consumed.
      3. the demand functions of a person having a fixed income.

What conclusions do your results suggest?

  1. Two countries. A and B, produce export commodities XA and XB at constant cost in local currency. Income in each country is stabilized by government policy, and the demand for imports depends solely on the local-currency price of imports. The exchange rate is normally fixed, but is subject to change by policy action. Assume Country A, in an initial equilibrium of the system, does not receive as much foreign currency as it has to pay for the imports its citizens demand. What are the conditions under which the gap between its receipts and expenditures of foreign currency can be decreased by devaluation? Do these same conditions apply to the gap between receipts and expenditures expressed in its own currency?
  2. Factor A is the only factor used by a monopolist, who produces good X. The suppliers of factor A always demand a constant percentage of the product price p as their unit price. At, this price they are willing to supply unlimited amounts of A.
      1. Assume returns to scale are constant. What output will the monopolist produce? Is thin output any different from that he would produce if A were free good.
      2. Assume returns to scale are decreasing. What output will the monopolist produce? Compare your present result with your answer to (a).

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

ECONOMETRICS 633-34
Final Examination

Thursday, May 22, 1952
  1. Define
      1. exogenous variable
      2. overidentified equation
      3. consistency
      4. likelihood function
      5. condensed likelihood function
  2. Suppose the actual supply and demand equations for 2 goods X1 and X2 are as follows (where p1 and p2 are their respective prices, and income Y and wage rate w are exogenous):

S1:           X1 = 3p1 – 6w + 1

D1:           X1 = 2p1 – 5p2 + Y + 2

S2:           X2 = 7p2 – 8w +3

D2:           X2 = 4p1 – 4p2 + 2Y +4

State whether each equation is identified.

  1. Given that y = ax + b + u, where a is an independent variable, u is a random normal disturbance with mean 0 and constant variance σ2, and a and b are parameters. Derive the maximum likelihood estimates of a, b, and σ2 based on N observations on the pair of variables x and y.
  2. What assumptions must you make and what data do you need in order to obtain limited-information maximum-likelihood estimates of the following equation:

C= α Y + β C-1 + γ

where C and Y are real consumption and disposable income, respectively.

  1. The output of each of n industries (excluding households) is produced by a given process requiring fixed proportions of inputs of the other n-1 commodities. If these proportions are known and if a final-demand bill of goods is specified, how are the total outputs of the n industries determined?
  2. It has been asserted that the materials restrictions imposed on durable goods manufactures after Korea, while limiting the output of durable goods well below the level of 1950, did not reduce the quantities sold to a point below what they would have been in the absence of the restrictions. This assertion is supported by empirical evidence is the form of the observed accumulation of manufacturers’ and dealers’ inventories and of some price-cutting in 1951-52. Can you think of any way whereby back in 1950 you could have anticipated these developments? To answer this question, what empirical data would you seek and how would you use it, with respect to consumer durables generally or to any particular durable good?

Source: Johns Hopkins University. Eisenhower Library, Ferdinand hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 6, Series 7, Subseries 1, Box 3/1, Folder “Department of Political Economy, Graduate Exams 1933-1965.”

Image Source: Department of Economics, Johns Hopkins University. Webpage “In Memoriam – Carl Christ (1923-2017).” Carl Christ and Arnold Harberger at the Johns Hopkins conference in honor of Marc Nerlove, 2014.

Categories
Chicago Development

Chicago. Economic Development as a special field. Harberger, D. Gale Johnson, Hoselitz. ca. mid-1950s

Arnold Harberger

 

While the following report found in George Stigler’s papers at the University of Chicago archives is undated, it appears to have been written sometime soon after Arnold Harberger’s appointment in 1954. This is consistent with the sections of T. W. Schultz’s memo to the Dean Chancy D. Harris dated 22 September 1955 that deal with Economic Development.

[…]

  1. The broad area of Economic Development requires major attention and it should be placed high on our agenda as we develop plans and staff during the next few years:
    1. This area is needed to serve especially graduate students from foreign countries.
    2. The economic problems are important to the U.S. scene also.
    3. The Research Center for Economic Development and Cultural Change and importantly the “Journal” it has established need to be drawn into this new effort.
    4. Major new research resources are required.

[…]

Some Concrete Steps

[…]

  1. To establish the new enterprise now contemplated in Economic Development about $50,000 a year appears essential.In this area, a professorship, a visiting professor for each of the next several years, complementary staff, student research in a workshop and support for the Journal “Economic Development and Cultural Change.”

Cf. “Salt-water” Development Economics at the time:

Development economics à la M.I.T.
Development economics à la Harvard

________________________

Report to Department of Economics on the Field of Economic Development

                  At its last meeting the Department of Economics discussed the possibility of establishing a special field in Economic Development and the Chairman appointed a Committee to report in preliminary fashion to the Department on this issue.

                  Whether a special new field should be established in the Department depends primarily on practical considerations. Economics, as a discipline, is a unified body of social science and logically the whole area of economic studies can be subdivided only into substantive and methodological and applied fields. However, there exist already in the department a whole series of applied fields, each of which is accepted as a separate specialty for research on the doctoral level. We have labor economics, international economics, agricultural economics, public finance, and others. The question which we may have to answer is whether economic development is a field of applied economics roughly commensurate with these others.

                  A special field in economics becomes established generally when there develops a literature centering around a body of related problems, which have common institutional background. The underlying basic theory is an integral part of general economic theory, but in the course of specialized work a number of theoretical issues come to be discussed in some detail in a given field which tend to attract the interest not so much of general economists but specialists in this field. The question of whether economic development may be regarded as special applied field boils down, therefore, to the question of (1) whether there exists a set of specialized theoretical propositions to which particular emphasis is being given by students interested in (or specializing in) economic development and (2) whether there is an institutional background in terms of which related problems (some of which may be theoretical and abstract and others of which may be practical-empirical) are being studied.

                  It seems to us that both of these conditions hold for economic development as it is being conceived now. Among theoretical contributions which have already been made we may refer to writings of P. T. Bauer and B. S. Yamey, J. Tinbergen, W. A. Lewis, M. Abramovitz, G. M. Meier, P. N. Rosenstein-Rodan, W. W. Rostow, S. Kuznets, A. O.

Hirschman, Colin Clark, H. W. Singer, and others. We do not wish to enter into the discussion of the quality of any or all of these writings, but we believe that, in general competence and quality they are about equal with writings in other fields or economics during the last ten years. Certainly the literature on economic development is large (and if anything, growing) and a number of scholars who have not made the study or economic development a central concern have contributed some articles and papers to the discussion. (Among them are men like J. Viner, T. de Scitovsky, Hollis Chenery, Martin Bronfenbrenner, Henry C. Wallich and others.)

                  In addition to this literature which mainly deals with general or more special theoretical issues in economic development there is a vast and even more rapidly growing literature on the institutional and policy aspects of economic development. Here we are concerned mainly with the analysis of poor countries and we note a mass of problems which are pertinent, many of which go beyond the boundaries of strict economic analysis and reach over into anthropology, political science, or history. It would be futile to mention all the questions that arise in this context but as brief reminder we might suggest that such problems as Kuznets’ and other students’ discussion of historical and cross-national comparisons of patterns of growth (changes in labor force, level of income, rate of investment, etc.) is one big field of study, that questions of the patterns of resource allocation in poor societies is another, and that the problem of the formation of human capital with special reference to poor societies and their capacity of growth is a third. In addition, and especially in view of the manifold efforts to engage in developmental planning in many poor countries, we have a broad field for the analysis of economic policies of various kinds. It seems, therefore, that in terms of theoretical as well as practical, empirical, historical, and policy problems there exists a more or less well recognizable field of interest, that there is an abundant and rapidly growing literature, and that there is wide-awake interest in this field not only in this country, but in many other countries as well.

                  In addition there is considerable interest among the students in economic development. It is granted that many students who express an interest in economic development do so for wrong reasons, but it may be assumed that a large proportion (especially of the foreign students who come from the poor countries), have a genuine interest in studying the problems of poor countries and in acquainting themselves more fully with the institutional and analytical problems characteristic of these countries. It seems that this demand, to the extent to which it justifiably exists, should be recognized by the department and steps should be taken to try to meet it as far as possible.

                  The Department does not now have a regular program on the graduate level in economic development. Whereas in other applied fields, e.g., labor economics or agricultural economics, we have a set of well-designed and well-integrated courses (well-integrated with the offerings in general theory and among one another), we do not have such a program in economic development. This, however, can be remedied and if the Department decides to make economic development a field of its own, commensurate with other fields in the Department, instruction can be arranged to provide the necessary preconditions for research training.

                  In view of the arguments raised earlier, this committee recommends to the Department that economic development should be recognized as a field for the M. A. and the Ph. D. degree in the Department of Economics.

                  We would like to distinguish three possible actions that the department might take with respect to the field of economic development.

1) We can accept it as a field for the distribution requirement.

2) We can accept it as a field of concentration for the Master’s degree

3) We can accept it as a (preliminary examination) field for the Ph. D. degree.

                  We are in favor of taking actions (1) and (2) at the present time, and of deferring until some future date any action on (3). Our motives for this action are the following:

                  We recognize that a body of literature exists in the field of economic development, and that the bulk of economists think of economic development as a “legitimate” field of specialization, and we see no point whatsoever for us to be offering courses in the field (as we now do) and at the same time “snub” the field when it comes to distribution requirements. Hence, we are for action (1).

                  There is considerable interest, particularly among our foreign students, in the field of economic development. There also appears to be at least latent interest among the faculty in offering additional courses in the field, at least if this does not entail a net addition to the teaching load of the individuals in question. We favor expanding our offerings in the field of economic development to the extent that this can be done without jeopardizing the rest of our program. With one course additional to our present offerings, we will be giving our students enough background in the field to warrant our accepting it as a field of concentration for the Master’s degree. Hence, we are for action (2). But if we take action (2) we should make sure that we add at least one course which really covers the core of the economic development literature.

                  The reason for deferring action (3) at the present time is that the courses that we are now offering in the field of economic development have arisen as a result of the special interests of members of our faculty in particular topics in the field and do not reflect any attempt at an organized “coverage” of the field such as we have in other areas. Before taking the step of offering Ph. D. examinations in economic development, we feel we should (a) decide on what we as a department feel should be the scope and general content of a Ph. D. field in economic development, and (b) develop a set of courses, presumably including some which we do not at present give, whose content reflects this decision.

                  It seems to us that the basic decision of the department on the first question should be whether our work in the field of economic development should mainly focus on a critical survey and evaluation of the work that now goes on under the label of economic development, or whether we should aim at having a field of somewhat broader scope. One suggestion for broadening the scope of the field is that we include in it some courses designed more directly than our present offerings to prepare students for the kinds of problems that the bulk of economists in underdeveloped countries in fact have to face, even though such courses would also be listed under present fields as well as economic development.

Arnold Harberger
D. Gale Johnson
Bert F. Hoselitz

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler Papers, Box 3, Folder “U of C. Econ. Miscellaneous”.

Image Source: Arnold C. Harberger, 1957 Fellowship in Economics from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions

Chicago. First quarter of price theory. Midterm and final exams. Harberger, 1957

Arnold Harberger

 

A copy of the reading list for the first quarter of price theory at the University of Chicago taught by Arnold Harberger in the autumn quarter of 1955 has been transcribed and posted earlier. That copy was found in Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution Archives. Copies of the two mid-term exams and the final exam for the same course in 1957 were found in Zvi Griliches’ papers in the Harvard University Archives. While not a perfect match, some items might have been added/subtracted to the later course, price theory à la Harberger in the mid-1950sis better reflected in these two posts together now.

______________________________

Economics 300A
Hour Examination
November 5, 1957

(60 points)

  1. True, False, or Uncertain. In each case write a paragraph explaining your answer. Your grade will depend heavily on your explanation.
    1. The price elasticity of demand for a good will be higher, the higher is the income elasticity of demand for that good.
    2. If X and Y are substitutes, a decline in the price of X can lead to an increase in the amount of Y demanded only if Y is an inferior good.
    3. If a particular producer of grapefruit produces 10 percent of the total supply of grapefruit, the elasticity of demand facing that producer must be at least -10.
    4. If the cross-elasticity of demand for X with respect to the price of Y is .5, the cross elasticity of demand for Y with respect to the price of X will also be .5.
    5. The demand curve for a commodity which includes the “income effect” is necessarily more elastic than the demand curve for the same commodity which includes only the substitution effect.
    6. Food and “all other commodities” cannot be complements.

(15 points)

  1. Derive the expression for the elasticity of demand facing a particular producer in terms of the elasticity of “total demand” in the market and of the elasticity of “other supply”.

(25 points)

  1. Using indifference curves, derive the supply curve of labor as A function of real wages. Distinguish between the “income effect” and the substitution effect. State what, if any, will be the circumstances under which a rise in real wages will lead to a reduction in the quantity of labor offers.

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

Economics 300A
Hour Examination
4 December 1957
Mr. Harberger

(48 points)

  1. True, False or Uncertain. In each case write a few sentences explaining your answer.
    1. If the firms in the coal industry were to merge into one single firm, the demand curve for coal miners would become more elastic.
    2. Marginal cost exceeds average cost wherever marginal cost is rising.
    3. In the case in which factors combine in fixed proportions to produce a product X, the elasticity of demand in industry X for a factor will be greater, the larger is the fraction of the total costs of producing X which is spent on hiring the factor in question.
    4. A firm having monopsony power in the market for its labor will hire workers up to the point where their wage is equal to their marginal value product (marginal physical product times marginal revenue), not to the value of their marginal physical product.
    5. If, at a point in a homogeneous production function, the marginal product of A is rising, the marginal product of B will be negative. (Consider A and B as the only two factors.)
    6. If, at a point in a homogeneous production function, the marginal product of B is negative, the marginal product of A will be rising. (Consider A and B as the only two factors.)

(34 points)

  1. Discuss and comment on Marshall’s four rules of derived demand

(18 points)

  1. Discuss the relationship between short run and long run cost curves. Is a shorter run marginal cost curve always more elastic than a longer run marginal cost curve going through the same point on the long run average cost curve

 

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

Final Examination
Economics 300A
Autumn, 1957

(70 points)

  1. True, False, or Uncertain. In each case write a few sentences explaining your answer. Your grade will depend heavily on your explanation.
    1. If the United States exports one tenth of its coal, the elasticity of supply of domestic coal being unity, the elasticity of supply of U.S. coal exports must be at least 10.
    2. If the price of X rises while the price of X stays constant, the amount of Y demanded will always increase, so long as X and Y are substitutes. (Assume money income and other prices remain unchanged.)
    3. The own-price elasticity of demand for a commodity must always equal or exceed, in absolute value, the cross elasticity of demand for that commodity with respect to the price of any other commodity.
    4. The own-price elasticity of demand for a commodity must always equal or exceed, in absolute value, the marginal propensity to consume that commodity.
    5. When the production function is such that factors of production combine with each other in fixed proportions to produce a product, the own price elasticity of demand for the use of any of the factors in the production of the product must be less than the price elasticity of demand for the product. (Assume that the production of the product in question is competitive.)
    6. The income elasticity of demand for a commodity is the marginal propensity to consume that commodity divided by the average propensity to consume that commodity.
    7. The elasticity of demand for labor in the production of automobiles will be lower in the case in which the quantities of other factors are given than in the case in which the prices of other factors are taken as given.
    8. The elasticity of demand facing a monopolist will be lower than the elasticity of demand facing the same industry if it were competitive.
    9. The welfare cost of a 5 percent tax on automobiles is the same as the welfare cost of a 5 percent subsidy on all goods and services other than automobiles.
    10. The welfare cost per dollar of tax receipts of a 5 percent tax on automobiles is the same as the welfare cost per dollar of tax receipts of a 5 percent tax on all goods and services other than automobiles.
    11. If, at a point in a production function which is homogeneous (of degree 1), the marginal product of factor B is negative, the marginal product of factor A will be rising (in the sense that the marginal product of A will be higher when the proportion of factor A to factor B is slightly increased). Assume that A and B are the only two factors.
    12. The supply curve of labor can be backward bending only if leisure is an inferior good.
    13. The demand for the services of a factor of production in a particular industry will be more elastic, the larger is the share of that factor in the total costs of the industry in question.
    14. All short run average cost curves are tangent at (at least) one point to the long run average cost curve.

(15 points)

  1. Outline the economics of the fishing industry. What resemblance, if any, do you see between the economics of the fishing industry under conditions of competition and the economics of monopolistic competition.

(15 points)

  1. Indicate, using supply and demand diagrams, what is the welfare cost of a tariff. Assume that the tariff is on a product (woolen cloth) in which the domestic demand is partly met by domestic supplies and partly met by imports. The tariff, of course, is a tax only on the imports. Assume that the imported product and the domestic product are for all relevant purposes homogeneous. What role does the elasticity of domestic demand for woolen cloth play in your measure of welfare cost? The elasticity of domestic supply of woolen cloth? The ratio of domestic supply to domestic demand?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 130, Folder “Syllabi and exams, 1955-1959”.

Image Source: Arnold C. Harberger, 1957 Fellowship in Economics from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Chicago Faculty Regulations

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. requirement. Either linear algebra or foreign language reading comprehension, 1968

 

At the University of Chicago in the mid-1950s one economics Ph.D. requirement was to demonstrate an effective reading knowledge of either French or German or some other foreign language approved by the department..

The 1968 memo to graduate students transcribed below announced that the “satisfaction of either a mathematics or foreign language requirement” would be the rule for a Ph.D. in economics.

_________________________

History of Foreign Language Requirement for Ph.D.

January 12, 1968

To: Faculty, Division of the Social Sciences
From: D. Gale Johnson, Dean [of the] Division of the Social Sciences

In re: Foreign language requirements for the Ph. D

At a meeting of the faculty of the Division of the Social Sciences held November 18, 1931, the following Statement was adopted as one of the requirements for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D.:

“The ability, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of Examiners, to read two foreign modern languages approved by the department or interdepartmental committee, one of which must be French or German. It is advised that this requirement be met as early as possible in the student’s program of study.”

On January 15, 1943, the faculty of the Division modified the language requirement and made it read as follows:

“Demonstration of the ability to use one or more foreign languages effectively toward the objective of the student’s academic program. This ability in the case of at least one language will be tested by: (I) the passing of an examination administered and evaluated by the board of Examinations; and (II) in addition to the examination, the writing of a paper or series of papers, or oral work, judged satisfactory by the Department in connection with the student’s program of study, in which extensive use is made of works in the foreign language. Departments may at their discretion specify the particular foreign language or languages required of their candidates for the doctorate. Exceptions in individual cases may be made by the Dean of Students on the recommendation of a Department.”

At its meeting on December 4, 1967, the faculty of the Division approved the following motion:

“That each Department or Committee in the Division should have the right to substitute for the divisional language requirement for the Ph.D. degree a requirement that the student demonstrate proficiency in a substantive field other than that of the department in question. The degree of proficiency to be required in such a field should be comparable or superior to that represented by the present divisional language requirement. The department at its option, may require that proficiency be demonstrated in a particular substantive field or may leave to the student, in some or all cases, the option of deciding whether to demonstrate proficiency in a language or a substantive field.”

If a department or committee wishes to act under the motion approved by the faculty of the Division, Mr. Zimring and I urge that it do so with reasonable promptness to permit students to make their plans with full information concerning the requirements. Until a department or committee has taken action and so informs the Office of the Dean it will be assumed that the language requirement as it existed on December 1, 1967, shall continue in force.

At the time a department or committee takes action, if any, to modify its language requirement, it should indicate the date on which any changes become effective and that date could be within a few days after action has been taken. I feel that before a departmental or committee action is made effective that Mr. Zimring should be given time to study it and to determine if his interpretation is the one that has been intended.

Mr. Zimring and I strongly urge that departments and committees accept a self-denying ordinance, namely that changes in the requirements will not be made more than once a year and that changes affecting 1968-69 be made by March 15, 1968.

The action taken with respect to the Divisional language requirement does not change current procedures with respect to examination if a department retains a language requirement. It is my interpretation that while departments can require a supplementary or additional examination to be administered by the department, it cannot dispense with the examinations given by the Office of the University Examiner.

DGJ:bp

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 194, Folder 4, “Economics Dept A-G”.

_________________________

Linear Algebra
or a Foreign Language

Department of Economics  University of Chicago
May, 1968

To: Graduate Students, Department of Economics
From: Arnold C. Harberger. Chairman

Re: Revision in Foreign Language/ Mathematics Requirement

Foreign Language and Mathematics Requirement

Each Ph.D. candidate, before admission to candidacy for the Ph.D., must demonstrate effective command of relevant mathematical tools, including calculus and matrix algebra. The Department of Economics will accept three courses in calculus (mathematics 151, 152, and 154, or equivalent), and one course in linear algebra (mathematics 250, 252, Business 372, or equivalent) as meeting, respectively, the calculus and matrix algebra requirements.

In place of demonstration of competence in matrix algebra, students may opt to demonstrate proficiency at a high level in a foreign language by means of an examination administered by the Office of the University Examiner and must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department ability to translate at sight with reasonable ease material in economics in the foreign language. Any foreign language other than Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, or Swedish must be approved by the Department.

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 194, Folder 4, “Economics Dept A-G”.

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. The School of Chicago 1972 by Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977). IDs by Gordon, McCloskey & Grossbard

The 1500th artifact added to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror deserves to be a celebratory post for visitors. For this honor I have chosen a  pastiche drawn by a Chicago economics graduate student in 1972. Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977) was the principal, if not only, illustrator for the student-produced satirical publication P.H.A.R.T., an issue of which has been transcribed for an earlier post.

I first saw a copy of Roger Vaughan’s reworking of Raphael’s “School of Athens” added to a photo from a Tweet of a few years back. At that time it did not occur to me to engage in a serious search for the backstory to the drawing. And yet, serendipity turned out to be kind to me when, on a visit to the Harvard Archives last year, I stumbled upon a folded, mint-condition copy of  Vaughan’s “The School of Chicago 1972” in the papers of Zvi Griliches. Of course I had this masterpiece of economics funny business copied and it now has pride of place in my home study.

A few identifications of the figures seen in “The School of Chicago 1972” are obvious (e.g. Milton Friedman and George Stigler, duh) and others could be identified from other Vaughan caricatures that likewise are found in Griliches’ papers (e.g. Marc Nerlove, Stan Fischer, and Robert J. Gordon). Still, most of the renderings remained unidentified. My first idea was to seek out the artist himself, but alas I could only confirm that he had passed in October 2021. The next idea was to seek a living eye-witness to the Chicago economics department of a half-century ago. Here I was luckier, the Stanley G. Harris Professor in the Social Sciences at Northwestern University, Robert J. Gordon, responded to my inquiry almost immediately and as quickly forwarded my request for further information to Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Deirdre McCloskey, for her confirmation and further commentary. Following the initial posting of this artifact, Professor Shoshana Grossbard of San Diego State University spotted a few misspelled names (mea culpa), but, more importantly, was able to identify Margaret Reid by her beret(!).We can all be grateful to these colleagues for their identifications provided below. There remains one unidentified man in the back-row standing to George Stigler’s left plus a couple of yet-to-be identified graduate students. Peeps, Economic in the Rear-view Mirror needs your help! You can leave comments at the end of this post.

___________________________________

About the artist, Roger Vaughan

From his 1981 AEA Biographical Listing, p. 421

Vaughan, Roger J, 421 Hudson St., Apt. 406, New York, NY 10014. Birth Yr: 1946

Degrees: B.A., U. of Oxford, 1968; M.A., Simon Fraser U., 1970; Ph.D. U. of Chicago, 1977. Prin. Cur. Position: Dep.Dir., Off. Of Develop. Planning, State of New York, 1980-

Concurrent/Past Positions: Econ., Citibank, 1978-80; Econ. The Rand Corp. 1974-78. Research: Urban Policy, finance, taxation training.

Roger J. Vaughan’s Rand Reports,
1974-1980

• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 1, Overview 1980
• Federal Activities in Urban Economic Development 1979
• Recent Contributions to the Urban Policy Debate 1979
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 4, Population and Residential Location 1979
• Assessment of Countercyclical Public Works and Public Service Employment Programs. 1978
• Regional Cycles and Employment Effects of Public Works Investments. 1977
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 2, Economic Development 1977
• The value of urban open space 1977
• The Economics of Urban Blight. 1976
• Getting People to Parks. 1976
• Public Works as a Countercyclical Device: A Review of the Issues 1976
• The Use of Subsidies in the Production of Cultural Services. 1976
• The Application of Economic Analysis to the Planning and Development of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. 1975
• The Economics of Expressway Noise Pollution Abatement. 1975
• The Economics of Recreation: A Survey. 1974

Source: Rand Reports. Published Research by Author, Roger J. Vaughan.

Sage. Research Methods.

Communicating Social Science Research to Policymakers
By: Roger J. Vaughan & Terry F. Buss
Published: 1998
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983686

___________________________________

Raphael’s Scuola di Atene (1509-1511)

For some explanation of what we see in the original, cf. “The Story Behind Raphael’s Masterpiece ‘The School of Athens'” by Jessica Stewart at the Modern Met Website.

___________________________________

Roger Vaughan’s Pastiche

Open the image in a new window to see a larger image

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129. Folder “Posters, ca. 1960s-1970s”.

Background

The statues standing in the upper alcove are of the President and Vice-President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon (holding a lyre, a sweet visual pun) and Spiro T. Agnew (with the pennant “Effete Snobs”, abridged from his description of self-characterized intellectuals as an “effete core of impudent snobs” in his  “Generation Gap” speech given in New Orleans on October 19th, 1969.)

“1126” refers to the street address of the Social Science Research Building, 1126 E. 59th St.

“MV=PT” inscribed in the center of the dome is the Equation of Exchange (cf. Irving Fisher’s The Purchasing Power of Money). Cf. at the left of the back-row of Chicago economists, Arnold Zellner is carrying papers with “MV=PY“. Milton Friedman’s vanity license plates on his red cadillac used “MV=PQ” for the Equation of Exchange. Everyone seems to have agreed on the notational virtues of “M”, “V”, and “P”. Does anyone know whether there was any substantive reason for differences regarding the choice of “T”, “Y”, and “Q” for the final term?

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Though his arm is blocking part of the equation, Zellner is clearly displaying the equation of exchange, MV = PY.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Underneath Nixon is Marc Nerlove pointing into the ear, by the way of insult, of Hans Theil the great Dutch econometrician (the four great econometricians at Chicago, which had included Zvi Griliches, who had just moved to Harvard, hated each other).”

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Robert J. Gordon served as an editor of the Journal of Political Economy (J.P.E.) from 1971-1973.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Stigler’s position corresponds to that of Aristotle’s in Raphael’s fresco. There Aristotle holds a copy of his own Nicomachean Ethics. Stigler is seen here holding a book by [Adam] Smith, presumably Wealth of Nations.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “George Tolley [is] in a garbage can because he did urban economics (Vaughan was his student).”

Shoshana Grossbard’s comment: “[Margaret Reid]…not only [wore] the dark beret, but also [has] her hair in a bun, under the beret. that was her typical look. She and I attended Becker’s workshop in applications of economics in the years 1974-76.”

And guess what a casual search just turned up…

Margaret Gilpin Reid, professor emeritus of Home Economics and Economics

Source:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07052, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror’s comment: On the high-resolution hard-copy hanging on my study wall, the beret looks sort of like an ink blot and I regreted that imperfection. But now, thanks to Shoshana Grossbard’s careful observation combined with her memory of Reid’s “typical look” and an archival sighting of said beret, I am convinced and grateful that we now have another positive identification!

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “D. Gale Johnson…has a pitchfork because he was an agricultural economist. ”

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: Ted Schultz […] is pointing down to say “This is where the true Chicago School is, where I am!”.

Foreground

The identification of Robert F. Pollard was made by Roger Vaughan’s work and life partner, Anna Nechai.

 

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “…Dick Zecher [is] sticking his finger through an IBM card because he was in charge of the Department’s mainframe computer access.”

Another visual pun: Harry Johnson is portrayed writing on a literal Edgeworth-Bowley-box, a two-dimensional representation of allocations that could be Pareto efficient exchange equilibria. The two tradeable goods are measured in Edgeworth and Bowley units, respectively.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Mary Jean Bowman, one of two tenured women in a small department; she did educational and demographic economics.  The other woman was Margaret Reid, the inventor of household economics…”

The triangle seen in the previous detail is Arnold Harberger’s measure of deadweight loss (efficiency cost resulting from a natural or policy induced distortion of markets).  See Robert J. Gordon’s historical photo of Al Harberger stripping down to reveal himself as “Triangleman” ca. December 1970. In Raphael’s fresco Harberger’s place was that of Euclid.

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “I think the bearded student is Dan Wisecarver”

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “The woman holding the ball is Carolyn Mosby, the head of the department staff.”

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Economics Programs Economists

Chicago. The Education of Zvi Griliches. Through Ph.D. 1957

 

The two documents transcribed for this post provide wonderful detail about the economics training received by Zvi Griliches whose academic career passed from Hebrew University, through the University of California, Berkeley, and ultimately through the University of Chicago to Harvard.

Griliches was responsible for graduate admissions in the Harvard economics department back when I was applying to graduate school (1974). When I went to Cambridge to visit the Harvard and M.I.T. departments, I pressed Griliches (the only professor at Harvard with whom I could get an appointment) for him to tell me what in his opinion the difference between Harvard and M.I.T. was. He smiled (hopefully amused by my naive presumption) and replied that M.I.T. provided more of a “bootcamp training” than Harvard would. He did make that sound like a bad thing. In any event, M.I.T. was better at recruiting, able on short notice to line up appointments to talk with Evsey Domar and Charles Kindlberger plus a handful of graduate students. Still I have to admit that Griliches did warn me what I was getting myself into.

Zvi Griliches was awarded a Social Science Research Council Research Training Fellowship in 1955-56, and from information in the supplementary statements below, it is clear that the application was written sometime in the early months of 1955 (Chicago’s Winter Quarter 1955). So while it is possible that he was applying for more than this single fellowship, there is no indication of any other fellowship at that time being considered in Griliches’ papers in the files at the Harvard Archive that I consulted.

Questions for the Price Theory prelim exam for the Winter Quarter 1955 have been posted earlier. From Milton Friedman’s papers, we know that Griliches got the top grade (by a long shot) on that particular exam.

Griliches received a two year appointment at Chicago beginning Oct 1, 1956— “to give service for the National Science Foundation Econometric Model Research Project on a ninety per cent time basis and for the Department of Economics on a ten per cent time basis with total salary of $5,000 per annum”. So it was certainly reasonable for him at the start of the second year of his contract to put his academic record on file with the University of Chicago Vocational Service and Employment Office. That is the second document transcribed below.

Economic in the Rear-view Mirror’s “Believe it or not!”

Graduates listing themselves with the University of Chicago’s Vocational Service and Employment Office were asked even as late as the Autumn Quarter of 1957:

Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer to teach?
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer not to teach?

Easy to believe, and the documentary record indeed shows, that Zvi Griliches answered “No” to both questions.

___________________________________

Supplementary Statements from Winter Quarter 1955 in Griliches’ fellowship application for 1955-56

 Zvi Griliches

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “C”:

For attainment of the objectives outlined above I think that the following knowledge and training is desirable:  1) economic theory including mathematical economics; 2) statistics and econometrics including all the modern developments and also experience with efficient computational procedures; 3) agricultural economics; and 4) some knowledge of historical methods.

  1. Economic theory and mathematical economics will be very important in my future work because they provide the framework for the actual quantitative work. They suggest which are the important variables in different problems and indicate something about the form of their interrelationships. They also provide a check on the internal consistency of our models and are the source of most of our hypotheses. I believe that I have a good knowledge of basic economic theory and a reasonable familiarity with mathematical economics. My major graduate courses in this field were:

R.G. Bressler Jr. — Production Economics — In this course I was introduced to the pure theory of production and to the interrelationships of cost and supply curves.

R.G. Bressler Jr. — Seminar in Agricultural Marketing Organization — This course, in spite of its name, dealt primarily with problems of cost measurement, location theory, and general equilibrium.

Robert Dorfman — Advanced Economic Theory A-B1 — This was the major graduate course in Economic Theory at the University of California, covering Price Theory, Distribution Theory, and introducing us to Income and Employment Theory.

Robert Dorfman — Mathematical Methods in Economics — This was my introduction the Mathematical Economics proper. It dealt with general maximization problems, the pure theory of consumers’ choice, and in particular with dynamic difference equations models. The last topic will be very important in the construction of my model.

A.C. Harberger — Price Theory A — Covered more advanced topics in price theory and problems of definition and measurement of utility.

D. Gale Johnson — Price Theory B3 — This course covers distribution theory and related topics.

            I have also taken in the past and intend to take in the future a series of courses in Monetary and Fiscal Theory which I shall not list here.

            I also intend to participate in the Seminar in Mathematical Economics to be given in the spring quarter of 1955 by G. Debreu at the University of Chicago. In spite of all the above, I shall still lack adequate knowledge of Mathematical Economics. I need especially a better knowledge of growth models and of stochastic difference equations. I think, however, that I shall be able to acquire this necessary knowledge through individual study, as my work progresses.

            I am aided in my knowledge of mathematical economics and also of statistics and econometrics by a good undergraduate training in calculus and an individually acquired knowledge of matrix and vector algebra. Nevertheless, this is not enough. As it forms a basis for most of the other fields, I should learn more mathematics. I intend to do so after I have completed the preliminary Ph.D requirements both through intensive studying on my own and also by auditing some courses at the university.

 

  1. A good knowledge of statistics and econometrics is indispensable for quantitative work in agricultural economics. Though this is a field where there is always more to learn, nevertheless, I think that I have a basic knowledge of the most important techniques. My major courses in this field were:

George Kuznets — Analytical Methods A — This was my introduction to the theory and methods of multiple regression, weighted regression, testing hypotheses, and non-parametric tests. Within the framework of this course I wrote a paper “Demand for Clingstone Peaches on the Grower Level” which introduced me to modern computational procedures and the use of modern computational equipment.

Ivan Lee — Analytical Methods B — In this course I was introduced to simultaneous equations, the identification problem, maximum likelihood estimates, analysis of variance, and sampling theory. Within the framework of this course I wrote a paper “Clingstone Peaches: Demand and Supply Relationships on the Grower Level” applying both least squares and limited information techniques.

Roy Radner — Statistical Problems of Model Construction1 — Introduced me to decision theory, covered in greater detail the Markov Theorem and maximum likelihood estimates.

Martin Beckman — Allocation of Resources in Production3 — This course is introducing me to the valuable new technique of activity analysis (linear programing).

W.H. Kruskal —  Mathematical Statistics I2 — The principal topics of this course are: point and set estimation; hypothesis testing; elements of multivariate analysis; elements of linear hypothesis theory; typical nonparametric procedures.

            In the addition to the above I profited greatly from work with Professors Varden Fuller and Ivan Lee (Summer 1953), which made me familiar with census data, BAE publications, and other major sources of data in agriculture: and from my work with Professor Sidney Hoos (Summer 1954), which provided practical experience in the application of modern econometric techniques. I also have participated and shall continue to participate in the Seminar in Econometrics conducted by members of the Cowles Commission at the University of Chicago.

            All this of course is not enough. I shall have to learn much more. Some of it I shall still get at the university, but the greater part I shall have to learn on my own as my work progresses.

 

  1. A thorough knowledge of agricultural economics is important as it will provide both the framework and background of my work. I believe that I possess a reasonably good knowledge of this field. I have received both the B.S. and M.S. degrees in agricultural economics and have read widely in the field. Some of my courses in this field were:

George Mehren — Seminar in Agricultural Marketing — Introduced me to the practical and theoretical problems arising in the administration of agricultural marketing and adjustment programs.

Murray Benedict — Agricultural Production Economics — Dealt with the theoretical issues underlying policy problems in agriculture.

Varden Fuller — Seminar in Agricultural Policy1— Dealt with current policy issues and their economic implications.

C.M. Hardin — Seminar in Agricultural Policy2 — This course is introducing me to the consideration of current agricultural policy issues from the point of view of Political Science.

T.W. Schultz — Choice and Possibilities in Economic Organization — Dealt primarily with economic development and its impact on agriculture.

D. Gale Johnson — Incomes Welfare, and Policy3 — This course is introducing me to more advanced topics in agricultural economics and policy.

            I have gained also from participation in departmental meetings and seminars, both at the University of California and at the University of Chicago. Three years of my life spent working on farms (1947-50) and a summer (1952) as a research assistant with the California Packing Corporation collecting yield data have enriched my understanding of agriculture and its problems.

 

  1. As time series are used to a great extent in quantitative work, some knowledge of historical methods is quite important. I am fortunate in this respect to have had a very intensive and profitable year of undergraduate study in History at the Hebrew University, and in particular a course in “Introduction to historical literature and methods” by Professor Richard Koebner

            The only way one really becomes adept in quantitative work is by doing quantitative work. In a sense, this is the purpose of my project. As a result of work on my project I should gain experience and facility in using both theory and quantitative methods.

I have a good knowledge of Russian, German and Hebrew.

—————————————–

1 I audited this course
2 I am auditing this course
3  am currently taking this course

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “D”:

I shall have completed all the required course work by June 1955. I intend to take the Ph.D. preliminary examination in Winter 1955, and the preliminary examinations in Money and Banking, and Agricultural Economics in Summer 1955. I have already taken and passed a reading examination in German, and I shall take the examination in Russian in February of 1955. Hence, I hope to have completed all the requirements toward the Ph.D. degree, except the dissertation and final oral examination, by August 1955, and before the fellowship goes into effect.

The preliminary title of my thesis is “A study of the factors determining the development, distribution, and acceptance of new technology”.

The faculty adviser is Professor D. Gale Johnson,

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “E” :

1950-51. A student at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

1951-54. Student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Summer 1952. Research Assistant with the California Packing Corporation. Collection of yield data. $1.10 per hour.

Fall 1952. Awarded the D. Solis Cohen Scholarship. This scholarship was awarded to me during the following two semesters.

May 1953. Election to Phi Beta Kappa.

June 1953. Awarded the degree of Bachelor of Science with highest honors in Agriculture.

Summer 1953. Research Assistant with the John Haynes Foundation, working under the direction of Prof. Varden Fuller, at the University of California. Salary: $325/month

1953-54. Jesse D. Carr Fellow in Agriculture at the University of California.

Summer 1954. Research Assistant at the Gianini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California; working under the direction of Professor Sidney Hoos. Salary —$290 a month.

September 1954. Awarded a Master of Science degree in Agricultural Economics by the University of California.

1954-55. A University Fellow and full time student at the University of Chicago.

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “F”:

  1. “Demand for Clingstone Peaches on the Grower Level”, Berkeley,  January 1954, Typewritten manuscript,
  2. “Clingstone Peaches for Canning: Demand and Supply Interrelationships on the Grower Level”, Berkeley, June 1954,
  3. “The Differential Spread of Hybrid Corn: A Research Proposal”, Chicago, December 1954, pp. 1-20.

All three papers are available on loan from me. All are unpublished typewritten manuscripts.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder: “Correspondence, 1954-1959.”

_______________________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND PLACEMENT

EDUCATIONAL REGISTRATION FORM

Date: September 30, 1957
Name in Full: Hirsch Zvi Griliches
Current Address: 6011 Kimbark, Chicago 37, Ill.
Telephone: Bu 8-1975
Permanent Address: ditto

 

PERSONAL DATA

Date of birth: 9/12/1930. Place: Kaunas, Lithuania
Are you a U.S. citizen? No
If through naturalization give date. If not, explain status: Permanent resident (immigrant), expect. naturalizt. in 2 yrs.
Height: 5’11
Weight: 160
Marital status: Married
Number and ages of children: 1 daughter, 9 months.
Are you a veteran? Of the Israeli Army.
Physical handicaps: None
Church (if you wish to indicate): Jewish
Scholastic honors: S.B. with Highest Honors in Agriculture (U of Calif., 1953), Phi Beta Kappa
Scholarships (give dates and schools): Solis D. Cohen Scholarship, Univ. of Calif., 1952-53
Fellowships (give dates and schools): Jesse D. Carr (Univ of Calif., 1953-54), University (U of Chicago, 1954-55), Social Science Res. Council Research Training Fell. 55-56
Certificates held: None

 

EDUCATIONAL AND RELATED EXPERIENCE

List chronologically all work experience (including teaching, government, business, practice teaching, and experience in armed services)

June 1953 to Sept 1953. John Hanes Foundation, Berkeley, Calif., Research Assistant

June 1954 to Sept. 1954. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Research Assistant, Price Analysis.

Oct. 1954 to Sept 1955. Office of Agricult. Economic Research, Chicago, Research Assistant.

Oct. 1956 to date, U of Chicago, Assistant. Prof., Ag. Economics, Gen. Econ. Theory.

 

ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

(If this space is insufficient, attach another sheet)

UNDERGRADUATE COURSES: (List title, not catalogue number, and follow with the number of semester hours; e.g. Shakespeare, 3. One full course in the College of the University of Chicago equals 3 semester hours.)

First Year

 Second Year Third Year

Fourth Year
Hebrew 10 Geology 6 Botany 3
English 8 Introd. Econ 6 Calculus 6
Latin 8 Intern. Trade 3 Ag Econ Theory 6
Russian 4 Statistics 3 Ag. Marketing 3
Westr. Civil. 6 Agric Policy 3 Ag Policy 3
Polit. Theories 8 Range Mangmnt 3 Hist. of Ec. Thght 3
Medieval History 8 Zoology 3 Irrigation Econ. 3
Sociology 8 Agronomy 3
Intnat.Econ. 3

 

GRADUATE COURSES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (List Course Title.) (One full course in the Divisions of the University of Chicago equals 3½ semester hours)

Instructor

 Title of Course Instructor

Title of Course
Harberger Price Theory A Hamilton Banking and Monetary Policy
Monetary and Fiscal Policy Metzler Monetary Asp. of Inter’l Trade
Recent Dev. in Economics Beckman Alloc’n of Res. in Prod.
Schultz Choice & Possib. in Econ. Org. Audited:
Econ. Org. for Stability Savage Introd. To Probability Theo.
Regression & Anal. of Varian.
Johnson Price Theory B Theil Math. Economics
Income, Welfare, & Policy Radner Econometrics
Friedman Price Theory A & B
Tolley Money

 

GRADUATE COURSES TAKEN ELSEWHERE (University of California, Berkeley)

Instructor

 Title of Course Instructor

Title of Course
Clark Agric Marketing 3 Kuznets Analytical Methods A 3
Mehren Agric Marketing. Sem. 3 Lee Analytical Methods B 3
Bressler Ag Market Organ. Sem. 3 Dorfman Math Methods of Econ 3.
Bressler Ag Production Theory A 3 Audited:
Benedict Ag Production Theory B 3 Dorfman Econ Theory A & B 6

 

SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AS OF Oct. 1, 1957

 MAJORS SEMESTER HOURS MINORS
(OR RELATED FIELDS)

SEMESTER HOURS

Undergraduate

 Agric Econ 15 History 22
Economics 15 Math and Statistics

9

Graduate

 Agric Econ 24 Econometrics & Stat 6 + 9 aud.
Econ Theory & Math Econ 15 +15 aud Money

12
Thesis field and preliminary fields: Agricultural Economics, Economic Theory, Monetary Theory.
Education Courses:  None

 

ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

List all schools attended. Begin with high school from which you graduated. Include work in progress at the University of Chicago and Foreign [Universities]

Dates of Attendance

 Institutions—Location Major Subject Minor Subject

Degree and Date Awarded
6/50 Dept. of Education, State of Israel External Matriculation exams passed 1950
9/50 to 6/51 Hebrew University, Jerusalem History Sociology —
10/51 to 6/54 University of California, Berkeley Agric. Econ Agric. Market. S.B. 1953
S.M. 1954
10/54 to 8/57 University of Chicago, Chicago Economics Agric. Econ. A.M. 1955
Ph.D. 1957

Title of Master’s thesis: no thesis

Title of Doctor’s thesis: Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in Economics of Technological Change.
Thesis adviser: T.W. Schultz

 

EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Single check activities in which you have participated. Double check those which you can direct [coach/play].

Assemblies, Athletics, Audio-Visual, Band, Camping, Chorus, Civic Organizations, Crafts, Curriculum Planning, Debate, Dramatics, Gymnasium Activities, Orchestra, Parent-Teachers activities, Piano, Playground, Public Addresses, Pupil Participation in Government, Reading, Rhythms-Dances, School Clubs, School Publications, School Publicity, Speech, Vocational Guidance.

[Note:  Only School Clubs was checked (single checked) from the list. It was the Political Economy Club in college]

What foreign languages do you speak? Hebrew, Russian, German, Lithuanian, Yiddish.

Can you type? Poorly. Take dictation? No. Bookkeeping knowledge? No.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(For our use only—not included in credentials mailed to employers.)

PUBLICATIONS:

“Specification bias in estimates of production functions,” Journal of Farm Economics, February 1957.

“Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change,”Econometrica, October 1957.

Book reviews in the Journal of Political Economy

MEMBERSHIPS:

American Economic Association
American Farm Economics Association
Econometric Society
Fellow of Royal Economic Society

 

REFERENCES
Instructors at the University of Chicago

List at least two University of Chicago instructors who are able to evaluate your course work.

T.W. Shultz
A.C. Harberger
D.G. Johnson
Carl Christ

 

INSTRUCTORS AT OTHER COLLEGIATE INSTITUTIONS

List instructors at other schools from whom you would like to have letters of recommendation.

R.G. Bressler. Dept. of Agric. Economics, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley.
Sidney Hoos.  Ditto.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

If you have had teaching or administrative experience, list administrative officers who can report on your work (one for each position you have held).

D.G. Johnson, Univ. of Chicago. Act. Chairman
H.G. Lewis, Univ. of Chicago. Director of Research Center.

 

At what other university or college placement office are your letters of recommendation on file?   None.

 

OCCUPATIONAL CHOICES

List three position choices. Be very specific as to (1) courses you can teach within your own department (e.g., if Sociology-Social Psychology, Marriage and Family, Theory); (2) kinds of institutions (University, Liberal Arts College, State Teachers College, Junior College, High School, Junior High School, or grades); (3) other types of positions (Registrar Dean, Superintendent, Business Manager, Critic, Supervisor, etc.).

University, Land Grant or Liberal Arts College, teaching position with opportunities for research. Economic Theory, Agricultural Econ., Econometrics, Money.

Date available (month and year) September 1, 1958
Locality preferred East or West Coast.
Are you limited to that area? No.
Would you apply for positions in foreign countries? Yes
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer to teach? No
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer not to teach? No
Present or last salary $6500 (Confidential) for 11 months.
Minimum salary you would consider $7000 (Confidential) for 11 months.

Your registration is incomplete without six photographs (not larger than 2 ½ by 3 ½ inches).
Pictures are important.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder: “Correspondence, 1954-1959.”

Image Source:  Zvi Griliches from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06565, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Exam Questions Fields Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins. Graduate Theory of International Trade Exam. Machlup and Harberger, 1951

 

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Theory of International Trade

Drs. Fritz Machlup and Arnold C. Harberger
May 28, 1951

Answer three questions including I.

I.

Assume that Country A has been importing 1,000,000 tons of X per period over a duty of $2.00 per ton. Domestic production has been 11,000,000 tons per period, the domestic price $6.00 per ton. Pure competition prevails among domestic and foreign producers. Demand and supply conditions remain stable everywhere; the elasticity of domestic demand is -1.0, the elasticity of domestic supply is + 0.5, and the elasticity of the foreign excess supply is infinite.

Now a tariff reduction of $1.00 per ton is granted for imports up to a certain maximum per period; imports in excess of this quota are permitted but subject to the full duty of $2.00. State the effects of the tariff reduction upon domestic price, domestic production, and total imports of X and upon customs revenue, if the tariff quote is

(a) 1,000,000 tons of X per period;
(b) 2,000,000 tons of X per period; and
(c) 4,000,000 tons of X per period.

[Your calculations need not be exact.]

 

II.

Comment on the following statements and discuss whether and under what conditions they may be true or false.

  1. A country cannot gain from imposing an export tax if the foreign demand for its exports is of greater than unit elasticity.
  2. In a country with a relative scarcity of capital the real interest rate will be higher if a general import tariff is imposed than it would be under free trade.
  3. For every situation in which trade is encumbered by tariffs, there exists a situation of unencumbered trade in which all countries involved would be better off.

 

III.

Would you expect “national welfare” in Country A to increase, decrease, or remain the same as a result of

  1. an increase in foreign demand for the export product(s) of country A?
  2. an increase in the foreign excess supply of the product(s) which country A imports?
  3. an improvement in technology in Country A?
  4. a tariff imposed on its imports by Country A?
  5. a tax imposed on its exports by Country A?
  6. a tariff imposed on imports from Country A by country B (the rest of the world)?
  7. a tax Imposed on exports to country A by country B (the rest of the world)?

Give reasons for your answers.

 

IV.

It is generally agreed that the receipt of dollar grants by a country will raise its maximum level of real consumption plus investment. Little has been said in the literature about changes in the relative shares of the increased total which go to the various factors of production. On the basis of the analysis developed in this course, what can be said about the circumstances under which these relative shares are likely to change? Are they likely to change at all? If so, in what direction? If not, why not? In your discussion, assume continuous full employment in all (both granting and receiving) countries, and assume that the grant is used fully by the receiving country.

Source: Johns Hopkins University. Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives.  Department of Political Economy Series 6. Box 3/1, Folder: “Department of Political Economy. Graduate Exams, 1933-1965.”

Categories
Chicago Funny Business

Chicago. Economics Christmas Skit Material, 1969

While no date is given for the following two pages, we can be confident that the material was prepared and one presumes performed at the Chicago Economics Department Christmas Party of 1969. Photos from the December 1970 Christmas party have been posted by Robert J. Gordon–they do not correspond to the texts below.

The events of campus unrest at Columbia, Cornell, Harvard and San Francisco State referred to all took place 1968-69, so the earliest possible date for this skit would have been in December 1969.

I have added the “true” lyrics to the chosen tunes as well as links to videos with the corresponding melodies for readers who wish to try their luck in the privacy of their own offices. Replication probably requires a cocktail or two to establish the appropriate a-critical mood. 

Your sober scribe was not particularly amused. OK, maybe the lighting, costuming, and orchestral arrangements were fantastic–hard to know. I pity though the poor future historians of present economics who will have to deal with audio and video evidence and not just the written record. 

________________________

SONGS FOR SKIT

University of Chicago
Economics Department
Skit Song Lyrics

“The Merry Minuet
(They’re rioting in Africa…)
https://youtu.be/L8-BI89mb9A
They’re rioting at C’lumbia

La La La La La La La

They’re shooting up Cornell

La La La La La

They’re plowin’ up ole Harvard Yard

La La La La La La La

And Hiyakowa’s catching hell.

La La La La La

Academia is festering with strife and discord

The faculty hate students cause they’re paranoid

But we can be certain and brimming with cheer

That none of this nonsense will ever happen here.

 They’re rioting in Africa
They’re starving in Spain
There’s hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans,
the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs,
South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don’t like anybody very much
But we can be thankful and tranquil and proud
That Man’s been endowed with the mushroom shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Some one will set the spark off and we will all be blown away
They’re rioting in Africa
There’s strife in Iran
What nature doesn’t do to us
Will be done by our fellow man!

 

University of Chicago
Economics Department
Skit Song Lyrics

 Santa Claus is Coming to Town
https://youtu.be/HSmsq2iq4bQ
You’d better watch out
You’d better not strike
You’d better not riot
I’m (or We’re) telling you why
The National Guard is coming to town.
They know what you’ve been smoking
They know when you’ve been bad
They know when you’ve been sitting-in
So get out…do you understand!!
They’re making a list
And checking it twice
They’re going to find out
Whose [sic] Commie or nice
The National Guard is coming to town.		 Oh! You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I’m telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!
He’s making a list
Checking it twice
Gonna find out
Who’s naughty or nice
Santa Claus is coming to town

 

 

University of Chicago
Economics Department
Skit Song Lyrics

 On Top of Old Smokey
https://youtu.be/P51eCjKN2Kw
On top of a mountain
In central Vermont
Resides Milton Friedman
Of wisdom the fount.
The scene is idyllic
On that mountain peak
But here in Chicago
The outlook is bleak.
Since Telser to Belgium
Has decided to roam,
Just Zecher and Gorden [sic]
Are left here at home.
No thesis prospectus
Are we able to give
Faculty all neglect us
As their prerogative.
Heed our ultimatum
Before it’s too late
Move the MONEY workshop
To the Green Mountain State.		 On top of old smokey
all covered with snow
I lost my true lover
for courting too slow
For courting’s a pleasure
and parting’s a grief
And a false hearted lover
is worse than a thief
For a thief will just rob you
and take all you save
But a false hearted lover
will lead you to the grave
And the grave will decay you
and turn you to dust
Not one girl in a hundred
a poor boy can trust
They’ll hug you and kiss you
and tell you more lies
Than cross lines on a railroad
or stars in the skies
So come all your maidens
and listen to me
Never place your affections
on a green willow tree
For the leaves they will wither
and the roots they will die
You’ll all be forsaken
and never know why.

 

 

University of Chicago
Economics Department
Skit Song Lyrics

Mickey Mouse Club Song
https://youtu.be/x4C_lUy58Rw
Who’s the leader of the club
That’s made for you and me
M-i-l-t-o-n Da Da Da Da De[e]
Uncle Miltie,
Uncle Miltie
Forever let us sing his praises high
[…high, high, high]
He’s the man with just one theory
When others must use two
M-i-l-t-o-n Da Da Da Da Do[o]
Milt the Stilt (Paul the Small)
Milt the Stilt (Paul the Small)
In our hearts we know which one is  right […] [right, right, right]
Velocity is constant
The Phillips curve’s a fraud
M-i-l-t-o-n Da Da Da Da Da[w]
Money matters,
money matters
As long as prices
do not rise too fast.
What’s the purpose of the club
That’s made for you and I
U of C Ph.D. M-O-N-E-Y
Permanent Income,
Permanent income
It makes it all worthwhile, or so they[…]
[…]say. [say, say, say]
Rules and not discretion
And let me tell you why
M-I-L-T-O-N  M-O-N-E-Y		 Who’s the leader of the club
That’s made for you and me
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You’re as welcome as can be
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Mickey Mouse! (Donald Duck)
Mickey Mouse! (Donald Duck)
Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!
Come along and sing the song
And join the jamboree!
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Mickey Mouse club
Mickey Mouse club
We’ll have fun
We’ll meet new faces
We’ll do things and
We’ll go places
We’re marching all around the world
Who’s the leader of the club
That’s made for you and me
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You’re as welcome as can be
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Mickey Mouse! (Donald Duck)
Mickey Mouse! (Donald Duck)
Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!
Come along and sing a song
And join the jamboree!
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E(yay Mickey)
(yay Mickey)
(yay Mickey Mouse Club!)

 

 

University of Chicago
Economics Department
Skit Song Lyric

 

O Tannenbaum (O Christmas Tree)

https://youtu.be/27JleM39TPY
Now that we’ve lost our faculties
To real world positions
We can observe to ascertain
What were their life ambitions
Lester Telser for his amusement
Investigated advertisement
So now we find him having fun
On the avenue called Madison.
Those who had taught development
Have left to form a settlement
With Harberger as President
An economist in residence
With [Larry] Sjastaad in an advisory task
They’re sure to find their golden path
And on their farms up with the sun
Are Teddy Schultz and Gale Johnson.
Bob Fogel has aspired to be
The president of the Santa Fee
Gregg Lewis we all should know
Leads the AFL and CIO
And Friedman’s gone up to Ely
To found his university
Big Harry with his knife so free
Now runs a toothpick factory.

[Handwritten addition:]

Uzawa + Mundell have gone to instigate at the Sorbonne
And [Erwin] Diewert is a lumberjack
Up near the straits of Mackinac

Geo. T who’s of urban fame [George S. Tolley]
Has taken over Lindsay’s game [NYC mayor]
And since there is no more faculty
We’ve all enrolled at MIT.

 O Christmas Tree, O Christmas tree,
How lovely are your branches!
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas tree,
How lovely are your branches!
Not only green in summer’s heat,
But also winter’s snow and sleet.
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree,
How lovely are your branches!
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas tree,
Of all the trees most lovely;
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas tree,
Of all the trees most lovely.
Each year you bring to us delight
With brightly shining Christmas light!
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas tree,
Of all the trees most lovely.
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas tree,
We learn from all your beauty;
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas tree,
We learn from all your beauty. 

 

Your bright green leaves with festive cheer,
Give hope and strength throughout the year.
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas tree,
We learn from all your beauty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some dialogue:

Opening scene, faculty seated around a table, one member is reading a newspaper:

One faculty member: (reading newspaper, shakes head) The students are revolting!

(All concur)

Another member: But thank God—ah I mean Milton—that we’re at Chicago. Our students are well behaved, well ordered, normal, continuous and homothetic.

Another: (questioning) But how do you know about their sex lives?

(Pause for a few seconds, for all the uproarious laughter, then break into song—“They’re rioting at Columbia….” [See above].)

(After song, and during, students enter, their spokesman present list of demands to Stigler).

Student spokesman: We’ve come to present our nonnegotiable demand schedule for reform in the department.

(All faculty in shock and dismay)

We have decided to bring the free market economy into the university. Therefore:

(1) We demand that prelim grades be bought and sold freely—thereby bringing greater efficiency into the production of economists.

(2) We demand the immediate return of all industrial organization exams from the public enterprise post office.

And (3) We demand the removal of all artificial floors and ceilings in the Department.

Stigler: (unrolls list of demands and exclaims) Heck—we’re saved. Your demand schedule is upward sloping (a pause)

(turns sheet of paper to audience)

And therefore nonexistent.

(All faculty sigh in relief)

 

Source: Harvard University Archives, Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder “Faculty skits, ca. 1960s”.

 

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Funny Business

Chicago. Three things to learn when studying economics at Chicago. Harry Johnson, 1968

 

In an earlier post we found that Harry Johnson thought student course evaluations were useful when interpreted properly but of questionable utility for e.g. hiring and promotion decisions. His message to graduate students in 1968 transcribed below reveals three truths wrapped in irony. Perhaps there is an older Chicago-trained economist who can help younger, non-Chicago trained economists extract Harry Johnson’s intended signal from the satirical noise? At the bottom of this and every page of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is space for comments.

________________________

SKIT FOR STUDENTS’ PARTY
May 17, 1968
by
Harry G. Johnson

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Pray silence, while you listen to and meditate upon the remarks of Chairman Harberger, as he addresses the new students in the Graduate School of Economics at the University of Chicago, I quote to you from the remarks of Chairman Harberger.

Many of you have graduated with distinction from reputable and respected undergraduate schools of economics; no doubt you expect to put in another three years or so learning those things that you had insufficient time or preparation to study as undergraduates, and acquiring the qualifications to teach in such a school, or to work for the government, or possibly—God forbid—to go into business.

The first thing you will have to learn is that you are stupid and misguided in this expectation. You have not learned what economics is about, and you will have to start all over again by unlearning what you have learnt, or think you have learnt. Real economics, as understood and applied at the University of Chicago is precisely what most of you have been taught to think of as nonsense, an archaic mythology disposed of by the pseudo-economics in which you have been trained. Real economics, the kind you are here to learn, is founded on the assumption that the price system works. This is a hard thing to believe; but after three years or so you too will come to believe it. Real economics is founded also on the assumption that the quantity of money—something most of you have never heard of—really matters. It matters not just for macroeconomics, but also for everything else from personal freedom to the poverty problem. This is an even harder thing to believe; but you will either learn to believe it, or perish in the attempt.

The second thing that you will have to learn is that nothing here is what it is called. Or, perhaps, following Humpty Dumpty, what things are called is not what they mean. Thus, you might be tempted to believe that the sequence of courses in money is designed to help you get through the money part of the Core. You have my personal assurance, publicly recorded this very afternoon, that this is not the case. Or you might expect that Course 302, described as being concerned with distribution theory, is about the theory of distribution. It is not. We offer you instead an embarrassment of riches: a choice between a 302 that is really a 303 on general equilibrium analysis, a course which we shall not be able to introduce formally until 1969; and a 302 which is a mixture of a course called 304, the pure theory of capital, that was discontinued some years ago for lack of student interest, and a course given at another time of the year under the number 371, international economic relations. After these hints, you will not I hope be surprised to learn that our econometrics sequence is not a sequence; and in the opinion of some informed people it is not properly described as econometrics either.

The third thing you will have to learn is that, if you want to learn something here, you will have to study something else. This is another example of the Humpty Dumpty approach towards words and meanings that we practice in this Department. Thus, if you want to be a regression analysis technician, you must do your thesis in labour economics. If you want to be an international trade or monetary economist, study mathematical economics. If you have a broad interest in society’s problems, and an unrepentant hankering after the social philosophizing of your undergraduate days, you must register in agricultural economics. If, by some strange chance, you are interested in agricultural economics, you must register as a specialist in economic history. If on the contrary you are interested in public finance, you must register in economic development—if you register in public finance so-called you will have to become an expert on pubic [sic] triangles. But just to confuse you, we have two specializations that mean what they say—international trade, and money and banking—though if you are interested in the monetary aspects of international trade, you will of course do your thesis in the money and banking workshop.

These are the three most important lessons a University of Chicago graduate student in economics has to learn. And you will learn them as you pass through the Department. If you do not learn them, I have one final remark to make to you. That remark is——goodbye.

Source: The Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 6 “University of Chicago Miscellaneous”.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market

Chicago. Draft memo of a program to rebuild the department of economics by T.W. Schultz, 1956

 

The following draft memo by T. W. Schultz outlines the serious faculty replacement needs of the University of Chicago department of economics in the mid-1950s. Particularly noteworthy, aside from the impressive list of lost faculty, is the appended table listing the sponsored research/3rd party funders of the economics department at that time. One also sees that the department had been authorized to make offers to Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow and Arthur F. Burns. So much for the best-laid plans of mice and men. A better historian of economics than I might spin a counterfactual tale of a post-Cowles Chicago with Arrow and Solow on the faculty.

Regarding the ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center, Schultz wrote “The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine ‘laboratory’ in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development– a major new field in economics.” This reminds me of the old Cold-War Eastern European joke about whether Marx and Engels were scientists (“No, real scientists would have tried their experiments on rats first”). What a “fine ‘laboratory'” for testing oneself!

_________________________

A Program of Rebuilding the Department of Economics
(first draft, private and confidential – T. W. Schultz, May 22, 1956)

Your Department of Economics has been passing through a crisis. Whether it would survive as a first rate department has been seriously in doubt, with one adversity following another as was the case up until last year. It is now clear, however, that we have achieved a turning point in that we can rebuild and attain the objective which is worth striving for – an outstanding faculty in economics.

The crisis came upon us as a consequence of a combination of things: (1) the department, along with others in the University, had been denied access to undergraduate students of the University who might want to become economists; (2) Viner left for Princeton, Lange for Poland, Yntema for Ford and Douglas for the Senate; (3) the Industrial Relations Center drained off some of our talent and when it jammed, Harbison left for Princeton; (4) Mr. Cowles’ arbitrary decision to shift “his” Commission to Yale was a major blow; (5) Nef been transferring his talents to the Committee on Social Thought, and (6) add to all these the retirement of Knight.

Meanwhile, there were several external developments which did not reduce our difficulties: (1) a number of strong (new) economic centers were being established – at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Vanderbilt, M.I.T. and with public funds at Michigan and Minnesota; (2) our salaries were falling behind seriously relative to some of the other places, and (3) recruiting of established, highly competent economists became all but impossible given the crisis that was upon us and the (then) low repute of the University neighborhood.

The ever present danger of the past few years has been that we would be in the judgment of competent colleagues elsewhere, in the beliefs of oncoming graduate students and in the eyes of the major foundations – not recover our high standing but instead sing to a second or even a third-rate department and in the process lose the (internal) capacity to recruit and rebuild.

We now have achieved a turning point distinctly in our favor.

The major efforts which have contributed most have been as follows:

  1. We have taken full advantage of our unique organization in combining real research with graduate instruction. Our research and instruction workshops are the result. The Rockefeller Foundation gave us three grants along the way – agricultural economics, money and public finance – to test this approach and advanced graduate work. The Ford Foundation has now financed our workshops with $200,000 (eight 5-year grant) (our proposal of January 1956 to The Ford Foundation states the theory and argues the case for this approach on the basis of the experiences we have already accumulated).
  2. We set out aggressively to recruit outstanding younger economists. The workshops were a big aid to us in doing this; so was the financial support of the University. We had the ability to “spot them”. We now have the best group of talented young economists, age 30 and less, to be found anywhere. This achievement is rapidly becoming known to others in keen “competition” is already upon us as a consequence.
  3. We need urgently to run up a lightning rod, a (rotating) professorship with a salary second to none, to attract talent and make it clear we were in business and would pay for the best. The Ford Foundation took favorably to the idea. (Thought so well of it that they will do the same for 3 other privately supported Universities – Columbia, Harvard and Yale!)
    The $500,000 endowment grant from them for a rotating research professorship is our reward.
  4. The foundations have given us a strong vote of confidence: grants and funds received by the Department of Economics during 1955-56 now total $1,220,000. (A statement listing these is attached).
  5. The marked turn for the better in the number and the quality of students applying for scholarships and fellowships is, also, an affirmative indication.
  6. The Economics Research Center is filling a large gap in providing computing, publishing and related research facilities which was formally a function of the Cowles Commission.
  7. The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine “laboratory” in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development – a major new field in economics.

There remains, however, much to be done. We must, above all, not lose the upward momentum which is now working in our favor.

Faculty and University Financial Support

To have and to hold a first rate faculty in economics now requires between $225,000 and $250,000 of University funds a year.

To have a major faculty means offering instruction and doing research in 8 to 10 fields. Up until two years ago we came close to satisfying the standard in our graduate instruction. We then had 11 (and just prior to that, 12) professors on indefinite tenure.

Then, Koopmans and Marschak were off to Yale, Harbison to Princeton and Knight did reach 70. And, then there were 7. On top of these “woes” came the serious illness of Metzler which greatly curtailed his role; and, Nef having virtually left economics. Thus, only 5 were really active in economics with Wallis carrying many other professional burdens. Meanwhile we added only one – Harberger was given tenured this year.

Accordingly at the indefinite tenure level we are down to about one-half of what is required to have a major faculty. Fortunately, several younger men have entered and have been doing work of very high quality.

It should be said that the Deans and the Chancellor have stood by, prepared to help us rebuild.

Major appointments were authorized – Arrow, Stigler, Solow and others. We still are hoping that Arthur F. Burns will come.

The resignations and the retirement, however, did necessarily reduce sharply the amount of financial support from the University.

In rebuilding, at least five additional tenure positions will be required:

  1. Labor economics (from within)
  2. Trade cycle (we hope it will be Arthur F. Burns, already authorized).
  3. Money
  4. Econometrics and mathematical economics.
  5. Business organization
  6. Consumption economics (when Miss Reid retires; next 3 years we shall have the extra strength of Dr. D. Brady with finances from The Rockefeller Foundation)
  7. International trade (pending Metzler’s recovery)
  8. Economic development.

The faculty and the University financial support recommended is as follows:

Tenured positions (for individuals fully committed to economics).

    1. Now in the harness

6: Friedman, Johnson, Harberger, Hamilton (Metzler), Wallis (Nef), Schultz

    1. To be added

5: Burns pending, (labor), (money), and two other fields, most likely econometrics and business organization

 

Budget:

11 [tenured positions]

  

$165,000
Metzler and Nef $15,000
$180,000
III. Supplementary non-tenure faculty $45,000
Altogether $225,000

 

Outside Financial Support for the Department of Economics

Grants

 Amount of grant Available 1956-57

A. Received during 1955-56.
1.     Sears Roebuck Fellowships

$4,000

$4,000
2.     National Science Foundation (2 years)

$13,000

$6,500
3.     Conservation Foundation (2 years)

$33,000

$16,500
4.     Rockefeller Foundation: consumption economics (3 years)

$45,000

$15,000
5.     American Enterprise (2 years)

$17,250

$8,625
6.     Ford Foundation: research and instructional workshops (5 years)

$200,000

$30,000
7.     Earhart Fellowships.

$6,000

$6,000
8.     S.S.R.C. Student Grants

$5,000

$5,000
9.     Ford Foundation: 3 pre-doctoral grants

$10,200

$10,200
10.  Ford Foundation: faculty research grant (Hamilton)

$12,500

$8,000
11.  ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center Fellowships, research support (3 yrs)

$375,000

$125,000
12.  Ford Foundation: endowment for rotating research professor

$500,000

$25,000
13.  Rockefeller Foundation: Latin America (Ballesteros)

$5,000

$5,000

Sub-totals

$1,225,950

$264,825

B. Received prior to 1955-56 where funds are available for 1956-57.
1.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in money (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
2.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in public finance (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
3.     Resources for the Future (3 years with one year to go)

$67,000

$27,000
4.     Russian Agriculture (2 years with one to go)

$47,000

$22,000

B sub-totals

 $214,000 $89,000

A and B totals

$1,439,950

$353,825

 

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 42, Folder 8.

Image Source: 1944 photo of T.W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07479, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Cf. Wikimedia Commons, same portrait (dated 1944) from Library of Congress.