Tag: Hicks

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Gender

Chicago. Notes on conversation with U Chicago president Colwell by T.W. Schultz, 1946

Biblical Greek Scholar/Theologian Ernest Cadman Colwell served under Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins as the president of the University of Chicago from 1945 to 1951. Theodore W. Schultz was the relatively new head of the Department of Economics who met with Colwell in late September 1946 to brief the president on developments in the economics department, especially with respect to efforts being made in pursuit of several economists needed to fill the gaps left by Henry Simons’ death (1946), Chester W. Wright’s retirement (1944), resignations by Jacob Viner (1946) and Simeon E. Leland (1946), and Oskar Lange’s leave of absence (1945-).

We see in the memorandum of conversation transcribed below that John and Ursula Hicks posed a spousal hire issue needing a creative solution before an actual offer could be made and that sixty year old Frank Knight was due some sort of a “senatorial courtesy” to get him on board with the majority of the department who badly wanted to extend an offer to thirty-one year old Paul Samuelson. 

_________________________

Chicago Economics in 1946

Mitch, David. “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946.” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (2016): 1714–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549915. Especially the online supplemental materials, where the following memo is quoted in part.

_________________________

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

Harro Maas, “Making Things Technical: Samuelson at MIT” in E. Roy Weintraub (ed.) MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014), pp. 272-294.

Roger Backhouse. Founder of Modern Economics: Paul A. Samuelson. Vol. I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948 (Oxford University Press, 2017), Chapter 28 “Commitment to MIT.”

_________________________

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

This discussion with President Colwell was highly satisfactory in that we considered in some detail and carefully, a number of important developments affecting the Department of Economics as follows:

1. I indicated to Mr. Colwell that the role of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago should be reviewed, with the view of achieving a better division of labor among universities within the U. S. and internationally. An increasing number of universities can do creditable undergraduate work in economics, and also satisfactory graduate work up to and beyond the master’s. There are upwards of two score of such institutions in the U. S. Meanwhile, the number of students seeking training at the undergraduate level, and also in graduate work, has increased rapidly, and the post war promises further growth in numbers. Meanwhile, many Western countries are looking to the U.S. for some of their advanced education in other fields as well as in economics), this along with the development that is taking place within the U. S., suggests that the time has come for the University of Chicago to allocate its resources even more largely to the most advanced reaches of economics. I proposed that we examine carefully the implications of this kind of refocusing of our program. I was pleased that Mr. Colwell found himself drawn to the kind of analysis I was presenting. He made several contributions to it and concurred with the analysis itself. He very cordially urged the Department to examine this thesis and reconstitute itself to serve more effectively, taking full account of the division of labor within American academic institutions.

2. I reviewed in some detail the state of the Department, pointing out the losses that have come as the result of the death of Simons, the retirement of Wright, the resignations of Viner and Leland, and the leave of absence of Lange. I expressed our pleasure in achieving the appointment of Friedman and Blough, and reaffirmed my confidence in our judgment in seeking these appointments.

With regard to additional appointments, the following individuals were discussed.

(1) Mr. and Mrs. Hicks. I reviewed the agreements we had with Mr. Hutchins, which were the foundation of negotiations last spring. I indicated that the Hicks would arrive this week to be with us the fore-part of the fall quarter. If as a result of this opportunity of being together during part of the fall quarter, the Hicks see a real opportunity for their professional efforts at the University of Chicago, and we continue to be genuinely interested in bringing them to this University, would we be permitted to offer Mr. and Mrs. Hicks the salaries and positions that we had discussed last spring realizing we might have to go higher in the case of Mr. Hicks, for I was convinced his standing warranted our paying the maximum. Mr. Colwell said he was willing to authorize an offer of $10,000 to Mr. Hicks, and probed with me for a while the merit of making it higher instead of offering a position to both individuals. It was my judgment that our bargaining power would be at a maximum if we would offer both individuals a position, but that we could escape the liability of dual membership in one family by making the offer to Mrs. Hicks a term appointment — perhaps that of a Lecturer or Research Associate, say for three years at $3,000, and then reconsider at the end of three years, where she would have the privilege of withdrawing or redefining her relationship, and the Department would likewise have that privilege. Thus, the commitment would be permanent in the case of Mr. Hicks, but meaningful in terms of time turned into professional task to Mrs. Hicks and yet allowing flexibility in her case. Mr. Colwell accepted my proposal to proceed with an offer to both Mr. and Mrs. Hicks along the lines I have outlined.

(2) I reported Mr. Viner’s observations that it was not likely Mr. Robbins would leave the London School of Economics, and that, at least for a year, there was no point in making an indirect approach again to see whether or not he might feel free to accept an appointment in this country. Mr. Colwell fully concurred.

(3) I reviewed our offer to Mr. Colin Clark to come to the University of Chicago as guest professor for a year. I also pointed out we had included in the offer $1000 for travel expenses. I Indicated further that several of my colleagues were disposed to feel that we should now make an offer of a permanent appointment to Mr. Clark, since he is not able to obtain leave of absence to come as visiting professor. I then indicated why I felt, although tentatively, that it was unwise to make this move for a permanent relationship with the Department until we had a chance to become personally acquainted with Mr. Clark, although I continue to have a high regard for his professional work as evidenced by his major writings. Mr. Colwell concurred with the view I expressed, namely, we should not make an appointment on a permanent basis, but should try to get Mr. Clark to come as a visiting professor, if not this year, perhaps next year.

(4) I reviewed the case of Albert G. Hart, indicating that he had accepted a position at Columbia before we could approach him with an offer, and that it was important to his own growth to take the position at Columbia for a year. My plan is to approach him at the end of the year, let him weigh alternatives, including the opportunities as he sees them at Columbia. My proposal to Mr. Colwell was that we approach Hart along in February or March in order to induce him to come to Chicago. We discussed Hart’s background in some detail, Mr. Colwell concurred in the procedure I outlined to him.

(5) I then outlined at some length the case of Paul Samuelson of M.I.T. Mr. Colwell had not had the privilege of visiting with Samuelson at the time he was here. Samuelson visited with Hutchins and Gustavson, as far as Central Administration was concerned. I stated it was my judgment that Samuelson is one of the younger men in economics who has a high probability of achieving a distinguished career as an economist, and that in this respect his promise is most outstanding; that I had no doubt of the merits of the case intellectually and would press for an appointment, were that the only consideration, without delay, but that I had to achieve, however, an acceptance of Mr. Samuelson in the Department, not that a majority was lacking; a mandate existed satisfying the University administrative requirements. But the obstacle lies in what in substance is a matter of “senatorial courtesy” in behalf of the most distinguished and senior member of the Department, Professor Frank Knight. I expressed the hope it would be possible to have Professor Knight concur in the appointment and feel it was being made without any discourtesy to him and his professional role and standing in this University and in the profession. I felt this end must and could be achieved and that I was going to give a great deal of effort to it in the coming months. Pending the full exploration of what can be done in this connection I wanted to reserve decision as to whether or not to recommend the appointment of Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Colwell discussed at some length his own appraisal of the problem I had presented. He seemed to be pleased with the approach that was implicit in what I was relating to him. He made the point, and made it explicitly, that if the intellectual stature of Samuelson is as high as my judgment indicated, that it was exceedingly important the University move toward an appointment. I felt sure, though, that he was disposed to await the wishes of the Department, weighing carefully the factors I had tried to describe to him.

  1. At this point Mr. Colwell took me back to my general thesis, namely, the refocusing of the goals of the Department and the use of its resources, urging me to give active attention to this task. Whereupon I suggested the achievement of this role might well mean the setting up of 5 to 7 positions in the Department for individuals to spend 2 to 5 years at this university in what would be essentially a post-doctoral role as scholars, then accept positions elsewhere consistent with their accomplishments and promise. Mr. Colwell was drawn to the proposal as I had put it and referred briefly to similar planning and developments in other fields.

T. W. Schultz.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder “3”.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Marschak on potential hires for department, 1946

 

In his magnificent article about the departmental politics behind the appointment of Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1946, David Mitch refers in passing to a February 1946 memo written to the Chancellor and President of the University by Vice-President Rueben G. Gustavson in which the Vice-President reports on a discussion he had with Jacob Marschak about various economists being considered for appointment.

Mitch’s online Appendix to his article provides an excellent selection of archival artifacts to which the transcription of the Gustavson memo below may be added. In this memo it looks like we are observing active lobbying (at least providing his “spin”) on Marschak’s part rather than a senior faculty member summoned by an administrator to provide deep background on prospective hires.

It is worth noting that the names of five future Nobel prize winners in economics can be found in a single 1946 memo. It is also interesting that the last two candidates mentioned in the memo, namely Lloyd Metzler and Milton Friedman, were the only two to turn out to become permanent acquisitions of the department.

 

See: David Mitch, “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946,” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (December 2016): 1714-1734. [working paper version (ungated)]

__________________________________

Biographical Note of Rueben Gilbert Gustavson

Rueben Gilbert Gustavson was born (April 6, 1892-February 24, 1974) to Swedish immigrants James and Hildegard Gustavson. As a young man Gustavson developed a strong belief in moral responsibility to others. After a childhood injury made following in his father’s footsteps as a carpenter impossible he attended high school where he excelled in his studies. In deference to his father’s wish he learn practical skills Gustavson took courses in typing and stenography. These classes enabled Reuben to gain employment with Colorado and Southern Railroad where he became secretary to the auditor. The monies Gustavson earned working at the railroad enabled him to enroll in at the University of Denver, DU. After obtaining his bachelor’s degree DU Gustavson decided to pursue a master’s degree in chemistry. He received his MS in chemistry in 1917 and briefly became a chemist at the Great Western Sugar Company. He accepted an offer to teach at the Colorado Agricultural College in Fort Collins but became disillusioned when told that as a professor he could not teach and conduct research. Gustavson returned to DU where he remained for the next seventeen years. During that time he spent summer breaks working toward his PhD at the University of Chicago. Initially, specializing in radioactivity the loss of his advisor enabled him to change to biochemistry. Gustavson received his PhD in 1925 and taught at the University of Chicago during the 1929-30 academic year. A disagreement over what Gustavson felt were unethical practices involving student athletes led to him leaving DU. University of Colorado President, George Norlin, invited Gustavson to join the faculty as a professor of chemistry. He was appointed chairman of the chemistry department and remained in that position from 1937-42. In 1942 the Dean of the Graduate School became ill and Gustavson was chosen as a temporary replacement but when the dean died the position became permanent. Now involved in the academic administration of the university Gustavson was chosen to substitute for the new president of the University of Colorado, Robert L. Stearns, during World War II. Stearns was commissioned as an officer in the Army Air Corps. Gustavson accepted the position with the understanding that Stearns would resume the presidency when he returned. After the war Gustavson became the Vice President and Dean of Faculties at the University of Chicago for a short time in 1945-46. During Gustavson’s time at the University of Chicago he worked with Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller on the atomic bomb project. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced Gustavson the only hope for human survival was the promotion of peace through education that taught appreciation of other peoples and cultures. In 1946 Gustavson moved to the University of Nebraska where he remained as Chancellor until 1953. After leaving the University of Nebraska Gustavson became the first president of Resources for the Future where he served from 1953-1959. An outgrowth of his work on the atomic bomb project this organization conducted economic research and analysis to help craft better policies on the use and preservation of natural resources. Gustavson then resumed teaching at the University of Arizona and was a member of the chemistry department from 1960 until his death in 1974.

Source: John Patrick McSweeney. The Chancellorship of Reuben G. Gustavson at the University of Nebraska, 1946-1953. Lincoln: Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska, 1971.

__________________________________

Gustavson Memorandum of Discussion with Jacob Marshak

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date February 19, 1946

To:     RMH [Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago (1929-45); Chancellor (1945-51)]; ECC [Ernest Cadman Colwell, President of the University of Chicago (1945-51)]
From: RGG [Reuben G. Gustavson, Vice-President of the University of Chicago (1945-1946)]

Professor Marschak came in to talk to me about possible recommendations for men in the Department of Economics. He discussed the following:

  1. John Hicks of London. He is now at Oxford but is coming to this country. He is about forty years of age. He is quite well known, especially for his book called the “Brainwork of Social Economy.” [sic, The Social Framework: An Introduction to Economics] This book is now being used in the College.
  2. Paul Samuelson is a much younger man than Hicks. He is now an associate professor at M.I.T. He is known for his work in the general theory of disequilibrium.
  3. Arthur Smithies is professor at the University of Michigan. He is now in the Bureau of the Budget at Washington. Marschak describes him as a man who is concerned with economic policies. He takes the empirical approach to the study of economics.

Marschak states that Mr. Hicks is also a good man in local finance [Hicks’ wife, Ursula Hicks, probably mentioned by Marschak]. He says also that T. Koopmans, Research Associate with the Cowles Commission, who has been recommended for an associate professorship, is a very fine man. He is in mathematical statistics. He speaks highly of Lionel Robbins of the London School. Marschak says he is an all-around personality. He has been of great service to the English government during the war.

He thinks very highly of Lloyd Metzler. He was an instructor at Harvard. He as applied the modern methods of Samuelson to international trade.

Professor Marschak also thinks very highly of Milton Friedman, who is a graduate of the University of Chicago.

I shall discuss all these men with Schultz.

 

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 284, Folder “Economics, 1943-1947”.

 

Image Source: Reuben G. Gustavson from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06588, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Talent-Scouting for New Faculty, Joint Appointments and Visiting Faculty, 1945

__________________________

On April 10, 1945, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department, Professor Simeon E. Leland, submitted a 77 page (!) memorandum to President Robert M. Hutchins entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics–A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

In his cover letter Leland wrote “…in the preparation of the memorandum, I learned much that was new about the past history of the Department. Some of this, incorporated in the memorandum, looks like filler stuck in, but I thought it ought to be included for historical reasons and to furnish some background for a few of the suggestions.” 

In recent posts I have provided a list of visiting professors who taught economics at the University of Chicago up through 1944 (excluding those visitors who were to receive permanent appointments) and supporting tables with enrollment trends and faculty data (ages and educational backgrounds).

In this post we have three lists of names for economists who in 1945 could be taken into consideration for either permanent economics, joint appointments with other department or visiting appointments at the University of Chicago. Many names are immediately recognisable, others less so, and other known names left unnamed. Instead of observing the actual choices of the department, we have, so to speak, an observation of the “choice set” as perceived by the department.

______________________________

          The following list of possible additions to the staff of the Department of Economics represents an enumeration of suggestions made by various members of the Department. It, of course, does not include all of those whom the Department would like to invite as permanent members of the University staff. Many of those whom we would most like to have, it is well-known, are not available; nor can the Department be sure that those listed below would favorably consider an invitation to join our staff. Likewise, this list must not be construed as nominations for membership in the Department. Some members of the staff are known to object to the inclusion of some of the names listed below. But if unanimous consent were required before suggestions could be made, little progress in building a Department would be possible. In its present state, the list is only an enumeration of suggestions warranting further inquiry. The fields of interest of many of the potential candidates overlap and the appointment of some individuals would make it undesirable, or at least uneconomic, to appoint others. Nevertheless, the list does given an idea of some persons who might be considered for future appointments. This list, like any other enumeration, is subject to constant revision, both in the addition or subtraction of names.

Name

 Present Location

Field of Interest or Specialization
Abraham (sic) Bergson University of Texas Wages and Wage Theory
Robert Bryce Ottawa, Canada
Norman Buchanan University of California Public Utilities, Corporation Finance, Business Cycles (also possible interest in United States Economic History)
Earl Hamilton Northwestern University Economic History
Albert G. Hart C.E.D., Chicago Theory, Finance, etc.
J. R. Hicks University of Manchester, England Economic Theory
Harold A. Innis University of Toronto Economic History
Maurice Kelso University of Wisconsin Land Economics
Tjalling Koopmans Cowles Commission Statistics; Mathematical Economics; Business Cycles; Shipping
Simon Kuznets University of Pennsylvania National Income; Historical Statistics
Sanford Mosk University of California Economic History
Charles A. Myers Massachusetts Institute of Technology Labor; Industrial Relations
Walter Rostow Columbia University Economic History (XIX Century)
Leonard Salter University of Wisconsin Land Economics
T. Scitovszky London School of Economics; U.S. Army Theory of Capital and Interest; Theory of Tariffs
Arthur Smithies University of Michigan; Bureau of the Budget, Washington, D. C. Fiscal Policy; Theory; Money and Banking
Eugene Staley School of Advanced International Studies (Washington, D.C.) International Economics; Foreign Trade
George Stigler University of Minnesota Theory and Foreign Trade
R. H. Tawney London School of Economics Economic History
Allen Wallis Stanford University Statistics

______________________________

Joint Appointments

The Department of Economics shares an interest in many fields with other departments, schools and divisions of the University. It recognizes that most problems of the Social Sciences have economic aspects, and other aspects as well. Many of the fields embraced within particular disciplines are explained by accident or tradition, not always by logic. No one department can, therefore, assert a valid claim for the exclusive staffing of fields of interest held in common with other branches of knowledge. It seems wisest to develop these common grounds through joint appointments. Not only does this enable us to attract to the University more outstanding scholars than the fellowship of one department might provide, but it should also place at the disposition of those interested in promoting joint fields, perhaps, larger resources than either acting alone could command.

Joint appointments, too, will tend to integrate the Social Sciences with the other schools and departments affected, as well as contribute to the unity of the University as a whole. The Department of Economics, therefore, ventures to suggest joint appointments in the following fields:

Fields Units Affected
Trusts and Monopolies Business, Law, Economics
Railroads and Transportation Business, Economics
Public Utilities Economics, Political Science, Law
Social Control of Business Business, Law, Political Science, Economics
Advanced Applied Mathematics and Statistics Economics, Mathematics, Business, Institute of Statistics, other departments interested in statistics
Urban Planning (or the Utilization of Land) Geography, Political Science, Economics, Law, Business, Sociology
Social Legislation, particularly affecting Labor Business, Sociology, Social Service Administration, Law, Political Science, Economics

[…]

Among those who might be proposed for joint appointments are the following:

Name Present Location Field of Interest Appropriate Appointment
Charles L. Dearing Brookings Institution and U.S. Government Transportation Economics, Business
Corwin D. Edwards Northwestern University Trusts, Monopolies, Control of Business Political Science, Law, Economics
Milton Friedman Columbia University Economic Theory, Public Finance, Monetary Policy Economics, Institute of Statistics
Homer Hoyt Regional Plan Association, Inc., New York, N.Y. Land Planning Economic Geography, Political Science
David E. Lilienthal T. V. A. Public Utilities Political Science, Law, Economics
Abraham Wald Columbia University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics
Allen Wallis Columbia University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics
Samuel S. Wilks Princeton University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics

Visiting Professorships

Each department needs to diversify its courses. Too frequently the attempt at diversification is made by adding permanent members to the regular staff. The need can best be met by the appointment of visiting professors.

[…]

A list of some who might be invited to the University as Visiting Professors is as follows:

Name Present Location Fields of Interest
John D. Black Harvard Agricultural Economics
(J.) Roy Blough U. S. Treasury Public Finance
Kenneth Boulding Iowa State College Economic Analysis; Theory of Capital
Karl Brandt Food Institute, Stanford U. Agricultural Economics
Harry G. Brown University of Missouri Economic Theory, Public Finance
J. Douglas Brown Princeton University Industrial Relations
Edward H. Chamberlain(sic) Harvard Economic Theory; Monopolistic Competition
J. M. Clark Columbia University Economic theory
J. B. Condliffe California International Trade; International Commercial Policy
Joseph S. Davis Food Institute, Stanford U. Agricultural Economics
Milton Gilbert Office of Price Administration, Washington, D.C. Economic Theory; Price Control
T. Haavelmo Norwegian Shipping Administration, New York, N.Y. Econometrics
Alvin Hansen Harvard Economic Theory; Fiscal Policy
F. A. Hayek London School of Economics and Political Science History of Social Thought; Economic Theory; Monetary Policy
J. R. Hicks University of Manchester Economic Theory
George Jaszy U. S. Dept. of Commerce National Income; Business Analysis
O. B. Jesness University of Minnesota Agricultural Economics
Nicholas Kaldor London School of Economics Theory of the Firm; Imperfect Competition; Money; Business Cycles
M. Kalecki Institute of Statistics of University of Oxford, England Economic Fluctuations; Expenditure Rationing
M. Slade Kendrick Cornell University Public Finance; Farm Taxation
Arthur Kent San Francisco Attorney-at-Law Taxation
J. M. Keynes Cambridge University Fiscal and Monetary Policy
Simon S. Kuznets National Bureau of Economic Research; University of Pennsylvania Statistics; National Income and Its Problem
A. P. Lerner New School for Social Research Economic Theory; Fiscal Policy; Public Finance
Edward S. Mason Harvard University Economic Theory; International Trade and Trade Practices
Wesley C. Mitchell Columbia University Money and Prices
Jacob Mosak Office of Price Administration, Washington, D.C. Economic Theory; Statistics; Control of Prices
R. A. Musgrave Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D. C. Public Finance
Randolph Paul Lord, Day and Lord, Attorneys-at-Law Taxation
Paul A. Samuelson Massachusetts Institute of Technology Economic Theory; Money and Banking; Fiscal Policy
Lawrence H. Seltzer Wayne University Money and Banking; Public Debts; Fiscal Policy
Carl S. Shoup Columbia University Public Finance
Sumner H. Slichter Harvard University Business Economics
Richard Stone England Statistics; National Income
R. H. Tawney London School of Economics Economic History
Abraham Wald Columbia University Mathematics and Statistics
John H. Williams Harvard University Money and Banking

In the past, the Department has supplemented its staff by the appointment of visiting professors, but the invitations have ordinarily been restricted to the Summer Quarter in order (1) to relieve the regular staff from summer teaching and (2) to provide “window-dressing” to make the Summer Quarters more attractive to new students. The potentialities of the visiting professorship can hardly be realized when the practice is applied only to the Summer Quarter. That it has made that Quarter more attractive would seem to be indicated by the outstanding economists who have been guests of the University of Chicago.

[…]

The practice of inviting outstanding men to the University of Chicago seems to have been more prevalent in the early years of the University than it is today. Visiting appointments also declined with the strained finances of the University during the late depression. The Department is anxious to develop a program of instruction and research based upon the policy of the regular employment of visitors. A sum, equal to the stipend of a full professor, if used to finance a program of regular visitors, would add greater content and prestige to the Department than could be secured in any other way.

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 73, Folder “Economics Dept., “Post-War Plans” Simeon E. Leland, 1945″.

Categories
Economic History Economists

John Hicks Arguing for More Economic History Research, 1947

The Duke Economists’ Papers Project has a grab-bag of papers from the distinguished economic historian Earl J. Hamilton. A soul braver than myself might some day try to create order out of that chaos, but I was able to stumble upon the following early “remarks” by future Nobel-prize economist John R. Hicks, though lacking all context save the date. Perhaps a Hicks expert or an historian of economic history can identify where these remarks were given (or perhaps eventually published?). These remarks sound much like Schumpeter’s recipe for a good economist writ large to economic research. I can only say, “Hear, hear!”

________________________

RESEARCH IN ECONOMIC HISTORY

John R. Hicks
January 11, 1947

The following remarks about the desirability of encouraging research in economic history are written from the standpoint of the general economist, who is not primarily a historian. He is not interested in economic history as history, but he is interested in furthering the development of economic science in general. He is looking for the general principles governing economic behaviour, and his particular interest is the application of those principles to the modern world.

As compared with the situation in the natural sciences, the economist’s object of study is essentially a historical process, spread out in time. In practice his main preoccupation is with the advancing edge of that process (the present), and it is right and proper that this should be so, since the present is more likely than the past to have a bearing on the future, control over which is the ultimate practical object. But this preoccupation can easily go too far. The past, no less than the present, is part of the material available for study and out of which generalisations can be built up. Generalisations based upon the present alone, or the present and recent past alone, are necessarily insecure; no doubt all economic generalisations are insecure, but these are more insecure than they need be.

The relevance of economic history to economic science has greatly increased of late, in view of the recent tendencies to bring economic theory to earth and achieve a more effective marriage between theory and statistics. Econometric work based upon very short time series is statistically unsatisfactory, and cannot be used as a basis for prediction with any high degree or probability. There is thus a tendency on the part of economic statisticians to push further back into the past as a means of increasing the amount of analysable material. But such additional material cannot be securely used unless its reliability is evaluated by people who are accustomed to use historical evidence—collaboration between the trained statistician and the trained historian (a very awkward collaboration with our present academic background) is going to be urgently needed at the next stage of development of economics. Further, it is not only the material which needs checking—the use which is made of it needs checking too. As we push backwards into history, institutions change; the whole background, economic, semi-economic and non-economic, changes. One of the commonest sources of error in economic reasoning is a failure to recognise that an institutional change has made a profound difference to the working of some particular “mechanism” or standardised response pattern. We notice this most often in a failure to “keep up to date”—the “out of date” economist is he who has failed to realize that a change in institution had modified or even completely destroyed some of the reaction patterns which may have been valid enough when he was young. The opposite error has hitherto been of less importance, but there are indications that it is now becoming serious; although it will never have the practical importance of that just described, it may be a serious impediment to scientific progress. To read the events of the past against an institutional background which is not theirs, is just as wrong as to read the accounts of the present against a background which is not theirs. Unless the background is in good shape, historical statistical data cannot be used; they can only be misused.

The above is not only an argument, as might appear at first sight, for better training of economists and statisticians in economic history; it is also an argument for research in economic history. For the sorts of questions which economists and statisticians are beginning to ask of the historical material are different from the questions which the historians have been asking. The historical background which is needed is not there, to be had for the asking, in the textbooks—or the classics—of economic history; to a large extent, it is yet to be discovered by new work.

I have here one example mainly in mind, though I am sure it is not the only example—not by a long way. The “Keynesian revolution” has thrown a powerful new light on contemporary economics; just how far the light extends is an arguable matter, but that it extends some distance can hardly be questioned. Now it would be of great help in our evaluation of the current uses of the Keynesian hypotheses if we could tell how far back in history they go on being useful. If it can be shown that they are useful in the interpretation of the economic history of the nineteenth or even eighteenth centuries, it would strengthen their position as a “General Theory”; if on the other hand, it becomes apparent that we have to force the historical material to get it into a Keynesian mould, we should get an indication of the dependence of the theory on a particular institutional (and perhaps psychological) set-up, and this would hardly fail to affect our attitude towards the theory and even our use of it vis a vis the problems of to-day.

I pass on to a much wider consideration. The ascertainment of economic principles or generalisations is only a step towards the understanding of events; one may say that the object of all economic inquiry—the penultimate object, perhaps, short of the ultimate object of increasing our control over the future—is to give an intelligible and analytical account of economic and economico-social processes, both the completed processes of the past and the uncompleted processes of the present. Now in some important ways the processes of the present are more difficult to study; they are more difficult because the sheer mass of material drives us to excessive specialisation, and also because their lack of completion deprives us in another way of the advantage of seeing the processes as a whole. In historical work it is at least in principle easier to take a synoptic view; and one cannot help feeling that if a rather larger proportion of economic research was devoted to historical problems it would help to maintain better standards of “all-roundness” in the sector—undoubtedly the more important sector from a practical point of view—which is concerned with the problems of the contemporary world.

This, in my view, is the case for encouraging research in economic history But I am well aware of the main difficulty which stands in the way of such research, if it is to be the kind of research which really meets the ends which I have set down. The number of people who have the equipment. to do the work—equipment in history and economics and probably statistics as well—is at present extremely limited. Work of this sort needs a bigger equipment than more specialised work, and therefore involves a longer preparation. At present there is little incentive to undergo this long preparation, and even for those people who have strong personal inclinations for it, there are strong incentives to turn aside on the way. In all the universities of the British Isles (I speak of what I know) there are at present only five chairs of economic history—two in London, one each at Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester. Apart from these, the subject offers very few openings indeed. Thus if greater encouragement were offered, one could not expect that supply would adjust itself to demand at once; it would take time before the number of suitable people could be much increased. If however one looks round at the people who have been diverted into teaching or research in “straight” economics or “straight” history, one can not doubt that the potential supply of first-rate economic historians is quite considerable; it would take time to show itself, but it would show itself in time.

 

Source: Duke University. Rubenstein Library. Earl J. Hamilton papers. Box 2, Folder “Correspondence—Misc. 1930’s-1950’s and n.d.”