Tag: Hoselitz

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 Courses Curriculum Fields Graduate Student Support

Chicago. Program of advanced instruction and research training in economics. 1956-57.

To gauge the scale and scope of economics departments it is useful to have copies of the annual announcements/brochures. In this post we add a transcription of the announcement for advanced instruction and research in economics at the University of Chicago for 1956-57.

Some previous posts:

Chicago, 1892

Wisconsin, 1893-94

Chicago, 1900-01

Chicago, 1904-05

Wisconsin, 1904-05

M.I.T., 1961

Harvard, 1967

___________________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
announces
Advanced Instruction
and Research Training
in
ECONOMICS:

Price Theory
Money and Banking
Economic History
Statistics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Agricultural Economics
Government Finance
International Economic Relations and Economic Development
Economics of Consumption
Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

SESSIONS OF 1956-1957

___________________________

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Officers of Instruction

Theodore William Schultz, Ph.D., Chairman of the Department of Economics and Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor of Economics.

Frank Hyneman Knight, Ph.D., Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the Social Sciences.

John Ulric Nef, Ph.D., Professor of Economic History.

Earl J. Hamilton, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Milton Friedman, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Lloyd A. Metzler, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Margaret G. Reid, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

W. Allen Wallis, A.B., Professor of Economics and Statistics.

D. Gale Johnson, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Bert F. Hoselitz, A.M., Dr. Jur., Professor of the Social Sciences.

Hans Theil, Ph.D., Visiting Professor of Economics.

Harold Gregg Lewis, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Arnold C. Harberger, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Albert E. Rees, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Carl Christ, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Simon Rottenberg, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

George S. Tolley, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Robert Lloyd Gustafson, A.M., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Phillip David Cagan, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Martin Jean Bailey, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Chester Whitney Wright, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Economics.

Hazel Kyrk, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Economics and Home Economics.

Lloyd W. Mints, A.M., Professor Emeritus of Economics.

Mary Barnett Gilson, A.M., Assistant Professor Emeritus of Economics in the College.

Fellows, 1955-56

Richard King, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Economy.

Yossef Attiyeh, A.M., Falk Foundation Fellow,

Milton Frank Bauer, A.M., Canadian Social Science Research Council Fellow.

John Allan Edwards, A.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

Lawrence Fisher, A.B., Earhart Foundation Fellow.

B. Delworth Gardner, S.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

Hirsh Zvi Griliches, S.M., Social Science Research Council Fellow.

Marc Leon Nerlove, A.M., Earhart Foundation Fellow.

Hugh Oliver Nourse, A.B., Woodrow Wilson Fellow.

Walter Yasuo Oi, A.M., Owen D. Young Fellow.

Boris Peter Pesek, A.M., Ford Foundation Fellow.

Duvvuri Venkata Ramana, A.M., Ford Foundation Fellow.

Jean Reynier, Diplôme D’études Supérieures De Doctorat, University of Paris Exchange Fellow.

Robert Oliver Rogers, A.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

John William Louis Winder, A.M., Edward Hillman Fellow.

___________________________

Introductory

                  The Department of Economics views the central problem of economic science as that of understanding the social organization of human and other scarce productive resources: principally the allocation of these resources among alternative uses by a system of exchange. The purpose of the Department is both to train economic scientists and to advance economic science.

                  The Department offers programs of instruction and research training not only for students seeking an advanced degree in economics at the University of Chicago but also for students working on an advanced degree at another institution who wish to complement the training available to them there and for students not seeking an advanced degree but who wish to pursue advanced study in economics at either the predoctoral or the postdoctoral level. Instruction is provided in all of the major fields of economics affording opportunity for well-rounded training in economics. Additional facilities in other parts of the University, including those in the other social sciences, mathematics, statistics, business administration, law, and philosophy, permit students wide choice among supplementary areas of study.

                  Courses of instruction at three levels of advancement are offered by the Department:

                  1. Intermediate courses (numbered in the 200’s) for those completing their work for the Bachelor’s degree and for others preparing for advanced training in economics.

                  2. Courses in economic theory, statistical inference, economic history, and economic analysis related to problem fields (numbered in the 300’s) that provide the strong theoretical foundation and related applied knowledge required of all candidates for advanced degrees in economics as preparation for economic research. Students are urged before entering these courses to acquire a command of the rudiments of the differential calculus.

                  3. Courses (including seminars, workshops, and other research working groups, and individual instruction) that provide arrangements for research and research supervision (numbered in the 400’s). These courses apply and seek to teach students to apply the foundations of economic analysis to research on particular economic problems.

THE ECONOMICS RESEARCH CENTER

                  The Department devotes a large proportion of its resources to research in economics and to the training of student research apprentices. The purpose of the Economics Research Center is to co-ordinate the research and research training activities of the Department. The Center supplies essential clerical, computing, and reference library services, assists in the organization of research seminars and working groups, and publishes the major research output of the Department in its series: “Studies in Economics.”

                  Some of the research training in the Center is organized on a continuing basis by one or more faculty members working with associates and students in research groups. (The staffs and research projects of these groups for the academic year 1955-56 are listed below.) Research training and facilities for research are available, however, to all qualified students, both those associated with a research group and those engaged in individual research.

Projects and Staffs of Research Groups, 1955-56

Workshop in Money and Banking

Faculty: Professors Cagan and Friedman.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Yossef Attiyeh, Hugh Roy Elliott, Duvvuri V. Ramana, and Robert E. Snyder.

Project: The role of monetary and banking factors in economic fluctuations.

Office of Agricultural Economies Research

Faculty: Professors Gustafson, Johnson, Schultz, and Tolley.

Research Associates: John A. Dawson, Cecil B. Haver, William E. Hendrix, Lester G. Telser, and Joseph Willett.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Marto Ballesteros, Michael Joseph Brennan, Donald S. Green, Hirsh Zvi Griliches, Vaughan Stevens Hastings, Roy J. Kelly, Edward Franklin Renshaw, James A. Rock, and Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.

Projects: (1) Agricultural inventories. (2) Conservation and development of natural resources. (3) Technical assistance in Latin American countries. (4) Developments affecting Negro farm families. (5) Soviet agriculture. (6) Technological growth in agriculture (hybrid corn). (7) Growth in output per unit of input in the United States and in agriculture.

Research Group in Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

Faculty: Professors Lewis, Rees, Rottenberg, and Seidman.

Projects: (1) The American worker as a union member. (2) Labor in the Mexican economy. (3) Real wages in the United States, 1890-1914. (4) Population, the labor force, and labor supply.

Research Group in Public Finance

Faculty: Professors Bailey and Harberger.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Meyer L. Burstein, Lawrence Fisher, Yehuda Grünfeld, Marc Leon Nerlove, William A. Niskanen, Jr., and Walter Y. Oi.

Projects:
(1) Resource allocation effects of federal taxes and of agricultural price supports.
(2) Sources and methods of controlling cyclical instability in the American economy.
(3) The capital market effects of federal taxation, expenditure, and regulatory policies.

Research Group in Economics of Consumption

Faculty: Professor Reid.

Research Assistant: Juliette Rey.

Project: Trends in, and factors determining, consumption levels.

Research Group in Economic Development

Faculty: Professors Hamilton, Harberger, Hoselitz, Rottenberg, and Schultz.

Projects: (1) Problems in the economic development of Chile. (2) Historical research in money, banking, prices, and interest rates, their interrelationship, and their role in the economic development of leading countries. (Note also projects (3), (6), and (7) of the Office of Agricultural Economics Research and project (2) of the Research Group in Labor Economics and Industrial Relations.) The Research Group in Economic Development works closely with the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change of which Mr. Hoselitz is the director. The Center engages in research and publishes the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change.

                  Three members of the faculty of the Department are associated with research groups organized in other parts of the University: Mr. Hoselitz with the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change; Mr. Nef, with the Committee on Social Thought; and Mr. Wallis, with the Committee on Statistics. In addition, other members of the economics faculty are engaged in individual research projects not associated with a research group: Mr. Metzler on the theory of international adjustment under conditions of full employment and high demand: and Mr. Christ on econometric research on economic growth and technological change.

FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS,
AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS

                  Students who wish to pursue a program of advanced instruction and research in economics at the University may compete not only for the regular University Fellowships and Scholarships described in these Announcements (see pp. 22-27) but also for the fellowships listed below:
[Note: The announcement transcribed here is a reprint of the Department of Economics section of the Announcements of Graduate Programs in the Divisions. Cross-references are to that publication]

Postdoctoral Fellowships:

Postdoctoral Fellowship in Political Economy awarded upon recommendation of the Department of Economics.

Postdoctoral Fellowships in Money and Banking awarded by the Workshop in Money and Banking in co-operation with the Department of Economics.

Predoctoral Fellowships:

Awarded upon recommendation of the Department of Economics:

Frank H. Knight Fellowships, Marshall Field Fellowship, Edward Hillman Fellowship Awarded upon recommendation of the Office of Agricultural Economics Research for students specializing in agricultural economics:
Sears, Roebuck Foundation Fellowships in Agricultural Economics

Stipends for the predoctoral fellowships, including the regular University fellowships, range generally from $1,000 to $3,000 per annum. Stipends for the postdoctoral fellowships range up to $4,000 per annum. Application blanks may be obtained from the Department of Economics or from the University Committee on Fellowships and Scholarships.

Research Assistantships

                  Research assistantships and associateships are available to qualified students who have research interests in particular problem areas. Application blanks for these positions may be obtained from the Economics Research Center.

ADVANCED DEGREES

                  The Department of Economics offers programs leading to both the A.M. and the Ph.D. degrees in Economics. The following paragraphs summarize briefly the major Departmental requirements for advanced degrees for students holding a four-year Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. (The following paragraphs are not intended as an exhaustive statement of the requirements for advanced degrees; for the details of the requirements students should consult with the Departmental counselors.)

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

                  The Departmental requirements for the Master’s degree in Economics for students holding the traditional four-year Bachelor’s degree include: (1) satisfactory performance on two of the written field examinations in economics required for the Ph.D. degree; (2) a satisfactory command of the principles of economic theory; and (3) acceptance of a paper or report on a problem approved by the Department,

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

                  The Departmental requirements for admission to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics include: (1) satisfactory performance on written field examinations in price theory and monetary theory and banking and in one other field that, with the approval of the Department, may be a field outside of economics; (2) a well-rounded command of the subject-matter of the major fields of economics; (3) effective reading knowledge of French or German or some other foreign language approved by the Department; and (4) acceptance of the candidate’s thesis prospectus.

                  The Departmental requirements for the degree include in addition to the preceding requirements for admission to candidacy: (1) effective reading knowledge of a second foreign language or completion of an approved substitute program of study; (2) departmental approval of the completed thesis; and (3) satisfactory performance on a final oral examination on the field of the thesis.

SUMMER PROGRAM
FOR COLLEGE TEACHERS OF ECONOMICS

                  The Department of Economics will give particular attention in its Summer Quarter 1956 program to the interests of college teachers of economics, both those working for the Ph.D degree at another institution and others who wish to renew or to complement their training and experience in economics. A limited number of tuition and half-tuition scholarships will be available for teachers who do not hold the Ph.D. degree. (Application blanks for these scholarships may be obtained from the Department of Economics.) For those who hold the Ph.D. degree in Economics or related fields the Department invites application for guest privileges.

Courses of Instruction

INTERMEDIATE COURSES

208. A, B, C. The Elements of Economic Analysis. Aut (208A): Rees; Win (208B) Rees; Spr (208C): Cagan.

209. Intermediate Price Theory. Prereg: Math 150A or equiv. Aut: Lewis.

210. Index Numbers, National Accounting, and Economic Measurement. Prereq: Soc Sei 200A and Econ 209, or equiv. Aut: Christ.

213. Introduction to Mathematics for Economists. Prereq: Econ 209 and Math 150A, or equiv. Sum: Staff; Win: Theil.

220. Economic History of the United States. Spr: Hamilton.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. Win: Staff.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. Prereq: Econ 208A and 208B, or equiv, Spr: Johnson.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. Prereq: Econ 208A and 208B, or equiv. Win: Bailey.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. Aut: Hoselitz.

299. Undergraduate Thesis Research. Prereq: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

ADVANCED COURSES

I. Price Theory

300. A, B. Price Theory. Prereg: For 300A, Econ 209 or equiv, and Math 150A or equiv, or consent of instructor; for 300B, 300A. Aut (300A): Friedman; Win (300A): Wallis; Spr (300B): Friedman.

301. Price and Distribution Theory (= Social Thought 382). Prereq: Econ 209. Sum: Knight.

302. History of Economic Thought (= Social Thought 381). Prereq: Econ 301 or equiv. Spr: Knight.

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereg: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

305. Economics and Social Institutions (= Philosophy 305). Prereg: Econ 301 and some European economic history. Sum: Knight.

308. Welfare Economics. Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Sum: Johnson.

309. Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 213 and Econ 300A, or equiv. Win: Theil.

310. Special Topics in Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 309, Math 150C, and the rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Theil.

II. Monetary Theory and Banking

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereg: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

330. Money. Prereg: Econ 208C or equiv. Aut: Staff.

331. Banking Theory and Monetary Policy. Prereg: Econ 330; Econ 335 desirable. Win: Cagan.

334. The Development of Monetary and Financial Institutions. Prereq: Econ 222 or 208C. Spr: Hamilton.

335. The Theory of Income, Employment, and the Price Level. Prereg: Econ 208A, B, C or equiv. Spr: Christ.

362. Monetary and Fiscal Policy. Prereg: Econ 208C; Econ 330 and 335 desirable. Spr: Harberger.

370. Monetary Aspects of International Trade. Prereg: Econ 330, 335, or equiv. Aut: Metzler.

439. Workshop in Money and Banking. An experiment in combining training in research and learning of subject-matter organized around a continuing investigation into monetary factors in business cycles. Students participate in this central investigation both directly and by undertaking individual projects in the general area. Each project is directed toward the preparation of a report of publishable quality. Guidance is provided on general reading in the field, and informal seminars are held from time to time to discuss general issues or specific projects. Students. are required to give full time to the workshop; they receive three credits per quarter of registration. Prereg: consent of instructor. Aut, Win, Spr: Friedman, Cagan.

III. Statistics

311. Principles of Statistical Analysis (= Business 321 and Statistics 301). Aut: Staff.

312. Techniques of Statistical Analysis (= Business 322 and Statistics 302). Prereg: Econ 311 or equiv. Win: Staff.

313. Applications of Statistical Analysis (= Sociology 308, Business 323, and Statistics 303). Prereq: Econ 312 or Stat 362 or equiv. Spr: Wallis.

314. Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 311 and either Econ 300A or Econ 335; Econ 210 desirable. Sum: Gustafson; Win: Christ.

315. Special Topics in Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 312, Econ 314, differential calculus, and rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Christ.

For other courses in statistics see page 203.

IV. Mathematical Economics and Econometrics

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereq: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

309. Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 213 and Econ 300A, or equiv, Win: Theil.

310. Special Topics in Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 309, Math 150C and the rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Theil.

314. Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 311 and either Econ 300A or Econ 335; Econ 210 desirable. Sum: Gustafson; Win: Christ.

315. Special Topics in Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 312, Econ 314, differential calculus, and rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Christ.

V. Economic History

320. American Economic Policies. Prereg: Econ 220 or equiv. Sum: Hamilton.

329A. The Geographical and Historical Background of the Genesis of Industrial Civilization (= Social Thought 324A and History 332G). Aut: Nef.

329B. The Role of the Discoveries and the Reformation in the Genesis of Industrial Civilization (= Social Thought 325A and History 332H). Spr: Nef.

334. The Development of Monetary and Financial Institutions. Prereg: Econ 222 or 208C. Spr: Hamilton.

VI. Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

340. The Labor Movement. Aut.

341. Labor Problems. Prereq: Econ 208A, 208B, and Econ 240; or equiv. Win: Rees.

344. Labor Economics. Prereq: Econ 300B. Spr: Lewis.

VII. Agricultural Economics

355A. Economic Organization for Growth (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Aut: Schultz.

355B. Economic Organization for Stability (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Spr: Schultz.

356. Income, Welfare, and Policy (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereg: Econ300A or equiv; Econ 300B and 355A recommended. Win: Johnson.

455. Seminar in Agricultural Economics. Prereq: consent of instructor. Aut, Win, Spr: Schultz, Johnson, Tolley, Gustafson.

VIII. Government Finance

360. Theory of Public Finance. Prereg: Econ 260 and Econ 300A, or consent of instructor, Aut: Bailey.

361. Public Finance in the American Economy. Prereq: Econ 300A; Econ 300B desirable. Win: Harberger.

362. Monetary and Fiscal Policy. Prereg: Econ 208C; Econ 330 and 335 desirable. Spr: Harberger.

IX. International Economic Relations

370. Monetary Aspects of International Trade. Prereq: Econ 330 and 335, or equiv. Aut: Metzler.

371. Economic Aspects of International Relations. Prereq: Econ 330 or equivalent. Win: Metzler.

372. Problems in Economic Development. Prereq: Econ 335 or equivalent, Econ 320 and 371 desirable. Spr: Hoselitz.

X. Economics of Consumption

381. Consumers and the Market (= Home Economics 341), Prereq: course in economic theory. Win: Reid.

383A. Consumption Levels (= Home Economics 343A). Prereq: course in statistics. Aut: Reid.

388. The Family in the American Economy (= Home Economics 348). Prereq: course in economic theory. Sum, Spr: Reid.

XI. Seminars and Workshops

439. Workshop in Money and Banking. Aut, Win, Spr: Friedman, Cagan.

455. Seminar in Agricultural Economics. Aut, Win, Spr: Schultz, Johnson, Tolley, Gustafson.

490. Research in Economics. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary, Sum: Staff.

498. Thesis Seminar. Registration may be made for one or more courses. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

499. Individual Research. Registration may be made for one or more courses. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Addenda. Box 31, Folder “7/87 Chic. School. GJS Folder. Lit., incl. “Pantaleoni?”, 1930 anti-tariff signers”.

Categories
Chicago Economists Money and Banking

Chicago. Ph.D. Thesis Committees in Monetary Economics. Patinkin’s Research, 1968

The first boxes of archival material that I examined as my research project on the evolution of graduate economics training was beginning to take shape came from Don Patinkin’s papers back when Duke’s Economists’ Papers Archive still bore the modest descriptor of “Economists’ Papers Project”.

This post transcribes some of the research material collected by Patinkin in his survey of Chicago style monetary economics. Fun Fact: his research assistant while on leave at M.I.T. was the graduate student Stanley Fischer, from whom incidentally I was to take my first graduate macroeconomics course (Patinkin’s book was on the reading list, surprise, surprise).

Doctoral theses advisers were identified for a dozen and a half Chicago theses that drew Don Patinkin’s attention. This is the sort of information that doesn’t normally jump at you in digitised form through a duly diligent internet search, so I thought it worth my time to file this information for now in a blog post. Minor additions have been added in square brackets for the sake of completeness.

______________________________

List of Patinkin’s copy request for Chicago Ph.D. theses

Author

 Article Details of parts photographed

Box No.

1.
Bach, George [Leland]

 Price Level Stabilization: [Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations]

[blank]

[blank]

2.
Bloomfield, Arthur [Irving]

 International Capital Movement and the American Balance of Payments 1929-1940 Title, Contents, Bibliography.
pp. 513-514, 578-579.

T-304

3.
Bronfenbrenner, Martin

 Monetary Theory and General Equilibrium Title, Preface, Bibliography.
Chaps. 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

T-10250

4.
Brooks, Benjamin [Franklin]

 A History of Monetary Theory in the United States Before 1860 Contents, Preface, Bibliography.
Chap. 11.

T-9885

5.
Caplan, Benjamin

 The Wicksellian School—A Critical Study of the Development of Swedish Monetary Theory, 1898-1932 Title, Contents, Preface, Bibliography.

T-7847

6.
Cox, Garfield V.

 Business Forecasting in the United States 1919-1928 Title, Contents, Preface, Bibliography.

T-17-91

7.
Daugherty Marion [Roberts]

 The Currency-Banking Controversy Title, Contents, Bibliography
pp. 41, 54, 130, 133, 246, 316.

T-10282

8.
Harper, [William Canaday] Joel

 Scrip and Other Forms of Local Money Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-145

9.
Leigh, Arthur Hertel

 Studies in the Theory of Capital and Interest Before 1870 Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-554

10.
Linville, Francis [Aron]

 Central Bank Co-operation Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-11508

11.
McEvoy, Raymond H.

 The Effects of Federal Reserve Operations 1929-1936 Title, Contents, Preface Bibliography.

T-7731

12.
McIvor R. Craig

 Monetary Expansion in Canadian War Finance, 1939-1946 Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-10268

13.
McKean, Roland Neely

 Fluctuations in Our Private Claim-Debt Structure and Monetary Policy Title, Contents, Bibliography.
Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

T-90

14.
Reeve, Joseph [Edwin]

 Monetary Proposals for Curing the Depression in the United States 1929-1935 [blank]

T-11022

15.
Shaw, Ernest Ray

 The Investment and Secondary Reserve Policy of Commercial Banks Title, Contents, Preface, Bibliography.

T-8322

16.
Snider, Delbert [Arthur]

 Monetary, Exchange, and Trade Problems in Postwar Greece Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-1031

17.
Tongue, William [Walter]

 Money, Capital, and the Business Cycle Title, Contents, Preface, Bibliography.

T-670

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Don Patinkin Papers, University of Chicago School of Economics Raw Materials, Box 2, Folder “Chicago, general (?). from binder: “U. Chicago Ph.D. Theses”, folder 1 of 2”.

______________________________

The University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois 60637

Department of Economics

August 21, 1968

Professor Don E. Patinkin
Economics Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Professor Patinkin:

            I am listing below the information (Committee members) you requested in your letter of July 8, 1968. I am also hoping that you have received your microfilm by now. The Photoduplication department was to have mailed them to you on August 13.

Bach, George [Leland] 1940 S. E. Leland
C. W. Wright
H. C. Simon
Bloomfield, Arthur [Irving] 1942 J. Viner
Lloyd W. Mints
O. Lange
Bronfenbrenner, Martin 1939 Frank Knight, chr.
S. E. Leland
Brooks, Benjamin [Franklin] 1939 Frank Knight, chr.
Lloyd Mints
[Viner also thanked in thesis preface]
Caplan, Benjamin 1942 J. Viner
O. Lange		 L. W. Mints
H. C. Simons
Cox, Garfield [V.] 1929 Lionel D. Edie, chr.
Jacob Viner
Chester W. Wright
Daugherty, Marion [Roberts] (Mrs.) 1941 Jacob Viner, chr.
Garfield Cox
Lloyd Mints
Harper, Joel [William Canady] 1949
[Summer 1948]		 F. Knight
O. Lange
H. Simons		 C. W. Wright
L. Mints
S. Leland
Leigh, Arthur [Hertel] 1946 Frank Knight, chr.
Jacob Viner
Oskar Lange
McEvoy, Raymond [H.] 1950 Lloyd W. Mints, chr.
Earl J. Hamilton
Lloyd A. Metzler
McIvor, Russel [Craig] 1947 Roy Blough, chr.
J. K. Langum
L.W. Mints [in thesis acknowledgement Mints as the doctoral committee chair]
McKean, Roland [Neely] 1948 Lloyd W. Mints, chr.
Lloyd A. Metzler
Earl J. Hamilton
A. Director
Reeve, Joseph [Edwin] 1939 Lloyd W. Mints, chr.
Garfield V. Cox
Jacob Viner
Shaw, Ernest [Ray] 1930 Lionel D. Edie, chr.
Lloyd W. Mints
Stuart P. Meech (Bus. School)
Snider, Delbert [Arthur] 1951 L. Metzler, chr.
R. Blough
Bert Hoselitz
Tongue, William [Walter] 1947 L. W. Mints, chr.
Frank H. Knight
H. Gregg Lewis

            As you can see in some instances the Chairman was not listed, but the examining committee was listed. I wrote to Professor Cox, 660 W. Bonita, Apt. 24 E, Claremont, California 91711, to get the committee members for him and for Professor E. Shaw. Professor Cox also gave me the address of Professor Lloyd W. Mints, 618 E. Myrtle St., Ft. Collins, Colorado, should you have any interest. I hope this is sufficient.

Yours truly,
[signed]
(Mrs.) Hazel Bowdry
Sec. to Professor Telser

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois 60637

Department of Economics

October 23, 1968

Professor Don Patinkin
Department of Economics
The Eliezer Kaplan School of
Economics and Social Sciences
The Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel

Dear Professor Patinkin:

            In answer to your letter of October 4, I have rechecked the files and find the below listed information.

George Bach’s committee members:

L. W. Mints, chr.
S. E. Leland
C. W. Wright
Oskar Lange
F. H. Knight
H. C. Simons
Jacob Viner
Jacob Left
Maynard Krueger

This is the order in which the examining committee is listed.

Martin Bronfenbrenner:

Henry Schultz chr.
J. Viner
L. W. Mints
F. Knight
A. G. Hart
H. C. Simon

Joel Harper:

S. E. Leland, Chr.
H. Simons
L. W. Mints
Mr. Chatters

Benjamin Brooks:

L. Mints, chr.
J. Viner
F. Knight

            I checked Faculty records with Mrs. Mosby, and found a re-appointment for Henry Simons dated June 3, 1930.

            I hope this information is helpful, and I am sorry I cannot give more definite committee members in the case of Bach.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
(Mrs.) Hayzel Bowdry

P.S. I hope you have received the microfilm by now. It was mailed via airmail yesterday.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Don Patinkin Papers, University of Chicago School of Economics Raw Materials, Box 2, Folder “Chicago, general (?), Simons, Mints, Knight materials”.

Image Source: Don Patinkin article at Gonçalo L. Fonseca’s History of Economic Thought website. Colorized at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

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
Chicago Economics Programs Faculty Regulations

Chicago. Economics A.M. requirements amended to become “Consolation Prize”. Lewis and Schultz, 1950

 

In 1950 the Chicago economics department voted to convert its master’s degree into an award for the successful partial completion of its Ph.D. program. It was to serve as a “consolation prize” for good graduate students but those found not to have the right “Ph.D. stuff” (H. Gregg Lewis’ words in his memo of Sept. 29, 1950 to chairman T. W. Schultz, transcribed below). I have also included the relevant portion of the distributional and examination requirements for the Ph.D. that had already formed part of the so-called “alternate departmental master’s degree”. H. Gregg Lewis’ proposal was largely accepted by the department (minutes from the meeting of November 2, 1950 transcribed below), thereby eliminating distinct tracks for its A.M. and Ph.D. degree programs, respectively.

_______________________

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE
[1950-51 regulations]

Upon request the Department will consider recommending for the Master’s degree candidates who have satisfied the distribution requirement for the Ph.D. degree and have passed with satisfactory standing the three written field examinations for the Ph.D. degree. One modern foreign language is required. In place of a thesis such candidates may present an acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department.

[…]

Distributional requirement [Ph.D.]. The candidate is expected to have familiarity with the subject matter equivalent to that covered in at least one course (200 or 300 level of reasonable comprehensivenss in each of ten fields (five required and five elected), satisfactory evidence of which can be provided by course credit or by passing a special examination. The required fields are: (a) economic theory, (b) accounting, (c) statistics, (d) economic history, and (e) money, banking, and monetary policy. The fields from which five may be elected are: (f) consumption economics, (g) industrial relations, (h) monopoly and public utilities, (i) agricultural economics, (j) government finance, (k) international economic relations, and (l) substitute fields, but not in excess of two, proposed by the candidate and approved by the Departmental counselor or the Department. One or both of these substitute fields may be outside the Department of Economics, and in general some work outside the Department is recommended with a view to rounding out a program appropriate for the individual student. In case of students transferring from other institutions, adequate training in general history may be substituted for economic history upon the written recommendation of the Departmental counselor.

Preliminary written field examinations [Ph.D.]. In each of three fields of specialization, in addition to presenting course credit or special examinations to show satisfactory preparation, the candidate will be required to pass a written examination.

The candidate is expected to select the three fields of specialization—a primary field and two secondary fields—for intensive graduate work. The primary field is that in which the [Ph.D.] thesis will be written. One of the three fields (primary or secondary) must be that of economic theory, including monetary theory. The fields from which selection is to be made are listed above under the heading “Distributional Requirement,” except that accounting may not be chosen as a field without approval of the Department. One secondary field of specialization may be a field named by the candidate outside the list above, and this may be in a department other than Economics. A secondary field may also be developed under one of the interdepartmental committees of specialization International Relations, Human Development, Planning or Social Thought. The program of work proposed, which ordinarily will include four to five courses, must be approved by the Department. No other secondary field may replace the required field in economic theory.* Students should consult with the Departmental counselor with respect to appropriate programs of work in preparation for the field examinations. The field examinations are given by the Department in the sixth and seventh weeks of the Winter and summer quarters. Application for any field examination should be made not later than the end of the first week of the quarter in which the examination is to be taken.

*Students who take the field examination in money, banking, and monetary policy will not be required to write the monetary theory part of the economic theory examination.

 

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 25-26.

_______________________

ECONOMIC COURSES LISTED IN THE LEWIS MEMO (29 Sept 1950) AND INCLUDED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL MINUTES (2 Nov 1950)

209. Intermediate Economic Theory. (Procter Thomson/Harold Gregg Lewis) Designed for students majoring in economics. Deals with factors controlling production, value and relative prices, and distribution.

211. Introduction to Statistics. (Harold Gregg Lewis) Elementary principles of statistics. Main topics: frequency distributions, averages, dispersion, index numbers, elements of the theory of statistical inference.

220. Economic History of the United States. (Earl J. Hamilton) Facts and factors in American’s economic growth from the Colonial period to World War II, including the development of agriculture, industry, commerce, finance, and transportation; economic effects of wars; role of the entrepreneur; rise in living standards; unrest and utopias in periods of stagnation; commercial crises and economic basis of cultural progress.

222. The Rise of Industrial Civilization in Europe. (John Ulrich Nef) Economic development in its relation to religious, political, intellectual and artistic history since the seventeenth century.

230. Introduction to Money and Banking. (Milton Friedman/Lloyd Wynn Mints) Factors which determine the value of money in the short and in the long run; and operation of the commercial banking system and in relation to the price level and general business activity.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. (Albert E. Rees) The nature of the labor market; government regulation of wages; social security; the history, structure, and functions of American labor unions; and collective bargaining. Special attention is given to current problems of public policy.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. (D. Gale Johnson). Nature of resources used in agriculture. Prices, production, resource allocation, and income distribution. Analysis of government programs, subsidies, storages, crop control, soil conservation, food-stamp plan.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. (Richard B. Goode) Survey of institutions and theories of government finance. Effects of public expenditures; functions of public revenue; forms of taxation; tax criteria; determination of tax policy; public borrowing; debt management; fiscal policy.

270. International Economics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) The nature of international payments and receipts; foreign trade and banking system. The gold standard in the interwar period. The breakdown of the gold standard and the period of fluctuating exchange rates. Exchange controls, clearing agreements and payments agreements. The second world war and the foreign exchange markets. The position of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the present world economy.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) An introductory survey, with particular reference to the United States, of the economic policies and activities of governments. Topics: international specialization of production and the distribution of world resources, structure of international exchanges and the mechanism of international transfer of goods and services; tariffs and other regulatory measures; trade agreements and the most-favored nation clause; international flow of capital and investment; the position of the ITO, the IMF, the ECA and other official agencies in international trade and exchange.

300A, 300B. Price Theory. (W. Allen Wallis 300A/Lloyd A. Metzler 300B/Milton Friedman 300B) A systematic study of the pricing of final products and factors of production under essentially stationary conditions. Covers both perfect competition and such imperfectly competitive conditions as monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. 300A deals primarily with the pricing of final products; 300B, with the pricing of factors of production.

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 27-28.

_______________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

September 29, 1950

To        T. W. Schultz

From   H.G. Lewis

In Re: Requirements for the Master’s Degree

This is an elaboration of comments made to you this summer concerning the Master’s degree.

I should like to recommend the following changes in our requirements for the A.M. degree:

  1. That the distinction between the “regular” A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. be abolished.
  2. That the departmental requirements for the A.M degree consist of the following alteration of the present alternative A.M. requirements:
    1. A distribution requirement covering five (rather than the present eight) fields of economics of which theory, statistics, and money and banking shall be mandatory. Students who do not hold the traditional A.B. degree must meet the requirement by passing satisfactorily a qualifying examination coving the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination), 230, and two courses chose from 220, 222, 240, 255, 260, 270, 271.1/ Students holding the traditional A.B. may meet the requirement by showing equivalent course credit.
    2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory exam counting as a full exam) at a satisfactory level (that is, at either the Ph.D. level or at a level somewhat lower but not so low as not to warrant blessing the candidate with a Master’s degree).2/
    3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by passing (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or course examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.

I would recommend that the changes in requirements become effective as of the beginning of the Summer Quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

1/ This qualifying examination is now offered every quarter. This is an extravagant use of faculty. I should like to see the exam offered only once a year. Furthermore, I should like to permit students to substitute course grades for all or part of the exam provided the course grades are for courses taken here and provided they are not at a level lower than B.

2/ There would be therefore no special examinations for A.M.’s, but the examinations would be graded into three levels: passing for the Ph.D. and A.M. degrees, passing for the A.M. degree but not for the Ph.D., failing for both.

I would urge students to give requirement (b) high priority in preparing their programs of study.

Since the ends sought by these changes can be reached in other ways, I specify below what these ends are.

I view our principal instructional purpose as that of training high-level (Ph.D. and beyond) professional economists. I think we ought to view our training of “junior” economists and the awarding of the A.M. degree only as an incident arising from the fact that at the time a student applies for admission to the department, we cannot predict accurately either his calibre as a student or his academic goals.

It seems to me that the requirements for the Master’s degree should meet these tests:

  1. They should include no requirements which the Department would not make for the Ph.D. degree. Otherwise both student and faculty time will be spent in activities extraneous to the training of high-level economists. The present alternative A.M. meets this test but the regular A.M. does not.
  2. The requirements should be at a level high enough to be respected by the academic world. Both present degrees meet this test, I believe.
  3. But the standards for the degree should not be so high that potentially able Ph.D. candidates will be deterred from entering because of the considerable risk that if they fail to meet Ph.D. standards they will also fail to meet A.M. standards. If we set standards for the A.M. that are almost as likely not to be met as the Ph.D. standards we hold out no “consolation prize” to those good students who are fearful of not being able to meet Ph.D. standards. The present alternative A.M. requirements do not meet this test.

One of the ways by which we can raise the calibre of our Ph.D. candidates without reducing our enrollment is to increase the number of students who are given an opportunity to show at close hand their potentialities to us and to screen out at an earlier date those who are not of Ph.D. stuff. I am confident that quite accurate screening can take place ordinarily by the end of the first year of graduate residence. I contemplate our using the A.M. requirements as a screening device; the present alternative A.M. is not satisfactory from that point of view since it postpones too long the screening decision.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

_______________________

MINUTES
Meeting of the Department

Time and Place: Thursday, November 2, 1950, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 424, Social Science Research Building.

Present: T. W. Schultz (chairman), H. G. Lewis, A. Rees, R. Goode, G. Tolley, D. G. Johnson, F. H. Harbison, J. Marschak, C. Hildreth, F. Knight, L. Metzler.

  1. Handling of Student Business
    It was agreed that all bona fide applications for admission to candidacy filed this quarter would be considered as falling under present degree requirements even though Departmental action does not take place until Winter quarter.
  2. Ford Foundation
    Schultz stated that as a Department we have an obligation to ourselves, to the University, and to the community more largely to think through carefully the problem of making the best use of the Ford Foundation’s present grant of $300,000 to the University as well as possible later grants. There was a brief general discussion of the problem.
  3. Departmental Rules Governing Residence and Availability to Students
    Schultz pointed out that in the current year we have been able for the first time to reduce direct teaching loads for most of our members to four courses per year or less. This reduction, he pointed out, makes it desirable that the Department impose upon itself rules governing residence and availability to students and others in the university community lest they be imposed upon us from outside. The problem of rules for residence involves not only a rule stipulating in some way minimum residence, but also the question of whether “free” quarters out of residence should be considered a matter of a right accruing to an individual from his residence or a privilege dependent upon ad hoc decisions made by the Department chairman and the Dean. Schultz expressed himself as being in favor of a rule somewhat similar to the rules for accumulating sabbatical leave under a 3Q contract. In addition there is the problem of insuring, perhaps by rule, “availability” when in residence. The formulation of appropriate rules is to come before the Department for its consideration in the Winter quarter.
  4. The Department considered Lewis’ recommendations for changes in the A.M. requirements. (See attached memo. [above]) the following amendment of Lewis’ recommendation was passed:
    1. That the distinction between the regular A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. degrees be abolished.
    2. That the Departmental requirements for the A.M. degree consist of the following:
      1. A distribution requirement to be met by passing a “Qualifying” examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination) 220 or 222, 230 and two courses chosen from 240, 255, 260, 270, and 271. Students holding the traditional A.B. may satisfy the requirement by equivalent course credit.
      2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory examination counting as an examination) at a satisfactory level of A.M. candidates.
      3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.
      4. An acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department. The paper will be read by two members of the Department of which the course instructor will be one in the event the student submits a term paper prepared for a course.

The above changes in requirements are to become effective as of the beginning of the Summer quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

It was understood that the above motion in no way changes present preliminary examinations or other requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Professor Knight asked the minutes to show his objection to dropping Economics 210 (Accounting) from the requirements for the A.M. degree.

  1. Student Business
    1. Petitions

Lawrence Bostow’s petition for approval of French and Russian as languages for the Ph.D. was approved.

Mr. H. M. Herlihy’s petition for the field of “Social Organization” (Sociology Department) as his third field for the Ph.D. degree was approved.

Mr. John Holsen’s petition for a third Ph.D. field in Planning (Planning Department) was approved. Mr. Johnson, his counselor, was asked to inform Mr. Holsen, however, that this approval does not entitle Holsen to shorten his total program in Economics for the Ph.D.

Mr. Edward Mishan’s petition for approval of Spanish as a Ph.D. language was denied.

    1. Admission to Candidacy

Mr. Howard Ammerman’s application for admission and for approval of a thesis topic was moved to the bottom of the list of applications.

Mr. Rondo E. Cameron’s application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent upon his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950) and his proposed thesis topic, “French Foreign Investment, 1815-1870,” was approved. Thesis committee: E. J. Hamilton, chairman, L. Metzler, P. Thomson.

After some discussion, Mr. Clifford Clark’s application was moved down the list. Lewis was instructed to advise Clark to consult with Hamilton concerning the latter’s misgivings about the proposed thesis topic, and in addition to confer with Hayek, Knight, and other members of the Department concerning the thesis topic.

Mr. George P. Coutsoumaris’ application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent on his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950), and his proposed thesis topic, “Possibilities of Increasing Economic Efficiency in Greek Agriculture,” was given qualified approval, the Department suggesting that he limit the topic somewhat preferably to a topic approximately the same as that covered in the sections (VII and VIII) of his outline dealing with capital in Greek agriculture. Thesis committee: D. G. Johnson, chairman, C. Harris, J. Margolis (planning).

Mr. David Fand’s proposed thesis topic, “Monetary Theory of the Federal Reserve Board,” was discussed. It was agreed to come back to it at the next meeting after several more of the members of the Department had an opportunity to discuss the topic with Fand.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

Images:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, H. Gregg Lewis [apf1-03861] and T. W. Schultz [apf1-07479], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economists Fields

Chicago. Schedule of the preliminary economics exams for the Ph.D. and A.M., Summer 1951

 

The following schedule for preliminary examinations in economics at the University of Chicago from the summer quarter of 1951 comes from Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution Archives. We see that he was on the two economic theory examination committees along with Lloyd Metzler and Frank Knight. Besides providing the names of the faculty members serving on the nine committees, the schedule also provides the names of the sixty students registered for the examinations during that quarter.

____________________

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS
FOR THE PH.D. AND FOR THE A.M.

Summer Quarter, 1951

The schedule below shows the examinations requested for the current quarter. Will the chairman of each committee please be responsible for turning in the complete examination at least one week before the date on which it is to be given?

 

Date

 Examination Committee

Students Registered

Thurs., Aug. 2
8:30
Law Court

Agricultural Economics

 D.G. Johnson, chr.
C. Hildreth
T.W. Schultz		 Dunsing, Marilyn (A.M.)
Fox, Kirk (Ph.D)
Hughes, Rufus (Ph.D.)
Taylor, Maurice (Ph.D.)

Tues., July 31
8:30
Law Court

Economic Theory I

 L. Metzler, chr.
M. Friedman
F. Knight		 Baskind, Irwin (Ph.D.) in abs.
Bassett, Marjorie (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Blumberg, Lionel (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Chen, Ho-Mei (Ph.D.)
Chen, Sze-te (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Chien, Chih Chien (Ph.D.)
Cleaver, George (Ph.D.)
Dunsing, Marilyn (A.M.)
Emmer, Robert (Ph.D.)
Fox, Kirk (Ph.D.)
Frank, Andrew (Ph.D.-A.M.) in abs
Gustus, Warren (Ph.D.)
Heizer, Raymond (Ph.D.)
Herlihy, Murray (Ph.D.)
Hoch, Irving (Ph.D.)
Hughes, Rufus (Ph.D.)
Krawczyk, Richard (Ph.D.-A.M.) in abs
Lerner, Eugene (Ph.D.)
Liang, Wei K. Liang (Ph.D.)
Lininger, Charles (Ph.D.)
Lurie, Melvin (Ph.D.)
McGuire, Charles (Ph.D.)
Malhotra, Man Mohan (Ph.D.)
Malone, John (Ph.D.)
Mitcham, Clinton (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Morrison, George (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Sonley, Lorne (Ph.D.)
Taylor, Maurice (Ph.D.)
Terrell, James (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Toscano, Peter (Ph.D.)
Traeger, Gordon (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Viscasillas, Felipe (Ph.D.)
Waldorf, William (Ph.D.)
Weir, Thomas (Ph.D.)
Weiss, Roger (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Zelder, Raymond (Ph.D.)

Tues., Aug. 7
8:30
Law Court

Economic Theory II

 L. Metzler, chr.
M. Friedman
F. Knight		 Chen, Ho-Mei (Ph.D.)
Herlihy, Murray (Ph.D.)
Hoch, Irving (Ph.D.)
Toscano, Peter (Ph.D.)
Weir, Thomas (Ph.D.)

Thurs., Aug. 9
8:30
Law Court

Government Finance

 P. Thomson, chr.
J. Marschak
D.G. Johnson		 Frank, Andrew (Ph.D.-A.M.) in abs
Haskell, Max (Ph.D.) in abs
Henry, Edward L. (Ph.D.)
Horwitz, Bertrand (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Lininger, Charles (Ph.D.)
Selden, Richard (Ph.D.)

Thurs., Aug. 9
8:30
Law Court

Industrial Relations

 F. Harbison, chr.
E. Hamilton
H.G. Lewis		 Barghout, Saad (Ph.D.)
Bechtolt, Richard (Ph.D.)
Hoch, Irving (Ph.D.)
Liang, Wei K. (Ph.D.)
Mullady, Philomena (Ph.D.)
Ness, David (Ph.D.)

Thurs., Aug. 2
8:30
Law Court

International Economics

 L. Metzler, chr.
B. Hoselitz
A. Rees		 Alberts, William (Ph.D.)
Anderson, Edwin (Ph.D.) in abs
Chen, Sze-te (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Chien, Chih Chien (Ph.D.)
Cleaver, George (Ph.D.)
Frank, Andrew (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Glick, Milton (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Gustus, Warren (Ph.D.)
Lukomski, Jesse (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Mitcham, Clinton (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Morey, Donald J. (Ph.D.-A.M.)

Tues., Aug. 7
8:30
Law Court

Money, Banking, and Monetary Policy

 L. Mints, chr.
E. Hamilton
J. Marschak		 Alberts, William (Ph.D.)
Bauer, Milton (Ph.D.)
Blumberg, Lionel (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Chen, Sze-te (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Chien, Chih Chien (Ph.D.)
Cleaver, George (Ph.D.)
Conomikes, George (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Davis, George (Ph.D.) in abs
Emmer, Robert (Ph.D.)
Heizer, Raymond (Ph.D.)
Horwitz, Bertrand (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Hughes, Rufus (Ph.D.)
Krawczyk, Richard (Ph.D.-A.M.) in abs
Lerner, Eugene (Ph.D.)
Liang, Wei K. (Ph.D.)
Lukomski, Jesse (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Meckling, William (Ph.D.)
Mitcham, Clinton (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Morey, Donald (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Ogawa, George (Ph.D.)
Smulekoff, Suzanne (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Sonley, Lorne (Ph.D.)
Taylor, Maurice (Ph.D.)
Terrell, James (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Traeger, Gordon (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Zelder, Raymond (Ph.D.)
Zingarelli, Carla (Ph.D.-A.M.)
Rayack, Elton  (Ph.D.) in abs

Thurs., Aug. 2
8:30
Law Court

Statistics

 T. Koopmans, chr.
C. Hildreth
H.G. Lewis		 Cagan, Phillip (Ph.D.)
Hogan, Lloyd (Ph.D.)
Katzman, Irwin (Ph.D.)
Malhotra, Man Hohan (Ph.D.)
Waldorf, William (Ph.D.)

Thurs., Aug. 2
8:30
Law Court

Economic History

 E. Hamilton Mullady, Philomena (Ph.D.)
Toscano, Peter (Ph.D.)

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 76, Folder “University of Chicago ‘Economic Theory’”.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Economics Department on Possible Candidate for Permanent Employment, 1950

 

How big was the split within the department of economics in 1950 at the University of Chicago? Judging from the decision by chairman T. W. Schultz to essentially table the matter of approaching the central university administration with a candidate for a permanent position, there was a departmental deadlock.

The half-dozen economists discussed were: George Stigler, Abba Lerner, Kenneth Boulding, Leonid Hurwicz, Kenneth Arrow, and Lawrence Klein. Contemplate those names for a moment and then read aloud the following two sentences:

Several members of the Department stated that none of these men had all of the qualities sought: a good mind reaching out fruitfully in new directions in economics. It was agreed, however, that there were no likely candidates possessing these qualities in a high degree.   

We can only speculate which alpha economists happened to lock horns in those three meetings.

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
May 24, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, T. Koopmans, A. Rees, H. G. Lewis, D. G. Johnson, E. J. Hamilton, R. Burns, J. Marschak, F. H. Harbinson, F. H. Knight, M. Friedman, B. Hoselitz, L. Metzler

[…]

II. Appointments

Schultz informed the Department that Hildreth’s position has been renegotiated for a term of three years. The Department approved a motion authorizing for Hildreth the courtesy rank of Associate Professor for a three year term.

The Department then considered the appointment problem raised by the leaving of Blough (probably initially on a one year leave of absence) and Brownlee. Schultz suggested that the Department had two alternatives open to it: a temporary replacement (construed broadly) and a permanent appointment of a top ranking person.

The Department considered first possible candidates for permanent appointment. Attention centered on George Stigler, Abba Lerner, Kenneth Boulding, Leonid Hurwicz, Kenneth Arrow, and Lawrence Klein. For a temporary appointment Schultz suggested Gunnar Myrdal.

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 5:45 p.m.]

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
May 30, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, R. Burns, D. G. Johnson, E. J. Hamilton, F. H. Knight, L. Metzler, R. Blough, F. H. Harbinson, A. Rees, H. G. Lewis, T. Koopmans, J. Marschak, M. Friedman.

Appointments

The discussion of appointments continued from the previous meeting. Schultz expressed the conviction that the time was propitious for a new permanent appointment. On Metzler’s suggestion, the Department returned to discussion of the following candidates for a permanent appointment: Stigler, Hurwicz, Boulding, Klein, Lerner, Arrow.

Several members of the Department stated that none of these men had all of the qualities sought: a good mind reaching out fruitfully in new directions in economics. It was agreed, however, that there were no likely candidates possessing these qualities in a high degree.

The chairman then polled those present with respect to their first choice (or ties for first) for a permanent appointment. As a result of the poll the list of candidates was narrowed to Hurwicz, Stigler, and Lerner. The chairman then polled those present on their position toward permanent appointment of each of these men.

The poll showed that of those present

4 would favor and 5 oppose the permanent appointment of Hurwicz
4 would favor and 5 oppose the permanent appointment of Lerner
6 would favor and 6 oppose the permanent appointment of Stigler

A motion was passed instructing the chairman to poll the absent members of the Department in the same way on the appointment of Hurwicz, Lerner, and Stigler and to report back to the Department for further discussion.

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 6:15 p.m.]

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
June 8, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, H. G. Lewis, D. G. Johnson, J. Marschak, H. Kyrk, P. Thomson, M. Friedman, T. Koopmans, A. Rees, E. J. Hamilton, F. H. Knight, R. Blough.

Appointments

Schultz reported that he had polled Kyrk, Thomson, Mints, and Nef (but had not heard from Goode) on the matter of a permanent appointment for Stigler or Hurwicz or Lerner. The upshot of the poll was that the Department, the Chairman not voting, was evidently divided in its rating of Stigler for a permanent appointment; both permanent members and temporary members of the faculty showed an even division. The Chairman explained that he would abstain from voting on the belief that the Department was not now prepared to advance, with a strong meeting of minds, a strong case to the Central Administration for a permanent appointment. Schultz proposed that we investigate a slate of names for a one-year appointment.

A motion was passed authorizing the Chairman to put Gunnar Myrdal in the first position on the slate for a one-year appointment.

Successive motions passed by the Department added the following names to the slate:

Nicholas Kaldor   Simon Kuznets
Arthur F. Burns
H. M. Henderson
W. Vickrey
A. Hart
H. Stein

The Department then, following the system of ranking used in fellowship appointments, ranked these seven persons. The rank order follows:

1. Kaldor
2. Burns
3. Henderson
4. Kuznets
5½. Vickrey
5½. Hart
7. Stein

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 6:00 p.m.]

Source: University of Chicago Archives, Department of Economics Records, Box 41, Folder 12.

Image Source: Social Science Research Building.  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf2-07466, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

Categories
Chicago Courses Curriculum Economic History

Chicago. Proposal for interdisciplinary MA courses on Capitalism and Democracy. Hoselitz, 1947

With the election of Donald J. Trump to the U.S. Presidency, it is perhaps time well-spent to yet again reflect upon the relation between capitalism and democracy. Today I post a 1947 proposal for the creation of a complementary pair of interdisciplinary seminars on problems of capitalism and democracy to be taught in the University of Chicago’s Divisional Social Science M.A. program. The proposal was written by a 34 year old Austrian, Berthold Franz Hoselitz ( the future founding editor of the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change), and presumably circulated among the respective departments of the Division of Social Science for approval. The copy transcribed here comes from Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution together with the agenda for the faculty meeting when the proposal was scheduled to be discussed. We see from the course announcements that the proposal was accepted.

The poor image of Hoselitz from 1940 is partially compensated for by the fact that it is (up to now) the only image I have been able to find of him at all.

_____________________________

Fun Fact: Hoselitz taught John Nash

Q. …Did you have any teacher through your period at university which was particularly a role model to you?…

John Nash: I certainly had some good teachers who were very helpful to me and influential. For example, in economics I only took one economics course and I was an undergraduate study in Pittsburgh at what is now called Carnegie Mellon, but by coincidence the person who taught the course, it was a course in international economics, and by coincidence this was someone who came from Austria. So there’s actually to consider Austrian economics is like a different school than typical American or British. So I was by coincidence influenced by an Austrian economist [Bert F. Hoselitz, Associate Professor of Economics appointed October 1, 1947, resigned September 1948, Carnegie Institute of Technology.] which may have been a very good influence.

Source: Interview with Dr. John Nash at the 1st Meeting of Laureates in Economic Sciences in Lindau, Germany, September 1-4, 2004.    Interviewer: Marika Griehsel.

_____________________________

Biographical Note

Bert F. Hoselitz was born Berthold Frank Hoselitz in Vienna, Austria in 1913. He received his doctor of law degree in 1936 from the University of Vienna. He left Austria in 1938, traveling first to England, then to the U.S., where he taught briefly at Manchester College in North Manchester, Indiana. He enrolled in the University of Chicago , receiving an M.A. in Economics in 1945. Hoselitz joined faculty at Chicago as an instructor in 1945, and became emeritus in 1978.

Hoselitz advocated interdisciplinary scholarship and his work pushed the common wisdom within economics at the time by considering the role of cultural and sociological factors on economic development. In pursing this line of inquiry, he developed professional relationships with scholars around the globe, though particularly in Asia, and participated in both a research and advisory capacity for a broad spectrum of academic research projects that spanned traditionally distinct social science disciplines. In 1962, Hoselitz supervised a pair of National Science Foundation sponsored studies examining the social and economic entailments of developments in science and technology within Asia, primarily India. At a broader level, he was also active in efforts to bring diverse social science disciplines into conversation with one another. In 1958 began participating in an editorial and authorial capacity for the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

Hoselitz’s scholarly activities were not confined to academic research and teaching. He was also active and engaged in policy discussions concerning development and the developing world. In the early phase of his career Hoselitz participated in an array of applied research projects, advising work and professional associations related to economic development and development policy more broadly. For example, he wrote for the United Nations on issues related to economic development, beginning with a 1952 technical-assistance mission to El Salvador, and in the late fifties he served on a team of advisors to the government of India concerning the plan for the national capital region.

In addition to his global professional engagements, Hoselitz also remained an active participant and organizer in the scholarly community of his home institution at Chicago. In 1952 Hoselitz founded the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change at Chicago as well as the affiliated interdisciplinary journal Economic Development and Cultural Change, published through the University of Chicago Press. Hoselitz served as editor from the journal’s inception until 1985. He also served on the committee of the Norman Wait Harris Memorial Foundation based at the University of Chicago which focuses on issues of international interest and works to facilitate the exchange of knowledge about the diverse peoples of the world. In this capacity, Hoselitz organized visits by lecturers, funded conferences and facilitated the foundation’s publishing efforts.

Considered an interdisciplinary pioneer and an expert on the social and cultural dimensions of economic development, Professor Emeritus Bert Hoselitz died in Chicago on February 14, 1995.

 

Source: University of Chicago Library. Guide to the Bert F. Hoselitz papers, 1923-1987.

_____________________________

 

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A G E N D A
Tuesday, June 3, 1947, at 1. p.m. in Room SS 424

 

  1. Students’ Business:
    1. Tom, Chiu-Faat Joseph: Petition to take Chinese as second language.
    2. Berkman, Herman G.: Petition to take Planning as major field of specialization; to take intensive examination in French only.
    3. Murphy, J. Carter: Petition to substitute Mathematics for second language.
    4. Schwitzer, Selma: Petition for Mathematics to be one of secondary fields of specialization for A.M. (alternative). Other fields statistics and theory.
    5. Weil, R.A.: Petition to waive residence requirement.
      Recommendation to Candidacy. Tentative approval of thesis topic: “Federal Aid to Achieve State-Local Co-operation in a Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy.”
  2. Weil, R.A.: Petition to waive residence requirement.
    Recommendation to Candidacy.
    Tentative approval of thesis topic: “Federal Aid to Achieve State-Local Co-operation in a Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy.”
  3. Seminar, course and staff for “Problems of Capitalism and Democracy”
  4. Plans for counseling students during summer and next fall.
  5. New business.

_____________________________

 

OUTLINE FOR A PROGRAM ON THE “PROBLEM OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY”

I. Background

Some two years ago the History Department of the University of Chicago discussed the possibility of instituting in their Department so-called “problem-courses”. Instead of subdividing the subject matter of history on the basis of time periods and countries or regions, they felt that major problems, notably those of capitalism and democracy, should be studied in their historical perspective. These plans were thought over for some time but were not put into effect during the war, chiefly because of lack of suitable personnel who could be charged with the preparation and execution of these courses.

When, a few months ago, the Divisional Masters Committee met, and when it was decided that the Divisional Master’s program should provide for a more generalized program than that provided by departmental courses, the suggestion was made that the courses on the history of capitalism and the history of democracy might be worked out in a manner in which not only the historical sweep of the two institutions would be under consideration, but where also the problems arising in the two areas would be studied. The courses were thus conceived by the Divisional Masters Committee as comprising an analysis of historical background as well as the “nature” and problems of capitalism and of democracy.

When these courses were discussed it was the feeling of some members of the Divisional Masters Committee that what was needed to be stressed more and made more explicit than could be done by giving two apparently unrelated courses in isolation, was the problem of the interrelations of capitalism and democracy, or (in different words) the relationship of economic organization and the realization of political values of liberty, equality, and justice. This dilemma was met by the Masters committee by declaring the courses to be long into one “field” of study and by suggesting that the students be asked to take the courses simultaneously, by providing for parallel planning and teaching of the courses, as much as possible, and by providing an examination over the two courses (the field) in which the interrelations between economic organization and political values was stressed.

This plan was submitted to the Executive Committee of the Division of the Social Sciences and accepted as part of a program for the Divisional Masters Degree. At a later meeting between representatives of the Divisional Masters Committee and members of the Department of Economics, Political Science, and History, the problem was discussed again, and reasons for combination of the two courses, as well as reasons against brought forward. In addition the proposal was made and accepted that a faculty seminar be established which concern itself with the whole problem raised by the relationship of economic and political organization, notably the interrelations of capitalist, free enterprise, economic organization and political democracy.

 

II. Some Thoughts on a Program for Studying the Problem of Capitalism and Democracy.

A seminar or a combined course on the problems of capitalism and democracy seem to me to involve two sub-problems which ought to be separated from each other. One is the examination of the relationship of given economic institutions in the particular political framework and the processes which would be set in motion both in the political and economic field by attempts to realize certain aims of human welfare, or other chiefly political values, such as justice, freedom, etc.

The other problem would involve a study of actual processes of the interaction of political and economic institutions, their mutual interrelations in the past under different conditions in their dependence upon it given set of values in the particular hierarchies in which these values were accepted in certain countries and at certain times.

Both approaches may be dynamic but the first would primarily be analytical in that it would study the probable consequences of economic and political policies upon each other and therefore would in part deal with the study of how the existing institutions would be shaped by policies designed to meet social objectives in a more adequate way then is being done at present. In this analysis existing institutions such as constitutional arrangements, legal rules, the whole economic structure and possibly the international power structure as they affect the various countries, would be the starting point of the examination. This analysis would deal with problems which are of the utmost importance in the light of the discussion going on currently. It would have to take up those problems which presently are generally assumed under the heading of the relationship of freedom and planning. I think that it might be well for the Department to arrange the questions of a general and wide character affecting the whole social structure be included as well as more limited problems dealing with very specific economic or political policies in particular fields and their repercussions on the whole social structure.

The historical part could be used, it appears to me, for the following purposes.

(1) It could throw light on the coexistence of particular economic and political institutions especially on the historical coexistence of capitalism and democracy.

(2) It could provide evidence to show how and to what extent changes which either of the two institutions undergo undergoes in industrial civilization, have affected the other, and therefore could provide a basis for making certain analogies which present policies actually in operation or proposed.

(3) It would have to be supplemented by an analysis of the influence of the institutions of industrial capitalism and democratic political organization upon the formation of human personality, and vice versa the influence of human motivations and psychological factors upon the social, economic and political organization of the time.

(4) I am not certain whether an analysis of the origins of capitalism would be fruitful in this connection, but I think that it would be useful in the historical part to provide for a comparison between the social structure of the 19th century in the economic organization which it manifested in political values which it claimed to realize, and other societies, their economic and technological equipment and their political organization. If this can be supplemented by a comparison of the “basic personalities” in the two cultures, this might throw additional light on the question whether industrial capitalism and political democracy are bound up with each other, whether the ties exist in the social field exclusively, what ties are provided by the personality structure of the individuals composing the society and what evidence is provided by the historical incidence of attempts simultaneously to realize certain economic and political aims.

It seems to me, therefore, a defect that in the original planning of the program social psychologists and social anthropologists did not participate and I would think that both of these have important contributions to make.

Although it would be difficult clearly to separate the analytical approach which is concerned with examination of concrete presently existing problems confronting us in America and European countries as well as some of the “backward” countries, from the historical problems, I don’t think that such a separation would be necessary as long as it is logically plain that in the one area we are dealing with the application of generalizations drawn from history and other social sciences on practical policies, whereas in the other field we deal with an attempt to give a comprehensive examination of why particular processes occur, when and where they occurred and what factors were responsible for their occurrence. In other words, the two approaches would complement each other and would give opportunity to representatives of all the social science disciplines to make a contribution.

We frequently talk about the problem of modern society and I think we mean primarily by this the set of problems outlined above. Although as individuals we feel inclined that we must provide answers of what will be the probable effects of concrete policies, all of us attempt to build those answers into a logical framework which comprises the totality of social arrangements in which, therefore, is colored by our conception of political and cultural processes as well as economic ones. Any clarification of the relationships of these processes in present-day society which can be deduced by analytical study or by an examination of historical periods from which analogies for present-day action can be provided might therefore give at least a partial answer. I would like to see both the seminar and a course or combination of courses be carried on on the basis of these thoughts. If a more complete outline is desirable I shall gladly provide one.

Respectfully submitted
Bert Hoselitz

May 22, 1947

Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder “79.1 University of Chicago, Minutes, Economics Department 1946-1949”.

_____________________________

DIVISIONAL COURSES

[…]

Social Science 300A,B,C. The Nature and Problems of Capitalism. A study of the economic institutions of capitalist society in the more critical phases of their development up to the present, with particular emphasis on the social and political context in which economic change occurs. Closely correlated with Social Science 301A, B,C, which is taken concurrently. Enrolment limited to students under the Divisional Master’s Program. Aut, Win, Spr: MWF 10:30; Staff.

Social Science 301A,B,C. The Nature and Problems of Democracy (identical with Political Science 300A,B,C). Examination of the political institutions of Western society, especially in their relation to the development of democratic ideals and practices. Major concern is with American institutions as they operate in the context of both democratic ideals and political reality. Taken concurrently with Social Science 300 A, B, C. Enrolment limited to students under the Divisional Master’s Program. Aut, Win, Spr: MWF 10:30; Staff.

 

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements Vol. XLIX, No. 9 (July 1, 1949). The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1949-1950. p. 10.

Image Source: Declaration of Intention to apply for U.S. citizenship by Bertold Franz Hoselitz (alias Hazlitt), August 8, 1940.

Categories
Columbia Courses Economists Harvard Transcript

Columbia. Search Committee Report. 1950

This report is fascinating for a couple of reasons. The search committee understood its task to identify “the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located” from which a short list of three names for the replacement of Louis M. Hacker in Columbia College was selected. Organizationally, Columbia College is where undergraduate economics has been taught so that teaching excellence, including participation in Columbia College’s legendary Contemporary Civilization course sequence, was being sought as well as was potential for significant scholarship. Appendix C provides important information on James Tobin’s graduate economics education. In a later posting, I’ll provide information on others in the long-list of seventeen economists identified by the search committee.

___________________

January 9, 1950

 

Professor James W. Angell, Chairman
Department of Economics
Columbia University

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Committee appointed by you to canvass possible candidates for the post in Columbia College that is made available by the designation of Professor Louis M. Hacker as Director of the School of General Studies submits herewith its report.

As originally constituted, this committee was made up of Professors Taylor, Barger, Hart and Haig (chairman). At an early stage the membership was expanded to include Professor Stigler and from the beginning the committee had the advantage of the constant assistance of the chairman of the department.

In accordance with the suggestions made at the budget meeting in November, the committee has conducted a broad inquiry, designed to raise for consideration the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located. In addition to the men known personally to the members of the committee, suggestions were solicited from the authorities at other institutions, including Harvard, Chicago, California and Leland Stanford. By mid December, scrutiny of the records and publications by the committee to the following seventeen:

 

Name Suggested by
Alchian, Armen A. Haley
Bronfenbrenner, Martin Friedman
Brownlee, O. H. Friedman
Christ, Carl L. Angell
Dewey, D. J. Friedman
Du[e]senberry, [James] Stigler
Goodwin, Richard M. Burbank
Harberger, J. H. Friedman
Ho[s]elitz, Bert Friedman
Lewis, H. Gregg Hart
Machlup, Fritz Stigler
Nicholls, William H. Stigler
Nutter, J. W. Friedman
Pancoast, Omar Taylor
Schelling, Thomas Burbank
Tobin, James Burbank
Vandermeulen, D. C. Ellis

[p. 2]

The meeting of the American Economic Association in New York during the Christmas holidays offered an opportunity to meet many of the men on the above list and to make inquiries regarding them. As a consequence, it has been possible for your committee to make rapid progress with its appraisals. Although the committee is continuing to gather information and data, it is prepared at this time to make a series of definite recommendations, with a high degree of confidence that these recommendations are not likely to be greatly disturbed by its further inquiries.

It is the unanimous opinion of the members of your committee that the most eligible and promising candidate on our list is Martin Bronfenbrenner, associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin, at present on leave for special service in Tokyo.

Should Bronfenbrenner prove to be unavailable the committee urges consideration of D. J. Dewey, at present holding a special fellowship at the University of Chicago, on leave from his teaching post at Iowa. As a third name, the committee suggests James Tobin, at present studying at Cambridge, England, on a special fellowship from Harvard.

Detailed information regarding the records of these three men will be found in appendices to this report.

Bronfenbrenner, the first choice of the committee, is 35 years old. He received his undergraduate degree from Washington University at the age of 20 and his Ph.D. from Chicago at 25. During his war service, he acquired a good command of the Japanese language. He taught at Roosevelt College, Chicago, before going to Wisconsin and undergraduate reports of his teaching are as enthusiastic as those of the authorities at Chicago. He happens to be personally well known to two of the members of your committee (Hart and Stigler) and to at last two other member of the department (Shoup and Vickrey), all four of whom commend him in high terms.

The following statement from Hart, dated December 6, 1929, was prepared after a conference with Friedman of Chicago:

“Bronfenbrenner is undoubtedly one of the really powerful original thinkers in the age group between thirty and thirty-five. He has always very much enjoyed teaching; my impression is that his effectiveness has been with the upper half of the student body at Roosevelt College and at Wisconsin. He is primarily a theorist but has a wide range of interest and a great deal of adaptability so it would not be much of a problem to fit him in somewhere [p. 3] in terms of specialization. He would do a good deal to keep professional discussion stirring in the University. My impression is that he tends to be underrated by the market, and that a chance at Columbia College might well be his best opportunity for some time ahead. The difficulty is, of course, that there is no chance of arranging an interview; though Shoup and Vickrey, of course, both saw him last summer.”

In a letter dated December 15, Shoup wrote as follows:

“I have a high regard for Martin Bronfenbrenner’s intellectual capacities, and I think he would fit in well in the Columbia scene. He has an excellent mind and a great intellectual independence. In his writings he sometimes tends to sharp, almost extreme statements, but in my opinion, they almost always have a solid foundation, and in conversation he is always ready to explore all sides of the question. When we had to select someone to take over the tax program in Japan, after the report had been formulated, and oversee the implementation of the program by the Japanese government, it was upon my recommendation that Bronfenbrenner was selected. He arrived in Japan in the middle of August and his work there since that time has confirmed me in my expectations that he would be an excellent selection for the job, even though he did not have very much technical background in taxation. I rank him as one of the most promising economists in his age group in this country, and I should not be surprised if he made one or more major contributions of permanent value in the coming years.

“He has gone to Japan on a two year appointment, after having obtained a two year leave of absence from the University of Wisconsin. My understanding is that on such an appointment he could come back to the United States at the end of one year, provided he paid his own passage back. It might be possible that even this requirement would be waived, but I have no specific grounds for thinking so. I believe the major part of his work with respect to implementing the tax program will have been completed by next September. If the committee finds itself definitely interested in the possibility of Bronfenbrenner’s coming to Columbia, I should not let the two year appointment stand in the way of making inquiries.”

The breadth and rang of his interests recommend Bronfenbrenner as a person who would probably be highly [p.4] valuable in the general course in contemporary civilization and the quality of his written work suggests high promise as a productive scholar in one or more specialized fields.

Your committee considers that the appropriate rank would be that of associate professor.

Respectfully submitted,

[signed]

Robert M. Haig

 

______________________________

Appendix A – Martin Bronfenbrenner

The following data regarding Bronfenbrenner are taken chiefly from the 1948 Directory of the American Economic Assoication:

Born: 1914

Education and Degrees:

A.B. Washington University, 1934
Ph.D. University of Chicago 1939
1940-42, George Washington School of Law

Fields: Theory, mathematical economics, statistical methods, econometrics

Doctoral dissertation: Monetary theory and general equilibrium

Publications:

“Consumption function controversy”, Southern Economic Journal, January, 1948
“Price control under imperfect competition”, American Economic Review, March, 1947
“Dilemma of Liberal Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 1946

Additional publications:

“Post-War Political Economy: The President’s Reports”, Journal of Political Economy, October, 1948
Various book reviews including one on W. I. King’s The Keys to Prosperity, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948, and A. H. Hansen’s Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Annals

Additions to list of publications circulated, January 9, 1950

“The Economics of Collective Bargaining”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1939.
(with Paul Douglas) “Cross-Section Studies in the Cobb-Douglas Function”, Journal of Political Economy, 1939.
“Applications of the Discontinuous Oligopoly Demand Curve”, Journal of Political Economy, 1940.
“Diminishing Returns in Federal Taxation” Journal of Political Economy, 1942.
“The Role of Money in Equilibrium Capital Theory”, Econometrica (1943).

______________________________

Appendix B – D. J. Dewey

On leave from Iowa.

In 1948 studied at Cambridge, England.
1949-50, at Chicago on special fellowship.

Bibliography:

Notes on the Analysis of Socialism as a Vocational Problem, Manchester School, September, 1948.
Occupational Choice in a Collectivist Economy, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948.

Friedman and Schultz are highly enthusiastic.

Statement by Hart, dated December 6, 1949:

“Friedman regards Dewey as first rate and points to an article on ‘Proposal for Allocating the Labor Force in a Planned Economy’ (Journal of Political Economy, as far as I remember in July 1949) for which the J.P.E. gave a prize as the best article of the year. I read the article, rather too quickly, a few weeks ago and it is definitely an imaginative and powerful piece of work. How the conclusions would look after a thorough-going seminar discussion, I am not clear; but the layout of questions is fascinating.”

______________________________

Appendix [C] – James Tobin

Statement by Burbank of Harvard, dated December 14, 1949:

“We have known Tobin a good many years. He came to us as a National Scholar, completed his work for the A.B. before the war and had advanced his graduate work very well before he went into the service. He received his Ph.D. in 1947. Since 1947 he has been a Junior Fellow. He was a teaching fellow from 1945 to 1947. He is now in Cambridge, England, and will, I believe, begin his professional work by next fall. Since Tobin has been exposed to Harvard for a very long time I believe that he feels that for his own intellectual good he should go elsewhere. I doubt if we could make a stronger recommendation than Tobin nor one in which there will be greater unanimity of opinion. Certainly he is one of the top men we have had here in the last dozen years. He is now intellectually mature. He should become one of the handful of really outstanding scholars of his generation. His interests are mainly in the area of money but he is also interested in theory and is competent to teach at any level.”

Data supplied by Harvard:

Address:    Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge University, England

Married:   Yes, one child

Born:          1918, U.S.

Degrees:

A. B. Harvard, 1939 (Summa cum laude)
A.M. Harvard, 1940
Ph.D. Harvard, 1947

Fields of Study: Theory, Ec. History, Money and Banking, Political Theory: write-off, Statistics

Special Field: Business Cycles

Thesis Topic: A Theoretical and Statistical Analysis of Consumer Saving

Experience:

1942-45 U.S. Navy
1945-47 Teaching Fellow, Harvard University
1947- Junior Fellow, Society of Fellows

[p. 2 of Appendix C]

Courses:           1939-40

Ec. 21a (Stat.)                  A
Ec. 121b (Adv. St.)          A
Ec. 133 (Ec. Hist)            A
Ec. 147a (M&B Sem)      A
Ec. 145b (Cycles)             A
Ec. 113b (Hist. Ec.)       Exc.
Gov. 121a (Pol.Th.)         A

1940-1941

Ec. 121a (Stat.)                A
Ec. 164 (Ind. Org.)          A
Ec. 20 (Thesis)                A
Ec. 118b (App. St.)          A
Math 21                             A
Ec. 104b (Math Ec.)       A

1946-47 Library and Guidance

Generals:       Passed May 22, 1940 with grade of Good Plus
Specials:         Passed May 9, 1947 with grade of Excellent.

 

Data from 1948 Directory of American Economic Association:

Harvard University, Junior Fellow

Born:                1918

Degrees:           A. B., Harvard, 1939; Ph.D., Harvard, 1947j

Fields: Business fluctuations, econometrics, economic theory, and mathematical economics

Dissertation: A theoretical and statistical analysis of consumer saving.

Publications:

“Note on Money Wage Problem”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1941.
“Money Wage Rates and Employment”, in New Economics (Knopf, 1947).
“Liquidity Preference and monetary Policy”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1947.
[pencil addition] Article in Harris (ed.), The New Economics, 1947.

______________________________

Source: Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Department of Economics Collection, Box 6, Folder “Columbia College”

Image Source: The beyondbrics blog of the Financial Times.