The following ten-year plan (1968-1978) proposal for the department of political economy of Johns Hopkins was most likely drafted by senior members of the department, though the precise author(s) is not clear from the document itself. The bottom line of this plan is a request to be allowed to expand the deparment’s faculty and graduate student body by by half and by two-thirds, respectively. Otherwise the department feared the loss of its national reputation due to having a reduced scope and scale.
The plan is at least as interesting for its obiter dicta regarding e.g., air-conditioning, computer terminals, secretarial staff, etc.
_______________________
TEN-YEAR PROJECTS AND OUTLOOK FOR
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
[Draft, 1967]
I. Introduction and Summary
The Department of Political Economy, like the rest of the University, has concentrated on small numbers and high quality in its research and instructional programs. It is our intention to continue that tradition.
During the early postwar period, this Department produced as large a group of outstanding young economists as almost any university in the country. Its small faculty included several of the country’s most eminent economists. Between 1958 and 1961 the Department was plagued with resignations of senior faculty. At the same time resources available at other universities were growing rapidly. As a result the Department lost its former status as a major producer of research and scholars. Since 1961, the Department has steadily been rebuilt and is again able to attract its share of outstanding faculty and graduate students. But the Department still suffers to some extent from the factors responsible for its earlier troubles: its small size and limited resource base.
The Department now consists of 11 faculty and 45 resident Ph.D. candidates.
The program outlined in subsequent sections is designed to strengthen the Department by increasing Its size and financial base, while still permitting it to reap the advantages of its relatively small size.
During the next decade, the Department should grow to about 18 faculty members, or about 50%. Its Ph.D. candidates should grow to about 75, or by about two-thirds. Such growth is essential to add stability to the research and instructional programs, and to permit us to cover the growing number of specialties in the subject.
Growth will be expensive. Faculty salaries and graduate fellowships will continue to rise. And no university can retain excellence, let alone improve its position, without substantial budgetary increases. Within a decade, the Department’s budget for salaries and fellowships should almost triple.
II. Immediate Needs and Plans
A. In 1967-68, the Department has ten full-time faculty members, one joint appointment with Operations Research, and one faculty member whose major appointment is in the School of Public Health. (A second joint appointment with Public Health was made in Spring 1967, but the appointee will be in Pakistan for two years.) We have two vacancies. One is a professorship, and results from the Department’s having been permitted to replace Professor Evans prior to his retirement. We have appointed a visiting Professor to this post for 1968-69. The other vacant post is an Assistant Professorship, created in the spring of 1967.
The Department’s full-time faculty ought to expand to about 18 during the next decade. Three purposes would be served by such an expansion. First, it would provide the Department with more depth in the central specialties of economic theory and quantitative methods, so that a resignation or leave of absence would not disrupt the instructional program. Second, it would permit us to make appointments in important specialties not adequately covered by existing faculty. The inevitable increase in specialization through time makes gradual expansion necessary. Third, it would enable us to discharge our obligations to the instructional programs in international relations more adequately.
The Department is now actively seeking funds for the establishment of a Center for International Economic Studies within the Department. This Center would provide a focus for graduate instruction and research in the areas of international trade and economic development. The Center would provide a major substantive focus for the Department in addition to its present focus on economic theory and quantitative methods. In addition, it would help to fill a pressing social need, since the development of poor countries is perhaps the most pressing social problem of our time. Finally, it would permit us to exploit the unique advantages of the University’s proximity to Washington.
Although we are now strong in international economics, we are weak in economic development. Hence, a specialist in economic development is our most pressing need in terms of our proposed Center, our own graduate program, and our participation in the international relations programs. Our next highest priority is in the area of industrial organization, in which we now offer only one course in alternate years. Other fields in which we need additional strength are economic growth, public finance, private finance, econometrics, managerial economics, and Soviet-type economics.
Our needs are not equally urgent in all these areas. And not every specialty requires a separate appointment. Individual scholars often have interests in two or more specialties. Finally, the importance of particular specialties, and the interests of individual faculty members change gradually through time.
B. The most important research facilities for the Economics Department are the library and computational facilities. In both cases, the special needs of the Department will make it increasingly important in the coming decade to supplement the facilities available to the University as a whole.
For many years the Department has felt the need for a workroom where copies of major journals and reference books could be kept. In an important sense, the technical journals and data sources play the role in economics that the laboratory plays in an experimental. science. The movement of the library from Gilman Hall has imposed a major burden on faculty in the Department. In addition, faculty and graduate students in economics are now sufficiently numerous that duplicate copies of major journals are essential. We have made a small beginning toward meeting our library needs by establishing a workroom in our new quarters. A very limited number of journals is being purchased from research funds. In the coming years it will be important to expand the number of journals in our workroom, and to add major reference and data volumes. If a new social science building is constructed, or if the Department is able to expand its quarters as a result of the construction of a humanities building, a departmental library should be a major planning item.
The Department now has 6 desk calculators for use by faculty and students. Most are old and should be replaced with more modern machines within a few years. In the next decade we should at least double the number of calculators available. Some of our faculty now make frequent use of one or more of the real time-saving consoles located around the University. Within a short time, it will be important for the Department to have one or more such consoles in or near the Department area.
The Department now has two full-time and one half-time secretary. The half-time secretary is financed from research funds. Within a year or two she will need to be full time. Within a decade we will probably need five full-time secretaries. We need one additional electric typewriter this fall, and at least three modern tape recorders. During the coming years wo will need several additional typewriters and recorders, and other minor items of office equipment.
C. In the spring of 1967, we substantially revised both our undergraduate and graduate curricula. At the undergraduate level, the major change was to permit most courses to be taken after only two semesters economic theory rather than three as was previously required. This opened up, several courses in the Department to international relations majors and others outside the economics major. At the graduate level, the major change was to provide a more concentrated and integrated program in economic theory for first-year Ph.D. candidates.
During the last few years, the number of undergraduate registrations in economics courses has grown much more rapidly than the undergraduate student body. This is shown in the following table of selected registrations.
| 1963-64 | 1964-65 | 1965-66 | 1966-67 | |
| 18.1 | 241 | 339 | 351 | 358 |
| 18.2 | 50 | 85 | 121 | 107 |
| 18.3 | 50 | 79 | 94 | 108 |
| 18.301-302 | 51 | 56 | 52 | 74 |
| Total | 392 | 559 | 618 | 647 |
This has necessitated our giving some courses each semester which were previously given in alternate semesters. Presumably, future growth in undergraduate registrations will more nearly approximate the growth in the student body. During the next few years our major need at the undergraduate level is to add a few specialized courses that will be available to students with a limited background in economics. Planned economics and urban economics are examples of such courses.
Our Ph.D. program is now too small. We do not have enough students to justify graduate courses in specialties which should be covered in a high quality graduate program, and we do not have enough faculty to offer the courses. We thus need to expand the graduate enrollment and the faculty simultaneously in order to be able to fill gaps in our graduate program in areas such as economic development, fiscal policy and industrial organization.
D. This Department is far smaller than any other major graduate department in economics. The next smallest, Princeton, is approximately the size that our projections indicate we will be in 10 years. Others are much larger.
We do not aspire to match the size and growth of most of the departments with which we compete for faculty and graduate students. We are firmly convinced of the advantages of smallness. But until very recently our size was almost below that required for viability. And we see clear advantages in some further growth, which would still retain the benefits of our relatively small size.
III. In this section I will discuss the undergraduate and graduate instructional programs, and faculty research activities in that order.
Undergraduates can either concentrate or major in economics. Although there is some tendency for better students to major rather than concentrate, some very able students choose the less intensive program. A stronger tendency is for those whose goal is a Ph.D. program in economics to major, and for others to concentrate.
An average senior class contains about 15 concentrators in economics. Some of these graduates take jobs, but many go to graduate school in business, law and economics.
An average senior class contains about 10 majors in economics. Although a few majors take jobs upon graduation, most attend graduate school in economics or business. And the program is designed with this group in mind. In recent years, our majors have undertaken successful graduate study at Chicago, Stanford, M.I.T., Johns Hopkins and other leading institutions. The Department’s requirements of a major include four semesters of economic theory, economic history, a year of statistics, a year of mathematics, a senior essay, and work on one or more advanced fields. We feel that our majors are as well prepared for graduate study as those at any university in the country.
For many years, the goal of our Ph.D. program has been to provide thorough training in economic theory, quantitative methods, and a small number of substantive fields to a small group of high quality students, most of whom intend to enter teaching and research posts. In the years 1950-1966, 63 people received the Ph.D. for work in this Department. This comes to 3.7 per year, but there is a slight upward trend, and we have given about five per year in recent years. Among them are some of the leading academic economists of the postwar generation. Our graduates hold posts at Yale, Chicago, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin and other leading United States universities. They also hold major academic posts in the U.K., Israel, Japan and Australia.
In the early postwar period, Johns Hopkins had among its Ph.D. candidates more than its share of the best students who studied economics. This resulted from the high quality of the faculty, the small and personal nature of the Ph.D. program, and the ability of the Department to offer fellowships that were larger than those offered by competing institutions. In the late 1950’s, this situation changed, partly because of the loss of most of the Department’s senior faculty. Since 1981, the Department has been substantially rebuilt; and is again among the leading economics departments in this country. We have greatly improved the quality of the student body, and are now getting about our share of the best graduate students, but we have not regained our former edge. To do so is the goal of the plans outlined in other sections of this report.
In the Political Economy Department, as elsewhere in the University, most faculty research is basic rather than applied. Within that framework, however, a wide spectrum of subjects and techniques is encompassed. Some of the research is purely theoretical, employing mathematical and logical tools to improve our understanding of economic phenomenon. Most of the research, however, is quantitative, employing not only economic theory but also statistical methods and data.
IV. Relationship to the Hopkins community
A. At the undergraduate level, the enrollment in economics courses has grown rapidly in recent years. Nearly every undergraduate now takes at least one economics course. And for several years we have had more than a hundred students per year in each of our second and third courses in economic theory. About 50 students per year enroll in our course in current economic problems. In 1967-68, the Department will offer 11 semester courses at the 0-99 level, and 13 semester courses at the 300-level, all of them open to undergraduates who are not economics majors.
At the graduate level our Ph.D. candidates frequently take courses in the Departments of Mathematics, Statistics, and Operations Research. Less frequently they take courses in the Departments of Political Science, History, Geography, and Social Relations. Frequently, 300- and 600-level courses in economics are taken by Ph.D. candidates in Operations Research, Environmental Sciences, Statistics, and Geography. Less frequently, they are taken by students in History, Social Relations and Political Science. Sometimes, students from SAIS take our courses in international economics and economic development.
In recent years, there has been a considerable increase in the exchange of graduate students between this Department and others for course work. We expect this trend to continue and feel that it should be encouraged.
B. The Center for International Studies will be established within the Department of Political Economy. However, many problems within the Center’s purview require interdisciplinary study, and we hope to use the Center as a vehicle for joint teaching and research programs. SAIS is the most natural partner for such ventures, but we hope to explore possibilities with Homewood departments also.
C. The Department takes an active part in the A.B.-M.A. and Ph.D. programs in international relations. We give year courses in international economics and economic development mainly for students in these programs. In our curriculum revision last spring, we reduced the prerequisites for these courses to make them more accessible to international relations specialists. We are generally pleased with our success in staffing the economics part of the international relations program. However, we feel a need for a major appointment in economic development before we can be fully satisfied with our contribution.
The Political Economy Department has one joint appointment with the Operations Research Department. In addition, wo have two faculty members in the Department whose major appointments are in the School of Public Health. The Department has no fixed policy regarding joint appointments. Those that wo have are successful because of special circumstances in which such an arrangement is in the interests of all parties. We expect that such circumstances will arise again. But we think it unwise to plan for certain numbers or kinds of joint appointments.
V. Instructional Program
A. The following table summarizes the Department’s instructional program in 1967-68:
| Course Number | No. of Courses | Hours Per Week | Credit Hours | No. of Courses | Hours Per Week | Credit Hours | No. of Courses | Hours Per Week | Credit Hours |
| 0 – 99 | 5 | 14 | 14 | 6 | 17 | 17 | 11 | 31 | 31 |
| 300-399 | 7 | 15 | 22 ½ | 6 | 13 | 19 ½ | 13 | 23 | 42 |
| 600-699 | 11 | 23 | — | 12 | 24 | — | 23 | 47 | — |
| Total | 23 | 52 | — | 24 | 54 | — | 47 | 106 | — |
Each full-time faculty member except the chairman teaches two courses per semester. The chairman teaches three courses per year. All faculty attend the weekly Department seminar. Most faculty members will attend our dissertation seminar several times a year.
All courses numbered 0-99 are open to all qualified undergraduates, whether they are economics majors or not. All 300-399 numbered courses are open to qualified undergraduates and to graduate students from other departments. A few are not normally taken by Ph.D. candidates in economics. 600-699 numbered courses are open to graduate students in this and other departments.
It is difficult to predict future growth of undergraduate enrollment since, as stated above, we expect it to grow about as fast as the undergraduate student body, which we do not control. However, even in the absence of substantial growth in enrollments, there are several courses that should be added either at the 0-99 or the 300-399 level. These include comparative economic systems, corporation finance, public finance, and economic growth. Some other courses, now given only in alternate years, should be given every year. These include industrial organization, economics of education, and urban economics. Substantial growth in enrollments would require that we offer additional sections of some courses and that we offer some courses every semester rather than once a year.
At the graduate level, our intake of students has been between 10 and 15 for several years, resulting in a body of about 35 students in residence. We have now embarked on a conscious program of increasing the size of our graduate program; in 1967-68, 18 students entered and our student body is 45. Our intake should increase gradually over the coming decade to about 25, with a resulting student body of about 75. Seventy-five is the present graduate enrollment of the next smallest of major graduate programs in economics in other universities. Others are considerably larger. We feel that this growth is necessary to enable us to offer the range of courses now required for proper coverage of our subject matter.
Unless a major expansion of the international relations program is undertaken, we should not have to devote more faculty resources to it, once we have made the appointment we are now seeking in economic development.
Expansion of the faculty from 11 to 18 would permit the addition of 28 semester courses in the Department. The exact nature and level of the courses to added will depend on the interests of faculty members recruited, the interests of undergraduate and graduate students, and developments in the subject matter. However, we expect to continue the policy of devoting roughly half the Department’s teaching resources to courses numbered 0-99 and 300-399, and the other half to 600-level courses.
B. The Department completely reorganized both its undergraduate and graduate curricula in the spring of 1967. This reorganization permitted us to identify clearly the gaps in our program referred to in Section II. We feel that our only pressing curriculum need is now to fill these gaps. Major curriculum reform becomes necessary periodically in a developing discipline, but we have no plans for further reform.
VI. Resources Outside the University
The Department has no formal relationship with organizations outside the University. The Department does, however, benefit from proximity to Washington in several ways. First, proximity to Washington is an attraction to some actual and prospective faculty members. They may obtain data, attend meetings and seminars, and occasionally undertake paid consulting at U.S. Government agencies, international organizations, or private research Institutions. Second, Washington is an attractive source of summer jobs for our graduate students, and a few of our graduates take permanent posts there.
VII. Space requirements
In the spring of 1967 the Department moved into new quarters on the fourth floor of Gilman Hall. These quarters are an important improvement over those previously available to the Department. The new quarters consist of 12 faculty offices, a departmental office, a calculator room, 11 small cubicles for graduate students, a seminar room, and a workroom where recent technical journals are kept.
In terms of space needs, however, the now quarters are already inadequate. We now have 13 faculty posts in the Department, but only 12 offices. In fall 1968 we expect to have all 13 posts filled, and we will have the Hinkley Professor in the Department. We will thus be two offices short. In addition, we recently hired a part-time secretary. The Department office is adequate for only the two secretaries now occupying it and we have to house the new secretary in the calculator room. Within the next year the part-time post will have to be made full time, and the housing problem will be acute.
The ten-year projection for the Department will require major additions to the Department’s space facilities. Faculty offices will have to expand from 12 to 18. The secretarial force will have to expand to at least five, and that will require at least two rooms entirely devoted to secretarial use. The Department now has one seminar room. Virtually all our 300- and 600-level courses are held there and it is in use more than 35 hours per week within a short time it will be necessary to have an additional seminar room. Within ten years it will be important to have a third room that can be used for seminars, conferences and other meetings. Within the next few years we will need a larger calculator room. We already need additional calculators, and this need will grow as the faculty and graduate student body grows. In addition, we will shortly need one or more real time sharing consoles in the Department area.
It is clear that a building to house either the social or behavioral sciences is already overdue at Johns Hopkins. Despite all the building on the campus in the last decade, the social sciences and humanities – as well as statistics and various ancillary facilities are still all housed In Gilman Hall. It is virtually the only building on the campus that is not fully air conditioned. And the removal of the main library has worsened the situation.
The nature of this Department’s space needs would make it difficult, but not impossible, to satisfy them by regrouping the Gilman facilities if some other departments were to be housed in other buildings. A social or behavioral science building – which would include economics ought to be a major part of the 10-year fund raising program.
VIII. Tables and Graphs
A. The following table shows the undergraduate concentrators and majors in Political Economy for 1967-68:
| Concentrators | Majors | |
| Juniors | 5 | 10 |
| Seniors | 16 | 9 |
This table does not include the BIM students.
In 1967-68 the Department has 18 entering and 27 returning graduate students. We have no post-doctoral students.
B. Faculty
Edwin S. Mills – Professor and Chairman
Age: 39
econometrics, statistics, microeconomics
Research projects: [blank]
Bela Balassa – Professor
Age: 39
International trade, economic theory, comparative systems, economic development
Research projects: [blank]
Carl F. Christ – Professor
Age: 44
econometrics, macroeconomics, money
Research projects: [blank]
G. Heberton Evans, Jr. – Professor
Age: 67
economic history, history of economic thought, private finance
Research projects: [blank]
Herbert E. Klarman – Professor
Age: 51
economics of health, public finance
Research projects: [blank]
Peter Newman – Professor
Age: 39
economic theory, mathematical economics, economic development
Research projects: [blank]
Jürg Niehans – Professor
Age: 48
economic theory, money
Research Projects: [blank]
Frederick T. Sparrow – Associate Professor
Age: [blank]
operations research, microeconomic theory, managerial economics
Research projects: [blank]
William Oakland – Assistant Professor
Age: 28
public finance, money, economic theory
Research projects: [blank]
John Owen – Assistant Professor
Age: 35
labor, economic theory, education
Research Projects: [blank]
William Poole – Assistant Professor
Age: 30
money, macroeconomics, international trade
Research projects: [blank]
H. Louis Stettler, III – Assistant Professor
Age: 29
economic history, economic theory, statistics
Research projects: [blank]
C. As was stated above, the Department should grow from its present size of 12 faculty members to 18 during the next decade. We feel that the current division by rank — about half the faculty are professors — is about right. The following table shows a feasible growth pattern to meet the projected goal:
|
1967-68 |
1968-69 | 1969-70 | 1970-71 | 1971-72 | 1972-73 | 1973-74 | 1974-75 | 1975-76 | 1976-77 |
1977-78 |
|
|
Prof. |
6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 |
| Assoc. Prof. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
2 |
|
Asst. Prof. |
4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| Total | 11 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 17 |
18 |
Our priorities among specialties were indicated in Section II. Beyond that, it is not possible to indicate which appointments should be made in which years and at which levels. Much depends on the availability of particular faculty in whom we are interested and on combinations of zfields in which prospective faculty are interested.
D. The Department is not persuaded that there is an important place for postdoctoral studies in economics during the next decade. Promising graduate students now obtain well-paid posts at universities with graduate programs and with relatively light teaching loads. Our impression is that it would be difficult to entice them to post-doctoral fellowships, and that there is little merit in doing so. Nor are we persuaded that there is a substantial group of young economists at small colleges who could produce significant books and papers if given a year off from heavy teaching duties. The only promising possibility seems to be to find a small number of young foreign scholars who have the Ph.D. or its equivalent, and who could spend a year here with mutual benefit to themselves and to us. The Department is not prepared to urge such a program at this time.
E. The accompanying table shows a projected ton-year budget for the Department of Political Economy. The personnel item includes base salaries and fringe benefits of faculty, secretaries and junior instructors. It assumes that faculty salaries will rise by 7% per year over the next decade. It also takes account of the faculty expansion projected in Section E.
The fellowship budget includes graduate fellowships, tuition and stipends, from whatever source. At present, some is University money, some is U.S. Government money funneled through the University (NDEA, NSF), some is fellowship money obtained by students with Department recommendations, and some is money obtained by students (mostly foreigners) entirely on their own (from foreign sources, U.S. State Department, foundations). This budget assumes that fellowships per student will rise by about 5% per year during the next decade. The table also assumes that the number of entering students will rise from 18 to 25, and the total graduate student body from 45 to 75, over the next decade.
The third line projects a growth of the Department’s incidental and telephone accounts by about 5% per year over the decade.
Excluded from the table are research funds for supplemental faculty salary, research assistants, or computing. No attempt has been made to project funds available from sponsored research or from University sources such as the faculty research grants fund.
|
1967-68 |
1968-69 | 1969-70 | 1970-71 | 1971-72 |
1972-73 |
|
|
Personnel |
233,640 | 250,000 | 306,400 | 340,700 | 356,500 | 395,500 |
| Fellowships | 159,500 | 186,000 | 207,100 | 229,700 | 254,100 |
280,400 |
|
Telephones, Supplies |
4,000 | 4,200 | 4,400 | 4,600 | 4,900 | 5,100 |
| 397,140 | 440,200 | 517,900 | 575,000 | 615,500 |
681,000 |
|
1973-74 |
1974-75 | 1975-76 | 1976-77 | 1977-78 | |
| Personnel | 453,200 | 484,900 | 535,800 | 573,800 |
653,400 |
|
Fellowships |
308,600 | 339,000 | 371,600 | 401,200 | 432,800 |
| Telephones, Supplies | 5,400 | 5,600 | 5,900 | 6,200 |
6,500 |
|
767,200 |
829,500 | 913,300 | 981,200 |
1,092,700 |
Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy [Records], Box 5, Folder “Planning Documents: 1938, 1965, 1967”.