Tag: Leontief

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Theory Uncategorized

Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory Exam. April 1963

Edward Chamberlin was a member of the graduate examination committee of the Harvard economics department in the early 1960s and in his files I have found copies of the theory exams from 1961, 1962, and 1963 along with a few memos that  circulated among members of the committee that together provide a description of the procedures used for grading.

Of related interest is the following report that was transcribed and posted earlier:

Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

_________________________________

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

April 11, 1961
November 13, 1962

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Economic Theory Examination
April 8, 1963

You are to answer a total of 6 questions.

All three questions in Part A.
One question each in Parts B, C, and D.

Use a separate book for each question.

PART A: Answer all THREE

  1. Explain the phenomena of “external economies” and “external diseconomies.” Describe how they affect the efficiency of the competitive pricing mechanism, and discuss measures which have been proposed to improve welfare when external economies or diseconomies are present.
  2. State and explain several leading principles from the field of “non-price competition.” Comment on the problems that arise in combining this type of theory with the more orthodox “price competition.”
  3. Interpret the Marshallian concept of Consumers’ Surplus in terms of a theory of utility based solely on Indifference Lines.

PART B: Answer ONE of the two.

  1. Contrast the “liquidity preference” and the “loanable-funds” theories of interest. Discuss the implications of these two theories for monetary policies intended to maintain full employment.
  2. Discuss the purely theoretical proposition that if all prices everywhere were sufficiently responsive in both directions to supply and demand there would, in a free market economy, be no persistent unemployment. Be equally interested in pointing out what may be right and what may be wrong about the statement. State what assumptions you would want explicitly stated if you had to support the proposition.

PART C: Answer ONE of the two.

  1. Compare the main ideas of Adam Smith and David Ricardo about economic growth — its mechanism and its consequences.
  2. Formulate a simple, highly aggregated model of economic growth. Incorporate technological change in it by including an industry called Research with a production function of a specified shape. Its inputs are capital (stock) and labor (flow). It is up to you to give a definition of its output that is appropriate to your model.

PART D: Answer ONE of the two.

  1. Explain and compare some of the conclusions that economists have reached about the interest rate in a static or stationary state.
  2. Discuss the similarities and differences among the principles of economic choice that are applicable to the three following:
    1. an individual consumer;
    2. a trade union, producers’ cartel, or other interest group;
    3. society as a whole.

You may keep this question sheet when you hand in your exam books.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling
Raymond Vernon

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

April 23, 1963

From: T. C. Schelling
To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek

I enclose a sheet with the names and grades for your information.

The outcome of our regrading was as follows. You will recall that there were five students for whom we were rereading one or more books. You will also recall that we were to count the third reading as equal in weight to the other two. The results were:

Book 3, down from 1.4 to 1.2, Fail
Book 5, down from 1.4 to 1.1, Fail
Book 6, up from 1.5 to 1.6, Fair
Book 7, up from 1.25 to 1.4, Fair –
Book 10, down from 1.5 to 1.0, Fail

To recapitulate, three of these failed, and we had five clean failures, making a total of eight failures. On the rereading, three Fair minuses went down to Fail, one Fail went up to Fair -, one Fair – went up to Fair. I think this is about what we could have expected, and I am glad we did the rereading. Incidentally, two of the three who failed after the rereading had three books reread with two different readers involved, so I think we can feel they got fair treatment.

Next week I shall circulate to you my thoughts about a report to the Department and, if you wish, we can get together or alternatively you can add your comments. If it is convenient I should prefer to get together, but not until I have given you at least my thoughts on what we should report.

TCS: ac

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling
Raymond Vernon

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

June 4, 1963

From: T. C. Schelling
To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek
Subject:  Report to the Department on the Graduate Theory Examination

We promised the Department a report. And we had some things we wanted to report.

Some of our experiences we can communicate to next year’s committee over the lunch  table. Some really require the Department’s cognizance. I am listing below some of the points I think we should like to report. This is not a draft, but just a chance to check with you. If you agree, disagree, or want to add anything, I suggest you do so in writing with copies to each other. There is no great hurry, but next year’s committee will want some Departmental instruction by the time of the second Department meeting next fall. I would like to get this done before my memory fades, and submit it if possible to the Department as soon as everybody is back from the summer.

  1. I would propose that individual questions be graded not Excellent, Good, Fair, and Fail, but either numerically on the base one-hundred or with letter grades A, B, C, with the committee to decide — subject to any advice the Department wishes to make explicit — what kind of average or combination of grades should qualify a person as a “pass.” The Department should either make clear that the committee may do as it pleases or express itself on such things as how many failures on individual questions make a failing exam in spite of the average. The Department might also express itself on how large or how small the failing fraction might be without being considered “abnormal.” Just to get a proposal in the works, I would propose that questions be graded A, B, C, and Fail, with a B- required for passing, but with the committee empowered to make individual exceptions in either direction on the basis of the whole exam, and that the committee expect to fail somewhere from one-tenth to one-fourth without considering a “policy issue” being involved.
  2. I would strongly recommend that we experiment next fall with typewritten examinations. This raises a number of technical questions, ranging from who provides the typewriter to how noisy the room is, and it surely discriminates somewhat according to typing skill. The present scheme also discriminates according to longhand skill. Students who cannot type, or choose not to type, should have their examinations transcribed, either at their own expense or at the Department’s expense. This seems to me the one exam that, because it is for graduates and because it interferes with no individual’s course, lends itself to the experiment. I feel quite sure that the reading of examinations will be much more reliable if the material is typed, and that disputed grades could be discussed more readily if the exams can be easily and quickly read. The number of students taking the exam in the fall is usually small, and that is therefore a good time to try it out.
  3. I am surely persuaded that anonymous examination books make a real difference and the difference is a good one. I think the committee should avoid as far as possible putting students in special categories like the few who this year were offered the option of presenting to the oral exam with a re-examination in theory. At the same time, the committee cannot avoid having an opinion (or opinions) about the success of its own examinations; and the committee may, as I think we did, have some doubts after the examination about its reliability. If these are strong doubts, they should, as we did, consider special treatment of a few individual cases.
  4. Especially if we go in for typed exams, the Department should consider making this a six-hour exam rather than a three-hour exam, just to increase its reliability. Reading time, I believe, would be sufficiently cut by having a typed examination to make the six-hour exam feasible for the committee.
  5. The questions are also up to the committee but I would pass along the advice that the questions be as concrete and as problem-oriented as possible in contrast to general essay or discussions of what economists have said, proposed, etc. I think I say this not out of a priori prejudice but because I have felt more confident of the grade I gave when the student was responding to a very direct question or problem with little scope for inadvertent or deliberate evasion and with the obligation to give his own answer and not to repeat [what]others have [said]. This kind of advice surely is not suitable for Departmental action, but, if we share some experience we might try to articulate it for the next committee.

TCS: ac

_________________________________

Schelling’s Memo to Dunlop
and the Exam Committee

TO: CHAIRMAN [John Dunlop], DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

FROM: THOMAS C. SCHELLING, CHAIRMAN

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE GRADUATE THEORY EXAMINATION

RE: WRITTEN THEORY EXAMINATION

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1963

Last year’s committee, consisting of Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek, and me, reached several conclusions we would like to report for the benefit of the new committee that follows us. Most of the observations we want to pass along arose out of our dissatisfaction, not our contentment, with the examination process. We would like this report to go to the whole Department, or the Executive Committee, or whatever part of the Department is appropriate; if you want to postpone this a month while your new committee decides what it would like to do, if anything, about these recommendations, that is agreeable to us.

  1. Our grading scheme, which we accepted without much thought, was to grade each question excellent, good, fair, or fail, with plus and minus, then to convert these to a numerical scale to facilitate averaging, and then to grade the whole examination. This procedure led to an anomaly that in turn produced some real misunderstanding among the graders. The anomaly was that, after collecting all of the books together and looking at the distribution of grades, the committee might wish to fail people whose average grade was “fair” or to give an “excellent” to a man whose average grade was “good.” This can lead to disputed interpretations of what the grades meant as well as what the grading standards should be. I doubt whether any committee would want, either in principle or in practice, to rely on a straight forward averaging to determine good, fair, fail, etc. I strongly recommend — and this may sound trivial but it is not — that the initial grading be on some arbitrary numerical scale with the final determination of over-all grades from fair to excellent being determined afterward. My committee agrees with this. I personally do not see that a matter of principle is involved here that ought to go to the Department, but I foresee that some eventual controversy may be forestalled if the Department is apprised of this problem and of the new committee’s intentions.
  2. The committee is bound to have some notion of what proportion of those taking the examination might normally be expected to fail it. Different members of the committee may have very different notions. I believe this is meant to be a hard examination, and that the fraction failing it might be comparable to Written Theory Examination the fraction of students who fail their Generals. It is, I believe, also meant to weed out students who would likely fail their Generals. And it is an examination in which the committee ought to feel that anywhere from one-tenth to one-quarter of the candidates might be failed without the result seeming to be abnormal. It might be helpful if the Department would at least discuss the matter briefly so the committee would have a pretty good idea how much leeway it had in grading. It is not quite enough to say that this is completely within the committee’s competence; the philosophy of the examination derives somewhat from the Department’s notion of how strict this examination ought to be and how great a variation in outcomes needs to be expected.
  3. We recommend that the committee experiment in the fall term with typewritten examinations. There are some practical questions here, such as who provides the typewriter, how noisy the room will be, and so forth. Typewritten exams will discriminate according to typing skill; but the present exam discriminates according to long-hand skill. Students who cannot type, or who choose not to type, should have their examinations transcribed, either at their expense or at the Department’s expense. Because this exam is for graduates, and because it interferes with no individual course, it lends itself to experiment; in particular, the small group in the fall term presents an opportunity on a small scale. All of us on the committee believe that the grading will be more reliable if the material is typed, and that disputed grades can be discussed better, and reread more easily, if they are typed. We, therefore, strongly urge that the experiment be made this year.
  4. We are quite persuaded that anonymous examination books (books from which student names have been removed) make a real difference and that the difference is a good one. In case of borderline grades, it is hard to resist the temptation, after the exam has been graded, to get out the student’s record and see whether or not he deserves the benefit of the doubt. We did this, and we believed it was right to do so, but maybe as a matter of principle it should not be done. Let me point out that an awful lot hinges on a single examination if one does not fall back on the student’s theory record in borderline cases. In the oral examination I think it is fair to say that the student’s course background does count in the examiner’s evaluation of him. If the Department really does not want the written theory exam to be anything but an anonymous exam graded solely on its merits, a flat rule would relieve the committee of a philosophical problem that can be quite a nuisance. If the Department wishes the committee to use its own judgment, it will probably help the committee to have it understood in advance that the committee may decide this one. We recommend that the committee be free to use the additional information after the books have once been graded but that the committee avoid this expedient if possible.
  5. If the typed examination is adopted, there is much to be said for making this a six-hour examination to increase its reliability. Reading time will be cut by the typing enough to compensate the greater number of books read.
  6. Our final recommendation involves something that cannot be legislated. It is that the questions be as concrete and as problem-oriented as possible, in contrast to general essays or discussions of what economists have written about a subject. Our impression was that grading was much more reliable on the more direct questions and problems. There was both deliberate and inadvertent evasion on the more general questions, as well as more ambiguity on the committee itself as to what the question called for. The common occurrence of a bluebook that was a decent essay on a question that wasn’t asked might be averted by using questions that are fairly direct and unambiguous. Another common occurrence was the bluebook that indiscriminately gave the positions of various writers without the student’s accepting responsibility for his own analysis or evaluation. Our feeling was that these rather indirect questions provided quite unreliable evidence on which to grade students.

_________________________________

Chamberlin’s Memo
to the Exam Committee

This letter was “in the works” when Tom’s report to John Dunlop of September 18, 1963, came in the mail. It is now sent as a supplement to Tom’s report.

FROM: E. H. CHAMBERLIN
TO: MESSERS. SCHELLING, LEONTIEF, VANEK

SUBJECT: REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT ON THE GRADUATE THEORY EXAMINATION (letter from Tom Schelling, June 4)

                  First I should admit that I was against the written theory examination when it was first proposed, but without any question the experience this year has made me more opposed than ever. In my letter to the other members of this committee on April twenty-fourth (?), I urged that the attempt to shake some more failures out of the group of eight between the figures of 1.2 and 1.5 had been a “fiasco” and that we should simply allow all of them (i.e., everyone excepting [name deleted], [name deleted], and [name deleted]) to take the orals, with the decision whether to pass or fail to be made at that time. As a compromise, we finally settled on three students: [name deleted], [name deleted], and [name deleted], and offered them the opportunity of taking the oral examination, in which  they might do well enough to pass, even though they had “failed” theory. (The fact that no one of them accepted was certainly not surprising, since they had all been told already that they had failed theory and therefore had two strikes against them if they risked the orals.)

Although we all concurred in the decisions, I feel that I was mainly responsible for the matter coming up at all. As certainly evident in my letter of April twenty-fourth, I was extremely critical of the attempt to fail people who had already been graded at or near the good- to fair+ line merely because we “needed” more failures. In this respect especially I think the policy worked badly this year. The whole matter is probably one for the Executive Committee, rather than for this one. I hope it is understood that from many years of examining in economic theory I have the matter very much at heart. Certainly the treatment of our graduate students at the end of the second year is of the first importance, and I think the Executive Committee should devote some time to reconsidering the whole problem.

I still hope that this group may issue a unanimous report to the Department although as will be seen from the following comments there are son important differences between Tom and me. Perhaps we ought to have a meeting. Comments:

  1. Questions of grading.
    1. The approach of failing a certain percentage of those who take the exam (“one-tenth” to “one fourth”) must absolutely be dropped. It is contrary to the practice , both of this Department and of Harvard University, for as far back as I can remember. One only needs to recall the recent principle that “all (undergraduate) students are potential honors candidates” and to consider the grading processes with respect to these latter, to realise how far astray the concept of “failing or passing a certain percentage” is from the general practice at Harvard, and, in the past, in this Department. In any event, it is clearly unjustifiable with a group as small as we normally expect in the written theory examination — this year 37, of whom we failed, by a great effort, 8, or more than 20 per cent. I think it was the obsession that 3 was not enough failures and that we ought to increase the number, that led to a compounding of arbitrary decisions at the “margin”, and to results which, as I think I demonstrated in my earlier letter, made passing or failure for the group of 8 to which it was applied, almost a matter of pure chance. It was a witch’s brew if there ever was one. However, it was described in some detail in my earlier letter, and I refrain from another lengthy demonstration here.

Only one example from later developments: there were three books at the same grade of 1.25, (a Fair+ by the first reading). Two of them, having no questions eligible for re-reading by our rules, were below the new line of 1.4, and left as “failures”; a third, however, qualified for having two questions re-read (the intervals of discrepancy being 4 and 5 in the two cases), was converted into a pass and finished with a “Good” in the Generals. Why should he have had the opportunity to take Generals while two at the same grade had to wait six months? The conclusions: 1. I think we should admit that the methods we used to make distinctions within this “marginal” group were at fault (to put it mildly) and were future committees against them. 2. We should revert to an “absolute”, not a “relative”” or percentage, standard of quality for passing, and for the several grades of Excellent, Good and Fair, rather than trying to fail a particular number or percentage of people. 3. We should recommend to the Executive Committee that they reconsider whether we really want to “raise standards” in the Economic Theory part of the General examination as much as we appear to have done.

As for the second point, my own conviction is that only those conspicuously deficient in Theory should be failed. It should be not only possible, but a goal of the Department that all who take the examination should be well enough prepared to pass. After all, this only means that the Admissions Committee has done its work well, that the student has been well-advised as to courses, and that he has not outrageously neglected his work. Realistically, of course, there will usually be a few failures, either in the Theory exam or in the Generals. But in my opinion, failures should be voted by the Executive Committee upon recommendation of the Committee on the examination. In all cases of recommended failures, the members of this latter committee should each read the entire book with full knowledge of the identity of the persons involved and decide upon the fate of the student only in consultation, (as at present after the general oral examination).

    1. As for grading terminology, this year it was Excellent, Good, Fair, and Fail, as we all know, and when numerical values were given to these categories later, the space between then was assumed to be equal: 6, 3, 0 (=Fair!) and -3. Tom has made another proposal in his letter (of June fourth). The important thing, it seems to me, is to put more space between Fair, which has always been a passing grade, and Failure. Indeed, one could easily explain the fact that 23 out of 37 books, approximately two-thirds, received a good- (2) in the first reading by the fact that 2 is mid-point between 6 and -3! Although these (good-) books were later broken down and distributed between the levels of “good” and “fair-”, this merely disguises the fact that the grades given actually had very little difference between them. In fact, with the exception of only four books, 33 of the 37 lay between the limits of 2.8 and 1.2, the former .2 below the good average, and the latter .2 above the fair+ average. Clearly the method of grading used this year, in spite of later adjustments, did a poor job of revealing the differences which must exist among the candidates who took the examination.

However, using the same figures, I experimented with breaking up the concentration at good- by introducing mechanically several considerations which ought to enter in anyway. Since this was actually done (out of the sheer fascination of the problem) I attach copies of the result for what they may be worth, perhaps only in suggesting the other ways in which the objective might be achieved. The 6, 3, 0, were kept for Excellent, Good, and Fair, but Fail became -9 (i.e., -6 more in every case of a -3). A more normal scale would evidently be: six questions with a value of 15 each; highest possible total grade a 90. Each question graded 15 = Excellent, 12 = Good, 9 = Fair, 0 a total failure. Also +3 whenever two different readers agreedthat an answer was a Good or better, and -3 whenever two readers both gave 0 (=Fair) or less. These several devices spread out the grades, [name deleted] actually got his Excellent, [name deleted] and [name deleted] showed up as clear failures instead of getting fairs, with [name deleted] such a low Fair that he might easily be added in, the number of Good’s was reduced to 15, etc., etc. (The applause is accepted). No re-readings, either.

To return to Tom’s letter:

  1. I do not think it is fair to require students to type-write their examinations or pay to have it done (I think it is optional now). But they should be warned to write legibly and told that if they do not, they will have to pay to have their written examinations transcribed.
  2. I agree that anonymous examination books are desirable up to a point. But no one should ever be failed without knowing the candidate’s identity and all we can about him.
  3. A three hour examination seems to me long enough, or four at the very most. We should not forget that each student has already been examined for three hours per semester in his courses.
  4. I think the questions should be of all kinds. Just as I refuse assent to the proposition that the scope of Economic theory should be limited to what can be treated in mathematical symbols, as I should not want an examination in theory to be cast in one particular mold.

_________________________________

Leontief Letter to Schelling

September 23, 1963

TO: T. C. Schelling

FROM: W. Leontief.

cc: B. H. Chamberlin, J. Vanek

I heartily approve of all recommendations contained in your memorandum on Written Theory Examinations dated September 18th.

The typing of all examinations — which, incidentally, I proposed at the very beginning before we started them — might not be easy to arrange since the secretaries in the Department offices have no less difficulty in reading the handwritten bluebooks than we do.

A six-hour examination might be rather hard on the students unless it is made quite clear that the additional two hours are allotted for preparing a clear typescript or readable long-hand.

WL: kd

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 18, Folder “Written Theory Committee, 1963-64”.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Theory

Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory Exam. November 1962

Edward Chamberlin was a member of the graduate examination committee of the Harvard economics department in the early 1960s and in his files I have found copies of the theory exams from 1961, 1962, and 1963 along with a few memos that  circulated among members of the committee that together provide a description of the procedures used for grading.

Of related interest is the following report that was transcribed and posted earlier:

Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

_________________________________

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

April 11, 1961
April 8, 1963

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Exam in Economic Theory
November 13, 1962

ANSWER ANY 7 (AND ONLY 7)
AMONG THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

Questions are all of equal weight.

Use a separate book for each question.

(Please write legibly. Please write, on your first exam book, a phone number or address where you can be reached quickly in the event your exam book, because of handwriting, has to be transcribed and the typist cannot decipher some of your writing.)

  1. Compare the views and arguments of Ricardo, the Austrians, and Marshall, on the question of the roles of utility and demand, and of cost of production and supply, in determining the prices of the goods produced in a competitive economy.
  2. Construct a simple (static) general equilibrium model of a closed national economy, and show how it can be used to explain employment, prices, wage rates and the distribution of national income between capital and labor.
  3. Indifference surfaces of an individual’s ordinal utility function are defined by

U = x1/3 y1/3 z1/3

where U is utility and x, y, and z express quantities of three different products consumed. The individual himself produces 1 unit of x, 2 units of y, and 3 units of z.

    1. Derive the equilibrium levels of consumption of the three products as a function of relative prices;
    2. Derive the demand (supply) curves for the three products, and show as an application the quantities of x, y, and z demanded or supplied in the case where all money prices are equal;
    3. Derive the relative prices that would have to prevail in a competitive market to keep the individual at autarky.
  2. Compare and evaluate critically the solutions of duopoly proposed by at least 3 of the following: Cournot, Bertrand, Stackelberg, and Fellner.
  3. Keynes maintained that an economy could be in equilibrium with a substantial amount of involuntary unemployment, but many other economists feel that an equilibrium in which an important market is not cleared is a contradiction in terms. Explain the concept of macro-economic equilibrium and in the light of this explanation sketch Keynes’ justification of his position and the Pigou-Patinkin refutation of it.
  4. Present the argument according to which indirect taxes reduce the efficiency of the economic system, while a direct income tax does not, and show how the validity of this argument is affected by the existence of consumers’ choice between work and leisure.
  5. Write on “increasing returns” with respect to (a) the firm; (b) the industry; and (c) the whole economy. In each case you should discuss at least: explanations of the phenomenon, how it affects the efficiency of the competitive pricing mechanism, and the question of stability or instability of equilibrium.
  6. Point out and discuss what seem to you the most important similarities and difference between (a) Marx’s, and Schumpeter’s, theories of economic development under capitalism.
  7. Discuss the problem of excess capacity in firms or in groups of firms. What different meanings may the phrase have? To what extent and way would you expect to find excess capacity in (a) static equilibrium; (b) a fluctuating economy; (c) a growing economy.
  8. “Comparative advantage” is typically elaborated in the context of international or interregional trade. Generalize the concept as an economic principle and discuss the reasons you think account for its conspicuous association with international economics.
  9. Discuss the theoretical significance of the distinction between net and gross investment in models of economic growth incorporating technological change.

You may keep this question sheet when you hand in your exam books.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

November 19, 1962

From: T. C. Schelling

To: Messrs. E. H. Chamberlin, W. W. Leontief, and J. Vanek

Subject: Written Examination in Economic Theory

Seven students took the exam, and we have a total of forty-two questions, each in a separate book. I had managed to allot the questions so that each of us grades either ten or eleven books. I am asking Chamberlin to grade questions 1 and 9, Leontief 2, 7, and 11, Vanek questions 3, 4, 8, and 10, Schelling questions 5 and 6. Wassily and I get eleven a-piece, Ed and Jaroslav get ten a-piece.

If you are interested in what the students chose, it is follows:

Question     1 — 6 7 — 5
2 — 4 8 — 5
3 — 1 9 — 4
4 — 4 10 — 1
5 — 5 11 — 2
6 — 6

Enclosed, for each of you, are the books you should grade.

Each book will have a second reader. I will redistribute them as they come back. Some may need a third reader.

As we agreed, let’s grade them “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “fail,” with plus and minus as appropriate, and for averaging we will treat the intervals between grades as numerically equivalent. For borderlines between pass and fail, if any, we can reconsider the scaling system.

The immediate urgency is only in letting students know whether they are still preparing for orals. When I asked, none were scheduled for before Christmas. But I would like to finish the grading by the middle of next week if we can. If you can read your books before Thanksgiving, so I can redistribute them next Monday, it would help.

[After a] quick check I did not notice any with an impossible handwriting, [and] if you wish you may ask Joyce to get your books transcribed. That will slow us down, but I believe it is worthwhile. If you lose any books, we all hang together.

P.S. I suggest you not write your grade on the book. Each of us is then free to do a second reading unconstrained. Instead, turn in a sheet for each question with a grade corresponding to each student number; the number in red pencil is the code for the individual student. Please return your books and grade sheets to Joyce.

TCS: ac

Enc.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

December 7, 1962

From: T. C. Schelling

To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, and Vanek

Subject: Theory Exam Grades

I have communicated to the Departmental office that all six who took the exam have passed. Wassily and I agreed on the phone that we should add to the dosier of the two poorest ones our scepticism that they are qualified for a Ph.D, and urging the oral examining committee to take very seriously the unsatisfactory quality of their theory exam. I shall set up a meeting this week at which we can settle on the grades for these students and work out language to meet Wassily’s point.

In preparing some statistics for you I discovered some minor errors in my tabulation; these raised the lowest grades by about one point in total, or 1/14th of a point for the grade average.

Attached is a tabulation that gives the two grades by student, by question, and by grader — the capital letters are the initials of the four graders.

I will call you to set up a meeting. At that time we can also discuss what we want to report to the Department, if anything.

The names of the students, with their scores, are as follows:

Book Student Score
6  [name deleted] 30.0
3  [name deleted] 23.3
5  [name deleted] 22.0
1  [name deleted] 18.0
2  [name deleted] 16.3
4  [name deleted] 14.3

TCS:ac

Theory Exam Grades*

Question Student
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 C 2- 1 2- 1 2+ 2
V 2+ 2 2+ 2- 3- 2+
2 S 2- 2- 2+
L 0 0 0+
3 V 2+
L 0+
4 C 2 1 2 3
V 2 2+ 3- 3-
5 S 2- 1 3 2 1
V 2- 1+ 3- 2 3-
6 S 0+ 0 2- 1 1 2-
L 1- 0 2 0 1- 3
7 C 2 1 2- 1- 0+
L 2 1 1 0 1
8 S 2- 1 1- 2- 3
V 2- 2- 2- 2 3-
9 C 1 1+ 1+ 1+
L 1 1 1 2
10 S 0-
V 1-
11 V 1+ 2-
L 1 1
Total points** 18.0 16.3 23.3 14.3 22.0 30.0
Average 1.28 1.17 1.66 1.02 1.57 2.15
No. of excellents** 0 0 2 0 2 6
No. of fails** 2 2 1 3 2 1

*Scoring: Excellent = 3, Good = 2, Fair = 1, Fail = 0, with 1/3 point for (+) and (-).

**For fourteen grades, two on each question.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 18, Folder “Written Theory Committee, 1963-64”.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard Michigan

Harvard. Department recommends promotion of James Duesenberry to associate professor with tenure, 1952

Thanks to Milton Friedman’s filing habits, we are able to catch a glimpse into the tenure and promotion process at Harvard for the case of James S. Duesenberry in 1952. Friedman was invited to serve on the ad hoc committee to review the case for promoting Duesenberry from assistant professor to associate professor of economics with tenure in Harvard’s economics department. A typed copy of the department’s two-page recommendation submitted by the chairman Arthur Smithies, a one page c.v. for Duesenberry, and additional letters of support by Wassily Leontief and Gottfried Haberler from Milton Friedman’s file are transcribed below .

What strikes me most is just how short this written record appears when compared to the paper steeplechase of university hiring and promotion procedures of the present day.

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the Provost

April 4, 1952

Confidential

Professor Milton Friedman
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Professor Friedman:

I am happy to learn from President Conant that you have kindly consented to serve on the ad hoc committee to consider an appointment in our Department of Economics. The committee will hold its meeting on Friday, April 18, at ten o’clock in the Perkins Room in Massachusetts Hall.

The position to be filled is that of Associate Professor of Economics. This rank carries permanency of tenure, and an assured progress toward a full professorship provided the man appointed lives up to expectations. For this reason we are seeking as good a young man as we can find in the age bracket under approximately forty years.

The Department of Economics has recommended Dr. James B. Duesenberry. I enclose for your scrutiny a copy of the Department’s recommendation, which, like all the material presented to the ad hoc committee, is strictly confidential. The next step in procedure is for the specially appointed ad hoc committee to advise the President and the Provost. In this connection not merely should the qualifications of Dr. Duesenberry be assessed, but he should also be compared with other men of his age group in the same field.

If there are any questions I can answer before the meeting of the committee, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am also enclosing a special travel voucher for your convenience in reporting your travel expenses in connection with the meeting of the ad hoc committee.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Paul H. Buck
Paul H. Buck
Provost

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

COPY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

February 18, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Dear Provost Buck:

At its meeting of February 12th, the Department of Economics unanimously decided to recommend Assistant Professor James S. Duesenberry for promotion to an Associate Professorship beginning in the academic year 1952-1953.

The meeting was attended by Professors Black, Chamberlin, Dunlop, Galbraith, Hansen, Harris, Leontief, Mason, Slichter, and Smithies, all of whom voted in favor of the promotion. Professors Gerschenkron, Haberler, and Williams and Dr. Taylor who were unavoidably absent from the meeting have all indicated their approval.

I am attaching a brief curriculum vitae of Duesenberry and a list of his publications and papers.

We make this recommendation after a careful survey of all the economists in the country whom we felt might be qualified or available for an Associate Professorship. Altogether we considered about twenty young economists, both in the United States and abroad. It is our judgment that none of them could serve this faculty better than Duesenberry and very few if any of them are on a par with Duesenberry.

He is undoubtedly one of the very few outstanding young economists in the country. I know that if he were to indicate his availability he would be flooded with offers from many leading universities. To illustrate, the University of California has just lost Fellner to Yale and they have told me that they would gladly take Duesenberry as one of their two leading economists in Economic Theory.

When we had narrowed our list down, it included Baumol at Princeton, Dorfman at California, Tobin at Yale, Goodwin who is now in Cambridge, England, and Robert Rosa of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Rosa appealed to many of us particularly. He has had a brilliant career in the Bank which has merely been an extension of the brilliance he has shown throughout his professional career. I knew him as an undergraduate at Michigan, and he has fulfilled all the promise he showed at that time. Unfortunately, he finally decided that he was not available. Otherwise, we might have recommended Rosa’s appointment in conjunction to that of Duesenberry since we have two vacancies that we can fill.

Where Rosa would have been largely complementary to Duesenberry in view of his specific banking experience, the others on the list are more competitive with him. We were particularly impressed with Baumol who some of us know and Tobin who all of us have known for some years. Both these men are undoubtedly first class intellectually, and it would be difficult to rate them below Duesenberry. However, Duesenberry has shown a breadth of interest and a willingness to relate economics to other disciplines that the others have not yet demonstrated to the same extent. Goodwin and Dorfman are also of first-class intellectual ability, but we felt that they too were more specialized in their interests than Duesenberry.

In the last few years, Duesenberry has shown a remarkable capacity to bring together the fruits of theoretical and empirical research. His interests are now leading him in the direction of an historical study of the problem of economic development, and he has been cooperating on an experimental course on economic motivation with a member of the Social Relations Department. I believe that economies has suffered seriously in recent years from over-specialization. In particular, the theorists and the statisticians have tended to feel that the truth has been revealed only to them. History until recently has attracted far too little interest. I am confident that Duesenberry will be an important influence in reversing these tendencies.

Duesenberry made a name for himself nationally and internationally with his first book, Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. His new hypothesis of “ratchet effects” has helped to avoid many of the mistakes that had previously been made in attempting to predict consumer behavior and has wide general implications for economic analysis. In this and his other work, he has already helped to rescue economies from the straight-jacket of static analysis, and I am sure he will do much more.

In view of the present needs of the Department, I wish we could have found a man who combined all Duesenberry’s other qualities with striking performance on the lecture platform. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. However, while not a striking lecturer, Duesenberry has been and will continue to be a very effective part of our undergraduate teaching. He has been a tutor in Dunster House for some years and as such has been a conspicuous success. He has also proved to be the member of the Department best equipped to teach the senior course in economic analysis for honors students. In these respects he will prove to be an important addition to the permanent staff from the point of view of undergraduate teaching.

On personal grounds, the Department looks forward very much to having Duesenberry as a permanent member. He will combine a thoroughly independent point of view with an understanding attitude towards differences of opinion with his colleagues. In general, it is the unanimous view of the Department that we could hardly make a recommendation in which we had greater confidence.

Yours Sincerely,
/s/ Arthur Smithies
Chairman

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

JAMES STEMBLE DUESENBERRY

Born July 18, 1918

B.A., University of Michigan, 1939
M.A., ibid., 1941
Ph.D., ibid., 1948
Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan, 1939-1941
U.S.A.A.F., 1942-1946.
Instructor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1946.
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University, 1946-1948.
Assistant Professor, Harvard University, 1948 to present

Publications

Books:

Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Harvard University Press, 1949.

Business Cycles and Economic Development, to be published in the fall of 1952 by McGraw-Hill Company.

Articles:

“Income Consumption Relations”, Income, Employment and Public Policy, Norton, 1948.

“The Mechanics of Inflation”, Review of Economics and Statistics, May, 1950.

“Mr. Hicks and the Trade Cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, September, 1950.

“The Role of Demand in the Economic Structure”, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, in press.

“Some Aspects or the Theory of Economic Development”, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, December 1950.

“The Leontief Input-Output System”, (ditto); to be published in a volume on Linear Programming by Paul Samuelson.

Papers Read but not Published:

“Some New Income-Consumption Relationships and Their Implications”, Econometric Society, January, 1947.

“Induction Evidence of the Propensity to Consume”, American Economic Association and the Econometric Society, December, 1947.

The Present Status of the Consumption Function” Conference on Income and Wealth, June, 1950.

“Theory of Economic Development”, Econometric Society, December, 1951.

“Needed Revisions in the Theory of Consumer Expenditures”, Econometric Society, September, 1950.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Gottfried Haberler
Professor of Economics

325 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 20, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Mr. Buck:

If you permit, I should like to add my personal views on the proposed appointment of James Duesenberry as Associate Professor. May I say that I know Duesenberry intimately and that I have been increasingly impressed by his work. The little book, INCOME, SAVING AND THE THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR, which he published with the Harvard University Press, is generally regarded as one of the most important and original contributions to the widely discussed and extremely important subject of the relations of national income, saving and consumption. It has been much and favorably commented upon. Duesenberry displays the rare talent of combining theoretical analysis, statistical analysis and sociological insight in a most illuminating and successful manner. He is also a very inspiring teacher.

In recent years he has turned his attention to the also much discussed problems of economic development. The parts of his forthcoming book which I have seen display a mastery of combining different approaches in a most fruitful way. His eminence in this particular field, which in a very welcome way rounds out the field covered by members of our department, is widely recognized in the economic profession at large. He was asked to address the convention of the American Economic Association last December, and Professor Innis of Toronto, the new president of the American Economic Association, has asked him to speak again on the problem of economic development at the next annual meeting of the Association.

To sum up, in my opinion the appointment of Duesenberry will greatly strengthen the Economics Department, enhance its reputation and help attract first rate students.

Very sincerely yours,
/s/ G. Haberler
G. Haberler

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 24, 1952

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

In anticipation of my appearance before the ad hoc committee, I would like to state my reasons for having vote [sic] in support of the departmental recommendation for appointment of Assistant Professor Duesenberry as associate professor. I have followed Jim’s development from the time he became, on my recommendation, an economics instructor and assistant in my undergraduate course on economic theory.

Duesenberry is one of the few outstanding young economists who established their reputation in the post war years. Baumol, Arrow, Goodwin and not more than one or two others, could be named as belonging to the same group. Among these, Duesenberry distinguished himself through his notable breadth of interest and what is in a sense more important, his remarkably productive scientific imagination. His well known contributions to the theory of consumption and the not yet published equally original work in the field of economic development, reveal a singular combination of intuitive insight, practical sense and theoretical “know-how”.

Duesenberry has already taken an important part in the work of the Harvard Economic Research Project, and I have no doubt that he will play a leading role in the development of economic and general social science research at Harvard.

Although not typically a smooth lecturer, Duesenberry is very effective in a classroom. His enthusiasm and real interest in students makes him an excellent tutor and undergraduate advisor.

If in its subsequent recommendations for permanent appointments we succeed in keeping our sights as high as in the present choice the future prospects of the Economics Department would be very bright indeed.

With best regards.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Wassily Leontief
Wassily Leontief

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the President

April 19, 1952

Dear Professor Friedman:

I am returning herewith material which I believe you left in the Perkins Room at the time of the ad hoc committee meeting yesterday.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Virginia Proctor
Virginia Proctor
Secretary to the President

Professor Milton Friedman
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 24, Folder “25.29 Correspondence. Duesenberry, James S.”

Image Source: Harvard College. Classbook 1957.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Theory

Harvard. Second year economic theory. Readings and exams. Leontief, 1960-1961

 

 

The following Harvard course outline with reading assignments and semester final exams are from the year 1960-61. Wassily Leontief taught the second graduate course in economic theory.

I have highlighted in blue boldface additions to the reading assignments in the 1960-61 course when compared to the 1956-57 version of the same course. Items omitted are listed at the end of the post.

Comparing the structure of the mid-year and year-end exams, I would conjecture that one or more of Koopmans’ Three Essays on the State of Economic Science was assigned for the first term’s reading period, though the title does not appear on the printed reading list for the course.

__________________________

Wassily Leontief

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Ec. 202a
ECONOMIC THEORY
Fall Term 1960-61

The following outline covers the first semester of the two semester course.

I.     Analysis of Production and the Theory of a Firm:

  1. Costs; total, average, marginal.
    Theory of the multiple plant firm.
    Revenue; total, average, marginal.
    Long and short run analysis
    Supply under competitive and monopolistic conditions.
  2. Production function, marginal productivity, increasing and decreasing returns.
    Stocks and flows.
    Joint products.
    Demand for factors of production.
    Discontinuous relationships and non-marginal analysis (Linear Programming).
    Internal and external economies.

Reading assignments:

Oscar Lange, “The Scope and Method of Economics,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. XIII, (1), 1945-46, pp. 19-32.

H. Simon, “Theories of Decision Making in Economics,” American Economic Review, June 1959.

E. A. G. Robinson, Structure of Competitive Industry, Chs. II, VII, VIII, pp. 14-35, 107-133.

R. C. Heimer, Management for Engineers, Chs. 3-17.

K. E. Boulding, Economic Analysis, (revised edition, 1948) Chapters 20-26, 31, and 32; or (3rded., 1955) Chapters 23-29, 34, and 35.

E. H. Chamberlin, “Proportionality, Divisibility, and Economies of Scale,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1948, pp. 229-262.

K. E. Boulding, “The Theory of the Firm in the Last Ten Years,” The American Economic Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 4, December 1942, pp. 791-802.

A. Lerner, Economics of Control, Chs. 15, 16, 17, pp. 174-211.

W. W. Cooper, “A Proposal for Extending the Theory of the Firm,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1951, pp. 87-109.

R. Solow, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1957.

Robert Dorfman, “Mathematical or ‘Linear’ Programming,” American Economic Review, December 1953, pp. 797-825.

Dorfman, Samuelson and Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis, Ch. 2.

H. M. Wagner, “The Simplex Method for Beginners,” Operations Research, March-April 1958.

R. Dorfman, “Operations Research,” American Economic Review, September 1960, pp. 575-623.

G. Katona, “Business Expectations in the Framework of Psychological Economics,” in M. J. Bowman, ed., Expectations, Uncertainty and Business Behavior.

II.    Theory of the Household:

  1. Theory of utility and indifference lines analysis.
    Individual demand, prices and income.
    Dependent and independent, competing and complementary, superior and inferior goods.
  2. Measurability of utility.
    “Marginal utility of money,” Consumer surplus.
    Interpersonal interdependence in consumers’ behavior.
    Economic theory of index numbers.
    Choices involving risk.

Reading assignments:

J. Hicks, Value and Capital, Part I, Chs. I-III, pp. 1-54.

K. E. Boulding, Economic Analysis, (Revised edition, 1948) Chapters 33, 34; or (3rd ed., 1955), Chapter 36 and 37.

Duesenberry, Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Chapters I-III, pp. 1-46.

Modigliania and Brumberg, “Utility analysis and the Consumption Function,” in Kurihara, Post Keynesian Economics.

S. S. Stevens, “Measurement, Psychophysics and Utility,” in Churchman and Ratoosh (ed.) Measurement: Definitions and Theories, pp. 18-63.

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

D. Ellsberg, “Classic and Current Notions of ‘Measurable Utility’,” Economic Journal, September 1954.

H. Simon, Models of Man, Part IV, pp. 196-206.

III. Theory of Market Relationships:

  1. Pure competition; individual and market supply and demand curves.
    Stability of market equilibrium, statics and dynamics.
    Monopoly and price discrimination.
  2. Monopolistic competition.
    Duopoly, oligopoly, bilateral monopoly, etc.
    “Theory of games.”

Reading assignments:

A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book V, Chs. III, V.

E. H. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Chs. II, III, IV, and V.

Joan Robinson, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, Chs. 15 and 16.

Robert Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and the General Equilibrium Theory, Chs. I and II.

William Fellner, Competition Among the Few, Chs. II-V.

W. H. Nicholls, Imperfect Competition within Agricultural Industries, Ch. 18.

F. Modigliani, “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” JPE,  June 1958.

Leonid Hurwicz, “The Theory of Economic Behavior,” American Economic Review, December, 1945, pp. 909-925.

D. Ellsberg, “The Theory of the Reluctant Duelist,” American Economic Review, December 1956.

T. C. Schelling, “An Essay on Bargaining,” American Economic Review, June 1956.

IV.  General equilibrium theory:

  1. Basic Concepts of a General Equilibrium Theory.
    Data and variables. Price system and general interdependence. Linear model of a general equilibrium system.
  2. Theory of Rent and Factor Prices

Reading assignments:

O. Lange, The Economic Theory of Socialism, pp. 65-72.

Cassel, The Theory of Social Economy, Vol. I, Ch. IV, pp. 134-155.

R. G. D. Allen, Mathematical Economics, pp. 314-325.

E. H. Phelps Brown, Framework of the Pricing System, in particular chapters dealing with general equilibrium theory.

T. W. Schultz, Agriculture in an Unstable Economy, Ch. I, pp. 60-70; Ch. IV, pp. 128-137.

R. S. Eckaus, “The Factor Proportion Problem in Underdeveloped Areas,” The American Economic Review, September 1955, pp. 539-565.

N. Georgescu-Roegen, “Economic Theory and Agrarian Economics,” Oxford Economic Papers, February 1960, pp. 1-40.

___________________________

Mid-year Examination
1960-1961 (Jan. 1961)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1960-1961
ECONOMICS 202

PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY

Answer one question from each group, four questions in all.

GROUP I

  1. Demonstrate that the assumption that the marginal utility of one of the goods purchased by a consumer is constant is more restrictive than the assumption that its utility is independent of the quantity of any other good.
    How could the knowledge of the constancy of its marginal utility help to assess the effect of an income tax on the demand for the good in question?

GROUP II

  		1.  Amount Needed Per Unit of Activity Factor Supply
    Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3

    Factor 1

    		 6 1 2 12
    Factor 2 2 2 1

    10

    Factor 3

    		 1 5 20

    200

    Market Value Per Unit of Output

    		 15 3 8

    A firm with a fixed supply of three factors has three possible activities, each of which produces a different product selling for a different price. The factor requirements, factor supplies and the product prices are given in the table above. Find the level of activities, including disposal activities, which maximize the firm’s revenue.
    Supplemental information which can be used to shorten computation: In the solution of the “dual”, only factor 1 turns out to have a positive imputed price.

  2. A farmer has fixed amounts of two different kinds of land. He can grow two kinds of product, the prices of which are given. The only other input is labor. Its total available amount is also fixed. The amount of land and of labor required per bushel of each one of the two crops on each type of land is known.
    Set up the linear programming problem which the farmer would have to solve to maximize the value of his output.

GROUP III

4. (a) Discuss the differences and similarities of the following types of analysis:

      1. The derivation of a household’s demand curve for a commodity.
      2. The derivation of a firm’s demand curve for a factor of production.

4. (b) Demonstrate that,

        1. A household can have a positively sloping demand curve for the commodities it buys.
        2. A firm cannot have a positively sloping demand curve for any of the factors of production it buys, if it sells its product in a perfectly competitive market.
  1. A self-sufficient farmer lives on produce that he grows himself under conditions of decreasing average returns. The length of his working time can be explained in terms of a utility maximizing choice between agricultural produce and leisure.
    Among the (real) wage rates which could induce him to quit farming and become a hired worker, one necessarily must be lower than any other. If this minimum wage rate were actually offered to him, and he became a hired worker would the length of his working time a) remain the same b) become shorter or c) become longer than it was when he gained his livelihood as a self-sufficient farmer?

GROUP IV

  1. What is the principal contribution of the theoretical approach described in Koopman’s State of Economic Science?
    Write a critical essay on methodology, rather than substance, except where a discussion of the latter is necessary to a discussion of the former.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Social Sciences. Final Examinations, January 1961. (HUC 7000.28), Vol. 131 of 284.

___________________________

Wassily Leontief

ECONOMICS 202b
ECONOMIC THEORY
Spring Term, 1960-61

V.  Economics of Welfare

  1. Individual maximum and social welfare.
  2. Efficiency and distributive justice.
  3. Efficiency of the purely competitive system.
    Monopoly and economic welfare.
    External economies.
  4. Pricing and allocation for public enterprise.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

J. Hicks, “The Foundation of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal, December 1939, pp. 696-712.

Meade and Hitch, An Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy, Part II, Chs. VI-VII, pp. 159-220.

Francis Bator, “The Anatomy of Market Failure,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXII, August, 1958, pp. 351-379.

T. Scitovsky, “The State of Welfare Economics,” The American Economic Review, Vol. XLI, June 1951, pp. 303-315.

J. De Graaf, Theoretical Welfare Economics.

Mishan, E. J., “A Survey of Welfare Economics, 1939-1959,” The Economic Journal, Vol. LXX, No. 278, June, 1960, pp. 197-265.

VI. Capital and Interest

  1. Stock and Flow Concepts.
    Productivity of Capital.
    Period of production and “turnover” of capital.
  2. Theory of saving.
    Risk and uncertainty.
  3. Partial equilibrium theory of interest.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

Robert Eisner, “Interview and Other Survey Techniques and the Study of Investment,” in Problems of Capital Formation, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 19, National Bureau of Economic Research 1957, pp. 513-583. 

Irving Fisher, The Theory of Interest, Chs. VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XVI, XVII, and XVIII. 1930.

Hirschleifer, “On the Theory of Optimal Investment Decision,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 1958.

Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution (Blakiston, 1946)

F. Knight, “Capital and Interest,” pp. 384-417.
Keynes, “The Theory of the Rate of Interest,” pp. 418-424.
D. H. Robertson, “Mr. Keynes and the Rate of Interest,” pp. 425-460.

Friedrich & Vera Lutz, The Theory of Investment of the Firm, 1951.

Joel Dean, Capital Budgeting, 1951, Chs. VI, VII.

Eckstein, “Investment Criteria for Economic development and Intertemporal Welfare Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Feb., 1957.

VII: Principles of Dynamics

  1. Change over time.
    Period analysis.
    Continuous change
  2. Dynamic stability and instability.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

W. Baumol, Economic Dynamics, Chs. I-VII, pp. 1-136.

P. Samuelson, “Dynamics, Statics and Stationary State,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1943, pp. 58-68 (also reprinted in Readings in Economic Analysis, Vol. 1, edited by N. V. Clemens).

K. J. Arrow, “Toward a Theory of Price Adjustment,” in The Allocation of Economic Resources, pp. 41-51, Stanford, California, 1959.

Erik Lindahl, Introduction to the Study of Dynamic Theory, pp. 21-73 in Studies in the Theory of Money and Capital.

Dorfman, Samuelson, Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis, pp. 265-281.

VIII: Economic Development and Accumulation of Capital

  1. Dynamic interrelation of income, investment and the rate of interest.
  2. Linear theory of economic development.
    Non-linear theory of economic development.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

Bresciani-Turoni, “The Theory of Saving,” Economica; Part I, Feb. 1936, pp. 1-23; Part II, May 1936, pp. 162-181.

Schelling, “Capital Growth and Equilibrium,” American Economic Review, Dec. 1947, pp. 864-876.

Harrod, “An Essay in Dynamic Theory,” Economic Journal, March 1939, pp. 14-33.

Stern, “Capital Requirements in Progressive Economies,” Economica, August 1945, pp. 163-171.

Robert M. Solow, “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXX, February, 1956, pp. 65-94.

Arthur Smithies, “Productivity, Real Wages and Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1960, pp. 189-205.

Also, Baumol, see above under VII.

IX: Keynesian Theory and Problems

  1. Over-all outlines of the General Theory.
    Wage and price “stickiness.”
    Demand for money.
  2. Saving and “oversaving.”
    Multiplier principle.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

A. P. Lerner, The Economics of Control, Chs. 21, 22, and 25.

A. P. Lerner, “The Essential Properties of Interest and Money,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1952, pp. 172-93.

J. M. Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Chs. 1, 2, 8, and 18.

G. Haberler, Prosperity and Depression, Ch. 8.

Modigliani, “Liquidity Preference and the Theory of Interest and Money,” Readings in Monetary Theory.

Hicks, “A Rehabilitation of ‘Classical’ Economics?” Economic Journal, June, 1957.

Reading Period Assignment (spring):

Trygve Haavelmo, A Study in the Theory of Investment, Chicago, 1960.

OR

F. and V. Lutz, The Theory of Investment of the Firm, Princeton, 1951.

Source:  Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 8, Folder “Economics, 1960-1961 (2 of 2).

___________________________

Year-end Examination
1960-1961 (June 1961)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1960-1961
ECONOMICS 202

PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY

Answer one question from each of the four groups, four questions all together.

GROUP I

  1. Consider a two commodity, two consumer group economy run along socialist principles. The government fixes the quantities of A and B produced in any one year, fixes ruble incomes going to consumer groups I and II and also fixes ruble prices so that the total income distributed can exactly buy the amounts produced.
    Assume that the collective behavior of a consumer group can be described as one of reaching the highest of a set of group indifference curves under collective income and market constraints.
    (a) Using the box diagram technique, show what additional
    conditions prices must satisfy if the market is to be cleared.
    (b) assume that equilibrium is not established at official prices and that the State decides to ration the available amount of the short commodity between the two groups.The rationing is done in such a way that both groups get less than they wish to buy at official prices.  Show how one can explain the resulting equilibrium.
    (c) Starting from this equilibrium, will the two groups necessarily find some advantage in exchanging commodities on the black market? Will the black market equilibrium be better or worse (in terms of conventional welfare criteria) than that obtained when prices fixed by the government are chosen so as to clear the market?
  2. It has been established that the annual cost of distributing electricity in an Indian city would be 100,000 rupees in capital charges plus one rupee per kilowatt consumed. The following proposal is put to a vote in a city referendum: “To build the system, charge a price of one rupee per kilowatt and tax the public 100,000 rupees to cover capital charges. The proposal is unanimously rejected. The city fathers then undertake a market survey and find that the tax could be reduced to 50,000 rupees, the price increased to 1.5 rupee and all costs still be exactly covered. They adopt this second proposal without further consultation.
    Assuming a homogeneous population and equal taxation, can you derive from the above information a preferential ordering of the following alternatives in terms of social welfare:

(a) Charging 1 rupee and raising 100,000 in taxes.
(b) Charging 1.5 rupee and raising 50,000 in taxes.
(c) Not building the system at all.

GROUP II

  1. A profit maximizing enterprise possesses a fixed plant and uses as its variable inputs a raw material (fixed amount per unit of output) and labor. Its finished product is sold and the raw material is purchased on perfectly competitive markets. On the labor market, however, the enterprise is the only employer; the workers are not organized and thus compete with each other.
    What factual information would you require and what theoretical construction would you use to explain the level of that enterprise’s output if,

(a) labor is hired on the basis of straight hourly wages.
(b) labor is hired at a flat hourly wage for the first eight, and a 50% higher overtime hourly rate for two additional hours, the workers being free to choose whether they want to work eight or ten daily hours.
(c) labor is paid flat piecework rates.

To simplify the problem, you are permitted to assume that the preference functions (real income vs. leisure) of all workers are identical.

  1. The growth of a certain kind of tree requires λ man-hours for planting and entails no other costs. The volume of wood represented by a tree increases at a constant growth rate:
    V = EXP(rt). Two alternative assumptions are made with respect to the tree market:

(A) Trees are sold by volume at a price p per volumetric unit.
(B) Trees are sold by volume at a price p’ now depending on the length of the tree. Observing that length is related to age, traders use the formula
p’= α SQRT(t), where α is a constant and t the age of the tree.

(a) Given the amount L of man-hours available per year, describe a “full employment” production process that guarantees constant profits, year after year.
(b) Under each market assumption, discuss the empirical possibility and operational usefulness of measuring the capital stock and its marginal productivity.
(c) Money can be lent and borrowed without limits at an interest rate i, which is larger than r. At what age should the trees be cut under assumption (B) if the grower wishes to establish a stationary production process that maximizes his utility over time?

GROUP III

  1. A conventional partial equilibrium theory explains the prices and the quantities — produced and consumed — of all goods on the assumption that a supply and a demand curve is given for each market.
    In what sense can it be said that, from the point of view of a general equilibrium theory, at least some of such given demand and supply curves must be either incompatible with each other or redundant? In answering this question, please use equations, graphs, or both.

GROUP IV

  1. To what extent does Haavelmo or the Lutz’s — whomever you have chosen to read — rely on purely technological specifications and considerations in describing and analyzing the role of capital in the operations of an individual enterprise and of the economy as a whole? And to what extent do they use definitions and measurements which “engineers” would not employ in their professional work?
    Illustrate your answer by specific examples.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Social Sciences, Final Examinations, June 1961 (HUC 7000.28, Vol. 134 of 284).

___________________________

Reading assignments in the 1956-57 reading list that were dropped from the 1960-61 reading list:

I.     Analysis of Production and the Theory of a Firm:

E. H. MacNiece, Production, Forecasting, Planning and Control, 292 pp.

R. Frisch, “Alfred Marshall’s Theory of Value,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXIV, No. 4, November 1950, pp. 495-524.

National Bureau of Economic Research, Cost Behavior and Price Policy, Ch. VII, pp. 142-169; Appendix C, pp. 321-329.

A. G. Hart, Anticipations, Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning, reprinted 1951, 98 pp.

II.     Theory of the Household:

J. R. Hicks, A Revision of Demand Theory, Parts I and II, also the summary and conclusion.

G. Katona, Psychological Analysis of Economic Behavior, Part II, #1-7, pp. 63-149.

III. Theory of Market Relationships:

No titles dropped.

IV. General Equilibrium Theory:

No titles dropped.

V.  Economics of Welfare

Coase, “Note on Price and Output Policy,” Economic Journal, Vol. LV, April 1945, pp. 112-113.

Samuelson, “Evaluation of Real National Income,” Oxford Economic papers, Jan. 1950.

VI. Capital and Interest

Edward F. Denison, “Theoretical Aspects of Quality Change, Capital Consumption, and Net Capital Formation,” in Problems of Capital Formation, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 19, National Bureau of Economic Research 1957, pp. 215-260.

John Rae, John, New Principles of Political Economy, 1834, Chs. I-V.

Irving Fisher, Nature of Capital and Income, Chs. I, IV, V, XIV, XVII, Macmillan, 1906.

VII: Principles of Dynamics

K. E. Boulding, A Reconstruction of Economics, Ch. I, pp. 3-26.

VIII: Economic Development and Accumulation of Capital

Pigou, Economic Progress in a Stable Economy,” Economica, August 1947, pp. 180-188.

A. Sweezy, “Secular Stagnation?” in Harris, Postwar Economic Problems, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1943, pp. 67-82.

Hansen, “Economic Progress and Declining Population Growth,” American Economic Review, March 1939, pp. 1-15.

IX: Keynesian Theory and Problems

No titles dropped.

cf. The earlier post for Economics 202 in 1956-57.

___________________________

Image Source:  Wassily Leontief in Radcliffe Yearbook 1964, p. 98. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Fields

Harvard. Economics department professors plan review of junior staff. 1932

 

Within the faculty of the Department of Economics at Harvard University, there was a Committee of Professors. From the following memo it appears that within the Committee of Professors there was an Executive Committee. The memo is interesting to read as an announcement of a pending review of the junior staff that will be stratified into five layers: “unusually able men”, “capable and useful” (hold), “capable and useful” (encourage to seek elsewhere), “not as useful here” (push to seek elsewhere), “capable young” (hold). Somewhat surprised that the strata assignments were identified ex ante. 

[I have added the full names and plus the dates and names of the institutions where undergraduate and graduate degrees had been awarded.]

Also worth noting are hopes for attracting Gottfried Haberler to continue and explicit mention of Wassily Leontief as someone to consider for hiring.

_______________________________________

[Handwritten note: Presented at Meeting Exec Cte Jan 21, 1932]

VERY CONFIDENTIAL

A. Among other matters the Committee of Professors will be asked to consider the status and work of certain members of the Junior Staff.

I. The men in this group have passed their Generals and are at work on their dissertations. They are unusually able men deserving special consideration.

Sweezy
[Alan Richardson Sweezy. A.B. (Harvard) 1929; A.M. (Harvard) 1932; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Walsh
[John Raymond Walsh. A.B. (Beloit College) 1921; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Smith
[Dan Throop Smith. A.B. (Stanford) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Abbott
[Charles Cortez Abbott. A.B. (Harvard) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

II. The men in this group either have their degrees or will have them shortly. They are capable and useful, perhaps more. It may be to their advantage and ours to encourage them to remain here for some time longer. For the coming year, at least, promotion to faculty instructorship is not involved.

Anderson
[Karl Leopold Anderson. S.B. (Mt. Allison University) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Goldstein
[Aaron Goldstein. A.B. (Johns Hopkins) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Hoover
[Edgar Malone Hoover, Jr.] A.B. (Harvard) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Hunt
[Bishop Carleton Hunt. B.B.A. (Boston University) 1920; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930]

Shaffner
[Felix Ira Shaffner, Rhodes Scholar (Oxford) 1924; A.B. (Harvard) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Litt.B. (University of Oxford, England) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933)]

Wallace
[Donald Holmes Wallace. A.B. (Harvard) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Wernette
[John Philip Wernette. A.B. (University of California) 1924; A.M. (University of Southern California) 1926; A.M. (Harvard) 1929; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

III. The men in this group, all Ph.Ds, have reached or are nearing the point when they can be placed elsewhere most advantageously. They are capable and very useful here. They should be encouraged to take acceptable offers.

Currie
[Lauchlin Bernard Currie. S.B. (University of London, England) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Ellsworth
[Paul Theodore Ellsworth. A.B. (University of Washington) 1920; B.A. (University of Oxford) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Gilbert
[Donald Wood Gilbert. A.B. (University of Rochester) 1921; A.M. (University of Rochester) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1924; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

White
[Harry Dexter White. A.B. (Stanford) 1924; A.M. (Stanford) 1925; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930]

IV. The men in this group have their Ph.Ds or will have them shortly. They are useful here, but less so than group III. They should be moved at the first opportunity.

Ratzlaff
[Carl Johann Ratzlaff. S.B. (University of Minnesota) 1922; A.M. University of Minnesota) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930].

Crane
[John Bever Crane. A.B. (Northwestern University) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Danielian
[Noobar Réthéos Danielian. A.B. (Harvard) 1928); A.M. (Harvard) 1929; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Eaton
[Albert Kenneth Eaton. A.B. (Acadia University) 1922; S.B. (London School of Economics) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1929, Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

Fields
[Morris Joseph Fields. S.B. (Tufts College) 1921; M.B.A. (Harvard) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Phinney
[Josiah Thompson Phinney. A.B. (Yale) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Ross
[James Alexander Ross, Jr. S.B. (Princeton) 1922; B.A. (University of Oxford, England) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1933; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Towle
[Lawrence William Towle. A.B. (Bowdoin College) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

V. The men in this group are capable young men and will probably remain here for some time longer.

Baker
[George Pierce Baker, Jr. A.B. (Harvard) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Cassels
[John MacIntyre Cassels. B.A. (University of Alberta) 1924; B.A. (University of Oxford) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Krost
[Martin Max Krost. Senior Economist, Division of Research an Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (October 1940) ]

Wendzel
[Julius Tugendreich Wenzel. A.B. (Kalamazoo College) 1928; A.M. (Tufts College) 1930, Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

B. The Committee should also consider our instruction in International Trade. At present Associate Professor Cole is giving Economics 9a, the undergraduate course in International Trade. The Department has voted that when possible this course is to become part of a full course—International Economic Problems. Our graduate course—Economics 39—will be given by Dr. Haberler during the second half of this year. Dr. Haberler may be available for another year or two if the Department cares to invite him.
Professor Cole is interested in the undergraduate instruction in International Trade and International Economic Problems, but not particularly in the graduate instruction.
A.E. Monroe is interested in the graduate instruction in International trade. Although he is on one-half time appointment, probably an arrangement could be made for him to give the graduate course.

C. There is a possibility—if some of our non-faculty instructors accept positions elsewhere—that we may be able to make a few new appointments. The following men should be considered.

Leontieff (if Haberler is not reappointed) (One of his articles is available in Mrs. Gilboy’s office).

Gardner (sic) Means
[Gardiner Coit Means. A.B. (Harvard) 1918; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

Schmidt (California Ph.D. Credentials may be had from Miss Rogers).

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Department of Economics general office files.  (UAV349.11) Box 11, Folder “Full Professors Meetings of Department of Economics.”

Image Source: Detail from cover of the Harvard Class Album 1946.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1946-47 to 1949-50

 

This post adds the Chair’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the early post-WW II years to previously posted reports for 1932-33 through 1945-46. 

Reports to the Dean of Harvard
from the Department of Economics.
1932-1941
1941-1946

___________________________

1946-1947

September 29, 1947

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year 1946-47.

This report necessarily follows much the same pattern as the report for last year. Again our work has been dominated by the number of students, undergraduate and graduate, and the lack of a trained junior staff.

The number of undergraduates of course is entirely so beyond our control. In Economies A and in most of our “middle group” courses, the elections taxed our capacity for effective instruction. Under the most propitious conditions the crowded classrooms would have presented many problems but with a dearth of trained teaching fellows and annual instructors the load carried by the senior staff was unduly heavy. Foreseeing this range of problems, the Department voted on February 19, 1946 [sic, 1947 probably correct. In December 1946 departments wereallowed to withdraw from offering tutorials] to suspend tutorial instruction for a period of two years. It may be stated here that this was probably a wise decision. Concentration in Economics appears to have resumed the trend apparent before the war. In the current year the number of concentrators will approach, or perhaps exceed 800. Even should no consideration be given to the expenditure involved, the possibility of finding and training effective tutors even for honors candidates seems somewhat remote.

On the graduate level the problems of instruction were even more difficult. During the year the number of graduate students receiving instruction was approximately 286. Our course offering on this level is large. Nevertheless, the principal graduate courses were crowded to a point where the maintenance of standards was difficult. After the graduate student has completed his preliminary program and has been accepted as a candidate for the Ph.D, degree, the instruction is largely individual. In the last year we were just coming into the situation where a considerable proportion of the students were receiving such instruction. The full impact of this situation will be felt in the current year. Most members of the senior staff will be directing the theses of some 10 to 15 students. Some officers will be responsible for even larger numbers. With the numbers we are attempting to handle on the graduate level the single task of examining candidates in the general and special examinations becomes a major consideration. During the last academic year the staff conducted general and special examinations. Such an amount of examining and of individual instruction on the graduate level has its bearing on tutorial instruction for undergraduates.

The Department voted to accept the large number of graduate students now on our rolls only after considerable investigation and discussion. It is my own personal opinion that we have set our limit altogether too high. However, the pressure upon us for admission has been very strong and our obligations to the Littauer School, where the pressure is hardly less, just be observed.

This matter of the size of the Graduate School in the immediate future is one of our most difficult problems. It will receive our attention in the current year.

In the last two or three years these reports have noted certain experiments in instruction, especially in connection with Economics A. Such experiments are dependent upon the presence of a considerable number of able and mature young men with adequate teaching experience, as well as upon a margin of free time. Both of these factors are lacking to such a degree that substantial and outstanding progress could not be expected but the plans were active and some progress was made.

If full tutorial instruction is not resumed by the Department, experimentation in undergraduate courses is imperative and this we have planned. It is our expectation that a good deal in the way of individual guidance can be accomplished in connection with Economics A and some of our middle group courses. We believe that we can make our instruction more efficient with a much smaller personnel and at much less expense than the tutorial system would involve. However, a definitive decision has not been reached on all of these matters.

It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the heavy instructional demands discussed above affected our research projects. Furthermore, the officers of this Department are severely handicapped by the lack of research funds. This dearth of research funds is a question which has been placed before our Visiting Committee.

In spite of the difficulties involved, the contributions of the members of the Department were substantial. The following books were published:

Teoria de la Competencie Monopolica, by E. H. Chamberlin, Mexico, 1946. (Spanish translation of The Theory of Monopolistic Competition)

Economic Policy and Full Employment, by A. H. Hansen. McGraw-Hill. 1947.

The New Economics, S. B. Harris, editor and contributor Knopf. 1947.

The National Debt and the New Economics, by S. E. Harris. 1947.

Income and Employment, by T. Morgan. Prentice-Hall. 1947.

New enlarged edition of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, by J. A. Schumpeter.

The Challenge of Industrial Relations, by S. H. Slichter, Cornell University Press, 1947.

Postwar Monetary Plans and other Essays, by J. Williams. Knopf, 3rd edition. 1947.

articles were published.

Although we are able to record only one new volume and one republication of an older volume in the Harvard Economic Series for the past year, four other volumes are in the hands of the printer and will appear in the current year.

In the area of distinctions or honors, I believe the only items to be noted concern Dean Edward S. Mason. Last spring he was appointed Economic Advisor to Secretary of State Marshall at the Moscow Conference. In July he was appointed a member of President Truman’s Committee on Foreign Aid.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1947-1948

September 30, 1948

Dear Provost Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year 1947-48.

The report on the work of the Department for the last year can be given in part in the same terms that have been employed in the last three reports. Our major problems have been quantitative and have presented the same difficulties that were emphasized in the other post-war reports. However, we believe that the last year did reach the peak of the load and that the pressure of numbers will abate steadily. The problem of building and maintaining an effective junior staff was hardly less than in the preceding years. Crowded classrooms and insufficiently trained assistants imposed unduly severe burdens upon the senior teachers responsible for course instruction. Some improvement, especially in the middle group courses, is in prospect for the coming year but it is probable that two to three years more will be necessary before these courses will be adequately staffed. In the introductory course which relies heavily upon a large number of young instructors and teaching fellows, the situation is still serious but latterly we have been able to utilize young men with more satisfactory preparation and training. Because of the heavy demands for the services of these young men by other institutions, the turnover is large leaving us each year with a relatively inexperienced staff.

Graduate instruction continues to make unusual demands upon the time and energy of the senior staff. During the past year we conducted 109 general examinations and 26 special examinations. Examining and the related task of directing the research of candidates for the higher degrees undoubtedly have an incidence upon undergraduate instruction which raises questions of fundamental importance. It is encouraging that the number of graduate students is, through the action of the Department, declining.

In spite of the difficulties presented by the numbers of undergraduates and graduates, the Department, perhaps belatedly, has given particular consideration to its commitments in the Areas and in General Education. A report on General Education is enclosed.

Also, the Department has considered at length and in detail various problems of instruction, particularly undergraduate instruction. These considerations will be continued in the current year. By completely revising the content of our basic courses it may be possible to increase the effectiveness of our instruction and reduce somewhat the number of courses offered. A preliminary report on this aspect of our work is included.

A year ago I noted that many of our senior officers were handicapped severely by the lack of research funds. As you know, it can now be recorded with sincere satisfaction that a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and that several projects under the auspices of the Research Marketing Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Charles H. Hood Dairy Foundation, the Ferguson Foundation Fund, and the Carnegie Corporation Fund, meet the situation effectively for some of our officers. The set-up of these projects promises not only to be of great value to the professors in charge of the research but it contributes heavily to the training of our most promising graduate students and younger officers.

The following books were published by members of the Department:

How Shall We Pay for Education? by Seymour Harris. Harpers.

Stabilization Subsidies by Seymour Harris. Historical Report Series, U.S. Gov’t.

Price Control of International Commodities by Seymour Harris. Archives Volume, Historical Records Office.

International Monetary Policies, by Gottfried Haberler (with Lloyd Metzler and Robert Triffin). Postwar Economic Series, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors.

Problemas de Conjuntura e de Politica Economica, by Gottfried Haberler. Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janiero.

Production in the United States, 1866-1914, by Edwin Frickey. Harvard University Press.

Seventy-eight articles have been published. Three books were published in the Harvard Economic Series during the past year. Five volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year.

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin has been appointed to succeed Dr. Arthur B. Monroe as Managing Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Both the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics are well established intellectually and financially. With the demands of instruction and research, the editing of the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics, as well as the direction of the Harvard Economic Series, raises questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

 In the area of distinctions or honors, Professor Joseph A. Schumpeter was chosen to be President of the American Economic Association for 1948. Dean Edward S. Mason was awarded an honorary degree, D. Litt, from Williams College, June, 1948.

Very sincerely,
H. H. Burbank

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1948-1949

September 28, 1949

Dear Provost Buck:

The pattern of the report of the Department of Economics on the work of the last year is essentially the same as the other reports for the post-war years. Indeed, not a little of the introduction to the report of a year ago could be utilized in the current report. The quantitative side of our work has been among our major problems. I think I was correct in predicting that the peak of the load would be passed in 1948-49. For the year 1949-50, numbers, particularly on the graduate level, will be approximately less although the total is still beyond the capacities of our senior staff.

Again I can repeat that the problem of building and maintaining a junior staff presents great difficulties. We have strengthened our position on the level of the assistant professor but we are unable to hold our most promising young Ph.D’s for appointment at the instructor level. All of our undergraduate instruction suffers because of this factor, but Economics 1 (the introductory course) is affected particularly. The demand for these young men by other institutions continues at a high level resulting in a high rate of turnover and leaving us sech year with a relatively inexperienced staff. [end of p. 1]

[Note: need to replace unfocussed image of page 2]

[p. 3 begins ] …expectation that we will be able to revise our general examination effectively.

In the post-war years the Department has been striving to meet its obligations to General Education and to the areas. We believe that we have made an excellent beginning in both General Education and in the Russian Area. We are still actively engaged in the attempt to strengthen our position in the Chinese Area. This is exceedingly difficult but I believe that some progress is being made.

Last year we were able to record with great satisfaction that some research projects were being established satisfactorily. These projects under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation and under the auspices of various groups interested in agriculture and marketing are now going forward successfully and up proving to be important for us not only as research projects but also because of their general effect upon a relatively large group of our graduate students. We can now give a type of training to our most promising men which would have been impossible without such projects. It should be emphasized at this point that other areas of interest need research funds.

The following books were published:

Collective Bargaining: Principles and Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1949, by John I. Dunlop.

Labor in Norway by Walter Galenson. Harvard University Press, 1949.

Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, by Alvin Hansen McGraw-Hill, 1949.

The European Recovery Program, by Seymour E. Harris. Harvard University Press.

Foreign Economic Policy for the U.S., edited by Seymour E. Harris, Harvard University Press.

Price Control of International Commodities, by Seymour E. Harris. Archives Volume for Historical Records Office.

Saving American Capitalism, edited by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Economic Planning, by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Post-war Monetary Plans and Other Essays, by John H. Williams. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

The American Economy, Its Problems and Prospects, by Sumner H. Slichter. Knopf.

There were 62 articles published by members of the Department during the past year. Five books were published in the Harvard Economic Studies and two volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year. There has been a total of 86 books published in the Harvard Economic Studies to this date.

It should be recorded that both the Quarterly Journal of Economics under the editorship of Professor Chamberlin and the Review of Economics and Statistics have prospered during the year. Again I do feel it necessary to refer to the fact that editing the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics and the carrying forward of the Harvard Economic Studies continues to raise questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

In the area of distinctions and honors, Professor Slichter was awarded honorary degrees (LL.D.) from the following universities: Lehigh University, Harvard University, University of Rochester, University of Wisconsin and Northwestern University. Professor

Haberler was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Economics (“Doktor der Wirtschaftswissenschaft honoris causa”) from Handelshochschule, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Dr. Galbraith was awarded the President’s Certificate of Merit, Medal of Merit Board, for services in Price Control and Economic Stabilization during the war.

Sincerely
[Harold H. Burbank]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

___________________________

1949-1950

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950
Professor Burbank

In each of the reports for the last three years, emphasis has been placed upon two matters; our efforts to handle the increased numbers incident to the war, particularly on the graduate level, and our attempts to revise and improve our instruction, particularly on the undergraduate level.

With a good deal of satisfaction we are able to report that for the last year substantial progress has been made in each of these areas. Immediately after the war the number of our graduate students increased from approximately 100 to nearly 300. By raising the standards of admission and giving the most careful scrutiny to applications, the numbers on the graduate level are now well under 200, and will be reduced somewhat more for 1950-51.

The work of supervising and directing graduate students falls very unevenly upon the various members of the senior staff. Even with not over 150 graduate students some members of the staff will carry an inordinate part of individual instruction and of examining for the higher degrees. Further, large graduate classes tend to dilute the instruction.

On the undergraduate level the Department has revised its requirements for concentration, including the content of many of our key courses. This plan has been accepted by the Faculty and is now in operation. It is an ambitious scheme that involves not only a change in the content and coverage of our key courses but it also involves the strengthening the staff in these courses and an integration of course work with tutorial work. Undoubtedly it will take some years to complete this plan. Much depends upon our ability to build a strong junior staff, especially on the annual instructor level. When this reorganized instruction is in full operation it is expected that a number of courses now offered for undergraduates may be deleted.

Also it is with a good deal of satisfaction that after a period of suspension tutorial instruction has been reestablished and is developing steadily. The period of suspension was unfortunate but probably inevitable. We are now approaching a position with respect to both graduate and undergraduate instruction that at least approximates a normal situation, with a possibility of a carefully planned and well integrated system of undergraduate instruction. As a part of this plan increased attention has been given to reestablishing the General Examinations on something approximating the level of earlier years. Since we are lacking experienced tutors the establishment of tutorial instruction is a very real task but it is believed it can be done successfully.

We have been fortunate to have been able to attract to the Graduate School a group of unusually able young men. The very top of this group represents ability of the very highest order. Unfortunately only rarely can we retain the services of these young men even on the assistant professor level. However, the Department is keenly aware of the difficulties it faces in recruitment and every effort is being made to follow the progress of the product of other schools as well as the progress of our own young scholars.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1949-1950

January 5, 1951

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

I am now somewhat belatedly submitting the report of the Department of Economics for 1949-50.

I. Undergraduate Instruction

Four hundred eighty-two Harvard and Radcliffe students concentrated in economics in 1949-50 as compared with 608 in the previous year. The enrolment in Economics 1 was 402 as compared with 546 in the previous year. Seventy-seven students graduated with honors; 20 obtaining magna cum laude and 57 cum laude.

The entire senior staff gave courses at the undergraduate level— a practice that distinguishes Harvard sharply from institutions such as Columbia and Chicago which restrict the activities of some of the most talented members of the staff to graduate instruction. Nevertheless, the strength of our undergraduate teaching has depended very largely on the unusually fine group of assistant professors we now have on our staff.

During the past couple of years the Department has been gradually moving toward restoration of the tutorial system and last spring it decided finally to give tutorial instruction to all honors students in their junior and senior years,

II. Graduate Instruction

Two hundred graduate students in economics were in residence last year as compared with 234 the previous year. The Department gave 58 general examinations for the Ph.D. and 47 special examinations.

The number of graduate students is still too large to handle effectively with the present staff. The students themselves justifiably complain that they cannot see enough of the members of the faculty. However if they did see as much of the faculty as they wanted to, the faculty would have little time for reading and research and the quality of instruction would decline. We are planning to deal with this problem as far as possible by making sure that more graduate students attend reasonably small seminars and do have an opportunity to get to know at least one faculty member reasonably well.

I believe that the quality of our graduate work has suffered through overemphasis on course work and preoccupation with grades. We tend to make graduate instruction too much of a prolongation of undergraduate instruction. We also tend too much in the direction of specialization and provide too little encouragement for students to become coordinated in the whole economic field. The remedy for this state of affairs depends more upon the general attitude of the Department rather than any specific measures of reorganization. We shall do whatever is possible to encourage students in the feeling that their main function here is to acquire the maturity that is essential for scholarship rather than to accumulate a collection of pieces of isolated information.

III. Research

Professors Mason, Leontief, Black, Galbraith and Dunlop are all conducting organized research projects within the Department. Apart from their substantive value, these projects give a considerable number of graduate students an opportunity to take part in organized research activity. I believe these projects have an important part to play in the future of the Department as a whole rather than as special interests of individual members. However, I do not share the view that most of our intellectual activities should be directed towards organized research. There is danger that we may become a research bureaucracy and that the merits of individual scholarship may achieve less recognition than they deserve. While the research project is invaluable in training the students in specialized activity, it does little to cultivate the maturity that should be one of the most important products of our graduate training.

IV. The Staff of the Department

Professor Schumpeter’s death has meant a loss to the Department that cannot be covered by any individual that we now have on the staff or could get from the outside. The only way to make up for his absence is for the present members of the faculty to direct part of their attention to the aspects of economic thought in which Schumpeter was particularly interested. This has in part been done. I think it is true to say that since Schumpeter’s death his own work has received more attention in Harvard classrooms than it received while he was alive.

The only new additions to the to the staff at the professorial level in 1949-50 were assistant professors Orcutt and Sawyer. Orcutt is giving a course at the graduate level and the undergraduate level on empirical economies in which he stresses the quantitative aspects of economic theory. He is also a first-class statistician. Since the resignation of Professor Crum we have had only one professional statistician in the Department, and it seems highly desirable to have at least two. Sawyer will add considerable strength to the Department’s work in economic history although he will spend half of his time in the General Education program.

VI. [sic] Distinctions

Members of the Department received the following distinctions:

Professor Edward Chamberlin — An honorary degree (Dr.) awarded by the Universita Catholica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. December 1949.

Professor Sumner Slichter — President, Industrial Relations Research Association.

Professor Gottfried Haberler — President, International Economic Association for 1950 (held by Professor Schumpeter at the time of his death).

I am attaching a bibliography of the writings of the members of the Department. [not included in this folder]

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Smithies

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

Images Source: Burbank (left) from the Harvard Class Album 1946, Smithies (right) from the Harvard Class Album 1952.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching

Harvard. Haberler and Chamberlin fight over last-minute course changes, 1942-43

Exogenous shocks are really useful for finding out how the economy works. They also help dear colleagues reveal themselves when their private interests conflict with those of other colleagues in particular or with departmental needs in general. The U.S. entry into the Second World War forced several adjustments in the graduate and undergraduate instructional staffing at the Harvard economics department.

This post provides some light on the time Gottfried Haberler was asked to teach the first of the two term graduate economic theory sequence for the academic year 1942-43. The course was a direct descendent of Frank Taussig’s Economics 11 (the expansion of course offerings over the decades required moving into 3 digits for some course numbers and a zero was dropped into the middle of “Economics 11” to obtain “Economics 101”). At the last minute Chairman Edward Chamberlin decided that he wanted “his” course back for both semesters but Gottfried Haberler was clearly not one to go quietly. And so we witness the performance of an academic drama before colleagues, of Professor X and Professor Y claiming conflicting rights to a particular course.

The record presented here is incomplete. I have been unable to find Haberler’s written plea on his own behalf. Reading the material one might think that Chamberlin got his way and Haberler was left to find another course to satisfy his annual teaching obligation. However, a look into the annual report of the President of Harvard College for 1942-43 finds that as far as the staffing of Economics 101 in 1942-43 goes, ex ante equals ex post. The course was ultimately divided that year between Messrs. Haberler and Chamberlin.

___________________________

Economics 101: syllabi (with links to most readings) and examinations for fall and spring terms 1941-42 taught by Edward Chamberlin.

___________________________

Who ended up teaching what 1942-43

Edward Chamberlin

Economics 1a. First term, undergraduate course “Economic Theory”.

Economics 102b. Second term, graduate course “Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Gottfried Haberler. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

Gottfried Haberler

Economics 18b. Second term, undergraduate course on the Economic Aspects of War,

Co-taught Economics 45a with Alvin Hansen. First term, undergraduate course  “Business Cycles”.

Economics 144. Graduate School of Public Administration Seminar “International Economic Relations”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Edward Chamberlin. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

___________________________

Ex Ante Course Announcement

Economics 101. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructors) Fri., at 12. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler.

Source: Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1942-43. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX, No. 53 (September 23, 1942), p. 55.

___________________________

Ex Post Course Enrollment and Staffing

[Economics] 101. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler. — Economic Theory.

Total 24: 16 Graduates, 4 School of Public Administration, 1 Graduate Business School, 3 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1942-1943, p. 47.

___________________________

Presumably the statement prepared by Edward Chamberlin (referring to himself in the third person)

October 9, 1942

Course Economics 101 was announced in the catalogue for 1942-3 to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. This arrangement was never considered as final but was subject to adjustment at the beginning of the college year in view of the general uncertainty as to the status of such of the graduate instruction until enrolments in various courses were known. (In particular, it seemed likely that either 102b or 163 or both might be bracketed, thus freeing either one half or one full course of Mr. Chamberlin’s time). It was, however, agreed between Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin that, in case the course were given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin the second. Several times prior to the opening of college Mr. Haberler asked Mr. Chamberlin about the status of the course and was told that unfortunately nothing final could be decided until enrolments were known; it was agreed, however, that Mr. Haberler would take the first meeting, or meetings, of the course until a decision was reached. The matter was mentioned on Friday morning, October 2, at a casual meeting between classes at which time, since no final decision had been taken, Mr. Chamberlin said that it was still possible that the arrangement might stand. On Saturday, October 3, a final decision to take back the course was communicated to Mr. Haberler after considering a number of factors, among which were the following:

  1. The enrolment in Economics 102b was only two, plus five auditors. This course had always been given in the second semester, thereby opening it to the first year students who had had the first semester of 101. The bracketing of 163 made it possible to revert to this disposition of 102b, (or to bracketing it later on if this seemed necessary). The chief obstacle to Mr. Chamberlin’s giving the first half and therefore all of 101 was thereby removed.
  2. The class list of 101, received Friday afternoon, revealed that of 16 [or 18?] student then enrolled in the course all but two were foreigners. Many of these would have serious problems of adaptation to academic work in a new language and in a new country, and it seemed for the reason especially desirable to unify the introductory course in theory under one direction during the current year.
  3. During the past, two years the course had, for better or worse, been split both vertically and horizontally, not by action of the department but on the initiative of Mr. Chamberlin. This was done in part to open greater possibilities for discussion through smaller sections, and in part to share the course with others who wanted very much to teach theory. At no time during that period had Mr. Chamberlin given less than a full year of the course, and its outline and organization had always been his. It was his sincere belief that now that the course was again of manageable size the department would wish it to be given as it had directed earlier, and that he was fully competent to make the decision. At that time the work of the year had not really begun.

However, Mr. Haberler objected so strongly to the change that in order to settle the matter amicably, Mr. Chamberlin proposed on Sunday afternoon, and Mr. Haberler agreed, that the matter be left to a committee composed of Professor Crum as Chairman and other members to be chosen by Professor Crum. As this Committee could not possibly be assembled and give a decision before the Monday meeting of the course it was agreed that Mr. Haberler would take that meeting and that the Committee shouId render a decision before the Wednesday meeting. The decision was in fact rendered Tuesday afternoon and was unanimous that Mr. ChamberIin should give the course, When apprized of this decision, Mr. Haberler said he would like time to consider whether or not he was willing to accept it. From this point on Mr. Chamberlin became a passive duopolist, leaving all initiative to Mr. Haberler, who proposed that he take the Wednesday meeting of the course, finishing matters which he had begun on Monday, give a cut on Friday (there was a holiday the following Monday), and decide sone time before the Department meeting whether or not he would like to bring the matter before the Department. Meanwhile, the Committee had decided that certain questions which it had discussed apart from the immediate issue should be brought before the Department at its meeting October 13th. Mr. Haberler’s final decision on Thursday was that if the Department is going into the whole theory question anyway, they should also decide on the present status of Economics 101.

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin announces his attention to return statement with statement

October 10, 1942

Dear Leonard [Crum]:

It has occurred to me that, since Haberler has given you in writing a statement of the facts as he sees them, I might, even at this late date do the same. My own statement will add some details and perhaps present a different emphasis at one or two points It may be used at your discretion in whatever way you think best, (including, of course, the possibility of no use at all beyond your own reading). I am sending a copy to Haberler.

Sincerely,

E. H. Chamberlin

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin makes his written statement available to the department

October 17, 1942

To Members of the Department of Economics:

In view of the fact that Professor Haberler’s statement with respect to Economics 101 had some circulation prior to last Tuesday’s meeting and was also read in the meeting, whereas my own statement has to this moment been seen only by Professor Crum and one other member of the Department, I should like now to make both equally available to any who may wish to consult them. Accordingly, they will both be found in the blue folder in Mrs. Arnold’s office. Also in the blue folder are: (1) The minutes of the last three meetings, and 2) The report of the Chairman to the Dean of the Faculty covering the work or the Department for the past year.

Chairman [Chamberlin]

___________________________

Special Committee sides with Chamberlin

CONFIDENTIAL

(for use of Department
of Economics officers
only)

Report of a Special Committee
on the assignment for teaching Economics 101.

13 October, 1942

On Monday, October 5, the Chairman of the Department brought to my notice a personal disagreement between himself and Mr. Haberler concerning the assignment for teaching Economics 101, and asked that I serve as Chairman of a Special Committee to “arbitrate” in the case, and report before the meeting of Economics 101 on Wednesday the 7th. I was instructed to associate with myself such members of the Department as I saw fit in making up the Committee. I asked Mr. Burbank, formerly Chairmen of the Department, to be a member, and also four other members of the Department who have at present no active part in the teaching of economic theory and whose views on the matter at issue were unknown to me. One of these individuals was unable to serve because of his inability to meet with the Committee at any time available for meeting within the interval during which action had to be taken. The Committee, therefore, was made up as follows: Crum, Chairman, Black, Burbank, Dunlop, and Usher.

The Committee met and considered to the best of its ability all aspects of the case, and herewith reports certain recommendations to the Department for such action as it wishes to take. The Chairman of the Committee reported on Tuesday afternoon the 6th to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler the findings of the Committee in outline form because the Chairman thought that the two individuals concerned might have agreed to abide by the finding of the “arbitration” and might be willing to put the findings into effect immediately. The Chairman of the Committee did, however, report to both participants in the controversy that he did not regard the Committee as being clothed with any conclusive authority and that unless the participants in the controversy both accepted the findings of the Committee those findings would have to go to the Department as recommendations and would be subject to such action as the Department saw fit to take.

Statement of the issues.

Course Economics 101 is announced in the spring issue of the current Courses of Instruction pamphlet as to be given jointly Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler, and I am informed that they had during the summer agreed among themselves that, in case the course was given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the course during the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin during the second. Late in the week in which instruction of the present half year began Mr. Chamberlin indicated to Mr. Haberler that he thought the entire course should be given by Mr. Chamberlin. Mr. Haberler objected to any such change and insisted that he continue to give the course during the first half year. The issue, accordingly, was whether the conduct of the course should go forward on the basis of joint responsibility of Mr. Haberler in the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin in the second half year, or should be restored to the basis prevailing for several years in which Chamberlin gave the full course.

History of the case.

After the retirement of Professor Taussig, Course 101 (formerly called Course 11) was given for several years by Mr. Schumpeter by an arrangement which was understood to be provisional and subject to later change. At the end of this interim, after extended consideration of the needs and purposes of the Department with respect to the teaching of the several courses in economic theory, the Department took specific action directing Mr. Chamberlin to teach Course 101. At the same time arrangements were agreed upon by which several other specialists in economic theory in the staff of the Department participated in the instruction in economic theory. Presently the enrolmont in Course 101 became so large that its conduct as a single course by the discussion method became difficult; and, without specific vote of the Department, the course was divided into two sections, with one conducted by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Taylor in 1940-41 and by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Leontief in 1941-42, the other by Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin in both years.

With the decline in enrolment which has occurred, no occasion for such splitting of the course persists, and it has long been forseen that Economics 101 would be conducted as a single section during the present year. In recognition of this, an arrangement was made, without specific action by Department vote, to announce Economics 101 for the present year as to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. At the time this arrangement was made the expectation was that Mr. Chamberlin would be giving during the first half year Economics 1a and Economics 102b and that he should not be called upon to carry the additional instruction involved in teaching Economics 101 during the first term.

The initial enrolment in Economics 102b was so small that the course has been withdrawn from the first term offering, and although it is announced for the second term doubt remains whether the enrolment will be sufficient even then to warrant giving it. In recent months, various changes in personnel of the Department and the necessity of distributing the teaching and other load in all branches of the Department work as fairly and efficiently as possible have resulted in various changes in the assignments of particular officers to particular duties. In these circumstances it became possible for Mr. Chamberlin to resume during the first term instruction in Economics 101 without making his course load excessive.

In connection with the controversy, the Chairman of the Committee had a conversation with Mr. Chamberlin in which the latter presented his own views concerning the history of the case and the points at issue. Mr. Haberler submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee setting forth his ideas on the matter. Those items were brought to the attention of the Committee by its Chairman. Following the meeting of the Committee, Mr. Chamberlin also submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee. Either or both of the written statements will be laid before the Department on request.

Meeting of the Committee.

The Committee met on Tuesday, October 6. The Chairman gave the Committee a history of the case and a summary of the information available bearing upon the point at issue. The Chairman also informed the Committee that he did not understand that the Committee had any conclusive powers and would be obliged to report its findings in the form of recommendations to the Department.

The Chairmen specifically urged the Committee, therefore, in proceeding toward its findings to consider the wisdom of bringing in findings which, in its opinion, would probably be supported by the Department. The Chairman reminded the Committee that adequate treatment of the particular matter at issue might well involve (a) recommendations by the Committee concerning certain related matters affecting other courses; and (b) recommendations by the committee concerning certain longer run matters relating to the general question of our offering in economic theory. The Chairman discussed with the Committee certain basic principles bearing upon the case, and received the concurrence of all the members of the Committee in these principles. They are outlined below.

The Committee then proceeded to discuss the matter at issue and various related matters. Discussion by the members of the Committee was free and active and the Chairman made a special effort to call forth the views of each member of the Committee. After this discussion the Committee agreed upon a set of recommendations to be made to the Department, and to be reported to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler in the hope they would accept the findings. The agreement of the Committee was unanimous. Those recommendations are presented below.

Basic principles.

In approaching a set of findings with respect to the issues raised the Committee had in mind a series of basic principles in which members of the Committee concurred. Those are as follows:

(a) Because of its compressed personnel in wartime and because of the extraordinary wartime adjustments needed in its work: the Department has a peculiarly difficult task of assigning functions to its various officers with a view to getting the essential work of the Department done with such distribution of the burden as will be primarily efficient from the point of view of the Department and secondarily fair from the point of view of the individuals.

(b) Even in peacetime the needs of the Department and the objective of securing maximum efficiency in the performance of Department work transcend the interests and preferences of individual officers. Although in peacetime many concessions can be made with a view to accommodating the preferences and interests of individual officers and with a view to protecting the rights or supposed rights of individual officers, the Department would in general not recognize that such individual interests can overrule the general interest of the Department. In wartime this condition is even more emphatically true, and in such time the individual preferences and interests may be obliged to give way to the general interest of the Department more frequently and more extensively than in normal times. Throughout the duration of the war many if not all of the officers of this Department will be doing work which they prefer not to do and will be denied the opportunity to do work which they would like to do. Without such sacrifices the essential work of the University cannot be effectively handled in wartime.

(c) The Department and the University cannot afford to allow the general interest to be sacrificed because of informal commitments or quasi agreements made among individual officers when such agreements fail to take adequate account of the general interest of the Department, even though those who made the agreements acted in good faith. That agreements thus made may from time to time have to be set aside in the interest of the Department, and that such setting aside may involve some sacrifice by one or more individuals involved must be accepted as one of the costs of giving primary importance to the general interest of the Department. Ordinarily it is to be expected that individuals will refrain from making arrangements for which they have no power under the law of the Department; but ever if such arrangements are entered into under a grant of power, the individuals concerned must recognize that the Department itself has a clear right to final determination at one of its meetings.

(d) To the best knowledge of the Committee, the purpose of the Department with respect to the assignment of instruction in Course 101 remains as it was last officially determined by Department vote several years ago, namely, that Course 101 should be given by Mr. Chamberlin.

(e) Under the stress of war the Department may be obliged to sacrifice in part some branches of its work, and the Committee believes that graduate instruction will probably need to be sacrificed before instruction in undergraduate courses, tutorial instruction, and other Department work directed toward the teaching of undergraduates. A policy which exposes graduate instruction to the principal sacrifices is also likely to result in the most frequent disregard of personal preferences and even of supposed rights of individual officers; but presumably the Department would nevertheless feel that such a policy must be adopted and maintained.

Recommendations to the Department.

After considering the facts laid before it in connection with the matters at issue and in the light of its own agreement on basic principles, the Committee agreed unanimously to present the following recommendations to the Department at its meeting on Tuesday, October 13, and to report these recommendations at once to the parties in the controversy:

(a) That during the present year Mr. Chamberlin be assigned to conduct the entire Course 101.

(b) That, in view of chancing conditions which may mean that the Department’s present total offering in economic theory covering the entire range of courses in that field does not most satisfactorily meet the needs of instruction in that field, the Department promptly and earnestly reconsider the total offering with a view to making such changes as may be necessary in the next announcement of courses. The Committee makes no recommendation as to how the reconsideration should be conducted, whether by the appointment of a committee or by general Department discussion or by a combination. It also makes no specific recommendation as to any changes in the present offerings of courses, but merely notices that such a general reconsideration may well cover the possibility that Mr. Haberler might be asked to give work in economic theory.

(c) The Committee recommends that the Department consider asking Mr. Haberler to take charge of an additional half course during the present academic year, with a view to replacing the first half of Course 101 in rounding out his teaching assignment. The Committee specifically recommends that Course 18b be considered as one of the possibilities for additional instruction by Mr. Haberler; and makes this recommendation because on the one hand the Committee feels that the hurried arrangement by which that course was assigned jointly to four officers won Mr. Harris withdrew may have been ill-advised in that use of too numerous instructors in such a course may damage the continuity from the point of view of the student; and on the other hand the Committee believes that Mr. Haberler’s areas of specialization would enable him to handle this particular course very effectively.

(d) The Committee recommends that the Department consider carefully the question whether in determining that the enrolment in a course is so small that the course should be withdraw only those enrolled for credit should be counted, or whether in addition the auditors should be counted (this question was raised before the Committee in connection with Course 102b in which the first term enrolment was two members for credit plus five others. Course 102b has been withdrawn from the first term offering, but will be announced again for the second term, and the question posed above may at that time again be raised).

W. L. Crumm

___________________________

Thus spake the Dean

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Paul Herman Buck, Dean
Henry Chauncey, Assistant to the Dean
Jeffries Wyman, Jr. Assistant Dean

5 University Hall

January 12, 1943

To the Senior Members of the Department of Economics:

After considerable contemplation of the issue which has arisen between Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and which I have undertaken to arbitrate, I find I am in complete accord with the Report of a Special Committee on the assignment for teaching Economics 101, dated October 13, 1942. I commend especially as sound, the basic principles outlined on page 3 of that report and I accept as my official decision the recommendations to the Department given on page 4 of that report.

Frankly, it seems to me most unfortunate that the issue should have descended into personalities. The department should be prepared to face the large problems of policy which I have outlined in a letter to your Chairman which, I trust, will be read at your meeting tonight. Obviously those problems will not be solved intelligently and equitably if they are not approached with a vision directed to the loyalties of one’s subject and university rather than to self. Is it asking too much to relegate the personal aspects of this issue to oblivion?

It seems to me very important so to do. I have taken a great deal of pride in the distinction of the Department of Economics at Harvard and I have spoken in many circles boastfully of having what seems to me one of the very few remaining great departments of economics in the world. Certainly the responsibility of keeping that department great and of enabling it to develop continuing leadership should be the major loyalty to which every other consideration is subordinate. The awareness of this responsibility and the opportunities it presents will preoccupy your time and energies. Let me conclude by saying that I have always had and retain confidence in the intelligence, initiative, devotion. and cooperative spirit of your membership. I write this with all the more assurance because I know so many of you intimately and appreciate from personal friendship the qualities I have mentioned.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Buck

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 25. Folder “Graduate Instruction in Theory. Economics 101. 1942-43.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Meeting of the Visiting Committee with the Economics Department. January 1944

 

Maybe attending to the routine business of the Harvard economics department was seen as a welcome respite amidst the Sturm und Drang of the Second World War. Maybe the consensus was simply shared that the transistory shock of the war would soon be over and it was time to worry again about the core missions of Harvard and its economics department. In any event, the following report outlines a “Research Program for the Department of Economics” presented to the visiting committee by the chair of the department’s Committee on Research Program, Professor John D. Black. 

____________________________

Visiting Committee Reports available at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror

Visiting Committee Report 1915

Visiting Committee Report 1974

____________________________

Meeting of the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics with the Department, on Monday, January 10, 1944.

The Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics met with the Department at seven o’clock on Monday, January 10, 1944, at the Harvard Club in Boston. There were present for the Visiting Committee: Roger N. Baldwin, Albert F. Bigelow, Paul M. Herzog, George Rublee (chairman), Charles E. Spencer, and Orrin G. Wood. For the Department: John D. Black, H. H. Burbank, W. L. Crum, John T. Dunlop, Edwin Frickey, Seymour E. Harris, Arthur E. Monroe, Wassily Leontief, Abbott P. Usher, John H. Williams, and Edwin B. Wilson. Mr. Rublee presided.

 

Mr. Rublee called on Professor Burbank, the chairman of the Department of Economics, to make an opening statement.

Professor Burbank said that in previous years we had at these dinners talked about our teaching difficulties, especially those connected with the junior staff. Last year we discussed Professor Slichter’s experiment with the labor-union representatives. This year the Department had suggested to Mr. Rublee that we consider our most pressing problem of the present, as well as the immediate and long-run future. Fundamentally, this problem is concerned with the Department’s research. We must have a vigorous and effective program of research if we are to have a dominant Department of Economic in the University or, indeed, if the University itself is to maintain its high standing. The Department of Economics has recently appointed a Committee on Research Program. Professor Black is the chairman of this committee.

Professor Black then presented the following report:

RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A department of economics in a large university has three functions to perform:

  1. To teach and train students,
  2. To contribute to an understanding of the current problems of private enterprise and public affairs,
  3. To help develop the science of economics.

In a small college a good job of teaching is about all that can be expected of a department of economics. In a great university the second and third functions are as important as the first.

Fortunately those three functions not only need not interfere with each other, but in a large university can be performed in such a way that each strengthens the other. This does not mean that all can be performed in the same time, but rather that each is better done if the other two are also being strongly carried. As a matter of fact, however, much time and energy is saved if all three are combined. Thus what is learned from the study of current problems can be used very effectively in the classroom and at the same time furnishes needed and valuable inductive material for the development of economic science. One’s teaching, in turn, especially one’s graduate instruction, is a constant source of ideas and suggestions to be developed in research. Only, therefore, if the staff of a department of economics is large enough and well enough financed so that it can work along all three of these lines, is it able to yield a large return upon the investment in it. Only if thus set up and thus functioning is it able to realize the possible economies of combination of these functions.

The Department of Economics of Harvard University has been performing on all of these fronts ever since it was organized. But in the period while the members of this committee have been associated with it, it has by no means measured up to its opportunities on the last two of them, and what is more important, unless some action is taken in the near future, it will miss out still more on its opportunities after the war. It will not only do less well the job it has been trying to do, for reasons to be indicated presently, but also will not reach out and encompass the larger needs of the years ahead. Needless to state, society and the nation are going to be faced with major tasks of adjustment in the years just ahead and over the next decade or two and likewise breath-taking possibilities for social advancement. So important is the role of economies in these developments that if the Department of Economies of Harvard University does not contribute its part to them, this alone will almost be enough to shrink Harvard University in toto into a second- rate institution. This, therefore, is a moment for stock-taking and laying out plans.

It is not part of the assignment of this committee to consider the teaching function of the Department. But some reference must be made to it for the reasons just given. the present course offerings and methods of instruction are not well fitted to the present and the impending future. The function of teaching in a field like ours is primarily to train students to apply economics, and the methods of economic analysis, to the situations which confront them after they leave college. For Harvard undergraduates, most of these situations are situations in private enterprise, although having important public relations. A limited proportion are assignments in the public service itself. The program of teaching needs to be organized in anticipation of the kinds of jobs, mostly private, that the graduates of Harvard University get to do. The graduate teaching program needs to envisage e wide range of working assignments, a large fraction of them in the public service. Training teachers of economics is only one of the functions of graduate teaching. Because the teaching is not organized as needed, there are some large gaps in the present program, and these gaps, it will appear presently, coincide with gaps in the research activities of the department.

The other two functions, contributing directly to an understanding of current situations, and developing economic science, are orginarily considered as research. There is considerably more to the first of these than just research, but since good research is basic to it, we will here consider them both as research and treat them under one head from this point on.

The deficiencies in the research activities of the Department of Economics, considered especially from the standpoint of the postwar can be designated under the following heads:

  1. Not enough research is being done
  2. There are gaps in it
  3. Some of it is not of enough significance.

The reasons for these deficiencies are as follows:

  1. Lack of resources to carry on the needed volume of research.
  2. This includes resources in research personnel as well as in the expenses of clerical assistants, field study, publication, and the like.
  3. Inadequate staff, or none at all, in some important fields.
  4. Very little in the way of leadership. Staff not organized in such a way as to promote research.

Let us now consider briefly these four reasons. When an economist does not have financial resources with which to do significant research, he may put in his spare energy on library work on the writings of his predecessors, the Congressional Record, and the like. For this he needs only someone to type his manuscript. If in addition, he has a little money to hire a computer, he may go to work on the census records and other official statistics. Those two descriptions about cover all the research now being done by the Harvard Department of Economics as such.

Lacking funds for anything more, two developments have followed. First, a goodly number of the staff members have taken on research or related assignments with other agencies. Merely to list these agencies tells the story. (We are purposely omitting the wartime agencies), the Treasury Department, the State Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Resources Planning Board, the Food and Nutrition Board, the Bureau of Economic Research, the League of Nations, the Twentieth Century Fund, the National Planning Association, the National Industrial Conference Board, etc. While most of those assignments are important, to have as many of them disorganizes the research and teaching of the Department. Also the Department as such does not get adequate recognition for work done under other auspices. Finally, there is great need for having research done that is largely independent of government agencies. This point cannot be too strongly emphasized.

The second development has been that several members of the Department have started projects that they have not been able to complete thus far. They have learned by sad experience that they cannot swing ambitious projects without the help of trained younger associates who can direct the detail of the analysis and help with the writing. As a result, a number of important projects are now left suspended.

If the Department is to have a vigorous research program of its own, there must be funds with which to employ a dozen or two of these younger research associates, as well as funds for computers, clerical help, drafting, travel and field study.

The Committee is also disposed to think that a clearer recognition should be given to research duties in the total program of the Department. It would suggest that consideration be given to a plan which would differentiate teaching loads according to research carried. Staff members who do very little research, because not inclined that way, or having small capacity for it, would handle more classes under such a plan.

The nature of the gaps in the present program may be judged from a following incomplete survey of fields of research and teaching and the needs of each.

  1. Money and credit. Staff ample, but research associates, clerical and other help much needed. High time that a research showing be made.
  2. Business cycles. Staff ample. Funds to continue the program that was under way before the war.
  3. International economic relationship. Staff probably not entirely adequate and great need of developing a well-rounded research program suited to the postwar world. This program should include work on Inter-American relationships, development of resources of Latin America, international food supply and distribution and related population problems. Research associates and other financial help.
  4. Public finance. Staff ample. Research associates and other help needed.
  5. Economic history. A teaching as well as research associate needed. One professor now working alone in the field.
  6. Labor and industrial relations. The principle problem is to develop a workable program for using the research funds now available.
  7. Agriculture. A teaching associate needed, and probably two research associates with necessary supplementary funds.
  8. Commodity distribution. Needs complete staffing. An undergraduate and a graduate course are now being given on a makeshift basis. No research under way.
  9. Production economics. Courses now bracketed. Needs complete staffing.
  10. Forestry economies. A slight beginning has been made on a program in this field in collaboration with the Harvard Forest. An opportunity for an important contribution here. Needs a man to develop teaching and research with such financial support as required.
  11. Concerning the several other present fields of teaching and research in the Department, no statement is being made at this time.

The present research funds available for the Department are:

  1. A share with three other departments in the remnants of grant that will expire in June 1946. (About $40,000 left, most of which must be reserved for publication expenses.)
  2. Remnants of three other small grants, totaling about $6000, for special projects.
  3. The Wertheim fund, yielding about $3000 a year, for research in industrial relations, to be shared with other divisions of the University.

The committee suggests as a method of approach to the situation outlined that the Department set up a committee to draft a research program for the Department, and another one to develop a procedure for securing the necessary support for the program.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Professor Black added that in the natural sciences the idea of large laboratories is well established. In Economics also we need extensive laboratories and personnel therefor. Further, we need funds for field workers and for traveling expenses.

Mr. Bigelow asked whether there were any project being worked on in the School of Public Administration which could be coordinated with the research of the Economics Department. Professor Black answered that the idea of combining has already been carried as far as possible. The School of Public Administration funds are sufficient only to take care of the assembling of materials and other routine connected with the seminars.

Mr. Baldwin asked what the Department did with its research funds in the past when such funds were available. Professor Black answered that we made small grants to individual professors to help them finish projects in which they were engaged. These grants covered such activities as preliminary research, computing, and typing, but in general not much was available for field work or for traveling. Some eight or ten books have been published as a result of these projects. The publication of these books, as well as the research behind them, depended largely on research grants. Our research funds are now almost exhausted; we have very little money available for the future.

Professor Usher pointed out that in these earlier grants the modes and procedures were laid down by the donors. The Department did not have a free hand in organizing and planning research.

Mr. Baldwin asked whether the Economics Department today has a claim for research funds superior to that of other departments. Professor Burbank urged that a very strong case can be made out for such a position.

Professor Wilson observed that in days gone by great emphasis was laid on “inter-disciplinary” research. A second-rate “interdisciplinary” project would be given preference over a first-rate piece of restricted research. Professor Wilson further remarked that the research programs of the natural sciences were well set up thirty or forty years ago. Our social sciences, on the other hand, were for a long time treated as mere teaching departments. The movement away from this stand received a great impetus from an article by the late Professor Charles J. Bullock, in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for June 1915. This article called attention to the need of more generous and systematic provision for economic research. Our research program for Economics needs to be extended to a scale comparable with that of the natural sciences—unless, indeed, the United States government is to handle all the economic research in this country!

There was some discussion regarding the relation of university research in Economics to governmental research. Professor Usher pointed out that university research can be the basis for developing techniques of analysis which government bureaus can later put into “mass production.” Mr. Bigelow suggested that the development of techniques is more difficult in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. Professor Leontief predicted that the Economies Department’s research will set the direction for larger-scale governmental or “foundation” research, and emphasized that independent research, especially in its earlier stages, can never be reproduced in the “rough and tumble” conditions of governmental work. Dean Williams supported this view: a situation has been developing for some time—not just in connection with the War emergency—in which men are pulled out of university work to become mere administrators, to “run” projects; furthermore, working under governmental supervision may mean a certain loss of independence of thought, for consciously or unconsciously a men may be affected by considerations of “official policy.” Dr. Dunlop declared that you simply cannot do fundamental research under governmental auspices, there are always too many pressing current problems.

Mr. Herzog urged that the Department’s next step is to present cogent arguments to support its contentions regarding research needs. In this connection, it will be quite important to show people what contributions the Department has made in the past with the research grants allotted to it—what, for example, has resulted for practical use of the Government. Professor Burbank responded that we might take as an example the history of the statistical work on the Balance of International Payments. At the end of the last war the government and business men were vitally interested in this subject. Dean Williams was a pioneer in the field. Dean Williams briefly outlined the record. He began with an examination of the balance of payments for Argentina. Then, under the auspices of the Harvard Economics Society he, together with Professor Bullock and Mr. Tucker, made and presented a historical study of the Balance of Payments of the United States from 1789 to 1920. He kept this study up to date for several years and then turned it over to the Department of Commerce, working with them for a transition period of one year. The Department of Commerce has subsequently carried on the study currently.

As a suggestion regarding further possibilities of this sort, Professor Burbank referred to the problems connected with the incidence of taxation; these are most certainly current issues of the utmost importance. The country needs evidence for the formulation of governmental policy. We have in the Department a young man of high ability who has made a start on the investigation of these problems. We have no funds to help him, not even money for clerical and mechanical assistance.

Professor Burbank indicated that the Department would work a report along the lines of Mr. Herzog’s suggestion.

Mr. Wood urged that the Department visualize its projects and lay them out fully, with an indication of minimum and maximum amounts of money needed. Very little will be gained by talking in generalizations; the program must be concrete. Incidentally, with the Federal tax situation as it is, the present is a propitious time to obtain money for research—with reference both to individuals and to corporations.

Mr. Rublee raised question as to the exact significance of the title “Research Associate.” Professor Black answered that we have something in mind beyond a mere statistical clerk. Between the man in charge of a project and those doing the mechanical work, we need trained young economists who can assume the burden of direct supervision and also can help in writing up the results. Other Research Associates are needed to do traveling and field work. Professor Leontief suggested that the appointment of Research Associates is important for still another reason. Many of the young men thus appointed will become leaders in the economic developments of the future. The experience gained on our projects will be extremely valuable to them.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Mr. Rublee asked Dr. Dunlop to say a few words about the progress of the trade-union experiment which was described by Professor Slichter in this meeting last year. Dr. Dunlop said that this year we have gone ahead with the program, although of necessity on a reduced scale because of man power shortage in the various unions. We have six union representatives who, on the whole, are superior to the group we had last year. We have continued the development of techniques of instruction and we have widened our range of contacts with the unions. The unions are supporting the program and we are establishing new connections with certain important unions. In spite of the fact that the teaching staff has been somewhat depleted and we have had to furnish instruction on the basis of special arrangements, we feel that the year has been decidedly profitable and worth while, both for the union representatives and for us.

Mr. Herzog urged that by all means the work should continue, even though it had to be on a reduced scale. It is much easier to keep on with a going concern than to start afresh. He confirmed Dr. Dunlop’s impressions as to the high quality of the union personnel. He also reported the sincere testimony of a leading member of the labor-union group that the work at Harvard was felt to be highly worth while—to be a vital and crucial experience.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The meeting closed with general expressions of appreciation for Mr. Rublee’s work as chairman of the visiting Committee during the past few years and of the deep indebtedness which the Department feels to him for this work.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 25. Folder: “Visiting Committee Correspondence, 1943-45.”

Image Source: Cropped image of  John D. Black (1938). Harvard Library, Digital Collections.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1941-1946

This post adds the Chairman’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the World War II years to the series:

Department of Economics Reports to the Dean of Harvard, 1932-1941

More about Harvard during WWII: Coreydon Ireland, “Harvard Goes to War,” The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

_______________________

1941-42

October 15, 1942

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

The only honor conferred upon a member of the Department during this period has been the election of Professor Leontief to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Several books have been published by members of the Department, including Professor Harris’s two major works (appearing, I believe, not more than a month apart), The Economics of American Defense and Economics of Social Security; Professor Black’s Parity, Parity, Parity; Professor Hansen’s Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles; and Professor Haberler’s Consumer Credit and Economic Fluctuations. Professor Haberler’s Prosperity and Depression has also gone through a third edition. Professor Crum was co-author of Fiscal Planning for Total War. The list of articles, pamphlets, reviews, and other items seems unusually long. Professor Hansen has listed thirteen items, Professor Slichter eight, and Professor Black six. The Harvard Economic Studies has expanded from 70 to 72 volumes during the year.

The contribution of the Department to the war effort has been substantial. Professor Mason continues on leave of absence with the Office of Strategic Services, and Professor Harris has recently been granted full time leave to serve as Director of the Division of Export-Import Price Control in the Office of Price Administration. Among those in the Department who are more or less active as Consultants or in other part time war activities are Professors Black, Crum, Hansen, Leontief, and Slichter, and Dr. Butters. Numerous younger men have, of course, entered the war services or have declined possible reappointment at Harvard in order to accept administrative and research positions in Washington.

The problem of maintaining instructional standards has, of course, been aggravated by the war. Fortunately, exceptions to the two-thirds rule have been granted in many cases; otherwise it would have been literally impossible in the face of competing wartime opportunities to recruit a staff of younger men at all. Out of the present staff of fifteen teaching fellows eleven are on more than two-thirds time, and almost without exception these men would not have been available (that is, not even at two-thirds time) if exceptions to the rule had not been made. The average experience of the Economics A staff has improved owing to a policy of putting more experienced men into Economics A and breaking in new men either in tutorial work or in the Statistics and Accounting courses. 36% of concentrators in Economics are tutored by new men this year; 60% by men of one year or less experience. The very sizeable staff in Statistics and Accounting is made up almost entirely of new appointees.

In view of the desperate need for trained economists in the expanding activities of the United States Government, the Department has announced for the current year an Undergraduate Training Program in Economics for Government Service which has attracted a substantial enrolment. The program has been opened to non-honors as well as to honors candidates. It has been carefully designed to give advanced training of a type which will enable them to undertake with a minimum of delay and adaptation administrative and research positions in the government service. It includes, in addition to a substantial corps of standard courses in Economics, three new courses, namely, Economics 7a and 7b, Research in Market Organization, Commodity Distribution, and Prices; Economics 19a, Research in Money and Finance; and Economics 22b, Government Statistics. One striking indication of the merits of this program might appear in the fact that a program of training announced by the Department of Government seems to consist essentially in normal concentration Government plus an election from these new courses in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

E. H. Chamberlin

Dean Paul H. Buck

_______________________

1942-43

October 21, 1943

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith the report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year.

The war effort has continued to deplete our staff. Since the opening of the academic year Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and Dr. Dunlop have been granted leave of absence to undertake work in war agencies in Washington. However, Professor Crum resumes his work with the Department after leave of absence from the University to conduct an investigation on Fiscal Planning for the National Bureau of Economic Research of which he is currently the Chairman. Also Associate Professor Seymour Harris has returned to the University after a year and a half of service with the Office of Price Administration where he served as Director of the Office of Import-Export Price Control. A very small fraction of the once large junior staff now remains. By the end of the coming term it is expected that not more than four Annual Instructors will be active in instruction.

The incidence of war activities on research and publication has been two-fold. In some instances long-time research projects have been put aside, but concurrently much effort has been applied to projects concerned with war and post-war problems. Having in mind the inevitable interruptions of the war period, it is gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses and reports have been in about the same number as the average of the immediately preceding years.

Of the major publications during the year the following should be mentioned:

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development

Edwin Frickey, Economic Fluctuations in the United States: a Systematic Analysis of Long-Run Trends and Business Cycles, 1866-1914

S. E. Harris, Economics of America at War

S. E. Harris, Editor, Postwar Economic Problems

A. P. Usher, The Early History of Deposit Banking in Mediterranean Europe has just left the press.

J. T. Dunlop, Cost Behavior and Price Policy

It is also indicative of the demands of war activities that some forty or fifty articles directly related to the war and post-war economy have been published by members of the Department. In addition numerous reports have been issued to or under the auspices of various war agencies such as Professor Harris, “O.P.A. Manual of Price Control” and his “Reports on Anti-Inflationary Programs in South America,” and Professor Crum’s memorandum on Fiscal Planning for Reconstruction and Peace for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics has continued successfully through another year, bringing the total volumes of this publication to 57. The Review of Economic Statistics now in its 25th volume is continuing under the editorship of Professor Harris. The Harvard Economic Studies is now publishing its 75th volume.

The rapid reduction in the numbers of the teaching staff has been met in part by the increased activity of those remaining. With the very active cooperation of the members of the staff we have been able to offer a reasonably full and well balanced program of instruction. On the graduate level flexibility of instruction has been more necessary than in previous years because of the cosmopolitan group now in attendance –not less than a dozen different nationalities are represented. This flexibility is being achieved largely by increased individual supervision and instruction.

The sharp decline in the undergraduate body together with the presence of a small but able and experienced staff of teachers has made possible a degree of experimentation in the introductory course in Economics which should lead to significant changes in the conduct of this course in the post-war period. Also at the present time some attention is being given to a question which has been in the minds of a number of members of the staff for some year—the so-called quiz section. It has been a quite common practice, in the conduct of middle group courses to provide for two lectures and one section meeting each week. On occasion five lectures are followed by the section meeting. For many years the usefulness of the section meeting has been in question. It is to be admitted that it does relieve the instructor of a lecture, but whether or not it provides equivalent or better instruction is debatable. At the present time Professor Crum and Dr. Smith are conducting a controlled experiment in the section meetings connected with their offering Government Control of Industry and Public Utilities. In the course time they will report their findings to the Department.

At this point I should like to mention the interesting and valuable “experiment” which Professor Slichter has called The Trade Union Fellowship Project. I am enclosing Professor Slichter’s report on this project which, I believe, you will find of interest. We regard the experiment as not only highly successful from both the point of view of the University and the Unions, but the experience furnishes a good deal of evidence regarding educational processes which may prove to be highly significant.

Very sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

_______________________

1943-44

October 13, 1944

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year.

In the main, this report is a continuation of the report sent to you a year ago. In spite of the multifarious wartime activities of the member of the staff, the Department has maintained a well balanced offering of courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level. Course elections have continued to be surprisingly large, but I believe that the decline we have been expecting will actually begin with the Winter Term. The large proportion of foreign students on the graduate level, together with our inability to give complete offerings each Term, has necessitated an unusual amount of individual instruction.

Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave for the entire year. Professor Haberler resumed his work with us for the Summer Term.

I can repeat from my report of last year that the incidence of war activities on research and publication has been twofold. Most of our long time research projects have been put aside, but currently many projects concerned with war and postwar problems have been initiated and some of them completed. Although publication has been diminished by war activities, it is still gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses, and reports—although not in quite the same quantity as in the prewar years—have nevertheless appeared in substantial numbers. Progress on the publication of books has shown a more definite interruption, but four books have been published during the year and not less than six books are now either actually in the press or are nearing form for publication. The books published during the year were:

J. D. Black, Food Enough

A. H. Hansen, (with H. S. Perloff), State and Local Finance in the National Economy

S. H. Slichter, Present Savings and Postwar Markets

J. H. Williams, Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays

Both of our periodicals — the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics — have been able to continue publication without interruption and have been able to maintain their high standards. The difficulties encountered by scientific periodicals during these years are very real. One other volume has been added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

In my last report I mentioned the experimentation, particularly in the Introductory course, which had been initiated. I am very happy to be able to report that this experimentation has continued through another year with very gratifying results. A very interesting problem is involved in the attempt to present adequately the introductory material in Economies. Most of us who have been intimately concerned with the problem believe that a single course can serve both for those who will concentrate in Economics and for those whose main, interest lie elsewhere. The content of such a course, and the effective presentation of the material, is now being studied.

I might add here—because fundamentally it is experimentation in methods and relationships—that the Trade Union Fellowship Project has been conducted successfully for another year. At various times I have sort you Professor Slichter’s reports on these projects. We believe that a very interesting and productive educational experiment is being carried on with the Trade Union men.

Also in the sane connection I should like to record that during the last year we were presented with a variety of problems by the numerous South American students who came to us on the graduate level.We gave these students particular attention. By the end of the year we had learned that it would be highly profitable to develop for such students some specialized instruction which would overcome the difficulties under which all of them labored in their first term or two of residence. Their educational background, following European patterns, is such that it is necessary for us to present to them in concentrated form certain types of qualitative and quantitative analysis with which they are unfamiliar and which is not now offered on the graduate level.

The members of the Department have continued to discuss and to arrive at decisions regarding course instruction in the postwar years. In sone respects, we will strengthen the instruction offered mainly for the specialist in Economics, but we are more concerned with broader offerings which will prove to be desirable, and we hope necessary, for the college at large. Our permanent staff is large and versatile. We hope to be able to utilize to the full the resources we possess. In connection with the enrichment of our teaching, we expect to utilize more effectively in our instruction the material forthcoming from a number of proposed seminars.

It seems unnecessary to mention in detail the wartime activities of our staff members. Practically every member of the staff is actively engaged in some type of war activity. Without exception, each officer is utilizing his special aptitudes and training in connection with the various Federal agencies concerned with economic problems.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
University Hall 5
Cambridge, Massachusetts

_______________________

1944-45

October 24, 1945

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the Department of Economics for the last year.

As in the preceding war years, the Department has been able to present a very respectable offering of courses, both on the graduate and undergraduate level. The number of graduate students continued to be unexpectedly large, necessitating a rather more elaborate course offering for them than we had planned. To a somewhat larger extent than in the two preceding years the students enrolled represent such a diverse background of training and experience that sone new types of instruction were involved. Some seventeen nationalities were represented. We are inclined to believe that this is not altogether a temporary and war situation. Even after the European universities are reestablished, we expect to draw many students with foreign background and training. If this expectation is fulfilled, our wartime experience with foreign students will have been of considerable value.

Even before the war the Department was concerned with the reorganization of its instruction. Our discussions continued throughout the year materializing in a curriculum in theoretical and applied Economics which tends to utilize to the full the unusual capacities of the members of the staff. Our present position, however, is by no means definitive. We have always relied heavily upon the stimulating intellectual activities of the younger members of the staff. When recruitment is again possible we expect to strengthen our position markedly through the cooperation of these younger members.

The reorganization of instruction has been concerned mainly with the content and coverage of courses, but in some cases it has dealt with the actual methods of classroom instruction. The introductory course has been completely recast, involving new types of material and new methods of presentation. The full effects of these changes will have to wait upon the enlargement of our junior staff. Also, some of our plans involving quantitative instruction necessarily are held in abeyance until the questions regarding a statistical laboratory have been settled.

The war effort of many officers of the Department continued through the year. Professor Mason and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave from the University devoting their entire time to their respective wartime assignments. Professor Chamberlin returned to Cambridge in February from his post with the office of Strategic Services. Other members of the Department, particularly Professors Hansen, Slichter, Harris, Leontief and Black, while meeting their University obligations also served in various capacities with wartime agencies.

The incidence of this wartime service upon research and publishing activities of the group was marked. Both books and articles were fewer in number than in the normal year and in the main reflected the particular war activities of the authors. However, in all some

34 articles and 7 books were published. It should be noted that at least three volumes which the authors had expected to complete in the last year are now being prepared for the press.

The difficulties involved in the publication of scientific journals have been great but not insurmountable. We have been able to continue the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics without reduction in size and without omission of numbers. In the Harvard Economic Series [rest of line blank] that some four volumes either in the hands of the press or the Department were ready for publication but because of the war restrictions were not actually published.

Latterly the Department has been concerned with the vexing problems of the definition of objectives of students on the graduate level and the adjustment of these objectives to the various higher degrees offered. We are concerned with the administration not only of the Ph.D. degree in Business Economies, the Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government, and in part with the Ph.D. in Public Administration which may be conferred through the Littauer School of Public Administration. The problems involved in defining and administering each of these degrees will receive continued attention.

Although no honorary degrees have been reported by members of the staff, Professor E. H. Chamberlin was elected Membre Correspondent de L’Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, May 1945, and Professor S. E. Harris was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Very sincerely,

[H.H. Burbank]

_______________________

1945-46

September 30, 1946

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the Department of Economics for the academic year 1945-46.

Although the Department of Economics had anticipated to a considerable extent the problems that would be presented by the post-war situation, it found the academic year 1945-46 presenting difficulties for which there, was no immediate solution.

Fortunately we had devoted a great deal of time and thought to our course offering and to methods of instruction. We were moderately well prepared to take up the new work involved in new instruction and also the work involved in changing the content of, old courses. Again we were fortunate in being able to meet most of the difficulties presented by the unprecedented number of graduate students. With all of the permanent members of the staff in residence, we were able to meet the graduate situation although it taxed our resources to the limit. Many of our most insistent problems were concerned with the difficulties we met in assembling and training an adequate junior staff. We began the fall term with 2 Assistant Professors (Faculty Instructors), 3 Annual Instructors, and 7 Teaching Fellows. The staff was increased during the year but it was far from adequate to meet the course work, involved in our offering. However, this would seem to be a problem of relatively short duration. A few young scholars are being brought from other institutions and occupations and our Graduate School contains a number of most promising young scholars whose development is proceeding rapidly.

During the fall of 1945 the Department surveyed repeatedly the obligations it had undertaken. We were committed to an elaborate course offering. He realized that the permanent personnel of the Department could not be expanded and we recognized that in the range of the junior staff immediate and extensive increases in personnel also were impossible. Because of the irreducible demands upon our limited resources, we reconsidered repeatedly our efforts in the area of tutorial instruction and eventually voted to suspend tutorial instruction for a period with the stipulation that the subject be reconsidered at such time as the Department might see fit and in no event not later than two years.

The foregoing remarks have indicated that all members of the staff are carrying much heavier loads than in pre-war days. The burden necessarily is apportioned unevenly but all are affected. The main incidence of this situation is on research. For some officers it means that research must be put aside temporarily. For others, less than ordinary progress is being made. However, as the following titles indicate, the contributions have been substantial:

Black, John D., and a committee consisting of M. R. Benedict, S. T. Dana, and L. K. Pomeroy; Credit for Small Timberland Owners, Including Farmers with Woodlands; A Report on Forest Credit. (In press)

Black, John D., with some guidance from Jorge Ahumada of Chile, Roberto Arellano Bonilla of Honduras, and Jorge Alcazer of Bolivia; Farm Cost Analysis, with Some Reference

Black, John D.; Clawson, Marion; Sayre, C.F.; Willcox, W. W.; Farm Management. The Macmillan Company (in press).

Chamberlin, E. H.; Fifth edition of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Chapter added). Translation of the above book into Spanish.

Crum, W. L., and Schumpeter, J. A.; Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians. McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. H.; America’s Role in the World Economy. W. W. Norton.

Hansen, A. H.; The United States After the War. Cornell Uiv. Press.

Hansen, A. H.; Financing American Propsperity. 20th Century Fund.

Harris, S. E.; Price Control in the International Field. (In press)

Harris, S. E.; National Debt. (In press)

Mason, E. S.; Controlling World Trade; Cartels and Commodity Agreements. McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, T.; The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876. Stanford Press. (In press)

In addition to the above books, some 72 articles have been contributed to scientific journals. We feel particularly happy in having been able to carry our publications, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics, through the war period without serious alterations. Both publications are in sound financial condition. Actually, the Review of Economic Statistics will be in a much sounder position financially at the end of the current fiscal year than at the beginning of the war. However, increased publication costs are a matter for concern.

We have added two volumes to the Harvard Economic Series and published a revision of one. Three more volumes are now in the press. Again, increasing publication costs constitute a serious problem.

As mentioned above, all of the permanent officers of the Department had returned to active duty in Cambridge at the beginning of the year. A few officers have maintained contacts with various Washington departments and on occasion are called upon for consultation. In this connection, Professor John D. Black has served as Chairman of the Committee on Food Supplies for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council and also has served actively with at least four other agencies. Professor John T. Dunlop has served as Consultant in the Office of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion. Professor Seymour E. Harris has served as Consultant for the office of Price Administration. Professor Edward S. Mason has served as Consultant for the Department of State.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

_______________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

Image Source: A Harvard Army ROTC unit on parade along Memorial Drive, July 1943. From the Harvard Archives published in: Coreydon Ireland,  “To Honor the Living and Dead“, The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

Categories
Economics Programs Graduate Student Support Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Chairman’s Report to the Dean. Harris, 1956

 

The previous post provided transcriptions of the annual reports to the Dean by the chairman of the economics department from 1932 through 1941. This post skips ahead to the middle of the 1950s to give us a glimpse of the post-war Harvard economics department. Seymour Harris’ big take-aways from his 45 year survey of undergraduate and graduate economics courses taught by Harvard economics faculty: (i) “the proportion of undergraduate courses given by full professors has fallen from 75 to 35 percent” and (ii) “graduate courses are relatively 5 times as numerous as they were in 1909-10.” (from July 3, 1956 cover letter to Dean McGeorge Bundy that accompanied the report transcribed below).

It is also interesting to note that the economics department’s continues to plead for more funds to compensate it for “…about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account[ing] for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis)…”. Harris wrote this report two decades after the Graduate School of Public Administration had opened for business.

____________________________

CONFIDENTIAL

June 30, 1956

Report to the Dean of the Faculty for the Academic Year 1955-56
by Seymour E. Harris, Chairman of the Department of Economics

Contents

Undergraduate Instruction

  1. More Mature Staff for Economics 1.
  2. Contents of Economics 1.
  3. Staff Meetings of Economics 1.
  4. Lectures in Economics 1.
  5. Economics Tutorial.
  6. High Honors Concentrators.
  7. Seminars for Honors Graduates.

Allocation of Resources

  1. Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa.
  2. Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  3. Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  4. Table 1 – Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  5. Table 2 – Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank.
  6. Table 3 – Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate.
  7. The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction.
  8. Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members of Faculty.
  9. Ibid., Statistical Summary.
  10. Number of Faculty by Rank.

Relations with G.S.P.A.

  1. Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A.
  2. Contributions of G.S.P.A. to Economics Department.
  3. Overall Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars.

Library Problems

  1. Library Problems.

Fellowships

  1. Inadequate Fellowships.
  2. Campaign for Additional Money.
  3. Outside Fellowships.

Research and Personnel Problems

  1. Competition of Research Fellowships for Potential Teachers.
  2. Research Projects.
  3. Financing of Pay of Director of Research Projects.
  4. Small Research Grants.
  5. Secretarial Help.
  6. Personnel Changes.
  7. Honors, etc.

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

Undergraduate Instruction

The Department is especially concerned with the problem of undergraduate instruction. Confronted with a trend away from economics the country over (see my Memo to the Alumni of the Harvard Graduate School in Economics, May, 1956, p. 4) and the competition of an unusually able corps of undergraduate teachers in competing fields at Harvard and notably in history and government we are paying increased attention to our undergraduate instruction. In the last year we have taken the following steps:

  1. More Mature Staff for Economics 1. We are using a larger proportion of instructors and assistant professors in Economics 1. We expect that half the Economics 1 staff will consist of instructors and assistant professors in 1956-57 as compared with 20 per cent in 1955-56.
  2. Contents of Economics 1. We are revising Economics 1 for 1956-57. Economics 1 has become too technical. One advantage of increasing the average age of the staff is that the older men are less inclined to teach the highly technical economics they get in graduate courses. Probably less than 20 per cent of those enrolled in Economics 1 are, or are likely to become, concentrators in economics; and no more than 1-2 per cent will become economists. Our major responsibility is to give the student in Economics 1 relatively simple economic theory and relate it to the major issues of public policy. We intend to devote more time to integrating our economics with history and political science. Macroeconomics will continue to receive a major part of our attention, but less time will be given to the economics of the firm.
  3. Staff Meetings of Economics 1. The Chairman now meets with the Economics 1 staff for 1½ hours every 2 weeks and in every possible way is trying to make the teaching fellow and other junior members, who contribute so much time and enthusiasm to our teaching program, feel as though they are an important part of our department staff.
  4. Lectures in Economics 1. This year we doubled our lectures in Economics 1 — a lecture every other week. In these lectures we try to go over ground not covered in the readings and also incidentally to give the undergraduate an opportunity to listen to some of the top economists in the country. We are now not disposed to increase the number of lectures further but we shall continue the experiment. Of this I am convinced — lectures are not likely to be as important in Economics 1 as in the elementary course in government and history (Social Science). The undergraduate probably gets much more from discussions of economics in small sections than from lectures.
  1. Economics Tutorial. Tutorial in economics is not as good as it ought to be. We are wrestling with this problem. We intend to have more meetings of tutors and to impress upon them the importance of tutorial. At one of our Executive Committee meetings, we had a frank discussion with the seven masters and several senior tutors concerning our tutorial work. Our Junior tests, tied to house tutorial, seem to be working well. This year we prepared an extensive reading list for Sophomore tutorial; and next year we intend to integrate tutorial and Economics 1 more than in the past. We hope that tutorial in the second half of the Sophomore year will deal with some of the theoretical problems that will be excluded from Economics 1.
  1. High Honors Concentrators. This year we had periodic meetings with all first and second group men in economics. At these meetings (one evening every two weeks) we try to encourage discussions of important problems in the seminar manner.
  1. Seminars for Honor Graduates. Economics 100 and 102 are two new courses (to be introduced in 1956-57 and 1957-58) to be open to Junior and Senior honors students. They will be run on a seminar basis, limited in enrollment, and will be integrated with tutorial. The student will get an opportunity to deal with theoretical problems and their empirical counterpart.

Allocation of Resources

  1. Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa. Here are some tables which throw some light on the allocation of resources between undergraduate and graduate courses. Generally courses for undergraduates and graduates are taken primarily by undergraduates, and courses for graduates primarily by graduates. Hence, we assume that the courses for undergraduates and graduates are in fact courses for undergraduates and courses for graduates are in fact courses for graduates. (In the spring term 1956 the percentage of Arts and Science graduate enrollment in courses for undergraduates and graduates was 14 or 1 per cent of the 1181 enrolled in these courses; the enrollment of undergraduates in courses primarily for graduates was 10 of 482, or 2 per cent).
  2. Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. Table 1 reveals relatively unimportant changes in the number of courses for undergraduates; and the net change in the number of courses for undergraduates and graduates (in fact undergraduate courses) in the last 40-50 years has not been large. In 1909-10, there were 10½ undergraduate courses (inclusive of half courses for undergraduates and graduates and exclusive of bracketed courses); in 1955-56, there were 14½ of such courses.
  3. Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. It is especially in graduate courses that the rise has been spectacular. In 1909-10 there were 1½ graduate courses in Economics (exclusive of bracketed ones); by 1929-30, there were 11; by 1939-40, there were 12½ courses; by 1949-50, there were 21½ courses; and by 1955-56, there were 24. All these totals include half courses.
  1. Table 1 — Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56*
    (Refers to Units of Full Courses)
  1909-10 1919-20 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Rank U G U G U G U G U G U G
Full Prof. 8 1 3 7 4 ½ 7 7 ¼ 16 ¾ 8 15 ¼ 5 18
Assoc. Prof. — — — — 3 3 3 ¼ 1 ¾ 1 3 ¼ 3 2 ½
Asst. Prof. 1 ½ ½ 3 ½ 2 ½ 1 — ½ — 2 ½ — 4 2
Instructor & Lecturer 1 — 3 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 3 3 2 ½ 1 ½
Total 10 ½ 1 ½ 9 ½ 10 ½ 10 11 12 ½ 19 ½ 14 ½ 21 ½ 14 ½ 24
  1. Table 2 — Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank*
    (Refers to Nearest Decimal point)
  1909-10 1919-20 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Rank U G U G U G U G U G U G
Full Prof. 76 66 32 67 45 64 58 86 55 73 35 75
Assoc. Prof. — — — — 30 27 26 9 7 14 21 10
Asst. Prof. 14 — 36 24 10 — 4 — 17 — 27 8
Instructor & Lecturer 10 34 32 9 15 9 12 5 21 13 17 7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

* U = “undergraduate” and “undergraduate and graduate”;  G = “graduate”.
Source: Compiled from Course of Study Volumes.

  1. Table 3 — Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate
Total No. of Courses % of Total Courses
(Exclusive of Bracketed Courses)
“Undergraduate” and
“Undergraduate & Graduate”		 Graduate
(Inclusive of G.S.P.A. Economics Courses)
1909-10 12 88 12
1929-30 21 56 44
1939-40 32 39 61
1949-50 36 41 59
1955-56 38½ 38 62

From 1909 to 1929-30 the percentage of graduate courses was up from 12 to 44 per cent; but since 1929-30 the rise has been less spectacular. In Table 2, we note the courses, both undergraduate and graduate, given by men of various rank, from 1909-10 to 1955-56. The following points should be noted.

  1. The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction. In 1909-10 there were but 1½ out of 12 courses, or 12 per cent, graduate courses. By 1929-30 courses were roughly evenly divided between graduate and undergraduate. By 1939-40 and 1949-50 the ratio was about 60 per cent graduate courses; and by 1955-56, 62 per cent of all courses were graduate courses, or 5 times as much relatively as in 1909-10.
  2. Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members Faculty. Whereas in 1909-10 full professors accounted for 76 per cent of undergraduate course work, by 1955-56 they gave only 35 per cent of these courses; and there has been a marked decline since 1949-50. The total of undergraduate courses taught by them dropped from 1949-50 to 1955-56 by 3, or 37 per cent, and of graduate courses rose by 2¾ or 18 per cent. A similar trend is evident for associate professors, though from 1949-50 to 1955-56, the percentage of undergraduate courses taught by associate professors rose. It is a striking fact that in 1955-56, full professors taught 37 per cent less undergraduate courses and 1700 per cent more graduate courses than in 1909-10. In the former year there were 4 full professors, each responsible on the average for 2 full undergraduate courses and ¼ graduate courses. In 1955-56, 13 full professors averaged 1/3 of 1 undergraduate course and 1.4 graduate courses. (All 13 were not on full time). It is clear that the trend is away from undergraduate teaching for permanent members of the Department.
  3. Ibid., Statistical Summary. As might be expected, the percentage of all graduate courses taught by full professors tends to rise and of undergraduate courses to fall — the latter courses taught by professors declined from 76 per cent in 1909-10 to 45 per cent in 1929-30, and to 35 per cent by 1955-56.
  4. Number of Faculty by Rank. In this connection, the number at different ranks is of some interest. The full professors account for a somewhat larger proportion (teaching fellows omitted) than 50 years ago; but permanent appointments are an increased percentage.
  1909-10 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Professors 4 5 12 13 13
Assoc. Professors — 3 3 2 4
Asst. Professors 1 2 1 4 4
Lecturers and Instructors 3 2 3 4 3
Visiting, etc. Professors 2
(part-time)		 3
(part-time)		 — — 1
Total (excl. Visiting) 8 12 19 23 24
———— ———— ———— ———— ———— ————
% Full Prof. (excl. Visiting) 50 42 63 57 54
% Permanent (incl. Permanent Lecturers) 50 67 89 74 75

Relations with the Graduate School of Public Administration

  1. Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A. Our relations with the G.S.P.A. are of great importance. It is now close to 20 years since the G.S.P.A. was founded and yet the Department of Economics has never taken a long look at our relations. The Economics Department accounts for about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis).
  2. Contributions of G.S.P.A to Economics Department. The G.S.P.A. has made an important contribution towards the Economics Department. It provides some research and secretarial help, good physical facilities, useful library, central facilities for students and faculty, an opportunity to give our students excellent seminars, and to meet outstanding scholars and practical men in government.
  3. Over-all Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars. It may be that a decision should be made concerning the number of seminars. We tend to add one at a time, and the numbers now are at such a level that we may be putting a disproportionate amount of energy into these seminars. At any rate, net additions should be considered with care, given our available manpower. At present only 6 of the 18 permanent members of our faculty are not associated with the G.S.P.A.; and of the 6, Professors Dorfman and Duesenberry are about to participate. Of 27 courses to be given by permanent members of the Department, 7¼ will be as seminars in the G.S.P.A.

Library Problems

  1. Library Problems. Professor Arthur Cole retires this year. He has for many years been responsible for the acquisition of books in economics. Unless this responsibility is assumed by another, our economic collection will deteriorate. So far we have not been able to work out an arrangement acceptable to the Dean and the Director of the library. In my opinion, there is need for a central responsibility for library acquisitions in economics.

Fellowships

  1. Inadequate Fellowships. One of our most serious problems is fellowships. A study of fellowship funds announced as available to students suggested that Harvard was falling way behind. In a recent period of 5 years, five institution which are our strongest competitors had 30, 23, 20, 10, and 5 times as much money available for fellowships per Ph.D. granted in these five years. Increasingly we are losing the best students to rival institutions.
  2. Campaign for Additional Money. We have discussed this problem with Dean Bundy and Dean Elder, and also with our Visiting Committee. We have set up a committee consisting of Dean Mason, Professors Slichter, Dunlop and Harris to seek aggressively more fellowship funds. We are seeking these funds in the expectation that the major part of new funds will be available as additional funds for the Economics Department. Our goal is 6 fellowships at $2500 per year, or $15,000 per year additional. We discovered last year that by offering large fellowships to a limited number, we were more successful than in the past in attracting the more able candidates.
  3. Outside Fellowships. Our fellowship problem is eased by the availability of fellowships given by outside groups — governments, foundations etc. For example, Harvard received 5 of the 15 Wilson National fellowships for 1956-57. But it should be observed that there is often pressure to deny applicants access to the major universities and especially to Harvard. There is pressure to distribute widely, Moreover, a large proportion of these fellowship holders are often below our usual fellowship standards.

Research and Personnel Problems

  1. Competition of Research Fellowship Money for Potential Teachers. It is becoming increasingly easy for graduate students writing theses to receive fellowships that generally pay at least as much as a teaching fellowship. This year we lost 10 potential teachers as a result of these lucrative fellowships.
  2. Research Projects. Many of the Senior members of the staff are associated with large research projects, some of them of great significance. At least 9 of these projects may be classified as giant projects, three of them involving outlays of one half million or more dollars in the next 3-5 years. In 1955-56, Professor Leontief received almost one half million dollars to continue the projects of the Harvard Economic Group, and Dean Mason received $450,000 for a study of the New York Metropolitan area.
  3. Financing of Pay of Directors of Projects. It has always seemed to the Chairman, at least, that the foundations ought to pay part of the salary of the faculty members who direct these projects. When these projects are the major interest of those responsible for them, a case could be made for the foundation paying part of the salary of the relevant members of the faculty.
  4. Small Research Grants. It would be helpful to get some help from the Ford Foundation for small research projects especially for those who do not participate in the giant projects. I have had some preliminary discussion with the Ford Foundation, and I believe they would look with favor on an application for $25,000-30,000 per year for research help. Grants might vary from a few hundred dollars to $1,000-2,000 and be tied with specific projects. The great danger here is abuse of the privileges. Hence any such grant would have to be carefully administered – with some representation of outside economists on the committee.
  5. Secretarial Help. A related problem is that of secretarial help. Most of the Senior members, through administrative posts, control of seminars, editorial work, and research grants, manage to get the minimum amount of secretarial help. But 5 of our permanent members have virtually no access to secretaries and this is also true of most of our assistant professors. It would be helpful if some provision could be made for secretarial help for those without it. We realize this raises serious problems of finance.
  6. Personnel Changes. Professor Hansen retires this year and Professor Williams next year. We thus lose the best combination in money, cycles, and fiscal policy available anywhere. It is going to be difficult to fill this gap. Professor Black’s departure has also left a serious gap. We have added 2 very able assistant professors, Drs. J. Henderson and Valavanis, aside from two appointments (Drs. Moses and Conrad) in which the Economics Department shares one quarter of the cost. For 1957-58 and 1958-59, the Economics Department will have the services of Dr. E. Hoover for 3/7 of his time. We probably have the most able group of assistant professors in our history. It is not going to be easy to fill the gaps noted above, and make the most effective use of the young talent now in the Department. The Visiting Committee is again raising the question of a Professor of Business Enterprise, a matter to which we should give earnest attention. President Conant and Provost Buck were apparently prepared at the last discussion of this problem to provide an additional appointment for this purpose.
  7. Honors, etc. Dean Mason received an honorary degree from Harvard, and was a United States Representative at the United Nations Conference in Geneva on Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy.

Professor Hansen gave the Walgreen lectures at the University of Chicago.

Professor Harris served as Chairman of the Nor England Governors” Textile Committee,

Professor Galbraith advised the Indian Government on their Five Year Plan.

Professor Smithies was a Visiting Professor at Oxford and Professor

Kaysen at the London School of Economics.

 

Books:

Galbraith and Holton: Marketing Efficiency in Puerto Rico.

Harris: Keynes: Economist and Policy Maker.

Harris: New England Textiles and the New England Economy: Report to the Conference of New England Governors.

Kaysen: United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation: An Economic Analysis of an Anti-Trust Case.

Kaysen and Harris were two of the four co-authors of the American Business Creed.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2,  Folder: “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean, 1955-”.

Image Source: Seymour E. Harris in The Harvard Class Album 1957.