Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Socialism Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Economy of Russia. Enrollment, Outline, Readings, Final Exam. Leontief, 1949

 

The course outline for Leontief’s The Economy of Russia course taught in the Spring term of 1949 is identical to that of the previous year’s version (only the Dobb book has been updated to a more recent edition). The value-added of this post is found in the course enrollment numbers, links to most readings, and the final exam questions.

Fun fact: Jacob Marschak was an editor of the Bienstock et al. book Management in Russian Industry and Agriculture assigned in Leontief’s course.

______________________

Enrollment

[Economics] 112b (formerly Economics 12b). The Economy of Russia (Sp). Professor Leontief.

Total 44: 19 Graduates, 10 Seniors, 6 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 1 Public Administration, 6 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1948-49, p. 76.

______________________

Economics 112b
The Economy of Russia
Spring Term, 1949

  1. From the Emancipation to the Revolution
    1.  Agricultural development and reforms
    2.  First stages of industrialization

Reading assignments:

Bowden, Karpovich, and Usher, An Economic History of Europe since 1750, Ch. 29, pp. 598-615.
Hubbard, L. E., The Economics of Soviet Agriculture, Chs. 1-8, pp. 1-63.
Maynard, J., The Russian Peasant, Chs. 1, 2, pp. 13-62.

  1. War and Revolution
    1. War economy up to the October Revolution
    2. Agrarian revolution and the nationalization of industries

Reading assignments:

Maynard, Ch. 6, pp. 63-81.
Baykov, A., The Development of the Soviet Economic System, Chs. 1, 2, 3, pp. 1-48.

  1. War Communism
    1. Industrial collapse
    2. Agricultural contraction

Reading assignments:

Dobb, M. Russian [sic, “Soviet” is used in the later edition] Economic Development since the Revolution, Ch. 5, pp. 97-125.

  1. The New Economic Policy
    1. Private enterprise and the socialized sector
    2. Agricultural recovery
    3. Industrial reconstruction

Reading assignments:

Maynard, Ch. 10, pp. 148-182.
Baykov, Chs. 4-9, pp. 49-152.

  1. The Economics of High Pressure Industrialization
    1. Capital accumulation
    2. Structural change

Reading assignments:

Yugow, A., Russia’s Economic Front for War and Peace, Ch. 2, pp. 30-42, and Ch. 9, pp. 198-219.
Baykov, A., Ch. 10, pp. 153-158.
Dobb, M., Ch. 8, pp. 177-208.

  1. Socialist Agriculture
    1. The process of socialization (collectivization)
    2. The Kolkhoz
    3. The Sovkhoz and machine-tractor station
    4. Development of agricultural output and its allocation

Reading assignments:

Baykov, Ch. 13, pp. 189-311; Ch. 17, pp. 309-334.
Yugow, Ch. 3, pp. 43-81.
Maynard, Ch. 15, pp. 279-309.
Bienstock, Schwarz, and Yugow, Management in Russian Industry and Agriculture, Chs. 10-17, pp. 127-179.

  1. Industrial Expansion
    1. The three Five-Year Plans
    2. Industrial organization
    3. Labor and unions

Reading assignments:

Yugow, Ch. 2, pp. 13-30; Chs. 7 and 8, pp. 149-197.
Bienstock…, Chs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9.
Baykov, Ch. 11, pp. 159-187; Ch. 13, pp. 212-233; Ch. 16, pp. 277-308; and Ch. 18, pp. 335-363.
Bergson, A., The Structure of Soviet Wages, Chs. 1, 2, pp. 3-25; Chs. 11, 12, 13, and 14, pp. 159-210.
Report of the C.I.O. Delegation to the Soviet Union, 1947.
Dobb, M., Ch. 16, pp. 407-453.

  1. Functional Structure of the Economic System
    1. Prices, wages, taxes, and profits
    2. The governmental budget as an instrument of economic policy
    3. Methods of planning
    4. Principles of planning

Reading assignments:

Baykov, Ch. 15, pp. 251-276; Ch. 20, pp. 423-479.
Yugow, Ch. 4, pp. 82-95; Ch. 10, 11, pp. 219-243.
Bienstock…, Ch. 4, pp. 47-57; Ch. 6, pp. 66-90; Introduction, pp. xiii-xxxii.
Lange, Oscar, The Working Principles of Soviet Economy, American-Russian Institute.
Dobb, M., Chs. 13 and 14, pp. 313-348.

  1. War and Post-War
    1. Soviet war economy
    2. The new Five-Year Plan
    3. Soviet economy and world economy

Reading assignments:

Schwartz, Harry, Russia’s Postwar Economy
Gerschenkron, A., Economic Relations with the U.S.S.R.
Yugow, Ch. 5, pp. 96-122.
Dobb, M., Ch. 12, pp. 290-312.

General reading:

Gregory, J., and Shave, D. W., The U.S.S.R., A Geographical Survey, Part I, pp. 1-250.

Reading Period Assignments
May 8-May 27, 1949

Economics 112b: Read both N. Voznesnesky, The Economy of the U.S.S.R. during World War II, Public Affairs Press, 1948, and The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1949, “Soviet Union since World War II,” read all articles on economic subjects contained in this issue.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 4, Folder “Economics 1948-49 (1 of 2)”

______________________

1948-49
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 112b
[Final Examination]

Please Write Legibly

Answer FOUR questions

  1. Describe the organization of Russia’s agriculture on the eve of 1861, outline the economic basis of the Reform, and indicate its principal economic consequences.
  2. Describe the New Economic Policy, discuss the reasons for its adoption and the causes of its liquidation.
  3. Compare the successive Five Year Plans and indicate the principal distinctive features of each one of them.
  4. Describe the structure of the Soviet price system and compare its role in the operation of the planned economy with the role of the competitive price mechanism in a capitalist economy.
  5. Analyze the use of economic incentives in the operation of Soviet industry and agriculture.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations 1853-2001. Box 16. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science. June, 1949.

Image Source: Drawn from the J. F. Horrabin poster “The Workers’ Country Must Be Built by Work”. Frontispiece for Maurice Dobb’s special trade union edition of Russian Economic Development since the Revolution. London: 1928.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Galbraith’s Proposal to Split the Economics Department, 1973

 

During the early 1970s the Harvard economics department went through an identity crisis in which the orthodox mainstream was challenged by a not-so-silent minority of proto-heterodox economists and a dissatisfied graduate student body. The following three artifacts from the discussion of that time come from John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers. I would not exclude the possibility that some/much of the December 26, 1972 memo from the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences was inspired, if not directly penned, by Galbraith.

Galbraith was incapable of writing even an intrauniversity memo without flashes of wit as both the draft and final versions of his memo clearly demonstrate. And yet, there remains an overwhelming pathetic, quixotic note to his proposal of dividing the economics department in order to save its diverse, social elements.

____________________________

When the Dean Asks
How to Fix the Harvard Economics Department

December 26, 1972

From: THE DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

To: THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Re: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A STUDY OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Recent developments and discussions suggest problems of some concern in the Department of Economics. In the belief that such problems, if attacked in timely fashion and a spirit of goodwill, will be more readily resolved than if allowed to persist and be aggravated, I am proposing action which I trust will meet with the approval of all concerned. I shall first identify those matters on which, I believe, there will be general agreement and then suggest terms of reference for the appropriate action.

  1. The Department of Economics has become very large. In the current catalogue I count 25 tenured members, 56 non-tenured members, 5 visiting professors and 13 economists in associated departments principally the Kennedy School, in addition to the large force of teaching assistants. It is not surprising that so large a body should have problems in maintaining a sense of common purpose and identity.
  2. There has of late been a deep difference of view on appointments in the Department. This has led to the suggestions that the Department, its size notwithstanding, is not emphasizing an adequate representation of diverse, socially unpopular or methodologically different positions, and that standards for promotion operate to exclude or minimize the representation of such views.
  3. There will be agreement that a majority may be less urgently seized of the need for representation of a minority view than the minority.
  4. In recent years there has been dissatisfaction among students, principally graduate students, with instruction in the Department. Again I state the fact without passing on the merits of the position. I do note that, historically, students have found satisfaction and pride in their association with the Department.
  5. The question has been raised whether some appointments are being appraised in accordance with contribution or non-contribution to or effect on corporate profit-making which, however useful and legitimate, is external to the scientific work and teaching of the Department.

In light of the foregoing I propose to ask the three past presidents of the American Economic Association together with the two American Nobel Prize winners who are engaged in active teaching (one of whom is also current President of the American Economic Association), together with the Chairman of the Department of Economics to examine the Department as a matter of urgency and to report. The following are the terms of reference for this examination:

  1. The group shall be denoted the Special Study Committee, and hereafter as the Committee.
  2. In its deliberations the Committee will consult to the fullest extent with students of the Department as well as with tenured and non-tenured members of the Department, and will discuss its provisional findings with students and faculty.
  3. The Committee will consider and report on whether the present personnel of the Department reflects an appropriately broad spectrum of method and view and, as necessary, on corrective steps. Corrective steps may specifically include recommendations for change in past action.
  4. The committee will consider whether the present teaching of economics is sufficiently broad, and specifically whether there should be a second and alternative track to a doctorate in economics embracing both course work and examinations and in which the primary emphasis would be on history of economic thought, institutional economics and socialist thought, or subject matter disciplines not required by the present framework.
  5. The Committee shall consider possible division or subdivision or other reorganization of the Department to provide greater knowledge of candidates for appointment or promotion, greater corporate responsibility for instruction and other possible gains from smaller size. In this connection special attention should be given to the relationship with the Kennedy School of Government.
  6. The effect of external corporate or other activities of Departmental members as these may bear on appointments, teaching or research, shall be examined with recommendations.
  7. The report of the Committee shall be made public and, in the absence of specific and fully-supported objection, it is my hope that its conclusions will be found acceptable to the Department. There is no intention to alter the constitutional arrangements by which tenured members, as now or in a suitably reorganized or subdivided Department, if that is the decision, are responsible for appointments and instruction.

____________________________

Galbraith Draft Statement (undated)
[handwritten additions in bold italics]

Draft #2

MEMORANDUM

MEMO:

The President
The Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Members of the Department of Economics

From: John Kenneth Galbraith

 

In these last weeks tensions long present in the Department of Economics at Harvard have come to the surface. The consequences are attracting interest and discussion well beyond the confines of the Department and the University. It is doubtful if anyone, and certainly any active participants, can state the issues with complete impartiality but some of the basic circumstances admit of agreement. They are.

(1) The Department has become very large—the current catalogue lists twenty-five regularly tenured professors, thirty-five nontenured professors, thirteen members in an adjunct relationship from other parts of the University and five visiting professors. In addition there are a large number of teaching assistants. The Department has become a parliamentary and not a corporate body. Long before the recent explosion I expressed my concern not only to my colleagues but also to the top management over our increasingly ungainly and ineffective mass and its dangers. I encountered little or no disagreement.

(2) The Department has for some years been deeply divided in its views. There has been an ineffective and mostly unchanging minority, and an effective and largely unchanging majority.

(3) While the basis of the division is diverse, including the polemical folk-tendencies of academic life, our learned delight in self assertion, our sensitivity to the intellectual shortcomings of others, differences in reaction to change, political attitudes, it is also a difference in the view of economics. I doubt that any statement of this difference can avoid prejudice. I shall content myself with being dull. It partly involves the acceptance or rejection of the established economic institutions; partly acceptance or rejection of accustomed preconceptions of economic thought, partly the trade-off between precision in established modalities and lesser precision in more innovative, critical or experimental work; partly it has to do with the degree of commitment to measurement and mathematics.

(4) While the underlying fact is a difference in the view of the subject (including the importance of representing the minority views) the argument over appointments invokes competence. Each side with no slight sense of moral righteousness defines competence in its own image. What is unscientific or soft to one side is irrelevant or unreal or unuseful to the other. Certainty in these positions is enhanced by the effect of professional esteem on ego. The members of the majority rightly reflect on the high regard in which precision and excellence of their work is held in their particular spheres of econometric, mathematical or applied work. The members of the minority rejoice similarly on their standing in the profession generally. Given these attitudes, the likelihood that one side will yield gracefully to the other is (if possible) even further reduced. Thus the absolute certainty of continued conflict.

(5) The difference comes to a head over appointments. This reflects a clear view of the reality. It is recognized by all that it is people who determine what is taught and investigated—and wholly so in such an unstructured environment as Harvard. The majority, not unnaturally, has prevailed. In this context a minority should not be expected to acquiesce. To do so is to accept eventual extinction. No one who is serious about his views or methods should countenance that.

(6) The students, once pridefully associated with the Department, are discontented. Their affiliation is largely, although by no means completely, with the minority. As a consequence some members of the majority hold or harbor the thought that the minority is acting less out of conviction than a desire to seek popularity or appease student opinion. Members of the minority react with a strong (and in my own case previously undisclosed) concern for the quality of our institution.

(7) There is a question as to the bearing of subjective judgments formed in connection with the business activities of members—or in consequence of those activities—on promotion of those whose disposition or work leads to criticism of cherished and remunerative economic institutions.

Aggravated problems sometimes allow of simple choices. This is so in the present case. One course is to continue as now, and enjoy the acrimony and continue to invite, by our public bickering, disesteem for the subject, the Department, the University, our students and ourselves. The other is to move to the obvious and forthright resolution, on which will be to the benefit of all concerned.

The solution is to divide the present vast Department into two parts. One part, a Department or Division of General Economics*, would reflect the specialized interests and scientific purpose of the majority, including those whose identification with the minority has been based not on identity of professional interest but concern for academic diversity. A second part would be the Department of Social Economics. This initially much smaller Department would consist of those tenured and untenured members whose active identification with the social issues of planning, economic structure, criticism, or socialism or institutionalism leads them to make the transfer. The new Department, born out of a need to ensure diversity, would itself be under the normal academic obligation to perpetuate diversity. It would develop an undergraduate and graduate curriculum and degree requirements compromising nothing in depth and rigor, in accordance with the interests of its members and of students. Subject to established ad hoc procedures—and its resources—it would make its own promotions and appointments.

*No difficulty should be made over a name. The parent Department could be called the Department of Economics.

The initial resources of the new Department would consist of the present financial commitment to those making the change. There would, some minor administrative costs apart, be no added burden on the University budget. I would make the transfer and make the revenues from the Paul M. Warburg Professorship, including the supporting research revenues (on neither of which I have drawn in net amount in recent years) available for a new professorial appointment. I believe, not without knowledge, that money for one or two added professorships as well as for research could be raised from sources not presently open either to the University or the Department. Scholarship funds would be divided in accordance with student demand. I am willing to commit a good share of personal time in the next year to money raising, a task in which, unlike my economics, my competence has been sufficiently established.

May I note in summary the advantages of the foregoing proposal.

(1) The basic cause of distress and conflict in the present Department of Economics would be removed. Each of the new Departments or Divisions will be in a position to develop the subject in full accordance with its own lights. Neither will be in the academically repellant position (however agreeable in practice) of imposing its standards or preferences on the other.

(2) The problem of excessive scale and consequent diminution in sense of communal responsibility for teaching, research and appointments is solved in the case of the new small Department or Division. It is alleviated for the larger parent Department.

(3) The Department of Social Economics if it is to attract, retain and place its graduate students, will have to demonstrate itself in competition with its older and more prestigious parent. This competition will be exceedinglyhealthy for both. This is an appealing point. While businessmen favor competition more often in principle than in practice, this is not an error into which any good economist will allow himself to fall.

(4) Undergraduate instruction in the new Department will benefit no alone from the members’ commitment to their subject matter but also from the greater sense of community as between teaching assistants, tenured and non-tenured faculty in a much smaller department and the present Department will be better. In the present Department not even all tenured and untenured members are known to each other. Teaching assistants are known only to a fraction of the faculty members and even less is known about their performance. And again in undergraduate teaching the vigorous competition of the new Department will be good for the older one.

(5) Problems associated with the corporate business activities of professors will be at least partly resolved. No question of concern for attitudes of business clients, however subjective, will be thought to influence those who are passing on appointments in the new Department. Subject no doubt, to appropriate safeguards the activities of present members of the Department with their potential for useful employment, income and information could perhapsremain.

(6) The two Departments through a coordinating committee might [illegible word] combine for the time being on the elementary course.

(7) The creation of the new Department with an admixture of old and new members intent on developing both old and new lines of inquiry will affirm, as nothing else, Harvard’s avidly proclaimed commitment to free inquiry by people of the highest calibre and to whatever result.

(8) Nothing is forever. If, after say ten years, there is demand for reunification, why not.

With so much to be gained—and also so much trouble to be avoided—I hope that we can proceed to consider this solution with a minimum of delay. Needless to say—perhaps on the basis of past departmental performance it is very necessary that I say—I am ready at any notice to lend a hand.

____________________________

Memo On Splitting the Harvard Economics Department
[Apparent Final Draft]

June 18, 1973

From:  JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

To:

PRESIDENT DEREK C. BOK
DEAN-DESIGNATE HENRY ROSOVSKY
PROFESSOR JAMES S. DUESENBERRY
MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Re: THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

The Department of Economics is, I would judge, entering into a period of considerable calm and tranquility. The older dissidents and heretics in the Department will, with one or two exceptions, soon be retiring. And, in any case, they are now a harmless minority. Within a year or so the younger generation of dissidents will be safely gone. Thus the expectation of a period of scholarly calm.

My purpose in this memorandum is to suggest that the prospect is not as happy as these developments imply. And it is to suggest some steps which, without unduly disturbing the equanimity of the situation, the Department and the Administration would be wise to consider. May I note that these are matters on which I have no personal, as distinct from general, professional concern. I am one of those who will be contributing, however modestly, to a more seemly, tranquil and comfortable life by a comparatively early departure.

The problems remaining after the prospective changes are two. There is first the fact that, while faculty affairs have been generally arranged to the satisfaction of all, the students remain deeply dissatisfied. Let no one doubt this or seek, by the usual academic rationalizations, to explain it away. I was much exposed to this in the special seminar last autumn; I determined then to inform myself in a minor way during the spring, which I have done. The students, over a wide political spectrum, deeply dislike their work and the Department. This is especially true of the first-year students who, in a puzzling exercise in public relations reflecting an odd attitude toward education, are now blithely told at the outset to expect the worst year of their lives. Those who have been here two or three years also look back with discontent on their educational experience. My first year of graduate work was one of the most vital and interesting of my life. So, I believe it was with most of my generation.

The complaint of the students is straitforward. They are squeezed, especially in their first year but increasingly as a test in later work, into a narrow model-building, problem-solving, quasi-mathematical routine that they find boring and unrelated to the world in which they live. The emasculated careerist may accept the routine and do well. The student who thought that economics was a window on the problems of the world is abjectly disappointed.

These student reactions are heavily discounted by most although not all of the senior faculty. The rationalization is that such student attitudes are inevitable—that the modern student is inherently lazy, feckless, radical and dissatisfied. It is even suggested, not without scholarly vigor, that those who express concern about students are courting a student popularity in a sadly unscholarly tradition. As I say, this rationalization seems to me unwise and something that very soon will have a more practical consequence. A bad reputation in these matters is not easily kept a secret. It could happen that eventually the Department will have very few graduate students of indigenous origin of any consequence, a few committed careerists, mathematicians and model-builders apart. Numbers and quality of applicants will decline. In consequence, the ratio of faculty to active, teachable graduate students, which is now approaching one to one, will pass that point and will widen as a ratio of students to teachers. This is not hyperbole. A course was recently described to me by a graduate student in which he was the only participant along with three faculty members. We have a fair number of seminars with only a handful of students, sometimes but one. Faculty life will continue in comfort. Workshops will serve, as already now, to disguise the shortage of students. But still there will be nervousness.

There is another and more subjective danger. The harmony which one now foresees is based on a general commitment to neoclassical economics or its applied refinements. Accomplishment in model-building and refinement is, I think nearly all will agree, an increasingly stern requirement. We would not again hire a labor economist who, like Professor Dunlop or Professor Slichter, made his career out of a practical association with the unions and the problems of labor mediation. Professor Leontief, were he now showing the experimental tendencies that marked his early career, would be in trouble. Even his work, when firmly established, was not strongly supported. We would not have an economist who was too much preoccupied with the practical details of tax reform—unless he protected his flank by suitable theoretical or econometric exercise. My own past tendencies would certainly not be acceptable for promotion—although on the merits of this, with characteristic tact, I disqualify myself. What is not in doubt is that we are now very strong in the journals but much less strong in the obscenely practical matters on which many people, including many students, expect economists to be useful. This could be damaging to the reputation of the Department. The latter has always depended in appreciable measure not on the great scientists but on its vulgar practitioners.

Now let me say a word on reform. Mention of reform leads to thoughts of reform of the Department—so it is with faculty and also students. The present course of instruction is wrong. Let us find the right one. The problem is that no one line of graduate economic instruction can now serve all interests, reflect all points of view. Nor does it deal with the highly important fact that instruction is far less important than the inclination of the people who guide it. The Department is now a vast parliamentary body. So long as there is only one educational track, as a matter of course it will reflect the preferences of the majority. All of us, in the oldest of academic traditions, appraise excellence using ourselves as the yardstick. Reform requires that we begin to provide real choices as to teachers and as to work. Three possibilities occur to me:

  1. We should have in the Department of Economics two tracks to two Ph.D.’s. One of these would be in economics, another in (say) social economics. Professors in the Department would be grouped into two broad Executive Committees around these tracks. And each of these two Executive Committees would have responsibility not only for developing graduate work in its track and for examination therein but also for recruitment and promotion. This would broaden the choice for students; would mean that we would have two more nearly corporate bodies rather than one parliamentary body to guide instruction and appointments; would foster the kind of competition which all economists intrinsically and devoutly applaud; and would reduce by half the present parliamentary tendency to exclude the minority view. The first track would continue the present program with all of its neoclassical and model-building rigor. The second track would be experimental, humane and with a much stronger orientation to the emerging issues of our time. It would not, and this must be emphasized, involve any less effort.
  2. The second possibility would be to establish within the Department an institute—an Institute for Economic Innovation. This would enlist the members of the senior faculty so inclined, would develop a program purely of graduate instruction and would lead also to a degree which would reflect its own course of instruction. The purpose of constituting this as an institute would be twofold: to get the energy and attention of one man who would see the institute as the projection of his own efforts, and to use the institute as a device for raising new funds for both chairs and research. It is my near certainty, based on some experience as a medicant, that this enterprise, properly presented, would be very attractive to donors. I am not sure, however, that given the present size of the Department, it would not be wiser simply to allot some Graustein appointments to the Institute for the next few years.
  3. The third and final possibility would be to have two Departments of Economics—one Department of Economics and one Department of Social Economics. There are advantages to this—again the healthy competition in which all economists theoretically rejoice, elimination of the present diseconomies of scale, the much more clearly defined differentiation of purpose. It would not be as difficult a solution as seems at first glance. Those who approve of the Department as it is would remain with the Department of Economics. The rest would make the new Department. It would form its character from those who join it in the feeling that a more strongly innovative, humane and applied—in the modern sense—approach to economics is in order. The problem is, of course, that it involves the largest disruption in established institutional arrangements. That is not something to be undertaken lightly. Sometimes, though, that is good.

I am persuaded that in one or another of the above arrangements lies the only hope for a satisfactory future. For a while the tranquility that is in prospect will be greatly enjoyed. Given the sterile tendencies of the accepted economics and the attitudes of the students, it will be, if not the tranquility of the tomb, certainly that of a kind of somnambulant decay.

J.K.G.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Memorandum on Reorganization of the Department of Economics”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1958.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Socialism

Harvard. Exams and enrollment for economics of socialism and communism. Edward Cummings, 1893-1900

The father of the American poet E.E. Cummings, Edward Cummings, taught courses in sociology, labor economics, and socialism at Harvard during the last decade of the 19th century before he resigned to become the minister at Boston’s South Congregational Church. In this post I have included all the exams for his course on ancient and modern  utopias (a.k.a. communism and socialism) that I have been able to find. A course description and enrollment data are readily available from internet archives and included below as well. 

Note: for only the 1893-94 academic year and the single-term version of the course offered in 1895-96 are the exams complete. For the other academic years when the course was offered I have only found the first term exams.

Analogous courses on schemes of social reconstruction were taught in one form or another later by Thomas Nixon Carver, Edward S. Mason, Paul Sweezy, Wassily Leontief,  Joseph Schumpeter, and Overton Hume Taylor.

____________________

Course Description
(1897-98)

*14. Socialism and Communism, — History and Literature. Tu., Th., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 9. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.

[An asterisk (*) indicates that the course can be taken only with the previous consent of the instructor.]

Course 14 is primarily an historical and critical study of socialism and communism. It traces the history and significance of schemes for social reconstruction from the earliest times to the present day. It discusses the historical evidences of primitive communism, the forms assumed by private ownership at different stages of civilization, the bearing of these considerations upon the claims of modern socialism, and the outcome of experimental communities in which socialism and communism have actually been tried. Special attention, however is devoted to the recent history of socialism, – the precursors and the followers of Marx and Lassalle, the economic and political programs of socialistic parties in Germany, France, and other countries.

The primary object is in every case to trace the relation of historical evolution to these programmes; to discover how far they have modified history or found expression in the policy of parties or statesmen; how far they must be regarded simply as protests against existing phases of social evolution; and how far they may be said to embody a sane philosophy of social and political organization.

The criticism and analysis of these schemes gives opportunity for discussing from different points of view the ethical and historical value of social and political institutions, the relation of the State to the individual, the political and economic bearing of current socialistic series.

The work is especially adapted to students who have had some introductory training in Ethics as well as in Economics. A systematic course of reading covers the authors discussed; and special topics for investigation maybe assigned in connection with this reading.

 

Source: Harvard University. Division of History and Political Science Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics, 1897-98, pp. 35-36.

____________________

1893-94

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Cummings. – Ideal Social Reconstructions, from Plato’s Republic to the present time. 1 hour.

Total 22: 7 Graduates, 8 Seniors, 5 Juniors, 2 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1893-94, p. 61.

 

 

ECONOMICS 14.
Mid-year examination, 1893-94.

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. Omit one.)

  1. What is a Utopia? and what significance do you attached to the recurrence of such literature at certain historical ethics?
  2. “For judging of the importance of any thinker in the history of Economics, no matter is more important to us than the view he takes of the laboring population.” Judge Plato, More and Bacon by this standard.
  3. “Moreover, it is hardly too much to say that Plato never got to the point of having a theory of the State at all.” In the Republic “man is treated as a micropolis, and the city is the citizen writ large.” Explain and criticize.
  4. “In More’s Utopia we have a revival of the Platonic Republic with additions which make the scheme entirely modern.… The economical element in the social body receives for the first time its proper rank as of the highest moment for public welfare.” Explain. To what extent have the ideals of Utopia been realized?
  5. “Then we may say that democracy, like oligarchy, is destroyed by its insatiable craving for the object which defines to be supremely good?” What, according to the Republic are the peculiar merits and defects of the several forms of political organization? and how are these forms related in point of origin and sequence?
  6. “Sir Thomas More has been called the father of Modern Communism.” How does he compare in this respect with Plato? How far do you trace the influence of historical conditions in each case?
  7. “But in your case, it is we that have begotten you for the State as well as for yourselves, to be like leaders and kings of the hive,– better and more perfectly trained than the rest, and more capable of playing a part in both modes of life.” Criticise the method and purpose of the educational system of the Republic. How far does Plato’s argument as to the duty of public service apply to the educated man to-day?
  8. “The religious ferment produced by the Reformation movement had begun to show signs of abatement, when another movement closely connected with it made its appearance almost at the same time in England and Italy, namely, the rise of a new philosophy.” How was this new philosophy embodied in the social ideals of Bacon and of Campanella? and what is the distinguishing characteristic of it?
  9. What essential contrast between pagan and Christian ideals have you found in schemes for social regeneration?
  10. Is there any recognition of “Social Evolution” in the Utopian philosophies thus far considered?
  11. What in a word, do you regard as the chief defect of the social reconstruction suggested in turn by Plato, Lycurgus, More, Bacon and Campanella? To what main problems suggested by them have we still to seek an answer?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1893-94.(HUC 7000.55).

 

ECONOMICS 14.
Final examination, 1893-94.

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.)

  1. [“]The essential unity and continuity of the vital process which has been in progress in our civilization from the beginning is almost lost sight of. Many of the writers on social subjects at the present day are like the old school of geologists: they seem to think that progress has consisted of a series of cataclysms.” How far is this criticism true? Is the characteristic in question more or less conspicuous in earlier writers?
  2. “At the outset underneath all socialist ideals yawns the problem of population…. Under the Utopias of Socialism, one of two things must happen. Either this increase must be restricted or not. If it be not restricted, and selection is allowed to continue, then the whole foundations of such a fabric as Mr. Bellamy has constructed are bodily removed.” State carefully your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing. In which of the schemes for social reconstruction, ancient or modern, do you find any adequate recognition of the part which selection plays in progress?
  3. “If it is possible for the community to provide the capital for production without thereby doing injury to either the principle of perfect individual freedom or to that of justice, if interest can be dispensed with without introducing communistic control in its stead, then there no longer stands any positive obstacle in the way of the free social order.” Discuss the provisions by which Hertzka hopes to guaranteed this “perfect individual freedom.” Contrast him with Bellamy in this respect.
  4. “I perceive that capitalism stops the growth of wealth, not – as Marx has it – by stimulating ‘production for the market,’ but by preventing the consumption of the surplus produce; and that interest, though not unjust, will nevertheless in a condition of economic justice becomes superfluous and objectless.” Explain Hertzka’s reasoning and criticise the economic theory involved.”
  5. What is the gist of “News from Nowhere”?
  6. The condition which the social mind has reached may be tentatively described as one of realization, more or less unconscious, that religion has a definite function to perform in society, and that it is a factor of some kind in the social evolution which is in progress.” How far have you found a recognition of this factor in theories of social reconstruction?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. (HUC 7000.28). Box 2, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government and Law, Economics, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College, June 1894.

____________________

1894-95

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Cummings.—Philosophy and Political Economy.—Utopian Literature from Plato’s Republic to the present time.  2 hours.

Total 8: 5 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 1 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1894-95, p. 62.

____________________

1895-96

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 141. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—Utopias, ancient and modern. Hf. 2 hours. 1st half-year.

Total 15: 1 Graduate, 10 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 2 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1895-96, p. 63.

 

ECONOMICS 14.
Mid-Year Examination, 1895-96.

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. Omit one.)

  1. The different senses in which the word Socialism is used. Where do you intend to draw the line between Socialism proper, and familiar forms of government interference and control – such as factory legislation, municipal water works, and government postal, telegraph or railroad services? Why?
  2. “National communism has been confused with the common ownership of the family; tenure in common has been confused with ownership in common; agrarian communism with village commons.” Discuss the evidence.
  3. “Just as Plato had his Republic, Campanella his City of the Sun, and Sir Thomas More his Utopia, St. Simon his Industrial System, and Fourier his ideal Phalanstery…. But the common criticism of Socialism has not yet noted the change, and continues to deal with the obsolete Utopias of the pre-evolutionary age.” What do you conceive to be the character of the change referred to? How far did earlier Utopias anticipate the ideals of the modern social democracy?
  4. What indication of Socialistic tendencies are to be found in the discipline of the Christian church? Explain the triple contract and its bearing on the doctrine of the usury.
  5. “The Communistic scheme, instead of being peculiarly open to the objection drawn from danger of over-population, has the recommendation of tending in an especial degree to the prevention of that evil.” Explained Mill’s argument. Do you agree?
  6. To what extent are the theories of Karl Marx indebted to earlier writers in the 19th-century?
  7. How far are the economic series of (a) Lasalle, (b) Marx related to the theories of the so-called orthodox Economists? Explain critically.
  8. How far do you trace the influence of historical conditions in the social philosophies of Plato, More, Bacon, Rousseau, St. Simon, Karl Marx?
  9. What connection do you see between the teachings of Rousseau and (a) modern Socialism, (b) modern Anarchism?
  10. What, according to Hertzka, is the economic defect of the existing social and industrial system, and what is the remedy? Contrast “Freeland” with “Looking Backward.”

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1895-96.(HUC 7000.55).

____________________

1896-97

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—History and Literature.2 hours.

Total 13: 10 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 1 Sophomore.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 65.

 

ECONOMICS 14.
Mid-Year Examination, 1896-97.

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. Omit one.)

  1. The different senses in which the word Socialism is used. Where do you intend to draw the line between Socialism proper, and familiar forms of government interference and control – such as factory legislation, municipal water works, and government postal, telegraph or railroad services? Why?
  2. “National communism has been confused with the common ownership of the family; tenure in common has been confused with ownership in common; agrarian communism with village commons.” Discuss the evidence.
  3. “Just as Plato had his Republic, Campanella his City of the Sun, and Sir Thomas More his Utopia, St. Simon his Industrial System, and Fourier his ideal Phalanstery…. But the common criticism of Socialism has not yet noted the change, and continues to deal with the obsolete Utopias of the pre—evolutionary age.” What do you conceive to be the character of the change referred to? How far did earlier Utopias anticipate the ideals of the modern social democracy?
  4. What indication of Socialistic tendencies are to be found in the discipline of the Christian church? Explain the triple contract and its bearing on the doctrine of the usury.
  5. The contributions of Greek writers to the development of economic thought.
  6. To what extent are the theories of Karl Marx indebted to earlier writers in the 19th-century?
  7. How far are the economic series of (a) Lasalle, (b) Marx related to the theories of the so-called orthodox Economists? Explain critically.
  8. How far do you trace the influence of historical conditions in the social philosophies of Plato, More, Bacon, Rousseau, St. Simon, Karl Marx?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1896-97.(HUC 7000.55).

____________________

1897-98

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor E. Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—History and Literature.2 or 3 hours.

Total 12: 3 Graduates, 5 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 2 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1897-98, p. 78.

 

ECONOMICS 14
Mid-Year Examination, 1897-98

Outline briefly the characteristics of socialistic theory and practice in ancient, medieval and modern times, — devoting about an hour to each epoch, and showing—

(a) so far as possible the continuity of such speculations; the characteristic resemblances and differences;

(b) the influence of peculiar historical conditions;

(c) the corresponding changes in economic theory and practice.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1897-98.(HUC 7000.55).

 

____________________

Not offered 1898-99

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1898-99, pp. 72-73.

____________________

1899-1900

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—History and Literature.Lectures (3 hours); 6 reports or theses.

Total 22: 2 Graduates, 11 Seniors, 4 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 4 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1899-1900, p. 69.

 

ECONOMICS 14
Mid-Year Examination, 1899-1900

  1. How, according to Plato, are economic organization, and the problems of production and distribution related (a) to social development; (b) to social and political degeneration?
  2. What do you conceive to be his most permanent contribution to social philosophy? What his chief defect?
  3. How far do the teachings of the Christian church and the Canon Law throw light on the gradual development of our fundamental economic ideas in regard to wealth, capital, trade, commerce?
  4. How far is there ground for the contention that the writings of Rousseau have been the chief arsenal of social and political revolutionists?
  5. “The right to the whole produce of labor—to subsistence—to labor:”
    What, according to Menger, have been the most important contributions to the successive phases of this discussion?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1899-1900.(HUC 7000.55).

Image Source: University and their Sons. History, Influence and Characteristics of American Universities with Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Alumni and Recipients of Honorary Degrees. Editor-in-chief, General Joshua L. Chamberlain, LL.D. Vol II (1899), pp. 155-156.

 

Categories
Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard-Radcliffe. Economics Ph.D. alumna, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, 1950

 

 

According to her New York Times obituary, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain (April 24, 1918—April 1, 2013) became known as “the fairy godmother of women’s studies” during her time as program director at the Ford Foundation (1971-1981). But before beginning her highly successful career in research project sponsorship, she had taught at Connecticut College, the School of General Studies at Columbia University, and at Hunter College, having studied undergraduate and graduate economics at Radcliffe-Harvard. She was awarded in 1950 a Ph.D. for her thesis, “Investment Policy in Large Corporations”.

After listing her scholarship awards at Radcliffe along with the dates of her academic degrees, I include two items that provide the testimony of a few of those who knew her professionally and personally. We learn (among many genuinely important things) that towards the end of her long life, she was a regular reader of Paul Krugman’s New York Times columns and “for whatever reason[,] she wanted to see, meet, engage, or possibly hang out with men”. She was clearly an inspirational figure for many and that “she loved being an economist”.

________________________

From the Radcliffe College Annual Presidential Reports

Freshman Year

Marian [sic] Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of an “Emergency Award” from the Permanent Charity Scholarship Fund.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1935-36, p. 37.

 

Sophomore Year

Marion [sic] Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a Lois M. Parmenter Undergraduate Scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1936-37, p. 32.

 

Junior Year

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a partial Abby Y. Lawson Memorial undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1937-38, p. 31.

 

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a partial Permanent Charity Fund undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1937-38, p. 33.

 

Senior Year

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of an Ellen M. Barr undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1938-39, p. 30.

 

Mariam Kenosian Bachelor of Arts (June 1939) cum laude (Honors) in economics.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1938-39, p. 35.

 

Graduate School

Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, Master of Arts (March 1948).

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1947-48, p. 21.

 

Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, Ph.D.  (June 1950).

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Business Organization and Control. Dissertation, “Investment Policies of Large Corporations”.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1949-50, p. 20.

________________________

In Memoriam: Mariam K. Chamberlain, 1918–2013
Posted on April 3, 2013

Dr. Mariam K. Chamberlain, a founding member of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the founding president of the National Council for Research on Women, was the driving force behind the cultivation and sustainability of the women’s studies field of academic research. She is the namesake of IWPR’s prestigious Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship for Women in Public Policy, which trains young women for successful careers in research. Throughout her life, Dr. Chamberlain fought discrimination, established new roles for women, and championed the economic analysis of women’s issues. She passed away on April 2, 2013, at 94, just a few weeks shy of her 95th birthday, following complications from heart surgery.

A Lifetime of Lifting Up Women’s Voices in Academia and Research

The daughter of Armenian immigrants, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain was born and raised in Chelsea, Massachusetts, a working class suburb of Boston. Interest in the prevailing conditions of the depression led her to economics. She attended Radcliffe College on a scholarship and worked as a research assistant in the summers for Wassily Leontief, who later won the Nobel Prize in economics. During World War II, she worked at the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), on the staff of a “brain trust” of economists and other social scientists assembled by General William (“Wild Bill”) Donovan to aid in the war effort. As part of the research and analysis branch, she worked on estimates of enemy, military, and industrial strength.

In 1950, Mariam Chamberlain received her Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, making her one of the few women of her generation to earn a Ph.D. in the field. In 1956, Dr. Chamberlain joined the Ford Foundation, where she served as a program officer in Economic Development and Administration, and then Education and Public Policy, until 1981. While at Ford, she spearheaded the funding of the academic women’s research and women’s studies movement; she is said to have provided nearly $10 million in support of new feminist initiatives. Her projects fostered a new analysis of women’s position in society, expanded women’s choices in the university, and supported the development of equality in law. She played a major role in building the academic infrastructure necessary to better understand women’s experiences and inform improved policies for women. In short, she paved the way for organizations like IWPR to thrive, and stocked the research pipeline with skilled women and men who have made important contributions to the study of women and public policy.

Economics and the elimination of discrimination against women around the world remained the heart of her wide-ranging activities. After leaving the Ford Foundation in 1982, she headed the Task Force on Women in Higher Education at the Russell Sage Foundation. The Task Force’s work culminated in a published volume, Women in Academe: Progress and Prospects. Before leaving Ford, she had funded an initial meeting of a group of women’s research centers. That meeting established the National Council for Research on Women, which unanimously elected her its first president. She served in that role until 1989, after which she continued to go into the office every day as Founding President and Resident Scholar.

A Legacy of Training the Next Generation of Women Policy Researchers

IWPR owes much to Dr. Chamberlain. In 1987, Dr. Heidi Hartmann founded IWPR out of a need for comprehensive, women-focused, policy-oriented research. Dr. Chamberlain, who dedicated her career to lifting up women’s voices in academia, recognized the importance of a policy research institute centered on women, grounded by social science methodology, economics, and rigorous data analysis. Applying academic research to inform better policies for women was a natural extension of Dr. Chamberlain’s work, and she became a founding member of IWPR and served on its Board of Directors for nearly 20 years.

IWPR endowed the Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship in Women and Public Policy to recognize the legacy of Dr. Chamberlain’s tireless efforts to open doors for the women researchers who came after her. Nearly 20 young women have gained valuable research experience as Fellows at IWPR since the beginning of the Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship. Past Mariam K. Chamberlain scholars have gone on to hold positions at government agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Congressional Research Service, earn advanced degrees from universities such as Harvard University, Columbia University, Stanford University, The George Washington University, and Brown University. Rhiana Gunn-Wright, IWPR’s current Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellow, was just recently named a 2013 Rhodes Scholar. The fellowship has allowed IWPR to expand its research capacity, strengthen its commitment to cultivating the next generation of women researchers and leaders, and ensure that a pipeline of experienced women researchers are at the policy-making table.

The fellowship helps sustain Dr. Chamberlain’s legacy, built on the belief that relying on credible data and research, rather than anecdote and bias, leads to better policies for working women, which in turn contribute to improved long-term outcomes for their families. May she not only rest in peace, but rest assured that, because of her efforts, there are many more women able to take up the torch she leaves behind.

Source:  Institute for Women’s Policy Research.  Blog post captured by the internet archive, Wayback Machine, on May 13, 2013.

________________________

Excerpts and selections from speeches at Mariam Chamberlain’s Memorial

From Florence Howe, founder of Feminist Press, blog post (July 15, 2013).

From the Eulogy by David Kenosian (nephew)

I got my first impressions of Mariam through my father, her younger brother Harry, who told me about her life as the daughter of Armenian immigrants in Chelsea, Massachusetts, as a student at Radcliffe, and as a pioneering career woman. He admired his sister because, I think, she epitomized what he saw as key Armenian values, education and hard work. She herself affirmed those values; she insisted that her older brother Tony was the scholar in the family who set the standards of achievement. But following Tony’s example meant overcoming poverty and possibly the reservations of her parents who, like many Armenian parents back then, assumed that their daughter would marry and have a family. In continuing her education Mariam took the best of Armenian culture to break free from its constraints, and later did the same on a larger scale. At Harvard she like other women had to use a different entrance to some buildings than men. She later committed herself professionally to opening doors for women across the country in decades of tireless work.

Mariam’s talents impressed her professor, Edward Mason, who helped build an economic research branch in the OSS. Last December, Mariam told my nephew Tom and me that Edward Mason took her and other assistants to a summit meeting in Canada to support the American delegation: without eight years of entering Radcliffe, Mariam had gone to a conference where Churchill and Roosevelt met. With characteristic modesty she added that she never saw Churchill or Roosevelt. As a woman, she had a better working relationship with her British counterparts than with the men in the American delegation. You can see the hallmarks of her later career; her determination to overcome barriers, her service in the cause of justice, and the collaborative and at times international spirit of her work…

 

Professor Lois Gray, “On Mariam Chamberlain”

I first met Mariam Chamberlain in 1959—fifty-four years ago—not in New York City where we both lived but in Jamaica, West Indies, where her husband, Neil Chamberlain, and I were invited as speakers at an International Conference on Labor. Neil, a leading scholar and writer in the field of industrial relations, was my professor at Columbia University where I was studying for my Ph.D. Both of us brought out spouses to the conference. Neil bonded with my husband who was a labor leader, and Mariam and I discovered our common interest in opportunities for working women. A long lasting friendship grew out of this chance encounter in the Caribbean. [Note: Mariam and Neil were married in 1942 and divorced in 1967?/1970?]

Over the years I came to know about and admire Mariam’s path-breaking role at the Ford Foundation where she was responsible for funding women’s studies programs in universities throughout the United States and other countries. At our occasional lunches she casually referred to experiences in Nairobi, Pakistan, Europe, and South America. I also witnessed her emergence as a leader in the American Economics Association, where she was able to bring feminist issues to the fore in a profession dominated by men. In the year 2000 we were both involved in a comparative analysis of women’s progress toward leadership recognition in various professions, ranging from military to corporate. I wrote the section on Women in Labor Unions, and Mariam, on Academic, for a book published by the American Woman. We had fun comparing notes on our findings. (Women do better in achieving leadership roles in academe than in corporations or unions.) Throughout my more than fifty years of knowing Mariam Chamberlain, I never ceased to be amazed—awed—by her any accomplishments in creating lasting institutions and programs for the advancement of women. Always unassuming and laid back, Mariam was a powerhouse who changed our world. Her life of selfless dedication is a role model for us all.

 

From Dr. Debra L. Schultz, “Remarks”

…Because of Mariam, I learned that as a woman, one simply obtained a PhD. I had no role models for this and she demystified it for me. If getting a doctorate in economics at Harvard as the girl child of Armenian immigrants during World War II was no big deal, what did I have to complain about?

Mariam loved being an economist. During our last visit in March, she reminisced about her time as a Radcliffe undergraduate, when her mentor, future Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief, would read the students chapter drafts sent over by John Maynard Keynes! For a moment, I felt her transform into that excited young woman intellectual and it was thrilling.

Averse to the touchy-feeling side of feminism, she nevertheless drew circles of adoring young women around her, by keeping track of our every personal and professional move. I’m proud to have followed in her footsteps to become a feminist in philanthropy—I never knew such a thing existed before Mariam and the Ford stories—and to work with women internationally, which Mariam did decades before it was trendy.

Mariam never seemed to inhabit a particular age, and she also had a slightly naughty twinkle in her eye. Very little got past that eye, even if she pretended not to notice slights or injustices that came her way. Her satisfaction came from supporting, connecting, and catalyzing. When I had the great opportunity to help start the first international women’s program at the Soros Foundation, Mariam told me ruefully that as a program officer, “you give away your best ideas and let others implement them.” She modeled a generous way of empowering others, not aggrandizing herself…

 

Marjorie Lightman, “Remarks”

…Since girlhood Mariam had probably regarded the people and opinions voiced around her with an alienated eye. She certainly set expectations for herself in line with an internal compass. After all, at 18, while her brother chose Boston College she chose Radcliffe.

Mariam often told me that she was fortunate to have always worked in organizations that were young and making their mark on the world. Who would not thrill at Harvard classes reading John Galbraith’s newest works in manuscript; or working at the OSS in Washington during the World War II, when Gen. Wild Bill Donovan brought together “best and the brightest” to outwit the enemy?

Her commitment to elite institutions on the rise never wavered. When she lived in New Haven with her husband, Neil Chamberlain, who was an economist at Yale, she became part of the Yale Growth Center – an economic think tank founded in 1961. After her divorce, she joined the Ford Foundation, which under McGeorge Bundy had the heady atmosphere of new possibilities and the kind of intellectual energy that made risk into an adventure.

Working under Marshall Robinson she became part of Ford’s audacious $40 million investment in reconceiving business education. The plan to effect change in undergraduate business education and to institute an academically acceptable Masters in Business administration privileged large and mostly elite institutions with funding that sometimes dwarfed mere mortals. Rarely have a foundation’s plans been so successful.

By the time women’s clamor for change had reached the ears of Ford in the early 1970s, Mariam had become a skilled program officer and absorbed lessons of success from the business education program. With a pot of money that was approximately ¼ that spent on business education, she sought out nascent organizations that could become long-lasting institutions and anchor women-centered research and education into the future.

She spread her funds among research centers, academic programs, and scrappy grass-roots organization and coalitions. Not surprisingly they included Stanford, Michigan, Wellesley, and two centers at Radcliffe – Schlesinger and the Bunting. However, risk was the nexus of her intellectual landscape. She was, after all, an economist who thought in algebraic equations. The unknown “x” factor was central to her calculations. And it was in this space – between the provable, the probable and the possible – that she made her most original decisions. She believed that the Feminist Press, IWPR, and the National Council for Research on Women would be the institutions of the future.

It was also in this space that our friendship thrived. We had very different kinds of minds and education. We often disagreed. Her conviction that economics was the queen of disciplines was never shaken. She would ask why I spent my time on history, let alone ancient history. Just recite the facts, she would say. I would respond that the facts had different interpretations. She would parry: not if you presented them properly. I liked life lived on the margins. She was unwavering in her conviction that change came through institutions. She wanted data; I insight. We were intellectual sparring partners who never were bored by our exchanges and who never were threatened by our differences…

 

From “Eulogy” by Mary Rubin

…In 1982, Mariam asked me to join her at the Russell Sage Foundation on a book project to examine progress and prospects for women in higher education, a companion assessment to an earlier book by Alice Rossi. Immediately she welcomed me into Russell Sage’s heady atmosphere of notable social scientists, and often invited me to tag along at elegant meals and meetings she hosted for prominent feminists. Today, whenever I invite a guest for lunch at the Harvard Club, I relish following the tradition she established.

Becoming a Resident Scholar at Russell Sage represented a crucial transition in Mariam’s life. She could have chosen to envelope herself in nostalgia for what Ford had enabled her to achieve. But that was never Mariam’s way. Instead, she stayed vigilant for opportunities. She maintained her accessibility to a steady stream of feminist scholars and practitioners who arrived seeking her advice and contacts in the foundation world. In these meetings, I learned to pay as much attention to what she didn’t say as to what she actually said.

Not only did she help me to find my voice in discourse with thinkers who’d completed their doctorates before I was born, she introduced me to Zabar’s coffee beans, elegant Italian leather boots by Galo, and the pleasures of eating only hot fudge sundaes for dinner. I had barely started working for her when she agreed to guarantee the lease on my first-ever apartment—a railroad flat on the Upper East Side with a claw foot bathtub in the kitchen. In characteristic fashion, she shared my delight, while simultaneously withholding her opinion of its truly miniscule size.

No matter how early I arrived at work, or how late I stayed, she was always ensconced in her office; however, she never pressured me to adopt the same schedule. She set high expectations, but rarely criticized. Hers was a quiet form of guiding and shaping. She taught me to listen intently, to ask probing questions, to be steadfast in advocating my perspective. Her goal always was to win others over, never to squash them. When a discussion moved in an unproductive direction, I watched how she lightened the atmosphere by describing a favorite New Yorker cartoon—and then resumed her line of argument. I’m guessing she used this technique frequently while at Ford…

 

Dorothy O. Helly, “Remarks”

I came into Mariam’s orbit in the late 1970s through Marjorie Lightman and the Institute for Research in History. We connected in the following years over a number of shared interests, one in particular being curriculum transformation, first at Hunter College and later among the faculty throughout the City University. She often urged me to “write it up,” for to Mariam, if it was worth doing, it was worth telling others about it. We traveled in the same groups that went to Nairobi and Beijing, and through these years of international women’s studies concerns, I became a “station” on the way for women from abroad seeking information about grants, coming to me at Hunter and being sent by me to Mariam, wherever she was located, from Russell Sage to Roosevelt House to the latest offices of the National Council for Research on Women.

Mariam, Florence, and Helene became a troika in my life as well, and they always surprised me with their delightful hostess gifts at the annual New Year’s party my husband and I gave to celebrate the Millennium and the decade that followed.

Mariam and I met up over the years at the conferences of National Women’s Studies Association and the Berkshire Conference on Women’s History, often having at least one dinner together to discuss whatever was the latest news or just to schmooze. Many times these dinners included at least one other woman, and I listened to their projects being presented to her for help and approval. I remember in particular the dinner with Heidi Hartmann when her policy organization was barely more than a gleam in her eyes.

I also remember being in the same university dormitory in Nairobi and chatting in the hallway before going to bed. We were in the same Swiss-run hotel in Beijing, seeing each other at breakfast and dinner. In other words, Mariam and Women’s Studies were intertwined in my life, a person with whom one could talk about the latest issues, particularly transforming the curriculum and the problems facing the new Ph.D. programs in Women’s Studies. I know that Mariam was an important sounding board for many people. It was a way for them and her to keep up with the latest activities in the field . It also provided a way to tap her suggestions, based on her wide, wide knowledge of who was doing what and, of course, where it might be possible to get project funding.

Mariam’s generosity was open and casually extended. When she had to cancel her trip to Australia for a meeting of the International Congress on Women, she offered me her prepaid room. I accepted, and then, in the same spirit, shared it with another woman who did not have a place to stay. Mariam, of course, wanted a full report when I returned.

We sat together, often literally, on the board of the Feminist Press, and across the table at Parnell’s with people like Marjorie and Blanche Cook. On the trip from Beijing, via Helsinki, we both accepted a $200 bribe from the airline to bump us off our flight to take another one three-hours later. That allowed us time to wander the Helsinki airport, window shopping, and my personal coup was to convince Mariam, who never seemed to buy herself any personal luxury, to purchase a large amber and silver ring. She wore that ring on occasions like Feminist Press and NCRW galas, and she was wearing it the last time I saw her this year. Like so many others, my life was touched by hers, and I have many happy memories by which to remember her.

 

From Lybra Clemons “Eulogy for Mariam”

…After graduate school and years of working at nonprofits, I began working at the National Council for Research on Women (the Council) in 2003. My office was next door to Mariam’s….

Towards the end, it was quite interesting to see Mariam. She had good days and not so great days. I have to say that her unpredictability was somewhat entertaining. I wonder if she was doing this for us….just to keep us on our toes and to get a giggle every now and then.

Honestly – I would walk in the door of Parnells (her favorite restaurant), and wonder what decade Mariam thought she was in today. Sometimes it was 1972….. and all of her stories would center around that decade. Then it was 1935…… But – we indulged her.

Again –there were days when Mariam was so sharp, that I felt downright stupid and couldn’t keep up. If you had not read and/or analyzed Paul Krugman, she was not amused.

One of our last outings together at Parnells was particularly interesting. Mariam, Gwen, Joan and I dined with Mariam and observed her becoming more concerned with the “lack of men”. She kept saying “where are the men?”… and pointing to people at Parnell’s. She would see a man and say “there’s a man”. Clearly she wanted to make sure we included men…. Well, I think that was the point. I love Mariam dearly, but for whatever reason she wanted to see, meet, engage, or possibly hang out with men – I knew that Parnell’s was likely the last place that we should look for sourcing these types of men. But – the point was well taken….

 

From “Remarks” by Helene Goldfarb

Good evening. My name is Helene Goldfarb and I am the President of the Feminist Press at CUNY. I am here to speak of Mariam as a friend for many years but also as a very important part of who the Feminist Press was and what it has become over the years because of her nurturing and caring. Mariam, who was a Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, was one of the first to make a grant to the Feminist Press. It was for $12,000 for Who’s Who and Where in Women Studies. Interestingly, she wouldn’t let us use computers because she “didn’t want to become involved with us” but she changed her mind and introduced us to Terry Saario also at Ford who gave us our first large grant for the “Women and Work” high school series. Mariam continued her interest in the Press and gave us a small grant to bring five women to Copenhagen in 1980 and to organize two weeks of workshops and panels on women’s studies.

Even after she left Ford in 1982, Mariam’s interest in the Press never flagged. She became a very active member of the Board of Directors of the Press and remained on our board until she passed away last month. While she was not as active as she would have liked to be this past year or so, whenever Florence and I met her for dinner at Parnell’s, the Press was always on her mind. I miss those dinners at Parnell’s and Sunday is a little lonelier for the lack of them.

It is always a little difficult to express thanks publically for the many years she contributed not only expertise to the Press but also donations. Without her support, our Galas would not have been as successful and we certainly would not have been able to print many of the books that are found in bookstores today…

 

Heidi Hartmann

Mariam Chamberlain was a cherished adviser to myself and to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. She was a founding member and a generous supporter from its inception in 1987. She served 18 years on our Board of Directors. She was knowledgeable and wise about the ways of foundations, and while she was unfailingly encouraging and supportive, I learned to pay attention to the rare instances in which she expressed skepticism about the likelihood of getting funding for some particular project or other. More often her suggestions of where to go and whom to meet with led to productive relationships for IWPR. She understood that nonprofits would actually sometimes have negative profits, and I recall one instance when several of IWPR’s board members were a bit agitated about a couple of years in the red in a row, when she said something like, “aren’t deficits normal for nonprofits?” and then she lent us funds so we could pay our bills until some expected grants arrived. Her general view seemed to be that if an endeavor was worthwhile it might go through some ups and downs but it would prove its worth in the long run. And she was in it for the long run.

Mariam and I both studied economics at similar institutions and knew many of the same people and, despite the difference of a generation, had had some of the same experiences in being a small minority in a male-dominated field. I believe I first met Mariam at a business meeting of the American Economics Association, probably in the early 1980s when a group of progressive members was trying to pass a set of resolutions. My cohort was sitting together, and when our resolutions would come up we would all raise our hands while the rest of the hands remained down, except for one, a small, older, very professional-looking woman. The content and the outcome of the motions are long forgotten, but I recall Mariam like it was yesterday. That event provided a hint of the deep and abiding radicalism that was Mariam.

I got to know Mariam better at the 1987 NWSA meetings held at Spellman College when we, both being frugal, stayed in the dorms and asked them to assign us a roommate and we got each other. Just then in the process of forming IWPR, I shared my dreams for IWPR and we shared some personal stories in late night discussions. My mother is virtually the same age as Mariam and came to America on her own in 1938, and so I like Mariam was an immigrant daughter. And like her I rose up from poverty through getting good grades and earning a scholarship to a top school. Perhaps because Mariam was so much like my mother (both very smart, courageous, kind, and persistent), I thought of Mariam as my intellectual mother, an intellectual version of my own working-class mother.

Mariam loved IWPR because we use economics to advance women and she knew how much difference having numbers makes in the policy world. She loved being part of that world through IWPR. She valued the fellowship we named after her in 2001. IWPR typically funds a young woman en route to graduate school to work at IWPR for an academic year to learn practical research skills in a policy setting. More than 100 young people apply every year, and thousands of graduating students learn about Mariam and the opportunity to use social science to help achieve social justice. I am very pleased to let you know that Mary Rubin and the Borrego Foundation have generously provided IWPR with a challenge grant of $95,000 to honor Mariam’s 95 years by expanding our Mariam K. Chamberlain fellowship to give an opportunity to a second fellow each year.

Mariam’s choice to recognize the Feminist Press, the National Council for Research on Women, and IWPR in her will reflects her lifelong commitment to the radical idea of considering women fully human. Many of us here share that commitment and share our love of Mariam….

 

Image Sources:  Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain from Radcliffe Yearbook, 1939 and New York Times obituary (April 7, 2013).

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Leontief Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate mathematical economics. Schumpeter, Leontief, Goodwin. 1933-1950

 

 

Joseph Schumpeter introduced a one semester undergraduate course “Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory” in the first semester of the 1933-34 academic year at Harvard. Schumpeter taught the course three times and it was taught from 1935-36 through 1947-48 by Wassily Leontief. The course was then continued by Richard Goodwin in 1949-50. This post presents a grab-bag of information that includes early and a late course description, annual enrollment data, a course outline from 1945-46 and five exams. Links to all earlier posts for the course available at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror have been included as well.

Some of the backstory to this course is included in this earlier post (memo by Crum of 4 April 1933 and a list of topics to be covered).

_______________

Course Announcement, 1933-34

Economics 8a 1hfIntroduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., 4 to 6, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor. Professor Schumpeter, and other members of the Department.

Economics 8a is open to those who have passed Economics A, and Mathematics A, or its equivalent. The aim of this course is to acquaint such students as may wish it with the elements of the mathematical technique necessary to understand the simpler contributions to the mathematical theory of economics.

Source:  Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1933-34 (Second edition) in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXX, No. 39 (September 20, 1933), p. 126.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Course Enrollment, 1933-34

[Economics] 8a 1hf. Professor Schumpeter. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

15 Graduates, 3 Seniors, 5 Others. Total 23.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1933-1934, p. 85.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Exam not found for Economics 8a, 1933-34

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1934-35

[Economics] 8a 1hf. Professor Schumpeter. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 1 Sophomore. Total 4.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1934-1935, p. 81.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

 1935 final exam questions.

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1935-36

[Economics] 8a 2hf. Asst. Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

4 Juniors, 2 Sophomores. Total 6.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1935-1936, p. 82.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Implicit course outline and course readings with the 1936 exam questions.

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1936-37

[Economics] 4a 2hf. Asst. Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

1 Graduate, 2 Seniors, 3 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 1 Other. Total 9.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1936-1937, p. 92.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Final Examination, 1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 4a

Answer at least THREE questions: one in each group

Group I

  1. Discuss the relation between the production function of an enterprise and its cost curve.

 

Group II

  1. Given a cost of a single plant:
    C=\frac{1}{A+X}+BX
    where indicates the total cost, the total output, and the magnitudes of the two constants are such
    that A< 0 and B> 1/A.
    Derive the total cost curve of an enterprise which consists of two identical plants of this kind.
  2. A monopolist sells in two markets a commodity produced without costs. The total revenue, R1, obtained from the sale of qunits of this commodity in the first market is given by:
    {{R}_{1}}=A{{q}_{1}}+Bq_{1}^{2}\text{ }\left( A>0,\text{ }B<\text{ }0 \right)
    The sale of qunits in the second market nets:
    {{R}_{2}}=K{{q}_{2}}+Lq_{2}^{2}\text{ }\left( K>0,\text{ }L<\text{ }0 \right)
    Compute the prices which this monopolist would charge (a) with discrimination between the two markets; (b) without discrimination.

 

Group III

  1. Prove that marginal costs are increasing in the point of minimum average costs.
  2. Prove that a tax on profits cannot affect the output of an enterprise unless it induces it to suspend its operations.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Finals 1937. (HUC 7000.28) Vol. 79. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science. January-June, 1937.

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1937-38

[Economics] 4a 2hf. Asst. Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

2 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 6 Juniors, 1 Sophomore. Total 11.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1937-1938, p. 85.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Final Examination, 1937-38
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 4a2

Answer THREE questions including question 1. Devote to discussion of question 1 about one hour and a half.

  1. Discuss fully the relation between the production function and the cost curve of an enterprise.
  2. Given:
    1. The cost curve of a monopolist:
      C= A+ BQ+ CQ2
      C indicates the total cost, the total output, A, B, C,are given constants.
    2. The demand function for his product in Market I.
      q1= a1b1p1
      qis the quantity consumed for his product in Market I at the price p1.
      a1and bare given constants
    3. The demand function for his product in Market II.
      q2= a2b2p2
      q2is the quantity taken in at the price p2;
      aand bare given constants.
      The monopolist is able to discriminate between the two markets provided the difference between the two prices is not larger than K
      Find (and express in terms of the given constants) that the value of Kwhich would maximize the sales qin the first market.
  3. Given:
    1. A, monopolist’s cost curve:
      C = A+ BQ+ CQ
    2. The demand curve for his product:
      p= a bQ
      stands for total costs, Q for total output, for the market price, A, B, C, d, and are constants.
      A subsidy at dollars is paid to the monopolist per unit of output.
      Find how large the subsidy must be in order to induce him to produce and sell twice as much as he would without the subsidy.
  4. Is it possible that the average costs of an enterprise are increasing with the output while the marginal costs are decreasing at the same time?
    Give and answer and demonstrate that it is correct.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. (HUC 7000.28) Box 4. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science. January-June, 1938.

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1938-39

[Economics] 4a 2hf. Asst. Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

2 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 1 Sophomore. Total 7.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1938-1939, pp. 97-98.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Exam not found for Economics 4a, 1938-39

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1939-40

[Economics] 4a 2hf. Associate Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

1 Graduate, 1 Sophomore. Total 5.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1939-1940, p. 98.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Final Examination, 1939-40
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 4a2

Answer four questions including question 1.

  1. Discuss the relation between the marginal costs of an enterprise and the marginal productivities of the factors used in production.
  2. An enterprise manufactures two commodities X and Y, using two factors of production, V and W. The production function is x(yb– 1) = vnwm.
    Given the prices px, py, pvand pwwrite down the equations which determine the most profitable outputs of X and Y and the corresponding inputs of V and W.
  3. Given:
    1. The total cost curve of a monopolist
      C = A + Kxand
    2. the market demand curve for his product
      p = B – Lx,
      p is the price and x the quantity of the commodity produced and sold. A, K, B and L are positive constants.
      An excise tax of z dollars per unit of output is being levied.
      What magnitude of z (expressed in terms of the given constants) would maximize the total tax receipts?
  4. Prove that the price of labor will exceed its marginal value productivity if
    1. labor is the only factor of production used in manufacture of a given commodity,
    2. the producer of this commodity sells his output on a purely competitive market, but is the only (“monopsonistic”) buyer of the particular kind of labor used in his plant,
    3. The supply curve of labor is negatively inclined.
  5. Discuss the problem of price discrimination by a monopolist.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. (HUC 7000.28) Box 5. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science. June, 1940.

_______________

Economics 4a not offered in 1940-41

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1941-42

[Economics] 4a 2hf. Associate Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

1 Graduate, 5 Seniors, 8 Juniors, 3 Sophomores, 1 Freshman. Total 18.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1941-1942, p. 62.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Course Outline Economics 4a 1941-42 (and 1942-43)

https://www.irwincollier.com/harvard-intro-to-mathematical-economics-schumpeter-leontief-1935-42/

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Final Examination, 1941-42
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 4a

Answer one question in each of the following three groups:

(a) 1 or 2
(b) 3 or 4
(c) 5 or 6

  1. Describe in detail the relation between a production function and the corresponding cost function.
  2. Show that the slope of a supply curve of a single enterprise is positive.
  3. Show that a total cost curve can be of such a shape that the marginal costs are increasing but the average costs decreasing throughout its whole length. Give example.
  4. The cost curve of an enterprise is
    C = A + x + Bx2+ Kx3
    (C are the total costs, x – the output, A, B, and K – constants).
    What is the lowest competitive price at which the owner will find it profitable to operate the plant rather than to cease production entirely?
  5. An enterprise consists of two identical plants. Each has a following cost curve:
    C = A + Bx2+ x3
    (C are the total costs, x – the output, A and B are constants).
    Compute the combined cost curve of the whole enterprise.
  6. Given a production function y = f(x,z)
    (y is the amount of product, p– its price, x and z inputs of two factors, pand p– their respective prices.)
    The producer maximizes his profits under conditions of pure competition. Show that an increase of the price pof factor x will reduce the amount (x) of this factor used in the process of production.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. (HUC 7000.28) Box 6. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science. June, 1942.

_______________

Course Description, 1942-43

Economics 4a 1hfIntroduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory. Half-course (first half-year). Mon.4 to 6. Associate Professor Leontief.

Economics A and Mathematics A, or their equivalents, are prerequisites for this course.
The course is intended to instruct beginners in economic theory (having had elementary mathematical training) in the application of elementary mathematical methods in economics and at the same time to enable them to understand some of the major contributions to economic theory made by such writers as Marshall, Cournot, Walras, and Edgeworth.

Source:  Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX, No. 45 (June 30, 1942). Division of History, Government, and Economics Containing an Announcement for 1942-43. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Course Enrollment, 1942-43

[Economics] 4a 1hf. Associate Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

1 Graduate, 2 Seniors, 4 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 1 Public Administration. Total 10.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1942-1943, p. 46.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Exam not found for Economics 4a, 1942-43

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1943-44

[Economics] 4a. (winter term) Associate Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

2 Juniors in ROTC, 1 Radcliffe, 3 Seniors, 4 Navy (V-12). Total 10.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1943-1944, p. 56.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Exam not found for Economics 4a, 1943-44

_______________

Economics 4a not offered in 1944-45

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1945-46

[Economics] 4a. (fall term) Associate Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory.

1 Senior, 2 Juniors, 3 Sophomores, 2 Radcliffe. Total 8.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1945-1946, p. 58.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Course Outline, 1945-46

INTRODUCTION TO THE MATHEMATICAL TREATMENT OF ECONOMIC THEORY
Economics 4a
1945-46, Fall Term

  1. Introductory remarks.
    Profit function.
    Maximizing profits.
  2. Cost functions: Total costs, fixed costs, variable costs, average costs, marginal costs, increasing and decreasing marginal costs.
    Minimizing average total and average variable costs.
  3. Revenue function.
    Price and marginal revenue.
    Demand function
    Elasticity and flexibility.
  4. Maximizing the net revenue (profits).
    Monopolistic maximum.
    Competitive maximum.
    Supply function.
  5. Joint costs and accounting methods of cost imputation.
    Multiple plants.
    Price discrimination.
  6. Production function.
    Marginal productivity.
    Increasing and decreasing productivity.
    Homogeneous and non-homogeneous production functions.
  7. Maximizing net revenue, second method.
    Minimizing costs for a fixed output.
    Marginal costs and marginal productivity.
  8. Introduction into the theory of consumers’ behavior.
    Indifference curves and the utility function.
  9. Introduction to the theory of the market.
    Concept of market equilibrium.
    Duopoly, bilateral monopoly.
    Pure competition.
    Monopoly.
  10. Time lag and time sequences.
  11. Introduction into the theory of general equilibrium.

 

Reading: R. G. D. Allen, Mathematical Analysis for Economists.

Evans, Introduction into Mathematical Economics.

Antoine Cournot, Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth.

Jacob L. Mosak, General Equilibrium Theory in International Trade.

Weekly problems.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. HUC 8522.2.1, Box 3, Folders “1945-1946 (1 of 2)”.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Final Examination, 1945-46
1945-46
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 4a
Introduction to Mathematical Economics

Answer any three questions.

  1. Show the relationship between the total cost curve and the supply curve of an enterprise.
  2. Show that, at the point of optimum output, the marginal costs of an enterprise are equal to the price of any cost factor divided by its marginal productivity.
  3. A consumer has an income of qdollars in the first and of ydollars in the second year. Although the combined expenditures in the two years equal y1+ y2he can spend more than yin the first year, and correspondingly less in the second year or vice versa. In both years, he purchases one kind of consumers’ goods, its price being pdollars in the first and pdollars per unit in the second year. The utility function which the consumer maximizes is u= f(x1, x2) where is the utility level, xand xthe quantities consumed in the first and second year respectively.
    1. Derive the equations which determine the optimum magnitudes of xand x2.
    2. Show that an increase of the price p1, with p2, y1,yremaining constant, might increase x1.
  4. The demand, q, for the product of a monopolist depends upon the price, p, of his produce and the amount of money, y, which he spends on advertising. The total production cost, c, depends upon the quantity of output, q. Given the demand function: q=\frac{A}{p}+{{y}^{{1}/{4}\;}}-p
    and the total (production) cost function = q
    where is a positive constant;
    Determine the output, the price, and the advertising outlay which would maximize the profits (total revenue minus total outlay) of this enterprise.
  5. The well-being, u, of a worker depends upon the amount, x, of consumers’ goods which he can buy with his daily wage, and the number of hours of leisure, y, which remain to him after he finishes his daily work:
    u= f(x, y)

    1. Derive the equations determining the number of hours (call it l) of daily work which he will be willing to do at the wage of dollars per hour, if the price of the consumers’ good is dollars per unit.
    2. Show that an increase of the hourly wage rate might reduce the number of hours which the worker will choose to work.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. (HUC 7000.28) Box 11. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science. January, 1946.

_______________

Economics 4a not offered in 1946-47

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1947-48

[Economics] 4a. Professor Leontief. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory (Sp).

2 Graduates, 6 Seniors, 8 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 2 Public Administration, 1 Radcliffe. Total 20.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1947-1948, p. 89.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Reading list and midterm and final examination question, 1947-48

_______________

Economics 4a not offered in 1948-49

_______________

Course Enrollment, 1949-50

[Economics] 104 (formerly Economics 4a). Assistant Professor Goodwin. — Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory (Sp).

3 Graduates, 6 Seniors, 1 Junior, 2 Sophomores, 1 Public Administration, 1 Radcliffe. Total 14.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1949-1950, p.72.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Course Texts on Library Reserve, 1945-46

R.G.D. Allen. Mathematical analysis for economists

W.L. Crum. Rudimentary mathematics for economists and statisticians

P.A. Samuelson. Foundations of economic analysis.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. HUC 8522.2.1, Box 4, Folders “1949-1950 (1 of 3)”.

_______________

Image Sources: Schumpeter and Leontief from Harvard Class Album 1950, Goodwin from Harvard Class Album 1951.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Economy of the U.S. Course outline, readings, exam. Leontief, 1945-46

 

 

Not much to say here about the material I have found for the first iteration of Wassily Leontief’s course on the economy of the United States other than I was surprised that his own book, Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1929, was not mentioned among the readings.

_______________

Course Announcement

Economics 12a. The Economy of the United States.

Half-course (fall term). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 3.  Associate Professor Leontief.

Source: Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1945-46. Published in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. 42, No. 8 (March 31, 1945), p. 36.

_______________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 12a (fall term) Associate Professor Leontief.—The Economy of the United States.

Total 30: 2 Graduates, 8 Seniors, 5 Juniors 5 Sophomores, 10 Radcliffe.

Source:Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1945-46, in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. 45, No. 12 (May 20, 1948), p. 58.

_______________

ECONOMICS 12a
The Economy of the United States
Winter Semester, 1945-46

  1. General Interrelation of Industries and Households:
    1. Commodity flow and allocations of commodities and services.
    2. Cost structure of industries and Direct and Indirect demand.
    3. Capital stock and the Balance of Saving and Investment.
    4. Basic determinants of the Economic Structure of the United States: National Resources and Population, State of technical arts, consumers’ behavior, Public Policies
  2. Structural Characteristics of Selected Branches of the National Economy:
    1. Manufacturing
    2. Mining
    3. Agriculture
    4. Transportation
    5. Foreign Trade
    6. Domestic Trade
    7. Service Industries
  3. Structure of Consumers’ Demand:
    1. Sources of income
    2. Income distribution
    3. Spending and Saving pattern
  4. Price Structure:
    1. Price structure and the industrial structure
    2. Prices and incomes
  5. Economic Structure and Economic Policies

In this course, lectures are supplemented by simple research problems assigned as home work.

Readings:

J. R. Hicks and A. G. Hart, The Social Framework of the American Economy

and selected readings from publications of

National Resources Planning Board
National Bureau of Economic Research
Brookings Institution

[Handwritten additions:
Williamson, Growth of American Economy
Kuznets, Secular Movements of Production]

            Since Economics 12a is being given for the first time, the above outline probably will be modified in the course of instruction.

*  * *  *  *  *

Handwritten list following course outline

Econ 12A

Desk. Hicks JR & Hart—Social Framework

Desk. Leontief W—Economic statistics & postwar policies.
Reprint Harris Post-war Economic Problems.

Desk. National Resources Committee—Structure of the American Economy

Desk. National Resources Planning Board. Industrial Location & Nat. Resources

Desk. Kuznets, S.S.—Secular Movements in Production & Prices

Desk. Bell, S.—Productivity, wages and national income. Chs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9. Appendix A: II & III

Desk. Glover, J.G.—Development of American Industries. Chs. 17, 31

Desk. Williamson, Growth of the American Economy. Chs 20, 21, 22.

Desk. U.S. Nat. Resources Comm., Consumer Spends his Income

Desk. Bd. Governors Federal Res. System [Postwar Economic Studies No. 1]. Jobs, production & living standards, 1945.
Goldenweiser)

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1), Box 4, Folder “Economics, 1945-1946 (1 of 2)”.

_______________

1945-46
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 12a

The Economy of the United States
Final. January. 1946.

Answer FOUR questions including question six. If you choose to answer question one, spend approximately one hour on it; in the final score it will be given double weight.

  1. Present a short discussion of your special research topic.
  2. How would you go about estimating the probable effect of a changed distribution of national income on the output and employment in the metal fabricating industry?
  3. Discuss the principal factors which have determined the changes in agricultural employment from the end of the last century up to the beginning of the second World War.
  4. Analyze the position of foreign trade in the structure of American economy.
  5. Describe the mutual dependence of wages, profits, and prices from the point of view of interindustrial relationships.
  6. Review critically of the papers included in the Postwar Economic Studies assigned for the Reading Period.

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations, 1853-2001. Box 11, “Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. January, 1946”.

Image Source:  Wassily Leontief in Harvard Class Album 1947.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final exam for international trade and finance. Leontief, 1934

 

International Trade and Finance was a course taught by Wassily Leontief during the second semester of his second year on the Harvard economics faculty (1933-34).    

Course description, final exam, and enrollment for Economics 39,  International Trade and Finance, taught by Leontief in 1932-33 have been posted earlier.

The exam questions from both years provide some light on the actual course content.

___________________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 55 2hf. (formerly Economics 39). Asst. Professor Leontief.—International Trade and Finance.

Total: 6 of which 5 Graduates, 1 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1933-34, p. 86.

___________________________

1933-34
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 552

Answer three out of the four questions

  1. What are the terms of trade? Indicate the factors which effect their change; describe the methods of their statistical measurement.
  2. Give a critical discussion of the purchasing power parity theory.
  3. Under which conditions can an import duty be beneficial?
  4. Discuss what is in your opinion the fundamental difference between Taussig’s and Ohlin’s approach to the problems of international trade.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Finals 1934 (HUC 7000.38, vol. 76).

Image Source: Wassily Leontief in Harvard Class Album, 1934.

Categories
Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Second year graduate economic theory. Leontief, 1956-57

 

 

In an earlier post I provided the outline, reading lists and exam questions (only for Economics 202a) for the second year graduate course, “Economic Theory II”, Economics 202a and 202b, taught by Wassily Leontief in 1948-49. The following course outline with reading assignments is for the year 1956-57.  The course in both years has essentially the same readings for the first semester. The second semester of 1956-57 does add an entirely new section “Principles of Dynamics”. I have highlighted in blue boldface additions to the reading assignments in the 1956-57 course compared to the 1948-49 version.

 

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror thanks Juan C. A. Acosta who found these Leontief reading lists in the Franco Modigliani Papers (Box T6) at the Duke University Economists’ Papers Project and has graciously shared them for transcription here. 

__________________________

Wassily Leontief

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Ec. 202a
ECONOMIC THEORY
Fall Term 1956-57

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.
  3. Production over time.

Reading assignments:

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

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

E. H. MacNiece, Production, Forecasting, Planning and Control, 292 pp. This book presents a concise description of the actual operation of a manufacturing enterprise and thus supplies the factual background for the theory of the firm.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

 

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 (3rded., 1955), Chapter 36 and 37.

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

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

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

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

 

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.

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

 

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.

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.

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.

___________________________

ECONOMICS 202b
ECONOMIC THEORY
Spring Term, 1956-57

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.

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.

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

 

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:

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.

Robert Eisner, “Interview and Other Survey Techniques and the study of Investment,” in Problems of Capital Formation (same as above)

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

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.

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.

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

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

 

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

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

 

VIII: Economic Development and Accumulation of Capital

  1. Dynamic interrelation of income, investment and the rate of interest.
  2. Linear interrelation of income, investment and the rate of interest.
    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.

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

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

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.

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.

__________, “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 &18.

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

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Franco Modigliani. Box T7.

___________________________

Reading assignments in the 1948-49 reading list that were not included in the 1956-57 reading list:

 

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

I. Fisher, “A Three-Dimensional Representation of the Factors of Production and Their Remuneration Marginally and Residually,”Econometrica, October, 1939.

George Stigler, “Production and Distribution in the Short Run,” Journal of Political Economy, 1939, pp. 305-327. Reprinted in Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, pp. 119-142.

Joe S. Bain, The Economics of the Pacific Coast Petroleum Industry, Part I, Ch. V, pp. 84-114.

III. Theory of Market Relationships:

Carl Kaysen, “A Revolution in Economic Theory?” The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. XIV (I), 1946-47, p. 1-15.

Jakob Marschak, “Theory of Games,” Journal of Political Economy, April, 1946, pp. 97-115.

V.  Economics of Welfare

Meade, J. E., and Fleming, J. M.: Price and Output Policy of State Enterprise,” Economic Journal, Vol. LIV, December 1944, pp. 321-339.

VI. Capital and Interest

Kuznets: “On Measurement of National Wealth,” Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 2, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1936, pp. 3-61.

Kaldor: “Annual Survey of Economic Theory: The Recent Controversy on The Theory of Capital,” Econometrica, July 1937, pp. 201-233.

IX: Keynesian Theory and Problems

Domar: Expansion and Employment,” American Economic Review, March 1947, pp. 34-55.

___________________________

Image Source:  Wassily Leontief in Harvard Class Album 1964.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. International Trade and Finance. Final Exam. Leontief, 1933

 

 

Wassily Leontief’s first appointment at Harvard was at the rank of instructor for the academic year 1932-33The first course he taught was Economics 18 (Price Analysis) that was taken by two graduate students for credit during the fall semester. Leontief then taught Economics 39 (International Trade and Finance) in the second semester. I have yet to locate a syllabus or reading list for that course, but at least Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is able to provide visitors with the transcript below of what would appear to be Leontief’s earliest recorded examination at Harvard.

_________________

Course Description

[Economics] 39 2hf. International Trade and Finance

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri. at 3. Dr. Leontief.

Starting with the classical theory of foreign trade, this course will lead to an analysis of modern problems in international economic relations. The movement of capital and labor across national boundaries will be discussed and the general trend in international economic relations and policies will be analyzed in connection with the changing structure of world economies.

Source:  Division of History, Government and Economics, 1932-33. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. 29, No. 32 (June 27, 1932), pp. 81-82.

_________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics 39 2hf. Dr. Leontief.—International Trade and Finance.

Total 11: 9 Graduates, 2 Radcliffe.

Source:  Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College for 1932-1933, p. 66.

_________________

Final Examination

1932-33
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 392

(Three hours)

  1. Analyze the theory of costs in its application to the theory of international trade.
  2. “England was losing after the war its exports to other countries because its costs of production were too high.” Is this statement compatible with the theory of comparative costs? Analyze the case.
  3. Can a tariff protect the wage-level of a country?
  4. Under what conditions can a country gain from a protective tariff?
  5. What is dumping? Under what conditions is it most likely to occur?
  6. Analyze the principal items of a typical balance of payments.

Final. 1933.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers. Finals. (HUC 7000.28 vol. 75). Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions,…, Economics,…, Military Science, Naval Science January-June, 1933.

Image Source: Wassily Leontief in Harvard Class Album, 1934.

 

 

Categories
Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. International Economic Relations Seminar. Haberler and Harris, 1940-45

 

The most famous economics seminar at Harvard University in the history of economics is undoubtedly the fiscal policy seminar run by John Williams and Alvin Hansen. A list of that seminar’s speakers and their topics was included in an earlier post. Below I provide the reported speaker’s and topics for the “younger” international economic relations seminar jointly organized by Gottfried Haberler and Seymour Harris during the War years.

___________________________________

EXPANSION OF THE SEMINAR PROGRAM

Several additions have been made in the seminar program of the School [of Public Administration] for the year 1940-1941. Professors Haberler and Harris are presenting a seminar on international economic relations. We planned our seminar program in 1937 on the assumption that it was wise to begin with domestic problems despite the fact that a number of the Faculty had special interests in the international field. In view of the events of the last few years, it seems highly important to develop these interests. The seminar given by Professors Haberler and Harris deals with the application of the principles of international trade to current problems…

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1939-40, p. 306.

___________________________________

1940-41
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
[partial list]

[Seven of the meetings of the Fiscal Policy Seminar were held jointly with other seminars – four with the International Economic Relations Seminar and three with the Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Policy Seminar.]

 

October 11. SVEND LAURSEN, Student, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University.

Subject: International Trade and the Multiplier. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

February 21. HARRY D. WHITE, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United States Treasury Department.

Subject: Blocked Balances. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

March 21. RICHARD V. GILBERT, National Defense Advisory Commission.

Subject: The American Defense Program. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

May 2. GUSTAV STOLPER, Financial Adviser.

Subject: Financing the American Defense Program. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1940-41, p. 323 ff.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR:
1941-1942. Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Harris

In 1941-42 the seminar devoted its attention to war and post-war problems in the field of International Economic Relations. A few meetings were spent on the discussion of fundamental theoretical problems. During the first semester all meetings were taken up by papers of outside consultants and their discussion. In the second semester student reports were presented and discussed, and a few extra meetings were arranged for outside speakers. The consultants and their topics were as follows:

 

October 1. EUGENE STALEY, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Economic Warfare.

October 8.[**] CHARLES P. KINDLEBERGER, Federal Reserve Board. Canadian-American Economic Relations in the War and Post-War Period.

October 15.[**] A. F. W. PLUMPTRE, University of Toronto. International Economic Position of Canada in the Present Emergency.

October 22. HEINRICH HEUSER, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Exchange Control.

October 29. FRITZ MACHLUP, University of Buffalo. The Foreign Trade Multiplier.

November 5. HENRY CHALMERS, United States Department of Commerce. Trade Restrictions in Wartime.

November 12. ARTHUR R. UPGREN, United States Department of Commerce. International Economic Interest of the United States and the Post-War Situation.

November 19. OSKAR MORGENSTERN, Princeton University. International Aspects of the Business Cycle.

November 28.[*] NOEL F. HALL, British Embassy. Economic Warfare.

December 5.[*] ROBERT BRYCE, Department of Finance, Canada. International Economic Relations with Special Reference to the Post-War Situation.

January 26.[*] PER JACOBSSEN, Bank for International Settlements. The Problem of Post-War Reconstruction.

February 13.[*] JACOB VINER, University of Chicago. Monopolistic Trading and International Relations.

February 18. H. D. FONG, Director, Nankai Institute of Economics, Chungking, China. Industrialization of China.

February 25. MICHAEL HEILPERIN, Hamilton College. International Aspects of the Present and Future Economic Situation.

March 11. JACOB MARSCHAK, New School for Social Research. The Theory of International Disequilibria.

March 14.[*] RICHARD M. BISSELL, JR., Yale University and the United States Department of Commerce. Post-War Domestic and International Investment.

March 18. ANTONIN BASCH, Brown University. International Economic Problems of Central and Southeastern Europe.

March 20.[*] ALBERT G. HART, University of Iowa. The Present Fiscal Situation.

April 10. ABBA P. LERNER, University of Kansas City. Post-War Problems.

May 8. HORST MENDERSHAUSEN, Bennington College. International Trade and Trade Policy in the Post-War Period.

 

Six of these were joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy Seminar [*] and two were joint meetings with the Government Control of Industry Seminar[**].

Student reports were presented on the following subjects:

Argentine International Trade.
Exchange Control in Argentina.
Some Aspects of Sino-Japanese Trade.
International Effects of Price Ceilings.
Location Theory and the Reconstruction of World Trade.
Some Post-War Politico-Economic Problems of the Western Hemisphere.
Economic Problems and Possibilities of a Pan Europe, Pan America and Similar Schemes.
The Balance of Payments of China.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1941-42, pp. 344-346.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
1942-43. Professor Haberler

A larger portion of the time of the seminar than usual was devoted to the discussion of fundamental principles of international trade and finance. This was due to the fact that the graduate course on international trade (Economics 143) was not offered, and the seminar had to take over to some extent the functions of the graduate course.

There were eleven meetings with outside consultants, of which eight were joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy seminar. The smaller number of students made it advisable to combine the two seminars more frequently than usual. The consultants and the topics discussed with them were as follows:

 

November 13. Professor FRITZ MACHLUP, University of Buffalo. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: National Income, Employment and International Relations; the Foreign Multiplier.

November 18. Dr. THEODORE KREPS, Economic Adviser, Board of Economic Warfare, Office of Imports.

Subject: Some Problems of Economic Warfare.

November 27. Hon. GRAHAM F. TOWERS, Governor, Bank of Canada. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Canadian War Economic Measures.

December 4. LYNN R. EDMINSTER, Vice-Chairman, U. S. Tariff Commission. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Post-War Reconstruction of International Trade.

December 11. Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, Director, Office of Export-Import Price Control, Office of Price Administration. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Trade Policy in Wartimes.

February 12. THOMAS MCKITTRICK, President, Bank for International Settlements. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: The Bank for International Settlements.

February 24. Dr. LEO PASVOLSKY, State Department. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Post-War Problems in International Trade.

March 3. P. T. ELLSWORTH, War Trade Staff, Board of Economic Warfare.

Subject: The Administration of Export Control.

April 12. EMILE DESPRES, Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D. C. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: The Transfer Problem and the Over-Saving Problem in the Pre-War and Post-War Worlds.

April 16. Dr. ALBERT HAHN. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Planned or Adjusted Post-War Economy.

April 20. Dr. ALEXANDER LOVEDAY, League of Nations.

Subject: European Post-War Reconstruction.

 

Student reports were presented on the following subjects among others: practice and theory of an international bank; post-war industrialization of China; coordination of fiscal policy in different countries; international position of the Brazilian economy; international commodity agreements; international implications for fiscal policy; British exchange equalization account; and Argentine exchange control.

Twelve students were enrolled in the seminar of which four were Littauer fellows, seven graduate students from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and one from the College.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1942-43, pp. 246-247.

 

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
1943-44. Associate Professor Harris

A new approach was tried in the International Economic Relations Seminar this year. We paid particular attention to the international economic problems of Latin America and especially to the problems raised by the great demand for Latin American products for war, the expansion of exports and of money, and the resulting inflation. Attention was also given to the transitional problems in the postwar period, particularly to the adjustments that will be required in exports, imports, capital movements, exchange rates, and the allocation of economic factors. In the course of the year leading government authorities on Latin American economic problems were invited to address meetings of the seminar, which were frequently joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy Seminar or the students of the graduate course in international organization.

The schedule of meetings for 1943-44 was as follows:

 

November 12. Professor HARRIS.

Subject: Inflation in Latin America.

December 9. Dr. CORWIN EDWARDS, Chairman, Policy Board of the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice and Chief of Staff of the Presidential Cooke Commission to Brazil.

Subject: Brazilian Economy.

December 17. Dr. HARRY WHITE, Director of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

January 6. Professor HARRIS.

Subject: International Economic Problems of the War and Postwar Period.

January 10. Professor HABERLER.

Subject: Reparations.

January 14. Dr. N. NESS, Member, Mexican-U. S. Economic Commission.

Subject: Mexico.

January 17. Dr. BEARDSLEY RUML, Chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Subject: Economic Budget and Fiscal Budget.

January 21. Dr. P. T. ELLSWORTH, Economic Studies Division, Department of State.

Subject: Chile.

January 24. Dr. DON HUMPHREY, Special Advisor on Price Control to Haitian Government; Chief, Price Section, O.P.A.

Subject: Haiti.

January 31. Dr. ROBERT TRIFFIN, Member, U. S. Economic Commission to Paraguay.

Subject: Money, Banking, and Foreign Exchanges in Latin America.

February 4. Dr. MIRON BURGIN, Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.

Subject: Argentina.

February 9. Dr. FRANK WARING, Director, Research Division, Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.

Subject: Broad Aspects of Latin-American Economics.

February 10. Dr. BEN LEWIS, Head of Price Control Mission to Colombia, Special Assistant to the Price Administrator.

Subject: Colombia.

March 9. Dr. HENRY CHALMERS, Department of Commerce.

Subject: Inter-American Trade Practices.

March 31. Mr. HENRY WALLICH.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and International Equilibrium.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1943-44, pp. 271-2.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Harris

The seminar meetings in the year 1944-1945 may be arranged under the following headings:

  1. Exchanges, Controls, and International Trade (8 meetings)
  2. Regional Problems (8 meetings).
  3. Regional and International Aspects of Domestic Problems (8 meetings).
  4. Lectures and Discussions on International Trade by Professors Haberler and Harris (8 meetings).

Four of the papers presented at these meetings were subsequently published in economic journals.

The schedule of meetings for 1944-1945 was as follows:

November 16. Dr. RANDALL HINSHAW, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: American Prosperity and the British Balance-of-Payments Problem. (Published in the Review of Economic Statistics, February 1945.)

December 11. EDWARD M. BERNSTEIN, Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: The Scarcity of Dollars. (Published in The Journal of Political Economy, March 1945.)

December 15. Dr. FRANCIS MCINTYRE, Representative of the Foreign Economic Exchange on Requirements Board of the War Production Board.

Subject: International Distribution of Supplies in Wartime.

December 21. Dr. ALEXANDER GERSCHENKRON, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Some Problems of the Economic Collaboration with Russia.

January 11. Dr. WOLFGANG STOLPER, Swarthmore College.

Subject: British Balance-of-Payments Problem After World War I.

January 22. Dr. WALTER GARDNER, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Some Aspects of the Bretton Woods Program.

January 26. Dr. WILLIAM FELLNER, University of California.

Subject: Types of Expansionary Policies and the Rate of Interest.

January 29. Professor WALTER F. BOGNER, Dr. CHARLES R. CHERINGTON, Professors CARL J. FRIEDRICH, SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, TALCOTT PARSONS, ALFRED D. SIMPSON, and Mr. GEORGE B. WALKER.

Subject: The Boston Urban Development Plan.

March 5. Dr. ROBERT TRIFFIN, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: International Economic Problems of South America.

March 19. Dr. LOUIS RASMINSKY, Foreign Exchange Control Board, Ottawa, Canada.

Subject: British-American Trade Problems from the Canadian Point of View. (Published in the British Economic Journal, September I945.)

March 22. Dr. ROBERT A. GORDON, War Production Board.

Subject: International Raw Materials Control: War and Postwar.

March 26. Dr. HERBERT FURTH, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Monetary and Financial Problems in the Liberated Countries.

April 2. Dr. LLOYD METZLER, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Postwar Economic Policies of the United Kingdom. (An article based on this paper and written in collaboration with Dr. RANDALL HINSHAW was published in The Review of Economic Statistics, November 1945.)

April 16. Professor EDWARD S. MASON, State Department, Washington.

Subject: Commodity Agreements.

April 23. Dr. ABBA P. LERNER, New School for Social Research, N. Y.

Subject: Postwar Policies.

April 27. Professor JOHN VAN SICKLE, Vanderbilt University.

Subject: Wages and Employment: A Regional Approach.

May 14. Dr. E. M. H. LLOYD, United Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, British Treasury.

Subject: Inflation in Europe.

May 28. Professor LEON DUPRIEZ, University of Louvain, Belgium.

Subject: Problem of Full Employment in View of Recent European Experience.

May 29. Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, Professor WASSILY W. LEONTIEF, Professor GOTTFRIED HABERLER, Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: The Shorter Work Week and Full Employment.

 

Source:   Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1944-45, pp. 285-6.