Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. From Self-Report on Behavioral Sciences to Ford Foundation. Economics, 1953.

In 1953 five universities—Chicago, Harvard, Michigan, North Carolina and Stanford—were granted funds by the Ford Foundation to review the behavioral sciences in their institutions. The Committee that wrote Harvard’s Report was chaired by economist Edward S. Mason, then Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration. Harvard’s Report sought “to evaluate strengths and weaknesses in the fields of the behavioral sciences at this university, to appraise needs, and to look forward to the future.”

Behavioral sciences was defined for the study to include “the fields of anthropology, economics, government, history, psychology, and sociology, with their applications in business, education, law, medicine, public health, and elsewhere.”

The following excerpt dealing with economics and its applications comes from Part II of the Report — Research and Scholarly Activity: Recent or Current, A. The Topical Classification.

This report presents a most convenient self-representation of Harvard Economics at mid-twentieth century. 

______________________________________

[p. 127]

V. Economic Institutions and Behavior

As in the other sections of this inventory, we have sought to view the study of economic institutions and behavior at Harvard in a fashion which reaches over disciplinary and organizational lines. The professional economists in the Department of Economics, the Graduate School of Public Administration, the Business School, and the Russian Research Center of course carry by far the largest part of economic studies at Harvard. In general we follow the economists’ divisions of subject matter but attempt to take notice of pertinent work in other fields. A substantial and important part of Harvard’s economic studies are conducted in the Business School and in relations with the Law School. While some of these studies gain attention here we would remind the reader that our primary focus is on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the reports on the professional schools in Part VI should be consulted as supplements to the account given here.

Special resources for the study of economics exist at Harvard and deserve to be recalled. In addition to the collections in the Widener Library, the Baker Library at the Harvard Business School and the library of the Graduate School of Public Administration provide exceptional facilities. Two journals, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics, are edited and published through the Department of Economics. The seminars of the Graduate School of Public Administration are equipped with special funds and facilities for research activities. All of them direct and encourage the research of graduate students, and some have close connections with major research products.

One further general point calls for comment. The infusion of policy concerns into the work of Harvard’s economists is very strong. In classifying theses we originally sought to discriminate studies directed toward public policy, and we contemplated a separate topical discussion. It was, however, soon pointed out to us by economists that the pervasiveness of policy concerns made this unwise, and our final topical heading (v. 16) treats more of special applications than policy questions in general. This strength of policy orientation has brought sharp criticisms and cautions from some of our informants but it is generally accepted as an inevitable and desirable pattern in contemporary economic studies.

 

I. Economic Theory

Economic theory is certainly one of the proudest possessions of the behavioralsciences. Within Harvard as elsewhere it penetrates professional studies so extensively that separation of the discussion of theory from the discussion of special fields threatens to be artificial and arbitrary. In a sense our discussion of economic theory thus be [p. 128] comes a general introduction to much of what follows under later headings.

Economics at Harvard has always had a firm attachment to the main traditions of economic theory. The assaults of institutionalists and other critics of abstract theory have been felt less at Harvard than at some other major American universities — a fact which was pointed to with satisfaction by some of our informants in this survey. Instruction in the received body of economic theory has been of central importance in the curriculum, and the faculty has been prominent in the theoretical advances of the past generation. One of our professional informants traced the recent history of theory at Harvard in close relationship to the major trends in the field. He thought that the major developments between the end of the Twenties and World War II were the theory of monopolistic competition and the Keynesian “revolution” and that Harvard had been prominent in both. In the first of these, Professor Edward H. Chamberlin made the major American contribution in his Theory of Monopolistic Competition (now in its sixth edition, 1948). Professor Chamberlin has continued to devote his energies to the development of this theory, his latest efforts (as editor and author) appearing in Monopoly and Competition and Their Regulation (1954). The American phase of the Keynesian revolution is associated with the name of Professor Alvin H. Hansen and others of the Harvard staff, who were important disseminators and critics of the theory. Professor Hansen has recently published A Guide to Keynes, and another of Harvard’s Keynesians, Professor Seymour E. Harris, has a study of the life and influence of Keynes on the press.

Both of these developments in economic theory continue to have major importance at Harvard, both as general theory and in more particular contexts noted later.

The more recent development of economic theory is, like all contemporary movements, difficult to envisage clearly. It is particularly complicated by the strong upsurgence of mathematical economics, and the growing intimacy of relations among theory, econometrics, and statistics. One of the principal issues in the development of economics at Harvard centers around this shift in the character of the field. Some of the younger men we interviewed in this survey felt that Harvard was lagging in the kind of mathematical theory which is being vigorously developed at Chicago, Stanford, and to a lesser extent at some other institutions. One man expressed a strong concern that the training he had received at Harvard might be “out of date.” More senior economists expressed varied views on this issue. It is felt by several men that in Professor Wassily W. Leontief’s input-output analysis, Harvard has been the scene of one of the most important [p. 129] newer developments in economic theory. This work, with its intimate combination of empirical procedure and theory, is thought to typify the more recent patterns of economic analysis and to offer one of the major prospects for future development. Mathematical economics has also not gone without representation in the curriculum, as we note below (v. 14), in a more direct and extended discussion of the subject.

Harvard economists point with satisfaction to the penetration of theory into all the special domains of their field, and tend to rank the prestige of specializations in terms of the theoretical development they display. Pure theory has a prestige in economics which has no close parallel in any of the other fields we have studied. The feeling that it needs to be brought into close conjunction with empirical data is, nevertheless, strong, and we report the vigorous comments of one of our informants on the point:

“I think economics is the most advanced of the social sciences in some respects and the most backward in others. I would say that the critical thing for the development of any social science is effective integration between empirical data and the theoretical system of the social science. 1 would say that economics has achieved a unified body of analytical thought which the other social sciences have not yet reached. An important aspect of this theory is that it is genuinely not a theory of individuals, but a theory of the way a whole society operates. I think that the theory of general equilibrium, despite all the difficulties with it, is the crowning achievement of economics. All that Marshallian analysis amounts to is a little step beyond what the entrepreneur knows; it amounts to a kind of theory of rational behavior that might tell people how they ought to behave, but it doesn’t really tell people things that they haven’t known before. The general equilibrium theory does this, so that we’ve got a valuable theoretical tool. And now we’re getting to the stage where we’re filling our boxes with data. For a long time the statistical work really wasn’t very good. Instead of linking observations with theory, statisticians got interested in how you made observations. Now, I think, we’re getting farther. We’re beyond the stage of illustration; we’re to the pilot plant stage definitely, and perhaps even to large scale operations in some things. I think that the important things that lie before us are not so much in the kind of integration that crosses fields, perhaps, as in the correlation of theory and data within given problems — perhaps in given fields. I think that this sort of work has to be done by individuals too, or people working on both ends of the problem. You can’t have the kind of division of labor where the National Bureau takes care of the data and the Cowles Commission takes care of the theory; these things have to be worked out together.”

Given the prestige of theory, it would be offensive as well as inaccurate to permit the impression that only work mentioned under this heading qualifies as theory. Despairing of abstracting theoretical efforts from their special contexts, we have sought to note many of them in the discussion of special fields below. An alternative organization which considered all of the work of each staff member successively might have displayed the interpretation of theory and empirical investigation better than the organization here used. Reasons for the difficulty in drawing lines between special fields would also have [p. 130] appeared with special clarity. There are, however, compensating advantages in the procedure we have followed which recommended it as the best solution we could find to a difficult problem.

 

2. Economic Institutions and Systems

A broad concern with economic institutions and systems characterizes many types of behavioral scientists. The historian of the ancient world, of medieval Europe, or Tokugawa, Japan, must depict a set of economic institutions. The sociologist seeking a comprehensive view of a total society — and this is not an uncommon activity of Harvard’s sociologists, as we have seen in iv.6 — must describe and analyze economic institutions in a wider setting. The anthropologist doing a rounded ethnography or seeking a comparative understanding of primitive economics must delineate the institutional framework within which economic processes occur. These varied activities often proceed from no very explicit conceptual base or eschew an aim toward general analysis and theory. The work of historians and ethnologists typically has this a-theoretical character. A substantial amount of more generalizing or conceptual work can nevertheless be detected among behavioral scientists other than economists at Harvard.

Among the anthropologists at Harvard, Professors Douglas L. Oliver and John Pelzel have perhaps the most active concern with primitive economics; Professor Pelzel offers a graduate seminar in the field and has engaged in researches already noted (iv.6). The Values Project (ii.2) has included a study of Navaho Acquisitive Values, by Richard Hobson, to be published in the Peabody Museum Papers, vol. XLII, no. 3.

Professor Talcott Parsons in the Social Relations Department has had a special interest in economic questions throughout his career. His recent series of Marshall lectures (iv.l) are the latest fruits of this interest, which has had many facets but has laid special stress on the institutional structure typically assumed by economic theory. Dr. Francis X. Sutton, of the Department of Social Relations, has joined with Professor James S. Duesenberry, of the Department of Economics, in a course on the sociological analysis of economic behavior, which has laid particular stress on institutionalized patterns.

While a special “institutionalist” bias is avoided by Harvard’s economists, there is a substantial body of work which attends to the institutional characteristics of different economic systems. Instruction in the economics of socialism has had an established position in the curriculum. The late Professor Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy reflected his long association with this instruction, which is now continued by Dr. O. H. Taylor. The economic institutions of various countries of the contemporary world win attention in the work on economic development (v.9). [p. 131] The economy of Soviet Russia is the subject of extensive study. A major project of the Russian Research Center, under the direction of Professor Alexander Gerschenkron, includes the extensive variety of studies indicated in the following list:

J. S. Berliner, The Theory and Operation of the Soviet Firm
[Bibliography of economic articles in Soviet periodicals]
R. Campbell, Soviet Accounting Methods and their Influence on Pricing
R. Holtzman, A Study of Soviet Taxation
M. G. Clark, Economics of Soviet Steel
N. T. Dodge, The Soviet Tractor Industry and Mechanization
A. Erlich, Soviet Industrialization Controversy, 1925-1928
G. Grossman, Capital-Intensity: A Problem in Soviet Planning
D. R. Hodgman, Soviet Industrial Production, 1928-1951
H. Hunter, Soviet Transportation Policy
C. A. Recht, Urbanization and the Soviet Housing Shortage
F. Seton, The Structure of Soviet Economy, 1934

In another section of the Russian Research Center, a study of the budgets of Soviet urban families in 1940 is in progress. Professor Gerschenkron has also been engaged in other studies of the Russian economy under the auspices of the Rand Corporation. The construction of a machinery production index, investigations of the iron and steel, coal, and petroleum industries, and a study of power, have recently been brought to completion and a study of ruble-dollar prices for Soviet machinery is under way.

A number of studies of the American economy, which depart from the strictly technical framework of economic theory and emphasize broader political and social elements, probably deserve to be considered in this connection. Professor John K. Galbraith’s recent book, American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power (1952), presents a general account of the working of the American economy with particular emphasis on the role of monopolistic elements on both sides of many markets which act to limit the disadvantages to the economy which would result from such imperfections operating on either side alone. He is currently engaged in further development of this analysis. Professor Sumner H. Slichter has also devoted himself to a general account of the economic system of the United States, The American Economy (1953), and is presently engaged in a consideration of the long-run prospects for American capitalism.

The diffuse nature of considerations which can be brought to bear on economic institutions and systems suggest this context for our remarks on the relation between economics and other disciplines at Harvard. The physical juxtaposition of economists and political scientists in the Littauer building of the Graduate School of Public Administration is viewed with satisfaction by men from both fields. Great intimacy of working relations between the fields seems not, however, to be common practice. While a joint degree in Political Economy and [p. 132] Government is offered and we encountered two men who spoke warmly of political economy as a worthy discipline, a serious effort at merging of fields (comparable say, to that which has been attempted in the Department of Social Relations) has not been made. The highly technical character of economics and the consequent demands it makes on graduate students and younger men in the field were pointed out to us as deterrents to interdisciplinary work. An “atmosphere” discouraging such ventures was alleged by one of our informants:

“I saw something of the so-called field of political economy at X University and certainly didn’t think much of it. I don’t know of anything in particular of that sort that is going on around here. I used to be interested in this kind of thing myself; I was interested in sociology and economics, but when I got into my work, I found that there was a real requirement of specialization. This was something that was gently indicated to me by the professors and people in the Department. I don’t know that anybody actually ever told me I had better watch out for combined fields, but the opinion that you had to was unanimous among graduate students. If a man started to work in some other field, Professor X always tried to get him transferred to that other department.”

Ties between the Social Relations area and economics have been noted above in a joint course, but they have not been extensive and we encountered only very mild sentiment that they should be strengthened.

 

3. Consumption and Distribution (including Marketing)

A logical and secure place for consumption and distribution as a distinct subject in the curriculum of economic studies is perhaps not easy to establish. Given a theoretical cast the subject merges into the general framework of economic analysis; given a more empirical cast it tends toward the concrete, practical problems which make up courses in marketing and bring it under a professional school rather than the Arts and Sciences curricula. Nevertheless, consumption and distribution has a place of de facto importance in the instruction and research of the economics staff. The problems of agricultural economics have stimulated much attention to the subject by Professor John D. Black and others associated with him. In this general area, Dr. Ayers Brinser is currently bringing to conclusion a two-year study of the consumption of meat, which was sponsored by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The study sought to determine the varying patterns of meat purchases among a sample of consumers from different economic classes.

A collaborative report on the economy of Puerto Rico by a group of Harvard economists headed by Professor Galbraith is now ready for the press. This report emphasizes the marketing aspects of the economic growth problem. Drawing on his experience in field studies in Puerto Rico, Assistant Professor Richard H. Holton is studying the role of commodity distribution in pre-industrial societies. A study of Saving among Upper-Income Families in Puerto Rico by Dr. Eleanor E. Maccoby of the Department of Social Relations (in collaboration with [p. 133] Frances Fielder) appeared in the past year. An extensive interviewing program provided the data for this study, which was sponsored by the Social Science Research Center of the University of Puerto Rico. Professor Duesenberry has continued work on the theory of consumption presented in his Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior (1949).

 

4. Public Finance, Fiscal Policy, and Taxation (cf. also Law and Business School reports in VI)

The strong interests in public finance, fiscal policy, and taxation, which have characterized economics in the recent past have been amply represented at Harvard. Professor Hansen’s pioneering role in the development and implementation of fiscal policy is well known and his work continues at the present time. His recent appearances before Congressional committees on the proposed tax program and the President’s Economic Report point to his continuing interest in national policies. Professor Arthur Smithies has recently completed a book on the federal budgeting process and other aspects of fiscal policy and public finance. The study is an attempt to bring theoretical analysis to bear on the decisions involved in governmental spending, and public investment.

A substantial part of Harvard’s work on taxation is located in the Law School and the Business School and is noted in the reports on these schools. Professor Stanley S. Surrey of the Law School, Professor Smithies, and Professor John Keith Butters of the Business School come together for a Seminar on Taxation offered jointly by the Department of Economics and the Graduate School of Public Administration. Professor Butters, who has been collaborating in a large-scale Merrill Foundation study of the effects of taxation on investment and incentives, at the Business School, also offers instruction in public finance under the Department of Economics (with Assistant Professor Lawrence E. Thompson of the Business School faculty).

A work like Professor Harris’ report on the New England economy includes much material on comparable problems. Assistant Professor Arnold M. Soloway is presently engaged in the study of indirect or consumption taxes for the city of Boston, and has a general interest in the financial problems of state and local government. The finance of state and local governments has, however, been less extensively studied at Harvard than has public finance at the national level. Recent planning in the Graduate School of Public Administration aims toward extending such work in the context of a general program on state and local government.

Dr. Theodore S. Baer of the Department of Government has recently turned his interests to taxation and public finance and has devoted the past year to these studies under a Ford Foundation fellowship. An examination of our classification of theses reveals that economists have [p. 134] not monopolized the study of these fields. Theses on the grain tribute system of the Manchus in China, Spanish royal finances in the sixteenth century, and the development of direct taxation in nineteenth-century England remind us that historians occasionally venture into these fields. Political scientists have also studied the financial problems of local governments in four recent theses.

Despite the apparent abundance of activity, members of the Depart ment of Economics have pointed out to us that no economist on the present staff is primarily devoted to research and instruction in public finance. Arrangements for instruction have depended on ties with the Business School in the persons of Professors Dan Throop Smith and John Keith Butters.

 

5. Money and Banking

The traditional field of money and banking has undergone marked changes in recent years. A decrease in attention to the institutional detail of banking operations and a heightened concern with the general analysis of money and income has blurred the lines between this field and others. Harvard’s practice in retaining the traditional label was pointed out to us as a conservative one, but the work of the staff follows modern tendencies and spreads over traditional divisions. Professors Alvin H. Hansen, John H. Williams and Seymour E. Harris have been principal figures in Harvard’s work in this area. In long association with the Federal Reserve System, Professor Williams has applied economic doctrine to the guidance of policy, and has contributed extensively to the discussion of monetary problems. His recent publications include Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays, and the noted Stamp Memorial Lecture for 1952. His recent work has been particularly concerned with international monetary problems and is noted below under v.ll. Professor Harris does no current teaching in the field but has made many contributions to the literature.

Among the junior staff, Dr. Ira O. Scott is preparing for publication his study of postwar monetary policy, which includes a theory of assets.

 

6. Business Fluctuations

The difficulty of establishing clear divisions among the special fields of economics shows itself strongly with respect to business fluctuations. So much of economic theory and its applications in fields such as international trade, or money and banking, has been concerned with business fluctuations that the subject is altogether lacking in clear boundaries. We confine ourselves here to reporting work in which the concern with business fluctuations seems especially prominent. Professor Hansen has devoted much of his career to the subject and his recent contributions include a volume on Business Cycles and National Income (1952). Professor Haberler’s earlier study made a large contribu [p. 135] tion to this subject, which remains one of his principal interests. Professor Duesenberry is working on a study which attempts to integrate the business cycle with the mechanism of economic growth in a coherent theory. Professor Slichter’s numerous publications contain much analysis of fluctuations in business conditions.

 

7. Industrial Organization

We use the label “industrial organization” here in a somewhat broader sense than is common at Harvard. At least three sorts of work can be detected in the University at present which have to do with the organization of industry. The first of these is the work in industrial sociology carried out in the Department of Social Relations, the Business School, and among the labor economists. The second sort of work is represented in the technical studies of management problems which bulk large in the output of the Division of Research of the Harvard Business School. Thirdly, there are the studies of particular industries, problems of monopoly and competition, etc., which have won a coherent status among Harvard’s economists as the special field of “industrial organization.” We divide each of these ranges of work separately.

a. Industrial Sociology. Sociological journals now burgeon with studies of the internal structure of business organization, many of which continue a tradition established some twenty years ago at the Harvard Business School in the work of Professors Elton Mayo and Fritz J. Roethlisberger. The present work at the Business School is discussed in the section of our report on that school, and we here confine ourselves to the rather limited work within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Professor George C. Homans of the Department of Social Relations has continued an interest of long standing in the field. His recent activities have included a study of the social organization of a large office in a public utility company, and an effort to bring the study of work groups into a general analysis of small group structure (iv.2). Recent theses from the Department of Social Relations include the published studies by Elliott Jaques, The Changing Culture of a Factory, and Theodore V. Purcell, S.J., The Worker Speaks his Mind on Company and Union. Some of the work by labor economists might merit classification here but is treated under another heading (v.8).

b. Technical Studies of Management Problems. By far the most important locus of studies of this character is to be found in the Business School. (See Part VI of this report.) We note, however, that economists’ work on industrial organization and in input-output analysis sometimes leads into highly technical studies of the nature of particular industries. A few theses seemed to us to reflect this tendency and the importance of technical data for input-output analyses and other “non- aggregative” studies was stressed by our informants. [p. 136]

c. Industry Studies, etc. The lists of recent theses in economics show a large number (some 38 in the five-year period, 1948-1953) devoted to pricing, competition, and other economic matters in particular industries. A majority of these industry studies derive from an extensive program of studies in what has come to be known as the field of “industrial organization.” The development of this field was described as follows in one of our interviews:

“Well. I should perhaps first begin by saying that this is very much of an American field, as it’s actually studied. Of course, there’s a background in the classical writers. Marshall’s book on Industry and Trade was really a pioneer work in this field, and along about 1916 there was Dennis Robertson’s book on the control of industry. It’s only been rather recently that this field has gotten consolidated, that it’s gotten a recognizable structure. There was, of course, a lot of work on the industries that we now attend to. There was, for example, a great deal of work on the railroads. There were a lot of people who were railroad economists, but they really didn’t have any solid theoretical grounding in their work. Really, the first good article on railroad pricing policies was Don Wallace’s article in which he got involved in a controversy with I’igou. The trouble with these railroad economists was that they were not analytically well-trained people. And there was a great deal of work in public utility economics. All of this, however, had nothing much to go on but the classical pure competition model. It was really the theory of monopolistic competition that brought a new interest and gave a new focus to the field. Essentially, this has provided the conceptual framework for the industry studies, and it set up a whole new line of problems in general terms that people could get their teeth into. I would say that now over the last couple of decades the field has gotten very well established. J. M. Clark holds one of the leading positions in this field, and there are also Professor Edward S. Mason and a number of his students. There were other people, and other lines of work that went into this development, that I perhaps ought to mention. There was all the old stuff on trusts and monopolies, people like W. Z. Ripley and Elliott Jones, and so forth, but it was really only after the monopolistic competition theory appeared and the subject got tied to theoretical interests of a general sort that the subject developed. There were industry studies in the Marshallian tradition, but the important work seems to have been done in the last couple of decades.”

As our informant indicates, instruction and research in this field at Harvard has been guided by Professor Mason, with the collaboration of Professor Carl Kaysen, Assistant Professor James W. McKie and others. A graduate seminar and a major project serve as foci for the research effort. The seminar serves to guide graduate students undertaking the industry studies which provide basic materials for more general studies in the field. The Merrill Foundation for the Advancement of Financial Knowledge has sponsored the major research project now under way with the collaboration of several economists and lawyers from Harvard and other institutions. The ultimate aim of this five-year study is the development of workable policy in the fields of monopoly and competition. In addition to industry studies, a series of so-called “functional” studies have been planned on such subjects as patents, industrial research, advertising, the areas exempted under the existing antitrust legislation, and procedural problems under the present [p. 137] law. Several members of Harvard Law faculty (Professors David F. Cavers, Robert R. Bowie, and Kingman Brewster; Assistant Professors Albert M. Sacks and Donald T. Trautman), the Business School faculty (Professors John V. Lintner and Bertrand Fox), and economists from other institutions have been members of the group. Extended seminar discussions have been devoted to working out a conceptual scheme for the guidance of the project and the general volume which is planned to embody its conclusions.

In addition to his work on this project, Professor Kaysen is working on a book the intent of which is the derivation of typical patterns of reaction in oligopolistic market structures and the application of probability techniques to the determinate of price and output under such conditions. He has also recently completed work as a “law clerk” for Federal Judge Charles E. Wyzanski in the antitrust prosecution of the United Shoe Machinery Company. Assistant Professor McKie has been engaged as a member of the Merrill project and is also working on two additional projects, one on oil exploration and the other on oil conservation (this latter in collaboration with Professor Kaysen). A longer term project is a study of existing industry studies in an attempt to determine relationships between structure and functioning in these industries.

 

8. Labor and Collective Bargaining

A vigorous program of research and instruction in the field of labor economics has been maintained by Professors Sumner H. Slichter and John T. Dunlop. The Baker Library of the Harvard Business School and the Industrial Relations Library at the Graduate School of Public Administration have resources of exceptional magnitude for work in the field. A Trade Union Program was started in 1942 at the suggestion of leaders of the labor movement. The Program is directed by an Executive Committee from the Faculties of Arts and Science and of Business Administration and has the purpose of training union representatives for executive responsibility in the labor movement. The Jacob Wertheim Research Fellowship for the Betterment of Industrial Relations provides funds for a series of publications in the field, and twelve volumes have thus far appeared under the imprint of the Harvard University Press.

Professor Slichter, as Lamont University Professor, has guided instruction and research on both sides of the Charles River, at the Business School, in the Department of Economics, and at the Graduate School of Public Administration.

Professor Dunlop’s current research activities include several projects. A critical appraisal of wage stabilization is being conducted jointly with Professor Archibald Cox of the Law School under a grant from the Sloan Foundation. A comparative analysis of the labor [p. 138] problem in economic development joins Harvard with other universities (California, Chicago, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in a project supported by the Ford Foundation. Professor Dunlop is directing work assigned to Harvard on France, Italy, and certain topical questions. In addition to these research projects, Professor Dunlop continues his primary interest in wage determination, and is completing a book on collective bargaining and public policy. In the near future he will begin a history of collective bargaining in the United States during the period of 1933-1953.

Dr. Martin Segal is currently working on two projects concerned with the study of intra-plant wage structures, and will soon begin a study of the internal wage structure of three industries located largely in New England. An investigation of the managerial decisions on the introduction of changes in unionized plants is also planned.

 

9. Economic Development

Economic studies inevitably reflect the major problems of the contemporary scene. As one of our informants pointed out to us, the great focus of economists’ efforts in the late Thirties was on the fiscal policy problems relating to the Keynesian doctrines and the Great Depression. At present, the dominant focus of interest seems to be on economic development, reflecting a broadened view of the world and a worried preoccupation with formerly exotic areas. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the state of theoretical approaches to developmental problems, economists now seem to shape work in several special fields about these problems. Thus it is now rather arbitrary to divide the study of economic development from studies in agricultural economics (v.10) or international economic problems (v.11). These fields, which bore a quite different complexion a decade or so ago, have now become thoroughly infused with developmental problems.

The diffuse spread of work in economic development means that it is exceptionally difficult to draw the lines about those researches which merit note here. We note at least one general study; Assistant Professor Robert E. Baldwin is collaborating on a book dealing specifically with the mechanism of economic growth and drawing heavily on classical and neo-classical economics. Professor Dunlop’s participation in a comparative study of the labor problem in economic development has been mentioned above (v.8). A major Ford-sponsored project on the economic development of Pakistan is being directed by Professor Mason, Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration. This is an action rather than a research program, but it depends upon research studies, and several members of the Harvard faculty, including Professor Leontief, will act as consultants. Dr. Douglas Paauw has specialized in the development problems of the Far East and is engaged in research and instruction on that area. The study of economic growth [p. 139] problems in Puerto Rico by Professor Galbraith, Assistant Professor Holton and others has been noted above (v.2). Professor Galbraith offers a seminar in the field and is currently working on a “theory of poverty” with important implications for underdeveloped areas. Professor Holton is studying the nature of the entrepreneurial activity in underdeveloped areas, an interest which also finds representation in the studies of the Research Center in Entrepreneurial History (cf. v. 12 below). Professor Duesenberry’s current research (v.6) bears heavily on the problem of differential development of economies, and Professor Gerschenkron’s studies in the industrialization of Europe (v. 12) are largely concerned with economic development. On the domestic scene, Professor Harris has recently directed a study of the problems of New England in general, and of the textile industry in particular. His book on The Economics of New England was published in 1952, and a report on the New England textile industry by a committee appointed by the Conference of New England Governors appeared in 1953. Professor Mason’s continued interest in resource supplies and in international oil problems involves him in a concern with underdeveloped areas.

The immediate future seems to promise a vigorous continuation of this varied work on development problems. The demand for such studies from the world at large and from the student body at Harvard is strong. Our list includes 20 theses on economic development in 1948—1953, and there are numerous others in progress at the moment. The interest of the foreign students who make up an increasingly important fraction of the student body in the Graduate School of Public Administration is strongly focused on developmental problems, since a high percentage of these students come from areas like Asia and Latin America where these problems have a compelling importance. The intellectual resources which economics and related fields can bring to these problems seem not to be altogether satisfactory. One economist put the problem sharply by asserting that all the established general propositions in the field could be written on a postcard. The area programs (cf. areal classification below) and Harvard’s extensive staff of scholars with competences in special areas provide extensive resources, but the lack of a general theoretical approach is keenly felt. The need for interdisciplinary attack on these problems is generally felt, and is exemplified in the area programs. A critic of this approach felt, however, that interdisciplinary study of particular areas tended to discourage the kind of general analysis he hoped might be developed and applied to an extensive array of cases. Other economists were not anxious to see economic development treated as a special field and suggested that the present dispersion of activity among economic historians, agricultural economists, and others, was appropriate to the current state of knowledge. [p. 140]

 

10. Agricultural Economics

 A remarkable total of 43 theses in agricultural economics accepted during the years 1948-1953 points to the prominence of this field at Harvard and the strong program maintained for many years by Professor Black. The work of Professor Black, now emeritus but still very active, has brought students to Harvard from all over the country and reached a sector of national life which no other part of the University’s work has reached so successfully. Particularly through students in the Graduate School of Public Administration, a major influence has been exerted on the direction of agricultural policies.

Professor Black’s long interest in production economics, or the application of economic reasoning to farm problems, is being channeled currently into a five-year input-output study of 241 dairy farms in New England. The goal is a determination of the best allocation of resources on such farms. Dr. Brinser has been associated with Professor Black in this and other work discussed under v.3 above. The increasing association of agricultural economics with development problems has been noted in our general comments on economic development. The interests of Professor Galbraith in agricultural economics bear this stamp as do Professor Black’s current and projected studies in India and Pakistan.

 

11. International Economic Problems

The field of international economics has very intimate ties to other special fields within the corpus of economic studies. It has always reflected the major currents of economic analysis in general; at present it shows the impress of economic development interests. Professors Seymour E. Harris, Gottfried Haberler, and John H. Williams have interests of long standing in the field, and have regularly offered courses and graduate seminars in it. Professor Williams has recently completed service on the Randall Commission and participated in the writing of its report. He is also currently revising for publication a series of five lectures on international financial problems given at the Center of Latin American Monetary Studies in August, 1953. Professor Harris has a volume on the dollar problem which will soon be ready for the press. A regular flow of articles, reviews, etc., from Professor Haberler point to his continuing activity in the field. A diversity of points of view is to be found among these men, with Professor Haberler advocating a free multilateral trade position which is not shared by his colleagues.

 

12. Economic History

The study of economic history at Harvard spreads over the departmental lines suggested by its name, and finds a home in other sites as well. In the Department of Economics, Professor Gerschenkron offers [p. 141] courses in the field and is engaged in various researches. The industrialization of Western Europe, particularly in the nineteenth century, will be the subject of books of general interest for the study of economic development. It will view the countries of Western Europe as “underdeveloped areas” of their time and treat their economic growth with attention to such factors as the role of investment bankers, resource patterns, etc. Professor Gerschenkron’s Russian studies (v.2) also include an economic history which he is currently writing. Other work includes the supervision of a translation of Eli Heckscher’s Economic History of Sweden, scheduled for publication in the fall of 1954.

Professor Gerschenkron has also been one of the directors of the Research Center in Entrepreneurial History. This Center, established in 1948 with a large grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, has fostered numerous studies in its designated field. Biographical studies of entrepreneurs have been prominent in the work of the Center, but studies of a more general character, such as those on the origins and backgrounds of American businessmen by William Miller and co-workers, have been fostered. A volume of essays, Men in Business (1952) edited by William Miller, H. L. Passer’s The Electrical Manufacturers 1875- 1880 (1953), and a study of Railway Leaders: 1845-1890 (1953) by Professor Thomas Cochran (University of Pennsylvania) have been published in a special series from this Center. From its inception, the Center has been an interuniversity project, although it has been closely associated with Harvard in its location and through Professor Arthur H. Cole (Harvard Business School), its director, others of its executive Committee, and the research staff. Through fellowships to graduate students, conferences, and the publication of a journal, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, it has done much to stimulate work in the field.

A broad interest in social and economic history characterizes several members of the history staff. In the medieval field, Assistant Professor Bryce D. Lyon is preparing a study of the money fief in Western Europe, and offers a general course on social and economic history in the period. In later periods of European history, Professors Wilbur K. Jordan, David E. Owen, Michael Karpovich, and others have had an extensive concern with economic history. In the American field, Professors Frederick Merk and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., have fostered economic history, both in their own studies and in theses of their students.

The work of the Business School in business history should be recalled in this connection, and the reader is referred to the Business School report for an account of it.

Although we have enumerated some 18 theses in economic history of the period 1948-1953, and several staff members pointed with satisfaction to present instruction or past achievements, there was concern [p. 142] expressed about the shortage of capable scholars in this field. A weakness in economic history in the United States, as compared with England or Germany, was alleged by economists. Professor Gerschenkron has recently brought about a notable upturn in activity, but the numbers of economists doing history theses have been relatively few at Harvard as at other American universities. Harvard historians were divided in their assessment of the field; there were some who thought that the record showed a commendable degree of interest and competence, but there were others who detected a general avoidance of economic history as dull and tedious work. The proper training of economic historians presents unresolved problems. Economists expressed the view that a sound background in theory and general economics was the indispensable base for studies in the field, and noted the difficulty of inducing men to add the labor of acquiring the necessary historical knowledge and linguistic equipment to the already formidable demands of graduate study in economics. Discussions in the Committee have led to some re-examination of the division of instructional labor between the Departments of History and Economics which may help solve the difficult problems of training.

 

13. Government and Business

Examination of course offerings and the lists of theses have led us to recognize studies of the relations of business and government under a special heading. In the arrangement of work characteristic at Harvard, however, the great bulk of work having to do with government regulation and related matters is encompassed in the field of industrial organization, and we have treated it as such (v.7.c above).

 

14. Statistics and Econometrics

The field of economics has long had a heavy dependence on statistical work, and the possibilities of mathematical expression of economic theory were realized in the nineteenth century. As long as statistics remained a fairly simple subject guiding the interpretation of empirical findings, and theory was contrived without precise attention to “operational” testing, a reasonably clear distinction between “economic statistics” and “mathematical economics” was possible. Recent decades have greatly complicated the picture. Technical developments in statistics have made the subject highly mathematical and brought it to convergence with other developments in mathematic economics. A new term, “econometrics,” which was fostered by the Econometric Society and its journal, Econometrica, now serves as a designation of much of the recent work, which might with equal propriety be called simply economic theory or statistics.

Harvard has responded to these developments and participated in them in varying measures. In Professor Leontief’s Harvard Economic [p. 143] Research Project, a major technique of econometric analysis, the input- output analysis, has had its principal locus of development. With intellectual roots in the general equilibrium analysis of Walras, the input-output technique is an attempt to give quantitative analyses of the behavior of total national economies without going over to the aggregative techniques of national income analysis (and thus sacrificing a picture of structural interrelations within the economy). Professor Leontief has been engaged in this work for more than two decades, beginning on a modest scale in the Thirties and expanding rapidly during the war in connection with several branches of the national government. Since the war, the Project has been maintained on a large scale with support from the government and the Rockefeller Foundation, employing about twenty people under the direction of Professor Leontief and his executive assistant, Mrs. Elizabeth Gilboy. Models for the American economy have been worked out which trace the interrelationships among as many as 500 different sectors. Such work is obviously expensive and requires a substantial organization such as Professor Leontief has maintained. Among many recent publications from the Project, we note the collaborative volume by Professor Leontief and others, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy (1953).

Instruction in this and other econometric techniques is offered in the Department of Economics by Professor Leontief and Assistant Professor John S. Chipman. Professor Chipman is carrying on two research programs, both concerned with capital and interest. The first is on the construction and application of dynamic models of the sort known as linear programming models, and involves attention to technological questions. The second is a study of liquidity preference.

Professor Guy H. Orcutt is the principal figure in the recent develop ment of other statistical and quantitative studies. His well-known work on the problem of auto-correlation in time series is continuing. He is preparing a book on statistical inference and a study of the demand for residential housing. The instruction on economic statistics is primarily in Professor Orcutt’s hands and as organizer and active participant in a Research Seminar on Quantitative Economics, he is actively working on problems concerned with the economic behavior of households and firms. Studies currently being conducted under the auspices of this seminar include:

E. Kuh — Statistical Investment Functions
J. Meyer — An Econometric Investigation of Postwar Investment in Manufacturing Industries
J. Tryon — Factors Influencing the Behavior of Business Inventories
F. Gillis — Sources and Uses of Funds: Selected Corporations: 1920-1950
B. Chinitz — The Demand for Cash Balances
H. Miller — An Empirical Study of the Demand for Refrigerators
V. Lippitt — Determinants of Demand for Consumer Durable Goods [p. 144]
H. Allison — Consumer Level Analysis of Demand for Meat, Fish, and Poultry
C. Zwick — The Demand for Meat

While there is respect for the work actually being carried out in these fields at Harvard, we encountered much discussion on the need for further development. It is generally conceded that Harvard is not so strong in mathematical economics and statistics as some other universities. The problem of statistics is one which transcends the Department of Economics and we devote a special section to it at the conclusion of this inventory. The general result of our survey of Harvard’s statistical resources may, however, be anticipated here; it is that they fall short of adequacy to the expanding needs of the behavioral sciences. Economists at Harvard feel this weakness in statistics and we repeatedly encountered the assertion that a man who wanted a first-rate training for technical work in the field would be better elsewhere. Others forms of mathematical work in economics show a similar weakness at Harvard as compared with some institutions.

As we suggested in our discussion of economic theory above, there is no clear unanimity on the need for Harvard to devote more of its resources to mathematical work. Especially among senior members of the Department of Economics, there is much disquietude at the luxuriant growth of this work. As one man put it sharply,

“I’d like to see a deflation of some of the mathematics that’s going on in economics. I think there’s a really serious threat here. This is the kind of work that attracts the ablest people, and they get so concentrated on mathematics that they scorn anything else … I think we ought to teach mathematical economics, but we ought to keep it in its proper place. I think there are real dangers of people getting involved with this kind of work and then making public policy proposals and forgetting the assumptions [in their abstract models]. . . . I’m disposed to fight this trend toward mathematics.”

Some members of the staff feel an uncomfortable lack of equipment in assessing mathematical work; one told of learning calculus when he was forty to “protect himself.” Others have the necessary training without being primarily mathematical economists. Among these latter there is a pronounced concern for balance. They regard much of the current mathematical work as of little consequence in the development of economics, and would deplore a heavy concentration of graduate training on mathematical technique. The importance of mathematical and statistical competence is nevertheless stressed and, on balance, it is probably accurate to say that sentiment tips toward further strengthening of Harvard training in these respects.

 

15. History of Thought

A generally poor state of American scholarship in the history of economic thought was pointed out by two economists we interviewed in this survey. The increasingly technical character of economics and [p. 145] its divorcement in America from the European traditions of broad, diffuse scholarship were suggested as possible explanations. The only active scholar currently on the staff is Dr. Taylor, who has offered courses which trace the history of economic thought in relation to the broad movements of intellectual history; he has published numerous essays in the field and is now engaged in preparing a volume of them for publication. There is a notable absence of younger men in the field — a situation in sharp contrast with the lively activity in intellectual history and the history of political thought. If Harvard has a recent record of strength in the field, hospitality to scholars trained abroad is in part responsible. The scholarly legacy of Professor Joseph Schumpeter included a monumental History of Economic Analysis (2 V., 1954) which appeared after his death. While not actively working in the field, Professors Haberler, Gerschenkron, and Leontief maintain serious interests in it.

 

16. Applications of Economic Analysis to Welfare Programs, Education, etc.

The pervasiveness of concerns with public policy in the work of Harvard’s economists has been pointed out above, and illustrated under various special fields. Problems of economic policy arise in many areas which are not as such the special concern of economists. Professor Harris has been particularly attentive to such problems and has devoted himself to a series of studies in the economics of social security, education, health, and other welfare programs. The economic problems posed by the social security programs are a familiar subject for economists and our theses list shows about one per year devoted to them. Less common is the kind of work represented in Professor Harris’ Market for College Graduates (1949), and his current work on the economics of cancer (for a University committee on cancer research). The need for more ample study of the support of public education was stressed in discussions during this survey, and we have heard the economics of medicine described as an “underdeveloped area” in economics.

 

Summary

An attempt to assess the strengths and weaknesses of economics at Harvard encounters the inevitable difficulty presented by the lack of commonly accepted standards of judgment. To some, the Department of Economics appears to give insufficient attention to mathematical economics and econometrics. To others, the heavy emphasis on theory is suspect. Still others may complain of the considerable extent and variety of attention given to applied fields. To these latter critics it should be pointed out that the Department is required not only to provide a professional training for economists, but to meet the needs [p. 146] of the Graduate School of Public Administration with its heavy emphasis on practice and policy. Perhaps the best general description of the economics offering is that it is relatively eclectic — not so much methodologically as in scope of attempted coverage — with all that this implies, both good and bad.

Despite this scope, there are inevitably important areas of economic inquiry that are neglected. The field of demography is one, and this field, which must necessarily overlap several departments, is, in fact, extensively treated by none. There is almost no systematic work in transportation and public utilities, fields which in many universities are-given a prominent place. The absence of mathematical statistics is a lack shared by many of the behavioral science departments, a lack sufficiently important to merit special treatment in this report. In an ideal department with unlimited resources, such deficiencies necessarily would excite adverse comment. Under existing circumstances, at Harvard, it is not so obvious that all such fields should be cultivated if their cultivation means the abandonment of current work. The emphasis preferred by the Department of Economics has always been on men rather than fields, and it is by no means clear that this emphasis is misplaced.

It seems fair to note that the Department has been criticized within the University, and to some extent outside, for emphasizing research at the expense of teaching, particularly of undergraduates. This criticism, however, seems less justified now than it was a few years ago and. in any case, it is within the competence of the Department to improve its teaching performance without in any material way lessening its emphasis on research.

Finally, there is some evidence that the Department of Economics is less inclined than most other behavioral science departments to explore the periphery of its field and to seek to establish bridges giving access to the other disciplines. The Committee suspects that this may be characteristic of Economics Departments in other universities. In some ways, of course, this confidence in its own “mystery” has been a source of strength to Economics. In dealing, however, with certain problems in which economists are becoming intensely interested, such as economic development and the various aspects of public policy, an isolationist attitude is not likely to prove fruitful.

 

Source: The behavioral sciences at Harvard; report by a faculty committee. June, 1954.

Image Source: Faculty picture of Edward S. Mason in Harvard Album, 1950.

Categories
Economists Harvard Transcript

Harvard. Graduate Course Record. Thomas Schelling, 1946-49

Included in the materials from the 1949-50 hiring search for someone to teach in Columbia College was a mimeographed fact-sheet/transcript for 28 year old Thomas Schelling together with a departmental statement provided by the Chairman of the Harvard Department of Economics, Harold Burbank. I think we can be pretty sure that both items were attached to a letter Burbank sent to Angell dated December 14, 1949 in which Tobin and Schelling were discussed with supporting data (cf. Appendix C in the Hiring Committee’s Report of January 9, 1950 that clearly provides information on Tobin from the same letter).

Interesting to note perhaps is (i) the future Nobel laureate did not get short-listed by the search committee and (ii) “his interest is mainly in the national income, fiscal policy approach” might have been a contemporary euphemism or dog-whistle for “Keynesian economist”.

In any event, I am delighted whenever I find the complete graduate course records of Ph.D.’s. I have filled in the names of the instructors for the respective courses based on the Harvard President’s Reports.

____________________

Thomas Crombie Schelling

Address: Program Division, ECA-OSR [Economic Cooperation Administration, Office of the Special Representative (Administration of the Marshall Plan)], 2 Rue Saint Florentin, Paris, France

Born: April 14, 1921, U.S.

Married: Yes

Degrees:

A.B., 1944, University of California (Highest honors)

A.M., 1948, Harvard University

Experience:

1941-43         American Embassy, Santiago, Chile

1945-46         U. S. Bureau of Budget, Fiscal Division

1946-48         Teaching Fellow, Harvard

1948               Elected to Society of Fellows, resigned September, 1949

1948-              ECA, Copenhagen Paris

 

Courses:

Summer 1946

Ec. 201 (Reading)                 Satis.

Fall 1946-47

Ec. 103a (Adv. theory [Schumpeter])         A+

Ec. 104b (Math. Ec. [Leontief])                    A+

Ec. 148a (Int. Tr. Sem. [sic, 148a was Fiscal Policy Seminar with Williams and Hansen])        A-

Spring 1946-47

Ec. 103b (Adv. Theory [Schumpeter]))      A+

Ec. 121b (Statistics [Frickey]))                     A-

Ec 148b (Int. Tr. Sem. [sic, 148a was Fiscal Policy Seminar with Williams and Hansen]))       A-

Summer 1947

Ec. 201 (Reading)     Satis.

Fall 1947-48

Ec. 102a (Adv. Theory [Leontief])   A+

Ec. 133a (History [Usher])               A-

Ec. 161a (Ind. Org. [Alexander and Crum])           A+

Spring 1947-48

Ec. 102b (Adv. Theory [Leontief])   Exc.

Ec. 133b (Ec. History[Usher])          A

Ec. 162b (Ind. Org. [Mason])           Exc.

Fields of study: Economic Theory, Industrial Organization, Money and Banking, Statistics, write-off, Economic History; special field, Business Cycles

Generals: Passed April 7, 1948 with a grade of Excellent Minus

____________________

[Supporting Statement
by Chairman of the Harvard Economics Department,
14 Dec. 1949(?)]

Schelling came to us immediately after the war with a quite extraordinary record in his undergraduate work at Berkeley and an outstanding war accomplishment in the Bureau of the Budget. His intellectual work with us was of the highest order, so high indeed that he was recommended for the Society of Fellows and accepted by them. However, Schelling saw fit to accept a position with the E.C.A. and at the end of the first year elected to stay with that organization even at the expense of resigning his fellowship. I have not heard from him directly but I understand that he intends to take his degree this spring and will be available.

The members of the staff most familiar with Schelling’s work—Hansen, Harris, and Smithies—regard him as one of the very top students we have had at least in the last ten years. I believe those mentioned will recommend him without qualification. It is true that his interest is mainly in the national income, fiscal policy approach, which I believe is one of the areas in which you are least interested, but he certainly is capable of working in theory and perhaps in other areas as well.

Very sincerely,

[signed]

H. H. Burbank

 

Professor James W. Angell
Columbia University
New York 27, New York

____________________

Source: Department of Economics Collection, Columbia University Archive. Box 6, Folder: “Columbia College”.

Image Source: Harvard Kennedy School Magazine, Summer 2012.

Categories
Bibliography Courses Exam Questions Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. Economic Theory II, Econ 202. Leontief, 1948-49

In a previous posting I provided the reading lists for the two term graduate course “Economic Theory I” , Economics 201, taught by Edward Chamberlin in 1947-48. “Economic Theory II”, Economics 202a and 202b, was taught by Wassily Leontief. Presuming a student who took both courses would have done this in consecutive years, I provide the course outlines, reading lists and the exam questions (only for Economics 202a) for the year 1948-49.

Leontief apparently did not get around to covering Part IV of Economics 202a in the Fall Term, since the entire section can be seen repeated for the first topic of the Spring term.

Besides Chamberlin’s course Economics 201 just mentioned. It is interesting to compare Leontief’s course with  that of Lloyd Metzler  and that of Milton Friedman at Chicago also in the same year.

__________________________

Economics 202a
Fall Term 1948-49

Economics 202a will cover the Theory of a Firm, the Theory of Individual Demand, Theory of Market Relationships, and introduce the basic concepts of the General Equilibrium Theory. 202b, as given in the Spring Term, will cover the Theory of Distribution (wages, capital and interest), profits), the Theory of General Equilibrium (Keynes), and introduce the basic concept of Welfare Economics and Economic Dynamics.

I.     Theory of a Firm

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.
Production function, marginal productivity, increasing and decreasing returns.
Joint products.
Demand for factors of production.
Discontinuous relationships and non-marginal analysis.
Internal and external economies.
New invention and technological change.

Reading assignments:

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

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

Boulding, Economic Analysis, Part II, Chs. 18-26, pp. 375-595 (New edition: Chs. 20-26, pp. 419-552; Chs. 31, 32, pp. 669-733).

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.

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

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

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

 

II.    Theory of the Household:

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

Reading assignments:

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

Boulding, Economic Analysis, Chs. 29, 30; pp. 636-685. (New edition, Chs. 33, 34; pp. 734-759).

 

III. Theory of Market Relationships:

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

Reading assignments:

Marshall, Principles of Political Economy [sic], Book V, Chs. III, V.

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.

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

One of the following three articles:

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

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.

 

IV.  Basic concepts of a general equilibrium theory:

Data and variables.
Price system and general interdependence.
Linear model of a general equilibrium system.

Reading assignments:

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.

___________________________

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Reading Period Assignments
January 3—January 19, 1949

[…]

Economics 202: Howard S. Ellis, Editor, A Survey of Contemporary Economics, 1948, Ch. 1, Value and Distribution, by Bernard F. Haley; and Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Ch. III to X, incl.

[…]

___________________________

 

1948-49

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 202a
[Final Exam, first term]

Please write legibly

Answer four questions:

  1. Taking into account considerations suggested by Stigler in his article on “Production and Distribution in the Short Run,” describe the determination of the optimum investment in fixed equipment for a plant faced with a regular seasonal variation in output.
    Give an illustrative example.
  2. Given information about (a) changing factor prices, and (b) changing factor combinations used by an individual enterprise (operating under competitive conditions) over a certain period of time—
    explain under what conditions this information might definitely indicate the presence of genuine technological change as contrasted with passive adjustment to variable market conditions.
  3. Under what conditions could one measure the utility of alternative combinations of commodities consumed by an individual household?
    Describe in detail the process of measurement in the case where these conditions are satisfied.
  4. “A market characterized by duopolistic indeterminism can be stabilized through establishment of an official price ceiling enforced by some outside authority.” Comment.
  5. State what significant difference do you see between the theory of an individual firm as presented in Knight’s “Risk, Uncertainty and Profits” and the treatment of the same subject in the most recent literature as presented in Haley’s article on value and distribution in the “Survey of Contemporary Economics.”

Final. January, 1949.

___________________________

Economics 202b
Spring Term, 1949

Part I: General Equilibrium Theory and the Economics of Welfare

a.   Basic Concepts of a General Equilibrium Theory:

Data and variables. Price System and general interdependence. Linear model of a general equilibrium system.

Reading:

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.

Schultz, T. W.: Agriculture in an Unstable Economy, Ch. I, pp. 24-43, Ch. IV, pp. 134-153.

 

b. Economics of Welfare

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

Reading:

Hicks, J. R. : “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.

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

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

 

Part II: The Theory of Distribution

 

[a. The Theory of Wages. Omitted this year.]

Demands for labor and methods of remuneration. Short run supply of labor, money and real wages. Theory of noncompetitive labor markets. Technological unemployment. Long run supply of labor and the theory of optimum population.

Reading:

Douglas, P. M.: The Theory of Wages, Ch. I, pp. 3-17; Ch. III, pp. 68-96.

Robinson, G. B. H.: Economic Fragments, “Wage Grumbles,” pp. 42-57, also reprinted in Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution.

Marx, Karl: Capital, Vol. I, Part IV, Ch. XV, pp. 405-422, 466-488.

Robbins, L.: “On the Elasticity of Demand for Income in Terms of Effort,” Economica, Vol. X, 1930, pp. 123-129.

 

b. Theory of Interest

Productivity of Capital. Expectations, risk, and uncertainty. Inventory speculation. Interest as cost and the demand for capital. Saving and the supply of capital. Monetary theory of interest. Theory of assets.

Reading:

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.

 

[c. Theory of Profits and of Rent. Omitted this year.]

Theory of residual income. Entrepreneurial function. “Normal Profits.”

Reading:

Beddy, James: Profits, Ch. X, “An Explanation of Profits,” pp. 216-266.

Crum, W. L: “Corporate Earnings on Invested Capital,” Harvard Business Review, XVI, 1938, pp. 336-350.

Kaldor, N.: “The Equilibrium of the Firm,” The Economic Journal, March 1934, pp. 60-76.

Robinson, Joan: Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch. 8.

 

Part III: Capital and Economic Development

a. Capital and Income

National wealth: Stock and flow concepts. Dollar measures and physical measures. Capital and income. Capital in production. Depreciation and obsolescence. Period of production and the speed of turnover. The time shape of production and consumption process.

Reading:

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

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.

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

 

b. Economic Development and Accumulation of Capital

Statics and Dynamics. The general problem of economic growth. Saving, Investment and the growth of income. Acceleration principle. Technical change. Accumulation and employment.

Reading:

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

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

Schelling: “Capital Growth and Equilibrium,” American Economic Review, December 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.

 

Part IV: Keynesian Theory and Problems

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

Reading:

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

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

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

 

Reading Period:

Schumpeter: Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, 1936.

OR

Harrod, R. F.: Towards a Dynamic Economics, Macmillan, 1948.

___________________________

Sources:

Harvard University Archives. HUC 8522.2.1 Box 4, Folder: “Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1948-1949 (2 of 2)

Wassily Leontief Papers, Harvard University Archives. HUG 4517.45, Box 2, Folder “Fall to Winter—202a ‘48-‘49”.

Image Source:  Harvard Album, 1949.

Categories
Courses Exam Questions Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. Intro to Mathematical Economics. Schumpeter, Leontief 1935-42

Graduate classes in Mathematical Economics (Econ 13b in 1934-35, Econ 104b in later years) were taught every second year by Edwin Biddle Wilson (1934-35, 1936-37, 1938-39, 1940-41, 1942-43). An introduction for undergraduates and graduates was offered by Joseph Schumpeter in 1934-35 (Econ 8a), but the course was taken over and offered for nearly a decade by Wassily Leontief (new course number beginning 1936-37, Econ 4a). In this posting you will find different scraps from the Schumpeter/Leontief course over the years.

 

____________________________

[Schumpeter’s exam questions (1934-35)]

[Note these exam questions are in the Ec11 Folder. Instructor: Schumpeter according to course catalogue]
[Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory, 1934/35 academic year]

 

Ec 8a
Midyear Exam Febr 4th 1935

Answer at least three of the following questions:

  1. Define elasticity of demand, and deduce that demand function, which corresponds to a constant coefficient of elasticity.
  2. Let D be quantity demanded, p price, and D = a – bp the demand function. Assume there are no costs of production. Then the price p0 which will maximize monopoly-revenue is equal to one half of that price p1, at which D would vanish. Prove.
  3. A product P is being produced by two factors of production L and C. The production-function is P = bLkC1-k , b and k being constants. Calculate the marginal degrees of productivity of L and C, and show that remuneration of factors according to the marginal productivity principle will in this case just exhaust the product.
  4. In perfect competition equilibrium price is equal to marginal costs. Prove this proposition and work it out for the special case of the total cost function
    y = a + bx, y being total cost, x quantity produced, and a and b
  5. If y be the satisfaction which a person derives from an income x, and if we assume (following Bernoulli) that the increase of satisfaction which he derives from an addition of one per cent to his income, is the same whatever the amount of the income, we have dy/dx = constant/x.
    Find y. Should an income tax be proportional to income, or progressive or regressive, if Bernoulli’s hypothesis is assumed to be correct, and if the tax is to inflict equal sacrifice on everyone?

[Following derivation added in pencil]
{{p}_{1}}=\frac{a}{b}

\frac{dp}{dD}=-\frac{1}{b}

\frac{d\,\,Dp}{dp}=D+p\frac{dD}{dp}=

=a-bp-bp=a-2bp

\therefore p=\frac{a}{2b}

Source: Harvard University Archives. Joseph Schumpeter Lecture Notes HUC(FP)–4.62Box 9, Folder: “Ec 11 Fall 1935”.

 

Transcription of Schumpeter’s official typed version of the Economic 8a, 1934-35.

____________________________

[1935-36]

*Economics 8a 2hf. Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economics
Half-course (second half-year). Mon. 4 to 6. Assistant Professor Leontief. [Course may be taken by either undergraduates or graduates for credit.]

Economics A [Principles of Economics] and Mathematics A, or their equivalents, are prerequisites for this course.

 

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1935-36 (2nd edition), p. 138.

____________________________

[Excerpt from undated lecture notes, in Folder “Introduction mathematical economics 1937”]

Intr. to Math. Ec.

Introduction

Math. Ec. Economics & Mathematics

I. The subject of m.e. and Economic Theory is the same.

MathEconVennDiagram

  1. Parts of Economics – non-quantitative in character.
  2. Parts of Economics—quantitative but can be handled without math symbols. (marg. cost [unclear word].
  3. Quantitative—of such complexity that it hardly can be handled without math. symbols (f. ex. general equilibrium distribution etc.)

Fundamental difference only in the method of handling.

Non-math economists “are mathematicians without knowing it”

 

II. Two application of math. in economics.

a) theory b) statistics

Difference in application of math to economic theory and f.ex. to physics: More general type of argument Instead of definite interrelation we have knowledge only of some characteristics.

Math economics is not imitation of physics.

 

III. Fundamental problem of math. ec.:

Translation of economic problems into mathematical terms and back. Math. economist must know economics and mathematics.

In math. econ. To formulate a problem means to solve it.

IV. The aim of this course is to

  1. teach you to apply math. to the analysis of theor. ec. problem.

Mostly we will dwell in “region 2” although some time we will advance into the “region 3”.

Main subjects.

Theory of value.

Theory of production.

  1. Procedure:

a) lecture on fundamental problem

b) Discussion of special applications

c) Solution of problems out of class.

3. Knowledge of math:

a) elementary algebra

b) elementary calculus

c) partial derivatives

Knowledge of ec.

Ec A [Principles of Economics].

4. Graphic analysis vs. calculus.

Graphic analysis is a summary which helps us to talk of.

 

V.  Literature

  1. Antoine A. Cournot (1801-1877).
    “Researches into the mathematical principles of the theory of wealth” (1838)

Léon Walras (1834-1910).
“Elements of pure political economy” (1874-1877)

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923)
“Cours d’Economie Politique” (1896)
“Manuale d’economiea politica” (1906)

  1. Irving Fisher
    “Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of value and prices” (1892)
    F. Y. Edgeworth (1845-1926)
    Alfred Marshall (1842-1924)  “Appendix to the Principles”

Italian School
“Econometrica”
“Review of Economic Studies”
etc.

  1. No good textbook

A. L. Bowley
“The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics”, 1924.

Evans
“Introduction into mathematical economics”.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Wassily Leontief Papers. HUG 4517.30, Box 5, Folder “Introduction to Mathematical Economics (notes)”.

____________________________

[Reading Period assignment: 1936, Leontief ]

Economics 8a: Evans, G. C., Mathematical Introduction to Economics, Chs. I and II.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. HUC 8522.2.1, Box 2, Folder “1935-1936”.

____________________________

[Course Final Exam 1936, Leontief]

[carbon copy]

1935-36

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 8a2

 

Answer THE FIRST and at least THREE of the subsequent questions:

  1. Discuss the relation between the cost function and the production function of a single enterprise.
  2. Prove that in the point where the average unit costs are the smallest, they are equal to the marginal costs.
  3. Given a total revenue curve, R = Aq –Bq2, and a total cost curve, C= K + Lq, find the monopoly output, the monopoly price and the net revenue of monopolist. (A, B, K, and L are constants.)
  4. Discuss Cournot’s analysis of competition between two monopolies (duopoly).
  5. Given the production function Z = x½ y½ find out whether the two factors x and y are complementary or competing.
  6. Derive the relation between factor prices and marginal productivities under conditions of free competition (fixed prices).

Final   1936

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Wassily Leontief Papers. Box 5, Folder “(notes Introduction to Mathematical Economics”

____________________________

[Reading Period assignment: 1937, Leontief ]

 Economics 4a:

A. Cournot, Researches into Mathematical Economics.

Ch. IV, pp. 44-55;
Ch. V, pp. 56-61.
Ch. IX, pp. 99-107.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. HUC 8522.2.1, Box 2, Folder “1936-1937”.

____________________________

[Reading Period assignment: 1938, 1939, 1940, Leontief]

Economics 4a: Read the following

  1. Cournot, Researches into Mathematical Economics. Chs. IV, V, VII, VIII, IX.
  2. Evans, Mathematical Introduction to Economics, Ch. II.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. HUC 8522.2.1, Box 2, Folders “1937-1938”, “1938-39”, “1939-40”.

____________________________

[Course Outline, Leontief]

Economics 4a
1939-40
Introduction to the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory

 

Introductory remarks. The profit function and the profit tax. The cost function; total, fixed, variable, marginal and average costs. Minimum average total and minimum average variable costs. General properties and the cost function. Aggregate cost function of a multiple plant enterprise.

The revenue function, the demand function and the price. Marginal revenue and elasticity concept. Principle of dimensional transformation. Conditions for the existence of an individual supply function.

Introduction into the theory of the markets. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of market supply and market supply functions. Competition and monopoly. Theory of discrimination.

Introduction into the study of the production function. Marginal productivity, increasing and diminishing returns. Complementary and competing factors. Principle of minimum costs. Cost function and production function.

Introduction into the theory of consumers behavior: Concept of the indifference varieties.

Introduction into the analysis of dynamic economies. The cobweb problem and basic equilibrium concepts.

Introduction into the theory of general interdependence. Data and variables, basic equations and unknowns.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. HUC 8522.2.1, Box 2, Folder “1939-1940”.

____________________________

[Course Outline, Leontief]

Economics 4a
1941-42 [also for 1942-43]

 

  1. Introductory remarks.
    The profit function.
    Maximizing profits.
  2. The 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. The 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.
  10. Cobweb problem.
  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.

Weekly problems.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. HUC 8522.2.1, Box 3, Folders “1941-1942”. “1942-1943 (1 of 2)”.

____________________________

[Reading Period assignment: 1942, Leontief]

 

Evans, Introduction into Mathematical Economics. Ch’s I, II, III

Antoine Cournot, Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. pp. 44-55, 56-66, 99-107.

Econ. 4.[a]

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. HUC 8522.2.1, Box 3, Folder “1941-1942”.

Categories
Courses Economists Harvard

Harvard Economics. Hansen and Williams Fiscal Seminar 1937-1944

Motivation
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1937-38
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1938-39
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1939-40
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1940-41
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1941-42
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1942-43
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1943-44
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1944-45

___________________________

 

From the first annual report of the Graduate School of Public Administration by Dean John H. Williams for 1937-1938

[p. 298] Concerning the seminars which constitute our program of work little further comment seems necessary. A statement of last year’s program and that being followed this year is given in the appendix, where we have sought to describe in detail the content of the seminars and our methods of conducting them. Since properly qualified students carrying on graduate study in other schools and departments of the University may also participate in our seminars the program of the School embraces a student body many times larger than the number of fellows formally registered in the School. Thus at the present time there is a total enrollment of one hundred and eighty-eight students in the various seminars of the School. We began last year with five seminars and have expanded the program this year to eleven, of which five are full-year and six half-year seminars. In selecting the subjects we have been guided in large measure by our own interests and competence, but within these limits we have sought for subjects presenting problems of large public importance, problems both of policy and of procedure, requiring the combined efforts of different disciplines within the social sciences and permitting of effective cooperation between the University and the public service. Especially we have sought to find subjects that are at the research stage, and to put the emphasis upon investigation rather than upon formal instruction. Our interest is quite as much in learning for ourselves as in attempting to teach others…

[p. 314]

Fiscal Policy.
Professors WILLIAMS and HANSEN.

This seminar is concerned with public finance in relation to economic, political, and social institutions and systems. It deals with the monetary aspects of expenditures and revenues, with public finance as a compensatory mechanism in the business cycle, and with the social and political implications of government spending.

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1937-1938

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVI February 28, 1939, No. 4.

Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1937-38, pp. 307-310.

The Fiscal Policy Seminar in 1937-1938 was conducted on two planes: (1) a general meeting which included active members of the seminar as well as others in the University, both graduate students and faculty members, who had a special interest in one or more of the fields covered at these meetings; (2) a meeting restricted to the working members of the seminar.

The general seminar session met each week on Friday from four to six and was addressed by a visiting consultant of the School. The afternoon session was followed by dinner with the visiting guest attended mainly by selected members from the working seminar who were especially interested in the particular topic under discussion, the dinner in turn being followed by an extended discussion, lasting frequently until 10 or 10:30 o’clock. The visiting speakers were for the most part government officials, but there were also included various officials in the Treasury, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Reserve Board in Washington, Social Security Board, Works Progress Administration and the Federal Housing Administration….

The general seminar session with visiting consultants proved extremely valuable from various standpoints. It proved a means by which government officials on their part came into closer contact with the Faculty and students of the Graduate School of Public Administration and accordingly acquired a personal interest in its problems, and on the other side a means of presenting to the School in a more vital way the problems confronting the government. This type of close contact, moreover, is believed to be a useful means of developing placement openings for the graduates of the School in Washington. The discussions with the visiting consultants in the Friday sessions, moreover, proved extremely stimulating as a background for the research work done by the working members of the restricted seminar group.

The working seminar met each week on Monday from four to six. At these sessions papers were presented by various members of the seminar. Out of these papers a number of articles were prepared for submission for publication in various economic journals. It appears that out of the year’s work perhaps some four or five articles in leading journals are likely to materialize. Some have already been accepted.

The combined work of these two seminar meetings forms the background of a research project in Fiscal Policy, which it is planned will eventuate in a volume exploring the problem in a general way and raising important problems for further research.

Program of Friday Meetings

October 15. F. J. BAILEY — “The Work of the Federal Bureau of the Budget.”

October 22. CARL SHOUP — “General Over-All View of the American Tax System.”

October 29. EUSTACE SELIGMAN — “The Effect of the Capital Gains Tax on the Investment Market.”

November 12. GEORGE C. HAAS, JOSEPH S. ZUCKER, L. H. SELTZER and A. F. O’DONNELL — “The Federal Tax Structure.”

November 26. LAWRENCE SELTZER — “The Undistributed Profits Tax.”

December 3. GERHARD COLM — “Economic Consequences of Recent American Tax-Policy.”

December 10. GEORGE O. MAY — “The 1936 Federal Tax Legislation.”

December 17. JACOB VINER — “The General Relations between Fiscal Policy and the Business Cycle.”

February 11. DANIEL W. BELL — “Treasury Financing”; W. R. BURGESS – “Relations of the Reserve Banks and the Treasury.”

February 18. E. A. GOLDENWEISER — “Relations of Deficit Financing to the Banking System.”

February 25. WOODLIEF THOMAS — “Fiscal Policy and the Money Market.”

March 4. LAUCHLIN CURRIE — “Federal Income -Creating Expenditures.”

March 18. A. J. ALTMEYER and WILBUR J. COHEN — “Old Age Insurance and Old Age Assistance: Current and Future Prospects.”

March 25. MERRILL G. MURRAY and JOHN J. CORSON — “The Social Security Taxes.”

April 1. ERNEST M. FISHER — “The Federal Housing Administration.”

April 15. ARTHUR R. GAYER — “Compensatory Spending.”

April 22. CORRINGTON GILL — “Administrative and Fiscal Problems of the Relief Administration.”

April 29. LEWIS DOUGLAS — “Government Fiscal Policy.”

May 6. GUNNAR MYRDAL — “Fiscal Policy in Sweden.”

Program of Monday Meetings

October 18. R. A. MUSGRAVE — “The Twentieth Century Fund Report on Facing the Tax Problem.”

October 25. G. G. JOHNSON — “The Capital Gains Tax.”

November 1. R. V. GILBERT — “The Price of Common Stock as an Element in the Interest Price Structure.”

November 8. EMILE DESPRES — “The Effect of the Capital Gains Tax upon Capital Formation.”

November 15. Dr. HEINRICH BRUENING — “Monetary and Fiscal Policies in Germany during the Depression.”

November 22. WALTER SALANT — “The Effect of Securities Market Regulations upon Capital Formation.”

November 29. K. E. POOLE — “Tax Remission as a Compensatory Device.”

December 6. E. P. HERRING — “Administrative Problems in the Formulation and Execution of Fiscal Policy.”

December 13. E. N. GRISWOLD — “Legal Aspects of the Undistributed Profits Tax.”

February 14. ROBERT FRASE — “Economic Effects of Social Insurance Reserves, with particular reference to Unemployment Insurance Reserves.”

February 21. D. W. LUSHER — “The Relation of the Structure of Interest Rates to Investment.”

February 28. R. A. MUSGRAVE — “Limits in Public Debt and Taxation.”

March 7. WALTER SALANT — “Effects of Fiscal Policy on Business Stability.”

March 14. HERMAN M. SOMERS — “Future Fiscal Burdens Arising from the Social Security Program.”

March 21. MARTIN KROST — “Tax Variability as a Compensatory Stabilizing Device.”

March 28. NORTON LONG — “Some Aspects of Fiscal Planning under Democratic Government.”

April 11. S. J. DENNIS — “The Relation of the Undistributed Profits Tax and the Soldiers’ Bonus to the 1937 Depression.”

April 25. EMILE DESPRES — “Ezekiel’s Proposal to Secure Full Employment.”

May 2. G. G. JOHNSON — “The Trend Toward Treasury Control of Credit in the United States.”

May 9. GUNNAR MYRDAL — “Fiscal and Monetary Policy in Sweden.”

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1938-1939.
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVII March 30, 1940, No. 12.

Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1938-39, pp. 342-345.

The Fiscal Policy Seminar was conducted in 1938-1939 on substantially the same plan as in 1937-1938; that is, the general seminar sessions, which met on Fridays from four to six, were addressed by a visiting consultant and were attended by the active members of the seminar, as well as by faculty members and graduate students who were especially interested in the topics under discussion. Smaller meetings were held on Monday afternoons from four to six and were attended only by students engaged in research in the field of fiscal policy.

The general sessions were held less frequently than last year – usually twice a month – and on two occasions were conducted jointly with the Administrative Process Seminar. These joint meetings were on the subjects of the capital budget and federal grants to states, in which both seminars had an interest.

At the three December meetings, “previews” were held of round table discussions which were conducted later in the month at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association. The round tables covered the topics “The Role of Public Investment and Consumer Capital Formation,” “Divergencies in the Development of Recovery in Various Countries,” and “The Workability of Compensatory Devices.” In each case three guest speakers presented papers covering different aspects of the problem and providing the basis for general discussion….

As last year, dinners attended by the visiting guest and a small group of students followed the Friday afternoon session, and in the evening informal meetings were held for further discussion.

At each Monday session, a paper was presented by a member of the group doing active research in fiscal policy. The paper was discussed by the other members of the seminar. These papers and discussions formed the basis for theses which were submitted at the close of the year by students who were taking the seminar for academic credit.

The research project begun last year has resulted in a preliminary manuscript on “Fiscal Policy in Relation to the Business Cycle and Chronic Unemployment.” During the coming year, it will be revised and expanded with a view to publication.

The following is a list of the Monday meetings of the seminar:

October 3.            An Over-all View of the Current United States Tax System: Federal, State and Local.

October 10.          An Over-all View of Governmental Expenditures, 1913-1938: Federal, State and Local.

        An Over-all View of the Rise of Public Debt, 1913-1938: Federal, State and Local.

October 17.          The 1938 Revenue Act.

October 24.          Issues Raised by the Colm-Lehmann Pamphlets.

October 31.          The Economic Consequences of Retirement of the Public Debt.

November 14.      The Theoretical and Practical Implications of Separating the Investment Budget from the Current Budget.

November 21.      New York City’s Experience.

November 28.     A Re-examination of the Stabilization of Consumer Income.

December 5.        A Program for the Cyclical Stabilization of Investment and Current Expenditures.

December 12.      Public Investment: History and Program for Future.

December 19.      An Analysis of Governmental Expenditures with a View to Showing the Effects of the Volume and Types of Different Expenditures on Consumption, Saving and Investment.

February 6.          Canadian Fiscal Relations.

February 13.        Japanese Monetary and Fiscal Recovery Policies.

February 20.       The Development of Budgetary Organization.

February 27.        Balkan Credit and Fiscal Policy.

March 6.               The Economic Implications of a Rising Public Debt.

March 13.             Consumption, Saving and Investment and Relief and Social Security.

March 20.            A Re-examination of the Stabilization of Consumer Income.

March 27.            Deficit Financing and the Banking System.

April 10.              Government Loans and Subsidies as a Stimulus to Private Investment.

April 17.               The Economic Effects of the Income Tax.

April 24.              Federal Aid to the States.

May 1.                   Some Attempts at the Statistical Determination of the Multiplier and the Propensity to Consume.

The non-resident consultants and the meetings which they attended were as follows:

October 7.            J. ROY BLOUGH, Director of Tax Research, Division of Tax Research, United States Treasury Department. Tax Policy in the United States Today.

October 28.         LAWRENCE H. SELTZER, Assistant Director, Division of Research and Statistics, United States Treasury Department. Tax Policy with Reference to Capital Accumulation.

November 7.       FRITZ LEHMANN, New School for Social Research. The German Situation.

November 18.     CHARLES W. ELIOT, 2nd., Executive Officer, National Resources Committee. Current and Capital Budgets.
GUNNAR MYRDAL, University of Stockholm. Swedish Budgetary Procedure.
This was a joint meeting with the Administrative Process Seminar.

November 25.     ROSWELL MAGILL, former Under Secretary of the Treasury. The Formulation of a Revenue Bill.

December 2.        Preview of American Economic Association Round Table on The Role of Public Investment and Consumer Capital Formation.

GERHARD COLM, New School for Social Research. The Government as Investor.

BENJAMIN W. LEWIS, Oberlin College. The Government as Competitor.

GRIFFITH JOHNSON, United States Treasury Department. The Effect of the Social Security Taxes on Consumption and Investment.

December 9.        Preview of American Economic Association Round Table on Divergencies in the Development of Recovery in Various Countries.

GOTTFRIED HABERLER, Harvard University. Recovery Policies in Democratic Countries.

GEORGE N. HALM, Tufts College. Recovery Policies in Totalitarian States.

EMIL LEDERER, New School for Social Research. Is There a World-wide Drift Toward Regimented Control of Industry?

December 16.      Preview of American Economic Association Round Table on the Workability of Compensatory Devices.

PAUL T. ELLSWORTH, University of Cincinnati. The Efficacy of Central Bank Policy.

PAUL A. SAMUELSON, Junior Fellow, Harvard University. The Theory of Pump-Priming Re-examined.

EMILE DESPRES, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D. C. The Proposal to Tax Hoarding.

February 17.        LAUCHLIN CURRIE, Assistant Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Problem of the Multiplier and the Propensities to Save and Consume and the Outlook for Capital Expenditures.

March 10.             GARDINER MEANS, Director, Industrial Section, National ResourcesCommittee. Discussion of preliminary edition of “Patterns of Resource Use” by the National Resources Committee.

March 17.             E. A. GOLDENWEISER, Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Problems of the Quantity and Quality of Money from the Point of View of Monetary Regulation.

April 14.               EWAN CLAGUE, Director, Bureau of Research and Statistics, Social Security Board. Federal Grants to States.

April 21.                J. DOUGLAS BROWN, Princeton University. A Survey of the Social Security Program in the United States.

April 28.               MARRINER ECCLES, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Financial and Fiscal Problems Faced by Capitalistic Democracies Today.

 

___________________________

 

THE FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1939-1940
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVIII April 10, 1941, No. 20.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1939-40, pp. 324-326.

 

The Fiscal Policy Seminar continued its plan of holding meetings on Mondays from four to six, at which students actively engaged in research in the field of fiscal policy presented papers for discussion, and on occasional Fridays, when visiting consultants addressed the group. The Friday meetings, held usually twice a month, were attended by interested faculty members and graduate students as well as by the active members of the seminar. …Following the more formal afternoon presentation on Fridays, a part of the seminar usually met with the speaker in the evening for further informal discussion of the topic.

On October 20, the seminar met with the Administrative Process Seminar to hear Mr. Robert H. Rawson, a former Littauer Fellow, speak on the work of the Federal Bureau of the Budget. Two meetings were held jointly with the Price Policies Seminar – one in November at which Mr. Leon Henderson discussed price rigidities in our economy, and one in February at which Mr. Richard V. Gilbert, Chief of the Industrial Economics Division of the Department of Commerce, spoke on “War Inventories and the Current Economic Outlook.”

Discussion at the first five Monday meetings was based on the manuscript Fiscal Policy in Relation to the Business Cycle, a research project which has grown out of the meetings during the past two years. The subsequent Monday sessions were devoted to the presentation of papers by members of the group. These papers were discussed by the seminar and presented as theses at the end of the year by those receiving academic credit for the course.

The program of Monday meetings was as follows:

Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN

The Consumption Function.

Current Trends in Economic Theory with Special Reference to the Business Cycle.

Secular Trends in Investment and Saving.

Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Shifts in Control of Depressions.

Theories of Compensatory Spending.

Budgeting and Fiscal Policy.

The Marginal Propensity to Import.

The Australian Multiplier.

Investment in the American Economy, 1850-1940.

Fiscal Aspects of Ireland’s Economic Nationalism.

The Power of the Federal Reserve System to Restrict Expansion.

Wartime Corporation Finance.

Wartime Finance in Great Britain.

Unemployment Insurance Funds.

The Effect of Deficit Financing on the Banking System.

Public Health.

The Capital Budget.

The Implications of the Growth of Life Insurance for Full Employment.

Taxation in the Business Cycle.

Public Investment.

Redistribution of Income as a Result of Federal Expenditures.

The following is a list of the non-resident consultants and the topics which they discussed:

October 6.     ISADOR LUBIN, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor.

Subject: The Position of Labor Relations and Labor Costs in the Current Situation.

October 20.  HARRY D. WHITE, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United States Treasury Department.

Subject: Gold and Foreign Exchange.

October 30.  ROBERT H. RAWSON, Junior Administrative Analyst, Bureau of the Budget.

Subject: Organization and Methods of the Federal Bureau of the Budget.
(Joint meeting with the Administrative Process Seminar.)

November 13.LEON HENDERSON, Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission, and member of the Temporary National Economic Committee.

Subject: Price Rigidities in the American Economy.
(Joint meeting with the Price Policies Seminar.)

December 8. RAYMOND W. GOLDSMITH, Assistant Director, Research and Statistical Section, Securities and Exchange Commission.

Subject: The Volume and Components of Saving in the United States.

February 26. RICHARD V. GILBERT, Chief, Industrial Economics Division, United States Department of Commerce.

Subject: War Inventories and the Current Economic Outlook.

March 1.        WARD SHEPARD, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture.

Subject: A Proposed Forest Policy for the United States.

March 8.       EMILE DESPRES, Senior Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Subject: Internal Expansion and the International Position of the United States.

March 29.     GARDINER MEANS, Economic Adviser, National Resources Planning Board.

Subject: The Structure of the American Economy.

April 12.        M. A. HEILPERIN, Institute for Higher International Studies, Geneva.

Subject: The International Monetary System and the Business Cycle.

May 3.           GERHARD COLM, Economist, Division of Industrial Economics, United States Department of Commerce.

Subject: Some Problems of Long-Run Tax Policy.

 

___________________________

 

THE FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1940-1941.
Professors Williams and Hansen 

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX February 25, 1942, No. 5.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of Departments for 1940-41, pp. 323-326.

The Fiscal Policy Seminar continued its established practice of including in its program meetings at which visiting consultants discussed various topics of interest to the group, and sessions devoted to the presentation of student reports. The reports were presented in the second semester and were discussed at length by the other members of the seminar….

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

 

The program of meetings was as follows:

September 30. Professor HANSEN.

October 7.      Professor WILLIAMS.

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

Subject: International Trade and the Multiplier.
(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

October 21. Professor HANSEN and Professor WILLIAMS.

October 25. MARTIN KROST, Senior Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Subject: The Excess Profits Tax.

October 28. RICHARD A. MUSGRAVE, Instructor, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

Subject: Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Dominion Provincial Fiscal Relations.

November 4. Professor HANSEN.

November 8. GEORGE TERBORGH, Senior Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Subject: Prospective Accumulated Backlog in Capital Goods and Durable Consumers’ Goods Industries in the Post-Defense Period.

November 18. ELIZABETH B. SCHUMPETER.

Subject: Fiscal and Monetary Policy in Japan.

November 25. BENJAMIN H. HIGGINS and RICHARD A. MUSGRAVE, Instructors, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

Subject: The Savings-Investment Problem Re-examined.

December 2. Professor HANSEN.

December 9. DAN T. SMITH, Associate Professor of Finance and Taxation, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Subject: The Role of Borrowing in the Defense Program.

December 16. Professor HANSEN.

December 20. GUY GREER, Federal Housing Administration.

Subject: The Organization of the Federal Housing Program.

February 3.   Student Report.

Subject: National Income and Military Effort.

February 10. Student Report.

Subject: United States Housing Program During and After the Defense Program.

February 17. ERIC ENGLUND, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture.

Subject: Alternatives in Financing of the Agricultural Programs.

(Joint meeting with Agricultural, Forestry and Land Seminar.)

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

Subject: Blocked Balances.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

February 24. J. KEITH BUTTERS, Instructor, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

Subject: Discriminatory Features in Federal Corporation Income Taxes.

March 3. J. KENNETH GALBRAITH, National Defense Advisory Commission.

Subject: The Farm Credit Administration and Related Farm Credit Problems.

(Joint meeting with Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Policy Seminar.)

March 10. Student report.

Subject: Trends in the Fiscal Incapacity of State and Local Governments and Their Impact on Defense and Post-Defense Policy.

March 17. Student Report.

Subject: The Effect of the Tax Structures on Economic Activity in the United States and Great Britain, 1929-1937.

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

Subject: The American Defense Program.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

March 24. Student Report.

Subject: Essays on Fiscal Policy and the Building Cycle.

I.  Transport Development and Building Cycles.
II. Monetary Control of the Building Cycle.

April 7. Student Report.

Subject: The Monetary Powers of Some Federal Agencies outside the Federal Reserve System.

April 14. Student Report.

Subject: Incentive Taxation.

April 18. Student Reports.

Subjects: The Use of Credit as an Instrument of Social Amelioration in Agriculture. Credit for a Solvent Agriculture.

(Joint meeting with Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Policy Seminar.)

April 25. CARL SHOUP, Professor of Economics, Columbia University.

Subject: Defense Financing.

April 28. Student Report.

Subject: The Economic Development of a War Economy.

May 2. GUSTAV STOLPER, Financial Adviser.

Subject: Financing the American Defense Program.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1941-1942
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLI, September 26, 1944, No. 23.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of the departments for 1941-42, pp. 340-343.

 

Fiscal problems arising out of the war and plans for the post-war period were of dominant interest in the Fiscal Policy Seminar program during 1941-42. With regard to post-war problems particular attention was paid to the question of federal-state-local fiscal relations, and a special section of the seminar library was devoted to books and pamphlets on this topic.

Meetings were held on Mondays and Fridays, the latter being given over mainly to visiting consultants, with reports and discussions by student and faculty members of the seminar concentrated on Mondays. As in previous years, several meetings were held jointly with other Seminars, eight with the International Economic Relations Seminar, and two with the Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Use Policy Seminar….

The program of meetings was as follows:

September 29. The Development of Fiscal Policy.

October 6.     Defense Financing.

October 17.   The Relation Between Fiscal Policy and Inflation.

October 20.  The Problem of Federal, State and Local Relationships.

HARVEY S. PERLOFF, Associate Economist, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

October 24.  The United States Housing Authority.

NATHAN STRAUS, Administration, United States Housing Authority.

October 27.  Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles.

October 31.   Urban Redevelopment.

GUY GREER, Senior Economist, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

November 3. Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles.

November 10. The Present State of Fiscal Policy.

November 17. The Multiplier.

November 21. The Federal Advisory Council.

WALTER LICHTENSTEIN, Vice-President, First National Bank of Chicago.

November 24. The Multiplier.

PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Professor HABERLER.

November 28. Economic Warfare.

NOEL HALL, British Embassy.

December 1. The Multiplier.

PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

December 5. International Economic Relations with Special Reference to the Post-War Situation.

ROBERT BRYCE, Department of Finance, Canada.

December 8. Post-War Problems.

Professors HABERLER and HARRIS as well as Professors WILLIAMS and HANSEN.

December 12. The Revenue Act of 1941.

J. KEITH BUTTERS, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

December 15. The Theory of Public Investment.

Professor HARRIS.

December 19. The 1942 Revenue Act.

ROY BLOUGH, Director of Tax Research, Treasury Department.

January 26. The Problem of Post-War Reconstruction.

PER JACOBSSEN, Economist, Bank for International Settlements.

February 2.  Economic Philosophy and Post-War Fiscal Policy.

ALEJANDRO SHAW, Argentina.

February 9.   Equalization Grants and Their Role in Fiscal Policy (student report).

February 13. Monopolistic Trading and International Relations.

JACOB VINER, Chicago University.

February 16. War Finance and Inflation (student report).

February 20. The Effect of Federalism on Fiscal Policy.

LUTHER GULICK, National Resources Planning Board.

March 2.       Agriculture in the Post-War Period.

LEONARD ELMHIRST, Elmhirst Foundation.

March 9.       War Finance and Direct Taxation (student report).

March 13.     Post-War Domestic and International Investments.

RICHARD M. BISSELL, Department of Commerce.

March 16.     Monetary Implications of Fiscal Policy.

March 20.     The Present Fiscal Situation.

ALBERT GAYLORD HART, Iowa State College.

March 23.     Problems of Monetary Control.

ROBERT V. ROSA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

PETER L. BERNSTEIN, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

March 27.     The Public Work Reserve.

BENJAMIN H. HIGGINS, Economic Consultant, Public Work Reserve.

April 6.          A High-Consumption vs. a High-Savings Economy (student report).

April 10.        Post-War Surpluses and Shortages in Plant and Equipment.

GEORGE TERBORGH, Senior Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

April 13.        Private Industry Post-War Planning.

DAVID C. PRINCE, Vice-President, General Electric Company.

April 17.        Commodity Taxation in a Progressive Tax System (student report).

April 24.       Government Lending Agencies.

ROBERT V. ROSA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and

PETER L. BERNSTEIN, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

April 27.        The Impact of War Expenditures on State and Local Government (student report).

May 1.            The Inflationary Gap.

WALTER SALANT, Chief, Price and Economic Policy Section, Division of Research, Office of Price Administration.

May 21.         The Problem of Britain’s Food Supply.

E. M. H. LLOYD, Chairman, British Food Mission.

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1942-43
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLI, September 28, 1944, No. 25.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of the departments for 1942-43, pp. 243-245.

 

War and post-war fiscal problems were the main consideration in the Fiscal Policy Seminar in 1942-43. This included national aspects of inflationary and tax problems and post-war tax adjustments, as well as federal-state-local fiscal relations.

Meetings were held on Mondays and Fridays, the latter being given over mainly to visiting consultants, with reports and discussions by student and faculty members of the seminar concentrated on Mondays. As formerly, several meetings Were held jointly with other seminars….

The program of meetings was as follows:

October 5.     Professor HANSEN.

Subject: A Survey of the Fiscal.War Picture.

October 9.    MILTON GILBERT, Director of National Income Division, Department of Commerce.

Subject: Concepts of National Income and Its Statistical Measurement.

October 19.   Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: The Present Status of Fiscal Policy.

October 23.  Professor PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Subject: Consumption Function.

October 26. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Changes in the Banking System.

October 30.  Professor LAWRENCE H. SELTZER, Wayne University.

Subject: Possible Techniques for the Working of the PostWar Economic System.

November 2. Professor A. P. LERNER, Amherst College.

Subject: Rate of Interest.

November 9. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: War Financing in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

November 13. Professor FRITZ MACHLUP, Buffalo University. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: National Income, Employment and International Relations.

November 16. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Federal, State, Local Fiscal Relations.

November 20. DAVID E. LILIENTHAL, Director, Tennessee Valley Authority.

Subject: The Tennessee Valley Authority.

November 23. Dr. JOHN KEITH BUTTERS, Harvard University.

Subject: Revenue Act of 1942.

November 27. Hon. GRAHAM F. TOWERS, Governor, Bank of Canada. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: Canadian War Economic Measures.

November 30. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Basic Issues of Fiscal Policy.

December 4. LYNN R. EDMINSTER, Vice-Chairman, U. S. Tariff Commission.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: The Reconstruction of World Trade After War.

December 7. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Basic Issues of Fiscal Policy.

December 1. Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: War Problems of International Trade.

December 14. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: The Beveridge Report.

February 1.  Honorable HAROLD STASSEN, Governor of Minnesota.

Subject: Decentralized Government.

February 8.  HARVEY S. PERLOFF, Federal Reserve Board, Washington.

Subject: State-Local Fiscal Relations.

February 12. THOMAS MC KITTRICK, President of the Bank for International Settlements.

Subject: The Bank for International Settlements.

February 15. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: The Beveridge Plan and a Post-War Minimum Budget.

February 24. Dr. LEO PASVOLSKY, State Department. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: Post-War Problems in International Trade.

March 1.        Dr. HANS STAEHLE, Harvard University.

Subject: Consumption and National Income in Post-War.

March 12.     Dr. RICHARD MUSGRAVE, Federal Reserve Board, Washington.

Subject: Revenue Bill-1943.

March 26.     Dr. PAUL STUDENSKI, Professor of Economics, New York University.

Subject: State-Local Fiscal Policies in New York in War-Time.

April 12.        EMILE DESPRES, Office of Strategic Services, Washington. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations 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 International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: Planned or Adjusted Post-War Economy.

May 8.           GUY GREER, Editor of Fortune Magazine.

Subject: Urban Redevelopment.

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1943-44
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLIV, July 7, 1947, No. 20.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1943-4, pp. 269-270.

 

Fiscal problems of the war and in the postwar period were the general topics under discussion in the Fiscal Policy Seminar in I943-44. More specifically this included national aspects of consumption and saving, taxation, budgeting, and the public debt. Emphasis was also placed on the international financial and monetary problems. Several of the meetings were devoted to discussion of the special fiscal and monetary problems in a number of Latin American countries.

Meetings were held on Mondays and Fridays and consisted of reports by student and faculty members of the seminar and of discussions led by outside consultants and by Dean Williams and Professor Hansen. As in other years, a number of meetings were held jointly with other seminars….

The program of meetings was as follows:

November 8. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: General Survey of Fiscal Policy.

November 15. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: General Survey of Fiscal Policy (cont.).

November 19. Dr. J. ROY BLOUGH, Director of Tax Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: Some Administrative Aspects of Taxation.

November 22. G. NEIL PERRY, Director, Bureau of Economics and Statistics, British Columbia.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and the Canadian Economy.

November 29. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

December 6. HANS ADLER.

Subject: Population Growth and Fiscal Policy.

December 13. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

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

Subject: Problems of International Stabilization.

December 20. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Consumption and Saving during the War.

January 3.    Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Consumption and Saving in the Postwar.

January 10.  Professor GOTTFRIED HABERLER.

Subject: Reparations.

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

Subject: Mexico.

January 17.  Dr. BEARDSLEY RUML, Federal Reserve Bank, 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 Adviser on Price Control to Haitian Government.

Subject: Haiti.

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

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

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

Subject: Argentina.

March 31.     Mr. HENRY WALLICH.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and International Equilibrium.

April 14.        Mr. EVSEY DOMAR, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Limitation of Public Debt in Relation to National Income.

May 5.           Dr. J. KEITH BUTTERS and Dr. CHARLES ABBOTT, Harvard Business School.

Subject: Business Taxes.

May 19.         Mr. GUY GREER, Board of Editors, Fortune.

Subject: Urban Redevelopment.

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1944-45
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLV, December 1, 1948, No. 30.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1944-45, pp. 282-284.

 

Fiscal problems of the war and in the postwar period were the general topics under discussion in the Fiscal Policy Seminar in 1944-1945. More specifically this included national aspects of consumption and saving, taxation, budgeting, and the public debt. Emphasis was also placed on the international financial and monetary problems. Several of the meetings were devoted to discussion of the special fiscal and monetary problems in a number of Latin American countries.

Meetings were held on Mondays and Fridays and consisted of reports by student and faculty members of the seminar and of discussions led by outside consultants and by Dean Williams and Professor Hansen. As in other years, a number of meetings were held jointly with other seminars….

Three of the papers presented at these meetings were subsequently published in economic journals. The program of meetings was as follows:

*Sept. 11.       J. W. BEYEN, former president of the International Bank at Basle, Chairman of Netherlands Delegation at Bretton Woods.

Subject: Bretton Woods Conference.

*Sept. 18.      RAGNAR NURKSE of Economic and Financial Section of League of Nations.

Subject: Bretton Woods Conference.

*October 30. Professor DOUGLAS COPLAND, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Subject: Australian Problems in the Transition from War to Peace.

*The dates in September and October, while part of the Summer Term, were integrated in the year’s program.

November 6. Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Subject: Estimates of Postwar National Income and Employment.

November 13. Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Wartime Fiscal Problems.

November 15. RANDOLPH PAUL, formerly with the U.S. Treasury.

Subject: Postwar Federal Taxation.

November 20. Dr. FREDERICK LUTZ, Princeton University.

Subject: Corporate Cash Balances, I914-1943.

December 4. Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Subject: The Bretton Woods Agreements.

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 I945.)

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

Subject: International Distribution of Supplies in Wartime.

January 8.    DAVID E. LILIENTHAL, Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Subject: Tennessee Valley Authority.

January 15. Dr. OLIVER M. W. SPRAGUE (Professor Emeritus).

Subject: Postwar Corporate Taxation.

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 9.       Dr. PAUL J. RAVER, Bonneville Power Administration.

Subject: Bonneville Power Administration.

March 12.     Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Murray Employment Bill.

March 16.     H. L. SELIGMAN.

Subject: Bank Earnings and Taxation of Bank Profits.

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 1945.)

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

Subject: Monetary and Financial Problems of 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 13.        s. s. PU [sic]

Subject: Fiscal Policies and Income Generation.

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

Subject: Commodity Agreements.

April 20.       HECTOR TASSARA.

Subject: The Role of the Central Bank in the Argentine Economy.

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.

April 30.       Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Postwar Wage Policy.

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

Subject: Inflation in Europe.

May 21.         AXEL IVEROTH, Swedish Legation, Washington.

Subject: Postwar Plans in Sweden.

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.