Tag: Lutz

Categories
Princeton Suggested Reading Syllabus

Princeton. Microeconomic Theory. Lutz, 1949-50

 

This post includes: A typed page of course readings for Friedrich August Lutz’s Princeton economics theory course from 1949-50, transcribed from Martin Shubik‘s course notes, has been augmented with handwritten additions found scattered throughout the notes (identified in italics); several handwritten lists of readings from later during the course.

_____________________

Economics 501
Typed page of course readings, Parts I-III
[with inserts based on hand-written course notes]

THE THEORY OF VALUE
F.A. LUTZ

PART I                       THEORY OF DEMAND

Stigler: Theory of Price
Boulding: Economic Analysis
[Lerner: Ec. of control]

  1. a) Measurable Utility
    b) Indifference Curves
    c) The Controversy over Utility

a) [old theory]
Marshall Bks. 3 & 5 [+ appendix contract curve)
Wicksteed [ Ec. Vol. I ch 1&3 Vol II 1,2,3,4]
Böhm-Bawerk Bk 3 on Value
Wicksell: [Pol. Ec.] Vol 1 pt. 1
[Walras first chapters]

b) [new theory]
Hicks: Value and Capital Pt. I [1-50]
Schultz: Theory of Measurement of Demand Chap. I
[Pareto—Manuel]
Samuelson: Foundations of Ec. Analysis Ch. 5
Friedman: The Marshallian Demand Curve J.P.E. 1949
Morgenstern: Demand Theory Reconsidered Q.J.E. 1947-1948

c) Theory of Games: V. Neumann & Morgenstern
Friedman & Savage: Choices involving Risk J.P.E. 1948

 

Consumer’s Surplus:—

Knight: Realism & Relevance in the Theory of Demand J.P.E. 1944
Henderson: Consumer’s Surplus & Compensating Variation R.E.&S. 1941
Bishop: Prof. Knight & Theory of Demand J.P.E. 1946
Samuelson: Ch. 7

Duesenberry: Income, Saving & Consumer Behaviour

See: Lerner: Econ. of Control p. 30

 

PART II          THEORY OF PRODUCTION

Carlson: Pure Theory of Production
Robinson: Economics of Imperfect Competition
Viner: Cost curves & Supply curves
Sraffa: Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions
Pigou: Analysis of Supply E. J. 1928
Harrod:         E. J. 1931
Knight: Risk, Uncertainty & Profit Ch. 4
Lerner: Economics of Control Ch. 13

 

PART III         THEORY OF DEMAND & THEORY OF COSTS

Joan Robinson
Chamberlin
Fellner [Comp. among the few.]
[Triffin]
[Hicks: theory of monop. Eca 35]
[Kaldor: Eca 35
Ec J 35]
[Eiteman Equ of firm Q.J.E. 44-45]
[Ralph Theory of Income Distribution]
[Chamberlin: Proportionality, Divisibility, Economices of scale Q.J.E. ‘48]

PART IV         THEORY OF DISTRIBUTION

[no references listed, or next page missing]

 

________________________________

Two topics in consumer’s choice left.
[handwritten notes]

1) Consumer Surplus

  1. Marshall
  2. Hicks value & capital appendix ch II
  3. Q.J.E. 42-43 C.S.< Utility
  4. Consumer surplus R.E. 1940-41
    Henderson
  5. Knight Realism Theory of Demand 1934
  6. Bishop Reply to Knight 1946
  7. Realism and Relev J.P.E. Aug 1946
  8. Samuelson Cons. surplus

2) Measurability of Utility

  1. Frisch J.P.E. ‘33
  2. Lange The det of the Ut fn. RES Jun 34
  3. Zeuthen R.E.S. June 37
    1936-37
  4. Knight J.P.E. 1944
  5. D 6 [sic]
  6. Theory Games Ch I part 3.
  7. Vickrey Eca 1945
  8. Friedman & Savage Ut…Risk J.P.E. 1948
  9. J. N. Morgan can we measure mar ut of money Economica ‘45
  10. Samuelson R.E.S. ’37 Feb Ec. Oct 38.

________________________________

Theory of Distribution
[handwritten notes]

F. Lutz

Part I Capital Theory
Part II Keynes via M.E. of capital

 

Reading: The Austrian Theory:

Böhm-Bawerk: Positive Theory of Capital book 2, 5,6,7 [The 3 reasons for time preference in book 5 received much later attention. Lutz says that the important part of the book is capital market [see: Stigler]
Wicksell: Lectures. Section on Capital Theory
Knight: “The Quantity of Capital, the Interest Rate” J.P.E. 1936          433, 612
“Capital, Time and the Interest Rate” Economica 1934
Lutz: The Criterion of Maximum Profits in the Theory of Investment Q.J.E. Nov. 1946
Keynes: General Theory ch. 6, app. on user cost
Lutz: Interest Rate and Investment in a Dynamic Econ. AER Dec 1945 pp. 811-830
Fisher: Theory of Interest

The Hayek-Kaldor Discussion

Hayek: The Ricardo Effect (See: Profits, Interest, Invest) Economica 1942 IX N.S. pp. 127-152
Kaldor: “Prof. Hayek and the Concertina? Effect” Economica 1942
Capital Intensity and the Trade Cycle, Economica 1934

Uncertainty and Risk

Pigou: Economics of Welfare app. I
Hart: “Anticipation, Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning” in Studies in Business Administration
Knight: Risk, Uncertainty and Profit
Steindl: On Risk, Oxford Ec Papers, 1941

[random paper mentioned (Mar 2 lecture:   Preipeich? Econometrica Jan 1940]

________________________________

 

Capital Theory of F. H. Knight (based on 16 articles)
[handwritten notes]

A.E.R. Mar 1950 Theory of Profit Weston
J.P.E. 1936 F. H. Knight
Economica 1934 Capital, Time and the Interest Rate Knight
[1933 Essay in honor of G. Cassel]

 

Source: Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Martin Shubik Papers. Folder: “Notes, Economic Theory; Prof. F. Lutz (Fall 1949-Spring 1950).”

Image Source: Princeton University Library from The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Photography Collection, The New York Public Library. “The Library, Princeton Univ., Princeton, N. J.” New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed December 8, 2017.

Categories
Economists Stanford

History of Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. From Report to Ford Foundation, 1954

Having most recently posted brief histories of the behavioral sciences as reported by Harvard and Chicago to a larger Ford Foundation Project that was completed 1953-4, I simply couldn’t resist going the extra mile to add the corresponding chapter for Stanford University’s contribution to the project here. I have added boldface to highlight economics-specific information for those of you historians of economics in a hurry.

________________________________

[p. 6]

Chapter 3
The Development of the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford

I. PRIOR TO THE SECOND WORLD WAR

A. Teaching. When instruction at the University began, in 1891, there were at Stanford only three departments—History, Psychology, and Economics and Social Science—embracing the field of the behavioral sciences. The last of these had three divisions: I. Political Economy, Statistics and Finance; II. Sociology; and III. Political Science. Thus all the present behavioral science departments except Journalism were present in some form or other from the very start. The Economics Department retained its conglomerate character as the haven of incipient departments until the Second World War.

In the next year, 1892, there were added two new departments — Education and Law — which for a period of years were closely related to the original three. The Department of Law was not conceived on a merely vocational basis, but listed among its “ultimate aims” the furnishing of “such instruction in the elementary principles of Anglo-American law as may properly form a part of the education of an American citizen”; the furnishing of “such instruction in commercial law as may be adapted to the needs of those who intend to become merchants, bankers, brokers, etc. or to follow other lines of business”; the providing “for students intending to enter the public service, adequate instruction in public and international law”; and the furnishing “to students of political and social science, training in special branches of law related to such subjects”.1 The Department of Education in its very first year listed at least one course, “Studies on Children”, that was [p. 7] substantially a psychology course, and over the many succeeding years such courses were increased in number and scope as the Department developed into a School.

The “charter members” of the Stanford faculty in the behavioral sciences included at least two eminent figures. Andrew Dickson White, who had been President of Cornell from 1866-1885 and Minister to Germany from 1879-1881, was the first Professor of History. His service at Stanford was interrupted from 1892-1894 while he was President Cleveland’s Minister to Russia and in 1896 while he served on the Venezuelan Commission. The first Professor of Law was Benjamin Harrison, who came to his chair at Stanford immediately on taking his leave of the Presidency of the United States in 1893. The original Professor of Psychology, Frank Angell, continued in his chair until 1921 and was the last of the “charter” faculty in the behavioral sciences to retire. Amos Griswold Warner, first Professor of Economics, had been Superintendent of Charities in Washington, D. C. The stamp of his influence was reflected in the curriculum for most of the years following until the Second World War, particularly in the emphasis on social institutions, on reform and remedial legislation, and on charities and humanitarianism.

Stanford was coeducational from the start; in fact, the first person awarded the Ph.D. degree in the behavioral sciences was a woman, Mary Roberts Smith, who received her degree in Sociology in the year 1896. The first doctorate in any field had been awarded two years before in Geology. In the very first academic year, nine behavioral science degrees were awarded, 8 in History and 1 in Economics and Social Science. There were 63 student majors in the behavioral sciences that year—1 in Psychology, 49 in History, and 13 in Economics and Social Science. At the second commencement 4 students of History and 1 in Economics and Social Science were granted master’s degrees, the first in the departments’ history. The first class to complete four years’ residence, 1894-95, graduated 31 in behavioral sciences: [p. 8] 20 A.B.’s and 1 M.A. in History, 6 A.B.’s in Economics and Social Science, and 4 A.B.’s in Law.

The curriculum of the first year, especially in History and in Economics and Social Science, reflected the major concerns and horizons of that age. The Psychology Department offered only two courses, Elementary and Advanced Psychology. The History Department offered courses in Greek, Roman, and Medieval History, the History of the Christian Church, of the English Constitution, of the French Revolution, of the Pacific Slope, and American Political History — a historical diet confined largely to the history of Western Europe and Anglo-America. The History Department listed three courses for graduate students with this explanation: “The courses offered to graduate students are especially designed to afford a training in methods of historical research, through the use of original materials. The results of such investigations are presented in the seminary, to which these courses are tributary. No attempt, however, is made sharply to separate the undergraduate from the graduate department. Graduates will often find it to their advantage to take courses designated for undergraduates; while undergraduates with adequate preparation may, by invitation of the professor, be admitted to courses primarily designed for graduates.”2 The problem of graduate courses has, it can be seen, been with us from the beginning. The fuzziness of disciplinary lines is reflected in the first list of courses in the Department of Economics and Social Science. As a matter of interest it is reproduced here.

  1. Principles of Political Economy. Elementary course.
  2. Advanced Economic Theory: Bimetallism, Railway Transportation, etc.
  3. A History of Tariff Legislation in the United States.
  4. Taxation and Finance.
  5. Statistics: History, Theory, and Technique.
  6. [p. 9] Social Science: with special reference to Public Charities and the Management of Penal Institutions.
  7. A Study of Industrial Corporations.
  8. A History of Agriculture and Prices.
  9. Commercial Relations of the United States.
  10. History of Economic Theories.
  11. Civil Service Reform in England and the United States.
  12. Sociology
  13. Land and Land Tenure. The Australian System of Registration.
  14. Method in Domestic Consumption.
  15. Communism and Socialism.
  16. Co-operation: Its History and its Influence.
  17. A History of Industry, including Trade Unions, Guilds, Factory Systems, Strikes, Arbitration, Labor Organizations, etc.
  18. Municipal Administration: the Natural Monopolies, Police, Taxation, etc.
  19. Railroad Management: A Course offered in cooperation with the Engineering Department.
  20. City and State Politics.
  21. A History of Estates and Land Tenure in California.
  22. Recent Social Reform.

 

There were many changes during the University’s first fifty years. One of the early changes occurred in 1899 in the Department of Law. In that year the departmental objective was redefined: “This Department offers such courses in Law as are usually given in professional law schools.”3 in that year a three-year program leading to the Bachelor of Laws degree was inaugurated, and the A.B. in law was soon thereafter abandoned.

The changing names of the Department originally called Economics and Social Science reflect its changes in personnel and curriculum. Sociology courses waxed and waned several times in its history. Political Science ran a more even course, but it also virtually disappeared in the years from 1902 until 1908. The following table summarizes the development of this department.

Department Title:   Years

Department of Economics and Social Science:   1891-1894
Department of Economics and Sociology:   1895-1901
Department of Economics and Social Science:   1902-1911
[p. 10]
Department of Economics:   1912-1914
Department of Economics and Political Science:   1915-1918
Department of Economics:   1919 – date
Department of Political Science:   1919 – date
Division of Sociology, Department of Economics:   1926 through 1940

While the Department of Psychology expanded very slowly in its first thirty years under Professor Angell, the psychology offering in the Department of Education4 flourished in the earlier years (1897-1903) under Professor Edwin Diller Starbuck and later (1910-1921) under Professor Lewis Madison Terman. On Professor Angell’s retirement in 1921, President Wilbur designated Professor Terman head of the Department of Psychology, after which date the department grew rapidly in personnel, in curriculum, and in enrollment. Whereas in the preceding years the psychology curriculum in the Department of Education had rivaled that of the department proper in every respect, thereafter the Psychology Department was dominant.

One of the present behavioral sciences originated at Stanford in the humanities curriculum. In 1908 the Department of English Literature and Rhetoric announced that “students preparing for journalism may substitute for the more advanced courses in literature, courses in Advanced Composition, History, Economics and Social Science.”5 In 1910 Everett Wallace Smith gave a course in News Writing in this department. In 1917 Journalism became a sub-division of the Department of English. It became the Division of Journalism in 1920, and in 1924 the Division was transferred from the Department of English to the jurisdiction of the newly organized School of Social Sciences.6

[p. 11] In the years following upon the First World War there were two major additions to the behavioral science resources of Stanford, both deriving from the interests and activities of her most celebrated alumnus, Herbert Hoover. These were, of course, the Food Research Institute established in 1921 and the Hoover War Library established in 1924. “The Food Research Institute is organized under a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York for the purpose of studying the production, distribution, and consumption of food,” declared the Annual Register of 1922. “The Hoover War Library is a collection of materials for research in the causes, conduct, and results of the Great War, covering also the period of reconstruction since the end of the war. These materials are of all kinds and from all the nations of the world, whether belligerent or neutral, but special efforts have been made to secure those which will be useful in research along the lines of non-military history and on social, economic, and governmental problems.”7

There was also expansion in this post-war period in the direction of a required course for freshmen not intent upon a behavioral science major. In 1923, Professor Edgar Eugene Robinson of the History Department was made director of an interdisciplinary program in Citizenship. It consisted of “a general introductory course required of all students in their first year. Designed to present the salient features in the bases and background of present-day society; to consider the place of education in modern life and the political equipment of the citizen; and to examine in detail the fundamental political, social, and economic problems of the American people.”8 Lectures were given by professors in such fields as History, Geology, Law, Philosophy, Political Science, Mechanical Engineering, Education, and Psychology. These were supplemented by smaller discussion groups. In 1935 [p. 12] Citizenship gave way to the History of Western Civilization under the jurisdiction of the Department of History, by this time headed by Professor Robinson, as the course required of all freshmen. It retained the technique of combining lectures with discussion sessions.

One may perhaps summarize the growth of the faculty over the University’s first fifty years by citing some of the better-known names among them. The Department of History included such regular members as Max Farrand, Ralph Haswell Lutz, Edward Maslin Hulme, Thomas Andrew Bailey, and George Vernadsky, and such visitors as Carl Lotus Becker, Guy Stanton Ford, Ralph Henry Gabriel, Samuel Flagg Bemis, and Carlton J. H. Hayes. The Department of Psychology had Walter R. Miles, Lewis Madison Terman, Calvin B. Stone, and Ernest Hilgard as members, and Karl Buhler, Albert Edward Michotte, Kurt Lewin, and Edwin G. Boring as visitors. The Economics Department claimed among its number Thorstein Veblen, Alvin Saunders Johnson, Harley Leist Lutz, Bernard Francis Haley, Joseph Stancliffe Davis, and Theodore Harding Boggs, and among its visitors Frank Albert Fetter, John Maurice Clark, Charles Jesse Bullock, Alvin Harvey Hansen, Jacob Viner, and Fritz Machlup. The political scientists included such permanent professors as Westel Woodbury Willoughby, Burt Estes Howard, Victor J. West, Edward Angell Cottrell, Thomas Swain Barclay, Hugh McDowall Clokie, and Charles Fairman, and such guests as James Wilford Garner, Arthur N. Holcombe, Francis William Coker, Edward Samuel Corwin, Harold Hance Sprout, Arthur W. MacMahon, Henry Russell Spencer, Peter H. Odegard, William Anderson, Clyde Eagleton, James Kerr Pollock, and Leonard Dupee White.9 Among the sociologists there were Charles N. Reynolds and Richard LaPiere. From 1907 to 1914 George H. Sabine was a member of the Department of Philosophy.

The office of Executive Head of the Department was first mentioned in the Annual Register of 1913-1914. It was early established that the Stanford [p.13] policy was to have a permanent department head rather than a rotating one, except in the Food Research Institute. The Department of Economics had two permanent heads in the period from the beginning of the First World War to the beginning of the Second World War, Murray Shipley Wildman (1915-1930) and Bernard Francis Haley (from 1931). History had four chairmen: Edward Benjamin Krehbiel (1913-1914), Ephraim Douglas Adams (1914-1922), Payson Jackson Treat (1922-1930), and Edgar Eugene Robinson (from 1930). Psychology had two chairmen: Frank Angell (1913-1922) and Lewis Madison Terman (from 1922). Political Science also had two: Victor J. West (1919-1927) and Edwin Angell Cottrell (from 1927). The Food Research Institute had three joint directors, who rotated the executive directorship among them – Alonzo Engelbert Taylor, Carl Lucas Alsberg, and Joseph Stancliffe Davis. In 1942 the present director, Merrill Kelley Bennett became executive director. There were two chairmen of the Hoover War Library: Ephraim Douglass Adams (1923-1924) and Ralph Haswell Lutz (from 1924), as there were in the School of Social Sciences—Murray Shipley Wildman (1923-1930) and Edwin Angell Cottrell (from 1930)–and in the Department of Journalism— Everett Wallace Smith (1927-1933) and Chilton Rowlette Bush (from 1933).

Until the year 1908-1909 the History Department had the greatest enrollment of student majors. In that year the Economics Department overtook History and with the exception of a few years immediately following has remained the largest department in terms of total enrollment in the behavioral sciences area. The History Department, however, continued to have the greatest enrollment of graduate students throughout this period. From the beginning, the Psychology Department had the smallest enrollment in the behavioral sciences area. When the Political Science Department was established in 1919, it immediately exceeded the Psychology Department in enrollment. From the year 1922 on—the first of Professor Terman’s chairmanship—the number of graduate students was higher [p. 14] in proportion to undergraduates in the Psychology Department than in any other behavioral science department.

The table which follows summarizes the degrees granted by the several behavioral science departments in the first fifty years of Stanford’s history, and in the case of Ph.D.’s through the academic year 1952-1953.

A.B.’s M.A.’s Ph.D.’s
 

Depart-ment

 Prior 1920 1921-1940 Prior 1920 1921-1940 Prior 1920 1921-1940 1941-1953
Econo-mics 600 2998 34 82 4 41 14
History 708 917 90 223 2 55 63
Journal-ism 8 317 0 20 0 0 0
Food Research 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Inter-national Relations 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Political Science 7 1000 1 138 0 33 26
Psycho-logy 31 303 1 70 1 49 64
Sociology & Anthro-pology * 159 * 22 1 12 9
Social Sciences 0 1161 0 9 0 1 0

*Prior to 1928, Sociology A.B.’s and M.A.’s were included as Economics Degrees.

It is noteworthy that the number of A.B.’s in Psychology increased ten times in the inter-war years as compared with the first thirty years, and the A.B.’s in Economics six times in the same period, in spite of the fact that in the later period such new departments and programs as Political Science, Sociology, and Social Sciences siphoned off elements among the students previously included under Economics. Growth in terms of the number of advanced degrees awarded is similarly reflected in comparing the two periods—with the single exception of the number of Ph.D.’s granted in Economics between 1941 and 1953. Whereas the average had earlier been [p. 15] about two Economics Ph.D.’s a year, in the more recent period it has declined to slightly more than one per year.

In all the fields there has been a great increase in the number of courses given. In the inter-war years the departments began to classify their course offerings both as to level of complexity and as to subject matter. The establishment of the lower division and the increase in the size of the faculty were among the factors leading to this change. It is also possible to detect changes in emphasis in the course offerings of the departments over the years, reflecting both the development of the subject matter of the several fields and the shifting interests of individual faculty members.

In the field of psychology, for example, in the first thirty years the courses primarily bore such all-embracing titles as Elementary, Advanced, Experimental, Applied, Systematic, Comparative, and Social Psychology and Psychological Literature. Child psychology and testing were offered in the School of Education. After the First World War, statistics, physiology, clinical psychology, child psychology, and testing, personality measurement, and vocational guidance were emphasized in the curriculum.

Throughout the first fifty years of Stanford’s history the economics curriculum was dominated by courses on economic institutions as opposed to economic theory. Courses on railroads, corporation finance, money and banking, economic history, labor legislation, accounting, insurance, tax procedure and the like comprised the major part of the offering. Secretarial training was also included in the economics curriculum. It is apparent that the primary objective of this department was to afford apprenticeship to a business career. In the later years of this period, however, there was an increase in the offering of theoretical [p. 16] courses such as capital and income, production economics, mathematical economics, value and distribution, and the history of economic thought.

Perhaps the most striking changes in emphasis over the years occurred in the history curriculum. The early emphasis on Rome, the Middle Ages, the Italian Renaissance, and British constitutional history was supplemented in the first decade of the century by courses in International Law, Diplomatic History of the United States, and the Westward Movement in the United States, and such courses in the history of the Far East as the History of Australasia, the Philippines, and Tropical Colonization in the Far East. In 1911 there were added a course on Spain and Spanish America and one on international conciliation, and in 1913 the first courses in Japanese history. After the war there appeared courses in the Slavic nationalities, Russia, the Baltic States, the World War, and the Paris Peace Conference. As the number of courses on modern Europe, the history of the United States, Latin America and the Far East increased, Greek and Roman history were taken over by the Classics Department; international law and conciliation were taken over by the Department of Political Science and the School of Law; and the Middle Ages and the History of the Christian Church assumed-a lesser role.

When political science was still a part of the Economics Department, such courses as the theory of the state, methods of legislating, administration of states, cities, and towns, practical politics, modern federal government, and political theory were offered. The History Department, as has been noted, offered courses in the international field. When the Department of Political Science was organized after the war, the course offering fell into the following general areas: elementary courses in American government and state and local government, comparative government, political theory, political parties, administration, relation of [p. 17] government and industry, and international relations. As early as 1924 there was a course in quantitative measurements in public administration, and in the following year there was a course in political statistics. In 1928 a course in public law was offered for the first time. With the exception of the statistical courses, these general areas have continued to be the principal ones in the political science curriculum.

Throughout the first fifty years of the University’s history, the sociology curriculum was combined with Economics. There is, however, evidence of the development of the subject matter during this period. In the nineties there were courses in static and dynamic sociology (using as texts Herbert Spencer and Lester F. Ward), in social pathology, charities and corrections, penology, and even statistics and sociology. Static and dynamic sociology disappeared, but charities, causes of poverty, and courses of that type persisted into the war years. After the war the character of the courses changed. Problems of Poverty, of Child Welfare, Crime as a Social Problem, and Care of Dependents were courses given in the early twenties. Later, courses in population, rural society, social organization, and sociological theory were added to the curriculum, and from this developed an emphasis that persisted until the Second World War. In 1937 a course in Cultural Anthropology was included in the sociology offering, marking the beginning of anthropological instruction.

We have already noted the beginnings of Journalism in the English Department, with one course in Newswriting in 1910 supplemented in 1912 by one in Current Newspapers. By 1916 there were eight courses covering newswriting, analysis, reporting, editing, management and advertising. In 1920, as we have seen, Journalism was recognized as a Division of English and, in 1925, of the School of Social Sciences. From this time the curriculum continued to grow—with courses in geographical, [p. 18] sociological and legal aspects of journalism, techniques of propaganda and investigative methods in journalism.

From its inception the Food Research Institute offered a course in Food Research Problems. In 1934 a course for upper division students in The World’s Food was added, and in 1940 there was a considerable increase in the number of courses offered, including Consumption Economics, Commodity Prices, American Agricultural Policy, Foreign Agricultural Policy, and Agriculture and the Business Cycle.

In 1931 the Hoover Library offered a course in Problems of Research. By 1937 this had been expanded to include directed research in such special fields as the World War and Reconstruction, Austria-Hungary, the Bolshevik Party and the Third International, Soviet Policies and the Civil War, Housing in the United States, History of International Relations since 1914, European Totalitarianism, and the German Revolution, 1918-1919.

 

B. Research Institutes and Grants. The establishment of the Hoover War Library just after the First World War inaugurated the first major research development in the behavioral sciences at Stanford. The Annual Report of the President for 1920 notes that:

The Hoover War Library has grown steadily during the year through gifts and purchases. Professor E. D. Adams and Professor Ralph Lutz have been actively engaged in assembling and classifying this notable collection. Several students have already entered the University in order to do research work with the help of this collection and it is inevitable that there will be a considerable increase in the number of such students from year to year.10

In the following year the plans for establishing the Food Research Institute were announced.

[p. 19] During the year the final plans for the organization of the Food Research Institute of Stanford University have been consummated. The general terms of this gift are as follows: A contract was drawn up between Stanford and the Carnegie Corporation of New York in which the University agreed to set up the research organization ‘to study the problems of the production, distribution and consumption of foodstuffs’, to appoint 3 scientists as Directors who shall determine the research pursuits and be Professors with teaching a secondary aspect of their duties, appoint a 7 man Advisory Committee, furnish housing etc. free, and disburse the money.11

The Corporation agreed to supply $54,000 from July 1, 1921, to June 30, 1922; $66,000 from July 1, 1922, to June 30, 1923; and $73,000 annually for the next eight years. Two years before the expiration of the contract a conference would be held to determine the Institute’s future status.

The Annual Report12 went on to state that

Dr. Alonzo E.Taylor, Dr. Carl L. Alsberg, and Dr. Joseph S. Davis have been appointed as Directors of the Institute. The Advisory Committee is made up as follows: Mr. Herbert Hoover, Mr. A. R. Howard, of the American Farm Bureau; Dr. John C. Merriam, President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington; Mr. George C. Roeding, Mr. Julius Barnes, President William M. Jardine, of the Kansas State Agricultural College; President of the Carnegie Corporation, President of Stanford University. One of the original buildings in the Inner Quadrangle, formerly occupied by the Department of German, has been set aside for the use of the Directors. The Hoover War Library, which formed the main center of attraction for the Food Research Institute, is being assembled on one floor of the stacks of the new Library with an adjacent special reading room for the use of the members of the Food Research Institute and faculty and students of the Departments of History and Economics. The Food Research Institute constitutes one of the most notable opportunities for research of a wide scope that has come to any university in America within recent years.

In 1924, the specific plans for the Hoover War Library were announced.13

[p. 20] The Hoover War Library is a separate gift and has special endowment funds for the maintenance of certain of its features. It is under the general administration of the University Librarian.

In order to make it possible to:

a. secure acquisitions in the many different fields touched upon by the Library,
b. care for the interests of graduate students and others using the facilities of the Library, and
c. determine upon the lines of development,

Directors of the Hoover War Library are to be appointed with a relationship to the Library similar to that of a departmental faculty …

Many additions have been made to the collection during the course of the year. Mr. Hoover has increased his personal gifts until they now total about $90,000 in cash expended. The Directors of the library are making every reasonable effort to make it one of the great war collections of the world.

When the time came for renegotiation of the original contract of the Food Research Institute, the Carnegie Corporation acted by granting $750,000 in 1931 to provide a permanent endowment. In the brochure of the Institute describing its activities and publications14 its financial history is described as follows:

The [Carnegie] Corporation guaranteed funds for a period of ten years, while Stanford University undertook to provide quarters and facilities for the Institute and accorded it departmental status. Financial support is at present derived jointly from endowment granted by Carnegie Corporation to Stanford University in continuing support of the Institute, from University appropriations, and from short-term grants provided by foundations and other private organizations.

In 1939, the plans for building the Hoover Library building were announced

For some years we have been accumulating funds for the construction of the Hoover Library Building. With the original funds, the gift of $50,000 from Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the $300,000 from the Belgian- American Educational Foundation, Inc.,in hand, the university architects prepared plans for a monumental structure… It is anticipated that the building will be completed in 1940.15

[p. 21] With the completion of this building the two principal research facilities of Stanford’s first fifty years, and, indeed, in the lifetime of the University were solidly established.

The major grants for behavioral science research in the years prior to the Second World War, aside from those for the Hoover Library and the Food Research Institute, were the Laura Spellman Fund of the Rockefeller Foundation, which amounted to $454,838.49; funds to Professor Terman for his studies of intellectually gifted children—$60,673.29 from the Commonwealth Fund and $26,000 from the Carnegie Corporation; and funds for sex research granted to Professors Stone, Miles, and Terman by the Academy of Sciences, amounting to $73,298.73.

The principal publication output of the Hoover Library comprised a series of eighteen books of collected documents, memoirs, and special studies, and those of the Food Research Institute included seventeen volumes of Wheat Studies, three monographs in the Grain Economics Series, seven Fats and Oils Studies, and nine Miscellaneous Publications. The publications resulting from the Laura Spellman Fund are tabulated in Appendix I to Chapter 14.

[p. 22]

II. SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR

Since the Second World War the following major ohanges in the behavioral science field have occurred at Stanford:

 

A. New Departments and Agencies Established. The Department of Sociology and Anthropology was set up on an independent basis in 1948. Previously sociology had been under the Department of Economics. Anthropology teaching had begun with the arrival at Stanford in 1945 of Felix M. Keesing, who was to be appointed three years later as head of the new joint department. Other major additions to the staff in this area included Paul Wallin (appointed in 1942) in sociology and Bernard J. Siegel (appointed in 1947) and Bert A. Gerow (appointed in 1948) in anthropology.

The Department of Statistics was established in 1949 under the chairmanship of Albert H. Bowker. It quickly became a major center for research, which two years later was institutionalized as the Laboratory of Applied Mathematics and Statistics. Important staff appointments included Meyer Abraham Girshick (1948), Herman Chernoff (1951), and Charles E. Stein (1953).

In 1943 two professors of geography were brought to Stanford on a permanent basis. Seven years later, geography was established as a separate department under the chairmanship of C. Langdon White.

In 1951 the Committee for Research in the Social Sciences (CRISS) was set up as an inter-departmental body for the initiation, screening, and coordination of social science research. In the following year Alfred de Grazia, of the Political Science Department, was appointed its first executive officer, (see Chapter 8,III).

 

B. Remade Departments. In the years following 1945, first under the chairmanship of Bernard P. Haley and later under that of Edward S. Shaw, [p. 23] the Economics Department was restaffed with a series of outstanding younger scholars. The result has been a “planned” and well-integrated staff. The present national reputation of the department, particularly in the field of economic theory, largely dates from this period. The major additions to the staff, with their dates of appointment, are as follows: Tiber Scitovsky (1946), Lorie Tarshis (1946), Melvin W. Reder (1947), Moses Abramovitz (1948), Paul A. Baran (1949), Kenneth J. Arrow (1949).

A similar expansion tool: place in the Department of Psychology following the appointment of Ernest R. Hilgard as executive head in 1945. Here the chief additions to the staff now at associate or full professor rank included: Lois Meek Stolz (1945), Donald W. Taylor (1.945), Clarence L. Winder (1948), and Douglas H. Lawrence (1949). Last year Robert R. Sears was called to Stanford from a Harvard professorship to succeed Professor Hilgard as head of the department following the latter’s appointment as Dean of the Graduate Division.

The expansion of the Psychology Department was in three directions: (1) the Clinical Psychology Ph.D. program supported by the Veterans Administration and the Public Health Service; (2) the nursery school and child development laboratory; (3) the Office of Project Research, as a “holding company” and initiator of research sponsored by the government and the foundations (see Chapter 8,V).

 

C. Changes in Other Behavioral Science Areas. Both History and Political Science have recently acquired new chairmen. In 1952 Thomas A. Bailey was appointed executive head of the former department and James T. Watkins IV of the latter. Today, of the behavioral science departments, only Journalism is under its pre-war head.

Of recent years the Department of History has pursued a vigorous policy of recruiting its staff from highly diversified academic and [p.24] geographical backgrounds. Areas in which substantial new staff recruiting has taken place include Far Eastern History—Claude A. Buss (1946), Arthur F. Wright (1947), and Thomas C. Smith (1948)—and United States history— John C. Miller (1949), Frank Freidel (1953), and Don E. Fehrenbacher (1953).

In Political Science, eight out of ten staff members of the rank of assistant professor and above are post-war appointees. Concurrently the Department has supplemented its earlier emphasis on international relations with added attention to public administration and political behavior.

The immediate post-war years saw the Hoover Institute and Library expanding its interests in new areas to which the Second World War had given increased importance. Whereas the pre-war collections had been heavily concentrated on Central and Eastern Europe, the Far East and, to a lesser extent, the Middle East now became areas of major interest. In 1941, the Hoover Library holdings on Asia and the Middle East consisted only of materials relating to mandates or colonies of European powers. Virtually none of this material was in the vernacular languages of these areas.

Since 1945, the Hoover Library has been making a systematic effort to collect and preserve the sources for the political, social, and economic history of Asia and the Middle East during the twentieth century, together with relevant background materials. The political and social movements of the twentieth century—nationalism, communism, religious movements with political significance, etc.—have formed the basis for the collections. The Chinese collection now numbers some 34,000 volumes; the Japanese collection, some 20,000 volumes; the Middle East collections, principally in Turkish and Arabic, some 8,000 volumes; the South Asian, and Southeast Asian collections are much smaller. These new interests have been reflected in the appointment of highly-trained scholars to serve as curators for the new collections—Christina P. Harris (Middle [p. 25] East), Mary C. Wright (China, Southeast Asia, and South Asia), and Nobutaka Ike (Japan).

Experiments in the application of newer techniques of behavioral science have constituted much of the post-war research in the Hoover Institute. The leading project, Revolution and the Development of International Relations (RADIR), was supported by the Carnegie Corporation.

 

D. Related Professional Schools. A further sign of the post-war tendency toward growth and change can be seen in the appointment of new deans for the School of law (Carl B. Spaeth, 1946), the School of Medicine (Windsor C. Cutting, 1953), and the School of Education (I. James Quillen, 1953).

 

E. Conclusion: Prospects for Continued Development. It is the conviction of the committee responsible for the present survey that the above evidences of development and branching into new fields of teaching and research represent the dominant tendency in Stanford today. The growth potential of the University is apparent in nearly all areas of behavioral science interest. The purpose of the present study is to look ahead on the basis of the foundations now in existence—bearing constantly in mind that for a comparatively small university the most advisable course is considerable specialization within departments rather than an effort to cover all fields equally.

 

[NOTES]

  1. Annual Register, 1892-93, p. 72.
  2. Annual Register, 1891-92.
  3. Annual Register, 1899-1900, p. 98.
  4. Became School of Education in 1917.
  5. Annual Register, 1908-09, p. 89.
  6. Established in 1924.
  7. Annual Register, 1924-25, p.240
  8. Annual Register, 1923-24.
  9. These twelve men are all former presidents of the American Political Science Association, as was W. W. Willoughby, mentioned earlier.
  10. Annual Report of the President, 1920, p. 28.
  11. Annual Report of the President, 1921, p.7.
  12. Ibid., p. 9.
  13. Annual Report of the President, 1924, p.3.
  14. Stanford University Press, 1948, p. 2.
  15. Annual Report of the President, 1939, p. 14.

 

Source: The Stanford Survey of the Behavioral Sciences. Report of the Executive Committee and Staff, July 1954.

Image Source: Library of Congress. Encina Hall, Leland Stanford Junior University (1898).

 

 

 

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.