Categories
Exam Questions Fields Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins. Graduate Theory of International Trade Exam. Machlup and Harberger, 1951

 

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Theory of International Trade

Drs. Fritz Machlup and Arnold C. Harberger
May 28, 1951

Answer three questions including I.

I.

Assume that Country A has been importing 1,000,000 tons of X per period over a duty of $2.00 per ton. Domestic production has been 11,000,000 tons per period, the domestic price $6.00 per ton. Pure competition prevails among domestic and foreign producers. Demand and supply conditions remain stable everywhere; the elasticity of domestic demand is -1.0, the elasticity of domestic supply is + 0.5, and the elasticity of the foreign excess supply is infinite.

Now a tariff reduction of $1.00 per ton is granted for imports up to a certain maximum per period; imports in excess of this quota are permitted but subject to the full duty of $2.00. State the effects of the tariff reduction upon domestic price, domestic production, and total imports of X and upon customs revenue, if the tariff quote is

(a) 1,000,000 tons of X per period;
(b) 2,000,000 tons of X per period; and
(c) 4,000,000 tons of X per period.

[Your calculations need not be exact.]

 

II.

Comment on the following statements and discuss whether and under what conditions they may be true or false.

  1. A country cannot gain from imposing an export tax if the foreign demand for its exports is of greater than unit elasticity.
  2. In a country with a relative scarcity of capital the real interest rate will be higher if a general import tariff is imposed than it would be under free trade.
  3. For every situation in which trade is encumbered by tariffs, there exists a situation of unencumbered trade in which all countries involved would be better off.

 

III.

Would you expect “national welfare” in Country A to increase, decrease, or remain the same as a result of

  1. an increase in foreign demand for the export product(s) of country A?
  2. an increase in the foreign excess supply of the product(s) which country A imports?
  3. an improvement in technology in Country A?
  4. a tariff imposed on its imports by Country A?
  5. a tax imposed on its exports by Country A?
  6. a tariff imposed on imports from Country A by country B (the rest of the world)?
  7. a tax Imposed on exports to country A by country B (the rest of the world)?

Give reasons for your answers.

 

IV.

It is generally agreed that the receipt of dollar grants by a country will raise its maximum level of real consumption plus investment. Little has been said in the literature about changes in the relative shares of the increased total which go to the various factors of production. On the basis of the analysis developed in this course, what can be said about the circumstances under which these relative shares are likely to change? Are they likely to change at all? If so, in what direction? If not, why not? In your discussion, assume continuous full employment in all (both granting and receiving) countries, and assume that the grant is used fully by the receiving country.

Source: Johns Hopkins University. Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives.  Department of Political Economy Series 6. Box 3/1, Folder: “Department of Political Economy. Graduate Exams, 1933-1965.”

Categories
Exam Questions Johns Hopkins Suggested Reading Syllabus

Johns Hopkins. Reading List and Exam for Aggregate Income Theory. Machlup, 1951

 

Materials (reading list and exams) for Fritz Machlup’s course on income distribution, 18-603, have been transcribed and posted earlier. Economics in the Rear-view Mirror also has a transcription of the final exam for his 1956 course on methodology.

________________________

 

Course Announcement

Theory of Aggregate Income 604. Professor Machlup.
Two hours weekly, second term.

A study of the theory of income formation, linking an analysis of the supply and circulation of money with a dynamic process analysis of autonomous and induced disbursements for consumption and investment; an attempt to explain the level and fluctuations of national income.

Source: Johns Hopkins University. School of Higher Studies of the Faculty of Philosophy, Announcements of Courses 1950-51 (The Johns Hopkins Circular, April 1950), p. 99.

________________________

 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
THE THEORY OF AGGREGATE INCOME
18-604

Prof. Fritz Machlup

READING LIST
Spring Term 1951

Books:

Required:

J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. (London: Macmillan, New York: Harcourt Brace, 1936) pp. 1-384.

Recommended:

Richard Ruggles, An Introduction to National Income and Income Analysis. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1949)

Thomas C. Schelling, National Income Behavior. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951)

A.E.A., Readings in Business Cycle Theory. (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1944)

Seymour E. Harris (ed.), The New Economics. New York: Knopf, 1947)

 

I. Static and Dynamic Analysis

Paul A. Samuelson, “Dynamic Process Analysis,” A Survey of Contemporary Economics, ed. Howard S. Ellis. (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1948) pp. 352-387.

 

II. Savings, Investment, and National Income

Bertil Ohlin, “Some Notes on the Stockholm Theory of Saving and Investment,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 87-131.

Friedrich A. Lutz, “The Outcome of the Saving-Investment Discussion,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 131-157.

Abba P. Lerner, “Saving and Investment: Definitions, Assumptions, Objectives,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 158-168.

Oscar Lange, “The Rate of Interest and the Optimum Propensity to Consume,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 169-192.

Fritz Machlup, “Forced or Induced Saving,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 25 (1943), pp. 26-39.

Dennis H. Robertson, “A Survey of Modern Monetary Controversy,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 311-329.

 

III. The Multiplier

Fritz Machlup, International Trade and the National Income Multiplier (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1943) Chapters 1-7, 10.

Gottfried Haberler, “Mr. Keynes’ Theory of the ‘Multiplier’: A Methodological Criticism,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 193-202.

Fritz Machlup, “Period Analysis and Multiplier Theory,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 203-234.

Robert Eisner, “The Invariant Multiplier,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 17 (1949-50), pp. 198-202.

 

IV. Velocity and Time Lags

James W. Angell, “The Components of Circular Velocity of Money,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 51 (1937), pp. 224-272.

Lloyd Metzler, “Three Lags in the Circular Flow of Income,” Income, Employment, and Public Policy. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1948), pp. 11-32.

Alvin H. Hansen, “The Robersonian and Swedish Systems of Period Analysis,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 32 (1959), pp. 24-29.

Harold M. Somers, “A Theory of Income Determination,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58 (1950), pp. 523-541.

 

V. Wage Rate Reductions and Employment

A. C. Pigou, “Real and Money Wage Rates in Relation to Unemployment,” Economic Journal, Vol. 47 (1937), pp. 405-422.

N. Kaldor, “Professor Pigou on Money Wages in Relation to Unemployment,” Economic Journal, Vol. 47 (1937), pp. 745-762.

A. C. Pigou, “Money Wages in Relation to Unemployment,” Economic Journal, Vol. 48, (1938), pp. 134-137.

James Tobin, “Money Wage Rates and Employment”, in The New Economics, pp. 572-587.

 

VI. Tax-Financed Government Expenditures

Trygve Haavelmo, “Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget,” Econometrica, Vol. 13 (1945), pp. 311-318.

Gottfried Haberler, “Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget: Some Monetary Implications of Mr. Haavelmo’s Paper,” Econometrica, Vol. 14 (1946), pp. 148-149.

R. M. Goodwin, “Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget: The Implications of a Lag for M. Haavelmo’s Analysis,” Econometrica, Vol. 14 (1946), pp. 150-151.

Everett E. Hagen, “Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget: Further Analysis,” Econometrica, Vol. 14 (1946), pp. 152-55.

T. Haavelmo, “Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget: Reply,” Econometrica, Vol. 14 (1946), pp. 156-58.

 

VII. The Accelerator

John M. Clark, “Business Acceleration and the Law of Demand: A Technical Factor,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 235-260.

Paul A. Samuelson, “Interactions Between the Multiplier Analysis and the Principle of Acceleration,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory, pp. 261-269.

F. A. Hayek, Profits, Interest, and Investment. (London: Routledge and Sons, 91939) Chapter I, pp. 3-72.

F. A. Hayek, “The Ricardo Effect,” Economica (1942), pp. 126-152.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers, Box 15, Folder “Macroeconomics: Old Reading Lists”.

 

________________________

 

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Theory of Aggregate Income
(18-604)
Final Exam, May 29, 1951

Professor Fritz Machlup

Answer three questions, one of each group, as concisely as possible without omitting significant steps in your reasoning. Write in English rather than in algebra or geometry.

I.

  1. Explain the possibilities of a general cut in money wage rates bringing about an increase in aggregate employment.
  2. Explain the increase in employment that can be brought about by an increase in tax-financed government expenditures, emphasizing alternatively the significance in the causal sequence of changes in (a) the quantity of money or velocity of circulation, (b) liquidity preference, (c) the propensity to consume, (d) the difference between investment and saving.

 

II.

  1. Explain the meaning of the distinctions between the “consumption lag”, the “output lag”, and the “earnings lag”, and their importance, or lack of importance, in the determination of income.
  2. Explain the meaning of the distinctions between “intended” and “unintended” saving, and “intended” and “unintended” investment, and their importance, or lack of importance, in the determination of income.

 

III.

  1. Explain the interactions between multiplier and accelerator.
  2. Explain the meaning of the “Ricardo Effect” and its importance, or lack of importance, in the determination of the accelerator and of the turning points of the business cycle.

 

Source: The Johns Hopkins University. The Eisenhower Library, Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 6, Box 3/1, Folder “Graduate Exams, 1933-1965”.

Image Source: Fritz Machlup is seen presenting in a seminar (note: Evsey Domar is leaning forward on the right side of the table, third from the left). From the Johns Hopkins Yearbook Hullabaloo 1956, p. 15.

Categories
Austria Economists Exam Questions Johns Hopkins Methodology

Johns Hopkins. Final exam for Fritz Machlup’s methodology course, 1956

 

 

Besides the questions for the final exam in Fritz Machlup’s course on the methodology of economics from the first semester of the 1955-56 academic year at Johns Hopkins University, I include the following photo from the 1956 yearbook Hullabaloo (p. 15) that identifies neither the speaker nor the seminar. While this is about as generic a seminar photo as one can imagine, I have something more than a mere suspicion that we are looking at Fritz Machlup in action. Perhaps some visitor with a keener forensic eye can confirm or reject my tentative identification in a comparison of the above portrait of Machlup reading himself with the speaker in the mystery seminar. The third man on the right, counting from the speaker, sure looks like a young Evsey Domar.

My hunch is based on the following picture of almost certainly the same seminar room in 1963 from the Carl Christ memorial website at Johns Hopkins.

 

______________

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
METHODOLOGY
18.601

Professor Fritz Machlup
January 27, 1956

Answer five questions, one from each group.
Write on loose sheets of paper; start a new sheet for each question.
Identify each sheet by the Question Number in the left corner and your Examination Number (which you draw before the examination) in the right corner; your name should appear nowhere.
You are on your honor not to use notes or to give or accept advice.

I.

  1. According to Poincaré, “a priori propositions are irrefutable because they are really firm resolutions to carry on the scientific game according to certain rules or stipulations.” Nevertheless, Morris Cohen considers a priori principles as “methodologic or regulative principles which enable us to organize our factual knowledge” and as “expressive of the fundamental nature of things,” What light does this view throw upon the methodological discussions of Hutchison, Kaufmann, Mises, and Knight?
  2. “While the deductive method might be applicable to a simple and stationary condition of industry, it becomes valueless in face of the increasing complexity of the modern economic world.” What was John Neville Keynes’ reaction to this point of view?
  3. “Just as the same proposition may express both a universal and a historical, or both a verbal and a real judgment, so it may express both a positive and a normative judgment.” (Fraser, Economic Thought and Language). First explain each of the three sets of antonyms and then explain and illustrate the statement.

II.

  1. Contrast and compare the logical nature of introspectionism and sensationalism as expounded by Felix Kaufmann or Morris Cohen.
  2. Give a reasoned explanation of Kaufmann’s distinction between three meanings of probability, one “relating to empirical knowledge as such”, another relating “to synthetic propositions undecided in a given scientific situation,” and a third referring to “the relative frequency of an attribute” within a certain collective.
  3. Felix Kaufmann, having made a distinction between empirical laws and theoretical laws, states: “Whereas we have both types of laws in natural science, there are, as I see it, no empirical laws established in social science, and even the tendency to establish such laws is not very strong. But if we consider the significance of theoretical laws in natural science, we cannot regard this as constituting a fundamental difference between the methods of natural science and those of social science.” Explain and discuss this statement in a way intelligible to someone who has not read Kaufmann’s writings.

III.

  1. Explain what Ludwig von Mises means by ”methodological apriorism”, “methodological individualism”, and “methodological singularism”.
  2. “In the history of applied Economics, the work of a Jevons, a Menger, a Bowley, has much more claim on our attention than the work of, say, a Schmoller, a Veblen, or a Hamilton.” What is Robbins driving at with this [last word cut off, “statement?” matches the spacing of the tips to the letter “t” that are still visible]
  3. Hutchison implies that pure theory may help the analyst to formulate questions to be answered by empirical studies: “The constant object of the scientist…is to compel the facts of experience to answer his questions definitely ‘yes’ or ‘no’…” Robbins appears to reverse the relationship: “Realistic studies may suggest the problem to be solved….But it is theory and theory alone which is capable of supplying the solution.” Discuss the paradox from the point of view of any of the other writers on methodology.

IV.

  1. If the description or institutional part of economics is viewed by Professor Knight as lying in the domain of cultural anthropology rather than economics proper, does this mean that in institutional inquiries sense observation assumes greater emphasis than intercommunication and interpretation? If not, why does Knight distinguish institutional from theoretical economics?
  2. “There are no better terms available to describe the difference between the approach of the natural and the social sciences than to call the former objective and the latter subjective.” (Hayek, “Scientism and the Study of Society”.) Explain the meaning of the essential terms employed and the statement as a whole.
  3. Hayek said: “It is only in so far as some sort of order arises as a result of individual action but without being designed by any individual that a problem is raised which demands a theoretical explanation.” Explain.

V.

  1. “Economics is in fact the only science which enjoys the advantage of an automatic quantification of its subject matter.” (Parsons, “Sociological Elements in Economic Thought”). Explain and discuss.
  2. Parsons distinguishes the following ideal types of criticism of abstract economic theory: (1) supplementary positivistic empiricism: (2) radical positivistic empiricism; (3) romantic empiricism; (4) supplementary non-economic sociology. Characterize each in a brief statement illustrated by examples.
  3. Discuss Veblen’s principal categories of human action—especially the “pragmatic” versus the “workmanlike” type—and compare them with the general “rational” type and the narrower “economic” type used in the abstract theories of traditional economics.
  4. On what grounds do Professors Herskovits and Knight reject and defend, respectively, the concept of the “economic man” as a useful tool of economic analysis?

 

Source:  Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 6. Box 3/1. Folder: “Department of Political Economy, Graduate Exams, 1933-1965”.

Image Source:  Johns Hopkins University yearbook, Hullabaloo, 1957, p. 28.

Categories
Exam Questions Johns Hopkins Suggested Reading Syllabus

Johns Hopkins. Income Distribution Theory, Readings and Exams. Machlup, 1950’s

 

 

The following reading list on the theory of income distribution taught by Fritz Machlup in the mid-1950s at Johns Hopkins University was found in a file in the Evsey Domar papers marked “Macroeconomics, Old Reading Lists”. I hadn’t realized until this post that Machlup’s papers are archived at the Hoover Institution, where 45 boxes alone are filled with the archival remains of his academic career. OK, next time.

I remember that my dissertation supervisor, the same Evsey Domar, did not particularly “like” Fritz Machlup. The two of them were at Johns Hopkins in the 1950s, Machlup being a dozen years Domar’s senior. It is not that Evsey Domar would have actually trash-talked Fritz Machlup in front of a student of his, but I do have a vague recollection of Domar judging Machlup’s approach to economics as having been excessively concerned with terminological issues over substantive economics. Also I sensed that Domar considered Machlup to have viewed matters of academic rank and relative status with excessive seriousness. But these memories fall closer to the legend end of the historical spectrum than to those frequencies reserved for documented anecdotes. 

____________________

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
THE THEORY OF RELATIVE INCOMES
18-603, Fall Term 1954-55
Prof. Fritz Machlup

READING LIST

Texts:

  1. American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution. (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1946)
  2. Any one of the books on the list below.

 

  1. General Background

Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (London: Macmillan, 8th ed. 1936) Books V and VI.

[Handwritten note, “theory of derived demand exp. Ch. 1-6”, apparently referring to Marshall, Book V (“derived demand” found in Chapter 6 of Book V)]

Eugen v. Böhm-Bawerk, Positive Theory of Capital (London: 1891; Reprinted New York, Stechert, 1940) Book III, Ch. X; Book IV, Ch. VII.

Philip H. Wicksteed, The Common Sense of Political Economy. London: Routledge, 1933) Vol. I, Book I, Chapter IX.

Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston: 1921, Repreinted London School of Economic) Part II.

John R. Hicks, Value and Capital (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939) Part II.

 

  1. General Equilibrium Theory

Gustav Cassel, A Theory of Social Economy (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1924) Chapter IV.

Bertil Ohlin, Interregional and International Trade (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1933) Appendix I.

George Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (New York: Macmillan, 1941) Chapter IX and XII.

Joan Robinson, “Euler’s Theorem and the Problem of Distribution” Economic Journal, Vol. XLIV (1934).

 

  1. Marginal Productivity and Substitution

John Bates Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (New York: Macmillan, 1900) Chapter XII and XIII.

Joan Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition (London: Macmillan, 1934) Books VII, VIII, IX.

John R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages (London: Macmillan, 1935) Chapter I and VI.

Paul H. Douglas, The Theory of Wages (New York: Macmillan, 1934) Chapter III.

Paul H. Douglas, “Are There Laws of Production?” American Economic Review, Vol. XXXVIII (1948).

Fritz Machlup, “The Commonsense of the Elasticity of Substitution,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. II (1935).

Richard A. Lester, “Shortcomings of Marginal Analysis for Wage-Employment Problems.” American Economic Review, Vol. XXXVI (1946)

Fritz Machlup, “Marginal Analysis and Empirical Research” American Economic Review, Vol. XXXVI (1946).

Articles by Cassels, Stigler, Chamberlin, Machlup, Robinson, Lange, and Kalecki in A.E.A. Readings.

 

  1. Wage

John R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages Chapters II, III, IV.

Paul H. Douglas, The Theory of Wages Chapter X.

Edwin Cannan, “The Demand for Labour”, Economic Journal, Vol. XLII. (1932)

Fritz Machlup, The Political Economy of Monopoly (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1952) Chapters IX and X.

Articles by Robertson, Robbins, Bloom, Rolph, Reynolds, Lerner, Tarshis, and Dunlop in AEA Readings.

 

  1. Rent

David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1st ed. 1817) Chapter II.

Hubert D. Henderson, Supply and Demand (Cambridge: University Press, 1922, Revised, 1932) Chapter VI.

Joan Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Chapter VIII.

Gordon F. Bloom, “Technical Progress, Costs, and Rent”. Economica IX, New Series (1942)

Articles by Buchanan, and Boulding in AEA Readings.

 

  1. Interest

Eugen v. Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital, Books II, V, VI, and VII.

Knut Wicksell, Lectures on Political Economy (New York: Macmillan, 1934) Vol. I, Part II, Ch. 2.

John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London: Macmillan, 1936) Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Friedrich A. Hayek, The Pure theory of Capital (London: Macmillan, 1941) Chapters III, V, VI, VIII, XI-XIV.

Fritz Machlup, “Professor Knight and the ‘Period of Production’”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. XLIII (1935).

____________ “The Rate of Interest as Cost Factor and as Capitalization Factor”, American Economic Review, Vol. XXV, (1935)

Articles by Hayek, Knight, Keynes, Robertson, Hicks, Somers, and Lutz, in Readings.

 

  1. Profit

Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Chapters IX-XII.

Joseph Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934) Chapter IV.

Robert Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940) Chapter V.

Fritz Machlup, The Economics of Sellers’ Competition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1952), Chapters VII and VIII.

Articles by Knight, Hart, Gordon, and Crum, in Readings.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Project, Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 15, Folder “Macroeconomics, Old Reading Lists”.

____________________

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
The Theory of Relative Incomes
18-603

January 21, 1953

Professor Fritz Machlup

Answer three questions, one from each group.

Write on loose sheets of paper; start a new sheet for each question.
Identify each sheet by the Question Number in the left corner and your Examination Number (which you draw before the examination) in the right corner; your name should appear nowhere.(I.

  1. Describe in words, without using any symbols, the Walrasian system of general equilibrium, stating the essential assumptions, the variables assumed to be given, and the unknowns to be derived.

II.

  1. Discuss the influence of different types of inventions on the marginal productivity of labor. Indicate also their probably effects on the total income of the labor class and on its relative share in the national income.
  2. Dennis H. Robertson divides the effects which “an artificial raising of the wages” is apt to have upon employment into “two analytically separable reactions”, first, “a movement along the existing [marginal productivity] curve,” and second, “a cumulative lowering of the curve”. Explain the two reactions and indicate what assumptions concerning other factors of production, especially capital, are involved.

III.

  1. State the three grounds on which Böhm-Bawerk bases his explanation of the existence of interest and discuss whether each or any of them constitutes a necessary and/or sufficient condition of the existence of interest. (You may avoid committing yourself to the arguments expressed by attributing them to “some writers”.)
  2. Without indicating your own opinions or inclinations, present both sides in the controversy between Frank H. Knight and the “Austrians” with respect to the following points:
    1. that all capital is conceptually perpetual or conceptually non-permanent;
    2. that economic progress may result in a “shortening” of the investment period;
    3. that an increase in the supply of capital need not change the original factors of the remote past.

Source: Johns Hopkins University. Eisenhower Library, Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 6, Exams, 1956-62. Box 3/1, Folder “Graduate Exams, 1933-1965”.

____________________

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
THEORY OF RELATIVE INCOMES
18.603

January 1957

Professor Fritz Machlup

Answer four questions, one from each part.

Write on loose sheets of paper; start a new sheet for each question.
Identify each sheet by the Question Number in the left corner and your Examination Number (which you draw before the examination) in the right corner; your name should appear nowhere.
You are on your honor not to use notes or to give or accept advice.

PART I.

  1. A product, X, is made from three “ingredients” or factors of production, A, B, and C, all of which are necessary and can be used only in a fixed proportion. Total output of X is 1000 units per unit of time; the product sells at a price of $100 per unit. The factor costs per unit of product are $60 for A, $30 for B, and $10 for C. The supplies of A and B are perfectly elastic to the industry. The demand for X has an elasticity of -2. The industry is competitive both in its buying and selling.
    Assume that the quantity of C which is available to the industry is reduced by 20 per cent. Calculate the elasticity of the industry’s derived demand for C. Show your reasoning step by step.
  2.      a. Define or explain the concept of elasticity of substitution as it is used by Mrs. Robinson.
    1. Is it “technical” substitution or “total” substitution which is involved in Mrs. Robinson’s concept? What is the difference between the two substitutabilities?

PART II.

  1. Discuss various concepts of “bargaining power” in the labor market, commenting on the selection of criteria, the problem of measurability, and the uses to which the concepts are put.
  2. Ricardo says in the chapter “On Rent” of his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation: “If the high price of corn were the effect, and not the cause of rent, price would be proportionately influenced as rents were high or low, and rent would be a component part of price. But that corn which is produced by the greatest quantity of labor is the regulator of the price of corn; and rent does not and cannot enter in the least degree as a component part of its price.” Discuss. Take account of the possibility that land has other uses besides the production of corn.

PART III.

  1. Without indicating your own opinions or inclinations, present both sides in the controversy between Frank H. Knight and the “Austrians” with respect to the following points:
    1. that all capital is conceptually perpetual or conceptually non-permanent;
    2. that economic progress may result in a “shortening” of the investment period;
    3. that an increase in the supply of capital need not change the original factors of the remote past.
    4. that it is not possible to identify the contributions of the original factors of the remote past.
  2. On p. 208 of his Lectures, Vol. I, Wicksell quotes the following statement by Gustav Cassel: “A man who attaches the same importance to future needs as to present ones, if he expects to be able to provide for his needs in the future just as easily as he does now, has no reason for setting aside anything of his present income.” According to Wicksell, “Cassel is not quite correct” inasmuch as his “argument actually presupposes the absence of any rate of interest.” Explain.

PART IV.

  1. What, if anything, does general-equilibrium theory contribute to the understanding or development of income-distribution theory?
    In order to facilitate a thoughtful discussion of this question it is suggested that you treat it in three parts:

    1. The function of a theory of relative incomes. (What is it designed to do? What kind of general principles or conceptual schemes seem to be useful in developing a theory of income distribution?)
    2. The essentials of general-equilibrium theory. (What is it designed to do and how? What do we learn from it?)
    3. The contribution, or lack of it, of general-equilibrium systems to the theory of relative incomes.

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. Eisenhower Library, Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 6, Exams, 1956-62. Box 3/1, Folder “Graduate Exams, 1933-1965”.

Image Source:  Fritz Machlup page  at the website Austrian Economics Center.

 

Categories
Harvard Seminar Speakers

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

 

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

___________________________________

EXPANSION OF THE SEMINAR PROGRAM

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

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

___________________________________

1940-41
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
[partial list]

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 2. GUSTAV STOLPER, Financial Adviser.

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

 

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

___________________________________

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Student reports were presented on the following subjects:

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

 

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

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
1942-43. Professor Haberler

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

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

 

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

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

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

Subject: Some Problems of Economic Warfare.

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

Subject: Canadian War Economic Measures.

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

Subject: Post-War Reconstruction of International Trade.

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

Subject: Trade Policy in Wartimes.

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

Subject: The Bank for International Settlements.

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

Subject: Post-War Problems in International Trade.

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

Subject: The Administration of Export Control.

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

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

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

Subject: Planned or Adjusted Post-War Economy.

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

Subject: European Post-War Reconstruction.

 

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

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

 

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

 

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
1943-44. Associate Professor Harris

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

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

 

November 12. Professor HARRIS.

Subject: Inflation in Latin America.

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

Subject: Brazilian Economy.

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

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

January 6. Professor HARRIS.

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

January 10. Professor HABERLER.

Subject: Reparations.

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

Subject: Mexico.

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

Subject: Economic Budget and Fiscal Budget.

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

Subject: Chile.

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

Subject: Haiti.

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

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

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

Subject: Argentina.

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

Subject: Broad Aspects of Latin-American Economics.

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

Subject: Colombia.

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

Subject: Inter-American Trade Practices.

March 31. Mr. HENRY WALLICH.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and International Equilibrium.

 

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

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Harris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: International Distribution of Supplies in Wartime.

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

Subject: Some Problems of the Economic Collaboration with Russia.

January 11. Dr. WOLFGANG STOLPER, Swarthmore College.

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

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

Subject: Some Aspects of the Bretton Woods Program.

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

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

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

Subject: The Boston Urban Development Plan.

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

Subject: International Economic Problems of South America.

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

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

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

Subject: International Raw Materials Control: War and Postwar.

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

Subject: Monetary and Financial Problems in the Liberated Countries.

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

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

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

Subject: Commodity Agreements.

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

Subject: Postwar Policies.

April 27. Professor JOHN VAN SICKLE, Vanderbilt University.

Subject: Wages and Employment: A Regional Approach.

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

Subject: Inflation in Europe.

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

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

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

Subject: The Shorter Work Week and Full Employment.

 

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

 

Categories
Courses Economists Harvard

Harvard. Mathematical Economics Rescheduled. Petitions, E. B. Wilson, 1935

One of the iron statistical laws of scheduling classes is that the probability of finding a Pareto improvement to a scheduling conflict ex post semester-start rapidly tends to zero with the size of the class that needs to be rescheduled. Here is a case of one such rare Pareto-improvement.

For the second semester of the academic year 1934-35 at Harvard E. B. Wilson’s Mathematical Economics rescheduled to eliminate the conflict with Fritz Machlup’s Money and Banking course.

What happens to make this particular case interesting in the history of economics is the list of distinguished (ex post) names among the undersigned of three foreign visitors to Harvard, namely Oskar Lange, Nicholas Georgescu, and Gerhard Tintner along with the graduate student Wolfgang Stolper and the undergraduate Sidney S. Alexander.

Six of the undersigned went on to receive Harvard Ph.D.’s in economics, they were:

  • Sidney Stuart Alexander.D. 1946. Financial structure of American corporations since 1900. (note: Harvard S.B. 1936, so undergraduate)
  • James Pierce Cavin, 1938 Ph.D. The sugar quota system of the United States, 1933-1937.
  • Wolfgang Stolper, 1938 Ph.D. British monetary policy and the housing boom, 1931-1935
  • Albert Leonard Meyers, 1936 Ph.D. Future trading on organized commodity exchanges
  • Chih-Yu Lo, 1937 Ph.D. A statistical study of prices and markets for electricity
  • Wilfred Malenbaum, Ph.D. 1941. Equilibrating tendencies in the world wheat market.

_______________________________________

[Memo: Econ. Chair to Dean, Carbon copy]

February 7, 1935

Dear Dean Murdock,

Because of the conflict of Economics 13b (Mathematical Economics) and Economics 50 (Principles of Money and Banking), which are scheduled for 3:00 on Tuesday and Thursday, Professor Wilson has requested that the hour for Economics 13b be changed to 2:00 on Tuesday and Thursday. I understand from Miss Higgs that rooms are available at this hour. The students registered in the course agree to this change.

I shall appreciate it if the change can be arranged before the next meeting of the class on Tuesday.

Sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

 

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

_______________________________________

 

[Memo: Dept. Secretary to E. B. Wilson, Carbon copy]

February 5, 1935

Dear Professor Wilson,

Dr. Machlup tells me that because of the conflict of Economics 13b and 50 you are willing to change the hour of meeting Economics 13b to 2:00 on Tuesday and Thursday. Until I am sure that the students who are taking the course for credit are agreeable, I cannot notify Dean Murdock of this change.

The simplest way to do this, I think, is for you to ask the class at its meeting on Thursday. There will be no trouble, I am sure, about securing a room at that hour. If you will let me know the outcome as soon as possible, I will make the necessary arrangements at the office.

Sincerely yours,

Secretary

 

Professor E. B. Wilson
55 Shattuck Street
Boston, Massachusetts

_______________________________________

[Petition signed by students/auditors in Econ 13b]

[Penciled in upper right:Econ 13b]

[typed] We should like to attend both, unfortunately conflicting, courses: Economics 13b (Mathematical Economics) and Economics 50 (Money and Banking). It would be much appreciated if a change in schedule could be arranged.

[signed] Oskar Lange
[signed] Nicholas Georgescu
[signed] Gerhard Tintner

[added in handwriting] We also, though not taking Ec. 50, would be willing to change hours.

[signed] S. S. Alexander

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950 (UAV.349.10). Box 23, Folder “Course Offerings 1932-37-40”.

_______________________________________

[Petition signed by students/auditors in Econ 50]

[Penciled in upper right:Econ 50]

[typed] We should like to attend both, unfortunately conflicting, courses: Economics 13b (Mathematical Economics) and Economics 50 (Money and Banking). It would be much appreciated if a change in schedule could be arranged.

[signed] W. Stolper
[signed] J. P. Cavin
[signed] A. L. Meyers
[signed] C. Y. Lo
[signed] T. Y. Wu [?]
[signed] S. Bolts [?]
[signed] P. Chanten [?]
[signed] W. Malenbaum

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950 (UAV.349.10). Box 23, Folder “Course Offerings 1932-37-40”.

_______________________________________

[Economics 13b: Course enrollment]

[Economics] 13b 2hf. Professor E. B. Wilson.—Mathematical Economics.

2 Graduates, 1 Junior. Total 3

 

[Economics] 50. Professors Williams and Dr. Machlup-Wolf.—Principles of Money and Banking.

16 Graduates., 10 Seniors, 1 Junior, 8 Radcliffe. Total 35.

 

Source: Annual Report of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College 1934-35, pp. 81-2.

 

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
Columbia Courses Economists Harvard Transcript

Columbia. Search Committee Report. 1950

This report is fascinating for a couple of reasons. The search committee understood its task to identify “the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located” from which a short list of three names for the replacement of Louis M. Hacker in Columbia College was selected. Organizationally, Columbia College is where undergraduate economics has been taught so that teaching excellence, including participation in Columbia College’s legendary Contemporary Civilization course sequence, was being sought as well as was potential for significant scholarship. Appendix C provides important information on James Tobin’s graduate economics education. In a later posting, I’ll provide information on others in the long-list of seventeen economists identified by the search committee.

___________________

January 9, 1950

 

Professor James W. Angell, Chairman
Department of Economics
Columbia University

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Committee appointed by you to canvass possible candidates for the post in Columbia College that is made available by the designation of Professor Louis M. Hacker as Director of the School of General Studies submits herewith its report.

As originally constituted, this committee was made up of Professors Taylor, Barger, Hart and Haig (chairman). At an early stage the membership was expanded to include Professor Stigler and from the beginning the committee had the advantage of the constant assistance of the chairman of the department.

In accordance with the suggestions made at the budget meeting in November, the committee has conducted a broad inquiry, designed to raise for consideration the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located. In addition to the men known personally to the members of the committee, suggestions were solicited from the authorities at other institutions, including Harvard, Chicago, California and Leland Stanford. By mid December, scrutiny of the records and publications by the committee to the following seventeen:

 

Name Suggested by
Alchian, Armen A. Haley
Bronfenbrenner, Martin Friedman
Brownlee, O. H. Friedman
Christ, Carl L. Angell
Dewey, D. J. Friedman
Du[e]senberry, [James] Stigler
Goodwin, Richard M. Burbank
Harberger, J. H. Friedman
Ho[s]elitz, Bert Friedman
Lewis, H. Gregg Hart
Machlup, Fritz Stigler
Nicholls, William H. Stigler
Nutter, J. W. Friedman
Pancoast, Omar Taylor
Schelling, Thomas Burbank
Tobin, James Burbank
Vandermeulen, D. C. Ellis

[p. 2]

The meeting of the American Economic Association in New York during the Christmas holidays offered an opportunity to meet many of the men on the above list and to make inquiries regarding them. As a consequence, it has been possible for your committee to make rapid progress with its appraisals. Although the committee is continuing to gather information and data, it is prepared at this time to make a series of definite recommendations, with a high degree of confidence that these recommendations are not likely to be greatly disturbed by its further inquiries.

It is the unanimous opinion of the members of your committee that the most eligible and promising candidate on our list is Martin Bronfenbrenner, associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin, at present on leave for special service in Tokyo.

Should Bronfenbrenner prove to be unavailable the committee urges consideration of D. J. Dewey, at present holding a special fellowship at the University of Chicago, on leave from his teaching post at Iowa. As a third name, the committee suggests James Tobin, at present studying at Cambridge, England, on a special fellowship from Harvard.

Detailed information regarding the records of these three men will be found in appendices to this report.

Bronfenbrenner, the first choice of the committee, is 35 years old. He received his undergraduate degree from Washington University at the age of 20 and his Ph.D. from Chicago at 25. During his war service, he acquired a good command of the Japanese language. He taught at Roosevelt College, Chicago, before going to Wisconsin and undergraduate reports of his teaching are as enthusiastic as those of the authorities at Chicago. He happens to be personally well known to two of the members of your committee (Hart and Stigler) and to at last two other member of the department (Shoup and Vickrey), all four of whom commend him in high terms.

The following statement from Hart, dated December 6, 1929, was prepared after a conference with Friedman of Chicago:

“Bronfenbrenner is undoubtedly one of the really powerful original thinkers in the age group between thirty and thirty-five. He has always very much enjoyed teaching; my impression is that his effectiveness has been with the upper half of the student body at Roosevelt College and at Wisconsin. He is primarily a theorist but has a wide range of interest and a great deal of adaptability so it would not be much of a problem to fit him in somewhere [p. 3] in terms of specialization. He would do a good deal to keep professional discussion stirring in the University. My impression is that he tends to be underrated by the market, and that a chance at Columbia College might well be his best opportunity for some time ahead. The difficulty is, of course, that there is no chance of arranging an interview; though Shoup and Vickrey, of course, both saw him last summer.”

In a letter dated December 15, Shoup wrote as follows:

“I have a high regard for Martin Bronfenbrenner’s intellectual capacities, and I think he would fit in well in the Columbia scene. He has an excellent mind and a great intellectual independence. In his writings he sometimes tends to sharp, almost extreme statements, but in my opinion, they almost always have a solid foundation, and in conversation he is always ready to explore all sides of the question. When we had to select someone to take over the tax program in Japan, after the report had been formulated, and oversee the implementation of the program by the Japanese government, it was upon my recommendation that Bronfenbrenner was selected. He arrived in Japan in the middle of August and his work there since that time has confirmed me in my expectations that he would be an excellent selection for the job, even though he did not have very much technical background in taxation. I rank him as one of the most promising economists in his age group in this country, and I should not be surprised if he made one or more major contributions of permanent value in the coming years.

“He has gone to Japan on a two year appointment, after having obtained a two year leave of absence from the University of Wisconsin. My understanding is that on such an appointment he could come back to the United States at the end of one year, provided he paid his own passage back. It might be possible that even this requirement would be waived, but I have no specific grounds for thinking so. I believe the major part of his work with respect to implementing the tax program will have been completed by next September. If the committee finds itself definitely interested in the possibility of Bronfenbrenner’s coming to Columbia, I should not let the two year appointment stand in the way of making inquiries.”

The breadth and rang of his interests recommend Bronfenbrenner as a person who would probably be highly [p.4] valuable in the general course in contemporary civilization and the quality of his written work suggests high promise as a productive scholar in one or more specialized fields.

Your committee considers that the appropriate rank would be that of associate professor.

Respectfully submitted,

[signed]

Robert M. Haig

 

______________________________

Appendix A – Martin Bronfenbrenner

The following data regarding Bronfenbrenner are taken chiefly from the 1948 Directory of the American Economic Assoication:

Born: 1914

Education and Degrees:

A.B. Washington University, 1934
Ph.D. University of Chicago 1939
1940-42, George Washington School of Law

Fields: Theory, mathematical economics, statistical methods, econometrics

Doctoral dissertation: Monetary theory and general equilibrium

Publications:

“Consumption function controversy”, Southern Economic Journal, January, 1948
“Price control under imperfect competition”, American Economic Review, March, 1947
“Dilemma of Liberal Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 1946

Additional publications:

“Post-War Political Economy: The President’s Reports”, Journal of Political Economy, October, 1948
Various book reviews including one on W. I. King’s The Keys to Prosperity, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948, and A. H. Hansen’s Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Annals

Additions to list of publications circulated, January 9, 1950

“The Economics of Collective Bargaining”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1939.
(with Paul Douglas) “Cross-Section Studies in the Cobb-Douglas Function”, Journal of Political Economy, 1939.
“Applications of the Discontinuous Oligopoly Demand Curve”, Journal of Political Economy, 1940.
“Diminishing Returns in Federal Taxation” Journal of Political Economy, 1942.
“The Role of Money in Equilibrium Capital Theory”, Econometrica (1943).

______________________________

Appendix B – D. J. Dewey

On leave from Iowa.

In 1948 studied at Cambridge, England.
1949-50, at Chicago on special fellowship.

Bibliography:

Notes on the Analysis of Socialism as a Vocational Problem, Manchester School, September, 1948.
Occupational Choice in a Collectivist Economy, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948.

Friedman and Schultz are highly enthusiastic.

Statement by Hart, dated December 6, 1949:

“Friedman regards Dewey as first rate and points to an article on ‘Proposal for Allocating the Labor Force in a Planned Economy’ (Journal of Political Economy, as far as I remember in July 1949) for which the J.P.E. gave a prize as the best article of the year. I read the article, rather too quickly, a few weeks ago and it is definitely an imaginative and powerful piece of work. How the conclusions would look after a thorough-going seminar discussion, I am not clear; but the layout of questions is fascinating.”

______________________________

Appendix [C] – James Tobin

Statement by Burbank of Harvard, dated December 14, 1949:

“We have known Tobin a good many years. He came to us as a National Scholar, completed his work for the A.B. before the war and had advanced his graduate work very well before he went into the service. He received his Ph.D. in 1947. Since 1947 he has been a Junior Fellow. He was a teaching fellow from 1945 to 1947. He is now in Cambridge, England, and will, I believe, begin his professional work by next fall. Since Tobin has been exposed to Harvard for a very long time I believe that he feels that for his own intellectual good he should go elsewhere. I doubt if we could make a stronger recommendation than Tobin nor one in which there will be greater unanimity of opinion. Certainly he is one of the top men we have had here in the last dozen years. He is now intellectually mature. He should become one of the handful of really outstanding scholars of his generation. His interests are mainly in the area of money but he is also interested in theory and is competent to teach at any level.”

Data supplied by Harvard:

Address:    Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge University, England

Married:   Yes, one child

Born:          1918, U.S.

Degrees:

A. B. Harvard, 1939 (Summa cum laude)
A.M. Harvard, 1940
Ph.D. Harvard, 1947

Fields of Study: Theory, Ec. History, Money and Banking, Political Theory: write-off, Statistics

Special Field: Business Cycles

Thesis Topic: A Theoretical and Statistical Analysis of Consumer Saving

Experience:

1942-45 U.S. Navy
1945-47 Teaching Fellow, Harvard University
1947- Junior Fellow, Society of Fellows

[p. 2 of Appendix C]

Courses:           1939-40

Ec. 21a (Stat.)                  A
Ec. 121b (Adv. St.)          A
Ec. 133 (Ec. Hist)            A
Ec. 147a (M&B Sem)      A
Ec. 145b (Cycles)             A
Ec. 113b (Hist. Ec.)       Exc.
Gov. 121a (Pol.Th.)         A

1940-1941

Ec. 121a (Stat.)                A
Ec. 164 (Ind. Org.)          A
Ec. 20 (Thesis)                A
Ec. 118b (App. St.)          A
Math 21                             A
Ec. 104b (Math Ec.)       A

1946-47 Library and Guidance

Generals:       Passed May 22, 1940 with grade of Good Plus
Specials:         Passed May 9, 1947 with grade of Excellent.

 

Data from 1948 Directory of American Economic Association:

Harvard University, Junior Fellow

Born:                1918

Degrees:           A. B., Harvard, 1939; Ph.D., Harvard, 1947j

Fields: Business fluctuations, econometrics, economic theory, and mathematical economics

Dissertation: A theoretical and statistical analysis of consumer saving.

Publications:

“Note on Money Wage Problem”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1941.
“Money Wage Rates and Employment”, in New Economics (Knopf, 1947).
“Liquidity Preference and monetary Policy”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1947.
[pencil addition] Article in Harris (ed.), The New Economics, 1947.

______________________________

Source: Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Department of Economics Collection, Box 6, Folder “Columbia College”

Image Source: The beyondbrics blog of the Financial Times.