Tag: Robbins

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Gender

Chicago. Notes on conversation with U Chicago president Colwell by T.W. Schultz, 1946

Biblical Greek Scholar/Theologian Ernest Cadman Colwell served under Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins as the president of the University of Chicago from 1945 to 1951. Theodore W. Schultz was the relatively new head of the Department of Economics who met with Colwell in late September 1946 to brief the president on developments in the economics department, especially with respect to efforts being made in pursuit of several economists needed to fill the gaps left by Henry Simons’ death (1946), Chester W. Wright’s retirement (1944), resignations by Jacob Viner (1946) and Simeon E. Leland (1946), and Oskar Lange’s leave of absence (1945-).

We see in the memorandum of conversation transcribed below that John and Ursula Hicks posed a spousal hire issue needing a creative solution before an actual offer could be made and that sixty year old Frank Knight was due some sort of a “senatorial courtesy” to get him on board with the majority of the department who badly wanted to extend an offer to thirty-one year old Paul Samuelson. 

_________________________

Chicago Economics in 1946

Mitch, David. “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946.” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (2016): 1714–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549915. Especially the online supplemental materials, where the following memo is quoted in part.

_________________________

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

Harro Maas, “Making Things Technical: Samuelson at MIT” in E. Roy Weintraub (ed.) MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014), pp. 272-294.

Roger Backhouse. Founder of Modern Economics: Paul A. Samuelson. Vol. I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948 (Oxford University Press, 2017), Chapter 28 “Commitment to MIT.”

_________________________

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

This discussion with President Colwell was highly satisfactory in that we considered in some detail and carefully, a number of important developments affecting the Department of Economics as follows:

1. I indicated to Mr. Colwell that the role of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago should be reviewed, with the view of achieving a better division of labor among universities within the U. S. and internationally. An increasing number of universities can do creditable undergraduate work in economics, and also satisfactory graduate work up to and beyond the master’s. There are upwards of two score of such institutions in the U. S. Meanwhile, the number of students seeking training at the undergraduate level, and also in graduate work, has increased rapidly, and the post war promises further growth in numbers. Meanwhile, many Western countries are looking to the U.S. for some of their advanced education in other fields as well as in economics), this along with the development that is taking place within the U. S., suggests that the time has come for the University of Chicago to allocate its resources even more largely to the most advanced reaches of economics. I proposed that we examine carefully the implications of this kind of refocusing of our program. I was pleased that Mr. Colwell found himself drawn to the kind of analysis I was presenting. He made several contributions to it and concurred with the analysis itself. He very cordially urged the Department to examine this thesis and reconstitute itself to serve more effectively, taking full account of the division of labor within American academic institutions.

2. I reviewed in some detail the state of the Department, pointing out the losses that have come as the result of the death of Simons, the retirement of Wright, the resignations of Viner and Leland, and the leave of absence of Lange. I expressed our pleasure in achieving the appointment of Friedman and Blough, and reaffirmed my confidence in our judgment in seeking these appointments.

With regard to additional appointments, the following individuals were discussed.

(1) Mr. and Mrs. Hicks. I reviewed the agreements we had with Mr. Hutchins, which were the foundation of negotiations last spring. I indicated that the Hicks would arrive this week to be with us the fore-part of the fall quarter. If as a result of this opportunity of being together during part of the fall quarter, the Hicks see a real opportunity for their professional efforts at the University of Chicago, and we continue to be genuinely interested in bringing them to this University, would we be permitted to offer Mr. and Mrs. Hicks the salaries and positions that we had discussed last spring realizing we might have to go higher in the case of Mr. Hicks, for I was convinced his standing warranted our paying the maximum. Mr. Colwell said he was willing to authorize an offer of $10,000 to Mr. Hicks, and probed with me for a while the merit of making it higher instead of offering a position to both individuals. It was my judgment that our bargaining power would be at a maximum if we would offer both individuals a position, but that we could escape the liability of dual membership in one family by making the offer to Mrs. Hicks a term appointment — perhaps that of a Lecturer or Research Associate, say for three years at $3,000, and then reconsider at the end of three years, where she would have the privilege of withdrawing or redefining her relationship, and the Department would likewise have that privilege. Thus, the commitment would be permanent in the case of Mr. Hicks, but meaningful in terms of time turned into professional task to Mrs. Hicks and yet allowing flexibility in her case. Mr. Colwell accepted my proposal to proceed with an offer to both Mr. and Mrs. Hicks along the lines I have outlined.

(2) I reported Mr. Viner’s observations that it was not likely Mr. Robbins would leave the London School of Economics, and that, at least for a year, there was no point in making an indirect approach again to see whether or not he might feel free to accept an appointment in this country. Mr. Colwell fully concurred.

(3) I reviewed our offer to Mr. Colin Clark to come to the University of Chicago as guest professor for a year. I also pointed out we had included in the offer $1000 for travel expenses. I Indicated further that several of my colleagues were disposed to feel that we should now make an offer of a permanent appointment to Mr. Clark, since he is not able to obtain leave of absence to come as visiting professor. I then indicated why I felt, although tentatively, that it was unwise to make this move for a permanent relationship with the Department until we had a chance to become personally acquainted with Mr. Clark, although I continue to have a high regard for his professional work as evidenced by his major writings. Mr. Colwell concurred with the view I expressed, namely, we should not make an appointment on a permanent basis, but should try to get Mr. Clark to come as a visiting professor, if not this year, perhaps next year.

(4) I reviewed the case of Albert G. Hart, indicating that he had accepted a position at Columbia before we could approach him with an offer, and that it was important to his own growth to take the position at Columbia for a year. My plan is to approach him at the end of the year, let him weigh alternatives, including the opportunities as he sees them at Columbia. My proposal to Mr. Colwell was that we approach Hart along in February or March in order to induce him to come to Chicago. We discussed Hart’s background in some detail, Mr. Colwell concurred in the procedure I outlined to him.

(5) I then outlined at some length the case of Paul Samuelson of M.I.T. Mr. Colwell had not had the privilege of visiting with Samuelson at the time he was here. Samuelson visited with Hutchins and Gustavson, as far as Central Administration was concerned. I stated it was my judgment that Samuelson is one of the younger men in economics who has a high probability of achieving a distinguished career as an economist, and that in this respect his promise is most outstanding; that I had no doubt of the merits of the case intellectually and would press for an appointment, were that the only consideration, without delay, but that I had to achieve, however, an acceptance of Mr. Samuelson in the Department, not that a majority was lacking; a mandate existed satisfying the University administrative requirements. But the obstacle lies in what in substance is a matter of “senatorial courtesy” in behalf of the most distinguished and senior member of the Department, Professor Frank Knight. I expressed the hope it would be possible to have Professor Knight concur in the appointment and feel it was being made without any discourtesy to him and his professional role and standing in this University and in the profession. I felt this end must and could be achieved and that I was going to give a great deal of effort to it in the coming months. Pending the full exploration of what can be done in this connection I wanted to reserve decision as to whether or not to recommend the appointment of Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Colwell discussed at some length his own appraisal of the problem I had presented. He seemed to be pleased with the approach that was implicit in what I was relating to him. He made the point, and made it explicitly, that if the intellectual stature of Samuelson is as high as my judgment indicated, that it was exceedingly important the University move toward an appointment. I felt sure, though, that he was disposed to await the wishes of the Department, weighing carefully the factors I had tried to describe to him.

  1. At this point Mr. Colwell took me back to my general thesis, namely, the refocusing of the goals of the Department and the use of its resources, urging me to give active attention to this task. Whereupon I suggested the achievement of this role might well mean the setting up of 5 to 7 positions in the Department for individuals to spend 2 to 5 years at this university in what would be essentially a post-doctoral role as scholars, then accept positions elsewhere consistent with their accomplishments and promise. Mr. Colwell was drawn to the proposal as I had put it and referred briefly to similar planning and developments in other fields.

T. W. Schultz.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder “3”.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard and Columbia. President of Harvard headhunting conversation regarding economists. Mitchell and Mills, 1936

The following typed notes were based on a conversation that took place on February 21, 1936 regarding possible future hires for the Harvard economics department. President James B. Conant (or someone on his behalf) met with Columbia university professors Wesley C. Mitchell and his NBER sidekick, Frederick C. Mills. This artifact comes from President Conant’s administrative records in the Harvard Archives.

In the memo we find a few frank impressions of members of the Harvard economics departments together with head-hunting tips for established and up-and-coming economists of the day.

An observation that jumps from the paper is the identification pinned to the name Arthur F. Burns, namely, “(Jew)”. Interestingly enough this was not added to Arthur William Marget (see the earlier post Harvard Alumnus. A.W. Marget. Too Jewish for Chicago? 1927.) nor to Seymour Harris.  

________________________

[stamp] FEB 25, 1936

ECONOMICS

Confidential Memorandum of a Conversation on Friday, February 21, with Wesley [Clair] Mitchell and his colleague, Professor [Frederick Cecil] Mills (?) of Columbia

General impression is that the Department of Economics at Harvard is in a better state today than these gentlemen would have thought possible a few years ago. The group from 35-50 which now faces the future is about as good as any in the country. [Edward Hastings] Chamberlin, [John Henry] Williams,[Gottfried] Haberler and Schlichter [sic, [Sumner Slichter] are certainly quite outstanding. Very little known about [Edward Sagendorph] Mason;  he seems to have made a favorable impression but no writings. [Seymour Edwin] Harris slightly known, favorable but not exciting.

[John Ulric] Neff admitted to be the best man in economic history if we could get him. Names of other people in this country mentioned included:

[Robert Alexander] Brady — University of California, now working on Carnegie grant on bureaucracy; under 40.

Arthur [F.] Burns at Rutgers (Jew) now working with the Bureau of Economic Research and not available for 3 or 4 years. Said by them to be excellent.

Henry Schultz of Chicago, about in Chamberlin’s class and age, or perhaps a little better.

[Arthur William] Marget of Minnesota, Harvard Ph.D., I believe; well known, perhaps better than Chamberlin. Flashy and perhaps unsound. (Mitchell and Mills disagree to some extent on their estimate of his permanent value but agree on his present high visibility).

Winfield Riffler [sic, Winfield William Riefler], recently called to the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, probably one of the most if not the most outstanding of the younger men.

Morris [Albert] Copeland of Washington; good man but not so good as Chamberlin.

Giddons [sic, Harry David Gideonse?] of Chicago, very highly thought of by Chicago people but has not written a great deal; supposed to be an excellent organizer.

C. E. [Clarence Edwin] Ayres, University of Texas, about 40; in N.R.A. at Washington. Mitchell thinks very highly of him.

England

[Theodore Emmanuel Gugenheim] Gregory, at London School of Economics, about 50, same field as Williams but not so good. Mills more favorable than Mitchell.

Other outstanding young Englishmen:

[Richard F.] Kahn, Kings College, Cambridge

F. Colin [sic, Colin Grant] Clark, of Cambridge

Lionel Robins [sic, Lionel Charles Robbins] of London, age 35, rated very highly by both Mills and Mitchell

F. A. Hayek, another Viennese now in London; spoken of very highly by both Mills and Mitchell.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 54, Folder Economics, “1935-1936”.

Image Sources: Wesley Clair Mitchell (left) from the “Original Founders” page at the website of the Foundation for the Study of Business Cycles; Frederick C. Mills (right) from the Columbia Daily Spectator, Vol. CVIII, No. 68, 11 February 1964.

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Economists Germany Harvard New School Princeton

Harvard. Curriculum vitae submitted by Albert O. Hirschman, ca. 1942

 

One of those serendipitous finds in rummaging through a department’s correspondence in search of one thing (curricular material in my case) is the artifact transcribed for this post, a c.v. submitted to the Harvard department of economics by a 27 or 28 year old Rockefeller Foundation fellow,  O. Albert Hirschmann. It is written in a narrative, autobiographical style as was the custom in Europe of the time. Because I had the great pleasure of having worked as Albert O. Hirschman’s assistant at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton during the 1980-81 academic year, I photographed his early c.v. in an act of filial piety. Of course all this and more can be found in the prize-winning biography written by Jeremy Adelman: Worldly Philosopher: The Odyssey of Albert O. Hirschman. Princeton University Press, 2013. Nonetheless, the c.v. possesses the charm of being the original words chosen by Hirschman to market himself back when he was just one of dozens of European economist émigrés looking for steady work.

Thanks to Adelman’s book I learned (p. 203) that one of my Yale mentors, William Fellner, taught a general seminar on the principles of economics at Berkeley that Albert Hirschman took during his Rockefeller Foundation fellowship. Historically speaking, it’s a small world! 

__________________

O. Albert Hirschmann
1751 Highland Place
Berkeley, Calif.

CURRICULUM VITAE

I was born on April 7th, 1915, in Berlin. My nationality is Lithuanian. In 1932 I began to study law and economics at the University of Berlin. In April, 1933, I left for Paris, where I registered at the École des Hautes Études Commerciales (H.E.C.) and at the Institut de Statistiques de l’Université de Paris at the Sorbonne. In 1935 I had obtained the diplomas of both these institutions.

At the end of 1935, I went to England, in order to study for several months at the London School of Economics and Political Science under a scholarship granted to me by the International Student Service, which had already granted to me by the International Student Service, which had already helped me during my former studies. I had courses with Professors Robbins [1898-1984], T. E. Gregory [1890-1970] and B. A. Whale [Philip Barrett Whale, 1898-1950]. I worked in particular under Mr. Whale on French monetary policy since the stabilization of the Franc.

At the end of 1936, after a short stay at Paris, I applied for, and obtained a place as an assistant at the Institute of Statistics of the University of Trieste. I remained there until the middle of 1938, when I was compelled to return to Paris because of the anti-foreign and anti-semitic policy of the Fascist government. At Trieste, I worked under Professor P. Luzzatto-Fegiz [1900-1989]. I became much interested in Population Statistics and a part of my researches in this field was published in an article in the Giornale degli Economisti, January, 1938: “Nota su due recenti tavole di nuzialità della popolazione italiana.” (“A note on two recent nuptiality tables of the Italian population”.) I worked also on several problems of economic statistics and in particular on the statistics of the national income and of family budgets. At the same time I studied for my Doctor’s degree, which I obtained with the grade 120 points in a total of 120, in June, 1938. My thesis was a continuation and an expansion of the work on French monetary policy which I had begun at the London School of Economics. The thesis was to be printed in the Annals of the University, but this was rendered impossible by the subsequent political developments.

While still in Italy, during the first months of 1938, I tried to acquaint myself thoroughly with the Italian financial and economic situation. I finally sent an extensive report to Paris, which was published as a separate booklet, without naming the author, in June, 1938, by the Bulletin Quotidien de la Société d’Études et d’Informations Économiques, under the title: “Les Finances et l’Économie Italiennes – Situation actuelle et perspectives.” This report attracted some attention in Paris because by combining data from various sources I had thrown some light on the Italian economic and financial development which was surrounded by official secrecy. It was upon this report that Professor Charles Rist [1874-1955] offered me to collaborate in his Institut de Recherches Économiques et Sociales. Italy was my special field and from July, 1938, to April, 1940, I wrote regularly three-monthly reports on Italian economic development in L’Activité Économique, which was the publication of the Institute.

I also wrote a small booklet for the above named Bulletin Quotidian on the subject: “L’Industrie Textile Italienne et l’Autarcie.”

In November, 1938, Professor J. B. Condliffe [1891-1981], who was then acting as the director of studies for the International Studies Conference at Bergen, and in this capacity was organizing an international inquiry into the national systems of exchange control, entrusted me with the preparation of a report on the exchange control system of Italy. I also worked on other problems in connection with the Conference and, in particular, devised a new method of measuring the tendency toward bilateralism as completely distinct from the tendency towards equilibrium of foreign trade. Professor Condliffe encouraged me to write a small paper on this idea, and thus I presented two reports at the international Studies Conference at Bergen in 1939: (1) “Le Contrôle des Changes en Italie”—a report of ninety mimeographed pages by the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, which for various reasons was not signed, (2) “Étude Statistique de la Tendance du Commerce International [extérieur] Vers l’Équilibre et le Bilatéralisme”—a shorter paper also mimeographed and signed. A recent publication of the U.S. Tariff Commission on “Italian Commercial Policy (1922 – 1940)” has made an extensive use of my report on Italian Exchange Control, whereas Professor Condliffe has quoted my figures on bilateralism in his book “The Reconstruction of World Trade”.

I had registered as a volunteer for the French Army in case of war, in April, 1939. I was called as early as August, 1939. The stationary character of the war gave me the opportunity to prepare still two reports on the Italian economy, the necessary source-material being sent from Paris. After the armistice, in July, 1940, I was demobilized at Nîmes, in Southern France. From there I went to Marseilles, where I met Mr. Varian Fry [1907-1967], who had been sent to Marseilles by the Emergency Rescue Committee in order to evacuate political and intellectual refugees from France. I collaborated with him from August to December, 1940, when, upon the recommendation of Professor Condliffe, I obtained a Rockefeller fellowship, and thereupon the American visa. I arrived in this country on January 14, 1941.

After a short stay in the East, I went to the University of California at Berkeley to work in connection with a research project on Foreign Trade, directed by Professor Condliffe. Soon after my arrival at Berkeley, I met my wife and we were married in June 1941.

My original research plan was to give a statistical analysis of recent quantitative trends in world trade and my first months were spent in working out the specific problems which I intended to study. I wrote several papers on the measurement of concentration and related subjects in descriptive statistics which I hope to publish either as appendices to my main manuscript or as separate journal articles. The next step in my research was to apply the statistical methods which I had worked out to the foreign trade statistics. This required extensive calculations for which Professor Condliffe put an assistant at my disposal. I also participated in several graduate seminars and took a course in the theory of probability.

Upon the renewal of the Rockefeller fellowship for another year and after a two months illness during the winter of 1941-1942, I began to work at the theoretical and historical aspects of the problems which I had first studied from a purely quantitative point of view. The result of my research has now been embodied in a manuscript of 300 pages entitled “National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade”, of which only the concluding section remains to be written.

Professors Howard S. Ellis [1898-1992] and Condliffe have given me the assurance that the manuscript would be published by a series edited by the newly established Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of California. One chapter of the manuscript giving a new statistical analysis of the composition of world trade according to commodity groups, is somewhat loosely connected with the rest and it has been suggested to me to have it published as a separate article. The Rockefeller Foundation has granted me the expenses for a trip to the Middle West and East on which I have just had the opportunity to discuss my manuscript with Professor Viner [1892-1970] at Chicago, Professors Haberler [1900-1995] and Staley [Eugene Alvah Staley (1906-1989) was at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy] at Harvard, Professors Staudinger [1889-1980] and Lowe [1893-1995] at the New School of Social Research and with Professor Loveday [1888-1962] and Mr. [Folke] Hilgerdt [1894-1956] of the Economic Intelligence Service of the League at Princeton.

As a result of my training, I have acquired a certain specialization in statistical methods on the one hand and in the field of international economics on the other (theory and history of international trade, international monetary problems, exchange control, foreign trade statistics, etc.) Through my work in Europe I am well acquainted, in particular, with the economic problems of Italy and France.

Having studied for prolonged periods in Germany, France and Italy, I speak and write with complete fluency the languages of these countries. I also have a reading knowledge of Spanish.

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 5, Folder “H”.

Image Source: Albert O. Hirschman before he was dispatched to North Africa, circa 1943. From Michele Alacevich’s Introduction to “Albert Hirschman and the Social Sciences: A Memorial Round-Table” posted July 25, 2015.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Marschak on potential hires for department, 1946

 

In his magnificent article about the departmental politics behind the appointment of Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1946, David Mitch refers in passing to a February 1946 memo written to the Chancellor and President of the University by Vice-President Rueben G. Gustavson in which the Vice-President reports on a discussion he had with Jacob Marschak about various economists being considered for appointment.

Mitch’s online Appendix to his article provides an excellent selection of archival artifacts to which the transcription of the Gustavson memo below may be added. In this memo it looks like we are observing active lobbying (at least providing his “spin”) on Marschak’s part rather than a senior faculty member summoned by an administrator to provide deep background on prospective hires.

It is worth noting that the names of five future Nobel prize winners in economics can be found in a single 1946 memo. It is also interesting that the last two candidates mentioned in the memo, namely Lloyd Metzler and Milton Friedman, were the only two to turn out to become permanent acquisitions of the department.

 

See: David Mitch, “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946,” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (December 2016): 1714-1734. [working paper version (ungated)]

__________________________________

Biographical Note of Rueben Gilbert Gustavson

Rueben Gilbert Gustavson was born (April 6, 1892-February 24, 1974) to Swedish immigrants James and Hildegard Gustavson. As a young man Gustavson developed a strong belief in moral responsibility to others. After a childhood injury made following in his father’s footsteps as a carpenter impossible he attended high school where he excelled in his studies. In deference to his father’s wish he learn practical skills Gustavson took courses in typing and stenography. These classes enabled Reuben to gain employment with Colorado and Southern Railroad where he became secretary to the auditor. The monies Gustavson earned working at the railroad enabled him to enroll in at the University of Denver, DU. After obtaining his bachelor’s degree DU Gustavson decided to pursue a master’s degree in chemistry. He received his MS in chemistry in 1917 and briefly became a chemist at the Great Western Sugar Company. He accepted an offer to teach at the Colorado Agricultural College in Fort Collins but became disillusioned when told that as a professor he could not teach and conduct research. Gustavson returned to DU where he remained for the next seventeen years. During that time he spent summer breaks working toward his PhD at the University of Chicago. Initially, specializing in radioactivity the loss of his advisor enabled him to change to biochemistry. Gustavson received his PhD in 1925 and taught at the University of Chicago during the 1929-30 academic year. A disagreement over what Gustavson felt were unethical practices involving student athletes led to him leaving DU. University of Colorado President, George Norlin, invited Gustavson to join the faculty as a professor of chemistry. He was appointed chairman of the chemistry department and remained in that position from 1937-42. In 1942 the Dean of the Graduate School became ill and Gustavson was chosen as a temporary replacement but when the dean died the position became permanent. Now involved in the academic administration of the university Gustavson was chosen to substitute for the new president of the University of Colorado, Robert L. Stearns, during World War II. Stearns was commissioned as an officer in the Army Air Corps. Gustavson accepted the position with the understanding that Stearns would resume the presidency when he returned. After the war Gustavson became the Vice President and Dean of Faculties at the University of Chicago for a short time in 1945-46. During Gustavson’s time at the University of Chicago he worked with Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller on the atomic bomb project. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced Gustavson the only hope for human survival was the promotion of peace through education that taught appreciation of other peoples and cultures. In 1946 Gustavson moved to the University of Nebraska where he remained as Chancellor until 1953. After leaving the University of Nebraska Gustavson became the first president of Resources for the Future where he served from 1953-1959. An outgrowth of his work on the atomic bomb project this organization conducted economic research and analysis to help craft better policies on the use and preservation of natural resources. Gustavson then resumed teaching at the University of Arizona and was a member of the chemistry department from 1960 until his death in 1974.

Source: John Patrick McSweeney. The Chancellorship of Reuben G. Gustavson at the University of Nebraska, 1946-1953. Lincoln: Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska, 1971.

__________________________________

Gustavson Memorandum of Discussion with Jacob Marshak

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date February 19, 1946

To:     RMH [Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago (1929-45); Chancellor (1945-51)]; ECC [Ernest Cadman Colwell, President of the University of Chicago (1945-51)]
From: RGG [Reuben G. Gustavson, Vice-President of the University of Chicago (1945-1946)]

Professor Marschak came in to talk to me about possible recommendations for men in the Department of Economics. He discussed the following:

  1. John Hicks of London. He is now at Oxford but is coming to this country. He is about forty years of age. He is quite well known, especially for his book called the “Brainwork of Social Economy.” [sic, The Social Framework: An Introduction to Economics] This book is now being used in the College.
  2. Paul Samuelson is a much younger man than Hicks. He is now an associate professor at M.I.T. He is known for his work in the general theory of disequilibrium.
  3. Arthur Smithies is professor at the University of Michigan. He is now in the Bureau of the Budget at Washington. Marschak describes him as a man who is concerned with economic policies. He takes the empirical approach to the study of economics.

Marschak states that Mr. Hicks is also a good man in local finance [Hicks’ wife, Ursula Hicks, probably mentioned by Marschak]. He says also that T. Koopmans, Research Associate with the Cowles Commission, who has been recommended for an associate professorship, is a very fine man. He is in mathematical statistics. He speaks highly of Lionel Robbins of the London School. Marschak says he is an all-around personality. He has been of great service to the English government during the war.

He thinks very highly of Lloyd Metzler. He was an instructor at Harvard. He as applied the modern methods of Samuelson to international trade.

Professor Marschak also thinks very highly of Milton Friedman, who is a graduate of the University of Chicago.

I shall discuss all these men with Schultz.

 

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 284, Folder “Economics, 1943-1947”.

 

Image Source: Reuben G. Gustavson from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06588, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.