Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Talent-Scouting for New Faculty, Joint Appointments and Visiting Faculty, 1945

__________________________

On April 10, 1945, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department, Professor Simeon E. Leland, submitted a 77 page (!) memorandum to President Robert M. Hutchins entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics–A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

In his cover letter Leland wrote “…in the preparation of the memorandum, I learned much that was new about the past history of the Department. Some of this, incorporated in the memorandum, looks like filler stuck in, but I thought it ought to be included for historical reasons and to furnish some background for a few of the suggestions.” 

In recent posts I have provided a list of visiting professors who taught economics at the University of Chicago up through 1944 (excluding those visitors who were to receive permanent appointments) and supporting tables with enrollment trends and faculty data (ages and educational backgrounds).

In this post we have three lists of names for economists who in 1945 could be taken into consideration for either permanent economics, joint appointments with other department or visiting appointments at the University of Chicago. Many names are immediately recognisable, others less so, and other known names left unnamed. Instead of observing the actual choices of the department, we have, so to speak, an observation of the “choice set” as perceived by the department.

______________________________

          The following list of possible additions to the staff of the Department of Economics represents an enumeration of suggestions made by various members of the Department. It, of course, does not include all of those whom the Department would like to invite as permanent members of the University staff. Many of those whom we would most like to have, it is well-known, are not available; nor can the Department be sure that those listed below would favorably consider an invitation to join our staff. Likewise, this list must not be construed as nominations for membership in the Department. Some members of the staff are known to object to the inclusion of some of the names listed below. But if unanimous consent were required before suggestions could be made, little progress in building a Department would be possible. In its present state, the list is only an enumeration of suggestions warranting further inquiry. The fields of interest of many of the potential candidates overlap and the appointment of some individuals would make it undesirable, or at least uneconomic, to appoint others. Nevertheless, the list does given an idea of some persons who might be considered for future appointments. This list, like any other enumeration, is subject to constant revision, both in the addition or subtraction of names.

Name

Present Location

Field of Interest or Specialization

Abraham (sic) Bergson University of Texas Wages and Wage Theory
Robert Bryce Ottawa, Canada
Norman Buchanan University of California Public Utilities, Corporation Finance, Business Cycles (also possible interest in United States Economic History)
Earl Hamilton Northwestern University Economic History
Albert G. Hart C.E.D., Chicago Theory, Finance, etc.
J. R. Hicks University of Manchester, England Economic Theory
Harold A. Innis University of Toronto Economic History
Maurice Kelso University of Wisconsin Land Economics
Tjalling Koopmans Cowles Commission Statistics; Mathematical Economics; Business Cycles; Shipping
Simon Kuznets University of Pennsylvania National Income; Historical Statistics
Sanford Mosk University of California Economic History
Charles A. Myers Massachusetts Institute of Technology Labor; Industrial Relations
Walter Rostow Columbia University Economic History (XIX Century)
Leonard Salter University of Wisconsin Land Economics
T. Scitovszky London School of Economics; U.S. Army Theory of Capital and Interest; Theory of Tariffs
Arthur Smithies University of Michigan; Bureau of the Budget, Washington, D. C. Fiscal Policy; Theory; Money and Banking
Eugene Staley School of Advanced International Studies (Washington, D.C.) International Economics; Foreign Trade
George Stigler University of Minnesota Theory and Foreign Trade
R. H. Tawney London School of Economics Economic History
Allen Wallis Stanford University Statistics

______________________________

Joint Appointments

The Department of Economics shares an interest in many fields with other departments, schools and divisions of the University. It recognizes that most problems of the Social Sciences have economic aspects, and other aspects as well. Many of the fields embraced within particular disciplines are explained by accident or tradition, not always by logic. No one department can, therefore, assert a valid claim for the exclusive staffing of fields of interest held in common with other branches of knowledge. It seems wisest to develop these common grounds through joint appointments. Not only does this enable us to attract to the University more outstanding scholars than the fellowship of one department might provide, but it should also place at the disposition of those interested in promoting joint fields, perhaps, larger resources than either acting alone could command.

Joint appointments, too, will tend to integrate the Social Sciences with the other schools and departments affected, as well as contribute to the unity of the University as a whole. The Department of Economics, therefore, ventures to suggest joint appointments in the following fields:

Fields Units Affected
Trusts and Monopolies Business, Law, Economics
Railroads and Transportation Business, Economics
Public Utilities Economics, Political Science, Law
Social Control of Business Business, Law, Political Science, Economics
Advanced Applied Mathematics and Statistics Economics, Mathematics, Business, Institute of Statistics, other departments interested in statistics
Urban Planning (or the Utilization of Land) Geography, Political Science, Economics, Law, Business, Sociology
Social Legislation, particularly affecting Labor Business, Sociology, Social Service Administration, Law, Political Science, Economics

[…]

Among those who might be proposed for joint appointments are the following:

Name Present Location Field of Interest Appropriate Appointment
Charles L. Dearing Brookings Institution and U.S. Government Transportation Economics, Business
Corwin D. Edwards Northwestern University Trusts, Monopolies, Control of Business Political Science, Law, Economics
Milton Friedman Columbia University Economic Theory, Public Finance, Monetary Policy Economics, Institute of Statistics
Homer Hoyt Regional Plan Association, Inc., New York, N.Y. Land Planning Economic Geography, Political Science
David E. Lilienthal T. V. A. Public Utilities Political Science, Law, Economics
Abraham Wald Columbia University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics
Allen Wallis Columbia University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics
Samuel S. Wilks Princeton University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics

Visiting Professorships

Each department needs to diversify its courses. Too frequently the attempt at diversification is made by adding permanent members to the regular staff. The need can best be met by the appointment of visiting professors.

[…]

A list of some who might be invited to the University as Visiting Professors is as follows:

Name Present Location Fields of Interest
John D. Black Harvard Agricultural Economics
(J.) Roy Blough U. S. Treasury Public Finance
Kenneth Boulding Iowa State College Economic Analysis; Theory of Capital
Karl Brandt Food Institute, Stanford U. Agricultural Economics
Harry G. Brown University of Missouri Economic Theory, Public Finance
J. Douglas Brown Princeton University Industrial Relations
Edward H. Chamberlain(sic) Harvard Economic Theory; Monopolistic Competition
J. M. Clark Columbia University Economic theory
J. B. Condliffe California International Trade; International Commercial Policy
Joseph S. Davis Food Institute, Stanford U. Agricultural Economics
Milton Gilbert Office of Price Administration, Washington, D.C. Economic Theory; Price Control
T. Haavelmo Norwegian Shipping Administration, New York, N.Y. Econometrics
Alvin Hansen Harvard Economic Theory; Fiscal Policy
F. A. Hayek London School of Economics and Political Science History of Social Thought; Economic Theory; Monetary Policy
J. R. Hicks University of Manchester Economic Theory
George Jaszy U. S. Dept. of Commerce National Income; Business Analysis
O. B. Jesness University of Minnesota Agricultural Economics
Nicholas Kaldor London School of Economics Theory of the Firm; Imperfect Competition; Money; Business Cycles
M. Kalecki Institute of Statistics of University of Oxford, England Economic Fluctuations; Expenditure Rationing
M. Slade Kendrick Cornell University Public Finance; Farm Taxation
Arthur Kent San Francisco Attorney-at-Law Taxation
J. M. Keynes Cambridge University Fiscal and Monetary Policy
Simon S. Kuznets National Bureau of Economic Research; University of Pennsylvania Statistics; National Income and Its Problem
A. P. Lerner New School for Social Research Economic Theory; Fiscal Policy; Public Finance
Edward S. Mason Harvard University Economic Theory; International Trade and Trade Practices
Wesley C. Mitchell Columbia University Money and Prices
Jacob Mosak Office of Price Administration, Washington, D.C. Economic Theory; Statistics; Control of Prices
R. A. Musgrave Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D. C. Public Finance
Randolph Paul Lord, Day and Lord, Attorneys-at-Law Taxation
Paul A. Samuelson Massachusetts Institute of Technology Economic Theory; Money and Banking; Fiscal Policy
Lawrence H. Seltzer Wayne University Money and Banking; Public Debts; Fiscal Policy
Carl S. Shoup Columbia University Public Finance
Sumner H. Slichter Harvard University Business Economics
Richard Stone England Statistics; National Income
R. H. Tawney London School of Economics Economic History
Abraham Wald Columbia University Mathematics and Statistics
John H. Williams Harvard University Money and Banking

In the past, the Department has supplemented its staff by the appointment of visiting professors, but the invitations have ordinarily been restricted to the Summer Quarter in order (1) to relieve the regular staff from summer teaching and (2) to provide “window-dressing” to make the Summer Quarters more attractive to new students. The potentialities of the visiting professorship can hardly be realized when the practice is applied only to the Summer Quarter. That it has made that Quarter more attractive would seem to be indicated by the outstanding economists who have been guests of the University of Chicago.

[…]

The practice of inviting outstanding men to the University of Chicago seems to have been more prevalent in the early years of the University than it is today. Visiting appointments also declined with the strained finances of the University during the late depression. The Department is anxious to develop a program of instruction and research based upon the policy of the regular employment of visitors. A sum, equal to the stipend of a full professor, if used to finance a program of regular visitors, would add greater content and prestige to the Department than could be secured in any other way.

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 73, Folder “Economics Dept., “Post-War Plans” Simeon E. Leland, 1945″.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Curricular Suggestions and Comments. 1945

In my examination of departmental records at Columbia, Chicago, Harvard and M.I.T. I have found relatively few written reflections on the rules/regulation/courses of the graduate programs. Today’s posting provides a memo of miscellaneous ruminations by Arthur F. Burns, Carter Goodrich and Carl Shoup who served as members of the Columbia Economic Department’s Curriculum Committee in 1945. Having a major field of comparative economic systems myself, I found Arthur Burns’ rather dismissive remarks about whether the graduate program should add a course in that field noteworthy.

_____________________________

April 30, 1945

To the Members of the Department of Economics:

During the year the Curriculum Committee has given thought to problems growing out of the Department discussions of last spring. Although the Committee is not prepared to place definite recommendations before the Department, I think it desirable that the members of the Department review certain suggestions and other changes that have been considered by the Committee. These suggestions, with comments of Committee members, are enclosed. There should be opportunity to discuss these at our meeting on me second. May 2.

Frederick C. Mills

_____________________________

SUGGESTIONS FOR CURRICULAR AND OTHER CHANGES
with comments by Committee Members

 

  1. We should formulate a more definite statement of requirements to be met by applicants for admission to the graduate department of economics.
    (Can we agree on basic requirements? Should we include mathematics, accounting, statistics, history, economic principles, English composition, psychology, one laboratory science?)

 

A. F. Burns

I doubt if much progress in this direction can be made this year or next. For one thing, there is likely to be slight unanimity among the staff. For another, each of us will have difficulty in convincing the others unless judgment be implemented by a canvas of experience. What do other graduate departments do? Would there be any advantage in drawing up a sample list of former graduate students in the department and analyzing the undergraduate training of those who proved especially “successful” and those who “got nowhere”?

 

Carter Goodrich

This is the point on which I am most doubtful of the general tendency. I do not believe we can agree on “basic requirements”. Even on recommendations I think we should be most cautious. We may be justified in making a strong recommendation for things we consider specific prerequisites, – perhaps economic principles, mathematics, accounting or statistics. I should see no justification for such specifications as “one laboratory science”. If we are to make a recommendation regarding preliminary training in economics, I feel strongly that it should be accompanied by a recommendation against over-specialization in economics at the undergraduate level. An excellent statement of this general point of view is contained in the Princeton catalog in a passage referring to pre-professional training.

 

Carl S. Shoup

As I see it, the Department faces two general alternatives. First, it can continue to admit graduate students who have had little or no economic training during their undergraduate days and who must therefore be given some general courses on a fairly elementary level. Owing to the number of students involved, these courses would presumably be of the traditional lecture type. Students who have already had substantial training in economics might be excused from these courses to take instead either special seminars designed for first-year students, or the usual advanced seminars. This alternative is inviting in many ways, but I fear that, inevitably, two undesirable consequences would follow: (1). Since our resources are not unlimited, even though they may be expanded from the present level, the use of some resources to give the rather elementary lecture courses would, necessarily, decrease the time and effort that the faculty members could otherwise give to the students entering with a good background in economics; (2) The fact that the graduate department would be supplying a pretty complete series of lectures in the various subjects on this level would tend to discourage the better undergraduate schools from maintaining high standards in their economics teaching. This would particularly be the case if students coming here with good undergraduate training in economics were required or allowed to attend these general lecture courses, and I think that experience indicates that this is what would happen: Word would get back to the undergraduate colleges that there is no particular point in working too hard on students who hope to go on for graduate economics work since they will have to, or will be induced to, or will allow themselves to spend a good deal of time in the graduate school going over, at much the same pace and with much the same intensity, the same material they covered in their undergraduate courses. To a certain extent, I believe this hypothetical situation I outlined has already developed in fact it will simply be intensified if we do not set up some sort of professional standards for admission.

The other alternative is to require that a student show a certain degree of proficiency in the elementary subjects of economics before he is admitted to the graduate school. This might be done simply on showing of courses taken and grades given, but I should prefer to work toward a system of entrance examinations without any requirements at all concerning specific undergraduate courses. We would be more sure that we were getting people with the kind of background desired and we would also thereby allow individuals to qualify, if they were able enough to do so, on the basis of study without taking courses. Assuming that the department had the same total resources and manpower is under the first alternative, these resources could then be thrown wholly into the training of graduate students in small groups through individual conferences, on research projects, etc. The resulting rise in the standard of our graduate teaching and in the quality of our product, as embodied in the successful Ph.D. Candidates — and also indeed, in those who get the Master’s degree — would, in my opinion, be marked. Moreover, since all of the graduate students would have shown proficiency in the elementary branches of economics, the could and should be encouraged to branch out in allied fields of graduate work: philosophy, psychology, etc. This alternative, however, has the disadvantage of borrowing from the graduate school able students who have taken little or no economics in their undergraduate days. I look upon this I look upon this as a necessary cost that must be paid if we are really to step up, in any marked degree, the quality and intensity of our graduate training. I wish it did not have to be paid, but I think that we shall be unrealistic if we think that we can change the present situation greatly without incurring that cost. It would, of course, still be possible for an able student, who had decided that he wanted to switch to economics, to get enough economics to pass the entrance examinations by six months or so of intensive study by himself. Only the very able ones could do this, but I doubt whether we should make much effort to get the merely average student who has had no economics at all in his undergraduate days.

 

 

  1. Standards of admission to graduate study in economics should be reviewed with the Office of Admissions. Tightening up may be possible, but fairly liberal principles of admission should prevail for the present.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I Agree.

 

Carl Goodrich

Yes

 

Carl S. Shoup

If we follow the first alternative outlined in number 1 above, I should agree that the general standards of admission should be tightened up somewhat. If the second alternative is followed, the nature of the qualifying examinations would pretty much settled this question.

 

  1. A nuclear program of first-year courses is to be planned. Provision should be made for some flexibility, but most students would be expected to take three or four basic first-year courses (including theory, statistics, money and banking, and economic history). Requirements in these courses would be fairly rigorous, and all students would take examinations and receive letter grades. A special reading course might be taken in view of a basic course by the student already reasonably well-prepared in that subject.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I agree with some interpretations and qualifications. (a) The essential thing is that in his first year a student attend to certain basic courses (a list to be discussed). (b) If a student has had satisfactory training at college in any one or all of these courses (the latter, of course, is rather unlikely), he should not be required to take them again. (c) Whether letter grades are to be given in these courses should be decided on the basis of the general policy in regard to letter grades. Note also that there are bound to be second-and third-year students in the basic courses. (d) Special reading courses are a very doubtful educational expedient, unless the faculty is willing to give real time to the work.

 

Carter Goodrich

On the whole, yes, as long there is 5 to provide flexibility and provided that at some stage we really encourage a considerable number of our students to take relevant work outside the Department.

 

Carl S. Shoup

The program of first-year courses is necessary only under the first alternative in number 1. A student who is already reasonably well prepared in a subject should not, I think, be required to take even a special reading course. He should, instead, be admitted at once to the advanced seminars.

 

 

  1. M.A. candidates should be required to have letter grades of B or better in courses carrying 21 points of credit. Department members should be requested to test first-year students systematically and grade rigorously.

 

A.F. Burns

I am inclined to agree, but I do not expect very much from this proposal. It may merely mean that we will now say B where we formerly said P.

 

Carter Goodrich

Like Walton Hamilton on monogamy, “I suppose I’d vote for it but I’ll be damned if I’d electioneer for it.”

 

Carl S. Shoup

I suggest that we give only a “P” grade with the understanding that the passing level is “B” rather than “C”. Under the first alternative in number 1, I would be willing to go so far as to require passing grades in all of the thirty points, both for candidates for M:A. and for those who are not taking the M.A. but want to go on to the Ph.D. If we are to assume real responsibility for the product that we turn out, I do not see how we can afford to give a degree to anybody who is not good enough to pass all of the courses that he takes. (Do the medical schools give degrees to people who are unable to pass all of the courses?)

 

  1. We should provide seminar courses for first-year students of outstanding ability and satisfactory preparation. Admission would be by consent of the instructor. Admission would be restricted to men of clear promise. Such a man might have a first-year program consisting of three basic courses and two seminars.

 

A. F. Burns

I think it is desirable to admit qualified first-year students to seminars. But it would be unwise and impractical to run one special seminar for first-year students and another for second-year students. It is an artificial distinction. (However, it might be well to organize a seminar for M.A. students who are writing their theses, one requirement (among others) for admission being that a student have a definite topic that he already has done a little work on and that he expects to complete within the year. This suggestion raises serious questions as to administration, teaching load, etc.)

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes. These seminars would not in all case have to be for first-year students only.

 

Carl S. Shoup

This problem is covered in the discussion under number 1 above. I should add that even under the second alternative, I should visualize fairly frequent and rigorous examinations of some kind or other to be sure that the graduate student was not losing his grasp of his tools of analysis and his basic information, and was, indeed, improving them as he went along.

 

  1. There should be a rigorous weeding out of graduate students at the end of the first graduate year. At the end of the spring term a committee of the department should review the records of all candidates for degrees. Only those of clear merit should be permitted to carry forward studies for the doctorate. We should have a restricted group of second and third-year graduate students of high ability.

 

A. F. Burns

I agree heartily.

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes, decidedly.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I agree with this proposal, whether under the first or second alternatives in number 1 above.

 

  1. We should consider introducing comprehensive written matriculation examinations, to come before more than 45 residence credits have been acquired.

 

A. F. Burns

I feel handicapped because I don’t know precisely what matriculation means or involves. Would the comprehensive examination come six months after a student has been encouraged to try for the doctorate? If so, is the interval too short?

 

Carter Goodrich

Not with this timing. It would be too late for the privileges of matriculation and I think too early for a comprehensive test. Possibly such examinations might supplement the oral on subjects and replace certification.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I agree that it is desirable to have comprehensive written examinations from time to time through the graduate work (see comments under numbers 4 and 5 above).

 

 

  1. Doctoral candidates should be required to pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position. This year should be given to rigorous research training, under the supervision of the department.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I agree if “Rigorous research training” means the writing of a dissertation on the premises, or at least working on it for a year under the supervision of the department. But there is a good deal to think through before making a definite proposal. For example, would the orals have to be taken before this research year?

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes, as an ideal to press for as rapidly as possible. In my judgment, this is the direction that promises the most significant improvement.

 

Carl S. Shoup

This is an excellent idea; if doctoral candidates would pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position, many of our difficulties at the thesis level would disappear.

 

 

  1. A sum equivalent to approximately 10 per cent of the departmental budget for salaries should be allocated to research. This would be available to members of the department for employment of research assistants on research activities approved by a departmental committee on research, and for meeting other research costs. It is to be expected that some portion of this research fund could be used for the employment of doctoral candidates during their period of internship.

 

Arthur F. Burns

Clearly, financial provision for research work is important. I am not sufficiently familiar with the needs of the department (even its boundaries: is the college included?) to have any judgment as to a specific figure. The whole problem should be surveyed before definite recommendations are made.

 

Carter Goodrich

I am not sure of the ten per cent, but I like the general idea. Something of this sort must be done to make 8 possible.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I do not think there would be a marked increase in the research work under this proposal (to allocate, say, 10 per cent of the departmental budget to research) since it does not touch what seems to me the real problem; namely, the desire of many faculty members — especially in the younger group — to supplement their University salaries by research fees and salaries. It is possible that the solution may be found in some form of split salary schedule whereby the faculty member is paid a certain basic amount, viewed as compensation chiefly for teaching services, and, upon application, might be granted an additional amount as compensation for devoting his time to unpaid research, thus foregoing outside paid activities. The tendency to grant the supplementary amount almost automatically to anybody who happened not to be doing outside work would be a real difficulty, but it might be met by having the supplementary amounts granted only upon approval by some outside board, specially constituted for this purpose.

 

 

  1. The department should consider adding the following courses to its curriculum:

1. First-year graduate course in money and banking
2. A course in accounting, designed to meet the needs of economists
3. A course in comparative economic systems (to be given in cooperation with the School of Business)
4. An additional course in international economics (subject matter to be adapted to that of the present course on international trade).

 

Arthur F. Burns

10a. Definitely yes

10b. Probably yes. But the man must precede the course.

10c. Probably, no. Who is an expert on such questions? I can’t think of any. I doubt if the department ought to try to develop one, and I doubt if it would succeed if it tried (the man, if he is any good, would soon specialize). If there is a gap here, we might perhaps try a lecture course to be given by several specialists and coordinated by some instructor. This has at least the negative advantage that the department’s hands will not be tied.

10d. Probably, yes. I would want to know the scope of the course before expressing a more definite opinion.

 

Carter Goodrich

Certainly d, probably the others.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I should like to discuss these prospective courses further before venturing an opinion, especially with respect to the first-year course in money and banking. I believe there is no unnecessary duplication in this field already than in almost other part of our curriculum.

 

 

Source: Columbia University Archives.Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 1. Folder: “Committee on Instruction”.

Categories
Bibliography Columbia Courses

Columbia. Fiscal policy. Depression deficits and war finance. Shoup, 1941

Carl S. Shoup (New York Times obituary) taught a course at Columbia in the business school with the title “The balancing of government budgets” that was listed with economics department course offerings as “Economics b114”. One finds this course listed in the annual Bulletin of the Faculty of Political Science beginning in the Spring session of 1938 and then every year through 1943 with the exception of 1940.

In this posting you will find his selected bibliographies on deficit financing in periods of depression and the special problem of financing defense and war.

______________________________

[Course Description]

Economics b114—The balancing of governmental budgets. 3 points Spring Session. Professor Shoup.

Tu. and Th. at 9. 415 Business.

An analysis of the factors governing the choice between normal recurring revenue, such as taxes, and extraordinary revenue such as loans, devaluation profits, etc. Particular attention is paid to the relations of public finance to money and banking in these problems.

Source: Division of History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science. Courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1940-41. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 40th Series, No. 29 (June 29, 1940), p. 38.

______________________________

In this posting I have assembled three selected bibliographies two of which are undated and all three are without attribution to Shoup or any university identification. Two of the bibliographies are identified as belonging to a course “Economics b114”. These bibliographies are found in two folders (“Student years” and “University of Wisconsin, Econ b114”) filed far apart (boxes 5 and 75, respectively) in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution.

Milton Friedman taught at Columbia up through 1939-40 followed by a year at University of Wisconsin in 1940-41. None of the courses that Friedman taught at Wisconsin for which I found material in the his papers had a prefix “b” before the course number and it seems pretty unlikely (one would really need to consult the course catalogues for the University of Wisconsin to be sure…I have not) that the course numbering between the Columbia business school and the Wisconsin economics department would coincide.

I have concluded that the part of the Shoup reading list dealing with defense and war related finance was filed by a Hoover archivist with Friedman’s course materials at Wisconsin (incorrectly) because the date on that selected bibliography coincided with Friedman’s Wisconsin years (and perhaps it was actually found with materials from his business cycle class, Economics 176, at Wisconsin).

________________________

 

Economics b114
Selected Bibliography on Deficit Financing in Periods of Depression

Chase, Stewart, Idle Money, Idle Men

Clark, J. M., Economics of Planning Public Works

Clark, J. M., “An Appraisal of the Workability of Compensatory Devices,” American Economic Review, March, 1939 Supplement (Proceedings), pp. 194-208

Clark, J. M., “Effects of Public Spending on Capital Formation”, in National Industrial Conference Board, Capital Formation and its Elements, 1939.

Colm, G. and Lehmann, F., Economic Consequences of Recent American Tax Policy, Supplement I to Social Research, 1938, 108 p.

Colm, G. and Lehmann, F., “Public Spending and Recovery in the United States,” Social Research, May, 1936, Vol. III, 129-66.

Dennison, H. S. and others, Toward Full Employment, 1938, 297 p.

Eccles, Marriner, Economic Balance and a Balanced Budget (Weissman, editor)

Galbraith, J. K., The Economic Effects of the Federal Public Works Expenditures, 1933-1938, 131 p. 1940.

Galbraith, J. K., “Fiscal Policy and the Employment-Investment Controversy”, Harvard Bus. Rev., Autumn, 1939.

Gayer, Arthur, “Fiscal Policies,” American Economic Review, March, 1938 Supplement (Proceedings), 90-112. (Reprints on reserve at Business Library).

Gayer, A. D. and Rostow, W. W., How Money Works, Public Affairs Pamphlets No. 45, 1940, 30 p.

Gill, C., Wasted Manpower: The Challenge of Unemployment, 1939, 312 p.

Graham, B. L., “Storage and Stability – A Plan for Monetizing the Commodity Surplus”, in Roberts, Geo., A Forum on Finance, 1940.

Haley, B. F., “The Federal Budget: Economic Consequences of Deficit Financing,” Am. Eco. Rev., Feb., 1941, 67-87.

Hansen, A. H., Full Recovery or Stagnation? 1938, pp. 267-329.

Hicks, U. K., “Balancing the Budget” (Ch. XVII) and “Taxation and the Trade Cycle” (Ch. XVIII), in The Finance of British Government, 1920-1936. (1938)

Jaszi, G., “The Budgetary Experience of Great Britain in the Great Depression,” in Public Policy: A Yearbook (Harvard), 1940.

Kahn, R. F., “The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment,” Economic Journal June, 1931.

Keynes, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Keynes, J. M., The Means to Prosperity

Keynes, J. M., NY. Times, Editorial page, June 10, 1934 (p. 1 of editorial section) and July 7, 1934.

Lerner, A. P., “Some Swedish Stepping Stones in Economic Theory,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Nov., 1940, espec. p. 574-80.

Lutz, H. L., The Business Man’s Stake in Government Finance, Stanford Univ. 1939, espec. pp. 16-20, 23-44, 45-66.

Lutz, H. L., “The Failure of the Spending Policy,” N. Y. Sun, Jan. 6, 1940

Meyers, A. L., “Government Borrowing and Creation of National Income,” Chap. IV, in Modern Economic Problems. 1939.

Myers, M. G., Monetary Proposals for Social Reform, 1940, 191 p.

Myrdal, Gunnar, “Fiscal Policies in the Business Cycle,” A.E.R., 1939 Proceedings, 183-93.

Pigou, A. C., “Inflation, Deflation and Reflation,” Ch. IV in Economics in Practice, 1936.

Round Table on “The Workability of Compensatory Devices,” A.E.R. 1939 Proceedings, 224-29.

Samuelson, P. A., “Theory of Pump-Priming Reexamined,” Am. Eco. Rev., Sept., 1940, 492-506.

Seltzer, L. H., “Direct versus Fiscal and Institutional Factors,” Am. Eco. Rev. Feb., 1941, 99-107.

Slichter, Sumner, “Is America Finished?” N.Y. Sun, Jan. 6, 1940

Slichter, Sumner, “Profits and Prosperity,” Atlantic Monthly, Nov., 1938.

Smith, D. T., Deficits and Depression

Smith, D. T., “Is Deficit Spending Practical?” Harvard Bus. Rev., Autumn, 1939.

Smith, D. T., “An Analysis of Changes in Federal Finance, July 1930-1938 Rev. Econ. Statistics, Nov., 1938.

Smith, D. T., Review of Haley’s Paper, ibid., 88-98.

T.N.E.C., Hearings, Part 9: Hansen, Currie, etc.

Twentieth Century Fund, Debts and Recovery, 1938, 366 p.

U. S. Treasury, Borrower,” Fortune, January, 1939.

University of Chicago, Round Tables. “The Economics of Pump-Priming.” May 1, 1938, “Purchasing Power and Prosperity,” July 31, 1938.

Vanguard Press, An Economic Program for American Democracy.

Williams, John H., “Deficit Spending”, Am. Eco. Rev. Feb. 1941, 52-66.

 

Source: Milton Friedman papers, Hoover Institution Archives. Box 5, Folder 12 “Student years”. [Note above my reasons to believe this folder also has material not from Friedman’s “student years”.]

______________________________

Economics b114
Bibliography of Recent Materials Dealing with the Financing of Defense and War
February 5, 1941

American Council of Public Affairs, Economic Mobilization

Bowen, I., and Worswick, G. D. N., “The Controls and War Finance,” Oxford Econ. Papers, Sept., 1940.

Brown, F. H., and others, War Finance in Canada, 1940.

Clarke, R. W. B., The Economic Effort of War, London, 1940.

Connely, E.F., “Financing our Preparedness Program,” Banker’s Mag., Aug., 1940.

*Durbin, E.F.M., How to Pay for the War, London, 1939.

Editorial Research Reports, Methods of Financing War, June 3, 1940.

George, E.B., “Prices and Profits in a Defense Economy,” Dun’s Review, Nov., 1940.

*Greer, Guy, “Arming and Paying for It,” Harpers, Nov., 1940.

Hardy, C.O., “War and Capital Formation,” in Capital Formation and Its Elements, National Industrial Conference Board, 1939, pp. 134-50.

*Hardy, C.O., “Wartime Control of Prices,” 1940.

*Hart, A.G., Economic Policy for Rearmament, U. of Chicago Public Policy Pamphlet No. 33.

Kazekevitch, V.D., “The War and American Finance,” Science and Society, Spring, 1940.

*Keynes, J.M., How to Pay for the War, New York, 1940.

Morgan, S., “Deficit Financing in Germany,” in Roberts (editor), Forum on Finance, New York, 1939, pp. 3-22.

*Moulton, Harold G., Fundamental Issues in National Defense, Brookings, Jan. 13, 1941.

National Industrial Conference Board, Consumption, Savings, and Defense Financing, and Fiscal Possibilities for National Defense, Supplements to Economic Record, 1940.

*New Republic symposium: How to Pay for Defense, July 29, 1940 (Groves, Keynes, Chase, Cooke, Soule).

Pigou, A. C., “War Finance and Inflation,” Economic Journal, Dec., 1940.

Radice, E.A., “Consumption, Savings, and War Finance,” Oxford Economic Papers, Sept., 1940.

Riches, E.J., “Deferred Pay: the Keynes Plan,” Inter. Labor Review, June, 1940.

Robbins, L., “How Britain Will Finance the War,” Foreign Affairs, April, 1940.

Staudinger, H., and Lehmann, F., “Germany’s Economic Mobilization for War,” National Industrial Conference Board Economic Record, July 24, 1940.

*U.S. Government, Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1942.

______________________________

The next page immediately follows the previous but it lacks a date and the formatting of the bibliography deviates from the previous two. Being alphabetically ordered and going from “Annals” to “Williams” with perhaps a quarter of empty page below, it is clearly a separate list. None of the titles are the same with the previous two lists, so I have presumed this is a likely update from the middle of the second session 1941.

______________________________

Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science: Billions for Defense, March, 1941, 1-215.

Bach, G.L., “Rearmament, Recovery and Monetary Policy”, American Economic Review, March, 1941, 27-41.

Eccles, M. S., “Economic Preparedness for Defense and Post Defense Problems, Federal Reserve Bulletin, Jan., 1941.

Gilbert, R. V., and others, “Exploring the Factors Involved in Reemployment of Labor and Capital”, Savings Bank Journal, Dec., 1940.

Hansen, A. H., “Defense Financing and Inflation Potentialities,” Review of Economic Statistics, Feb., 1941.

Hearings, Public Debt Act of 1941: Committee on Ways and Means, Jan. 29 and 30, 1941, 106pp: Subcommittee of Committee on Finance, Feb. 12, 1941 47p.

Musgrave, R. A., “Inflationary Dangers of the Public Debt and the Tax System”, Taxes, Feb., 1941

Paul, R. E., and others, “Exploring the Financing of National Defense and Its Economic Consequences,” Savings Bank Journal, Oct., 1940

Plumptre, A. F. W., “An Approach to War Finance,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Feb., 1941, 1-12.

Secretary of the Treasury, Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940.

Stewart, Maxwell, “How Shall We Pay for Defense?” Public Affairs Pamphlet, No. 52, 1941.

Williams, John H. “Economic and Monetary Aspects of the Defense Problem,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Feb. 1941

 

Source: Milton Friedman papers, Hoover Institution Archives. Box 75, Folder 2 “University of Wisconsin, Econ b114”. [Note above my reasons to believe this folder contains a reading list from the Shoup course at Columbia University.]

______________________________

Research Tip: Shoup Collection at Yokohama National University Library

“The Shoup Collection consists of 3,000 volumes of books, 100 titles of periodicals and enormous amount of documents held by an American economist Dr. Carl Sumner Shoup (1902-2000) who is known to have issued the report of Japanese tax system called “Shoup Mission.” In particular, the documents of his lecture notes, working memoranda and letters including those from Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for Allied Forces, and from Shigeru Yoshida, former Prime Minister, are precious inheritances that can only be found at this library.”

______________________________

Image Source: The Columbia Spectator Archive. March 8, 1967.

 

 

 

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.

Categories
Courses Economists Harvard

Harvard Economics. Hansen and Williams Fiscal Seminar 1937-1944

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

___________________________

 

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

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

[p. 314]

Fiscal Policy.
Professors WILLIAMS and HANSEN.

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

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1937-1938

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program of Friday Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program of Monday Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

___________________________

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 17.          The 1938 Revenue Act.

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

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

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

November 21.      New York City’s Experience.

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

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

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

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

February 6.          Canadian Fiscal Relations.

February 13.        Japanese Monetary and Fiscal Recovery Policies.

February 20.       The Development of Budgetary Organization.

February 27.        Balkan Credit and Fiscal Policy.

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

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

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

March 27.            Deficit Financing and the Banking System.

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

April 17.               The Economic Effects of the Income Tax.

April 24.              Federal Aid to the States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

___________________________

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

The program of Monday meetings was as follows:

Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN

The Consumption Function.

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

Secular Trends in Investment and Saving.

Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Shifts in Control of Depressions.

Theories of Compensatory Spending.

Budgeting and Fiscal Policy.

The Marginal Propensity to Import.

The Australian Multiplier.

Investment in the American Economy, 1850-1940.

Fiscal Aspects of Ireland’s Economic Nationalism.

The Power of the Federal Reserve System to Restrict Expansion.

Wartime Corporation Finance.

Wartime Finance in Great Britain.

Unemployment Insurance Funds.

The Effect of Deficit Financing on the Banking System.

Public Health.

The Capital Budget.

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

Taxation in the Business Cycle.

Public Investment.

Redistribution of Income as a Result of Federal Expenditures.

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

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

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

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

Subject: Gold and Foreign Exchange.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: War Inventories and the Current Economic Outlook.

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

Subject: A Proposed Forest Policy for the United States.

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

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

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

Subject: The Structure of the American Economy.

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

Subject: The International Monetary System and the Business Cycle.

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

Subject: Some Problems of Long-Run Tax Policy.

 

___________________________

 

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

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

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

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

 

The program of meetings was as follows:

September 30. Professor HANSEN.

October 7.      Professor WILLIAMS.

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

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

October 21. Professor HANSEN and Professor WILLIAMS.

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

Subject: The Excess Profits Tax.

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

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

November 4. Professor HANSEN.

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

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

November 18. ELIZABETH B. SCHUMPETER.

Subject: Fiscal and Monetary Policy in Japan.

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

Subject: The Savings-Investment Problem Re-examined.

December 2. Professor HANSEN.

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

Subject: The Role of Borrowing in the Defense Program.

December 16. Professor HANSEN.

December 20. GUY GREER, Federal Housing Administration.

Subject: The Organization of the Federal Housing Program.

February 3.   Student Report.

Subject: National Income and Military Effort.

February 10. Student Report.

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

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

Subject: Alternatives in Financing of the Agricultural Programs.

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

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

Subject: Blocked Balances.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

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

Subject: Discriminatory Features in Federal Corporation Income Taxes.

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

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

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

March 10. Student report.

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

March 17. Student Report.

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

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

Subject: The American Defense Program.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

March 24. Student Report.

Subject: Essays on Fiscal Policy and the Building Cycle.

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

April 7. Student Report.

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

April 14. Student Report.

Subject: Incentive Taxation.

April 18. Student Reports.

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

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

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

Subject: Defense Financing.

April 28. Student Report.

Subject: The Economic Development of a War Economy.

May 2. GUSTAV STOLPER, Financial Adviser.

Subject: Financing the American Defense Program.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1941-1942
Professors Williams and Hansen

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

 

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

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

The program of meetings was as follows:

September 29. The Development of Fiscal Policy.

October 6.     Defense Financing.

October 17.   The Relation Between Fiscal Policy and Inflation.

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

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

October 24.  The United States Housing Authority.

NATHAN STRAUS, Administration, United States Housing Authority.

October 27.  Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles.

October 31.   Urban Redevelopment.

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

November 3. Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles.

November 10. The Present State of Fiscal Policy.

November 17. The Multiplier.

November 21. The Federal Advisory Council.

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

November 24. The Multiplier.

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

November 28. Economic Warfare.

NOEL HALL, British Embassy.

December 1. The Multiplier.

PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

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

ROBERT BRYCE, Department of Finance, Canada.

December 8. Post-War Problems.

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

December 12. The Revenue Act of 1941.

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

December 15. The Theory of Public Investment.

Professor HARRIS.

December 19. The 1942 Revenue Act.

ROY BLOUGH, Director of Tax Research, Treasury Department.

January 26. The Problem of Post-War Reconstruction.

PER JACOBSSEN, Economist, Bank for International Settlements.

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

ALEJANDRO SHAW, Argentina.

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

February 13. Monopolistic Trading and International Relations.

JACOB VINER, Chicago University.

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

February 20. The Effect of Federalism on Fiscal Policy.

LUTHER GULICK, National Resources Planning Board.

March 2.       Agriculture in the Post-War Period.

LEONARD ELMHIRST, Elmhirst Foundation.

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

March 13.     Post-War Domestic and International Investments.

RICHARD M. BISSELL, Department of Commerce.

March 16.     Monetary Implications of Fiscal Policy.

March 20.     The Present Fiscal Situation.

ALBERT GAYLORD HART, Iowa State College.

March 23.     Problems of Monetary Control.

ROBERT V. ROSA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

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

March 27.     The Public Work Reserve.

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

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

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

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

April 13.        Private Industry Post-War Planning.

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

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

April 24.       Government Lending Agencies.

ROBERT V. ROSA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and

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

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

May 1.            The Inflationary Gap.

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

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

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

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1942-43
Professors Williams and Hansen

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

 

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

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

The program of meetings was as follows:

October 5.     Professor HANSEN.

Subject: A Survey of the Fiscal.War Picture.

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

Subject: Concepts of National Income and Its Statistical Measurement.

October 19.   Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: The Present Status of Fiscal Policy.

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

Subject: Consumption Function.

October 26. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Changes in the Banking System.

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

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

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

Subject: Rate of Interest.

November 9. Professor HANSEN.

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

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

Subject: National Income, Employment and International Relations.

November 16. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Federal, State, Local Fiscal Relations.

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

Subject: The Tennessee Valley Authority.

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

Subject: Revenue Act of 1942.

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

Subject: Canadian War Economic Measures.

November 30. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Basic Issues of Fiscal Policy.

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

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: The Reconstruction of World Trade After War.

December 7. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Basic Issues of Fiscal Policy.

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

Subject: War Problems of International Trade.

December 14. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: The Beveridge Report.

February 1.  Honorable HAROLD STASSEN, Governor of Minnesota.

Subject: Decentralized Government.

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

Subject: State-Local Fiscal Relations.

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

Subject: The Bank for International Settlements.

February 15. Professor HANSEN.

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

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

Subject: Post-War Problems in International Trade.

March 1.        Dr. HANS STAEHLE, Harvard University.

Subject: Consumption and National Income in Post-War.

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

Subject: Revenue Bill-1943.

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

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

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

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

April 16.        Dr. ALBERT HAHN. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: Planned or Adjusted Post-War Economy.

May 8.           GUY GREER, Editor of Fortune Magazine.

Subject: Urban Redevelopment.

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1943-44
Professors Williams and Hansen

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

 

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

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

The program of meetings was as follows:

November 8. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: General Survey of Fiscal Policy.

November 15. Professor WILLIAMS.

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

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

Subject: Some Administrative Aspects of Taxation.

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

Subject: Fiscal Policy and the Canadian Economy.

November 29. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

December 6. HANS ADLER.

Subject: Population Growth and Fiscal Policy.

December 13. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

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

Subject: Problems of International Stabilization.

December 20. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Consumption and Saving during the War.

January 3.    Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Consumption and Saving in the Postwar.

January 10.  Professor GOTTFRIED HABERLER.

Subject: Reparations.

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

Subject: Mexico.

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

Subject: Economic Budget and Fiscal Budget.

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

Subject: Chile.

January 24.  Dr. DON HUMPHREY, Special Adviser on Price Control to Haitian Government.

Subject: Haiti.

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

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

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

Subject: Argentina.

March 31.     Mr. HENRY WALLICH.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and International Equilibrium.

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

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

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

Subject: Business Taxes.

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

Subject: Urban Redevelopment.

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1944-45
Professors Williams and Hansen

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

 

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

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

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

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

Subject: Bretton Woods Conference.

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

Subject: Bretton Woods Conference.

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

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

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

November 6. Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Subject: Estimates of Postwar National Income and Employment.

November 13. Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Wartime Fiscal Problems.

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

Subject: Postwar Federal Taxation.

November 20. Dr. FREDERICK LUTZ, Princeton University.

Subject: Corporate Cash Balances, I914-1943.

December 4. Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Subject: The Bretton Woods Agreements.

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

Subject: The Scarcity of Dollars. (Published in The Journal of Political Economy, March I945.)

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

Subject: International Distribution of Supplies in Wartime.

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

Subject: Tennessee Valley Authority.

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

Subject: Postwar Corporate Taxation.

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

Subject: Some Aspects of the Bretton Woods Program.

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

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

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

Subject: The Boston Urban Development Plan.

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

Subject: International Economic Problems of South America.

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

Subject: Bonneville Power Administration.

March 12.     Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Murray Employment Bill.

March 16.     H. L. SELIGMAN.

Subject: Bank Earnings and Taxation of Bank Profits.

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

Subject: British-American Trade Problems from the Canadian Point of View. (Published in the British Economic Journal, September 1945.)

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

Subject: Monetary and Financial Problems of the Liberated Countries.

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

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

April 13.        s. s. PU [sic]

Subject: Fiscal Policies and Income Generation.

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

Subject: Commodity Agreements.

April 20.       HECTOR TASSARA.

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

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

Subject: Postwar Policies.

April 27.       Professor JOHN VAN SICKLE, Vanderbilt University.

Subject: Wages and Employment: A Regional Approach.

April 30.       Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Postwar Wage Policy.

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

Subject: Inflation in Europe.

May 21.         AXEL IVEROTH, Swedish Legation, Washington.

Subject: Postwar Plans in Sweden.

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

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

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

Subject: The Shorter Work Week and Full Employment.