Tag: Simon

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Columbia Curriculum M.I.T. Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania. Memos from Ando and Dhrymes to the curriculum committee, 1965

 

The significance for the history of economics of the following three memos is that they provide an illustration of the diffusion (infiltration?) of the M.I.T. canon to other departments. Albert Ando taught a few years at M.I.T. before coming to Penn and Phoebus Dhrymes (M.I.T., Ph.D., 1961) wrote his dissertation under Kuh and Solow.  The memos were sent to the curriculum committee of the department of economics at the University of Pennsylvania in January 1965 (at least the Ando memo is dated January 14, 1965 and it explicitly refers to the Phoebus memo and their recommendations to the Mathematics Committee that are undated).

Obituaries for both Ando and Dhrymes have been added to this post and precede the three memos.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror thanks Juan C. A. Acosta who found these memos in the Lawrence Klein Papers at the Duke University Economists’ Papers Project and has graciously shared them for transcription here. 

Addition to post: At Banca d’Italia, N. 7 – Albert Ando: a bibliography of his writings.

_______________________________

Albert Keinosuke Ando
1929-2002
Obituary

Dr. Albert Ando, professor of economics, SAS and professor of finance, Wharton, died on September 19 [2002] at the age of 72.

Dr. Ando was born in Tokyo, Japan in 1929 and came to the United States after World War II. He received his B.S. in economics from the University of Seattle in 1951, his M.A. in economics from St. Louis University in 1953, and an M.S. in economics in 1956 and a Ph.D. in mathematical economics in 1959 from Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie Mellon University). Dr. Ando came to Penn in 1963 as an associate professor of economics and finance and became professor of economics and finance in 1967. He held this position until his death.

Dr. Lawrence Klein, Nobel laureate in economics and professor emeritus of economics wrote the following about his colleague.

After World War II many Japanese scholars visited the United States for general education and to modernize their training in some key subjects. Albert Ando, Professor of Economics and Finance, who died of Leukemia last week was an early arrival in the 1940s. He was educated at Seattle and St. Louis Universities and often expressed gratitude at the career start provided by his Jesuit teachers in an adopted country.

He completed the doctoral program in mathematical economics at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, where he was strongly influenced by Herbert Simon with whom he collaborated in research papers on aggregation and causation in economic systems. He also worked closely with another (Nobel Laureate to be) Franco Modigliani on the life cycle analysis of saving, spending, and income.

Dr. Ando was on the faculties of the Carnegie and of the Massachusetts Institutes of Technology before moving to the University of Pennsylvania, where he remained since 1963. He had visiting appointments at universities in Louvain, Bonn, and Stockholm. He consulted with the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve Board, The Bank of Italy, and the Economic Planning Agency of Japan. He held many positions as an editor of scholarly journals and wrote numerous articles and books.

The main contributions of Professor Ando were in econometrics (theory and applications), monetary analysis, demographic aspects of household economic behavior, economic growth, and economic stabilization. His work on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania, and Social Science Research Council (MPS) model was of great benefit for the research department of the Federal Reserve Board, and his more recent work on econometrics for the Bank of Italy had been very fruitful.

He served as chairman of the graduate group in the economics department, 1986-1989, and developed excellent working relationships with many advanced students. He set very high standards, and those he worked with as thesis supervisor benefited greatly. He was extremely loyal and dedicated to their work, maintaining close connection with them after they departed from the University.

During his long and fruitful career, he earned many honors–as Fellow of the Econometric Society, as a Ford Foundation Faculty Research Fellow; as a Guggenheim Fellow, and a Japan Foundation Fellow. He was given the Alexander von Humboldt Award for Senior American Scientists.

Albert Ando is survived by his wife of 35 years, Faith H. Ando, two professorial sons, Matthew and Clifford, and a daughter, Alison, who has just been admitted to the New York Bar. His mother, sister, and brother, live in Japan.

–Lawrence Klein, Professor Emeritus of Economics

Source: University of Pennsylvania. Almanac. Vol. 49, No. 6, October 1, 2002.

_______________________________

Phoebus James Dhrymes
(1932-2016)

Phoebus J. Dhrymes (1932-2016), the Edwin W. Rickert Professor Emeritus of Economics, was a Cypriot American econometrician who made substantial methodological contributions to econometric theory.  Born in the Republic of Cyprus in 1932, Phoebus Dhrymes arrived in the United States in 1951, settling with relatives in New York City. After a few months, he volunteered to be drafted into the US Army for a two-year tour of duty; afterwards he attended the University of Texas at Austin on the GI Bill. In 1961 he earned his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of Edwin Kuh and Robert Solow (Nobel Laureate 1987).  After a year-long post-doctoral fellowship at Stanford, he began his professorial career at Harvard, then moved to the University of Pennsylvania, and then UCLA.  In1973 he joined the Department of Economics at Columbia University; he was named the Edwin W. Rickert Professor of Economics in 2003 and retired in 2013.

Econometrics refers to that aspect of the economist’s work concerned with quantifying and testing economic trends. Phoebus Dhrymes‘early research focused on problems of production and investment, but he soon turned to more methodological work and produced important results on time series and on simultaneous equations.  Throughout his career, Phoebus Dhrymes placed much emphasis on the dissemination of scientific knowledge. In the early 1970s he helped found the Journal of Econometrics, which has become the leading journal in this field.  He was also on the advisory board of the Econometric Theory, and was managing editor and editor of the International Economic Review.He was a fellow of the Econometric Society and the American Statistical Association.Dr. Dhrymes was also one of the founders of the University of Cyprus, from which he was later awarded an honorary degree.

He wrote a series of influential textbooks including Distributed Lags:  Problems of Estimation and Formulation. This work was translated into Russian and published by the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, and in the 1970s Dr. Dhrymes was invited to visit the (now former) Soviet Union, specifically Moscow and Novosibirsk. At the time such visits were unusual events for westerners, requiring rarely-issued visas and security clearances, particularly for centers of research such as Novosibirsk.

In a 1999 interview he characterized his books as “filters that distill and synthesize the wisdom of many contributors to the subject.   On this score, I was influenced in my writing by the way I learn when studying by myself.”  (Econometric Theory, 18, 2002)

Dr. Dhrymes is survived by his daughter, Alexis, and his sons, Phoebus and Philip. In his personal life, he was regarded as a generous, kind and gentle man, always there for his family. He came from humble beginnings, and garnered great respect from his family and friends for his achievements. He spoke often of how much he enjoyed teaching. He was always available to his students.He encouraged individualized thinking and understanding of processes rather than rote memorization in learning. He had a warm and affable demeanor, recalled fondly by former students and family members. He will be sadly missed.

Source: Obituary for Phoebus J. Dhrymes at the Columbia University Department of Economics Website.

_______________________________

Memorandum

To: Herbert Levine, Chairman, Curriculum Committee
From: Albert Ando
Subject: Offerings and Requirements in Macroeconomics, Monetary Theory, and Related areas in General Economics Ph.D. Program

  1. Macroeconomics

Enclosed herein is a copy of the outline and references of Economics 621 [The outline and references will be posted later] as I am offering it this fall. It is fairly similar to [the] one year course in macroeconomics which is required of all Ph.D. students at MIT. I am sure that opinions would vary on details, but it is my view that this represents more or less the topics and literature that all Ph.D. students in economics should be familiar with. Ideally, I think there should be another major topic at the end of the outline dealing with current problems and policies.

It is fairly clear that this outline could not be covered in one term, particularly under our present system in which there are only 13 to 14 weeks of classes for a term. As a matter of fact, this fall, with a great deal of rushing throughout the term, I will be able to finish the static part of the outline by the end of the fall term, but certainly no further.

This suggests that the required macroeconomics for Ph.D. students should be two term sequence of courses, the first term dealing essentially with the Keynesian static analysis, and the second term with dynamics, i.e., business cycles and growth models.

  1. Monetary Economics

I have just discovered that Economics 622 is taught without any prerequisite, and that there will be some students in 622 who have not had any macroeconomic theory this spring. I am somewhat stunned, and do not see how I will be able to teach a satisfactory course under the circumstances. This situation is indicated by the fact that 622 is required not only of Ph.D. students in economics but also of master’s candidates, and therefore it is apparently impossible to exclude the students from 622 who have not had 621. An obvious temporary solution is to make those students who have not had 621 wait until next year to take 622. In my view, elements of monetary problems should be included in the first term of the required macroeconomics course, and courses in monetary theory should be made elective. The course in monetary theory should then be taught assuming that students have had adequate preparation in macroeconomics and microeconomics, particularly the theory of general equilibrium, at the level where we can discuss the research and developments in the past dozen years or so, bringing students up to a point where they can draw a thesis topic from their work in the course. There is a room for an argument that there should be another course in addition to the advanced theory course, which deals with more traditional money and banking material. As a matter of fact, I offered two courses in monetary economics at MIT for several years, one dealing with traditional money and banking material taking the one term each of macro and micro economics as prerequisites, and another highly theoretical and advanced course taking two terms each of macro [and] micro economics as prerequisites. It seems to me, however, that Economics 639, Monetary Problems and Policies, should serve as the good traditional money and banking course, so that only one additional course seems to be needed.

  1. Microeconomics and Mathematics

After some discussion with Dhrymes, it is fairly clear that microeconomics should also be taught as a two term sequence. A possible division between two terms would be to deal with partial equilibrium analysis of consumers and firms during the first term, and with the general equilibrium analysis and welfare economics in the second term.

During this fall term, Dhrymes and I found it necessary to conduct a few special remedial sessions in mathematics so that some rudimentary notions of calculus and linear transformation will be available in the discussions in theory courses. The idea, of course, is to arrange so that all students are equipped with minimum of mathematics by the beginning of the second term. If the recommendation of the committee on mathematics is adopted, so that students will learn elementary calculus and the matrices and linear transformation, including rudiments of linear differences and differential equations at the level suggested by the committee it is possible to synchronize it with theory courses so that theory courses will be using only those mathematics students are learning in mathematics remedial courses. For instance, the first term of macro theory would not require too much mathematics except the notion of the systems of equations and their solutions, and the first term of micro theory not much more than the condition of extremum in a fairly informal manner. In the second term, on the other hand, theory courses will require conditions of stability in the general equilibrium analysis, and the difference and differential equations in dynamic models in macroeconomics.

  1. Overall First year program and Second year fields of specialization.

In addition to micro and macro theories and mathematics required for these theory courses, students should be asked to learn minimum of statistics and econometrics. The level of statistics and econometrics should be maintained at the level of text books such as Frazer, Brunk, or Mood plus Johnston.

The implication of the above statement is that the course schedule for typical first year Ph.D. students should look as follows:

First term:

Microeconomics I (Partial equilibrium analysis)
Macroeconomics I (Static Keynesian analysis, including some monetary considerations).
Mathematics I (Elementary calculus)*
Mathematics II (Elementary Linear Algebra)*
Economic History (For those with Adequate mathematical training)

*For the suggested content of mathematics courses, see recommendations of Mathematics Committee.

Second Term:

Microeconomics II (General equilibrium analysis and welfare economics).
Macroeconomics II (Dynamics, business cycles and growth)
Econometrics (6 hour course)

This schedule, of course, would be subject to variations depending on the background and preparations of students. For instance, students who already have sufficient mathematical training might be encouraged to take a course in economic history and a course in somewhat more advanced mathematics, such as mathematical theory of probability or a course in topology in the first term in place of Mathematics I and II.

_______________________________

Lists of Topics for Mathematics for Economists
[Recommendations of Ando and Dhrymes submitted to the Mathematics Committee]

(Mr. Balinski is to suggest some alternative text books)

  1. Calculus
    1. Sets and Functions.
      1. Definitions
      2. Operations on Sets and Subsets.
      3. Relations, Functions.
        K.M.S.T. Chapter 2, Sections 1 through 6, possibly Sections 10 through 13.
    2. Functions, Limits, and Continuity.
    3. Differentiation and Integration of Functions of one variable.
      1. Concepts and Mechanics.
      2. Infinite series and Taylor’s Theories.
      3. Extremum Problems.
    4. Differentiation and Integration of Functions of many variables.
      1. Concepts and mechanics.
      2. Extremum problems, nonconstrained and constrained.
      3. Implicit Function Theorem.
        Any elementary text book in Calculus (e.g. Thomas; Sherwood and Taylor), Supplemented by some sections of a slightly more advanced text on Implicit Function Theorem and La Grange multipliers.
  2. Linear Algebra and others.
    1. Vector Spaces and Matrices.
      1. Vector Spaces and Matrices, Definitions, and Motivations.
        Perlis, Chapters 1 and 2.
      2. Linear Transformations.
        K.M.S.T., Chapter 4, Sections 7 through 12.
      3. Equivalence, Rank, and Inverse.
        Perlis, Chapter 3.
        Perlis, Chapter 4.
      4. Quadratic Forms, Positive Definite and semi-definite Matrices.
        Perlis, Chapter 5, Sections 1, 2, and 5
      5. Characteristic Vectors and Roots.
        Perlis, Chapter 8, Sections 1 and w[?], Chapter 9, Sections 1, 2, 5, and 6.
      6. Difference and Differential Equations; Linear with Constant Coefficients.
        Goldberg, Chapters 1, w, e, and Chapter 4, Sections 1 and 5; Perlis, Chapter 7, Section 10. Some reference to two dimensional phase diagram analysis of non-linear differential equations with 2 variables. Lotke?
      7. Convex Sets.
        K.M.S.T., Chapter 5.

_______________________________

MEMORANDUM
January 14, 1965

To: Curriculum Committee
From: Phoebus J. Dhrymes
Subject: Mathematics, Microeconomics, Statistics and Econometrics in the Economics Graduate Training Program

  1. Mathematics

It has become quite apparent to me during the course of the last term that our students are woefully equipped to handle instruction involving even very modest and elementary mathematics.

I think it is quite generally accepted that a student specializing in Theory, Econometrics and to a lesser extent International Trade and Industrial Organization would find it increasingly difficult to operate as a professional economist, and indeed seriously handicapped in satisfactorily carrying on a graduate study progress, without adequate mathematical training. With this in mind Albert Ando and I have prepared a tentative list of topics that graduate students ought be minimally familiar with and which has been presented to the Mathematics Committee.

This could form a remedial (and a bit beyond) course to extend over a year and to be taken (by requirement or suggestion) by students intending to specialize in the fields mentioned above during their first year of residence.

  1. Microeconomics

It has been my experience in teaching Econ. 620 that one semester is a rather brief period for covering the range of microeconomic theory a graduate student in Pennsylvania ought to be exposed to. As it is the case at both Harvard and MIT, I would propose that the course Econ. 620 be extended to a year course. Roughly speaking, the topics to be covered might be:

  1. Theory of Consumer Behavior
    1. the Hicksian version
    2. the von Neumann-Morgenstern version, including the Friedman-Savage paper
  2. Demand functions, elasticities, etc.
  3. Theory of the firm; output and price determination
    1. Production functions
    2. Cost functions and their relations to i.
    3. Revenue and profit functions and the profit maximizing hypothesis
    4. The perfectly competitive firm and industry, and their equilibrium; comparative statics; supply functions
    5. The monopolistic firm
    6. Monopolistic competition
    7. Duopoly and oligopoly
  4. Factor employment equilibrium
    1. Factor demand functions
    2. Factor employment equilibrium under various market institutional arrangements
    3. Some income distribution theory
    4. Factor supply.
  5. General Equilibrium Analysis; Input-Output models
  6. Welfare Economics (Samuelson; Graaf)
  7. Capital Theory (Fisher, Wicksell, recent contributions)
  8. (Marginally) Some revealed preference theory; or neoclassical growth models; or alternative theories of the firm (e.g., Cyert and Marsh)

It would be desirable if students were sufficiently well-equipped mathematically to handle these topics at some level intermediate between Friedman’s Price Theory Text and Henderson and Quandt; however, since this is not the case at present some other alternative must be found, such as in the manner in which the propose mathematics course is taught, and the order in which topics above are covered. The split of the subjects could be a) through c) or d) for the first semester and the remainder for the second semester. Clearly, neither the topics proposed nor the split represent my immutable opinion and there is considerable room for discussion.

  1. Statistics

At present the statistical training of our students suffers from their inadequate mathematical preparations.

It is my opinion that minimally we should require of our students that they be familiar with the elementary notions of statistical inference, estimation, testing of hypotheses and regression analysis at the level of, say, Hoel, or Mood and Graybill, or any other similar text, (a semester course). For students intending to specialize in Econometrics or other heavily quantitative fields, then it should be highly desirable that a year course be available, say at the level of Mood and Graybill, Graybill, or Fraser, Hogg and Craig, Brunk, etc., with suitable supplementary material. Since, we do have access to a statistics department it might be desirable for our students to take a suitable course there.

Again, due to the problems posed by the mathematics deficiency of incoming students, some accommodation must be reached on this score as well.

  1. Econometrics

Econometrics should not be a required subject; rather the requirement—minimal requisite—should be confined to the one semester course indicated under III. It would be desirable to offer a year course to be taken after the statistics sequence and which would cover at the level of, say, Klein, Goldberger, or my readings showing applications and problems connected thereto.

Topics, could start by reviewing the general linear model, Aitken estimators and similar related topics; simultaneous equation and identification problems, k-class estimators, 3SLS, maximum likelihood estimation, full and limited information, Monte Carlo methods.

Also selected topics from Multivariate Analysis; specification analysis, error in variable problems; elements of stochastic processes theory and spectral and cross spectra analysis.

It might be desirable to teach these subjects in the order cited above, although it would appear preferable to have multivariate analysis precede the review of the general linear model.

  1. General Comments:

I generally agree with Albert Ando’s memorandum on proposed curriculum revision in so far as they pertain to Mathematics requirements, Macro-economics and Monetary Theory.

I think that at present we require our students to take too many courses. I would favor only the following requirements; the basic Micro and Macro year courses. At least a semester of statistics, as indicated under III, and one semester in either economic history or history of economic thought—although I do not feel too strongly on the latter. I presume, in all of this that students in our program are only those ultimately aiming at specialization in Theory, Econometrics, International Trade, Industrial Organization, and possibly Comparative Systems, or Soviet Economics. It is my understanding that our curriculum will not cover those concentrating in Labor Relations, Regional Science or Economic History.

Thus, through their first year our students would be taking more or less required courses, with the second year essentially left open for their special fields of concentration.

Thus, the course program of a typical first year student will look more or less as shown in Albert Ando’s memorandum, p. 4, although I would be somewhat uneasy about requiring 6 hours of mathematics in the first term and 6 hours of statistics (econometrics) in the second term of the first year. Nonetheless I do not object strongly to this, and indeed in this past term many of the students taking 620 and 621 had in effect taken a six-hour course in Mathematics, 611 as taught by Dorothy Brady and approximately 3 hours as taught by Albert Ando and myself.

Quite clearly the above are merely proposals intended to serve as a basis for discussion an ultimately for guidance of entering students in planning their program of study rather than rigid requirements.

 

Source: Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive, Lawrence Klein Papers, Box 19, Folder “Curriculum”.

Images: Left, Albert Ando; Right, Phoebus Dhrymes. From the respective obituaries above.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Milton Friedman from Cambridge to T.W. Schultz. 29 Mar 1954

About a week ago I posted Milton Friedman’s letter from Cambridge, England to T. W. Schultz dated 28 October 1953. Today we have the next carbon copy of a letter to Schultz from Cambridge in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution in which Friedman discusses a range of issues from a one-year appointment in mathematical economics at Chicago, the Cowles’ Directorship appointment, and postdoctoral fellowships. The letter ends with a laundry-list of miscellaneous comments from Arthur Burns’ Economic Report to the President through the reception of McCarthy news in England. Friedman’s candid assessments of many of his fellow-economists make this letter particularly interesting.  More to come!

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________

Milton Friedman to T.W. Schultz
29 March 1954

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
March 29, 1954

 

Dear Ted:

Of the people you list as possible visiting professors while Koopmans is away, Solow of M.I.T. is the one who offhand appeals to me the most. I have almost no doubt about his absolute competence: I read his doctoral dissertation at an early stage and saw something of him last summer and the preceding summer when he was spending some time at Hanover in connection with one or another of Bill Madow’s projects. He has a seminal mind and analytical ability of a very high order. My only questions would be the other that you raise, whether he is broadly enough interested in economics. And here I am inclined to answer with an uncertain yes, relying partly on the fact that he is flexible and capable of being induced. I do not know Dorfman of California either personally or through his writings. My question about him is that I believe that we would do best if we could use this opportunity in general to bring in someone with a rather different point of view and who will provide a broadening of the kind of thing done under the heading of mathematical economics, and my impression is that Dorfman is very much in the same line as Koopmans – but here too, I don’t have much confidence in my knowledge. As you know, I think very highly of both Modigliani and Christ, but as of the moment for this particular spot, would prefer Solow, partly on grounds of greater differentiation of product.

One rather harebrained possibility that has occurred to me outside your list is Maurice Allais, the French mathematical economist who is Professor at École des Mines. Allais is a crackpot genius in many respects. He came out of engineering and is largely self taught, which means he holds the erroneous views he has discovered for himself as strongly as the correct ones. I have always said that if he had, at a formative age, had one year of really good graduate education in economics he might have become one of the really great names. At the same time, Allais is an exceedingly active and stimulating person who works in mathematical economics of a rather different kind than we have been accustomed to. I think it would be a good thing to have him around for a year – both for us and him – though I am most uncertain that it would be for a longer period. I don’t have any basis for knowing whether Allais would be interested.

I have tried to think over the other European mathematical economists to see if they offer other possibilities. There are others in France: Guilbaud [Georges-Théodule Guilbaud (1912-2008)], Boiteux [Marcel Boiteux (1922-)] (I don’t have that spelled right), but none seem to me as good as Allais for our purposes. There are Frisch and Haavelmo in Norway, Wold in Sweden; of these, Haavelmo would be the best. I find it hard to think of anybody in England who meets this particular bill, and would be at all conceivable. Dick Stone? Has just been over and is not primarily mathematical but might be very good indeed in some ways. Is certainly econometric minded and fairly broadly so. R.G.D. Allen? Has done almost nothing in math. econ. for a long time.*

*[handwritten footnote, incomplete on left side presumably because carbon paper folded on the corner:   “…real possibility here is a young fellow at the London School, A. W. Phillips…invented the “machine” Lerner has been peddling. He came to econ. out of ….good indeed. He has an important paper in the mathematics of stabilization (over) policies, scheduled to appear(?) in Econ. Journal shortly.”]

Getting back home, the names that occur to me have, I am sure, also occurred to you. Is Kenneth Arrow unavailable for a year’s arrangement? What about Vickrey? I don’t believe that in any absolute sense I would rate Vickrey above Christ, say, but for us he has the advantage of bringing a different background and approach.

The above is all written in the context of a definite one-year arrangement in the field of mathematical economics. I realize, of course, that this may turn out to be an undesirable limitation. This is certainly an opportunity to try someone whom we might be interested in permanently; and it may be possible to make temporary arrangements for math. econ. for the coming year – via DuBrul, Marschak, etc. The difficulty is that once I leave this limited field, the remainder is so broad that I hardly know where to turn. For myself, I believe we might well use this to bring someone in in money, if that possibility existed. If it did, I should want strongly to press on you Harry Johnson, here at Cambridge, but originally a Canadian educated at the University of Toronto, who is the one new person I have come to know here who has really impressed me.

One other person from the US left out of the above list but perhaps eligible even within the narrower limitations is William Baumol. Oughtn’t he be considered?

Within the narrower limitations, my own listing would, at the moment, be: Allais, Solow, Baumol, Arrow, Vickrey, Phillips. I would hasten to add that my listing of Arrow fourth is entirely consistent with my believing him the best of the lot in absolute competence, and the one who would still go to the top of this list for a permanent post.

I turn to the other possibility you raise in your letter, a permanent post a la the Tobin one. I am somewhat puzzled how to interpret the change of view, you suggest, I assume that the person would be expected to take over the directorship of Cowles. If this is so, it seems to me highly unfortunate to link it with a permanent post in the department. Obviously, the best of all worlds would be if there were someone we definitely wanted as a permanent member of the department who also happened to be interested in the Cowles area and was willing to direct, or better interested in directing, Cowles. In lieu of this happy accident, I would myself like to see the two issues kept as distinct as possible; to have the Cowles people name a director, with the aid and advice but not necessarily the consent, of the department; have the department offer him cooperation, opportunity to teach, etc., but without having him a full-fledged permanent member. I hope you will pardon these obiter dicta. I realize that this is a topic you have doubtless discussed ad nauseam; what is even more important, if after such discussion, you feel differently, I would predict that you would succeed in persuading me to your view; which is why I leave it with these dicta and without indicating the arguments – you can provide them better than I.

The issue strikes me particularly forcefully because I do feel that in terms of the needs of the department, our main need is not for someone else mainly in the Cowles area; it is for someone to replace either Mints in money, or me in orthodox theory, if I slide over to take Mints’ role.

For Cowles’ sake as well as our own, there might be much to be said for having the directorship be the primary post for whoever comes. It seems to me bad for Cowles to have that post viewed as either a sideshow or a stepping stone. For directorship of Cowles, some names that occur are: Herbert Simon; Dorothy Brady; with more doubt Modigliani. One possibility much farther off the beaten track is Warren Nutter, who has, I gathered, been a phenomenal administrative success in Wash. at Central Intelligence Agency; yet is an economist. Would Charlie Hitch, who has been running Rand’s economic division be completely out?

[Handwritten note: “You know, Gregg Lewis might be better than any of these if he would do it!]

If the post is to be viewed as primarily a professorship in the department, with Cowles directorship as a sideline, I have great difficulty in making any suggestions: I would not, in particular, be enthusiastic about any of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Arrow, yes, but he is apparently out. Simon Kuznets, yes, but he would be likely to make Cowles into something altogether different that it is. I feel literally stuck in trying to think of acceptable candidates. Perhaps I can be more useful in reacting to other suggestions.

Let me combine with this some comments on your March 15 letter, which I should have answered long since.

On the post-doctoral fellowship, I feel less bearish than you, primarily, I suppose because I am inclined to lay a good deal of emphasis on the intangible benefits from having a widespread group of people who have had a year at Chicago. It seems to me that a post-doctoral fellowship is more likely to do this than a staff appointment, both because it is likely to bring in a wider range of people to apply and because it is rather more likely to have a one or two year limit and so a more rapid turnover. What has disappointed me most is the limited number of people among whom we have been forced to choose. Why is it that we don’t get more applications? Is it because we do treat it now like a staff appointment? Do we advertise it as widely as we might and stimulate a considerable number of applicants? Or is it simply because the great increase in number of post-doctoral fellowships available (and decrease in quality of people going in for economics?) has lowered the demand for any one fellowship? I find it hard to believe that making it into a staff appointment would help much in providing more adequate review and appraisal – this is I believe a result of the limitations of time on all of us – but it might give it greater prestige and make it more valuable to the recipient in this way, though, it would cost him tax and limit freedom.

I believe that part of the problem you raise about the postdoctoral fellowship has little to do with it per se but is a general problem about the department. Is our own work subject to as much discussion and advice from our colleagues as each of us would like? The answer seems to me clearly no. The trouble is – and I am afraid it is to some extent unavoidable and common at other places – that we have so many other duties and tasks to perform that being an intellectual community engaged in cross-stimulation perforce takes a back seat. This disease is I think one that grows as the square of the professional age. From this point of view, I think that the more junior people around the better in many ways and I think this one of the real virtues of the development of research projects that will enable us to keep more beginners around.

On the whole, I continue to think that the fellowship idea is sound, in the sense that we ought to have a number of people around who have no assigned duties. I would defend the Mishan result in these terms. I think he was a most useful intellectual stimulant and irritant to have around even if his own output was not too striking. The virtue of the fellowship arrangement is that it enables you to shape the hole to the peg. I cannot of course judge about Prais. But I am surprised by your adverse comments on Dewey’s use of it; I would have thought his one of the clearly most successful post-doctoral fellowships so far.

As you have doubtless heard, Muth has decided to go to Cowles. I am sorry that he has. I think he is good. I am somewhat troubled about the general problem of recruiting for the Workshop at a distance. In addition to Muth, I had heard from Pesek, whom I encouraged but left the matter open because he would rather have a fellowship that he applied for that would pay his travelling expenses to Washington. My general feeling is that it would be a mistake to take anyone just because I am not on the spot, that it would be far better to start fairly slowly, and let the thing build up, adding people as they turn up next year. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I am delighted to hear about Fred’s ford project. I had a wire from Willits recently re Harberger and I assume it was in connection with his proposed project. Al Rees will be a splendid editor, I feel, and it is excellent to have him entirely in the department. I hardly know what to think of Morton Grodzins as Dean. I assume that his appointment measn that he was regarded as a successful administrator at the Press. Grodzins has great drive and energy, is clearly bright and intelligent, but whether he has the judgment either of men or of directions of development that is required, and the ability to raise money that Tyler displayed, is something I have less confidence in. Who is taking over the Press?

I enjoyed your comments on both Arthur Burns and McCarthy. With respect to the first, I thought the economic report extraordinarily good, both in its analysis of the immediate situation and in its discussion of the general considerations that should guide policy. It showed courage, too, I think in its willingness to say nasty things about farm supports and minimum wages to mention two. My views about the recession are indicated by the title of a lecture I am scheduled to give in Stockholm towards the end of April: “Why the American Economy is Depression-proof”. After all, there is no reason why Colin Clark should be the only economist sticking his neck out. It continues to seem to me that the danger to be worried about is over-reacting to this recession and in the process producing a subsequent inflationary spurt. Arthur seems to me to be showing real courage in holding out against action. To do something would surely be the easy and in the short run politically popular course.

McCarthyism has of course been attracting enormous attention here. Indeed, for long it has crowded almost all other American news into the background with the result that it has given a thoroughly distorted view of America to newspaper readers. I enclose a clipping in this connection which you may find amusing. it is not a bad summary, though I trust I put in more qualifications.

We have gotten an opportunity to go to Spain via an invitation to lecture at Madrid (Earl’s doing, I suspect), so Rose and I are leaving next week for a week there. Shortly after our return we go to Sweden and Denmark for a couple of weeks. We are very much excited by the prospects. Best regards to all.

Yours

[signed]
Milton

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder “194.6 Economics Department S-Z, 1946-1976”.

 

Image: Left, Milton Friedman (between 1946 and 1953 according to note on back of photo in the Hoover Archive in the Milton Friedman papers). Right, Theodore W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.