Tag: Solow

Categories
Economists Exam Questions M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

MIT. Robert Solow’s Advanced Economic Theory Course, 1962

Robert Solow taught the course Advanced Economic Theory at MIT in the Spring of the 1961/62 academic year. Of the dozen graduate students who took the course for credit were a future Nobel prize winner (Peter Diamond), a future Princeton professor and later member of Jimmy Carter’s Council of Economic Advisers (Stephen Goldfeld), a future professor at University of Pennsylvania/Washington University (Robert Pollak), a future professor and later chairman of Hebrew University (David Levhari), and a professor of economics and the first woman to head an MIT academic department, economics! 1984-1990 and MIT’s first female academic dean, School of Humanities and Social Science (Ann Friedlaender).

The three A’s awarded in the course went to Diamond, Levhari and Goldfeld.

The comprehensive exam questions for advanced economic theory from May 1962 were transcribed in the previous post.

_____________________________________

 

14.123—Advanced Economic Theory
Spring 1962—Professor Solow

FIRST READING LIST: LINEAR PROGRAMMING AND RELATED SUBJECTS

This should occupy 6-9 weeks. Most of the reading is in Gale: The Theory of Linear Economic Models and Dorfman, Samuelson, Solow: Linear Programming and Econmic Analysis, referred to below as G and D respectively.

  1. Mathematical background: I hope to avoid spending any time on this. Mainly elements of matrix algebra—14.102 should be enough. For review, see D (Appendix B) and G (Ch. 2, more difficult).
  2. Elements of Linear Programming; D (Ch. 2,3), G (Ch. 1,3).
  3. Algebra and Geometry of Linear Programming, Simplex Method; D (Ch. 4, Sec. 1-11), G (Ch. 4).
  4. Applications; D (Ch. 5-7), Manne: Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (Ch. 4,5).
  5. Two-person zero-sum games; D (Ch. 15), G (Ch. 6,7).
  6. Leontief and similar systems; G (Ch. 8, 9 Sec. 1-3), D (Ch. 9, 10).
  7. Activity analysis; G (Ch. 9, Sec. 4), Koopmans: Three Essays on the State of Economic Science (pp. 66-104).
  8. Von Neumann’s model; D (Ch. 13, Sec. 6), G (Ch. 9, Sec. 5-7).
  9. Sraffa: Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities.
    Robinson: “Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory”, Oxford Economic Papers, February 1961, 53-58.
  10. If time permits, the turnpike theorem; D (Ch. 12), Hicks: “Prices and the Turnpike”, Review of Economic Studies, February 1961, 77-88.
    Radner: “Paths of Economic Growth that are Optimal, etc.”, Review of Economic Studies, February 1961, 98-104.

(Further references may follow.)

 

SECOND READING LIST: PUBLIC INVESTMENT CRITERIA

  1. Hirshleifer: “On the Theory of Optimal Investment Decision”, Journal of Political Economy, August 1958, pp. 329-352.
  2. Graaff: Theoretical Welfare Economics, Chs. 6-8.
  3. Eckstein: “A Survey of the Theory of Public Expenditure Criteria”, in Public Finances: Needs, Sources and Utilization, with “Comments” by Hirshleifer.
  4. Margolis: “The Economic Evaluation of Federal Water Resource Development”, AER, March 1959, pp. 96-111.
  5. Steiner: “Choosing Among Alternative Public Investments”, AER, Dec. 1959, pp. 898-916.
  6. Maass, al.: Design of Water-Resource Systems, Chs. 2, 13 (and passim).
  7. Eckstein: Water Resource Development, Ch. 1-4.

_____________________________________

April 11, 1962

14.123—Exam

Answer all questions.

  1. A function f of vectors x,y,… is called subadditive if f(x+y) ≤ f(x) + f(y) for all vectors x, y, and called superadditive if the inequality is reversed.
    Consider the LP problem of maximizing C′x subject to Ax ≤ b. The value of the maximum is a function of C, b, and A. Show that it is a subadditive function of C and a superadditive function of b.
  2. A firm can produce n commodities with a linear technology involving one activity for each commodity. Production involves only fixed factors, m in number, m<n, of which specified amounts are available. The output is sold at market prices p, and the firm chooses non-negative vector x of outputs to maximize p′x subject to the fixed-factor limitations.
    (a) Prove that the supply curve is not negatively sloped; that is, prove that if p1 increases, other prices constant, the optimal x1 must increase or remain unchanged, but cannot decrease. (Hint: a straightforward procedure is to consider closely the final simplex tableau, the signs of various elements, and what can happen to require further iteration if p1 There is a much simpler proof, comparing the before-and-after optima.)
    (b) State and interpret the dual to the theorem just proved.
  3. Consider a simple linear model of production, with 2 goods, and with 2 fixed factors, land and labor, available in specified amounts.
    (a) Sketch possible shapes for the set of feasible net outputs, or net production-possibility curve.
    (b) Suppose demand conditions are such that consumption expenditures on the two commodities are always equal. Give a complete analysis of the determination of the prices of the two goods and also the rent of land and the wage of labor. Graphical methods will help. (Hint: at one key point the construction of an isosceles triangle is very useful.)

 

Source: Duke University. Rosenstein Library. Robert M. Solow Papers, Box 67, Folder “14.123 Final Exam Fall-1969[sic|”.

Image Source: Robert Merton Solow at the M.I.T. Museum website.

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.

Categories
Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Suggestions for New Fields. Domar, Kuh, Solow, Adelman, 1967

The following set of memoranda from the MIT economics department is found in a folder marked “Correspondence: Peter Temin” in Evsey Domar’s papers. The bulk of the material in the folder are letters of support that Domar solicited for the committee he chaired (which consisted of Domar, Charles Kindleberger and Frank Fisher) to review Peter Temin for tenure. It thus appears that Domar’s proposal to strengthen economic history at MIT in February 1967 was seen (at least by him) to have led later to granting Peter Temin tenure at MIT. See Peter Temin’s reflections on “The Rise and Fall of Economic History at MIT.”

In response to a request by the Head of the department, E. Cary Brown, for input to a long-range plan (1967-1975), we have here not only Evsey Domar’s response but also memos from Edwin Kuh (more econometrics!), Robert Solow (“poverty-manpower” or “a really high-class macro-numbers man”) and M. A. Adelman (energy economics).

Even Robert Solow’s intradepartmental memos sparkle with wit!

_________________________________

February 7, 1967

MEMORANDUM

 

To: Members of the Economics Department
From: E. Cary Brown
Subject: Long-Range Departmental Plans

President H. Johnson has asked that Departments submit long-range plans – by two-year intervals through the academic year 1974-5. The basic constraints, other than budgetary, are that the undergraduate student body is to remain fixed at its present level and that graduate students at M.I.T. Grow at only a 3% rate per year. The projection desired is of the expansion in existing fields, into new fields, the population of the department – faculty, staff, students, post-doctorals, and administration and supporting staff.

In order to get a dialogue started, I suggest that each of you send me a note on the need for new fields, the expansion of existing ones, and your views about our undergraduate and graduate size. I can then prepare an agenda for a meeting or two on this matter.

_________________________________

 

[Evsey Domar response]

  1. New Fields, etc.
    1. Economic History. Could tie in very well with our economic developers. Also help to create a better balance in the Department.
    2. Economics and Technology (Mansfield, etc.) MIT should be just the place for it.
    3. I hope Max continues to be interested in South-East Asia. The US will be involved there for a long time. Any chances for a South-east. Asia Center or something?
  2. Number of Students
    No strong feelings. A larger number of both faculty and students allows us to offer a greater variety of courses.

As you know, Economic History is my main concern.

_________________________________

 

[Edwin Kuh response]

February 13, 1967

MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Professor E. Cary Brown
FROM:          Professor Edwin Kuh
SUBJECT:     Some Economics Department Needs in the Long Run

Let me first grind my own econometric axe. We need additional support in two econometric areas. The first pertains to support for quantitative theses; Frank Fisher, Bob Solow and I carry a heavy load in this connection, which is unlikely to diminish. Second, we ought to have more strength than we do in econometric time series analysis, an important topic not covered by existing faculty. Marc Nerlove, for instance, ranks high on both counts. Less senior individuals include David Grether who combines both aspects (Stanford Ph.D. going to Yale this fall) and possibly Joseph Kadane also at Yale, who is more the statistician. Jim Durbin and Bill Phillips would be fine, too, qua statisticians contributing to econometrics.

Next, suppose we are fortunate enough to attract both Ken Arrow and C. V. Wiesacker [sic] ; the net balance in favor of theory would then become heavy indeed. There will be no need to panic and for instance, proceed instantly to hire Arthur Burns. But even so, it will behoove the department to push relentlessly on expanding the more empirical side. Since all tenure slots by then will have been sewed up, I don’t see how this can readily be done.

Finally, the department ought to raise more finance for computation. The burden has been disproportionately assumed by the Sloan School, even though several Economics Department research projects have made highly welcome and substantial contributions to the installation downstairs. In this connection, the department should seriously consider acquiring the long run services of someone with a major interest [in] computer systems; very different and high qualified individuals such as Mark Eisner or Don Carroll come to mind. The department will lag behind seriously unless it expands in this direction.

This has not been a balanced presentation of needs. I shall leave that to more balanced individuals.

 

_________________________________

 

[Robert M. Solow response]

MEMORANDUM TO: E. Cary Brown, Head
FROM: Robert M. Solow
SUBJECT: Yours of February 7

 

  1. Undergraduate program. I suppose basically we just passively accept as many majors as come along. We might attract more by improving the teaching and brightening up the course offering. So far we have got along just fine with a pretty dreary undergraduate program, and previous attempts to Do Something have petered out. Is history trying to tell us something? The only reason I can think of for trying again is this: if the department faculty is going to state bigger, especially among assistant professors, then we probably need some decent undergraduate teaching for them to do. (Not only them – I would volunteer to do some too.) Why not let the assistant professors do the planning – they probably have more ideas. Suggestions: new undergraduate subjects in mathematical economics, econometrics, “poverty”, transportation (or public investment); cancel one of the current Labor subjects (or convert to “poverty”), maybe cancel 14.06, 14.09; organize research seminar on one-big-project basis; keep 3 or 4 of the best seniors on as PhD candidates as a matter of course.
  1. Graduate program. Does it have to expand to justify slightly enlarged faculty? If so, then accept universe, but fight like hell for adequate space, scholarships, research funds. If not, think carefully. If faculty enlarges and improves, we should be able to do better on admissions. There will always be some lemons admitted; but it is a question whether one would not prefer current size of enrollment with improved bottom half to enlarged enrollment with current quality. If we get Arrow and Weizsäcker, and keep half-dozen assistant professors, some growth of graduate student body probably inevitable. But I’d keep it slow, and in line with admission quality, space, scholarships, research money. Aim for entering class of 40 by 1975? Certainly no more.
  1. New fields. If MIT goes into Urban Studies, I think we ought to move too. This means some joint research, perhaps offering a few fellowships specifically in urban economics, some new appointments (transportation, poverty, local finance), probably young guys. (I’d like to see Mike Piore and Frank Levy free to start something.) (Would Bill Pounds like to hire Joe Kershaw?) Maybe we ought to start looking next fall. This complex could be a major counterweight to theory. We could make a senior appointment, but I doubt we could find a good enough man. We also lack a really high-class macro-numbers man – like Art Okun or Otto Eckstein or George Perry. Should we try Les Thurow? Or try eventually for Steve Goldfeld? Goldfeld would help with Money, but Thurow would fit into poverty-manpower bit. I think I might seriously favor going for Thurow now if we can afford it.

_________________________________

 

[M. A. Adelman response]

March 16, 1967

Memorandum to:     Professor E. Cary Brown
From:                         M.A. Adelman
Subject:  President H. W. Johnson’s request to submit long-range plans: industrial organization field

  1. Enrollment in the graduate course has declined to the point where it is best given in alternate years. Theses written have not decreased, and there are six now in preparation. I wish to use the time made available to teach the course on energy economics when Paul Rodan retires. The remaining time is best devoted to undergraduate teaching (see below).
  2. Undergraduate enrollment seems to be on the increase in 14.02, 14.04, and 14.22. With the appointment of Robert Crandall, we are fully staffed. I would wish to have 14.02 taught exclusively by lecture and sections (teaching assistants) except where the undergraduates’ program will not permit it. Where we are compelled to fill in with three-recitation sections, I strongly urge that they should not be taught by teaching assistants. Since the transfer to lectures economizes manpower, these two changes should be offsetting, but will take more of my own time.
  3. I have given a joint seminar with Harvard (Economics Department and Middle East Center) on Eastern Hemisphere Oil, and will repeat it next year. It is still an uncertain venture, however, in a sensitive area, and the fuss about CIA influence in academic research may kill it.
  4. I join in concern over our weakness in economic history. East European economics might best be treated as an expansion of our current offering in Soviet economics, since there is sufficient unity of geography and practice. I wish some encouragement could be given to East Asian especially Japanese studies, where English sometimes suffices, but would not care to have it as a field of specialization.

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Evsey D. Domar papers, Box 7, Folder “Peter Temin” [apparently misfiled].

Image Source: MIT 1959 Technique (Yearbook).

Categories
Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Department of Economics Group Photo, 1976

Back Row:  Harold FREEMAN, Hal VARIAN, Jerome ROTHENBERG, Peter DIAMOND, Jerry HAUSMAN

4th Row: Paul JOSKOW, Anne FRIEDLAENDER, JOHN R. MORONEY (VISITOR TO DEPARTMENT)

3rd Row: Stanley FISCHER, Jagdish BHAGWATI, Rudiger DORNBUSCH, Robert SOLOW, Robert HALL

2nd Row: Edward KUH, Morris ADELMAN, Abraham J. SIEGEL, Richard ECKAUS, Martin WEITZMAN

1st Row: Evsey DOMAR, Paul SAMUELSON, Charles KINDLEBERGER, E. Cary BROWN, Franco MODIGLIANI, Sydney ALEXANDER, Robert BISHOP

1976_MITEcon_blogCopy

Apparently didn’t get the memo and/or not pictured: Michael PIORE, Frank FISHER, Peter TEMIN.

Thanks to Robert Solow, the photo-bomber standing to Solow’s left in the picture has been identified as a guest from Tulane University, John Moroney. It is possible that I forgot some other person not included in this faculty picture.

I note that the entire front row has gone to that great Department of Economics in the Cloud.

Source: A graduate student buddy of mine who entered the MIT Ph.D. program in 1975/76.

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled of which this is the 250th. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

Categories
Courses M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

M.I.T. Advanced Economic Theory (Capital and growth). Solow and Phelps, 1962

Edwin Burmeister (MIT PhD, 1965) took the advanced theory course that was devoted to capital theory and economic growth during the fall term 1962-63. The course that term was co-taught by Robert Solow (2 hour 37 minute oral history interview at this link) and Edmund Phelps. Burmeister’s notes for the course are available in the Burmeister Papers at Duke University Rubenstein Library’s Economists’ Papers Project. The reading list for the course has a Part I, but I could find no corresponding part II. However, Burmeister’s notes appear to be complete otherwise so that it seems likely that Solow and Phelps wanted to divide the course into positive and normative parts with the reading list for optimal saving not ready at the start of the term.  I have inserted five titles between Parts D and E that were explicitly mentioned in the lectures but not included in the Part I reading list.

______________________

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

_______________________

ADVANCED ECONOMIC THEORY
14.123
Fall 1962

R. M. Solow and E. S. Phelps

 

Part I: INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

A. Capital and Production

Lutz, “Essentials of Capital Theory”, The Theory of Capital (International Economic Association).

Scitovsky, T., Welfare and Competition, Chapter 9.

Lutz and Lutz, The Theory of the Investment of the Firm, Chapters 5 and 6.

Kaldor, N., Essays on Value and Distribution, Part IV.

Lange, O., “The Place of Interest in the Theory of Production”, REStud, 1935-36.

Dorfman, R., “Waiting and the Period [of] Production”, QJE, August 1959.

Robinson, “The Production Function and the Theory of Capital”, REStud, 1953-54.

Comment and Reply:

Solow, R., “The Production Function…”, REStud, 1955-56.

Robinson, Ibid.

Swan, T., Appendix to “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation,” Ec Record, November, 1956.

Solow, R., “Substitution and Fixed Proportions in the Theory of Capital,” REStud, June, 1962.

Phelps, E., “Substitution, Fixed Proportions, Growth and Distribution,” Parts 1-3 and Appendix B only. CFDP [Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper] 133, Feb. 1962.

Samuelson, P., “The Surrogate Production Function,” REStud, June 1962.

N. & N. Ruggles, “Concepts of Real Capital Stocks and Services,” Output, Input and Productivity Measurement, No. 25 in Studies in Income and Wealth (NBER).

[handwritten addition: Wicksell, LECTURES]

 

B. Technical Change

Dickinson, H., “A Note on Dynamic Economics”, REStud, 1954-55.

Uzawa, H., “Neutral Inventions and the Stability of Growth Equilibrium,” REStud, Feb. 1961.

Fellner, W., “Two Propositions in the Theory of Induced innovation,” Econ. Journ., June 1961.

 

C. Models of Investment, Technical Progress and Growth

Johnson, H., “A Simple Joan Robinson Model of Accumulation with One Technique,” Osaka Econ. Papers, Feb. 1962.

Swan, T., “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation,” op. cit.

Solow, R., “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” QJE, Nov. 1956.

Pitchford, J., “Growth and the Elasticity of Factor Substitution,” Ec. Record, Dec. 1960.

Phelps, E., “Substitution, Fixed Proportions, Growth and Distribution,” CFDP [Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper] 133, Feb. 1962, Parts 4-5.

Arrow, K., “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,” REStud, June, 1962.

Kaldor, N., and J. Mirlees, “Growth and Obsolescence,” Ibid.

 

D. The Quantitative Importance of Investment and Technical Change for Economic Growth

Solow, R., “Technological Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” REStat, August 1957.

Masslee, B., “A Dissaggregated View of Technical Change,” JPE, Dec. 1961.

Solow, R., “Investment and Technical Progress, “Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, (Stanford, 1960).

Phelps, E., “The New View of Investment”, QJE, Nov. 1962.

_______________________

[Insert: Optimal problems in capital theory…beginning ca Dec. 14, 1962]

[Ramsey problem, optimal control à la Pontryagin]

von Weizsäcker, Carl Christian. Wachstum, Zins und optimale Investitionsquote. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Basel, 1961. Published in Veröffentlichungen der List Gesellschaft Bd. 26, Reiche B Studien zur Ökonomie der Gegenwart, Kyklos-Verlag, 1962

Phelps, Edmund. 1961. “The Golden Rule of Accumulation: A Fable for Growthmen”. The American Economic Review 51 (4): 638–43.

Robinson, Joan. 1962. “Comment”. The Review of Economic Studies 29 (3): 258–66.

Goodwin, R. M., 1961. “The Optimal Growth Path for an Underdeveloped Economy”. The Economic Journal,Vol. 71, No. 284: 756–74.

Chakravarty, S., 1962. “Optimal Savings with Finite Planning Horizon”. International Economic Review 3 (3): 338–55.

_______________________

E. Investment in Knowledge and Skills

Nelson, R., “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research, JPE, June 1959.

Arrow, E., “The Allocation of Scientific Resources” in The Rate and Direction of Innovative Activity, (NBER).

Schultz, “Investment in Human Capital,” AER, March 1961.

 

Source: Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Edwin Burmeister papers, 1960-2008. Box 23.

Image Source: Robert Solow, MIT Web Museum.

Categories
Courses M.I.T. Syllabus

MIT. Course Outline of Economic Statistics. Robert Solow, 1960

Welcome to my blog, Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled for you to sample or click on the search icon in the upper right to explore by name, university, or category. You can subscribe to my blog below.  There is also an opportunity to comment following each posting….

______________________

Robert Solow’s name is typically associated with neo-classical growth theory and MIT macroeconomics of the Keynesian persuasion. This posting reminds us that he was originally hired to beef up the statistics instruction in the MIT economics department. Like his Harvard professor Wassily Leontief, his theoretical work never really left the gravitational field of empirical economics.

_____________________________

14.382 Economic Statistics (A)
Prereq.: 14.371T  [Statistical Method]
Year: G(2)                  3-0-6

Study of selected statistical techniques found useful in recent economic work, especially the regression analysis of economic time series.

Solow

Source: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bulletin 1959-1960. General Catalogue Issue, p. 248.

_____________________________

 

COURSE OUTLINE
14.382
[Economic Statistics, Robert M. Solow]

Spring Semester, 1960

 

I. AGGREGATION AND INDEX NUMBERS (3 weeks)

A. Aggregation

R. G. D. Allen, Mathematical Economics, Chapter 20.

Stedman B. Noble, “Structure and Classification in Resource Flow Models”, George Washington University Logistics Research Project, May 1959.

____________________, “Resource Flow Models with Application”, delivered to the Econometric Society, December 1959.

Zvi Griliches and Y. Grunfeld, “Is Aggregation Necessarily Bad?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.

E. Malinvaud, “L’agrégation dan les Modéles Économique”, Cahiers du Séminaire d’Économetrie, No. 4, 1956, pp. 69-143.

B. Index Numbers

Kenneth J. Arrow, “The Measurement of Price Change”, The Relation of Prices to Economic Stability and Growth, Joint Economic Committee Compendium, March 1958.

C. S. Carter, W. B. Reddaway and R. Stone, The Measurement of Production Movements, Cambridge University Press: England, 1948.

Federal Reserve Bulletin, “Revised Industrial Production Index”, December 1959, pp. 1451-1466.

 

II. ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES (4 weeks)

A. Small Sample Properties of Simultaneous Equation Estimators

Robert L. Basmann, “An Experimental Investigation of Some Small Sample Properties of (GCL) Estimators of Structural Equations”, November 1958 (dittoed).

_____________________, “On Finite Sample Distributions of Identifiability Test Statistics”, March 1959 (dittoed).

Harvey M. Wagner, “A Monte Carlo Study of Estimates of Simultaneous Linear Equations”, Econometrica, Vol. 26, 1958, pp. 117-133.

Robert Summers, “Capital-Intensive Approach to the Small Sample Properties of Various Simultaneous Linear Equation Estimators”, 1958 (unpublished).

Richard J. Foote, “An Experiment to Test the Relative Merits of Least Squares and Limited Information Coefficients for Forecasting Under Specified Conditions”, Analytical Tools for Studying Demand and Price Structures, 1958, pp. 128-42.

B. Specification

G. E. P. Box and Norman Draper, “A Basis for Selection of a Response Surface Design”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, September 1959.

Henry Scheffe, The Analysis of Variance, “The Effects of Departures from Underlying Assumptions”, Chapter 10, 1959.

Hans Theil, Economic Forecasts and Policy, Chapter 6.2, pp. 204-39, “Statistical Methodology”, and Appendix 6B, “Analysis of Specification Errors”, pp. 326-33.

 

III. MEASUREMENT OF SUPPLY, COST, AND PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS (3 weeks)

Robert M. Solow, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1957.

Luigi Pasinetti, “On Concepts and Measures of Changes in Productivit” and Comment by R. Solow, Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1959, pp. 270-86.

Jack Johnston, “Statistical Cost Functions: Reappraisal”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1958.

Zvi Griliches, “Hybrid Corn: And Exploration in the Economics of Technical Change,” Econometrica, October 1957, pp. 501-22.

Paul H. Douglas, “Are There Laws of Production?”, American Economic Review, March 1948, pp. 1-41.

Irving Hoch, “Simultaneous Equation Bias in the Context of the Cobb-Douglas Production Function”, Econometrica, October 1958, pp. 566-78.

John R. Meyer, M. J. Peck and others, The Economics of Competition in the Transportation Industries, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1959.

Lawrence R. Klien, Econometrics, “A Cross-Section Model of Production of Railway Services”, Chapter 5, Section 4, pp. 226-41.

Hollis Chenery, “Engineering Production Functions”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1949.

Kenneth J. Arrow, Marvin Hoffenberg, A Time Series Analysis of Inter-industry Demands, The RAND Corporation, North-Holland Publishing Co.: Amsterdam, 1959.

Hollis Chenery and Paul G. Clark, Interindustry Economics, 1959.

 

IV. MACRO MODELS AND DECISION THEORY (5 weeks)

Hans Theil, Chapter 3, “Postwar Macro Economic Forecasts in the Netherlands and Scandinavia,” Chapter 5, “Underestimation of Changes,” pp. 154-183, Chapter 7, “Forecasts and Policy: Problems and Tools,” pp. 379-410, Chapter 8, “Underestimation of Changes: Analysis and Implications,” pp. 411-529.

James Duesenberry, Quarterly Model of U.S. Economy.

New Klein Model, Suits-Klein-Goldberger Model.

_____________________________

Source: Robert Solow papers. Box 68, Folder “Reading lists”, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University.

Image Source: MIT Museum.

Categories
Economists M.I.T. Regulations

MIT. Graduate Economics Program and Fellowships. 1950-51

Already by the academic year 1950-51 the M.I.T. economics department could boast seven economics professors who would still be around over a quarter of a century later, including Samuelson, Solow and Kindleberger. The printed departmental brochure along with a one-page announcement of twelve graduate fellowships, presumably sent to be posted on college and university bulletin boards, have been transcribed for this posting. Minor changes in formatting have been used to enhance readability.

 _________________________

 

Graduate Work in the Department of Economics and Social Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

THE PROGRAM

 

Our program in Economics is confined to students for the doctorate who are primarily interested in advanced study and research in

Economic Theory
Industrial Economics
Industrial Relations
International Economics
Statistics

We have an active program of continuing research in each of these fields and should like to invite a selected group of graduate students to participate with us in our explorations after they have completed their requirements for the general examinations here.

The work in Economic Theory is under the leadership of Professor Paul A. Samuelson. This includes, in addition to price analysis, the study of national income determination and business cycles. Research in these fields has been vigorous in recent years, and our objective is to train economists capable of understanding and appraising the results of this research and of adding to our empirical and theoretical understanding of these areas.

Industrial Economics, under the guidance of Professors W. Rupert Maclaurin and Max Millikan, is concerned primarily with the economic problems of the individual firm and of particular industries. The work should be enriched by the active research program now under way in the Department on “the economics of innovation,” “the process of business decisions,” and “the economics of the size of the firm.” We are anxious to have some advanced students who would like to participate in these research programs which are being worked out through “laboratory-type” collaboration of particular firms and industries.

Industrial Relations, under the leadership of Professors Charles A. Myers and Douglass V. Brown, is concerned with investigating the fundamentals of labor-management relations in modern industrial society. In addition to basic work in Economics, the program of study centers upon courses in Labor Economics, Collective Bargaining, Public Policy in Labor Relations, Personnel Administration, Social Psychology and Human Relations. A number of research projects are carried on by the Industrial Relations Section, which is a division of the Department.

Our work in International Economics is under the direction of Professors Charles P. Kindleberger and Richard M. Bissell, Jr. (who returns in June to M.I.T. from his position as Deputy Administrator of ECA). Emphasis in International economics is shared between the traditional fields of international trade and finance and that of national economic development. The training is designed to qualify the student for work in departments of government, including international institution., concerned with foreign and international economic problems. While no specialized courses are offered in the practical aspects of foreign trade, it is believed that the broad training will be regarded with increasing interest by American business concerns to aid them in the solution of their complex problems relating to foreign operations.

Instruction in Statistics, under Professor Harold Freeman, is largely centered in three areas: general theoretical statistics; probability and its foundations; modern theories of time series and prediction, particularly as applied in Economics. Some of the courses in these areas are given by the Departments of Economics and some by the Department of Mathematics. Courses are offered at elementary, intermediate, advanced and research seminar levels.

While there is ample opportunity at M.I.T. for the student interested in any one of these five fields to go as far as he wishes with his subject, there is also a common core of basic courses which the student will be expected to take in preparation for his general examinations.

We are also attempting to introduce greater realism into our program by operating a “practice school” in the summer between the first and second years of graduate study, in which we try to arrange internship experience in industry. This activity is under the guidance of Professor Paul Pigors.

For those who are going into university teaching, some pre-doctoral teaching experience will be encouraged and a considerable number of teaching fellowships will be available to students after they have completed their first year.

 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO GRADUATE STUDENTS

For the year 1950-51 we will offer up to five fellowships of $2,500, available to outstanding students in the fields mentioned above. These include the Westinghouse Educational Fellowship and the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Fellowship.

In addition, about eight fellowships and teaching scholarships will be available, ranging up to $1,600. This group includes the Clarence J. Hicks Memorial Fellowship in Industrial Relations, given by Industrial Relations Counselors, Inc., of New York.

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION

(a) General requirements: S.B. or A.B. degree with a good academic record from a university of recognized standing. Special emphasis will be placed on recommendations from professors or administrative officers of the college. Only students with high qualifications will be admitted.

(b) Course requirements: Three full-year college courses in social science chosen from the fields of Economics, Psychology, Sociology and History. One full-year course in college mathematics (including at least a half-year of calculus) and a full-year course in college physics are required. However, students who have had no Physics can make up this deficiency by taking a special one-semester course at the Institute. In special cases a deficiency in calculus may also be satisfied in this manner.

At the end of the second year the candidate will normally take a general examination chosen from such fields as the following: Economic Theory, Industrial economics, Economics of Innovation, Labor Economics and Labor Relations, Human Relations, Personnel administration Statistical Methods and Theory, Economic Fluctuations and Fiscal Policy, and International Economics.

Following the Institute rules the candidate for the doctor’s degree will be required to take a minor in a related filed. Possibilities include: Business Administration, History, Regional Planning, Mathematics, or any of the technical fields of specialization at the Institute in which the student is qualified to participate. Exchange arrangements between M.I.T. and Harvard University also make it possible for graduate students at either institution to take advance work at the other without extra tuition.

In addition, the candidate for the Ph.D. degree must meet the usual language and thesis requirements.

 

FURTHER INFORMATION

Those persons who are interested in learning more about the program or who wish to obtain application blanks for fellowships to aid in financing such graduate work may direct inquiries to Professor Robert L. Bishop, Department of Economics and Social Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 

INSTRUCTING STAFF
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

Ralph Evans Freeman, M. A., B. Litt.
Professor of Economics; in charge of the Department

Donald Skeele Tucker, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

William Rupert Maclaurin, D.C.S.
Professor of Economics

Norman Judson Padelford, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of International Relations

Paul Anthony Samuelson, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

Richard Mervin Bissell, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

Charles Andrew Myers, Ph.D.
Professor of Industrial Relations

Paul Pigors, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Industrial Relations

Harold Adolph Freeman, S.B.
Associate Professor of Statistics

Charles Poor Kindleberger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics

Max Franklin Millikan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics

Alex Bavelas, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology

Robert Lyle Bishop, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Economics

Edgar Cary Brown, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Economics

Morris Albert Adelman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Economics

George Pratt Shultz, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Industrial Relations

Robert Solow, M.A.
Assistant Professor of Statistics

Lecturer

Joseph Norbert Scanlon

Instructors

John Royston Coleman, M.A.
Stanley Martin Jacks, A.B., LL.B.
James Earnest Boyce, A.M.
Louis Cass Young, S.M.
John Lang Rawlinson, A.M.
Gilbert Koreb Krulee, S.B., M.Ed.
Roy Olton, M.A.
Herman Thomas Skofield, M.A.
Jesse Harris Proctor, Jr., M.A.

Research Associates

Robert Keen Lamb, Ph.D.
Kingman Brewster, Jr., LL.B.
Peter Robert Hofstaetter, Ph.D.

Research Assistants

William Theodore Bluhm, M.A.
Sidney Layton Smith, S.M.

Teaching Fellows

Hugh Gilbert Lovell, B.A.
Jack Dean Rogers, B.S., M.B.A.

Assistants

Ralph Haskel Bergmann, A.B.
Kenneth Alden Bohr, S.M.
Daniel Monroe Colyer, B.A.
Harold Emil Dreyer, B.S.
David Allen Eberly, S.B.
Herman Gadon, A.B.
Stuart Lee Knowlton, A.B.
Walter Sparks Measday, A.B.
Beatrice Allen Rogers, A.B., S.B.
George Joseph Strauss, B.A.

Librarian

Barbara Klingenhagen, A.B.

 _________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

Graduate Fellowship
1950 – 1951

 

In the year 1950-1951 M.I.T. will offer:

Up to five fellowships of $2,500 for students in the following fields:

Economic Theory
Industrial Economics
Industrial Relations
International Economics
Statistics

Up to seven fellowships with stipends up to $1,600 for specialization in these same fields.

Fellowships are available to students who wish to undertake a program of graduate work in Economics leading to the degree of doctor of philosophy. Applicants should have an A.B. or S. B. degree or anticipate the award of such a degree not later than July 1, 1950. Fellowships are awarded for one year, with possibility of renewal. They include the Westinghouse Educational Fellowship , the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Fellowship and the Clarence J. Hicks Memorial Fellowship in Industrial Relations, given by the Industrial Relations Counselors, Inc., of New York.

Fellowships are offered to those who seek career opportunities in university teaching and research, in industrial concerns in this country or abroad, in research departments of unions, and in government agencies concerned with the regulation of industry.

The Institute’s close contacts with industry, and the development within the Department of Economics and Social Science of specialized work in economic theory, the economics of innovation, industrial relations, statistics, and international economics have created a suitable environment for advanced study and research in these particular fields.

Teaching fellowships are also available; but these are normally reserved for second and third-year students.

Requests for further information or for application blanks should be addressed to Professor Robert L. Bishop, Department of Economics and Social Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Applications should be filed by March 15, 1950.

 _________________________

Source: MIT Archives. Office of the President. Records, 1930-1959. Box 77 (AC4/77), Folder 10: Economics Department 1934-49.

Image Source: MIT, Technique, 1949.

Categories
Bibliography Courses Economists Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Uncategorized

Harvard. Econ 113b. Schumpeter’s Grad Course on the History of Economics. 1940.

___________________________

Joseph Schumpeter offered this one semester, second term graduate course “History and Literature of Economics since 1776” nine times during the period 1940-1949. The core readings were basically unchanged. Below you will find the course enrollment figures and the reading list for 1940 (into which I have inserted the two additions from the reading list for 1941). Exam questions from 1940 and 1941 are included as well as an important research tip at the bottom of the posting. Nobel Laureates James Tobin and Robert Solow took this course in 1940 and 1947, respectively. I have gone to the trouble of providing links to almost the entire reading list as a public service to the history of economics community of scholars.

The (much reduced) reading list for the last time Schumpeter taught the course, Spring 1949 is transcribed in a later post.

___________________________

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….

___________________________

[Course Description: History and Literature of Economics since 1776]

Course work will mainly consist in critical study of the leading English, French, German and Italian contributions to economic thought in the nineteenth century. An introductory and a concluding series of lectures and discussions will provide the links with earlier and modern developments. Undergraduates who have passed Ec A are admitted without individual permission

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

Course Enrollment Statistics:

Grad. Students Seniors Juniors Radcliffe Other Total
1939-40 9 3 1 0 3 16
1940-41 11 2 0 3 1 17
1941-42 5 1 0 4 1 12
1942-43 10 3 0 6 3 22
1943-44 2 1 0 3 3 9
1944-45 Not offered
1945-46 18 2 5 25
1946-47 21 1 0 6 7 35
1947-48 17 4 0 2 7 30
1948-49 2 1 0 0 1 4

Note: The course number was Economics 113b until the academic year 1947-48, under the new course numbering system in 1948-49, it became Economics 213b. Joseph Schumpeter died in January 1950.

Source: Harvard/Radcliffe Online Historical Reference Shelf. Harvard President’s Reports.

___________________________

Economics 113b
[History and Literature of Economics since 1776]
1939-40
[second term]

 

I. For general reference you should currently consult:

Erich Roll, A History of Economic Thought (1939, [link to 1945 edition]), or
L. H. Haney, History of Economic Thought (1927).[1923 revised edition]

Suggestions:

John M. Keynes, Essays in Biography (Essays on Malthus, Marshall and Edgeworth).

 

II. Works dealing with the history of individual doctrines or problems. No assignment.

Suggestions:

E. Boehm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, Vol. I.
E. Cannan, Theories of Production and Distribution (1924). [2nd ed., 1903]
F. W. Taussig, Wages and Capital (1896).
J. Viner, Studies in the Theory of International Trade (1937), Chs. I and II.
K. Marx, Theorien über den Mehrwehrt (1921). [1910 edition by Karl Kautsky: vol I, vol. II(1), vol. II(2), vol. III.]

 

III. This course covers many authors whose teaching is also dealt with in other courses and whose works are more or less familiar to every student. The most important of them are:

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, also read the introduction to Cannan’s edition.
David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy.
John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy; also read introduction to Ashley’s edition.
Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, particularly Book V.
John B. Clark, Distribution of Wealth (1899).

Suggestions:

Augustin Cournot, Principles of the Theory of Wealth (Fisher’s edition, 1927).
Léon Walras, Element d’économie pure (edition definitive, 1926).
Knut Wicksell, Lectures on Political Economy (Robbins’ edition, 1934). [volume I, volume II]

 

IV. In addition, the following books should be read, at least cursorily:

Richard Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce en général (1755); English translation by Higgs (1931).
David Hume, Political Discourses (edition by Green and Grose, 1875), Vol. I. [Miller edition]
Sir James Steuart, Principles of Political Economy (1767). [Vol I (1767); Vol II ]
A. R. J. Turgot, Réflexions sur la Formation et la Distribution des Richesses (1766), (Oeuvres, ed. Daire, 1844). Vol I; Vol II.
Thomas R. Malthus, Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). [1803 edition, enlarged]
Jean B. Say, Traité d’économie politique (1803). [2nd ed. 1814] [1855 English translation from 4th and 5th editions]
William N. Senior, Outline of the Science of Political Economy (1836).
William St. Jevons, Theory of Political Economy (1871).
J. E. Cairnes, Leading Principles.
Karl Marx, first volume of Das Kapital (English translation).

Suggestions:

J. H. v. Thünen, Der isolierte Staat (ed. Waentig, 1930).
R. Auspitz und R. Lieben, Untersuchungen über die Theorie des Preises (1888), (also translation into French). [Vol. I (French); Vol. II (French)]
Carl Menger, Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (London School reprints, 1934). [English translation with introduction by F. A. Hayek]
F. Y. Edgeworth, Mathematical Psychics (London School reprints, 1932).
M. Longfield, Lectures on Political Economy (London School reprints, 1931).
H. C. Carey, The Past, the Present and the Future (1848).
H. George, Progress and Poverty (1879).
S. Newcomb, Principles of Political Economy (1885).
Ph. Wicksteed, The Commonsense of Political Economy (1908).

 

V. Monographs on individual authors. No assignments.

Suggestions:

[Addition to list in 1940-41: Henry Higgs, The Physiocrats (1897)]
W. R. Scott, Adam Smith as Student and Professor (1937).
J. Rae, Life of Adam Smith (1895).
J. Bonar, Malthus and his Work (1924). [1885 ed.]
M. Bowley, Nassau Senior and Classical Economics (1937).
F. Mehring, Karl Marx (1936).
J. R. Hicks, Leon Walras (Econometrica, 1934).
[Addition to list in 1940-41: H. W. Jevons and H. S. Jevons, “William S. Jevons,” Econometrica]

Source: Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Harvard University Archives, HUC 8522.2.1. Box 2, Folder “1939-40, 2 of (2)” and Folder “1940-41”.

___________________________

1939-1940
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 113b2

Answer any FOUR out of the following five questions:

  1. Discuss the wage-fund theory and its practical implications. In what sense was it resuscitated by Boehm-Bawerk and Taussig?
  2. Exponents of the Labor-Quantity theory of value and exponents of the Marginal Utility theory of value have for decades tried to refute each other. What is the true relation between the two theories?
  3. State and criticize the Marxian theory of Surplus Value or of Exploitation.
  4. What do you think of the so-called Ricardian theory of rent?
  5. What are the main objections that were raised against the “Austrian school” during the early stages of its development?

Final. 1940

 

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

1940-1941
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 113b2

One question may be omitted. Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.

  1. If a layman, trying to make intellectual conversation, asked you what Adam Smith’s performance consisted in, what would you say?
  2. What was the importance, for the economic theory of its time, of Malthus’ Essay on Population?
  3. Explain the meaning and use of the theorem usually referred to as Say’s Law.
  4. What are the conditions that would have to be fulfilled in order to make the labor-quantity theory of value true?
  5. State and discuss Ricardo’s version of the so-called law of the falling rate of profit.
  6. Jevons, Walras and Menger no doubt felt that they had revolutionized economic theory. What did this revolution consist in and how important do you think it was?
  7. Under modern conditions, most producers have no use for any significant part of their products. Hence their subjective valuation of these products depends on what these products will exchange for, that is to say, on their prices. How, then, can we derive these prices from utility schedules of buyers and sellers without reasoning in a circle?

Final. 1941.

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

Research Tip: 75 pages of student notes taken by future Nobel Laureate James Tobin for Economics 113b2 of the 1939-40 academic year are available in the James Tobin Papers at the Yale University Library Manuscripts Collection, Group No. 1746, Box. No. 6 in one of the hard-bound volumes of Tobin’s notes from his Harvard courses.

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1943.

Categories
Economists Funny Business M.I.T.

From the 200th Anniversary of Wealth of Nations Roast of Adam Smith at MIT. 1976

The Graduate Economics Association of MIT held a celebration in honor of Adam Smith and the 200th anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations.  The event took place April 12, 1976 at the Sheraton Commander Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I chaired the organizing committee for the event that was run like a Friar’s Club Roast. It featured a star-studded cast that included Alan Blinder (Princeton), William Parker (Yale), Paul Samuelson (MIT), Robert Solow (MIT), and James Tobin (Yale) and special surprise guest-of-honor to receive the Invisible Hand Award, Adam Smith a.k.a. Jerry Goodman. Before Mr. Goodman entered dressed in Adam Smith attire, the MIT economics children’s choir (i.e. a sample of graduate students who could carry a tune, sort-of) sang the following hymn set to the tune of “Rock of Ages” with a new text written by my old professor of American economic history at Yale, William Parker.

_____________________

WEALTH OF NATIONS!

Text by William N. Parker

Wealth of Nations! Writ for me!
Let me hide myself in Thee.
Not the Profits, nor the Rent,
But the Labour Time that’s spent,
Be of Value the true source.
Make me better; no one worse.

Every man looks to his need,
Counting on the butcher’s greed.
Public goods are little prized,
Model that is dynamized.
Half the world is cold and bare,
Still we cling to Laissez-faire.

Hand invisible whose love
We believe that we can prove!
With thy panapoly of saints,
Mill, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes,
Save us all from Marxist sins.
Keep us gaily making pins!

When our earthly race is run,
Will we soar to Samuelson?
Will we sink to realms below,
There to meet with our So-low?
Was it neo-classic myth?
Tell us, tell us, Adam Smith!
Wealth of Nations, write for me,

Let me hide myself in Thee!

Source: From the back of the program to the celebration.

Below, my autographed copy of the program:

Jerry Goodman’s journalistic attempt at making sense of the economists at play when he was observer-participant.

Image Sources: Portrait of William Parker from the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 151, No. 2, June 2007; Adam Smith program, personal copy; Jerry Goodman’s account from New York (May 3, 1976).