Tag: Stigler

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. The School of Chicago 1972 by Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977). IDs by Gordon, McCloskey & Grossbard

The 1500th artifact added to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror deserves to be a celebratory post for visitors. For this honor I have chosen a  pastiche drawn by a Chicago economics graduate student in 1972. Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977) was the principal, if not only, illustrator for the student-produced satirical publication P.H.A.R.T., an issue of which has been transcribed for an earlier post.

I first saw a copy of Roger Vaughan’s reworking of Raphael’s “School of Athens” added to a photo from a Tweet of a few years back. At that time it did not occur to me to engage in a serious search for the backstory to the drawing. And yet, serendipity turned out to be kind to me when, on a visit to the Harvard Archives last year, I stumbled upon a folded, mint-condition copy of  Vaughan’s “The School of Chicago 1972” in the papers of Zvi Griliches. Of course I had this masterpiece of economics funny business copied and it now has pride of place in my home study.

A few identifications of the figures seen in “The School of Chicago 1972” are obvious (e.g. Milton Friedman and George Stigler, duh) and others could be identified from other Vaughan caricatures that likewise are found in Griliches’ papers (e.g. Marc Nerlove, Stan Fischer, and Robert J. Gordon). Still, most of the renderings remained unidentified. My first idea was to seek out the artist himself, but alas I could only confirm that he had passed in October 2021. The next idea was to seek a living eye-witness to the Chicago economics department of a half-century ago. Here I was luckier, the Stanley G. Harris Professor in the Social Sciences at Northwestern University, Robert J. Gordon, responded to my inquiry almost immediately and as quickly forwarded my request for further information to Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Deirdre McCloskey, for her confirmation and further commentary. Following the initial posting of this artifact, Professor Shoshana Grossbard of San Diego State University spotted a few misspelled names (mea culpa), but, more importantly, was able to identify Margaret Reid by her beret(!).We can all be grateful to these colleagues for their identifications provided below. There remains one unidentified man in the back-row standing to George Stigler’s left plus a couple of yet-to-be identified graduate students. Peeps, Economic in the Rear-view Mirror needs your help! You can leave comments at the end of this post.

___________________________________

About the artist, Roger Vaughan

From his 1981 AEA Biographical Listing, p. 421

Vaughan, Roger J, 421 Hudson St., Apt. 406, New York, NY 10014. Birth Yr: 1946

Degrees: B.A., U. of Oxford, 1968; M.A., Simon Fraser U., 1970; Ph.D. U. of Chicago, 1977. Prin. Cur. Position: Dep.Dir., Off. Of Develop. Planning, State of New York, 1980-

Concurrent/Past Positions: Econ., Citibank, 1978-80; Econ. The Rand Corp. 1974-78. Research: Urban Policy, finance, taxation training.

Roger J. Vaughan’s Rand Reports,
1974-1980

• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 1, Overview 1980
• Federal Activities in Urban Economic Development 1979
• Recent Contributions to the Urban Policy Debate 1979
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 4, Population and Residential Location 1979
• Assessment of Countercyclical Public Works and Public Service Employment Programs. 1978
• Regional Cycles and Employment Effects of Public Works Investments. 1977
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 2, Economic Development 1977
• The value of urban open space 1977
• The Economics of Urban Blight. 1976
• Getting People to Parks. 1976
• Public Works as a Countercyclical Device: A Review of the Issues 1976
• The Use of Subsidies in the Production of Cultural Services. 1976
• The Application of Economic Analysis to the Planning and Development of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. 1975
• The Economics of Expressway Noise Pollution Abatement. 1975
• The Economics of Recreation: A Survey. 1974

Source: Rand Reports. Published Research by Author, Roger J. Vaughan.

Sage. Research Methods.

Communicating Social Science Research to Policymakers
By: Roger J. Vaughan & Terry F. Buss
Published: 1998
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983686

___________________________________

Raphael’s Scuola di Atene (1509-1511)

For some explanation of what we see in the original, cf. “The Story Behind Raphael’s Masterpiece ‘The School of Athens'” by Jessica Stewart at the Modern Met Website.

___________________________________

Roger Vaughan’s Pastiche

Open the image in a new window to see a larger image

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129. Folder “Posters, ca. 1960s-1970s”.

Background

The statues standing in the upper alcove are of the President and Vice-President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon (holding a lyre, a sweet visual pun) and Spiro T. Agnew (with the pennant “Effete Snobs”, abridged from his description of self-characterized intellectuals as an “effete core of impudent snobs” in his  “Generation Gap” speech given in New Orleans on October 19th, 1969.)

“1126” refers to the street address of the Social Science Research Building, 1126 E. 59th St.

“MV=PT” inscribed in the center of the dome is the Equation of Exchange (cf. Irving Fisher’s The Purchasing Power of Money). Cf. at the left of the back-row of Chicago economists, Arnold Zellner is carrying papers with “MV=PY“. Milton Friedman’s vanity license plates on his red cadillac used “MV=PQ” for the Equation of Exchange. Everyone seems to have agreed on the notational virtues of “M”, “V”, and “P”. Does anyone know whether there was any substantive reason for differences regarding the choice of “T”, “Y”, and “Q” for the final term?

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Though his arm is blocking part of the equation, Zellner is clearly displaying the equation of exchange, MV = PY.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Underneath Nixon is Marc Nerlove pointing into the ear, by the way of insult, of Hans Theil the great Dutch econometrician (the four great econometricians at Chicago, which had included Zvi Griliches, who had just moved to Harvard, hated each other).”

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Robert J. Gordon served as an editor of the Journal of Political Economy (J.P.E.) from 1971-1973.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Stigler’s position corresponds to that of Aristotle’s in Raphael’s fresco. There Aristotle holds a copy of his own Nicomachean Ethics. Stigler is seen here holding a book by [Adam] Smith, presumably Wealth of Nations.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “George Tolley [is] in a garbage can because he did urban economics (Vaughan was his student).”

Shoshana Grossbard’s comment: “[Margaret Reid]…not only [wore] the dark beret, but also [has] her hair in a bun, under the beret. that was her typical look. She and I attended Becker’s workshop in applications of economics in the years 1974-76.”

And guess what a casual search just turned up…

Margaret Gilpin Reid, professor emeritus of Home Economics and Economics

Source:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07052, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror’s comment: On the high-resolution hard-copy hanging on my study wall, the beret looks sort of like an ink blot and I regreted that imperfection. But now, thanks to Shoshana Grossbard’s careful observation combined with her memory of Reid’s “typical look” and an archival sighting of said beret, I am convinced and grateful that we now have another positive identification!

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “D. Gale Johnson…has a pitchfork because he was an agricultural economist. ”

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: Ted Schultz […] is pointing down to say “This is where the true Chicago School is, where I am!”.

Foreground

The identification of Robert F. Pollard was made by Roger Vaughan’s work and life partner, Anna Nechai.

 

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “…Dick Zecher [is] sticking his finger through an IBM card because he was in charge of the Department’s mainframe computer access.”

Another visual pun: Harry Johnson is portrayed writing on a literal Edgeworth-Bowley-box, a two-dimensional representation of allocations that could be Pareto efficient exchange equilibria. The two tradeable goods are measured in Edgeworth and Bowley units, respectively.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Mary Jean Bowman, one of two tenured women in a small department; she did educational and demographic economics.  The other woman was Margaret Reid, the inventor of household economics…”

The triangle seen in the previous detail is Arnold Harberger’s measure of deadweight loss (efficiency cost resulting from a natural or policy induced distortion of markets).  See Robert J. Gordon’s historical photo of Al Harberger stripping down to reveal himself as “Triangleman” ca. December 1970. In Raphael’s fresco Harberger’s place was that of Euclid.

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “I think the bearded student is Dan Wisecarver”

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “The woman holding the ball is Carolyn Mosby, the head of the department staff.”

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Bibliography Chicago Fields

Chicago. Reading List for Industrial Organization. Stigler, 1959

 

The following (graduate) reading list comes from Zvi Griliches’ papers at the Harvard University Archives. In structure and content it matches George Stigler’s reading list from the University of Chicago in 1973 previously transcribed and posted, so there is no doubt where and from whom the reading list has come. There are indeed some additions and subtractions between the 1959 and 1973 versions which are indications of how the field evolved over those years, at least in George Stigler’s mind.

______________________________

READING LIST
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
1959

I. The Firm-Structure of Industries

1. The competitive concept in theory and quantitative studies

A. P. Lerner, “The Concept of Monopoly,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. I
R. Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, pp. 125 ff.
J. M. Clark, “Toward a Concept of Workable Competition,” American Economic Review, June 1950 or Readings in Social Control of Business
A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Bk. V, Ch. 12
F. H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, pp. 76 ff.
E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 1
G. Stigler, “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated,” Journal of Political Economy, 1957
R. Bishop, “Elasticities, Cross-elasticities, and Market Relationships,” American Economic Review, December 1952, June 1955
G. Rosenbluth, “Measure of Concentration,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy
T.N.E.C. Monograph 27, The Structure of Industry, Part 5
T. Scitovsky, “Economic Theory and Measurement of Concentration,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy

2. Some statistical studies

National Resources Comm., The Structure of the American Economy, Ch. 7, Appendix 7
Clair Wilcox, Competition and Monopoly, T.N.E.C. Monograph 21
The Structure of Industry, T.N.E.C. Monograph 27
Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation, Bk. II
G. Stigler, “Competition in the United States,” Five Lectures on Economic Problems
F.T.C., The Concentration of Productive Facilities
A. C. Harberger, “Monopoly and Resource Allocation,”American Economic Review, May 1954
A. D. Kaplan, Big Enterprise in a Competitive System

3. The trend of the structure

T.N.E.C. Monograph 27, Part I
G. W. Nutter, The Extent of Enterprise Monopoly
M. A. Adelman, “Measurement of Industrial Concentration,” in Industrial Organization and Public Policy
F.T.C. Changes in Concentration in Manufacturing, 1935 to 1947 and 1950

II. Factors Influencing Firm-Structures

1. Economies of scale

Cost Behavior and Price Policy, esp. Ch. 10
E. A. G. Robinson, The Structure of Competitive Industry, Ch. 2-7
J. M. Clark, Economics of Overhead Costs, Ch. 5, 6
W. Crum, Corporate Size and Earning Power
J. McConnell, “Corporate Earnings by Size of Firm,” Survey of Current Business, May 1945
J. Johnston. “Labour Productivity and Size of Establishment,” Oxford Institute of Statistics, 1954
R. C. Osborn, Effects of Corporate Size on Efficiency and Profitability
Caleb Smith, “Survey of Empirical Evidence,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy
J. S. Bain, “Economies of Scale, ….” in Industrial Organization and Public Policy
G. J. Stigler, “The Economies of Scale,” Law and Economics, 1958

2. Mergers

F.T.C., The Merger Movement
A. S. Dewing, “A Statistical Test of the Success of Consolidations,” Q.J.E., 1931
S. Livermore, “The Success of Industrial Mergers,” Q.J.E., 1935
A. S. Dewing, Corporate Promotions and Reorganizations, Ch. 20, 21
G. Stigler, “Monopoly and Oligopoly by Merger,” in Industrial Organization and Public Policy
Butters and Linter, “Effect of Mergers on Industrial Concentration,” Review of Economics and Statistics 1950
F.T.C. Report on Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions
J. Markham, “Survey of the Evidence and Findings on Mergers,” in Business Concentration
F. Machlup, Political Economy of Monopoly, pp. 105-17
J. F. Weston, The Role of Mergers in the Growth of Large Firms
G. Stigler, “The Statistics of Monopoly and Merger,” Journal of Political Economy, 1956

3. Raw materials

W. Y. Elliott, ed., International Control in the Non-ferrous Metals, essays on Nickel and Aluminum
E. A. G. Robinson, Monopoly, Ch. 3
R. H. Montgomery, The Brimstone Game, Ch, 4-9
D. H. Wallace, Market Control in the Aluminum Industry

4. Patents

A. Plant, “Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Invention,” Economica, 1934 (also companion article on copyrights)
Proceedings, American Econ. Assoc., May 1948 roundtable on patents
T.N.E.C. Monograph 31, pp. 109-15, 93-103
Seager and Gulick, Trust and Corporation Problems, pp. 280-303
Stocking and Watkins, Monopoly and Free Enterprise, Ch. 14
R. MacLaurin, “Patents and Economic Progress,” J.P.E., 1950

5. Taxation and tariffs

D. H. MacGregor, Industrial Combinations, pp. 127 ff.
Linter and Butters, “Effects of Taxes on Concentration,” in Business Concentration
T.N.E.C. Monograph No. 10

6. Unfair Competition

J. S. McGee, “Predatory Price Cutting,” Law and Economics, 1958

III. The Effects of Concentration

1. Collusion

R. B. Tenant, The American Cigarette Industry
W. Fellner, Competition Among the Few
W. Nicholls, Imperfect Competition Within Agricultural Industries, pp. 120-130
F. Machlup, Economics of Sellers’ Competition, Ch. 13

2. Prices

a. Discrimination

Burns, Decline of Competition, pp. 272-372
N.I.C.B., Public Regulation of Competitive Practices, pp. 63-85
J. P. Miller, Unfair Competition, Ch. 7-9
J. Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Bk. V
F. Machlup, The Basing Point System
J. M. Clark “Basing Point Methods,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 1938
F.T.C., Price Bases Inquiry
T.N.E.C. Monograph 42
G. Stigler, “A Theory of Uniform Delivered Prices,” A.E.R. 1949
C. Kaysen, “Basing Point Pricing and Public Policy,” in Industrial Organization and Public Policy

b. Rigidity

G. Means, Industrial Prices and their Relative Inflexibility
Burns, Decline of Competition, Ch. 5
E. S. Mason, “Price Inflexibility,” Review of Economic Statistics, 1938
T.N.E.C., Monograph No. 1
Sweezy and Stigler, Articles in Readings in Price Theory
A. C. Neal, Industrial Concentration and Price Inflexibility
Machlup, Economics of Sellers’ Competition, Ch. 14

3. Profits

J. S. Bain, “The Profit Rate as a Measure of Monopoly Power,” Q.J.E., 1941
R. C. Epstein, Industrial Profits in the United States
J. S. Bain, “Relation of Profit Rate to Industry Concentration,” Q.J.E., August 1951

IV. Topics in Industry Behavior with Oligopoly

1. Advertising

E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 6-7
N. Buchanan, Advertising Expenditures, J.P.E. 1942
N. Kaldor, “Economic Aspects of Advertising,” Review of Economic Studies, 1950

2. Vertical Integration

Smith, Wealth of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 3
Marshall, Principles of Economics, Bk. IV, Ch. 10-13
A. Young, “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,” E.J. 1928 (and in Clemence’s Readings in Economic Analysis 2 Vols.)
J. Jewkes, Factors in Industrial Integration, Q.J.E., 1930
S. Dennison, Vertical Integration and the Iron and Steel Industry, E.J. 1939
A. R. Burns, Decline of Competition, Ch. 9
Stigler, “Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of Market,” J.P.E. 1951
M. Adelman, “Concept and Measurement of Vertical Integration,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy

3. Schumpeter’s Theory

Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Ch. 7-8
K. Boulding, “In Defense of Monopoly,” Q.J.E., 1945
D. H. MacGregor, Industrial Combination, Ch. 12
G. Stigler, “Industrial Organization and Economic Progress,” in State of the Social Sciences.

V. Large Number Industries

1. Cartels

Stocking and Watkins, Cartels in Action, Ch. 4-11
Stocking and Watkins, Cartels or Competition, Ch. 3-7
C. Edwards, Economic and Political Aspects of International Cartels
Ben Lewis, Price and Production Controls in British Industry
A. F. Lucas, Industrial Reconstruction and the Control of Competition
R. Michels, Cartels, Combines and Trusts in Post-War Germany
R. Liefman, Cartels, Concerns and Trusts
C. Wilcox, Public Policies Toward Business, Ch. 16

2. Trade Associations

V. Mund, Government and Business, Ch. 11
Burns, Decline of Competition, Ch. 2
T.N.E.C. Monograph No. 18
H. Levy, Retail Trade Associations
Stocking and Watkins, Monopoly or Free Enterprise, Ch. 8, 10, 11

3. Retailing: Resale Price Maintenance

W. Bowman, “Prequisites and Effects of Resale Price Maintenance,” University of Chicago Law Journal, 1955
E. Grether, Price Control under Fair Trade Legislation
F.T.C., Resale Price Maintenance
W. Bowman, “Resale Price Maintenance,” Journal of Business, 1952
Mund, Government and Business, Ch. 21, 22

4. Government Cartels: Agriculture and Coal

W. Wilcox and W. Cochrane, Economics of American Agriculture Part VI
Readings on Agricultural Policy, Part II
C. Wilcox, Public Policy Toward Business, Ch. 15-16

VI. Anti-trust Policy

1. Early History

J. D. Clark, Federal Trust Policy
W. H. Taft, The Anti-trust Act and the Supreme Court
V. Mund, Government and Business, Ch. 10, 15, 16
H. B. Thorelli, The Federal Antitrust Policy

2. Major Dissolutions

E. Jones, Trust Problem in the United States, Ch. 18
Hale, “Trust Dissolution” in Columbia Law Review, 1940
W. S. Stevens, Industrial Combinations and Trusts, Ch. 14-15
S. Whitney, Antitrust Policies, 2 Vols.

3. Law of Conspiracy

U.S. v. Trenton Potteries, 273 U.S. 392 (1927)
F.T.C. v. Cement Institute, 68 Sup. Ct. 793 (1948)
M. Handler, T.N.E.C. Monograph 38
Report of Attorney-General’s National Committee on the Anti-trust Laws

4. Recent Decisions

U.S. v. Columbia Steel, 334 U.S. 495 (1948)
U.S. v. Aluminum Co., 148 F. (2nd) 416 (1945), 91 Fed Supp. 333 (1950)
Standard Oil v. Fed. Trade Comm., 71 Sup. Ct. 240 (1951)
E. H. Levi, “The Anti-trust Laws and Monopoly,” University of Chicago Law Journal, 1947
Economic Consequences of Some Recent Anti-trust Decisions, A.E.R., May 1949

5. Foreign Policy

F. A. McGregor, “Preventing Monopoly, — Canadian Techniques,” in Monopoly and Competition and their Regulation ed. by E. Chamberlin
C. D. Harbury and Leo Roskind, “The British Approach to Monopoly Control,” Q.J.E., 1953
M. Cohen, “Canadian Anti-trust Laws,” Canadian Bar Review, Vol. 16 (1938)
L. Reynolds, The Control of Competition in Canada
J. Jewkes, “British Monopoly Policy, 1944-56,” Law and Economics, 1958

6. Some Proposals and Issues

H. Simons, Economic Policy for a Free Society, Ch, 2, 3, 4.
C. Edwards, Maintaining Competition, esp. Ch. 4-8
The Sherman Act and the Enforcement of Competition, A.E.R., May 1918
Mund, Government and Business, Ch. 20, 24
S. C. Oppenheim, “Federal Antitrust Legislation,” Michigan Law Review, June 1952

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 130, Folder “Syllabi and exams, 1955-1959”.

Image Source:  George Stigler (1960). University of Chicago Photographic Archive (apf1-07960). Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists

Columbia. Major wave of economics appointments. Stigler, Polanyi, Hart, Nurkse, Bergson. 1947

 

The economics department of Columbia University could rightly boast of its bumper crop of faculty appointments for the 1947-48 academic year. I’ll be surprised if I ever come across a press release announcing a correspondingly large wave of resignations anywhere. However, it is not uncommon for members of rival departments to comment on the movement of colleagues from one department to another as the result of such movement raising the average in both departments. But no doubt, quite a proud moment for economics at Columbia.

_______________________________

Columbia University Press Release
August 28, 1947

Public Information Office
Columbia University
Morningside Heights
New York 27, N.Y.
———————–
Robert Harron, Director

Appointments of several noted scholars in the field of economics, effective with the new academic year, were announced yesterday (Wednesday) by Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, acting president of Columbia University.

Dr. George Joseph Stigler, who has been a member of the faculty of Brown University, has been appointed professor of economics. Dr. Stigler was graduated from the University of Washington in 1931, and received advanced degrees from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago. He has held research positions with The National Resources Committee and the National Bureau of Economic Research, and is the author of “Production and Distribution Theories: the Theory of Price.” [sic, actually two different books: Production and Distribution Theories, The Formative Period (1941) and The Theory of Price (Revised 1952)]

Dr. Karl Polanyi, former lecturer at Oxford, the University of London, and Bennington College, has been named as visiting professor of economics. Dr. Polanyi, who was born in Vienna and was from 1924 to 1934 on the staff of the “Oesterreichische Volkswirt”, then a leading financial weekly, has been a naturalized British citizen since 1940. In 1944 he wrote “The Great Transformation, [1944]” which attracted international attention. It is an analysis of free enterprise capitalism as it affects western society. He was at Columbia during the recent Spring Session.

Three who were visiting professors during the past year have accepted permanent status. They are Albert Gailord Hart, visiting professor of economics; Ragnar Nurkse, visiting professor of international economics, and Abram Bergson, visiting associate professor of economics.

Professor Hart was educated at Harvard and the University of Chicago, has taught at Iowa State and the University of Chicago, and has served as research economist for the Committee for Economic Development. He is the author of “Anticipations, Uncertainty, and Dynamic Planning,” “Debts and Recovery, 1929-1937,” “The Social Framework of the American Economy” (with J.R. Hicks) and, with collaborators, “Paying for Defense.”

Professor Nurkse, a native of Estonia, worked with the economic and financial section of the League of Nations and has had major responsibility for a number of its publications, notably the volume, “International Currency Experience.” He holds an advanced degree from the University of Edinburgh. His work will be largely in the School of International Affairs.

Professor Bergson, who came to Columbia a year ago as a member of the Russian Institute staff, was trained at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, and has taught at the University of Texas. During the war he served with the office of Strategic Services as Chief of the Economic Subdivision, U.S.S.R. Division. He was also consultant on Russian financial questions to the Department of State and a member of the U.S. Reparations Delegations to the Moscow and Potsdam conferences.

Newly appointed to the department, whose executive officer is Professor Carter Goodrich, are Lawrence Abbott, a graduate of Harvard who has taught at Hotchkiss School, and Aaron W. Warner, former instructor in labor law at the University of Denver. Mr. Abbott will be an instructor in Columbia College. Mr. Warner will be in charge of economics in the School of General Studies.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Historical Subject Files, Series I: Academics and Research,  Box 23, Folder 5 “Economics, Dept. of, 1915—”.

Image Source: George Stigler (left) at the 1947 Mt. Pelerin Society meeting from the Milton Friedman Papers at the Hoover Institution Archives. Karl Polanyi (1947)  (right) picture found multiple times on webpages without attribution.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

Columbia. Language Requirements for PhD Report, 1951

In 1950 the economics department of the Faculty of Political Science at Columbia University was able to amend the foreign language requirement for a Ph.D. in economics to allow mathematics to substitute for one of the two required non-English languages. In 1951 the sociology department wanted to follow suit but this led to a faculty meeting discussion “so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it” ending in a special committee being formed to consider the matter further. The eleven page report of that committee has been transcribed for this post. It follows the excerpt from the minutes of the faculty meeting that would lead to the appointment of the special committee.

The portions of the report that explicity address the issue of the substitution of mathematics literacy for additional foreign language literacy have been highlighted for convenience. Connoisseurs of the discourse of academic rule-making will find much to savour in the minutes and report below. I find it hilarious that a three person committee speaks of  “majority” and “minority” recommendations when the humble fact was that “two of the committee members” disagreed with “the other one”.

It is unfortunate that I happened to have stopped my collection of faculty minutes with the year 1951, so that at the present moment I don’t know the ultimate fate met by the report’s recommendations at a later general meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, presumably sometime in early 1952.

___________________

Excerpt from the Minutes of the annual meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, April 27, 1951.

…Professor Lazarsfeld [Paul Felix Lazarsfeld, Professor of Sociology] offered a resolution to permit students in Sociology and Economics to substitute Mathematics for one of the two foreign languages normally required for the Ph.D. degree. In the discussion Professor Wuorinen [John H. Wuorinen, Professor of History] asked to be enlightened on the tendency of the motion. The answer was that Mathematics is a language and one far more necessary to the statistical student of society than any of the languages that consist of words.

Professor Evans [Austin Patterson Evans, Professor of History] opposed the motion on two grounds: first, the principle that all Doctors of Philosophy in Columbia University are rightly deemed able to use the literature of their fields in two foreign languages besides their own; second, the technicality that any change in the requirement must be approved by all three faculties.

From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality. Professor Angell [James W. Angell, Professor of Economics] urged the far greater range of ideas available in his field through mathematical formulations; Professor Bonbright [James Cummings Bonbright, Professor of Finance] uttered the suspicion that our language requirement was not really effective, and implied that a mathematics requirement would be. Dean Krout rose to reinforce Professor Evans’ point that we could not take separate action as a Faculty.

Professor Evans introduced an amendment of which the effect was to reduce the requirement to one language for all fields. The amendment was not accepted by the first mover and Professor Angell called for a test vote on the original motion. It was carried 25-10; but given the Faculty lack of power to act independently on this matter, Professor Angell moved the appointment of a committee to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree. This suggestion was powerless to stem the debate. Professor Stigler [George Joseph Stigler, Professor of Economics]urged that all departments be treated equally. Professor Wuorinen questioned the relevance of mathematics to the purpose served by the linguistic equipment. Professor Davis [Kingsley Davis, Asssociate Professor of Sociology] wondered how much mathematics would equal one language. Dean Krout likewise wished to know what would be meant by “mathematics”. Professor Lazarsfeld replied that a committee exists and has expressed itself on the nature of the mathematical equipment required by social scientists. Professor Angell revealed that the Department of Economics has the specifications all worked out. Professors Macmahon [Arthur W. Macmahon, Eaton Professor of Public Administration] and Shoup [Carl Sumner Shoup, Professor of Economics] both agreed in considering mathematics a language and raised the spectre of a three-language requirement.

Finally the question was called for, and Professor Angell’s motion to appoint a committee was passed 26-9.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962, pp. 1039-40.

___________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
[Nov. 5, 1951]

Summary

Findings of Fact:

  1. The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements of faculties and departments.
  2. Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees retain residual powers which they may exercise when they wish.
  3. Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the requirements.
  4. The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirements, and they differed widely.
  5. In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took account of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages. The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-editing of the language requirement. Thus was established without specific discussion a Faculty rule requiring two languages.

Conclusions:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faculty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

A minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

 

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PH.D. DEGREE

By letter, dated October 1, 1951, Dean John A. Krout constituted the undersigned as a Special Committee of the Faculty of Political Science to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree.

The Special Committee was asked to treat the subject generally in its report and to give special attention to the following questions: (1) Is it wise for the Faculty to permit its Departments to modify the existing language requirement; and (2) If the Faculty determines that it is wise to permit Departmental modification, should the Faculty recommend to the University Council such a change in the language requirement rules without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

A third question emerges from a reading of the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on April 27, 1951. Some of the members expressed the question in terms of debate over the authority of the Faculty of Political Science under the currently existing “constitutional law” of the University to take action on the language requirement without reference to the University Council for approval.

In an effort to answer the three questions raised, the Special Committee has divided its study into its component parts, namely (1) Have the Departments and the Faculty of Political Science present authority under the Statutes of the University, the resolutions of the Trustees and of the University Council and accepted. practice to change the language requirements for the Ph.D. degree; (2) From a policy point of view, should a change be made; and (3) From a policy point of view, should such a change be made without concurrence of the Faculties of Pure Science and Philosophy?

The Findings of Fact

(a) Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees here residual powers which they may exercise as they wish.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Trustees of the University have supreme authority over the “educational policy” of the University. No proposal involving a change in this policy may take effect until after approval of the Trustees, or until after the termination of the second meeting following the introduction of the proposal, in the event that the Trustees remain silent on the subject.

This is so by virtue of the terms of Article 24 of the Statutes of the University, which reads as follows:

Chap. II. The University Council

Art. 24. LIMITATION OF POWERS. No exercise of the powers conferred upon the Council which involves a change in the educational policy of the University in respect to the requirements of admission or the conditions of graduation, shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting of the Trustees shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

The University Council has the right under the Statutes of the University to consider every proposal, submitted by the Faculties which involves a change in the educational policy of the University.

This is so by virtue of Articles 33 and 142 of the Statutes of the University, which read as follows:

Chap. III. Faculties and Administrative Boards

Art. 33. LIMITATION OF POWERS. Every proposed exercise of the power conferred on any of the Faculties, which involves a change in the educational policy of the university in respect to the requirements of admission, the program of studies or the condition of graduation shall be submitted to the University Council before being recommended to the Trustees, and such recommendation shall not be laid before the Trustees until the Council has acted thereon, or until another meeting of the Council has been held, subsequent to that at which the recommendation was submitted. No exercise of such power by any Faculty shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

Chap. XIV. Faculty of Political Science

Art. 142. DEGREES. (b) Ph.D. Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall be qualified to receive that degree upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by the University Council by concurrent action with the Faculty of Political Science.

While the authority of the Trustees and the University Council is clearly superior to that of the Faculties in matters concerning the “educational policy” of the University (which would seem to include the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree), the record seems to indicate that this authority has been delegated to the Faculties. The second finding of fact, is therefore:

(b) The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements for faculties and departments.

The finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute book of the University Council contains the following resolution, dated April 18, 1916, which reads as follows in its pertinent provisions:

“A student admitted to the University under the jurisdiction of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy or Pure Science, who wishes to become a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which his research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

    1. The student must have satisfied the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the faculty prescribe.

Such an interpretation of, the meaning of the resolution of the University Council, dated April 18, 1916, is supported by the action of the Faculty of Political Science in years subsequent to the adoption of the University Council’s resolution. The record is sufficiently clear on this score to permit the Special Committee to make the third finding of fact:

(c) Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the language requirements.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

On various occasions the Faculty has altered the language requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as will be indicated later in this report, but after April 18, 1916, the Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science and of the University Council are silent as to any reference of changes in the language requirement to the University Council. References to the University Council appear in the minutes before April 18, 1916.

Compare the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on February 25, 1916 (Minute Book, page 404), with the minutes of the meetings of the Faculty of Political Science, held on March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468) and on February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488).

While the Faculty has established a practice of acting on language requirements without reference to the University Council, a minority of the Special Committee feels it desirable to raise with the Faculty the question of whether it might not be courteous to inform the University Council of changes in the future, with an indication that the change has been made under the provisions of the delegation of authority under the resolution of April 18, 1916. There would then be no possibility of a misunderstanding. The majority of the Special Committee believe such informative procedure unnecessary.

The record of the action of the Faculty of Political Science on the language requirements is sufficiently clear to permit the special Committee to make the following fourth finding of fact.

(d) The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free up until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirement, and they differed widely.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute Book of the Faculty of Political Science records the following action of the Faculty on language requirements for the Ph.D. degree.

(1) December 12, 1913: (Minute Book, page 371)

“The Dean then presented to the Faculty for its consideration certain resolutions of the Joint Committee on Instruction of the several graduate faculties, as follows:

…After the completion of at least one year of residence…..students may present themselves for examination in any two of the subjects, of graduate instruction. The satisfaction of this examination together with a demonstration of ability to read French and German or such other languages as may be accepted will entitle them to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ……”

The matter was referred to the Committee on Instruction for consideration and report.

The Committee on Instruction reported at, the meeting of January 23, 1914, and the following was ordered entered upon the Minutes of the Faculty: (Minute Book page 375).

“…. (2) Each department shall prescribe, by regulations approved by the faculty and by the dean, the subjects and languages in which the student must show himself proficient and the manner in which his proficiency shall be determined.”

(2) February 25, 1916: (Minute Book, page 404)

“The Dean then recommended to the Faculty the adoption of the following revised regulations for the control of the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:

Students who wish to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which their research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

….2. The candidate must satisfy the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the Faculty prescribe.”

The recommendation was adopted by the Faculty and referred to the University Council. It was this resolution which evoked from the University Council the resolution quoted above in connection with the discussion of the powers of the Faculty.

(3) March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468)

“The following were moved as a substitute for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy approved by the faculty at its meeting of May 25, 1916.

    1. Admission to Candidacy.

“2. Languages. The applicant shall demonstrate his ability to read at least one modern European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally the requirements in the several fields are as indicated in the list of subjects below. The language requirement must be satisfied at least one academic year prior to the admission of the applicant to candidacy for the degree.”

(4) February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488)

A substitution in the requirements approved on March 28, 1919 was moved and accepted:

“4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at least one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department, be deemed essential for each subject as indicated in the following paragraphs:”

There were then listed a considerable number of subjects with varying language requirements for each. There were as much as four languages required of those obtaining their degree in Ancient History, and in American Government, always in addition to English.

(5) April 19, 1940 (Minute Book, page 865)

The Faculty voted to rephrase the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to read as follows, In the pertinent section:

“6. Matriculation as a Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. After not less than one year of graduate residence, after satisfying the department that he is proficient in such languages as it prescribes for a candidate and after satisfying the department that he is prepared to undertake research under its direction, the prospective candidate will be recommended by the department to the Dean for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.”

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1940-1941 continued to carry without change the paragraph adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, and quoted under (4) above. See Announcement for 1940-1941 at pp. 12-13. An examination on the list of subjects with the language requirements for each indicates that there was no longer a single subject which required but one language other than English. All required two languages or more.

The crucial change in Faculty practice on the language requirement occurred in 1941. The Special Committee finds it possible to make the following fifth finding of fact.

(e) In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took count of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages.

The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-edited language requirement. In effect there was established in this manner a Faculty rule requiring two languages when no general Faculty rule requiring a specific number of language had existed previously.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1941-1942 changed one word in the paragraph which had been adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, namely the word “one”. This word was changed to “two”, making the statement on languages read as follows: “The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to read at least two languages other than English…” The list of subjects, which had been printed in the Announcement in previous years, continued to appear, there being varying requirements for each subject, but none less than two languages.

No Minute of Faculty action concern specifically the question of the language requirement.  Professor Austin P. Evans, who was Chairman of the Faculty’s Committee on Instruction at the time, has informed the Special Committee that he recalls making the change in editing the Announcement. He noted that all of the subjects listed required two languages, and to avoid any confusion on the part of students in reading a general rule requiring only one language and a list of subjects in which all required at least two languages; he made the change. The Announcement was then submitted, for adoption by the Faculty, so that the change in the general statement of the language requirement was adopted as a new Faculty rule.

In the Announcement for the following year, 1942-1943, the list of subjects with the specific foreign languages required of candidates for the Ph.D. degree in each field was dropped. The list has never reappeared, leaving the sole statement of the language requirement the paragraph which has been altered for the Announcement of 1941-1942.

No Faculty action has been found authorizing requirement by subject. It is possible that the deletion occurred as a part of the campaign of the Secretary of the University for shortened Announcements to save money. Whatever the reason, the change strengthened the rule, as amended in the previous year, and removed any indication that the rule had originally been a summarizing of the requirements as established by each department for the subjects under its control.

Conclusions

Having made the above five findings of fact, the Special Committee believes it possible to conclude at this point the following:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Considerations Underlying Recommendations

In seeking to find the basis for appropriate recommendations to the Faculty, the Special Committee has examined the report of the special committee for the review of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, appointed by the President of the University in the autumn of 1937, under the Chairmanship of Professor Woodbridge. The “Woodbridge Committee” report is the most recent of the exhaustive studies of the subject of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Reference was made to the language requirement, and this reference seems pertinent to the matter under discussion in this report.

In a preliminary report, dated May 12, 1937 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 349) the Woodbridge Committee proposed that no one should be admitted to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until he had passed an examination. In stating the ground to be covered by such an examination, the Woodbridge Committee included “command of English usage, and ability to read such foreign languages as the department may require”. The Committee suggested further that “The examination including that in foreign languages shall be written, and the quality of the writing be used as a test of the student’s command of English.”

In its final report, dated April 21, 1939 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 361) the Woodbridge Committee reaffirmed the recommendation of its preliminary report that there be an examination of prospective candidates, but said that it had changed its mind as to the manner of administration and was now of the opinion that the type of examination to be given should be determined by the department concerned and not by any central authority.

Parts of the Woodbridge Committee report were adopted by the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science in March, 1939. The resolution of the Faculties, as set forth in the record of the University Council (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 373) reads, as follows, in its pertinent provisions:

“1. An applicant may be admitted as a regular graduate student only after he has satisfied, in addition to the general University requirements for admission, any further requirements which may be specified by the Department of his major interest, and which may relate especially to the content and the quality of his prior studies and to his ability in the use of foreign languages.”

The practice of other Universities also seems appropriate to consideration of recommendations. The Special Committee has been informed of the results of a surrey of 18 Universities conducted by the Department of Economics of the University Oregon communicated to Dean John A. Krout by letter dated July 26, 1951. It reads as follows:

“About half of the Universities allow no substitutions or restrict substitutions, such as by prohibiting use of two romance languages. Five Universities have provided for substitution of subjects for a language. These are Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, Minnesota and Stanford, the substitutions being allowed mainly on economics in the first three institutions. Mathematics and statistics are the usual substitutes, though the practices vary. Ohio State requires only one language of candidates with a high competence in one language. The faculty of the University of Oregon was not disposed to allow any modification of language requirements, although the Economics Department and some other departments were seeking modification.”

The Special Committee has considered whether it is desirable that the Faculty of Political Science prescribe minimum language requirements for all departments, and the majority has decided in favor of such a minimum. Such a provision minimizes the probability of subsequent intervention by the Faculty in the affairs of the departments. It is believed also that a large number of the members of the Faculty share the majority’s view that, in so far as it is feasible, there should common minimum standards for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy throughout the Faculty. Prior to 1941 when departments were autonomous in the matter of language requirement they had in fact arrived at a common minimum which became a matter of Faculty decision thereafter.

The establishment of a minimum requirement involves the level of the minimum. The minimum resulting from the decisions of the separate departments prior to 1941 and thereafter endorsed by the Faculty was two foreign languages. For the majority of the students in the Faculty this still seems to be the minimum number of languages required for competence in their fields, especially to give them access to the work of eminent scholars of the past and present. In some fields of study there is a growing body of ideas in mathematical form. It seems desirable therefore, to acknowledge the increasing importance of this means of communication by permitting students to present mathematics in place of one language. We do not suggest that this substitution be permitted by all students but that it be allowed by the departments only where it appears to be especially appropriate to the individual student’s program of study. In fields where statistical analysis is important or desirable this option will assist the student who desires to acquire the mathematical basis for graduate work in statistical methods. It will also facilitate the use of analysis in mathematical form.

There may remain students who appear to need neither mathematics nor foreign languages as suggested above. The Special Committee is somewhat doubtful whether there are such  students because in most fields there are works in the basic theory or philosophy in foreign languages or mathematics to which the student should have access. Furthermore, the Doctor of Philosophy degree should certify more than competence in a selected and possibly narrow field of study. It should indicate also a measure in a cultural maturity. Finally students trained by the Faculty are likely to participate in increasing numbers in international associations, private and public, and the University should do nothing, especially at the present time, to discourage the acquisition of a knowledge of languages, except where it is necessary to permit some students to participate competently in the use of mathematical forms for the communication of ideas. These considerations all suggest the maintenance of the present requirement of a minimum of two languages apart from the exception above mentioned in favor of mathematics.

A minority of the Special Committee, while accepting in full the majority’s argument as to the importance of language for any scholar, dissents on the method proposed for enforcing the requirement. The minority finds that language requirements were dictated successfully by the departments without Faculty intervention prior to 1941. The development of the Faculty rule in 1941 seems not to have been caused by any abuse of autonomy by the departments. On the contrary it followed departmental action, which in several cases went beyond it. Its origin as the result of re-editing of the Announcement seems to the minority to have presented no occasion for thoughtful consideration of the change in principle involved. The minority would prefer to return to the procedure existing prior to 1941 when the departments set their own requirements, subject always to the authority of the Faculty to veto the proposal of a department if it seems to have been made without adequate consideration of the issues.

Such a return to departmental autonomy, subject to a reserved right of faculty veto seems to conform to the spirit of the Woodbridge Report. It also seems to have merit in that it would render unnecessary the present attempt of some departments to reduce the language requirements for their students by attempting to fit some other requirement for scholarship in the discipline under the rubric of “language”. Although the minority appreciates that there is reason to argue that some of these substitutions may aid communication between scholars, the minority would prefer calling the subjects what they are, and leaving the departments free to adopt them, whether they be mathematics, statistics, political theory or historiography, without attempting to call them a “language.”

To the minority the mixing of mathematics with the language requirement seems only to becloud the issue, which can be kept clear if no rigid Faculty rule of two foreign languages is set. The departments in the past indicated that they could be trusted. The Faculty has ample power through the veto to restrain any department in the future which exceeds the bounds of the “reasonable”. In consequence the minority prefers the return to the pre-1941 situation, with reservation in the Faculty of the veto with which it can maintain the uniformity as seems to be required.

Recommendations

In the light of the foregoing, the majority of the Special Committee makes the following recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faulty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

The minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

Action by the Faculty Alone

One question asked of the Special Committee remains unanswered, namely, Should the Faculty recommend to the University Council a change in the language requirements without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

Since the Faculty’s Special Committee is recommending no change in the existing the Special Committee, the question is academic, but if the Faculty should vote with the minority, the question would be pertinent.

Even if the Faculty should vote to change the rule, there appears to be necessity for parallel action by the three graduate faculties, in view of the delegation of power by University Council in 1916 to the faculties. As the requirements for competent training in the three faculties differ markedly, it is desirable to permit each to deal independently with this problem.

Respectfully submitted

Arthur R. Burns
John N. Hazard
Richard B. Morris

November 5, 1951

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962.

Image Source: From Roberto Ferrari, “August Rodin and The Thinker“, Columbia University Library Blog. June 8, 2014.

Categories
Chicago Funny Business

Chicago. West Side Story Number from an economics skit, ca. 1962

These parody lyrics come from pages of University of Chicago economics skits from the 1960s that had been saved by Zvi Griliches and that can be consulted now in the Zvi Griliches papers collection in the Harvard University Archives. The reason we can date this artifact with confidence is because the following children’s rhyme almost immediately follows “Please Mr. Harry Johnson” featured below.

(To the tune of „Mary had a Little Lamb“)

Harvard School has gone away, gone away, gone away
Harvard School has gone away
To Washington D.C.

MIT has joined them too, joined them too, joined them too
MIT has joined them too
Advising Kennedy

Link to the film version of the original “Dear Officer Krupke” from West Side Story.

Also worth noting: that the students’ friend for learning price theory instead of relying on George Stigler’s book was Richard Leftwich’s The Price System and Resource Allocation (incidentally the same textbook was assigned for the microeconomics semester (Fall semester) of Early Concentration Economics my freshman year at Yale 1969-70).

________________________________

(To the tune of “Dear Officer Krupke” from West Side Story)
[ca. 1962]

Please Mr. Harry Johnson
It’s easy to explain
They told me Keynes was silly
And Hansen just a pain
Velocity is the main thing
And interest a passing stress
Leapin’ lizards, that why I’m a mess.

Chorus: 

Gee Prof. Johnson
we’re very upset
we never had the love that every child ought to get
we ain’t no delinquents, we’re misunderstood
deep down inside us there is good
there is good
there is good
like inside of each of us there’s good.

Oh Mr. Bailey listen
You’ve got to understand
All my life they’ve taught me
Investment lacks demand
No body ever told me
to buy a foot of land
Crawlin’ catfish, that’s why I’ve been canned.

(Repeat Chorus till last three lines)

Hear oh Mr. Friedman
I want make it clear
Always I’ve considered
Children sweet and dear
No one ever told me
Of production they’re a tool
Gosh almighty that’s why I’m a fool.

(Repeat Chorus minus last three lines)

Oh Mr. Metzler hear me
It’s simple to conceive
The BB schedule threw me
The CC did deceive
With your Keynesian leanings
I really couldn‘t cope
Goodness gracious, that’s why I’m a dope.

(Repeat Chorus…)

Dear Professor David
Please lend to us an ear
All these expectations
The present did make queer
The future was the present
The present—there was none
Really truly, that’s why I’m so dumb

 (Repeat Chorus…)

Dear Sweet Professor Stigler
We all have read your book
The fun is in the footnotes
At which we love to look
But we go back to Leftwich
For Economic sense
Heaven help me, that‘s why I‘m so dense.

(Repeat Chorus…)

Now to conclude my story
I’d like to say tonight
Why it’s so very difficult
for us to be alright
Whatever one pronounces
The others say “it’s rot”
Mama mia that’s why I’m a sot.

Dear muddled department – we’re very upset
(rest of chorus…)

Source: Harvard University Archives, Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder “Faculty skits, ca. 1960s”.

Image Source: Random undocumented discovery in the internet.

Categories
Economists George Mason Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech. Letter from James Buchanan to Earl Hamilton, 1983

 

Because the papers of the economic historian, Earl Hamilton, are generally an ill-sorted grab bag of documents, I figured the following letter from James Buchanan to Earl Hamilton on the eve of the former’s move to George Mason University had a small probability of being used by future Buchanan scholars if left to lie in a not-elsewhere-classified folder of Hamilton’s papers. 

The meatiest sentence in the letter for historians of economics is probably:

As for economics, I get more and more discouraged at what is being taught for and what passes for our parent discipline. It seems increasingly escapist to me, grown men playing with toys, despite the acknowledged intellectual fascination.

Womp, womp?

______________________

P.O. Drawer G
Blacksburg, VA 24060
20 May 1983

Professor and Mrs. Earl Hamilton
Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Dear Professor Hamilton and Mrs. Hamilton:

We regret very much that we cannot join with you in celebrating the grand occasion of your sixtieth anniversary. It would be very nice to see both of you again after so many years. And Oak Ridge is within reasonable driving distance of Blacksburg. I have on several occasions lectured at the federal executives institute there. If it were not that I had the earlier scheduled commitment at the Pittsburgh conference, we should surely have been in attendance.

Let us wish both of you all that should be wished on such occasions.

I get news from you occasionally when I see George Stigler, who does, apparently, get to his Flossmoor house every now and then. I have been on a Hoover Advisory Committee that George chairs for several years now. And I was at a small meeting with both George and Ronald Coase last fall in Austria.

Our news, which you may have heard, is that our whole Center for Study of Public Choice, is shifting to George Mason University, in Fairfax (the Washington suburbs) after 1 July this year. So we are in the throes of moving. We shall, personally, keep our country place down here in the mountains, but we have already sold off our town property and plan to live in a Fairfax townhouse when up there, at least until retirement when we shall come back to the mountains permanently by current plans.

I find my research and writing interests moving more and more toward political philosophy and ethics (too much Frank Knight I guess), and I have recently been involved in several papers, which will be a book soon, on the basic logic of constitutional constraints. We have a Cambridge Press commitment to publish it under the title, The Reason of Rules.

As for economics, I get more and more discouraged at what is being taught for and what passes for our parent discipline. It seems increasingly escapist to me, grown men playing with toys, despite the acknowledged intellectual fascination.

My gardening suffers terribly in this wettest of all springs, indeed no spring at all. Nothing comes up even when dry enough to plant. Asparagus at least one month late and piddling. Lettuce which should be now ready only commencing to pop out, and too wet to put in any tomatoes as yet. But we hope.

I know that your day will be a grand occasion. Again I sincerely wish that we could join you. It would be very nice to get the opportunity for a visit.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Jim Buchanan

/btr

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Earl J. Hamilton papers, Box 4, Folder “Correspondence 1920’s-1930’s; 1960’s; 1980’s; and n.d.”

Image Source: PBS webpage “American Nobel Economists”, James Buchanan Image 14

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. George Stigler reviews the department of economics, 1978

 

Somewhere between bibliometric departmental rankings and formal visiting committees lie the relatively casual responses to requests for outside opinions solicited by university administrators. In this post George Stigler provides his brief assessment of where the Columbia economics department was at the end of 1978 and what could be done to improve its relative standing.

Stigler’s message was essentially to add “More Cowbell“, i.e. outside hires of senior heavy-weights as opposed to the selection and cultivation of internal candidates for promotion.

As a former active “area expert” on the GDR economy, I am delighted to have found this explicit obiter dicta that expresses Stigler’s contempt for regional studies. 

“I also approve of [the Columbia economics department’s] conscious policy of withdrawing from the quite excessive number of special geographical area commitments into which Columbia entered.” 

Also worth noting is that Edmund Phelp’s “departure” from Columbia  lasted only 1978-79. Because of a salary dispute, Phelps left Columbia for New York University. Perhaps Stigler’s letter helped warm the Columbia administration to accepting Phelp’s terms (which they did and Edmund Phelps indeed returned the next year).

_________________________

Stigler’s View of Columbia from Chicago

December 8, 1978

Professors Louis Henkin and Steven Marcus
Columbia University
211 Low Memorial Library
New York, New York 10027

Dear Professors Henkin and Marcus:

Let me attempt to reply to your inquiries about the Department of Economics.

  1. The department was probably rated too low in 1969, and I think it is about as strong today relative to other universities, yielding a ranking around 9th or 10th. The department has suffered 2 major losses in the past decade or so (Becker and Phelps) but made a number of excellent appointments of younger people and one almost major appointment (Mundell, who dominated international trade theory in the 1960’s but has apparently stopped working). The department lacks flashy, controversial figures and this may account for its unduly low ratings. But the fact is that it is a good department.
  2. I would not quarrel with its size or general balance. I also approve of its conscious policy of withdrawing from the quite excessive number of special geographical area commitments into which Columbia entered.
  3. The department is especially strong in international trade. I consider it seriously weak in the basic fields of microeconomics and industrial organization, even though Lancaster is very good,—I would consider this its top need. There is some weakness in macroeconomics: Cagan is no longer a major figure, and Phelps’ departure emphasizes the weakness in the area. Mincer is superb in labor economics.
  4. There is strength in the intermediate levels, with good appointments such as Taylor and Calvo and Rodriguez. I do not know many of the assistant professors, and have only a mild suspicion that they are mostly not first class.

On reflection, in the last decade the department has not made a single appointment (except possibly Dhrymes and still more uncertainly Mundell) who would be considered a catch by the other major economics departments. While Harvard was getting Jorgenson and Griliches and Arrow, and Chicago was getting Becker and Lucas and Rosen, Columbia was making good junior appointments. I believe that it is a rule that a major department will make most of its senior appointments from outside, not by promotion. If I am right, the department will not rise in relative standing until it is ready and able to draw in major scholars at the height of their productive careers. It now contains major scholars such as Vickrey and Mincer—will it be able to replace them?

Sincerely,

George J. Stigler

GJS:ip

 

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler Papers, Box 3. Folder “U of C, ECON./MISCELLANEOUS”.

Image Source: George J. Stigler, University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-13366, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Fields History of Economics

Chicago. History of Economic Thought, Ph.D. preliminary exam. Summer, 1989

 

The previous post provided the transcribed questions for the 1974 version of the Chicago prelim exam for the history of economic thought. Here we have the questions for a fifteen year younger exam Presumably both these sibling exams were authored by George Stigler in whose archived papers they can be found.

______________________

History of Economic Thought Prelim Exam
Summer 1989

Answer Question 1 or Question 2, not both:

  1. Sam Hollander argues that David Ricardo’s Principles is really a neoclassical analysis (such as Marshall’s), although written in a different style and laying different amounts of emphasis upon various parts of the theory (for example, more emphasis on cost, less on demand).
    1. If this is true of Ricardo, why not also of Adam Smith? How do these two differ?
    2. What is neoclassical (Marshallian) or not neoclassical about Ricardo’s treatment of wages on average, or of wages in individual occupations?
  2. In his recent review of Samuel Hollander’s study of J. S. Mill, Pedro Schwartz argued that Hollander failed to see that J.S. Mill had a very different view of the scope of economics than Smith or Ricardo. Mill “treated (economics) as a limited science whose rationale is irreconcilable to the guiding principles of ethics and politics.”

From your knowledge of Mill’s Principles, defend Schwartz or Hollander.

Answer all of the remaining questions:

  1. Do people know what is good for them? Show how Smith and J.S. Mill draw their conclusions on this question.
  2. Arguments have often persisted for long periods over what an economist really meant. Ricardo is a favorite example, but there is hardly an economist of note who has escaped this sort of dispute. Compare the roles of…
    1. …a careful analysis of what the economist meant (relying on his writings, letters, etc.)…
    2. …a careful analysis of what his contemporaries and immediate successors thought he meant…

…in resolving such disputes. Which is the more important basis of judgment, and why? Apply both techniques to Malthus’ use of the arithmetic and geometric ratios.

  1. “Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command…the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society.
    First, every individual endeavors to employ his capital as near home as he can, and consequently as much as he can in the support of domestic industry.
    Thus, upon equal or nearly equal profits, every wholesale merchant naturally prefers the home trade to the foreign trade. …In the home trade his capital is never so long out of his sight as it frequently is in the foreign trade…yet for the sake of having some part of his capital always under his own view and command, he willingly submits to this extraordinary charge (double charge of loading and unloading as well as to the payment of some duties and customs).”

In this passage, famous for arguing free trade, Smith seems to make a case (a) for preferring domestic industry to foreign trade, and (b) to define the advantage of “society” as that of one’s own nation. Is Smith not an advocate of free trade?

  1. Read all the way through this question before beginning your answers.
    1. In explaining the advance of knowledge in a science, one must choose between:
      1. The Kuhnsian view of revolutions, which says that wholly new paradigms (incommensurable with earlier paradigms) work major revolutions such as that of Marginal Utility, and
      2. All science is basically cumulative (which Kuhn believes is true only of “normal” science within a paradigm).
        Appraise these alternatives.
    2. Again, in explaining progress in a science one must choose between:
      1. A “great man” theory, in which a genius (he’s one by definition) makes a fundamental contribution and lesser scholars fill in the details, and
      2. The science has a main direction that is the product of the whole community of scholars. If a theory needs to be invented or discovered, one or more scholars will do so (Robert Merton).
        Again, appraise these alternatives.
    3. In both parts above, try to illustrate your argument by an episode in economics—preferably from this century. Thus, the theory of the firm, statistical study of economic functions, oligopoly theory, Keynes’ General Theory, monetarism, etc., are examples.

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler Papers, Addenda. Box 33 (2005-16), Folder “Misc. Course Materials. History of Economic Th[ought].”

Image Source: Posted by Glory M. Liu on her personal research webpage (next to the abstract for her article “Rethinking the Chicago Smith Problem: Adam Smith and the Chicago School, 1929-1980” published in Modern Intellectual History.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Fields History of Economics

Chicago. History of Economic Thought Ph.D Field Exam. Summer, 1974

 

The following examination consisting of six questions (answer five) comes from George Stigler’s papers at the University of Chicago Archives. It is safe to assume that Stigler penned these questions. 

The questions from the 1989 prelim on the History of Economic Thought are found in the following post.

________________________

History of Economic Thought
Summer, 1974

WRITE IN BLACK INK

WRITE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE FIRST PAGE OF YOUR EXAMINATION PAPER:

— Your code number and not your name
— Name of examination
— Date of examination

Write only on one side of each page.

Write the following information on each following page of your examination paper:

— Top left: code number
— Top right: number of page

When you fold your paper at the end of the exam, write your code number on the back of the last page, and indicate total number of pages.

Results of the examination will be sent to you by letter.

 

Write on five of the following questions.

  1. John Stuart Mill is undergoing a rehabilitation of reputation after long being viewed as a pallid synthesizer of classical doctrines. Is this improved reputation deserved?
  2. Precisely how is the product-after-deduction-of-rent divided between labor and capital in the Ricardian system? Is the short run division different from the long run division? Is the system in equilibrium?
  3. Jevons is the founder of quantitative economics. What is the basis for this claim? Why did this type of work appear as late (or early?) as the 1860’s?
  4. Smith rated some forms of investment as socially preferable to others. What was his ranking of agriculture, manufactures and trade? Was his analysis valid?
  5. John A. Hobson, N. Lennin [sic], and others have authored theories of imperialism, which, in spite of various differences, have in common the proposition that modern expansionist wars and diplomatic entanglements are a consequence of the economic structure and dynamics of capitalism. Against this point of view, it has been argued that aggressive expansionism is much older than modern capitalism, and that economic interests have been used as a pawn of the political ambitions of statesmen. What kind of evidence would you regard as valid to evaluate the appropriateness of either type of theory on the relationships between economic change and war.
  6. Malthus’ gloomy prediction that the standard of living could not rise above a subsistence level proved wrong with respect to the Western world. List as many reasons as you can to account for this. Also, state as precisely as possible how Western population trends of the past two centuries can be related to (a) the law of diminishing returns and (b) shifts in production-possibility frontiers.

 

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler Papers, Addenda. Box 33 (2005-16), Folder: “Exams & Prelim Questions.”

Image Source:  George Stigler page at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business website.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Fields

Chicago. Industrial Organization Prelim. 1977

 

The following five questions come from what appears to be a draft of the prelim exam in industrial organization for the Spring of 1977 that is found in the George Stigler papers at the University of Chicago. The draft clearly has the title “Industrial Organization Prelim” but the date is a handwritten addition. Also there is no explicit “University of Chicago”  to be found, though given the location in George Stigler’s papers, this identification seems rather certain.

___________________

[handwritten note:  5-2-77]

Industrial Organization Prelim

Answer all questions:

  1. It is sometimes alleged that periods of economic depression are more conducive to the growth of economic regulation than prosperity. Develop a theory which elaborates the link between the level of economic activity and the propensity to regulate. Include a discussion of whether the goals of regulatory agencies (old as well as new) are likely to differ with the level of economic activity.
  2. Sales of some firms are occurring at prices below average variable cost. Suppose there were no legal restrictions on merger. Under what conditions, if any, would the firms in the industry prefer merger as a means of reducing industry output?
  3. A recent treatise on antitrust law lists the following as among the factors favorable to collusion in an industry.
    1. No fringe of small buyers.
    2. Inelastic demand at competitive price.
    3. Entry takes a long time.
    4. Many customers.
    5. A standardized product.
    6. High ratio of fixed to variable costs.

Discuss for each factor the effect, if any, it has on probability of collusion.

  1. What problems for profit maximizing collusion among the firms in the book publishing industry would arise because of each of the following conditions:
    1. There are two classes of books, fiction and nonfiction. Publishers generally publish both types although some publishers specialize in nonfiction.
    2. Sales and profits from n fictional books behave like n independent random variables drawn from the same distribution. Sales of a given fictional book in a given year are independent of the sales in the previous year. There is a positive probability of sales coming to a halt in a given year and remaining zero thereafter.
    3. Nonfiction is of two types, textbooks and “how-to-do-it” books. The expected number of years of positive sales for a nonfiction book is greater than for a fiction book.
    4. Retail outlets and mail order sales are the only channels of distribution to the final users of books.
    5. The cost function of a book publisher is proportional to the number of titles and the quantity printed of each title.
    6. Every title has the protection of a copyright. Assume that the Xerox machine and similar devices do not exist.
    7. Anyone can arrange to have a book printed by a printing company and can arrange for its distribution.
  2. How do you explain the following empirical findings for manufacturing industries?

Let

Nit= number of companies in the 4-digit industry i in year t
Cit= 4-firm concentration ratio, industry i, year t.
Qit= index of real output industry i, year t
Rit= measured rate of return of all firms in industry i, year t.

    1. For each t, holing log Nitconstant, Ritis an increasing function of Cit.
    2. For each t, holding Citconstant, Ritis an increasing function of log Nit.
    3. For each t, Cit and log Nitare negatively correlated.
    4. Between 1947 and 1967 the correlation between the change in Citand the change in log Nitis 0.55.
    5. Between 1947 and 1967 the correlation between the change in Citand the change in log Nitis zero. The correlation is also zero between the change in log Qitand the change in Cit.
    6. There has recently been renewed interest in the social optimality of various devices for the public regulation of pollution. Among popular proposals to deal with the problem: emission taxes, subsidies for pollution control, transferable rights to emit pollutants, maximum limits on pollution discharges from each source. Assume that the optimality conditions for public regulation have been met. Evaluate the relative efficiency of these four devices and any others you wish to add to the list.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler Papers, Addenda. Box 33, Folder “Exams & Prelim Questions”.

Image Source:  George Stigler page at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business website.