Tag: SweezyP

Categories
Economist Market Economists

Harvard. Renewal of Faculty Instructorship. Case of Paul Sweezy, 1940

 

The following records come from the President’s Office at Harvard University involving the terms of the reappointment of Paul Sweezy at the rank of Faculty Instructor in the Harvard economics department. Sweezy joined the army in the fall of 1942, so the debate about a two or five year reappointment turned out to be moot on account of the Second World War. What I found particularly interesting in these records is the last one posted below where we witness a member of the department’s visiting committee trying to scuttle Sweezy’s appointment because of his Keynesian fiscal proclivities.

“Mr. Bigelow presented newspaper and other clippings as evidence that Mr. Sweezy advocated economic doctrines in regard to the utility of government-spending in excess of income, and ways of meeting huge deficits, which characterized Mr. Sweezy in Mr. Bigelow’s opinion as an opponent of capitalism…”

In Sweezy’s defense the two members of the department present at the meeting with the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science felt it necessary to remind the others present that the department itself had nominated John Maynard Keynes to receive an honorary doctorate at the Tercentenary celebrations in 1936 (…but that honor somehow escaped Keynes…).

__________________________

Departmental Recommendation
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 23, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

The Department of Economics has considered the reappointment of Paul Marlor Sweezy whose term as a Faculty Instructor expires in the current year. The Executive Committee voted unanimously that he be reappointed without specification of the term of such reappointment. It then voted to appoint him a Faculty Instructor for a period of five years. As indicated on the detailed record of this ballot, there were two dissenting votes. Letters from Professors Burbank and Slichter will explain in detail their reasons for not approving of the five-year term.

                  Mr. Sweezy’s instruction is in the fields of Industrial Organization and Socialism, and is primarily undergraduate. He is an experienced tutor, and at present is one of the two Examiners in Economics. He would at any time be considered a strong candidate for a Faculty Instructorship, and is especially valuable to the Department now in view of the recent departure of so many of our younger staff.

                  Biographical and bibliographical data are enclosed on separate sheets.

Yours very truly,
(S) E. H. Chamberlin
E. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
Copied by: MEH

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Departmental Vote
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

Paul Marlor Sweezy

                  At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Department of Economics on February 13, 1940, upon motion of Dean Williams, it was voted unanimously that we favor the reappointment of Paul Sweezy, without specification of term.

Professor Black Yes
Professor Burbank Yes
Professor Chamberlin Yes
Professor Crum Yes
Professor Frickey Yes
Professor Haberler Yes
Professor Hansen Yes
Professor Harris Yes
Professor Leontief Yes
Professor Mason Yes
Dr. Monroe Yes
Professor Schumpeter Yes
Professor Slichter Yes
Dr. Taylor Yes
Professor Usher Yes
Dean Williams Yes
Professor Wilson Yes

Dean Williams then moved that we recommend the appoint of Paul Sweezy as Faculty Instructor for a five-year term. The motion was carried with two dissenting votes.

Professor Black Yes
Professor Burbank No
Professor Chamberlin Yes
Professor Crum Yes
Professor Frickey Yes
Professor Haberler Yes
Professor Hansen Yes
Professor Harris Yes
Professor Leontief Yes
Professor Mason Yes
Dr. Monroe Yes
Professor Schumpeter Yes
Professor Slichter No
Dr. Taylor Yes
Professor Usher Yes
Dean Williams Yes
Professor Wilson Yes

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Burbank’s Dissent
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 17, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

                  You are familiar with the recommendation of the Executive Committee of the Department of Economics regarding Dr. Paul Sweezy.

                  Since I voted against the recommendation which is in your hands, I should like to state the reasons for my action.

                  I strongly favor continuing the present appointment of Dr. Sweezy for two years, or voting him a five-year appointment from 1937. Either action would give him a full five-year faculty term.

                  I take this position because I believe his status should be reviewed in about two years. The members of the Executive Committee have known Sweezy for a long period. We are, or should be, altogether familiar with his work and his promise for growth and accomplishment. I place two more years rather than four or five as the better time for revision both from Sweezy’s point of view and from the point of view of the Department.

                  I  have had many years of experience in placing men in other institutions. It has been our experience that it is extremely difficult to place the better men advantageously after they have passed the early thirties. In this particular category the matter of a few years is of real significance. If, in 1945, Sweezy should not be advanced, the difficulties in securing an acceptable place for him will be increased. I hope this can be avoided. I believe that the colleagues who are the principal supporters of the motion for the longer term would declare that this argument carries little or no weight. However, the fact that Dr. Sweezy has no invitations from other institutions of high standing carries very considerable weight in its bearing on this problem.

                  I was reluctant to recommend a longer appointment at this time because of my estimate of Dr. Sweezy’s promise.

                  In the immediate past men have not been advanced and have gone elsewhere who were regarded, I believe, by a majority of the members of the Committee as superior to Dr. Sweezy. There are a number of men on the ground whom I regard as more promising.

                  Further, I believe that in our present situation our Instructorships should be well staggered and filled with regard for our long-time development. Considering the urgent needs of the Department in particular areas, I think it unwise to fill too many places immediately. I urge this policy strongly, since I am convinced that in some fields it is likely to be exceedingly difficult to uncover the requisite ability. It may be decidedly to our advantage to develop competition in these areas, — that is, two Instructors in the subjects involved. I would not urge this course for all areas of study and instruction, but in Agriculture and related problems, and in Labor and related problems I believe such competition may be essential.

Very sincerely yours,
(s) H. H. Burbank
H. H. Burbank

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Copied by: MEH

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Slichter’s Dissent
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 19, 1940

Dean W. S. Ferguson
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Dean Ferguson:

                  At a meeting of the Department of Economics on February 13, I voted for the reappointment of Mr. Paul Sweezy as faculty instructor but against a term of five years. I favor a two-year term.

                  Mr. Sweezy is just completing a three-year term as faculty instructor. Consequently appointment for two more years would convert his three-year term into a five-year term which is more normal. On the other hand, appointment for five years following three would put Mr. Sweezy in a special class among faculty instructors and would easily be interpreted as a stronger endorsement of his work and qualifications than I think we are warranted in giving.

                  No one, of course, knows how rapidly Mr. Sweezy will develop during the next few years but I think that the chances are against our desiring to offer him a permanent place. If that is so, a two-year appointment is fairer than a five-year both to him and to the University.

Sincerely yours,
(S) Sumner H. Slichter

Copied by: MEH

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Appendix: Sweezy c.v.

Paul Marlor Sweezy

Biography

Born April 10, 1910

A.B., Harvard, 1931
A.M., Harvard, 1934
Ph.D., Harvard, 1937

Married

1934-37 Annual Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics, Harvard.

1937-40 Faculty Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics, Harvard, for three years.

Bibliography

“A Note on Relative Shares,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. I, No. 1, October 1933.

“Pigou’s Theory of Unemployment,” Journal of Political Economy, December, 1934.

“Economics and the Crisis of Capitalism,” The Economic Forum, Spring, 1935.

“John Strachey’s Theory and Practice of Socialism,” review in The Nation, December 5, 1936.

“On the Definition of Monopoly,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1937.

“Review of The United States: A Graphic History, by Louis Hacker et al.,” The Nation, December 11, 1937.

“Review of Economics for Everybody, by Mervyn Crobaugh,” The Nation, December 25, 1937.

“Review of Socialism versus Capitalism, by A. C. Pigou,” The Nation, February 5, 1938; and Plan Age, March 1938.

“Review of The Promises Men Live By, by Harry Schernan,” The Nation, March 26, 1938.

“Review of Socialism, by Ludwig Mises,” Science and Society, Spring, 1938.

“Wage Policies and Investment,” American Economic Review, Supplement, March, 1938.

“Review of On the Economic Theory of Socialism, by Oskar Lange and Fred M. Taylor,” The Nation, June 25, 1938.

“Expectations and the Scope of Economics,” Review of Economic Studies, June, 1938.

“Review of Confessions of an Economic Heretic, by J. A. Hobson,” The Nation, August 27, 1938.

An Economic Program for American Democracy. With R. V. Gilbert, G. H. Hildebrand, Jr., A. W. Stuart, W. Y. Sweezy, L. Tarshis, and J. D. Wilson. The Vanguard Press. 1938.

Monopoly and Competition in the English Coal Trade, 1550-1850. (Wells Prize essay 1937-38.) Harvard Economic Studies Vol. LXIII. Harvard University Press. 1938.

“Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly,” Journal of Political Economy, August 1939.

“The Thinness of the Stock Market,” American Economic Review, December, 1938.

“Review of Full Recovery or Stagnation, by A. H. Hansen,” The Nation, November 19, 1938.

“The Power of the Purse,” The New Republic, February 8, 1939.

“Marx on the Significance of the Corporation,” Science and Society, Spring 1939.

“Review of The Brandeis Way, by A. I. Mason,” Harvard Law Review, April, 1939.

“Review of Jobs for All, by Mordecai Ezekiel,” The New Republic, April 19, 1939.

“Government Spending, its Tasks and Limits,” (discussion), Social Research, May, 1939.

“Is Further Debt Financing Sound?” (symposium), The Business Bulletin, May, 1939.

“Review of Man’s Estate, by Alfred M. Bingham,” The Boston Transcript, July 22, 1939.

“Public Works as an Aid to Private Investment,” The American City, July, 1939.

“Review of Henry George, by Albert Jay Nock,” The Nation, October 28, 1939.

“Review of Ideas are Weapons, by Max Lerner,” The Nation, December 2, 1939.

“Major Interest Groups in the American Economy,” Appendix No. 11 in The Structure of the American Economy, National Resources Committee, 1939.

In preparation:

Lectures on Marxian Economic Theory. Accepted for publication by the Oxford University Press. (Eight chapters completed in first draft.

“A Contribution to the Economic History of the Law of Corporations.” Accepted for publication by The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Dean Signals Green Light
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

C O P Y

February 26, 1940.

Dear Mr. Chamberlin:

                  I confirm herewith the message I gave you by telephone this morning, that we are agreed to have Dr. Paul Sweezy appointed as Faculty Instructor for five years beginning on September 1, 1940. It is part of this transaction that you and we are agreed that Dr. Sweezy should be informed (first) that this appointment involves no commitment for his election to a vacancy on the permanent staff, (second) that he will be considered for election to such a vacancy in competition both with other Faculty Instructors on the staff and with outsiders, and (third) that in all likelihood this competition will be severe.

                  Will you kindly write to him to this effect and send to me both a copy of your letter and of his acknowledgment of its receipt?

                  I am

Yours sincerely,
[unsigned]

Professor E. H. Chamberlin

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Chairman Informs Sweezy
of the Appointment Decision

COPY

February 29, 1940

Dear Paul:

This letter is to confirm our conversation of several days ago. The Department of Economics has voted for you a five-year appointment as Faculty Instructor dating from September 1940, and this appointment has been approved by both Dean Ferguson and by President Conant. It goes without saying that it is an expression of a belief in your promise as an economist and in your continued usefulness to the Department over the five years to come.

                  The appointment, made during the transition from the old system to the new, in effect continues your tenure on a non-permanent basis over a period of eight years from your Ph.D. which is perfectly normal, but has the unusual result of extending over the entire eight-year period your status as “Faculty Instructor.” For this reason apprehension has been expressed both in the Department and by the University administration lest it be misinterpreted. In fairness to you it should be made perfectly clear that no one regards this appointment as involving any commitment whatever for subsequent election for a permanent position at Harvard. When such a permanent position is to be filled, the competition will include, as well as yourself and other Faculty Instructors on the ground, former members of the Department and still others from the outside. It looks now as if this competition would be severe.

                  I trust that you will understand the importance of avoiding any misunderstanding at this time. Will you please let me have an acknowledgement to this letter.

Sincerely yours,
(s) E. H. Chamberlin

Dr. Paul M. Sweezy
10 Forest Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Sweezy Confirms Understanding
Tenure Review will be Competitive

COPY

March 3, 1940

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin,
Department of Economics,
Littauer Center,
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Professor Chamberlin,

                  I have your letter of February 29th regarding my appointment to a five year term as Faculty Instructor beginning next fall. Needless to say I am happy that the Department and the Administration feel the confidence in my work to date which this appointment implies.

                  I note that both the Department and the Administration are anxious to make it quite clear that this appointment carries with it no implication of further commitments. You may rest assured that I understand the situation in this respect completely; this letter will serve to furnish a formal record of the fact.

Sincerely,
(sgd.) Paul M. Sweezy

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Official Announcement
of the Appointment Decision

PAUL MARLOR SWEEZY

Recommendation of the Dean of the Faculty:

                  I recommend the appointment of Dr. Paul Sweezy as Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Department of Economics for five years from September 1, 1940. Dr. Sweezy’s three-year term as Faculty Instructor expires this year. Prior to his present appointment he served three years as Annual Instructor before receiving his doctorate. Consequently he is entitled under our rules to the five-year Faculty Instructorship for which he is recommended. He is thirty years of age.

                  The vote of the Department on which this recommendation is based was not unanimous. The two dissenters preferred to have the five-year period divided into two periods, one of two years and the other of three. This division seems to me to conflict with the essential idea on which the new type of Faculty Instructorship rests. It denies him the opportunity of sufficient time, free from the consequences on himself and his work of an intervening judgment, in which to demonstrate his scholarship. On the plan of the dissenters Dr. Sweezy would come up for consideration again a year hence. It is not urged that the Department would be in a better position to reach a definite decision regarding him twelve months from now than it is in at present. The action recommended by the great majority of the Department is best calculated to give Dr. Sweezy a fair chance. The Department has only one other Faculty Instructor on the five-year tenure at present and he has just been appointed. Their quota is six. Hence they could have another man in direct competition with Dr. Sweezy in 1944. Dr. Sweezy is comparatively young. There is, therefore, little risk in keeping him on for five years longer. In a subject like Economics the five years between the ages of 30 and 35 constitute the period in which a man ordinarily comes to maturity.

                  The enclosed letter from me to Professor Chamberlin makes clear to Dr. Sweezy the situation in which he stands on entering on his five-year term.

[signed] W. S. Ferguson

March 20, 1940.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Memorandum of the discussion between Mr. Albert Bigelow, Professors Burbank and Chamberlin, and Assistant Dean Buck, and myself [W. S. Ferguson, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences] Thursday, May 9, 1940.
Dramatis Personae

Albert Francis Bigelow. Harvard Class of 1903. Harvard Law Graduate. Member of the Economics Visiting Committee. Republican member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives 1925-1944. [His son, Albert Bigelow, was a prominent pacifist.]

Paul Herman Buck. Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, associate professor in history as of 1939. He received the Pulitzer prize in American History in 1938 for his book on the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War.

William Scott Ferguson. Dean of Faculty of Arts and Sciences, McLean Professor of Ancient and Modern History (Fun fact: Ferguson invented the reading period at Harvard)

Harold Hitchings Burbank, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy. Former chairman of the Department of Economics, chairman of the Board of Tutors in the Division of History, Government and Economics.

Edward Hastings Chamberlin, Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Department of Economics.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Mr. Bigelow presented newspaper and other clippings as evidence that Mr. Sweezy advocated economic doctrines in regard to the utility of government-spending in excess of income, and ways of meeting huge deficits, which characterized Mr. Sweezy in Mr. Bigelow’s opinion as an opponent of capitalism and, on this basis, queried “whether or not he arrived at his views by thorough scholarship and by intellectual processes which command the respect of his peers” — that is to say, met the conditions formulated in the Report of the Visiting Committee of the Economics Department for 193[last digit omitted]. General discussion followed. Professor Chamberlin pointed out that the position taken by Mr. Sweezy was substantially that held by Professor Keynes of Cambridge University, scholar to whom Harvard had tendered an honorary degree at the Tercentenary. Neither Professor Burbank nor Professor Chamberlin was able to define the degree of Mr. Sweezy’s radicalism and affirmed vigorously that in making their recommendation the Department was not actuated for or against him by considerations of his politico-economic opinions. They regarded Mr. Sweezy as a well-trained economist, a man of real ability, and an excellent teacher. Mr. Bigelow raised the question whether the point of view advocated sympathetically by Mr. Sweezy was not considered dispassionately by other members of the Department in their teaching. Professor Burbank affirmed that this was the case, adding that the men who agitated irresponsibly on matters of current controversy were not in the Harvard Department of Economics.

                  Mr. Bigelow also inquired whether Mr. Sweezy was not likely to influence emotionally the opinions of young men predisposed by present conditions to seek, by any or every means, an escape from their immediate troubles. The point was made that individual undergraduates were taught economics not by one man alone but by at least four or five, among them men who were more orthodox than he in their economic theories. Professors Burbank and Chamberlin were clear that it was impossible not to have instruction on socialism in the Economics Department at Harvard and that without the services of Sweezy they would be very hard put to give it. Accordingly somebody else would be needed to replace Mr. Sweezy; and, according to Mr. Burbank, there was only one man in the country whom they regarded as his superior (Lange of Chicago) and whom in his opinion they would prefer to Sweezy when and if they contemplated making a permanent appointment in this field. He is not procurable on an Instructor’s salary. Professor Burbank thought that the needs of the Department on its permanent staff placed Labor, Economic History, and Agricultural Economics prior to the field represented by Mr. Sweezy. It was pointed out by Mr. Buck that with its quota of six Faculty Instructors, the Department could easily provide for these permanent needs and yet retain Mr. Sweezy as a Faculty Instructor of the new type. He pointed out that since the Department would have at best only two Faculty Instructors next year (excluding Sweezy) they had a real need for Sweezy to insure greater continuity in tutoring and to perform other departmental duties such as the conduct of General Final Examinations. This was admitted by both Mr. Burbank and Mr. Chamberlin.

                  I took the point of view that I was recommending Mr. Sweezy’s appointment on the grounds of his training in Economics and his intellectual distinction and his excellence as a teacher, adding that since the question of his opinions had been raised I should like to urge that neither at the present time nor a year from now* could an explanation be given which would seem to Mr. Sweezy or his friends to be at all adequate for our failure to reappoint him: in view of our agreement as to his qualifications he would be entitled to think that he was denied the type of appointment granted to his competitors primarily because of his political opinions, whereas should he be given his five-year appointment and not elected to a permanency at its termination (which Professor Burbank thought highly probable) there would be an explanation for letting him go which he could not contest; namely, the prior needs for men in other fields, the fact that, however good they were, only one Faculty Instructor out of every two would find a vacancy open for him, and the regularity of turn-over at that stage.

                  Mr. Bigelow intimated that he might wish to discuss the matter further with me and with President Conant. (Mr. Bigelow called me up later to say that he would ventilate the problem on Monday but would not press for adverse action.

[signed] W. S. Ferguson

* The date at which a decision would have to be made if he were given a two-year appointment only.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 154, Folder “Economics, 1939-1940”.

Image Source: Paul Sweezy in the Harvard Class Album 1942.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate courses taken by John F. Kennedy, Class of 1940

 

In an earlier post Economics in the Rear-view Mirror presented James Laurence Laughlin’s recollection of Theodore Roosevelt’s economics education at Harvard.

This post moves us forward to the graduate of the Class of 1940, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who it took the standard two term principles of economics followed by three semester courses in economics at Harvard. The future president was a concentrator in the government department which accounted for much more of his studies.

We begin with a complete list of the courses taken by Kennedy that is probably not untypical for your average government major except for maybe the junior semester abroad to England where his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., happened to be serving as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

As it turns out, material for three of the courses taken by Kennedy have already been transcribed and posted.

Economics A. Principles of Economics (1936-37).
Economics 11b. Economics of Socialism (2nd term, 1940).
Economics 62b. Industrial Organization and Control (2nd term, 1940).

To help complete the picture this post adds the final examination for Kennedy’s junior year course Economics 61a, The Corporation and its Regulation. The reading list for this course used in the following year (Kennedy’s senior year, 1939-40) has been transcribed and posted earlier.

Fun fact: Nobel prize economist and economic adviser to JFK, Professor James Tobin of Yale was a fellow student in the Principles of Economics course taken by Kennedy. Plot spoiler: Tobin got an A in Economics A.

____________________________

Undergraduate Courses Taken by John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Class of 1940

Note: Second term senior year courses are listed without a final grade because final examination were waived for the history, government, and economics division honors examination

JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY
S.B. cum laude June 20, 1940
Field of Concentration Government

Freshman year (1936-37)

English A. Rhetoric and English Composition, Oral and Written. (Not Required)

English 1. History and Development of English Literature in Outline. Professor Munn. (C)

Economics A. Principles of Economics. Professor Burbank. (B)

History 1. European History from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Present Time. Professor Merriman. (C)

French F. Introduction to France. Professor Morize. (C)

Sophomore year (1937-38)

English F1. Public Speaking. Asst. Professor Packard. (C)

Fine Arts 1e. Interpretation of Selected Works of Art: an Introduction to Art History. Professor Koehler. (C)

Government 1. Modern Government. Professors Holcombe and Elliott. (C)

History 32a1. Continental Europe; 1815-1871. Professor Langer. (D)

History 32b2. Continental Europe; 1871-1914. Professor Langer. (C)

Government 302. New Factors in International Relations: Asia. Asst. Professor Hopper. (B)

Junior year (1938-39)

Economics 61a1. The Corporation and its Regulation. Professor Mason. (C)

English A-11. English Composition. Messrs. Davis, Gordan, Bailey and McCreary. (B)

Government 7a1. The National Government of the United States: Politics. Professor Holcombe. (B)

Government 9a1. State Government in the United States. Professor Hanford. (B)

Government 181. New Factors in International Relations: Europe. Associate Professor Hopper. (B)

History 551. History of Russia. Asst. Professor Karpovich. (B)

Second Term Leave of absence (England)

Senior year (1939-40)

Economics 11b2. Economics of Socialism. Dr. P. M. Sweezy.

Economics 62b2. Industrial Organization and Control. Professor Mason.

Government 3a1. Principles of Politics. Professor Elliott. (B)

Government 4. Elements of International Law. Associate Professor P. S. Wild. (B)

Government 22. Theses for Honors. Members of the Department. (B)

Government 8a1. Comparative Politics: Bureaucracy, Constitutional Government and Dictatorship. Professor Friedrich. (B)

Government 10a2. Government of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Professor Elliott.

Government 281. Modern Imperialism. Associate Professor Emerson. (B)

Source: John F. Kennedy Academic Record at Harvard.  John F. Kennedy Personal Papers, 1917-1963, Harvard University Files, 1917-1963/Academic Records 1939-1940; John F. Kennedy Harvard Course Transcript. John F. Kennedy Personal Papers, 1917-1963, Harvard University Files, 1917-1963/Course listing.

____________________________

The Corporation and its Regulation
First Semester 1938-39

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 61a 1hf. Professor Mason and Dr. P. M. Sweezy. — The Corporation and its Regulation.

Total 209: 2 Graduates, 57 Seniors, 110 Juniors, 29 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 10 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1938-39, p. 98.

Reading Period Assignment
January 5-18, 1939

Economics 61a: Read one of the following

  1. Larcom, R. C., The Delaware Corporation.
  2. Flynn, Security Speculation.
  3. Lowenthal, The Investor Pays.
  4. Gordon, Lincoln, The Public Corporation in Great Britain, omit pp. 156-244.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 2. Folder “Economics,1938-1939”, Reading Period, p.3.

Final Examination (Mid-Year)

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 61a1

PART I

Write a critical review of your reading period work (about one hour).

PART II
Answer two questions.

  1. Discuss the influence of depreciation policies in the determination of net income.
  2. In corporate reorganizations what considerations determine the priority of claims on the assets of the reorganized company?
  3. “The large corporation is a bureaucracy of much the same type as a government agency. As such it faces all the management problems faced by bureaucracy.” Discuss.

PART III
Answer two questions.

  1. “The only people who gain from the stock market are brokers and speculators. Corporations, investors and underwriters would be better off if there were no stock market.” Analyse this statement with respect to each class of person or institution named.
  2. Discuss the direction and significance of present trends in the ownership of securities in the United States.
  3. Write on either the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Describe the main problems with which the act in question is intended to deal, any previous efforts to solve these problems, and how the act proposes to solve them.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-Year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 13. Bound volume “Mid-Year Examinations 1939”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1940.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1941-1946

This post adds the Chairman’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the World War II years to the series:

Department of Economics Reports to the Dean of Harvard, 1932-1941

More about Harvard during WWII: Coreydon Ireland, “Harvard Goes to War,” The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

_______________________

1941-42

October 15, 1942

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

The only honor conferred upon a member of the Department during this period has been the election of Professor Leontief to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Several books have been published by members of the Department, including Professor Harris’s two major works (appearing, I believe, not more than a month apart), The Economics of American Defense and Economics of Social Security; Professor Black’s Parity, Parity, Parity; Professor Hansen’s Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles; and Professor Haberler’s Consumer Credit and Economic Fluctuations. Professor Haberler’s Prosperity and Depression has also gone through a third edition. Professor Crum was co-author of Fiscal Planning for Total War. The list of articles, pamphlets, reviews, and other items seems unusually long. Professor Hansen has listed thirteen items, Professor Slichter eight, and Professor Black six. The Harvard Economic Studies has expanded from 70 to 72 volumes during the year.

The contribution of the Department to the war effort has been substantial. Professor Mason continues on leave of absence with the Office of Strategic Services, and Professor Harris has recently been granted full time leave to serve as Director of the Division of Export-Import Price Control in the Office of Price Administration. Among those in the Department who are more or less active as Consultants or in other part time war activities are Professors Black, Crum, Hansen, Leontief, and Slichter, and Dr. Butters. Numerous younger men have, of course, entered the war services or have declined possible reappointment at Harvard in order to accept administrative and research positions in Washington.

The problem of maintaining instructional standards has, of course, been aggravated by the war. Fortunately, exceptions to the two-thirds rule have been granted in many cases; otherwise it would have been literally impossible in the face of competing wartime opportunities to recruit a staff of younger men at all. Out of the present staff of fifteen teaching fellows eleven are on more than two-thirds time, and almost without exception these men would not have been available (that is, not even at two-thirds time) if exceptions to the rule had not been made. The average experience of the Economics A staff has improved owing to a policy of putting more experienced men into Economics A and breaking in new men either in tutorial work or in the Statistics and Accounting courses. 36% of concentrators in Economics are tutored by new men this year; 60% by men of one year or less experience. The very sizeable staff in Statistics and Accounting is made up almost entirely of new appointees.

In view of the desperate need for trained economists in the expanding activities of the United States Government, the Department has announced for the current year an Undergraduate Training Program in Economics for Government Service which has attracted a substantial enrolment. The program has been opened to non-honors as well as to honors candidates. It has been carefully designed to give advanced training of a type which will enable them to undertake with a minimum of delay and adaptation administrative and research positions in the government service. It includes, in addition to a substantial corps of standard courses in Economics, three new courses, namely, Economics 7a and 7b, Research in Market Organization, Commodity Distribution, and Prices; Economics 19a, Research in Money and Finance; and Economics 22b, Government Statistics. One striking indication of the merits of this program might appear in the fact that a program of training announced by the Department of Government seems to consist essentially in normal concentration Government plus an election from these new courses in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

E. H. Chamberlin

Dean Paul H. Buck

_______________________

1942-43

October 21, 1943

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith the report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year.

The war effort has continued to deplete our staff. Since the opening of the academic year Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and Dr. Dunlop have been granted leave of absence to undertake work in war agencies in Washington. However, Professor Crum resumes his work with the Department after leave of absence from the University to conduct an investigation on Fiscal Planning for the National Bureau of Economic Research of which he is currently the Chairman. Also Associate Professor Seymour Harris has returned to the University after a year and a half of service with the Office of Price Administration where he served as Director of the Office of Import-Export Price Control. A very small fraction of the once large junior staff now remains. By the end of the coming term it is expected that not more than four Annual Instructors will be active in instruction.

The incidence of war activities on research and publication has been two-fold. In some instances long-time research projects have been put aside, but concurrently much effort has been applied to projects concerned with war and post-war problems. Having in mind the inevitable interruptions of the war period, it is gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses and reports have been in about the same number as the average of the immediately preceding years.

Of the major publications during the year the following should be mentioned:

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development

Edwin Frickey, Economic Fluctuations in the United States: a Systematic Analysis of Long-Run Trends and Business Cycles, 1866-1914

S. E. Harris, Economics of America at War

S. E. Harris, Editor, Postwar Economic Problems

A. P. Usher, The Early History of Deposit Banking in Mediterranean Europe has just left the press.

J. T. Dunlop, Cost Behavior and Price Policy

It is also indicative of the demands of war activities that some forty or fifty articles directly related to the war and post-war economy have been published by members of the Department. In addition numerous reports have been issued to or under the auspices of various war agencies such as Professor Harris, “O.P.A. Manual of Price Control” and his “Reports on Anti-Inflationary Programs in South America,” and Professor Crum’s memorandum on Fiscal Planning for Reconstruction and Peace for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics has continued successfully through another year, bringing the total volumes of this publication to 57. The Review of Economic Statistics now in its 25th volume is continuing under the editorship of Professor Harris. The Harvard Economic Studies is now publishing its 75th volume.

The rapid reduction in the numbers of the teaching staff has been met in part by the increased activity of those remaining. With the very active cooperation of the members of the staff we have been able to offer a reasonably full and well balanced program of instruction. On the graduate level flexibility of instruction has been more necessary than in previous years because of the cosmopolitan group now in attendance –not less than a dozen different nationalities are represented. This flexibility is being achieved largely by increased individual supervision and instruction.

The sharp decline in the undergraduate body together with the presence of a small but able and experienced staff of teachers has made possible a degree of experimentation in the introductory course in Economics which should lead to significant changes in the conduct of this course in the post-war period. Also at the present time some attention is being given to a question which has been in the minds of a number of members of the staff for some year—the so-called quiz section. It has been a quite common practice, in the conduct of middle group courses to provide for two lectures and one section meeting each week. On occasion five lectures are followed by the section meeting. For many years the usefulness of the section meeting has been in question. It is to be admitted that it does relieve the instructor of a lecture, but whether or not it provides equivalent or better instruction is debatable. At the present time Professor Crum and Dr. Smith are conducting a controlled experiment in the section meetings connected with their offering Government Control of Industry and Public Utilities. In the course time they will report their findings to the Department.

At this point I should like to mention the interesting and valuable “experiment” which Professor Slichter has called The Trade Union Fellowship Project. I am enclosing Professor Slichter’s report on this project which, I believe, you will find of interest. We regard the experiment as not only highly successful from both the point of view of the University and the Unions, but the experience furnishes a good deal of evidence regarding educational processes which may prove to be highly significant.

Very sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

_______________________

1943-44

October 13, 1944

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year.

In the main, this report is a continuation of the report sent to you a year ago. In spite of the multifarious wartime activities of the member of the staff, the Department has maintained a well balanced offering of courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level. Course elections have continued to be surprisingly large, but I believe that the decline we have been expecting will actually begin with the Winter Term. The large proportion of foreign students on the graduate level, together with our inability to give complete offerings each Term, has necessitated an unusual amount of individual instruction.

Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave for the entire year. Professor Haberler resumed his work with us for the Summer Term.

I can repeat from my report of last year that the incidence of war activities on research and publication has been twofold. Most of our long time research projects have been put aside, but currently many projects concerned with war and postwar problems have been initiated and some of them completed. Although publication has been diminished by war activities, it is still gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses, and reports—although not in quite the same quantity as in the prewar years—have nevertheless appeared in substantial numbers. Progress on the publication of books has shown a more definite interruption, but four books have been published during the year and not less than six books are now either actually in the press or are nearing form for publication. The books published during the year were:

J. D. Black, Food Enough

A. H. Hansen, (with H. S. Perloff), State and Local Finance in the National Economy

S. H. Slichter, Present Savings and Postwar Markets

J. H. Williams, Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays

Both of our periodicals — the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics — have been able to continue publication without interruption and have been able to maintain their high standards. The difficulties encountered by scientific periodicals during these years are very real. One other volume has been added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

In my last report I mentioned the experimentation, particularly in the Introductory course, which had been initiated. I am very happy to be able to report that this experimentation has continued through another year with very gratifying results. A very interesting problem is involved in the attempt to present adequately the introductory material in Economies. Most of us who have been intimately concerned with the problem believe that a single course can serve both for those who will concentrate in Economics and for those whose main, interest lie elsewhere. The content of such a course, and the effective presentation of the material, is now being studied.

I might add here—because fundamentally it is experimentation in methods and relationships—that the Trade Union Fellowship Project has been conducted successfully for another year. At various times I have sort you Professor Slichter’s reports on these projects. We believe that a very interesting and productive educational experiment is being carried on with the Trade Union men.

Also in the sane connection I should like to record that during the last year we were presented with a variety of problems by the numerous South American students who came to us on the graduate level.We gave these students particular attention. By the end of the year we had learned that it would be highly profitable to develop for such students some specialized instruction which would overcome the difficulties under which all of them labored in their first term or two of residence. Their educational background, following European patterns, is such that it is necessary for us to present to them in concentrated form certain types of qualitative and quantitative analysis with which they are unfamiliar and which is not now offered on the graduate level.

The members of the Department have continued to discuss and to arrive at decisions regarding course instruction in the postwar years. In sone respects, we will strengthen the instruction offered mainly for the specialist in Economics, but we are more concerned with broader offerings which will prove to be desirable, and we hope necessary, for the college at large. Our permanent staff is large and versatile. We hope to be able to utilize to the full the resources we possess. In connection with the enrichment of our teaching, we expect to utilize more effectively in our instruction the material forthcoming from a number of proposed seminars.

It seems unnecessary to mention in detail the wartime activities of our staff members. Practically every member of the staff is actively engaged in some type of war activity. Without exception, each officer is utilizing his special aptitudes and training in connection with the various Federal agencies concerned with economic problems.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
University Hall 5
Cambridge, Massachusetts

_______________________

1944-45

October 24, 1945

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the Department of Economics for the last year.

As in the preceding war years, the Department has been able to present a very respectable offering of courses, both on the graduate and undergraduate level. The number of graduate students continued to be unexpectedly large, necessitating a rather more elaborate course offering for them than we had planned. To a somewhat larger extent than in the two preceding years the students enrolled represent such a diverse background of training and experience that sone new types of instruction were involved. Some seventeen nationalities were represented. We are inclined to believe that this is not altogether a temporary and war situation. Even after the European universities are reestablished, we expect to draw many students with foreign background and training. If this expectation is fulfilled, our wartime experience with foreign students will have been of considerable value.

Even before the war the Department was concerned with the reorganization of its instruction. Our discussions continued throughout the year materializing in a curriculum in theoretical and applied Economics which tends to utilize to the full the unusual capacities of the members of the staff. Our present position, however, is by no means definitive. We have always relied heavily upon the stimulating intellectual activities of the younger members of the staff. When recruitment is again possible we expect to strengthen our position markedly through the cooperation of these younger members.

The reorganization of instruction has been concerned mainly with the content and coverage of courses, but in some cases it has dealt with the actual methods of classroom instruction. The introductory course has been completely recast, involving new types of material and new methods of presentation. The full effects of these changes will have to wait upon the enlargement of our junior staff. Also, some of our plans involving quantitative instruction necessarily are held in abeyance until the questions regarding a statistical laboratory have been settled.

The war effort of many officers of the Department continued through the year. Professor Mason and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave from the University devoting their entire time to their respective wartime assignments. Professor Chamberlin returned to Cambridge in February from his post with the office of Strategic Services. Other members of the Department, particularly Professors Hansen, Slichter, Harris, Leontief and Black, while meeting their University obligations also served in various capacities with wartime agencies.

The incidence of this wartime service upon research and publishing activities of the group was marked. Both books and articles were fewer in number than in the normal year and in the main reflected the particular war activities of the authors. However, in all some

34 articles and 7 books were published. It should be noted that at least three volumes which the authors had expected to complete in the last year are now being prepared for the press.

The difficulties involved in the publication of scientific journals have been great but not insurmountable. We have been able to continue the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics without reduction in size and without omission of numbers. In the Harvard Economic Series [rest of line blank] that some four volumes either in the hands of the press or the Department were ready for publication but because of the war restrictions were not actually published.

Latterly the Department has been concerned with the vexing problems of the definition of objectives of students on the graduate level and the adjustment of these objectives to the various higher degrees offered. We are concerned with the administration not only of the Ph.D. degree in Business Economies, the Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government, and in part with the Ph.D. in Public Administration which may be conferred through the Littauer School of Public Administration. The problems involved in defining and administering each of these degrees will receive continued attention.

Although no honorary degrees have been reported by members of the staff, Professor E. H. Chamberlin was elected Membre Correspondent de L’Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, May 1945, and Professor S. E. Harris was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Very sincerely,

[H.H. Burbank]

_______________________

1945-46

September 30, 1946

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the Department of Economics for the academic year 1945-46.

Although the Department of Economics had anticipated to a considerable extent the problems that would be presented by the post-war situation, it found the academic year 1945-46 presenting difficulties for which there, was no immediate solution.

Fortunately we had devoted a great deal of time and thought to our course offering and to methods of instruction. We were moderately well prepared to take up the new work involved in new instruction and also the work involved in changing the content of, old courses. Again we were fortunate in being able to meet most of the difficulties presented by the unprecedented number of graduate students. With all of the permanent members of the staff in residence, we were able to meet the graduate situation although it taxed our resources to the limit. Many of our most insistent problems were concerned with the difficulties we met in assembling and training an adequate junior staff. We began the fall term with 2 Assistant Professors (Faculty Instructors), 3 Annual Instructors, and 7 Teaching Fellows. The staff was increased during the year but it was far from adequate to meet the course work, involved in our offering. However, this would seem to be a problem of relatively short duration. A few young scholars are being brought from other institutions and occupations and our Graduate School contains a number of most promising young scholars whose development is proceeding rapidly.

During the fall of 1945 the Department surveyed repeatedly the obligations it had undertaken. We were committed to an elaborate course offering. He realized that the permanent personnel of the Department could not be expanded and we recognized that in the range of the junior staff immediate and extensive increases in personnel also were impossible. Because of the irreducible demands upon our limited resources, we reconsidered repeatedly our efforts in the area of tutorial instruction and eventually voted to suspend tutorial instruction for a period with the stipulation that the subject be reconsidered at such time as the Department might see fit and in no event not later than two years.

The foregoing remarks have indicated that all members of the staff are carrying much heavier loads than in pre-war days. The burden necessarily is apportioned unevenly but all are affected. The main incidence of this situation is on research. For some officers it means that research must be put aside temporarily. For others, less than ordinary progress is being made. However, as the following titles indicate, the contributions have been substantial:

Black, John D., and a committee consisting of M. R. Benedict, S. T. Dana, and L. K. Pomeroy; Credit for Small Timberland Owners, Including Farmers with Woodlands; A Report on Forest Credit. (In press)

Black, John D., with some guidance from Jorge Ahumada of Chile, Roberto Arellano Bonilla of Honduras, and Jorge Alcazer of Bolivia; Farm Cost Analysis, with Some Reference

Black, John D.; Clawson, Marion; Sayre, C.F.; Willcox, W. W.; Farm Management. The Macmillan Company (in press).

Chamberlin, E. H.; Fifth edition of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Chapter added). Translation of the above book into Spanish.

Crum, W. L., and Schumpeter, J. A.; Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians. McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. H.; America’s Role in the World Economy. W. W. Norton.

Hansen, A. H.; The United States After the War. Cornell Uiv. Press.

Hansen, A. H.; Financing American Propsperity. 20th Century Fund.

Harris, S. E.; Price Control in the International Field. (In press)

Harris, S. E.; National Debt. (In press)

Mason, E. S.; Controlling World Trade; Cartels and Commodity Agreements. McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, T.; The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876. Stanford Press. (In press)

In addition to the above books, some 72 articles have been contributed to scientific journals. We feel particularly happy in having been able to carry our publications, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics, through the war period without serious alterations. Both publications are in sound financial condition. Actually, the Review of Economic Statistics will be in a much sounder position financially at the end of the current fiscal year than at the beginning of the war. However, increased publication costs are a matter for concern.

We have added two volumes to the Harvard Economic Series and published a revision of one. Three more volumes are now in the press. Again, increasing publication costs constitute a serious problem.

As mentioned above, all of the permanent officers of the Department had returned to active duty in Cambridge at the beginning of the year. A few officers have maintained contacts with various Washington departments and on occasion are called upon for consultation. In this connection, Professor John D. Black has served as Chairman of the Committee on Food Supplies for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council and also has served actively with at least four other agencies. Professor John T. Dunlop has served as Consultant in the Office of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion. Professor Seymour E. Harris has served as Consultant for the office of Price Administration. Professor Edward S. Mason has served as Consultant for the Department of State.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

_______________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

Image Source: A Harvard Army ROTC unit on parade along Memorial Drive, July 1943. From the Harvard Archives published in: Coreydon Ireland,  “To Honor the Living and Dead“, The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

Categories
Austria Economists Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. Ludwig von Mises visits the economics department, 1940

“Money as a Dynamic Factor” was the title of the talk given by Ludwig von Mises Thursday evening, December 5, 1940 at the Harvard department of economics. From a memo written by Paul Sweezy [transcribed for the following post] we know that the cocktail committee added sherry and whiskey to the selection of hard drinks served as refreshment that evening.

________________________

Carbon copy of letter from Chamberlin to Mises

November 20, 1940

Dear Dr. von Mises:

            The Department of Economics at Harvard would like to offer their graduate students the privilege of meeting you and hearing you while you are in this country. Would it be possible for you to speak at Harvard on the evening of either December 5 or December 12? If so, I should be glad to receive from you suggestions as to possible subjects. We should hope, too, that you would be able to remain in Cambridge for a day or so in order to give students and others a chance to talk with you informally. An honorarium of $100 will be paid (from which you would be expected to meet your own travelling expenses).

            I very much hope you will be able to accept this invitation.

Sincerely yours,

 

E. H. Chamberlin

Dr. Ludwig von Mises
599 West End Avenue
New York City

________________________

Mises’ Reply to Chamberlin

 Ludwig Mises

New York, Nov. 23, 1940

Dear Professor Chamberlin:

Thank you very much for your kind invitation. I shall be very pleased to address the graduate students of your Department.

            I hope that nothing will prevent me from delivering my address on the first of the two days you suggested in your letter (i.e. December 5) and to have informal talks with the students on the following days.

            Would you consider as a suitable topic for my address: “Money as a dynamic factor”?

Sincerely yours

[signed] L. Mises

________________________

Department Announcement
of Lecture by Mises

Department of Economics

Professor Ludwig von Mises, formerly of the University of Vienna and of the Institute for International Studies at Geneva, will speak on “Money as a Dynamic Factor”, in the Littauer Lounge at 8 P.M., Thursday, December 5 [1940].

(Open to members of the University)

________________________

Thank you note from Mises

New York, December 11, 1940

Dear Professor Chamberlin

Thank you for your kind letter of December 9. May I express once again my gratitude for the warm reception you and your colleagues accorded me. It was a great pleasure to me to have the opportunity to meet the distinguished members of your department.

Sincerely yours

Ludwig Mises

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961. Box 25 (Visiting Committees-Whippen), Folder: “Possible Visitors to Econ. Department”.

Image Source:  Ludwig von Mises (1935) at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Digital website.

Categories
Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. Report of the Cocktail Committee. Paul Sweezy, 1941

 

Departmental meetings with cocktails! What could possibly go wrong? Paul Sweezy   wrote the following memo that outlined his scheme to collect revenue to balance the budget of the Harvard economic department’s “Cocktail Committee”. While the average outlay of $3 per meeting seems rather modest when deflated by the bar price for martinis at the time, it is interesting to note that the whiskey and sherry expenditure for drinks following Ludwig von Mises’ talk (only sherry?) amounted to more than double the average cost. Quality vs. quantity vs. price? 

Incidentally, I love Sweezy’s distinction between meeting “attendance” and “participation”.

_________________________

Martini: Bar Price in 1940

We again find the quarter [i.e. $0.25] martini a couple years later, in Chicago of 1940, at Gimbel’s Restaurant and Cocktail Lounge, on a block of West Randolph Street not far from the Cook County Court House and Grant Park.

Source: Brent Cox, “How Much More Do Martinis Cost Today?” Posted at The Awl (June 5, 2012).

_________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

CAMBRIDGE, MASSSACHUSETTS

April 17, 1941

Report of the Cocktail Committee

There have been seven regular department meetings for which cocktails have been provided at a total cost of $21.65, or slightly over $3 per meeting.

In addition, at one meeting whiskey was provided and sherry was served at the Mises meeting, making a further cost of $6.57.

There will be two more regular meetings. Budgeting each of these for $3 brings the total outlay of the cocktail committee for the year to $34.22.

It is difficult to know how to apportion this expense most rationally. I suggest that the members of the department who have benefitted from the facilities provided divide themselves into three categories as follows:

(1) Those who have attended regularly and participated freely. $3 each.

(2) Those who have attended regularly and participated moderately, or attended irregularly and participated freely. $2 each.

(3) Those who have derived only occasional benefit. $1 each.

            It this scheme seems reasonable, I shall collect money at the April 22 meeting, or members may leave their contributions with Miss Tatnall. I shall then be in a position to make a final report to the May meeting on the yield of this particular tax system and to make any further recommendations which may be necessary.

Paul M. Sweezy

 

Source: Harvard University Archives, Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers  (UAV 349.11), Box 10, Folder “Department Meeting Agenda”.

Image Source: Paul Sweezy from the Harvard Class Album 1942.

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard Socialism Wing Nuts

Harvard. Veritas investigating Keynesian economics, 1960

 

It’s that time again to venture into the loony-fringe. There once were (ahem) woke Harvard alumni who wished to save the world from “Keynesism” among other dangers. They had their own modest foundation founded by the son of President Theodore Roosevelt and John Bircher, Archibald B. Roosevelt of the class of 1917. This post shares reports from the Harvard Crimson as well as a transcription of a four page pamphlet put out by the Veritas foundation with the title “Keynesism-Marxism at Harvard.”

In an earlier draft, I unfortunately confounded father with son, both Harvard alums, both Archies. I still include the obituary for President Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson, Archibald B. Roosevelt, Jr. who had quite a  C.I.A. career, if for no other reason than to offer some anecdotal evidence regarding the proposition that apples don’t fall far from their respective trees.

There is also some archival irony in the fact that the copy of the pamphlet “Keynesism-Marxism at Harvard” comes from the W.E.B. Du Bois papers at the University of Massachusetts.

__________________________

Veritas Foundation Given $10,000 For Probe of Economics Teaching
Pamphlet Raises Funds

By Michael Churchill, The Harvard Crimson, January 13, 1960.

The Veritas Foundation has raised “around $10,000” towards its goal of $25,000 in order to investigate the teaching of Economics at Harvard, according to Archibald B. Roosevelt [Sr.] ’17.

The money has come in response to a pamphlet circulated recently by the Foundation, “Keynesism-Marxism at Harvard” which charges that “the teaching of Economics has been abandoned at Harvard, and a political-Marxian-Keynesian-socialist propaganda has been substituted.”

A major portion of the pamphlet is devoted to attacking Keynesian theory as un-American and totalitarian. “Even a cursory analysis reveals that Keynesism is not an economic science, but is a political credo which in its main essentials coincides with the communist teachings of Karl Marx.” It specifically contends that “Keynesians attack the principle of individual thrift and personal savings” in order to undermine American initiative and freedom.

“The fountain-head of Keynesian socialism in America has been, and still is, Harvard University,” the Foundation claims, adding that its center within the University lies in the Economics Department.

“Professor Seymour E. Harris is probably the leading propagandist of Keynesism in the United States today. He has been backed by such well known economists as J.K. Galbraith, Alvin H. Hansen and Paul M. Sweezy. Other supporters of Keynesism are some remnants of the now defunct Socialist Party and a larger number of miscellaneous ‘left-wingers’ of the ADA stripe, including certain known partisans of the Soviet system,” the pamphlet declares.

Harris and Galbraith were the only active Harvard professors mentioned, Roosevelt said, because of space limitations in the four page article.

Roosevelt refused to disclose the names of the persons who prepared the preliminary report, saying that due to the battle between Keynesians and anti-Keynesians it would jeopardize the jobs of the two outside economists who contributed to its preparation.

The Foundation circular notes “Keynesian ideas enjoy almost a monopoly” in American colleges. The effect of this monopoly is that “pessimism, discouragement and the credo of despair have been skillfully instilled into the minds of our youth. It has been done with planned premeditation.”

“The prestige of Harvard University has been used to promote a destructive ideology,” it charges. Followers of the doctrine include “the whole gamut of the totalitarian world. Socialists, Nazis, Fascists, Argentine Peronistas, followers of Nehru and those in the United States who yearn for a ‘man on horseback’ have embraced the socio-economic thinking of Keynes.”

__________________________

‘Veritas’ Report To Reach 30,000

The Harvard Crimson, January 17, 1961.

A Veritas Foundation report accusing the Harvard faculty of left-wing activities will be circulated to 20,000 additional alumni, according to Kenneth D. Robertson, Jr. ’29, one of the founders of the Foundation.

The second printing will boost to 30,000 the number of copies of the study, which is called Keynes at Harvard, and is subtitled “Economic Deception as a Political Credo.”

Left wingers–“Fabians and Keynesians” have turned the Economics Department into a “virtual Keynesian monopoly,” the report claims. Citing Seymour E. Harris, Alvin H. Hansen, and other professors of Economics by name, the study points to the Department as “the breeding ground of much of the leftism in Harvard.”

A form letter was sent to thousands of Alumni urging them to buy the 114 page pamphlet, Robertson said.

The $25,000 report was financed by Alumni in response to a letter sent out by the Foundation. “Veritas” is headed by three Harvard graduates: Arthur B. Harlow ’25, William A. Robertson ’31, and Archibald Roosevelt ’31 [sic, should be class of ’17]

__________________________

KEYNESISM-MARXISM AT HARVARD

In the brief span that the Veritas Foundation has been in existence it has received an unusual number of complaints from alumni, parents, students and others who are disturbed by the twisted economic and social thinking of growing numbers of graduates and undergraduates of our colleges and universities. Large numbers of graduates entering into adult society were found to be obsessed with the concept that our free enterprise society is doomed. For years many of them have felt that it is of little use to enter into private enterprises, since such institutions are only surviving relics of the dying capitalist system which is not worth the political efforts necessary to save it.

Much of today’s college thinking reflects the following premises:

  1. The private enterprise system of the United States is full of basic contradictions and fundamental flaws which inevitably will relegate it to the scrap heap. At best, some of the useful features of the private enterprise system will be tolerated but only under government control and domination until a transition to something different is evolved.(1)
  2. Manufacturers, merchants, bankers and the host of corporate executives of the country are hopelessly reactionary and incapable of understanding the need of the “new order”.(2) These same “leaders” are somehow not so “good” or not so “kind of heart” as are those who belong to the ranks of “organized” labor. They are incapable of concern for the “social good”.
  3. Thrift, savings, ownership and accumulation of private property are harmful to society and are not socially compatible with the “new order” which is rising out of the ashes of the “old capitalist” system throughout the, world. In fact, the new Welfare State will handle entirely the basic security of the individual by dominating and regimenting all segments of society so that there will always be “full” employment and “maximum” production. This will eliminate the need for a personal nest egg for the future and thus savings and accumulations of wealth become unnecessary to the individual, who becomes a “ward” of the state.(3)
  4. Society is composed of classes and these classes are consciously banded together to protect their overall group interests. Persons who possess property, operate industry, direct the banks, and own stocks and bonds, as well as those who engage in transport and exchange goods and services are members of the capitalist class. This class is more selfish, grasping, hard hearted, calculating and reactionary than the rest of the population. This class also bands together in a conscious plot to keep the rest of society in economic and political subjection.(4)
  5. The scope of government must be expanded to stand as a “third force”, gradually expropriating or redistributing the wealth of existing capitalists through unrestricted powers of taxation and at the same time preventing the accumulation of any new capital. This philosophy is represented as essential to any “progressive” or “liberal” society. The process of gradual taking over by government of all productive enterprise, accompanied by less and less private saving and unlimited national debt will somehow eliminate recurring cycles of mass unemployment and depression, followed by short lived prosperity. Government must control all fiscal and monetary policies as well as all production, distribution of goods and services.(5)
  6. College and university graduates can insure their personal future by attaching themselves to government bureaucracy, which is destined to expand indefinitely. Other alternatives presented are large corporate “bureaucracies” which are destined to socialization by government, or the huge tax-free foundations which are considered mere precursors of future government agencies.

The above philosophy may sound like communist Marxist propaganda, but it isn’t. It is a basic pattern for “sneaking into socialism”. It is a type of thinking which is identified as Keynesism after an English economist, the late John Maynard Keynes. It was this pattern that the Labor Party in Great Britain followed in its efforts to convert that nation into a Welfare State.

The type of thinking and planning that goes under the “Keynesian” label represents one of the slickest and most deceptive economic and political philosophies in the free world today. Keynesian propaganda is usually prefaced by the claim that its purpose is to “save” the free enterprise system from itself. Almost every book written by Keynesians opens with that theme. However, the remedies suggested represent some form of “creeping” socialism which will by degrees bring about a regimented society in which the government becomes the sole controlling and directing force.(6)

Since Keynes wrote his sensational work “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” — (1936), the socialist movements in the United States, Great Britain and Germany have adopted his economic and social theories as the theoretical sinews of the “new” socialism”.(7)

The campaign to picture Keynes as the outstanding economist of “private enterprise” is a gross misrepresentation. For a number of years (prior to his 1936 book) Keynes’ ideas were considered as an important theoretical bulwark for the older doctrine of Fabian socialism. The Fabian movement was, however, the chief impetus behind the theory and early planning of British socialism, with overtones in the communist direction. Some Fabians were later identified as part of the Soviet espionage apparatus. Another (Sir Oswald Mosley) later led a movement in support of Nazism as a totalitarian prototype for the western world to follow. A book officially endorsed by Mussolini stated flatly that Keynesian principles were in operation under Fascism.

Keynesism has been accepted in the whole gamut of the totalitarian world. Socialists, Nazis, Fascists, Argentine Peronistas, followers of Nehru and those in the United States who yearn for a “man on horse­back” have embraced the socio-economic thinking of Keynes. Even Communists (who are supposed to be wedded only to Marx) have espoused the Keynesian dogma. Earl Browder, former head of the U. S. Com­munist Party was an open advocate of Keynes’ principles.(8)

The spread of Keynesian concepts throughout American colleges and universities has been phenomenal. It has grown to such dimensions that today in both the graduate and undergraduate fields of political economy the Keynesian ideas enjoy almost a monopoly. Except in our schools of Business Administration, the classical concepts of capitalism, private property, and the market economy have either been completely excluded from our colleges or are given a twisted and perverted presentation by Keynesian advocates. Sound economic principles are pictured as obsolete and inadequate for a modern industrial society.(9)

In tracing the growth of these ideas it soon becomes obvious that the fountain-head of Keynesian socialism in America has been, and still is, Harvard University. Harvard, on account of its academic prestige, was chosen the “launching pad” for the Keynesian rocket in America. Although the Keynesian concepts have spread throughout various departments of Iearning at Harvard the source and center of this ideology can be traced to the economics department of the college and its graduate school. The current chairman of this department, Professor Seymour E. Harris, is probably the leading propagandist of Keynesism in the United States today. He has been backed by such well known economists as J. K. Galbraith, Alvin H. Hansen and Paul M. Sweezy. Other supporters of Keynesism are some remnants of the now defunct Socialist Party and a larger number of miscellaneous “left-wingers” of the ADA stripe, including certain known partisans of the Soviet system.

In spite of some differences as to how to reach their goal, the advocates of Keynesism, like all the “left­wing” groups, belong to what may be called a political underworld. In the criminal underworld the various elements may cheat, shoot and kill one another, but they nevertheless present a general united front against their common foe, the police. The “left-wing” political underworld is likewise composed of elements that can fight each other, even unto death, but they consistently present a united front against the capitalist system.

The roster of those who have joined the Keynesian band wagon ranges from moderate socialistic “liberals” to the most ardent pro-soviet protagonists. The bulk of them, while claiming to be non-communists, eagerly join in the chorus against those who investigate communism, be they Congressional Committees, independent organizations or private individuals. The Keynesian crowd, in large measure, furnish support for the defense of those accused as Soviet spies and militantly uphold the right of communists to practice their subversion.(10)

Even a cursory analysis reveals that Keynesism is not an economic science, but is a political credo which in its main essentials coincides with the communist teachings of Karl Marx. Official communist publications accuse the Socialists of plagiarizing Karl Marx by offering Marxian theories under a Keynesian coating. Essentially the communist complaint against Keynesism is correct. Keynesism is basically Marxist in content. It is the same old wine in the same old bottles, but the labels are different.(11)

Keynesism, however, has a more subtle and deceptive approach than Marxism. Marxism openly announces its intent to overthrow the capitalist system. Keynesism gives lip service to the saving of capitalism, while its covert policies are calculated to make capitalism unworkable.

Marxism uses the regularly recognized economic terms in propounding its theory while Keynesism has invented an entire new nomenclature to replace the accepted terminology used in our classical economics.(12) Thus, in one fell swoop, the Keynesians have attempted to side track, by-pass and confuse, all minds previously educated in economic thinking, relegating them, so to speak, to the scrap heap. The new terms which are more abstract and vague than the time tested old ones, make it possible to indoctrinate an entire generation of college students exclusively with Keynesian dogma; while leaving it totally ignorant of the workings and benefits of our classical economic society. Keynesism (with its accompanying partner Marxism) dominates the sociological thinking in the academic world today. Students today cannot even understand the language of the pre-Keynesian treatises.(13)

A whole generation of college trained youth has been infected with the virus of Keynesism and Marxism.

Tens of thousands of young minds have been taught to lose faith in the economic system that has made the United States what it is today. Thousands of our future leaders have been discouraged from applying their personal initiative and talents towards the strengthening and perfection of the private enter­prise system. Pessimism, discouragement and the credo of despair have been skillfully instilled into the minds of our youth. It has been done with planned premeditation.

Keynesians attack the principle of individual thrift and personal savings. Their policy is fundamentally contrary to a “peoples capitalism” which encour­ages the small investors to become the owners of American corporations on an ever-increasing scale.

Tyrannies of all kinds, in the course of history, have always stifled individual savings. It is the savings of millions of Americans that have made it possible for our people to remain free. Corporations and governments that depend on the contributions of citizens to maintain operations must be the servants and not masters of these millions.

The modern political “left-wing” is fully aware of this fact. That is why they are so unanimous in branding the thrifty as “anti-social” and “producers of panics.” All collectivists are deathly afraid that, if the principle of saving is allowed to continue, a genuine “peoples capitalism” will continue to improve, expand and strengthen our modern American society.

Preliminary research has uncovered a mass of evidence in support of the thesis outlined above. The prestige of Harvard University has been used to promote a destructive ideology which has spread into practically every great American university. Entire departments, bureaus, and other agencies of government on the federal, state and local level have been flooded with personnel steeped in Keynesian and Marxist thinking.(14)

Banking and business institutions, industrial corporations, trade associations and labor unions have found it increasingly difficult to employ economists that are not infected with the destructive and dangerous social philosophy of Keynesism. Some of them have been forced to train their own economists to insure the sound, productive, realistic and constructive thinking necessary for the operation and preservation of the private enterprise system.

Educational institutions that train our economics instructors, at the graduate level, have been for some thirty (30) years almost exclusively devoted to the Keynesian theory. Consequently this country is faced with the tragic fact that teachers of economics  throughout the nation are predominantly Keynesian or Marxist. For years, these Keynesian professors have infected, yearly, several hundred students who in turn became instructors and indoctrinated thousands more. Thus the process snow-balls on.

Marxism-Keynesism in our academic institutions has thus far been winning by default. There has been a lack of factual exposure. Keynesians keep repeating, in their text books, the theme that their theories are too deep and complex for the ordinary layman to understand. They lay exclusive claim to a profundity which builds a “Chinese Wall” around their dogmas. This is obviously done to discourage people outside their own inner circle from probing into their motives and intentions. The whole miasma of Keynesism is given the protective cover of “science.”(15)

The Veritas Foundation is not overawed by such claims of omniscience on the part of a group of would­be-bosses over all of society.

The text books, treatises, lectures and articles of those who run the economics department at Harvard represent the backbone of the Keynesian forces in the United States.

With your help we can get the true facts before the American people. We will unmask the methods by· which the Keynesian revolutionary virus is being injected, by degrees, into the life blood of our free society.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE OF VERITAS FOUNDATION
AS GIVEN IN ITS DECLARATION OF TRUST

To educate the officials, teaching staffs, governing bodies, under-graduates and graduates of American colleges and universities, upon the subject of communism, the international communist conspiracy and its methods of infiltration into the United States.

[NOTES]

  1. Financing American Prosperity (A symposium of Economists) published by The Twentieth Century Fund (1945) Chapter no. 4 by Professor Howard S. Ellis.

  2. The National Debt and The New Economics by Seymour E. Harris, published by McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. (1947).

  3. Ibid.

  4. Saving American Capitalism edited by Seymour E. Harris Chapter XXXI (1948).

  5. Ibid. Chapter XIII.

  6. The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt, published by D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., (1959).

  7. Outline of the Political History of the Americas by William Z. Foster published by International Publishers.Socialists Abandon Marx (U.S. News and World Reports, October 12, 1959).

  8. Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain, 1919-1931, published by The Heritage Foundation, lnc., (1954) by Sister M. Margaret Patricia McCarran, Ph.D. The Universal Aspects of Fascism, by James Strachey Barnes, F.R.G.S., published by Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 0928). Outline of the Political History of the Americas by William Z. FosterJawaharlal Nehru by Frank Moraes, published by The MacMillan Co. (1956).The Twenty-Year Revolution by Chesly Manly.

  9. The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt.

  10. Saving American Capitalism, edited by Professor Seymour E. Harris. Chapter 11 by Chester Bowles.

  11. Political Economy by John Eaton, published by the International Publishers (1949)

  12. The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt. Chapter XXlX.

  13. Ibid.

  14. Financing American Prosperity (A Symposium of Economists) published by The Twentieth Century Fund (1945). Chapter no. 2 by Benjamin M. Anderson.

  15. The National Debt and The New Economics by Seymour E. Harris. Chapter II.

Source: UMassAmherst.  W.E.B. DuBois Papers/ Series 1. Correspondence/Keynesism-Marxism at Harvard, ca. February 1961.

__________________________

HON. MARY ROSE OAKAR
in the House of Representatives
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1990

Ms. OAKAR. Mr. Speaker, I was saddened by the recent passing of Archibald Roosevelt, Jr. Mr. Roosevelt lived a full life and spent 27 years as a public servant to our country. I include in the Record his obituary, which recently appeared in the Washington Post.

The article follows:

(BY J.Y. SMITH)

Archibald B. Roosevelt Jr., 72 a retired intelligence officer who served as chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s stations in Istanbul, Madrid and London, died yesterday at this home in Washington. He had congestive heart failure.

A grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt and a soldier, scholar, linguist and authority on the Middle East, Mr. Roosevelt viewed his calling–and its faceless, anonymous half-world of nuance and seemingly random fact–with a hard-headed realism leavened by a kind of romanticism that that has echoes of an earlier time.

After retiring from the CIA in 1974, he became a vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank and director of international relations in its Washington office. Well known in Washington social circles in his own right, he was particularly active on the diplomatic circuit during the Reagan administration, when his wife, Selwa Showker ‘Lucky’ Roosevelt, was chief of protocol at the State Department.

In 1988, he published a memoir called ‘For Lust of Knowing: Memoirs of an Intelligence Officer,’ in which he adhered so strictly to this oath to keep the CIA’s secrets that he did not even identify the countries where he had served. And although he was happy to tell interviewers that they could figure it out from his entry in ‘Who’s Who in America,’ he also was quick to explain that some Americans have forgotton what an oath is and that he would not break his even if the government told him to.

Instead, he gave his views on such questions as the nature of the CIA and why it attracted him, and on what intelligence officers should be and how they should see themselves in relation to their own country and the rest of the world.

‘We in the CIA were always conscious of having a special mission, of being the reconaissance patrols of our government,’ he wrote. Despite such vicissitudes as the Bay of Pigs disaster in Cuba in 1961, he said, the agency kept its esprit de corps even though with the passage of time it `was no longer a band of pioneers, but an organization.’

As for intelligence officers, Mr. Roosevelt said he thought of them in ‘the old-fashioned sense, perhaps best exemplifed in fiction by Kipling’s British political officers in India.’

His notion embodied a high ideal, indeed, for the intelligence officer ‘must be able to empathize with true believers of every stripe in order to understand and analyze them. …. He must, like Chairman Mao’s guerrillas, be able to swim in foreign seas. But then he must be able to pull himself to shore, and look back calmly, objectively, on the waters that immersed him.’

Most important, he said, the intelligence officer ‘must not only know whose side he is on, but have a deep conviction that he is on the right side. He should not imitate the cynical protagonists of John Le Carre’s novels, essentially craftsmen who find their side no less by his own account, the product of a ‘conventional, Waspish, preppy world’ and was destined for a conventional career on Wall Street. He managed to escape this fate, he said, because he `lived in another world of my imagination.’

Archibald Bulloch Roosevelt Jr. was born in Boston on Feb. 18, 1918. He graduated from Groton School and then went to Harvard, where he graduated in the class of 1940. While an undergraduate, he was chosen as a Rhodes Scholar, but was not able to accept because of the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His first job was working for a newspaper in Seattle.

During the war, he became an Army intelligence officer. He accompanied U.S. troops in their landing in North Africa in 1942 and soon began to form views on the French colonial administration and the beginnings of Arab nationalism. Later in the war he was a military attache in Iraq and Iran.

In 1947, he joined the Central Intelligence Group, the immediate forerunner of the CIA. From 1947 to 1949, he served in Beirut. On that and on all of his subsequent assignments abroad, he was listed in official registers as a State Department official.

From 1949 to 1951, he was in New York as head of the Near East section of the Voice of America. From 1951 to 1953, he was station chief in Istanbul. From 1953 to 1958, he had several jobs at CIA headquarters in Washington. In 1958, he was made CIA station chief in Spain. From 1962 to 1966 he held the same job in London. He finished his career in Washington.

Through it all he pursued an interest in languages. A Latin and Greek scholar when he was a boy, he had a speaking or reading knowledge of perhaps 20 languages, including French, Spanish, German, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Swahili and Uzbek.

Mr. Roosevelt’s marriage to the former Katherine W. Tweed ended in divorce.

In addition to Selwa Roosevelt, to whom he was married for 40 years, survivors include a son by his first marriage, Tweed Roosevelt of Boston, and two grandchildren.

Source:  https://web.archive.org/web/20200525140528/https://fas.org/irp/congress/1990_cr/h900607-tribute.htm

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Socialism

Harvard. Exams and enrollment for economics of socialism and communism. Edward Cummings, 1893-1900

The father of the American poet E.E. Cummings, Edward Cummings, taught courses in sociology, labor economics, and socialism at Harvard during the last decade of the 19th century before he resigned to become the minister at Boston’s South Congregational Church. In this post I have included all the exams for his course on ancient and modern  utopias (a.k.a. communism and socialism) that I have been able to find. A course description and enrollment data are readily available from internet archives and included below as well. 

Note: for only the 1893-94 academic year and the single-term version of the course offered in 1895-96 are the exams complete. For the other academic years when the course was offered I have only found the first term exams.

Analogous courses on schemes of social reconstruction were taught in one form or another later by Thomas Nixon Carver, Edward S. Mason, Paul Sweezy, Wassily Leontief,  Joseph Schumpeter, and Overton Hume Taylor.

____________________

Course Description
(1897-98)

*14. Socialism and Communism, — History and Literature. Tu., Th., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 9. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.

[An asterisk (*) indicates that the course can be taken only with the previous consent of the instructor.]

Course 14 is primarily an historical and critical study of socialism and communism. It traces the history and significance of schemes for social reconstruction from the earliest times to the present day. It discusses the historical evidences of primitive communism, the forms assumed by private ownership at different stages of civilization, the bearing of these considerations upon the claims of modern socialism, and the outcome of experimental communities in which socialism and communism have actually been tried. Special attention, however is devoted to the recent history of socialism, – the precursors and the followers of Marx and Lassalle, the economic and political programs of socialistic parties in Germany, France, and other countries.

The primary object is in every case to trace the relation of historical evolution to these programmes; to discover how far they have modified history or found expression in the policy of parties or statesmen; how far they must be regarded simply as protests against existing phases of social evolution; and how far they may be said to embody a sane philosophy of social and political organization.

The criticism and analysis of these schemes gives opportunity for discussing from different points of view the ethical and historical value of social and political institutions, the relation of the State to the individual, the political and economic bearing of current socialistic series.

The work is especially adapted to students who have had some introductory training in Ethics as well as in Economics. A systematic course of reading covers the authors discussed; and special topics for investigation maybe assigned in connection with this reading.

 

Source: Harvard University. Division of History and Political Science Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics, 1897-98, pp. 35-36.

____________________

1893-94

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Cummings. – Ideal Social Reconstructions, from Plato’s Republic to the present time. 1 hour.

Total 22: 7 Graduates, 8 Seniors, 5 Juniors, 2 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1893-94, p. 61.

 

 

ECONOMICS 14.
Mid-year examination, 1893-94.

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. Omit one.)

  1. What is a Utopia? and what significance do you attached to the recurrence of such literature at certain historical ethics?
  2. “For judging of the importance of any thinker in the history of Economics, no matter is more important to us than the view he takes of the laboring population.” Judge Plato, More and Bacon by this standard.
  3. “Moreover, it is hardly too much to say that Plato never got to the point of having a theory of the State at all.” In the Republic “man is treated as a micropolis, and the city is the citizen writ large.” Explain and criticize.
  4. “In More’s Utopia we have a revival of the Platonic Republic with additions which make the scheme entirely modern.… The economical element in the social body receives for the first time its proper rank as of the highest moment for public welfare.” Explain. To what extent have the ideals of Utopia been realized?
  5. “Then we may say that democracy, like oligarchy, is destroyed by its insatiable craving for the object which defines to be supremely good?” What, according to the Republic are the peculiar merits and defects of the several forms of political organization? and how are these forms related in point of origin and sequence?
  6. “Sir Thomas More has been called the father of Modern Communism.” How does he compare in this respect with Plato? How far do you trace the influence of historical conditions in each case?
  7. “But in your case, it is we that have begotten you for the State as well as for yourselves, to be like leaders and kings of the hive,– better and more perfectly trained than the rest, and more capable of playing a part in both modes of life.” Criticise the method and purpose of the educational system of the Republic. How far does Plato’s argument as to the duty of public service apply to the educated man to-day?
  8. “The religious ferment produced by the Reformation movement had begun to show signs of abatement, when another movement closely connected with it made its appearance almost at the same time in England and Italy, namely, the rise of a new philosophy.” How was this new philosophy embodied in the social ideals of Bacon and of Campanella? and what is the distinguishing characteristic of it?
  9. What essential contrast between pagan and Christian ideals have you found in schemes for social regeneration?
  10. Is there any recognition of “Social Evolution” in the Utopian philosophies thus far considered?
  11. What in a word, do you regard as the chief defect of the social reconstruction suggested in turn by Plato, Lycurgus, More, Bacon and Campanella? To what main problems suggested by them have we still to seek an answer?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1893-94.(HUC 7000.55).

 

ECONOMICS 14.
Final examination, 1893-94.

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.)

  1. [“]The essential unity and continuity of the vital process which has been in progress in our civilization from the beginning is almost lost sight of. Many of the writers on social subjects at the present day are like the old school of geologists: they seem to think that progress has consisted of a series of cataclysms.” How far is this criticism true? Is the characteristic in question more or less conspicuous in earlier writers?
  2. “At the outset underneath all socialist ideals yawns the problem of population…. Under the Utopias of Socialism, one of two things must happen. Either this increase must be restricted or not. If it be not restricted, and selection is allowed to continue, then the whole foundations of such a fabric as Mr. Bellamy has constructed are bodily removed.” State carefully your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing. In which of the schemes for social reconstruction, ancient or modern, do you find any adequate recognition of the part which selection plays in progress?
  3. “If it is possible for the community to provide the capital for production without thereby doing injury to either the principle of perfect individual freedom or to that of justice, if interest can be dispensed with without introducing communistic control in its stead, then there no longer stands any positive obstacle in the way of the free social order.” Discuss the provisions by which Hertzka hopes to guaranteed this “perfect individual freedom.” Contrast him with Bellamy in this respect.
  4. “I perceive that capitalism stops the growth of wealth, not – as Marx has it – by stimulating ‘production for the market,’ but by preventing the consumption of the surplus produce; and that interest, though not unjust, will nevertheless in a condition of economic justice becomes superfluous and objectless.” Explain Hertzka’s reasoning and criticise the economic theory involved.”
  5. What is the gist of “News from Nowhere”?
  6. The condition which the social mind has reached may be tentatively described as one of realization, more or less unconscious, that religion has a definite function to perform in society, and that it is a factor of some kind in the social evolution which is in progress.” How far have you found a recognition of this factor in theories of social reconstruction?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. (HUC 7000.28). Box 2, Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government and Law, Economics, Fine Arts, and Music in Harvard College, June 1894.

____________________

1894-95

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Cummings.—Philosophy and Political Economy.—Utopian Literature from Plato’s Republic to the present time.  2 hours.

Total 8: 5 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 1 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1894-95, p. 62.

____________________

1895-96

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 141. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—Utopias, ancient and modern. Hf. 2 hours. 1st half-year.

Total 15: 1 Graduate, 10 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 2 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1895-96, p. 63.

 

ECONOMICS 14.
Mid-Year Examination, 1895-96.

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. Omit one.)

  1. The different senses in which the word Socialism is used. Where do you intend to draw the line between Socialism proper, and familiar forms of government interference and control – such as factory legislation, municipal water works, and government postal, telegraph or railroad services? Why?
  2. “National communism has been confused with the common ownership of the family; tenure in common has been confused with ownership in common; agrarian communism with village commons.” Discuss the evidence.
  3. “Just as Plato had his Republic, Campanella his City of the Sun, and Sir Thomas More his Utopia, St. Simon his Industrial System, and Fourier his ideal Phalanstery…. But the common criticism of Socialism has not yet noted the change, and continues to deal with the obsolete Utopias of the pre-evolutionary age.” What do you conceive to be the character of the change referred to? How far did earlier Utopias anticipate the ideals of the modern social democracy?
  4. What indication of Socialistic tendencies are to be found in the discipline of the Christian church? Explain the triple contract and its bearing on the doctrine of the usury.
  5. “The Communistic scheme, instead of being peculiarly open to the objection drawn from danger of over-population, has the recommendation of tending in an especial degree to the prevention of that evil.” Explained Mill’s argument. Do you agree?
  6. To what extent are the theories of Karl Marx indebted to earlier writers in the 19th-century?
  7. How far are the economic series of (a) Lasalle, (b) Marx related to the theories of the so-called orthodox Economists? Explain critically.
  8. How far do you trace the influence of historical conditions in the social philosophies of Plato, More, Bacon, Rousseau, St. Simon, Karl Marx?
  9. What connection do you see between the teachings of Rousseau and (a) modern Socialism, (b) modern Anarchism?
  10. What, according to Hertzka, is the economic defect of the existing social and industrial system, and what is the remedy? Contrast “Freeland” with “Looking Backward.”

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1895-96.(HUC 7000.55).

____________________

1896-97

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—History and Literature.2 hours.

Total 13: 10 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 1 Sophomore.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 65.

 

ECONOMICS 14.
Mid-Year Examination, 1896-97.

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. Omit one.)

  1. The different senses in which the word Socialism is used. Where do you intend to draw the line between Socialism proper, and familiar forms of government interference and control – such as factory legislation, municipal water works, and government postal, telegraph or railroad services? Why?
  2. “National communism has been confused with the common ownership of the family; tenure in common has been confused with ownership in common; agrarian communism with village commons.” Discuss the evidence.
  3. “Just as Plato had his Republic, Campanella his City of the Sun, and Sir Thomas More his Utopia, St. Simon his Industrial System, and Fourier his ideal Phalanstery…. But the common criticism of Socialism has not yet noted the change, and continues to deal with the obsolete Utopias of the pre—evolutionary age.” What do you conceive to be the character of the change referred to? How far did earlier Utopias anticipate the ideals of the modern social democracy?
  4. What indication of Socialistic tendencies are to be found in the discipline of the Christian church? Explain the triple contract and its bearing on the doctrine of the usury.
  5. The contributions of Greek writers to the development of economic thought.
  6. To what extent are the theories of Karl Marx indebted to earlier writers in the 19th-century?
  7. How far are the economic series of (a) Lasalle, (b) Marx related to the theories of the so-called orthodox Economists? Explain critically.
  8. How far do you trace the influence of historical conditions in the social philosophies of Plato, More, Bacon, Rousseau, St. Simon, Karl Marx?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1896-97.(HUC 7000.55).

____________________

1897-98

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor E. Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—History and Literature.2 or 3 hours.

Total 12: 3 Graduates, 5 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 2 Sophomores.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1897-98, p. 78.

 

ECONOMICS 14
Mid-Year Examination, 1897-98

Outline briefly the characteristics of socialistic theory and practice in ancient, medieval and modern times, — devoting about an hour to each epoch, and showing—

(a) so far as possible the continuity of such speculations; the characteristic resemblances and differences;

(b) the influence of peculiar historical conditions;

(c) the corresponding changes in economic theory and practice.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1897-98.(HUC 7000.55).

 

____________________

Not offered 1898-99

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1898-99, pp. 72-73.

____________________

1899-1900

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—History and Literature.Lectures (3 hours); 6 reports or theses.

Total 22: 2 Graduates, 11 Seniors, 4 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 4 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1899-1900, p. 69.

 

ECONOMICS 14
Mid-Year Examination, 1899-1900

  1. How, according to Plato, are economic organization, and the problems of production and distribution related (a) to social development; (b) to social and political degeneration?
  2. What do you conceive to be his most permanent contribution to social philosophy? What his chief defect?
  3. How far do the teachings of the Christian church and the Canon Law throw light on the gradual development of our fundamental economic ideas in regard to wealth, capital, trade, commerce?
  4. How far is there ground for the contention that the writings of Rousseau have been the chief arsenal of social and political revolutionists?
  5. “The right to the whole produce of labor—to subsistence—to labor:”
    What, according to Menger, have been the most important contributions to the successive phases of this discussion?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers. Mid-Year, 1899-1900.(HUC 7000.55).

Image Source: University and their Sons. History, Influence and Characteristics of American Universities with Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Alumni and Recipients of Honorary Degrees. Editor-in-chief, General Joshua L. Chamberlain, LL.D. Vol II (1899), pp. 155-156.

 

Categories
Bryn Mawr Economists Gender Harvard Stanford Tufts

Radcliffe/Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumna. Maxine Yaple Sweezy, 1940.

 

In our continuing series of Get-to-Know-an-Economics-Ph.D., we meet a Radcliffe Ph.D. from 1940, Maxine Yaple Sweezy. Her dissertation was on the Nazi economy and incidentally she was the first wife of the American Marxian economist, Paul Sweezy. This post adds a few details about her life (she was a debater at Stanford) and career (minimum wage work). I take particular pride in finding youthful pictures of this economist of yore.

_____________________

Greatest Hit

In his historical retrospective of the concept of “privatization”,  Germà Bel identifies Maxine Yaple Sweezy’s published Radcliffe dissertation, The Structure of the Nazi Economy (1941), as having introduced “reprivatization” into the vocabulary of economic policy.

Source: Bel, Germà. The Coining of “Privatization” and Germany’s National Socialist Party. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 2006), p 189.

_____________________

Encyclopedia entry

Pack, Spencer J. “Maxine Bernard Yaple Sweezy Woolston” in A Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists, Robert W. Dimand, Mary Ann Dimand and Evelyn L. Forget (eds.). Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2000. pp. 472-475

Pack lists the following schools where Maxine Y. Woolston taught: Sarah Lawrence, Tufts, Vassar, Simmons, Haverford, Swarthmore, Wellesley, University of Pennsylvania, University of New Haven, with Bryn Mawr as the longest position.

_____________________

Basic life data

Born. 16 September 1912 [in Missouri].

Source: Social Security Claims Index, 1936-2007.

First marriage: Paul M. Sweezy and Maxine Yaple were married 21 March 1936 in Manhattan, New York.

Source: New York City Department of Records/Municipal Archives. Index to New York City Marriages, 1866-1937.

Second marriage:  to William Jenks Woolston, lawyer (b. 30 Jan. 1908, d. 25 Dec. 1964) [date of marriage: 11 Mar 1944]

Source: Family Tree “Morris, Wells and collateral lines” at ancestry.com, though date of marriage is unsourced there and could not be verified.

Death. 29 April 2004. Last residence: New Haven, Ct.

Source: Social Security Claims Index, 1936-2007.

_____________________

American Economic Association Membership Listing, 1957

Woolston, Maxine Yaple, (Mrs. W. J.), R. 2 Harts Lane, Conshohocken, Pa. (1953) Bryn Mawr Col., lecturer, teach.; b. 1912; A.B., 1934, M.A., 1935, Stanford; Ph.D., 1939, Radcliffe Col. Fields 14bd, 12ab, 2. Doc. Dis. Nazi economic policies. Pub. Economic program for American economy (Vanguard Press, 1938); Structure of Nazi economy (Harvard Univ. Press, 1941); La Economia Nacional Socialista (translation) (Stackpole, 1954). Res. Wages at the turning points. Dir. Amer. Men of Sci. III.

Source:  The American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, Handbook of the American Economic Association (Jul., 1957), p. 329

_____________________

Women’s Debate Team at Stanford

From the 1932 Stanford yearbook page on the Women’s debate team: sometime around the end of February, 1932 Maxine Yaple and Lucile Smith debated with a team from the College of the Pacific the resolution “The United States should enact legislation provided socialized medical service”.

In 1933 a debating section of (male) athletes was assembled and in their second debate (“Resolved, That a separate college for women should be stablished at Stanford”) with Helen Ray and Maxine Yaple constituting the Women’s Team was called a draw.

For the source of the pictures used for this post, see the Image Source below.

Research Tip:  The Stanford Daily student newspaper archive.  Search on her last name “Yaple“.

_____________________

“Maiden” publication in the AER

Yaple, Maxine. The Burden of Direct Taxes as Paid by Income Classes. American Economic Review, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1936), pp. 691-710.

_____________________

Rebecca A. Greene Fellowship at Radcliffe

Maxine Yaple Sweezy, A.B. (Stanford Univ.) 1933, A.M. (ibid.) 1934. Subject, Economics.

Source: Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1936-37, p. 17.

_____________________

Political Book:  An Economic Program for American Democracy

Contributors: Richard V. Gilbert; George H. Hildebrand Jr. ; Arthur W. Stuart; Maxine Yaple Sweezy ; Paul M. Sweezy; Lorie Tarshis and John D. Wilson. New York: Vanguard Press, 2nd printing, 1938

_____________________

Teaching appointment at Tufts

Mrs. Paul Sweezy (Maxine Yaple) has been appointed instructor in the department of economics at Tufts College for the year 1938-1939.

Source: Notes. American Economic Review, Vol. 28, No. 2 (June, 1938), p. 438.

_____________________

Economics at Radcliffe, 1939
(from the yearbook)

“Don’t you think he’s a little radical?”, a girl asked her tutor about one of his colleagues in the Ec. Department. The tutor roared with laughter and gave her The Coming Struggle for Power [by John Strachey, London, 1932] to read.

Ec. Professors like to refer to their colleagues and then tear into their arguments. They should have a contest sometime to see whose masterpiece could withstand concentrated criticism. We enjoyed Mason’s reference to his “friend”. We’ve entered with glee on Chamberlin’s campaign to exterminate the word “imperfect” competition and we almost had hysterics over William’s blasting of all economists from Keynes to Hajek [sic].

The life of the Ec. Professors is constantly being interrupted by the press. The Crimson demanded a profound statement on the effect of import duties on German goods before they would let Galbraith go back to sleep in the middle of the night. Since a group collaborated on a book called An Economic Program for American Democracy, “seven men and a blonde” is the favorite characterization of the Ec. Department by the press. The blonde is Mrs. Paul Sweezy.

Source: Radcliffe College. Upon a Typical Year… Thirty and Nine. Cambridge, MA (1939).

_____________________

First article carved from dissertation research

Maxine Yaple Sweezy. Distribution of Wealth and Income under the Nazis. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Nov., 1939), pp. 178-184.

_____________________

Radcliffe A.M. conferred in June, 1939.

Source: Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1938-39, p. 20.

_____________________

Ph.D. conferred in February, 1940

Maxine Yaple Sweezy, A.M.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Industrial Organization and Control. Dissertation, “Nazi Economic Policies.”

 

Source: Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1939-40, p. 22.

_____________________

Second article carved from dissertation research

Maxine Yaple Sweezy. German Corporate Profits: 1926-1938. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 54, No. 3 (May, 1940), pp. 384-398.

_____________________

Published Dissertation

Maxine Yaple Sweezy. The Structure of the Nazi Economy. Harvard studies in monopoly and competition, no. 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941.

_____________________

Vassar and then OPA

Maxine Y. Sweezy, assistant professor of economics at Vassar College, is on leave for the year 1942-43 to serve as senior economist for the Office of Price Administration in Washington.

Source: Notes. The American Economic Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1942), p. 964.

_____________________

Bryn Mawr and Philadelphia City Planning Commission

“The Social Economy Department also has one new member, Miss Maxine Woolston Ph.D. Radcliffe and member of the City Planning Commission, Philadelphia, has entered the department as Lecturer.”

Source: The College News, Ardmore and Bryn Mawr, PA., Wednesday, October 9, 1946, p. 2.

_____________________

Return [?] to Bryn Mawr

Maxine Y. Woolston has been appointed lecturer in political economy at Bryn Mawr College for the current year.

Source: Notes. The American Economic Review, Vol. 40, No. 1 (March, 1950), p. 266.

_____________________

Publications in 1950

Economic Base Study of Philadelphia, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, 1950.

World Economic Development and Peace, American Association of University Women. Washington, D.C.: 1950. [30 pages]

_____________________

Course at Haverford

Maxine Woolston to Give Course “Urban Planning”

Sociology 38, a study of the modern urban community, will be taught this semester by Dr. Maxine (William Jenks) Woolston. Mrs. Woolston comes to Haverford from Bryn Mawr College with experience both as an educator and as a public administrator.

Planning Commissioner

She is currently a consultant for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, and was a member of that commission from 1945 to 1948. During the five years previous Dr. Woolston served in turn with the OPA, the Foreign economic Administration, and the American Association of University Women.

Dr. Woolston received her A.B. and M.A. degrees in History at Stanford University in 1934. The following two years she attended the London School of Economics. In 1940 [sic] she went to Cambridge, Massachusetts, and earned degrees of M.A. and Ph.D. in economics at Radcliffe-Harvard.

Source: Haverford News. Tuesday, February 13, 1951, p. 1.

_____________________

Textbook

Maxine Y. Woolston. Basic Information on the American Economy. Harrisburg, Pa., Stackpole Co., 1953. [186 pages]

_____________________

Minimum Wage Commission for Restaurant, Hotel, and Motel industries

“The state Labor and Industry Department has named a new nine-member board to recommend minimum wage rates for women and minors employed in the restaurant hotel and motel industries”. Dr. Maxine Woolston, of Bryn Mawr College and Mrs. Sadie T. M. Alexander, Philadelphia attorney were public representatives.

Source: The Daily Courier, Connellsville, PA, 16 July 1958, p. 1.

 

Image Sources: Maxine Yaple, portrait from Stanford University Quad Yearbook, 1932. Page. 160. Standing picture from the 1933 yearbook, p. 152.

 

 

Categories
Economists Harvard Tufts

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. alumnus, Richard Vincent Gilbert, 1930

 

Richard Vincent Gilbert was encountered in an earlier post as one of two Jewish job market candidates being recommended for academic appointments by Harvard’s economics department in 1929. This post provides futher biographical and career information for R. V. Gilbert, a 1930 Harvard economics Ph.D. alumnus. His parents were Meyer Goldberg and Feigel (Fanny) Gaylburd. I presume he chose to change his name to Gilbert from Goldberg to blend in better with his U.S. academic environs. [Cf., The Harvard economist Abram Bergson was born to Isaac and Sophie Burkowsky whose last name morphed to Burk and only after the publication of his famous welfare economics article in the QJE, did Abram Burk become Abram Bergson.]

Richard Vincent Gilbert and his wife, Emma Cohen Gilbert, were the parents of one of the three winners of the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1980, Walter Myron Gilbert.

__________________

PhD Exams of Richard Vincent Gilbert, 1927

General Examination: in Economics, Wednesday, February 9, 1927.

Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Crum, Monroe, Usher, and Woods.

Academic History: University of Pennsylvania, 1919-20; Harvard College, 1920-23; Harvard Graduate School, 1923-. B.S., Harvard, 1923; M.A., Harvard, 1925. Assistant in Economics, Harvard, 1923-.

General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Money and Banking. 3. Statistics. 4. Economic History since 1776. 5. History of Ancient Philosophy. 6. Theory of International Trade.

Special Subject: Theory of International Trade.

Thesis Subject: Theory of International Trade. (With Professor Taussig.)

 

Source:Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. (HUC 7000.70), Folder “Examinations for the Ph.D., 1926-1927”.

__________________

PhD Dissertation of Richard Vincent Gilbert

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1930.

Thesis title: Theory of International Payments.

Source:  Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1929-1930, p. 119.

__________________

Obituary for R.V. Gilbert
F.D.R. Economics Adviser (d. 6 Oct 1985)

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Richard V. Gilbert, an economics adviser in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration, has died at home at age 83.

He had been ill with cancer and suffered a heart attack 10 days before his death last Sunday.

Gilbert served as a speechwriter for Roosevelt on economic issues during World War II. Economist Walter Salant of the Brookings Institution in Washington once called Gilbert “the outstanding, unsung hero of American wartime economic policy.”

He is credited, along with economist Robert Nathan, with persuading Roosevelt to boost aircraft and tank production and to accelerate merchant shipping.

Gilbert left teaching posts at Harvard University, Radcliffe and the Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University to become economic adviser in 1939 to Secretary of Commerce Harry Hopkins. He went on to become economic adviser to the price administrator and director of research in the Office of Price Administration.

Source: Associated Press, from the Los Angeles Times (October 13, 1985).

__________________

Biographical Note for the Richard V. Gilbert Papers at the FDR Presidential Library

Richard Vincent Gilbert was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 6, 1902 and educated at Harvard University where he received his Ph.D. degree in 1931 [sic, 1930].

As a member of the Harvard faculty from 1924 to 1939, Gilbert taught courses in economic history and money and banking and participated in the Fiscal Policy Seminar at Littauer School of Public Administration, 1937- 39. He also taught courses in money and banking at Radcliffe College and international trade and finance at the Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy from 1934 to 1939.

In 1939 and 1940, Gilbert was the Director of the Division of Industrial Economics and Economic Advisor to the Secretary of Commerce. He then became Director of the Defense Economics Section of the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply (formerly the Price Stabilization Division of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense), Economic Advisor to the Administration, and, from 1941 to 1946, Director of Research for the Office of Price Administration. He was a consulting economist from 1946 to 1949 and then joined Schenley Industries, Inc. as an Assistant to the Chairman of the Board. He later became a Vice President of the company.

Dr. Gilbert is the author of numerous articles and, with others [George H. Hildebrand Jr., Arthur W. Stuart, Maxine Yaple Sweezy, Paul M. Sweezy, Lorie Tarshis, and John D. Wilson], wrote a book entitled An Economic Program for American Democracy, which was published in 1938.

The papers of Richard V. Gilbert cover the period 1939 to 1948, during most of which he was a Federal Government employee. With few exceptions, the papers consist of official correspondence, memoranda, speech drafts, reports, and printed matter. Since Gilbert and his associates collaborated on the numerous reports and speech drafts written for the use of their agency and others, the authorship of certain items is unclear. For this reason, reports and speech drafts are generally filed with the records of the agency for which Gilbert was working at the time. The papers have been arranged in a single alphabetical series.

Died 6 October 1985 in Cambridge, Mass.

Source:  Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library & Museum. Richard V. Gilbert Papers, 1939-1948. Collection Historical Note

Image Source: Gilbert’s senior year picture in the Harvard Class Album, 1923.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Examination for Economics of Socialism, Mason and Sweezy, 1937 and 1939

 

 

The Harvard undergraduate course, The Economics of Socialism, evolved from Thomas Nixon Carver’s course, Methods of Social Reform, (exam questions from 1920) that had been introduced into the curriculum in 1902-03. The Economics of Socialism course was taught from 1935-36 through 1938-39 by Edward S. Mason and Paul Sweezy. The 1937-38 course outline and reading assignments along with final exam questions have been posted earlier. In this posting I have transcribed the final examination questions from the second terms of 1936-37 and 1938-39. I have not been able to locate a copy of the 1935-36 exam questions yet.

 In subsequent years this course was taught by Sweezy, Schumpeter, and Taylor. 

_____________________________

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 11b2

I
Write about one hour

  1. If you were setting out to write a book on the Soviet economic system on what questions would you concentrate your attention? To what extent do the Webb’s provide adequate answers to these questions and in what respects do you regard their treatment as deficient?

II
Answer four questions

  1. Discuss briefly Utopian Socialism and Chartism and indicate what, if any, relation they bear to each other and to the modern socialist movement.
  2. For what types of economic problems would you consider the Marxian method of analysis superior to the orthodox (equilibrium) method?
  3. To what extent, if at all, does Marx’s analysis of the decline of capitalism depend upon the growth of large scale enterprise?
  4. What is Lenin’s theory of imperialism? How is it related to Marx’s analysis of capitalism?
  5. “The proper goal for socialist economic planners is that disposition and use of resources which is supposed to be achieved by the perfectly competitive market.” Discuss.

 

Final. 1937.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations, History, History of Religions, … ,Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. Jan—June, 1937. (HUC 7000.28, vol. 79 of 284).

_____________________________

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 11b2

I
(Reading Period — one hour)

  1. From your reading in the Webbs and your general knowledge of American conditions, what do you take to be the fundamental differences between the economic systems of the Soviet Union and the United States? Support your answer by justifying the criteria which you have selected for the purpose of judging what are the fundamentally significant characteristics of an economic system.

II
(Answer TWO — one hour)

  1. What is the relation, if any, of Marx’s “Tendency toward concentration and centralization of capital,” to monopoly problems as now understood?
  2. What elements of Marx’s thought impress you as having been influenced by the writing of his Utopian predecessors?
  3. On the basis of Marxian analysis how would you judge the political future of a farmer-labor affiliation in the United States?

III
(Answer TWO — one hour)

  1. “Take away the labor theory of value and the whole of Marx’s gigantic structure crashes to the ground.” Discuss.
  2. In your judgment does the rise of fascism in post-war Europe tend to confirm or refute Lenin’s theory of imperialism?
  3. “Mises is wrong; Lange and Taylor are right. But the whole dispute is very much a tempest in a teacup. It has very little to do with either the desirability or the workability of a socialist society.” What dispute? Do you agree that “Mises is wrong; Lange and Taylor are right”? What is your own judgment as to the importance of the dispute?

Final. 1939.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations, History, History of Religions, … ,Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. Jan—June, 1939. (HUC 7000.28, in Box 4 of 284)