Tag: TaylorOH

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching

Harvard. Haberler and Chamberlin fight over last-minute course changes, 1942-43

Exogenous shocks are really useful for finding out how the economy works. They also help dear colleagues reveal themselves when their private interests conflict with those of other colleagues in particular or with departmental needs in general. The U.S. entry into the Second World War forced several adjustments in the graduate and undergraduate instructional staffing at the Harvard economics department.

This post provides some light on the time Gottfried Haberler was asked to teach the first of the two term graduate economic theory sequence for the academic year 1942-43. The course was a direct descendent of Frank Taussig’s Economics 11 (the expansion of course offerings over the decades required moving into 3 digits for some course numbers and a zero was dropped into the middle of “Economics 11” to obtain “Economics 101”). At the last minute Chairman Edward Chamberlin decided that he wanted “his” course back for both semesters but Gottfried Haberler was clearly not one to go quietly. And so we witness the performance of an academic drama before colleagues, of Professor X and Professor Y claiming conflicting rights to a particular course.

The record presented here is incomplete. I have been unable to find Haberler’s written plea on his own behalf. Reading the material one might think that Chamberlin got his way and Haberler was left to find another course to satisfy his annual teaching obligation. However, a look into the annual report of the President of Harvard College for 1942-43 finds that as far as the staffing of Economics 101 in 1942-43 goes, ex ante equals ex post. The course was ultimately divided that year between Messrs. Haberler and Chamberlin.

___________________________

Economics 101: syllabi (with links to most readings) and examinations for fall and spring terms 1941-42 taught by Edward Chamberlin.

___________________________

Who ended up teaching what 1942-43

Edward Chamberlin

Economics 1a. First term, undergraduate course “Economic Theory”.

Economics 102b. Second term, graduate course “Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Gottfried Haberler. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

Gottfried Haberler

Economics 18b. Second term, undergraduate course on the Economic Aspects of War,

Co-taught Economics 45a with Alvin Hansen. First term, undergraduate course  “Business Cycles”.

Economics 144. Graduate School of Public Administration Seminar “International Economic Relations”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Edward Chamberlin. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

___________________________

Ex Ante Course Announcement

Economics 101. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructors) Fri., at 12. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler.

Source: Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1942-43. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX, No. 53 (September 23, 1942), p. 55.

___________________________

Ex Post Course Enrollment and Staffing

[Economics] 101. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler. — Economic Theory.

Total 24: 16 Graduates, 4 School of Public Administration, 1 Graduate Business School, 3 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1942-1943, p. 47.

___________________________

Presumably the statement prepared by Edward Chamberlin (referring to himself in the third person)

October 9, 1942

Course Economics 101 was announced in the catalogue for 1942-3 to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. This arrangement was never considered as final but was subject to adjustment at the beginning of the college year in view of the general uncertainty as to the status of such of the graduate instruction until enrolments in various courses were known. (In particular, it seemed likely that either 102b or 163 or both might be bracketed, thus freeing either one half or one full course of Mr. Chamberlin’s time). It was, however, agreed between Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin that, in case the course were given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin the second. Several times prior to the opening of college Mr. Haberler asked Mr. Chamberlin about the status of the course and was told that unfortunately nothing final could be decided until enrolments were known; it was agreed, however, that Mr. Haberler would take the first meeting, or meetings, of the course until a decision was reached. The matter was mentioned on Friday morning, October 2, at a casual meeting between classes at which time, since no final decision had been taken, Mr. Chamberlin said that it was still possible that the arrangement might stand. On Saturday, October 3, a final decision to take back the course was communicated to Mr. Haberler after considering a number of factors, among which were the following:

  1. The enrolment in Economics 102b was only two, plus five auditors. This course had always been given in the second semester, thereby opening it to the first year students who had had the first semester of 101. The bracketing of 163 made it possible to revert to this disposition of 102b, (or to bracketing it later on if this seemed necessary). The chief obstacle to Mr. Chamberlin’s giving the first half and therefore all of 101 was thereby removed.
  2. The class list of 101, received Friday afternoon, revealed that of 16 [or 18?] student then enrolled in the course all but two were foreigners. Many of these would have serious problems of adaptation to academic work in a new language and in a new country, and it seemed for the reason especially desirable to unify the introductory course in theory under one direction during the current year.
  3. During the past, two years the course had, for better or worse, been split both vertically and horizontally, not by action of the department but on the initiative of Mr. Chamberlin. This was done in part to open greater possibilities for discussion through smaller sections, and in part to share the course with others who wanted very much to teach theory. At no time during that period had Mr. Chamberlin given less than a full year of the course, and its outline and organization had always been his. It was his sincere belief that now that the course was again of manageable size the department would wish it to be given as it had directed earlier, and that he was fully competent to make the decision. At that time the work of the year had not really begun.

However, Mr. Haberler objected so strongly to the change that in order to settle the matter amicably, Mr. Chamberlin proposed on Sunday afternoon, and Mr. Haberler agreed, that the matter be left to a committee composed of Professor Crum as Chairman and other members to be chosen by Professor Crum. As this Committee could not possibly be assembled and give a decision before the Monday meeting of the course it was agreed that Mr. Haberler would take that meeting and that the Committee shouId render a decision before the Wednesday meeting. The decision was in fact rendered Tuesday afternoon and was unanimous that Mr. ChamberIin should give the course, When apprized of this decision, Mr. Haberler said he would like time to consider whether or not he was willing to accept it. From this point on Mr. Chamberlin became a passive duopolist, leaving all initiative to Mr. Haberler, who proposed that he take the Wednesday meeting of the course, finishing matters which he had begun on Monday, give a cut on Friday (there was a holiday the following Monday), and decide sone time before the Department meeting whether or not he would like to bring the matter before the Department. Meanwhile, the Committee had decided that certain questions which it had discussed apart from the immediate issue should be brought before the Department at its meeting October 13th. Mr. Haberler’s final decision on Thursday was that if the Department is going into the whole theory question anyway, they should also decide on the present status of Economics 101.

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin announces his attention to return statement with statement

October 10, 1942

Dear Leonard [Crum]:

It has occurred to me that, since Haberler has given you in writing a statement of the facts as he sees them, I might, even at this late date do the same. My own statement will add some details and perhaps present a different emphasis at one or two points It may be used at your discretion in whatever way you think best, (including, of course, the possibility of no use at all beyond your own reading). I am sending a copy to Haberler.

Sincerely,

E. H. Chamberlin

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin makes his written statement available to the department

October 17, 1942

To Members of the Department of Economics:

In view of the fact that Professor Haberler’s statement with respect to Economics 101 had some circulation prior to last Tuesday’s meeting and was also read in the meeting, whereas my own statement has to this moment been seen only by Professor Crum and one other member of the Department, I should like now to make both equally available to any who may wish to consult them. Accordingly, they will both be found in the blue folder in Mrs. Arnold’s office. Also in the blue folder are: (1) The minutes of the last three meetings, and 2) The report of the Chairman to the Dean of the Faculty covering the work or the Department for the past year.

Chairman [Chamberlin]

___________________________

Special Committee sides with Chamberlin

CONFIDENTIAL

(for use of Department
of Economics officers
only)

Report of a Special Committee
on the assignment for teaching Economics 101.

13 October, 1942

On Monday, October 5, the Chairman of the Department brought to my notice a personal disagreement between himself and Mr. Haberler concerning the assignment for teaching Economics 101, and asked that I serve as Chairman of a Special Committee to “arbitrate” in the case, and report before the meeting of Economics 101 on Wednesday the 7th. I was instructed to associate with myself such members of the Department as I saw fit in making up the Committee. I asked Mr. Burbank, formerly Chairmen of the Department, to be a member, and also four other members of the Department who have at present no active part in the teaching of economic theory and whose views on the matter at issue were unknown to me. One of these individuals was unable to serve because of his inability to meet with the Committee at any time available for meeting within the interval during which action had to be taken. The Committee, therefore, was made up as follows: Crum, Chairman, Black, Burbank, Dunlop, and Usher.

The Committee met and considered to the best of its ability all aspects of the case, and herewith reports certain recommendations to the Department for such action as it wishes to take. The Chairman of the Committee reported on Tuesday afternoon the 6th to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler the findings of the Committee in outline form because the Chairman thought that the two individuals concerned might have agreed to abide by the finding of the “arbitration” and might be willing to put the findings into effect immediately. The Chairman of the Committee did, however, report to both participants in the controversy that he did not regard the Committee as being clothed with any conclusive authority and that unless the participants in the controversy both accepted the findings of the Committee those findings would have to go to the Department as recommendations and would be subject to such action as the Department saw fit to take.

Statement of the issues.

Course Economics 101 is announced in the spring issue of the current Courses of Instruction pamphlet as to be given jointly Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler, and I am informed that they had during the summer agreed among themselves that, in case the course was given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the course during the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin during the second. Late in the week in which instruction of the present half year began Mr. Chamberlin indicated to Mr. Haberler that he thought the entire course should be given by Mr. Chamberlin. Mr. Haberler objected to any such change and insisted that he continue to give the course during the first half year. The issue, accordingly, was whether the conduct of the course should go forward on the basis of joint responsibility of Mr. Haberler in the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin in the second half year, or should be restored to the basis prevailing for several years in which Chamberlin gave the full course.

History of the case.

After the retirement of Professor Taussig, Course 101 (formerly called Course 11) was given for several years by Mr. Schumpeter by an arrangement which was understood to be provisional and subject to later change. At the end of this interim, after extended consideration of the needs and purposes of the Department with respect to the teaching of the several courses in economic theory, the Department took specific action directing Mr. Chamberlin to teach Course 101. At the same time arrangements were agreed upon by which several other specialists in economic theory in the staff of the Department participated in the instruction in economic theory. Presently the enrolmont in Course 101 became so large that its conduct as a single course by the discussion method became difficult; and, without specific vote of the Department, the course was divided into two sections, with one conducted by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Taylor in 1940-41 and by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Leontief in 1941-42, the other by Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin in both years.

With the decline in enrolment which has occurred, no occasion for such splitting of the course persists, and it has long been forseen that Economics 101 would be conducted as a single section during the present year. In recognition of this, an arrangement was made, without specific action by Department vote, to announce Economics 101 for the present year as to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. At the time this arrangement was made the expectation was that Mr. Chamberlin would be giving during the first half year Economics 1a and Economics 102b and that he should not be called upon to carry the additional instruction involved in teaching Economics 101 during the first term.

The initial enrolment in Economics 102b was so small that the course has been withdrawn from the first term offering, and although it is announced for the second term doubt remains whether the enrolment will be sufficient even then to warrant giving it. In recent months, various changes in personnel of the Department and the necessity of distributing the teaching and other load in all branches of the Department work as fairly and efficiently as possible have resulted in various changes in the assignments of particular officers to particular duties. In these circumstances it became possible for Mr. Chamberlin to resume during the first term instruction in Economics 101 without making his course load excessive.

In connection with the controversy, the Chairman of the Committee had a conversation with Mr. Chamberlin in which the latter presented his own views concerning the history of the case and the points at issue. Mr. Haberler submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee setting forth his ideas on the matter. Those items were brought to the attention of the Committee by its Chairman. Following the meeting of the Committee, Mr. Chamberlin also submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee. Either or both of the written statements will be laid before the Department on request.

Meeting of the Committee.

The Committee met on Tuesday, October 6. The Chairman gave the Committee a history of the case and a summary of the information available bearing upon the point at issue. The Chairman also informed the Committee that he did not understand that the Committee had any conclusive powers and would be obliged to report its findings in the form of recommendations to the Department.

The Chairmen specifically urged the Committee, therefore, in proceeding toward its findings to consider the wisdom of bringing in findings which, in its opinion, would probably be supported by the Department. The Chairman reminded the Committee that adequate treatment of the particular matter at issue might well involve (a) recommendations by the Committee concerning certain related matters affecting other courses; and (b) recommendations by the committee concerning certain longer run matters relating to the general question of our offering in economic theory. The Chairman discussed with the Committee certain basic principles bearing upon the case, and received the concurrence of all the members of the Committee in these principles. They are outlined below.

The Committee then proceeded to discuss the matter at issue and various related matters. Discussion by the members of the Committee was free and active and the Chairman made a special effort to call forth the views of each member of the Committee. After this discussion the Committee agreed upon a set of recommendations to be made to the Department, and to be reported to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler in the hope they would accept the findings. The agreement of the Committee was unanimous. Those recommendations are presented below.

Basic principles.

In approaching a set of findings with respect to the issues raised the Committee had in mind a series of basic principles in which members of the Committee concurred. Those are as follows:

(a) Because of its compressed personnel in wartime and because of the extraordinary wartime adjustments needed in its work: the Department has a peculiarly difficult task of assigning functions to its various officers with a view to getting the essential work of the Department done with such distribution of the burden as will be primarily efficient from the point of view of the Department and secondarily fair from the point of view of the individuals.

(b) Even in peacetime the needs of the Department and the objective of securing maximum efficiency in the performance of Department work transcend the interests and preferences of individual officers. Although in peacetime many concessions can be made with a view to accommodating the preferences and interests of individual officers and with a view to protecting the rights or supposed rights of individual officers, the Department would in general not recognize that such individual interests can overrule the general interest of the Department. In wartime this condition is even more emphatically true, and in such time the individual preferences and interests may be obliged to give way to the general interest of the Department more frequently and more extensively than in normal times. Throughout the duration of the war many if not all of the officers of this Department will be doing work which they prefer not to do and will be denied the opportunity to do work which they would like to do. Without such sacrifices the essential work of the University cannot be effectively handled in wartime.

(c) The Department and the University cannot afford to allow the general interest to be sacrificed because of informal commitments or quasi agreements made among individual officers when such agreements fail to take adequate account of the general interest of the Department, even though those who made the agreements acted in good faith. That agreements thus made may from time to time have to be set aside in the interest of the Department, and that such setting aside may involve some sacrifice by one or more individuals involved must be accepted as one of the costs of giving primary importance to the general interest of the Department. Ordinarily it is to be expected that individuals will refrain from making arrangements for which they have no power under the law of the Department; but ever if such arrangements are entered into under a grant of power, the individuals concerned must recognize that the Department itself has a clear right to final determination at one of its meetings.

(d) To the best knowledge of the Committee, the purpose of the Department with respect to the assignment of instruction in Course 101 remains as it was last officially determined by Department vote several years ago, namely, that Course 101 should be given by Mr. Chamberlin.

(e) Under the stress of war the Department may be obliged to sacrifice in part some branches of its work, and the Committee believes that graduate instruction will probably need to be sacrificed before instruction in undergraduate courses, tutorial instruction, and other Department work directed toward the teaching of undergraduates. A policy which exposes graduate instruction to the principal sacrifices is also likely to result in the most frequent disregard of personal preferences and even of supposed rights of individual officers; but presumably the Department would nevertheless feel that such a policy must be adopted and maintained.

Recommendations to the Department.

After considering the facts laid before it in connection with the matters at issue and in the light of its own agreement on basic principles, the Committee agreed unanimously to present the following recommendations to the Department at its meeting on Tuesday, October 13, and to report these recommendations at once to the parties in the controversy:

(a) That during the present year Mr. Chamberlin be assigned to conduct the entire Course 101.

(b) That, in view of chancing conditions which may mean that the Department’s present total offering in economic theory covering the entire range of courses in that field does not most satisfactorily meet the needs of instruction in that field, the Department promptly and earnestly reconsider the total offering with a view to making such changes as may be necessary in the next announcement of courses. The Committee makes no recommendation as to how the reconsideration should be conducted, whether by the appointment of a committee or by general Department discussion or by a combination. It also makes no specific recommendation as to any changes in the present offerings of courses, but merely notices that such a general reconsideration may well cover the possibility that Mr. Haberler might be asked to give work in economic theory.

(c) The Committee recommends that the Department consider asking Mr. Haberler to take charge of an additional half course during the present academic year, with a view to replacing the first half of Course 101 in rounding out his teaching assignment. The Committee specifically recommends that Course 18b be considered as one of the possibilities for additional instruction by Mr. Haberler; and makes this recommendation because on the one hand the Committee feels that the hurried arrangement by which that course was assigned jointly to four officers won Mr. Harris withdrew may have been ill-advised in that use of too numerous instructors in such a course may damage the continuity from the point of view of the student; and on the other hand the Committee believes that Mr. Haberler’s areas of specialization would enable him to handle this particular course very effectively.

(d) The Committee recommends that the Department consider carefully the question whether in determining that the enrolment in a course is so small that the course should be withdraw only those enrolled for credit should be counted, or whether in addition the auditors should be counted (this question was raised before the Committee in connection with Course 102b in which the first term enrolment was two members for credit plus five others. Course 102b has been withdrawn from the first term offering, but will be announced again for the second term, and the question posed above may at that time again be raised).

W. L. Crumm

___________________________

Thus spake the Dean

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Paul Herman Buck, Dean
Henry Chauncey, Assistant to the Dean
Jeffries Wyman, Jr. Assistant Dean

5 University Hall

January 12, 1943

To the Senior Members of the Department of Economics:

After considerable contemplation of the issue which has arisen between Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and which I have undertaken to arbitrate, I find I am in complete accord with the Report of a Special Committee on the assignment for teaching Economics 101, dated October 13, 1942. I commend especially as sound, the basic principles outlined on page 3 of that report and I accept as my official decision the recommendations to the Department given on page 4 of that report.

Frankly, it seems to me most unfortunate that the issue should have descended into personalities. The department should be prepared to face the large problems of policy which I have outlined in a letter to your Chairman which, I trust, will be read at your meeting tonight. Obviously those problems will not be solved intelligently and equitably if they are not approached with a vision directed to the loyalties of one’s subject and university rather than to self. Is it asking too much to relegate the personal aspects of this issue to oblivion?

It seems to me very important so to do. I have taken a great deal of pride in the distinction of the Department of Economics at Harvard and I have spoken in many circles boastfully of having what seems to me one of the very few remaining great departments of economics in the world. Certainly the responsibility of keeping that department great and of enabling it to develop continuing leadership should be the major loyalty to which every other consideration is subordinate. The awareness of this responsibility and the opportunities it presents will preoccupy your time and energies. Let me conclude by saying that I have always had and retain confidence in the intelligence, initiative, devotion. and cooperative spirit of your membership. I write this with all the more assurance because I know so many of you intimately and appreciate from personal friendship the qualities I have mentioned.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Buck

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 25. Folder “Graduate Instruction in Theory. Economics 101. 1942-43.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Socialism Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Economics of Socialism, Syllabus and Final Exam. O.H. Taylor, 1953

Joseph Schumpeter’s shadow was still cast over “his” Economics of Socialism course that was taken over by Harvard’s historian of political-economy, O. H. Taylor. This post provides the syllabus and final exam for Taylor’s course as taught in the  second term of the 1952-53 academic year. The syllabus from the spring term of 1955 was posted earlier. 

_______________________

Course Announcement, 1952-53

Economics 111. Economics of Socialism.

Half-course (spring term). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 10. Dr. O. H. Taylor.

A brief survey of the development of socialist groups and parties; pure theory of centralist socialism; the economics of Marxism; applied problems.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Courses of Instruction, Box 6, Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year, 1952-53, p. 99.

_______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Economics 111—Economics of Socialism
Spring Term, 1952-53

OUTLINE

  1. January 28-February 13: Socialist Thought Before Marx, and the Doctrines of Marx.

Reading:
1. H. Laidler, Social-Economic Movements, Chapters 8-16.
2. Burns, Handbook of Marxism, Chapter 1.
3. G. H. Sabine, History of Political Theory, Chapters on Hegel and Marx.
4. J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Part I.
5. P. M. Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, Parts I and II.

Lectures:
Introduction. Pre-history of the socialist vision. Some “utopian” socialists. Hegel and Marx, philosophies of history. Marx’s economic interpretation of history. Ricardo and Marx, economic theories of production, class roles and incomes, value, and economic development.

Discussion: February 13.

  1. February 16-27: Marx, continued; and History of German and Other Continental European Socialism (Parties, Movements, and Ideas) to the First World War.

Reading:
1. P. M. Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, Part II (continued).
2. Joan Robinson, Essay on Marxian Economics.
3. O. H. Taylor, “Schumpeter and Marx”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1951.
4. H. Laidler, Social Movements, Chapters 19-23.

Lectures:
Marx’s economics (continued)—theory of capitalism’s (the economy’s) working, evolution, dilemmas, and degeneration, or life-cycle. Marx’s program—strategy and tactics—for the social movement, and ideas of the revolution and its sequel—stages of creation of the socialist society. Lasalle and Marx, and the German Social Democratic Party in the Age of Bismarck. Later history of the German party—Bernstein’s revisionism vs. Marxist orthodoxy. Other Continental European movements, parties, and ideas.

Discussion: February 27.

  1. March 2-13: Varieties of Socialist Thought and Effort, and the Labor Movement in England from 1815 to 1914.

Reading:
1. Max Beer, History of British Socialism, [Volume I] Part 2; [Volume II] 3, 4.
2. G. D. H. Cole, A Short History of the British Working Class Movement, Part I, Chapters 5-9; Parts II and III.
3. The Fabian Essays.

Lectures:

Early Nineteenth Century English radicalism and its varieties—Benthamism, Ricardian socialism (before Marx), Owenism, Chartism. The Christian socialists. Evolution of the trade unions. The Fabians and their philosophy and program. Other socialist societies and creeds. Formation and early history of the Labor Party and its program.

Discussion: March 13.

  1. March 16-27: The Internationals, the First World War, the Russian Revolution, Lenin, and Communism.

Reading:
1. H. Laidler, Social-Economic Movements, Chapters 24-27.
2. G. H. Sabine, History of Political Theory, Chapter “Communism”.
3. Burns, Handbook of Marxism, Chapters 22, 26, 29, 30.
4. P. M. Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, Part IV.

Lectures:
The old socialist internationals; socialist internationalism and pacificism, the German and other parties, and the first World War. Czarist Russia, its radical parties, Lenin and the Bolsheviki, and the Russian Revolutions of 1917-18. Lenin’s policies and the early evolution of the Soviet regime; and Lenin’s theories, or “development” of Marxism. Theory of capitalism and imperialism. Modern Communist Marxism vs. democratic socialism.

Discussion: March 27.

Spring Recess

  1. April 6-17: Economic Theory and the Problems of Planning and Policy in a Socialist Economy.

Reading:
1. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Part IV.
2. Lange-Taylor, Economic Theory of Socialism.
3. M. Dobb, Soviet Economic Development since 1917, Chapters 1, 13.

Lectures:
“Rational economic decisions” in competitive capitalism and in a socialist society; historic, intellectual background and development of the study of this problem. The Lange model of a liberal, competitive-market socialism. Dobbs and others on problems neglected in the Lange model. Critical remarks on the whole discussion—doubts of relevance for socialism of the bourgeois aim at “rational economy.”

Discussion: April 17.

  1. April 20-29: Economic Policies in Soviet Russia, and in England Under the Last Labor Government.

Reading: [blank]

Lectures: [blank]

Discussion: April 29.

 

Source: Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 5. Folder “Economics, 1952-53 (1 of 2)”.

____________________________

1952-53
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 111

[Final examination. May, 1953]

  1. Discuss the implications, and degrees of validity if any, of Marx’s description of the “socialisms”” of Fourier, Owen, etc. as “Utopian,” and of his own system as “scientific socialism.”
  2. Give a general account and discussion of one of the following “parts” of Marx’s system of thought:
    1. His general theory of the dynamics of all history: “materialism,” the dialectic, the economic interpretation of history, the class struggle theory.
    2. His theory of value and surplus value—or value, wages, and capitalist incomes—in the capitalist economy.
    3. His theory of the capital-accumulation process—its causes, motives, and results—and the dynamics, and predicted course, of the evolution of the capitalist economy.
  3. Describe and discuss the character, and some of the main elements or tenets, of Fabian socialist thought. (The reference is only to the original Fabian group, the Webbs, Shaw, etc.)
  4. “Throughout the histories of the German and English socialist movements, the German socialists have been hampered by their excessive burden of dogmatic theory, and the English, by their lack of theory.”
    Comment, in the light of what you know of the actual histories; giving brief accounts of particular episodes or developments—at least one in the history of the German and one in that of the English movement—which might be held to illustrate the statements, and discussing the question, whether and how far they do so.
  5. Choose and discuss one or more of the important theoretical problems to be “solved” in developing any sound, useful structure of economic theory, for use in socialist economic planning and the construction and operation of a socialist economy.
  6. On any one of the important, general topics considered in New Fabian Essays, describe (summarize) the views or opinions expressed therein, and discuss them critically.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives.  Final Exams—Social Sciences, June 1953 (HUC 7000.28, vol. 99).

Image Source: O.H. Taylor in Harvard College, Class Album 1952.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard History of Economics

Harvard. Final exams for “Modern Economic Theory and its Critics”. O.H. Taylor, 1938-39.

 

Just started a “scope and methods of economics” course this semester and after consulting my files from archival visits to Harvard, I discovered that good old Overton Hume Taylor offered a similar course there fifteen times during the 1930s and 1940s. I have already transcribed/posted numerous syllabi and exams for his other courses in the history of economics, political economy, and socialism. For some unknown reason he apparently did not keep a syllabus of assigned readings on file for his “Modern Economic Theory and its Critics” course with the Harvard library. For now we’ll be limited to the printed semester final examinations that I have located in the Harvard archives to reverse-engineer his likely reading assignments.

The stability of the course content may be presumed from the identical course descriptions (with the sole exception of “programmes” becoming “programs”) in the 1932-33 and 1940-41 Division announcements, included below.

Overton Hume Taylor received his economics Ph.D. from Harvard in 1928 with the dissertation “The Idea of a Natural Order in Early Modern Economic Thought.” 

 

Chronology of O. H. Taylor’s course Economics 105
(formerly Economics 17)

1930-31. Ec17 Half-course (second half-year). Classical Economics and Eighteenth Century Philosophy. 3 students enrolled (1 Gr., 1 Sr., 1 Jr.)

1931-32. Ec17 Half-course (second half-year). Classical Economics and Eighteenth Century Philosophy.

1932-33. Ec17 Half-course (second half-year). Modern Economic Theory and its Critics.

1933-34. Ec17 Full-course. Modern Economic Theory and its Critics.

1934-35. Ec17 Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. “This course may be taken as a half-course in either half-year.”

1935-36. Ec17 Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. “This course may be taken as a half-course in either half-year.”

1936-37. Ec105 (formerly 17) Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. “This course may be taken as a half-course in either half-year.”

1937-38. Ec105 (formerly 17) Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. “This course may be taken as a half-course in either half-year.”

1938-39. Ec105 Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. “This course may be taken as a half-course in either half-year.” [Note: James Tobin took the second semester of the course. His student notes are found with his papers at the Yale University archives].

1939-40. Ec105 Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. “This course may be taken as a half-course in either half-year.”

1940-41. Ec105 Half-course (first half-year). Modern Economic Theory and its Critics.

1941-42. Ec105 Half-course (first half-year). Modern Economic Theory and its Critics.

1942-43. Ec105 Half-course (first half-year). Modern Economic Theory and its Critics.

1943-44. Ec105a. Half-course (first half-year).  Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. 12 students enrolled (9 Graduates, 3 Public Admin.)

1944-45. Ec105a. Half-course (first half-year).  Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. 3 students enrolled (1 Graduate,1 Public Admin., 1 Radcliffe)

1945-46. Ec105a Half-course (first half-year). Modern Economic Theory and its Critics. 2 students enrolled (2 Graduate)

1946-47. Ec105a. Half-course (first half-year). 3 students enrolled (1 Graduate, 2 Radcliffe)

_______________________

Course Description, 1932-33

[Economics] 17 2hf. Modern Economic Theory and its Critics

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 12. Dr. Taylor.

A critical study of conflicting views in regard to the proper aim and scope, method, and basic “premises” of economic theory. The views considered are those reflected, in recent English and American literature, in the work of relatively “orthodox” theorists on the one hand, and in the criticisms, programmes, and attempted innovations of various “insurgent” writers on the other hand. Reading, lectures, and discussions.

 

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics 1932-33. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXIX, No. 32 (June 27, 1932), p. 77.

_______________________

Course Description, 1940-41

[Economics] 105a 1hf. Modern Economic Theory and its Critics

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 12. Dr. O. H. Taylor.

A critical study of conflicting views in regard to the proper aim and scope, method, and basic “premises” of economic theory. The views considered are those reflected, in recent English and American literature, in the work of relatively “orthodox” theorists on the one hand, and in the criticisms, programs, and attempted innovations of various “insurgent” writers on the other hand. Reading, lectures, and discussions.

 

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics 1940-41. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVII, No. 51 (August 15, 1940), pp. 58-59.

_______________________

Course Enrollment, 1938-39

[Economics] 105. Dr. O. H. Taylor.—Modern Economic Theory and its Critics.

Total 13: 6 Graduates, 5 Seniors, 2 School of Public Administration

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1938-1939, p. 99.

_______________________

Reading Period Assignments, 1938-39

Mid-year: January 5-18, 1939

Economics 105: Read one of the following:

  1. Jevons, W. S., Theory of Political Economy.
  2. Von Wieser, F., Natural Value.
  3. Wicksteed, P. Common Sense of Political Economy. Vol. I.

 

End-year: May 8-31, 1939

Economics 105: Read one of the following:

T. Veblen, Instinct of Workmanship.
T. Veblen, Theory of Business Enterprise.

 

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

_______________________

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 105
Final Examination, mid-year. 1939.

Answer one of the first three questions — four questions in all. Average time, 45 minutes per question — distribute your time at your own discretion.

  1. Write your own accounts, and critical discussions, of (a) realism and nominalism, (b) rationalism and empiricism, and (c) the ‘methods’ of the ‘classical’ and ‘historical schools’ in economics.
  2. Discuss the general ideas prevalent in the eighteenth century about (a) causal and (b) ethical “natural laws” pertaining to human activities and social life; and the contributions of these ideas to the outlook and beliefs of nineteenth century “orthodox” economists and economic liberals.”
  3. Write a summary and criticism of the main ideas or theses included in Bentham’s “utilitarianism”; and a discussion of the question whether, and how far, the same, or similar, ideas became “the basis” of economic theory, in the hands of Ricardo and of later writers.
  4. Explain the substance, and discuss the merits, of Ricardo’s arguments and “doctrines” about either(1)(a) labor and value, and (b) rent and value; or (2)(a) wages in the short run and in the long run and(b) profits.
  5. Discuss either (a) “romanticism,” and the views of Carlyle or of Ruskin about classical economics; or (b) “positivism,” and the views of Comte.
  6. Explain and discuss the main ideas and reasonings you’ve found in Jevons, von Wieser, or Wicksteed, on the topics of utility, cost, and value.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 13, Papers Printed for Mid-Year Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science. January-February, 1939.

_______________________

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 105
Final Examination, year-end. 1939.

Write on SIX questions; omit either (3) or (4), and either (6) or (8).

  1. Describe and discuss, with reference to Marshall’s Principles, either (a) his ‘sociological’ and ‘economic’ ideas, his theory about ‘wants’ and ‘activities,’ his views about ‘free enterprise,’ his view on the direction of ‘social evolution,’ and his attitude to ‘hedonism’ and the ‘money measure’; or (b) his theories of diminishing and increasing returns, and of ‘lengths of time’ and ‘normal value.’
  2. Describe and discuss Veblen’s idea of the nature of ‘modern science’; his account and criticism of the preconceptions of classical economics; his view of what economic science should be and do; his general theory of the evolution of institutions; and his theory of the conflict of the ‘industrial’ and ‘pecuniary’ classes in modern society. Add your own appraisal of Veblen as ‘scientist,’ and your list of what seems to you his most valuable contributions to economics.
  3. Describe and discuss Mitchell’s account and criticism of the psychological basis of classical theory, and his proposals for a new approach through modern psychologies; and explain your own views on this problem.
  4. Do you think that economic theory should, in reference to social institutions, (a) only postulate various institutional set-ups as ‘given’ and study the solutions of ‘economic’ problems attainable under them, or (b) include the development of institutions in its own subject-matter, i.e. study the interactions of ‘economic’ and ‘institutional’ change? Take one position or the other, and develop your arguments for the position you take.
  5. How does Chamberlin describe and explain the main economic consequences for society of product-differentiation and oligopoly, as compared with those of pure competition? Discuss the assumptions involved in, and the significance of, this comparison. Do you think it has any implications for public policy?
  6. Describe and discuss the main features of Schumpeter’s theory of capitalist ‘development’ – his theories of the nature and rôle of entrepreneurial activity, of credit, of capital, of profits, and of the business cycle.
  7. Write anything you wish to write, on the reading you did under the May reading assignment.
  8. Write a half-hour essay on any topic of your own choice, in any way related to any of the subject-matter of the course not treated in your answers to the foregoing questions.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 4, Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Military Science, Naval Science. June 1939.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1942.

Categories
Harvard History of Economics Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. History of Economics. First semester readings and exams. O. H. Taylor, 1955-56

 

Overton H. Taylor described his book, A History of Economic Thought: Social Ideals and Economic Theories from Quesnay to Keynes (McGraw-Hill, 1960), as “an outgrowth from, or reduction to book form of, a part of the course of lectures, covering the same ground, which I have given annually for many years at Harvard University.”  This post provides the graduate course outline for the first semester and final examinations for both semesters of his course for the 1955-56 academic year. It is something of a mystery that no syllabus with reading assignments for the second semester of the course  can be found in the Harvard archive’s collection of course syllabi (also not for the previous year either). Perhaps the second semester was structured according to the interests of the students in the course and Taylor simply announced reading assignments as they went along. At least the final examination questions from June 1956 give some indication of the material covered (Marx, Austrian value theory, neo-classical economics in general and Marshall in particular, Veblen…but not Keynes).

*  *  *  *  *  *

Earlier syllabi and exams by Taylor in the history of economics have been posted earlier:

Syllabus. Economics 115 (Fall Term, 1948-49). Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times.

Final Exam. Economics 115 (Fall Term, 1948-49). Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times.

Syllabus and Final Exam. Economics 115 (Spring Term, 1947-48). Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times.

A much earlier version of the material for a one semester course:

Syllabus. Economics 1b (Spring Term, 1940-41). The Intellectual Background of Economic Thought.

Final Exam. Economics 1b (Spring Term, 1940-41). The Intellectual Background of Economic Thought.

Greater emphasis on economic theory was given in his graduate course:

Syllabus. Economics 205a (Fall Term, 1948-49). Main Currents of Thought in Economics and Related Studies over Recent Centuries.

In the Preface to his 1960 book Taylor described his purpose in writing as follows:

Perhaps I have a desire to be a ‘missionary’ in both directions–to convert as many noneconomist or lay readers as I can into interested students of economic theory and its history, and to convert more fellow-economists into interested students, also, of the diverse, general views or perspectives on all human affairs which formerly concerned all philosophical political economists.

______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Fall Term, 1955-56

Economics 205
History of Economic Theory
[O. H. Taylor]

I. Sept. 26-30. Introduction.

Reading due Sept. 30. (1) J. A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, Part I, (45 pp.). (2) Review of the Schumpeter History, by O. H. Taylor, in (Harvard) Review of Economics and Statistics, Feb. 1955. (3) Essay, “Philosophies and Economic Theories in Modern Occidental Culture,” by O. H. Taylor in volume, Ideological Differences and World Order, ed. by F. C. S. Northrup. (Also available in O. H. Taylor essays, Economics and Liberalism).

Mon., Sept. 26. Introductory lecture: Aims, scope, and plan of course. Reasons for studying history of economic thought. Interrelations of the history of our “science”, history of popular politico-economic thought, and general backgrounds of economic, social, political, and intellectual history.

Wed., Sept. 28. Second Lecture: A preliminary survey of our subject matter and its-over-all pattern; characters of main developments in antiquity, the middle ages, early-modern times (“mercantilism”), the eighteenth century, classical political economy and its critics, socialism and Marxism, the historical schools, neo-classical systems, and 20th century economics.

Fri., Sept. 30. Class Discussion (no lecture), chiefly on Schumpeter History, Part I.

 

II. Oct. 3-7. Antiquity—Plato and Aristotle and Stoicism, Roman Law, and Early Christianity.

Reading due Oct. 7. (1) G. H. Sabine, History of Political Theory, first 6 chapters. (2) Schumpeter, History, Part II, Ch. 1.

Mon., Oct. 3. Lecture: Ancient Athenian life and thought, and Plato’s philosophy, politics, and economics.

Wed., Oct. 5. Lecture: Aristotle’s philosophy, politics, and economics; and effects on later economics, that of Stoicism, Roman Law, and early Christianity.

Fri., Oct. 7. Class discussion.

III. Oct. 10-14. The Middle Ages—Scholastic Thought—Aquinas.

Reading due Oct. 14. (1) Sabine, History of Political Theory, Ch. 13 (“Universitas Hominum”: St. Thomas and Dante). (2) Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, Part II, Ch. 2, 1st 5 sections.

Mon., Oct. 10. Lecture: Mediaeval Europe, its life and thought; scholastic philosophy and economics; St. Thomas Aquinas.

Wed., Oct. 12. Holiday.

Fri., Oct. 14. Discussion.

IV. Oct. 17-21. Early Modern Europe—Growth of capitalism, national states, the modern (as opposed to mediaeval) intellectual climate, and the ideas and practices of political absolutism and “mercantilism”. (2) The general and political philosophy of Hobbes.

Reading due Oct. 21: (1) Schumpeter, History, Part II, Ch. 2, Secs. 6, 7; and Chs. 3, 4. (2) Hobbes, Leviathan, Chs. 1-6 incl., and 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 24.

Mon., Oct. 17. Lecture: From Mediaevalism to modernity; Evolution of the main elements of modern-western civilization, in the England and Western Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Wed., Oct. 19. Lecture: The general and political philosophy of Hobbes, and its relation to “mercantilist” economic thought and policy.

Fri., Oct. 21. Discussion.

V. Oct. 24-28. Economic Analysis in the Age of “Mercantilism.”

Reading due Oct. 28: (1) Schumpeter, History, Part II, chs. 5, 6, and 7. (2) Look at, read in, “sample,” some of following: Sir T. Mun, England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade; Sir J. Child, A New Discourse on Trade; J. Locke, Considerations on Lowering Interest by Law and Raising the Value of Money; Sir D. North, Discourses on Trade; Sir W. Petty, Economic Writings (Hull, Editor, vol. 1, especially Editor Hull’s introduction and pp. 43-49, 74-77, 89-91, 105-114).

Mon., Oct. 24. Lecture: “Mercantilism” and the 17th century beginnings of modern economic science.

Wed., Oct. 26. Lecture: The transition from “mercantilist” to 18th century “liberal” thought in economics.

Fri., Oct. 28. Discussion.

VI. Oct. 31-Nov. 4. Liberalism, Locke, and the 18th Century Enlightenment.

Reading due Nov. 4: (1) O. H. Taylor essays, “Economics and Ideas of Natural Law,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 44, pp. 1 ff, and 205 ff. (also available in O. H. Taylor, Economics and Liberalism). (2) Review Schumpeter, History, Part II, Ch. II, Secs. 5, 6, 7. (3) J. Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chs. 2-9 incl.

Mon., Oct. 31. Lecture: History of ethical-juristic and natural-scientific “natural law” ideas, and early-modern liberalism; Grotius and others.

Wed., Nov. 2. Lecture: Newton, Locke, and the 18th century’s philosophic vision of the “natural order.”

Fri., Nov. 4. Discussion.

VII. Nov. 7-11. The Philosophy and Economics of the Physiocrats.

Reading due Nov. 11: (1) G. H. Sabine, History of Political Theory, Ch. 27 (“France: the Decadence of Natural Law.”) (2) Review, O. H. Taylor Essays, “Economics and Ideas of Natural Law,” and Schumpeter, History, Part II, Ch. IV.

Mon., Nov. 7. Lecture: The Physiocrats.

Wed., Nov. 9. Lecture: The Physiocrats (continued).

Fri., Nov. 11. Discussion.

VIII. Nov. 14-18. Adam Smith I. His forerunners in moral philosophy (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume), and his Theory of Moral Sentiments; and the relation of this material to the Wealth of Nations.

Reading due Nov. 17: Selby-Bigge, British Moralists, Selection from Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Mon., Nov. 14. Lecture: The psychology and ethics, and philosophy of “the natural order,” of the 18th century Scottish “sentimental” moralists.

Wed., Nov. 16. Lecture: Adam Smith’s philosophy, psychology and ethics, and economics.

IX. Nov. 21-25. Adam Smith II. Economics.

Reading due Nov. 25: Wealth of Nations, Book I, first 7 chapters.

Mon., Nov. 21. Lecture: Adam Smith’s Inquiry into The Wealth of Nations (scope and nature of the book, etc.); and his theory of production, economic progress, “the system of natural liberty,” and “natural” prices, wages, profits, and rents.

Wed., Nov. 23, Lecture: Smith on capital, money, international trade, and other topics.

Fri., Nov. 25. Discussion.

X. Nov. 28-Dec. 2. Utilitarian Liberalism, Benthamism, and Classical (Ricardian) Political Economy.

Reading due Dec. 2: (1) G. H. Sabine, History of Political Theory, Chapter “Liberalism.” (2) Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, Part III, first 3 chapters. (3) Selby-Bigge, British Moralists, Selection from Bentham’s Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation. (4) J. Bentham, Rationale of Reward, Part II.

Mon., Nov. 28. Lecture: Liberal thought in the “natural law” and “utilitarian” versions; Benthamism; and the relation of this wider system of thought to “classical” economics.

Wed., Nov. 30. Lecture: Benthamism and classical economics, concluded.

Fri., Dec. 2. Discussion.

XI. Dec. 5-9. Malthus and Ricardo.

Reading due Dec. 9: (1) Schumpeter, History, Part III, Chs. 4, 5. (2) Ricardo, Principles, Chs. 1-6.

Mon., Dec. 5. Lecture: The Malthusian population principle, its ideological and scientific backgrounds and bearings, and its place in “classical” economics. (2) Malthus vs. Ricardo on other questions in economics.

Wed., Dec. 7. Lecture: Ricardo and his fundamental doctrines.

Fri., Dec. 9. Discussion.

XII. Dec. 12-16. Contemporary Criticisms of Classical Economics, and Rival Currents of Thought in the Same Epoch.

Reading due Dec. 16: (1) T. Carlyle, Past and Present, parts I and III. (2) J. Ruskin, Unto This Last. (3) A. Comte, Positive Philosophy, tr., Harriet Martineau, Introduction and Ch. 1 and Book VI, ch. 1.

Mon. Dec. 12. Lecture: Old and new currents and cross-currents of thought in this period. Advances in economic analysis in other quarters apart from the “classical” one. Contemporary Ideologies and “Lay” criticisms—Romantic, Positivistic, and “Reactionary” and “Radical.”

Wed., Dec. 14. Lecture: (1) Romantic-Conservative Thought in the Period vs. the Utilitarian-Liberal and Classical-Economic viewpoints. (2) Positivism and Comtism vs. liberalism and economics.

Fri., Dec. 16. Discussion.

Reading Period:

J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy

Book I—Chs. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12
Book III—Chs. 1-4 incl., and 11, 15, 16
Book III [sic]

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003. Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1955-1956 (1 of 2) and (2 of 2)”.

______________________

1955-56
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 205
[Mid-year exam, January 1956]

Write half-hour essays on six (6) of the following:

  1. (a) Summarize, and discuss, the main ideas on “economic” (?) subjects that appear in Plato’s Republic. (b) With what tenets of Plato’s philosophy were those ideas connected? Explain these connections. (c) Do you think that modern economics presupposes other, very un-Platonic views in philosophy? Explain and defend your answer to (c).
  2. (a) What principal achievements in economic analysis does Schumpeter credit to the mediaeval scholastic doctors? (b) How, if at all, were their contributions affected (1) in Schumpeter’s view and (2) in your own view, by Scholastic doctrines in philosophy and ethics?
  3. Try to say as concisely and fully as you can, what seem to you the most important things to be said about “mercantilism” as a cluster of economic ideas and policies.
  4. (a) Who were the “econometricians” who are referred to as such in the title of Schumpeter’s chapter “The Econometricians and Turgot”? Identify as many of them as you can, giving names, approximate dates, and when possible, titles of their best-known writings. Then (b) characterize, a little more fully, the work, ideas, and contributions of one important member of that group.
  5. Explain and discuss either (a) the nature and significance of Quesnay’s tableau economique, (b) the Physiocratic philosophy of “the natural order”; or (c) the assumptions and reasoning behind the Physiocratic doctrines leading to identification of the land-rent-income of the proprietary class, with the entire national produit net, and to the views about taxation and other matters based upon that.
  6. “Adam Smith’s economic liberalism resulted logically, not from his ideas in economic theory only, but jointly from those and his fundamental views in philosophy, ethics, psychology, and sociology.” What main Smithian ideas, in each of those fields, in your view, played what parts in the full Smithian argument for economic liberalism?
  7. How do you explain both (1) the very high estimate, by Ricardo’s admirers in England, of the value of his contributions to economic science, and (2) Schumpeter’s rather low estimate of the same? Finally, what kind of an estimate would you offer as your own, and how would you defend it?
  8. Explain, and discuss critically, what you think J. S. Mill meant to assert, in his dictum about the laws of economic production vs. those of distribution—the dependence of the latter but not of the former on human institutions.

Source:  Harvard University Archives.  Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 23. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science  (January, 1956).

______________________

1955-56
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 205
[Final exam, June 1956]

Write one-hour essays on three (3) of the following subjects:

  1. A comparative discussion of the theories of economic development of Ricardo, Marx and Schumpeter.
  2. A comparative discussion of the Ricardian, Austrian, and Marshallian theories of the foundations and adjustment (into equilibrium) of the values and prices of different goods in a competitive economy.
  3. Your own views and arguments as to whether and how far the body of “marginal analysis” worked out in “neo-classical” economics was (1) a great advance in giving economics the precision and rigor of aa real science; or (2) a sad decline into a deadly-dull, unrealistic, and unimportant kind of theorizing, preoccupied with trivialities.
  4. Your own “sorting out,” in Veblen’s thought, of what you regard as his valid insights, and his to-be-rejected notions, (a) as a critic of traditional economic theory, and (b) as a critic of capitalism or the business culture.

Source:  Harvard University Archives.  Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 24. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science (June, 1956).

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1952.

 

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
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Outline and final exam. Economic and Political Ideas, Taylor. 2nd term, 1947-48

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overton H. Taylor described his book, A History of Economic Thought: Social Ideals and Economic Theories from Quesnay to Keynes (McGraw-Hill, 1960), as “an outgrowth from, or reduction to book form of, a part of the course of lectures, covering the same ground, which I have given annually for many years at Harvard University.”  This post provides the undergraduate course outline and final examination for the second half of his course that began with mercantilism and ended with New Deal liberalism and Keynesian economics.

Material from the first half of the course for the immediately following academic year (covering much the same material but stopping at the end of the 19th century) has been posted earlier:

Syllabus. Economics 115 (Fall Term, 1948-49). Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times.

Final Exam. Economics 115 (Fall Term, 1948-49). Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times

A much earlier version of the material for a one semester course has likewise been posted:

Syllabus. Economics 1b (Spring Term, 1940-41). The Intellectual Background of Economic Thought.

Final Exam. Economics 1b (Spring Term, 1940-41). The Intellectual Background of Economic Thought.

Greater emphasis on the economic theory was given in his graduate course:

Syllabus. Economics 205a (Fall Term, 1948-49). Main Currents of Thought in Economics and Related Studies over Recent Centuries.

In the Preface to his 1960 book Taylor described his purpose in writing as follows:

Perhaps I have a desire to be a ‘missionary’ in both directions–to convert as many noneconomist or lay readers as I can into interested students of economic theory and its history, and to convert more fellow-economists into interested students, also, of the diverse, general views or perspectives on all human affairs which formerly concerned all philosophical political economists.

 

________________________

 

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 15a. Dr. Taylor.—Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times (F).

Total 100: 5 Graduate, 44 Seniors, 40 Juniors, 8 Sophomores, 1 Radcliffe, 2 Other.

 

[Economics] 15b. Dr. Taylor.—Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times (Sp).

Total 33: 2 Graduates, 18 Seniors, 8 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 2 Radcliffe, 2 Public Administration.

 

Source: 15a, Fall term ; 15b, Spring term: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1947-48, pp. 68, 89.

________________________

Economics 15b (115)
Spring Term, 1948
Outline

I. February 5 — 14. 17th Century Political Absolutism and Mercantilism. Liberalism.

Reading due February 14:

(1) Hobbes Leviathan, Chs. 1-6, incl.; 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24;
(2) Locke, Civil Government II, Chs. 2, 3, 5, and 7-12, Incl.; and
(3) Gray, Economic Doctrines, Chs. 1-3.

Lectures

Th., Feb. 5, Introductory lecture about the course.

Sat, Feb. 7, Western civilization in the 17th Century, and the philosophy and political theory of Hobbes.

Tu., Feb. 10, Mercantilism and its economic theory.

Th., Feb. 12, 18th Century liberalism vs. political absolutism and mercantilism; and Locke’s theory of the free society.

Discussion

Sat., Feb. 14, Class discussion of the reading in Hobbes, Locke, and Gray.

II. February 17 — 28. 1705-1850. Foundations of the Classical, Liberal Theory of Political Economy.

Reading due February 28:

(1) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments: Part I, sec. I, and Part II, secs. I, II or (1a) Selby-Bigge, British Moralists, Selection from A. Smith, Moral Sentiments;
(2) Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book I, 1-7, incl.

Lectures

Tu., Feb. 17 Newton, Locke, and the 18th century’s vision of “the natural order.”

Th., Feb. 19 The philosophy and economic theory of the Physiocrats.

Sat., Feb. 21 Adam Smith’s philosophy, theory of morals and law, and economic theory.

Tu., Feb. 24 Hume and Bentham vs. natural law. Utilitarian liberalism.

Th., Feb. 26 Malthus and Ricardo. The classical theory of political economy.

Discussion

Sat., Feb. 28 Class discussion of the Adam Smith reading.

III. March 2 — 13. Early 19th Romantic and Positivistic Attacks and Alternatives.

Reading due March 13

(1) Spann, History of Economics, Chs. [no chapters given, but would appear to be Spann’s Chapter 8A of the 1930 translation “Types of Economic Theory”]
(2) Comte, Positive Philosophy, pp.[no pages given, but note Introd. Ch. 1; Book VI, 1, 2 were assigned by Taylor in his graduate course Econ 205a]
(3) J. S. Mill, Essays, Utilitarianism, and Liberty.

Lectures

Tu., March 2, The romantic movement and the anti-liberal reaction.

Th., March 4, Carlyle and Ruskin vs. the economists and utilitarians.

Sat., March 6, The romantic reaction in Germany, and types of political and economic thought it produced there.

Tu., March 9, August Comte’s philosophy, and critique of the classical, liberal economic theory.

Th., March 11, Early socialism; and J. S. Mill’s attempted synthesis.

Discussion

Sat., March 13, Class discussion of the Spann, Comte, and Mill reading.

IV. March 16 — 27. Marxism.

Reading due March 27:

Burns, Handbook of Marxism, Chs. [no chapters given here, but note Chs. 1, 13, 14, 22, 26, 29, 30 were assigned by Taylor in his graduate course Econ 205a]

Lectures

Tu., March 16, Antecedents and elements of Marxism: “utopian” socialism, Hegel’s philosophy of history, and Ricardo’s economic theory.

Th., March 18, Marx: theory of history.

Sat., March 20, Marx: economic theory of capitalism: value, wages, and profits.

Tu., March 23, Marx: theory of capitalism’s destined evolution and self-destruction.

Th., March 25, Marx: theory of the revolution and the new society.

Discussion

Sat., March 27, Discussion of the Marx reading.

March 28—April 4, Spring Recess

V. April 5 — 17. 1870-1914. Victorian Conservative Liberalism and Neo-Classical Economics.

Reading due April 17:

(1)  C. Brinton, English Political Thought in the 19th Century, Ch. III, Secs. 1, 2; IV, 1, 2, 3, 4; and
(2) A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book I, Chs. 1-3; III; IV, Chs. 1-3 and 8-13; and V, Chs. 1-5.

Lectures

Tu., April 5, The epoch and ideology of Victorian conservative liberalism.

Th., April 7, The renaissance and new ideas of liberal economic theory in this epoch. The discoverers of “marginal utility”—Jevons, the Austrians, Walras, and Marshall.

Sat., April 9, The market mechanism of the free economy and its equilibrium.

Tu., April 13, Marginal productivity and incomes; Clark and Carver.

Th., April 15, Alfred Marshall.

Discussion

Sat., April 17, Discussion of the political ideas of Brinton’s Victorians, and Marshall’s economics.

VI. April 20 — May 1. Present Day Ideologies and Economic Theory.

Reading due May 1:

(1) Sabine, History of Political Theory, Chs. 28 to end of book, omit 31;
(2) John Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action; and
(3) Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society, Part II, Sec. 2, and III through Sec. 5.

Lectures

Tu., April 20, Russian Communism versus Democracy and Liberal Capitalism or Liberal Socialism.

Th., April 22, Ideas of and about Fascism.

Sat., April 24, From 19th century to present day Liberalism.—continuity and contrast. The New Deal and the American tradition.

Tu., April 27, The economic theory of monopolistic competition, and liberal policy.

Th., April 29, “Keynesian” economic theory, and liberal policy.

Discussion

Sat, May 1, Discussion of the Sabine, Dewey, and Beveridge reading.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Reading Period
May 3—15, 1948

Economics 15b: Read one of the following:

Schumpeter: Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Parts 1, 2, and 4.

Lionel Robbins: Nature and Significance of Economics.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists I Economics, 1895-2003. Box 4, Folder “Economics, 1947-1948 (1 of 2)”

________________________

1947-48
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 15b
[Final examination, May 1948]

Answer in all five questions, including 7a or 7b; and make one of your answers a one hour essay, so marked in your blue book.

  1. “Although the classical economists were free market liberals, the picture presented in their economic theory of the ‘natural’ working of the free market economy was not a picture of utopian perfection. They acknowledged a number of real flaws in the system. Then Marx, professing to build on but actually distorting the classical theory, exaggerated those flaws into evils held to be destined to destroy the system. And later the neo-classical economists, in opposition to Marx and in the effort to buttress laissez-faire more thoroughly, revised the old classical theory into one which appeared to support an unqualified optimism.”
    Explain and discuss each part of the statement. What flaws did old classical theory find in the system? What graver ones did Marx impute to it, and what were the chief similarities and differences between his and Ricardo’s doctrines in this connection? What novel concepts and doctrines in neo-classical theory contributed to its purer optimism; and how did they do so, and how legitimately?
  2. “The trouble with the free enterprise or free market economic system is that its long-run effects on a society’s culture and internally prevailing human attitudes, eventually destroy the kind of milieu which alone can enable this economic system to serve the general welfare, and survive. Where and as long as there is a real community, held together by a real moral consensus holding the competition of private interests within the bounds of mutual fair play, the free market system can develop and function well. But in time the growth of competitive, acquisitive ambitions and skills, in the mass of individuals and private groups, breaks through and dissolves the moral consensus and the bonds uniting the community. Competition then becomes warfare and anarchy, and coercive public controls must be developed to take the place, if possible, of the agreement in self-control by all severally, which has broken down.”
    What truth if any do you think is contained in this argument? What might be cited as some times of historical and contemporary evidence at least appearing to support it, and help convincingly in your judgment can it be thus supported? How might an economic theorist still thoroughly devoted to free-market liberalism, reply to the argument, and how if at all would you criticize his (best) reply to it?
  3. “The theory of monopolistic competition proves that, instead of harmonizing all private interests with the public interests, most actual business competition has characteristics which make the maximizing of private gains decidedly injurious to the economic welfare of society.”
    Explain and discuss. What characteristics of “most actual business competition” are referred to? Explain the proof of their socially undesirable consequences, and discuss any criticisms or limitations of this proof that you think may be valid. Do you think “decidedly injurious” is an overstatement? Why or why not?
  4. “Classical economics denied that there ever could be any deficiency of total demand for a full-employment output of the economy. Marx saw inevitable, chronic deficiency of total demand as one of the ‘internal contradictions’ bound eventually to destroy private capitalism. Keynes agreed with Marx about the deficiency, but, having a different theory of its causes, thinks it can be remedied by a simple type of governmental action within the capitalist framework.”
    Explain and discuss. How did the classical view support its denial of the possibility of deficient demand? Why is demand deficient according to Marx? Wherein does Keynes agree, and disagree with Marx? On what assumptions may the Keynesian remedy be held come consistent with retention of private capitalism; on what other assumptions, inconsistent with that?
  5. Describe and discuss all the main, admitted, and (in your opinion) likely ultimate, curtailment of individual freedoms in the Beveridge program for assuring “full employment in a free society.” Would you fear an eventual loss of virtually all freedom – “totalitarian” outcome – if the whole program were adopted in this country? Why or why not?
  6. Discuss the common and the divergent elements of the old classical liberalism, the liberalism of the Roosevelt New Deal, and the outlook of the average present day American exponent of “free enterprise.” As between our “New Dealers” and conservative “free enterprisers,” which group more nearly represents the main essentials of the older liberalism, in your opinion? Explain and defend your opinion on the last point carefully.
  7. (a) If you read Schumpeter in the reading period, explain and discuss his theory of the ways in which capitalism is preparing its own demise and the way for socialism.
    (b) If you read Robbins, state in your own words, and discuss critically, his definition of what economic science deals with and accomplishes.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001, Box 15, Papers Printed For Final Examinations: History, History of Religions,…,Economics,…Military Science, Naval Science. May 1948.

Image source: O. H. Taylor in the Harvard Class Album, 1942.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard History of Economics Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Graduate history of political economy course. Taylor, 1948-49

 

 

Overton Hume Taylor served as the Harvard economics department’s one-man show of PPE interdisciplinarity at both the undergraduate and graduate level for about two decades covering the middle of the 20th century. Materials from six of his courses have already been posted.

Econ 1. (with Leontief and Chamberlin) Honors Economic Theory, 1939-40
Econ 1b. Intellectual Background of Economic Thought, 1941, [Final Exam for the Course]
Econ 115. (with Leontief) Programs of Social and Economic Reconstruction, 1942-43
Econ 115. Economic and Political Ideas, 1948 , [Mid-year Exam for Economic and Political Ideas]
Econ 111. (with others) Economics of Socialism, 1950
Econ 111. Socialism, 1955

Here is a link to Taylor’s A History of Economic Thought (1960) that puts between two covers much, if not all, of what he had to say about the history of economics, politics and philosophy. 

Kindred spirits are to be found behind the course syllabi by Louis Putterman at Brown (1995) and Michael Piore at M.I.T (1977) posted earlier.

_____________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 205a (formerly Economics 105a). Main Currents of Thought in Economics and Related Studies over Recent Centuries (F). Dr. O. H. Taylor.

Total 15: 4 Graduates, 3 Seniors, 6 Public Administration, 2 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1948-49, p. 77.

_____________________

Course Syllabus

Main Currents of Thought in Economics and Related Studies over Recent Centuries
Economics 205a
1948-49

  1. September 30—October 7. Introduction: Plato and the Middle Ages; Hobbes and the Mercantilists

Reading: (1) Plato Republic, Book II; (2) Hobbes, Leviathan, Chs. 1, 6, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24; (3) One of the following: Sir T. Mun, England’s Treasure; Sir J. Child, Discourses in Trade; Sir D. North, Discourse on Trade; or Locke, Interest and Money

Thursday, September 30, Introductory lecture.

Tuesday, October 5. Plato and the ancient-medieval antecedents of modern-western culture and economic thought. Modernity vs. medievalism; 17th century England; and Hobbes vs. Plato

Thursday, October 7. 17th century English mercantilism and economic theory

  1. October 14—21. Liberalism; Locke, the Physiocrats, and Adam Smith; and Benthamism

Reading: (1) O. H. Taylor, 2 articles on natural law ideas and economics, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 44; (2) Locke, Civil Government, II, Chs. 2, 5, 7-12, inclusive; and (3) Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Chs. 1-7.

[Tuesday, October 12, Holiday]

Thursday, October 14. Liberalism and economic thought-varieties of former and their effects on latter—from early-modern times to the present

Tuesday, October 19. Ethical natural law and early-modern liberalism. Locke vs. Hobbes. Locke, Newton, and 18th century ideas of the natural order. Philosophies and economic theories of the Physiocrats and Adam Smith

Thursday, October 21. Benthamism. Utility and natural law. Utilitarian liberalism and classical economics

  1. October 26—November 4. Malthus and Ricardo; the Romantic Reaction: Comte; Early Socialism and J. S. Mill

Reading: (1) Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy, Chs. 11-6; (2) Sabine, History of Political Theory, Chs. 28, 29, 30, 34; (3) A. Comte, Positive Philosophy (translation, Martineau), Introd. Ch. 1; Book VI, 1, 2; and (4) J. S. Mill, Logic, Book VI.

Tuesday, October 26. (1) Malthus vs. the anarchist-socialists; (2) Ricardo’s Economic theory

Thursday, October 28. The romantic reaction against rationalism, science and liberalism. Political and economic ideas of the English romanticists. Special development of this outlook in Germany

Tuesday, November 2. Romanticism, positivism, and the main 18th century outlook-interrelations. The positivism of August Comte vs. liberalism and economic science

Thursday, November 4. (1) Pre-Marxian socialism; (2) J. S. Mill’s attempted synthesis

  1. November 9—18. Marxism

Reading: (1) Burns, Handbook of Marxism, Chs. 1, 13, 14, 22, 26, 29, 30; (2) Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Part I.

Tuesday, November 9. “Utopian” socialism, Hegel, Ricardo, and Marx; and the Marxian theory of history

[Thursday, November 11, Holiday]

Tuesday, November 16. The Marxian economics—theory of capitalism

Thursday, November 18. The Marxian vision of the future beyond capitalism; and concluding remarks on Marxism

  1. November 23—December 7. Victorian Conservative Liberalism and Neo-Classical Economics

Reading: A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book I, Chs. 1 and 2; Appendices A, B; Book III; Book IV, Chs. 1-3 inclusive and 8-13 inclusive; Book V, Chs. 1-5 inclusive

Tuesday, November 23. How in late 19th century the classical liberalism, originally a radical, became a conservative ideology. Social Philosophy of conservative liberalism, and new developments of economic theory in this context after 1870

[Thursday, November 25, Holiday]

Tuesday, November 30. Utility economics and utilitarianism—the free price system and economic welfare. Marginal productivity and distributive justice—Clark and Carver. And neo-classical theories about capital, money, business cycles, monopoly, and economic progress.

Thursday, December 2. The development, value, and limitations of mathematical economics

Tuesday, December 7. The special views and system of Alfred Marshall

  1. December 9—16. Veblen; Chamberlin; and Keynes

Reading: Max Lerner; The Portable Veblen (Viking Library), pp. 215-297; 306-349; 377-395; 431-467

Thursday, December 9. Thorstein Veblen’s philosophy and sociology (called economics) vs. the main-tradition economics. His contributions to “institutional economics,” and to the “New Deal” and latter-day American  liberalism.”

Tuesday, December 14. Veblen vs. neo-classical theory of competition, and Chamberlin’s theory of monopolistic competition. Critique of latter as analysis, and in its bearings and problems of public policy.

Thursday, December 16. “Keynesianism” the decisive break with neo-classicism and the old economic-liberal orthodoxy. Its antecedents in the main tradition of economic theory, and relations to mercantilism, liberalism, and socialism. Its contribution to analysis and policy, and its limitations.

[Reading Period]

“Dr. Taylor will announce assignment in class.”

[Based on last examination question below, the reading period assignment would probably have been: David Wright, Democracy and Progress]

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 4, Folder “Economics, 1948-1949 (2 of 2)”.

_____________________

Final Examination

ECONOMICS 205a
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1948-49

Write on four questions, including the first and last in the following list. Devote one hour to the first question, and one hour to one of the others, marking as such your two one-hour essays.

  1. Discuss the statements (a), (b), and (c) below—each in turn, briefly, indicating with reasons your agreement or disagreement. Then either select the one (if any) which you agree with, or otherwise state your own position on the problem; and apply (illustrate) that position through relevant comments on any two of the general patterns of political-and-economic thought considered in the course.
    1. “Historical study of the co-variation of economic with political thought refutes the scientific claims of economics. Economists have always divided into ‘schools,’ on political lines; and each ‘school’ has developed its own system of economic theory, in conflict with all others, and in a close tie-up with its own partisan, political philosophy.”
    2. “Economists have too often mingled and confused suggestions of their personal, philosophical and political opinions with their contributions to scientific, economic theory or analysis. But in reality the former have been irrelevant, the latter independent of them; and the competent economists of all political persuasions have converged to agreement in the field of the science itself.”
    3. “The political philosophies of economists have not as a rule made their economic theories by any means wholly unscientific or non-scientific, nor—however sharp the oppositions between the former—irreconcilable. But they have produced biased concentrations on the special groups of economic-scientific problems seen as important from the standpoints of the political philosophies; and made all economic theories partial analyses, disclosing means to desired ends.”
  2. “Unqualified adherence to the premise that ‘natural’ human behavior is simply rational pursuit of individual self-interest, would have logically obliged Adam Smith and the classical economists after him to follow Hobbes in supporting a ‘Totalitarian,’ despotic government as indispensable for civil peace and order; and to follow the ‘mercantilist’ writers in supporting economic controls by such a government, as indispensable for national prosperity and an orderly working of the national economy. The ‘liberal,’ political and policy views of Adam Smith and his followers required and had as their ultimate foundation, a belief—shared with Locke but not with Hobbes—that moral self-restraint in deference to the rights of others is a ‘natural,’ human disposition, capable of limiting self-interested action to what is consistent with it.” Discuss.
  3. “The entire main tradition of economic theory, in its development from the eighteenth through the nineteenth into the twentieth century, retained, in defiance of growing factual evidence, a strong optimistic bias about the free-competition market economy—identification of its equilibrium with a social-economic optimum—which had its sole origin in the eighteenth century’s optimistic, metaphysical belief in an harmonious, natural order.” Discuss.
  4. Discuss the apparent and often alleged intellectual debts or similarities of basic elements of (a) Ricardian classical economic theory, (b) the later body of ‘neo-classical’ theory emphasizing ‘marginal utility’ etc., and (c) Pigou’s and more recent theories of ‘welfare economics,’ to Bentham’s psychological, ethical, and social theories. What elements of each (a, b, and c) might appear to derive from ‘Benthamism,’ and what real similarities and significant differences do you see between them and the corresponding elements of the latter?
  5. Describe and discuss either (a) the English and German ‘romantic’ or (b) August Comte’s ‘positivistic’ line of attack upon the classical-liberal pattern of political-and-economic thought and its ‘eighteenth century philosophical foundation.’
  6. Compare and discuss Ricardo’s and Marx’s “labor theory of value”—explaining how each author developed, supported, construed, and used the theory; the points wherein you think they agreed or differed; and the points you would make in defense and/or criticism of each author’s theory.
  7. Outline, explain briefly, and discuss critically the main philosophical and economic-theoretical ingredients of the Marxian “dynamic” theory of evolving capitalism.
  8. “In the development of economic theory since its early classical period, the prevalence of a too single-minded pursuit of increasing logical precision and rigor, mistakenly conceived as the whole of scientific progress, has made theory increasingly abstract and decreasingly useful in the study of concrete, real problems.”
  9. Compare and contrast the Veblenian with the Marxian theory of the modern ‘capitalist’ culture, the ‘class’ conflict within it, why and how ‘business’ injures the economic welfare of society, and the kind of régime which should (and will or may) replace ‘capitalism’ in the future; and develop your own appraisal or critique of Veblen’s views on these matters.
  10. Write your own summary of and commentary on the central thesis of David Wright’s “Democracy and Progress,” concerning the historic method or secret of modern economic progress, and the cultural and political trends now menacing its continuance.

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 16, Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions, Government, Economics,…Military Science, Naval Science, Feb. 1949.

Image Source:  Overton Hume Taylor, Lecturer on Economics and Tutor. Harvard Class Album, 1939.

Categories
Harvard Socialism Suggested Reading Syllabus Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate economics syllabus. Socialism, O.H. Taylor, 1955

 

 

The economics of socialism was a regular undergraduate course offering at Harvard from the turn of the twentieth century to well into the second half of the century. Besides the syllabus with assigned readings  along with the final examination questions.

Transcriptions of related course materials at the following links:

Economics of Socialism (Ec 111) taught by Taylor in 1952-53

Economics of Socialism (Ec 111) taught by Schumpeter, Taylor with lectures by Gerschenkron and Galenson in 1949-50.

Economics of Socialism (Ec 11b) taught by Schumpeter in 1945-46

Economics of Socialism (Ec 11b) taught by Schumpeter in 1943-44

Economics of Socialism (Ec11b) taught by Sweezy in 1939-40

Economics of Socialism (Ec11b) taught by Mason and Sweezy in 1937-38

Programs of Social Reconstruction  (Ec 7c) taught by Mason  in 1933

Economics of Socialism, Anarchism and the Single Tax  (Ec 7b) taught by Carver  in 1920

Socialism and Communism (Ec 14) taught by Carver and Bushnee in 1901-02

____________________

Course enrollment

[Economics] 111. Socialism. Dr. O. H. Taylor. Half course. (Spring)

Total, 9: 1 Graduate, 3 Seniors. 1 Junior, 1 Sophomore, 3 others.

 

Source:  Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1954-55. P. 89.

   ____________________

Course Syllabus

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Spring Term, 1955

Economics 111

  1. Feb. 2-11. Pre-Marxian Socialism.

Reading due Feb. 11: H. Laidler, Social-Economic Movements, chs. [8-12]

Wed., Feb. 2. Introductory Lecture, about the course.

Fri., Feb. 4. Lecture: Antecedents of Socialist thought in European culture — ancient, mediaeval, and early-modern.

Mon., Feb. 7. Lecture: Antecedents of socialist thought, II—The “enlightenment,” liberalism, and socialism; A. Smith, Bentham, Ricardo, and others.

Wed., Feb. 9. Lecture: The “utopian” socialists—St. Simon, Fourier, and R. Owen.

Fri., Feb. 11. Discussion.

  1. Feb. 14-Mar. 4. Marxian Socialism—the Doctrinal System of Karl Marx.

Reading due Feb. 18: Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Part I

Mon., Feb. 14. Lecture: “Utopian” socialism, Hegel, Ricardo, and Marx’s “scientific” socialism.

Wed., Feb. 16. Lecture: Hegel and Marx, philosophers of history; and Marx’s “science” of society and history.

Fri., Feb. 18. Discussion.

Reading due Feb. 25: P. M. Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, parts I, II.

Mon., Feb. 21. Lecture: Marx’s economics. 1—Theories of value, wages, surplus value, accumulation of capital, and evolving capitalism.

Wed., Feb. 23. Lecture: Marx’s economics. 2—Theory of capitalism’s evolution and decline or life-cycle; crises (business cycle), change from competitive to monopoly capitalism, and transition to socialism.

Fri. Feb. 25. Discussion.

Reading due Mar. 4: P. M. Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, Part IV.
J.A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Part II.
O. H. Taylor article, “Schumpeter and Marx,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1951.

Mon., Feb. 28. Lecture: Modern Marxist (Communist) additions to Marx’s doctrines about capitalism in decline, and the transition; theory of “imperialism,” etc.

Wed., Mar. 2. Lecture: Schumpeter and Marx—two views of capitalism and its history and destiny—a comparison and contrast, illuminating Marxism.

Fri., Mar. 4. Discussion.

  1. Mar. 7-18. Marxian Socialism in Germany and Europe—Party Histories—to World War I.

Reading due Mar. 11: Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Part V.
P. M. Sweezy, Socialism, Chs.

Mon., Mar. 7. Lecture: Marx, Lasalle, and the German Social Democratic Party, to the Gotha Program.

Wed., Mar. 9. Lecture: The Revisionist Controversy of the German Socialists.

Fri., Mar. 11. Discussion.

Reading due Mar. 18: [blank]

Mon., Mar. 14. Lecture: Histories of French and Italian Socialism.

Wed., Mar. 16. Lecture: History of Scandinavian Socialism.

Fri., Mar. 18. Discussion.

  1. Mar. 21-April 1. English Socialism—History.

Reading due Mar. 25: G.D.H. Cole, A Short History of the British Working Class Movement, Part I, chs. 5-9 incl. and Part II.
The Fabian Essays.

Mon., Mar. 21. Lecture: From Owen to the Fabians.

Wed., Mar. 233. Lecture: Fabian Socialism.

Fri., Mar. 25. Discussion.

Reading due April 1: New Fabian Essays.

Mon., Mar. 28. Lecture: Evolution (since 1900) of the English Labor Party and its Socialism.

Wed., Mar. 30. Lecture: English Socialism, 1945-50—Partial Realization, and Changing Outlook.

Fri., April 1. Discussion.

April 3-10. SPRING RECESS.

  1. April 11-22. Russian Communism and the Soviet System.

Reading due April 15: M. Dobb
A. Baykov, Dev. Soviet Econ. System

Mon., Apr. 11. Lecture: Lenin, the Russian Revolution, and Early Evolution of the Soviet System.

Wed., Apr. 13. Lecture: The Five-Year Plans; Russia’s Industrialization and Economic Policies

Fri., Apr. 15. Discussion

Reading due April 22: [blank]

Mon., Apr. 18. Lecture: The Russian Economy—Operation.

Wed., Apr. 20. Lecture: Russian Society, State, and Civilization—Extra-Economic Features of the System.

Fri., Apr. 22. Discussion.

  1. April 25-May 2. Economic Theory of Liberal Socialism—The Lange Model.

Reading due May 2: Lippincott (ed.), Economics of Socialism

Mon., Apr. 25. Lecture: History of Modern Theory of “Competitive” Socialism: Von Mises, Barone, Lange, etc.

Wed., Apr. 27. Lecture: The O. Lange Model and Argument

Fri., Apr. 29. Lecture: Problems of Full Socialism in Practice.

Mon., May 2. Discussion.

 

Reading Period

David M. Wright. Capitalism (entire book).

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1954-1955 (1 of 2)”.

   ____________________

1954-55
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 111
[Final Examination. June, 1955]

Write half-hour answers to six of the following questions including no. 8

  1. (a) Explain and discuss (as to its validity) all that you think Marx meant in describing pre-Marxian socialist thought as “utopian,” and in claiming that his own new kind was “scientific.”
    (b) Briefly characterize the outlook and program either of Fourier or of Robert Owen, and discuss the questions whether, how far, and wherein it was “utopian” in Marx’s sense.
  2. Summarize briefly, and discuss critically, Marx’s general theory of the process and pattern of all human history, or social evolution.
  3. Give a general account and criticism of the main ideas in Marx’s critical analysis of capitalism and its prospects—the main things that he claimed to see and/or foresee as the economic system’s destined-to-become-fatal flaws, and the way in which they would develop and bring on its doom and the advent of socialism.
  4. Discuss what have tended to be the chief problems or difficulties of Marxian socialist parties, endeavoring to adhere closely to the teachings of Marx and at the same time to cope with the practical exigencies arising in their careers as political parties. Illustrate your points from the history of the German Social Democratic Party.
  5. Give a general account of English Fabian socialism—its main distinctive characteristics, ideas, aims, and tactics—in comparison and contrast with Marxian socialism.
  6. Explain and discuss what you think are the main attractions and disattractions of present-day Communism for the world’s economically backward countries.
  7. State and explain your opinions about (a) the theoretically possible and (b) the likely actual success of a (realized) socialism that would do its best to carry out Oscar Lange’s proposals, in serving the economic welfare of the people better than it could be served by private capitalism.
  8. Write a critical review of or commentary on Pigou’s essay “Socialism vs. Capitalism.”

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Naval Science, Air Science, June, 1955. Included in bound volume Final Exams, Social Sciences, June, 1955 (HUC 7000.28, Vol. 110).

Image Source: O.H. Taylor in Harvard College, Class Album 1952.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard Pennsylvania Williams

Harvard. Job placements of economics PhDs. Jewish candidates, 1928-29

 

In this post I provide transcriptions of four letters concerning Harvard Ph.D.s on the job market. Two of candidates (Mandell Morton Bober and Richard Vincent Gilbert) were Jewish and this was considered an important characteristic to signal to prospective employers. Nothing from the Harvard side indicates anything other than a willingness to provide information that would be revealed in the process of recruitment anyway. In an earlier post we could read a similar letter by Allyn Young’s on behalf of his protégé Arthur William Marget for a position at the University of Chicago in 1927. In the cases below we again see anti-Jewish prejudice on the demand side of the market for academic economists.

Before getting to the letters (that are also interesting for providing a glimpse into job placement at the time), I provide a bit of information about each of the Harvard alumni discussed.

______________

Harvard Ph.Ds discussed

Beach, Walter Edwards

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1929.
Thesis title: International gold movements in relation to business cycles.
A.B. Stanford University, 1922; A.M. Harvard University.
1929. Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.

Bober, Mandell Morton

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1925.
Thesis title: Karl Marx’s interpretation of history.
S.B. University of Montana, 1918; A.M. Harvard University, 1920.
1925. Instructor in Economics, Boston University.
1926. Instructor in Economics. and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass.

Gilbert, Richard Vincent

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1930.
Thesis title: Theory of International Payments.
S.B. Harvard University, 1923; A.M. Harvard University, 1925.

Hohman, Elmo Paul

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1925.
Thesis title: The American whaleman: a study of the conditions of labor in the whaling industry, 1785-1885.
A.B. University of Illinois, 1916; A.M. University of Illinois, 1917; A.M. Harvard University, 1920.
1925. Assistant Professor of Economics, Northwestern University.
1926. Assistant Professor of Economics, Northwestern University. Evanston, Ill.

Patton, Harald Smith

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1926.
Thesis Title: Grain growers’ cooperation in Western Canada.
A.B. University of Toronto, 1912; A.M. Harvard University, 1921.
1926. Associate Professor of Economics, University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, O.

Remer, Charles Frederick

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1923.
Thesis title: The foreign trade of China.
A.B. University of Minnesota, 1908; A.M. Harvard University, 1917.
1923. Instructor in Economics, and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.
1926. Orrin Sage Professor of Economics, Williams College. Williamstown, Mass.

Roberts, Christopher

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1927.
Thesis title: The History of the Middlesex Canal.
S.B. Haverford College, 1921; A.M. Harvard University 1922.
1927. Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.

Smith, Walter Buckingham

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1928.
Thesis title: Money and prices in the United States from 1802 to 1820.
A.B. Oberlin College, 1917; A. M. Harvard University, 1924.
1928. Assistant Professor Economics, Wellesley College.

Taylor, Overton Hume

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1928.
Thesis title: The idea of a Natural Order in Early Modern Economic Thought.
A.B. University of Colorado 1921.
1928. Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.

 

Source: Harvard University. Doctors of Philosophy and Doctors of Science Who have received their Degree in Course from Harvard University, 1873-1926, with the Titles of their Theses. Cambridge: 1926. Also Annual Reports of the President of Harvard College.

______________

Carbon copy
Possible candidates for Charles Frederick Remer successor at Williams College

June 19, 1928.

Dear Professor Taussig:

Professor Burbank has asked me to write to you in answer to your letter of the 13th regarding possibilities for Remer’s position at Williams.

He believes that Bober can be recommended in the highest terms, but that the matter of his race should be mentioned. Gilbert, now at Rochester, is very able and in spite of the fact that he still has to complete his work for the Ph.D., might well be considered. He does not think so very highly of Patton; Hohman at Northwestern is fully as good.

He wonders what you would say regarding Walter Smith. He has some personal qualities that might cause trouble at Williamstown, but he is fully as capable as Remer.

If Professor Bullock has not left for Europe he suggests that he should be consulted since he knows the Williamstown situation very well.

Sincerely yours,

[unsigned, departmental secretary?]

______________

 

Carbon copy
Possible candidates for position at St. Lawrence University

January 28, 1929.

My dear Mr. Cram:

I have your note regarding the position at St. Lawrence University.

Beach probably will not go out next year. He wishes to stay here another year, and if we can make adequate provision for him we will do so.

If St. Lawrence is insistent upon the Ph.D you might recommend in very strong terms Christopher Roberts. If they will take a Jew you can recommend in superlative terms Professor M. M. Bober, now at Lawrence College; and also you might recommend under the above conditions, but perhaps less strongly R. V. Gilbert whom we expect to take the Ph.D this June.

However, before making any recommendations you should have the salary terms, the amount of teaching required, and the subjects to be taught.

Very sincerely,

H.H. Burbank.

HHB:BR

______________

Possible candidate for position at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia

Wharton School of Finance and Commerce

May 16, 1929.

Professor H. H. Burbank
Department of Economics
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

My dear Professor Burbank:

Thanks for your letter of May 8, informing me that Mr. Gilbert is of Jewish extraction. Professor Taussig had already told me that such was the case.

However, this will make no difference to us so long as his personality and bearing are attractive.

I am giving serious consideration to Mr. Gilbert, along with two other men who have been suggested to me from other sources. If Gilbert receives his Ph.D. this year, we may make him an offer, but we cannot consider him if he has not completed his work for the doctorate.

Sincerely yours,

[signed|
Raymond T. Bye
Acting Chairman
Department of Economics

RTB:T

______________

Possible candidate for position at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (cont.)

University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia

Wharton School of Finance and Commerce

June 17, 1929.

Professor H. H. Burbank
Department of Economics
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

My dear Professor Burbank:

I hope that I did not cause you and your colleagues any inconvenience in pressing you and Dr. [O. H.] Taylor for an immediate decision on our offer to him. Things had dragged along here so long that I felt something must be done quickly and I know that I had prepared both Dr. Taylor and you for the possibility of our making him an offer, so that I felt it would not be difficult for you to make arrangements on short notice.

When I met you in Boston I was so well impressed with what you and Professor Vanderblue told me about Dr. Bober that I arranged for him to come here to meet us. We were all favorably impressed and I made every effort to secure his appointment to the position, but the Provost of the University was not willing to recommend a person of the Jewish race, so I had to give him up. It was then that I made the offer to Taylor. I think Dr. Taylor will fit into our problem for next year very nicely, for we need someone primarily to teach graduate courses. I question, however, whether we shall want to keep him permanently because, as I understand it, he is less effective as an undergraduate teacher. That is why I asked you to let him go on a year’s leave of absence. However, it is possible that the men here may like him so much that they will want to keep him permanently if he will stay. That will be for Professor E. M. Patterson to decide. He will be back as chairman of the department next year.

I want to thank you most cordially for your very material assistance in helping me to find a man to fill the vacancy here.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Raymond T. Bye
Acting Chairman
Department of Economics

RTB:T

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Econoics. Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950.Box 14, Folder “Positions for 1929-30”.

Image Source: Left, Senior year picture of R.V. Gilbert and, right, tutor picture of M.M. Bober (1926) in Harvard Class Album, 1923 and 1926, respectively.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Half-year exam for O.H. Taylor’s Economics and Political Ideas, 1949

 

I am now about half-way through the matching of recently copied exams in economics from the Harvard University archives to their corresponding courses. The syllabus and reading assignments for the first-term of the one year course “Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times” taught by Dr. Overton Hume Taylor at Harvard in 1948-49 have been transcribed and posted earlier. Clearly the “modern times” part of the course was left for the second semester.

_____________________________

 

Final Examination
Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times
Dr. Overton Hume Taylor

1948-49
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 115

Write on five questions, including No. 8; and make one answer a one-hour essay, so marked in your blue-book.

  1. “There are two kinds of hostility to capitalism in our culture, having different historic sources and appealing to different motives, ideas, and arguments. Marx and his followers have appropriated and inflated one kind, resting merely on the desire to see capitalism itself surpassed by a system still better able to increase material wealth and diffuse it to all men. But the other, deeper and nobler as well as more ancient, anti-capitalist philosophy is not Marxian, but Platonic and Christian; and condemns capitalism not by economic criteria but on higher, spiritual and moral grounds.” Discuss.
  2. “Hobbes and the ‘mercantilist’ writers of his time spelled out and accepted the logical results of the pure spirit of capitalism—individual gain-seeking—which leads through competitive anarchy and strife to monopoly, oligarchy, despotism, and a forcibly state-controlled economy and society. In contrast, a modification of capitalism was already implicit in the basic assumption of Locke, and of Adam Smith and his followers, that each individual should practice a ‘natural’, moral self-restraint in deference to the rights of others and thus make liberty for all compatible with order and the common welfare.” Discuss.
  3. “The eighteenth century’s optimistic, metaphysical belief in an harmonious natural order inspired the founders of what later became ‘orthodox’ economic theory. Hence the latter became and remained an optimistic theory of the ‘natural’ working of the free-competition, market economy—identifying that system’s ‘equilibrium’ with a social-economic optimum. And this rosy theory has persisted, in some quarters to the present day, in defiance of growing, factual evidence.” Discuss.
  4. Without going into time-consuming details, give a comprehensive general account and discussion of (a) the main psychological, ethical, and political doctrines of Bentham and his followers; (b) the main economic doctrines of Ricardo and his followers; and (c) the main similarities or common elements, possible ‘debts’ to each other, and dissimilarities of the two ‘systems’ of thought.
  5. Describe and discuss either (a) the English and German ‘romantic’ or (b) August Comte’s ‘positivistic’ line of attack on the classical-liberal pattern of political-and-economic thought and its ‘eighteenth century intellectual foundations.’
  6. “J. S. Mill tried unsuccessfully to combine, and modify into mutual consistency, the groups of ideas he derived from Bentham and Ricardo, from the English Romanticists, from Comte, and from early socialism.” Discuss.
  7. “Intellectual Marxism is an incongruous mixture of two things which are poles apart — German metaphysics and English economics. The ‘inverted Hegelian’ philosophy of history, and the distorted Ricardian economic theory of labor-value, surplus value, and evolving capitalism, are separate, unrelated lines of thought on different levels. Yet the combination supports a very powerful, impressive explanation of the past and forecast of the future.” Discuss.
  8. On the basis of your ‘reading period’ reading in Schumpeter or Sweezy, give your own account and discussion of either (a) Schumpeter’s thesis about how capitalism is being destroyed by the social, cultural, and political results of its very merits; or (b) Sweezy’s thesis about the causes, nature, and significance of fascism.

 

Final. January, 1949.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28, Box 16 of 284). Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science, February, 1949.

Image Source: Overton Hume Taylor in Harvard Album, 1952.