Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Chair annual reports to Dean, 1932-1941

 

This post takes us from the trough of the Great Depression to the eve of the U.S. entry into the Second World War. The items below are transcriptions of copies of reports written by the Harvard economics department chairmen of the time (Harold Hitchings Burbank (a.k.a. Burbie to his Buds) and Edward Hastings Chamberlin. Some chest-thumping, some whining, no notes of irony and definitely no flashes of wit…we all know this art form. Nevertheless some raw intelligence of value for working historians of economics of the present and future.

____________________________

November 12, 1932

Dear Dean Murdock,

Under the Faculty vote of December, 1931, the Chairman of each Department is requested to report in each half year to the Dean of the Faculty on the working of the plan recommended by the Committee on Instruction concerning Hour Examinations and Other Course Requirements. My report for the Department of Economics follows.

Acting on the Report from the Committee on Instruction, the Department of Economics on January 12, 1932 voted to observe the recommendations of the Committee. Following the Department meeting, I reported to you to the effect that the requirements of the Department of Economics were substantially in accord with the principles laid down by the Committee on Instruction. Ordinarily, we require not more than one Hour Examination in any one half year; ordinarily, we require not more than one thesis or report in any one half year. It is the standing rule of the Department of Economics and of the Division of History, Government, and Economics, that Senior candidates for Honors, who are writing Honors theses, shall be excused from the writing of any theses in courses within the Division. After a long discussion and with considerable reluctance, the Department voted that for Seniors who are candidates for Honors in the Division, Hour Examinations in courses within the Department shall be optional.

The vote of the Department was made known immediately to the students and observed in all of our undergraduate course (not of an introductory nature) during the second half of last year, and it is being observed in the current half year.

In the Division of History, Government, and Economics, we have had for many years a rule that all Seniors in good standing shall be exempted from final examinations in courses within the Division in their last half year. The result has been, of course, that after the April Hour Examinations, Seniors have paid little attention to courses within in the Division, and their attendance has been hardly more than occasional. The members of the Department who are more interested in courses than in General Examinations, and who perhaps doubt the efficacy of General Examinations, view this situation with increasing criticism.

When the Department voted the making of Hour Examinations optional for Seniors who are candidates for Honors, the doubting members were highly critical, fearing that our courses elected largely by Seniors would be entirely disrupted. From all that I can learn, I cannot see that there have been any untoward or undesirable results. In most of our “Senior” courses, the attendance until the Easter recess was satisfactory. Honors candidates attended lectures and, I believe, completed most of the required readings. Their records on the General Examinations were excellent. The Honors theses were among the best we have ever had.

A number of members of my Department and not a few members of the Departments of History and Government are strongly opposed to the new order. They make the point that we have in substance permitted an additional reduction in courses, that Senior Honor candidates are simply required to register in courses, but they have nether to attend them nor to do the work. All of these allegations are true enough, but it seems to me they are beside the point. To the extent that we have confidence in our examiners and tutors, I do not believe that in effect the requirements regarding the quality and quantity or work have been reduced.

The Department of History has recommended to the other departments of the Division the consideration of a motion which would require all senior candidates for Honors to complete whatever courses in History they elect. I think that probably the departments of the Division will consider in full detail the questions this motion involves.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

1933
[not found]

A copy of the report is not found with the others included in this post: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1934

Dear Dean Murdock,

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics:

In this period of rapid economic evolution the problems presented to a group of university economists are both stimulating and perplexing. The changing pattern of our social and economic structure offers new data for analysis and at the same time calls for a testing of principle that involves new fields for both teaching and research.

There have been few periods in modern history more difficult to interpret, yet the responsibility for interpretation seems foremost among the duties devolving upon educational institutions. For many years the keystone of the introductory course in economics has been that the community has the right to expect political and economic leadership from the graduates of its colleges. Our undergraduate courses are directed toward the attainment of this end. But the teaching of political economy is an art not easily mastered even by those who give abundant evidence of intellectual leadership. In the instruction of undergraduates and in the training of teachers and scholars in our graduate school, the difficulties inherent in our subject must not be overlooked. The presentation of the data of economics makes demands upon the staff not felt in many other departments of the University. Looking toward the strengthening of our undergraduate instruction, the Department is now associating a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are now in charge of the large lecture courses. In Money and Banking, in the Relations of Government to Industry, and in Public Finance, this experiment is advanced sufficiently to indicate its desirability.

At the same time that our teaching problems have become intensified the need for the results of research is pressing. In periods of accelerated social evolution involving political and economic experimentation, the demand for accurate data is insistent. Relatively, economics is a young science. The foundations of fact are still being established. Investigations that may have an important bearing upon government policy should not be delayed. The economists of this University have contributed largely to their subject, but always with scant facilities in material equipment and in time.

Among the many problems confronting us as a group, that of securing the time necessary for research is perhaps the most troublesome. To our exacting teaching requirements must be added the demands for public service. Since the establishment of this Department, the requests for such service heave been continuous. Of late the increasing calls have raised a question which must be considered by the University administration. The opportunities for service to governments are gratifying. Undoubtedly these services belong among the necessary functions of a university. But obviously they do divert a considerable part of our time and energy from our strictly defined duties. Over the years the University is enriched by such services, but at any given time the responsibilities attaching to teaching and research are interrupted. If the University Includes public service among its important functions, the personnel of the staffs affected should be so adjusted that the work can be performed without overtaxing our internal activities.

During the past your, the leave of absence of Professor John M. Williams was continued to allow him to serve as Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to advise on monetary and credit policies, and to direct research. In the latter part of the year, Professor Williams was called by the Department of State to investigate certain conditions in Brazil, Uraguay [sic], Argentina, and Chili [sic]  and to formulate policies of exchange controls. Daring the second half-year, Assistant Professor Edward H. Chamberlin was granted leave of absence to work with the Committee on Government Statistics and Information Services in Washington. Also, during the second half-year, though leave was not requested, Assistant Professor William T. Ham was in Washington frequently, serving as a member of the staff of the Labor Advisory Board of the National Recovery Administration. And also, though no leave was requested, Professor John D. Black devoted a substantial part of the year to public service. He served on a number of committees connected with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and land utilization. At the request of Secretary Wallace, he organized and directed the activities of committees outlining programs of economic research in (1) the marketing of farm products and (2) farm population and rural life. Also at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, he served with two others to coordinate the work of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture. In the summer months, Drs. Alan Sweezy and Lauchlin B. Currie were called to the Treasury Department to serve as special investigators.

Owing to his illness, Professor Emeritus William Z. Ripley was unable to fulfill his duties as President of the American Economic Association. In his absence, Professor Abbott P. Usher, first Vice-President of the Association, was in charge of the December, 1933 session.

Notable among our publications of the year were Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy, by S. E. Harris, and The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, by E. H. Chamberlin. Because of its significance for immediate practical application, I am including at this point the Report of the Committee on Model State and Local Taxation, by Professor C. J. Bullock’s committee of the National Tax Association. Also at this point, mention should be made of Economics of the Recovery Program, by seven members of the Department. In the course of the year, about forty-five articles were contributed to scientific journals by various members of the Department.

Within the limitations described above, the research work of the staff is going forward at a satisfactory rate. Investigations in the following subjects are well advanced: History of the Industrial Revolution; Development of Banking and Credit in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; Evolution of English Company Law; Economic Fluctuations; Nature and Effects of Inflation; Index Numbers; Municipal Ownership of Public Utilities; State and Local Taxation; Unbalanced Budgets; The National Income; New England Agriculture; The Economics of Agricultural Production; German Trade Unionism; The Fundamentals of Sociology; Economics and Politics; Socialism as an International Movement.

A considerable number of these projects are nearing completion and should be ready for publication shortly. A large project on the relation of Government to Industry involving the efforts of a number of the staff is in its initial stages. This subject is of such immediate importance that other plans for research are being put aside until it can be carried to its completion. The Quarterly Journal of Economies has continued its usual high standard. During the year, five substantial volumes were added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

Again I would press the point that the potential research capacity of the Department is severely handicapped by the demands of teaching and public service.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 18, 1935

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

In the report of last year the effects of the contemporary political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research were discussed briefly. More than ever we are aware of the responsibilities incumbent upon the teacher of Economics in this period of rapid and far-reaching change. Our undergraduate instruction had been, and is, receiving particular attention. A few years ago we began experimentally the association of a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are nominally in charge of the larger lecture courses. We are quite convinced that this method of instruction is most effective. Also there is a positive, although perhaps incidental, advantage in this arrangement in that it relieves the pressure for the multiplication of undergraduate courses.

I find it necessary to stress again the problem presented by the demands upon our staff for services to the public. We believe that public service belongs among the necessary functions of a university. But under existing conditions large demands for public service at any given time bring serious interruptions to both research and instruction. “If the University includes public service among its important functions the personnel of the staffs affected should be so adjusted that the additional work can be performed without taxing severely our internal activities.”

I am very happy, to write that Professor Chamberlin’s “The Theory of Monopolistic Competition”, published somewhat over a year ago, has won immediate recognition as a foremost contribution to economic theory. During the past year two books of unusual importance have appeared,—Professor John D. Black, “The Dairy Industry and the A.A.A.”, and Professor Sumner Slichter, “Towards Stability”. Six manuscripts have been completed, and should appear in book form during the present year. It is significant that five of these books have been written by the younger members of our Department whose teaching duties have been mainly of a tutorial nature. Among the publications I should note the report submitted to the Treasury Department on the “Objectives and Criteria of Monetary Policy” by Dr. Alan Sweezy, and the report to the State Department on “Foreign Exchange Control in Latin America” by Professor John Williams.

In addition to the above volumes and reports the members of the Department published somewhat over fifty articles in the scientific journals of our subject. Some of these contributions are of major importance.

The investigations of the staff are being carried forward as satisfactorily as possible with the limited facilities that are at our disposal. Two researches on a very large scale have to do with the general subject of the Trade Cycle and the Relation of Government to Industry. Numerous important, but less extensive, investigations are in process.

Perhaps I should note here that a generous grant from the Rockefeller Foundation enabled the Department to undertake the continuation of the Review of Economic Statistics and the fundamental research that is involved in this publication, The Quarterly Journal of Economics long published by the members of this Department, together with the Review of Economic Statistics, are among the more important activities of the Department. In the course of the year three volumes more added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

As in my last report, I would again bring to your attention the disturbing fact that the potential research capacity of the Department is handicapped severely by the demands of administration, teaching, and public service.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1936

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

I find it necessary to emphasize again the effects of the contemporary political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research. It had been necessary to bring these matters to your attention in both of the preceding years, since they present such important problems to us. We feel an increasingly positive responsibility regarding out undergraduate instruction in this period of rapid and far-reaching change.

We have continued the experiment begun some few years ago of the association of a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are in charge of the large lecture courses. We believe that we are improving our instruction by this method, and at the same time this arrangement tends to relieve the pressure for the multiplication of undergraduate courses.

Perhaps as a result of the general social situation the elections of our undergraduate courses and the number of concentrators in Economics have increased very heavily. The problems of instruction presented by these overwhelming numbers are intensified perhaps by the personnel situation in which the Department finds itself. During the last dozen years the personnel of this Department—one of the largest in the University—has been changed completely. For a quarter of a century a group of eminent economists brought great prestige to the University. With the resignation of Professor Gay the active services of this group has come to an end. One cannot speak of replacing these scholars. They were unique both as individuals and as a group. Their leadership and their scholarship has left a lasting impression on the development of Economics. In the course of the passing of this group a now Department has been brought together. This new and younger Department is assuming full responsibility at the very time when questions of teaching and new methods of research are becoming insistent.

The demands upon members of our staff for public service continue. It has seemed expedient to encourage some few members to give their time and energy for public purposes. But with a minimum teaching force it has not been possible for all members of the Department to comply with the requests made. The public service relations of faculty members remains a question for the University to consider.

The Quarterly Journal of Economics celebrates this year its fiftieth anniversary. For forty years this Journal has won and held its prestige under the editorship of Professor F. W. Taussig. Professor Taussig, now emeritus, has graciously consented to continue as editor during the present year, but very shortly it will be necessary for us to provide for the editorial direction of this very important publication.

In an earlier report to you I indicated the activities of the Department in connection with the Review of Economic Statistics. The scientific work underlying this publication, as well as the journal itself, is now under the direction of a committee of the Department. The Review continues as a vehicle of publication of the results of investigations here and elsewhere regarding the business cycle. We have ambitious plans for the Review, and we have every reason to believe that its scientific usefulness will increase.

There is little question that, the research activities of practically all members of the staff have been curtailed by the heavy teaching loads which have been imposed. However, the research programs of various members and of various groups within the Department have shown marked progress in the past year. As I have indicated in an earlier report the research activities of our members are of two somewhat different types. Numerous members of the staff working altogether independently are pursuing their own researches while others working as a group are developing particular aspects of a well devised project in research. In the social sciences this latter type of work is rapidly assuming importance. In general it is this type of research which receives the support of the large foundations. Within our own group there are a number of projects of this character. Messrs. Mason, Chamberlin, Wallace, Cassels, Reynolds, and Alan Sweezy are developing Industrial Organization and Control. In the process of the exploration of this subject numerous independent volumes and studies will appear. Professors Mason, Chamberlin and Dr. Wallace are already well advanced in their study of monopolistic combinations and expect to complete it in about one year. Professor Cassels and Dr. Reynolds expect to finish their study on Canadian combinations this year, and Dr. Alan Sweezy is at work on investment policies. Dr. Wallace’s monograph, Market Control in the Aluminum Industry, is now going to press, and Dr. Abbott’s monograph on The Rise of the Business Corporation has just appeared and is being, used by our undergraduate courses. The full development of this program will take a number of years, but its completion will mark, I believe, a very significant chapter in research in the relation of government to industry.

Another cooperative project on the Farm Credit Administration is being carried on by Professors Black and Harris and Dr. Galbraith, largely with the assistance of grants from the Committee on Research in the Social Sciences. Professor Black is working on the cooperative aspects of the Farm Credit Administration’s policies. Professor Harris is working on the monetary and recovery aspects of the Farm Credit Administration’s loan operations. Dr. Galbraith is working on the structural aspects of the Farm Credit Administration and the mortgage, credit and production loan policies. Numerous articles resulting from this research have been published in scientific periodicals.

Professors Crum, Wilson, and Black are conducting a study of the relation of weather and other natural phenomena with the economic cycle. This study is partly financed by the United States Department of Agriculture.

I believe I have mentioned to you and to President Conant in conversation the plans which are being developed for large research projects in collaboration with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In addition to these cooperative projects all members of the Department are pursuing work along the lines of their individual interests. Professor Schumpeter’s study of time series and cyclical fluctuations is practically completed, and he hopes to send it to press by December. Professor Haberler’s major contribution—The Theory of International Trade and Its Application to Commercial Policy has been translated and is now available in English. For the past two years Professor Haberler has been working at Geneva on the Nature and Causes of the Recurrence of Economic Depressions which is soon to be published by the League of Nations. We are hoping to provide facilities for him so that the important research may be continued at Harvard. Professor Frickey’s study on a Survey of Time Series Analysis and Its Relation to Economic Theory is well advanced. The statistical work on the first volume has been completed, and he hopes to have it written by the middle of this present academic year. The statistical work on the second volume has been completed in part. Already two significant articles have been published. Professor Cole’s recent study in Fluctuations in American Business, written in collaboration with Professor W. B. Smith, was published late in 1935. Dr. Oakes’ investigations in Massachusetts Town Finance, the winner of the Wells Prize for 1935-36, is now being printed. Professor Chamberlin has continued to elaborate his Theory of Monopolistic Competition which is winning wide recognition among economist the world over. Numerous articles, some sixty in number, from members of the staff have appeared in various scientific periodicals in the course of the year.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

[Separate sheet following: I should have included Professor Harris’ Exchange Depreciation, Its Theory and History. We believe that this new book, which is being published today, will take Its place beside the significant contributions Professor Harris has made in the last half-dozen years, particularly his Monetary Problems of the British Empire and Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy.]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 21, 1937

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

Previous reports of the Department of Economics have brought to your attention the effect of the political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research. It is still necessary to point out that the positive responsibility of the Department regarding undergraduate instruction has not lessened.

The election of our undergraduate courses remains at substantially the high level of recent years, while the number of concentrators continues to increase.

Last year I mentioned that with the resignation of Professor Gay the active services of the senior members of this Department, had come to an end. At this point it seems necessary to put into writing a matter I have discussed with you in conversation which has important ramifications. Coincident with the resignation of Professor Gay there were increased elections in certain of our courses that involve a large degree of individual instruction and also on an increase in the number of students demanding tutorial supervision. To meet these latter problems it was necessary to add to our staff a group of young men to carry on the instruction in the elementary course, Accounting, Statistics, Money and Banking, and so on. With increased numbers in courses demanding increased instruction, increased cost cannot be avoided; but it seems to us that this increasing cost because of increasing should not result in less effective intellectual leadership. To transfer a considerable part of the salary released by a retiring professor of distinguished accomplishment to the support of routine instruction in middle group courses seems to us not to be wise University policy.

Professor Taussig has resigned as editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economies. For the time being, committee of the Department will undertake the editorial direction of this publication.

The Review of Economic Statistics, which appears under the direction of a committee of the Department, is financed by funds from the Rockefeller Foundation. Should the grant be continued, it is expected that the research activities of the committee will be increased.

Not less than ten members of the Department are concerned with the activities of the Graduate School of Public Administration. In some instances—as in the case of Dean Williams—their work in the School has been compensated by a reduction of work in the Department, but for the most part the activities in the new School are simply in addition to the duties of the staff members.

The Committee on Research in the Social Sciences, of which Professor Black is Chairman, is working in close cooperation with the National Bureau of Economic Research and its cooperating University agencies. Principle among them is the project upon Fiscal Policy for which Professor Crum is acting as Chairman.

The responsibilities and activities of members of the Department tend in some instances to change the direction of our research, but in only too many instances they also tend to retard our research.

In all directions, however, the research activities of the members of the Department were sustained, with six books and approximately sixty articles appearing. Special mention should he made of the following books:

Three Years of the AAA by John D. Black

A Study of Fluid Milk Prices by John M. Cassels. Wells Prize Essay of 1934-35

Professor Chamberlin’s significant volume, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition has been revised.

Prosperity and Depression by Gottfried Haberler

Exchange Depreciation by S. E. Harris. (Came from the press last fall, and mentioned a year ago.)

Studies in Massachusetts Town Finance by E. E. Oakes. Wells Prize Essay of 1935-36

Professor Schumpeter’s book on Business Cycles has been completed, and is now ready for the press.

Economic History of Europe since 1750 by Usher, Bowden, and Karpovich

Explorations in Economics. Essays in Honor of F. W. Taussig contains contributions by most of the members of the staff.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1938

Dear Dean Birkhoff,

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

As in previous years I am very happy, to be able to record that the research activities of the officers of the Department have been sustained. In the last two years I have been, able to enumerate an unusually large number of books actually published together with numerous contributions to our periodical literature. In the present year the number of volumes is smaller since the research activities of our staff are still in process. The most notable volumes are Professor Hansen’s Full Recovery or Stagnation and Professor Wallace’s Market Control in the Aluminum Industry. Professor Haberler devoted the major part of the year, and spent the summer abroad, revising his Prosperity and Depression. Also the volume by Professor Crum and Associates on Economic Statistics has been revised.

In all, some fifty or sixty periodical contributions have been made by members of the staff. Notable among these contributions have been the articles by Professor Slichter on “The Downturn of 1937” in the Review of Economic Statistics for August, 1938.

It fell to the lot of the officers of this Department, together with the officers of the Department of Government, to develop instruction in the Littauer School of Public Administration during the past year. Without going into the details of the principles upon which this instruction is based, it may be noted that research courses of a very advanced nature constitute the core of the work of the School. Professors Williams, Hansen, Black, Mason, Slichter, and Wallace are devoting a considerable proportion of their time to this work. It is expected and hoped that these activities will result in an increase in our contributions.

The grant of funds from the Rockefeller Foundation to subsidize the research underlying the Review of Economic Statistics expired with the closing of the fiscal year. This contribution made it possible to continue the Review, and to maintain the scholarly level of the contributions. In the course of the year the Review published a number of the contributions of the staff. Other contributions are nearing completion, and will be published in the present year. The accomplishments or Professors Crum and Haberler as Managing Editors of the Review should be noted. They have succeeded in restoring the very high level of scholarship which characterized the Review a decade ago. We believe that the Review in its present form adds materially to the prestige of the Department and the University.

Also I am happy to note that the Quarterly Journal of Economics under its new editorial staff is maintaining its high position.

There is little to be added to the points which have been discussed in previous reports. The Department finds itself fully occupied with the continuation of its traditional activities and the assumption of such new duties as are involved in the Graduate School of Public Administration. If the personnel of the Department remains constant, it will be necessary to reduce our activities, either in research, in teaching, or in both.

Last fall at a dinner of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics I reported in some detail regarding the increasing activities of members of the Department. This report led to the appointment of a committee to investigate the budgetary situation of the Department. The investigation conducted under the direction of Mr. George May of Price, Waterhouse, made some very interesting disclosures regarding the increasing load of the Department.

I believe that problems of undergraduate and graduate instruction, the tutorial situation, and the public service contributions of our members have been discussed sufficiently in previous reports. I can only repeat that “there is little question that the research activities of practically all members of the staff have been curtailed by the heavy loads of teaching and administration.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 16, 1939

Dear Dean Ferguson:

In accord with your recent request, I submit herewith a report of the work by the Department of Economies for the past year.

Honors have been bestowed upon members of the Department as follows: Professor Schumpeter has received an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Sofia, Bulgaria, and Professor Leontief has been elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society. Professor Williams was elected a Vice-President of the American Economic Association.

In the field of publications, the outstanding event is the final appearance of Professor Schumpeter’s two volume work on Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalistic Process. The fruition of years of study and research, this book is of especial interest as the first major work of Professor Schumpeter in the English language, his well-known Theory of Economic Development having appeared first in German before its translation into English much later. Other books actually appearing within the academic year (the fall of 1938) were referred to in our last report, such as Professor Hansen’s Full Recovery or Stagnation?, a revision of the volume on Economic Statistics by Professor Crum and associates, and a new, enlarged and revised edition of Prosperity and Depression by Professor Haberler (published by the League of Nations). During the year arrangements have been completed for the translation into Japanese of A History of Mechanical Inventions by Professor Usher. For some years Professor Emeritus F. W. Taussig has been at work on a thorough-going revision of his textbook on the Principles of Economics. Volume I appeared last spring, Volume 2 is in the press and will appear very shortly. This much needed revision (the last was in 1921) may regain for Professor Taussig’s text some of the preeminence it held in an earlier period before it had become so badly out of date. Politics, Finance and Consequences by Professor Emeritus C. J. Bullock, the result of continuing research since his retirement, has been published during the past year in the Harvard Economic Studies. A book of which Mr. Paul M. Sweezy was a prominent co-author, An Economic Program for American Democracy, is popularly supposed to have been influential in putting the stamp of economic authority upon recent economic policies of the Federal Government. Finally, some sixty-odd articles, addresses, and reviews by members of the Department have appeared in journals, both professional and popular, during the past year.

A matter not mentioned in our last report was a new policy adopted by the Quarterly Journal of Economics of publishing at intervals of approximately one year a series of supplements devoted to articles and studies of interest to scholars but of such length as to make their publication in the regular issues impractical. These supplements are sent to subscribers without charge, and additional copies are sold separately. The first of these appeared in May 1938, Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians by Professor Crum. Two other manuscripts have been accepted and will appear shortly.

The Committee on Problems of the Business Cycle has carried on the publication of the quarterly Review of Economic Statistics but because of the expiration of its grant of research money many of its new research investigation have been greatly curtailed. Quarterly issues of the Review of Economic Statistics, in addition to carrying the studies of current economic history which present a quarterly record of economic statistics for the United States with their interpretation, have published a wide range of articles on various aspects of the trade cycle problem. Several of these articles have been contributed by foreign specialists but more than half were produced by American writers (in this connection we may note that about one-fourth of the subscribers are located abroad). In addition to the normal research activities involved in studying current history the Committee has financed during the year a continuation of the special investigation by Dr. J. B. Hubbard of the remarkable developments in the issuance of securities since 1933. A further article in Dr. Hubbard’s series will appear in the issue of November 1939.

Mention has been made in previous reports of the burden placed upon particular members of the Department and thus upon the group as a whole by the responsibilities of public service. These responsibilities have continued and expanded during the past year. The adjustment of this burden is a pressing problem. Its immediate influence upon both teaching and research is adverse, yet no ready solution appears at hand. The additional burden of uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration presents an even more serious problem. For the most part the seminars and other activities of this School constitute a net additional load for those members of the Department responsible for them, and inevitably throw a heavier burden of administrative and other work upon others not directly concerned. Budgetary allowance for courses given within the School is an obvious answer to this problem, whenever it may become possible.

You have asked, among other things. for an account of “any changes in the methods of instruction”, of the Department. The changes here have been revolutionary. Over a long period of years there has been built up in the Department a staff of trained instructors and tutors, carrying on established traditions of teaching and constantly experimenting in the adaptation of methods to new problems. These men were sifted constantly, and the best of them retained for a substantial period, after which, if not advanced, they were without exception placed to advantage elsewhere. In view of the singular success with which in the past the personnel problem has been handled in Economics, it is not surprising that the Department is unanimous in viewing with dismay and discouragement the situation in which we now find ourselves. Fifteen teachers and tutors at the instructor or assistant professor level have left us within the past year, seven the preceding year. The general effect upon teaching may be indicated by the tutorial situation. Sixty-seven per cent of the students concentrating in Economics this year are tutored by men of two years or less experience, forty-three per cent by men of no tutorial experience whatsoever, Furthermore, it has been our policy in the past to stagger new men as between tutoring and Economics A, having them start in with either one alone and take up the other the following year. This fall we have been obliged to take on five men who are both teaching Economics A and tutoring for the first time. It has been our policy also to provide more experienced instruction in middle group courses through a period of apprenticeship in Economics A. This fall we have been obliged to put men of no classroom experience whatever directly into middle group courses. We are already experiencing in acute form the devastating effects upon instruction of a rapid turnover, brought on by the mass exodus of last year.

It takes time (and patience on the part of someone) to train men in the discussion method of teaching Economics which has been developed with such success in Economics A at Harvard University. Much is learned by slow experience, by making mistakes and by discussing techniques with fellow instructors, especially with those who have been through the mill. It is impossible to assimilate new men unless the collective experience of the group is maintained at a fairly high level. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that anyone in the Department will be interested in training them unless a substantial portion stay long enough to make it worth while.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

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

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

I submit herewith a report of the work by the Department of Economics for the past year. There is very little to report—no events or changes of outstanding importance, and only a few isolated items which might be of interest.

Professor Black has been elected to honorary membership in the Swedish Royal Society of Agriculture. Professor Slichter has been honored by appointment as Lamont University Professor.

In the field of publications there is the usual long list of articles in the professional periodicals, but no major work of importance by any member of the Department. Professor Usher’s History of Mechanical Inventions was during the year translated into Japanese. Also in the field of publications it is of interest that there has been begun under the supervision of a committee in the Department and financed in part by a grant from the A. W. Shaw Fund a new series entitled The Harvard Studies in Monopoly and Competition. The first two volumes of this series appeared within the year, — the first, Corporate Size and Earning Power, by Professor W. L. Crum, and the second, Control of Competition in Canada, by Lloyd Reynolds.

The Committee on Problems of the Business Cycle has continued publication of the quarterly Review of Economic Statistics. In place of the general reviews of current economic developments in the United States, which in earlier years had been regular features of each quarterly issue, the Review introduced this past year the policy of presenting each quarter an article pertaining to some specific problem of current interest. The November 1939 issue contained a study of the impact of the war on America commodity prices; the February 1940 number included a study of the current gold problem and the American economy; a review of recent developments in agriculture and the influences of the war on American agriculture appeared in May; while the August 1940 issue presented a comparison and evaluation of various estimates of unemployment in the United States. These studies have been made by members of the Department, with the Committee staff contributing assistance, whenever it was desired, in the preparation of the articles for publication. As in previous years, the Review has also presented articles covering a wide range of studies on various trade cycle problems; and the Review staff has continued the compilation of selected current economic series which have been used in research studies by Department members and graduate student within the Department.

There have been no important changes in policy in the year by the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The policy begun the previous year of publishing occasional supplements sent to subscribers without charge has been continued. Two supplements appeared during the year, Exchange Control in Austria and Hungary and Exchange Control in Germany, both by Professor Howard S. Ellis. Through an arrangement with the Harvard Economic Studies they will shortly appear in that series as a single volume.

During the year Professor Emeritus Frank W. Taussig attained his eightieth birthday. A tribute and greeting was presented to him on this occasion signed by some two hundred of his former students.

I call attention again to the continuing problem of the added burden to members of the Department for uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration. The situation here remains substantially as described in my last report. It remains one of the most serious problems which the Department has to meet in maintaining the standards of its instruction.

The quality of instruction given by the Department continues to suffer from the heavy losses in the junior personnel during the past few years. Sixty-four per cent of the students concentrating in Economics this year are tutored by men of two years or less experience, fifty-five per cent by men of one year or less. The difficulties of maintaining satisfactory instruction with such a rapid turnover remain almost insuperable, and concentration in Economics which has fallen off steadily over the past four years slumped most disastrously for the year 1940-41. Although most of the liquidation of our more experienced instructors and tutors had taken place before the year on which I am reporting, we have during that year again lost a number of our best men because of the limited inducement which could be offered for them to remain with us even for a short period.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

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

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1941

Dear Dean Ferguson:

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

Professor Slichter has been elected President of the American Economic Association. This is the third time in the past five years that this honor has gone to an economist from Harvard, Professor Sprague having been elected in 1937-38 and Professor Hansen in 1938-39.

In the field of publications there have appeared, in addition to the usual long list of articles, several books of possible importance. I should mention especially Professor Slichter’s Union Policies and Industrial Management, Professor Leontief’s The Structure of American Economy: An Empirical Application of Equilibrium Analysis, and Dr. Triffin’s Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory. The latter appeared in the Harvard Economic Studies of which there have now been published 70 volumes, four within the past year. The new series of Harvard Studies in Monopoly and Competition has been augmented by two new volumes during the past year, bringing the total to four. Professor Usher’s History of Mechanical Inventions has again been translated, this time into Spanish. During the past year an arrangement was made with the Rockefeller Foundation (for the current year only) which if continued may prove to be of real importance to the members of our Department. Professor Crum has been relieved of one-half of his teaching duties for research through the payment by the Foundation of the salary of someone to replace him in his teaching assignment. In addition to providing possibilities for research to members of the Department, such an arrangement would have the added advantage of making it possible to invite to Harvard for short period either possible candidates for permanent appointments or others whose presence here for one year would prove stimulating to our students.

Again I call attention to the problem of the added burden to members of the Department for uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration. This has been from the beginning a serious matter in maintaining standards of instruction. It is especially a factor in concentrating the activities of the older members of the Department in the graduate field, leaving undergraduate instruction to be taken care of in undue degree by younger men whose experience on the average seems to decline further each year.

The quality of instruction by the junior staff continues to be a grave concern to our Department. Last year I mentioned that 64 per cent of the students concentrating in Economics were tutored by men of two years or less experience. This year the percentage has increased to 72, and the problem of finding enough experienced and competent tutors in the right fields for distinction seniors has become impossible to solve. The general situation is reflected also in Economics A where the percentage of new instructors has jumped alarmingly for the current year. For the five years 1936-41 the sections taught by new men averaged 24 per cent of the total. For the current year 39 per cent of the sections are taught by new men. For the same five years the sections taught by men of one year or less experience averaged 45 per cent of the total. For the current year this figure has advanced to 61 per cent. The large volume of complaints on the part of students as to the inexperience of their tutors and Economics A section instructors leaves no doubt in the minds of the Department that the continuing decline in concentration in Economies is mainly a reflection of this situation. In view of the competing opportunities for our younger men which have repeatedly been pointed out the problem for our Department continues to be not to maintain a high rate of turnover as the present rules of tenure seem designed to do, but to be able through more flexible arrangements both with respect to tenure and to salaries to maintain a staff sufficiently experienced to give satisfactory instruction to our undergraduates. Such instruction is clearly not being given at the present time.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

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

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

Image Source: Harold Hitchings Burbank from the Harvard Class Album 1934.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Statistics

Harvard. Final Examination for topics in statistical theory. E.B. Wilson, 1938

 

Most course final examination questions at Harvard were officially printed, but for a variety of reasons some course final examinations questions were only duplicated using carbon paper or perhaps they were written on the black-board at the time of the examination. The Harvard archives collection of final examinations has boxes of the bound printed copies of final examinations and folders with the carbon or mimeographed copies of examinations for (some) of the other courses. We see from the enrollment data that there were only four graduate students enrolled in E. B. Wilson’s course on “Topics in Statistical Theory” so logistically it would have been no big deal for a secretary to type enough copies using carbon paper.  It appears to be the original copy of his examination questions for 1937-38 that I have transcribed for this post.

________________

Course Announcement

Economics 122b 2hf. (formerly 32b). Topics in Statistical Theory.
Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., 3 to 4.30. Professor E. B. Wilson.

 

Source:  Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1937-38 (First Edition). Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. 34, No. 5 (March 1, 1937), p. 149.

________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 1222hf. (formerly 32b). Professor E. B. Wilson.—Topics in Statistical Theory.

Total 4: 4 Graduates.

 

Source:  Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College for 1937-38, p. 86.

________________

Final Examination in Economics  122b2.
Wednesday June 8, 1938 at 2 P.M. in Amerson A

Students may individually use slide rules, logarithmic tables, books, notes, and their solutions of problems at their discretion.

  1. Why did Macaulay feel that he must include a twelve-months moving average as one process in his summation formula for smoothing monthly interest rates? Why did this make it advisable that he include another summation over an even number of elements?
  2. Prove that a running mean of a specified number of elements eliminates more of the random fluctuation from a time series than any other mean of the same number of elements.
  3. What does a 13-term running mean do to a sine curve with period of 40 (using the interval between terms as a unit)?
  4. Define a random series. Derive the relations which exist between the standard deviation of the random elements and the standard deviations of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rddifferences of those elements?
  5. What is the actuarial criterion of smoothness? What is the difficulty of using maximum smoothness as a criterion for smoothing a series?
  6. Assuming the expansion of \frac{x}{{{e}^{x}}-1} in a series with Bernoulli numbers as coefficients, derive formally the (asymptotic) expansion for \log n! or for \log \Gamma \left( n \right).
  7. What is the criterion of fidelity which is ordinarily imposed in graduating time series? Why is Spencer’s 21-term formula, which satisfies this criterion, used in place of that best 21-term eliminator or of that 21-term best smoother which satisfy this same criterion?
  8. Prove the ordinary formula for the standard deviation of a median.
  9. State R.A.Fisher’s method of finding the values of the constants (or parameters) of a frequency function of assumed type from the elements of a given sample. State also his rule for the standard deviations of the constants.
  10. Given any analytical frequency function with close contact at the ends, derive therefrom the expansion of another frequency function of the same mean and standard deviation good to fourth moments inclusive.
  11. Give a brief sketch of the symbolic method of treating advancing and retreating and central differences.
  12. Give an illustration of (a) a universe with median but no mean (b) another universe in which the median is a better criterion of center than the mean, (c) a universe in which the mean is a better criterion of center than the median, (d) a universe in which the average of the least and greatest elements of a sample is a better criterion of center than either the mean or the median. What do you mean by “a better criterion of center”?

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Final Examinations 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28). Box 3, Folder “Final examinations, 1937-1938”.

Image Source:  Faculty portrait of of E. B. Wilson in Harvard Album 1939.

Categories
Chicago Economists Harvard Yale

Harvard. Mason, Domar and Samuelson at Metzler Memorial Service, 1980

 

These memorial remarks for Lloyd Metzler come from Evsey Domar’s papers. Edward S. Mason and Evsey D. Domar’s remarks have been transcribed in full. I have only provided excerpts of those by Paul Samuelson that were published later in Vol. V of his Collected Scientific Papers. The common denominator of all three remembrances is that Metzler was an outlier among economists both with respect to his analytical abilities and contributions to economics as well with respect to his uncommon utter decency. It appears even back then, nice guys in economics attracted as much attention as an albino moose today. Samuelson’s speculative remark regarding Metzler’s assignment to the “Burbank ghetto” is priceless as is his recounting of Keynes’ less than sage advice to Sidney Alexander.

___________________

LLOYD A. METZLER
1913-1980
by Edward S. Mason

We are here to celebrate the life of Lloyd Metzler who gave comfort and pleasure not only to his family but to a host of friends. In the six short years he was at Harvard, he made a name for himself as a scholar of promise and a man to whom others turned for help and companionship.

Lloyd took his first degree at the University of Kansas and studied under a man who was my own teacher and who taught John Lintner and a number of others who later came to Harvard. I’d like to say a word about this man, John Ise, who left his imprint on Lloyd, on me, and on all those who passed through his hands. Ise was one of five children who grew up on the Kansas prairies just after the Sod House days that he later wrote about. All of these children went through the University and all made their mark in life. He was a strong man who fought for his unpopular opinions and encouraged his students to strike out for themselves. I know he impressed Lloyd as much as he did me.

After teaching two years at Kansas, Lloyd came to the Graduate School at Harvard in 1936. It was an interesting period in Cambridge and in the Department of Economics. The old guard was leaving the Department and a new crew coming in. Taussig, Carver, and Bullock retired; Ripley died; and Gay left for the Huntington library. These were the stalwarts who had dominated the Department since 1900. Early in the 1930s, Schumpeter, Leontief, and Haberler joined the Department and, later, Hansen, Schlichter, and Black. They were a vigorous crew. Lloyd early discovered his major interest in international trade and worked, in particular, with Hansen and Haberler. Harvard economics was also fortunate in attracting during that period a number of exceptional graduate students, a number of whom are here with us today. I am sure that Lloyd learned as much from them as from his teachers and, in the process, gave as much as he took.

The 1930s were also a period of upheaval in the country and in the University. In some respects it resembled the late 1960s though the protagonists and antagonists were not as strident or violent. It was a period when new ideas percolated the environment and questions of public policy were much to the fore. The influence of Keynes dominated the last few years of the decade, and Lloyd soon found himself in the middle of Keynesian controversies.

After leaving Harvard in 1942, he spent a year as a Guggenheim Fellow and then joined the Office of Strategic Services for a year. Although OSS had a good stable of economists, I am sure that he felt more at home at the Federal Reserve Board where he served from 1944 to 1946. After that a brief period at Yale, and then the University of Chicago where he was a distinguished member of the Economics Department for the rest of his life.

I leave it to others to comment on his considerable scholarly accomplishments, but want to say something about how Lloyd impressed me as a young man. He was obviously much more than an economist, with deep interests in music and literature. He was a cultivated man who in some respects reminded me of Allyn Young who also had a great interest in music and who, for a brief moment in the 1920s, shed his light on Harvard. Young looked more like a poet than an economist though I admit it is difficult for me to describe just what an economist is supposed to look like. Lloyd was a sensitive gentleman with a gift for friendship. Everyone who knew him like him and all of us join Edith in deeply mourning his departure.

 

ON LLOYD METZLER
by Evsey D. Domar

Last Sunday, The New York Times reviewed another book on President Truman. He is a gold mine for historians. A man of modest ability, yet a good president. Well, perhaps not quite so good… On the other hand, by comparison with our presidents in the recent past and, may I add, expected in the near future, a giant indeed… Many contradictions in his character and performance and so on. Could you find a better man to write about?

Lloyd Metzler does not offer such wonderful opportunities. As I look back over nearly forty years since I first met him, I don’t find contradictions either in his character nor in his actions; what stands out is a man of rare intellectual ability, remarkable modesty and much kindness.

Over my lifetime I have known a number of very bright people, including some economists; and a number of very modest and kind people, also including some economists. But I have never met one who could excel Lloyd in the combination of ability, modesty and kindness.

This was true at Harvard where he was finishing his thesis when I first met him in 194’ [sic]. If a visitor asked then, “Who is your brightest graduate student?” the answer, without any hesitation was “Lloyd Metzler, of course.” If the question was, “Who is your nicest graduate student?” the answer was once again, “Lloyd, of course.” Ant the same was true at the Federal Reserve where he spent a couple of years during the War. It was true in his office, in the cafeteria, in the afternoon math class which he gave for the staff, and outside of that marble building which has lately appeared several times on TV. (Hard to believe now that in those days the interest rate of government securities was something like 2½ per cent.)

As Solzhenitsyn said, he “was the one righteous person without whom, as the saying goes, no city can stand. Neither can the whole world.”

 

LLOYD METZLER
(April 3, 1913—October 26, 1980)
by Paul A. Samuelson

[Excerpts]

That we should hold this memorial service in the Harvard Yard is fitting. Widener Library was Lloyd’s first stamping grounds after he came to Harvard in 1937 from Kansas. Later, when the Littauer building was new, he switched his battleground to the other side of where we now meet. In my mind’s eye, I can still see Lloyd Metzler walking across the Harvard Yard, with his little dachshund in tow, engaged in animated badinage with Bob Bishop or Dan Vandermeulen. A young resident of Winthrop House, destined to be president of the United States [John F. Kennedy], used to be disturbed in his studies by our revels in Lloyd’s Winthrop House tutorial suite.

…To be near K.U., the family finally moved to Lawrence, Kansas. There the spellbinder populist, John Ise, rescued Lloyd from the swamp of the business school. Just as Ise had done with Ed Mason, and as he was to do with John Lintner, Challis Hall, and a host of other sons of the middle border, Ise sent Metzler on to his old graduate student at Harvard.

Harold Hitchings Burbank, noting the Germanic “z” in Lloyd’s name and recognizing his egregious talent, probably mistook him for a Jew…Like other able people Burbank didn’t favor, Lloyd was put in the galleys of Frickey and Crum, to serve as assistant in the undergraduate courses in statistics and accounting. Since I never had that honor, I can with good grace report that the cream of the graduate school, those who have won the Wells Prizes and top honors of our profession, all came from this Burbank ghetto.

…What is in order is to speak of Wassily Leontief and E.B. Wilson We few mathematical economists at Harvard were blessed by these great teachers…Wilson spotted Metzler’s genius. One of President Conant’s few stupid decisions was to retire Wilson at the earliest possible age, and this in a period of teacher shortages, thereby depriving the post-Metzler generations of the consumers’ surplus that Metzler, I, Bergson, Tsuru, Alexander, and some other happy few enjoyed.

That, however , was par for the critics of mathematical economics. In the year that Metzler came to Harvard, Sidney Alexander was Keynes’s last tutee at Cambridge University. Keynes seriously advised Alexander not to waste his time with mathematical economics…

…All in all, Lloyd Metzler added enormously to economic science. And that sense of humor and sweet nature lives on in our happy memories.

Note: Samuelson’s complete remarks at the memorial service were published in The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, Vol. V (Kate Crowley, ed.) pp. 827-830. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1986.

 

Source: Duke University. Rubenstein Library. Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 6, Folder “Correspondence: Lloyd Metzler etc.”

Image Source: “Lloyd A. Metzler/Fellow: Awarded 1942/Field of Study: Economics”John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Webpage .

Categories
Courses Economists Harvard

Harvard. Mathematical Economics Rescheduled. Petitions, E. B. Wilson, 1935

One of the iron statistical laws of scheduling classes is that the probability of finding a Pareto improvement to a scheduling conflict ex post semester-start rapidly tends to zero with the size of the class that needs to be rescheduled. Here is a case of one such rare Pareto-improvement.

For the second semester of the academic year 1934-35 at Harvard E. B. Wilson’s Mathematical Economics rescheduled to eliminate the conflict with Fritz Machlup’s Money and Banking course.

What happens to make this particular case interesting in the history of economics is the list of distinguished (ex post) names among the undersigned of three foreign visitors to Harvard, namely Oskar Lange, Nicholas Georgescu, and Gerhard Tintner along with the graduate student Wolfgang Stolper and the undergraduate Sidney S. Alexander.

Six of the undersigned went on to receive Harvard Ph.D.’s in economics, they were:

  • Sidney Stuart Alexander.D. 1946. Financial structure of American corporations since 1900. (note: Harvard S.B. 1936, so undergraduate)
  • James Pierce Cavin, 1938 Ph.D. The sugar quota system of the United States, 1933-1937.
  • Wolfgang Stolper, 1938 Ph.D. British monetary policy and the housing boom, 1931-1935
  • Albert Leonard Meyers, 1936 Ph.D. Future trading on organized commodity exchanges
  • Chih-Yu Lo, 1937 Ph.D. A statistical study of prices and markets for electricity
  • Wilfred Malenbaum, Ph.D. 1941. Equilibrating tendencies in the world wheat market.

_______________________________________

[Memo: Econ. Chair to Dean, Carbon copy]

February 7, 1935

Dear Dean Murdock,

Because of the conflict of Economics 13b (Mathematical Economics) and Economics 50 (Principles of Money and Banking), which are scheduled for 3:00 on Tuesday and Thursday, Professor Wilson has requested that the hour for Economics 13b be changed to 2:00 on Tuesday and Thursday. I understand from Miss Higgs that rooms are available at this hour. The students registered in the course agree to this change.

I shall appreciate it if the change can be arranged before the next meeting of the class on Tuesday.

Sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

 

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

_______________________________________

 

[Memo: Dept. Secretary to E. B. Wilson, Carbon copy]

February 5, 1935

Dear Professor Wilson,

Dr. Machlup tells me that because of the conflict of Economics 13b and 50 you are willing to change the hour of meeting Economics 13b to 2:00 on Tuesday and Thursday. Until I am sure that the students who are taking the course for credit are agreeable, I cannot notify Dean Murdock of this change.

The simplest way to do this, I think, is for you to ask the class at its meeting on Thursday. There will be no trouble, I am sure, about securing a room at that hour. If you will let me know the outcome as soon as possible, I will make the necessary arrangements at the office.

Sincerely yours,

Secretary

 

Professor E. B. Wilson
55 Shattuck Street
Boston, Massachusetts

_______________________________________

[Petition signed by students/auditors in Econ 13b]

[Penciled in upper right:Econ 13b]

[typed] We should like to attend both, unfortunately conflicting, courses: Economics 13b (Mathematical Economics) and Economics 50 (Money and Banking). It would be much appreciated if a change in schedule could be arranged.

[signed] Oskar Lange
[signed] Nicholas Georgescu
[signed] Gerhard Tintner

[added in handwriting] We also, though not taking Ec. 50, would be willing to change hours.

[signed] S. S. Alexander

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950 (UAV.349.10). Box 23, Folder “Course Offerings 1932-37-40”.

_______________________________________

[Petition signed by students/auditors in Econ 50]

[Penciled in upper right:Econ 50]

[typed] We should like to attend both, unfortunately conflicting, courses: Economics 13b (Mathematical Economics) and Economics 50 (Money and Banking). It would be much appreciated if a change in schedule could be arranged.

[signed] W. Stolper
[signed] J. P. Cavin
[signed] A. L. Meyers
[signed] C. Y. Lo
[signed] T. Y. Wu [?]
[signed] S. Bolts [?]
[signed] P. Chanten [?]
[signed] W. Malenbaum

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950 (UAV.349.10). Box 23, Folder “Course Offerings 1932-37-40”.

_______________________________________

[Economics 13b: Course enrollment]

[Economics] 13b 2hf. Professor E. B. Wilson.—Mathematical Economics.

2 Graduates, 1 Junior. Total 3

 

[Economics] 50. Professors Williams and Dr. Machlup-Wolf.—Principles of Money and Banking.

16 Graduates., 10 Seniors, 1 Junior, 8 Radcliffe. Total 35.

 

Source: Annual Report of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College 1934-35, pp. 81-2.

 

Categories
Harvard

Mathematical Economics at Harvard according to E. B. Wilson, 1936

A letter from E. B. Wilson of Harvard  to W. C. Mitchell of Columbia regarding mathematical economics at Harvard. Wilson appears to be not amused by what Schumpeter has done to the core theory course as formerly taught by Taussig. For some background see the proposal submitted by the economics department to establish courses in mathematical economics beginning 1933-34

My favourite sentence: “The fact is we are lousy with mathematical economics so near as I can make out. I suppose Leontieff leans pretty strongly that way.”

_________________________

 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
55 SHATTUCK STREET

Boston, Massachusetts

3/27/36

 

DEPARTMENT OF VITAL STATISTICS

Edwin B. Wilson
Carl R. Doering

 

Professor Wesley C. Mitchell
161 West Twelfth Street,
New York, N.Y.

 

Dear Mitchell:

I understand Burbank plans for me to be giving next year the course on mathematical economics rather than the course on mathematical statistics which I am giving this year. This if Rollin Bennett were with us he could probably take my course.

There seems to be plenty of mathematical economics around Harvard and I judge that some people are pretty badly worried over the situation. Taussig’s great course on economic theory has now been taken over by Schumpeter and as far as I can find has been completely changed in that instead of covering a wide range of economic variables and points of view in oral discussion and trying to give the student some notion of how the theoretical economist may reason on the facts of a complicated world Schumpeter is practically giving mathematical economics. I don’t know that this is so but I am told that it is. The department is relying somewhat apparently on Chamberlin and Taylor to give general courses on economic theory without requiring much mathematics but the fact seems to be that the tradition that students should take the chief theory course which was Taussig’s and is now Schumpeter’s is so strong that practically nobody can escape Schumpeter’s course. I am told that he not only uses a great deal of mathematics, so that the course is really unintelligible to students who have not had at least two years of collegiate mathematics, but that more than this he marks the students not on how well they handle their economics in view of their total preparation but on their mathematical dexterity which makes it essential if a fellow is to have a high mark that he really be a pretty good mathematician. I have a notion that a good many members of the department are decidedly disturbed over the situation and are making some inquiries to find out whether it may not be possible for the department of mathematics to give a course more or less parallel to the one which it now gives which shall get the students further along in their mathematical notions in two years than is at present the case. You probably are aware that our layout in mathematics here is, like that elsewhere, designed primarily for students who are going to need a great deal of mathematical technique because of going into physics, or engineering, or astronomy, or mathematics itself, and isn’t ideally suited to those students who need a wide range of mathematical conceptions and a moderate range of technique and need to get it quickly as is best for students going into chemistry, physiology, economics, business, psychology, and so on. Now I happen to have repeatedly urged at Yale, at M.I.T., and informally here at Harvard where I am not technically connected with the department of mathematics, that our large institutions instead of giving one and the same course to all Freshmen and Sophomores in anything from 8 to 30 divisions should offer two parallel courses one of them directed to the students who needs to acquire a very considerable mathematical technique and covering topics selected with reference to the needs of such a person whereas the other should be differently conceived. It is a fact that an engineer with his courses on statics including strength of materials needs a pretty thorough grounding in trigonometric analysis. It is also important in the study of alternating current machinery. He may also need a considerable amount of analytical geometry if he is to be at home with ellipsoids of inertia and with stress and strain relations in the theory of materials. He must have considerable familiarity with the integration of differential equations. He really needs two and a half years of continuous and hard mathematics. Now for the other people whom I mentioned trigonometry is a matter that can be covered in very few exercises. They don’t have to do surveying, they don’t have to solve triangles, they don’t have to do analytical statics. On the other hand they do need rather more algebra, including choice and chance, for which there is no special necessity on the part of the engineer or physicist, at any rate at an early stage and they do need to get through with their mathematics say in a year and a half instead of two, and a half years. It is all perfectly simple to do in all institutions large enough so that there is no additional cost in running two parallel courses instead of a single course but I don’t know of any institution that does it. If I were arranging the courses on mathematics for the Freshman and Sophomore years in our major institutions there would be much greater variety in the offering, but this is beside the point. The fact is we are lousy with mathematical economics so near as I can make out. I suppose Leontieff leans pretty strongly that way.

I am sorry you have so much administrative work in the National Bureau. I wish you could be let alone to do your research. For that matter I wish I could. I am in too many things and this job for the National Resources Committee has been a great burden to me this year. Then Gay resigned from the Executive Committee on the Tercentenary and I was put in his place. The president has put me on his project committee to represent sociology as near as I can make out. My time has been dissipated. Some of the things that I was anxious to do when I gave up the presidency of the SSRC I have done but there still remain to be done a great many of those things which I had every reason to believe would have been finished by this time. In the meantime I suppose I have done a few other odds and ends that weren’t on my program because my position here is essentially a consulting position and I have to take in and think about problems which have been initiated by other persons but which can’t be wound up by them because they haven’t adequate knowledge of statistical methods and I fear even not of logical methods.

I wish the SSRC this summer would go up to the South Shore or the North Shore so that their members would be near at hand for the Tercentenary Conference of the social sciences. It would seem to me that the Symposium on Factors Affecting Human Behavior and that on the Relations of Authority to the Individual and that on Cultural Diffusion which occupy the 5 days from September 7th to September 11th inclusive would be right up the main track of the SSRC and that we would be likely to have more of the people here if the Council met up in this vicinity. I daresay that wherever it meets I shan’t have much time for it because of pressure of work on the small committee consisting of Shapley, Henderson, Nock and myself with Jerome Greene which is to take care of the Academic end of this large conference.

Yours very sincerely,
[signed: E. B. Wilson]

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W. C. Collection, Box 14 (Correspondence Ve—Z), Folder “Wilson, Edwin B., Boston, 27 March 1936, To Wesley C. Mitchell”.

Categories
ERVM

Visitors to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror

The past week was the first full-week that I looked at feedback from Google Analytics where I learned something about the geographic distribution of visitors to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror (ERVM). There was a marked surge in page visits due to the coincidence of the Stanley Fischer posting getting New York Times mention in David Leonhardt’s The Upshot under the heading “Best of the Web…Stuff We Liked” and a Joseph Schumpeter posting getting almost two full days of front-page status at the subreddit: Reddit/r/economics.

By the way, apparently the Reddit algorithm for ranking links is based on a 1927 paper by Edwin B. Wilson!  For a 1930 lecture by Wilson at the U.S. Department of Agriculture graduate school, see this posting.

What I glean from the map above is that you visitors are the world which is pretty gratifying for a blog going into only its sixth month of existence. What is striking from the actual numbers behind the map is that the number of page visits is dominated by the U.S. with Canada/UK/Germany constituting the next group with the rest of the 70-some countries registering generally fewer than ten visits and only about two dozen countries in double digits.

Like Adam Smith wrote “The Division of Labour is Limited by the Extent of the Market”, so with the global connectivity of today it makes sense to Specialize in one’s own blog content. I certainly take comfort in seeing that those of us interested in the story of the development of economics in the twentieth century, while few in a relative sense, are hardly alone. Hope you do too.

 

Categories
Harvard

E.B. Wilson Lecture USDA Graduate School 1930

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SPECIAL LECTURES ON ECONOMICS
DELIVERED BEFORE THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
FEBRUARY – MARCH 1930
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1930

 

Contents: The following lectures were delivered before the students of the Graduate School in February and March 1930, and are issued in this form for present and former students of the school.

 

Scientific Method in Economic Research                                                                1

by Dr. E. B. Wilson, President, Social Science Research Council.

o[p. 1]

SCIENTIFIC -METHOD IN ECONOMIC RESEARCH

By Dr. E. B. Wilson, President, Social Science Research Council.

It is a real embarrassment to me to come here announced to speak upon a topic, Economic Research, of which I have never known much, and today know less than I have at times in the past. The awkwardness is not alleviated by my appreciation of the fact that there are several in the audience who could talk about the subject better than I, and with that increased assurance and authority which comes of a wider experience and greater personal accomplishment in the field. Furthermore, the title of my lecture contains the cryptic words “Scientific Method” which slide smoothly from the tongues of many persons dealing with relatively inchoate research fields, but are apt to stick in the crop of those whose major experience is in well developed branches of science. I could, for instance, hardly imagine a group at the Bureau of Standards asking me or any other for a lecture on scientific method in physical research. Indeed, I should not be astonished to hear physicists say there was no such thing as scientific method, that there was an infinite variety of techniques, theoretical and experimental, available to the physicist from which each individual must select for a particular problem those which may be applicable to that problem, but that as to scientific method in general there was little which could be stated other than something very general with respect to the scientific attitude of mind, patient and unbiassed searching for facts, earnestness in seeking for corroboration by others wherever personal bias may have influenced the array of facts or the conclusions drawn from them, and a persistent effort to improve techniques so that facts may become more objective and precise. There would probably be some who boldly would affirm that method was for the other fellow and not for. themselves, meaning by this that each individual investigator, and especially those of any real genius, pursued his own studies without conscious dominance by any notion of scientific method until he came to the somewhat unwelcome task of writing up his work for communication to others, when perforce he must consider what method of presentation would most effectively convey his findings and their justification or validity to that particular group of fellow scientists whose good opinion he would most value.

I might state as a generalization that the interest in scientific method on the part of investigators in any scientific field varies inversely as their interest in that field of science. But this statement is much too striking to be scientific; in the first place there are always exceptions and it would have to be understood as applying on the average, and in the second place there is no way known to me to evaluate quantitatively either the interest in method or the interest in the field which would justify so precise a statement as that the one interest varied inversely as the other.

I do not, however, propose entirely to cheat you of all discussion of the topic of my lecture. I will enumerate some methods.

[p. 2]

(l) The method of definition. The choice of a suitable definition if often the touchstone of scientific advance. Scientifically definitions need not be explicit, they may be implicit; they need not be quantitative, they may be first qualitative. There are numerous illustrations which could be given from the economic field, but we may all get forward faster if we take an example from physics. Let us define force. And let us go back to Newton. In his first law of motion he stated that a body at rest remained at rest and a body in notion remained in motion in a straight line at uniform velocity unless acted on by some force. Now this cleared the way. It eliminated once for all the notion that bodies stopped of themselves – they had to be stopped or started, accelerated or decelerated by applied force. There is here a qualitative and implicit notion of force which can furnish a sound basis for the quantitative definition of force as equal (or proportional) to the rate of change of motion. As a matter of fact a single definition cannot well exist by itself, it can only be part of a system of definitions – force, mass and acceleration are tied together. At any particular time in the advance of a science some new term may seem to be defined absolutely alone and the complex of definitions to which it belongs may not be perceived because this complex lies in the general background of our accepted thinking whereas the newly defined element emerges.

From such experience as I have in teaching and in research, particularly in emergent fields, I should say that most pupils and colleagues were so thoroughly oblivious to the necessity for and significance of definitions in science as to be almost impatient of them. In this they are far from scientific. Science is a congeries of definitions. We are seeking agreement in science and one of the most effective ways of seeking it is by agreement on the meaning of our words. Take such words as “wealth”, “income”, and others which are basic in economic research. How can one expect agreement between two persons who are tacitly using different though perhaps unformulated definitions for these or similar words? Of course, I do not wish to over-emphasize the necessity for precision in definitions – there is no such thing as absolute precision apart from the construction of complete logical systems such as mathematicians have constructed for arithmetic, geometry and algebra of several types. We have at any stage of science to deal with a relative precision of definition. And it may not be amiss for me to point out that the absolute precision of the completely defined mathematical discipline exists only for that intellectual discipline and breaks down immediately when that system of thought is applied to nature, by virtue of the fact that there do not exist in nature any objects precisely corresponding to the exact intellectual concepts precisely defined.

Let us consider the question of “level”, “rolling”, or “hilly” agricultural land. It would doubtless be possible to construct mathematical definitions of level, rolling, and hilly in such form that a surveyor equipped with the proper instruments could classify land under these three categories with great scientific precision, by which we mean that specifications for the classification could be so drawn as to make certain that different surveyors equipped with similar instruments would make the same classifications with only the fewest disagreements in certain very doubtful intermediate cases. Such a precise definition with its accompanying exact classification would be costly in time and in money and thus of

[p. 3]

limited practical utility. Very little land could be so classified. On the other hand, it would be possible to set up rough and ready descriptive definitions of level, rolling, and hilly intended to be used for classifications by mere inspection which would be utilizable at comparatively slight expense in money and time. Now different observers would undoubtedly differ considerably in their allotments of parcels of an intermediate character to one or the other of the adjacent categories, and in this allotment there might be bias, so that even on the average the classifications by different observers would have different percentages of the three sorts. The reliability of the method would certainly be less, its utility, even its scientific utility, might be far greater because of its greater feasibility.

The essential element in precision is not so much absolute precision as a sound estimate of what degree of precision has been attained. It is really reliability in the sense of reproducibility or agreement which is the scientific item and if the reliability is sufficient for the purposes in hand and if the conclusions drawn from the work limit themselves to what is justified by the reliability attained, that is all we can really ask. Thus two treatises on economics neither of which explicitly defines wealth or some other term but both of which develop their analysis upon tolerably similar implicit definitions may well not come into actual conflict even though if each pushed its analysis far enough they could hardly fail to come into some conflict resoluble only through rendering the definitions more precise. Much medical work, particularly of the clinical variety, could not proceed at all if a high degree of precision were required. So to define broncho-pneumonia or dementia precox as to result in a high degree of reliability in diagnosis may actually be impossible in the present state of our technique. I do not mean that definitions could not be given but that such definitions would not be those of what should be called broncho-pneumonia or dementia precox – they would be artificial and illusory definitions. What we need at the moment is not such definitions so much as a recognition by scientific clinicians of their need for the concept of reliability, their need to have a feeling for what the true precision is; because it is only upon the basis of such recognition that one is likely fruitfully to improve the definitions. The situation may well be the same in respect to a large number of economic concepts.

(2) The method of mathematical analysis. Beginning rather clearly with Cournot, there has been a great development of mathematical analysis in economics. I do not refer to arithmetically quantitative analysis but to the type of mathematics which is logical and qualitative in the sense in which J. C. Cobb has discriminated between qualitative and quantitative (Econ. Jour. England, March 1928, p. 72). Now, as we were speaking of definitions, it may be well for me to point out that the adjective quantitative is perhaps used in a different sense by some economists from that implied here. Some might consider Pareto’s work almost wholly quantitative because of his insistence on sharply defined concepts and his use of mathematical equations and transformations, including differential equations and integrals, etc. The notion of marginal utility is in a sense quantitative, and so is the concept of the curve of indifference which Pareto was inclined to make basic. Yet this must be said: That his whole treatise goes very little way, and the whole spirit of it is not conceived in the manner to go far toward the determination of the numerical values which should be inserted in the place of the variables in his equations to arrive at a check on the analysis. Indeed, as I conceive it, he was not interested greatly in that sort of check: his interest lay in the logical analysis of the sorts of situations which could arise. In a sense that is qualitative rather than quantitative, and at any rate I want to make it clear that I used qualitative to cover what others might prefer to call quantitative.

Mathematical analysis depends on conventions. If the convention is adopted that the price of a commodity depends on the amount of that commodity one has the system of Walras, and the mathematics is relatively simple. If one allows that the price of each commodity may depend on the amounts of all commodities one has a more complicated convention leading to more complicated analysis. This latter form of analysis is surely so highly involved that one could scarcely carry it on without the mathematical method. If then commodities are really so interlocked that many important economic events can only be understood by taking into consideration the possibilities that arise through the interlocking and would not arise if there were no interlocking, there is no escape from a consideration of the complex situation and no escape from the use of a good deal of mathematical thinking with no small amount of mathematical symbolism. It is perhaps true that many serious students of economics are today being developed without any considerably training in mathematics. Maybe they can so choose their work throughout their life as to avoid problems which require a knowledge of mathematics, and maybe they will learn their mathematics in later life as W. G. Sumner did, according to his personal testimony to me.

I may say that it has been maintained that man’s essential characteristic lies in his effort to cover not space alone but duration of time (Korzybski). It may be that prices do not depend merely on quantities of commodities in existence but on those and quantities that may come into existence. In recent months we have been told that what was important in the price of a stock was what it was going to sell for. Very likely. There is certainly speculative adjustment of prices. If that complex of phenomena which arise from man’s time-binding propensities is of relatively little economic significance, it may be neglected, but if it be of considerable significance, economists will arise to treat it and they will probably be forced to use much more complicated mathematical thinking than Pareto used – there may be integral equations and integro-differential equations. It is not impossible that they cannot even state adequately the essential logical interconnections of the conceptual situation which arises in time-binding economics and cannot formulate the proper conceptual complex without appeal to a type of mathematics so advanced as to make it necessary for some mathematicians themselves to become economists. Indeed, Pareto started as an engineer, I believe a railroad engineer; Irving Fisher as a mathematician, and so more recently Roos. The mathematical method is not yet through in economics; indeed, it may be just beginning, but it is likely largely to remain the work of a small fraction of students of economics.

(3) The statistical method. Although the statistical method is highly valuable in dealing with classifications of data not yet reduced to quantitative form, presumably the chief interest of the economist in

[p. 5]

statistics is quantitative. There is of course no such thing as the statistical method. Statistics is a complex of techniques. Take, for example, the sampling technique, the sampling error, and the question of the fairness of a sample – this whole group of ideas which is of great importance in social studies and in experimental biology may be of little interest to the economist working in some such line as the theory of the business cycle. If we allow an average duration of 40 months, we have in 40 years some twelve cycles. Of what can those twelve be regarded as a sample? Of course they may be regarded as a sample of the universe defined by themselves, which does not get us ahead very far. Indeed 40 years takes us back to 1890, before Bryan, before the U. S. Steel Corporation, before the war, and before the “New Era” of 1929. In many ways the economic situation has so changed that there may be no sense in asking the question as to what universe the sample comes from. Yet how talk of sampling errors without samples or of samples without their appropriate universe? I do not wish to imply that there are not opportunities to use sampling methods in economics; there are many such, but. on the other hand we have many problems where the opportunity is lacking.

Then there is the regression technique. What a regression equation does is to give us the mean value of the dependent variable in terms of assumed values of the independent variables. A regression equation may not be solved for one of the independent variables to get the new regression equation. This is a limitation on the use of regression equations for mathematical analysis. Indeed the mathematical theory of economics assumes that the variables occurring in the equations are like those occurring in thermodynamics or other fields to which analysis is applied in that they have values, not that all the independent variables have values and the dependent variables only a mean value. This is a real difficulty in coordinating the mathematical and the statistical methods so that the latter furnishes concrete and practical illustrations of the theoretical developments of the former. It is a difficulty which must persist so long as inherent variability due to lack of complete control is present. Thus one of the chief techniques of the mathematical economics is that of counting the number of variables and the number of equations to verify that these numbers are equal and that the problem is therefore determinate, whereas statistical procedures are applied in just those cases in which there still remains indetermination, that is, where the number of equations is fewer than the number of variables and it becomes necessary to treat the dependent variable as an assemblage of values and take the mean or median or some other special value as representing the group of undetermined values.

The analysis of time series is a technique which has remained rather specially that of economic statistics. It is employed very slightly in other applications of the statistical method. Time series are treacherous, but I do not see how their treatment can be ignored. Also it is not easy to see how the treatment can be made scientifically satisfactory; in the nature of the case we may have to be content with exploratory methods. Of course we can apply the method of the periodogram and the resolution into trignometric series. Such analyses work well on observations of the magnitudes of some classes of variable stars for which there are presumptively true periodicities in the background of the observed time series. When however the method is applied to meteorological or economic phenomena somewhat bizarre results are often obtained, results which do not always,

[p. 6]

perhaps do not usually, serve as a satisfactory basis either for forecasting the future or for representing the past except for the limited portion of it which has been used in the analysis. Indeed at the present time I should say that the evidence that there are cycles does not justify one in assuming that there are periods in the sense required for sound
periodogram analysis.
One of the chief aids to the advance of scientific knowledge is the existence of artificial or natural repetition in the sequence of phenomena. The extreme regularity of the real motion of the planets and the moon enabled the ancients very considerably to unsnarl the obvious irregularities of the apparent motions and to construct calendars of a high degree of prevision, to forecast eclipses with considerable success, and in general to develop the science of astronomy. The periods involved were not all short compared with human life, but the basic regularity allowed observations to accumulate. In the laboratory we may repeat experiments as often as we please without serious danger that conditions have seriously changed, – indeed the first and basic type of control is repetition. In the economic field the situation is quite different; so far as is yet known we do not have highly regular basic periods nor do we have conditions that may be repeated without serious changes, and we are very much handicapped thereby in scientific advance. It is true that the rapidity of change in conditions varies greatly at different times. The younger generation of economists have seen tremendous apparent changes within their own relatively short lives. It may be that a prolonged period of relative stagnation might help toward the discovery of some economic laws by making it easier to ignore the trees and concentrate on the forest; such a period would however have compensating disadvantages through the temptation to a feeling of security with its inevitable resulting dogmatism.

After all, it is perhaps remarkable not that so little but that so much has been accomplished in selecting from the mixed, complex, and variable economic field some items which have been reduced to method, by definition, by mathematics and by statistics sufficiently to merit the application of the term economic science. Whether the proportion of economic instruction in our universities which can be rated as scientific is today larger than it was a generation ago may be difficult to determine – there is much more economics taught, much more that is descriptive, illusory and unscientific, also much more that is sound and scientific. In the governmental, banking and business activities of our country there is also an increase in the amount of economics in use and very likely an increase in the proportion of scientific economics. The scientific economist may look at the future with caution as to what economic events may occur, but he may look at it also with confidence that the scientific method will continue to conquer new worlds for him as for his scientific confreres in other scientific fields.

Source: United States Department of Agriculture Graduate School. Special Lectures on Economics, Delivered Before the Graduate School February-March 1930, pp. 1-6.