Categories
Uncategorized

Harvard. Enrollment, Course description, Final exam. Economics of Corporations. Ripley and Custis, 1904-1905

In 1904-05 Professor William Zebina Ripley of Harvard co-taught his course on the economics of corporations with his dissertation student Vanderveer Custis, who went on to teach economics at the University of Washington and later at Northwestern University where he attained professorial rank. The economics of corporations course was at least implicity paired to a course on labor problems (material found in the previous post). The common thread through the sequence would have been the study of market power through combination of laborers (trade unions) on the one hand and corporations (trusts) on the other.

__________________________

Other Corporations/Industrial Organization Related Posts
for William Z. Ripley

Problems of Labor and Industrial Organization, 1902-1903.

Economics of Corporations, 1903-1904.

Economics of Corporations, 1914-1915.

__________________________

Course Readings

Cases for the course are most certainly found in Trusts, Pools and Corporations (1905), edited with an introduction by William Z. Ripley. From the series of Volumes Selections and Documents in Economics, edited by William Z. Ripley published by Ginn and Company, Boston.

__________________________

Course Enrollment
1904-05

Economics 9b 2hf. Professor Ripley and Mr. Custis. — Economics of Corporations.

Total 190: 17 Graduates, 31 Seniors, 95 Juniors, 34 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 12 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1904-1905, p. 75.

__________________________

Course Description
1904-05

[Economics] 9b 2hf. Economics of Corporations. Half-course (second half-year) Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Professor Ripley.

The work of this course will consist of a discussion of the problems connected with the fiscal and industrial organization of capital, especially in the corporate form. The principal topic considered will be industrial combination and the so-called trust problem. This will be treated in all its phases, with comparative study of the conditions in the United States and European countries. The growth and development of corporate enterprise, promotion, capitalization and financing, publicity of accounting, the liability of directors and underwriters, will be Illustrated fully by the study of cases, not from their legal but from their purely economic aspects; and the effects of industrial combination and integration upon efficiency, profits, wages, the rights of investors, prices, industrial stability, the development of export trade, and international competition will be considered in turn.

The course is open to those students only who have taken Economies 1. Systematic reading and report work will be assigned from time to time.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Division of History and Political Science Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics, 1904-05 (May 16, 1904), pp. 43-44.

__________________________

ECONOMICS 9b
Year-end Examination, 1904-05

  1. In what respect did the English Company Law of 1900 fall short of providing an adequate remedy for abuses which had developed?
  2. What was the gist of the Federal decision in the Knight (Sugar Trust) case; and how does it bear upon the present situation?
  3. What is the form of the Anti-Trust laws of the different states? Discuss the feasibility of this remedy.
  4. What are Meade’s final propositions as to the need and nature of reform in corporate management?
  5. Compare the two principal methods of administering corporate sinking funds.
  6. Outline three important cases showing the attitude of the English common law toward monopoly.
  7. What appears to you as the most serious social evil in the present situation? Distinguish carefully between economic, social, and political aspects.
  8. How has economy in the matter of freights been sought by industrial combinations, and with what success?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers 1873-1915. Box 7, Bound volume: Examination Papers, 1904-05;  Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics,…,Music in Harvard College (June, 1905), p. 30.

Image Source: Harvard University Archives.  William Zebina Ripley [photographic portrait, ca. 1910], J. E. Purdy & Co., J. E. P. & C. (1910). Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Economists Gender Northwestern Uncategorized Yale

Yale. Economics Ph.D. Alumna, 2nd wife of Richard T. Ely, Margaret Hahn Ely

One can imagine the raised eyebrows when colleagues learned that Professor Richard T. Ely at the tender age of 77 married his former student who was a gentle 32 years old, leaving a 45 year age gap to fill with conjugal bliss. It even became national news when it was reported that Richard T. Ely became father for the fourth and fifth times at ages 78/79, respectively. Robust Professor Ely lived another ten years and his widow Margaret Hale Ely, née Hahn, went on to teach economics at Connecticut College for Women for two decades after his passing. Along the way, she picked up her Yale economics Ph.D. Her retirement years spanned another seventeen years.

______________________

Professor Ely is Married to Former Pupil

Madison—Prof. Richard Theodore Ely, 78, honorary professor of political economy at the University of Wisconsin, was secretly married last summer to Miss Margaret Hahn, 30 [sic, 32 years is correct], once his student at Northwestern university friends here learned today.

The economist and his bride are living at Radburn, N.J., near the Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities established by Dr. Ely several years ago in New York.

He was professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin from 1892 until 1925, when he went to Northwestern. There he met the co-ed destined to become his wife.

In 1933 he received an LL.D. degree from the university.

Before coming to Wisconsin he was head of the department of political economy at Johns Hopkins university for 11 years.

His marriage to Miss Hahn was his second. In 1884 he was married to Miss Anna Morris Anderson, who died in 1923. He has three children, Richard S. Ely, John T. A. Ely and Mrs. Anna Ely Morehouse.

Dr. Ely received his A.B. and A.M. degrees from Columbia university, his Ph.D. at the University of Heidelberg, and another LL.D. from Hobart college.

He was founder of the American bureau of industrial Research, one of the organizers of the American Economics association, first president of the American Association for Labor Legislation, and founder of the Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities.

He has written several books dealing with economics.

Source:  Wisconsin State Journal, December 21, 1931, pp. 1,4.

______________________

L.A. Times exclusive, 1932

Economist Ely Becomes Father
at 79 (sic, should be 78) Years of Age

New York, July 15 (Exclusive)

Prof. Richard T. Ely, the economist, 79 years of age, who last year married Miss Margaret Hahn, still in her early thirties, became the father of an 8-pound son on the 1st, it was learned today.

Prof. Ely proudly confirmed the news at the offices of the Institute for Economic Research, Inc., of which he is the head.

“He’s a fine, big, kicking fellow,” he said. “We named him after William Brewster, a leader in the Mayflower colony and an early ancestor of his.”

Prof. and Mrs. Ely live at Radburn, N.J., the model motor-age real-estate development planned by the professor and financed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and others.

Prof. Ely and the mother of his child, who was born in a Paterson (N.J.) hospital, met at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., where he was teaching in the summer of 1931. She was one of his students, and received a Ph.D. degree at that institution of learning (sic, she did not).

The professor, a noted economist, is the author of a number of books. He came to New York several years ago to establish the institute he heads.

Source: The Los Angeles Times (July 16, 1932), p. 1.

______________________

Associated Press, 1934

Dr. Ely Father Again at 79
Daughter Second Child
Since He Wed Former Pupil in 1931

By the Associated Press.

New York, March 30.–Dr. Richard T. Ely, 79-year-old economist and president of the Bureau of Economic Research, became the father of his sixth child last Wednesday, friends here have learned.

A nine-pound-seven-ounce daughter, named Mary Charlotte, was born to his wife, the former Margaret Hahn of Chicago, in Paterson General Hospital, Paterson, N.J. Dr. Ely will be 80 April 13. Dr. and Mrs. Ely have another child, William Brewster Ely, born in July, 1932. Mrs. Ely is the economist’s second wife. Dr. Ely, founder of the American Economic Association, married her, a former pupil, in 1931.

SourceSt. Louis Post-Dispatch (March 30, 1934), p. 2.

______________________

From the horse’s mouth:
Richard T. Ely’s Memoir
1938

It was at Northwestern, also, that I found the young woman who later became my wife, Margaret Hale Hahn was a member of my round table, a dynamic personality, with many varied interests. She was a Northwestern graduate and had attained distinction in athletics, as well as in scholastic work. She was a member of the debating group and was one of the first women to represent the university in a joint debate with Wisconsin; she was also president of the hockey team and had obtained her letter. We were married in 1931. Her companionship and her vitality have greatly enriched my life. We are now the proud parents of two loverly children, Billy, six, and Mary, four.

Source: Richard T. Ely. Ground Under Our Feet, p. 250.

______________________

Personal and professional timeline of
Margaret Hale Ely, née Hahn

1899. June 29. Born in Ohio to Parents Raymond C. Han and Mary Katruah Hahn née Hale.

1923. B.S. from Northwestern University.

1931, August 8. Marriage to Richard Theodore Ely in Old Lyme, Connecticut.

1932, July 1. Birth of son, William Brewster Ely in Paterson, New Jersey.

1934, March 28. Birth of daughter, Mary Charlotte Ely in Paterson, New  Jersey. [Family residing at 2 Audubon Place, Rayburn, N.J.]

1936, May 12. Third child, stillborn.

1943, October 4. Richard T. Ely dies at home in Old Lyme, Connecticut.

1944. Appointed assistant professor of economics at Connecticut College for Women.

1947. A.M. from Yale University.

1954. Ph.D. in economics from Yale University.

1966. Retires from Connecticut College for Women.

1983, May 24. Died May 24. in Waterford, Connecticut.

______________________

MRS. MARGARET H. ELY
Associate Professor of Economics

Mrs. Margaret H. Ely’s life, on this campus and away from it, has been expressive of a personal philosophy which will continue to pervade her experience after she leaves her position as Associate Professor of Economics at Connecticut. She believes strongly in a commitment to education as a challenge and as a creative process, and she considers the lack of such a commitment the main problem in education today. In accord with this belief, Mrs. Ely has taught the Senior Seminar in Economic Research since she has been here. This course emphasizes creative research and enables students to talk with experts in their particular area. Labor and investment have always been Mrs. Ely’s own favorite areas of interest and instruction. She was originally trained as a banker in the investment division of the Irving Trust Company. In addition to her love of teaching, she has actively extended her own education. Last summer she attended a Contemporary Economics Seminar and this year at Connecticut she has studied mathematical statistics. In the language of economics, Mrs. Ely feels there is a great deal of manpower, the country’s most valuable resource, which is being wasted in the form of the unmotivated student. She believes this situation can be improved and, with this in mind, she intends to continue working in the educational system: We can expect further significant accomplishments by Mrs. Ely, a woman dedicated to her field and her profession.

Source: Connecticut College for Women student yearbook, Koiné 1964, p. 74.

______________________

Retirement note by Connecticut College President

Mrs. Margaret Ely joined the Faculty in 1944 as a recent widow and the mother of two young children. Ten years later she had received her Doctor’s degree in Economics at Yale, created new courses in Labor Economics and Corporations at this college and brought her own children into young manhood and womanhood. She likes to teach the lore of corporations by the case study method. A study of her own case suggests that she is the sort of educated American woman who has demonstrated to the undergraduates of this college that a woman of purpose and courage can do anything she wants to do. Her human warmth and ingenious teaching methods will be available to us for one year more in the absence of her Department Chairman.

SourceConnecticut College Alumnae News, August 1964, p. 19.

Image SourceConnecticut College Alumnae News, August 1964, p. 19. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Uncategorized

Yale. Course summary and preview, Industrial Organization, Behavior, and Public Policy. Nelson, 1973

In the preceding post we find the 5 1/2 page reading list for Richard Nelson’s 1973 unconventional graduate economics course at Yale on industrial organization. After posting that reading list, I discovered another artifact for the course providing both a motivation for and a preview of the course. Incidentally I did not take the course, but was able to acquire these materials late in my undergraduate pack-rat days.

____________________

RESUMÉ AND PREVIEW OF ECONOMICS 140A
Mr. Nelson
Fall Semester 1973

This is a course about the organization and public control of economic activity. In the past few years the much debated issues have included: Is there a public interest in assuring that Lockheed will not go through bankruptcy? Are our large corporations really private or are they social assets?

Should ITT be forced to divest certain recent acquisitions? Are our anti-trust laws on this and other matters in need of rethinking?

Should we abandon rate regulation of truck and rail transportation? What if anything can and should be done about the erosion of passenger rail service? Would abandonment of “regulated competition” and establishment of a quasi-public monopoly help? Should it be subsidized?

How can we enable consumers to be better informed about the likely cost and quality of a repair job they procure at different T.V. repair shops or automobile mechanics? More generally, how can we make consumer choice more effective?

What kind of a system of taxes, subsidies, and prohibitions should be established to deal with pollution? How should such a regulatory system be organized and administered?

Are educational vouchers a good idea? How would such a system work? Is public subsidy of day care for young children a good idea? How should extra-family day care be organized in the United States?

Should we establish a system of National Health Insurance and, if so, what should the system be like? Need we complement this change with some reorganizations on the supply side?

Should the nation significantly increase its funds for cancer research? Should a National Cancer Institute be established that is independent of the National Institutes of Health System? Should public funds be used to subsidize the development of power reactors for civilian use? How should these funds be spent?

The list of important economic organization issues obviously is much longer than this sample. The second semester of this course – 140B – will consider certain classes of these questions in detail. Economics 176 (ISPS 690) is a workshop for advanced graduate students where research on these kinds of questions can be undertaken. This semester’s course will be dedicated to developing tools and concepts for looking at these questions. While some examples from the list will be used as illustrations, we will not consider any particular policy issue in any detail.

Economic organizational questions of the sort illustrated above are regarded by many people as the key public policy decisions that shape the future of the nation. Like all decisions these involve articulating values and choosing from some set of alternatives. And, like all decisions, these require mechanisms to get the choice carried out. But the organizational decisions are meta decisions. They involve establishing or modifying the machinery that will make choices (demand) and carry these out (supply) over a considerable time horizon. In a society as large and complex as our own most of decision making and administration is delegated and decentralized. Public policy decisions that are resolved at a high national level generally must be and are few in number. And the most important of these decisions tend to be organizational decisions — decisions about the manner in which a class of decisions will be made and effected for some time in the future.

There are various intellectual perspectives on the economic organization question. Various parts of the political science literature are concerned with public choice (economists also have contributed to this discussion) and public administration. From this perspective one can view the sectoral economic organization problem as that of selecting a form of governance, and often we will find it convenient to look at the problem this way. However, very little literature within this tradition has been focused specifically on particular economic sectors.

The comparative economic systems literature views the economic organization question writ large. At least since the Mises-Lange dialogue of the 1930’s the economic systems tradition has developed in appreciation of the vast multi-dimensional nature of the nation’s wants and capabilities, and of the enormous informational and computational requirements to make sensible decisions regarding what, how, and for whom. The organizational analysis and alternatives have tended to be defined in terms of general economy wide organizational modes, like consumer choice to set priorities and a regime of private and for profit firms to supply the goods and services in question, versus central planning to establish priorities and make decisions and public agencies to carry them out. Other alternatives considered have included “market socialism” and the Yugoslav model. The mode of general formal theorizing has been that of general equilibrium.

The industrial organization tradition tends to be less sweeping. Analysis within this tradition generally assumes a general background national solution to the organizational problem and focuses on the details of organization of particular sectors, industries, or activities. Predominantly a western intellectual tradition (and largely American) the general organizational background is assumed to be consumer choice plus private market supply, although it is recognized that many sectors are not so organized. The analysis considers a particular sector, say manufacturing or transportation, or a particular industry, say the aluminum or the aircraft industry and explores how that sector is organized and how it performs, and the public policy actions that might make it perform better. The basic analytic perspective is partial equilibrium with the operation of the rest of the economy subsumed under the specification of the supply curves of factors of production and the demand curves for the products of that industry.

The basic perspective taken in this course will be that of the industrial organization tradition but we shall depart form that subject as traditionally defined in three key ways. First, research within the industrial organization tradition has focused almost exclusively on sectors where demand is generated by the decisions of individuals to purchase or not purchase a particular item, and where supply is generated by private firms who are expected to be maximizing profit, perhaps subject to a regulatory constraint. The principal policy issues considered have largely involved the appropriate role of anti-trust and regulation. Very little attention has been given to public policy issues regarding the articulation of values and demand when full-blown individual consumer sovereignty may not be appropriate. Thus, the tradition has not concerned itself much with problems of inadequate consumer information, or of how to organize to control or internalize externalities. Many externalities are public goods, or bads, and the industrial organization tradition, with few exceptions, has ignored the organizational issues in making collective demand or regulatory decisions leaving these questions to the public finance field (where they have not been handled adequately). Relatedly, the tradition has tended to shy away from analysis of sectors where supply is organized governmentally, or through not-for-profit private entities.

Thus the traditional industrial organization literature really has not gripped many of today’s most pressing policy issues relating to sectors organized largely by private demand and for-profit supply, and has paid limited attention to sectors not so organized which comprise a large share of this nation’s economy. It seems important to broaden the perspective. Thus in addition to considering the traditional industrial organization literature, this course also will explore literature in such fields as public choice, public administration, and the scattered material on other kinds of organization of demand and supply. The sectors we shall consider will be not only manufacturing and public utilities (on which the traditional literature has focused) but also such sectors and activities as medical care, day care for children, and scientific research.

Second, the course will be particularly concerned with the state of existing theory of how organizations behave under different conditions of sectoral organization, exploring both generally prevailing theory, and various proposed amendments and reformulations. To repeat the point stressed earlier, decisions regarding sectoral organization or reorganization are meta decisions. Choice among possible organizational alternatives should rest on understanding of how the sectors will behave under the different regimes.

Existing positive economic theory is quite limited in the range of circumstances under which it can make definite predictions. Regarding market forms, we have a theory of behavior in which we rest some confidence only for sectors organized along the lines of perfect competition (and there is some reason to be less than fully confident even in that theory). Most market sectors do not evolve such a structure. Often the sectors turn out to be oligopolistic, usually the sector is regulated in some way or another. Often the units include not-for-profit organizations or public agencies. Until recently these public or quasi-public sectors were ignored by economists, and economists still often seem to believe that because they are “public” they can be predicted to work as the public, or the president or congress, dictates. This clearly is wrong. The way the decision to establish a public corporation to run passenger rail service will work out will depend largely on Amtrack. One might think that in cases of direct government spending the connection of order to result would be more direct. But the Atomic Energy Commission will not itself produce power reactors. These will be obtained (if at all) through contracts with private organizations and the cost and effectiveness of the system will be influenced heavily by the behavior and performance of these contractors. Between the provision of federal subsidy to day care and the objective of more or better provision of day care services lies a layer of local governmental bodies who must monitor the funds, a network of day care centers, and the parents who must decide to use day care.

Sensible resolution of the question of how to organize a sector, or how to manipulate the incentives within the sector, to achieve an agreed upon public purpose requires ability to predict response that economists presently do not have. This is so even regarding market sectors. The “anatomy of market failure” is highly sensitive to how firms and individuals actually behave. Various theories of behavior predict different things about the problems that will occur under different organizational regimes and about how to deal with these problems. And we have very little in the way of a theory of public or non-profit organizations. A good part of this course will be concerned with attempting to lay out the pieces from which a better theory perhaps can be built.

Third, particular stress will be placed on the long-run performance of a sector, in the context of the evolution of the economy more generally. Major policy decisions regarding the organization or a sector of activity are not made, or re-made, very often. These policy decisions thus must be made with a long time horizon. In a world of change, of evolving opportunities and problems, adequate sectoral behavior requires at the least that the sector respond effectively to changing patterns of demand and cost, and that it seize new opportunities created outside the sector. A major complaint about the railroads and about the public school system, is that they have not met these minimal requirements. We would hope that sector would go beyond this minimal standard and be creative and innovative. Much of the discussion regarding the organization of cancer research, and the aircraft industry, involves how to reorganize to better seize and manage the rapid flow of innovative ideas.

To a considerable extent the microeconomic policy issues of today are the result of the pace and the pattern of economic development the United States has experienced. Some, as power reactors, cancer research issues, involve technologies and scientific understanding that did not exist two· decades ago. The rise, current problems, and the policy issues surrounding Lockheed obviously involve modern technology and its management. The conglomerate merger problem certainly is related to the improvement in communication, transportation and management techniques that have made such diversified companies possible; the central policy issue is whether these companies are an efficient form in the new regime of tech­nology. Part of the issue relating to public schools and delivery of medical care is that productivity in these sectors has risen slowly relative to other sectors. Thus as factor costs have risen with rising average productivity, the relative costs of an educational day or a hospital day have soared. The policy issue of pollution clearly has been generated by past economic and demographic trends. Sectoral organizational changes are essential aspects of how the political economy generates and responds to change. And public policy decisions regarding these changes are the key policy decision guiding the economic evolution of the nation in the future.

Part 1 of this course will consider the sectoral economic organization question broadly, and examine some of the particular assumptions of the industrial organization tradition. Part 2 will consider the “private demand, for-profit firms” mode of organization, reviewing the arguments for its merit, some of the basic problems and limitations of this mode, and examine some of the tools of microeconomic policy traditionally treated in a course in industrial organization. The central policy issues introduced in this section will be considered in more detail in Econ 140 B.

Part 3 will be concerned with the present ability of microeconomic theory to predict the behavior of sectors organized in different ways. The standard theory rests heavily on the assumption that firms maximize profits. A different theory of the behavior of economic organization leads in many cases to a different appraisal of the situations that are likely to warrant intervention, and the kinds of interventions that can work. We survey a number of different departures taken recently by microeconomic analysis, and consider their implications for microeconomic policy. One strand of literature explores different motivational assumptions. A second strand employs a radically different kind of theorizing based on organization theory. Each of these avenues of analysis indicates that some of the instances of market failure under the traditional approach may not be serious problems under different views of the nature and behavior of firms, and some problems that do not appear under the traditional theory do appear under different models. And these richer models clearly are necessary if we are to model non-market sectors.

In Part 4 we study the characteristics of the economic change process, with particular focus on technological advance. Explicit recognition of the essential qualities of a dynamic world requires, we argue, certain major modifications of the theory of the firm, the role of markets, and of competition. We begin by considering these and the issues involved. Then we turn to examine technological change as a process, and dynamic processes more generally. The focus shifts away from “optimal decision making” toward problem solving, learning, and adjustment mechanisms, and from competitive equilibrium and its attributes toward a view of competition and diffusion as dynamic processes.

In Part 5 we return to certain problems and instruments of public policy and consider these from a richer perspective. One topic will be a reconsideration of decision making with particular focus on problems of externalities and on the evolving interest in social experiment and evaluation. Second, we will consider problems of control of public sector and non-market organized economic activity. Third, we will examine how micro economic policy issues come about and various theories about how they are resolved.

Obviously the course is an unorthodox treatment of “industrial or­ganization.” We are persuaded that the conceptualization and the literature studied provide the graduate student with a better set of tools to deal with the industrial organization questions of the future than is provided in a more conventional course. However many topics treated in the standard courses that we will not have time to consider, are interesting and important. We strongly urge all students to familiarize themselves with that literature. American Industry: Structure, Conduct and Performance by Richard Caves provides an excellent brief overview. Serious students should read carefully F.M. Scherer, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Those planning to take comprehensives in industrial organization will be expected to know this material.

There will be a mid-term examination and a final. Upon agreement with the instructor a paper may be substituted for the final.

 

Source: Copy from the private papers of Irwin Collier.

Categories
Uncategorized

Harvard. Final exam and possible reading list for mathematical business cycle theory. Goodwin, 1944.

 

The following reading list for what certainly appears to have been a course on business cycles was found in Joseph Schumpeter’s papers. The original typed copy (it is not a carbon copy) is four pages long and lacks a heading with a course name or number, date, or instructor’s name so we cannot even be 100% confident that it can be associated with any Harvard course. It is simply included in a folder with miscellaneous Schumpeter notes (above my pay-grade to extract any more than a random word or two per page from Schumpeter’s scribble cum shorthand).

One important fact is that the latest item on the reading list is an August 1942 Q.J.E. article by Samuelson. So my theory of the case leads me to assume that this artifact comes from a business cycle course taught at Harvard during the 1942-43 or perhaps 1943-44 academic year. I note that Schumpeter taught the courses “Economic of Socialism”, “History and Literature of Economics since 1776”, and “Advanced Economic Theory” in both those years. Neither of the first two titles is anywhere close to a dedicated course on business cycles. A look at the reading lists and exams for the 1941-42 version of “Advanced Economic Theory” finds that economic dynamics (both micro- and macrodynamics)  was one of several topics covered in the second semester, but nothing like the exclusive focus on the theory of business cycle as seen in the reading list below.

Alvin Hansen taught an undergraduate course “Business Cycles” (Economics 45a) and a graduate course “Business Cycles and Economic Forecasting” (Economics 145a), but a reading list with the title “Specific Reading Assignments in Economics 45a” for 1943 and the exams for both Economics 45a and 145a do not give multiplier-accelerator topics as much emphasis as seen in the reading list transcribed in this post.

The only other candidate (assuming that this reading list had been prepared for a Harvard economics course) appears to be the undergraduate course “Introduction to Mathematical Business Cycle Theory” that I believe was taught once and only once at Harvard by Richard M. Goodwin. I find that the “goodness of fit” of the final examination questions to the reading list sufficiently adequate to consider the following reading list and examination questions at least a tentative match for now.

_____________________

Reading list,
tentatively matched to Economics 46,
Mathematical Business Cycle Theory

  1. Over-All Picture of the Business Cycle.

Schumpeter, J.A., “The analysis of economic change,” R.E.S., XVII (May, 1935), pp. 2-10.

Knight, F.H., “The business cycle, interest, and money: a methodological approach,” R.E.C., XXIII (1941), pp. 53-67.

  1. Types of Cycles.

Kondratieff, N.D., “The long waves in economic life,” R.E.S., XVII (Nov., 1935), pp. 105-15.

Kitchin, J., “Cycles and trends in economic factors,” R.E.S., V (Jan., 1923), pp. 10-16.

Frickey, Edwin, “The problem of secular trend,” R.E.S., XVI (1934), pp. 199-206.

  1. Econometric Approach.

Tinbergen, J., “Econometric business cycle research,” R.Ec.Stud., VII (1940), pp. 73-90.

Keynes, J.M., “The statistical testing of business-cycle theories,” E.J., XLIX (Sept., 1939), pp. 558-68; and Tinbergen-Keynes, “On a method of statistical research,” E.J., L (March, 1940), pp. 141-156.

  1. Saving and Investment.

Lutz, F.A., “Outcome of the saving-investment discussion,” Q.J.E., LII (1937-38).

Lerner, A.P., “Saving and investment: definitions, assumptions, objectives,” Q.J.E., LIII (1938-39), pp. 611-19.

Lange, O., “Saving in process analysis,” ibid., pp. 620-22.

Ohlin, Bertil, “Some notes on the Stockholm theory of saving and investment,” E.J., XLVII (1937), pp. 53-69; 221-40.

  1. Keynesian Economics.

Hicks, J.R., “Mr. Keynes’s theory of employment,” E.J., XLVI (1936), pp. 238-53.

Lange, O., “The rate of interest and the optimum propensity to consume,” Economica, V (new series, 1938), pp. 12-32.

  1. Spending Policy and Multiplier.

Kahn, R.F., “The relation of home investment to unemployment,” E.J., XLI (1931), pp. 173-98.

Clark, J.M., “An appraisal of the workability of compensatory devices,” A.E.R., (1939, Suppl.), pp. 194-209.

Williams, J.H., “Deficit spending,” A.E.R., XXX (Feb., 1941, Suppl.), pp. 52-66.

Machlup, F. “Period analysis and multiplier theory,” Q.J.E., LIV (1939-40), pp. 1-27.

Samuelson, P.A., “Fiscal policy and income determination,” Q.J.E., LVI (Aug., 1942), pp. 575-605.

  1. Acceleration Principle.

Aftalion, A., “The theory of economic cycles based on the capitalistic technique of production,” R.E.S., IX (1927), pp. 165-70.

Clark, J.M., “Business acceleration and the law of demand: a technical factor in economic cycles,” J.P.E., Vol. 25 (March, 1917), pp. 217-35. Reprinted with additional note in Preface to Social Economics.

Tinbergen, J., “Statistical evidence on the acceleration principle,” Economica, V (1938, new series), pp. 164-176.

  1. Dynamic Models Involving Multiplier and Acceleration Principle.

Samuelson, P.A., “A synthesis of the principle of acceleration and the multiplier,” J.P.E., XLVII (1939), pp. [no pages given]

Kaldor, N., “Model of the trade cycle,” E.J., March, 1940.

  1. Monetary Theory of the Business Cycle.

Hawtrey, R.G., “The trade cycle,” Dutch Economist and reprinted in Trade and Credit, London, 1928, pp. 82-104.

Hayek, F.A., “Price expectations, monetary disturbances and malinvestments,” first published in German in Nationalökonomisk Tidskrift, Vol. 73, No. 3, 1935. Reprinted in Profits, Interest and Investment, London, 1939, pp. 135-57.

  1. Overconsumption Theory and Secular Stagnation Thesis.

Robertson, D.H., “A survey of modern monetary controversy,” Manchester School, 1938.

Hansen, A.H., “Progress and declining population,” A.E.R., XXIX (1939), pp. 1-15.

Neisser, Hans, “General overproduction,” J.P.E., XLII (1934), pp. 433-65.

Kaldor, N., “Stability and full employment,” E.J., XLVIII (1938), pp. 642-57.

Ellis, H.S., “Monetary policy and investment,” A.E.R., XXX (1940), pp. [no pages given]

  1. Harvest Cycles and Other Special Cycles.

Jevons, H.S., “The causes of fluctuations of industrial activity and the price level,” J.R.S.S., XCVI (1933), pp. 545-88. Discussion, ibid., pp. 588-605.

Derksen, J.B.D., “Long cycles in residential building, an explanation,” Econometrica, VIII (1940), p. 10.

Long, C.D., “Long cycles in the building industry,” Q.J.E., LIII (1938-39), pp. 371-403.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Joseph Schumpeter Papers. Lecture Notes Box 2, Folder “Notes”.

______________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 46. (spring term) Dr. Goodwin.—Introduction to Mathematical Business Cycle Theory.

Total 4: 3 Navy V-12, 1 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1943-44, p. 56.

_____________________

1943-44
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 46
Introduction to Mathematical Business Cycle Theory
[Final examination, June 1944]

Part I
Answer both questions.

  1. Suppose an economic system completely characterized by the multiplier and acceleration principles. Further suppose all data in annual terms and a one year lag in the expenditure of income. If the system shows oscillations with an 8.5 year period, and an amplitude increasing continuously at a .02 rate, what are the values of \alpha , the marginal propensity to consume, and of \gamma , the acceleration coefficient? Secondly, suppose, being a New Dealer with a difference, you desire to abolish economic cycles. If the values of \alpha and of \gamma were open to governmental control, state one pair of values for \alpha and \gamma , at which you might aim and why.
  2. Describe cursorily as many as possible types of ‘dynamization’ useful in business cycle theory and indicate, where you can, your evaluation of their relative importance.

 

Part II
Answer any two, or three, or four questions.

  1. Explain the economic meaning of the following terms: endogenous, initial conditions, phase constant (epoch), stationary, static, amplitude, dynamic, and over-damped.
  2. Discuss thoroughly the role of damping in quantitative cycle theories.
  3. Do you consider it a correct appraisal of Tinbergen’s statistical work to say: “The method is one neither of discovery nor of criticism”?
  4. What economic assumptions are involved in the use of second order, homogeneous, linear differential and difference equations with constant coefficients?
  5. “Is it possible that there could be a cyclical fluctuation in a system, all the ultimate independent determinants of which had fixed regression coefficients and were in linear correlation with their consequences, except in the case where one of the ultimate determinants is itself a periodic function of time (e.g. sun spots)? Where and how does the element of reversal come in?….I should like to know the answer?” How would you answer Lord Keynes? Be concrete.
  6. Give one example of how inventories may be introduced into cycle analysis and show the more important consequences.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 9. Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions,…, Economic,…, Military Science, Naval Science. June, 1944.

Image Source: Richard M. Goodwin, in the Harvard Album, 1946.

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Faculty Regulations Harvard Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Rochester Stanford Uncategorized Yale

Harvard. Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

 

 

What makes this report on the general examination in the economics PhD program at Harvard particularly valuable is its brief survey of the practice at eight other universities: Yale, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Rochester, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, and Chicago. 

_____________________

DRAFT

This draft is distributed in Professor Chenery’s absence to permit discussion at the next Department meeting, January 27, 1970.
Professor Chenery or other members of The Committee might wish to record further comments in preparation [of] a final report.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02135
January 16, 1970

To: The Department of Economics
From: Committee on Graduate Instruction

REPORT ON THE GENERAL EXAMINATION FOR THE PH.D.

In response to a number of requests from students and faculty, the Committee has reexamined at considerable length the requirements for the General Examination. This report summarizes our general assessment in section I and makes specific recommendations for changes in section II. Some related issues needing further consideration are listed in section III.

Although for the past several years graduate students have criticized various aspects of the generals, the main source of dissatisfaction seems to be with the rigidity of “the system” rather than with any particular aspect of it. We have taken advantage of the fact that the Committee now has three student members to try to understand some of the effects of our present procedures on students’ choices and incentives. We have also tried to strike a better balance between preparation for the general examination and other aspects of a student’s training in his first two years.

As a background for our discussion, the secretary of the Committee compiled a useful summary of the regulations in effect at other leading universities, which is attached.

 

ROLE OF THE GENERAL EXAMINATION

The primary functions [sic] of the General Examination is to evaluate the student’s formal preparation in economics before he proceeds to more advanced phases of teaching and thesis preparation. It also serves as a screening device to weed out weak candidates, as a basis for subsequent recommendations for employers, and as an indirect way of organizing the student’s course work in his first two years. These multiple functions produce much of the debate over requirements at Harvard and elsewhere, since a system that is ideal for one purpose has weaknesses for another.

One of the main criticisms of the existing Harvard system is its psychological impact on the student. The need to satisfy the requirements in all fields within a period of several months inhibits most students from exploring non-required topics until after they have passed the generals. On balance, we are impressed with the desirability of adopting a more flexible timing that will encourage the student to get most of his tool requirements out of the way in the first year and use the second year to explore the fields of his special interest and get some taste of actual research. We have tried to maintain the undoubted benefits of an overall examination, however, as compared to a set of course requirements.

Our survey of other departments shows a significant trend toward breaking down the requirements into separate parts and focusing less on the culminating oral examination. Most departments use the qualifying examination in theory as a device for screening first year students, which also reduces the burden of preparing all fields in the second year. In most departments the minimum proficiency in quantitative techniques and economic history is demonstrated by a satisfactory course grade rather than by inclusions in the general examination. Although we have made our own judgements on these questions, we recommend movement in these directions.

Another consideration which makes greater flexibility desirable is the growing proportion of students who are already well prepared in one or more required fields. For many students, the present system therefore encourages too much review of material they have already covered. We feel that those who are adequately prepared on one of the required fields (theory, quantitative method, history) should have an opportunity to satisfy this requirement in their first year in order to make better use of their time thereafter.

Our recommendations are directed toward achieving greater flexibility in the timing of courses and examinations to allow the student to make more effective use of his time. This should enable many students to get started earlier on their optional fields and to make a better choice of their field of specialization. We do not envision any reduction in the total work done in the first two years or any lowering of standards of performance.

 

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

General Principles

  1. The general examination should be separated into four component parts—theory, quantitative method, economic history, and special fields—each of which would be graded separately.
  2. The minimum requirement in quantitative method and economic history should be regarded as a “tool requirement” or “literacy test” as has become the practice in the quantitative field. Students wishing to specialize in these fields may offer them at a higher level as one of their special fields.
  3. The term “general examination” would apply to the oral examination on the special fields. (The question of a general grade on all parts as at present was left open.)
  4. There should be no prescribed timing of the four components, other than the stipulation that the required fields be either completed (or write-off courses in progress) at the time of the oral examination on the special fields. Qualified students would be encouraged to complete one or more requirements in the first year.
  5. Two write-offs should be allowed rather than one.
  6. A subcommittee would be set up for economic history (and retained in theory and quantitative method). The standards and ways of satisfying them in the three required fields should be proposed by the three subcommittees and ratified by the GIC and the Department.

The Theory Requirement

  1. The present coverage (roughly 201a, 201b, 202a) should be retained. The examination would continue to be written.
  2. The examination should be offered two or three times a year. (A straw vote by students showed a preference for June, September and January and a margin for September over January.) Most students would take the examination at the end of their first year—in June or September.

The Quantitative Requirement

  1. The present de facto standard of the written examination should be accepted as the “literacy test”.
  2. The requirement can be met either by the present type of written examination (given twice a year) or by a grade of B+ in 221b or 224a. (It is estimated that roughly 75% would be able to qualify by course examination.)

The Economic History Requirement

  1. The history requirement be made parallel to the quantitative requirement in that:
    1. It can be satisfied by course or special departmental examination.
    2. It can either be offered at a minimum level or at a higher level as a special field.
  2. The minimum requirement would be satisfied by a course grade that would allow a similar proportion to qualify in this way (B+ or A- pending further information).
  3. Alternatives to the present 233 sequence (if any) to be established by the history subcommittee.
  4. Minimum standards in both history and quantitative method could be demonstrated by course examination.

The Requirement in Special Fields

  1. Two special fields would be required as the basis for the oral examination, which would also cover general analytical ability.
  2. Advanced theory, econometrics and economic history would be eligible as special fields, but the first two could not both be included. (In the majority view, one applied field apart from history would be required in order to eliminate the possibility of a candidate offering only the three required fields.)
  3. The candidate would be encouraged (or required?) to submit a research paper to be made part of the subject matter and record of the general examination (He is now “expected” to have presented a paper to a working seminar by the end of his second year.)
  4. The general oral examination would normally be taken at the end of the second year, but could not be taken before the qualifying exams in theory, quantitative and history have been passed (or prospective write-offs are in progress.)

QUESTIONS OF GRADING

  1. Should all examinations be either pass-fail or on a more limited grading scale than at present?
  2. Should the passing standard for the course option in both quantitative methods and history be B+?
  3. Should the four requirements be graded separately or combined (as at present) into an overall grade on the General Examination? (The committee favors first the alternative, but would also require “distinguished” performance in at least one area.)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Examination Requirements at Other Places

Below I summarize examination requirements at eight other places, including Yale, MIT, Hopkins, Rochester, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan and Chicago. The main findings of the survey are:

  1. It appears that the massive type of “generals” (where all fields and theory are combined in one session) has almost disappeared. With the exception of Hopkins, all of the above schools seem to settle the theory examination at the end of the first year, with special fields examined at the end of the second year.
  2. Among the schools surveyed, only Yale has a written examination in history. Hopkins, Stanford, Chicago and Berkeley require a course, with “satisfactory” grade. MIT and Rochester have no requirement.
  3. Only Yale gives a written in quantitative aspect of the generals. All the other schools have course requirements (satisfactory grade) only.
  4. Practices vary with regard to number of special fields and type of examination. MIT and Hopkins require three, the others two special fields. Examinations at Yale are oral, at the other places written, in some cases both written and oral. In most places the special field examinations must be taken together, but in some (Rochester, Chicago) they can be separated. Throughout, these special examinations seem to be given by the department, and not merely as course examination.
  5. Some provisions of special interest:
    1. Chicago and Rochester’s second year research paper as part of general examination
    2. Stanford’s requirement for distinction in at least one field.

 

I. Yale

Comprehensive Examination

  1. Written examination in theory and econometrics, usually August or September after first year.
  2. Written examination on economic history; usually late spring of second year.
  3. Oral examination in two applied fields, chosen from six and in general analytical ability; late spring of second year. Given by four examiners. Student excused from general examination in special field courses at end of second year. Oral examination in theory, history, quantitative or field outside economics may be substituted for one of the applied fields if candidate has done year’s course work in applied field “with sufficient distinction”.

History and Quantitative

  1. History—written, end of second year, and option to substitute for one special field.
  2. Quantitative—written, end of first year, and option to substitute for one special field.

Other requirements

  1. Has apparently been dropped.
  2. One course credit of explicit research training, second year.
  3. Dissertation to be completed in fourth year.

 

II. MIT

General examination

  1. General examination in theory consists of two written papers—micro and macro, given in final exam period of first year. May be substituted for final examinations in theory courses.
  2. General examination normally at end of second year. Consists of:
    1. written examinations on three of 12 special fields. These may include advanced theory, econometrics or economic history.
    2. oral examination in the three fields after written.
    3. a fourth field is required but may be written off by B grade in full year course.

History and Quantitative

  1. History—no requirement. May be a special field.
  2. Quantitative—no generals examination. May be a special field.

Other requirements

  1. Two languages

 

III. Johns Hopkins

First Year Oral Examination

A first year oral examination is given in the spring of the first year, covering the fields in which the student has worked during that year.

Comprehensive Examination

Normally taken in spring of second year. Consists of:

  1. Two written examinations in theory, micro and macro.
  2. Three written examinations in special fields, one of which may be outside economics.
  3. Oral examination: Covers theory, special fields, statistics.

History and Quantitative

  1. History—satisfactory work in course.
  2. Statistics—satisfactory work in course.

Other Requirements

  1. One language.
  2. In addition to the departmental special examination, an examination is given by the graduate board, which includes members of other departments.

 

IV. Rochester

Qualifying Examination

  1. Theory and econometrics courses are required but are not part of Qualifying Examination.
  2. Qualifying Examination taken in May of second year. Consists of
    1. Written examination in two fields. These may include mathematical economics and econometrics. Need not be taken simultaneously.
    2. A second year research paper which is to be presented to a departmental seminar at the end of second year.
    3. After (a) and (b) are met, an oral examination in the special fields.

History and Quantitative

  1. Econometrics and mathematical economics requirements (courses), extent depending on fields.
  2. No history requirement.

Other Requirements

  1. Certain distribution requirement.
  2. Language and mathematics.

 

V. Stanford

Comprehensive Examination

  1. Written in micro and macro theory at end of first year. Cover course materials.
  2. Selection of special fields under two plans:
    1. If no minor subject is taken, student chooses four out of ten fields. These may include history, econometrics, mathematical economics. One field may be outside economics.
    2. Student may choose a minor subject (in another department) and choose only one out of the ten special economics fields.

Comprehensive written examinations for each field scheduled annually, usually at close of course sequence. Must show distinction in at least one field.

History and Quantitative

  1. History—Include at least two courses from offerings in economic history, history of thought, comparative economics, development.
  2. Quantitative—Econometrics course required.

Other Requirements

  1. Language or particular quantitative skills.
  2. Two seminars and research papers.

 

VI. Berkeley

Departmental Examination in Theory

  1. Must be passed by end of first year. Students with strong background take it in November of first term, others in June (end of first year).
  2. Written qualifying examinations given in two out of thirteen special fields at end of second year. Examinations given twice a year, must be taken together.
  3. Within one year after written qualifying examinations are completed, student presents himself for oral, based on prospectus (and interim results) of his thesis. General assessment of competence.

History and Quantitative

  1. Course in economic history at 210 level.
  2. Course in statistics at 240 level.

Other Requirements

  1. No language.

 

VII. Michigan

Preliminary Examination

  1. At end of theory courses in micro and macro, an “augmented examination” is given which serves as preliminary examination in theory.
  2. Two fields of specialization are required. One field is satisfied by satisfactory grades in two courses. For the other field a written preliminary examination is required.
  3. After this, oral examination on research topic and surrounding area.

Economic History and Quantitative

  1. No history requirement.
  2. Course requirement in statistics and econometrics.

Other Requirements

  1. No general language requirement.

 

VIII. Chicago

Preliminary Examination

  1. A “course [sic, “core” probably intended] examination” covering micro and macro theory is given twice a year (separate from course examinations) and is usually taken at end of first or middle of second year.
  2. Two special fields are chosen. Written examinations in these fields, separate from course examinations. Need not be taken together.
  3. Student presents a thesis prospectus before thesis seminar, usually in third year. Must pass on this for candidacy.

History and Quantitative

  1. History course required as part of distribution requirements.
  2. Course work in statistics required.

Other Requirements

  1. Math, no languages.

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard University Department of Economics: General Correspondence, 1967-1974 (2 of 3)”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1946.

Categories
Uncategorized

Wisconsin. Business Cycles Syllabus. Theodore Morgan, 1951

 

Theodore Morgan had a distinguished career as professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin. Rather unusual for someone going on for a Ph.D. in economics (even for the 1930s/40s) is that Morgan earned his A.B. and A.M. degrees in English. He shared this distinction with one of my Yale professors, the economic historian William Parker whose A.B. at Harvard was also in English. It would be interesting to have a list of other economists who began their academic journeys in the humanities before crossing over to economics. 

Incidentally the business cycles syllabus transcribed below was found in Martin Bronfenbrenner‘s Papers at Duke’s Economists’ Papers Archive. 

___________________

Harvard Economics Ph.D. (1941)

JOSEPH THEODORE MORGAN, A.B. (Ohio State Univ.) 1930, A.M. (ibid.) 1931, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1940. Subject, Economics. Special Field, Economic History since 1750. Thesis,”The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876.” Adjunct Professor of Economics, Randolph-Macon Woman’s College.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1940-41, p. 182.

___________________

[Pencil note: Morgan]
University of Wisconsin
Spring semester, 1950-51

Economics 181
Business Cycles

I. Business Cycles: History and Description

Feb 5 – 9 Achinstein: Introduction to Business Cycles, Chs. 14-16, 18-20 121 pp
Kondratieff: “The Long Waves in Economic Life”, Ch. 2 in Readings in Business Cycle Theory 22
Hansen: Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Ch. 1 (“The Historical Ratio of Money to Income”) 13
Feb 12 – 16 Schumpeter: “Railroadization”, in Business Cycles, Vol. 1, pp. 325-351 26
Feb. 19 – 23 Hansen: Business Cycles and National Income, Chs. 1-5 86
– Optional:
Schumpeter: “The Analysis of Economic Change”, Ch. I, in Readings in Business Cycle Theory
Garvy: “Kondratieff’s Theory of Long Cycles”, Review of Economic Statistics, November 1943
Beveridge: Full Employment in a Free Society, Appendix A

 

II. Theories of Business Cycles

Feb 26 –
Mar 2
Hansen: Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Ch. 2 (“The ‘Creation’ of Money” 26
Achinstein, Chs. 1-5, 11-13 92
– Optional:
Hansen: Business Cycles and National Income, Chs. 13-20
Mar 5 – 9 Clemence and Doody: The Schumpeterian System 93
Hansen: Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Chs. 9, 10 24
– Optional:
Hansen: Business Cycles and National Income, 13-24

 

III. The Measurement of Income, Output, and Employment

Mar 12 – 1 Achinstein, Ch. 17 23
– Optional:
“How Much Unemployment?” symposium in the Review of Economics and Statistics, February, 1950
Morgan: Introduction to Economics, Ch. 25.

 

IV. Savings and Investment: the Keynesian, Robertson, and Swedish Approaches…The Keynesian System

Mar 19 – 23 Achinstein, Chs 6-10 (pp. 55-117) 62
Keynes: General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, pp. 27-34, 245-249, Ch. 22 (pp. 313-332) 29
Morgan: Introduction to Economics, Ch’s 30, 31; Ch. 32 to p. 583; Ch 28 to p. 505 68
Skim:
Keynes, Ch. 23 and 24
– Optional:
Dillard: The Economics of J.M. Keynes, pp. 59-71, and Ch. 5 (pp. 75-101)
Duesenberry, in Income, Employment, and Public Policy Ch. 3 (“Income-Consumption Relationships and their Implications”, pp. 54-81)
Haberler, Prosperity and Depression, 1941 ed., in Ch. 8 (“Some Recent Discussions Relating to the Theory of the Trade Cycle”), pp. 170-185
Hansen: “The Robertsonian and Swedish Systems of Period Analysis”, Review of Economics and Statistics, February, 1950.
R.F. Harrod, J.A. Schumpeter, and P.M. Sweezy, “Keynes, the Economist: Three Views”, Chs. 8, 9, 10 of S.E. Harris, ed., The New Economics
Mar 26 – 30 G. Haberler and J.M. Keynes on The General Theory Chs. 14 and 15 of S.E. Harris, ed., The New Economics

 

V. The Stagnation Thesis

Achinstein, Ch. 24 (pp. 373-387) 14 pp.
– Optional:
Terborgh: The Bogey of Economic Maturity

 

VI. Secular Trends, and Public Policy

May 7 – 11
14 – 18
Achinstein, Chs 21, 22, 25 (pp. 319-348, 388-409) 205
Hansen: Economic Policy and Full Employment, Chs. 5, 9, 10, and 11-22
May 21 – 25 Hansen: Business Cycles and National Income, Chs. 25-31 (pp. 501-605
Skim:
The Economic Report of the President, January 1951
Schumpeter: Business Cycles, Vol. 2, pp. 1011-1050 39
May 28 – June 1 Clark, Kaldor, Smithies, Uri, Walker: National and International Measures for Full Employment (A United Nations Report, 1949), pp. 19-47, 75, 81-84. (can be found in Gayer, Hariss, Spencer: Basic Economics, pp. 437-457) 20

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists‘ Papers Archive. Martin Bronfenbrenner Papers, Box 25, Folder “Macro-economics: problems and exercises 1 of 2. 1961-70, n.d.

___________________

 

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION OF THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
ON THE DEATH OF PROFESSOR EMERITUS THEODORE MORGAN

Faculty Document 2138
5 October 2009

Theodore Morgan, age 98, died peacefully on Sunday, February 8, 2009. He had been in failing health following a stroke on December 4, 2008. He was an economist and writer, valued colleague, loving husband and father, and affectionate friend with a wry and gentle sense of humor.

Professor Morgan was born on May 31, 1910, in Middletown, Ohio, the youngest of three sons of Ben and Anna Louella (Knecht) Morgan. He grew up on the family farm and survived the flu he contracted in the great flu epidemic of 1917. His first two years of schooling occurred in a one-room school. He went on to complete his AB and MA (1931) in English at Ohio State University, with Phi Beta Kappa honors and a thesis on Joseph Conrad.

Shortly after graduating he was diagnosed with melanoma. The cancer was cured and never returned. At the time, however, he thought his life might be shortened, and he developed a sense of adventure. He sailed to Japan and China in 1934, working in the engine room of the SS President Coolidge. In the summer of 1935 he traveled by bicycle and train through Europe, observing the harsh economic conditions of the time and brewing political changes in France, Germany, and the Soviet Union. While there he took hundreds of photographs that vividly depicted the economic effects of the world-wide depression. A selection of these photos was published with commentary in the Wisconsin Academy Review (2004).

Professor Morgan’s teaching career began at the University of Hawaii-Manoa where he taught English from 1936-38. His stay in Hawaii began a life-long affection for the islands. It also gave him material for the first of many books. His curiosity about the causes of the Great Depression led him to shift from English to economics. He enrolled in Harvard University’s graduate economics program in 1938 and was awarded his PhD in Economics in June 1941. He spent the next year teaching economics at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia. He returned to teach at Harvard from 1942 to 1947. While teaching at Randolph-Macon, he met at a tennis match Catharine Moomaw, a painter and adjunct professor of art at the college. They were married in 1943.

In 1947 Professor Morgan joined the economics department at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and, with the exception of nine years abroad, taught there until his retirement in 1980. The year he joined the Wisconsin department Ted’s career received a major boost when he published Income and Employment, one of the first books to present the new approach to macroeconomics developed by John Maynard Keynes. His academic focus soon shifted, driven in part by a new emphasis in U.S. foreign policy to aid the underdeveloped countries of the world. In his early work he made important contributions in assessing the growth effects of changes in the terms of trade of developing countries and understanding the discrepancies between the export value of goods and services reported by these countries and the recorded import value of these goods reported by the countries receiving these goods.

Ted was skeptical of the theoretical models of economic development widely discussed in the 1950s and 1960s. He became one of the first development economists to assert that the complex process of economic development should reflect local priorities and values rather than imported Western theories. His views on economic development, published in numerous books and articles, were influenced by his years of work overseas. In addition to many articles in professional journals and reports on economic conditions in the countries where he worked, he authored or coauthored a number of books, including: Hawaii: A Century of Economic Change, 1778-1876 (1948); Introduction to Economics (1950); Readings in Economic Development (1963); Economic Planning in Southeast Asia (1965); and Economic Development: Concept and Strategy (1975). He published his last academic paper in 1995.

Professor Morgan’s overseas work began with service as economic adviser to the government of Ceylon and deputy director of the Central Bank of Ceylon from 1951-53. He directed the Wisconsin-Ford Foundation project and taught at Gadjah Mada University in Indonesia from 1959-60. In 1964-65 during the Johnson Administration, he served as a senior staff economist at the President’s Council of Economic Advisors in Washington, D.C. His other overseas posts included teaching at the University of Singapore (1967-69), advising the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Thailand (1970), and additional work in Kenya, Chile, Malaysia, and in Sussex and Manchester, England. Finally, in 1990 he taught economics at Nankai University in China, a decade after his retirement.

Throughout his career, Professor Morgan strongly supported the education of foreign graduate students in the United States, and he headed an American Economic Association committee that in the late 1950s established the Economic Institute in Boulder, Colorado, to prepare foreign students for successful graduate studies in economics. He maintained warm friendships with many of his former students and delighted in their accomplishments.

An enthusiastic athlete, Ted played a fine game of tennis, and enjoyed bicycling, skiing, swimming, and running. He loved hikes and walks, and took pleasure in gardening, especially growing tomatoes and begonias. As a student he learned by heart many poems of, among others, Tennyson, Browning, Shakespeare, and Swinburne, and could still recite them into his 99th year. His parents, his brothers Donald and Mark, and his wife of 57 years, Cathy, all died before him. He is survived by three daughters, Stephanie (Madison), Marian (Charlottesville, VA), and Laura (New York, NY); one grandchild Brihannala (San Francisco, CA); nephews and nieces, cousins, and many friends.

MEMORIAL COMMITTEE

Robert E. Baldwin
W. Lee Hansen, chair
David B. Johnson
James Stern
H. Edwin Young

SourceTheodore Morgan memorial. University of Wisconsin. Memorial resolutions presented to the Faculty Senate, 1999 February—2016 April.

Image Source: Portrait of Theodore Morgan. University of Wisconsin Archives. Images. UW-Madison Collection.

Categories
Courses Curator's Favorites Exam Questions Lecture Notes M.I.T. Problem Sets Suggested Reading Syllabus Uncategorized Undergraduate

M.I.T. Principles of Macroeconomics. Slides, problems sets, exams. Krugman, 1998

 

One might think that putting together robust links to economics course materials found in the internet archive, Wayback Machine, would be relatively straightforward, and sometimes it is. But most of us are inconsistent with the use of folders and sometimes pages get updated by other people so that traditional archival persistence is generally required to find missing pieces to the historical puzzle. In any event, today’s post manages to pack links to course content for a principles of macroeconomics course taught at M.I.T. exactly two decades ago by Paul Krugman.

I remember that semester well, because immediately after Paul Krugman finished his teaching obligations at M.I.T. for that fall term, he came to Berlin to receive an honorary doctorate from Freie Universität Berlin. The audio recording to his lecture “The return of demand-side economics” can still be heard (beginning around minute 2:00) at a webpage maintained by the John-F.-Kennedy Institute for North American Studies of Freie Universität.

_________________

14.02 Principles of Macroeconomics
Fall 1998
Professor Paul Krugman

Course Syllabus

Text: Olivier Blanchard, Macroeconomics.

Schedule (with links to lecture slides and exams)

Note: the lecture slides may differ slightly from those presented in class.

September 14 — Chapter 2: Preliminary Concepts

Slides: Tracking the Macroeconomy: Five Key Aggregates

September 16 — Chapter 3 & 4: The Goods Market (lecture by Roberto Rigobón)

September 21 — Chapter 5: Financial Markets

Slides: Review. Multiplier Analysis

Handout by Adam B. Ashcroft on bond yields about here

September 23 — Chapter 5: More on Financial Markets

Slides: The Federal Reserve and the Money Supply

September 28 — Chapter 6: IS-LM

Slides: The IS-LM Model

September 30 — Chapter 7: Expectations

Slides: Expectations and Macroeconomics

October 5 — Chapter 8: Expectations, Consumption, and Investment

Slides: Consumer Behavior–Not that simple

October 7 — Banks and the Banking System

Slides: Banking and the Financial System

October 8
Exam 1

Exam #1 Questions
Solutions

October 13 — Chapter 9: Expectations and Financial Markets

Slides: (missing)

October 14 — Chapter 10: Expectations and Policy

Slides: Expectations and Macroeconomic Policy 

October 19 — Chapter 11: Introduction to the Open Economy

Slides: The Open Economy

October 21 — Chapter 12: The Open Economy Goods Market

Slides: Macroeconomics in the Open Economy

October 26 — Chapter 13: Interest Rates and Exchange Rates

Slides: What Determines Exchange Rates

Handout on exchange rates about here.

October 28 — Chapter 13: Exchange Rate Regimes

Slides: Fixed Exchange Rates

November 2 — Chapter 14: Expectations, Crises, and General Mayheim

Slides: (missing)

November 4 — Chapter 15: The Labor Market

Slides: Why Study the Labor Market?

November 5
Exam 2

Exam #2 review
Exam #2 questions
Solutions

November 9 — Chapter 16: General Equilibrium

Slides: Putting It All Together–AS-AD

November 16 — Chapter 17: The Phillips Curve

Slides: From Aggregate Supply to the Phillips Curve

November 18 — Chapter 18: Disinflation

Slides: Long-run Unemployment-Inflation Dynamics [note: “?” for the greek letter pi, i.e. rate of inflation]

November 23 — Chapter 19 & 21: Seigniorage and Devaluation

Slides: Inflation, Interest Rates, and Hyperinflation

November 25 — Chapter 22 & 23: Long-run Growth

Slides: Economic Growth

November 30 — Chapter 24: Technical Progress

Slides: Savings, Investment, and Growth

Handout on growth about here.

December 2 — Chapter 20: Great Depression and European Unemployment

Slides: High Unemployment and Growth Slowdowns 

December 7 — Zuckerman & Krugman Foreign Affairs articles (lecture by Roberto Rigobón)

[Paul Krugman, Debate: America the Boastful, and Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Debate: A Second American Century,  Foreign Affairs (May/June 1998)]

December 9 — Course Review

Slide: Overview Graphic [Note: graphic cut-off on right hand side]

Final Examination (December, 2018)

Final Exam Review
Pablo Garcia’s Review
Final Exam Questions 

 

Problem Sets

Set Number Assigned Due Returned
1 9-11 9-18 9-21
2 9-18 9-25 9-28
3 9-25 10-2 10-5
4 10-9 10-16 10-19
5 10-16 10-23 10-26
6 10-23 10-30 11-2
7 11-6 11-13 11-16
8 11-13 11-20 11-23
9 11-20 12-4 12-7

 

Problem Set 1
Solutions

Problem Set 2
Solutions

Problem Set 3
Solutions (missing)

Optional Problem Set 1
Solutions

Problem Set 4
Solutions

Problem Set 5
Solutions

Problem Set 6
Solutions

Problem Set 7
Solutions

Optional Set 2
Solutions

Problem Set 8
Solutions

Problem Set 9
Solutions

Optional Set 3
Solutions

 

Image: Photograph taken in December 1998 at Cecilienhof, Potsdam (Germany). Irwin Collier and Paul Krugman.

Categories
Chicago Economists Uncategorized

Chicago. Paul H. Douglas for Alderman campaign, 1939

 

I find it interesting to note only two male colleagues in economics, Jacob Viner and Simeon Leland, and three female colleagues overlapping with the economics department, Grace Abbott (Social Work), Mary Gilson (College of UC), and Sophonisba Breckinridge (Social Work), were among the sponsors of his campaign. Incidentally, Paul Douglas won a narrow victory over the Democratic Party candidate James Cusack in a runoff election.

I regret not having the staple undone at the University of Chicago archives to get an image of Douglas’ campaign platform.

 

February 1, 1939

To Members of the Faculty and Administrative Officers of the University of Chicago

Dear Colleagues:

In response to the insistent demands of the citizens of the Fifth Ward and of civic-minded persons in other parts of Chicago, our colleague, Paul H. Douglas, has agreed to become an independent candidate for alderman at the coming primaries. Those of us who know him intimately feel that he is unusually well qualified for the office he seeks and that he is unusually well qualified for the office he seeks and that he will not only adequately represent the people of this ward but will be an important force in the improvement of government and of the conditions of life in the city at large. He has already announced a platform, which we believe will appeal to the vital interests of this community and of all Chicago, and which will especially commend itself to the members of the University community.

Since this undertaking involves considerable personal sacrifice on the part of Professor Douglas himself and is undertaken in the public interest, we feel an obligation to support him. We therefore invite the endorsement and support in the form of personal aid and financial contributions.

If you believe, as we do, that our colleague should be supported in this campaign to the limit of our ability, we urge you to sign the enclosed pledge card and return it with whatever contribution you wish to make to Harold F. Gosnell, Faculty Exchange, University of Chicago. Checks should be made out to Joseph J. Levin, Treasurer for the Douglas campaign.

 

Donald P. Bean Mary B. Gilson
George G. Bogert Harold F. Gosnell
Percy H. Boynton Earl S. Johnson
Sophonisba P. Breckinridge Jerome G. Kerwin
Anton J. Carlson Wayne McMillen
Alfred E. Emerson Charles E. Merriam
Henry G. Gale T. V. Smith
Charles W. Gilkey Louis Wirth

 

Source:    University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 72, Folder “Economics Department, 1937-1939”.

Categories
Courses Curriculum M.I.T. Uncategorized

M.I.T. Student evaluations for first term core micro theory. Bishop, 1966-69

 

The economic theory core courses at M.I.T. during the four academic years 1966/67 through 1969/70 consisted of two terms of microeconomic theory (“Economic Analysis”, 14.121 and 14.122) and two terms of macroeconomic theory (“Theory of Income and Employment”, 14.451, and “Economic Growth and Fluctuations”, 14.452). The instructors for the course by academic year were: 

14.121 (Term 1) 14.122 (Term 2) 14.451 (Term 1) 14.452 (Term 2)
1966/67 Bishop Samuelson Eckaus

Solow

1967/68

Bishop Samuelson Domar Solow
1968/69 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

1969/70

Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

A retrospective evaluation survey of these four courses was conducted (probably) sometime in late-1970. The original student responses wound up in Evsey Domar’s files and can be found today in his papers in the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.

In other posts we have the responses for Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122), Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451) and Robert Solow’s/Duncan Foley’s Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452).

In this post we’ll look at Robert Bishop’s course, Economic Analysis (14.451), that covered the topics:

Preliminary view of General Equilibrium
Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:

Monopoly and pure competition
Imperfect competition.

Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income.

First I provide the information about the course found in the announcement in the MIT course catalogues that essentially remained unchanged for the years from which the evaluations were solicited. The official course staffing and enrollment data that follow the course announcement confirm that Robert Bishop taught 14.121 in the four consecutive years surveyed. We also learn the names of the instructors who taught the recitation sections for Bishop’s course as well as those of several of the graduate assistant graders. Incidentally, two of his section leaders went on to win Nobel prizes in economics (Stiglitz and Engle)!

Next I include the cover letter for the questionnaire sent out along with a tabulation of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the amount of economics presumed, the amount of mathematics and the balance of the course among the topics nominally covered.

Finally, and very much worth reading!, the interested visitor will find transcriptions of the written student comments concerning Bishop’s course.

____________________

Announcement in the Course Catalogues

 

14.121T Economic Analyis I (A)

[Bishop]
Prereq.: 14.03
Year: G (1) 4-0-8

14.122T Economic Analyis I (A)

[Samuelson]
Prereq.: 14.121
Year: G (2) 4-0-8

General theory of equilibrium under competition and monopoly. Theory of consumer choice, of demand, of the firm, of production and distribution, of welfare economics.
Bishop (14.121), Samuelson (14.122).

MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 289.

page 219:

“ ‘T’ at the end of a subject number indicates that (1) a change has been made in the content or units of the subject or (2) the number was previously assigned to a different subject.

‘(A)’ following the name of a subject indicates that it is an approved subject for a graduate degree…

‘G’ is a graduate subject.

The time distribution of the subject, showing in sequence the units allotted to: recitation and lecture; laboratory, design, or field work; and preparation. Each unit represents 15 hours of work. The total unit credit for a subject is obtained by adding together all the units shown. One unit of recitation or lecture credit, and two units of laboratory or design credit, are each equivalent to one semester hour.”

M.I.T. Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T, p. 305

M.I.T. Catalogue 1968-69: Prerequisite for 14.121 changed to 14.04T, p. 310

M.I.T. Catalogue 1969-70:  Prerequisite for 14.121 dropped ‘T’, p. 293.

____________________

Course staffing and enrollments 14.121
First term of 1966-1969

1966: Term I. 3 hours/week. 50 regular students, 5 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor J. Stiglitz and Teaching Assistant D. E. Black (grader)

1967: Term I. 3 hours/week 62 regular students, 0 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor C. D. MacRae

1968: Term I.  4 hours/week, 62 regular students, 0 Listeners

Professor R. L. Bishop with V. Snowberger (grader)

1969: Term I. 3 Hours/week. 47 regular students, 5 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Assistant Professor R.F. Engle (recitation) and J. Herrero (grader)

 

Source: M.I.T. Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 3, Folder “Teaching Assignments”

____________________

THEORY QUESTIONNAIRE

There are two problems that the theory sequence must continually face if it is going to be as useful as possible. The first of these is adjusting to the changing background of the incoming students. The second is adjusting to the changing needs of students who will use the theory course as background for other courses and research. This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information of the current state of the theory sequence relative to these two questions. The enclosed forms contain an outline of each of the theory courses and asks three questions.

These pertain to each heading in the course outline:

Does the course assume too much or too little economics background in this area?
Does the course use too much or too little mathematics in this area?
Given the overall constraint of time, is this area gone into too deeply or not deeply enough?

For each of the questions there is room to check too much or too little, no check at all to be given if the course is about right. Please put the year in which you took the theory courses at the top of each page. There is also room in each area for more detailed comment. Use this space to be specific on the changes in the given areas which you feel would be improvements—particularly in answer to question 3. Use the space at the bottom of each page to comment on topics that are not on the list, but should appear in the course; or to make other comments we haven’t thought to ask for.

Please return to 52-380 (Miss Pope) before Tuesday, October 21.

 

[Summary from 22 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]

Ec 121: Economic background Math Coverage
Preliminary view of General Equilibrium Too little: 0

Too much: 0

Too little: 4

Too much: 0

Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 4

Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:
Monopoly and pure competition Too little: 11

Too much: 0

Too little: 14

Too much: 0

Too deep: 4

Not deep enough: 5

Imperfect competition Too little: 5

Too much: 1

Too little: 8

Too much: 1

Too deep: 5

Not deep enough: 4

Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income Too little: 6

Too much: 0

Too little: 12

Too much: 0

Too deep: 2

Not deep enough: 9

 

From the student comments
Each bullet point from a different student.

YEAR TAKEN: 1966-67

  • Not enough emphasis on distribution theory.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68

  • Need to emphasize modern production theory rather than Marshallian theory. Neither of the courses [121 nor 122] give any mention to the modern treatments (esp., set-theoretic approach) of this material.
  • Both these courses [121 and 122] are excellent for covering the technical aspects of price theory—but both fail to provide a “total picture” of what price theory is about.
  • 121 spends too much time working out the solution to particular cases and too little time developing tools of analysis more sophis. treated than simple calculus.
  • more general equilibrium needed.
    little or no attention given to disequil
  • In general, I thought both terms [121 and 122], despite their widely differing methods, were quite good.
  • [note from secretary: “not in tabulation—she just gave it to me”]. Math in this part assumed we hardly knew a thing—could have assumed more.
    Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: [not deep enough checked with following comment:] but if this is going to be more thorough, shouldn’t be very first thing taught.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69

  • Was tedious at times but is worth doing—in fact has to be done. Perhaps the disc. of externalities could be related to Samuelson on pubic goods. And the part on distortions to the HG Johnson-Bhagwati-Ramaswamy literature on this in trade theory.
    Should have also included at least SOME reference to more modern theories of the firm (behavioral etc) and to more recent devs in other parts of micro theory (e.g. Becker on costs of time JPE 1966(?), Stigler et al on information and its costs and Lancaster on consumer theory.
    Imperfect competition: too much on the oligopoly stuff, overly simplified Stackelberg warfare etc.
  • Bishop should make more use of the mathematical techniques applicable to the general case and less of the geometry and prose of special instances. This, I think, would clarify rather than obscure. As it is, one tends to get lost in a mass of detail. Still, however, the course was very useful.
  • Monopoly and pure competition: slight shift of emphasis desirable.
  • General Comment: While analysis of this kind (the entire course) is an enjoyable mental exercise, I feel that its actual practical use for anything but expository purposes is severely limited. At all stages, an attempt should be made to make economics more relevant. At the least, areas of realistic extension and limitations should be pointed out to the class as each topic is considered.
    Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: done a little too quickly near the end more time should have been allotted.
    Game theory à la Nash…What was presented here was obviously quite complicated, but given such a cursory treatment that it would have best been left out. I feel that more time should have been spent on more basic analyses such as min-max. and espec. an introduction to the practical aspects of game theory.
  • Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: excellent
    Too much oligopoly theory, too much game theory.
  • Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: Fine in classic sense, yet more of income dist. needed.
  • The last part of the course, that connecting the results of partial analysis of production and distribution with the simple general equilibrium model of the first lectures, seems to me very illuminating and I feel it should be given more emphasis. A posteriori, I would have suggested one lecture less on duopoly and one more on that cost part.
  • I think a more thorough and rigorous treatment of the theory of partial welfare economics (consumers surplus etc) would be very helpful in 121.
    Preliminary view of General Equilibrium:This material should be eliminated from the course, and covered in 122.
    Revenue and Cost equilibrium: covered too slowly
    Imperfect Competition: Never seemed clear. Either cut it down or spend more time on it.
    Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: More time should have been spent in this area.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1969-70

  • 121—A good course, not very enjoyable but worthwhile.
  • 121 is an incredibly dull course. And irrelevant.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers.Box 16, Folder “Student Evaluations (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Robert Bishop obituary in MIT NewsFebruary 13, 2013.

Categories
M.I.T. Suggested Reading Uncategorized

M.I.T. Imperfect competition and capital theory reading lists. Samuelson, 1948

 

 

The following two reading lists come from the second semester of the two-semester course Economic Analysis that Paul Samuelson taught in the 1940s. The first list covers Duopoly and Bilateral Monopoly followed by Monopolistic Competition. There is no date on that reading list, but based on the newest item of the list, Hurwicz’s Dec. 1945 paper in the AER, it is safe to say that the reading list was for the second half of the 1940’s. The fact that this mimeographed reading list immediately precedes the reading list for capital theory (also assigned to the same course, EC18) which is explicitly dated “Spring Semester 1948” makes it likely that this pair of reading lists were from the same semester. The folder has no other material for the course.

 

 

READING LIST EC18

  1. Duopoly and Bi-lateral Monopoly

Chamberlin, E. H., Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 3, Appendix A
Hicks, J.R., “Theory of Monopoly”, Econometrica, V. III, No. 1 (1935)
Cournot, A., Math. Principles of the Theory of Wealth, Ch. 7
Hurwicz, L., American Economic Review, Vol. 35, “Theory of Economic Behavior”, p. 909.

Optional

von Stackelberg, H., Marktform und Gleichgewicht. (German)

  1. Monopolistic Competition

Chamberlin, E. H., Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Chaps. 4,5.
Triffin, R., Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, Intro., pp. 17-35, 49-51, Chaps. 2, 3,5.
Stigler, G. J., Theory of Price, Chaps. 11, 15, pp. 266-287.

__________________

Readings on Capital Theory
Spring 1948

Ec 18

Böhm-Bawerk, Positive Theory of Capital

Translator’s Preface
Book V, all
Book VI, Chs. V, VI, VII

Wicksell, LecturesVol. I

Part II
Part III

I. Fisher, Theory of Interest

Part I, Chs. I, III
Part II, all
Part III, Chs. X, XI

Hicks, Value and Capital

Part III, all
Part IV, Chs. XVII, XIX

Keynes, General Theory

Chs. 11, 13, 14

Knight, Ethics of Competition

Social Science Encyclopedia article on Interest
Cf. E.J., J.P.E., Economica, articles on same subject

N. Kaldor, Econometrica Annual Survey

(gives bibliography)

F. Lutz, Structure of Interest Rates, Q.J.E., 1940

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Paul A. Samuelson Papers. Box 33, Folder “Miscellaneous Teaching Materials”.

Image Source:  Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service.  Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.