Tag: LewisHG

Categories
Chicago Economists Money and Banking

Chicago. Ph.D. Thesis Committees in Monetary Economics. Patinkin’s Research, 1968

The first boxes of archival material that I examined as my research project on the evolution of graduate economics training was beginning to take shape came from Don Patinkin’s papers back when Duke’s Economists’ Papers Archive still bore the modest descriptor of “Economists’ Papers Project”.

This post transcribes some of the research material collected by Patinkin in his survey of Chicago style monetary economics. Fun Fact: his research assistant while on leave at M.I.T. was the graduate student Stanley Fischer, from whom incidentally I was to take my first graduate macroeconomics course (Patinkin’s book was on the reading list, surprise, surprise).

Doctoral theses advisers were identified for a dozen and a half Chicago theses that drew Don Patinkin’s attention. This is the sort of information that doesn’t normally jump at you in digitised form through a duly diligent internet search, so I thought it worth my time to file this information for now in a blog post. Minor additions have been added in square brackets for the sake of completeness.

______________________________

List of Patinkin’s copy request for Chicago Ph.D. theses

Author

 Article Details of parts photographed

Box No.

1.
Bach, George [Leland]

 Price Level Stabilization: [Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations]

[blank]

[blank]

2.
Bloomfield, Arthur [Irving]

 International Capital Movement and the American Balance of Payments 1929-1940 Title, Contents, Bibliography.
pp. 513-514, 578-579.

T-304

3.
Bronfenbrenner, Martin

 Monetary Theory and General Equilibrium Title, Preface, Bibliography.
Chaps. 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

T-10250

4.
Brooks, Benjamin [Franklin]

 A History of Monetary Theory in the United States Before 1860 Contents, Preface, Bibliography.
Chap. 11.

T-9885

5.
Caplan, Benjamin

 The Wicksellian School—A Critical Study of the Development of Swedish Monetary Theory, 1898-1932 Title, Contents, Preface, Bibliography.

T-7847

6.
Cox, Garfield V.

 Business Forecasting in the United States 1919-1928 Title, Contents, Preface, Bibliography.

T-17-91

7.
Daugherty Marion [Roberts]

 The Currency-Banking Controversy Title, Contents, Bibliography
pp. 41, 54, 130, 133, 246, 316.

T-10282

8.
Harper, [William Canaday] Joel

 Scrip and Other Forms of Local Money Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-145

9.
Leigh, Arthur Hertel

 Studies in the Theory of Capital and Interest Before 1870 Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-554

10.
Linville, Francis [Aron]

 Central Bank Co-operation Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-11508

11.
McEvoy, Raymond H.

 The Effects of Federal Reserve Operations 1929-1936 Title, Contents, Preface Bibliography.

T-7731

12.
McIvor R. Craig

 Monetary Expansion in Canadian War Finance, 1939-1946 Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-10268

13.
McKean, Roland Neely

 Fluctuations in Our Private Claim-Debt Structure and Monetary Policy Title, Contents, Bibliography.
Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

T-90

14.
Reeve, Joseph [Edwin]

 Monetary Proposals for Curing the Depression in the United States 1929-1935 [blank]

T-11022

15.
Shaw, Ernest Ray

 The Investment and Secondary Reserve Policy of Commercial Banks Title, Contents, Preface, Bibliography.

T-8322

16.
Snider, Delbert [Arthur]

 Monetary, Exchange, and Trade Problems in Postwar Greece Title, Contents, Bibliography.

T-1031

17.
Tongue, William [Walter]

 Money, Capital, and the Business Cycle Title, Contents, Preface, Bibliography.

T-670

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Don Patinkin Papers, University of Chicago School of Economics Raw Materials, Box 2, Folder “Chicago, general (?). from binder: “U. Chicago Ph.D. Theses”, folder 1 of 2”.

______________________________

The University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois 60637

Department of Economics

August 21, 1968

Professor Don E. Patinkin
Economics Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Professor Patinkin:

            I am listing below the information (Committee members) you requested in your letter of July 8, 1968. I am also hoping that you have received your microfilm by now. The Photoduplication department was to have mailed them to you on August 13.

Bach, George [Leland] 1940 S. E. Leland
C. W. Wright
H. C. Simon
Bloomfield, Arthur [Irving] 1942 J. Viner
Lloyd W. Mints
O. Lange
Bronfenbrenner, Martin 1939 Frank Knight, chr.
S. E. Leland
Brooks, Benjamin [Franklin] 1939 Frank Knight, chr.
Lloyd Mints
[Viner also thanked in thesis preface]
Caplan, Benjamin 1942 J. Viner
O. Lange		 L. W. Mints
H. C. Simons
Cox, Garfield [V.] 1929 Lionel D. Edie, chr.
Jacob Viner
Chester W. Wright
Daugherty, Marion [Roberts] (Mrs.) 1941 Jacob Viner, chr.
Garfield Cox
Lloyd Mints
Harper, Joel [William Canady] 1949
[Summer 1948]		 F. Knight
O. Lange
H. Simons		 C. W. Wright
L. Mints
S. Leland
Leigh, Arthur [Hertel] 1946 Frank Knight, chr.
Jacob Viner
Oskar Lange
McEvoy, Raymond [H.] 1950 Lloyd W. Mints, chr.
Earl J. Hamilton
Lloyd A. Metzler
McIvor, Russel [Craig] 1947 Roy Blough, chr.
J. K. Langum
L.W. Mints [in thesis acknowledgement Mints as the doctoral committee chair]
McKean, Roland [Neely] 1948 Lloyd W. Mints, chr.
Lloyd A. Metzler
Earl J. Hamilton
A. Director
Reeve, Joseph [Edwin] 1939 Lloyd W. Mints, chr.
Garfield V. Cox
Jacob Viner
Shaw, Ernest [Ray] 1930 Lionel D. Edie, chr.
Lloyd W. Mints
Stuart P. Meech (Bus. School)
Snider, Delbert [Arthur] 1951 L. Metzler, chr.
R. Blough
Bert Hoselitz
Tongue, William [Walter] 1947 L. W. Mints, chr.
Frank H. Knight
H. Gregg Lewis

            As you can see in some instances the Chairman was not listed, but the examining committee was listed. I wrote to Professor Cox, 660 W. Bonita, Apt. 24 E, Claremont, California 91711, to get the committee members for him and for Professor E. Shaw. Professor Cox also gave me the address of Professor Lloyd W. Mints, 618 E. Myrtle St., Ft. Collins, Colorado, should you have any interest. I hope this is sufficient.

Yours truly,
[signed]
(Mrs.) Hazel Bowdry
Sec. to Professor Telser

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois 60637

Department of Economics

October 23, 1968

Professor Don Patinkin
Department of Economics
The Eliezer Kaplan School of
Economics and Social Sciences
The Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel

Dear Professor Patinkin:

            In answer to your letter of October 4, I have rechecked the files and find the below listed information.

George Bach’s committee members:

L. W. Mints, chr.
S. E. Leland
C. W. Wright
Oskar Lange
F. H. Knight
H. C. Simons
Jacob Viner
Jacob Left
Maynard Krueger

This is the order in which the examining committee is listed.

Martin Bronfenbrenner:

Henry Schultz chr.
J. Viner
L. W. Mints
F. Knight
A. G. Hart
H. C. Simon

Joel Harper:

S. E. Leland, Chr.
H. Simons
L. W. Mints
Mr. Chatters

Benjamin Brooks:

L. Mints, chr.
J. Viner
F. Knight

            I checked Faculty records with Mrs. Mosby, and found a re-appointment for Henry Simons dated June 3, 1930.

            I hope this information is helpful, and I am sorry I cannot give more definite committee members in the case of Bach.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
(Mrs.) Hayzel Bowdry

P.S. I hope you have received the microfilm by now. It was mailed via airmail yesterday.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Don Patinkin Papers, University of Chicago School of Economics Raw Materials, Box 2, Folder “Chicago, general (?), Simons, Mints, Knight materials”.

Image Source: Don Patinkin article at Gonçalo L. Fonseca’s History of Economic Thought website. Colorized at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

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

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

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

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

___________________________________

About the artist, Roger Vaughan

From his 1981 AEA Biographical Listing, p. 421

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sage. Research Methods.

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

___________________________________

Raphael’s Scuola di Atene (1509-1511)

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

___________________________________

Roger Vaughan’s Pastiche

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And guess what a casual search just turned up…

Margaret Gilpin Reid, professor emeritus of Home Economics and Economics

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

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

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

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

Foreground

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Harry Johnson opposes major appointment to be offered to Gary Becker, 1964

HarryJohnsonGaryBecker

From the perspective of today it is rather difficult to imagine that the idea of bringing favorite son Gary Becker back to the University of Chicago from Columbia could have faced any, much less, serious resistance from within the economics department. But as the following letters from Zvi Griliches’ papers in the Harvard archives show, Harry Johnson’s displeasure with this prospect was a force taken most seriously by several of his colleagues, at least in the Spring of 1964. Perhaps more was at play than Johnson’s principle objection to a Becker hire:

“…his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him.”

Johnson offered another interesting claim with regard to 1964 Chicago faculty expectations for a Ph.D. thesis:

“I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (‘the quality and length of a good journal article’)…”

Perhaps the birth of the concept of a job-market-paper?

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

May 20, 1964

To: Al Harberger, Zvi Griliches

From: Al Rees

Re: Gary Becker

The question of an appointment for Gary will be discussed at a Department Meeting on June 4. I enclose a copy of a confidential memo from Harry in which he opposes the appointment. Harry will be in Italy on June 4 and cannot present his views in person. I would very much like to have your reaction before the meeting.

You should also know that appointments are being offered this week to Jimmy Savage and to Hans Theil, both at high salaries and both joint with the School of Business. There seems to be a very high probability that both will be accepted.

I am somewhat concerned about the number of tenure posts the Administration will let us have; in particular, I do not want to do anything that might “freeze out” Larry Sjaastad, for whom I have very high hopes.

Another consideration is the effect on Harry of making a senior appointment that he opposes. He seems to feel somehow outnumbered and is still actively considering a move to London.

Gregg has already put to you the case for Gary; in any case you know his stengths too well to need to be reminded of them.

[signed] Al

_____________________

 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date May 19, 1964

CONFIDENTIAL

To: A. Rees
From: H.G. Johnson
In re: [Economics] Department Meeting, June 4th

As I will not be at the departmental meeting on June 4th, I am taking the unusual course of putting on paper my views about certain matters due for discussion, on which I would have spoken.

I. A. (1) The thesis prospectus seminar on Choudhri was dissatisfied with the prospectus; it considered making him prepare a new prospectus, but decided instead to make him get agreement from the three members of his Committee on a new draft. Earl Hamilton was in favor of another prospectus seminar, but was overruled. I have had second thoughts, and believe that the matter should be reconsidered, for the following reasons:

(a) next year’s money workshop will be in different hands than this year’s; I am worried that, in the rush to get students past their prospectus seminar, we will land next year’s workshop with a batch of poorly thought out prospectuses that will have to be patched up with great labor.

(b) Choudhri has an excellent record; he should be able to do much better, and we should make him do better–if we let him get by with low-quality work, we are doing his future career a disservice.

(c) I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (“the quality and length of a good journal article’), bad for student morale, and inimical to good teaching. An example in this case would be salutary, and it would do Choudhri himsèlf little harm and probably some good.

I. A. (1) I would like to recommend strongly that we go after R. A. Mundell for the Ford Fellowship for 1965-66. Mundell is one of the most original and elegant moentary theorists going: he has contributed to the theory of economic policy under fixed and floating exchange rates, and started off the analysis of optimum currency areas, and he has made a number of contributions to the price theory of money and of inflation. He is also a first-class international trade and general value theorist, and a man who is always ready for an intelligent argument. Apart from our mathematical economists, we have no-one here with Mundell’s interest in pure monetary and value theory; and we have no-one with his practical experience at the IMF. I should add that I have suggested Mundell partly because I have talked with him, and he would like to spend 1965-66 in this area.

I. B. (2) Just as strongly, I feel that the department should not pursue the proposal to offer a tenure appointment to Gary Becker. I have a high respect for Becker’s theoretical abilities; but as his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him. 

In addition, I would point out that Becker is probably the most distinguished graduate this department had had in recent years, and that going after him would be a repetition of the cannibalization-of-the-young policy that in my judgment has seriously weakened this department in the past decade or so. Unless we get our good graduates established in good departments in other Universities, we are going to have to live with the present image of the Chicago School in the profession at large, and we are not going to have representatives in other good universities steering good students towards us. If we persistently try to bring our own best back, we will defeat ourselves in the long run in two ways: we will not get the students; and we will not get the top-quality men we should get either, because we are bound to miss out on some of our own, and the fact that a new non-Chicagoan will necessarily be one of a minority outgroup will make the place unattractive to such men.

I am also fairly sure that Becker would not come, because he is intelligent enough to know that he should not come and begause he is well entrenched at Columbia, where a number of senior men are due to be replaced and will be replaced by men of his own

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

June 15, 1964

Professor Zvi Griliches

The Maurice Falk Institute for
Economic Research in Israel
17, Keren Hayesod Street
Jerusalem, Israel

Dear Zvi:

I have your letter of June 7.

At the Department Meeting a week ago last Friday, we took no action on Richard Moorsteen other than agreeing to invite him to come to Chicago for a visit next fall. We agreed to invite Bob Mundell to join our faculty for the year 1965-66 on the Ford Foundation Professorship.

The Department took no action on my proposal to offer a major appointment to Gary Becker. It is likely that the question will come up again next fall and you will be here then to state your own point of view.

It is quite clear now that Theil is not going to give us his decision until after his return to the Netherlands. At the moment I am fairly optimistic that when he makes his decision, it will be favorable. Theil has been offered a quite good package, I think, and I judge from conversations with him that he feels he also has a good package.

Furthermore, Judy got the impression that Laura Theil would be favorable to coming here.

You ask in the postscript to your letter whether I got a raise. I presume that what was in your mind was the question: Will I get a raise if the chairmanship is offered to me and I accept it?

I can’t answer your  question for sure since the chairmanship has not been offered to me. Indeed, I have taken steps at this end to try to insure that it won’t be offered to me. If it is offered to me, it is very unlikely I will accept it. Indeed, I can’t imagine that the terms on which it would be offered would be sufficiently attractive to induce me to accept.

Sincerely,

[signed] Gregg

H.G. Lewis

HGL/agm

Source: Harvard University Archives, Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder „Correspondence, 1960-1969“.

Image Sources: Harry Johnson (Archives of two giants of economics donated to the U Chicago Library. U Chicago News, October 25, 2018); Gary Becker (University of Chicago Booth School Nobel Laureate Page for Gary Becker).

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economists Faculty Regulations Graduate Student Support

Chicago. H. Gregg Lewis proposes a “labor laboratory”. Ca. early 1950s.

 

Thanks to a prompt from Beatrice Cherrier (a.k.a. Twitter’s undercoverhist), I have transcribed the following documents found together in the economics department records in the University of Chicago archives. We catch a glimpse of H. Gregg Lewis’ early vision of a “labor laboratory” for the training of budding labor economists in the craft of empirical economic research. Serendipitously we also discover the deep self-doubt plaguing Lewis that he shared with the chair of his department at the time, T. W. Schultz.

For much more on Chicago’s workshop system, see:

Ross Emmett.” Sharpening Tools in the Workshop: The Workshop System and the Chicago School’s Success” in Building Chicago Economics: New Perspectives on the History of America’s Most Powerful Economics Program,  pp. 93-115, Robert van Horn, Philip Mirowski and Thomas Stapleford, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2011. ​There may be slight differences between the published version of the paper and the one on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014015

In preparing this post I found the following testimony of a former student of Lewis who went on to a most distinguished career in labor economics (who also happens to have taught my daughter an honors undergraduate class in statistics at the University of Texas).

Daniel S. Hamermesh. H. Gregg Lewis: Perhaps the Father of Modern Labor Economics. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13551, July 2020.

__________________________

Four page handwritten letter by H. Gregg Lewis to T. W. Schultz
(undated, early 1950s)

PRIVATE

To: T. W. Schultz
From: H. G. Lewis

Some time before the end of this quarter I’d like to sit down with you for an unrushed hour or so to discuss some problems, personal ones, and to receive your counsel.

What has brought the discussion “to a head” is my wish to experiment teaching labor economics along the “laboratory” lines I sketched in an earlier memorandum. (I submit a proposal to that end below.) However, I think there is little virtue and, perhaps, much painful effort in conducting such an experiment unless I have reasonable prospects of continuing the experiment beyond next year. And that has raised the whole question of my future at the University. The problem is not mainly my lack of tenure or the recent freeze on tenure appointments, though these are not irrelevant. Indeed, the purpose of this discussion is not to raise the issue of the Department’s assessment of my work, but my own assessment of myself and what is good for me.

It is difficult to convey to you what the nature of my problem is, since I’m not sure of it myself. In substance it is in [illegible word] aspects loss of self-confidence, demoralization and high tension.

Prior to 1945, I was full of confidence, though I think never very cocky or very self-assured. But in the post-war years my confidence has been continuously slipping. In the last two years particularly, I have felt demoralized, incompetent as an economist, unprepared to say or to write anything that I felt could stand the test of critical examination. Altogether it seems up to an estimate that I’m really [new page] [first word lost/truncated through stapling] … the Department. (My colleagues have been generous to me in attributing my low productivity to Departmental “busy” work. Though I sometimes feel “burdened” by that “busy” work, it’s not the real reason for my low output.)

The demoralization has not been [illegible word] intervals [illegible word] confidence returned. Indeed I do not really feel that I am a shame to the profession, though, I’m not ready to belong in the company of my Chicago colleagues.

I do not know quite what it is that has put me in this unproductive state of mind. Part of it is surely a better realization of my own worth. And sometimes, I attribute much of the trouble to an environment of colleagues who are, on my view, my own superiors. I have learned much from them and stand to learn more if, I should stay. Furthermore, I’m not at all certain that my morale would be improved by a change of environment.

If, I were to stay, I should like to begin an experiment next year (Winter and Spring quarters) with a “laboratory in labor economics.” Although, I’m less enthusiastic about the idea than I was several weeks ago, I still want to give the experiment a good try. (My loss of enthusiasm stems from the fairly cool reception the idea has had from several of my colleagues. They fear[?] that though the laboratory may be unctuous[?] for students, it will prevent its supervisor from doing his own productive research.)

In its negative aspect the proposal involves releasing me from my present duties. Given somewhat smaller enrollment next year, the dropping of a section of Econ 209 and one of Soc. Sci. 200A would not require funds for replacement teaching. Relieving me of an assortment of busy work distractions is [new page] another matter. I am not confident that I could give the laboratory a fair trial while carrying on these busy activities. At the same time I do not want these activities added to those my colleagues already carry. Some replacement funds — from the Ford grant — appear to be necessary therefore.

On the positive side, I would replace these duties with full-time devotion intimate teaching of a few (a half-dozen or so) students who have reached the A.M. level and beyond. I would plan to be engaged with the students, heavily in research. The students admitted to the laboratory would commit themselves to full-time work in it for at least two consecutive quarters. (They would receive their instruction by example, by reading and research and by intimate conferences with their fellows including their supervisor. Progress would be tested by oral and written examinations, papers, and reports. The laboratory would be open to students who had “completed” their theory training and who [illegible word] to do supervised reading and research in labor economics.

The laboratory would make positive demands for resources at the very minimum for desk and conference space for the students and some clerical aid. It seems desirable to me also to provide subsidies of at least tuition to the student members in order to provide an incentive for them to remain in school while doing research. In addition, I should like to bring to the laboratory at least one more mature[?] young economist for a year of research.

In summary the following are the resource demands of the laboratory:

[new page]

  1. Some replacement funds to provide for the services from which I would be released
  2. Desk and conference space for the laboratory and some typing assistance from Social Science typing resources
  3. Six tuition scholarships
  4. A research assistant for three quarters at a negotiated salary of some $4000 to $5,000

I have not made a request for funds for this purpose from the [illegible word, beginning with “D”] since these are matters that go beyond my own private[?] interest.

 

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 1.

__________________________

Typed memo regarding training graduate students as “scientific craftsmen”

[Penciled note] From Gregg Lewis

I have been discomfited for some time by the belief that graduate faculties of economics generally are neglecting their responsibilities for making economics an effective science and for training their students as scientific craftsmen. I think we do as well as can be expected as moral philosophers and teachers of moral philosophy. Some of us—Knight is our shining example—do exceedingly well indeed. But most of us and most of our students are not made of the stuff that makes for good moral philosophers. Nevertheless, we expend a large part of our energies in that direction and encourage our students to imitate us. This is clearly a misfortune for economic science, and probably also for moral philosophy, if the Knight-Gresham Law of Talk is correct.

Meanwhile, economics as a science languishes. Most of us cultivate the whole field of economic ideas indiscriminately, the useless and misleading along with the useful. And we plant new ideas with the same nice regard for the weeds among them. Thus, each new generation of economists faces a more and more formidable task of weeding. The weeds become more abundant, their roots deeper.

We are not in want of good reasons for making a science of economics. True, the problems of economic planning that are surely the central ones for economic science do have moral content. And, unfortunately it is easy to make practically every controversy on economic policy sound as though it turned solely on a question of morals. The plain fact of the matter, however, is that the really hard core of our disagreements is not in the differences of moral beliefs but in differences of beliefs about economic facts.

That many of us have no real capacity for moral philosophy of course does not mean that we are prepared to be good scientists. Most of us, even if your spirits are willing, will have to struggle hard to overcome our slatternly research habits and to learn scientific skills and “instincts of workmanship.” But that is no excuse for making the effort. For unless we do, our students will be as ill-prepared as we are.

The problem of building a science, of course will not be solved merely by a formal reorganization of graduate instruction. But I think reorganization will help. The example which has guided the proposed reorganization I set forth below is the experimental laboratory of the natural sciences.

“Each professor—whether of money and banking, business cycles, public finance, or what not—will have his own laboratory. He will have one or two assistants who would share responsibility for the laboratory, and other assistants needed. The students (doctoral candidates) in a certain subject will get their training in the laboratory, by working on some project. The individual assignments will be of limited scope, but will be the function of the professor in charge to see that they fit together. The projects will grow out of the research program of the laboratory and will be supervised closely.
There would be no regimentation of the laboratory directors, any more than there is of professors in a well-run university.*
[footnote] *From a letter written by Arthur F. Burns who suggested the idea to me.

It would not be mandatory for any professor to direct such a laboratory, but if he chose to do so, he would be relieved largely from other duties and would be responsible for conducting the affairs of the laboratory continuously and full time. Nor would graduate students in all fields be required (for the Ph.D. degree) to participate in a laboratory project. Those who elected to do so, however, would commit themselves full-time for a period of something like an academic year.

Establishment of such laboratories by a considerable proportion of our faculty would call for a reduction of our student load per faculty member. This can be accomplished in substantial part I think by drastically reducing the number of students who plan to have the A.M. their terminal degree. And this is something I favor, reorganization or not.

Space problems are sure to arise but I do not think they need to be nor will prove to be insoluble.

THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSAL

  1. The proposed program of graduate study, I believe, does not conflict in any way with Divisional degree requirements and hence would require no special dispensation by Divisional authorities.
  2. All candidates for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees normally would obtain the Master’s Degree, after three or four quarters (beyond the four-year A.B.) of full-time participation in lecture courses, and by a route fairly similar to that of our present “Alternative” Master’s degree. The Master’s thesis would be dispensed with, the Master’s degree treated as an undergraduate or non-research degree, and students interested only in the A.M. degree discouraged from applying for admission.
    The obtaining of the Master’s degree would be the principle requirement for admission to graduate study.
  3. Faculty members would be given the free choice of devoting their scholastic energies as most of them do now or of conducting the kind of laboratory described above.
  4. Students admitted to graduate study for the Ph.D. degree would have two alternatives open to them.
    1. Taking graduate courses as they do now principally in “non-laboratory” fields, leading to a preliminary examination or examinations and the satisfaction of “distribution” requirements.
    2. Participating full-time for three quarters in a laboratory leading to the preparation of a paper or papers which would be a prerequisite for admission to Ph.D. candidacy.
  5. The recently passed procedure for admission, writing of thesis, and final Ph.D. examination would not be changed.

 

THE PROPOSED DEGREE REQUIREMENTS:

  1. For the A.M. Degree:
    1. The Divisional requirements
    2. The qualifying examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 or Social Science 200A, 220 or 222, 230.
    3. The Field Examinations: (Required of all candidates)
      1. Economic Principles: (Required of all candidates)
        This examination would be essentially the same as the present Ph.D. “Theory” prelim, including monetary theory. In terms of present courses, preparation for the examination normally would mean taking the following courses: 300A, 300B, 302, 330, 335.
      2. Statistics: (Required of all candidates)
        Essentially the present prelim covering 311, 312, 313 or 316 or equivalents.
    4. Economics electives: Course credit or examination in a balance of courses sufficient to bring the total registration in Economics to 15 courses. Normally the balance would amount to four courses.
  2. For Admission to Graduate Study:
    1. The A.M. degree above or its equivalent.
    2. Satisfaction of the high level language requirement
  3. Program of Graduate Study
    1. Three quarters of full-time residence in an economics laboratory leading to a paper or papers approved by the laboratory director or
    2. Passing a preliminary examination in a third field (a field other than Principles or Statistics) and satisfaction of the distribution requirement. Normally this would require a full academic year.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 1.

Images:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, H. Gregg Lewis [apf1-03861] and T. W. Schultz [apf1-07479], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Faculty Regulations

Chicago. Economics A.M. requirements amended to become “Consolation Prize”. Lewis and Schultz, 1950

 

In 1950 the Chicago economics department voted to convert its master’s degree into an award for the successful partial completion of its Ph.D. program. It was to serve as a “consolation prize” for good graduate students but those found not to have the right “Ph.D. stuff” (H. Gregg Lewis’ words in his memo of Sept. 29, 1950 to chairman T. W. Schultz, transcribed below). I have also included the relevant portion of the distributional and examination requirements for the Ph.D. that had already formed part of the so-called “alternate departmental master’s degree”. H. Gregg Lewis’ proposal was largely accepted by the department (minutes from the meeting of November 2, 1950 transcribed below), thereby eliminating distinct tracks for its A.M. and Ph.D. degree programs, respectively.

_______________________

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE
[1950-51 regulations]

Upon request the Department will consider recommending for the Master’s degree candidates who have satisfied the distribution requirement for the Ph.D. degree and have passed with satisfactory standing the three written field examinations for the Ph.D. degree. One modern foreign language is required. In place of a thesis such candidates may present an acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department.

[…]

Distributional requirement [Ph.D.]. The candidate is expected to have familiarity with the subject matter equivalent to that covered in at least one course (200 or 300 level of reasonable comprehensivenss in each of ten fields (five required and five elected), satisfactory evidence of which can be provided by course credit or by passing a special examination. The required fields are: (a) economic theory, (b) accounting, (c) statistics, (d) economic history, and (e) money, banking, and monetary policy. The fields from which five may be elected are: (f) consumption economics, (g) industrial relations, (h) monopoly and public utilities, (i) agricultural economics, (j) government finance, (k) international economic relations, and (l) substitute fields, but not in excess of two, proposed by the candidate and approved by the Departmental counselor or the Department. One or both of these substitute fields may be outside the Department of Economics, and in general some work outside the Department is recommended with a view to rounding out a program appropriate for the individual student. In case of students transferring from other institutions, adequate training in general history may be substituted for economic history upon the written recommendation of the Departmental counselor.

Preliminary written field examinations [Ph.D.]. In each of three fields of specialization, in addition to presenting course credit or special examinations to show satisfactory preparation, the candidate will be required to pass a written examination.

The candidate is expected to select the three fields of specialization—a primary field and two secondary fields—for intensive graduate work. The primary field is that in which the [Ph.D.] thesis will be written. One of the three fields (primary or secondary) must be that of economic theory, including monetary theory. The fields from which selection is to be made are listed above under the heading “Distributional Requirement,” except that accounting may not be chosen as a field without approval of the Department. One secondary field of specialization may be a field named by the candidate outside the list above, and this may be in a department other than Economics. A secondary field may also be developed under one of the interdepartmental committees of specialization International Relations, Human Development, Planning or Social Thought. The program of work proposed, which ordinarily will include four to five courses, must be approved by the Department. No other secondary field may replace the required field in economic theory.* Students should consult with the Departmental counselor with respect to appropriate programs of work in preparation for the field examinations. The field examinations are given by the Department in the sixth and seventh weeks of the Winter and summer quarters. Application for any field examination should be made not later than the end of the first week of the quarter in which the examination is to be taken.

*Students who take the field examination in money, banking, and monetary policy will not be required to write the monetary theory part of the economic theory examination.

 

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 25-26.

_______________________

ECONOMIC COURSES LISTED IN THE LEWIS MEMO (29 Sept 1950) AND INCLUDED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL MINUTES (2 Nov 1950)

209. Intermediate Economic Theory. (Procter Thomson/Harold Gregg Lewis) Designed for students majoring in economics. Deals with factors controlling production, value and relative prices, and distribution.

211. Introduction to Statistics. (Harold Gregg Lewis) Elementary principles of statistics. Main topics: frequency distributions, averages, dispersion, index numbers, elements of the theory of statistical inference.

220. Economic History of the United States. (Earl J. Hamilton) Facts and factors in American’s economic growth from the Colonial period to World War II, including the development of agriculture, industry, commerce, finance, and transportation; economic effects of wars; role of the entrepreneur; rise in living standards; unrest and utopias in periods of stagnation; commercial crises and economic basis of cultural progress.

222. The Rise of Industrial Civilization in Europe. (John Ulrich Nef) Economic development in its relation to religious, political, intellectual and artistic history since the seventeenth century.

230. Introduction to Money and Banking. (Milton Friedman/Lloyd Wynn Mints) Factors which determine the value of money in the short and in the long run; and operation of the commercial banking system and in relation to the price level and general business activity.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. (Albert E. Rees) The nature of the labor market; government regulation of wages; social security; the history, structure, and functions of American labor unions; and collective bargaining. Special attention is given to current problems of public policy.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. (D. Gale Johnson). Nature of resources used in agriculture. Prices, production, resource allocation, and income distribution. Analysis of government programs, subsidies, storages, crop control, soil conservation, food-stamp plan.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. (Richard B. Goode) Survey of institutions and theories of government finance. Effects of public expenditures; functions of public revenue; forms of taxation; tax criteria; determination of tax policy; public borrowing; debt management; fiscal policy.

270. International Economics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) The nature of international payments and receipts; foreign trade and banking system. The gold standard in the interwar period. The breakdown of the gold standard and the period of fluctuating exchange rates. Exchange controls, clearing agreements and payments agreements. The second world war and the foreign exchange markets. The position of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the present world economy.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) An introductory survey, with particular reference to the United States, of the economic policies and activities of governments. Topics: international specialization of production and the distribution of world resources, structure of international exchanges and the mechanism of international transfer of goods and services; tariffs and other regulatory measures; trade agreements and the most-favored nation clause; international flow of capital and investment; the position of the ITO, the IMF, the ECA and other official agencies in international trade and exchange.

300A, 300B. Price Theory. (W. Allen Wallis 300A/Lloyd A. Metzler 300B/Milton Friedman 300B) A systematic study of the pricing of final products and factors of production under essentially stationary conditions. Covers both perfect competition and such imperfectly competitive conditions as monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. 300A deals primarily with the pricing of final products; 300B, with the pricing of factors of production.

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 27-28.

_______________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

September 29, 1950

To        T. W. Schultz

From   H.G. Lewis

In Re: Requirements for the Master’s Degree

This is an elaboration of comments made to you this summer concerning the Master’s degree.

I should like to recommend the following changes in our requirements for the A.M. degree:

  1. That the distinction between the “regular” A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. be abolished.
  2. That the departmental requirements for the A.M degree consist of the following alteration of the present alternative A.M. requirements:
    1. A distribution requirement covering five (rather than the present eight) fields of economics of which theory, statistics, and money and banking shall be mandatory. Students who do not hold the traditional A.B. degree must meet the requirement by passing satisfactorily a qualifying examination coving the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination), 230, and two courses chose from 220, 222, 240, 255, 260, 270, 271.1/ Students holding the traditional A.B. may meet the requirement by showing equivalent course credit.
    2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory exam counting as a full exam) at a satisfactory level (that is, at either the Ph.D. level or at a level somewhat lower but not so low as not to warrant blessing the candidate with a Master’s degree).2/
    3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by passing (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or course examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.

I would recommend that the changes in requirements become effective as of the beginning of the Summer Quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

1/ This qualifying examination is now offered every quarter. This is an extravagant use of faculty. I should like to see the exam offered only once a year. Furthermore, I should like to permit students to substitute course grades for all or part of the exam provided the course grades are for courses taken here and provided they are not at a level lower than B.

2/ There would be therefore no special examinations for A.M.’s, but the examinations would be graded into three levels: passing for the Ph.D. and A.M. degrees, passing for the A.M. degree but not for the Ph.D., failing for both.

I would urge students to give requirement (b) high priority in preparing their programs of study.

Since the ends sought by these changes can be reached in other ways, I specify below what these ends are.

I view our principal instructional purpose as that of training high-level (Ph.D. and beyond) professional economists. I think we ought to view our training of “junior” economists and the awarding of the A.M. degree only as an incident arising from the fact that at the time a student applies for admission to the department, we cannot predict accurately either his calibre as a student or his academic goals.

It seems to me that the requirements for the Master’s degree should meet these tests:

  1. They should include no requirements which the Department would not make for the Ph.D. degree. Otherwise both student and faculty time will be spent in activities extraneous to the training of high-level economists. The present alternative A.M. meets this test but the regular A.M. does not.
  2. The requirements should be at a level high enough to be respected by the academic world. Both present degrees meet this test, I believe.
  3. But the standards for the degree should not be so high that potentially able Ph.D. candidates will be deterred from entering because of the considerable risk that if they fail to meet Ph.D. standards they will also fail to meet A.M. standards. If we set standards for the A.M. that are almost as likely not to be met as the Ph.D. standards we hold out no “consolation prize” to those good students who are fearful of not being able to meet Ph.D. standards. The present alternative A.M. requirements do not meet this test.

One of the ways by which we can raise the calibre of our Ph.D. candidates without reducing our enrollment is to increase the number of students who are given an opportunity to show at close hand their potentialities to us and to screen out at an earlier date those who are not of Ph.D. stuff. I am confident that quite accurate screening can take place ordinarily by the end of the first year of graduate residence. I contemplate our using the A.M. requirements as a screening device; the present alternative A.M. is not satisfactory from that point of view since it postpones too long the screening decision.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

_______________________

MINUTES
Meeting of the Department

Time and Place: Thursday, November 2, 1950, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 424, Social Science Research Building.

Present: T. W. Schultz (chairman), H. G. Lewis, A. Rees, R. Goode, G. Tolley, D. G. Johnson, F. H. Harbison, J. Marschak, C. Hildreth, F. Knight, L. Metzler.

  1. Handling of Student Business
    It was agreed that all bona fide applications for admission to candidacy filed this quarter would be considered as falling under present degree requirements even though Departmental action does not take place until Winter quarter.
  2. Ford Foundation
    Schultz stated that as a Department we have an obligation to ourselves, to the University, and to the community more largely to think through carefully the problem of making the best use of the Ford Foundation’s present grant of $300,000 to the University as well as possible later grants. There was a brief general discussion of the problem.
  3. Departmental Rules Governing Residence and Availability to Students
    Schultz pointed out that in the current year we have been able for the first time to reduce direct teaching loads for most of our members to four courses per year or less. This reduction, he pointed out, makes it desirable that the Department impose upon itself rules governing residence and availability to students and others in the university community lest they be imposed upon us from outside. The problem of rules for residence involves not only a rule stipulating in some way minimum residence, but also the question of whether “free” quarters out of residence should be considered a matter of a right accruing to an individual from his residence or a privilege dependent upon ad hoc decisions made by the Department chairman and the Dean. Schultz expressed himself as being in favor of a rule somewhat similar to the rules for accumulating sabbatical leave under a 3Q contract. In addition there is the problem of insuring, perhaps by rule, “availability” when in residence. The formulation of appropriate rules is to come before the Department for its consideration in the Winter quarter.
  4. The Department considered Lewis’ recommendations for changes in the A.M. requirements. (See attached memo. [above]) the following amendment of Lewis’ recommendation was passed:
    1. That the distinction between the regular A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. degrees be abolished.
    2. That the Departmental requirements for the A.M. degree consist of the following:
      1. A distribution requirement to be met by passing a “Qualifying” examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination) 220 or 222, 230 and two courses chosen from 240, 255, 260, 270, and 271. Students holding the traditional A.B. may satisfy the requirement by equivalent course credit.
      2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory examination counting as an examination) at a satisfactory level of A.M. candidates.
      3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.
      4. An acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department. The paper will be read by two members of the Department of which the course instructor will be one in the event the student submits a term paper prepared for a course.

The above changes in requirements are to become effective as of the beginning of the Summer quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

It was understood that the above motion in no way changes present preliminary examinations or other requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Professor Knight asked the minutes to show his objection to dropping Economics 210 (Accounting) from the requirements for the A.M. degree.

  1. Student Business
    1. Petitions

Lawrence Bostow’s petition for approval of French and Russian as languages for the Ph.D. was approved.

Mr. H. M. Herlihy’s petition for the field of “Social Organization” (Sociology Department) as his third field for the Ph.D. degree was approved.

Mr. John Holsen’s petition for a third Ph.D. field in Planning (Planning Department) was approved. Mr. Johnson, his counselor, was asked to inform Mr. Holsen, however, that this approval does not entitle Holsen to shorten his total program in Economics for the Ph.D.

Mr. Edward Mishan’s petition for approval of Spanish as a Ph.D. language was denied.

    1. Admission to Candidacy

Mr. Howard Ammerman’s application for admission and for approval of a thesis topic was moved to the bottom of the list of applications.

Mr. Rondo E. Cameron’s application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent upon his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950) and his proposed thesis topic, “French Foreign Investment, 1815-1870,” was approved. Thesis committee: E. J. Hamilton, chairman, L. Metzler, P. Thomson.

After some discussion, Mr. Clifford Clark’s application was moved down the list. Lewis was instructed to advise Clark to consult with Hamilton concerning the latter’s misgivings about the proposed thesis topic, and in addition to confer with Hayek, Knight, and other members of the Department concerning the thesis topic.

Mr. George P. Coutsoumaris’ application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent on his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950), and his proposed thesis topic, “Possibilities of Increasing Economic Efficiency in Greek Agriculture,” was given qualified approval, the Department suggesting that he limit the topic somewhat preferably to a topic approximately the same as that covered in the sections (VII and VIII) of his outline dealing with capital in Greek agriculture. Thesis committee: D. G. Johnson, chairman, C. Harris, J. Margolis (planning).

Mr. David Fand’s proposed thesis topic, “Monetary Theory of the Federal Reserve Board,” was discussed. It was agreed to come back to it at the next meeting after several more of the members of the Department had an opportunity to discuss the topic with Fand.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

Images:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, H. Gregg Lewis [apf1-03861] and T. W. Schultz [apf1-07479], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Courses

Chicago. Milton Friedman nixes “Microeconomics” and “Macroeconomics”, 1965

 

From an August 9, 1965 memorandum to the faculty of the Chicago economics department we can see that there was actually a faculty meeting in which adoption of  new course titles, “Micro-Economic Theory” and “Macro-Economic Theory”, had been decided. However, Milton Friedman (presumably not at that meeting) protested this concession to the mainstream and ever since Chicago has faithfully remained home of “Price Theory” and “Income Theory” as seen below in the course titles from 2000-2001 and 2010-2011 (along with course descriptions). Incidentally the two sequences have grown a third quarter since the mid-sixties.

I don’t have a copy of the June 12, 1965 protest letter from Friedman to Lewis, but am reasonably confident that someone will eventually find a copy (most likely a carbon copy of the letter in Milton Friedman’s correspondence with Lewis).

_________________

H. Gregg Lewis to Milton Friedman

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago 37, Illinois
Department of Economics

June 18, 1965

Professor Milton Friedman
Orford,
New Hampshire

Dear Milton:

Thanks for your letter of June 12 regarding the labeling of 301, 302, 331, and 332.

I want to have the decision with respect to the labels reconsidered this summer. Until the decision is reconsidered, I am making no changes in the titles of the courses.

Meanwhile, I would appreciate it if you would suggest alternative titles for the courses that are acceptable to you.

With best wishes to you and Rose.

Sincerely,
[signed] Gregg
H. G. Lewis

HGL/agm

[Friedman’s handwritten notes at bottom of letter:]

301, 302 Price Theory[;] Relative Price Theory

331, 332 Money and Employment Theory[;] Money, Income, Employment[;] Theory of the Price Level and Aggregate Output, Money

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 79, Folder 3 “University of Chicago Minutes. Economics Department, 1965-1966”.

_________________

Memo from H. Gregg Lewis to the economics department

August 9, 1965

To: Members of the Department of Economics

From: H. Gregg Lewis

At the last meeting of the Department (June 4, 1965), the Department decided to change the name of Economics 301 and 302 to Micro-Economic Theory and Economics 331 and 332 to Macro-Economic theory. The purpose of this note is to request that the Department reconsider this action and adopt a different pair of names for these two sets of courses (and the corresponding parts of the Ph.D. Core Examination).

The term micro-economics commonly is used to denote the economics of the individual household and the individual firm. It is, therefore, a misleading title for 301 and 302. Furthermore, it is surely misleading to represent 331 and 332 as not involving consideration of the economics of individual households and firms.

For 301 and 302, I recommend that we keep the present title (Price Theory) or change it slightly to Relative Price Theory. For 331 and 332, I recommend that one of the following be adopted:

The Theory of Income, Employment, and Money
or         The Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
or         The Theory of Income, Employment, Interest, and Money

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 79, Folder 3 “University of Chicago Minutes. Economics Department, 1965-1966”.

_________________

Course descriptions from the 2000-2001 Brochure

301 PRICE THEORY I (Becker/ Murphy)

Theory of consumer choice, including household production, indirect utility, and hedonic indices. Supply under competitive and monopolistic conditions. Static and dynamic cost curves, including learning by doing and temporary changes. Uncertainty applied to consumer and producer choices. Property rights and the effects of laws. Investment in human and physical capital. (=Law 436)

[Reading List from one year later: Autumn Quarter 2001]

302 PRICE THEORY II (Reny/ Chiappori)

Economics of uncertainty. Models with asymmetric information. Game theory. PQ: Econ 301 or consent of instructor.

303 PRICE THEORY III (Chiappori/ Rosen)

The theory of production, division of labor and organization of work. The economics of the firm and the theory of supply. Cost functions, product differentiation and spatial equilibrium. Investment theory, firm size, and incentive problems. Externalities and the role of markets and prices. PQ: Econ 301 and 302 or consent of instructor.

330 THE THEORY OF INCOME I (Townsend/ Alvarez)

This course begins the study of income and macroeconomics by embedding firms, households, and financial institutions into the standard general equilibrium model. The course thus studies Pareto optima, Walrasian equilibrium, and the core in economies with separation in space, uncertainty, and/or multiple time periods and incorporates private information, incomplete markets, and other impediments to trade. Various phenomena and applications are stressed: private monies and the potential role of the monetary authority; the evaluation of local, regional, and national level financial systems in their ability to reallocate risk; the determinants of economics growth; growth with increasing inequality and financial deepening; occupation choice under wealth constraints and its impact on growth and inequality; the existence of networks such as industrial conglomerates in economies with moral hazard; optimal fiscal policy; and the role of social security. Examples are drawn from Asia, Latin America, Europe, and Africa and well as the U.S.

331 THE THEORY OF INCOME II (Lucas)

This course will deal with modern capital and monetary theory, and with applications of the theory to issues in fiscal, monetary, and banking policy.

332 THE THEORY OF INCOME III (Mulligan)

The course shares with the other two Theory of Income courses the objectives of (1) explaining human behavior as evidenced by aggregate variables and (2) predicting the aggregate effects of certain government policies. The focus of Economics 332 is to assess the empirical success of prevailing theories. Some hypotheses to be considered are consumption smoothing, intertemporal substitution, the q-theory, the neoclassical approach to fiscal policy, and the intergenerational transfer view of Social Security. The course confronts several empirical issues that are also encountered outside the field of macroeconomics such as the construction of aggregate data, choice of data set, and the measurement of expectations.

 

Source:  University of Chicago, Department of Economics Graduate Program. Brochure 2000-2001. Webpage: Courses.

_________________

Course descriptions from the 2010–11 Brochure

30100     PRICE THEORY I  (Murphy / Becker)

Theory of consumer choice, including household production, indirect utility, and hedonic indices. Models of the firm.  Analysis of factor demand and product supply under competitive and monopolistic conditions.  Static and dynamic cost curves, including learning by doing and temporary changes.  Uncertainty applied to consumer and producer choices.  Property rights and the effects of laws.  Investment in human and physical capital.  (=LAWS 43611)

30200     PRICE THEORY II  (Becker / Murphy / Sonnenschein)

The first five weeks of this course are a continuation of ECON 30100, Price Theory I.

The second half of the course will be devoted to the Walrasian model of general competitive equilibrium as developed by Arrow and Debreu.  This will begin with a brief development of the consumer and producer theories, followed by the welfare theorems connecting equilibria and optima and a treatment of the classical existence of equilibrium theorem.  The core of an economy, a limit theorem relating the core to the set of competitive equilibria, and models in which agents are small relative to the market will also be considered.  Finally we will study general equilibrium under some alternative assumptions; such as, informational asymmetries and rational expectations equilibrium, public goods and Lindahl equilibrium, financial general equilibrium and asset pricing.  (=LAWS 43621)

30300    PRICE THEORY III  (Reny / Myerson)

The course begins with expected utility theory, and then introduces the fundamental ideas of game theory: strategic-form games, Nash equilibrium, games with incomplete information, extensive-form games, and sequential equilibrium.   Then the course will focus on the effects of informational asymmetries in markets and the problems of moral hazard and adverse selection. Topics include: optimal risk sharing, signaling and screening in competitive markets, principal-agent problems, strategic and informational incentive constraints, incentive efficiency, and mechanism design for auctions and bilateral trading.

33000     THE THEORY OF INCOME I  (Alvarez)

This course formulates and analyzes aggregate general equilibrium models to study classical questions in macroeconomics. The course starts with the formulation and analysis of competitive equilibrium in the general equilibrium models, including the 1st and 2nd welfare theorem. The first applications of this model are: social security (using an OLEG model), optimal risk sharing, and asset pricing (using a one period model with uncertainty). Most of the remaining applications focus on dynamic models without uncertainty. To do so we study tools to characterize optimal solutions of control problems: Hamiltonian, calculus of variations and dynamic programming. The main application of these tools is the neoclassical growth model in many variations: determinants of steady state and balanced growth path, endogenous growth, effect of variable labor supply, TFP changes and of investment specific technical progress, habit formation, the q-model of investment, taxation of capital and labor, optimal taxation a la Ramsey, among others.

33100     THE THEORY OF INCOME II  (Stokey)

This course will focus on the use of recursive general equilibrium models to study various macroeconomic questions.  On the substantive side, particular topics include models with idiosyncratic (insurable) and aggregate (uninsurable) risk; issues in dynamic fiscal policy (Ricardian equivalence, tax smoothing, capital taxation); models of asset pricing; issues in monetary policy (money demand, the welfare cost of inflation); time consistency; and aggregate models with price setting. On the methodological side, the course will focus on dynamic programming and other recursive modeling techniques.

33200     THE THEORY OF INCOME III  (Mulligan)

The course shares with the other two Theory of Income courses the objectives of (1) explaining human behavior as evidenced by aggregate variables and (2) predicting the aggregate effects of certain government policies.  Economics 33200 considers some of the prevailing business cycle theories, and their application to the recession of 2008-9.  Some hypotheses to be considered are the q-theory of housing investment, the neoclassical approach to fiscal policy, and whether government spending has a “multiplier.”  The course confronts several empirical issues that are also encountered outside the field of macroeconomics such as the construction of aggregate data, choice of data set, and the measurement of expectations.

Source: University of Chicago, Department of Economics Graduate Program 2010-11, Introduction. Webpage: Graduate Course Descriptions, 2010-11.

Image: Irwin Collier (right) taking a break during an earlier archival expedition to the Hoover Institution Archives…Milton Friedman (left).

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Economics Department on Possible Candidate for Permanent Employment, 1950

 

How big was the split within the department of economics in 1950 at the University of Chicago? Judging from the decision by chairman T. W. Schultz to essentially table the matter of approaching the central university administration with a candidate for a permanent position, there was a departmental deadlock.

The half-dozen economists discussed were: George Stigler, Abba Lerner, Kenneth Boulding, Leonid Hurwicz, Kenneth Arrow, and Lawrence Klein. Contemplate those names for a moment and then read aloud the following two sentences:

Several members of the Department stated that none of these men had all of the qualities sought: a good mind reaching out fruitfully in new directions in economics. It was agreed, however, that there were no likely candidates possessing these qualities in a high degree.   

We can only speculate which alpha economists happened to lock horns in those three meetings.

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
May 24, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, T. Koopmans, A. Rees, H. G. Lewis, D. G. Johnson, E. J. Hamilton, R. Burns, J. Marschak, F. H. Harbinson, F. H. Knight, M. Friedman, B. Hoselitz, L. Metzler

[…]

II. Appointments

Schultz informed the Department that Hildreth’s position has been renegotiated for a term of three years. The Department approved a motion authorizing for Hildreth the courtesy rank of Associate Professor for a three year term.

The Department then considered the appointment problem raised by the leaving of Blough (probably initially on a one year leave of absence) and Brownlee. Schultz suggested that the Department had two alternatives open to it: a temporary replacement (construed broadly) and a permanent appointment of a top ranking person.

The Department considered first possible candidates for permanent appointment. Attention centered on George Stigler, Abba Lerner, Kenneth Boulding, Leonid Hurwicz, Kenneth Arrow, and Lawrence Klein. For a temporary appointment Schultz suggested Gunnar Myrdal.

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 5:45 p.m.]

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
May 30, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, R. Burns, D. G. Johnson, E. J. Hamilton, F. H. Knight, L. Metzler, R. Blough, F. H. Harbinson, A. Rees, H. G. Lewis, T. Koopmans, J. Marschak, M. Friedman.

Appointments

The discussion of appointments continued from the previous meeting. Schultz expressed the conviction that the time was propitious for a new permanent appointment. On Metzler’s suggestion, the Department returned to discussion of the following candidates for a permanent appointment: Stigler, Hurwicz, Boulding, Klein, Lerner, Arrow.

Several members of the Department stated that none of these men had all of the qualities sought: a good mind reaching out fruitfully in new directions in economics. It was agreed, however, that there were no likely candidates possessing these qualities in a high degree.

The chairman then polled those present with respect to their first choice (or ties for first) for a permanent appointment. As a result of the poll the list of candidates was narrowed to Hurwicz, Stigler, and Lerner. The chairman then polled those present on their position toward permanent appointment of each of these men.

The poll showed that of those present

4 would favor and 5 oppose the permanent appointment of Hurwicz
4 would favor and 5 oppose the permanent appointment of Lerner
6 would favor and 6 oppose the permanent appointment of Stigler

A motion was passed instructing the chairman to poll the absent members of the Department in the same way on the appointment of Hurwicz, Lerner, and Stigler and to report back to the Department for further discussion.

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 6:15 p.m.]

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
June 8, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, H. G. Lewis, D. G. Johnson, J. Marschak, H. Kyrk, P. Thomson, M. Friedman, T. Koopmans, A. Rees, E. J. Hamilton, F. H. Knight, R. Blough.

Appointments

Schultz reported that he had polled Kyrk, Thomson, Mints, and Nef (but had not heard from Goode) on the matter of a permanent appointment for Stigler or Hurwicz or Lerner. The upshot of the poll was that the Department, the Chairman not voting, was evidently divided in its rating of Stigler for a permanent appointment; both permanent members and temporary members of the faculty showed an even division. The Chairman explained that he would abstain from voting on the belief that the Department was not now prepared to advance, with a strong meeting of minds, a strong case to the Central Administration for a permanent appointment. Schultz proposed that we investigate a slate of names for a one-year appointment.

A motion was passed authorizing the Chairman to put Gunnar Myrdal in the first position on the slate for a one-year appointment.

Successive motions passed by the Department added the following names to the slate:

Nicholas Kaldor   Simon Kuznets
Arthur F. Burns
H. M. Henderson
W. Vickrey
A. Hart
H. Stein

The Department then, following the system of ranking used in fellowship appointments, ranked these seven persons. The rank order follows:

1. Kaldor
2. Burns
3. Henderson
4. Kuznets
5½. Vickrey
5½. Hart
7. Stein

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 6:00 p.m.]

Source: University of Chicago Archives, Department of Economics Records, Box 41, Folder 12.

Image Source: Social Science Research Building.  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf2-07466, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Historical Enrollment Trends, Economics Faculty by Age and Educational Background. 1944-45.

__________________________

On April 10, 1945, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department, Professor Simeon E. Leland, submitted a 77 page (!) memorandum to President Robert M. Hutchins entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics–A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

In his cover letter Leland wrote “…in the preparation of the memorandum, I learned much that was new about the past history of the Department. Some of this, incorporated in the memorandum, looks like filler stuck in, but I thought it ought to be included for historical reasons and to furnish some background for a few of the suggestions.” 

In a recent post I provided a list of visiting professors who taught economics at the University of Chicago up through 1944 (excluding those visitors who were to receive permanent appointments). For this post I have selected a few supporting tables from the memo providing data on the age distribution and educational backgrounds of the economics faculty along with time series on enrollments and registrations.  A later post provides talent-scouting lists for possible permanent, visiting and joint appointments.

______________________________

In making his plea for administration support for new additional hires, Chairman Leland began by noting that in 1944 Professor Chester Wright “was transferred to the emeritus status”. Negotiations with Professor H. A. Innis of the University of Toronto to succeed Wright were taking place but Leland did not appear to be overly confident, having written “If he [Innis] does not [accept a Chicago offer], due to the scarcity of men in Economic History, the post occupied by Professor Wright will be very difficult to fill.”

Looking ahead over the six years before the retirements of Knight and Kyrk were scheduled, Leland hoped to get support to begin the process of hiring younger faculty (only three of the staff were under 40 years of age as of the end of 1944), so that  (1) gaps in the existing program would not occur and (2) promising new fields could be covered.

Furthermore Leland argued “…the Department does not seem to have enough young men as instructors and assistant professors. As a result, the chores of running a department, including sharing in administration and advising students, fall heavily on the older, higher-salaried men on the staff.”

 

Ages of Staff Members
(as of December 31, 1944)

Name

 Rank Age

Came to University of Chicago
Bloch, Henry Simon

Instructor

 29

1939
Douglas, Paul Howard

Professor*

 52

1920
Harbison, Frederick Harris

Assistant Professor

 33

1940
Knight, Frank Hyneman

Professor

 59

1917-19; 1927
Kyrk, Hazel

Professor; also Home Economics

 59

1925
Lange, Oscar

Professor

 40

1938
Leland, Simeon Elbridge

Professor; also Political Science

 47

1928
Lewis, Harold Gregg

Instructor*

 30

1939
Marschak, Jacob

Professor

 46

1943
Mints, Lloyd Wynn

Associate Professor

 56

1919
Nef, John Ulric

Professor; also History

 45

1929
Schultz, Theodore William

Professor

 42

1943
Simons, Henry Calvert

Associate Professor

 45

1927
Viner, Jacob

Professor

 52

1916

This list does not include part-time instructors (3), research associates (3), lecturers, or members of the college staff (3).

*On leave for military service

______________________________

To reassure the President that the department was not in danger of “inbreeding” the following table was included in the memo. Leland’s first comment was that the educational backgrounds of the economics faculty included some 18 U.S. and 13 foreign institutions. While noting a significant concentration of Harvard and/or Chicago training of the economics faculty, only five of the fourteen actually had advanced training at Chicago and of those just two held Ph.D.’s from Chicago as of 1945 (Kyrk and Leland).

 

Educational Institutions Attended by Members of the Department of Economics

 

Name and Rank Degrees or Advanced Training Other Work
A.B. A.M. Ph.D.
H. S. Bloch
(Instructor)		 Nancy* Nancy Strasbourg*
Paris’
Nancy (Dr. en Droit)		 Acad. Int’l. Law
The Hague
P. H. Douglas
(Professor)		 Bowdoin Columbia Columbia Harvard
F. H. Harbison
(Asst. Prof.)		 Princeton Princeton Princeton
F. H. Knight
(Professor)		 Tennesee(B.S.)
Milligan (Ph.B.)		 Tennessee Cornell University American University, Harriman, Tennessee
H. Kyrk
(Professor)		 Ohio Wesleyan*
Chicago (Ph.B.)		 Chicago
O. Lange
(Professor)		 Poznan* Cracow (LL.M.) Cracow (LL.D.) London
S. E. Leland
(Professor)		 De Pauw Kentucky Chicago Harvard Law School
H. G. Lewis
(Instructor)		 Chicago Chicago* Chicago*
J. Marschak
(Professor)		 Oxford Heidelberg Technolog. Institut, Kiev
Berlin
L. W. Mints
(Assoc. Prof.)		 Colorado Colorado Chicago*
J. U. Nef
(Professor)		 Harvard (B.S.) Paris*
London*
Montpellier*		 Brookings
T. W. Schultz
(Professor)		 South Dakota State Wisconsin Wisconsin
H. C. Simons
(Assoc. Prof.)		 Michigan Michigan* Iowa*
Chicago*
Columbia*
Berlin*
J. Viner
(Professor)		 McGill Harvard Harvard

*Work taken at this level; no degree conferred.

______________________________

 

Two time series were included in Leland’s memo to provide evidence for an upward trend in the demand for economics courses: enrollments and course registrations.

It is difficult to forecast the postwar enrollment in Economics. Since 1928 there has been a steady upward trend in the number of students majoring in the Department, as is shown in the following table. Even the depression only slightly retarded the growth of our student body. Part of the increase was due to the emphasis given our subject matter by the events of the Thirties. Another factor responsible for the gain in students was the strength of the faculty—its reputation in the United States and abroad.

 

Total Number of Different Graduate Students Majoring in the Department of Economics Who Have Been in Residence a Part or All of the Years Indicated Below

 

Years

 Number of Students
1943-44

57

1942-43

77

1941-42

 133
1940-41

162

1939-40

 156
1938-39

144

1937-38

 133
1936-37

113

1935-36

 111
1934-35

98

1933-34

 114
1932-33

111

1931-32

 125
1930-31

113

1929-30

 118
1928-29

101

 

The trend of registrations in the Department for “200- and 300-level courses” (roughly corresponding to former undergraduate and graduate registrations) is shown in the following table. Data are shown only since 1931-32 inasmuch as statistics prior to that date included introductory courses for College freshmen and sophomores. This inflates all statistics prior to 1931 and destroys their validity for comparative purposes. The peak of enrollment in Economics came in 1938-39. It is believed that comparable enrollments will reappear soon after the cessation of hostilities.

 

Registration in Courses Offered by the Department of Economics

Years

Quarters
Summer Autumn Winter

Spring

First Term

Second Term

1944-45

 74
1943-44 62 202 138

185

1942-43

 252 237 249 207 153
1941-42 214 206 329 396

406

1940-41

 264 225 455 529 516
1939-40 262 224 431 589

583

1938-39

 277 244 560 516 689
1937-38 249 214 477 447

592

1936-37

 243 206 407 438 457
1935-36 245 218 367 503

534

1934-35

 239 206 325 460 398
1933-34 183 174 361 371

396

1932-33

 278 244 337 427 244
1931-32 233 224 443 411

339

 

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 73, Folder “Economics Dept., “Post-War Plans” Simeon E. Leland, 1945″.

 

Categories
Columbia Courses Economists Harvard Transcript

Columbia. Search Committee Report. 1950

This report is fascinating for a couple of reasons. The search committee understood its task to identify “the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located” from which a short list of three names for the replacement of Louis M. Hacker in Columbia College was selected. Organizationally, Columbia College is where undergraduate economics has been taught so that teaching excellence, including participation in Columbia College’s legendary Contemporary Civilization course sequence, was being sought as well as was potential for significant scholarship. Appendix C provides important information on James Tobin’s graduate economics education. In a later posting, I’ll provide information on others in the long-list of seventeen economists identified by the search committee.

___________________

January 9, 1950

 

Professor James W. Angell, Chairman
Department of Economics
Columbia University

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Committee appointed by you to canvass possible candidates for the post in Columbia College that is made available by the designation of Professor Louis M. Hacker as Director of the School of General Studies submits herewith its report.

As originally constituted, this committee was made up of Professors Taylor, Barger, Hart and Haig (chairman). At an early stage the membership was expanded to include Professor Stigler and from the beginning the committee had the advantage of the constant assistance of the chairman of the department.

In accordance with the suggestions made at the budget meeting in November, the committee has conducted a broad inquiry, designed to raise for consideration the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located. In addition to the men known personally to the members of the committee, suggestions were solicited from the authorities at other institutions, including Harvard, Chicago, California and Leland Stanford. By mid December, scrutiny of the records and publications by the committee to the following seventeen:

 

Name Suggested by
Alchian, Armen A. Haley
Bronfenbrenner, Martin Friedman
Brownlee, O. H. Friedman
Christ, Carl L. Angell
Dewey, D. J. Friedman
Du[e]senberry, [James] Stigler
Goodwin, Richard M. Burbank
Harberger, J. H. Friedman
Ho[s]elitz, Bert Friedman
Lewis, H. Gregg Hart
Machlup, Fritz Stigler
Nicholls, William H. Stigler
Nutter, J. W. Friedman
Pancoast, Omar Taylor
Schelling, Thomas Burbank
Tobin, James Burbank
Vandermeulen, D. C. Ellis

[p. 2]

The meeting of the American Economic Association in New York during the Christmas holidays offered an opportunity to meet many of the men on the above list and to make inquiries regarding them. As a consequence, it has been possible for your committee to make rapid progress with its appraisals. Although the committee is continuing to gather information and data, it is prepared at this time to make a series of definite recommendations, with a high degree of confidence that these recommendations are not likely to be greatly disturbed by its further inquiries.

It is the unanimous opinion of the members of your committee that the most eligible and promising candidate on our list is Martin Bronfenbrenner, associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin, at present on leave for special service in Tokyo.

Should Bronfenbrenner prove to be unavailable the committee urges consideration of D. J. Dewey, at present holding a special fellowship at the University of Chicago, on leave from his teaching post at Iowa. As a third name, the committee suggests James Tobin, at present studying at Cambridge, England, on a special fellowship from Harvard.

Detailed information regarding the records of these three men will be found in appendices to this report.

Bronfenbrenner, the first choice of the committee, is 35 years old. He received his undergraduate degree from Washington University at the age of 20 and his Ph.D. from Chicago at 25. During his war service, he acquired a good command of the Japanese language. He taught at Roosevelt College, Chicago, before going to Wisconsin and undergraduate reports of his teaching are as enthusiastic as those of the authorities at Chicago. He happens to be personally well known to two of the members of your committee (Hart and Stigler) and to at last two other member of the department (Shoup and Vickrey), all four of whom commend him in high terms.

The following statement from Hart, dated December 6, 1929, was prepared after a conference with Friedman of Chicago:

“Bronfenbrenner is undoubtedly one of the really powerful original thinkers in the age group between thirty and thirty-five. He has always very much enjoyed teaching; my impression is that his effectiveness has been with the upper half of the student body at Roosevelt College and at Wisconsin. He is primarily a theorist but has a wide range of interest and a great deal of adaptability so it would not be much of a problem to fit him in somewhere [p. 3] in terms of specialization. He would do a good deal to keep professional discussion stirring in the University. My impression is that he tends to be underrated by the market, and that a chance at Columbia College might well be his best opportunity for some time ahead. The difficulty is, of course, that there is no chance of arranging an interview; though Shoup and Vickrey, of course, both saw him last summer.”

In a letter dated December 15, Shoup wrote as follows:

“I have a high regard for Martin Bronfenbrenner’s intellectual capacities, and I think he would fit in well in the Columbia scene. He has an excellent mind and a great intellectual independence. In his writings he sometimes tends to sharp, almost extreme statements, but in my opinion, they almost always have a solid foundation, and in conversation he is always ready to explore all sides of the question. When we had to select someone to take over the tax program in Japan, after the report had been formulated, and oversee the implementation of the program by the Japanese government, it was upon my recommendation that Bronfenbrenner was selected. He arrived in Japan in the middle of August and his work there since that time has confirmed me in my expectations that he would be an excellent selection for the job, even though he did not have very much technical background in taxation. I rank him as one of the most promising economists in his age group in this country, and I should not be surprised if he made one or more major contributions of permanent value in the coming years.

“He has gone to Japan on a two year appointment, after having obtained a two year leave of absence from the University of Wisconsin. My understanding is that on such an appointment he could come back to the United States at the end of one year, provided he paid his own passage back. It might be possible that even this requirement would be waived, but I have no specific grounds for thinking so. I believe the major part of his work with respect to implementing the tax program will have been completed by next September. If the committee finds itself definitely interested in the possibility of Bronfenbrenner’s coming to Columbia, I should not let the two year appointment stand in the way of making inquiries.”

The breadth and rang of his interests recommend Bronfenbrenner as a person who would probably be highly [p.4] valuable in the general course in contemporary civilization and the quality of his written work suggests high promise as a productive scholar in one or more specialized fields.

Your committee considers that the appropriate rank would be that of associate professor.

Respectfully submitted,

[signed]

Robert M. Haig

 

______________________________

Appendix A – Martin Bronfenbrenner

The following data regarding Bronfenbrenner are taken chiefly from the 1948 Directory of the American Economic Assoication:

Born: 1914

Education and Degrees:

A.B. Washington University, 1934
Ph.D. University of Chicago 1939
1940-42, George Washington School of Law

Fields: Theory, mathematical economics, statistical methods, econometrics

Doctoral dissertation: Monetary theory and general equilibrium

Publications:

“Consumption function controversy”, Southern Economic Journal, January, 1948
“Price control under imperfect competition”, American Economic Review, March, 1947
“Dilemma of Liberal Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 1946

Additional publications:

“Post-War Political Economy: The President’s Reports”, Journal of Political Economy, October, 1948
Various book reviews including one on W. I. King’s The Keys to Prosperity, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948, and A. H. Hansen’s Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Annals

Additions to list of publications circulated, January 9, 1950

“The Economics of Collective Bargaining”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1939.
(with Paul Douglas) “Cross-Section Studies in the Cobb-Douglas Function”, Journal of Political Economy, 1939.
“Applications of the Discontinuous Oligopoly Demand Curve”, Journal of Political Economy, 1940.
“Diminishing Returns in Federal Taxation” Journal of Political Economy, 1942.
“The Role of Money in Equilibrium Capital Theory”, Econometrica (1943).

______________________________

Appendix B – D. J. Dewey

On leave from Iowa.

In 1948 studied at Cambridge, England.
1949-50, at Chicago on special fellowship.

Bibliography:

Notes on the Analysis of Socialism as a Vocational Problem, Manchester School, September, 1948.
Occupational Choice in a Collectivist Economy, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948.

Friedman and Schultz are highly enthusiastic.

Statement by Hart, dated December 6, 1949:

“Friedman regards Dewey as first rate and points to an article on ‘Proposal for Allocating the Labor Force in a Planned Economy’ (Journal of Political Economy, as far as I remember in July 1949) for which the J.P.E. gave a prize as the best article of the year. I read the article, rather too quickly, a few weeks ago and it is definitely an imaginative and powerful piece of work. How the conclusions would look after a thorough-going seminar discussion, I am not clear; but the layout of questions is fascinating.”

______________________________

Appendix [C] – James Tobin

Statement by Burbank of Harvard, dated December 14, 1949:

“We have known Tobin a good many years. He came to us as a National Scholar, completed his work for the A.B. before the war and had advanced his graduate work very well before he went into the service. He received his Ph.D. in 1947. Since 1947 he has been a Junior Fellow. He was a teaching fellow from 1945 to 1947. He is now in Cambridge, England, and will, I believe, begin his professional work by next fall. Since Tobin has been exposed to Harvard for a very long time I believe that he feels that for his own intellectual good he should go elsewhere. I doubt if we could make a stronger recommendation than Tobin nor one in which there will be greater unanimity of opinion. Certainly he is one of the top men we have had here in the last dozen years. He is now intellectually mature. He should become one of the handful of really outstanding scholars of his generation. His interests are mainly in the area of money but he is also interested in theory and is competent to teach at any level.”

Data supplied by Harvard:

Address:    Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge University, England

Married:   Yes, one child

Born:          1918, U.S.

Degrees:

A. B. Harvard, 1939 (Summa cum laude)
A.M. Harvard, 1940
Ph.D. Harvard, 1947

Fields of Study: Theory, Ec. History, Money and Banking, Political Theory: write-off, Statistics

Special Field: Business Cycles

Thesis Topic: A Theoretical and Statistical Analysis of Consumer Saving

Experience:

1942-45 U.S. Navy
1945-47 Teaching Fellow, Harvard University
1947- Junior Fellow, Society of Fellows

[p. 2 of Appendix C]

Courses:           1939-40

Ec. 21a (Stat.)                  A
Ec. 121b (Adv. St.)          A
Ec. 133 (Ec. Hist)            A
Ec. 147a (M&B Sem)      A
Ec. 145b (Cycles)             A
Ec. 113b (Hist. Ec.)       Exc.
Gov. 121a (Pol.Th.)         A

1940-1941

Ec. 121a (Stat.)                A
Ec. 164 (Ind. Org.)          A
Ec. 20 (Thesis)                A
Ec. 118b (App. St.)          A
Math 21                             A
Ec. 104b (Math Ec.)       A

1946-47 Library and Guidance

Generals:       Passed May 22, 1940 with grade of Good Plus
Specials:         Passed May 9, 1947 with grade of Excellent.

 

Data from 1948 Directory of American Economic Association:

Harvard University, Junior Fellow

Born:                1918

Degrees:           A. B., Harvard, 1939; Ph.D., Harvard, 1947j

Fields: Business fluctuations, econometrics, economic theory, and mathematical economics

Dissertation: A theoretical and statistical analysis of consumer saving.

Publications:

“Note on Money Wage Problem”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1941.
“Money Wage Rates and Employment”, in New Economics (Knopf, 1947).
“Liquidity Preference and monetary Policy”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1947.
[pencil addition] Article in Harris (ed.), The New Economics, 1947.

______________________________

Source: Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Department of Economics Collection, Box 6, Folder “Columbia College”

Image Source: The beyondbrics blog of the Financial Times.