a doggerel about 2-016:
“A Visit from St. Vlad” by Michael Burda and Irwin Collier.
Image SourceTrump Tower @ 5th Ave by Victor Harota posted on Flickr: .
a doggerel about 2-016:
“A Visit from St. Vlad” by Michael Burda and Irwin Collier.
Image SourceTrump Tower @ 5th Ave by Victor Harota posted on Flickr: .
________________________
The original plan of Economics in the Rear-View Mirror was to provide a single artifact for each post. Larger (composite) data sets are given dedicated pages (e.g. Harvard Ph.D.’s in economics 1875-1926; Chicago Ph.D.’s in economics 1894-1926; Economics Rare Book Reading Room). Sometimes I come along a group of artifacts that are best kept together so I end up with a post like today’s that prints out as more than 25 pages of text.
Today’s treasure is a fairly complete run of MIT general examination questions in macroeconomics for the period 1959-1971 found in a folder in the Evsey Domar papers at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University. For a few of the exams we even have handwritten records indicating the questions chosen by the examinees and the grades awarded (I have omitted the names).
________________________
Answer four questions, including at least one from each group.
________________________
For the old-style exam (microeconomics alone), answer the first question (one hour) and any three of the others in Part I (two hours). For the new-style exam, answer any three questions in Part I (two hours) and any three questions in Part II (two hours), but without including both 3 and 4. Use separate books for Parts I and II.
|
[Student] |
Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Average | Remarks |
| [1] | 50 (F) | 30 (F) | 60(D) | F+ | Fail | ||
| [2] | 60(C-) | 20(F-) | 60(C-) | D ? | [guess: “Directed information to who? , ≥4 fail”] | ||
| [3] | 70 (C) | 65 (C) | 70 (C) | C | Fair – | ||
| [4] | 70 (C) | 70 (C) | C | Fair – |
A: 90-100
B: 75-89
C: 60-74
D: 50-59
F: less than 50
________________________
Answer three questions; at least one from each part.
| Part I | Part II | Aver. | |||||
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | ||
| [1] | G- | G- | F+/G- | G- | |||
| [2] | G | F+ | F-/Fail | ||||
| [3] | G+ | F+ | G- | G- | |||
| [4] | G+ | G/G+ | G- | G/G+ | |||
| [5] | G | G+ | G- | G | |||
| [6] | G | G | G | G | |||
________________________
Answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each Part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
Now suppose operations research succeeds in (i) reducing the desired inventory-sales ratio and (ii) increasing the speed of adjustment. What effects will this have on the cyclical behavior of the system?
Within this model, discuss the properties of the full-employment growth path (i.e. the development of output capital, wages, etc., which will equate desired saving and investment at full employment).
________________________
Answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. (Course XV students answer ONE question from each part only.) USE A SEPARATE EXAMINATION BOOK FOR EACH QUESTION.
| [Part] I | [Part] II | ||||||
| [Student] | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Average |
| [1] | G | G-/F+ | F+ | G- | |||
| [2] | G- | G-/F+ | F- | F+ | |||
| [3] | F+ | G- | G | G- | |||
| [4] | E- | G- | E- | G+ | |||
| [5] | G+ | G- | F | G- | |||
| [6] | E-/G+ | G | F | G | |||
| [7] | G+ | G- | F- | G- | |||
| [8] | E- | E- | G+ | E- | |||
| [9] | Failed | F | F-/Failed | Fail+ | |||
| [10] | F+ | G | G- | G- | |||
| [11] | G | G | F- | G- | |||
| [12] | G- | G-/F+ | F- | F+ | |||
| [13] | F+ | G- | G | G- | |||
| [14] | G+ | G- | G | G | |||
| [15] | Failed | G | G-/F+ | F+ | |||
| [16] | F-/Failed | Failed | Failed | ||||
| [17] | G-/F+ | F | F+ | ||||
________________________
Answer FOUR questions, TWO from each part. USE A SEPARATE EXAMINATION BOOK FOR EACH QUESTION.
________________________
Please answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each Part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
________________________
Answer three questions, including at least one from each part.
________________________
Please answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
________________________
ANSWER ONE QUESTION FROM EACH PART (THREE QUESTIONS IN ALL).
________________________
Answer three questions in all, including at least one from each part.
(i) an increase in the nominal stock of money
(ii) a decrease in the nominal stock of money
(iii) an autonomous fall in the volume of investment
c. In each case, how would your answers differ, especially as regards the possibility of “under-employment equilibrium”, if the money wage rate, as well as all other prices, were fully flexible?
d. How would your answers differ if money wage rates were governed by two-way escalator clauses?
________________________
Please answer THREE QUESTIONS, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
| Questions | ||||||||
| Student | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Total | Grade |
| [1] | 18 | 25 | 22 | 65 | Fair | |||
| [2] | 29 | 24 | 26 | 79 | G | |||
| [3] | 30 | 29 | 29 | 88 | E- | |||
| [4] | 22 | 20 | 23 | 65 | Fair | |||
| [5] | 29 | 24 | 25 | 78 | G | |||
________________________
Answer THREE QUESTIONS, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
________________________
Please answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
| Manufacturing | |||
| (Monthly averages for year) $ billions |
|||
| Sales | Inventories | Ratio | |
| 1950 | 18.6 | 31.0 | 1.48 |
| 1951 | 21.7 | 39.3 | 1.66 |
| 1952 | 22.5 | 41.1 | 1.79 |
| 1953 | 24.8 | 43.9 | 1.76 |
| 1954 | 23.3 | 41.6 | 1.81 |
| 1955 | 26.4 | 45.0 | 1.62 |
| 1956 | 27.7 | 50.6 | 1.73 |
| 1957 | 28.7 | 51.8 | 1.80 |
| 1958 | 27.2 | 50.0 | 1.84 |
| 1959 | 30.2 | 52.7 | 1.70 |
| 1960 | 30.8 | 53.8 | 1.76 |
| 1961 | 30.9 | 55.1 | 1.74 |
| 1962 | 33.3 | 57.7 | 1.70 |
| 1963 | 34.7 | 60.1 | 1.69 |
| 1964 | 37.1 | 62.2 | 1.64 |
Source: 1965 Economic Report, p. 237.
It has been said that this development has
REMARK: Part A will be given 1/3 weight. Part B will be given 2/3 weight.
________________________
Please answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
Discuss the following questions:
i. What is a final good in (A)? What special problems arise from the presence of certain types of organizations?
ii. What is the rationale of multiplying each product by its price? What assumptions are implied in this procedure? Are they realistic?
iii. Whose net incomes are aggregated in (B)? What assumptions does this procedure imply? Are they realistic?
iv. Could you propose changes or improvements in the above procedures? What additional comments would you like to make?
Indicate the virtues and defects of each concept and their use in economic analysis.
Trace out the evolution of such an economy under conditions of full employment and full utilization of capacity, starting from an arbitrary stock of capital; and show how its stead-state properties are determined.
Analyze this statement using the following model:
(1) Yt = Ct + It + Gt Income Definition
(2) Ct = α(Yt-1 –Tt-1) Consumption Function
(3) It = β(Yt – Yt-1) Investment Equation
(4) Tt = λCt Tax Equation
Note: the tax equation is the stabilizer in this model. Assume government outlays Gt are constant through time.
________________________
Please answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
Your answers should consider departures from competitive behavior where pertinent.
________________________
Answer three questions, including at least one from each part.
Analyze how the steady-state rate of growth depends on the value of the investment-output ratio.
________________________
Please answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
Emphasize the differences in criteria to be used and the reasons for the differences.
A short well-organized answer is best.
Will the model generate cycles if disturbed, for plausible values of the parameters? (Assume that, other things equal, 40% of a year-to-year increase in national income flows into profits.)
Describe how the response of the model economy would be affected by the imposition of a proportional income tax (with consumption proportional to disposable income).
Same for a proportional profits tax, with investment proportional to after tax profits.
Compare the stabilization effects of the two, if the profits tax is levied so as to raise the same amount of revenue as the income tax at a constant level of national income.
“Following is the text of a letter from Joan Robinson:
‘Many thanks for sending me the offprint from Econometrica (Money and Growth). Your Keynesian long-period theory is very different from mine and Kaldor’s. I should say that a lower rate of interest will make the rate of profit higher. The rate of profit r = g/sp, i.e. is equal to the rate of growth divided by the proportion of profit saved. I should say that, within reason, and provided that an appropriate part of investment is in research and training, a higher rate of investment will generate a higher natural rate of growth, so that deepening need not occur.’
Does this make sense?”
Answer Professor Tobin’s question. (The “rate of interest” refers, say, to the rate on government bonds, the only asset apart from real capital. The “rate of profit” can be taken to be the marginal product of capital in a one-sector economy near a steady state.)
Compare the behavior of output per man or per man-hour in the short-run (i.e. in the course of economic fluctuations) and in the long run, for the economy as a whole. Comment on any analytical issues raised by the behavior.
________________________
Answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
[handwritten note: “special exam… She received good-/fair+ with charity]
________________________
Please answer each question in a separate examination booklet. Indicate on the front page of each booklet whether you are seeking only a grade in 14.452 or a grade in the general examination in economic theory. Those who seek only a grade in 14.452 should answer two questions in part I and two questions in Part II. Those who are taking the general examination in economic theory should answer two questions in Part II and two in Part III.
Write down formally the conditions for an oscillatory response of the model to disturbance. When are the oscillations damped? How do variations in the tax rate affect these conditions? Suppose part of government purchases were made negatively proportional to the last observed change in national product?
Use this indifference map and the requirements for a steady state to show how the optimal steady state is chosen. Prove that the optimal capital per head will exceed the “Golden-Rule” (maximal consumption per head) level. Show what happens to the optimal position if the rate of population growth increases. Discuss briefly the case of a one-time upward shift in the production function.
“unintended consumption or saving” occurs. Replace the above equation with and interpret and analyze the resulting model. Compare its behavior with the case analyzed in class.
How is it that no specific supply variables (labor force, for example) appear in this measure? Under what circumstances is it natural to suppose that dY/dt responds to (I–S)? (Y = real output, p = commodity price level). Under what circumstances is it natural to suppose that dp/dt responds to (I–S)?
Find the tax rate that will permit a steady state at full employment. When will it be between zero and one? How does it change if s changes? Interpret.
Money, which is non-interest-bearing government debt, is the only alternative asset to capital. The desired money-capital ratio is of the form where m is the real per capita stock of money, k is the capital-labor ratio, and
is the expected rate of inflation which is equal to the actual rate
in the steady state.
Government purchases are zero and the budget deficit, which is equal to the excess of transfers over taxes, is financed by issuing money.
________________________
Answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question.
________________________
Please answer FOUR QUESTIONS distributed as follows:
Part I—without choice—1 hour
Part II—any two questions—40 minutes each
Part III—any one question—50 minutes
Use a separate examination book for each question.
The Federal Government wishes to stop the current inflation of the aggregate price level. What are the issues in choosing among various fiscal and monetary policies directed to this end? Try to use macroeconomic models (expressed algebraically, graphically or verbally) to illustrate the problems involved.
Suppose we add the requirement that
1a)
where
2a)
Why are the pairs of k and (pmm) which make the same regardless of
? HINT: When
what is the increase in the per capita real money supply? What determines the increase in the total real money supply?
| Spring 1969 90 = perfect |
||
| [1] | 83 | Ex+ |
| [2] | 79 | Ex |
| [3] | 78 | |
| [4] | 77 | |
| [5] | 75 | Ex- |
| [6] | 75 | |
| [7] | 75 | |
| [8] | 74 | Ex-/G+ |
| [9] | 74 | |
| [10] | 73 | G+ |
| [11] | 72 | |
| [12] | 72 | |
| [13] | 71 | |
| [14] | 71 | |
| [15] | 71 | |
| [16] | 70 | G+/G |
| [17] | 70 | |
| [18] | 69 | G |
| [19] | 69 | |
| [20] | 69 | |
| [21] | 69 | |
| [22] | 69 | |
| [23] | 68 | |
| [24] | 67 | |
| [25] | 67 | |
| [26] | 67 | |
| [27] | 66 | |
| [28] | 66 | |
| [29] | 66 | |
| [30] | 65 | G/G- |
| [31] | 65 | |
| [32] | 64 | G- |
| [33] | 64 | |
| [34] | 62 | |
| [35] | 61 | |
| [36] | 57 | F+ |
| [37] | 56 | |
| [38] | 53 | F |
| [39] | 50 | ? |
| [40] | 49 | |
| [41] | 48 | |
________________________
DO THREE QUESTIONS, AT LEAST ONE FROM A AND ONE FROM B. 40 Minutes each
________________________
Please answer THREE questions, at least ONE from each part. Use a separate examination book for each question. Write your CODE NUMBER on your book but not your name.
(Note: do not worry about the distinction between national income and gross product.)
________________________
Source: Duke University. Rubenstein Library. Evsey Domar Papers, Box 16, Folder “Ph.D. Economic Examinations. Macroeconomics.”
Image Source: “From the Flying Car to the Giant R2-D2: The Greates MIT Hacks of All-Time“, by Robert McMillan. Wired, March 20, 2013.
“Boston’s Harvard Bridge is 364.4 Smoots long. And the fact that anybody would remember this in 2013 was probably the furthest thing from MIT freshman Oliver Smoot’s mind on the October 1958 night that he lay himself down, time and again, along the bridge, allowing his fraternity brothers to measure its length (each Smoot is about 5 feet, 7 inches). It was a fraternity prank, but the next year the bridge’s Smoot markers were repainted. Thus, an MIT landmark — and a unique unit of measurement — was born.
Smoot himself went on to become a board member of the American National Standards Institute — a standards man through and through.”
_______________________
Thus far Economics in the Rear-View Mirror has been able to provide syllabi for the following four professors who had taught the first core price theory course at the University of Chicago spanning nearly a quarter of a decade during the middle third of the 20th century:
Today I add the syllabus for Arnold Harberger (a.k.a.”Triangle Man”, see the photo credit below). Note: chapters from Samuelson’s Foundations are only recommended readings, not yet required.
_______________________
Students are expected to be familiar with the materials in Stigler’s Theory of Price before entering the course. Readings marked with an asterisk (*) are recommended, not required.
Knight, The Economic Organization, pp. 1-37
Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 1-3
Friedman, “The Methodology of Positive Economics” in Essays in Positive Economics
Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 4-5
Marshall, Book III, Chs. 2-4, Book V, Chs. 1-2
Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Ch. 3
Hicks, Value and Capital, pp. 11-52
Working, “What do Statistical Demand Curves Show?” Quarterly Journal of Economics
*Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, Ch. 5
Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 6-8
Marshall, Book V, Chs. 3-5, 12, Appendix H
Robinson, Joan, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch. 2
Clark, J.M., Economics of Overhead Costs, Ch. 9
Viner, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves”, Zeitschrift fuer Nationaloekonomie, Book III (Sept 1931) pp. 23-46, reprinted in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 198-232
*Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, Ch. 4
Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 9-13
Stigler, “Monopolistic Competition in Retrospect” in Five Lectures on Economic Problems
Harrod, “Doctrines of Imperfect Competition”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1934, pp. 442-461
Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Chs. 3, 5
*Robinson, E.A.G., The Structure of Competitive Industry
*Robinson, E.A.G., Monopoly.
Alchian, “The Meaning of Utility Measurement”, American Economic Review, March 1953, pp. 26-50
Friedman and Savage, “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk”, Journal of Political Economy, August 1948, pp. 279-304. Reprinted in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 57-96
Scitovsky, “The State of Welfare Economics”, American Economic Review, June 1951, pp. 303-315
Hicks, “The Four Consumers’ Surpluses”, Review of Economic Studies, XI (1943-44), pp. 31-40
*Hotelling, “The General Welfare in Relation to Problems of Taxation and of Railway and Utility Rates,” Econometrica (VI) (1938), pp. 242-269
*Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, Chs. 5-7
Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 77, Folder “77.1 University of Chicago Econ 300 A & B”.
Image Source: “[Arnold] Harberger strips down to reveal himself as “Triangleman” at the University of Chicago Economics Christmas Party, probably December 1970”. Robert J. Gordon’s website.
Copies of the following bastardized Christmas Carols from the University of Chicago Department of Economics can be found in Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution Archives. They are filed with other skit party materials in a folder marked “University of Chicago, Miscellaneous”.
These texts are undated, one might say timeless.
From the same collection: a HMS Pinafore parody; “Ode to an Economist”).
_______________________________
On the first week of class my Professor said to me:
We must maintain consumer sovereignty!
Second week: Uncertainty is no answer, and
Third week: Impute costs,
Fourth week: Lunch is never free,
Fifth week: Free Enterprise!!!
Sixth week: Marshall is our hero;
Seventh week: M V equals P T;
Eight week: Manna comes each Monday;
Ninth week: Inflation is an evil;
Tenth week: This week do the readings;
Eleventh week: Answer true or false please;
Twelfth week: SORRY, BUT I FLUNKED YOU!
_______________________________
Maximize, maximize, that’s the crucial key.
Allocate resources by their productivity.
Equalize VMP’s with their prices, and
Your production function is the finest in the land.
Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman papers. Box 79, Folder “79.6 University of Chicago, Miscellaneous.”
Image Source: From a 1939 Nativity Play in Rockefeller Chapel in 1939. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf4-03011. Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.
With the election of Donald J. Trump to the U.S. Presidency, it is perhaps time well-spent to yet again reflect upon the relation between capitalism and democracy. Today I post a 1947 proposal for the creation of a complementary pair of interdisciplinary seminars on problems of capitalism and democracy to be taught in the University of Chicago’s Divisional Social Science M.A. program. The proposal was written by a 34 year old Austrian, Berthold Franz Hoselitz ( the future founding editor of the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change), and presumably circulated among the respective departments of the Division of Social Science for approval. The copy transcribed here comes from Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution together with the agenda for the faculty meeting when the proposal was scheduled to be discussed. We see from the course announcements that the proposal was accepted.
The poor image of Hoselitz from 1940 is partially compensated for by the fact that it is (up to now) the only image I have been able to find of him at all.
_____________________________
Q. …Did you have any teacher through your period at university which was particularly a role model to you?…
John Nash: I certainly had some good teachers who were very helpful to me and influential. For example, in economics I only took one economics course and I was an undergraduate study in Pittsburgh at what is now called Carnegie Mellon, but by coincidence the person who taught the course, it was a course in international economics, and by coincidence this was someone who came from Austria. So there’s actually to consider Austrian economics is like a different school than typical American or British. So I was by coincidence influenced by an Austrian economist [Bert F. Hoselitz, Associate Professor of Economics appointed October 1, 1947, resigned September 1948, Carnegie Institute of Technology.] which may have been a very good influence.
Source: Interview with Dr. John Nash at the 1st Meeting of Laureates in Economic Sciences in Lindau, Germany, September 1-4, 2004. Interviewer: Marika Griehsel.
_____________________________
Bert F. Hoselitz was born Berthold Frank Hoselitz in Vienna, Austria in 1913. He received his doctor of law degree in 1936 from the University of Vienna. He left Austria in 1938, traveling first to England, then to the U.S., where he taught briefly at Manchester College in North Manchester, Indiana. He enrolled in the University of Chicago , receiving an M.A. in Economics in 1945. Hoselitz joined faculty at Chicago as an instructor in 1945, and became emeritus in 1978.
Hoselitz advocated interdisciplinary scholarship and his work pushed the common wisdom within economics at the time by considering the role of cultural and sociological factors on economic development. In pursing this line of inquiry, he developed professional relationships with scholars around the globe, though particularly in Asia, and participated in both a research and advisory capacity for a broad spectrum of academic research projects that spanned traditionally distinct social science disciplines. In 1962, Hoselitz supervised a pair of National Science Foundation sponsored studies examining the social and economic entailments of developments in science and technology within Asia, primarily India. At a broader level, he was also active in efforts to bring diverse social science disciplines into conversation with one another. In 1958 began participating in an editorial and authorial capacity for the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
Hoselitz’s scholarly activities were not confined to academic research and teaching. He was also active and engaged in policy discussions concerning development and the developing world. In the early phase of his career Hoselitz participated in an array of applied research projects, advising work and professional associations related to economic development and development policy more broadly. For example, he wrote for the United Nations on issues related to economic development, beginning with a 1952 technical-assistance mission to El Salvador, and in the late fifties he served on a team of advisors to the government of India concerning the plan for the national capital region.
In addition to his global professional engagements, Hoselitz also remained an active participant and organizer in the scholarly community of his home institution at Chicago. In 1952 Hoselitz founded the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change at Chicago as well as the affiliated interdisciplinary journal Economic Development and Cultural Change, published through the University of Chicago Press. Hoselitz served as editor from the journal’s inception until 1985. He also served on the committee of the Norman Wait Harris Memorial Foundation based at the University of Chicago which focuses on issues of international interest and works to facilitate the exchange of knowledge about the diverse peoples of the world. In this capacity, Hoselitz organized visits by lecturers, funded conferences and facilitated the foundation’s publishing efforts.
Considered an interdisciplinary pioneer and an expert on the social and cultural dimensions of economic development, Professor Emeritus Bert Hoselitz died in Chicago on February 14, 1995.
Source: University of Chicago Library. Guide to the Bert F. Hoselitz papers, 1923-1987.
_____________________________
_____________________________
Some two years ago the History Department of the University of Chicago discussed the possibility of instituting in their Department so-called “problem-courses”. Instead of subdividing the subject matter of history on the basis of time periods and countries or regions, they felt that major problems, notably those of capitalism and democracy, should be studied in their historical perspective. These plans were thought over for some time but were not put into effect during the war, chiefly because of lack of suitable personnel who could be charged with the preparation and execution of these courses.
When, a few months ago, the Divisional Masters Committee met, and when it was decided that the Divisional Master’s program should provide for a more generalized program than that provided by departmental courses, the suggestion was made that the courses on the history of capitalism and the history of democracy might be worked out in a manner in which not only the historical sweep of the two institutions would be under consideration, but where also the problems arising in the two areas would be studied. The courses were thus conceived by the Divisional Masters Committee as comprising an analysis of historical background as well as the “nature” and problems of capitalism and of democracy.
When these courses were discussed it was the feeling of some members of the Divisional Masters Committee that what was needed to be stressed more and made more explicit than could be done by giving two apparently unrelated courses in isolation, was the problem of the interrelations of capitalism and democracy, or (in different words) the relationship of economic organization and the realization of political values of liberty, equality, and justice. This dilemma was met by the Masters committee by declaring the courses to be long into one “field” of study and by suggesting that the students be asked to take the courses simultaneously, by providing for parallel planning and teaching of the courses, as much as possible, and by providing an examination over the two courses (the field) in which the interrelations between economic organization and political values was stressed.
This plan was submitted to the Executive Committee of the Division of the Social Sciences and accepted as part of a program for the Divisional Masters Degree. At a later meeting between representatives of the Divisional Masters Committee and members of the Department of Economics, Political Science, and History, the problem was discussed again, and reasons for combination of the two courses, as well as reasons against brought forward. In addition the proposal was made and accepted that a faculty seminar be established which concern itself with the whole problem raised by the relationship of economic and political organization, notably the interrelations of capitalist, free enterprise, economic organization and political democracy.
A seminar or a combined course on the problems of capitalism and democracy seem to me to involve two sub-problems which ought to be separated from each other. One is the examination of the relationship of given economic institutions in the particular political framework and the processes which would be set in motion both in the political and economic field by attempts to realize certain aims of human welfare, or other chiefly political values, such as justice, freedom, etc.
The other problem would involve a study of actual processes of the interaction of political and economic institutions, their mutual interrelations in the past under different conditions in their dependence upon it given set of values in the particular hierarchies in which these values were accepted in certain countries and at certain times.
Both approaches may be dynamic but the first would primarily be analytical in that it would study the probable consequences of economic and political policies upon each other and therefore would in part deal with the study of how the existing institutions would be shaped by policies designed to meet social objectives in a more adequate way then is being done at present. In this analysis existing institutions such as constitutional arrangements, legal rules, the whole economic structure and possibly the international power structure as they affect the various countries, would be the starting point of the examination. This analysis would deal with problems which are of the utmost importance in the light of the discussion going on currently. It would have to take up those problems which presently are generally assumed under the heading of the relationship of freedom and planning. I think that it might be well for the Department to arrange the questions of a general and wide character affecting the whole social structure be included as well as more limited problems dealing with very specific economic or political policies in particular fields and their repercussions on the whole social structure.
The historical part could be used, it appears to me, for the following purposes.
(1) It could throw light on the coexistence of particular economic and political institutions especially on the historical coexistence of capitalism and democracy.
(2) It could provide evidence to show how and to what extent changes which either of the two institutions undergo undergoes in industrial civilization, have affected the other, and therefore could provide a basis for making certain analogies which present policies actually in operation or proposed.
(3) It would have to be supplemented by an analysis of the influence of the institutions of industrial capitalism and democratic political organization upon the formation of human personality, and vice versa the influence of human motivations and psychological factors upon the social, economic and political organization of the time.
(4) I am not certain whether an analysis of the origins of capitalism would be fruitful in this connection, but I think that it would be useful in the historical part to provide for a comparison between the social structure of the 19th century in the economic organization which it manifested in political values which it claimed to realize, and other societies, their economic and technological equipment and their political organization. If this can be supplemented by a comparison of the “basic personalities” in the two cultures, this might throw additional light on the question whether industrial capitalism and political democracy are bound up with each other, whether the ties exist in the social field exclusively, what ties are provided by the personality structure of the individuals composing the society and what evidence is provided by the historical incidence of attempts simultaneously to realize certain economic and political aims.
It seems to me, therefore, a defect that in the original planning of the program social psychologists and social anthropologists did not participate and I would think that both of these have important contributions to make.
Although it would be difficult clearly to separate the analytical approach which is concerned with examination of concrete presently existing problems confronting us in America and European countries as well as some of the “backward” countries, from the historical problems, I don’t think that such a separation would be necessary as long as it is logically plain that in the one area we are dealing with the application of generalizations drawn from history and other social sciences on practical policies, whereas in the other field we deal with an attempt to give a comprehensive examination of why particular processes occur, when and where they occurred and what factors were responsible for their occurrence. In other words, the two approaches would complement each other and would give opportunity to representatives of all the social science disciplines to make a contribution.
We frequently talk about the problem of modern society and I think we mean primarily by this the set of problems outlined above. Although as individuals we feel inclined that we must provide answers of what will be the probable effects of concrete policies, all of us attempt to build those answers into a logical framework which comprises the totality of social arrangements in which, therefore, is colored by our conception of political and cultural processes as well as economic ones. Any clarification of the relationships of these processes in present-day society which can be deduced by analytical study or by an examination of historical periods from which analogies for present-day action can be provided might therefore give at least a partial answer. I would like to see both the seminar and a course or combination of courses be carried on on the basis of these thoughts. If a more complete outline is desirable I shall gladly provide one.
Respectfully submitted
Bert Hoselitz
May 22, 1947
Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder “79.1 University of Chicago, Minutes, Economics Department 1946-1949”.
_____________________________
[…]
Social Science 300A,B,C. The Nature and Problems of Capitalism. A study of the economic institutions of capitalist society in the more critical phases of their development up to the present, with particular emphasis on the social and political context in which economic change occurs. Closely correlated with Social Science 301A, B,C, which is taken concurrently. Enrolment limited to students under the Divisional Master’s Program. Aut, Win, Spr: MWF 10:30; Staff.
Social Science 301A,B,C. The Nature and Problems of Democracy (identical with Political Science 300A,B,C). Examination of the political institutions of Western society, especially in their relation to the development of democratic ideals and practices. Major concern is with American institutions as they operate in the context of both democratic ideals and political reality. Taken concurrently with Social Science 300 A, B, C. Enrolment limited to students under the Divisional Master’s Program. Aut, Win, Spr: MWF 10:30; Staff.
Source: University of Chicago, Announcements Vol. XLIX, No. 9 (July 1, 1949). The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1949-1950. p. 10.
Image Source: Declaration of Intention to apply for U.S. citizenship by Bertold Franz Hoselitz (alias Hazlitt), August 8, 1940.
The Columbia Provost, Frank D. Fackenthal, must have sent out a request to department chairs to answer a set of questions regarding their departments’ educational programs early in 1944. I have found a copy of a letter dated April 10, 1944 in which Carl S. Shoup (1902-2000) provides his reply in which he was able to comment both on graduate economics as well as business education. Shoup refers to an “accompanying memorandum” in which his thoughts are spelled out more precisely. That memorandum was not filed with the copy of the letter I found, so it must be left to another archival visit to see if there might not be some copy filed elsewhere.
Note to self (or others): the “accompanying memorandum” might be found in Provost Fackenthal’s papers.
____________________
COPY
[Omitting some minor points, as explained in letter to Professor Mills, April 18, 1944]
April 10, 1944
Mr. Frank D. Fackenthal
Provost of the University
Low Memorial Library
Dear Mr. Fackenthal:
This letter and the accompanying memorandum are in reply to your request of February 18 for suggestions on the educational program of the University.
It so happens that during some spare moments last summer and fall when I was in Washington with the Treasury Department, I drew up a memorandum on graduate instruction in the American universities in the fields of economics and public finance, with special but not exclusive reference to Columbia. I had for some time been of the opinion that the training given to graduate students was falling short of what it might accomplish, and this memorandum was an attempt to systematize my thoughts. Upon returning to Columbia I found that Professor Mills, as head of the Department of Economics, was planning to appoint a curriculum committee and also hold a series of Department meetings in which the curriculum of the Department would be analyzed and suggestions for improvement made. I showed him my memorandum, and he thought it advisable to circulate mimeographed copies among the members of the Department. Since this memorandum contains most of what I have to say on the educational program, I am enclosing a copy; but I also add a few remarks below, addressed more specifically to some of the questions raised in your letter, and to Columbia rather than graduate schools in general.
My remarks here and in the mimeographed memorandum, rest upon three general assumptions: (1) that graduate students in economics and public finance are willing and even eager to assume a more responsible and professional attitude toward their work, which involves more hours of work and more intense work, the satisfying of more exacting standards in examination, and a realization of the damage they can cause if they go into government or private research, or teaching, without adequate training; (2) that many, perhaps most, faculty members (including certainly myself) have not been fully aware how small have been our direct efforts to challenge the graduate student to higher standards, and to help him reach them, perhaps because we have to readily assumed that by continually improving ourselves through research and study we could help the mature student about as well as we could in any other way; (3) that, finally, there is indeed no real conflict between this value we customarily put on faculty research and the producing of highly trained graduate students, but that the faculty member’s research experience needs to be made more available to the graduate student through participation by the latter at least some of the research carried on by the faculty. Unfortunately for the chances of formulating a specific program, I have not yet been able to devise a mechanism (to train the graduate by participation in research) that will be highly effective in a graduate department which, like Columbia’s, already has a long history of development along somewhat different lines. It may be that the idea is impracticable except for a graduate department that is founded primarily with this end in view. The problem of mechanism is discussed in some detail in the accompanying memorandum. In any case it would be essential to guard against the development of the research work into an element of so-called (“prestige” whereby it became necessary to grind out a certain amount of published product regularly for the public view. The results should be good enough to warrant publication, but not on any monthly or other periodic schedule.
To turn out to the specific subjects suggested in your letter of February 18, 1944:
(A) The most troublesome problem facing the graduate Economics Department in curriculum construction is in my opinion caused by the wide variety in background and in aims of our graduate students. The difficulty takes this specific form: shall we introduce so-called “first graduate-year courses” (or “intermediate courses”) in subjects like public finance, international trade, and monetary theory, for students who have had few if any undergraduate courses in economics, or who, having majored in economics, have not had courses in one or more of these particular subjects? There are diverse views on the principles we should follow, but my present inclination – subject to change, of course, as we debate the matter further – is that we cannot do work on this intermediate level without forgoing a good deal of work on the higher level, and that we therefore should not attempt to make good the undergraduate’s course deficiencies except by special reading assignments and special examinations. If we had a much larger faculty, we might be able to offer a satisfactory selection of “intermediate” courses without decreasing our advanced offerings. Even so, I should doubt the desirability of going far in that direction. Before we realized it, we might find ourselves taking over much of the work of undergraduate colleges. From a long run point of view, the effect would be to weaken undergraduate work, not strengthen it.
The School of Business is revamping its entire curriculum. I am a member of a central curriculum committee that has been appointed to suggest what changes should be made, and since we are in the middle of our deliberations at the moment, I have nothing specific to report at this time. I am also a member of a curriculum sub-committee of the Department of Economics, but this sub-committee is awaiting the close of a series of conferences now being held by the Department, before assembling to consider whether specific changes in the curriculum should be recommended.
(B) I believe that it might be good practice for the Department of Economics and the School of Business to appoint a two or three-man committee to become thoroughly acquainted with the record, and to assess the possibilities of, any individual – within or outside the University – who is suggested as a possible member of the Department. This small committee would make an extended report to the Department after some period of time, perhaps six months or so. I think we need some much practice as this to avoid letting ourselves drift into accepting someone largely because there is a general impression that he seems to be the best one readily available at the moment. Perhaps it would be better to appoint a small committee whenever there is a vacancy, with the instructions to search carefully throughout the country to find the best possible prospect and to report back a year later. It is, I think, worth our while to take unusual pains in this respect, for the University has great pulling power, and should not waste it.
(C) As to relations with other departments, the major point, both for the School of Business and for the Department of Economics, is the relation between these two. Fortunately, the two faculties are keeping in close touch with each other. There is almost surely substantial duplication of effort at the present time, more of it than is desirable in some fields, especially, in my opinion, in money and credit theory. It is to be hoped that the two curriculum committees will suggest ways of eliminating needless duplication.
(D) I know very little about present methods of finding, and opening the way for, the brilliant student in the undergraduate group who should devote himself to scholarship and research, but I suspect that the supply of brilliant scholars could be substantially increased if some general effort were made to call to the attention of A-grade undergraduates the possibilities of careers and research and in college or university teaching.
(E) I have no suggestions on scholarships and fellowships, since I happen to have had very little to do with choosing from among the candidates or with examining the general system of selection.
(A) In my opinion the program both of the School of Business and the Graduate Department of Economics have lacked sufficiently definite aims and standards, in standards sufficiently high. There is no specific suggestion I should want to venture at the moment, pending completion of the discussions in our two curriculum committees, but some of the suggestions and the accompanying mimeographed memorandum will indicate in a general way what I have in mind. We do not want rigidity in curriculum and teaching; indeed, we need experimentation, but it needs to be experimentation by the department or school as a whole, with some agreement on what we are trying to do. During the 1930’s, particularly, I have the impression that both the School of Business and the Economics Department rather drifted along, each faculty member being concerned chiefly with his own work as it affected himself, not in its relation to the group as a whole (at least I am sure I fell into that habit). We are beginning to overcome this tendency, as a result of frequent group meetings, but the former attitude has become so deeply ingrained in us that I am not optimistic for the future unless there is somewhat more concerned over the problem of training the graduate student then I have noticed thus far. The lack of regimentation, the freedom given at Columbia to each faculty member to go his own way, is a fine thing in we must of course be careful not to decrease it much, if at all. It is a prerequisite for outstanding work in research. The group action that I have particularly primarily in mind is designed rather (1) to provoke in each of us a greater feeling of individual responsibility for (a) ascertaining what our shortcomings are with respect to the training of graduate students and (b) using our imagination to devise improvements; and (2) to create the mechanism for cooperative effort where cooperative effort is deemed essential to making the improvements. But if the group action – in the form of the group discussions we are now engaged in – turns out not to have the effect described in objective (1) above, it would be dangerous to try to move on rapidly to objective (2). A widespread and fairly strong sense of dissatisfaction with our present degree of achievement in training graduate students is a prerequisite to the success of any thoroughgoing change. It remains to be seen whether such a feeling exists. If the current discussions show that it does not, we must conclude either that after all there is no real ground for substantial change or that the change must start elsewhere.
(B) I do not get the impression that competition with or imitation of the programs of other institutions have lowered our standards or over-extended our efforts. Rather, we have probably failed to learn as much as we should about what other institutions are doing.
(C) There is now – in contrast to the situation some years ago, as noted above – ample opportunity for the general discussion of educational matters.
(D) The faculty members’ participation in outside work has benefited the University. It is essential that a considerable amount of outside work be allowed. Such work has however, in my opinion, been carried well of beyond the optimum point in many cases (including my own). In the accompanying mimeographed memorandum I discuss this problem in some detail. My present opinion is that the University should create “research professorships”. Such professorships would not call for any lowering of the teaching schedule beyond the four hours a week now prevailing in the graduate department (but would call for a change in the School of Business’ minimum of eight hours). Anyone accepting such a professorship would agree to engage in no outside work for pay to himself except, say, during one year out of seven. He would be free to undertake any other outside paid work, but the fees would be paid into the University. Such professorships would carry his salary substantially higher than at present obtain – perhaps 75 per cent to 100 per cent higher at the lower salary levels, and 50 per cent higher at the higher salary levels. (I understand that the University of Chicago is offering, or may shortly offer, contracts on the basis something like that suggested for these “research professorships”).
(A) the School of Business library, through which I work, is, in my opinion, doing an excellent job. My only reservation for the library as a whole has to do with the availability of works in foreign languages. We may need to develop a better system for guarding against gaps here and there, after the war, for I have found some omissions that have hampered my work a little. I am not yet, however, prepared to make any recommendations.
(B) I have not encountered any of the resources of the metropolitan area that were not open to me.
(C) I have had limited experience, especially in recent years, with undergraduate teaching, so had little to say on this subject. My impression is that undergraduate teaching, while not incompatible with research, is not exactly conducive to it.
(D) Probably the most important steps that could be taken to increase the research accomplishment of the University staff are:
(a) Slightly lighter teaching schedules (in the School of Business not the Department of Economics).
(b) The introduction of research professorships as suggested in 2 (D) above.
(c) Full pay for the entire sabbatical year with an understanding of the faculty member will use the time in study or in some activity, paid or not (unless he is on one of the research professorships) of direct importance to his long-term product program of self-development. The present system of granting full pay for a half-year’s leave induces almost everyone to take a half-year leave. In most cases this cost the university more money than the full-year half-paid leave, and results in less uninterrupted time for research.
(E) As to sources of financial support I have no suggestions (aside from the fees that would come to the University under the research professors’ outside work (2 (D) above), which would be needed to pay the higher salaries) except the general and perhaps impractical one that the University seek mass support from thousands of middle-class sponsors would contribute regularly say $5 to $25 a year and would receive in exchange reports on the progress of the University, special seating privileges at Commencement, exclusive attendance privileges at occasional special lectures by members of the faculty, and any other marks of attention that could make them feel a sense of part ownership in, and pride in, a great University.
Sincerely yours,
Carl Shoup
Source: Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Columbia University Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials, Box 10, Folder “Columbia University—General”.
Image Source: The Columbia Spectator Archive. March 8, 1967.
Harvard’s decision to significantly increase its course offerings in political economy in 1883 received some national press coverage (that story posted earlier in Economics in the Rear-View Mirror). Today we have the announcement published in the Harvard Crimson. The trio Charles F. Dunbar, J. Laurence Laughlin and Frank W. Taussig were on their way to launch the take-off into a full academic program of economic study.
______________________
Arrangements recently completed have enabled the college to offer a more extended course of study in Political Economy than that which has been announced. A full statements to be substituted for that given on page 14 of the Elective Pamphlet, will be found below.
On page 15 of the pamphlet, line 13, for Course 6 read Course 7.
- Mill’s Principles of Political Economy. – Lectures on Banking and the Financial Legislation of the United States. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Prof. Dunbar and Asst. Prof. Laughlin.
- History of Economic Theory and a Critical Examination of Leading Writers. – Lectures. Mon., Wed. at 2 and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri. at 2. Prof. Dunbar.
- Discussion of Practical Economic Questions. – Theses, Tu., Th., at 3, and a third hour to be appointed by the instructor. Assistant Professor Laughlin.
- Economic History of Europe and America since the Seven Years’ War. – Lectures. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 11. Professor Dunbar.
Course 4 requires no previous study of Political Economy.
- Economic Effects of Land Tenures in England, Ireland, France and Germany. – Theses. Once a week, counting as a half course. Asst. Professor Laughlin.
- History of Tariff Legislation in the United States. – Once a week, counting as a half course. Mr. Taussig.
- Comparison of the Financial Systems of France, England, Germany and the United States. – Tu., at 2, counting as a half course. Professor Dunbar.
As a preparation for Courses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 it is necessary to have passed satisfactorily in Course 1.
Course 1 is in Examination Group I.; Course 2, in Group V.; Course 3, in Group XII.; Course 4, in Group III.; Course 7, in Group XI.
The first two courses are intended to present the principles of the science, while the remaining five treat the subject in its historical and practical aspects. No. 2 will take up the principal writers of the present day, as Cairns, Carey and George, together with the current literature of the science. No times of recitation have been assigned to courses 5 and 6, as this will be arranged between the instructors and the students choosing the course. The department intend issuing a full descriptive pamphlet describing the different courses, which can be had at the office in a few days.
Image Source: Charles F. Dunbar (left) and Frank W. Taussig (right) from E. H. Jackson and R. W. Hunter, Portraits of the Harvard Faculty (1892); J. Laurence Laughlin (middle) from Marion Talbot. More Than Lore: Reminiscences of Marion Talbot, Dean of Women, The University of Chicago, 1892-1925. Chicago: University of Chicago (1936).
The popularity of the introductory course in economics at Harvard led Frank Taussig to establish a structure of two one-hour lectures per week with ca. 15 sections (of about 25 students) taught by four teaching assistants who administered (and presumably then graded) a 20 minute quiz on a week’s reading assignment that would be followed up with a 35-40 minute class discussion.
Apparently Taussig’s Columbia University colleague, E.R.A. Seligman, asked Taussig how Harvard ran its principles of economics course. Maybe he was just curious to hear whether Harvard was about to adopt his Principles of Economics With Special Reference to American Conditions. In his answer, Taussig clearly stakes his claim to have invented the large lecture with small recitation sections format.
_________________________
Cotuit, Mass.
Aug. 8, 1906
Dear Seligman:-
Our present system in Economics 1, is as follows. There are three exercises a week, of which two are lectures, and the third is for section work, something like what you call a quiz. The lectures are given to all the men in a large lecture hall. During the first half year I give all the lectures; during the second half year it will be given (1906-7) by Andrew and Bullock. For the section work the men are divided into sections of about 30 men each, and meet weekly in separate rooms, and at various hours, in the charge of younger instructors. Each instructor has three to four sections, there are four or five instructors. The first thing at the section meetings is a sort of examination. The question is put on the board and answered in writing during the first twenty minutes; these papers are read and a record kept of the results. The rest of the hour, thirty-five or forty minutes, is given to oral discussion.
Last year we used three text-books, Mill, Walker, and Seager. Specific assignments of reading are made for each week. The lectures cover the same topics as the reading, and the question of the week is on both reading and lectures.
To ensure consistency, the lecturer in charge (for instance myself) meets the younger instructors weekly at a stated hour. Then the questions to be asked by the instructors are submitted for approval, and the work of the week talked over.
This system is of my devising, and has worked better than anything we have tried. It has now been adopted into other large courses, History 1, and Government 1. Any other information I can give you are very welcome to.
I was extremely sorry to hear of your bereavement, and sympathize with you very fully [Seligman’s daughter, Mabel Henrietta died October 30, 1905 at age eleven]. Ripley has returned from Europe. His present address is New London, N. H. I have written a review of your book for our Journal, in which I have said some things that may not please you. But I take it you agree with me that the only object of reviews is to elicit frank statement of opinion. [Taussig’s review of Seligman’s Principles of Economics, Seligman’s Reply and Taussig’s Rejoinder]
Sincerely yours,
F. W. Taussig.
Prof. E.R.A. Seligman,
Lake Placid, N.Y.
_________________________
Source: “Announcement of the Course of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1906-07, 2nd edition”. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. III, No. 15, Aug. 1, 1906. P. 47.
_________________________
Course 1 gives a general introduction to economic study, and a general view of Economics for those who have not further time to give to the subject. It undertakes a consideration of the principles of production, distribution, exchange, money, banking, international trade, and taxation. The relations of labor and capital, the present organization of industry, and the recent currency legislation of the United States will be treated in outline.
The course will be conducted partly by lectures, partly by oral discussion in sections. A course of reading will be laid down, and weekly written exercises will test the work of students in following systematically and continuously the lectures and the prescribed reading.
Source: History and Political Science, Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics, 1910-11. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. VII, No. 23, June 21, 1910, p. 52.
Note: The course description is almost a verbatim copy of that for 1902-03, so we can presume the same description for 1906-07.
_________________________
Total 392: 1 Graduate, 15 Seniors, 43 Juniors, 252 Sophomores, 50 Freshmen, 31 Other.
Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1906-07, p. 70.
Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1906.
Hal R. Varian, chief economist at Google since 2007, was a 28 year old assistant professor at M.I.T. in 1975 when he taught my cohort the third in a sequence of four half-term courses that constituted MIT’s required core of graduate microeconomic theory. He assigned draft chapters from his graduate textbook Microeconomic Analysis (published in 1977). For this post I have transcribed the course outline, five problem sets and the final examination for the course.
Core microeconomic theory at MIT in 1974-75:
14.121 (linear models and production) was taught by Martin Weitzman,
14.122 (competitive and noncompetitive market structures) taught by Robert L. Bishop,
14.123 (theory of the consumer and resource allocation) was taught by Hal Varian,
14.124 (capital theory, uncertainty and welfare economics) was taught by Paul Samuelson.
_______________________
| Feb. 5 | advanced placement exam |
| Feb. 10 | utility; demand; expenditure |
| Feb. 12 | indirect utility; Slutsky equation |
| Feb. 17 | no class |
| Feb. 19 | no class |
| Feb. 24 | demand functions; duality |
| Feb. 26 | expected utility; properties |
| Feb. 28 | general equilibrium; existence |
| Mar. 3 | welfare theory |
| Mar. 5 | the core of an exchange economy |
| Mar. 10 | general equilibrium and production |
| Mar. 12 | dynamics and general equilibrium |
| Mar. 17 | malfunctions of the market mechanism |
| Mar. 19 | final exam |
Course text will be lecture notes available from me. Malinvaud and Arrow and Hahn are highly recommended secondary reading. There will be four or five problem sets and a problem session on Fridays, 9-10:30.
_______________________
_______________________
∂H1/∂p1 (p1, p2, ū) = -2
∂H1/∂p2 (p1, p2, ū) = +1
∂M1/∂y (p1, p2, y) = 2/7
where H1 and H2 are the Hicksian demand functions for goods 1 and 2 and M1 is the Marshallian demand function for good 1. Find an estimate of the consumption bundle of the consumer at (p1, p2) = 5,11).
_______________________
_______________________
max Σ ai ui(xi), ai>0
s.t. Σ xi ≤ w
is necessarily pareto efficient.
v1(p1, p2, y) = ln y –a ln p1 – (1-a) ln p2
v2(p1, p2, y) = ln y –b ln p1 – (1-b) ln p2
and initial endowments
w1 = (1,1)
w2 = (1,1)
Calculate the market clearing price.
u1(x1, y1) = a ln x1 +(1-a) ln y1
u2(x2, y2) = b ln x2 + (1-b) ln y2
and initial endowments
w1 = (1,0)
w2 = (0,1)
Calculate the market equilibrium prices in terms of the parameters a and b.
_______________________
_______________________
Answer any 2 out of 4. All questions have equal weight. Good luck!
UA(XA1, XA2) = a ln XA1 + (1-a) ln XA2 , WA = (0,1)
UB(XB1, XB2) = min (XB1, XB2) , WB =(1,0)
Calculate the market clearing prices and the equilibrium allocation.
Source: Personal copies.
Image Source: Detail from 1976 departmental group photo.
_______________________________
“Microeconomic Theory II”, the second of four half-semester core microeconomic theory courses at MIT, was actually the first offered during the academic year 1974-75. It was taught by Professor Robert L. Bishop. In this post we find 29 sample questions for the five sets of topics covered in the courses. Also included are the waiver exam for testing out of the course and the final examination for the students who took the course
The course “text” was the mimeographed manuscript on economic theory written by Bishop that was on closed reserve at Dewey Library and consulted by presumably at least a dozen cohorts over the 1960s (perhaps even earlier) and 1970s. A copy of that manuscript can be found in the Edwin Burmeister papers at Rubenstein Library of Duke University.
Two papers (especially the second) by Bishop covering some of the course material are:
Bishop, Robert L. “Duopoly: Collusion or Warfare?” The American Economic Review 50, no. 5 (1960): 933-61.
Bishop, Robert L. “The Effects of Specific and Ad Valorem Taxes.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 82, no. 2 (1968): 198-218.
Core microeconomic theory at MIT in 1974-75:
14.121 (linear models) was taught by Martin Weitzman,
14.123 (duality) was taught by Hal Varian,
14.124 (capital theory, uncertainty and welfare economics) was taught by Paul Samuelson.
_______________________________
_______________________________
Answer any TWO questions (about 40 minutes each):
Question 1:
Question 2:
In a small community surrounding a lake, workers can get all the employment they need in industry at a wage of $20 per day. An alternative employment is to catch fish in the lake and sell it in the environs at a constant price of $10 per bushel. With labor valued at the going wage, the cost of fish per bushel rises with the total amount of fishing. Specifically, the average cost of fish (in dollars per bushel) is related thus to the total number of bushels caught per day:
C = 2 + .005q
Question 3:
“If a specific tax of given magnitude is imposed on a good that is producible at constant unit cost, the equilibrium price may be raised either more or less under monopoly than under competition. Even when the price rises by an appreciably smaller amount under monopoly, however, it is still very likely to be socially disadvantageous to tax such a monopolized good rather than competitive ones.” Explain fully wherein you agree or disagree with each sentence.
_______________________________
C= aqc + bq,
where C is total cost, qc is an absolute-capacity output (fixed in the short run), q is the actual output (less than or equal to qc), and a and b are positive constants. Draw carefully the implied long-run cost schedules and several sample sets of short-run cost schedules—total, average and marginal. Comment on the relationship between long-run and short-run marginal cost.
Source: Personal copies.
Image Source:Robert L. Bishop at MIT Museum .