Author: Irwin Collier

Harvard. Early Evolution of Behavioral and Social Science Departments. Mason Report.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-04

Today I generate another posting from the Mason Committee Report The Behavioral Sciences at Harvard published in June, 1954. Here we have a quick trot through Harvard’s own history of behavioral and social sciences, the splitting of some of its divisions into departments and the creation of new departments and schools. It is an extremely convenient collection of names and dates to help us see where economics and economists fit into the larger academic community during the first half century or so following the emergence of political economy and government at Harvard College. You can tell an economist chaired the committee, it’s so much about us. I have added boldface to help readers of this blog find stuff they might (should) be interested in.

________________________

[p. 18]

HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AT HARVARD

The future historian of Harvard will note that a new term began to be prominent in University documents during 1953-1954. A reorganization of course offerings in the Graduate School of Education created the “behavioral sciences” as a prominent new rubric. Reports in the Business School allude to present and planned developments in the “behavioral sciences” and this survey utilizes the new term as an inclusive category to define the area of its inquiry.

If the term is of recent birth, Harvard’s activities in the area of the behavioral sciences certainly are not. Taking the loose definition of the behavioral sciences, which we have adopted (at least provisionally) for this survey, their cultivation at Harvard goes back at least to the emergence of Harvard as a modern university in the second half of the nineteenth century. At least some of the behavioral sciences shared in the rapid growth of Harvard to university stature at the end of the nineteenth century. The reorganization of 1890, establishing the system of Divisions and Departments of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, brought into existence a Division of History, Government, and Economics. Prior to this time there had been instruction in all of these fields, and Harvard could already point to distinguished scholars in some parts of them. History, after a “false dawn” in 1838 when Jared Sparks was appointed to the new McLean Professorship of Ancient and Modern History, was rapidly coming to strength under the inspiration of Henry Adams and the young men bringing new methods and standards from the German universities. Economics had begun its emergence from moral philosophy in the early Seventies when anxiety that sound currency doctrines be heard in Harvard College led to the appointment of Charles F. Dunbar as Professor of Political Economy. The study of government was comfortably developing in the work of a group of historians who were predominantly concerned with constitutional and institutional history.

Today the Division of History, Government, and Economics has been reduced to a shadowy holding company for three powerful and [p. 19] autonomous departments. In 1890-1891, the situation was different. Prior to the reorganization, the Harvard College faculty had indeed been subdivided into departments, but they were very loose and informal bodies, so casual in their operation that regular meetings were not held nor formal records kept. After 1891, a new structure of departments established itself firmly, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences quickly became the nexus of self-contained subdivision that it is today. History and government naturally fell together in a department first labeled that of “History and Roman Law” which in 1895 became the Department of History and Government.¹ The split of this joint department into the present Departments of History and Government took place considerably later, in 1911. A Department of Political Economy was in existence from 1879, and economics courses enjoyed a separate listing under this heading until the present Department of Economics became established in 1892.

Within this evolving framework, Harvard quickly pushed to a place of prominence in studies in this area. In history the dominant pattern of activity was clear:

“Institutional History was uppermost at Harvard in the last third of the nineteenth century. Maine and Stubbs in England, Waitz in Germany, Fustel de Coulangcs in France, initiated an eager search into the origins and development of political institutions, believing therein to find the true explanation of human progress. Henry Adams introduced the fashion to Harvard. To take a sample year, 1890-91, there was hardly a history course in the catalogue, save History I, and those given by Emerton, which did not smack of Verfassungsgeschichte. There was Constitutional Government (later Government 1), Constitutional History of England since George I, and Principles of Constitutional Law, by Professor Macvane; English Constitutional History from 1485 to George I, and Early Medieval History “with special reference to Institutions,” by Mr. Bendelari; French History to Louis XIV, with the same emphasis, by Dr. Snow; Constitutional History, Constitutional Development, and Federal Government by Professor Hart; Early American Institutions, by Professor Channing; and three more courses on English Constitutional History by Dr. Gross. Certainly no institutions in the United States or England today would offer so much constitutional history. . . “²

The doctoral dissertations accepted before 1900 in history and government reflect this concentration of interest. In a total of thirty-one accepted during the period 1873-1900, twelve were in United States national and colonial history, ten were in English institutional history, three were in “government and international law.”³ While Harvard initially lagged behind Johns Hopkins in its production of Ph.D.’s, it was early in the field, and its staff played a prominent role in the professionalization of historical study. They were active in the establishment of the American Historical Association (1884) and can claim [p. 20] to have been the prime movers in starting the American Historical Review. The intimate connection between political science and history which was fostered by the joint department and the nature of historical studies in this early period served to give the study of political science a strong historical cast. But instruction in political science extended beyond clearly historical courses, and Government 1 by 1900 was established as one of the great introductory courses with more than four hundred students.

After beginnings in the Seventies with the appointment of Charles F. Dunbar as Professor of Political Economy, Harvard’s work in economics quickly took on strength in the Eighties. The year 1886 is notable for two events: the establishment of the first professional economics journal in the English language, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which has been continuously published under the auspices of the Department since that date; and the appointment of Frank W. Taussig, who became perhaps the central figure in a generation of growth in Harvard economics. As Professor Taussig modestly remarks in his own survey of department history, after 1886, the Department of Political Economy “was able to present a substantial offering.”⁴ From the first, the work of the Department showed a strong concern with contemporary issues of public policy, but it also reflected the late nineteenth-century concern with economic history in the appointments of William J. Ashley (1892) and Edwin F. Gay. Economics 1 took its place alongside History 1 and Government 1 as one of the famous introductory courses and like them attracted more than four hundred students by 1900.⁵ A temporary dip in activity occurred shortly after the turn of the century, but the foundations were laid for an exuberant later development.

The history of the other behavioral sciences in this early period is more varied, tentative, and uncertain. Anthropology got off to an early start with the Peabody bequest in 1866 establishing the Peabody Museum and the Peabody Professorship of American Archaeology and Ethnology. The terms of the bequest were such that part of it had to be left to accumulate until it had reached a specified level. The building which now houses the Peabody Museum was not begun until 1876, and the Professorship was not filled until 1887 (by Frederick Ward Putnam).⁶ The gathering of collections, however, began almost immediately after the Peabody bequest, and the first Report dates from 1868. By the Nineties the Museum collections had grown impressively, [p. 21] and the University acquired a major resource when the Museum became an integral part of it in 1897. Instruction in anthropology was almost lacking before 1890, there being no undergraduate courses and only a few graduate students. The reorganization of 1890 established a Division of American Archaeology and Ethnology, but no regular course in general anthropology was offered until 1894-1895. During the Nineties the Division shared in the general expansion of the University, increasing its staff and offerings so that by 1903 its old title was inappropriate, and it became the Department of Anthropology which still exists. The Nineties saw the beginning of a long series of archaeological and ethnological expeditions in the Americas and elsewhere which have enriched the collections of the Museum and the literature of the field. Studies and instruction in physical anthropology began at this time and have continued to the present day.

Psychology at Harvard is relatively old. Professor Boring when interviewed in the course of this survey has emphasized the point:

“America was very early in the development of experimental psychology, and the development was centered largely at Harvard. James had a very small laboratory as early as Wundt, actually — that is, in 1875. It is true that Germany led the world in experimental psychology in the 1890’s, but there was a great push in America to get psychological laboratories started, and I would say that they lagged behind Germany by less than ten years. In America there was a laboratory developed at Johns Hopkins in 1883, and ours here at Harvard officially began in 1892, although, as I said, there was a small laboratory before that.”

William James not only began experimental studies in psychology at an early date; in 1875 he offered a course in the Relations between Physiology and Psychology, and in the following year he presented another psychology course under the label of Natural History 2. His enthusiasm for experimental psychology led him to raise the necessary funds for the official establishment of the Psychology Laboratory in 1892. He did not, however, want to devote himself primarily to this work, and at his instigation Dr. Hugo Muensterberg was brought from Freiburg, first temporarily (in 1892), then after a brief interval, as a permanent Professor of Psychology in 1897. The early years of the new century saw important additions to the staff (in E. B. Holt and Robert M. Yerkes) and the availability of new space for the laboratories in Emerson Hall (1905). Instruction in psychology grew rapidly, but no independent department appeared. In 1913 psychology courses won separate listing, and the title of the sheltering department was expanded to become the Department of Philosophy and Psychology.

Sociology began its Harvard career in at least two places. The broad concern about social problems which swept over American society in the last third of the nineteenth century and did so much to establish sociology as an academic discipline had its representation at Harvard. The Reverend Francis Greenwood Peabody was giving a course in [p. 22] Practical Ethics in 1881, and from 1883 he offered another in Ethical Theories and Moral Reform. In 1905 it became possible, largely through the benefactions of Andrew Tredway White, to establish instruction of this sort more amply in a separate Department of Social Ethics. The early years of the new department saw expanded work in various types of social problems and a somewhat cautious venture in the direction of professional social work training.⁷

Not all of Harvard’s early sociology was contained in this lineal ancestor of its present work in sociology. The Department of Economics appointed an assistant professor of sociology in 1893, and after his appointment in 1901 Thomas Nixon Carver regularly gave sociology courses. There was further concern with sociology in connection with such subjects as labor problems, but in summing up the situation to 1929, Professor Taussig found cause to lament Harvard’s failure to “keep pace with the forward movement of economic science … in the field of the social applications or implications of the subject.”

Our sketch thus far has brought the account of the behavioral sciences at Harvard down to the years preceding the first World War. The subsequent years were crowded and active ones, but they have put their imprint so clearly on the present that we may hope to bridge them quickly, reserving details for the contemporary picture presented in Section B.

The organization of the behavioral sciences at Harvard has seen both fission and fusion in the twentieth century. We have noted the splitting off of Social Ethics in 1905 from its parent Department of Philosophy. The next fission was that between Government and History in 1911. In this, as in other organizational changes at Harvard, personalities and special local problems played their role, but the development of the fields themselves made the change a natural one. As Harvard developed rapidly into one of the major American centers of historical study, the heavy concentration in constitutional and institutional history yielded to more diversity. Many of Harvard’s great historians continued to write history in which political events and institutions bulked large, but the range of interests became increasingly catholic. In the history of religions George Foote Moore and others continued and ornamented an established Harvard tradition, Charles H. Haskins ranged over a vast field of medieval studies, Frederick J. Turner brought a sweeping perspective on American democracy, and by 1924 the University had a recognized practitioner of the “new” history in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. An era arrived in which social and economic history took established positions among the common varieties of historical writing so that they now look like older trends in the 1954 picture. A glance at the list of doctoral dissertations submitted [p. 23] to the Department shows a steady and strong growth in American and modern European history paralleling the over-all growth of the Department to a commanding position in the production of the professional historians.⁸

Since its independent establishment in 1911, the Department of Government has shown continued loyalty to its older union with History. In Charles Mcllwain it had an inspiring continuator of the tradition in English constitutional history and thought. The new Department rapidly expanded its concern with political theory and made new ventures in constitutional and international law, American national, state and local government, comparative government, and international relations. The establishment of the Graduate School of Public Administration in 1937 broadened and strengthened work on matters related to contemporary public policy. A steady rise in the popularity of government as a field of undergraduate concentration brought the Department in the years after World War II into the demanding position of caring for more undergraduates than any other department.

The Department of Economics has continued to grow until it stands today among Harvard’s largest. The concern with the issues of the day which engaged Harvard economists from the first has persisted. The tradition of government consulting blossomed with the work of Taussig, Ripley, Gay and Day during World War I, and in the ill-fated Harvard Economic Service Harvard economists in the Twenties ventured predictions on the course of business conditions. Theoretical economics was pursued with distinction, and a rounded development of the field could be pointed to as a basis for a commonly recognized position of leadership. The Graduate School of Public Administration at its founding could draw on a department with vigorous interests in economic policy, and it in turn provided stimulus and facilities for such work.

Anthropology at Harvard during the early decades of this century continued activities on the wide front established in the Nineties. While Harvard could claim no single figure of such commanding leadership as Boas at Columbia, men like Dixon, Tozzer, and Hooton took major places in the development of American anthropology. A long series of Peabody Museum expeditions extended all over the globe and established Harvard’s position of leadership in Middle American archaeology, Southwestern archaeology, Old World prehistory, and other fields. The large-scale Irish expedition in the Thirties brought widely-known results, and it is perhaps less well remembered that the Yankee City study had its inception in the Department of Anthropology. The Forties brought an important organizational change in the establishment of the Department of Social Relations (1946). This move, which relocated part of the work in [p. 24] Social Anthropology in a new department, has resulted in a substantial expansion of the total numbers of anthropologists on the Harvard staff and of the range and quantity of anthropological investigation.

The chapter on psychology in an official history of Harvard published in 1930 was written by a philosopher, Ralph Parton Perry. Professor Perry notes at the beginning of his account: “Harvard is almost the only American university in which Philosophy and Psychology still constitute a single department.”⁹ This tardiness of Harvard in following the movement toward an independent status for psychology continued until 1934, when the Department of Psychology was established with Professor Boring as chairman. The lack of separate status had not meant inactivity. The work of the Psychological Laboratory begun under James and Muensterberg continued under the direction of Langfeld (until 1924) and later under Professor Boring. The range of work included that of Yerkes on animal psychology, Troland on physiological optics, and McDougall (after 1920) on social psychology. In 1926 a special bequest for work in abnormal and dynamic psychology led to the establishment of the Psychological Clinic, first under Dr. Morton Prince, and later under Professor Henry A. Murray. The appointment of Professor K. S. Lashley in 1936 brought new work in physiological psychology which was later transferred to the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology, Orange Park, Florida. During the second World War, Harvard’s psychologists became heavily involved in work which led to the present Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory under the direction of Professor S. S. Stevens. Substantial uncertainty as to the ideal arrangements for psychology in the University persisted. A special commission was appointed in 1945, under the chairmanship of Dr. Alan Gregg to examine this question,¹⁰ but the work was overtaken by action from another quarter which issued in the founding of the Department of Social Relations in 1946. The consequences of this change will be evidenced at many places in this report; suffice to say here that work in clinical and social psychology was moved to the new department, experimental and physiological psychology remaining in the Department of Psychology.¹¹

Sociology at Harvard continued under the departmental label of Social Ethics until 1929. In the early years of this department (after 1905) the ethical and practical concerns of its founder marked both instruction and research.¹² Courses were taught in criminology and penology, radical social movements, juvenile delinquency, housing, immigration, and the typical range of “social problems” found in sociology [p. 25] curricula of this era. After World War I, when Dr. Richard C. Cabot was made Professor of Social Ethics and Chairman of the Department (1920), sociology extended its concerns into philosophical questions and some applied fields, while preserving the ethical orientation. As Professor Cabot’s retirement approached, the status of sociology was subject to a general re-examination. A new Department of Sociology was established under the direction of a committee drawn from various existing departments and including a new appointee, Pitirim A. Sorokin, as Chairman and Professor of Sociology. The new department continued through the Thirties, establishing a strong tradition in theoretical sociology and producing a small but distinguished group of Ph.D.’s. A need for further organizational change was felt by the beginning of the Forties,¹³ and when the Department of Social Relations emerged in 1946, it had absorbed the old Department of Sociology. Since that time, sociology has been without separate departmental status at Harvard, but it has been strongly represented in the new organization.

This rapid survey could include little more than the most conspicuous and central developments in the behavioral sciences within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. It has neglected many interdisciplinary committees and degree programs, research organizations, area programs, and the growth of such indispensable facilities as the College Library. A great many of the most important special developments have appeared since World War II and are still in existence. As elsewhere throughout the country, much of the history of behavioral sciences at Harvard crowds onto the contemporary scene.

The history we have presented has been largely a history of departments, but we think this not improper. The departments have long been and remain the fundamental units in the organization of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The historical record of the growth of the behavioral sciences at Harvard seems to show a common pattern. Harvard has not been unresponsive to new needs and the development of new fields, but it has moved cautiously, making its first ventures under the shelter of established departments. Government, psychology, and sociology at Harvard thus began under older departments, only slowly winning autonomous status. Ultimately, fields like these have taken their place in an extended roster of the same type of organization which fostered them, namely, as departments on the established model. The record is doubtless a conservative one, substantively and organizationally, but it is perhaps in keeping with President Eliot’s aim of building “securely and slowly, a university in the largest sense.”

Thus far the growth of the behavioral sciences in the professional [p. 26] schools has gone largely unmentioned. Their development will be sketched briefly near the end of Section B, but, to avoid too much repetition, the more detailed historical developments are reserved for Part VI of this report, where each professional school receives a unified and comprehensive analysis. Unless the reader familiarizes himself with the trends in the utilization of the behavioral sciences in the graduate schools of Business, Education, Law, Medicine and Public Health, and Public Administration he will have only a partial image of Harvard’s activities in this field.

[NOTES]

1 Emerton and Morison, in Morison, ed.. Development of Harvard University, 1869-1929 (1930) p. 153, n. 1.

2 Emerton and Morison, op. cit., pp. 159-160.

3 Tabulation in Emerton and Morison, op. cit., p. 164.

4 In Morison, op. cit., p. 190.

5 A graph in Morison (between pp. 194-195) traces the rise in enrollment in these courses. They followed roughly the over-all increase in college enrollment.

6 A delay in the approval of Putnam’s appointment by the Board of Overseers deprived Harvard of the distinction of having the first professorship of American archaeology. (Daniel S. Brinton was appointed Professor of American Archaeology and Linguistics at Pennsylvania in 1886.) Dixon in Morison, p. 211, n. 1.

7 Ford in Morison, op. at., p. 225.

8 Cf. tabulation in Morison, op. cit., p. 164, and data below in Section B.

9 Morison, op. cit., p. 216.

10 Cf. The Place of Psychology in an Ideal University (1947).

11 A contemporary report on the nature and rationale of the split may be found in a joint article by Professors Allport and Boring, American Psychologist, v. 1, 1946, pp. 119-122.

12 Cf. the chapter by James M. Ford in Morison, op. cit., pp. 223-230.

13 The Report of the Visiting Committee to the Department for 1944-1945 remarks, “Obviously, the Department should not be allowed to continue as at present constituted.” Report No. 32, p. 219.

Source: The behavioral sciences at Harvard; report by a faculty committee. June, 1954.

Image Source: Faculty portraits of Professors Taussig, Ripley, Gay and Day from Harvard Album, 1916.

Tags Ashley, Carver, Day, Dunbar, Gay, Ripley, Taussig

Economists Harvard

Harvard. From Self-Report on Behavioral Sciences to Ford Foundation. Economics, 1953.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-04

In 1953 five universities—Chicago, Harvard, Michigan, North Carolina and Stanford—were granted funds by the Ford Foundation to review the behavioral sciences in their institutions. The Committee that wrote Harvard’s Report was chaired by economist Edward S. Mason, then Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration. Harvard’s Report sought “to evaluate strengths and weaknesses in the fields of the behavioral sciences at this university, to appraise needs, and to look forward to the future.”

Behavioral sciences was defined for the study to include “the fields of anthropology, economics, government, history, psychology, and sociology, with their applications in business, education, law, medicine, public health, and elsewhere.”

The following excerpt dealing with economics and its applications comes from Part II of the Report — Research and Scholarly Activity: Recent or Current, A. The Topical Classification.

This report presents a most convenient self-representation of Harvard Economics at mid-twentieth century.

______________________________________

[p. 127]

V. Economic Institutions and Behavior

As in the other sections of this inventory, we have sought to view the study of economic institutions and behavior at Harvard in a fashion which reaches over disciplinary and organizational lines. The professional economists in the Department of Economics, the Graduate School of Public Administration, the Business School, and the Russian Research Center of course carry by far the largest part of economic studies at Harvard. In general we follow the economists’ divisions of subject matter but attempt to take notice of pertinent work in other fields. A substantial and important part of Harvard’s economic studies are conducted in the Business School and in relations with the Law School. While some of these studies gain attention here we would remind the reader that our primary focus is on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the reports on the professional schools in Part VI should be consulted as supplements to the account given here.

Special resources for the study of economics exist at Harvard and deserve to be recalled. In addition to the collections in the Widener Library, the Baker Library at the Harvard Business School and the library of the Graduate School of Public Administration provide exceptional facilities. Two journals, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics, are edited and published through the Department of Economics. The seminars of the Graduate School of Public Administration are equipped with special funds and facilities for research activities. All of them direct and encourage the research of graduate students, and some have close connections with major research products.

One further general point calls for comment. The infusion of policy concerns into the work of Harvard’s economists is very strong. In classifying theses we originally sought to discriminate studies directed toward public policy, and we contemplated a separate topical discussion. It was, however, soon pointed out to us by economists that the pervasiveness of policy concerns made this unwise, and our final topical heading (v. 16) treats more of special applications than policy questions in general. This strength of policy orientation has brought sharp criticisms and cautions from some of our informants but it is generally accepted as an inevitable and desirable pattern in contemporary economic studies.

I. Economic Theory

Economic theory is certainly one of the proudest possessions of the behavioralsciences. Within Harvard as elsewhere it penetrates professional studies so extensively that separation of the discussion of theory from the discussion of special fields threatens to be artificial and arbitrary. In a sense our discussion of economic theory thus be [p. 128] comes a general introduction to much of what follows under later headings.

Economics at Harvard has always had a firm attachment to the main traditions of economic theory. The assaults of institutionalists and other critics of abstract theory have been felt less at Harvard than at some other major American universities — a fact which was pointed to with satisfaction by some of our informants in this survey. Instruction in the received body of economic theory has been of central importance in the curriculum, and the faculty has been prominent in the theoretical advances of the past generation. One of our professional informants traced the recent history of theory at Harvard in close relationship to the major trends in the field. He thought that the major developments between the end of the Twenties and World War II were the theory of monopolistic competition and the Keynesian “revolution” and that Harvard had been prominent in both. In the first of these, Professor Edward H. Chamberlin made the major American contribution in his Theory of Monopolistic Competition (now in its sixth edition, 1948). Professor Chamberlin has continued to devote his energies to the development of this theory, his latest efforts (as editor and author) appearing in Monopoly and Competition and Their Regulation (1954). The American phase of the Keynesian revolution is associated with the name of Professor Alvin H. Hansen and others of the Harvard staff, who were important disseminators and critics of the theory. Professor Hansen has recently published A Guide to Keynes, and another of Harvard’s Keynesians, Professor Seymour E. Harris, has a study of the life and influence of Keynes on the press.

Both of these developments in economic theory continue to have major importance at Harvard, both as general theory and in more particular contexts noted later.

The more recent development of economic theory is, like all contemporary movements, difficult to envisage clearly. It is particularly complicated by the strong upsurgence of mathematical economics, and the growing intimacy of relations among theory, econometrics, and statistics. One of the principal issues in the development of economics at Harvard centers around this shift in the character of the field. Some of the younger men we interviewed in this survey felt that Harvard was lagging in the kind of mathematical theory which is being vigorously developed at Chicago, Stanford, and to a lesser extent at some other institutions. One man expressed a strong concern that the training he had received at Harvard might be “out of date.” More senior economists expressed varied views on this issue. It is felt by several men that in Professor Wassily W. Leontief’s input-output analysis, Harvard has been the scene of one of the most important [p. 129] newer developments in economic theory. This work, with its intimate combination of empirical procedure and theory, is thought to typify the more recent patterns of economic analysis and to offer one of the major prospects for future development. Mathematical economics has also not gone without representation in the curriculum, as we note below (v. 14), in a more direct and extended discussion of the subject.

Harvard economists point with satisfaction to the penetration of theory into all the special domains of their field, and tend to rank the prestige of specializations in terms of the theoretical development they display. Pure theory has a prestige in economics which has no close parallel in any of the other fields we have studied. The feeling that it needs to be brought into close conjunction with empirical data is, nevertheless, strong, and we report the vigorous comments of one of our informants on the point:

“I think economics is the most advanced of the social sciences in some respects and the most backward in others. I would say that the critical thing for the development of any social science is effective integration between empirical data and the theoretical system of the social science. 1 would say that economics has achieved a unified body of analytical thought which the other social sciences have not yet reached. An important aspect of this theory is that it is genuinely not a theory of individuals, but a theory of the way a whole society operates. I think that the theory of general equilibrium, despite all the difficulties with it, is the crowning achievement of economics. All that Marshallian analysis amounts to is a little step beyond what the entrepreneur knows; it amounts to a kind of theory of rational behavior that might tell people how they ought to behave, but it doesn’t really tell people things that they haven’t known before. The general equilibrium theory does this, so that we’ve got a valuable theoretical tool. And now we’re getting to the stage where we’re filling our boxes with data. For a long time the statistical work really wasn’t very good. Instead of linking observations with theory, statisticians got interested in how you made observations. Now, I think, we’re getting farther. We’re beyond the stage of illustration; we’re to the pilot plant stage definitely, and perhaps even to large scale operations in some things. I think that the important things that lie before us are not so much in the kind of integration that crosses fields, perhaps, as in the correlation of theory and data within given problems — perhaps in given fields. I think that this sort of work has to be done by individuals too, or people working on both ends of the problem. You can’t have the kind of division of labor where the National Bureau takes care of the data and the Cowles Commission takes care of the theory; these things have to be worked out together.”

Given the prestige of theory, it would be offensive as well as inaccurate to permit the impression that only work mentioned under this heading qualifies as theory. Despairing of abstracting theoretical efforts from their special contexts, we have sought to note many of them in the discussion of special fields below. An alternative organization which considered all of the work of each staff member successively might have displayed the interpretation of theory and empirical investigation better than the organization here used. Reasons for the difficulty in drawing lines between special fields would also have [p. 130] appeared with special clarity. There are, however, compensating advantages in the procedure we have followed which recommended it as the best solution we could find to a difficult problem.

2. Economic Institutions and Systems

A broad concern with economic institutions and systems characterizes many types of behavioral scientists. The historian of the ancient world, of medieval Europe, or Tokugawa, Japan, must depict a set of economic institutions. The sociologist seeking a comprehensive view of a total society — and this is not an uncommon activity of Harvard’s sociologists, as we have seen in iv.6 — must describe and analyze economic institutions in a wider setting. The anthropologist doing a rounded ethnography or seeking a comparative understanding of primitive economics must delineate the institutional framework within which economic processes occur. These varied activities often proceed from no very explicit conceptual base or eschew an aim toward general analysis and theory. The work of historians and ethnologists typically has this a-theoretical character. A substantial amount of more generalizing or conceptual work can nevertheless be detected among behavioral scientists other than economists at Harvard.

Among the anthropologists at Harvard, Professors Douglas L. Oliver and John Pelzel have perhaps the most active concern with primitive economics; Professor Pelzel offers a graduate seminar in the field and has engaged in researches already noted (iv.6). The Values Project (ii.2) has included a study of Navaho Acquisitive Values, by Richard Hobson, to be published in the Peabody Museum Papers, vol. XLII, no. 3.

Professor Talcott Parsons in the Social Relations Department has had a special interest in economic questions throughout his career. His recent series of Marshall lectures (iv.l) are the latest fruits of this interest, which has had many facets but has laid special stress on the institutional structure typically assumed by economic theory. Dr. Francis X. Sutton, of the Department of Social Relations, has joined with Professor James S. Duesenberry, of the Department of Economics, in a course on the sociological analysis of economic behavior, which has laid particular stress on institutionalized patterns.

While a special “institutionalist” bias is avoided by Harvard’s economists, there is a substantial body of work which attends to the institutional characteristics of different economic systems. Instruction in the economics of socialism has had an established position in the curriculum. The late Professor Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy reflected his long association with this instruction, which is now continued by Dr. O. H. Taylor. The economic institutions of various countries of the contemporary world win attention in the work on economic development (v.9). [p. 131] The economy of Soviet Russia is the subject of extensive study. A major project of the Russian Research Center, under the direction of Professor Alexander Gerschenkron, includes the extensive variety of studies indicated in the following list:

J. S. Berliner, The Theory and Operation of the Soviet Firm
[Bibliography of economic articles in Soviet periodicals]
R. Campbell, Soviet Accounting Methods and their Influence on Pricing
R. Holtzman, A Study of Soviet Taxation
M. G. Clark, Economics of Soviet Steel
N. T. Dodge, The Soviet Tractor Industry and Mechanization
A. Erlich, Soviet Industrialization Controversy, 1925-1928
G. Grossman, Capital-Intensity: A Problem in Soviet Planning
D. R. Hodgman, Soviet Industrial Production, 1928-1951
H. Hunter, Soviet Transportation Policy
C. A. Recht, Urbanization and the Soviet Housing Shortage
F. Seton, The Structure of Soviet Economy, 1934

In another section of the Russian Research Center, a study of the budgets of Soviet urban families in 1940 is in progress. Professor Gerschenkron has also been engaged in other studies of the Russian economy under the auspices of the Rand Corporation. The construction of a machinery production index, investigations of the iron and steel, coal, and petroleum industries, and a study of power, have recently been brought to completion and a study of ruble-dollar prices for Soviet machinery is under way.

A number of studies of the American economy, which depart from the strictly technical framework of economic theory and emphasize broader political and social elements, probably deserve to be considered in this connection. Professor John K. Galbraith’s recent book, American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power (1952), presents a general account of the working of the American economy with particular emphasis on the role of monopolistic elements on both sides of many markets which act to limit the disadvantages to the economy which would result from such imperfections operating on either side alone. He is currently engaged in further development of this analysis. Professor Sumner H. Slichter has also devoted himself to a general account of the economic system of the United States, The American Economy (1953), and is presently engaged in a consideration of the long-run prospects for American capitalism.

The diffuse nature of considerations which can be brought to bear on economic institutions and systems suggest this context for our remarks on the relation between economics and other disciplines at Harvard. The physical juxtaposition of economists and political scientists in the Littauer building of the Graduate School of Public Administration is viewed with satisfaction by men from both fields. Great intimacy of working relations between the fields seems not, however, to be common practice. While a joint degree in Political Economy and [p. 132] Government is offered and we encountered two men who spoke warmly of political economy as a worthy discipline, a serious effort at merging of fields (comparable say, to that which has been attempted in the Department of Social Relations) has not been made. The highly technical character of economics and the consequent demands it makes on graduate students and younger men in the field were pointed out to us as deterrents to interdisciplinary work. An “atmosphere” discouraging such ventures was alleged by one of our informants:

“I saw something of the so-called field of political economy at X University and certainly didn’t think much of it. I don’t know of anything in particular of that sort that is going on around here. I used to be interested in this kind of thing myself; I was interested in sociology and economics, but when I got into my work, I found that there was a real requirement of specialization. This was something that was gently indicated to me by the professors and people in the Department. I don’t know that anybody actually ever told me I had better watch out for combined fields, but the opinion that you had to was unanimous among graduate students. If a man started to work in some other field, Professor X always tried to get him transferred to that other department.”

Ties between the Social Relations area and economics have been noted above in a joint course, but they have not been extensive and we encountered only very mild sentiment that they should be strengthened.

3. Consumption and Distribution (including Marketing)

A logical and secure place for consumption and distribution as a distinct subject in the curriculum of economic studies is perhaps not easy to establish. Given a theoretical cast the subject merges into the general framework of economic analysis; given a more empirical cast it tends toward the concrete, practical problems which make up courses in marketing and bring it under a professional school rather than the Arts and Sciences curricula. Nevertheless, consumption and distribution has a place of de facto importance in the instruction and research of the economics staff. The problems of agricultural economics have stimulated much attention to the subject by Professor John D. Black and others associated with him. In this general area, Dr. Ayers Brinser is currently bringing to conclusion a two-year study of the consumption of meat, which was sponsored by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The study sought to determine the varying patterns of meat purchases among a sample of consumers from different economic classes.

A collaborative report on the economy of Puerto Rico by a group of Harvard economists headed by Professor Galbraith is now ready for the press. This report emphasizes the marketing aspects of the economic growth problem. Drawing on his experience in field studies in Puerto Rico, Assistant Professor Richard H. Holton is studying the role of commodity distribution in pre-industrial societies. A study of Saving among Upper-Income Families in Puerto Rico by Dr. Eleanor E. Maccoby of the Department of Social Relations (in collaboration with [p. 133] Frances Fielder) appeared in the past year. An extensive interviewing program provided the data for this study, which was sponsored by the Social Science Research Center of the University of Puerto Rico. Professor Duesenberry has continued work on the theory of consumption presented in his Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior (1949).

4. Public Finance, Fiscal Policy, and Taxation (cf. also Law and Business School reports in VI)

The strong interests in public finance, fiscal policy, and taxation, which have characterized economics in the recent past have been amply represented at Harvard. Professor Hansen’s pioneering role in the development and implementation of fiscal policy is well known and his work continues at the present time. His recent appearances before Congressional committees on the proposed tax program and the President’s Economic Report point to his continuing interest in national policies. Professor Arthur Smithies has recently completed a book on the federal budgeting process and other aspects of fiscal policy and public finance. The study is an attempt to bring theoretical analysis to bear on the decisions involved in governmental spending, and public investment.

A substantial part of Harvard’s work on taxation is located in the Law School and the Business School and is noted in the reports on these schools. Professor Stanley S. Surrey of the Law School, Professor Smithies, and Professor John Keith Butters of the Business School come together for a Seminar on Taxation offered jointly by the Department of Economics and the Graduate School of Public Administration. Professor Butters, who has been collaborating in a large-scale Merrill Foundation study of the effects of taxation on investment and incentives, at the Business School, also offers instruction in public finance under the Department of Economics (with Assistant Professor Lawrence E. Thompson of the Business School faculty).

A work like Professor Harris’ report on the New England economy includes much material on comparable problems. Assistant Professor Arnold M. Soloway is presently engaged in the study of indirect or consumption taxes for the city of Boston, and has a general interest in the financial problems of state and local government. The finance of state and local governments has, however, been less extensively studied at Harvard than has public finance at the national level. Recent planning in the Graduate School of Public Administration aims toward extending such work in the context of a general program on state and local government.

Dr. Theodore S. Baer of the Department of Government has recently turned his interests to taxation and public finance and has devoted the past year to these studies under a Ford Foundation fellowship. An examination of our classification of theses reveals that economists have [p. 134] not monopolized the study of these fields. Theses on the grain tribute system of the Manchus in China, Spanish royal finances in the sixteenth century, and the development of direct taxation in nineteenth-century England remind us that historians occasionally venture into these fields. Political scientists have also studied the financial problems of local governments in four recent theses.

Despite the apparent abundance of activity, members of the Depart ment of Economics have pointed out to us that no economist on the present staff is primarily devoted to research and instruction in public finance. Arrangements for instruction have depended on ties with the Business School in the persons of Professors Dan Throop Smith and John Keith Butters.

5. Money and Banking

The traditional field of money and banking has undergone marked changes in recent years. A decrease in attention to the institutional detail of banking operations and a heightened concern with the general analysis of money and income has blurred the lines between this field and others. Harvard’s practice in retaining the traditional label was pointed out to us as a conservative one, but the work of the staff follows modern tendencies and spreads over traditional divisions. Professors Alvin H. Hansen, John H. Williams and Seymour E. Harris have been principal figures in Harvard’s work in this area. In long association with the Federal Reserve System, Professor Williams has applied economic doctrine to the guidance of policy, and has contributed extensively to the discussion of monetary problems. His recent publications include Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays, and the noted Stamp Memorial Lecture for 1952. His recent work has been particularly concerned with international monetary problems and is noted below under v.ll. Professor Harris does no current teaching in the field but has made many contributions to the literature.

Among the junior staff, Dr. Ira O. Scott is preparing for publication his study of postwar monetary policy, which includes a theory of assets.

6. Business Fluctuations

The difficulty of establishing clear divisions among the special fields of economics shows itself strongly with respect to business fluctuations. So much of economic theory and its applications in fields such as international trade, or money and banking, has been concerned with business fluctuations that the subject is altogether lacking in clear boundaries. We confine ourselves here to reporting work in which the concern with business fluctuations seems especially prominent. Professor Hansen has devoted much of his career to the subject and his recent contributions include a volume on Business Cycles and National Income (1952). Professor Haberler’s earlier study made a large contribu [p. 135] tion to this subject, which remains one of his principal interests. Professor Duesenberry is working on a study which attempts to integrate the business cycle with the mechanism of economic growth in a coherent theory. Professor Slichter’s numerous publications contain much analysis of fluctuations in business conditions.

7. Industrial Organization

We use the label “industrial organization” here in a somewhat broader sense than is common at Harvard. At least three sorts of work can be detected in the University at present which have to do with the organization of industry. The first of these is the work in industrial sociology carried out in the Department of Social Relations, the Business School, and among the labor economists. The second sort of work is represented in the technical studies of management problems which bulk large in the output of the Division of Research of the Harvard Business School. Thirdly, there are the studies of particular industries, problems of monopoly and competition, etc., which have won a coherent status among Harvard’s economists as the special field of “industrial organization.” We divide each of these ranges of work separately.

a. Industrial Sociology. Sociological journals now burgeon with studies of the internal structure of business organization, many of which continue a tradition established some twenty years ago at the Harvard Business School in the work of Professors Elton Mayo and Fritz J. Roethlisberger. The present work at the Business School is discussed in the section of our report on that school, and we here confine ourselves to the rather limited work within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Professor George C. Homans of the Department of Social Relations has continued an interest of long standing in the field. His recent activities have included a study of the social organization of a large office in a public utility company, and an effort to bring the study of work groups into a general analysis of small group structure (iv.2). Recent theses from the Department of Social Relations include the published studies by Elliott Jaques, The Changing Culture of a Factory, and Theodore V. Purcell, S.J., The Worker Speaks his Mind on Company and Union. Some of the work by labor economists might merit classification here but is treated under another heading (v.8).

b. Technical Studies of Management Problems. By far the most important locus of studies of this character is to be found in the Business School. (See Part VI of this report.) We note, however, that economists’ work on industrial organization and in input-output analysis sometimes leads into highly technical studies of the nature of particular industries. A few theses seemed to us to reflect this tendency and the importance of technical data for input-output analyses and other “non- aggregative” studies was stressed by our informants. [p. 136]

c. Industry Studies, etc. The lists of recent theses in economics show a large number (some 38 in the five-year period, 1948-1953) devoted to pricing, competition, and other economic matters in particular industries. A majority of these industry studies derive from an extensive program of studies in what has come to be known as the field of “industrial organization.” The development of this field was described as follows in one of our interviews:

“Well. I should perhaps first begin by saying that this is very much of an American field, as it’s actually studied. Of course, there’s a background in the classical writers. Marshall’s book on Industry and Trade was really a pioneer work in this field, and along about 1916 there was Dennis Robertson’s book on the control of industry. It’s only been rather recently that this field has gotten consolidated, that it’s gotten a recognizable structure. There was, of course, a lot of work on the industries that we now attend to. There was, for example, a great deal of work on the railroads. There were a lot of people who were railroad economists, but they really didn’t have any solid theoretical grounding in their work. Really, the first good article on railroad pricing policies was Don Wallace’s article in which he got involved in a controversy with I’igou. The trouble with these railroad economists was that they were not analytically well-trained people. And there was a great deal of work in public utility economics. All of this, however, had nothing much to go on but the classical pure competition model. It was really the theory of monopolistic competition that brought a new interest and gave a new focus to the field. Essentially, this has provided the conceptual framework for the industry studies, and it set up a whole new line of problems in general terms that people could get their teeth into. I would say that now over the last couple of decades the field has gotten very well established. J. M. Clark holds one of the leading positions in this field, and there are also Professor Edward S. Mason and a number of his students. There were other people, and other lines of work that went into this development, that I perhaps ought to mention. There was all the old stuff on trusts and monopolies, people like W. Z. Ripley and Elliott Jones, and so forth, but it was really only after the monopolistic competition theory appeared and the subject got tied to theoretical interests of a general sort that the subject developed. There were industry studies in the Marshallian tradition, but the important work seems to have been done in the last couple of decades.”

As our informant indicates, instruction and research in this field at Harvard has been guided by Professor Mason, with the collaboration of Professor Carl Kaysen, Assistant Professor James W. McKie and others. A graduate seminar and a major project serve as foci for the research effort. The seminar serves to guide graduate students undertaking the industry studies which provide basic materials for more general studies in the field. The Merrill Foundation for the Advancement of Financial Knowledge has sponsored the major research project now under way with the collaboration of several economists and lawyers from Harvard and other institutions. The ultimate aim of this five-year study is the development of workable policy in the fields of monopoly and competition. In addition to industry studies, a series of so-called “functional” studies have been planned on such subjects as patents, industrial research, advertising, the areas exempted under the existing antitrust legislation, and procedural problems under the present [p. 137] law. Several members of Harvard Law faculty (Professors David F. Cavers, Robert R. Bowie, and Kingman Brewster; Assistant Professors Albert M. Sacks and Donald T. Trautman), the Business School faculty (Professors John V. Lintner and Bertrand Fox), and economists from other institutions have been members of the group. Extended seminar discussions have been devoted to working out a conceptual scheme for the guidance of the project and the general volume which is planned to embody its conclusions.

In addition to his work on this project, Professor Kaysen is working on a book the intent of which is the derivation of typical patterns of reaction in oligopolistic market structures and the application of probability techniques to the determinate of price and output under such conditions. He has also recently completed work as a “law clerk” for Federal Judge Charles E. Wyzanski in the antitrust prosecution of the United Shoe Machinery Company. Assistant Professor McKie has been engaged as a member of the Merrill project and is also working on two additional projects, one on oil exploration and the other on oil conservation (this latter in collaboration with Professor Kaysen). A longer term project is a study of existing industry studies in an attempt to determine relationships between structure and functioning in these industries.

8. Labor and Collective Bargaining

A vigorous program of research and instruction in the field of labor economics has been maintained by Professors Sumner H. Slichter and John T. Dunlop. The Baker Library of the Harvard Business School and the Industrial Relations Library at the Graduate School of Public Administration have resources of exceptional magnitude for work in the field. A Trade Union Program was started in 1942 at the suggestion of leaders of the labor movement. The Program is directed by an Executive Committee from the Faculties of Arts and Science and of Business Administration and has the purpose of training union representatives for executive responsibility in the labor movement. The Jacob Wertheim Research Fellowship for the Betterment of Industrial Relations provides funds for a series of publications in the field, and twelve volumes have thus far appeared under the imprint of the Harvard University Press.

Professor Slichter, as Lamont University Professor, has guided instruction and research on both sides of the Charles River, at the Business School, in the Department of Economics, and at the Graduate School of Public Administration.

Professor Dunlop’s current research activities include several projects. A critical appraisal of wage stabilization is being conducted jointly with Professor Archibald Cox of the Law School under a grant from the Sloan Foundation. A comparative analysis of the labor [p. 138] problem in economic development joins Harvard with other universities (California, Chicago, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in a project supported by the Ford Foundation. Professor Dunlop is directing work assigned to Harvard on France, Italy, and certain topical questions. In addition to these research projects, Professor Dunlop continues his primary interest in wage determination, and is completing a book on collective bargaining and public policy. In the near future he will begin a history of collective bargaining in the United States during the period of 1933-1953.

Dr. Martin Segal is currently working on two projects concerned with the study of intra-plant wage structures, and will soon begin a study of the internal wage structure of three industries located largely in New England. An investigation of the managerial decisions on the introduction of changes in unionized plants is also planned.

9. Economic Development

Economic studies inevitably reflect the major problems of the contemporary scene. As one of our informants pointed out to us, the great focus of economists’ efforts in the late Thirties was on the fiscal policy problems relating to the Keynesian doctrines and the Great Depression. At present, the dominant focus of interest seems to be on economic development, reflecting a broadened view of the world and a worried preoccupation with formerly exotic areas. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the state of theoretical approaches to developmental problems, economists now seem to shape work in several special fields about these problems. Thus it is now rather arbitrary to divide the study of economic development from studies in agricultural economics (v.10) or international economic problems (v.11). These fields, which bore a quite different complexion a decade or so ago, have now become thoroughly infused with developmental problems.

The diffuse spread of work in economic development means that it is exceptionally difficult to draw the lines about those researches which merit note here. We note at least one general study; Assistant Professor Robert E. Baldwin is collaborating on a book dealing specifically with the mechanism of economic growth and drawing heavily on classical and neo-classical economics. Professor Dunlop’s participation in a comparative study of the labor problem in economic development has been mentioned above (v.8). A major Ford-sponsored project on the economic development of Pakistan is being directed by Professor Mason, Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration. This is an action rather than a research program, but it depends upon research studies, and several members of the Harvard faculty, including Professor Leontief, will act as consultants. Dr. Douglas Paauw has specialized in the development problems of the Far East and is engaged in research and instruction on that area. The study of economic growth [p. 139] problems in Puerto Rico by Professor Galbraith, Assistant Professor Holton and others has been noted above (v.2). Professor Galbraith offers a seminar in the field and is currently working on a “theory of poverty” with important implications for underdeveloped areas. Professor Holton is studying the nature of the entrepreneurial activity in underdeveloped areas, an interest which also finds representation in the studies of the Research Center in Entrepreneurial History (cf. v. 12 below). Professor Duesenberry’s current research (v.6) bears heavily on the problem of differential development of economies, and Professor Gerschenkron’s studies in the industrialization of Europe (v. 12) are largely concerned with economic development. On the domestic scene, Professor Harris has recently directed a study of the problems of New England in general, and of the textile industry in particular. His book on The Economics of New England was published in 1952, and a report on the New England textile industry by a committee appointed by the Conference of New England Governors appeared in 1953. Professor Mason’s continued interest in resource supplies and in international oil problems involves him in a concern with underdeveloped areas.

The immediate future seems to promise a vigorous continuation of this varied work on development problems. The demand for such studies from the world at large and from the student body at Harvard is strong. Our list includes 20 theses on economic development in 1948—1953, and there are numerous others in progress at the moment. The interest of the foreign students who make up an increasingly important fraction of the student body in the Graduate School of Public Administration is strongly focused on developmental problems, since a high percentage of these students come from areas like Asia and Latin America where these problems have a compelling importance. The intellectual resources which economics and related fields can bring to these problems seem not to be altogether satisfactory. One economist put the problem sharply by asserting that all the established general propositions in the field could be written on a postcard. The area programs (cf. areal classification below) and Harvard’s extensive staff of scholars with competences in special areas provide extensive resources, but the lack of a general theoretical approach is keenly felt. The need for interdisciplinary attack on these problems is generally felt, and is exemplified in the area programs. A critic of this approach felt, however, that interdisciplinary study of particular areas tended to discourage the kind of general analysis he hoped might be developed and applied to an extensive array of cases. Other economists were not anxious to see economic development treated as a special field and suggested that the present dispersion of activity among economic historians, agricultural economists, and others, was appropriate to the current state of knowledge. [p. 140]

10. Agricultural Economics

A remarkable total of 43 theses in agricultural economics accepted during the years 1948-1953 points to the prominence of this field at Harvard and the strong program maintained for many years by Professor Black. The work of Professor Black, now emeritus but still very active, has brought students to Harvard from all over the country and reached a sector of national life which no other part of the University’s work has reached so successfully. Particularly through students in the Graduate School of Public Administration, a major influence has been exerted on the direction of agricultural policies.

Professor Black’s long interest in production economics, or the application of economic reasoning to farm problems, is being channeled currently into a five-year input-output study of 241 dairy farms in New England. The goal is a determination of the best allocation of resources on such farms. Dr. Brinser has been associated with Professor Black in this and other work discussed under v.3 above. The increasing association of agricultural economics with development problems has been noted in our general comments on economic development. The interests of Professor Galbraith in agricultural economics bear this stamp as do Professor Black’s current and projected studies in India and Pakistan.

11. International Economic Problems

The field of international economics has very intimate ties to other special fields within the corpus of economic studies. It has always reflected the major currents of economic analysis in general; at present it shows the impress of economic development interests. Professors Seymour E. Harris, Gottfried Haberler, and John H. Williams have interests of long standing in the field, and have regularly offered courses and graduate seminars in it. Professor Williams has recently completed service on the Randall Commission and participated in the writing of its report. He is also currently revising for publication a series of five lectures on international financial problems given at the Center of Latin American Monetary Studies in August, 1953. Professor Harris has a volume on the dollar problem which will soon be ready for the press. A regular flow of articles, reviews, etc., from Professor Haberler point to his continuing activity in the field. A diversity of points of view is to be found among these men, with Professor Haberler advocating a free multilateral trade position which is not shared by his colleagues.

12. Economic History

The study of economic history at Harvard spreads over the departmental lines suggested by its name, and finds a home in other sites as well. In the Department of Economics, Professor Gerschenkron offers [p. 141] courses in the field and is engaged in various researches. The industrialization of Western Europe, particularly in the nineteenth century, will be the subject of books of general interest for the study of economic development. It will view the countries of Western Europe as “underdeveloped areas” of their time and treat their economic growth with attention to such factors as the role of investment bankers, resource patterns, etc. Professor Gerschenkron’s Russian studies (v.2) also include an economic history which he is currently writing. Other work includes the supervision of a translation of Eli Heckscher’s Economic History of Sweden, scheduled for publication in the fall of 1954.

Professor Gerschenkron has also been one of the directors of the Research Center in Entrepreneurial History. This Center, established in 1948 with a large grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, has fostered numerous studies in its designated field. Biographical studies of entrepreneurs have been prominent in the work of the Center, but studies of a more general character, such as those on the origins and backgrounds of American businessmen by William Miller and co-workers, have been fostered. A volume of essays, Men in Business (1952) edited by William Miller, H. L. Passer’s The Electrical Manufacturers 1875- 1880 (1953), and a study of Railway Leaders: 1845-1890 (1953) by Professor Thomas Cochran (University of Pennsylvania) have been published in a special series from this Center. From its inception, the Center has been an interuniversity project, although it has been closely associated with Harvard in its location and through Professor Arthur H. Cole (Harvard Business School), its director, others of its executive Committee, and the research staff. Through fellowships to graduate students, conferences, and the publication of a journal, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, it has done much to stimulate work in the field.

A broad interest in social and economic history characterizes several members of the history staff. In the medieval field, Assistant Professor Bryce D. Lyon is preparing a study of the money fief in Western Europe, and offers a general course on social and economic history in the period. In later periods of European history, Professors Wilbur K. Jordan, David E. Owen, Michael Karpovich, and others have had an extensive concern with economic history. In the American field, Professors Frederick Merk and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., have fostered economic history, both in their own studies and in theses of their students.

The work of the Business School in business history should be recalled in this connection, and the reader is referred to the Business School report for an account of it.

Although we have enumerated some 18 theses in economic history of the period 1948-1953, and several staff members pointed with satisfaction to present instruction or past achievements, there was concern [p. 142] expressed about the shortage of capable scholars in this field. A weakness in economic history in the United States, as compared with England or Germany, was alleged by economists. Professor Gerschenkron has recently brought about a notable upturn in activity, but the numbers of economists doing history theses have been relatively few at Harvard as at other American universities. Harvard historians were divided in their assessment of the field; there were some who thought that the record showed a commendable degree of interest and competence, but there were others who detected a general avoidance of economic history as dull and tedious work. The proper training of economic historians presents unresolved problems. Economists expressed the view that a sound background in theory and general economics was the indispensable base for studies in the field, and noted the difficulty of inducing men to add the labor of acquiring the necessary historical knowledge and linguistic equipment to the already formidable demands of graduate study in economics. Discussions in the Committee have led to some re-examination of the division of instructional labor between the Departments of History and Economics which may help solve the difficult problems of training.

13. Government and Business

Examination of course offerings and the lists of theses have led us to recognize studies of the relations of business and government under a special heading. In the arrangement of work characteristic at Harvard, however, the great bulk of work having to do with government regulation and related matters is encompassed in the field of industrial organization, and we have treated it as such (v.7.c above).

14. Statistics and Econometrics

The field of economics has long had a heavy dependence on statistical work, and the possibilities of mathematical expression of economic theory were realized in the nineteenth century. As long as statistics remained a fairly simple subject guiding the interpretation of empirical findings, and theory was contrived without precise attention to “operational” testing, a reasonably clear distinction between “economic statistics” and “mathematical economics” was possible. Recent decades have greatly complicated the picture. Technical developments in statistics have made the subject highly mathematical and brought it to convergence with other developments in mathematic economics. A new term, “econometrics,” which was fostered by the Econometric Society and its journal, Econometrica, now serves as a designation of much of the recent work, which might with equal propriety be called simply economic theory or statistics.

Harvard has responded to these developments and participated in them in varying measures. In Professor Leontief’s Harvard Economic [p. 143] Research Project, a major technique of econometric analysis, the input- output analysis, has had its principal locus of development. With intellectual roots in the general equilibrium analysis of Walras, the input-output technique is an attempt to give quantitative analyses of the behavior of total national economies without going over to the aggregative techniques of national income analysis (and thus sacrificing a picture of structural interrelations within the economy). Professor Leontief has been engaged in this work for more than two decades, beginning on a modest scale in the Thirties and expanding rapidly during the war in connection with several branches of the national government. Since the war, the Project has been maintained on a large scale with support from the government and the Rockefeller Foundation, employing about twenty people under the direction of Professor Leontief and his executive assistant, Mrs. Elizabeth Gilboy. Models for the American economy have been worked out which trace the interrelationships among as many as 500 different sectors. Such work is obviously expensive and requires a substantial organization such as Professor Leontief has maintained. Among many recent publications from the Project, we note the collaborative volume by Professor Leontief and others, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy (1953).

Instruction in this and other econometric techniques is offered in the Department of Economics by Professor Leontief and Assistant Professor John S. Chipman. Professor Chipman is carrying on two research programs, both concerned with capital and interest. The first is on the construction and application of dynamic models of the sort known as linear programming models, and involves attention to technological questions. The second is a study of liquidity preference.

Professor Guy H. Orcutt is the principal figure in the recent develop ment of other statistical and quantitative studies. His well-known work on the problem of auto-correlation in time series is continuing. He is preparing a book on statistical inference and a study of the demand for residential housing. The instruction on economic statistics is primarily in Professor Orcutt’s hands and as organizer and active participant in a Research Seminar on Quantitative Economics, he is actively working on problems concerned with the economic behavior of households and firms. Studies currently being conducted under the auspices of this seminar include:

E. Kuh — Statistical Investment Functions
J. Meyer — An Econometric Investigation of Postwar Investment in Manufacturing Industries
J. Tryon — Factors Influencing the Behavior of Business Inventories
F. Gillis — Sources and Uses of Funds: Selected Corporations: 1920-1950
B. Chinitz — The Demand for Cash Balances
H. Miller — An Empirical Study of the Demand for Refrigerators
V. Lippitt — Determinants of Demand for Consumer Durable Goods [p. 144]
H. Allison — Consumer Level Analysis of Demand for Meat, Fish, and Poultry
C. Zwick — The Demand for Meat

While there is respect for the work actually being carried out in these fields at Harvard, we encountered much discussion on the need for further development. It is generally conceded that Harvard is not so strong in mathematical economics and statistics as some other universities. The problem of statistics is one which transcends the Department of Economics and we devote a special section to it at the conclusion of this inventory. The general result of our survey of Harvard’s statistical resources may, however, be anticipated here; it is that they fall short of adequacy to the expanding needs of the behavioral sciences. Economists at Harvard feel this weakness in statistics and we repeatedly encountered the assertion that a man who wanted a first-rate training for technical work in the field would be better elsewhere. Others forms of mathematical work in economics show a similar weakness at Harvard as compared with some institutions.

As we suggested in our discussion of economic theory above, there is no clear unanimity on the need for Harvard to devote more of its resources to mathematical work. Especially among senior members of the Department of Economics, there is much disquietude at the luxuriant growth of this work. As one man put it sharply,

“I’d like to see a deflation of some of the mathematics that’s going on in economics. I think there’s a really serious threat here. This is the kind of work that attracts the ablest people, and they get so concentrated on mathematics that they scorn anything else … I think we ought to teach mathematical economics, but we ought to keep it in its proper place. I think there are real dangers of people getting involved with this kind of work and then making public policy proposals and forgetting the assumptions [in their abstract models]. . . . I’m disposed to fight this trend toward mathematics.”

Some members of the staff feel an uncomfortable lack of equipment in assessing mathematical work; one told of learning calculus when he was forty to “protect himself.” Others have the necessary training without being primarily mathematical economists. Among these latter there is a pronounced concern for balance. They regard much of the current mathematical work as of little consequence in the development of economics, and would deplore a heavy concentration of graduate training on mathematical technique. The importance of mathematical and statistical competence is nevertheless stressed and, on balance, it is probably accurate to say that sentiment tips toward further strengthening of Harvard training in these respects.

15. History of Thought

A generally poor state of American scholarship in the history of economic thought was pointed out by two economists we interviewed in this survey. The increasingly technical character of economics and [p. 145] its divorcement in America from the European traditions of broad, diffuse scholarship were suggested as possible explanations. The only active scholar currently on the staff is Dr. Taylor, who has offered courses which trace the history of economic thought in relation to the broad movements of intellectual history; he has published numerous essays in the field and is now engaged in preparing a volume of them for publication. There is a notable absence of younger men in the field — a situation in sharp contrast with the lively activity in intellectual history and the history of political thought. If Harvard has a recent record of strength in the field, hospitality to scholars trained abroad is in part responsible. The scholarly legacy of Professor Joseph Schumpeter included a monumental History of Economic Analysis (2 V., 1954) which appeared after his death. While not actively working in the field, Professors Haberler, Gerschenkron, and Leontief maintain serious interests in it.

16. Applications of Economic Analysis to Welfare Programs, Education, etc.

The pervasiveness of concerns with public policy in the work of Harvard’s economists has been pointed out above, and illustrated under various special fields. Problems of economic policy arise in many areas which are not as such the special concern of economists. Professor Harris has been particularly attentive to such problems and has devoted himself to a series of studies in the economics of social security, education, health, and other welfare programs. The economic problems posed by the social security programs are a familiar subject for economists and our theses list shows about one per year devoted to them. Less common is the kind of work represented in Professor Harris’ Market for College Graduates (1949), and his current work on the economics of cancer (for a University committee on cancer research). The need for more ample study of the support of public education was stressed in discussions during this survey, and we have heard the economics of medicine described as an “underdeveloped area” in economics.

Summary

An attempt to assess the strengths and weaknesses of economics at Harvard encounters the inevitable difficulty presented by the lack of commonly accepted standards of judgment. To some, the Department of Economics appears to give insufficient attention to mathematical economics and econometrics. To others, the heavy emphasis on theory is suspect. Still others may complain of the considerable extent and variety of attention given to applied fields. To these latter critics it should be pointed out that the Department is required not only to provide a professional training for economists, but to meet the needs [p. 146] of the Graduate School of Public Administration with its heavy emphasis on practice and policy. Perhaps the best general description of the economics offering is that it is relatively eclectic — not so much methodologically as in scope of attempted coverage — with all that this implies, both good and bad.

Despite this scope, there are inevitably important areas of economic inquiry that are neglected. The field of demography is one, and this field, which must necessarily overlap several departments, is, in fact, extensively treated by none. There is almost no systematic work in transportation and public utilities, fields which in many universities are-given a prominent place. The absence of mathematical statistics is a lack shared by many of the behavioral science departments, a lack sufficiently important to merit special treatment in this report. In an ideal department with unlimited resources, such deficiencies necessarily would excite adverse comment. Under existing circumstances, at Harvard, it is not so obvious that all such fields should be cultivated if their cultivation means the abandonment of current work. The emphasis preferred by the Department of Economics has always been on men rather than fields, and it is by no means clear that this emphasis is misplaced.

It seems fair to note that the Department has been criticized within the University, and to some extent outside, for emphasizing research at the expense of teaching, particularly of undergraduates. This criticism, however, seems less justified now than it was a few years ago and. in any case, it is within the competence of the Department to improve its teaching performance without in any material way lessening its emphasis on research.

Finally, there is some evidence that the Department of Economics is less inclined than most other behavioral science departments to explore the periphery of its field and to seek to establish bridges giving access to the other disciplines. The Committee suspects that this may be characteristic of Economics Departments in other universities. In some ways, of course, this confidence in its own “mystery” has been a source of strength to Economics. In dealing, however, with certain problems in which economists are becoming intensely interested, such as economic development and the various aspects of public policy, an isolationist attitude is not likely to prove fruitful.

Source: The behavioral sciences at Harvard; report by a faculty committee. June, 1954.

Image Source: Faculty picture of Edward S. Mason in Harvard Album, 1950.

Tags BlackJD, Butters, Chamberlin, Chipman, ClarkJM, Cole, Duesenberry, Dunlop, Fox, Galbraith, Gerschenkron, Gilboy, Haberler, Hansen, Harris, Holton, Homans, JonesElliot, Kaysen, Kuh, Leontief, Lintner, Mason, McKie, MeyerJ, Orcutt, Paauw, Parsons, Ripley, Schumpeter, Segal, Slichter, SmithDT, Smithies, Soloway, Sutton, TaylorOH, Thompson, Williams

Courses Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. Syllabus for International Trade and Tariff Policies. Harris, 1933

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-03

Seymour Harris (1897-1975) received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1926 with a dissertation about paper money issued during the French Revolution: “The Assignats.” It was published as Harvard Economic Studies 33. He took over the international trade course that was offered to undergraduates and graduates from A. H. Cole starting in 1932-33. Beginning in 1936-37 the course was then jointly taught by Harris and Gottfried Haberler.

Following his retirement from Harvard in 1964 Harris went on to become the founding chairman of the UC San Diego Department of Economics. Paul Samuelson offered written tribute to Seymour Harris’ contributions.

_________________________

[Course Announcement]

Economics 9a ¹hf. International Trade and Tariff Policies

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 12. Asst. Professor Harris.

Source: Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1933-34, Second edition. Official Register of Harvard University. Vol. XXX, No. 39 (September 20, 1933).

_________________________

[Course Enrollment]

102 Total: 4 Graduates, 76 Seniors, 16 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 4 Others.

Source: Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1933-34, p. 84.

_________________________

ECONOMICS 9a
Outline, 1933–1934

Important Books:

Ohlin: International and Interregional Trade¨[1933]

Taussig: International Trade [1927]

Taussig: Some Aspects of the Tariff Problem [3^rd enlarged ed with Harry D. White, 1931]

Taussig: Tariff History [6^th ed 1914]

I. Pure Theory of International Trade (September 25 – October 27)

Lecture 1. The regional balance of payments

Lecture 2. The international balance of payments

Lecture 3. Conditions of international and interregional trade

Lecture 4. Movements of commodities and factors

Lecture 5. The problems of localization and transportation

Lecture 6. The Classical theory as developed by Ricardo

Lecture 7. The Classical theory as modified by Taussig

Lecture 8. The supply and demand theory of Marshall

Assignment:

Ohlin: Chapters 1-7.

Taussig, International Trade: Chapters 1-7

II. Pure Theory, continued; Money and the Theory of international Trade

(October 30 –November 10)

Lecture 9. International trade under a gold standard

Lecture 10. International trade under a gold standard, continued

Lecture 11. International trade under a silver standard

Lecture 12. International trade under an inconvertible standard

Assignment:

Taussig, International Trade: Chapters 17, 18, 26, 27.

III. Fiscal Problems (November 13,- December 8)

Lecture 13. Effects of import duties

Lecture 14. Some aspects of British fiscal policy

Lecture 15. British fiscal policy and her international position.

Lecture 16. Some aspects of American fiscal policy

Lecture 17. The international competitive position of the United States

Lecture 18. The technique of tariff bargaining and administration

Lecture 19. Tariffs, prices, and the terms of trade

Lecture 20. The problem of raw materials in its international aspects.

Assignment:

Taussig, Some Aspects of the Tariff Problem: Chapters 1-3, 9-13.

Taussig, Tariff History: Part II.

IV. Capital Movements and Reparations (December 11-22)

Lecture 21. The mechanism of capital movements

Lecture 22. Statistical verification of the theory

Lecture 23. Keynes, Ohlin, Taussig on reparations

Assignment:

Ohlin: Chapters 19-22.

HOUR EXAMINATION: Wednesday, October 25.

Reading Period:

Read ONE of the following:

Ashley, Modern Tariff History [Germany—United States—France] [3rd ed, 1920]
Barnes, A History of the English Corn Laws: Chapters 7-12 [1930]
Beveridge, Tariffs: The Case Examined [1st ed. October 1931; 2nd ed. June 1932]
Culbertson, International Economic Policies: Chapters 1-5, 7 [1925]
League of Nations, Course and Phases of the World Economic Depression: Pp. 1-274 [B. Ohlin, 1931]
Loveday, Britain and World Trade [1931]
Marshall, Money, Credit and Commerce [1922]
Pigou, Essays in Applied Economics: Chapters 14-15.[1923]
Pigou and Robertson, Economic Essays and Addresses [1931]:

Part I, Chapter 4;
Part II, Chapters 2, 4, 5.

Source: Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Harvard University Archives: HUC 8522.2.1, Box 2, Folder “1933-1934”.

Image source: Harvard Album, 1934.

Tags Cole, Haberler, Harris

Columbia Economists Exam Questions

Columbia. History of Economics Exams. J.M. Clark, 1949-51

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-02

The successor to Wesley Clair Mitchell in teaching the history of types of economic theory at Columbia University was John Maurice Clark, the son of John Bates Clark. Because of the identical course descriptions printed in the official University Announcement, I figure it is reasonable transcribing the final exams for the Winter and Spring sessions from two different academic years (the only ones I was able to find for the courses, Econ 115 and 116, respectively). John Maurice Clark was a pack rat, but not a model of consistent filing, so there may be other copies to be found in his papers.

In a handwritten class list for Econ 115 (Fall, 1950) one finds 43 names of attendee–with grades noted for 26 of them. The grade distribution of those 26 students was: A (2), A- (6), B+ (5), B (6), B- (3), C+ (1), C (3). Of more than passing interest for historians of economics is that the author of Economic Theory in Retrospect, Mark Blaug, only received a grade of B minus (rank 22 of 26 graded)! Evidence for the slope of Blaug’s learning curve is seen in his grade for Econ 116 in 1951 where he received an A minus. The only other name I immediately recognize from the list was the later Library of Congress specialist on socialist economies, John P. Hardt (Ph.D., 1954). Hardt’s name will long be associated with the green volumes of Joint Economic Committee reports on the economies of China, USSR, and Eastern Europe) with “(vet)” noted after his name but without a grade.

____________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 115-116—Formative types of economic theory. 3 points each session. Professor Clark.
M. W. 12. [310 Fayerweather in Spring session; 1948/49 in 313 Fayerweather for Winter session, 1950/51]

Readings and critical discussion of outstanding examples of the parent stock of classical economics, with some regard to historical setting, and of subsequent outstanding contributions.

Source: Columbia University. Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science. Winter and Spring Sessions (1948-1949 and 1950-1951).

____________________________

Economics 115
Final Examination
January, 1951

Answer any two questions, taking about the time for the actual writing that a regular examination would take. Those who do the work during Christmas holidays will please return papers January 8; others Friday, January 26, unless otherwise specified.

—————–

Do the views of ancient writers (Hebrew, Greek or Roman) afford the same kind of evidence as the writings of modern economists as to economic conditions and practices of their time?
Discuss extent of applicability of medieval doctrine on price; variations or relaxations; and how far the doctrine was effective in practice.
Explain and appraise Quesnay’s “Tableau Economique”.
State key doctrines of the Physiocrats and indicate how they could be regarded as adaptations to an historical situation.
Compare views of Smith and Ricardo on the relation of labor to value.
Compare treatment of rent in Smith, Malthus and Ricardo.
On what grounds did Adam Smith sanction departures from laissez-faire?
Topic: dominant conceptions of what economic activity is for. Compare the dominant conception (or at most a few dominant conceptions) of as many of the following as you feel you can reasonably cover: typical Mercantilists, Physiocrats, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill.
What does Bentham’s theory contribute to the basic rationale of economics, aside from his ideas on economic matters themselves? (Book V. of J. S. Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy” might contain hints.)
State doctrines of Ricardo which had roots in historical conditions of the time, and indicate the connections.
Compare Ricardo’s treatment of value with either Adam Smith’s or John Stuart Mill’s.
What were the sources of J. S. Mill’s departure from strict Ricardianism?

Source: John M. Clark Papers. Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Box 24, Courses: Misc.

____________________________

ECONOMICS 116
Final examination
May, 1949

Answer two questions from the following list:

If things do not exchange in proportion to their labor cost, in what sense does labor cost govern value, under the labor theory? Discuss
Discuss the proper relation between historical and theoretical materials in the equipment of an economist.
(a) What is the meaning of “utility”?
(b) What difference does it make whether economic theory can or cannot make “interpersonal comparisons” of utility?
State some form of theory of the relation of marginal utility to price. Is this a tautological truth? Approximately true or true with qualifications? Inaccurate enough to be misleading? Discuss.
Define the meaning of marginal productivity as a basis for the division between labor and capital in industry. How, if at all, does it apply to added labor in a plant working below capacity?
How does Marshall treat the problem of differences between different producers and their costs of production, in his theory of value? Compare treatment of same problem in Chamberlin and/or J. B. Clark.
Compare Marshall and Chamberlin as to treatment of the element of time in normal price.
Define various types of welfare economics. Select one and indicate the key problems and difficulties, and methods of dealing with them.
Analyze the logic of the difference between J. B Clark and Veblen as to what are the normal tendencies of a system of business enterprise.
Formulate some other significant question on the material covered in the course, and answer it.

Source: John M. Clark Papers. Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Box 35, History of Economic Thought; Folder (tab torn) “??—Cameral. epoch.”

Image Source: Portrait of John Maurice Clark from the collection of portraits of economists presented in 1997 as a gift to the Department of Economics of Duke University by Professor Warren J. Samuels of Michigan State University. Free use of these portraits in Web documents, and for other educational purposes, is encouraged: users are requested to acknowledge that the images come from The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University.

Tags Blaug, ClarkJM, Hardt

Uncategorized

Oops. Prematurely Posted Last Posting…Sorry Subscribers

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-01

For the complete Dateline: Kyiv, Ukraine posting.

Economists Uncategorized

Dateline: Kyiv, Ukraine

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-01

The reason for my blog pause has been a couple of days of service for the Kyiv School of Economics where I am a member of its International Advisory Board. Once a year we, along with its Board of Directors, review the development of this tender plant that has grown from the seed money and efforts of Western donors and academic economists to establish an indigenous core of trained modern economists to be a part of the needed escape from the self-inflicted backwardness still haunting the region.
Unfortunately I am cursed with Administrative Attention Deficit Disorder and cannot pay unbroken attention to any extended discussion of a spreadsheet with details of a budget. My AADD is compounded by an utter indifference to anything below the level of matters of strategy and key appointments for leadership roles. So yesterday my mind wandered off to think about Kyiv and the history of economics.

The first name that I thought of was Jacob Marschak, who has already made an appearance in Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. Actually he came into my mind as I thought about the possibility of changing the form of the Kyiv School of Economics, as an independent educational institution offering M.A. training in economics and eventually business, into a Ukrainian analogue to the Cowles Commission that was linked to the University of Chicago economics department, while it maintained a distinct identity. The reasons for that thought have less to do with grand ambition than the political realities of present-day Ukraine and evidence of donor-fatigue for its present form. Anyhow, the thought of the Cowles Commission led to me think about Jacob Marschak who was its research director during those very important years. I knew that Marschak was born in Kyiv and thought that it was important for the Kyiv School of Economics to hoist him onto its banner before some lesser institution (mis-)appropriated his name. Wandering mind and WLAN connection led to me to see that the other favorite (economics) son of Kyiv, Eugen Slutsky, was actually one of Marschak’s teachers (of statistics). OK, make room on the KSE banner for Slutsky too.

During coffee breaks, I tried to convince fellow Board members of the sheer brilliance of the idea of rebranding the Kyiv School of Economics into the Slutsky-Marschak Institute of Advanced Economics to be associated with a leading (shall remain unnamed for now) Kyiv university. It is a hard sell. I’m not done yet. Just wanted to alert visitors to this blog and potential new sponsors of an irresistable naming opportunity. Young Ukrainians want to join the global academic community. Having achieved nearly two decades of ground-breaking work to this end, the Kyiv School of Economics is a worthy target of continued international funding. Let me know if you’d like to know more about the institution, its faculty or students.

Tags Slutsky Marschak Kyiv Ukraine

Bibliography Wisconsin

Ely and Wicker’s List for an economics library, 1904.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-10-28

Appended to their Elementary Principles of Economics, Together with a Short Sketch of Economic History (1904), are the following bibliographies of works that Richard T. Ely (Wisconsin) and George Ray Wicker (Dartmouth) “suggest that a school desiring to form a standard working library in Economics would do well to purchase”. A second edition was published in 1917 with a few additions and deletions to the bibliographies. A vast majority of these works can be obtained and/or read online by simply typing the authors’ last name and key words from the title into the search boxes at www.archive.org or www.hathitrust.org.

Also available here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror are earlier bibliographies put together by J. Laurence Laughlin (1887) and Michael E. Sadler (1891).

___________________________

APPENDIX II
[Ely and Wicker (1904)]

COURSES OF READING

It is believed that both students and teachers may derive valuable aid from the following selected bibliographies. The first group in each case includes works of a relatively untechnical character, and therefore constitutes a sort of elementary, “minimum” course of special study of the particular topic. The books mentioned in the second group are in each case more advanced and technical, and may therefore be used either for advanced courses of study or as works of reference. The authors would suggest that a school desiring to form a standard working library in Economics would do well to purchase the books mentioned in the second groups in the order in which they are named.

GENERAL ECONOMICS

Group 1

Blackmar, F. W.: Economics.

Bullock, C. J.: An Introduction to the Study of Economics.

Devine, E. T.: Economics.

Gide, Charles: Principles of Political Economy. (American adaptation, 1904.)

Seager, Henry R.: Introduction to Economics.

Walker, F. A.: Elementary Course in Political Economy; also Briefer Course in Political Economy.

Group 2

Smith, Adam: Wealth of Nations (in Ashley’s Economic Classics).

Marshall, A.: Principles of Economics.

Smart, W.: Introduction to the Theory of Value.

Clark, J. B.: The Distribution of Wealth.

Mill, J. S.: The Principles of Political Economy.

Ricardo, D.: Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. (Six chapters in Ashley’s Economic Classics.)

Walker, F. A.: Political Economy. (Advanced Course.)

Patten, S. N.: The Premises of Political Economy.

Hobson, J. A.: The Economics of Distribution.

Commons, J. R.: The Distribution of Wealth.

Smart, W.: The Distribution of Income.

ECONOMIC HISTORY

Group 1

Ashley, W. J.: Introduction to English Economic History and Theory. 2 vols.

Cheyney, E. P.: Industrial and Social History of England.

Beard, C.: The Industrial Revolution.

Ely, R. T.: Evolution of Industrial Society.

Coman, Katharine: The Industrial History of the United States.

Hewins, W. A. S.: English Trade and Finance.

Price, L. L.: History of English Commerce and Industry.

Warner, T.: Landmarks of English Industrial History.

Group 2

Bücher, Carl: Industrial Evolution. (Translation.)

Hobson, J. A.: The Evolution of Modern Capitalism.

Toynbee, Arnold: The Industrial Revolution.

Wright, C. D.: Industrial Evolution of the United States.

Wells, D. A.: Recent Economic Changes.

Rand, B.: Selections illustrating Economic History since 1763.

Gibbins, H. de B.: Industry in England.

Cunningham, W.: Growth of English Industry and Commerce. 2 vols.

Rogers, J. E. T.: Six Centuries of Work and Wages and A History of Agriculture and Prices in England.

Ingram, J. K.: History of Slavery.

THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Group 1

Price, L. L.: A Short History of Political Economy in England.

Group 2

Ingram, J. K.: History of Political Economy.

Ashley, W. J. (editor): Economic Classics, including selected passages from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations; six chapters of Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy; selected passages from Malthus’s Theory of Population; Mun’s England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade; Jones’s Peasant Rents; and Schmoller’s The Mercantile System.

RENT, LAND NATIONALIZATION, AND THE SINGLE TAX

Group 1

George, Henry: Progress and Poverty.

Walker, F. A.: Land and its Rent.

Group 2

Commons, J. R.: The Distribution of Wealth.

Clark, J. B.: The Distribution of Wealth.

Hobson, J. A.: The Economics of Distribution.

Patten, S. N.: Dynamic Economics.

Smart, W.: The Distribution of Income.

MONEY, CREDIT, AND BANKING

Group 1

Bagehot, W.: Lombard Street.

Bolles, A. S.: Money, Banking, and Finance.

Jevons, W. S.: Money and the Mechanism of Exchange.

Kinley, D.: Money — A Study of the Theory of the Medium of Exchange.

Walker, F. A.: Money, Trade, and Industry.

White, Horace: Money and Banking.

Group 2

Report of the Monetary Commission of the Indianapolis Convention.

Scott, W. A.: Money and Banking.

Laughlin, J. L.: The Principles of Money, and The History of Bimetallism in the United States.

Dunbar, C. F.: Theory and History of Banking.

Nicholson, J. S.: Money and Monetary Problems.

Fisk, A. K.: The Modern Bank.

Cannon, J. G.: Clearing Houses.

Conant, C. A.: History of Modern Banks of Issue.

Sumner, W. G.: History of American Currency.

Muhleman, M. L.: Monetary Systems of the World.

Knox, J. J.: United States Notes.

Walker, F. A.: International Bimetallism.

Willis, H. P.: History of the Latin Monetary Union.

PUBLIC FINANCE

Group 1

Daniels, W. M.: Elements of Public Finance.

Plehn, C. C.: Introduction to Public Finance.

Group 2

Adams, H. C.: The Science of Finance.

Cohn, G.: The Science of Finance. (Translation.)

Bastable, C. F.: Public Finance.

Seligman, E. R. A.: Essays in Taxation.

Dewey, D. R.: Financial History of the United States.

Noyes, A. D.: Thirty Years of American Finance.

Ely, R. T., and Finley, J. H.: Taxation in American States and Cities.

Taussig, F. W.: The Tariff History of the United States.

Kinley, D.: The Independent Treasury.

West, Max: The Inheritance Tax.

Howe, F. C.: Taxation and Taxes in the United States under the Internal Revenue System, 1791-1895.

Kinsman, D.: The Income Tax in the Commonwealths of the United States.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PROTECTIONISM

Group 1

Bastable, C. F.: Theory of International Trade.

Bastiat, F.: Sophisms of Protection.

Clare, G.: Money Market Primer.

Ely, R. T.: Problems of To-day.

Taussig, F. W.: Tariff History of the United States.

Group 2

Sumner, W. G.: Protectionism.

Patten, S. N.: The Economic Basis of Protection.

Wells, D. A.: Practical Economics.

List, F.: National System of Political Economy.

Carey, H. C.: Harmony of Interests.

Ashley, W. J.: The Tariff Problem.

SOCIALISM

Group 1

Bellamy, E.: Looking Backward.

Brooks, J. G.: The Social Unrest.

Ely, R. T.: Socialism and Social Reform.

Gronlund, L.: The Cöoperative Commonwealth.

Howells, W. D.: A Traveller from Altruria.

Morley, H. (editor): Ideal Commonwealths.

Reeves, W. P.: State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand.

Group 2

Kirkup, T.: History of Socialism.

Marx, Karl: Capital. (Translation.)

Rae, J.: Contemporary Socialism.

Schäffle, A. E. F.: The Quintessence of Socialism. (Translation.)

Vandervelde, E.: Collectivism. (Translation.)

Woolsey, T. D.: Communism and Socialism.

LABOR: ITS POSITION, ITS CONDITIONS, AND ITS EARNINGS

Group 1

Ely, R. T.: The Labor Movement in America.

Gladden, W.: Working People and their Employers.

Mitchell, J.: Organized Labor.

Toynbee, Arnold: The Industrial Revolution in England.

Wright, C. D.: Industrial Evolution of the United States.

Group 2

Report of the United States Industrial Commission.

Annual and Special Reports of the United States Labor Bureau.

Hobson, J. A.: The Evolution of Modern Capitalism.

Schloss, D. F.: Methods of Industrial Remuneration.

Jevons, W. S.: The State in its Relation to Labor.

Stimson, F. J.: Handbook to the Labor Law of the United States.

Lowell, Josephine S.: Industrial Arbitration and Conciliation.

Webb, Sidney and Beatrice (Potter): History of Trade-unionism and Industrial Democracy.

Potter, Beatrice: The Cöoperative Movement in Great Britain.

Levasseur, E.: The American Workman. (Translation.)

Gilman, N. P.: Profit-sharing.

Ashley, W. J.: The Adjustment of Wages.

Rogers, J. E. T.: Six Centuries of Work and Wages.

Brassey, T.: Work and Wages.

MONOPOLIES AND INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS

Group 1

Ely, R. T.: Monopolies and Trusts.

Gunton, G.: Trusts and the Public.

Jenks, J. W.: The Trust Problem.

Lloyd, Henry D.: Wealth against Commonwealth.

Von Halle, E.: Trusts and Industrial Combinations.

Meade, E. S.: Trust Finance.

Group 2

Report of the United States Industrial Commission, Vols. I and II.

Adams, H. C.: The Relation of the State to Industrial Action.

Bemis, E. W.: Municipal Monopolies.

Clark, J. B.: Theory of Economic Progress.

Farrer, T. H.: The State in its Relation to Trade.

Cook, W. W.: The Corporation Problem.

Bridge, J. H. (editor): The Trust, its Book.

Bridge, J. H.: Inside History of the Carnegie Steel Co.

Baker, C. E.: Trusts and the People.

Dodd, S. C. T.: Combinations: their Uses and Abuses. (A eulogy of the Standard Oil Company by one of its attorneys); also

An Inside View of Trusts, circulated free of charge in the interests of the Standard Oil Company.

TRANSPORTATION

Group 1

Hadley, A. T.: Railroad Transportation.

Johnson, E. R.: American Railway Transportation.

Group 2

Reports (Annual) of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Report of the United States Industrial Commission.

Meyer, B. H.: Railway Legislation in the United States.

Stickney, A. B.: The Railway Problem.

Dixon, F. H.: State Railroad Control.

Jeans, J. S.: Waterways and Water Transport.

Johnson, E. R.: Inland Waterways.

Lewis, G. H.: National Consolidation of Railways.

Newcomb, H. T.: Railway Economics.

CORPORATIONS AND CORPORATION FINANCE

Group 1

Cleveland, E. A.: Funds and their Uses.

Meade, E. S.: Trust Finance.

Pratt, S. A.: The Work of Wall Street.

Group 2

Report of the Chicago Conference on Trusts.

Burdick, F. M.: The Essentials of Business Law.

Greene, T. L.: Corporation Finance.

Cook, W. W.: The Corporation Problem.

Emery, H. C.: Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States.

COMMERCIAL GEOGRAPHY

Group 1

Adams, C. C.: A Text-book of Commercial Geography.

Redway, J. W.: New Basis of Geography.

Trotter, Spencer: The Geography of Commerce.

Group 2

Reports of the Department of Commerce and Labor (U.S.), especially Commercial Relations of the United States; Consular Reports; Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance.

Twelfth Census of the United States.

Chisholm, G. G.: A Handbook of Commercial Geography.

Keltie, J. S.: Applied Geography.

In addition to the books mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, students will find certain general works of reference of very great value. These may be most conveniently listed under the names dictionaries, periodicals, and general treatises. Every school that aspires to the possession of a working library in our subject should have a considerable number of the books in the following list, together with some of the magazines of most general use in the subject. In the first two groups the books and magazines respectively are given in the order in which the authors would recommend their purchase. For obvious reasons it has not been deemed best to do this in the case of the books mentioned in Group Three, which are therefore given in the alphabetical order of their authors. The student will not find in this book any references to German, French, or Italian authorities that have not been translated. Should he have occasion, in exceptional cases, to refer to such works, he should consult the bibliographies that are to be found in many of the general treatises included in our list

DICTIONARIES

Dictionary of Political Economy. Edited by R. H. Inglis Palgrave.

Cyclopedia of Political Science and Political Economy. Edited by J. J Lalor.

Cyclopedia of Social Reform. Edited by W. D. P. Bliss.

The standard encyclopedias will also be found to contain special articles on very many economic topics.

PERIODICALS

Publications of the American Economic Association.

The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Political Science Quarterly.

The Yale Review.

The Journal of Political Economy.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Municipal Affairs.

Commercial and Financial Chronicle.

Bradstreet’s.

Dun’s Review.

The Bankers’ Magazine. (American.)

GENERAL TREATISES

Andrews, E. B.: Institutes of Economics.

Bullock, C. J.: Introduction to the Study of Economics.

Devine, E. T.: Economics.

Cannan, E.: Elementary Political Economy.

Ely, R. T, Outlines of Economics; also Introduction to Political Economy. (Revised Edition, 1901.)

Davenport, H. J.: Elementary Economics.

Gide, C.: Principles of Political Economy. (Translation.)

Hadley, A. T.: Economics.

Hearn, W. E.: Plutology.

Marshall, A.: Principles of Economics; also Marshall, A. and M.: The Economics of Industry.

Nicholson, J. S.: Principles of Political Economy.

Roscher, W.: Political Economy. (Translation.)

Seager, H. R.: Introduction to Economics.

Sidgwick, H.: Principles of Political Economy.

Walker, F. A.: Political Economy. (Advanced Course.)

Source: Richard T. Ely and George Ray Wicker. Elementary principles of economics. New York: Macmillan, 1904 (Reprinted through 1916 without revision multiple times from this 1904 edition).

Image Source: Dartmouth Aegis, 1916.

Tags Ely, Wicker

Bibliography Courses Harvard

Harvard. Business Cycles Course. Hansen, 1950.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-10-26

According to the course catalogue for 1950-51, this course was to be co-taught by Professor Alvin Hansen and Assistant Professor Richard Goodwin. (Official Register of Harvard University. Vol. 47, No. 23, September, 1950.) However, Goodwin did not receive tenure at Harvard and moved on to Cambridge University in 1950. In the following years material for this course was swept into the second semester of Economics 141. “Money, Banking and Economic Fluctuations” offered jointly by Hansen and John H. Williams.

________________________

Economics 145a
Business Cycles 1950-51
Professor Hansen

Part I. Descriptive Survey

Haberler, Prosperity and Depression, Ch. 1,9.
Hansen, Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles, Ch. I, II.
Schumpeter, “The Analysis of Economic Change,” in Readings in Business Cycle Theory, Ch. I.
Federal Reserve Chart Book (available at the Coop.)

Part II. The Meaning and Genesis of National Product

Hansen, Economic Policy and Full Employment, Ch. 3, 4.
Gilbert and Jaszi, “National Product and Income as an Aid in Economic Problems,” in Readings in the Theory of Income and Distribution, Ch. 2.
Machlup, “Period Analysis and Multiplier Theory,” in Readings in Business Cycle Theory, Ch. 10, only pp. 210-234.
Morgan, Income and Employment, Ch. I.
Haberler, Prosperity and Depression, Ch. 8, Section 4, pp. 222-232; Ch. 13, Section 1, pp. 455-461.
Hansen, Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles, Ch. XI, XII, XIII, XIV.

Part III. Theory of Cycles and Investment

Haberler, Prosperity and Depression, Ch. 10, 11, and 3; Ch. 13, Section 3, pp. 473-479.
Hansen, (a) Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles, Ch. XVI and XVII; (b) Economic Policy and Full Employment, Ch. 14-16.
Keynes, General Theory, ch. 22.
Lerner, Economics of Control, Ch. 21, 22.
Harris, The New Economics, Ch. 33.
Schumpeter, Business Cycles, Ch. IV, Sections A, B, and C, pp. 130-161; Ch. VII, Section C., pp. 325-351.
Morgan, Income and Employment, Ch. 7-9.

Part IV. Policy

Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society, Parts IV and V.
C. E. D., Taxes and the Budget, 1947.
Hansen, (a) Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles, Ch. 9; (b) Economic Policy and Full Employment, Ch. 5-13; 22.

READING PERIOD ASSIGNMENT

Read one of the following four assignments:

Morgan, Income and Employment, Ch. 10-18.
Polanyi, Free Trade and Full Employment, Ch. 3, 4, 6, 7; AND John H. Williams, “Free Enterprise and Dull Employment,” Chapter 7 in Financing American Prosperity.
Terborgh, George, The Bogey of Economic Maturity (entire book, disregarding appendices) AND H. Hansen’s review of Terborgh’s book in Appendix B in Economic Policy and Full Employment AND Wright’s review in Review of Economic Statistics, February, 1946, pp. 13-22.
National and International Measures for Full Employment, United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs, 1949.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1), Box 5. Folder: “Economics, 1950-1951 (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Harvard Album 1952.

Tags Goodwin, Hansen

Bibliography Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading

Harvard. U.S. history for economics graduate students. F. J. Turner, 1912

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-10-25

The object of the “general examination” for Harvard Economics Ph.D. students in 1911-1912 was “to ascertain the applicant’s attainments within a considerable range of subjects in the field of History, Political Science, or Economics.” The ordinary case would be that Ph.D. students would be “be examined in six subjects in all, chosen from the groups defined below under the respective departments of study” but not to include the subject of a student’s “special field” that would be subject to a second examination.

“Of the six subjects, at least one must be taken from each of the groups A, B, C, and D, the first three of these groups being purely economic, while the fourth, more general in character, is intended to secure a somewhat broader basis of preparation. In all cases at least one of the subjects chosen must be historical in character, either economic history under group B or one of the historical fields defined under Group D.”

Of the seven topics listed in Group D, one was the “History of American Institutions.” In 1912 the economics chairman, Professor Charles J. Bullock asked colleagues for reading lists to provide students preparing for their degree examinations. The historian Frederick Jackson Turner responded with the following list. In the same folder there is a list of Ph. D. examination questions for U. S. history that is undated but most likely from that time as well (1912).

__________________________________

153 Brattle St
Cambridge, June 14, 1912

Professor C. J. Bullock,
Harvard University

My dear Bullock,

I suggest the following list in reply to your letter asking for books suitable for preparation for the examination of one of your graduates in Economics. I omit economic aspects in my list, as I take it these are covered by other lists.

For a general view he should read

either

A. B. Hart (ed) Epochs of Am. Hist.—3 vols.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, art. U. S.—history, 11^th ed.

Cambridge Modern History, VII (U.S.)

He should read more extensively in standard histories. One of the following groups would seem reasonable:

A. Select ten volumes from:

E. Channing, History of U. S. (2 vols. out)

J. Schouler, History of U. S.

J. F. Rhodes, History of U. S.

or B. Select fifteen volumes from:

A. B. Hart (editor) Am. Nation Series, e.g. vols. 10-19, 21-25. The colonial period and the civil war could, in this case, be supplied by reading C. M. Andrews, The Colonial Period (in press, H. Holt) and F. L. Parson, The Civil War, both of the above being little books in the Home University Library. Of course it would be better to read Channing, or Osgood (Am. Colonies, 3 vols.)

or C. Select ten volumes of Am. Nation Series and ten volumes of the following:

American Statesmen Series:

Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Clay (2 vols.), Calhoun, Lincoln, Chase, Blaine; and T. Burton, John Sherman, A. Johnson, Douglas, R. G. Thwaites, D. Boone.

On political institutions and diplomacy:

J. Bryce, American Commonwealth (last edn)
E. Stanwood, Presidency
A. Johnston, American Politics
C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics
McClain’s or Boyd’s Cases on Constitutional Law
H.W. Rogers (editor) Constitutional History (“Michigan Law Lectures”

J. B. Moore, American Diplomacy
or J. W. Foster, Century of American Diplomacy

A.B. Hart, Foundations of American Foreign Policy
or A. C. Coolidge, U. S. as a World Power

In general I should say that the candidate should possess a good general knowledge of the narrative American History; a clear understanding of the history of political parties and issues, including the most important constitutional questions, leading cases, etc.; a firm hold on the history of the development of the significant political institutions; a good working knowledge of the main problems of our foreign relations; and a well considered and well based estimate of the work and characteristics of the leading statesmen. (Of course such economic history as lands, tariff, internal improvement, banking, and currency and finance are otherwise provided for.)

It is not unlikely that you may conclude that the above list is either too extensive or too limited for the purpose in hand. In that case use your judgment.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Frederick J. Turner

__________________________________

Ph. D. Examination in American History since 1789.

Of what officers was Washington’s first cabinet composed? Is the cabinet provided for in the constitution? When and under what circumstances have additions been made to it? What are its powers? What books treat of its history?
What are the principal periods and steps in the development of the speakership of the House of Representatives? Name and characterize the four greatest speakers. Give a list of secondary sources useful on this topic.
Could a political party which held the Presidency and Congress procure a repeal of decision of the supreme court obnoxious to it, as for example the income tax decision of 1895, if the Democrats had won? How could this be done, if it could be done? On what occasions would a dominant party have been tempted to make use of such a power if it existed?
What were the most important legislative policies of the following men: Henry Clay, Thomas H. Benton, John C. Calhoun?
Ought Stephen A. Douglas’s biography to be included in the American Statesmen series? Why?
What were the significant policies of the Democratic party 1830-1850, and who were the leaders of the party?
Was the Mexican war an unjust war? What is its significance in American history? Authorities on the question.
Discuss Thaddeus Stevens as an American Statesman? Was his reconstruction policy wise? How far was it put in operation? How did Lincoln’s and Johnson’s reconstruction policy differ from each other? What were the most enduring results of the legislative and constitutional enactments constituting reconstruction?
Briefly explain the following leading cases: Hylton v. U.S.; Prize cases; Marbury v. Madison; Fletcher v. Peck; Cohens v. Virginia?
Sketch three important incidents showing the influence of sectionalism in American history, selecting one from each of these periods: 1789-1815; 1815-1835, 1870-1896.
What is the best “help” in finding “congressional documents” for the purposes of American history? What are the primary sources for debates in House and Senate 1789-1820?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers, 1902-1950 (UAV 349.10), Box 25, Folder “Suggested Readings”.

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1916.

Tags Turner

Bibliography Chicago Courses Syllabus

Chicago. Course on International Economic Policies. Viner, 1944.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-10-24

As the previous posting for Economics 370 (International Trade and Finance) taught by Jacob Viner at the University of Chicago during the Winter Quarter of 1944, this posting is based on detailed notes taken by Don Patinkin from which I have extracted a rough course outline with a corresponding list of assigned as well as suggested readings and references.

After the course description, the course outline and Viner’s reading assignments as written by Don Patinkin in his notes have been transcribed. A list of term paper topics for the course has also been transcribed. I am happy to report that almost all of the readings have been properly identified and brought into proper bibliographic form in a separate list placed at the end of this posting. As most of the readings for Viner’s policy course are well on this side of the copyright threshold, fewer links can be offered. The periodical literature that can be accessed at jstor.org has been linked, but most folks this interested in the history of 20th century economics have access to jstor through their university affiliations.

__________________________

[Course Description]

XI. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS

International Economic Policies. A survey, with particular reference to the United States, of the international aspects of the economic policies and activities of governments. Topics: the fundamentals of international trade; tariffs and tariff technique; quotas and exchange controls; commercial treaties; unfair competition; colonial policies; international capital investments; commodity controls; the international aspects of shipping and railroad policies; international economic institutions; economic factors in diplomacy and war. Prereq: Two years’ work in the Division of the Social Sciences, or equiv. Spr: M, W, F, 9, Viner.

Source: The University of Chicago, Announcements, The College and the Divisions. Sessions of 1943-1944. Vol. XLIII, No. 10 (August 10, 1943), p. 317.

__________________________

[Course Outline and Reading Assignments]

Economics 371
International Economic Policies
Spring Quarter, 1944
Jacob Viner

[Outline]

Subject	LECTURES
Types of Econ. Policy
Mercantilism
Scandal Theory
Tariffs (MFN & CMFN)
Tariff Bargaining (History etc.)
New Forms of Trade Barriers
Monopoly Question
Int’l Cartels
Customs-Union
Colonial Problems
Native Labor Problem
Int’l Movements of Capital
Postwar investment policy
Raw Materials
Commodity Agreements
International Agencies

[Readings Assigned/Suggested in Sequence As Announced by Viner]

Winslow, “Marxian, Liberal, & Sociological Theories of Imperialism,” JPE v. 39 #6,Dec. ’31, pp. 713-86]

Robbins, Economic Causes of War, pp. 94-8, & Appendix pp. 111-24, London, 1939.

Staley, Foreign Investment & War. U. of C. Public Policy Pamphlets, 13-24]

Sulzbach, “Capitalistic Warmongers” U. of C. Public Policy Pamphlets. 25-35

cf. also Staley “War & The Private Investor” [not assigned]

John H. Herz, “Power Politics & World Organization” Am. Pol. Science Review Dec 42, v. 36 #6.

Int’l Relations. Jacob Viner, Proceeding American Econ Association March ‘44

Jacob Viner. Address before League of Nations. Society in Canada. Interdependence, V. 13 #3 &4 1936, pp. 218-229.

Haberler, Theory of Int’l Trade pp. 211-26, 245-95,
or
Ellsworth, Int’l Econ. pp. 275-340

U.S. Tariff Comm. Reciprocity Report, pp. 27-47, 504-510

Viner, Tariffs, Ency. Soc. Sciences

Tasca, Reciprocal Trade Policy of U.S. ch.’s 2-5 (pp. 10-9

Viner, Most Favored Nations Clause, JPE Feb ’24,
Index Jan ‘31

Viner, Trade Relations between Free-Market & Controlled Economies (League of Nations Memo 1943)

Joseph B. Lockey Am. Journal of Int’l Law 235-43

B. Nolde, Recueil de Cours Academie de Droit Internationale, 1924 II.

Viner—Proc. American Econ. Assoc. March 1944, pp. 315-29 “Intern. Relations between State-Controlled Nat. Economies”

Ellsworth
Haberler

(These not assignments, merely references)
Margaret Gordon, Barriers to World Trade
Howard Ellis, Exchange Control
Henry J. Tasca, World Trading Systems (Diff. between U.S. & Eng. on export controls)

League of Nations, Commercial Policy in Interwar period

[League of Nations] Haberler, Quantitative Trade Controls

Howard Ellis, Exchange Control, pp. 13-17

July [sic, May] ’43 Social Research. Schüller

Corwin Edwards “Int’l Cartels as Obstacles to Int’l Trade”. Proceed. A. E. Assoc. March ‘44

Ervin Hexner “Int. Cartels in the Post-War World” Southern Econ. Journal. Oct. ‘43

New Republic—special supplement on Cartels March 27, 1944

Federalist—No. XI & passim

De Beers “Tariff Aspects of the Federal Union” QJE Nov. 1941

U.S. Tariff Comm. Colonial Tariff Policies, Introduction, pp. 1-16, 26-42, 55-9, 63-78

P. Bidwell Tariff Policy of the U.S. 1933, pp. 70-101

Royal Institute of Int’l Affairs—The Colonial Problem. ch’s 1, 3,4.

Viner. typewritten article on U.S. colonial policy – on reserve.

Violet Conolly, Soviet Trade from the Pacific to the Levant” (1935)

[Violet Conolly], Soviet Economic Policy in East 1933.

Haberler [Regional blocs]—in Seymour Harris ed. Postwar Econ. Problems 1943, pp. 325-344

Skim [next three items]

Feis, Europe the World’s Banker. ch’s 1-3, pp. 463-69
Viner, Int’l Finance & Balance of Power Diplomacy, Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly March ’29, V. IX, No. 4.
Viner, Political Aspects of Int’l Finance” Journal of Business of U. of C. April-July ’28.

R.I.I.A.—The Problem of Int’l Investment. ch’s 1, 2,3 (=pp. 1-39); & 8 (=pp. 102-12)

J.W. Angell—Financial For. Policy of U.S. 1933—ch’s 3, 4,7

O. R. Hobson, The Function of Foreign Lending (pamphlet on reserve)

Staley, “Une critique de la protection diplomatique des placements à l’étranger” Revue gén. de Droit Int. Pub. Sept-Oct., 1935, pp. 541-558.

Knorr- Hist. of Eng. Colonial Theories (U of C. Ph.D. thesis)

On forced colonial labor: Lord Olivier, White Men & Colonial Labor (sic, white capital and coloured labour. McMillan (Penguin book). Lord Hailey, African Surveys.

Wallace & Edminster, Int’l Control of Raw Materials, ch’s 1, 9, 10, 11, 12

Staley, Raw Materials in Peace & War ch’s 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,11

Round Table Discussion. Proceedings A.E. Assoc. (St. Louis, 1926), pp. 41-8

Viner, (Rubber Control), Foreign Affairs, July ‘26

Viner, Raw Materials Problem in Porritt (ed.), The Causes of War, 185-202 (Just look at last two)

Viner, Objectives of Post-War Int’l Econ. Reconstruction. New Wilmington lecture. May 1942,(on reserve).

______________________________

Possible Term Papers

Policy of U. S. with respect to any post war econ.

Lessons for post-war settlement from past failures

Foreign Investment in Backward Countries

Econ. Provisions other than P-p(?)

Lend-Lease as means of Inter-Allied Econ. Relation[?]

Case studies: Missionaries & Imperialism

Am. gov. preferences to domestic trade in gov. purchases

gov. intervention to collect foreign debt—any case study

Study of literature dealing with econ motives of U.S. entry into World War I.

Econ. Doctrine as applied by World Court in its Decisions

Canadian-American Hydro-agreements

Int’l action of cooperatives

Intl trade theories underlying activities of I. L.O.

______________________________

Bibliography for Viner’s Economics 371 in 1944

Angell, James Waterhouse. Financial foreign policy of U.S. New York: 1933. [A report to the second International studies conference on the state and economic life, London, May 29 to June 2, 1933, prepared for the American committee appointed by the council on foreign relations.]

Bidwell, Percy Wells. Tariff policy of the U.S.; A study of recent experience. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.1933 [A report to the second International studies conference on the state and economic life, London, May 29 to June 2, 1933, prepared for the American committee appointed by the council on foreign relations.]

Conolly, Violet. Soviet trade from the Pacific to the Levant, with an economic study of the soviet Far Eastern region. London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 1935.

Conolly, Violet. Soviet economic policy in the East; Turkey, Persia, Afghanistan, Mongolia and Tana Tuva, Sin Kiang. London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 1933.

de Beers, John S. Tariff aspects of a federal union. Quarterly Journal of Economics v. 56, no. 1 ( November 1941), pp. 49-92.

Edwards, Corwin D. International cartels as obstacles international trade. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings. v. 34, No. 1, part 2 supplement (March 1944) pp. 330-40.

Ellis, Howard Sylvester. Exchange control in central Europe. Harvard economic studies, no. 69. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1941. [Originally published as ‘Exchange control in Austria and Hungary’ and ‘Exchange control in Germany’ in the Quarterly journal of economics, volume 54, no. 1, part 2, November, 1939 and volume 54, no. 4, part 2, August, 1940.]

Ellsworth, Paul Theodore. International economics. New York: Macmillan, 1938.

Feis, Herbert. Europe the world’s banker, 1870-1914. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931.

Gordon, Margaret S. Barriers to world trade; a study of recent commercial policy. New York: Macmillan, 1941. [Bureau of international research of Harvard university and Radcliffe college.]

Hamilton, Alexander. The utility of the union in respect to commercial relations and a navy. The Federalist, Number 11. 1787-88.

Haberler, Gottfried. The theory of international trade with its application to commercial policy (translated by Alfred W. Stonier and Frederic Benham). London: W. Hodge & company, 1936.

Haberler, Gottfried. Quantitative trade controls: their causes and nature. Geneva: League of Nations, Series II, Economic and financial. 1943. [“Prepared by Professor Gottfried Haberler … in collaboration with Mr. Martin Hill.”]

Haberler, Gottfried. “The political economy of regional or continental blocs” In Seymour Edwin Harris (ed.), Postwar economic problems, New York, McGraw Hill, 1943, pp. 325-44.

Hailey, William Malcolm (Lord Hailey). An African survey: a study of problems arising in Africa south of the Sahara. London: Oxford University Press, 1938. [Issued by the Committee of the African Research Survey under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.]p

Herz, John H. Power Politics and world organization. American Political Science Review v. 36, no. 6 (December 1942), pp. 1039-1052.

Hexner, Ervin. International cartels in the postwar world. Southern Economic Journal v. 10, no. 2 (October 1943), pp. 114-135.

Hobson, O.R. The function of foreign lending. [International Chamber of Commerce. 9^th International Congress (Berlin), 1937, Document #3].

Knorr, Klaus. British colonial theories, 1570-1850. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1944. [University of Chicago Ph.D. thesis]

League of Nations. Economic, Financial and Transit Department. Commercial policy in interwar period. Geneva: League of Nations, 1942.

Lockey, Joseph B. Pan-Americanism and imperialism. American Journal of International Law vol. 32, no. 2 (April 1938), pp. 244-243.

New Republic. Special supplement on cartels, March 27, 1944.

Nolde, Boris. Recueil des Cours 1924 II. Académie de Droit Internationale.

Olivier, Sydney Haldane (Lord). White capital & coloured labour. London: Independent Labour Party,1906 [also London: Hogarth Press by Leonard & Virginia Woolf]

Robbins, Lionel. Economic causes of war. London: J. Cape, 1939.

Royal Institute of International Affairs. The colonial problem. London: Oxford Press, 1937.

Royal Institute of International Affairs. The problem of international investment. London: Oxford University Press, 1937.

Schüller, Richard. Commercial policy between the two wars; personal observations of a participant. Social Research v. 10, no. 2 (May 1943), pp. 152-174.

Staley, Eugene. War and the private investor; a study in the relations of international politics and international private investment. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, Doran & company, 1935.

Staley, Eugene. Une critique de la protection diplomatique des placements à l’étranger. Revue Générale de Droit International Public. v. 42 (September-October, 1935), pp. 541-558.

Staley, Eugene. Foreign investment and war. University of Chicago Public Policy Pamphlets, Nr. 18, 1935.

Staley, Eugene. Raw materials in peace and war. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1937.

Sulzbach, Walter. “Capitalistic warmongers”: a modern superstition. University of Chicago Public Policy Pamphlets, Nr.35, 1942.

Henry J. Tasca. The reciprocal trade policy of the U.S.; a study in trade philosophy. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1938.

Henry J. Tasca, World trading systems; a study of American and British commercial policies. Paris: International institute of intellectual co-operation, League of Nations, 1939.

U. S. Tariff Commission. [Stanley Kuhl Hornbeck; Jacob Viner; Clive Day; Walter B. Palmer]. Reciprocity and commercial treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919.

U. S. Tariff Commission. Colonial tariff policies. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1922.

Viner, Jacob. The most-favored-nations clause in American commercial treaties. Journal of Political Economy v. 32, no. 1 (February 1924), pp. 101-129. [Reprinted in Viner, 1951.]
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1822463

Viner, Jacob. The most-favored-nation clause. Index v. 61 (February 1931), pp. 2-17. [Reprinted in Viner, 1951.]

Viner, Jacob. Political aspects of international finance. Journal of Business of the University of Chicago v. 1, no. 2 and no. 3 (April and July 1928)

Viner, Jacob. International finance and balance of power diplomacy, 1880-1914. Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly. v. 9, No. 4 (March 1929).

Viner, Jacob. Tariffs. In vol. 14 of Edwin R. A. Seligman and Alvin Saunders Johnson (eds.) Encylopaedia of the social sciences. New York: Macmillan 1930

Viner, Jacob. Address before League of Nations Society in Canada, Interdependence, v. 13, nos. 3 and 4 (1936), pp. 218-229.

Viner, Jacob. National monopolies of raw materials. (Rubber Control), Foreign Affairs v.4, no. 4 (July 1926), pp. 585-600. (rubber control)

Viner, Jacob. Raw materials problem. In Arthur Porritt and Arthur Salter (eds.), The causes of war. New York: Macmillan, 1932.

Viner, Jacob. U.S. Policy with Respect to the ‘Colonial Problem’. Typescript. [Perhaps later published as “The American interest in the ‘colonial problem.’” New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1944.]

Viner, Jacob. Objectives of post-war international economic reconstruction. New Wilmington lecture, May 1942.

Viner, Jacob. International Economics. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1951.

Viner, Jacob. Trade relations between free-market and controlled economies. Geneva: League of Nations, 1943.

Viner, Jacob. International relations between state-controlled national economies. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings v. 34, no. 1, part 2 (March 1944, pp. 315-29
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1818704

Wallace, Benjamin B. (chairman). American practices analogous to foreign controls over raw materials, round table discussion. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings vol. 17, no. 1 Supplement (March 1927), pp. 41-8. [W. E. Grimes, H. E. Erdman, J. D. Black, Vanderveer Custis, Amos E. Taylor]

Wallace, Benjamin Bruce and Edminster, Lynn Ramsay. International control of raw materials. Brookings Institution. Washington, D.C., 1930.

Winslow, E. M. Marxian, liberal, and sociological theories of imperialism. Journal of Political Economy, v. 39, no. 6 (December 1931), pp. 713-86]

Source: Don Patinkin Papers. Duke University Rare Book Library. Box 3 (Course Materials and Class Notes), Folder “Patinkin as Student: Notebooks (1944)”.

Image source: Jacob Viner on the left, Theodore W. Schultz on the right. Undated. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07483, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags Viner

HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AT HARVARD

[NOTES]

V. Economic Institutions and Behavior

I. Economic Theory

2. Economic Institutions and Systems

3. Consumption and Distribution (including Marketing)

4. Public Finance, Fiscal Policy, and Taxation (cf. also Law and Business School reports in VI)

5. Money and Banking

6. Business Fluctuations

7. Industrial Organization

8. Labor and Collective Bargaining

9. Economic Development

10. Agricultural Economics

11. International Economic Problems

12. Economic History

13. Government and Business

14. Statistics and Econometrics

15. History of Thought

16. Applications of Economic Analysis to Welfare Programs, Education, etc.

Summary

[Course Announcement]

[Course Enrollment]

ECONOMICS 9a Outline, 1933–1934

Course Announcement

Economics 115 Final Examination January, 1951

ECONOMICS 116 Final examination May, 1949

APPENDIX II [Ely and Wicker (1904)]

COURSES OF READING

GENERAL ECONOMICS

ECONOMIC HISTORY

THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

RENT, LAND NATIONALIZATION, AND THE SINGLE TAX

MONEY, CREDIT, AND BANKING

PUBLIC FINANCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PROTECTIONISM

SOCIALISM

LABOR: ITS POSITION, ITS CONDITIONS, AND ITS EARNINGS

MONOPOLIES AND INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS

TRANSPORTATION

CORPORATIONS AND CORPORATION FINANCE

COMMERCIAL GEOGRAPHY

DICTIONARIES

PERIODICALS

GENERAL TREATISES

Economics 145a Business Cycles 1950-51 Professor Hansen

Part I. Descriptive Survey

Suggested Reading:

Part II. The Meaning and Genesis of National Product

Suggested Reading:

Part III. Theory of Cycles and Investment

Suggested Reading:

Part IV. Policy

Suggested Reading:

READING PERIOD ASSIGNMENT

Ph. D. Examination in American History since 1789.

[Course Description]

XI. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS

[Course Outline and Reading Assignments]

Economics 371 International Economic Policies Spring Quarter, 1944 Jacob Viner

[Outline]

[Readings Assigned/Suggested in Sequence As Announced by Viner]

Bibliography for Viner’s Economics 371 in 1944

ECONOMICS 9a
Outline, 1933–1934

Economics 115
Final Examination
January, 1951

ECONOMICS 116
Final examination
May, 1949

APPENDIX II
[Ely and Wicker (1904)]

Economics 145a
Business Cycles 1950-51
Professor Hansen

Economics 371
International Economic Policies
Spring Quarter, 1944
Jacob Viner