Author: Irwin Collier

Categories
Bibliography Chicago Courses Syllabus

Chicago. International Trade and Finance. Viner, 1944

 

Don Patinkin took reasonably detailed notes in two of Jacob Viner’s three graduate courses in international economics in 1944 from which it is a fairly easy task to put together course outlines and the corresponding lists of assigned as well as suggested readings and references.

Just as in his core economic theory course Economics 301, Price and Distribution Theory, Viner appears to have given reading assignments generally in blocks at a time that one presumes he wrote or had written on a black board to be copied into student’s notes. During his lectures there was the occasional new reference to be given.

A Chicago quarter is a dozen weeks long. Viner packed into the first dozen weeks a historical survey of mercantilism followed by one on the bullionist controversy and found time to talk about both exchange rate determination and the pure theory of trade as well as the competing plans by Keynes and White put forward on the eve Bretton Woods conference. An educational tour-de-force.

Almost all of the readings have been properly identified and brought into proper bibliographic form. And if this is not enough, I include Patinkin’s list of 19 Ph.D. examination questions for the field.

More recently I have posted the bibliography and exam questions for this course as taught by Viner in the Winter Quarter of the 1932/33 year. That information was found in the Milton Friedman papers in the Hoover Institution archives.

__________________________

Econ. 370
International Trade and Finance
Jacob Viner

Winter Quarter, 1944

__________________________

[Course Description]

XI. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS

  1. International Trade and Finance. The theory of international values, the mechanism of adjustment of international balances, foreign-exchange theory, the international aspects of monetary and banking theory, and tariff theory. Prereq: Econ 301 or equiv. Win: 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]

Subject LECTURES
MERCANTILISM
BULLIONIST CONTROVERSY
INT’L MECHANISM: SIMPLE SPECIE
role of exchange rate fluctuations
role of price changes
role of specie flow
income elasticity for imports
terms of trade
unilateral payments
inductive studies
purchasing power parity theory
FRACTIONAL RESERVES
short term capital movements
inter-regional adjustments
flight capital
fixed and flexible exchanges
current int’l monetary agreement discussion
PURE THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ohlin on determinants of specialization
Alternative cost doctrine
The case for FREE TRADE
Graphical analysis—Edgeworth on gains from trade

 

Mercantilism

Viner, Studies, ch. 1 & 2.

Heckscher, Mercantilism, II, 175-261.

—— Ency. Soc. Sciences, v. 10, pp. 333b-339a.

—— Econ. Hist. Review, Nov. 1936.

Viner, Review of Heckscher, Econ. Hist. Review, v. 6.

—— “Balance of Trade”, Ency. Soc. Sciences, v. 2, pp. 399-406.

Seligman, Bullionists, Ency. Soc. Sciences, v. 3, pp. 60-64.

Mun, England’s Treasure, ch’s 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,19,20.

Hume’s Essays: “Of Money”, “Of the Balance of Trade”

Malynes

Bullionist Controversy

Viner, Studies, ch. 3 & 4.

Silberling, “Financial & Monetary Policy” (Q.J.E.—skim; Feb. & May 1924).

Angell, James W. Theory of international prices. Ch III & Appendix A, pp. 427-503.

Viner—Review of Angell. J.P.E. (pp. 601-611 only).

Ricardo—High Prices of Bullion in McCulloch edition of Works or in Gonner ed. Ricardo’s Essays.

Mechanism of International Equilibrium

E. M. Bernstein, J.P.E. 1939

Imre de Vegh in Review of Econ. Statistics, 1941

Leontieff (Essays in Honor of Taussig)

Robertson—Viner. QJE Feb 1939.

Ricardo, Principles ch. 7.

J.S. Mill, Principles, Book III, chs. 17 & 18.

Ohlin—Interregional & International Trade. ch’s 1,2,4,14,20; Appendices I & II.

Viner—Studies ch. 6.

[for material of ch. 5 (Viner) see—

Elmer Wood—Eng. Theories of Central Banking Control

E.V. Morgen. Hist. of Central Banking Theories

Wadrey [?], Ph.D. thesis]

read Ellsworth—Int’l Economics—chs. 5 &6—well organized

Mosak — Dr.’s thesis on material of ch. 6

Bronfenbrenner — Studies in Math. Economics-Lange

Haberler — Theory of Int’l Trade

 

International Mechanism Under Gold Standard, Fractional Reserves

[Viner] Studies — ch. 7

Explorations in Economics [Taussig Festschrift]: Currie [Domestic Stability & the Mechanism of Trade Adjustment to Int’l. Capital Movements]—pp.46-56, also Angell pp. 15-19, Leontief [Notes on the Pure Theory of Capital Transfer]—pp.84-91.

E. M. Bernstein, J.P.E., June 1940.

J.C. Gilbert, R.E. Studies V (1937-8), 187ff.

Imre de Vegh, R.E. Stat, 1942. [sic]

Paish, Economica, Nov. 1936

Interest Rates & Capital Movements

O. M. W. Sprague [Economic Adviser to the Bank of England]—Memorandum [presented after the Bank for International Settlements in May 1932]: Statistical Data on Foreign Short-Term Loans—their Collection & Use

[Paish, F. W.] Banking Policy & Int’l Payment. Economica [Nov.] 1936.

Gilbert. Review of Econ. Studies V. 5, pp. 187 ff.

The “Gold Standard”

[criticism of…next three items]

Keynes — Treatise on Money.

Whittlesey

Graham & Whittlesey. Golden avalanche

Bretton Woods:

Get Keynes’ plan (British Ministry of Information) & White (Treasury) plan (revised of July)

see also FR bulletin

Princeton bibliography on this.

Williams’ July- 1943 and Jan 1944, Foreign Affairs.

Irving Trust Co. Symposium. Read: texts of agreement

Goldenweiser, E. A.

articles by Kemmerer, Viner, Williams

C. P. Kindleberger, Short-Term Capital Movement (1936)

Marco Fanno. Normal and Abnormal Cap. movements.

Paul Einzig. Foreign Balances (1936)

Viner—Two plans for int’l monetary standard. Yale Review.

Pure theory of Int’l Trade

Viner—Studies ch.’s 8-9.

Lerner-(two articles) Diagrammatical Represent. Economica 346-56, 1932-34 319-34.

Leontieff — Use of Indifference Curves—Q.J.E. 1933.

Samuelson — Welfare Econ A.E.R. 1938.

Kaldor — Tariff — Economica 1940.

De Scitovszky — Reconsideration of Tariff — Review of Econ Studies—summer 1942.

J.C. Gilbert—Rev. Econ. Studies V. 3 “Present State of Int’l Theory”

Q.J.E. May 1938 Robertson on [Viner’s] Studies pp. 539ff.

__________________________

Bibliography for Viner’s Economics 370 in 1944

Angell, James W. Theory of international prices: History, criticism and restatement. Harvard Economic Studies No. 28, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1926.

Angell, James W. Equilibrium in international payments: the United States, 1919-1925. In Explorations in economics, notes and essays contributed in honor of F. W. Taussig. (1936).

Bernstein, E. M. Exchange rates under the gold standard. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jun., 1940), pp. 345-356.

Bronfenbrenner, Martin. International transfers and the terms of trade: An Extension of Pigou’s Analyis. In Studies in mathematical economics and econometrics: in memory of Henry Schultz (1942).

Currie, Lauchlin. Domestic stability and the mechanism of trade adjustment to international capital movements. In Explorations in economics, notes and essays contributed in honor of F. W. Taussig. (1936)

De Scitovszky, T. A reconsideration of the theory of tariffs. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer, 1942), pp. 89-110.

de Vegh, Imre. Imports and income in the United States and Canada. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Aug., 1941), pp. 130-146

Einzig, Paul. Foreign balances. London: Macmillan, 1938.

Ellsworth, P. T. International economics. New York: Macmillan, 1938.

Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. Edwin R. A. Seligman and Alvin Johnson (eds.). New York, Macmillan Co.

Vol. 2 (1930);  Vol. 10 (1933)

Explorations in economics, notes and essays contributed in honor of F. W. Taussig. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.

Fanno, Marco. Normal and abnormal international capital transfers. University of Minnesota Press, 1939.

Fisher, Irving. The purchasing power of money. Its determination and relation to credit, interest and crises. New York: Macmillan, 1911.

Gilbert, J. C. The present position of the theory of international trade. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Oct., 1935), pp. 18-34.

Gilbert, J. C. The mechanism of interregional redistributions of money. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Jun., 1938), pp. 187-194.

Graham, Frank D. and Charles R. Whittlesey. Golden avalanche. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939.

Haberler, Gottfried. The theory of international trade. Trans. by Alfred Stonier and Frederic Benham. London: William Hodge, 1936.

Heckscher, Eli F. Mercantilism (2 vols.) London: George Allen and Unwin, first edition, 193; revised, second edition, 1955. Original Swedish edition, 1931). (Review Essay by John J. McCusker in EH.net)

Heckscher, Eli F. Mercantilism. The Economic History Review, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Nov., 1936), pp. 44-54

Hume, David. Essays, moral, political, and literary. Eugene F. Miller (ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc.

Kaldor, Nicholas. A note on tariffs and the terms of trade. Economica, New Series, Vol. 7, No. 28 (Nov., 1940), pp. 377-380.

Keynes, John Maynard. A treatise on money. (2 vols.) New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930.

Kindleberger, Charles P. International short-term capital movements. New York: Columbia University Press, 1939.

Leontief, Wassily W. The use of indifference curves in the analysis of foreign trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 47, No. 3 (May, 1933), pp. 493-503.

Leontief, Wassily. Note on the pure theory of capital transfer. In . In Explorations in economics, notes and essays contributed in honor of F. W. Taussig. (1936).

Lerner, A. P. The diagrammatical representation of cost conditions in international trade. Economica, No. 37 (Aug., 1932), pp. 346-356.

Lerner, A. P. The diagrammatical representation of demand conditions in international trade. Economica, New Series, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Aug., 1934), pp. 319-334.

Malynes, Gerard. A treatise of the canker of England’s commonwealth, 1601. in Tawney and Power, Tudor economic documents, III, 1924, pp. 386-505.

Malynes, Gerard. The circle of commerce or the ballance of trade, in defence [sic] of free trade [sic], 1623.

Mill, John Stuart. Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy. (7th ed.). A. J. Ashley (ed.). London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1909.

Morgan, E.Victor The theory and practice of central banking, 1797-1913. Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

Mosak, Jacob L. General-Equilibrium theory in international trade (University of Chicago doctoral dissertation, 1941).Bloomington, IN: Principia Press, 1944.

Mun, Thomas. England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade (1664). New York, Macmillan and Co., 1895.

Ohlin, Bertil G. Interregional and international trade. Harvard Economic Studies No. 39. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933.

Paish, F. W. Banking policy and the balance of international payments. Economica, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 12 (Nov., 1936), pp. 404-422.

The Works of David Ricardo (New edition). J. R. McCulloch (ed.). London: John Murray, 1888.

Economic Essays by David Ricardo. Edited with introductory essay and notes by E. C. K. Gonner. London, G. Bell and Sons, 1926.

Ricardo, David. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, E. C.K. Gonner (ed.). London, George Bell and Sons, 1903.

Robertson, D. H. Changes in international demand and the terms of trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 52, No. 3 (May, 1938), pp. 539-540.

Robertson, D. H. Indemnity Payments and Gold Movements. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Feb., 1939), pp. 312-314.

Robertson, D. H. Indemnity Payments and Gold Movements: A Rejoinder. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Feb., 1939), pp. 317.

Samuelson, Paul A. Welfare economics and international trade. The American Economic Review, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Jun., 1938), pp. 261-266

Shields, Murry (ed.) International financial stabilization: a symposium. New York: Irving Trust Company, 1944.

Silberling, Norman J. Financial and Monetary Policy of Great Britain During the Napoleonic Wars, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Feb., 1924), pp. 214-233; No. 3 (May, 1924), pp. 397-439.

Sprague, O. M. W. “Statistical Data on Foreign Short-term Funds; their Collection and Use.” Paper read before an assembly of central bank governors following the General Meeting at the Bank for International Settlements in May 1932. [mentioned in Third Annual Report, Bank for International Settlements, Basle (May 8, 1933), p. 22.]

Studies in mathematical economics and econometrics: in memory of Henry Schultz. Oscar Lange, Francis McIntyre and Theodore O. Yntema (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.

Viner, Jacob. Angell’s Theory of International Prices. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 34, No. 5 (Oct., 1926), pp. 597-623.

Viner, Jacob. Review of Heckscher. The Economic History Review, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Oct., 1935), pp. 99-101

Viner, Jacob. Studies in the Theory of International Trade. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1937.

Viner, Jacob. Indemnity Payments and Gold Movements: A Reply. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Feb., 1939), pp. 314-317.

Viner, Jacob. Two plans for international monetary stabilization. Yale Review, Vol. XXXIII (1943-44), p. 77ff.

Whittlesey, Charles Raymond. International monetary issues. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937.

Williams, John H. Currency stabilization: The Keynes and White Plans. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Jul., 1943), pp. 645-658.

Williams, John H. Currency stabilization: American and British attitudes. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Jan., 1944), pp. 233-247

Wood, Elmer. English theories of central banking control, 1819-1858, with some account of contemporary procedure. Harvard Economic Studies 64. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

____________________________

Ph. D. Exam questions in int’l trade

  1. Basic determinants of course of trade (direction, volume, constituent items) between regions in absence of legal barriers. How reconcile this with statement that course of trade determined by (1) comparative cost of prod. (2) relative scarcities of factors of production in regions.
  1. Explain differences & similarities in mechanism of capital transfer under (a) int’l metallic standard & (b) flexible exchanges.
  1. Is it possible to demonstrate superiority of fixed over flexible exchanges, or vice versa, from a national point of view, on purely a priori grounds? Why or why not?
  1. Role in int’l monetary equilibrium of (a) official gold price (b) stabilization fund (c) sterilization (d) tripartite agreement.
  1. Give an account of the evolution of terms of trade theorizing or explain the role in mercantilist thought of (a) bullionist doctrine (b) balance of labor doctrine c) quantity theory of value of money.
  1. Discuss the role in Eng. mercantilist thinking of (a) considerations of power as distinguished from consideration of plenty (b) provision motive (c) quantity theory of money.
  1. Discuss the role of “income elasticity” in the older & newer literature on the mechanism of adjustment of int’l balances.
  1. Discuss the role of short-term capital movements under flexible & fixed exchanges.
  1. Explain the possibilities & the limitations of national gain in the long-run thru governmental restriction on for. trade.
  1. int’l monetary system
  1. Explain the relationship to each other in int’l static equilibrium of (a) comparative costs (b) relative scarcity of factors (c) reciprocal demand.
  1. Discuss role in operations of pre-1914 gold standard of (a) central banking (b) London money market (c) exchange rate fluctuations.
  1. Explain role in mechanism of adjustment to disturbances of int’l balances of payments of (a) income elasticity (b) price elasticity (c) final purchase (or income) velocity.
  1. Note on following pre-Smithian doctrines (a) power vs. plenty as objectives of trade policy (b) the desirability or undesirability of hoards of the precious metals (c) a divinely ordained “universal economy.” (d) balance of labor.
  1. What are the possibilities in the long run, of national & of world economic gains from the imposition by national units of restrictions on foreign trade.
  1. Role of int’l short-term capital movements in int’l monetary & trade mechanism.
  1. Under free trade the nature of interregional specialization is determined by the relative scarcities of the factors of production in the diff. regions.
    1. What is meant by relative scarcity of factors of prod.
    2. Do the exponents of this theory mean “determined solely”
    3. Does free trade necessarily conduce to the lessening of the differences in the relative rates of remuneration of the diff. categories of “factors of production” as between diff. countries.
    4. If you were setting up a system of equalities to illustrate the nature of int’l equilibrium under free trade—what “standard of living” consideration would you take care of & how?
  1. Discuss interrelationships (if any) of balance of power, balance of trade, “balance of labor” considerations in English mercantilist doctrine.
  1. Explain basic theoretical issues between bullionists & the ant-bullionists of Restriction period & indicate to what extent Ricardo’s views were not generally accepted by the bullionists.

_____________________________

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

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-08488, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. The photograph is dated 14 June 1944.

Categories
Columbia

Columbia. Founding Father of Faculty of Political Science. Burgess, Bio 1893

The economics department at Columbia University was the product of an evolution that began in a heavily historical, interdisciplinary pool. As rare as the entrepreneurial spirit would appear in today’s deans (hey, some of my best friends have been/are deans and, through force of circumstance, I have had a sort-of “deandom” thrust upon me), in the beginning it took a builder and not an administrator of faculties. Over at Chicago the role was played by J. Laurence Laughlin. At Columbia it was the scholar of legal history, John William Burgess. While one would be hard-pressed to identify any appreciable direct influence of Burgess on, say, the post-World-War-II economics faculty of Columbia and how graduate training in economics has been organized in the meantime, nonetheless the house Burgess built served as childhood home for generations of economists trained at Columbia during the first half of the twentieth century.

_______________________

JOHN WILLIAM BURGESS, LL. D.

PROFESSOR BURGESS was born at Cornersville, Giles County, Tenn., August 26, 1844. He was educated at Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tenn., and at Amherst College, Mass, whence he graduated in 1867. He then took up the study of law, and was admitted to the bar of Massachusetts in 1869. In the same year he was appointed professor of English literature and political economy in Knox College, Galesburg, Ill. Serving in that capacity for two years, in 1871 he went to Europe to further prosecute his studies. He studied history and public law at Göttingen, Leipsic, and Berlin. Returning to this country, he was, in 1873, appointed professor of history and political science in Amherst College. In 1876 he was called to the chair of political history and public law in Columbia College. In 1880 Prof. Burgess founded the School of Political Science in that college, and became its Dean, the position which he now holds.

In literature, Prof. Burgess’s best known work is his treatise on “Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law,” issued in 1891, which has already given him an international reputation. The part of the work treating of Constitutional Law is regarded as authoritative; for his treatment of political science, and especially his definition and exposition of sovereignty, the work has been subjected to not a little criticism; but it is a curious fact that his severest critics are those whose ideas on that subject are most confused and clouded. The book is one of the most able treatises on both subjects ever written, and has already taken a leading position among works of that character.

Prof. Burgess’ life work began with his return from Germany in 1873 and his entrance upon the duties of Professor of History at Amherst College in that year. The methods and results of German university instruction in history had made upon his mind a most profound impression. The contrast between the broad, genial and productive educational spirit which characterized the work of the leading professors of history and political science at Berlin and elsewhere, with whom he had become acquainted, and the meagre and comparatively fruitless attempts at historical study in the United States, was indeed striking. Although that point is not yet twenty years behind us, it would probably not be a misstatement to say that practically no instruction was given in history and political science in any educational institution in America other than a small amount of text-book work.

Perhaps Prof. Burgess has never achieved a greater success than with his first class. Text books were not thought of, but Prof. Burgess proceeded to lay before his class day after day the essential movements of the Middle Ages, out of which the modern European states and modern political institutions were developed. Instead of something to be memorized, history showed itself something to be understood, and institutions were made to appear, not as arbitrary creations, but as living growths, almost as inevitable results. No stronger testimony to the personal power of an instructor can well be given than was afforded by the fact that five or six members of this class actually spent a year in post-graduate study under Prof. Burgess at Amherst, although there was at hand for them neither books nor other material, absolutely nothing but one instructor.

Prof. Burges’ call to Columbia in 1876 gave him at once a larger field, and future possibilities of a greater promise than could be found at Amherst. The traditions of the study of political science were in some measure associated with the College. Prof. Lieber, who had been for many years connected with the College, was a man of wide repute as a publicist, and his works on politics are still of great value. Prof. Dwight had been in the habit of giving a certain amount of instruction on positive constitutional law of the United States and England. In the minds of the President and Trustees of Columbia College, the time had come for a broader course of instruction in historical and political sciences.

Prof. Burgess adopted in Columbia essentially the same methods of instruction which he had successfully pursued elsewhere. His work was in so far successful that he was able, through the liberality of the Trustees, to associate with himself one or two capable adjuncts, and during the four years following his accession there was developed, organized and brought into existence the School of Political Science. This had long been a favorite conception of Prof. Burgess, and its policy, curriculum, organization and administration had been the subject of constant thought and consultation with him for many years. In the establishment of this school, with Prof. Burgess as Dean, Columbia College set an example which has since been followed by a considerable number of American colleges.

A glance at the curriculum as originally set forth in 1880 shows that the various fields of public law and theoretical political science were the branches deemed most important. The development of the school from that time to this has followed on these lines with larger additions, perhaps, in the field of economics. Of history proper as a science there appears but a small trace and only very recently and in a small degree has the study of pure history found place in the school; but, on the other hand, a historical method or a mode of investigation of all political and economic subjects which, dealing with their history, shows the origin, growth and natural development of political and economic institutions, has been unvaryingly followed. At no time has the institution in any field of political economic science been allowed to degenerate into an airing of mere theories.

Prof. Burgess and the other men associated with him in the duties of instruction aim to teach the student, as they teach themselves, to get a clear grasp of the leading and formative events and forces at work in the state and in society, and while recognizing clearly the province of history and science, have found it feasible to give historical instruction only so far as history carries with it the account of those events and political forces which have essentially made up the institutions of to-day.

The School of Political Science has never catered to popularity or aimed for mere numbers. Independence in research, healthy methods of investigation, a clear conception of scientific principles as they have developed themselves historically, have always been the ideals aimed at.

Prof. Burgess has either been signally wise or fortunate in his choice of colleagues and has recognized the necessity of entire independence and personal responsibility in the methods and largely in the material of instruction followed by each individual. The natural development of the School of Political Science on these lines has thrown Prof. Burgess more and more into the field of public law and away from pure history, until his present line of work seems essentially to be a presentation to the school of the theory of the state as it has been historically developed and as specifically illustrated in the constitutional law and history of the United States and Europe.

Not less important than the work of creating the School of Political Science has been Prof. Burgess’ influence in the entire re-organization of Columbia College. Thoroughly impressed with the necessity of American universities and conversant with European in their various forms, and with a clear conception of the nature and functions of a university, Prof. Burgess’ counsels and views have been largely influential in shaping the form and organization of the entire institution as it exists to-day.

 

Source: Columbia Law Times. Vol. VI, No. 5 (February, 1893), pp. 123 -125.

Image Source: Columbia Law Times. Vol. VI, No. 5 (February, 1893), Frontispiece.

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. Henry L. Moore’s Memorial Minute, 1959. Salary issue, 1924.

 

 

We begin with an example of the honored academic tradition of a faculty minute entered into the record following the death of a present or former colleague. In the year that the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was awarded to Angus Deaton, in part, for his work in applied consumption analysis, I post the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science memorial minute for Henry L. Moore.

I follow the Memorial Minute with a letter written by Moore to his chairman Edwin R. A. Seligman appealing for a pay raise on the grounds that his research performance had been undervalued relative to administrative work and teaching of a colleague.

________________________________

[Memorial Minute]

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

April 17, 1959

Henry L. Moore

Henry Ludwell Moore was born in southern Maryland in 1869, the seventh in direct male line of descent from a Henry Moore who settled in Virginia in 1635 and who later moved to Maryland. After obtaining a B.A. at Randolph Macon in 1892, he pursued his studies at the University of Vienna and later received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in 1896. After one year as instructor of economics at Johns Hopkins and five years at Smith College, he came to Columbia in 1902 as adjunct professor, continuing as Professor of Political Economy from 1906 to his premature retirement from professional activity for reasons of health in April, 1929. He died at the age of 88 on April 28, 1958.

Professor Moore was a pioneer in the application of statistical theory, founded on the calculus of probabilities, to the evaluation of economic relationships in a context of a mathematically developed economic theory. Under the influence of his colleague John Bates Clark, 22 years his senior, and of Karl Pearson, Moore developed a statistical verification and extension of Clark’s theory of distribution in his “Laws of Wages,” published in 1911. In his “Forecasting the Yield and the Price of Cotton,” published in 1917, the inherent brilliance of his use of multiple correlation techniques by which he was able to outpredict, in retrospect at least, the elaborate crop forecasting machinery set up by the Department of Agriculture is in no way diminished, though somewhat disguised by the fact that the advent of the boll weevil completely upset the older relationships and made his formulas useless for subsequent forecasting, though the techniques remained valid.

In addition to his interest in economics, Moore had a deep attachment to classical philosophy and an interest ranging over many other fields; one of his courses was entitled “Interrelations of Political Economy and Sociology.” His interest in astronomy is perhaps responsible for his ill-fated attempt to relate the eight year business cycle, which he considered to be well established, to a corresponding weather cycle, and thereby to the corresponding periodicity of the transits and near-transits of Venus. In this he demonstrated a willingness to look for hypotheses to test wherever the data seemed to lead him, regardless of how remote the connection may initially seem, a procedure which, however dangerous it may be for the individual, is salutary for the progress of a science that finds it easier to weed out error than to develop new truth.

Moore’s pioneering steps have been to a considerable extent eclipsed in the minds of the current generation of economists by the tracks of those who have used the methods he pioneered. Henry Schultz’ all too brief but important career was given its initial impetus under Moore’s tutelage. Among the many others whose work was strongly influenced by Moore are Holbrook Working, Hugh Killough, Bradford Smith, Edmund Daggit, Fred Waugh, Louis Bean, and Mordecai Ezekiel. Moore’s final work, “Synthetic Economics” provided a significant bridge between the now classic work of Walras and Pareto in the field of mathematical economics and the more recent formulations of Hotelling and Samuelson.

In the nearly 30 years that have elapsed since his retirement, most of those who knew him intimately have left the science; yet it is appropriate to recall once more the significant role he had in the advancement of quantitative economics before the onrush of his successors hides his work completely from view.

 

Source: Department of Economics Collection, Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Box 8, Faculty of Political Science Minutes 1913-1959; Folder, “Faculty of Political Science Minutes”.

________________________________

The following letter of Henry L. Moore reflects a severe salary structure problem within the Columbia economics department going into 1924-25. Professors Wesley C. Mitchell, Henry L. Moore and Vladimir G. Simkhovitch were all receiving $6,000 annual salaries whereas the second-highest paid professor, Henry R. Seager, was getting paid $7,500. Highest paid was the chairman, Edwin R. A. Seligman at $10,000. In his departmental budget request to Columbia President Nicholas Murray Butler (November 23, 1923), Seligman reminded Butler of an “understanding that the salaries of a number of professors now receiving $6,000 will be advanced next year to $7,500, the minimum, as everyone must agree, compatible with the maintenance of the standing of living desirable for Columbia professors” and made the case for pay raises for Mitchell, Moore and Simkhovitch. The pay raises were ultimately granted, not for 1924-25, but for the following year.

Henry L. Moore’s lament should probably be read as expressing as his disappointed hope and/or that he might have been unaware of Seligman’s efforts in 1923 to get him the parity with Henry R. Seager that he was petitioning for.

________________________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Faculty of Political Science

September 20, 1924

My dear Professor Seligman:

We are about to begin the work of another year and I am anxious to do all in my power to contribute toward the solution, within the Department, of the personal problem before us. I ask leave, therefore, to present to you and, if you think it advisable, to other members of the Department, a statement of the relative amounts received in salary by Professor Seager and myself from the University:

 

Year Prof. Seager Prof. Moore
1902-3 3000 3000 I have had to rely on my memory for the changes in Prof. Seager’s salary. The figures relating to my own income are taken from my records.
1903-4 3500 3500
1904-5 3500 3500
1905-6 3500 3500
1906-7 3500 3500
1907-8 3500 3500
1908-9 4000 4000
1909-10 4500 2800 Here Professor Seager’s salary went up $500 and mine down $1200
1910-11 4500 2800
1911-12 6000 2800
1912-13 6000 2800
1913-14 6000 2800
1914-15 6000 2800
1915-16 6000 2800
1916-17 6000 2800
1917-18 6000 2800
1918-19 6000 4500
1919-20 6000 4000
1920-21 7500 6000
1921-22 7500 6000
1923-24 7500 6000
$117500 $82200

Several facts in this table need comment:

(1) Our salaries and rank were the same until the year 1909-10 when, at my request, in order that I might devote more time to research, I was relieved of much teaching and administrative work. I gladly paid for the increased leisure by suffering a reduction of my salary from $4000 to $2800. The same year Professor Seager’s salary was increased from $4000 to $4500. This annual difference of $1700 continued until 1911-12.

(2) In 1911-12 Professor Seager’s salary was increased to $6000; mine remained at $2800. The annual difference of $3200 continued until 1918-19 when, during the War, I was transferred to Barnard College at a salary of $4500. Professor Seager’s salary was $6000.

(3) The next year, 1919-20, I was transferred to Columbia, with a salary of $4000. Professor Seager’s remained at $6000.

(4) In 1920-21 Professor Seager’s salary was increased to $7500 and mine to $6000. The annual difference of $1500 has continued to the present time.

It would appear from these figures that if no account be taken of the reduction in our pay when we have been on leave of absence, Professor Seager’s aggregate salary has exceeded mine by more than thirty five thousand dollars.

*   *

A few years ago there was a Convocation of the Faculties of the University to consider methods of promoting research. You made a memorable speech in which you went directly to the heart of the matter in saying: “The only way to promote research is to find a man who can do it and then let him alone”. You were absolutely right. But how does it work in the particular case of our own Department? For twenty odd years Professor Seager and myself, who entered Columbia together with the same rank and same salary, have pursued different ends. he has preferred administration and teaching and has justly prospered in honors and income. I have accepted the necessary isolation and incurred the risks of the investigator who attacks new problems and devises new methods, but after nearly a quarter of a century of unremitting labor I have received from the University some thirty thousand dollars less than my honored colleague.

*   *

I am grateful to the University for giving me the opportunity for creative thought, and you will bear witness that I have never evinced any other sentiment than pleasure in the progress of a colleague. But isn’t there a principle at stake? Is it just to permit the financial discrimination between us to continue?

Yours sincerely,

[signed]
Henry L. Moore

Source: Columbia University. Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Seligman Collection Box 37 (aggregation of original Seligman boxes 100-102). Folder: “Box 100, Seligman, Columbia 1924-30”.

________________________________

For more about Henry Moore, see George J. Stigler, Henry L. Moore and Statistical Economics. Econometrica, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1962), pp. 1-21.

Image Source: Precedes the Stigler article.

Categories
Bibliography Columbia Courses

Columbia. Fiscal policy. Depression deficits and war finance. Shoup, 1941

Carl S. Shoup (New York Times obituary) taught a course at Columbia in the business school with the title “The balancing of government budgets” that was listed with economics department course offerings as “Economics b114”. One finds this course listed in the annual Bulletin of the Faculty of Political Science beginning in the Spring session of 1938 and then every year through 1943 with the exception of 1940.

In this posting you will find his selected bibliographies on deficit financing in periods of depression and the special problem of financing defense and war.

______________________________

[Course Description]

Economics b114—The balancing of governmental budgets. 3 points Spring Session. Professor Shoup.

Tu. and Th. at 9. 415 Business.

An analysis of the factors governing the choice between normal recurring revenue, such as taxes, and extraordinary revenue such as loans, devaluation profits, etc. Particular attention is paid to the relations of public finance to money and banking in these problems.

Source: Division of History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science. Courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1940-41. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 40th Series, No. 29 (June 29, 1940), p. 38.

______________________________

In this posting I have assembled three selected bibliographies two of which are undated and all three are without attribution to Shoup or any university identification. Two of the bibliographies are identified as belonging to a course “Economics b114”. These bibliographies are found in two folders (“Student years” and “University of Wisconsin, Econ b114”) filed far apart (boxes 5 and 75, respectively) in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution.

Milton Friedman taught at Columbia up through 1939-40 followed by a year at University of Wisconsin in 1940-41. None of the courses that Friedman taught at Wisconsin for which I found material in the his papers had a prefix “b” before the course number and it seems pretty unlikely (one would really need to consult the course catalogues for the University of Wisconsin to be sure…I have not) that the course numbering between the Columbia business school and the Wisconsin economics department would coincide.

I have concluded that the part of the Shoup reading list dealing with defense and war related finance was filed by a Hoover archivist with Friedman’s course materials at Wisconsin (incorrectly) because the date on that selected bibliography coincided with Friedman’s Wisconsin years (and perhaps it was actually found with materials from his business cycle class, Economics 176, at Wisconsin).

________________________

 

Economics b114
Selected Bibliography on Deficit Financing in Periods of Depression

Chase, Stewart, Idle Money, Idle Men

Clark, J. M., Economics of Planning Public Works

Clark, J. M., “An Appraisal of the Workability of Compensatory Devices,” American Economic Review, March, 1939 Supplement (Proceedings), pp. 194-208

Clark, J. M., “Effects of Public Spending on Capital Formation”, in National Industrial Conference Board, Capital Formation and its Elements, 1939.

Colm, G. and Lehmann, F., Economic Consequences of Recent American Tax Policy, Supplement I to Social Research, 1938, 108 p.

Colm, G. and Lehmann, F., “Public Spending and Recovery in the United States,” Social Research, May, 1936, Vol. III, 129-66.

Dennison, H. S. and others, Toward Full Employment, 1938, 297 p.

Eccles, Marriner, Economic Balance and a Balanced Budget (Weissman, editor)

Galbraith, J. K., The Economic Effects of the Federal Public Works Expenditures, 1933-1938, 131 p. 1940.

Galbraith, J. K., “Fiscal Policy and the Employment-Investment Controversy”, Harvard Bus. Rev., Autumn, 1939.

Gayer, Arthur, “Fiscal Policies,” American Economic Review, March, 1938 Supplement (Proceedings), 90-112. (Reprints on reserve at Business Library).

Gayer, A. D. and Rostow, W. W., How Money Works, Public Affairs Pamphlets No. 45, 1940, 30 p.

Gill, C., Wasted Manpower: The Challenge of Unemployment, 1939, 312 p.

Graham, B. L., “Storage and Stability – A Plan for Monetizing the Commodity Surplus”, in Roberts, Geo., A Forum on Finance, 1940.

Haley, B. F., “The Federal Budget: Economic Consequences of Deficit Financing,” Am. Eco. Rev., Feb., 1941, 67-87.

Hansen, A. H., Full Recovery or Stagnation? 1938, pp. 267-329.

Hicks, U. K., “Balancing the Budget” (Ch. XVII) and “Taxation and the Trade Cycle” (Ch. XVIII), in The Finance of British Government, 1920-1936. (1938)

Jaszi, G., “The Budgetary Experience of Great Britain in the Great Depression,” in Public Policy: A Yearbook (Harvard), 1940.

Kahn, R. F., “The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment,” Economic Journal June, 1931.

Keynes, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Keynes, J. M., The Means to Prosperity

Keynes, J. M., NY. Times, Editorial page, June 10, 1934 (p. 1 of editorial section) and July 7, 1934.

Lerner, A. P., “Some Swedish Stepping Stones in Economic Theory,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Nov., 1940, espec. p. 574-80.

Lutz, H. L., The Business Man’s Stake in Government Finance, Stanford Univ. 1939, espec. pp. 16-20, 23-44, 45-66.

Lutz, H. L., “The Failure of the Spending Policy,” N. Y. Sun, Jan. 6, 1940

Meyers, A. L., “Government Borrowing and Creation of National Income,” Chap. IV, in Modern Economic Problems. 1939.

Myers, M. G., Monetary Proposals for Social Reform, 1940, 191 p.

Myrdal, Gunnar, “Fiscal Policies in the Business Cycle,” A.E.R., 1939 Proceedings, 183-93.

Pigou, A. C., “Inflation, Deflation and Reflation,” Ch. IV in Economics in Practice, 1936.

Round Table on “The Workability of Compensatory Devices,” A.E.R. 1939 Proceedings, 224-29.

Samuelson, P. A., “Theory of Pump-Priming Reexamined,” Am. Eco. Rev., Sept., 1940, 492-506.

Seltzer, L. H., “Direct versus Fiscal and Institutional Factors,” Am. Eco. Rev. Feb., 1941, 99-107.

Slichter, Sumner, “Is America Finished?” N.Y. Sun, Jan. 6, 1940

Slichter, Sumner, “Profits and Prosperity,” Atlantic Monthly, Nov., 1938.

Smith, D. T., Deficits and Depression

Smith, D. T., “Is Deficit Spending Practical?” Harvard Bus. Rev., Autumn, 1939.

Smith, D. T., “An Analysis of Changes in Federal Finance, July 1930-1938 Rev. Econ. Statistics, Nov., 1938.

Smith, D. T., Review of Haley’s Paper, ibid., 88-98.

T.N.E.C., Hearings, Part 9: Hansen, Currie, etc.

Twentieth Century Fund, Debts and Recovery, 1938, 366 p.

U. S. Treasury, Borrower,” Fortune, January, 1939.

University of Chicago, Round Tables. “The Economics of Pump-Priming.” May 1, 1938, “Purchasing Power and Prosperity,” July 31, 1938.

Vanguard Press, An Economic Program for American Democracy.

Williams, John H., “Deficit Spending”, Am. Eco. Rev. Feb. 1941, 52-66.

 

Source: Milton Friedman papers, Hoover Institution Archives. Box 5, Folder 12 “Student years”. [Note above my reasons to believe this folder also has material not from Friedman’s “student years”.]

______________________________

Economics b114
Bibliography of Recent Materials Dealing with the Financing of Defense and War
February 5, 1941

American Council of Public Affairs, Economic Mobilization

Bowen, I., and Worswick, G. D. N., “The Controls and War Finance,” Oxford Econ. Papers, Sept., 1940.

Brown, F. H., and others, War Finance in Canada, 1940.

Clarke, R. W. B., The Economic Effort of War, London, 1940.

Connely, E.F., “Financing our Preparedness Program,” Banker’s Mag., Aug., 1940.

*Durbin, E.F.M., How to Pay for the War, London, 1939.

Editorial Research Reports, Methods of Financing War, June 3, 1940.

George, E.B., “Prices and Profits in a Defense Economy,” Dun’s Review, Nov., 1940.

*Greer, Guy, “Arming and Paying for It,” Harpers, Nov., 1940.

Hardy, C.O., “War and Capital Formation,” in Capital Formation and Its Elements, National Industrial Conference Board, 1939, pp. 134-50.

*Hardy, C.O., “Wartime Control of Prices,” 1940.

*Hart, A.G., Economic Policy for Rearmament, U. of Chicago Public Policy Pamphlet No. 33.

Kazekevitch, V.D., “The War and American Finance,” Science and Society, Spring, 1940.

*Keynes, J.M., How to Pay for the War, New York, 1940.

Morgan, S., “Deficit Financing in Germany,” in Roberts (editor), Forum on Finance, New York, 1939, pp. 3-22.

*Moulton, Harold G., Fundamental Issues in National Defense, Brookings, Jan. 13, 1941.

National Industrial Conference Board, Consumption, Savings, and Defense Financing, and Fiscal Possibilities for National Defense, Supplements to Economic Record, 1940.

*New Republic symposium: How to Pay for Defense, July 29, 1940 (Groves, Keynes, Chase, Cooke, Soule).

Pigou, A. C., “War Finance and Inflation,” Economic Journal, Dec., 1940.

Radice, E.A., “Consumption, Savings, and War Finance,” Oxford Economic Papers, Sept., 1940.

Riches, E.J., “Deferred Pay: the Keynes Plan,” Inter. Labor Review, June, 1940.

Robbins, L., “How Britain Will Finance the War,” Foreign Affairs, April, 1940.

Staudinger, H., and Lehmann, F., “Germany’s Economic Mobilization for War,” National Industrial Conference Board Economic Record, July 24, 1940.

*U.S. Government, Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1942.

______________________________

The next page immediately follows the previous but it lacks a date and the formatting of the bibliography deviates from the previous two. Being alphabetically ordered and going from “Annals” to “Williams” with perhaps a quarter of empty page below, it is clearly a separate list. None of the titles are the same with the previous two lists, so I have presumed this is a likely update from the middle of the second session 1941.

______________________________

Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science: Billions for Defense, March, 1941, 1-215.

Bach, G.L., “Rearmament, Recovery and Monetary Policy”, American Economic Review, March, 1941, 27-41.

Eccles, M. S., “Economic Preparedness for Defense and Post Defense Problems, Federal Reserve Bulletin, Jan., 1941.

Gilbert, R. V., and others, “Exploring the Factors Involved in Reemployment of Labor and Capital”, Savings Bank Journal, Dec., 1940.

Hansen, A. H., “Defense Financing and Inflation Potentialities,” Review of Economic Statistics, Feb., 1941.

Hearings, Public Debt Act of 1941: Committee on Ways and Means, Jan. 29 and 30, 1941, 106pp: Subcommittee of Committee on Finance, Feb. 12, 1941 47p.

Musgrave, R. A., “Inflationary Dangers of the Public Debt and the Tax System”, Taxes, Feb., 1941

Paul, R. E., and others, “Exploring the Financing of National Defense and Its Economic Consequences,” Savings Bank Journal, Oct., 1940

Plumptre, A. F. W., “An Approach to War Finance,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Feb., 1941, 1-12.

Secretary of the Treasury, Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940.

Stewart, Maxwell, “How Shall We Pay for Defense?” Public Affairs Pamphlet, No. 52, 1941.

Williams, John H. “Economic and Monetary Aspects of the Defense Problem,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Feb. 1941

 

Source: Milton Friedman papers, Hoover Institution Archives. Box 75, Folder 2 “University of Wisconsin, Econ b114”. [Note above my reasons to believe this folder contains a reading list from the Shoup course at Columbia University.]

______________________________

Research Tip: Shoup Collection at Yokohama National University Library

“The Shoup Collection consists of 3,000 volumes of books, 100 titles of periodicals and enormous amount of documents held by an American economist Dr. Carl Sumner Shoup (1902-2000) who is known to have issued the report of Japanese tax system called “Shoup Mission.” In particular, the documents of his lecture notes, working memoranda and letters including those from Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for Allied Forces, and from Shigeru Yoshida, former Prime Minister, are precious inheritances that can only be found at this library.”

______________________________

Image Source: The Columbia Spectator Archive. March 8, 1967.

 

 

 

Categories
Bibliography Columbia Courses Economists

Columbia. Economic History Course taught by Simkhovitch. Attended by Friedman, 1933.

Of six graduate courses taken for credit at Columbia University by Milton Friedman, one was taught by the Professor of Economic History, Vladimir Gregorievitch Simkhovitch — Economics 119. According to Friedman’s own listing of his coursework in economics found in his papers at the Hoover Institution Archives, he took Simkhovitch’s economic history course during the winter semester of the academic year 1933-34.

Simkhovitch was a multifaceted character and Universalgelehrter which can be loosely translated as an academic “utility infielder”. Because of his relative (or even absolute) obscurity now in the history of economics, here a bit of biographical information to chew on.

V. G. Simkhovitch was born in Russia in 1874, received his doctorate from Halle-Wittenberg (Germany) in 1898, and emigrated to the U.S. after completing graduate work where he began a fellowship at Cornell. He was hired by Columbia University in 1904 to teach economic history. Besides his economic history courses, Simkhovitch also regularly lectured on the subjects of socialist economics and Marxism until retiring from Columbia in 1942. Of considerably more note than himself was his wife Mary Melina Kingsbury, whom he met in Berlin during their student years. They married in New York City in 1899 with Mary Simkhovitch going on to become a prominent housing reform and neighborhood activist. Greenwich House, still in existence, was a model settlement house that she founded. Husband and wife were prominent enough, mostly thanks to her, to have their 50th wedding anniversary reported in the New York Times (January 6, 1949). Objects from Vladimir Simkhovitch’s art collections were reported in his obituary (New York Times, December 10, 1959) to have been displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Pierrpont Morgan Library in New York as well as museums in Boston, Cleveland and Philadelphia. It is not difficult to find objects once owned by him in art auction house listings today.

__________________________

Eli Ginzberg’s recollections of Simkhovitch

In his brief memoir essay “Economics at Columbia: Recollections of the early 1930s” [The American Economist, vol. 34, No. 2, (Fall, 1990), 14-19], Simkhovitch does not come off well, certainly not personally.

“The hard core of the old department in addition to Seligman, Seager and Moore included Vladimir G. Simkhovitch who offered courses on socialism and economic history. Russian by birth and German by education, Simkhovitch, even with the perspective of time is not easy to characterize and even harder to evaluate. A collector of Chinese art and a grower of delphiniums in Perry, Maine, he was recognized as an expert in both fields. Most students, the bright as well as the dull, considered his lectures somewhat tedious distraction from serious work on contemporary economics; they had little interest in his exhaustion of the soil explanation for the decline of Rome or his Edward Bernstein-modified critique of Karl Marx. But a few of us recognized V.G.’s insightfulness and over looked his failings, defects which included a proneness for character defamation and vindictiveness as well as immature behavior toward female students.” p. 14.

“If the relations between the Graduate Economics Department and the School of Business were close and for the most part friendly, this was not the case with respect to the Graduate Economic Department’s attitude to the economists who taught in the undergraduate department headed by Rexford G. Tugwell. Tugwell fancied himself to be an expert in agricultural economics which may have brought him into conflict with Simkhovitch who devoted much of his time and energy to creating and maintaining feuds. The tension may have been nothing more than snobbery run riot. Tugwell did not teach any course in the Graduate Department of Economics. But I can personally attest to the fact that Tugwell was sensitive about collegial relations.” p. 17

Ahem…“immature behavior toward female students”!  Certainly not the first, nor regrettably the last…but definitely one of them.  It was good for Eli Ginzberg to have put that in the historical record. 

__________________________

[Course Description]

Economics 119—Economic history. 3 points Winter Session. Professor V. G. SIMKHOVITCH.
Tu., 2:10-3 in 401 Fayerweather and 4:10-5 in 302 Fayerweather.

A general survey of the chief phases of the economic development of classical antiquity, of the Middle Ages, and of modern times, as well as of historical approaches.

Source: History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for Winter and Spring Sessions, 1933-34. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 33rd Series, No. 26 (March 25, 1933)

__________________________

ECONOMIC HISTORY

V. Simkhovitch “Approaches to History”

I Political Science Quarterly, December 1929 S
II         [ditto]                             December, 1930 S
III       [ditto]                              September, 1932 R

Towards an Understanding of Jesus R
Rome’s Fall Reconsidered S
Hay and History S
Marxism v. Socialism Chapter on the Economic Interpretation of History

 

R         Roth Clausing The Roman Colonate 5-62

R         F. de Coulanges The Origin of Property in Land 1-73; 149-52

S          Buecher         Industrial Evolution 83-151

R         Edward Meyer Entwicklungsgeschichte des Altertums in Kleine Schriften Vol. 81-160

R         H. Bradley      Enclosures in England 11-45; 72; 85; 105-7

S         Seligman The Economic Interpretation of History 1-24; 146-186

R         Schoenberg “Zunftswesen im Mittelalter” Jahrbucher fur Nationaloekonomie und Statistik 1867

R         Renard           Guilds in the Middle Ages 1-26; 32-67; 73 -115

R         Brentano       History and Development of the Guilds

R         Cunningham Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Paragraphs 61, 72-7, 84, 103, 122, 128, 149-9

S          Ashley Introduction to English Economic Theory and History, Volume I pp. 1-113

R         Toynbee Industrial Revolution Chapters 7 and 8

R         Toutain          The Economic Life of the Ancient World Chapters 5-6

R  Read                      S   Study carefully

 

Source: Milton Friedman Papers. Hoover Institution Archives. Box 5, Folder 12, “Student years”.

__________________________

Image Source: Standing Royal Figure. Brooklyn Museum, Gift of Helena Simkhovitch in memory of her father, Vladimir G. Simkhovitch.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Columbia Salaries

Columbia. 1931-50 graduate economics alumni survey 1950

Robert M. Haig was a public finance economist at Columbia University, the successor to Edwin R. A. Seligman as McVickar Professor of Political Economy. In Haig’s papers is the following memo from James Angell (the “Executive Officer”, i.e. chairperson, of the department of economics within Columbia’s faculty of political science) reporting the results of a 1950 survey of former graduate students in the department. Just under 1,200 questionnaires were sent out. The response rate was about one-third. Duration data for different stages of graduate study, occupations/salaries in 1950 by final completed stage of graduate study were tabulated.

A gender breakdown for occupation/salaries is also provided. It is interesting to note that the 1950 gender gap between men and women for people with economics Ph.D.’s from Columbia (1931-50) who were teaching was 7.2%.

In current prices, the average 1950 salaries of the economics Ph.D.’s from Columbia (1931-50) were: $59,000 (teaching); $88,500 (government); $94,000 (other economics related work); $108,000 (all non-economic-research related work).

Note: The urban CPI has increased by a factor of 9.9 since then: (CPI July 1950 24.1, July 2015 238.7).

_____________________________

June 20, 1951

To: The Members of the Department of Economics
From: James W. Angell
Subject: Occupations and Salaries of Our Former Graduate Students

Last summer, in order to improve our records on former graduate students in the Department, brief questionnaires were sent out to the 1,182 students who had received the M.A. degree, or passed the Ph.D. oral examination, or received the Ph.D. degree, in the twenty years 1931-1950. We were primarily concerned to obtain their present addresses and occupations, but we also asked for the dates when the several academic standings had been achieved, and for the latest (1950) salary.

We received only 377 replies, or 32 per cent of the number of questionnaires sent out. Of the total sent, 84 questionnaires, or 7 per cent, were returned because the Post Office could not locate the addresses.

It is probably that the replies received do not constitute a representative sample, especially with respect to salaries: in the main, the less successful students are presumably those who are less likely to reply to such inquiries. But a partial check of the names of those who did not reply shows that this was not always so. A number of the group who did not reply are known to be holding good positions.

An analysis of the replies has been made by our colleague, Frank W. Schiff chiefly with respect to (1) the time intervals between the dates of achievement of the several academic standings, (2) present (1950) occupation, and (3) present (1950) salary. Not all those who replied answered all the questions, and the several group totals are hence not always consistent. The various results are summarized in the following tables.

 

  1. Number of Replies, Grouped by Half-Decade When Highest Academic Standing Achieved by Student Was Attained: 1931-1950

 

Highest Standing Attained
Years

Total Replies

 M.A. Passed Orals

Ph.D.

1931-35

 39 18 4 17

1936-40

 60 26 11

23

1941-45

 68 26 12

30

1946-50

 210 126 48

36
1931-1950 377 196 75

106

 

Table 2 shows the arithmetic average of the number of years which were required to move from one level of academic standing to another. Because the number of observations is small, extreme values have considerable influence. It was felt that eliminating a few extreme values would hence give a more representative result; but the unadjusted totals are also shown, for comparison. The retarding effect of the war is conspicuous in most cases. Table 3 shows the distribution for each stage, over the period as a whole, of the numbers of years required; and the median values to the nearest whole year (these values in some cases differ markedly from the arithmetic averages shown in Table 2).

 

  1. Average (Arithmetic) Number of Years Elapsed Between Dates of Attainment of Levels of Academic Standing: 1931-1950 (Extreme Values Omitted)

Years

 A.B. to M.A.  A.B. to Orals A.B. to Ph.D. M.A. to Orals M.A. to Ph.D.

Orals to Ph.D.

1931-35

 2.8 6.2 9.4 3.7 6.3 2.5

1936-40

 2.4 5.2 10.8 3.1 7.6 3.1
1941-45 2.3 4.7 9.8 2.9 7.1

3.7
1946-50 3.6 6.6 11.7 2.2 9.3

5.6

1931-1950a

  

3.0

 

 5.8 10.6 2.8 7.8

4.1
Number of observations before adjustment

324

 155 98 145 87

78
Number omitted

20

 6 3 9 2

3
1931-50: unadjusted averagesa

3.8

 6.4 11.2 3.5 8.4

4.5
 

aArithmentc averages for the whole period, not of the averages for the sub-periods.

 

  1. Distribution, by Numbers of Years, of Periods Elapsed Between Dates of Attainment of Levels of Academic Standing, 1931-1950

Number of Years Elapsed

 A.B. to M.A. A.B. to Orals A.B. to Ph.D. M.A. to Orals M.A. to Ph.D.

Orals to Ph.D.

1-2

 179 31 0 78 3 28

3-4

 56 32 2 31 12 18

5-6

 36 28 11 12 19 15
7-8 19 26 19 13 18

8

9-10

 11 13 15 2 16 3
11-12 5 11 21 5 8

4

13-14

 6 7 13 3 3 1
15-16 7 2 7 0 5

0

17-19

 2 2 4 0 0 1
20-29 2 2 4 1 2

0
30-40 1 1 2 0 1

0
Totals

 

 324 155 98 145 87

78

Medians

 2 6 11 2 8

4

 

It is interesting to note that although the sum of the medians of the numbers of years elapsed between A.B. and M.A., plus M.A. to Orals, plus Orals to Ph.D. is only eight, the median for that relatively small number of students (less than one-third of the whole sample: Table 1.) who actually covered the whole course to the Ph.D. itself is 11 years. This is presumably due in largest part to the fact that relatively few students had the financial means to go straight through from A.B. to Ph.D. without interruption. Most of them had to take time out to earn more money.

Table 4, taken from a study by Professor Stigler, compares data for Harvard and Columbia.1 The Harvard students may or may not be brighter; but the substantially greater financial assistance given to students at Harvard must also help to account for the conspicuous differences in most years and fields.

 

  1. Average Number of Years Elapsed Between A.B. and Ph.D. at Columbia and Harvard, 1900-1940

1900

 1910 1930

1940
Natural Sciences

Columbia

 7.6 8.0 9.4 9.2
Harvard 6.8 8.3 6.2

6.1
Social Sciences

Columbia

 4.3 9.8 10.3 12.9
Harvard 4.8 4.5 10.5

8.7
Human-ities

Columbia

 4.7 9.3 13.9 14.3
Harvard [6.3] [9.2] [7.9]

[8.8]
All Fields

Columbia

 6.3 9.2 10.8 11.7
Harvard 6.2 8.4 8.0

7.8

1George J. Stigler, Employment and Compensation in Education (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1950), p. 37.

[Note to Table 4: I have added the figures for the row Humanities/Harvard from Stigler (1950). In the original memo this row was for some reason left blank.]

 

Table 5 shows the percentage distribution of students, by the highest academic standing achieved and by half-decades, according to their 1950 occupations. The category “Other Economic Work” includes those engaged in economic research and economic advisory work with business firms, banks and foundations, and those who are self-employed in such work. It excludes those who are in business management or operation. The absolute numbers in each group were given in Table 1, above.

 

  1. Occupations in 1950, Grouped by Half-Decades When Highest Academic Standing Was Attained: 1931-1950 (In Per Cents)

 

Occupation, and Highest Academic
Standing Attained		 Entire Period 1931-
50		 1931-
35		 1936-40 1941-
45

1946-50
M.A.
Teaching

29.1

 27.8 23.1 23.1

31.7
Govern-ment

24.5

 11.1 46.2 34.6

19.8
Other economic work

25.5

 33.3 11.5 34.6

25.4
All other

20.9

 27.8 19.2 7.7

23.1

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Passed Orals
Teaching

53.3

 0 36.4 50.0

62.5
Govern-ment

21.3

 50.0 27.2 50.0

10.4
Other economic work

22.7

 50.0 36.4 0

22.9
All other

2.7

 0 0 0

4.2

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Ph.D.
Teaching

59.4

 58.8 47.8 63.3

63.9
Govern-ment

17.9

 11.8 26.2 16.7

16.7
Other economic work

17.0

 17.6 21.7 20.0

11.1
All other

5.7

 11.8 4.3 0

8.3

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Totals
Teaching

42.4

 38.5 35.0 45.6

44.3
Govern-ment

22.0

 15.4 35.0 29.4

17.1
Other economic work

22.6

 28.2 20.0 22.1

22.4
All other

13.0

 17.9 10.0 2.9

16.2

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

 

Finally, Table 6 shows the average sizes and distribution of salaries, by occupation and by highest academic standing attained, on the same general basis as Table 5. But not all the replies received contained data on salaries, so that this sample is 12 per cent smaller than that used for Table 5 (331 replies instead of 377). The omissions are fairly uniform by major groups, however, and to avoid complicating the Table, the absolute numbers of relies in each group are not given. The few groups in which high average salaries were reported each contain, regrettably, only 1 to 4 cases; even the $10,300 group (Ph.D.’s, Other Economic Work, 1936-40) has only 5 members. It should also be emphasized that the data cover salaries only, not total earnings. Royalties, lecture fees and the like are not included. Thirty-one, or 9.4 per cent of the total, reported salaries of $10,000 or more.

All figures are arithmetic averages for the relevant groups. Thus the first column shows the averages for the entire period, 1931-1950, not the averages of the sub-period averages. Since the lowest-paid group (1946-50) is also much the largest (Table 1), the averages for the period 1931-50 as a whole are in one sense heavily biased downward. For example, for the period as a whole the average salary as computed by averaging the sub-period figures is $6,579, not $5,714.

 

  1. Average Salaries in 1950, Grouped by occupations and by Half-Decades When Highest Academic Standing Was Attained: 1931-1950
 

Highest Academic
Standing Attained

Entire Period 1931-50

 1931-
35		 1936-
40		 1941-
45

1946-
50
M.A.: aver-ages

$4,772

 $6,709 $6,830 $5,534

$3,988
Teaching

3,891

 5,294 5,525 3,980

3,503
Govern-ment

5,436

 8,113 6,867 5,881

4,110
Other economic work

5,123

 7,890 11,150 5,371

4,240
All other

4,660

 4,625 4,900 12,000

3,935
Passed Orals: aver-ages  

5,862

 

 11,375 7,055 6,738

4,709
Teaching

4,066

 — 5,438 4,737

3,783
Govern-ment

6,993

 7,250 6,450 8,340

5,760
Other economic work

7,887

 15,500 8,975 —

5,711
All other

16,000

 — — —

16,000
Ph.D.: aver-ages  

7,175

 8,593 7,719 6,691

6,622
Teaching

5,964

 7,700 6,009 6,077

5,017
Govern-ment

8,936

 8,350 8,900 9,360

8,808
Other economic work

9,494

 17,250 10,300 6,480

11,167
All other

10,900

 — — —

10,900
Totals: aver-ages  

5,714

 

 8,089 7,240 6,306 4,679
Teaching

4,806

 7,023 5,786 5,531

3,979
Govern-ment

6,523

 7,904 7,358 7,628

5,331
Other economic work

6,592

 10,495 9,973 5,833

5,031
All other

5,963

 6,166 4,900 12,000

5,747

 

Table 6 makes no differentiation between men and women. Of the 377 replies received, 73 (19 per cent) were from women. Of these women, 49 were regularly employed in 1950 and reported their salaries. Of the remaining 24, most were apparently married (though information on marital status was not requested), and either not working for a salary or only working part-time.

Table 7 therefore shows the break-down for average salaries as between the 282 reporting men and the 49 reporting women who were regularly employed in 1950. There is no category for “unemployed;” no respondent, with one possible exception, reported difficulty in finding employment.

It is striking that although the average salaries for women usually run well below those for men in comparable brackets, the difference for teachers in the various categories is relatively small.1 The table also does not indicate the wide dispersions for the several groups of women. In 1950 2 women Ph.D.’s were earning $10,000 or more.

1No significance should be attached to the fact that the average salary for all women in teaching slightly exceeds the salary shown for men. These figures are not comparable because a much higher percentage of women teachers who reported were in the Ph.D. category than of men teachers.

For the group as a whole, 28 men and 3 women were earning $10,000 or more in 1950.

 

  1. Average Salaries in 1950 (Table 6), Grouped by Sex: for Entire Period, 1931-1950
 

 

Men

 Women

All Graduates
 

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies  

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies  

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies

M.A.: aver-ages

134

 $4,843 30 $4,455 164

$4,772
Teaching 43 3,923 7 3,695 50 3,891
Govern-ment 34 5,758 12 4,524 46 5,436
Other economic work 37 5,129 8 5,125 45 5,123
All other 20 4,734 3 4,173 23 4,660

Passed Orals: aver-ages

 62 5,939 6 5,066 68

5,862
Teaching 37 4,066 — — 37 4,066
Govern-ment 10 7,480 4 5,775 14 6,993
Other economic work 13 8,538 2 3,650 15 7,887
All other 2 16,000 — — 2 16,000

Ph.D.: aver-ages

 86 7,368 13 5,892 99

7,175
Teaching 53 6,033 10 5,600 63 5,964
Govern-ment 18 8,936 — — 18 8,936
Other economic work 13 10,100 3 6,666 16 9,494
All other 2 10,900 — — 2 10,900

Totals: aver-ages

282

 5,854 49 4,912 331

5,714
Teaching 133 4,803 17 4,816 150 4,805
Govern-ment 62 6,959 16 4,837 78 6,523
Other economic work 63 6,858 13 6,300 76 6,592
All other 24 6,186 3 4,173 27 5,963

 

Source: Robert M. Haig Papers, Columbia University Archives. Box 107, Folder: “Haig Correspondence A, 1949-1952”.

Image Source:Unveiling Alma Mater by Roberto Ferrari (July 15, 2014).

 

Categories
Chicago Courses Exam Questions

Columbia. Exam Questions for Econ 110. J. M. Clark, 1934

The course exam transcribed below would appear to correspond to John Maurice Clark’s course Economics 110 (Dynamics of value and distribution) which was offered in the Spring Session rather than Clark’s course Economics 109—Foundations of Social Economics which was offered in the Winter Session. Milton Friedman’s own notecards show that he did in fact attend Economics 109, but the content of the course as seen in Friedman’s notes is not reflected in the questions in the exam below. The handwritten note by Friedman identifying the exam as coming from  John Maurice Clark’s course “Social Economics” (i.e. Economics 109) and dated May 1934 is clearly incorrect. Examine the course description for Economics 110 to see if you agree.

___________________________

[COURSE DESCRIPTION]

Economics 110—Dynamics of value and distribution. 3 points Spring Session. Professor J. M. Clark. M. and W. at 2:10. 401 Fayerweather.

The functions of value and price; the dynamics of supply and demand for commodities and factors of production; the institution of competition; social vs. competitive schemes of distribution; value and expenses of production; expenses and ultimate costs of production; cumulative vs. self-limiting changes; the level of prices; economic rhythms.

Source: Columbia University Bulletin of Information, Thirty-third series, No. 26 (March 25, 1933). Courses offered by the faculty of Political Science for Winter and Spring Sessions 1933-1934. page 26.

___________________________

[Examination Questions for J. M. Clark’s Economics 110, Spring Term 1934.]

[Friedman’s handwritten note]
Exam in J. M. Clark’s course “Social Economics”, May 1934 [sic]

 

Answer three questions.

I.   Discuss the problem of the general characteristics of the supply-schedule for savings.

II.  Discuss whether the only geographical price-structure consistent with competition is one in which each producer sells at a price or prices which yield him a uniform amount at the point of production, the more distant purchasers paying the additional costs of transportation (Potter’s mill-base price.)

III. How would you draw the line between monopoly limited by substitution, and competition?

IV.  Discuss why competition between two or three large producers requires a different theoretical analysis from that which describes “pure competition” and why no single definitive answer to this problem has been found.

V.   Would you recommend further shortening of standard hours of labor per week, with wages per hour raised to give the worker not less than his former weekly earnings, as a means of stimulating business activity through increased purchasing power?

VI.  Can a cumulative increase in business activity be expected as a result of increased government spending during a depressions: (a) financed by borrowing, (b) financed by a sales tax? Could there be such an increase in physical volume of production and employment, or only in physical volume of business?

VI. B. (May be substituted for VI., but not both answered)
Under what conditions may an increase in expenditure for a given commodity have a cumulative effect in increasing the general volume of production; and under what conditions will it not have such an effect?

Source: Milton Friedman Papers, Hoover institution Archives, Box No. 115, Folder 13 (Biographical: Class Exams circa 1932-1938).

Image Source: Wikpedia.

 

Categories
ERVM

Visitors to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror

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

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

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

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

 

Categories
AEA Chicago Funny Business

Chicago Hotel Costs for the 1924 AEA Meeting

Part of the cost-of-professors involves the costs of attending professional meetings. Just for a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how hotel rates have changed, we see that the headquarters hotel for the 1924 AEA meeting was The Congress where a double room (with private bath) cost $6.00 and up. (The rates quoted below appear to be day rates when one compares with rates quoted, e.g. for the La Salle Hotel, in The Official Hotel Red Book and Directory 1920.) 

A quick check of Booking.com and Orbitz gives rates for today at The Congress Plaza Hotel  “from $149”. I presume that rate is for double-occupancy-with-bath as well. We have an increase of $149/$6.00, a nearly 25-fold increase in the price over a 91 year period, about an average 3.5% annual rate of increase. OK, maybe the TV, phone and internet connections plus all that shampoo and conditioner should be adjusted for so this is an overstatement of hotel rate inflation.

Over the same period the Consumer Price Index for the U.S. has grown nearly 14-fold, about an average annual rate of increase of 2.9%. Of course there is room for discussion about how well this particular index handles the changing market baskets and quality differences over nearly a century.

1924_HotelCostsAEAmeetingChicago

More historical images of the Congress Hotel.

Postcard of the Auditorium Hotel.

Postcard of the Sherman Hotel.

 

Source: Announcement of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association to be held at Chicago, Illinois, beginning Sunday Evening, December 38, and closing at Noon Wednesday, December 31. 1924. Issue of November 10.  From the University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 22, folder 8.

Categories
Bibliography Courses Economists Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Uncategorized

Harvard. Econ 113b. Schumpeter’s Grad Course on the History of Economics. 1940.

___________________________

Joseph Schumpeter offered this one semester, second term graduate course “History and Literature of Economics since 1776” nine times during the period 1940-1949. The core readings were basically unchanged. Below you will find the course enrollment figures and the reading list for 1940 (into which I have inserted the two additions from the reading list for 1941). Exam questions from 1940 and 1941 are included as well as an important research tip at the bottom of the posting. Nobel Laureates James Tobin and Robert Solow took this course in 1940 and 1947, respectively. I have gone to the trouble of providing links to almost the entire reading list as a public service to the history of economics community of scholars.

The (much reduced) reading list for the last time Schumpeter taught the course, Spring 1949 is transcribed in a later post.

___________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

___________________________

[Course Description: History and Literature of Economics since 1776]

Course work will mainly consist in critical study of the leading English, French, German and Italian contributions to economic thought in the nineteenth century. An introductory and a concluding series of lectures and discussions will provide the links with earlier and modern developments. Undergraduates who have passed Ec A are admitted without individual permission

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

Course Enrollment Statistics:

Grad. Students Seniors Juniors Radcliffe Other Total
1939-40 9 3 1 0 3 16
1940-41 11 2 0 3 1 17
1941-42 5 1 0 4 1 12
1942-43 10 3 0 6 3 22
1943-44 2 1 0 3 3 9
1944-45 Not offered
1945-46 18 2 5 25
1946-47 21 1 0 6 7 35
1947-48 17 4 0 2 7 30
1948-49 2 1 0 0 1 4

Note: The course number was Economics 113b until the academic year 1947-48, under the new course numbering system in 1948-49, it became Economics 213b. Joseph Schumpeter died in January 1950.

Source: Harvard/Radcliffe Online Historical Reference Shelf. Harvard President’s Reports.

___________________________

Economics 113b
[History and Literature of Economics since 1776]
1939-40
[second term]

 

I. For general reference you should currently consult:

Erich Roll, A History of Economic Thought (1939, [link to 1945 edition]), or
L. H. Haney, History of Economic Thought (1927).[1923 revised edition]

Suggestions:

John M. Keynes, Essays in Biography (Essays on Malthus, Marshall and Edgeworth).

 

II. Works dealing with the history of individual doctrines or problems. No assignment.

Suggestions:

E. Boehm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, Vol. I.
E. Cannan, Theories of Production and Distribution (1924). [2nd ed., 1903]
F. W. Taussig, Wages and Capital (1896).
J. Viner, Studies in the Theory of International Trade (1937), Chs. I and II.
K. Marx, Theorien über den Mehrwehrt (1921). [1910 edition by Karl Kautsky: vol I, vol. II(1), vol. II(2), vol. III.]

 

III. This course covers many authors whose teaching is also dealt with in other courses and whose works are more or less familiar to every student. The most important of them are:

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, also read the introduction to Cannan’s edition.
David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy.
John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy; also read introduction to Ashley’s edition.
Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, particularly Book V.
John B. Clark, Distribution of Wealth (1899).

Suggestions:

Augustin Cournot, Principles of the Theory of Wealth (Fisher’s edition, 1927).
Léon Walras, Element d’économie pure (edition definitive, 1926).
Knut Wicksell, Lectures on Political Economy (Robbins’ edition, 1934). [volume I, volume II]

 

IV. In addition, the following books should be read, at least cursorily:

Richard Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce en général (1755); English translation by Higgs (1931).
David Hume, Political Discourses (edition by Green and Grose, 1875), Vol. I. [Miller edition]
Sir James Steuart, Principles of Political Economy (1767). [Vol I (1767); Vol II ]
A. R. J. Turgot, Réflexions sur la Formation et la Distribution des Richesses (1766), (Oeuvres, ed. Daire, 1844). Vol I; Vol II.
Thomas R. Malthus, Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). [1803 edition, enlarged]
Jean B. Say, Traité d’économie politique (1803). [2nd ed. 1814] [1855 English translation from 4th and 5th editions]
William N. Senior, Outline of the Science of Political Economy (1836).
William St. Jevons, Theory of Political Economy (1871).
J. E. Cairnes, Leading Principles.
Karl Marx, first volume of Das Kapital (English translation).

Suggestions:

J. H. v. Thünen, Der isolierte Staat (ed. Waentig, 1930).
R. Auspitz und R. Lieben, Untersuchungen über die Theorie des Preises (1888), (also translation into French). [Vol. I (French); Vol. II (French)]
Carl Menger, Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (London School reprints, 1934). [English translation with introduction by F. A. Hayek]
F. Y. Edgeworth, Mathematical Psychics (London School reprints, 1932).
M. Longfield, Lectures on Political Economy (London School reprints, 1931).
H. C. Carey, The Past, the Present and the Future (1848).
H. George, Progress and Poverty (1879).
S. Newcomb, Principles of Political Economy (1885).
Ph. Wicksteed, The Commonsense of Political Economy (1908).

 

V. Monographs on individual authors. No assignments.

Suggestions:

[Addition to list in 1940-41: Henry Higgs, The Physiocrats (1897)]
W. R. Scott, Adam Smith as Student and Professor (1937).
J. Rae, Life of Adam Smith (1895).
J. Bonar, Malthus and his Work (1924). [1885 ed.]
M. Bowley, Nassau Senior and Classical Economics (1937).
F. Mehring, Karl Marx (1936).
J. R. Hicks, Leon Walras (Econometrica, 1934).
[Addition to list in 1940-41: H. W. Jevons and H. S. Jevons, “William S. Jevons,” Econometrica]

Source: Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Harvard University Archives, HUC 8522.2.1. Box 2, Folder “1939-40, 2 of (2)” and Folder “1940-41”.

___________________________

1939-1940
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 113b2

Answer any FOUR out of the following five questions:

  1. Discuss the wage-fund theory and its practical implications. In what sense was it resuscitated by Boehm-Bawerk and Taussig?
  2. Exponents of the Labor-Quantity theory of value and exponents of the Marginal Utility theory of value have for decades tried to refute each other. What is the true relation between the two theories?
  3. State and criticize the Marxian theory of Surplus Value or of Exploitation.
  4. What do you think of the so-called Ricardian theory of rent?
  5. What are the main objections that were raised against the “Austrian school” during the early stages of its development?

Final. 1940

 

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

1940-1941
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 113b2

One question may be omitted. Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.

  1. If a layman, trying to make intellectual conversation, asked you what Adam Smith’s performance consisted in, what would you say?
  2. What was the importance, for the economic theory of its time, of Malthus’ Essay on Population?
  3. Explain the meaning and use of the theorem usually referred to as Say’s Law.
  4. What are the conditions that would have to be fulfilled in order to make the labor-quantity theory of value true?
  5. State and discuss Ricardo’s version of the so-called law of the falling rate of profit.
  6. Jevons, Walras and Menger no doubt felt that they had revolutionized economic theory. What did this revolution consist in and how important do you think it was?
  7. Under modern conditions, most producers have no use for any significant part of their products. Hence their subjective valuation of these products depends on what these products will exchange for, that is to say, on their prices. How, then, can we derive these prices from utility schedules of buyers and sellers without reasoning in a circle?

Final. 1941.

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

Research Tip: 75 pages of student notes taken by future Nobel Laureate James Tobin for Economics 113b2 of the 1939-40 academic year are available in the James Tobin Papers at the Yale University Library Manuscripts Collection, Group No. 1746, Box. No. 6 in one of the hard-bound volumes of Tobin’s notes from his Harvard courses.

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1943.