Author: Irwin Collier

Categories
Economics Programs Faculty Regulations M.I.T.

M.I.T. “Industrial Economics” Ph.D. name changed to “Economics”, Economics S.M. recognized as exit ramp, 1965

 

Somewhat surprising is the late date (1965!) of the name-change for the economics Ph.D. at M.I.T. from “Industrial Economics” to “Economics”. Also interesting in the transcribed memorandum below is the request to lower the math and science prerequisites for the economics S.M. to that of the Ph.D. in order to facilitate the graceful, early exit of graduate students unlikely to complete the Ph.D. 

____________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

MEMORANDUM

February 5, 1965

To: Committee on Graduate School Policy
From: Robert L. Bishop, Head, Department of Economics and Social Science

For some time now, there has been a strong sentiment in our Department that our graduate degree programs should be changed and supplemented. The changes that we should now like to propose officially will require action by the Faculty and the Corporation, because they involve changes in degree titles, in one instance a change in prerequisites and content of the degree, and in another instance the addition of a new degree. On the other hand, the changes are not really of a radical nature and will not involve any additional staff or any augmenting of the numbers of our graduate students.

At present we have programs for a Ph.D. in Industrial Economics, a Ph.D. in Political Science, and an S.M. in Economics and Engineering or in Economics and Science. Our proposals are: (1) to change the title of the Ph.D. in Industrial Economics to a Ph.D. in Economics; (2) to substitute for the present S.M. degrees a single S.M. in Economics, with admission requirements the same as for the Ph.D. in Economics; and (3) to add an S.M. in Political Science, having an analogous relationship to the existing Ph.D. in Political Science.

Dropping the adjective “Industrial” from the title of our Economics Ph.D. is merely a belated recognition of the considerable broadening of that program that has taken place since it was first established in the years just prior to World War II. At that time, the designation of Industrial Economics appropriately reflected the limited kind of study that was then visualized. Since then, however, our program has expanded in its scope and diversity so that the original designation has become a decided anachronism for the majority of our Ph.D. recipients.

Even in the beginning, as now, the admission requirements for our Economics Ph.D. have differed from those in most Departments, in that they did not include the amount of mathematics and science taken by M.I.T. undergraduates. Instead, only one full year of college mathematics and one full year of college work in science have been required. These requirements reflect, of course, a desire to make our program accessible to most Economics majors in liberal arts colleges. The requirements for our present S.M. degrees, by contrast, constitute essentially the subjects taken by an undergraduate in the Economics option of Course XIV. It is those admission requirements that we propose to change, so that a candidate for the Ph.D. might alternatively be a candidate for an S.M.

Professional training for a career in Economics is such that the Ph.D. has really become the essential degree for anyone who aspires to the fullest professional status. Nor is it our intention to admit candidates solely for the S.M., except in very special circumstances. Over the years, however, we have felt the desirability of being free to award and S.M. in Economics to some students. These include some foreign students, often connected with research programs at the Center for International Studies, who can profit significantly from graduate study at M.I.T. but who are unable to stay long enough for the full Ph.D. program. In all frankness, too, it must be confessed that we have sometimes wished that we were free to divert a Ph.D. candidate toward the lesser degree because of inadequacies of performance after enrollment at the institute. Naturally, the student whose performance is acutely disappointing should not be given any favorable consideration. In many cases, however, performance is not up to the high standard that I think we have maintained for the Ph.D., but still high enough to merit continuance for an S.M.

The reasons supporting a new S.M. degree in Political Science are exactly the same. The only difference here is that there is no S.M. of any kind available in Political Science.

These changes involving S.M. degrees are also in line with some changes that we are simultaneously proposing to the Committee on Curricula with respect to our undergraduate degrees in Course XIV. It is being proposed that these degrees be redesignated more simply as in Economics (Course XIV-A) or in Political Science (Course XIV-B). A copy of these proposals is attached.

Provided that both the undergraduate and graduate program changes are approved, we shall then adopt the same distinction between Course XIV-A and Course XIV-B at the graduate level as at the undergraduate. This will achieve the important administrative reform of distinguishing, as is not now the case, the Economics and Political Science graduate students.

As to the details of the revised graduate degrees, I enclose alternative catalogue copy that would replace the descriptions on pages 142-144 in the present catalogue.

To the extent that the Committee on Graduate School Policy may wish some further discussion of these changes, my colleagues and I will be very pleased to provide it.

RLB:e

 

Source: MIT Institute Archives. Department of Economics records. Box 1, Folder “Comm. On Grad. School Policy”.

Categories
Economists Williams

Great-Granddad of Sam Bowles who encouraged Arthur L. Perry to write an economics textbook, 1860s.

 

That the economist Sam Bowles of the Sante Fe Institute and the CORE Project comes from a distinguished New England family is well-known. Today while tracking down different editions of the economics textbook written by the Williams College professor, Arthur Latham Perry, I stumbled upon his acknowledgement of the encouragement given him by the editor of the Springfield Republican, Samuel Bowles, to write an economics textbook. Putting on my genealogical gumshoes, I checked that the two Sams of the case were indeed related. It wasn’t hard work. This post shares the result of my queries.

About the economics professor Arthur Latham Perry:

Joseph Dorfman. Economic Mind in American Civilization, vol. 3 1865-1918. New York: 1949. pp. 56-63.

Stephen Meardon. A Tale of Two Tariff Commissions and One Dubious “Globalization Backlash”. Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department Working Paper 476 (November 2002), pp. 14-19.

________________________

Samuel Bowles, Great-Grandfather of economist Samuel Stebbins Bowles
(b. 9 Feb 1826; d. 16 Jan 1878)

Arthur Latham Perry’s expression of gratitude to Samuel Bowles
Preface to Elements of Political Economy (4th ed.)

Samuel Bowles of the “Springfield Republican” invited me, in 1864, to write a series of articles for his paper on some of the topics of Political Economy. These articles met the eye and the approbation of Sidney Homer of Boston, and of Amasa Walker of North Brookfield. Both these gentlemen communicated to me by letter their desire that I would continue to address the public on those subjects. Thus encouraged, and wishing also to furnish myself and other practical teachers with a manual in which the principles of the science should be laid down as I understand them, I proceeded to write this book. But the hazards of publication were not to be run without subjecting the work to the critical eye of a competent thinker. President Woolsey of Yale College very kindly rendered me this service.

To these four gentlemen, then, each of whom I am happy to reckon as my friend, is this fourth edition very cordially dedicated. My sense of obligation to many other friends, and to a generous public also, is expressed in an endeavor to make the book more worthy than before of their continued favor.

A.L.P.

Williams College, February, 1868.

Source: Arthur Latham Perry, Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College. Elements of Political Economy (4th ed.), p. iii. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1868.

Biography: George S. Merriam. The Life and Times of Samuel Bowles (Volume I; Volume II). New York: The Century Co., 1885.

Image Source: Portrait of Samuel Bowles. Mason A. Green. Springfield, 1636-1886. History of Town and City (Boston: C.A. Nichols & Co., 1888), following p. 542.

________________________

Charles Allen Bowles, Grandfather
(b. 19 Dec 1861; d. 14 Nov 1933)
&
Chester Bliss Bowles, Father of economist Samuel Stebbins Bowles
(b. 5 Apr, 1901; d. 25 May 1986)

Charles A. Bowles, Obituary

Charles P. Harris of Morris inn, West street, has received word of the death Friday at his home in Springfield, Mass., of his brother-in-law, Charles Allen Bowles, 71, second and last surviving son of Samuel Bowles. He was the grandson of the elder Samuel Bowles, founder of the Springfield Republican.

Besides his wife, Mrs. Nellie Seaver Harris Bowles, a daughter of the late Mr. and Mrs. Joel B. Harris of Rutland, Mr. Bowles leaves a daughter, Miss Dorothy Bowles of Springfield; two sons, Charles Allen Bowles, jr., of Springfield and Chester Bliss Bowles of New York: two sisters, Mrs. William H. King of Winnetka, Ill., and Mrs. Ruth S. Baldwin of New Canaan, Conn., and four grandchildren.

Mr. Bowles was born in New York December 19, 1861. He was a graduate of the Sheffield Scientific school of Yale university in the class of 1883. For many years he was in business in Springfield.

Source: Rutland Daily Herald (Rutland Vermont). 20 November 1933, p. 10.

 

Charles A. Bowles House, 81 Mulberry Street, Springfield, MA, ca. 1938-39.

This massive house is one of Springfield’s finest examples of Colonial Revival architecture, and was designed by Guy Kirkham, one of the city’s leading architects of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Completed in 1894, it was among his earliest works, and was designed for Charles A. Bowles, a paper manufacturer whose father, Samuel Bowles, had been the prominent editor of the Springfield Republican from 1851-1878. Charles’s older brother Samuel succeeded their father as editor after his death in 1878, but Charles went into the manufacturing business instead. He attended Sheffield Scientific School at Yale for a year, but did not graduate. Instead, he worked briefly for the Pennsylvania Railroad before entering the papermaking industry in 1884.

In 1885, at the age of 24, he married Nellie S. Harris of Rutland, Vermont, and early in their marriage they lived in a house nearby at 34 Avon Place. By the time they moved into this house on Mulberry Street in 1894 they had two children, Charles and Dorothy, and they would have one more son, Chester, who was born in 1901. During this time, Charles went into business for himself, becoming a partner in the firm of Dexter & Bowles, which sold paper pulp and other supplies for paper manufacturers.

Charles Bowles lived here until his death in 1933, but Nellie was still living here with her daughter Dorothy when the first photo was taken at the end of the 1930s. Dorothy was in her early 40s at the time, and she worked as a dressmaker, with a shop on Vernon Street. She lived here in this house until her mother’s death in 1943, and she subsequently moved to a house on Maple Court. In the meantime, Charles and Nellie’s older son, Charles, Jr., lived here with his parents until his marriage in 1917, and he and his wife Helen lived in Springfield’s Forest Park neighborhood until his death in 1946.

It was Charles and Nellie’s youngest child, Chester, who would go on to have the most prominent career, becoming a successful politician, diplomat, and advertising executive. He grew up here in this house and lived here until the mid-1920s, around the time that he married his first wife, Julia Fisk. He briefly worked as a reporter for the Springfield Republican from 1924 to 1926, but he saw limited opportunities for himself in a newspaper that was crowded with other family members. So, he moved to New York City and, in 1929, established the advertising agency of Benton & Bowles, which would go on to become highly successful in the early years of radio advertising. The firm introduced soap operas to radio programming, largely in an effort to advertise to housewives who listened to the radio at home, and during the 1930s the company’s clients included General Foods, Bristol-Myers, Colgate, Dr. Pepper, Prudential Life Insurance, Columbia Records, and Procter & Gamble.

However, Bowles left the advertising industry in 1941, and he went on to become a member of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration during World War II. From 1943 to 1946 he served as the administrator of the Office of Price Administration, and then served one term as governor of Connecticut from 1949 to 1951. Later in 1951, he was appointed as ambassador to India, and served until the end of Harry Truman’s administration in 1953. He served one term in Congress, from 1959 to 1961, and after being defeated for re-election he was appointed Under Secretary of State by John F. Kennedy. In 1963, Kennedy appointed him as ambassador to India again, and Bowles went on to serve in this capacity until the end of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency in 1969.

By the time Bowles was in the midst of his political and diplomatic career, his childhood home here on Mulberry Street had been converted into apartments. It would remain a multi-family home until 1991, when it was severely damaged by a fire that gutted the back of the house and destroyed much of the roof. For the next decade, the house stood vacant and exposed to the elements, and was nearly demolished by the city several times. However, it was sold in 2000 and restored the following year, earning an award from the Springfield Preservation Trust in the process. Today it hardly looks any different from when the Bowles family lived here 80 years ago, and it still stands as one of the finest homes in the Ridgewood Local Historic District.

Source: Derek Strahan, “Charles A. Bowles House, Springfield, Mass” at the Lost New England Website (Feb. 23, 2018)

Image Source: Samuel Bowles (2015). Wikimedia.

Categories
Columbia Salaries

Columbia. Major increase in salaries for instructional staff announced, 1928

 

Several interesting aspects to this post: (1) there was a major across-the-board increase in the salary scale at Columbia University in 1928; (2) the salary scale was not differentiated according to faculties or departments; (3) E.R.A. Seligman’s salary was at the top of the full professor scale.

Pro-tip:  Clicking on the “salaries” keyword at the bottom of this post will take you to other artifacts with salary information.

__________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
President’s Room

April 5, 1928

My dear Professor Seligman

It is with great pleasure and profound satisfactions that I advise you of action taken by the Trustees at their meeting on April 2, 1928, greatly to improve the scale of compensation paid to full-time teachers and administrative officers who are appointed directly by the Trustees of Columbia University. This action, effective from July 1, 1928, affects every member of the teaching and administrative staff on full-time service, 450 in number, with two exceptions,–first, those who have heretofore, and as exceptional cases, been advanced in the manner now made general for their group; and, second, those who, by the provisions of the Budget for 1928-29 as just adopted, have been just now, through promotion or advancement in salary, brought up to the present minimum level of the group to which they belong. The salaries of this latter class, 32 in number, will naturally be increased to the new minimum scale in the next or following years, as may be found practicable.

By the terms of the new salary scale, the full Professor will receive a normal minimum salary of $7,500 instead of $6,000 as heretofore, and there will be groups at $9,000, at $10,000, and at $12,000, to which, for special reasons or under exceptional circumstances, individuals may be from time to time advanced or appointed.

The Associate Professor will receive a normal minimum salary of $5,000, instead of $4,500 as heretofore, and there will be a group at $6,000, to which, for special reasons or under exceptional circumstances, individuals may be from time to time advanced or appointed.

The Assistant Professor will receive a normal minimum salary of $3,600, instead of $3,000 as heretofore, and there will be groups at $4,000, at $4,500, and at $5,000, to which, for special reasons or under exceptional circumstances, individuals may be from time to time advanced or appointed.

The Instructor will receive a normal minimum salary of $2,400, instead of $2,000 as heretofore, with advancement in subsequent years, if reappointed, to $2,700 and $3,000.

Fourteen officers of administration will receive additional compensations amounting in all to $9,500 annually; and seventeen members of the Library Staff will receive additional compensations amounting in all to $5,300 annually.

The compensation paid for service in the Summer Session or in University Extension is not to be increased because of the changes now made in the general salary schedule. Officers who accept Summer Session or University Extension service do so voluntarily, and the present stipends are as large as the resources of the University will permit.

I congratulate the entire University staff upon this most important action by the Trustees, which will do so much to make more comfortable and more satisfying the conditions of academic life and service at Columbia.

I have particular pleasure in advising you that your salary from July 1, 1928 has been fixed in the Budget as amended at $12,000.

With cordial regards,

I am,

Faithfully yours,

[signed] Nicholas Murray Butler
President

Professor E. R. A. Seligman

__________________

Response by E.R.A. Seligman
Carbon copy

April 11, 1928

President Nicholas Murray Butler,
Columbia University.

My dear Mr. President:

I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 5th. I need not say with what appreciation the news has been received among all my colleagues and I want to thank you very warmly also on my own behalf for what constitutes a notable step forward in the history of higher education.

When this is coupled with what you told me the other day, it will certainly be a landmark in university history.

What we must now try to do is to insist upon the highest possible standard in the quality of the scholars connected with Columbia.

            Respectfully yours,

[unsigned copy: E.R.A. Seligman]

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman Collection, Box 37, containing “Box 100: Columbia 1924-30”.

Image Source: Art and Picture Collection, The New York Public Library. (1913). Library Columbia University, New York City. Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e2-8bad-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Economics of Mobilization and War. Syllabus, exam questions. Harris, 1952

 

Just as the Harvard economics department saw it fit to offer a course on the economic aspects of war at the start of the Second World War, there was a course on the economics of mobilization and war at the time of the Korean War taught by Seymour Harris, who had organized the earlier departmental course on war economics in 1940. Enrollment numbers for courses taught during the academic year 1951-52 were not included in the Harvard College Report of the President, so I am unable to include that information in this post. However, we have the course catalogue description, course reading list, and the final examination as transcribed below.

________________

Course Description

Economics 120. Economics of Mobilization and War

Half-course (spring term). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 12. Professor Harris.

This course deals with the following problems on both a historical and current basis: the allocation of resources; income policies; the financing problems; the avoidance of inflation; the incidence of inflation; the relevance of controls; international aspects.

Source: Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences During 1951-52. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLVIII, No. 21 (September 10, 1951) p. 77.

________________

Course Syllabus and Readings

Spring Term 1951-52
Economics 120
Economics of Mobilization and War

*Books to be bought

I. Introduction (1 week)

Nature of the problem: mobilizations of World War II and the 1950’s
Three models: peacetime economy, mobilization economy, war economy
Real costs and money costs
Prospects for the civilian standard of living

Reading

*1. Harris: Economics of Mobilization and Inflation, Ch. 1 (pp. 3-25)
2. Keynes: How to Pay for the War, Chs. 1, 2 (pp. 1-12)
3. Hart: Defense Without Inflation, Ch. 9 (pp. 165-185)
4. Pigou: The Political Economy of War, Ch. IV (pp. 47-55)

 

II. The Problem in Real Terms: Optimal Division of Resources (3 weeks)

Allocation of resources, manpower, and facilities; changing nature of output
International aspects
Production scheduling; “bottlenecks”
Administration of military procurement

Reading

1. Pigou: The Political Economy of War, Ch. III (pp. 29-47)
2. Harris: Economics of Mobilization and Inflation, Chs. 2-6 (pp. 25-85)
3. Office of Defense Mobilization: Three Keys to Strength (Third Quarterly Report to the President) or subsequent reports.
*4. Chandler and Wallace: Economic Mobilization and Stabilization, Chs. 4, 5 (pp. 91-136)

 

III. The Problem in Money Terms: Adequate Funds Without Runaway Inflation (3 weeks)

Financing the War; the “inflationary gap”
Why is inflation harmful? Uneven incidence of inflation
The Fiscal Policy attack on inflation
The Direct Controls attack on inflation
Interrelatedness of Fiscal Policy and Direct Controls

Reading

1. Keynes: How to Pay for the War, Ch. 2 (above)
2. Pigou: The political Economy of War, Chs. VII, VIII (pp. 72-94)
3. Harris: Economics of Mobilization and Inflation, Chs. 7-10, 18, 19, 22 (pp. 85-119; 197-214; 245-256)
4. Hart: Defense Without Inflation, Chs. 1, 4 (pp. 3-18, 59-77)
5. Galbraith: A Theory of Price Control, Chs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (pp. 28-75)
6. Scitovsky, Shaw and Tarshis: Mobilizing Resources for War, Ch. 2 (pp. 101-144) and pp. 145-149 of Ch. 3
7. Chandler and Wallace: Economic Mobilization and Stabilization, pp. 34-59 and Ch. 26 (pp. 569-592)
8. Harris: Price and Related Controls in the United States, Ch. II (pp. 29-38)

 

IV. Fiscal Policy: Its Implementation and Effects (3 weeks)

Funds for financing mobilization: taxes or loans?
Reducing aggregate demand: taxes, savings, or deferred payment?
Burden of the public debt

Reading

1. Pigou: The Political Economy of War, Chs. VII VIII (above)
2. Harris: Economics of Mobilization and Inflation, Chs. 11-17, Chs. 22-24 (pp. 119-197, 245-286)
Chandler and Wallace: Economic Mobilization and Stabilization, Part III and Ch. 15 (pp. 180-272, 273-315)
4. Keynes: How to Pay for the War, Ch. V (pp. 27-34)

 

V. Direct Controls: Principles and Techniques (3 weeks)

Allocation of resources: priorities
Price control, rationing, wage control, rent control
Costs, prices, subsidies, supplies
International Aspects

Reading

1. Hart: Defense Without Inflation, Ch. 5 (pp. 78-97)
2. Harris: Price and related Controls in the United States, Chs. III-VIII, XI, XII, XVIII, XXI, XXII, XXV, XXVII
3. Galbraith: A Theory of Price Control, Ch. 8 (above)
4. Harris: Economics of Mobilization and Inflation: Ch. 20, 21 (pp. 214-245)

 

VI. Summary and Alternative Policies

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1), Box 5, Folder “Economics, 1951-1952 (1 of 2)”.

________________

Reading Period Assignment

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Reading Period Assignments
May 5 – May 24, 1952

Economics 120:

Bureau of the Budget: THE U.S. AT WAR. Chs. 5 through 7, 9 through 12, 15 and 16.

D. N. Chester (Ed.): LESSONS OF THE BRITISH WAR ECONOMY.

Baruch: AMERICAN INDUSTRY IN THE WAR, First Annual Report of the Activities of the Joint Committee on Defense Production. Read 250 pages dealing primarily with stabilization agencies. (Superintendent of Documents)

Joint Committee on the Economic Report: MONETARY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT, Part I. Read either pp. 1-194 or 207-492.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1), Box 5, Folder “Economics, 1951-1952 (1 of 2)”.

________________

Final Examination
May 1952

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 120

Instructions: Answer both questions in Part I, and any two questions in Part II.

Please write legibly!

Part I

  1. (a) Summarize the “disequilibrium system” and the “pay-as-you-go” approaches to stabilization. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each as applied to the current mobilization period? (20 points)
    (b) Most practicable programs involve some combination of direct and indirect controls. Discuss the theoretical bases for monetary, fiscal, and direct controls, respectively, and explain clearly the theoretical interrelatedness of these measures. (20 points)
  2. Write a critical summary of some phases of your reading period assignment. (10 points)

 

Part II

  1. (a) Indicate briefly—by chart, if you prefer—the organizational hierarchy of the present mobilization and stabilization agencies and summarize briefly the function of each agency. (5 points)
    (b) Summarize the economic issues of the current Steel Case. Include in your answer such points as the WSB recommendations, the criteria for the recommendations, controversial issues, etc. (20 points)
  2. Define or identify and then discuss the significance of five (5) of the following: (5 points each)
    (a) Low end problem
    (b) Formula pricing
    (c) Controlled Materials Plan
    (d) Little Steel Formula
    (e) Differential pricing
    (f) Margin of tolerance and the Inflationary Gap
    (g) Simplification programs
    (h) Priority inflation
    (i) Export controls
  3. Outline the major economic institutions of the ideal “free enterprise” system and indicate what functions they perform. How are these functions carried out in a war economy such as the current one? (25 points)
  4. Discuss the problems which mobilization brings to the following areas:
    (a) Agriculture (5 points)
    (b) National Debt Management (10 points)
    (c) Welfare Expenditures (10 points)

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 27. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Air Sciences, Naval Science. June, 1952.

Image Source:  Seymour Harris in Harvard College, Class Album 1957, p. 67.

Categories
Harvard History of Economics Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. History of Economics. First semester readings and exams. O. H. Taylor, 1955-56

 

Overton H. Taylor described his book, A History of Economic Thought: Social Ideals and Economic Theories from Quesnay to Keynes (McGraw-Hill, 1960), as “an outgrowth from, or reduction to book form of, a part of the course of lectures, covering the same ground, which I have given annually for many years at Harvard University.”  This post provides the graduate course outline for the first semester and final examinations for both semesters of his course for the 1955-56 academic year. It is something of a mystery that no syllabus with reading assignments for the second semester of the course  can be found in the Harvard archive’s collection of course syllabi (also not for the previous year either). Perhaps the second semester was structured according to the interests of the students in the course and Taylor simply announced reading assignments as they went along. At least the final examination questions from June 1956 give some indication of the material covered (Marx, Austrian value theory, neo-classical economics in general and Marshall in particular, Veblen…but not Keynes).

*  *  *  *  *  *

Earlier syllabi and exams by Taylor in the history of economics have been posted earlier:

Syllabus. Economics 115 (Fall Term, 1948-49). Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times.

Final Exam. Economics 115 (Fall Term, 1948-49). Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times.

Syllabus and Final Exam. Economics 115 (Spring Term, 1947-48). Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times.

A much earlier version of the material for a one semester course:

Syllabus. Economics 1b (Spring Term, 1940-41). The Intellectual Background of Economic Thought.

Final Exam. Economics 1b (Spring Term, 1940-41). The Intellectual Background of Economic Thought.

Greater emphasis on economic theory was given in his graduate course:

Syllabus. Economics 205a (Fall Term, 1948-49). Main Currents of Thought in Economics and Related Studies over Recent Centuries.

In the Preface to his 1960 book Taylor described his purpose in writing as follows:

Perhaps I have a desire to be a ‘missionary’ in both directions–to convert as many noneconomist or lay readers as I can into interested students of economic theory and its history, and to convert more fellow-economists into interested students, also, of the diverse, general views or perspectives on all human affairs which formerly concerned all philosophical political economists.

______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Fall Term, 1955-56

Economics 205
History of Economic Theory
[O. H. Taylor]

I. Sept. 26-30. Introduction.

Reading due Sept. 30. (1) J. A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, Part I, (45 pp.). (2) Review of the Schumpeter History, by O. H. Taylor, in (Harvard) Review of Economics and Statistics, Feb. 1955. (3) Essay, “Philosophies and Economic Theories in Modern Occidental Culture,” by O. H. Taylor in volume, Ideological Differences and World Order, ed. by F. C. S. Northrup. (Also available in O. H. Taylor essays, Economics and Liberalism).

Mon., Sept. 26. Introductory lecture: Aims, scope, and plan of course. Reasons for studying history of economic thought. Interrelations of the history of our “science”, history of popular politico-economic thought, and general backgrounds of economic, social, political, and intellectual history.

Wed., Sept. 28. Second Lecture: A preliminary survey of our subject matter and its-over-all pattern; characters of main developments in antiquity, the middle ages, early-modern times (“mercantilism”), the eighteenth century, classical political economy and its critics, socialism and Marxism, the historical schools, neo-classical systems, and 20th century economics.

Fri., Sept. 30. Class Discussion (no lecture), chiefly on Schumpeter History, Part I.

 

II. Oct. 3-7. Antiquity—Plato and Aristotle and Stoicism, Roman Law, and Early Christianity.

Reading due Oct. 7. (1) G. H. Sabine, History of Political Theory, first 6 chapters. (2) Schumpeter, History, Part II, Ch. 1.

Mon., Oct. 3. Lecture: Ancient Athenian life and thought, and Plato’s philosophy, politics, and economics.

Wed., Oct. 5. Lecture: Aristotle’s philosophy, politics, and economics; and effects on later economics, that of Stoicism, Roman Law, and early Christianity.

Fri., Oct. 7. Class discussion.

III. Oct. 10-14. The Middle Ages—Scholastic Thought—Aquinas.

Reading due Oct. 14. (1) Sabine, History of Political Theory, Ch. 13 (“Universitas Hominum”: St. Thomas and Dante). (2) Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, Part II, Ch. 2, 1st 5 sections.

Mon., Oct. 10. Lecture: Mediaeval Europe, its life and thought; scholastic philosophy and economics; St. Thomas Aquinas.

Wed., Oct. 12. Holiday.

Fri., Oct. 14. Discussion.

IV. Oct. 17-21. Early Modern Europe—Growth of capitalism, national states, the modern (as opposed to mediaeval) intellectual climate, and the ideas and practices of political absolutism and “mercantilism”. (2) The general and political philosophy of Hobbes.

Reading due Oct. 21: (1) Schumpeter, History, Part II, Ch. 2, Secs. 6, 7; and Chs. 3, 4. (2) Hobbes, Leviathan, Chs. 1-6 incl., and 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 24.

Mon., Oct. 17. Lecture: From Mediaevalism to modernity; Evolution of the main elements of modern-western civilization, in the England and Western Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Wed., Oct. 19. Lecture: The general and political philosophy of Hobbes, and its relation to “mercantilist” economic thought and policy.

Fri., Oct. 21. Discussion.

V. Oct. 24-28. Economic Analysis in the Age of “Mercantilism.”

Reading due Oct. 28: (1) Schumpeter, History, Part II, chs. 5, 6, and 7. (2) Look at, read in, “sample,” some of following: Sir T. Mun, England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade; Sir J. Child, A New Discourse on Trade; J. Locke, Considerations on Lowering Interest by Law and Raising the Value of Money; Sir D. North, Discourses on Trade; Sir W. Petty, Economic Writings (Hull, Editor, vol. 1, especially Editor Hull’s introduction and pp. 43-49, 74-77, 89-91, 105-114).

Mon., Oct. 24. Lecture: “Mercantilism” and the 17th century beginnings of modern economic science.

Wed., Oct. 26. Lecture: The transition from “mercantilist” to 18th century “liberal” thought in economics.

Fri., Oct. 28. Discussion.

VI. Oct. 31-Nov. 4. Liberalism, Locke, and the 18th Century Enlightenment.

Reading due Nov. 4: (1) O. H. Taylor essays, “Economics and Ideas of Natural Law,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 44, pp. 1 ff, and 205 ff. (also available in O. H. Taylor, Economics and Liberalism). (2) Review Schumpeter, History, Part II, Ch. II, Secs. 5, 6, 7. (3) J. Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chs. 2-9 incl.

Mon., Oct. 31. Lecture: History of ethical-juristic and natural-scientific “natural law” ideas, and early-modern liberalism; Grotius and others.

Wed., Nov. 2. Lecture: Newton, Locke, and the 18th century’s philosophic vision of the “natural order.”

Fri., Nov. 4. Discussion.

VII. Nov. 7-11. The Philosophy and Economics of the Physiocrats.

Reading due Nov. 11: (1) G. H. Sabine, History of Political Theory, Ch. 27 (“France: the Decadence of Natural Law.”) (2) Review, O. H. Taylor Essays, “Economics and Ideas of Natural Law,” and Schumpeter, History, Part II, Ch. IV.

Mon., Nov. 7. Lecture: The Physiocrats.

Wed., Nov. 9. Lecture: The Physiocrats (continued).

Fri., Nov. 11. Discussion.

VIII. Nov. 14-18. Adam Smith I. His forerunners in moral philosophy (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume), and his Theory of Moral Sentiments; and the relation of this material to the Wealth of Nations.

Reading due Nov. 17: Selby-Bigge, British Moralists, Selection from Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Mon., Nov. 14. Lecture: The psychology and ethics, and philosophy of “the natural order,” of the 18th century Scottish “sentimental” moralists.

Wed., Nov. 16. Lecture: Adam Smith’s philosophy, psychology and ethics, and economics.

IX. Nov. 21-25. Adam Smith II. Economics.

Reading due Nov. 25: Wealth of Nations, Book I, first 7 chapters.

Mon., Nov. 21. Lecture: Adam Smith’s Inquiry into The Wealth of Nations (scope and nature of the book, etc.); and his theory of production, economic progress, “the system of natural liberty,” and “natural” prices, wages, profits, and rents.

Wed., Nov. 23, Lecture: Smith on capital, money, international trade, and other topics.

Fri., Nov. 25. Discussion.

X. Nov. 28-Dec. 2. Utilitarian Liberalism, Benthamism, and Classical (Ricardian) Political Economy.

Reading due Dec. 2: (1) G. H. Sabine, History of Political Theory, Chapter “Liberalism.” (2) Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, Part III, first 3 chapters. (3) Selby-Bigge, British Moralists, Selection from Bentham’s Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation. (4) J. Bentham, Rationale of Reward, Part II.

Mon., Nov. 28. Lecture: Liberal thought in the “natural law” and “utilitarian” versions; Benthamism; and the relation of this wider system of thought to “classical” economics.

Wed., Nov. 30. Lecture: Benthamism and classical economics, concluded.

Fri., Dec. 2. Discussion.

XI. Dec. 5-9. Malthus and Ricardo.

Reading due Dec. 9: (1) Schumpeter, History, Part III, Chs. 4, 5. (2) Ricardo, Principles, Chs. 1-6.

Mon., Dec. 5. Lecture: The Malthusian population principle, its ideological and scientific backgrounds and bearings, and its place in “classical” economics. (2) Malthus vs. Ricardo on other questions in economics.

Wed., Dec. 7. Lecture: Ricardo and his fundamental doctrines.

Fri., Dec. 9. Discussion.

XII. Dec. 12-16. Contemporary Criticisms of Classical Economics, and Rival Currents of Thought in the Same Epoch.

Reading due Dec. 16: (1) T. Carlyle, Past and Present, parts I and III. (2) J. Ruskin, Unto This Last. (3) A. Comte, Positive Philosophy, tr., Harriet Martineau, Introduction and Ch. 1 and Book VI, ch. 1.

Mon. Dec. 12. Lecture: Old and new currents and cross-currents of thought in this period. Advances in economic analysis in other quarters apart from the “classical” one. Contemporary Ideologies and “Lay” criticisms—Romantic, Positivistic, and “Reactionary” and “Radical.”

Wed., Dec. 14. Lecture: (1) Romantic-Conservative Thought in the Period vs. the Utilitarian-Liberal and Classical-Economic viewpoints. (2) Positivism and Comtism vs. liberalism and economics.

Fri., Dec. 16. Discussion.

Reading Period:

J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy

Book I—Chs. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12
Book III—Chs. 1-4 incl., and 11, 15, 16
Book III [sic]

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003. Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1955-1956 (1 of 2) and (2 of 2)”.

______________________

1955-56
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 205
[Mid-year exam, January 1956]

Write half-hour essays on six (6) of the following:

  1. (a) Summarize, and discuss, the main ideas on “economic” (?) subjects that appear in Plato’s Republic. (b) With what tenets of Plato’s philosophy were those ideas connected? Explain these connections. (c) Do you think that modern economics presupposes other, very un-Platonic views in philosophy? Explain and defend your answer to (c).
  2. (a) What principal achievements in economic analysis does Schumpeter credit to the mediaeval scholastic doctors? (b) How, if at all, were their contributions affected (1) in Schumpeter’s view and (2) in your own view, by Scholastic doctrines in philosophy and ethics?
  3. Try to say as concisely and fully as you can, what seem to you the most important things to be said about “mercantilism” as a cluster of economic ideas and policies.
  4. (a) Who were the “econometricians” who are referred to as such in the title of Schumpeter’s chapter “The Econometricians and Turgot”? Identify as many of them as you can, giving names, approximate dates, and when possible, titles of their best-known writings. Then (b) characterize, a little more fully, the work, ideas, and contributions of one important member of that group.
  5. Explain and discuss either (a) the nature and significance of Quesnay’s tableau economique, (b) the Physiocratic philosophy of “the natural order”; or (c) the assumptions and reasoning behind the Physiocratic doctrines leading to identification of the land-rent-income of the proprietary class, with the entire national produit net, and to the views about taxation and other matters based upon that.
  6. “Adam Smith’s economic liberalism resulted logically, not from his ideas in economic theory only, but jointly from those and his fundamental views in philosophy, ethics, psychology, and sociology.” What main Smithian ideas, in each of those fields, in your view, played what parts in the full Smithian argument for economic liberalism?
  7. How do you explain both (1) the very high estimate, by Ricardo’s admirers in England, of the value of his contributions to economic science, and (2) Schumpeter’s rather low estimate of the same? Finally, what kind of an estimate would you offer as your own, and how would you defend it?
  8. Explain, and discuss critically, what you think J. S. Mill meant to assert, in his dictum about the laws of economic production vs. those of distribution—the dependence of the latter but not of the former on human institutions.

Source:  Harvard University Archives.  Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 23. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science  (January, 1956).

______________________

1955-56
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 205
[Final exam, June 1956]

Write one-hour essays on three (3) of the following subjects:

  1. A comparative discussion of the theories of economic development of Ricardo, Marx and Schumpeter.
  2. A comparative discussion of the Ricardian, Austrian, and Marshallian theories of the foundations and adjustment (into equilibrium) of the values and prices of different goods in a competitive economy.
  3. Your own views and arguments as to whether and how far the body of “marginal analysis” worked out in “neo-classical” economics was (1) a great advance in giving economics the precision and rigor of aa real science; or (2) a sad decline into a deadly-dull, unrealistic, and unimportant kind of theorizing, preoccupied with trivialities.
  4. Your own “sorting out,” in Veblen’s thought, of what you regard as his valid insights, and his to-be-rejected notions, (a) as a critic of traditional economic theory, and (b) as a critic of capitalism or the business culture.

Source:  Harvard University Archives.  Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 24. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science (June, 1956).

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1952.

 

Categories
Berkeley Exam Questions

Berkeley. Topics and exam questions for advanced economics. Mitchell, 1906

 

One might consider the following course taught at the University of California in 1906 by assistant professor Wesley Clair Mitchell to be a very early draft of what was to become his legendary course on Types of Economic Theory at Columbia University. Below we have transcriptions of his handwritten outline of topics and final examination questions.

___________________

Course Announcement

45. Advanced Economics. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

This course is designed for students who wish to make a more thorough study of economic theory than can be undertaken in Courses 1 [Introduction to Economics] and 2 [Principles of Economics]. The aim is to work out a tenable system of economics on the basis of an examination of the theories of leading writers, past and present.

2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 9. Prerequisite: Course 2, and at least Senior standing.

Source:  University of California. Announcement of Courses 1906-1907. Berkeley (July, 1906), p. 44.

___________________

Course Topics

Advanced Economics

2 hour course August to December 1906.
continued as reading of Schmoller evening meetings Jan-Apr. 1907.

Different types of economic theory

Concept of the economic man

Preconceptions of economic theorists

Carver’s [or possibly “Cairnes’s”] treatment [?] of wealth.

Schmoller’s Grundriss.

Conclusion: Meaning of and need for evolutionary theory of economics.

 

Source: Columbia University Library Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection. Box A, 1898-1917, Folder “8/21/06 A519”.

___________________

Handwritten examination questions

Advance Econ (45) Exam. Dec 17, 1906

  1. State and discuss Cairnes’ attitude on economic method.
  2. What influence did hedonism have on development of classical political economy?
  3. What do you regard as the most effective method of treating economics?
  4. How do you explain the shifting of preconceptions in economics from say the Physiocrats to Schmoller or Veblen?

Source:  Columbia University Library Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection. Box A, 1898-1917, Folder “17/17/06 A”.

Image Source: Thumbnail image from a 1900 picture of Wesley Clair Mitchell at the University of Chicago in Lucy Sprague Mitchell’s Two Lives: The Story of Wesley Clair Mitchell and Myself.

Categories
Exam Questions M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

M.I.T. First core graduate macroeconomics. Syllabus, readings, exams. Domar and Harris, 1967-68

 

 Four out of the five times that the first term of the macroeconomics sequence at M.I.T. (Theory of Income and Employment) was taught in the second half of the 1960’s, it was taught by Evsey Domar . Earlier posts with materials for Domar’s course include the reading list and final exam for 1960-61, reading list and exams for 1965-66 , the exams for 1968-69, and the course evaluations for 1967/68-1969/70.

Responsible for the course section in 1967-68 was the assistant professor John Rees Harris (b. 1934, d. 2018, 1967 Northwestern Ph.D. in economics) [copy of his c.v. archived 14 February 2019]. Here is link to a video lunchtime talk by Harris at the Boston University conference “Development that Works” (March 11, 2011). The picture is a screen-capture from the video.

______________________

M.I.T.
THE THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
1967-68
[first session]

I. ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS

    1. Course number, my and Harris’s name, our office numbers, office hours Tu 2:30-3:30.
    2. Sitting chart. No compulsory attendance.
    3. Reading list. First part only. Required and recommended or optional. Responsible for all required reading, but not for the details. I don’t know them myself. Lectures are the skeleton of the course. Reserve in Dewey. Inform me if some books are absent.
    4. The National Income problem. It is due….
    5. Midterm exam in November. Final exam.
    6. Other administrative problems?

II. THE PURPOSE AND NATURE OF THE COURSE

To fill in the gaps and bring everyone to a common denominator, without pulling anyone down. Hence, some will find it a bit boring. Attendance is not compulsory.

It is an introductory course. Almost everything will be discussed in other courses, except National Income, Index of Industrial Production, etc. Growth and fluctuations; monetary economics, consumption function, investment decisions, etc.

III. COMMENTS ON MACROECONOMICS

At the beginning, was a very hot subject—the most interesting part of economics. Two reasons: (1) it was new: (2) the greatest deficiency was in the macro area. Emphasis in those days was on full employment, not growth. Growth came in after the second world war.

The close connection between macro economics and governmental policies.

Three [sic] aspects:

(1) understanding of macro problems by economists

(2) persuading the public—easy in England, very difficult here.

(3) Forecasts of the future—improvement

(4) The effectiveness of methods—also part of forecasts.

On the whole macro-policy has been very successful, sometimes by design, sometimes by luck. The tax reduction of 1964 was the first one for fiscal policy specifically. Less fear of a deficit—witness the present situation. But the tax rise is still a test.

Next step—economic growth. First models—macro type with one kind of goods, and investment with capital coefficients. Still being used, but they don’t get us far.

Growth is to a considerable extent a micro-problem, or at least a mixture of the two. Much more difficult for the government to legislate. How does one improve efficiency? Evaluation of investment projects, of economic effects of education, etc.

Some exaggeration—but the traditional macro theory suffers from its own success.

 

PART I NATIONAL INCOME AND RELATED ITEMS

First—to state the objectives, such as welfare (whose?), capacity to produce (what?), national prestige, evaluation of policies, curiosity about growth, etc.

How to bring order out of the chaos? Which goods and services, which transactions are to be recorded?

Define the purpose of economic activity:

(1) Welfare of all people (or citizens) of a given area

(2) Welfare of some people only (slaves or relatives excluded). Weights?

(3) Welfare of animals? The old lady and her cat?

The definition of welfare may lead to a definition of activities to be included.

Special activities: warfare (Sparta), capital formation, police protection, etc.

Market vs. non-market goods. Imputed items.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers. Box 17, Folder “Macroeconomics. Theory of National Income and Employment”.

_________________________

THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
Fall Term 1967-68

E.D. Domar
J.R. Harris

READING LIST

The purpose of this list is to suggest to the student the sources in which the more important topics of the course are discussed from several points of view. His objectives should be the understanding of these topics and not the memorization of opinions and details.

The “optional” reading has been included for those students who wish to pursue some of the subjects in greater detail. Some of the items on the optional list may be more effective in their exposition, at least for some individuals, than those on the required list.

There exists a good (if a bit obsolete) textbook on macroeconomics—Gardner Ackley, Macroeconomic Theory (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1961). Its knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for passing the course. While several copies are on reserve at Dewey, the acquisition of private copies is recommended.

Students may also find it convenient to acquire the following books: Readings in Macroeconomics edited by M.G. Mueller (which contains a number of relevant articles) and possible the three National Income volumes published by the U.S. Department of Commerce and listed in Section I.

I. NATIONAL INCOME AND RELATED ITEMS
(September 19 – October 12)

REQUIRED

Ackley, Chapters 1-4.

Kuznets, S., National Income and Its Composition, Vol. I (New York, 1941), Chap. 1.

National Income 1954 Edition, A Supplement to the Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C., 1954), pp. 27-60, 153-58.

U.S. Income and Output, A Supplement to the Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D. C., 1958), pp. 50-105.

The National Income and Product Accounts of the United States, 1929-1965. U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C., 1966). Browse through the statistics tables of the three volumes to find out what is available where.

Bergson, A. The Real National Income of Soviet Russia since 1928, Ch. 3 on “Methods and Procedures”, (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).

Griliches, Z. “Notes on the Measurement of Price and Quality Changes”, in Models of Income Determination, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 28 by the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1964, pp. 381-418.

Leontief, W. W., “Output, Employment, Consumption and Investment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 58 (February, 1944), pp. 290-314.

Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy (New York, 1953), pp. 27-35.

Dorfman, R., “The Nature and Significance of Input-Output,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36 (May, 1954), pp. 121-33.

Domar, E. D., “On the Measurement of Technological Change,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 71 (December, 1961), pp. 709-29. [Read only pp. 709-14, 726-29.]

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Industrial Production 1959 Revision (Washington, 1960), pp. iii-41. [Look for the method, not for statistical details.]

Domar, E. D., “An Index-Number Tournament,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXXI (May, 1967), pp. 169-88.

Sigel, S. J., “A Comparison of the Structures of Three Social Accounting Systems,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Input-Output Analysis: An Appraisal, The Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 18 (Princeton, 1955), pp. 253-89.

 

OPTIONAL READINGS:

Jaszi, G., “The Statistical Foundations of the GNP,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 38 (May, 1956), pp. 205-14.

Lewis, Wilfred, Jr., “The Federal Sector in National Income Models,” and comments by Hickman and Pechman, in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Models of Income Determination (Princeton, 1964), Vol. 28, pp. 233-78.

Bailey, M. J., National Income and the Price Level (New York, 1962), pp. 269-300.

Kuznets, S., National Income and Its Composition (New York, 1941).

Ruggles, R. and N., National Income Accounts and Income Analysis (New York, 1956).

Ruggles, “The U.S. National Accounts,” American Economic Review, Vol. 49, (March, 1959), pp. 85-95.

National Bureau of Economic Research, The National Economic Accounts of the United States, Review, Appraisal and Recommendations, General Series 64, (Washington, 1958).

Organization for European Economic Cooperation, A Standardised System of National Accounts, (Paris, 1952).

Gilbert, M. and I. B. Kravis, An International Comparison of National Products and the Purchasing Power of Currencies, A Study of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy, Organization for European Economic Cooperation (Paris, 1954).

Gilbert, M., Comparative National Products and Price Levels, A Study of Western Europe and the United States, Organization of European Economic Cooperation, (Paris, 1958).

United Nations, Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics, the latest issue.

United Nations, National Income Statistics, the latest issue.

United Nations, World Economic Survey and other Economic Surveys.

Studenski, The Income of Nations. Theory, Measurement, and Analysis: Past and Present (New York, 1958). [A wealth of information, particularly of historical character.]

Nove, A., “The United States National Income A La Russe,” Economica, Vol. 23, 1956.

Bergson, A. The Real National Income of Soviet Russia Since 1928 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961). (The rest of the book).

Kravis, I. B., “Relative Income Shares in Fact and Theory,” American Economic Review, Vol. 49 (December, 1959), pp. 917-49.

Samuelson, P. A., “Evaluation of Real National Income,” Oxford Economic Papers (New Series), 1950, pp. 1-29.

Samuelson, “The Evaluation of ‘Social Income’: Capital Formation and Wealth,” in F. A. Lutz and D. C. Hague, editors, The Theory of Capital (London, 1961).

Leontief, W. W., The Structure of American Economy (New York, 1941).

Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy (New York, 1953).

Taskier, C. E., Input-Output Bibliography 1955-1960, United Nations (New York, 1961).

Evans, W. D., and M. Hoffenberg, “The Interindustry Relations Study for 1947,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 34, (May, 1952), pp. 97-142.

Stewart, I. G., “The Practical Uses of Input-Output Analysis,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 5, (February, 1958).

Dosser, D. and A. T. Peacock, “Input-Output Analysis in an Under-Developed Country: A Case Study,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 25 (October, 1957).

Input-Output Analysis: An Appraisal, Studies in Income and Wealth by the Conference on research in Income and Wealth, Vol. 18 (Princeton, 1955).

Solow, R. M. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 39 (August, 1957), pp. 312-20.

Abramovitz, M., “Resources and Output in the United States Since 1870,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 46 (May, 1956), pp. 5-23, reprinted as National Bureau of Economic Research, Occasional Paper 52 (New York, 1956).

Kendrick, J. W., Productivity Trends in the United States (Princeton, 1961).

Denison, E. F., Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us (New York, 1962).

Abramovitz, M., “Economic Growth in the United States,” American Economic Review, Vol. 52 (September, 1962), pp. 762-82. [This is a review of Denison’s Book.]

Moorsteen, R. H., “On Measuring Productive Potential and Relative Efficiency,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 75 (August, 1961), pp. 451-67.

Fabricant, S., The Output of Manufacturing Industries, 1899-1937 (New York, 1940), particularly Chapter 1.

United Nations, Statistical Office, Index Numbers of Industrial Production, St/Stat/ Ser/ F1 (New York, 1950).

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Flow of Funds in the United States 1939-53 (Washington, D. C., 1955).

Powelson, J. P., National Income and Flow-Of-Funds Analysis (New York, 1960).

Measuring the Nation’s Wealth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 29 (Washington, D. C., 1964).

 

READING LIST—SECOND INSTALLMENT
II. GENERAL AGGREGATIVE SYSTEMS—FIRST APPROXIMATION
(October 17 – October 31).

REQUIRED:

Ackley, Parts II and III.

Keynes, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London and New York, 1936). [Omit the appendixes to Chapters 6 and 19.]

Note: Neither book is arranged in the order of this reading list. Hence these two assignments apply to other sections of it as well.

Wells, P., “Keynes’ Aggregate Supply Function: A Suggested Interpretation,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 70 (September, 1960), pp. 536-42.

Johnson, H. G. and the discussants, “The General Theory After Twenty-five Years,” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 60 (May, 1961), pp. 1-25.

Klein, L. R., “The Empirical Foundations of Keynesian Economics,” in K. K. Kurihara, ed., Post Keynesian Economics(New Brunswick, N. J., 1954), pp. 277-319.

 

OPTIONAL READINGS:

Lekachman, Robert, Keynes’ General Theory: Reports of Three Decades, (New York and London, 1964).

Patinkin, D., Money, Interest, and Prices, Second Edition, (New York, 1965).

American Economic Association, Readings in Business Cycle Theory (Philadelphia, 1944), Essays 5, 7, 8.

American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution (Philadelphia, 1946), Essay 24.

Metzler, “Three Lags in the Circular Flow of Income,” in Income, Employment and Public Policy, Essays in Honor of Alvin H. Hansen (New York, 1948), pp. 11-32.

Harris, S. E., The New Economics (New York, 1947), Essays 8-19, 31-33, 38-46.

Lerner, A. P., Economics of Control (New York, 1944), Chapters 21-23, 25.K

Kurihara, K. K., Post Keynesian Economics (New Brunswick, N. J., 1954).

Klein, L. R., The Keynesian Revolution, (New York, 1947), Chapters 3-5.

Ellis, H. S., A Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. 1, (Philadelphia, 1948), Chapter 2.

Burns, A. F., “Economic Research and the Keynesian Thinking of Our Times,” in his The Frontiers of Economic Knowledge, (Princeton, 1954), or in the Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.(New York, 1946). See also the discussion by Hansen and Burns in the Review of Economic Statistics (November, 1947).

Dillard, D., “The Influence of Keynesian Economics on Contemporary Thought,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 1957.

Hutt, W. H., Keynesianism: Retrospect and Prospect (Chicago, 1963).

Friedman, Milton, and G. S. Becker, “A Statistical Illusion on Judging Keynesian Models,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 55 (February, 1957), pp. 64-75.

 

III. PRICE FLEXIBILITY AND EMPLOYMENT
(November 2-9)

REQUIRED:

Patinkin, D., Money, Interest, and Prices, Second ed., (New York, 1965), Chapters 9-11.

Pigou, A. C., “The Classical Stationary State,” Economic Journal (December, 1943).

Power, J. H., “Price Expectations, Money Illusion and the Real Balance Effect,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 67 (April, 1959).

Mayer, T., “The Empirical Significance of the Real Balance Effect,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 73 (May, 1959).

 

OPTIONAL READINGS:

Readings in Monetary Theory, Essay 13.

Schelling, T. C., “The Dynamics of Price Flexibility,” American Economic Review (September, 1949).

Lange, O., Price Flexibility and Employment (Bloomington, Indiana, 1944). [Get the main idea and omit the details.]

Friedman, M., “Lange on Price Flexibility and Employment,” American Economic Review (September, 1946).

Patinkin, D., Money, Interest, and Prices (Evanston, Illinois, 1956).

Hicks, J. R., “A Rehabilitation of ‘Classical Economics’,” Economic Journal, Vol. 47, (June, 1957).

 

IV. The Theory of Interest and the Demand for Money

Required:

Keynes, General Theory, Chapters 13-17.

Hansen, A., Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Chapters 3,4.

Hicks, J. R., Value and Capital, Chapters 11, 12.

Friedman, M., “The Quantity Theory of Money—A Restatement,” Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money.

Patinkin, D., Money, Interest and Prices, 2nd ed., Chapters VIII, XV.

Tobin, J., “Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk,” The Review of Economic Studies, February 1958, pp. 65-86.

 

Optional:

American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution (Philadelphia, 1946), Essays 22, 23, 26.

American Economic Association, Readings in Monetary Theory, (New York, 1951), Essays 6, 11, 15.

Friedman, M. and A. J. Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960 (Princeton, 1963).

Gurley, J. G., and E. S. Shaw, “Financial Aspects of Economic Development,” AER, vol. 65, September 1955, pp. 515-38.

Gurley, J. G., and E. S. Shaw, Money in a Theory of Finance (Washington, 1960).

Hart, A. G., and P. B. Kenen, Money, Debt and Economic Activity, Third Ed., (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1961).

Lydall, H., “Income, Assets, and the Demand for Money,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 40, February 1958, pp. 1-14.

Lutz, F. A., “The Interest Rate and Investment in a Dynamic Economy,” AER, December 1945).

Matthews, R. C. O., “Liquidity Preference and the Multiplier,” Economica, vol. 28, February 1961, pp. 37-52.

Patinkin, D., “Liquidity Preference and Loanable Funds: Stock and Flow Analysis,” Economica, Vol. 25, November 1958.

Review of Economics and Statistics Supplement, vol. 45, February 1963, on “The State of Monetary Economics.”

Wright, A. L., “The Rate of Interest in a Dynamic Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 72, August 1958, pp. 327-50.

 

Reading List—Third Installment
V. Consumption and Saving

Required:

Clower, R.W., “The Keynesian Counterrevolution: A Theoretical Appraisal,” in Hahn and Brechling (eds.), The Theory of Interest Rates (Macmillan, 1965).

Davidson, P., “A Keynesian View of Patinkin’s Theory of Employment,” E.J., September 1967.

Leijonhufvud, A., “Keynes and the Keynesians: A Suggested Interpretation,” AER, May 1967.

Ackley, Chapters 10, 11, 12.

Keynes, General Theory, Chapters 8, 9, 10.

Hagen, E.,”The Consumption Function: A Review Article,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXVII, Feb. 1955, pp. 48-54.

Duesenberry, J. S., Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Chapters 3, 4.

Friedman, M., A Theory of the Consumption Function, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 9.

Ando, A. and Modigliani, F., “The ‘Life Cycle’ Hypothesis of Saving,” AER, March 1963, pp. 55-85; March 1964, pp. 111—113.

Farrell, M. J., “The New Theories of the Consumption Function,” E.J., vol. 69, December, 1959, pp. 678-96.

Lintner, J., “The Determinants of Corporate Saving,” Savings in the Modern Economy (W. Heller, ed.), pp. 230-55.

Lintner, J. and discussants, “Distribution of Income of Corporations Among Dividends, Retained Earnings, and Taxes,” AER, vol. 46, May 1956, pp. 97-118.

Friend, I., and Kravis, I.B., “Entrepreneurial Income, Saving and Investment,” AER, vol. 47, June 1957, pp. 269-301.

Lubell, H., “Effects of Redistribution of Income on Consumers’ Expenditures,” AER, vol. 37, March 1947, pp. 157-170.

________, “A Correction,” AER, vol. 37, December 1947, p. 930.

Domar, E. D., Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (New York, 1957), pp. 154-67, 195-201.

Bronfenbrenner, Yomana and Lee, “A Study in Redistribution and Consumption,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1955, pp. 149-59.

Tobin, J., “Asset Holdings and Spending Decisions,” AER May 1952, pp. 109-23.

Crockett, Jean, “Income and Asset Effects on Consumption: Aggregate and Cross Section,” and comments by D. B. Suits, in N.B.E.R., Models of Income Determination, pp. 97-136.

Tobin, J., “On the Predictive Value of Consumer Intentions and Attitudes,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 41, February 1959, pp. 1-11.

 

Optional

Bailey, M. J., “Saving and the Rate of Interest,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 45, August 1957, pp. 279-305. Reprinted in Landmarks in Political Economy, edited by E. J. Hamilton, A. Rees, and H.G. Johnson (Chicago, 1962), pp. 583-622.

Brown, B., and F. M. Fisher, “Negro-White Savings Differentials and the Modigliani-Brumberg Hypothesis,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 40, February 1958, pp. 79-81.

Brown, E. C., Solow, R. M., Ando, A., and J. Karekan, “Lags in Fiscal and Monetary Policy,” in Commission on Money and Credit, Stabilization Policies (Englewood Cliffs, 1963), pp. 1-165.

Clark, J.M., “Note on Income Redistribution and Investment,” AER, vol. 37, December 1947, p. 931.

Dennison, E. F., “A Note on Private Saving,” Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1958.

Dobrovolsky, S. P., Corporate Income Retention 1915-43 (New York, 1951). (Omit the details.)

Domar, E.D., Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (New York 1957), pp. 154-67, 195-201.

Ferber, R., “The Accuracy of Aggregate Savings Functions in the Post-War Years,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 37, May 1955, pp. 134-48.

Friedman, M., and G. Becker, “A Statistical Illusion in Judging Keynesian Models,” JPE, vol. 65, February 1957.

Friend, I., and S. Schor, “Who Saves?,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 41, May 1959, pp. 213-45.

Goldsmith, R. W., A Study of Saving in the United States, three volumes (Princeton, 1952).

Gordon, M. J., “The Optimum Dividend Rate,” presented at the sixth Annual International Meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences, Paris, September 1959. (On library reserve.)

Heller, W. W., Boddy, F. M., and C. L. Nelson, Savings in the Modern Economy, a Symposium (Minneapolis, 1953).

Katona, G., and E. Mueller, Consumer Expectations 1953-56 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1956).

Rees, and Johnson, H. G., (Chicago, 1962), pp. 583-622.

Klein, L. R., “The Friedman-Becker Illusion,” JPE, vol. 66, December 1958.

Klein, L. R., (ed.), Contributions of Survey Methods to Economics (New York, 1954).

Morgan, J. N., Consumer Economics (New York, 1955).

Modigliani, F., and R. Brumberg, “Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function: An Interpretation of Cross-Section Data,” in Kurihara, K. K., (ed.), Post Keynesian Economics (New Brunswick, N. J., 1954), pp. 388-436.

Mincer, J., “Employment and Consumption,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 42, February 1960, pp. 20-26.

Zellner, Arnold, “The Short-Run Consumption Function,” Econometrica, (October, 1957).

 

VI. Investment

 

Required

Ackley, Chapter 17.

Keynes, General Theory, Chapters 11, 12.

White, W. H., “Interest Inelasticity of Investment Demand,” AER, vol. 46, September 1956, pp. 565-587.

Knox, “The Acceleration Principle and the Theory of Investment,” Economica, August 1952, pp. 269-97.

Meyer, J., and E. Kuh, The Investment Decision, Chapters 2, 8, 12.

Eisner, R., “Investment: Fact and Fancy,” Jorgenson, D.W., “Capital Theory and Investment Behavior,” Kuh, E., “Theory and Institutions in the Study of Investment Behavior,”: all three in AER, May 1963, pp. 237-268.

Lovell, M.C., “Determinants of Inventory Investment,” in N.B.E.R., Models of Income Determination, pp. 177-216.

Solomon, E., ed., The Management of Corporate Capital, pp. 48-55, 67-73.

Witte, J. G., “The Microfoundations of the Social Investment Function,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 71, October 1963, pp. 441-56.

 

Optional

Andrews, P.W.S., “Further Inquiry into the Effects of Rates of Interest,” Oxford Economic Papers, February 1940, pp. 32-73.

Brockie, M.D., and A.L. Grey, “The Marginal Efficiency of Capital and Investment Programming,” Economic Journal, vol. 46, December 1956.

Cunningham, N.J., “Business Investment and the Marginal Cost of Funds,” Metroeconomica, vol. 10, August 1958.

Cunningham, N.J., “Business Investment and the Marginal Cost of Funds,” Part II, Metroeconomica, December 1958.

Duesenberry, J., Business Cycles and Economic Growth (New York, 1958), Chapters 4-7.

Ebersole, J.F., “The Influence of Interest Rates,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 17, 1938, pp. 35-39.

Foss, M.F., “Manufacturers’ Inventory and Sales Expectations—A Progress Report on a New Survey,” Survey of Current Business, August 1961.

Foss, M.F., and V. Natrella, “Ten Years’ Experience with Business Investment Anticipations,” Survey of Current Business, January 1957.

Foss, M.F., “Investment Plans and Realizations—Reasons for Differences in Individual Cases,” Survey of Current Business, June 1957.

Friend, I., and J. Bronfenbrenner, “Business Investment Programs and Their Realization,” Survey of Current Business, December 1950.

Grey, A.L., and M.D. Brockie, “The Rate of Interest, Marginal Efficiency of Capital and Net Investment Programming: A Rejoinder,” Economic Journal, June 1959.

Heller, W.W., “The Anatomy of Investment Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, March 1951, pp. 95-103.

Henderson, H.D., “The Significance of the Rate of Interest,” Oxford Economic Papers, October 1938, pp. 1-13.

Hirschleifer, J., “On the Theory of Optimal Investment Decision,” The Journal of Political Economy, vol. 66, August 1958, pp. 329-352. (An excellent but difficult paper.)

James, E., A Reconsideration of the Theoretical Criteria for Optimum Investment Planning (M.I.T. doctoral dissertation 1961).

Lerner, A.P., “On the Marginal Product of Capital and the Marginal Efficiency of Investment,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 51, February 1953, pp. 1-14. Reprinted in Landmarks in Political Economy edited by E.J. Hamilton, A. Rees, and H.G. Johnson (Chicago, 1962), pp. 538-58.

Lovell, M.C., “Determinants of Inventory Investment,” in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Models of Income Determination (Princeton, 1964), vol. 28, pp. 177-232.

Lutz, F.A., and V., The Theory of Investment of the Firm (Princeton, 1951).

Lydall, H.F., “The Impact of the Credit Squeeze on Small and Medium Sized Manufacturing Firms,” Economic Journal, vol. 47, September 1957.

Meade, J.E., and P.W.S. Andrews, “Summary of Replies to Questions on Effects of Interest Rates,” and “Further Inquiry into the Effects of Rates of Interest,” Oxford Economic Papers, No. 1, 1938 and No. 3, 1940.

N.B.E.R., The Quality and Economic Significance of Anticipations Data, A Conference of the Universities—National Bureau Committee for Economic Research (Princeton, 1960).

Penrose, E.T., The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (Oxford, 1959).

Penrose, E.T., “Limits to the Growth and Size of Firms,” AER Papers and Proceedings, vol. 45, May 1955, pp. 531-43.

Pitchford, J.D. and A.J. Hagger, “A Note on the Marginal Efficiency of Capital,” Economic Journal, vol. 48, September 1958, pp. 597-600.

Robinson, J., The Accumulation of Capital (London, 1956). (Wish we had time for it.)

Sayers, R.S., “Business Men and the Terms of Borrowing,” Oxford Economic Papers, February 1940, pp. 23-31.

Spiro, A., “Empirical Research and the Rate of Interest,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 40, February 1958.

Lintner, J., “Corporation Finance: Risk and Investment,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior (Robert Ferber editor), pp. 215-54.

Jorgenson, D.W., “The Theory of Investment Behavior,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior, pp. 129-55.

Miller, M.H. and F. Modigliani, “Estimates of the Cost of Capital Relevant for Investment Decisions under Uncertainty,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior, pp. 179-214.

Miller, M.H. and F. Modigliani, “Reply,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior, pp. 260-70.

Lovell, M.C., “Sales Anticipations, Planned Inventory Investment, and Realizations,” in N.B.E.R., Determinants of Investment Behavior, pp. 537-80.

 

Reading List—Fourth Installment
VII. Multiplier and Accelerator

Required

Kahn, R.F., “The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment,” Economic Journal, 1931. Republished in Hansen and Clemence, Readings in Business Cycles and National Income (New York, 1953), Essay 15.

Readings in Business Cycle Theory, Essays 9-12.

Haavelmo, T., “Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget,” Econometrica, 1945, reprinted in Readings in Fiscal Policy, pp. 335-343.

Salant, William A., “Taxes, Income Determination, and the Balanced Budget Theorem,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1957. Reprinted in Gordon and Klein (eds.) A.E.A. Readings in Business Cycles (1965).

Tsiang, S.C., “Accelerator, Theory of the Firm, and the Business Cycle,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 65, 1951.

 

Optional

Tinbergen, “Statistical Evidence on the Acceleration Principle,” Economica, vol. 5, 1938.

Eisner, R., “Capital Expenditures, Profits, and the Acceleration Principle,” and comments by G.H. Hickman, in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Models of Income Determination, (Princeton, 1964), vol. 28, pp. 137-176.

Peston, M.H., “Generalizing the Balanced Budget Multiplier,” and “Comment” by W.A. Salant, The Review of Economics and Statistics (August, 1958).

Bowen, W.G., “The Balanced-Budget Multiplier: A Suggestion for a More General Formulation,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1957.

Goodwin, R.M., “The Multiplier” in Seymour E. Harris, ed., The New Economics (New York, 1947), pp. 482-99.

Chenery, H.B., “Overcapacity and the Acceleration Principle,” Econometrica, vol. 20, January 1952, pp. 1-28.

Caff, J.T., “A Generalization of the Multiplier-Accelerator Model,” The Economic Journal, vol. 69, March 1961, pp. 36-52.

Kuznets, S., “Relation Between Capital Goods and Finished Products in the Business Cycle,” in Economic Essays in Honor of Wesley Clair Mitchell, (New York, 1935).

Knox, A.D. “The Acceleration Principle and the Theory of Investment: A Survey,” Economica, vol. 19, 1952.

Harrod, R.F., Towards a Dynamic Economics (London, 1948).

Hicks, J.R., A Contribution to the Theory of the Trade Cycle (Oxford, 1950).

Goodwin, R.M., “Problems of Trend and Cycle,” Yorkshire Bulletin, vol. 5, August 1953.

Ott, A.E., “The Relation Between the Accelerator and the Capital Output Ratio,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 25, June 1958.

Minsky, H., “Monetary Systems and Accelerator Models,” American Economic Review, vol. 47, 1957.

Friedman, M. and D. Meiselman, “The Relative Stability of Monetary Velocity and the Investment Multiplier in the United States, 1897-1958,” Stabilization Policies, Commission on Money and Credit (New Jersey, 1963), pp. 165-268.

Hester, D.D., “Keynes and the Quantity Theory: A Comment on the Friedman-Meiselman CMC Paper,” the reply by Friedman and Meiselman, and the rejoinder by Hester, The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. XLVI, November 1964, pp. 364-377.

 

VIII. Employment and Inflation

Required

Ackley, Chap. XVI.

Bronfenbrenner, M. and F.D. Holzman, “Survey of Inflation Theory,” American Economic Review, LIII (Sept., 1963), pp. 593-661.

Higher Unemployment Rates, 1957-60, “Structural Transformation or Inadequate Demand,” Subcommittee on Economic Statistics of the Joint Economic Committee, Washington, 1961.

Hines, G.G., “Trade Unions and Wage Inflation in the United Kingdom,” R.E. Studies (October 1964).

Killingsworth, C.L., “Automation, Jobs and Manpower,” from Nation’s Manpower Revolution, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 88th Congress, 1stsession, Washington, D.C., part 5, pp. 1461-1480.

Lipsey, Richard, “The Relation Between Unemployment and the Rate of Change in Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1862-1957: A Further Analysis,” Economica N.S. 27 (Feb. 1960). Reprinted in Klein and Gordon (eds.), Readings in Business Cycle Theory (1965).

Perry, George L., Unemployment, Money Wage Rates and Inflation (1966).

Phillips, “The Relation Between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates,” Economica (Nov., 1958), pp. 283-99.

Samuelson, P.A. and R. Solow, “Analytical Aspects of Anti-Inflation Policy,” American Economic Review (May 1960), pp. 177-94.

Solow, R.M., “The Case Against the Case Against the Guidelines,” in G. Schultz (ed.), Guidelines (1966).

 

Optional

Smithies, A., “The Behavior of Money National Income Under Inflationary Conditions,” Readings in Fiscal Policy, pp. 121-36.

Machlup, F., “Another View of Cost-Push and Demand-.Pull Inflation,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XLII, (May 1960), pp. 125-39.

Galbraith, J.K., “Market Structure and Stabilization Policy,” Review of Economics and Statistics (May 1957), pp. 124-33.

Hicks, J.R., “Economic Foundations of Wage Policy,” Economic Journal, (Sept. 1955), pp. 389-404.

Morton, W.A., “Trade Unionism, Full Employment and Inflation,” American Economic Review, (March 1950), pp. 13-39.

Slichter, S., “Do Wage-Fixing Agreements Have an Inflationary Bias,” American Economic Review, (May 1954), pp. 332-46.

Berman, B., “Alternative Measures of Structural Unemployment,” Employment Policy and the Labor Market, A.M. Ross, ed.

Joint Economic Committee, Higher Unemployment Rates, 1957-60, U.S. 87th Congress.

Galloway, “Labor Mobility, Resource Allocation and Structural Unemployment,” American Economic Review (Sept. 1963), pp. 694-716.

Gordon, R.A., “Has Structural Unemployment Worsened,” Industrial Relations (May 1964), pp. 53-77.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers. Box 15, Folder “Macroeconomics. Old Reading Lists”.

______________________

The Theory of Income and Employment
14.451
E. D. Domar [and] J. R. Harris

Midterm Examination
November 30, 1967

(One hour and fifteen minutes)

Please answer all questions. Use a separate book for each question.

  1. (25%) After the discovery that an hour of dancing a day increases a person’s efficiency, a hitherto unemployed dancing teacher was hired (to teach dancing to their employees or themselves) by the following units, one at a time;
    1. A beginning sculptor
    2. The Ford Foundation
    3. Sears, Roebuck & and Co.
    4. The Town of Concord
    5. The Head of the Mafia
    6. The Embassy of South Vietnam in Washington

Disregarding any indirect effects (such as the multiplier), indicate and explain how national income and product and the relevant subdivisions in money and in real terms are affected by this act on the assumption that (1) dancing is really effective, and (2) that it is not. Your reasoning is at least as important as your answer.

  1. (20%) “The Federal Reserve-type index is a poor numerator for the measurement of the Residual (Total Factor Productivity), or of any other productivity.”
    Comment fully.
  2. A visitor to M.I.T. has suggested recently that if the Federal Reserve Board buys bonds in the open market in periods of unemployment, then real output, prices and the interest rate—all three—will increase.
    Are these predictions consistent with those of Patinkin and Keynes? How would their predictions and your own results (you may or may not agree with those sages) be changed under conditions of full employment? Explain fully. (35%)
  3. (20%) A Russian economist once stated that Keynes’ variables were as follows:
Independent variables Dependent variables
1. Propensity to consume 1. Savings
2. Marginal efficiency of capital 2. Investment
3. Rate of interest 3. Level of employment
4. Liquidity preference

Comment. Be specific

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers. Box 17, Folder “Macroeconomics. Examinations (1 of 3)”.

______________________

THE THEORY OF INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
14.451
E. D. Domar [and] J. R. Harris

FINAL EXAMINATION
January 23, 1968

Three Hours

PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. THEY CARRY EQUAL WEIGHTS. USE A SEPARATE BOOK FOR EACH QUESTION.

  1. (A) National Product is defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the sum of all final goods (and services), each multiplied by its price.

(B) National Income is defined by it as the sum of all net incomes of certain recipients.

Discuss the following questions:

    1. What is a final good (or service) in (A)? What is the reason for this definition?
    2. What is the rationale for multiplying each good (or service) by its price? What assumptions are implied in this procedure? Are they realistic?
    3. Whose net incomes are aggregated? Why? What is a net income? What assumptions does this procedure imply? Are they realistic?
    4. Could you suggest changes or improvements in the above procedures? Justify them.

 

    1. “A high ratio of depreciation to investment is a sign of old age.”
    2. Why is a special definition of money required in the “Price Flexibility and Employment” problems? What is the definition? What assumptions does it rest on?
    3. “If the Balanced-Budget Multiplier is correct, isn’t Say’s Law also correct?

 

  1. Assume that this country is being threatened by inflation and discuss the pros and cons of the following measures allegedly directed against it. Whenever you can, indicate the positions which several economists whose theories were discussed in the course would take on these measures:
    1. (i) A temporary Federal sales tax on all goods and services, or
      (ii) a permanent tax of the same kind.
    2. (i) A redistribution of income from wages to profits, or
      (ii) a more equal distribution of income.
    3. Setting the rate of growth of labor productivity in each industry as the limit for the rate of increase of wages in that industry.
    4. (i) Remitting domestic taxes on American exports, or
      (ii) a reduction in import duties.
    5. A tax on all capital goods.

 

    1. Define and discuss the applicability to investment decisions of the marginal efficiency of investment (also called marginal efficiency of capital, or the internal rate of return) and the discounted present value. Can they give different ranking of investment projects? Why? Which measure would you use?
    2. What major modifications of investment criteria would be required if the investment was done by the U.S. Government in times of unemployment?
    3. Same, if the investment was done by the government of some underdeveloped country?

 

  1. Attempts to estimate the parameters of an aggregate consumption function for the U.S. have yielded the following results:
    1. Cross-section and short-term series analyses estimate a marginal propensity to consume somewhere in the range of .55-.70, this magnitude being lower than the average propensity to consume.
    2. Long-run time series analyses estimate a marginal propensity to consume equal to the average propensity of about .88.

Compare and contrast the assumptions, rationale and implications of the “Previous Peak Income”, “Permanent Income”, and “Lifetime Cycle” hypotheses, each of which purports to reconcile the above observations.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers. Box 17, Folder “Macroeconomics. Final Exams (2 of 3)”.

Image Source: Evsey D. Domar at the MIT Museum legacy website.

Categories
Bryn Mawr Columbia Economists Germany Pennsylvania

Columbia. Appointments of H. L. Moore, H. R. Seager, and A. S. Johnson, 1902

 

 

Memorial minutes of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science for both Henry L. Moore and Henry R. Seager have been transcribed earlier here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. This post takes us back to the start of their Columbia University careers, namely the 1902-03 academic year. Professor Richmond Mayo-Smith’s suicide in November 1901 left a significant gap in Columbia’s economics faculty which was then closed with the appointment of Henry L. Moore.

_______________________

Columbia Announcement of the appointments of Henry L. Moore (Prof.) and Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.), 1902

It seems fitting to introduce to the acquaintance of the readers of the QUARTERLY those who come from other universities to occupy professors’ chairs in our own. Professors Moore and Seager enter the service of the University in the School of Political Science…

Professor Henry L. Moore, who comes to us from Smith College, is thirty-two years of age; a native of Maryland and a graduate of Randolph-Macon College in Virginia. His special training in economics was received at the Johns Hopkins University, from which he received, in 1896, the degree of Ph.D., and in Vienna, where he was a pupil of Professor Karl [sic, “Carl”] Menger. He was appointed to an instructorship in economics in the Johns Hopkins University in 1896, and to a professorship in Smith College in 1897, though he continued after this, for a time, to give, in the Johns Hopkins University, lectures which treated of the application of mathematical principles to economic problems.

His chief published work is an essay on Von Thünen’s “Theory of Natural Wages,” which, beside throwing new light on a scientific problem, offers to the English reading student the best introduction to the study of the works of Von Thünen and of the extensive literature which has grown up about them.

Henry R. Seager, the new adjunct-professor of political economy, was graduated from the University of Michigan in 1890. During the next four years he studied at Johns Hopkins, Halle, Berlin, Vienna and the University of Pennsylvania, receiving the degree of Ph.D. from the last-named institution in 1894. From that date he was on the teaching force of the University of Pennsylvania, holding successively the titles of instructor and assistant professor of economics, till he accepted the call to Columbia. Professor Seager was for three years Secretary of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, and in 1900 he became editor-in-chief of the Annals, the magazine published by the Academy. His publications in periodicals have been numerous, and his more important works include “The Finances of Pennsylvania,” “The Teaching of Economics at Berlin and Vienna,” [JPE, March 1893] “The Fallacy of Saving,” and “The Teaching of Economics and Economic History.”

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, v. 4, June 1902, pp. 293-94.

_______________________

Announcement of the Columbia appointments of Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.) and Alvin Saunders Johnson (Reader), 1902

Columbia University.- Doctor Henry R. Seager has resigned his position of Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania, and has accepted the position of Adjunct Professor of Political Economy in Columbia University. His duties in Columbia University will begin with the opening of the coming academic year.

Mr. Seager has published the following papers:

“German Universities and German Student Life.” The Inlander, June, 1892.

“Economics at Berlin and Vienna.” Journal of Political Economy, March, 1893.

“Philippovich’s Grundriss der Politischen-Oekonomie.” ANNALS, July, 1893.

“Pennsylvania Tax Conference.” Ibid., March, 1894.

“Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association.” Ibid., March, 1895.

“Malloch’s Labour and the Popular Welfare, and Dyer’s The Evolution of Industry.” The Citizen, June, 1895.

“Cunningham’s Outlines of English Industrial History.” ANNALS, January, 1896.

“Bruce’s Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.” Ibid., 1896.

“The Fallacy of Saving.” Supplement to Economic Studies, American Economic Association, April, 1896.

“Smart’s Studies in Economics.” The Citizen, August, 1896.

“Stray Impressions of Oxford.” The Pennsylvanian, February, 1897.

“Higgs’ The Physiocrats.” ANNALS, July, 1897.

“Gibbins’ Industry in England.” Ibid., September, 1897.

“Bullock’s Introduction to the Study of Economics.” Ibid., November, 1897.

“The Consumers’ League.” Bulletin of American Academy, April, 1898.

“George’s Political Economy.” Political Science Quarterly, December, 1898.

“Devine’s Economics.” ANNALS, March, 1899.

“Hull’s The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty.” Ibid., May, 1900.

“Smart’s The Distribution of Income.” Ibid., July, 1900.

“Clark’s The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits.” Ibid., September, 1900.

Editorial. Ibid., January, 1901.

“Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid., March1901.

“Professor Patten’s Theory of Prosperity.” Ibid., March, 1902.

Editorial. Ibid.

“Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid.

“Crowell’s The Distribution and Marketing of Farm Products.” Report of United States Industrial Commission, Vol. VI, 1901. Political Science Quarterly, March, 1902.

Mr. Alvin Saunders Johnson, at present Reader in Economics at Bryn Mawr College, Pa., has been appointed Tutor in Economics at Columbia University, New York City. His work in Columbia will begin at the opening of the coming academic year.

Source: Personal Notes, Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 19 (May, 1902), pp. 103-104.

Image Sources: Henry Moore (left) Smith College, Classbook of 1902, p. 11. and Henry Seager (right) Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Categories
Economists Harvard Lecture Notes

Harvard. Tobin’s notes to lecture by Alvin Hansen on Keynes’ General Theory, May 1938

 

The following notes were taken by James Tobin at the end of his junior year at Harvard. The notes for this lecture by Alvin H. Hansen on Keynes’ General Theory were “filed” as loose-leaf pages inserted into a bound volume of Tobin’s handwritten course notes for Economics 41 (Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises, taught by John H. Williams and Seymour Harris). Hansen’s lecture might have been a guest lecture for that course since only a recitation section taught by Kenyon Edward Poole was included in the notes for that date.  

Also on that date in history at Harvard: Gunnar Myrdal held the second lecture in his four-lecture Godkin public lecture series “The Population Problem and Social Security”.

__________________

Lecture
5/4/38
Prof. Alvin H. Hansen of Garver & Hansen
Littauer Professor of Political Economy

Keynes’ General Theory.

Not mainly concerned with trade cycle. Ch[apter] on trade cycle not very original. Cycle consists in fluctuation of rate of investment-purchase of capital-goods. Keynes holds that fluctuations in rate of invest[ment] due to fluctuations in the rate of prospective profits, in the marg[inal] efficiency of capital. Keynes emphasizes the rôle of expectations—psychology. Quick shift from prosperity to depression due to violent shifts in expectation from optimism to pessimism.

Mainly concerned with larger problem of full empl[oyment] of labor and the other factors of production. Could still have trade cycle but its booms would hit full employment. But also conceivable is a society in which ceiling of fluctuations is below full empl[oyment]—permanent under-employment. This long-run under-empl[oyment] Keynes mainly concerned with. Modern societies tend to be in a situation of chronic under-employment. He accuses classicals of working on assumption that society has long-run tendency to full empl[oyment]. Classical writers were concerned with pricing system and returns to different factors, and how much labor, etc., was used. R[ate] of int[erest] for example determined amount of saving cped [compared?] to consumption out of given income. This according to K[eynes] only goes with full empl[oyment] assumption. Rise in consumption in condition of under-empl[oyment] will lead to rise in investment as well. These are not alternatives until there is full empl[oyment]. This well realized by bus[isness] cycle theorists. Keynes applies it to long-run analysis.

What determines the volume of employment?

1) Rate of interest
2) Marg[inal] efficiency of capital. (Prospective rate of profit anticipated by bus[iness] man.)
3) Propensity to consume.

Nothing new about introducing rate of int[erest] as a determinant. Wicksell 1898 set forth determinants of expansion as prospective rate of profit on one side and r[ate] of int[erest] on the other side. Keynes adds the propensity to consume. dC/dY >0, <1, decreases. Rich societies have tendency to fail to maintain level of income once achieved. A society which consumes all of its income would have no difficulty in maintaining its level, because no deficiency in income-spending from incomes pd [paid] out to factors. If some part is not spent on consumers’ goods—just saved without a purchase of capital-goods – those who save are not actual investors-entrepreneurs—and there is not an equal amount of new investment, there is a tendency for incomes to fall. If propensity to consume is low, other determinants of employment must be very strong—high prospective rate of profit, low r[ate] of int[erest]—in order to balance saving.

“Classical” relation of r[ate] of int[erest] to saving. Later classical writers qualified argument: if r[ate] of int[erest] is very high, more saving; if low, less. But in between, there are the fixed-income savers. Keynes: determinant is level of incomes. Wouldn’t say no relation of saving to r[ate] of int[erest]. Given r[ate] of int[erest], determinant is level of incomes. There is for K[eynes] then no minimum r[ate] of int[erest], such as Cassel found: if int[erest] falls there because of shortness of human life people will say int[erest] is so low that not much income from it. Hence they will consume capital. At this p[oin]t tendency for saving to decrease, & consumption [to] increase. For K[eynes] there is another minimum point, below which there is not decrease of saving but an increase of hoarding. K[eynes] distinguishes mkt [market] & pure rates of int[erest]. Special risk in buying long-term commitment—risk is that r[ate] of int[erest] will rise a little bit in future, price of bond will drop so as to wipe out all int[erest] gain on it. Hence there is pt[point] where we won’t bother to buy securities but will hold cash. R[ate] of int[erest]not driven down below point of consump[tion] ncrease. What people will do is hold savings in liquid forms.

In rich community, marg[inal] efficiency of capital low; propensity to consume low; but rate of int[erest] can’t keep falling because of liquidity-preference. Hence there is not adequate volume of new invest[ment] to maintain full employment. R[ate] of int[erest] doesn’t drop to point where people stop saving & consume more, & rectify the difficulty; but is held up by liquidity preference.

Emphasizes largely r[ate] of int[erest]; Spiethoff thinks important thing in expansion is marg[ignal] efficiency of capital, which K[eynes] largely takes for granted. Spiethoff’s factors influencing prospective rate of profit on new invest[ment]: expanding market, increasing population, inventions & giant industries. All these associated with a young & growing capitalism, as in 19th.—unique century, conquering the world and revolutionizing the industrial technique and expanding population. Now decline in population, and no new mkts [markets]. K[eynes] assumes this exploitation of opportunities & emphasizes the monetary rate of int[erest], not as Spiethoff on non-monetary influences on marg[inal] efficiency. Risk & uncertainty of modern world decrease the will to invest—and perhaps also the tendency to save w[oul]d be greater. Failure of invest[ment] outlet.

K[eynes]’s solutions:

1) Artificially create a low rate of interest.
2) Stimulate consump[tion] by redistribution of income.
3) Enlarge volume of public investment.

[Qualifications]

1) How far will stimulate invest[ment] doubtful.
2) Effects of taxation for this purpose may hurt private invest[ment]
3) Public invest[ment] may be offset by private invest[ment] decline.

            Economic policies are choice among evils.

 

Source: Yale University Archives. Papers of James Tobin.  Box 6, Loose pages in bound lecture notes for Economics 41 taken by James Tobin during the 1937-38 academic year at Harvard University.

Image Source: James Tobin senior year portrait in Harvard Class Album, 1939.

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

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

 

 

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

_____________________

DRAFT

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02135
January 16, 1970

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

REPORT ON THE GENERAL EXAMINATION FOR THE PH.D.

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

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

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

 

ROLE OF THE GENERAL EXAMINATION

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

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

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

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

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

 

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

General Principles

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

The Theory Requirement

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

The Quantitative Requirement

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

The Economic History Requirement

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

The Requirement in Special Fields

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

QUESTIONS OF GRADING

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Examination Requirements at Other Places

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

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

 

I. Yale

Comprehensive Examination

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

History and Quantitative

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

Other requirements

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

 

II. MIT

General examination

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

History and Quantitative

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

Other requirements

  1. Two languages

 

III. Johns Hopkins

First Year Oral Examination

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

Comprehensive Examination

Normally taken in spring of second year. Consists of:

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

History and Quantitative

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

Other Requirements

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

 

IV. Rochester

Qualifying Examination

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

History and Quantitative

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

Other Requirements

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

 

V. Stanford

Comprehensive Examination

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

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

History and Quantitative

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

Other Requirements

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

 

VI. Berkeley

Departmental Examination in Theory

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

History and Quantitative

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

Other Requirements

  1. No language.

 

VII. Michigan

Preliminary Examination

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

Economic History and Quantitative

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

Other Requirements

  1. No general language requirement.

 

VIII. Chicago

Preliminary Examination

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

History and Quantitative

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

Other Requirements

  1. Math, no languages.

 

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

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1946.