Category: Columbia

Categories
Barnard Biography Columbia Harvard

Columbia. Harvard AM becomes economics instructor. A.M. Day, 1899

This post provides a snapshot of Harvard graduate (A.B./A.M., 1892) Arthur Morgan Day who briefly held junior instructional ranks at Harvard, Columbia and Barnard Colleges. From his March 1942 obituary we learn that he left economics teaching to enter the world of finance in 1900.

_________________________

An earlier post with seven reports made by Arthur Morgan Day to his 1892 Harvard class.

_________________________

DAY, Arthur Morgan, 1867-
Born in Danbury, Conn., 1867; graduate of Harvard (both A.B. and A.M.) in 1892; Assistant in History, Harvard, 1893-94; Assistant in Economics, Columbia, 1894-99; Instructor in Economics Barnard College, since 1895; Instructor in Economics Columbia, 1899-.

ARTHUR MORGAN DAY, A.M., Instructor in Economics at Columbia, was born in Danbury, Connecticut, April 12, 1867, the son of Josiah Lyon and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. He graduated at Harvard in the Class of 1892, receiving at the same time the degree of Master of Arts, and in the following year entered the Corps of Instructors in that University as Assistant in History. In 1894 he took the position of Assistant in Economics at Columbia, advanced to Instructor in 1899, and in 1895 was made Instructor in the same branch at Barnard College.

Text and Image Source: Universities and their sons; history, influence and characteristics of American universities, with biographical sketches and  of alumni and recipients of honorary degrees, Vol. II (1899), p. 453.

_________________________

Arthur M. Day Dies
Known as Economist

Danbury, March 7. (AP) Arthur M. Day, 74, widely-known economist, financial analyst, and adviser to a number of large corporations, died today at his home here.

Born in Danbury, April 12, 1867. Day was graduated from Harvard in 1892, receiving his bachelor’s and master’s degree simultaneously. He had worked five years in the insurance business after graduating from the public high school here before entering college.

Day taught economics at Harvard for two years following his graduation, and later was a member of the faculty of Barnard College and Columbia University.

He left Columbia in 1900 to become associated with the Prudential Insurance Company.

Some years later he joined Wood, Struthers and Company, New York firm.

Seven years ago he became associated with the Studley Shupert Company, Boston financial consultants.

A bachelor, Day leaves a sister, Mrs. William F. Starr, of Danbury.

Source: Hartford Courant. 8 Mar 1942, p. 46.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Faculty Regulations

Columbia. Graduate Degree Requirements in Economics for Faculty of Political Science, 1904-05

By the beginning of the 20th century the general structure of Ph.D. programs across the United States had gelled into a common form due to the demand for certification of college teachers and a desire to create the graduate research seminars of German universities. The relevant portions of the 1904-05 Ph.D. regulations for the Columbia Faculty of Political Science, within which the department of economics was housed, have been transcribed for this post.

_________________________

More Columbia Information from that time

Columbia University, Economics Courses with Descriptions, 1905-07

_________________________

Regulations for other economics programs

Chicago, 1904-05
Harvard, 1904-05
Wisconsin, 1904-05

__________________________

REGULATIONS
FOR THE UNIVERSITY DEGREES
1904-05

Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy
  1. Candidates for the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy must hold a baccalaureate degree in arts, letters, philosophy, or science, or an engineering degree, or an equivalent of one of these from a foreign institution of learning.
    Every candidate for a higher degree must present to the Dean of each school in which he intends to study satisfactory evidence that he is qualified for the studies he desires to undertake.
  2. Candidates for the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy must pursue their studies in residence for a minimum period of one and two years, respectively.* The year spent in study for the degree of Master of Arts is credited on account of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Residence at other universities may be credited to a candidate. In certain cases and by special arrangement, time exclusively devoted to investigation in the field will be credited in partial fulfilment of the time required. No degree will be conferred upon any student who has not been in residence at Columbia University for at least one year. The satisfactory completion, at not less than four Summer Sessions, of courses of instruction having in all a value of eight hours’ work a week for one academic year will be accepted as fulfilling the minimum requirement of one year’s University residence.

*In practice three years of University residence subsequent to the attainment of the Bachelor’s degree, or its equivalent, are usually necessary to obtain the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

  1. Each student who declares himself a candidate for the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy, or either of them, shall, immediately after registration, designate one principal or major subject and two subordinate or minor subjects.
    Candidates are expected to devote at least one half of their time throughout their course of study to the major subject. In the case of laboratory courses this implies two days a week, or its equivalent, as determined by each department. Each minor subject is intended to occupy approximately one fourth of the time during one year for the degree of Master of Arts, and during two years for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
    Minor subjects may not be changed except by permission of the Dean, to be given only on the written recommendation of the heads of the departments from which and to which the change is desired; major subjects may not be changed except by a special vote of the Faculty in each case.
    Candidates for the degree of Master of Arts or Doctor of Philosophy may, with the consent of the Dean of the Faculty concerned and of the professor in charge of his major subject, select both minor subjects within the same department, and may divide a minor subject, taking parts of two subjects germane to his major subject.
  2. The subjects from which the candidate’s selection must be made are:

[…]

UNDER THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Group I.—History and political philosophy: 1. European history; 2. American history; 3. ancient history; 4. political philosophy.

Group II.—Public law and comparative jurisprudence: 1. Constitutional law; 2. international law; 3. administrative law; 4. comparative jurisprudence.

Group III.—Economics and social science: 1. Political economy and finance; 2. sociology and statistics.

In his choice of subjects under this Faculty, the candidate whose major subject lies within its jurisdiction is limited by the following rules:

A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy must select one minor subject within the group which includes his major subject.

A candidate for the degree of Master of Arts or Doctor of Philosophy must select one minor subject outside of the group which includes his major subject.

The choice of subjects must in every case be approved by the Dean.

To be recognized as a major subject for the degree of Master of Arts, the courses selected must aggregate at least two hours per week throughout the year, and must also include attendance at a seminar; for a minor subject for the degree of Master of Arts the attendance at a seminar is not required.

To be recognized as a minor subject for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, courses must be taken, in addition to the requirements for a minor subject for the degree of Master of Arts, aggregating two hours weekly. All the courses and seminars offered in the major subject must be taken by candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

[…]

  1. Each student is given a registration book, to be obtained at the office of the Registrar, which should be signed by the professor or instructor in charge of each course of instruction or investigation at the beginning and end of the course. This registration book is to be preserved by the student as evidence of courses attended, and should be submitted to the Deans of the several Faculties at the end of each year that the proper credit may be given, after which the registration book becomes the permanent property of the student.
  2. —
    1. Students desiring to be examined for the degree of Master of Arts, Master of Laws, or Doctor of Philosophy shall make application to the Registrar of the University, on or before April 1 of the academic year in which the examination is desired, on blanks provided by the University.
    2. Immediately after April 1, the Registrar shall notify the Deans of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science, of the names of students applying for examination for higher degrees in each of these three Faculties, together with the subjects in which the candidate offers himself for examination and the degree for which he is a candidate.
    3. The examination shall be held under the authority and direction of the several Deans.
    4. The results of such examinations shall be reported as soon as possible to the Registrar, who shall transmit to the Secretary of the University Council the record of each successful candidate for a degree, as soon as such record is complete.
  3. Each candidate for the degree of Master of Arts shall present an essay on some topic previously approved by the professor in charge of his major subject. This essay must be presented not later than May 1 of the academic year in which the examination is to take place. The Faculty of Political Science requires the essay to be a paper read during the year before the seminar of which the candidate is a member.
    When the essay has been approved, the candidate shall file with the Registrar of the University a legibly written or typewritten copy of it. This copy is to be written on firm, strong paper, eleven by eight and a half inches, and a space of one and a half inches on the inner margin must be left free from writing.
  4. Each candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall present a dissertation embodying the result of original investigation and research on some topic previously approved by the professor in charge of the major subject. After the dissertation has been approved by the said professor, it shall be printed by the candidate, under the direction of the Dean of the Faculty, and one hundred and fifty copies shall be delivered to the Registrar of the University, unless, for reasons of weight, a smaller number be accepted by special action of the University Council. On the title-page of every such dissertation shall be printed the words: “Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of—, Columbia University.”
    Each dissertation shall contain upon its title-page the full name of the author; the full title of the dissertation; the year of imprint, and, if a reprint, the title, volume, and pagination of the publication from which it was reprinted; and there shall be printed and appended to each dissertation a statement of the educational institutions that the author has attended, and a list of the degrees and honors conferred upon him, as well as the titles of his previous publications.
    All dissertations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy must be submitted for approval not later than April 1 of the academic year in which examination is desired.
    In case of excessive cost and delay in publishing a dissertation which has been approved by a department, and accepted for publication by a reputable journal or scientific or literary association, the degree of Doctor of Philosophy may be conferred before the publication is completed. The facts in every such case concerning the publication are to be certified to the Council by the Faculty concerned.
    In cases where advanced degrees are conferred before the copies of the dissertation are deposited with the Registrar, the diploma shall be withheld until such copies shall be received.
    In the Faculty of Political Science, the examination on the major and minor subjects and on languages, but not on the dissertation itself, may be held before the printed dissertation is submitted.

[…]

  1. Every candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy must pass, besides such other examinations as the Faculty may require, an oral examination on all three subjects, and must defend his dissertation in the presence of the entire Faculty, or of so many of its members as may desire or as may be designated by the Faculty to attend. The ability to read at sight French and German, to be certified in each case by the Dean of the Faculty concerned, is required by all the Faculties. The Faculty of Political Science also requires the ability to read Latin at sight; and candidates are examined on Latin, French, and German as upon other subjects, in the presence of the Faculty.

[…]

  1. No student shall continue to be a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy for a longer period than three years from the time he ceases to be in residence.

[…]

1904-05
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

In its course of instruction the Faculty of Political Science undertakes to give a complete general view of all the subjects of public polity, both internal and external, from the threefold point of view of history, law, and philosophy. The prime aim is therefore the development of all the branches of the political and social sciences. The secondary and practical objects are:

(a) To fit young men for the public service.

Young men who wish to obtain positions in the United States civil service—especially in those positions in the executive departments at Washington for which special examinations are held — will find it advantageous to follow many of the courses under the Faculty of Political Science — especially the courses on political history, diplomatic history and international law, government (including the governmental organization of the territories and dependencies of the United States), statistics, finance, and administration. Candidates for appointment in the administrative service of our dependencies may obtain adequate preparation by adding to the general courses on public law and on political economy and finance the special courses now offered in the School of Political Science on colonial history and administration, colonial economics, modern civil law (German, French, Italian, and Spanish), and the courses on the Spanish language and literature offered in the College and the School of Philosophy.

(b) To give an adequate economic and legal training to those who intend to make journalism their profession.

(c) To supplement, by courses in public law and comparative jurisprudence, the instruction in private municipal law offered by the Faculty of Law.

(d) To educate teachers of history, economics, sociology, public law, and jurisprudence.

To these ends courses of study are offered of sufficient duration to enable the student not only to attend the lectures and recitations with the professors, but also to consult the most approved treatises upon the political sciences and to study the sources of the same.

The courses under this Faculty are divided as follows:

GROUP I — HISTORY AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Subjects

1. European History
2. American History
3. Ancient History
4. Political Philosophy

GROUP II — PUBLIC LAW AND COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE

Subjects

1. Constitutional Law
2. International Law
3. Administrative Law
4. Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence

GROUP III — ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

Subjects

1. Political Economy and Finance
2. Sociology and Statistics

A complete statement of the courses will be found in the bulletin of the Division of History, Economics, and Public Law the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science) for 1903-05, which will be forwarded without charge upon application to the Secretary of the University.

Source: Columbia University, Bulletin of Information. Fourth Series, No. 11 (April 2, 1904). Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science, Announcement 1904-1905, pp. 7-12, 30-31.

Image Source: Roberto Ferrari, Unveiling Alma Mater [Sept 23, 1903]. Columbia University Libraries. July 15, 2104.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Faculty Regulations

Columbia. Requirements for M.A. and Ph.D. Degrees in Economics, 1934-35

The requirements for a graduate degree in economics at Columbia University in 1934-35 are transcribed below. First we have the common requirements of the Faculty of Political Science (of which Economics constituted one of four departments). Next we have the specific requirements set by the economics department.

Earlier, Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has transcribed the analogous requirements at Harvard in 1934-35.

Columbia. Organization of Graduate Education, 1908-10
Columbia Requirements for Ph.D., 1916
Columbia Requirements for Ph.D., 1920
Columbia Requirements for Graduate Degrees, 1946-47
Columbia Requirements for Ph.D., 1954-55

_______________________

FACULTY REQUIREMENTS
[pp. 11-13]

MASTER OF ARTS
  1. Residence. Every candidate for the degree must register for and attend courses aggregating not less than thirty tuition points distributed over a period of not less than one academic year or its equivalent.
  2. Courses. The candidate must satisfactorily complete, from the courses for which he has registered to satisfy the residence requirements, courses aggregating not less than twenty-one tuition points, of which at least fifteen must be selected from the general courses listed in this Announcement.
  3. Essay. The candidate must present a satisfactory essay prepared under the direction of some member of this faculty.
  4. Departmental Requirements. For special departmental requirements see Appendix, pages 46–52, of this Announcement. Departmental requirements are in addition to, not a substitute for, the faculty requirements.
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
  1. General. The degree will be conferred upon students who satisfy the requirements as to preliminary training, residence, languages, subjects, and dissertation.
  2. Preliminary Training. The candidate must have received a Bachelor’s degree from Columbia University or from some other approved university or college, or have had an education equivalent to that represented by such a degree, and must have been regularly accepted as a graduate student by the University Committee on Admissions.
  3. Residence. The candidate must have pursued graduate studies for at least two academic years, one of which must have been spent at this University, and the other of which, if not spent here, at an institution accepted as offering courses of similar standard. A year’s residence at this University is defined as registration for and attendance upon courses aggregating not less than thirty tuition points distributed over a period of not less than one academic year or its equivalent. Those desiring credit for graduate work completed elsewhere should send to the Director of University Admissions as soon as possible a request for the evaluation of such graduate work.
  4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at least one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate department, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally, the language requirements for each subject are as indicated in the following paragraph.
  5. Subjects. The candidate must have familiarized himself with one subject of primary interest and at least one subject of secondary interest, chosen from the following list of subjects:

• Ancient history (French, German, Latin, and Greek)
• Medieval history (French, German, and Latin)
• Modern European history (French and German)
• American history (two modern foreign languages — normally French and German, but substitutions may be made with the approval of the Graduate Chairman)
• History of European thought (Latin, French, and German)
• Jewish history, literature, and institutions (Hebrew and two from the following: Greek, Latin, Arabic, French, German)
• Political and social philosophy (French, German, and Latin)
• European governments (French and German)
• American government and constitutional law (French and German).
• International law and relations (French and either German or Latin)
• Roman law (Latin and either French or German)
• Comparative jurisprudence (French and German)
• Economic theory, history, and statistics (French and German)
• Public and private finance (French and German)
• Social economic problems, including labor, industrial organization, trade, transportation, etc. (French and German)
• Sociology
• Social legislation (French and German)

With the approval of the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty, the candidate may offer as a subject of secondary interest a subject not contained in the foregoing list, such as statistics, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, etc.

  1. Dissertation. The main test of the candidate’s qualifications is the production of a dissertation which shall demonstrate his capacity to contribute to the advancement of learning within the field of his selection. Such dissertation must give evidence of the candidate’s capacity to present in good literary form the results of original researches upon some approved topic. The dissertation must be printed in a form acceptable to the Faculty before the degree will be awarded.
  2. Departmental Requirements. For special departmental requirements see the Appendix, pages 46-52, of this Announcement. Departmental requirements are in addition to, not a substitute for, the faculty requirements.
[FACULTY] PROCEDURE
FOR FULFILLING PH.D. REQUIREMENTS
  1. Notice of Prospective Candidacy. As soon as possible after the beginning of his graduate residence the student shall give notice of prospective candidacy to the Executive Officer of the department in which the subject of his primary interest lies, and in consultation with him make a choice of subjects.
  2. Languages and Written Work. As soon as possible after giving notice of prospective candidacy, the student shall submit to the Executive Officer of the department concerned an essay or other paper giving satisfactory evidence of his ability to make researches and to express himself in correct English. At the same time the student shall be tested, by some officer of instruction designated by the Executive Officer of the department, as to his ability to read the required languages.
  3. Examination on Subjects. Having pursued graduate studies in this University, or in some other institution approved by it, for the equivalent of at least six months after the satisfactory completion of the tests on languages and written work, the student, upon the advice of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, shall make application, through the Executive Officer of the department concerned, to the Dean for examination in subjects. Such application may be made at any time, but to secure the examination in any given academic year the application must be made before April 1. The applicant will be notified by the Dean of the date of his examination. This examination is an oral examination, which may be supplemented by a written examination when required by the department concerned, and is conducted by a committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. By it the applicant will be expected to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the subjects of his primary and secondary interest and of the literature pertaining thereto.
  4. Matriculation. Upon the successful passing of the required examination in his subjects, the applicant will be recommended by the Executive Officer of the appropriate department to the Dean for matriculation, which is admission to candidacy for the degree.
  5. Dissertation. Investigations and researches for the dissertation may be pursued either in connection with the work of some research course or under the direction and supervision of some member of the Faculty independently of any course. In either case a very considerable part of the time of the candidate or prospective candidate for the degree should be devoted to work upon his dissertation. The dissertation may be completed either during the period of residence, or in absentia. In advance of its being printed for presentation to the Faculty it must be approved by the professor in charge and accepted by the Executive Officer of the department concerned. Such acceptance, however, is not to be construed as acceptance by the Faculty.
  6. Final Examination: Defense of the Dissertation. At least one month in advance of the time at which he wishes to present himself for the defense of his dissertation, but not later than April 1 in any academic year, the candidate must make application therefor to the Dean, who will thereafter notify him of the date of the final examination. This examination is an oral examination conducted by a Committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. By it the candidate will be held to a defense of his dissertation in respect of its content, the sources upon which it is based, the interpretations that are made, the conclusions that are drawn, as well as in respect of the candidate’s acquaintance with the literature and available sources of information upon subjects that are cognate to the subject of his dissertation.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

ECONOMICS
[ DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS]
[pp. 49-50]

As soon as possible after deciding upon economics as the subject of primary interest for the Master of Arts or Doctor of Philosophy degrees, the prospective candidate should report through the secretary of the Department of Economics, 508 Fayerweather Hall, to a designated member of the Committee directing the work of graduate students in economics to receive fuller instructions. Before being permitted to matriculate for a graduate degree in economics, the prospective candidate must satisfy the committee that his prior preparation in economics has been adequate.

MASTER OF ARTS
  1. General Requirements. Students whose subject of primary interest is in the field of economics must include graduate courses in economics aggregating not less than fifteen points among the courses aggregating not less than twenty-one points, which they are required to complete before being recommended for the degree. Of these twenty-one, not less than eighteen points must be chosen from the general courses listed in this Announcement. It is also desirable, when the candidates’ own qualifications permit, that they should attend research courses aggregating six points.
  2. Essay. The candidate must select his essay subject and submit it to the appropriate professor within two months after registration as a candidate for the degree. The selection of a subject of importance within the field of his interests must be made by the student himself, and the ability to make a proper choice will normally be regarded as an essential qualification for the degree. The completed essay must be submitted for approval not later than four weeks before the date on which copies of the approved essay are to be filed with the Registrar. Under no circumstances should the candidate proceed beyond the preparation of his detailed program of investigation and the completion of a preliminary chapter or section without submitting his work to his adviser. In the approval of an essay attention will be paid to excellence of presentation and to expression in correct English as well as to specific content and to ability to use original material.
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Every candidate must satisfy the Department of his grasp of seven of the subjects listed below. The candidate will be expected to show a thorough knowledge of the facts, principles, and literature of the subjects. Three of these subjects must be economic theory, economic or industrial history, and statistics. The procedure for meeting this requirement is as follows :

  1. The candidate must offer himself for oral examination in four of the subjects listed below. Of these four, one must be economic theory. The examination will be on subjects, not on courses;
  2. Before making formal application for this oral examination on subjects, the candidate must satisfy the appropriate professors that he has done work which is adequate both in scope and in quality in three other subjects, also chosen from those listed below, and different from the four subjects which the candidate proposes to offer in his oral examination. This requirement may be met in any manner satisfactory to the professors concerned — by taking courses, by formal or informal examination, or in other ways ; but when the requirement has been met, the candidate must secure corresponding written certification from the professors concerned. It will be noted that if the candidate does not propose to offer economic or industrial history on his oral examination, he must satisfy the requirement for that subject in the manner specified in this paragraph; and that the same requirement also applies to statistics

The subjects are as follows :

1. Accounting
2. Agriculture
3. Corporation and trust problems
4. Economic or industrial history
5. Economic theory
6. Insurance
7. International trade
8. Labor problems and industrial relations
9. Marketing
10. Mathematical economics
11. Money and banking
12. Public finance
13. Socialism
14. Statistics
15. Transportation
16. Any other approved topic within the field of economics. Optional subject may be outside of the Department. In such case this subject must be one of the four presented for the oral examination.

The candidate will be expected to show acquaintance with the main trends in economic thought, as well as intimate acquaintance with the writings of one prominent economist, the candidate’s selection to be approved by the Committee directing graduate work in economics. Before applying for the oral examination on subjects, the candidate must again consult the Committee.

Except when special permission has been granted by the Department, the candidate must satisfy these requirements on subjects before proceeding with the preparation of a dissertation.

Source: History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for Winter and Spring Sessions, 1934-1935. Published as Columbia University, Bulletin of Information (34th series, No. 33) May 19, 1934.

Categories
Columbia Development Economic History Economists International Economics Socialism

Columbia. Memo of Musings Regarding Institutional Economics, Area Studies, and Economic History. Hart, 1973

A memorandum written in 1973 by 64-year old Albert G. Hart shares his laments concerning the path taken by the Columbia University department of economics to what he saw to be a grievous neglect of instruction and research into the institutional nuts-and-bolts, historical trajectories, and granular area studies of economics. A copy of the memorandum was found in the files of his colleague, historian of economics, Joseph Dorfman.

Chicago-style economics was explicitly disdained by Hart who actually wished good riddance to Gary Becker (“…he played dog-in-the-manger too much…” with a note of scorn for Milton Friedman (“… [he] ignores the risk that what passes for ‘general economic law’ may turn out to be a series of adhockeries concocted to be plausible for a very special and perhaps transitory state of society…”).

The memo closes with a question of what to do with the theoretical Wunderkinder of economics departments whose peak years have past with still another quarter century of tenure left in their respective academic life-cycles. Fortunately he stops considerably short of recommending senicide.

__________________________

Previously posted content related to Albert G. Hart

University of Chicago

Exams for Introduction to Money and Banking at Chicago, A. G. Hart, 1932-35

Course Outline for Introduction to Money and Banking at Chicago. A. G. Hart, 1933

Columbia University

Hiring Albert Gailord Hart as visiting professor, 1946

Core Economic Theory. Hart, 1946-47

First semester graduate economic analysis. First weeks’ notes. Hart, 1955

Reading list for Economic Analysis (less advanced level). Hart and Wonnacott, 1959

Hart Memo, Economics Faculty Salaries for 15 U.S. universities. April 1961

Personal Narrative of the Columbia Crisis. A.G. Hart, May 1968

__________________________

AGH 11 July 1973

RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Response, addressed to:

Professor Donald Dewey, Chairman,
Professor Ronald Findlay, Director of Graduate Studies
Continuing and Incoming members of the Department

Dean George S. FRANKEL, Graduate School
Dean Harvey PICKER, School of International Affairs

Interested bystanders

to report of Committee of Instruction on the Department of Economics,
by Albert G. Hart, Professor of Economies.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Preliminary generalities

The COI [Committee of Instruction] report is one of those papers which an informed reader finds simultaneously to be almost-excellent and almost-horrible. I can endorse with only minor reservations its conclusions that recent senior-staff recruiting has been of excellent calibre; that the intensification of workshop-patterns is very healthy; that much stress should be placed on catching good men before their qualifications known to us have become so generally know as to create a bull market; that the graduate students are only moderately happy, and that to build on the quantitative theoretical work of Lancaster, Phelps, and now Dhrymes is a promising way to rebuild morale as well as to establish Columbia again as a major professional focus.

Yet the report is so lop-sided that its net effect is likely not to be constructive. It overlooks entirely two major sides of economics in which Columbia has been, is, and ought to be prominent, and which are of major concern to students. And its lack of historical perspective and of a realistic view of the professional life-cycle may seriously distort its proposals and the reaction to the Department of the central leadership of the University. So I do not see how I can silently let this report stand as expressing real wisdom about the Department and its futures hence this “reaction”.

Some historical correctives

To clear the ground, let me disabuse the reader of the notion that the Department is only now beginning to work on the problems central to the COI report. In the first place, the fact that the workshop pattern of faculty-student interaction (taking in professional visitors) is central to the learning process in economics has been well understood for a long time. At the moment when I became chairman (in 1958), the Department was granted $250,000 by the Ford Foundation specifically to make a major shift toward workshop groupings. The deservedly-praised labor workshop (which non-accidentally had a Becker/Mincer leadership with experience in workshop endeavors at the University of Chicago) was one; we launched also an “Industrial Countries Workshop” (led by Carter Goodrich and Goran Ohlin) which developed a very useful line of publications, a Public Finance Workshop led by Carl Shoup and W. S. Vickrey, and an Expectational Economics workshop under my leadership which was clearly the least successful of the cluster, for reasons I won’t bother the reader with, but for all that far from useless). Presently we had a very lively and constructive International Economics workshop (led by Peter Kenen), which continued under Ronald Findlay; and for a number of years we have had a good-if-not-superlative Monetary Economics workshop (managed by Philip Cagan with partnership of Hart and Barger). In 1972/73 we tried a “Development/Regional” shop, which has been floundering somewhat — partly because it is hard to find a real focus with so many students not in the habit of working together, partly because of its natural leaders, Findlay had to put his main energy into the international field and Wellisz was absent on leave.

What is new in the workshop situation is in the first place the effort (led by Findlay, with enthusiastic support of most of the rest of the Department) to make it work for virtually everybody in the Department, faculty or student — and in the second place serious recognition by the Administration that this is an appropriate-if-expensive way to work, deserving serious backing even if no more Ford funds can be had.

A second consequential historical point (hinted at but not spelled out in the COI report) is that the Department has been working for years at the kind of staffing the COI report now indicates as appropriate. When I was chairman, for example, we had a deal arranged to recruit Svi [sic] Griliches —  which was frustrated by what I am bound to call sabotage at the ad hoc committee stage. In Carl Shoup’s chairmanship, we successfully recruited at the assistant professor level two key men who beautifully exemplify the application of quantitative theory and econometric research techniques to economics —  Peter Kenen and Gary Becker, both of whom were full professors very young, and were regarded as stars in the profession. In my chairmanship and afterwards, much of the work of the chairman went into nursing these two men’s careers and working conditions. Kenen contributed among other things a distinguished job as departmental leader — first Informally leading a curricular reform, then taking over as chairman for a term-and-a-fraction; had the 1968 not disrupted his strategy, he’d have brought us out as one of the two or three leading departments of economics. Becker, with all his virtues, was unlivable and not available as Departmental leader — being too much centered in his own work, too much inclined to insist that the only desirable recruits were quasi-Beckers, too narrow in his views of the profession’s responsibilities (despite his astounding record of success in applying his own apparently-narrow approach to an unexpectedly wide range of problems). Frankly, I felt it unburdened the Department when he moved to Chicago, because much as we must regret the loss of his lively influence on campus, he played dog-in-the-manger too much and helped foster the impression that economics was devoted to “apologetics for the system” rather than to a search for ways to guide constructive social policies.

Agreeing with the COI that we should recruit young and staff the tenure levels largely from local people, I would point out that we have been working at this with a remarkable lack of effective cooperation from outside the Department. As I just mentioned we did acquire Kenen and Becker as assistant professors; but we had no luck in persuading the Administration and ad hoc committees to let us repeat this success. In my time as chairman, we caught a star by converting Albert Hirschman (who accidentally was here without tenure as one-year replacement for Nurkse, on leave), and who was not at the time widely-enough appreciated in the profession. We were unable to hold David Landes on economic history. Two people who in the end proved to be very highly valued outside though when we acquired them they were rank outsiders are Alexander Erlich and Charles Issawi (both of whom were given tenure in my time as chairman). We should remember also that Vickrey (and earlier Barger and Shoup) started at Columbia in Junior ranks. Dewey, Hart, Cagan, Mincer (who however had filled in earlier), Lancaster, Findlay, Phelps, and now Dhrymes, represent recruiting-with-tenure.

What lends poignancy to the question of recruiting-young is that we now have a very distinguished collection of assistant professors — I think the best we’ve had simultaneously in my time at Columbia. But our uniform lack of success with ad hoc committees on promotions of such men (I think Nakamura has been our only promotion to tenure at all recently) creates a situation where we must tell them frankly that we have little hope of keeping them. Such anomalies as two successive years of leave for young Heckman (with serious problems of continuity for students, and loss of the experiential value of a disastrous first-try at reforming the econometrics curriculum) is an extreme example of the kind of handicap for the Department created by the fact that we are morally bound to help our assistant professors make the kind of showing that will get them goods jobs elsewhere — Columbia being unwilling to back us in getting deserved promotions.

Major areas disregarded

Two major areas of professional responsibility in which Columbia has had and must maintain great distinction are simply not mentioned in the COI report. These are the areas of “institutional economics” and of international/regional/developmental economics.

Traditionally, economics in the United States was split into two main camps —those of theoretical and those of “institutionalist” orientation — which maintained an uneasy partnership in the American Economic Association and in many departments. While the titular headquarters of institutionalism was at Wisconsin, its leading center was actually Columbia; and before the sudden recruitment at the end of World War II of a cluster of theoretically-oriented men (Vickrey, Stigler and myself) there was almost a vacuum in Columbia research and instruction on the theoretical side. J. M. Clark (a most distinguished mind whose personals shyness prevented him from being a major influence in face-to-face contact) was a distinguished theoretical thinker, but regarded himself as an institutionalist and had little curricular influence. Hotelling, who was just leaving at the time I came in 1946, was the nearest thing to an active theorist.

A merger of the theoretical and institutionalist schools began to shape up during the 1930’s and was to a considerable extent accomplished during and just after World War II. The terms of merger were much like those for the two meetings of Quakers in New York City, who obviated what might have been an awkward problem of merging properties by having each member of one meeting become a member also of the other! In the 1940’s and 1950’s, it began to look as if nobody could make a career as theorist without also doubling in some other area, and nobody could make a career as institutionalist without also paying serious attention to the theoretical aspects of his problem. But in the end the merger turned out to be slanted in favor of the theorists: it is again possible to make a career by pursuing problems that are trivial variations on theoretical themes; and large elements of the institutional side of economics are allowed to die out. Students doing quantitative work with data have no tradition of asking what their numbers mean in the context of wider social processes and problems.

At Columbia, the tradition that study of law-cases is one important way to understand the economic subject-matter is preserved chiefly by the fortunate fact that we have Dewey teaching “industrial organization”. Economic history was allowed to die out; and while at present we have in assistant professors Edelstein and Passell two excellent specimens of economic historians who are also competent theorists and econometricians, we have no assurances that economic history will not again be blanked out. Some institutional aspects of “economics of human resources” are very much alive in the labor workshop; but large parts of that tradition (including the tradition of trying to understand trade unions and more generally economic organizations other than business firms) seem to have evaporated. History of thought as an approach to economics is now represented almost entirely by Alexander Erlich (who is also our only member who is expert in Marxist economics and in the functioning of European communist economies). While in terms of professional fashions the lack of “institutionalist” instruction will not cause us to lose face in the profession, we should ask whether in bringing up a new generation of economists we should be willing to see the positive aspects of the institutionalist tradition simply evaporate.

The other major aspect of economics which is disregarded in the COI report — though in fact it absorbs much of our staff manpower and is of fundamental importance for many of our students, especially from overseas — is concern with the world outside the United States. We are seriously understaffed in the pivotal area of formal economics of international-trade-and-finance, where Ronald Findlay is saddled with both the responsibilities handled by Kenen and those which were handled by Hirschman. The problems of economic development (or its lack) in the world’s poor countries need and get a lot of attention. [Incidentally, since USA is rapidly evolving “backwards” into a state of underdevelopment, the insights one gets in studying Latin America or Asia become disconcertingly applicable at home!]

The presence at Columbia of a cluster of “regional institutes” has had an important impact on our work in economics. On the whole, the Department has resisted successfully pressures to recruit people who were expert on some “region” but lacked general professional competence. [Before Riskin fortunately turned up, we were under pressure to recruit an economist who combined Chinese language and willingness to function largely as librarian a combination of qualifications which didn’t seem to coexist with all-round professional competence. Bergson, who for years was our “Soviet specialist” was also a distinguished welfare-theorist. Erlich was originally recruited on “soft money” to be an East-Central-Europe specialist; when Bergson left, there was a closing-of-ranks operation which gave him the Russian field —  and it has turned out that his knowledge of Marxist economics and of economic thought, and the fact that he is regularly sought out by East European visitors in USA make him a major factor of general departmental strength. At present the nearest equivalents of “mere” area specialists are Issawi (who also handles general instruction in economics in the School of International Affairs, and a good deal of development-and-history work at the dissertation stage), Nakamura and Riskin — all men of great general usefulness. The roles of European and Latin American “regional specialists” are filled by two of our senior general economists —  Barger and myself.

While one could imagine a budgetary situation such that one must recommend reducing to a token scale a University’s involvement in this area (except for basic international-trade-and-finance courses), it is hard to believe that Columbia specifically should withdraw from this kind of work. Surely the economic profession in USA has as part of its responsibility an understanding of the economic processes of other countries. [True, I have heard Milton Friedman say that to have a different economics for Brazil as against USA makes no more sense than to have a different science of chemistry; but he simply disregards the ethnocentric character of the economics which inward-looking economists develop for USA, and ignores the risk that what passes for “general economic law” may turn out to be a series of adhockeries concocted to be plausible for a very special and perhaps transitory state of society.] This responsibility surely comes home to Columbia. For one thing, New York is the natural focus of such work, what with its outward-looking tradition and the presence of the UN. Besides, we incur a special responsibility because we have so many overseas students. I would add that to educate overseas students too exclusively in economics-for-USA is dysfunctional: one of the major handicaps of development has been the attempt of US-trained economists overseas to apply Keynesian remedies to unemployment problems of non-Keynesian type, for example.

Economics and the SIA [School of International Affairs]

If the University were very strong financially, it seems to me plain that one would recommend developing the Economics Department in a way that would greatly strengthen the general work on international relations and on the understanding of societies outside USA which is represented by the School of International Affairs. The SIA could advantageously be much more of a research body and center of workshop activity.

I would not recommend developing an economics department within the SIA (even if SIA eventually develops a distinct and separately-recruited faculty, which I don’t think I would recommend either). To set up standards of recruiting, teaching and publication for “SIA economists” that will pass muster with the general profession is an essential safeguard, and the generally low standards of economic thinking in the UN and in overseas universities outside Europe, Japan and Australasia should be a warning that a separate international economics might not be a genuine “discipline”. But it will be a major defeat if Columbia cannot maintain and improve its standard of keeping a stable of economists for whom understanding of outside economies (and especially of the economies of poor countries) is a major concern.

A question which interacts with this, of course, is whether the SIA can develop its own sources of financing, as seemed so probable a few years ago. If not, the general financial debility of the University will mean that we must stop far short of optimum in the whole area represented by SIA, and hence also on its economic side. Specifically, it may make a great difference whether or not SIA can finance workshop activity in this area, and make a role for research posts for young economists (for example, teaching two-thirds time in the Department and working one-third-time-plus-summer in a research branch of SIA).

If the University’s policy toward economics is primarily to develop its mathematical-economics core, the contribution the Department can make on the SIA side may suffer. And reciprocally, failure to develop strength on this side may be a handicap to SIA in its efforts to get backing for a really strong program.

A postscript on professional life-cycles

One of the most valuable pieces of education I picked up in my earlier years at Columbia was a comment by Isador Rabi at a University Seminar about the problems of a field like physics where the most impressive men “peak” very young and the work regarded as important by the profession is done largely by youngsters. It would be a tremendous waste to throw men on the scrap-heap after their “peak” years, or to regard them as living on the benefits of tenure, as non-producers, for most of their profession lifetimes. The solution, Rabl indicated, was surely to be found in an appropriate division of labor between colleagues at different stages of life-cycle, working out what economists call an area of comparative advantage for the older men.

The COI report seems to me to ignore this problem, and to frame problems as if we could hope to recruit good men between age 25 and age 30 and have them conveniently remove themselves (suicide recommended?) along about age 40 — significant activities being described as those appropriate to men aged 25-40. In good part, I think the “problem” of life-cycle (once recognized) and the “problems” of maintaining strength in institutional economics and in the development/regional areas exist largely because we don’t integrate our approaches to different aspects of economics work. To a considerable degree, the natural life-cycle of the economist is to be obsessed with very abstract problems in youth, and mature into a person more concerned with and more knowledgeable about the real world. To a very large degree, the staffing of the institutional fields and of the SIA-type activities should then be handled by shifting over of people who have graduated from being pure theorists. If we don’t do this, the channels of recruiting and promotion for the continuation of the supposedly -central mathematical-economics core are apt to get clogged. It is very tricky to suppose that giving tenure to a theoretically creative young man is to acquire forty years of theoretically creative activity. Most of the relevant people have their key ideas very young, and develop them as fully as is profitable by age 40. If they continue to preempt the key teaching roles in these fields, they will keep the young from advancing and will impair the freshness of the curriculum offered to graduate and undergraduate students. [It was because of this view that I allowed myself to be pushed out of micro-teaching by Becker and Co. in the early 1960’s.] But to suck the tenured men out of these lines and make room for their successors, a Department needs a lot of roles for the maturing older man. Unless we can do well with the institutional and SIA aspects of the field, I conclude, we can’t do well in the long run with the “core” aspects.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection, Box 13 (Columbia University-teaching, etc.); Folder “Economic H…P…”

Image Source:  Obituary in The Columbia Spectator, October 3, 1997.

Categories
Columbia Monetary economics Suggested Reading Syllabus

Columbia. Reading List for Monetary Economics. Angell, 1954-1955

In 1954-55 the executive officer of the department of economics, Arthur R. Burns [not Arthur F. Burns], requested his colleagues provide current reading lists for their courses to Joseph Dorfman to arrange for the library to order as many titles as possible. James Waterhouse Angell (Harvard Ph.D., 1924) obliged for his courses on monetary economics (see below), international monetary policy, and income, employment and international trade.

_______________________________

Other blog posts for
James Waterhouse Angell

James W. Angell’s 1921 Ph.D. application at Harvard.

James W. Angell’s Columbia University appointment, 1924.

Reading list for James W. Angell’s 1933 Money and Banking course at Columbia (found in Milton Friedman’s papers)

Reading list for James W. Angell’s 1933 International Economics course at Columbia (found in Milton Friedman’s papers).

James W. Angell’s 1943 report to the Harvard Class of 1918.

_______________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 121-122—Monetary economics. Professor Angell.
M. W. 10. 310 Fayerweather.

The part played by money and banking operations in the structure and movements of the general economic system. The development of monetary theory. Saving, investing, and employment. Keynesian and neo-Keynesian analysis. Current problems of monetary and general fiscal policy.

Source: Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 54th Series, No. 23 (June 19, 1954). Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1954-1955, p. 35.

_______________________________

December 15, 1954

TO: MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

FROM: Arthur R. Burns

Will you please send to Professor Dorfman your lists of readings with recent amendments including optional readings, in order that he may endeavor to arrange for the library to have as many as possible of the books that are being recommended. Please also forward requests for future additions to the library to Professor Dorfman.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

ECONOMICS 121-122
READING LIST
in
MONETARY ECONOMICS

Note: Eligible veterans may purchase at government expense any four books marked “V”.

1954

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

ECONOMICS 121
REQUIRED READING

(References are to numbered sections in Reading List.)

First Semester

Section:

I (If necessary)
II-1 (Outside reading)
IV-1 (Partly for discussion in class, as indicated)
V-1 (Outside reading)

Second Semester

Section:

III (Outside reading, as indicated)
IV-2 (Partly for discussion in class, as indicated)
V-2 (Outside reading)
VI-1 (Outside reading)
VII (Look into several of the books)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

READING LIST IN MONETARY ECONOMICS

Required reading should if possible be read in the order in which the titles are presented.

I. INTRODUCTORY

(Students who have had little or no previous work in Money and Banking are advised to read at least one title in each group.)

1. General Texts

Chandler, L. V., Economics of Money and Banking (1953). “V”

James, F. C.: Economics of Money, Credit and Banking (3rd edition, 1940)

Kent, R. P.: Money and Banking (1951). “V”

Thomas, R. G.: Our Modern Banking and Monetary System (1950), Chapters 1-30. “V”

2. Other References

Chandler, L. V.: Introduction to Monetary Theory (1940)

Mitchell, W. C.: Business Cycles (Volume I, 1927) Chapter 2

Robertson, D. H.: Money (2nd edition, 1929)

II. MONETARY AND BANKING ORGANIZATION OF THE U.S.

1. Required Reading

Thomas, R. G.: Our Modern Banking and Monetary System (1950), Chapters 18, 19

Kent, R. P.: Money and Banking (1951), Chapters 20-22,26-28

Burgess, W. R.: The Reserve Banks and the Money Market (Revised edition, 1946)

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Banking Studies (1941), Chapters 3, 17

Angell, J. W.: The Behavior of Money (1936), Chapters 1-4

Goldenweiser, E. A.: Federal Reserve Objectives and Policies (AER, June, 1947)

Thomas, W.: The Heritage of War Finance (AER, Proceedings, May, 1947)

Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System: Federal Reserve Policy (Post-War Economic Studies, No. 8: 1947)

Goldenweiser, E. A., American Monetary Policy (1951)

2. Other References

Beckhart, B. H., ed.: The New York Money Market (4 volumes, 1931-32)

Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System: Federal Reserve Bulletin (current issues)

_________________: The Federal Reserve System (1939)

_________________: Post-War Economic Studies (published serially)

Crawford, A. W.: Monetary Management under the New Deal (1940)

Currie, L.: The Supply and Control of Money in the U. 5. (1934)

Dewey, D. R.: Financial History of the U. S. (1903)

Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Monthly Review

Hardy, C. O.: Credit Policies of the Federal Reserve System (1932)

Harris, S. E.: Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy (2 volumes, 1932)

Hepburn, A. B.: History of Currency in the U. S. (2nd edition, 1924)

Jacoby, N. H. and Saulnier, R. J.: Business Finance and Banking (1947)

Johnson, G. G., Jr.: The Treasury and Monetary Policy, 1933-38 (1938)

Macaulay, F. R.: Interest Rates, Bond Yields end Stock Prices in the U.S. Since 1856 (1938)

Mints, L. W., History of Banking Theory (1945) (U.S. and U.K.)

Mitchell, W. C.: History of the Greenbacks (1903)

National Monetary Commission: Reports (1910, 1911): includes volumes on various phases of money, banking and related legislation in the U.S.

Paris, J. D.: Monetary Policies of the U.S., 1932-1936 (1938)

Riefler, W. W.: Money Rates and Money Markets in the U. S. (1930)

Saulnier, R. J., and Young, R. A.: Finance and Credit in the American Economy, 1900-1944 (1946)

U. S. Government Printing Office: Federal Reserve Act of 1913, with Amendments and Laws Relating to Banking (1940)

Westerfield, R. B.: Historical Survey of Branch Banking in the U.S. (1939)

_________________: Our Silver Debacle (1936)

Whitney, C.: Experiments in Credit Control: The Federal Reserve System (1934)

III. MONETARY AND BANKING ORGANIZATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES

(Select and read enough to understand the general organization and history of at least one country.)

Andreades, A.: History of the Bank of England (2nd edition, 1934)

Arnold, A.T.: Banks, Credit and Money in Soviet Russia (1937)

Bagehot, W.: Lombard Street (14th edition, 1915)

Brown, W. A., Jr.: England and the New Gold Standard (1929)

Clapham, Sir John: The Bank of England (1944)

Conant, C. A.: History of Modern Banks of Issue (6th edition, 1927)

Dacey, W. M.: The British Banking Mechanism (1951)

Dulles, E. L.: The French Frano, 1914-1928 (1929)

Dupriez, L. H.: Monetary Reconstruction in Belgian (1947)

Feaveryear, A. S.: The Pound Sterling (1931)

Flink, S.: The Geran Reichsbank (1931)

Harris, S. E.: Monetary Policies of the British Empire (1931)

Hawtrey, R. G.: A Century of Bank Rate (1936)

Higgins, B. H.: Canada’s Financial System in War (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1944)

Holladay, J.: The Canadian Banking System (1938)

Hubbard, L. E.: Soviet Money and Finance (1936)

King, W. T. C.: History of the London Discount Market (1936)

League of Nations: Gold Delegation: Reports, etc. (1930, ff.)

_________________: Money and Banking (periodically, 1931 ff.)

Madden, J.T., and Nadler, M.: International Money Markets (1935)

National Monetary Commission: Reports (1910, 1911): includes volumes on a series of foreign systems

Northrop, M. B.: The Control Policies of the German Reichsbank, 1924-1933 (1938)

Plumptre, A. F. W.: Central Banking in the British Dominions (1940)

Rogers, J. H.: The Process of Inflation in France, 1914-1927 (1929)

Sayers, R. S.; Modern Banking (1947). Chiefly on England

Shepherd, H. L.: The Monetary Experience of Belgium, 1914-1936 (1936)

Whale, P. B.: Joint Stock Banking in Germany (1930)

Willis, H. P.: Theory and Practice of Central Banking (1939)

Willis, H. P., and Beckhart, B. H., eds.: Foreign Banking Systems (especially on Great Britain and Canada) (1929)

IV. THE GENERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE MONETARY AND BANKING SYSTEM AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

1. Required Reading (First Semester)

(In approximate order. Titles marked with asterisk (*) should be prepared for discussion in class.)

*Layton, Sir W. T.: Introduction to the Study of Prices (3rd ed., 1938) (skim)

*Fisher, Irving: The Purchasing Power of Money (2nd ed., 1926) (skim)

*Keynes, J. M.: Monetary Reform (1924), Chapters 1 and 3 (Section 1)

Angell, J. W.: Theory of International Prices (1926), pp. 116-135, 178-186, 274-280, 308-312, 324-331

_________________: The Behavior of Money (1936), Chapters 5, 6

Ellis, H. S. German Monetary Theory, 1905-1933 (1934), Chapters 8-11

Hawtrey, R. G.: The Gold Standard in Theory and Practice (5th edition, 1947). “V”

*Hawtrey, R. G.: The Art of Central Banking (1932), Chapter 4

*_________________: Currency and Credit (3rd edition, 1927), Chapters 1-4, 10, 11

*Keynes, J. M.: Treatise on Money (2 volumes, 1930), Chapters 9-14, 30, 35-37

Klein, L. R.: The Keynesian Revolution (1947), Chapter l (on Keynes’ Treatise). “V”

Robertson, D. H.: Essays in Monetary Theory (1940), Chapters 1, 4-6, 11

*Hicks, J. R.: A Suggestion for Simplifying the Theory of Money (Economica, February, 1935) (Reprinted in Am. Econ. Assoc., Readings in Monetary Theory, 1951)

*Keynes, J. M.: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936). “V”

2. Required Reading (Second Semester)

Haberler, G.: Prosperity and Depression (1946), Chapter 8. 3rd edition 1941. “V”

Hansen, A. H.: Full Recovery or Stagnation (1938), Part IV

*_________________: Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles (1941), Part III. “V”

Wilson, T.: Fluctuations in Income and Employment (1942), Part I

*Burns, A. F.: Economic Research and the Keynesian Thinking of our Times (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1946)

*Hicks, J. R.: Value and Capital (1939), Chapters 9-14, 19, 23. “V”

*Lerner, A. P.: The Economics of Control (1946), Chapters 21-25. “V”

*Angell, J. W.: Investment and Business Cycles (1941), Chapters 9-11, 13. “V”

*Hansen, A. H.: Economic Policy and Full Employment (1947); Chapters 11-19

Klein, L. R.: The Keynesian Revolution (1947), Chapters 3, 4 (only pp. 110-123), 6. “V”

Harris, S. E., ed.: The New Economics (1947), Chapters 4, 9, 14, 31, 37

Ellis, H. S., ed.: Survey of Contemporary Economics (1948), Chapter 9 (article by H. H. Villard, “Monetary Theory.”) “V”

Modigliani, F.: Fluctuations in the Saving-Income Ratio (in National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 11, (1949), Part V)

Samuelson, P. A.: Interactions of the Multiplier Analysis and the Principle of Acceleration (RES, May 1939; reprinted in Am. Econ. Assoc., Readings in Business Cycle Theory)

3. Other Preferences

American Economic Association, Readings in Business Cycle Theory (1944), especially Chaps. 5-9, 12, 15, 17

_________________: Readings in Monetary Theory (1951), especially Chaps. 7, 11, 13, 17. “V”

_________________: Readings in Price Theory (1952), especially Chaps. 14, 15

American Economic Review: Proceedings (May, 1948): papers on Keynes

Angell, J. W.: Keynes and Economic Analysis Today (Rev. Econ. Stat., November, 1948)

Clark, J. M.: Alternatives to Serfdom (1948), Chapter 4

_________________: Economics of Planning Public Works (1935)

Domar, E. D.: Expansion and Employment (AER, March, 1947)

_________________: The Problem of Capital Accumulation (AER, Dec. 1948)

Duesenberry, James F.: Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior (1949)

Durbin, E. M.: Purchasing Power and Trade Depression (1934)

Eisner, R.: Underemployment Equilibrium Rates of Growth (AER, Mar. 1952). On papers by Domar and Schelling in this Section.

Ellis, H. S., ed.: Survey of Contemporary Economics (1948), Chapters 2, 5

Fellner, W.: Monetary Policies and Full Employment (1946)

_________________: The Robertsonian Evolution (AER, June 1952)

_________________: and Somers, H. M.: Alternative Monetary Approaches to Interest Theory (RES, Feb. 1941)

Gayer, A. D.: Monetary Policy and Economic Stabilization (2nd edition, 1937)

_________________, ed.: Lessons of Monetary Experience (1937)

Halm, G.: Monetary Theory (1942). Second edition 1946

Hansen, A. H., Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy (1949)

Hart, A. G.: Anticipations, Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning (1940)

Hawtrey, R. G.: A Century of Bank Rate (1938)

Hayek, F.: Prices and Production (2nd edition, 1935)

_________________: The Pure Theory of Capital (1941)

Henderson, H. D.: The Significance of the Rate of Interest (Oxford Economic Papers, October, 1938). Also see articles in later issues on interest rates and liquidity preference.

Kuznets, S.: National Product Since 1869 (1946)

Lange, O.: Price Flexibility and Employment (1944)

_________________: The Theory of the Multiplier (Econometrica, July-October, 1943)

Lange, O., et al., eds.: Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics (1942; in memory of Henry Schultz) papers by Lange, Mosak, Samuelson, Hart, Tinbergen

Lundberg, E.: Studies in the Theory of Economic Expansion (1937)

Machlup, F.: International Trade and the National Income Multiplier (1943)

Mack, R. P.: The Direction of Change in Income and the Consumption Function (RES, November, 1948)

Marshall, A.: Money, Credit and Commerce (1923)

Modigliani, F.: Liquidity Preference and the Theory of Interest and Money (Econometrica, January, 1944)

Myrdal, G.: Monetary Equilibrium (1939)

Niebyl, K. H.: Studies in the Classical Theory of Money (1946)

Nussbaum, A.: Money in the Law (1939). 1950 edition

Ohlin, B.: The Stockholm Theory of Savings and Investment (EJ, 1937; reprinted in Am. Econ. Assoc., Readings in Business Cycle Theory, 1944)

Pigou, A. C.: Employment and Equilibrium (1941)

_________________: Lapses from Full Employment (1945)

Robinson, Joan: Introduction to the Theory of Employment (1939; expanded 1949)

Robertson, D. H.: Banking Policy and the Price Level (2nd edition, 1932)

_________________: Saving and Hoarding (EJ, September, 1933)

Rueff, J.: The Fallacies of Lord Keynes’ General Theory (QJE, May 1947)

Samuelson, P. A.: The Principle of Acceleration and the Multiplier (JPE, Dec. 1939)

_________________: Interactions between the Multiplier and the Principle of Acceleration (RES, May, 1939; reprinted in Am. Econ. Assoc., Readings in Business Cycle Theory, 1944)

Saulnier, R. J.: Contemporary Monetary Theory (1938)

Schelling, T.: Capital Growth and Equilibrium (AER, Dec. 1947). On paper above by Domar

Schumpeter, J. A.: Theory of Economic Development (1934)

Symposium: Five Views on the Consumption Function (Rev. Econ. Stat., November, 1946)

Temporary National Economic Commission: Saving and Investment (Hearings, Part 9: 1939)

Terborgh, G.: The Bogey of Economic Maturity (1945)

Tinbergen, J.: Some Problems in the Explanation of Interest Rates (QJE, May, 1947)

Villard, H. H.: Deficit Spending and the National Income (1941)

Viner, J.: Studies in the Theory of International Trade (1937), Chapters 3-7

Wicksell, K.: Interest and Prices (English edition, 1936)

_________________: Lectures on Political Economy, Volume II: Money (1935); also VoI. I, Introduction

Williams, J. H.: An Appraisal of Keynesian Economics (American Economic Review, Proceedings, May, 1948)

Wood, E.: English Theories of Central Banking Control, 1819-1858 (1938)

Wright, D. McC.: The Economics of Disturbance (1947)

V. BUSINESS CYCLES

(Also see references in Section IV)

1. Required Reading (First Semester)

Mitchell, W. C.: Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting. Volume I (1927), especially Chapters 1, 2, and 5

Clark, J. M.: Strategic Factors in Business Cycles (1934), especially pp. 1-22, 96-123, 167-183

Ellis, H. S.: German Monetary Theory, 1905-1933 (1934); Part IV

Amer. Econ. Assoc.: Readings in Business Cycle Theory (1944), Chaps. 1, 15, 17, 21. “V”

Haberler, G.: Prosperity and Depression (1946), Part I

2. Required Reading (Second Semester)

Haberler, G.: Prosperity and Depression (1946), Part III

League of Nations: Economic Stability in the Post-War World (1945), Section I. “V”

Schumpeter, J.: Business Cycles (1939), Chapter 4

Hicks, J. R.: Value and Capital (1939), Chapter 24

Angell, J. W.: Investment and Business Cycles (1941), Chapters 7, 8, 12

Hansen, A. H.: Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles (1941), Parts I, III

Wilson, T.: Fluctuations in Income and Employment (1942), Part II (on the U.S. 1919-1937)

Metzler, L. A.: Business Cycles and the Modern Theory of Employment (AER, June 1946)

Burns, A. F., New Facts on Business Cycles (National Bureau of Economic Research, Annual Report, 1950), Part I

3. Other References

Achinstein, A.: Introduction to Business Cycles (1950)

Burns, A. F.: Production Trends in the U. S. since 1870 (1934)

Burns, A. F., and Mitchell, W. C.: Measuring Business Cycles (1946)

_________________: Hicks and the Real Cycle (JPE, Feb. 1952)

Frickey, E.: Economic Fluctuations in the U. S., 1866-1914 (1942)

Harrod, R. F.: The Trade Cycle (1936)

_________________: Notes on Trade Cycle Theory (EJ, June 1951)

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

Kaldor, N.: A Model of the Trade Cycle (EJ, 1940)

_________________: Mr. Hicks on the Trade Cycle (EJ, Dec. 1951)

Kalecki, M.: Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations (1939)

Knight, F. H.: The Business Cycle, Interest and Money (RES, May, 1941)

Robbins, L.: The Great Depression (1934)

Röpke, W.: Crises and Cycles (1936)

Salant, W.: Foreign Trade Policy in the Business Cycle (in C. J. Friedrich and E. S. Mason, eds., Public Policy, 1940, vol. II)

Tinbergen, J.: Statistical Testing of Business-Cycle Theories (2 volumes, 1939)

Tinbergen, J., and Polak, J. J.: The Dynamics of Business Cycles (1950)

VI. CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE DEPRECIATION:
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICIES

1.  Required Reading

Gayer, A. D.: Monetary Policy and Economic Stabilization (2 ed., 1937), Chapters 1-8

Hansen, A. H.: Full Recovery or Stagnation? (1938), Chapters 10-15

Gilbert, M.: Currency Depreciation (1939), Chapters 3, 5, 6

League of Nations: Economic Stability in the Post-War World (1945), Chapter 17

Hansen, A. H.: America’s Role in the World Economy (1945), Apps. A and B. “V”

Nurkse, R.: Conditions of International Monetary Equilibrium (1945) (reprinted in Am. Econ. Assoc., Readings in Intl. Trade, 1948)

_________________: Domestic and International Economic Equilibrium (in S. E. Harris, ed., The New Economics, 1947)

Robinson, Joan: Introduction to the Theory of Employment (1939; reprinted 1947), Chapter on The Foreign Exchanges

2. Other References

Angell, J. W.: Theory of International Prices, Chapters 7, 17 (1926)

Bloomfield, A. I.: Operations of the American Exchange Stabilization Fund (RES, May, 1944)

Bresciani-Turroni, C.: The Economics of Inflation (1937) (On Germany, 1914-24)

Brown, W. A., Jr.: The International Gold Standard Reinterpreted, 1914-1934 (2 volumes, 1944)

Cassel, G.: The Downfall of the Gold Standard (1936)

_________________: Money and Foreign Exchange After 1914 (1922)

Dulles, E. L.: The French Franc, 1914-1928 (1929)

Dupriez, L. H.: Monetary Reconstruction in Belgium (1947)

Ellis, H. S.: Exchange Control in Central Europe (1941)

Graham, F. D.: Exchanges, Prices, and Production in Hyper-Inflation: Germany, 1920-1923 (1930)

Gregory, T. E.: The Gold Standard and Its Future (1932)

Hall, N. F.: The Exchange Equalization Account (London, 1935)

Harris, S. E.: Exchange Depreciation (1926)

Heilperin, M. A.: International Monetary Economics (1939), Chapters 3, 6, 9

League of Nations: The Course and Control of Inflation (1946) (Experience after World War I)

_________________: International Currency Experience (1944)

Leavens, D. H.: Silver Money (1939)

Li, C. M.: Theory of International Trade under Silver Exchange (QJE, Aug. 1939)

Patterson, G.: Survey of U. S. International Finance (annual, 1950 ff.)

Sayers, R. S.: Modern Banking (1947), Chapters 7, 8

Southard, F. A., Jr.: Some European Currency and Exchange Experiences, 1943-1946 (1946)

U. S. Tariff Commission: Foreign Trade and Exchange Controls in Germany (1942), pp. 1-34

U. S. Treasury Department: Articles of Agreement: International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruotion and Development (1944)

Waight, L.: The Exchange Equalization Account (1939)

Westerfield, R. B.: Our Silver Debacle (1936)

Whittlesey, C. R.: International Monetary Issues (1937)

Williams, J. H.: Post-War Monetary Plans (1944)

VII. CURRENT PROBLEMS IN THEORY AND POLICY

(These references are in large part supplementary to the more recent among the titles in Section IV, above. Look into a number of them, and read carefully what interests you.)

Beveridge, Sir W.: Full Employment in a Free Society (1945)

Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System: Post-War Economic Studies (published at intervals)

Brunner, K.: Inconsistency and Indeterminacy in Classical Economics (Econometrica, Apr. 1951). On Patinkin papers listed below

Buchanan, N. S.: International Investment and Domestic Welfare (1945)

Chandler, L. V.: Federal Reserve Policy and the Federal Debt (AER, 1949; reprinted in Am. Econ. Assoc., Readings in Monetary Theory, 1951)

Clark, C.: The Economics of 1960 (1944)

Cohen, M.: Postwar Consumption Functions (RES, Feb. 1952)

Fisher, A. G. B.: International Implications of Full Employment (1946)

Fisher, Irving: 100 Per Cent Money (2 ed., 1936)

Friend, Irving: Personal Savings in the Post-War Period (Survey Current Bus., Sept. 1949 and Suppl., 1950-51

_________________ and Bronfenbrenner, J.: Business Investment Programs and their Realization (Survey of Current Business, Dec. 1950)

Hansen, A. H.: Classical, Loanable-Fund and Keynesian Interest Theories (QJE, Aug. 1951)

_________________: Income, Employment and Public Policy (1948) (Essays in honor of Hansen)

Harrod, R. F.: Toward a Dynamic Economics (1948)

International Labor Office: Public Investment and Full Employment (1946)

Lerner, A. P.: The Economics of Employment (1951)

Liu, T. C. and Chang, C. G.: U.S. Consumption and Investment Propensities (AER, Sept. 1950)

Millikan, M. F., ed.: Income Stabilization for a Developing Democracy (1953)

Morishima, M.: Consumer’s Behavior and Liquidity Preference (Econometrica, Apr. 1952)

Norton, F. E.: Capital Theory and Progressive Equilibrium (AER, Papers and Proc., May 1951)

Oxford University, Institute of Statistics: The Economics of Full Employment (1944). A symposium

Patinkin, D.: Relative Prices, Say’s Law and the Demand for Money (Econometrica, Apr. 1948)

_________________: The Indeterminacy of Absolute Prices in Classical Economic Theory (Econometrica, Jan. 1949)

_________________: The Invalidity of Classical Monetary Theory (Econometrica, Apr- 1951)

Robinson, Joan: Collected Economic Papers (1951). Parts I-III

Rosa, R.: The Revival of Monetary Policy (RES, Feb. 1951)

Schelling, T. C.: The Dynamics of Price Flexibility (AER, Sept. 1949). And see replies by Patinkin and Klein in AER, Sept. 1950

Tobin, J.: Monetary Policy and the Management of the Public Debt: The Patman Inquiry (RES, May 1953)

Tsiang, S. C.: Accelerator, Theory of the Firm and the Business Cycle (QJE, Aug. 1951). On Kaldor and Samuelson

United Nations: National and International Measures for Full Employment (Report by a group of experts: 1949)

_________________: Measures for International Economic Stabilization (Report by a group of experts: 1951)

Williams, J. H.: Money, Trade and Economic Growth (1951). (Essays in honor of Williams) Part III

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

1954-55

ECONOMICS 121-122

Add the following titles:

Sec. II-2:

Bach, G. L: Federal Reserve Policy-Making (1950).

Brandt, Harry: U.S. Monetary and Credit Policies, 1945-50 (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia 1954).

U.S. Congress: Joint Committee on the Economic Report: Monetary, Credit and Fiscal Policies (1949: U.S. Cong. 81:1).The Patman-Douglas Report. On the Federal Reserve, esp. Chap. II; on fiscal policy, Chap. XI.

Sec. IV-2:

Hansen, A. H.: A Guide to Keynes (1953), Chap. 7.

Sec. VII:

Abramovitz, M.: Economics of Growth (in: Survey Contemp. Econ., vol. II; ed. B. F. Haley, 1952).

Ferber, R.: Aggregate Consumption Functions (Natl. Bur. Econ. Res., Tech, Paper #8; 1953).

Friedman, Milton: Essays in Positive Economics (1953), Part III.

Hubbard, J.C.: The Marginal and the Average Propensity to Consume (QJE, Feb. 1954).

Kalecki, M.: Theory of Economic Dynamics (1954).

Kuznets, S.: The Proportion of Capital Formation to National Product (AEA, Proc., May 1952).

Mack, Ruth P.: Economics of Consumption (Survey Contemp. Econ., vol. II; ed. B. F. Haley, 1952).

Yeager, L. B.: Some Questions about Growth Economics (AER, March 1954).

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection, Box 13 (Columbia University – teaching, etc.) in an unlabeled folder.

Image Source: Harvard Class of 1918, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report. Cambridge: 1943, pp. 24-26.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Gender

Columbia. Meet an ABD economics alumna. Dorothy Beal Christelow, 1937-1940

The combination of government service during the Second World War and marriage followed by the birth of a daughter and son was probably sufficient to have gotten in the way of Dorothy Beal Christelow completing an economics Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia. 

I stumbled across Dorothy Beal in an economics department request for emergency funding on her behalf in 1938 (transcribed below). This led me to conduct my own background check on her life and career, the results of which are included in this post. Her obituary in the Springfield Reporter provides most of the details. 

__________________________

Almost certainly related to
Dorothy Beal’s Family’s
“Financial Catastrophe”

“Henry S. Beal, president of the Sullivan Machinery company since March, 1933, resigned his position Friday at a meeting of the directors in Boston. Preston Upham of Boston, grandson of one of the company’s founders, was named as chairman of the board…Mr. Beal assumed the presidency of the Sullivan Machinery company March 6, 1933.

Source: From the Springfield Reporter (Springfield, VT, 13 October 1938, p. 1.

__________________________

Emergency Funding Request
on Behalf of Dorothy Beal

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

September 27, 1938

Committee on Education,
Board of Trustees,
Columbia University.

Gentlemen:

One of our outstanding students in Economics, Miss Dorothy Beal, very suddenly finds herself facing a financial emergency, due to a financial catastrophe which has just struck her family. Instead of having her year’s work financed, as she expected, she finds herself completely without resources. Inasmuch as she is one of the strongest students we have had in the Department from the standpoint of social and scholastic background, as well as in terms of work done with us during the past year, it is my hope that your Committee may find it possible, out of accumulated funds, to make a grant which will relieve her necessities sufficiently to enable her to go on to complete this year’s academic work. I know her personally, and colleagues with whom she has studied confirm my judgment that she is a very exceptional person. At the moment she is engaged on one piece of scientific research which Professor Wolman pronounces so promising that he is eager to have it pushed to successful completion. If an award could be made her which would cover tuition and a meagre allowance for living expenses for about eight months, I am sure that such action would be not only generous but wise. [handwritten insert:] $800 in all.

I might add that if the grant-in-aid fund had not already been exhausted, Miss Beal would unquestionably have received recognition from that quarter.

Yours faithfully,
[signed] Roswell C. McCrea

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Copy of letter

October 8, 1938

Professor Roswell C. McCrea
Department or Economics

Dear Professor McCrea:

Pursuant to the recommendation contained in your recent letter, the Trustees at their meeting today made available for a special award to Miss Dorothy Beal for the current academic year the sum of $800, chargeable to the accumulated income of the Garth Fellowship Fund.

Very truly yours,
[unsigned]
Frank D. Fackenthal

VJ

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

October 6, 1938

Mr. Philip M. Hayden,
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. Hayden:

Thank you for the information that the Trustees had acted favorably on my request that $800 from the accumulated income in the Garth Fellowship be given to Miss Dorothy Beal, candidate for the degree of Ph. D. in the Department of Economics. I now wish formally to nominate Miss Beal for a Special Fellowship from the fund mentioned above.

Will you kindly arrange with the Bursar to have made available to Miss Beal now, at his office, a check for $400, and another check for $400 on Wednesday, February 1st. Miss Beal’s present address is 220 East 73d Street, New York.

With appreciation of your cooperation, I am

Yours faithfully,
[signed] Roswell C. McCrea

Source: Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-, Box 329, Folder “McCrea, Roswell C., 7/1938 — 5/1942”.

__________________________

Cherchez l’homme!

“[Miss Beal] attended Mont Choisi in Lausanne and Wellesley college. She was graduated from the University of Chicago and after graduate work at Columbia university has been on the research staff of a division of the Treasury Department in Washington.” … [Mr. Allan] Christelow studied at the University of Leeds, Oxford university and the University of California, and has been on the teaching staff of Oxford [Tutor in Queens College Oxford in 1939] and of Princeton university [1940]. He is with the British Advisory Council in Washington.”

Source: From the wedding announcement published in the Springfield Reporter (Springfield VT), 14 May 1942, p. 7.

__________________________

Background of Dorothy’s husband,
Allan Christelow

b. January 31, 1911, Bradford, Yorkshire, England
d. August 8, 1975, New Canaan, Connecticut
A.B. University of Leeds, 1932.
B. Litt. Oxford University, 1934
Commonwealth Fund Fellow, History.

__________________________

Obituary of Dorothy Beal Christelow

HANOVER — Dorothy Beal Christelow, 89, died May 28, 2005, in Hanover.

Mrs. Christelow was an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s. specializing in Japanese economics. She was the author of When Giants Converge: The Role of U.S.-Japan Direct Investment, which was published by M.E. Sharpe in 1995, as well as many articles.

She was born in Springfield. Vt., on March 19, 1916. the oldest of three daughters of Henry Starr Beal and Alice Ada (Colburn) Beal. On graduating from Springfield High School, she began studies at Wellesley College. She received a bachelor’s degree in 1937 from the University of Chicago.

She was accepted into Columbia University’s graduate program in journalism. While in New York City, about to embark on this new stage of her life, a family friend asked her what she was interested in writing about. When she replied “economics,” he recommended that she study economics rather than journalism. She took his advice to heart and entered Columbia’s economics program instead. She was a student there from 1937 to 1940, with the exception of a year of work as a researcher at Fortune magazine. She ultimately completed all of the requirements for a doctorate except for a dissertation.

In 1941, she moved to Washington, D.C., to work as an economist for the U.S. Treasury Department, Division of International Monetary Research. Over the next six years she went on to work for the U.S. Offices of Price Administration and of War Mobilization and Reconversion. During this period. she was introduced by a friend to Allan Christelow, an Englishman who was working in Washington, D.C. for the British Treasury. They were married in 1942, in Westerly, R.I.

In 1953. Mr. Christelow went to work for Standard Vacuum Oil Co. and the family moved to New Canaan, Conn. His work took him to Asia frequently, and the family moved to Japan for a year in 1957. Four years later, with their two children in college and boarding school, they returned to Tokyo. A series of strokes incapacitated Mr. Christelow, leaving him an invalid until his death in 1974 [sic, death was August 8, 1975]. They returned to New Canaan, and Mrs. Christelow to the work force, to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

On retirement from the Federal Reserve in 1986, she continued to work for it as a consultant for a time while also embarking on the writing of her book. She was an active member of the Yale China Association, acting as a trustee from 1983 to 1988 and from 1990 to 1995, and traveling to China on a trip organized by that organization. She served on the town of New Canaan’s board of finance from 1976 to 1992.

Mrs. Christelow maintained close ties to Vermont throughout her life. On retirement her parents purchased a farm in Windsor. The family spent a portion of each summer there. In 1996, she moved to Kendal at Hanover, where she continued to be active in fiscal affairs, serving on the community’s finance committee for several years.

Mrs. Christelow is survived by a daughter, Eileen Christelow of East Dummerston, Vt.,  a son, Allan Christelow of Pocatello, Idaho; and two grandchildren.

Source: Valley News (West Lebanon, N.H.), 11 June 2005, p. 4.

Image Source: Picture of Eileen, Dorothy, and Allan Christelow. From the “About Me” page of the website of Eileen Christelow, Picture Book Author & Illustrator. Image mildly enhanced by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Columbia Regulations Teaching

Columbia. List of suggestions for improving graduate education in economics. 1939

This post provides a 1939 students’ eye view of the graduate program in economics at the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science. Milton Friedman’s course on neo-classical economic theory gets very favorable mention and statistical methods are completely overlooked (the German proverb “The farmer only eats what the farmer knows“ probably captures the sentiment).

________________________

All four students became professors

WYLLIS BANDLER: b. July 3, 1916 in White Plains, N.Y.; d. December 22, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida.
B.A. (1937), M.A.(1938) in economics from Columbia. Ph.D. (1962) in mathematics from the University of Zurich. Professor of Computer Science at Florida State University, 1984-1995.

DICKSON RECK: b. April 13, 1904 in Rockford, Illinois; d. April 10, 1955 in Berkeley, California.
B.A. (1927) University of Illinois, Ph.D. (1951) in economics from Columbia University. Associate Professor of Business Administration, University of California (Berkeley), 1954-55.

VAN DUSEN KENNEDY: b. October 4 in Darjeeling, India; d. May 28 2015 in Santa Cruz, California.
B.A. (1935) Swarthmore College. Ph.D. (1945) in economics from Columbia University. Assistant Professor to Professor of industrial relations at the University of California (Berkeley), 1947-1977.

FRANK COOK PIERSON: b. November 4, 1911 in Denver, Colorado; d. November 30, 1995 in Haverford Township, Pennsylvania.
B.A. (1934) Swarthmore College. Ph.D. (1942) in economics from Columbia University. On the Swarthmore College faculty from 1940 to 1979.

________________________

Cover letter to Dean McCrea
from the students

Columbia University
May 9, 1939

Dean R. C. McCrea,
Columbia University,
New York City.

Dear Dean [Roswell Cheney] McCrea:

As we agreed at luncheon with you and Professor [Frederick Cecil] Mills the other day, we are sending you the typed notes of student suggestions to the Department of Economics. We believe that these represent the concurrence of general student opinion, plus the thought we have given these matters.

Hoping that the notes will prove useful to you,

Sincerely yours,

WYLLIS BANDLER
DICKSON RECK
VAN DUSEN KENNEDY
FRANK PIERSON

________________________

Notes on some student suggestions
for the operation
of the Department of Economics, Columbia Graduate Faculty.
5/7/39.

The suggestions concern chiefly gaps that are felt to exist in the offering of the department. There are also a few notes on the method of conducting various types of courses, and on the requirements placed on students, and on the allotment of credits.

1) History of Economic Thought. Intrinsic interest in this subject is amplified by a) Oral requirement, and b) the fact that many students feel that they will some day be called upon to teach it. Some feel that the subject is already overemphasized. In any case, there is the feeling that students should not be held responsible for so large a topic unless it is offered.

Various treatments are possible. a) A mere recital of doctrines. b) A tracing of current ideas. c) A combination with Economic History, concerned with the influence of the times on the theories, and vice versa. Treatment (c) is that followed by Professor [Wesley Clair] Mitchell in his former course, and in the extremely useful Lecture Notes made from it.

Student feeling la against being held for “all the doctrines, man by man, and all the men, doctrine by doctrine”. A combination of (b) and (c) above would probably be well received.

2) Economic theory. Statements in the first paragraph under (1) above hold here. This topic is understood to include (a) Systematic presentation of current schools of thought, and (b) in particular, the structure of Neo-Classical (and derivative) Theory. The material under (b) is very well handled by Milton Friedman’s Extension course. Convenience would be served by bringing this into the Graduate Catalogue, so that it would count, without special action, for the 15 central points for Master’s candidates.

Further particular large branches include c) Socialist Theory and d) Institutionalism. Student objection to the existing offering of Socialist Theory falls under two heads. First. It is claimed that the subject matter is not covered adequately in class, that the treatment is diffuse, incomplete and wandering. Second, it is protested that the treatment is not either so fair or so sympathetic as that given, say, Neo-Classical Doctrine.

Institutionalism is handsomely handled by Dr. [Joseph] Dorfman. There is some feeling that the materiel might be expanded to cover modern Institutionalists and their work and problems more intensively.

3) Economic History. Dr. [Louis Morton] Hacker’s treatment of American Economic History is very popular, as is Professor  [Arthur Robert] Burns’s course in modern capitalism. A course in Modern European Economic History, from the breakdown of Feudalism, would be very well received in addition, although the Burns course could be expanded to fill this need.

There is dissatisfaction with the existing Seminar. Auspices that would concentrate more closely on the material are rather widely held to be desirable. Professor [Archibald Herbert] Stockder’s seminar might fill this gap were it admitted to graduate economics standing. A suggestion for procedure should this prove impossible is included under “Catalog” below.

4) Labor. This may be discussed under two heads, a) Offering for the student specializing elsewhere, and b) Specialization in Labor Economics.

a) A General Survey Course in Labor Economics under capable, sympathetic auspices will be subject to very wide demand. Students whose major interest is elsewhere seem to feel quite generally that so important a branch of economics should not be left blank in their education. A large demand will also be forthcoming from first-year students who have not previously studied labor, either at all or adequately, whether or not they intend to specialize here. Such a course is of necessity a large lecture type, and requires in its instructor the specific technique relevant.

A counter-suggestion by the Faculty is that Professor [Leo] Wolman expand the subject-matter of his course. A very wide and almost unopposed sector of student feeling would prefer bringing in an outsider more cordial to the material and more tolerant of the viewpoints and questions of the members of the class.

b) A Seminar in Labor Relations for the specialist would find many applicants. Student desires as to the auspices are in agreement with the above comments. No university adequately specializes in training labor economists, and it is suggested that Columbia might consider filling this more than local gap.

5) Public Economic Policy. It is safe to day that no subject arouses wider interest among students. At present, public policy is dealt with piecemeal among the several courses, with by no means all the most important aspects being covered at all. (The most thoroughly considered section is monetary policy, both existing and proposed.) It is submitted that this is an important need which Columbia is well fitted to meet without much extra trouble.

Suggestions on this score represent the fusion of two streams of thought; a) The proposal of a joint seminar to explore specific areas of planning and policy, and to be conducted by academic experts in the various fields ([James Waterhouse] Angell, [James Cummings] Bonbright, [Arthur David] Gayer, [John Ewing] Orchard, [Arthur Whittier] Macmahon, [Robert Staughton] Lynd, etc.); b) The feeling that contact with people actually engaged in forming and executing public policy would provide a realistic knowledge of problems actually faced (economically, politically, administratively, etc.), as well  as valuable personal relations. The suggestion under (b) would involve the invitation to Columbia for one, several, or all meetings of the seminar such men as [Adolf Augustus, Jr.] Berle, [Mordecai] Ezekiel, [Lauchlin] Currie, [Rexford Guy] Tugwell, [Lewis?] Mumford, [Schuyler Crawford?] Wallace, etc. etc.

Experience with the more importation of outside lecturers, as is an instance in the Public Law Department, seems to show that a course so built lacks continuity and depth in grappling with such problems would be considered under (a) above.

Yet to define the benefits of (b) to the membership of a seminar of manageable size would be wasteful and otherwise undesirable. Two solutions have been advanced, which are not mutually exclusive. The first involves the holding of “public” and “private” meetings in the manner of the Banking Seminar. This could be assisted by co-operation with the Economics Club, that is, the visitors could partially be drained off into luncheon meetings. This solution suffers from several difficulties including the discontinuity of having each outsider only once. The second solution is embodied in the suggestion for Panel Seminars below.

Students would greatly like to co-operate in the organization of this seminar.

6) Agricultural Economics. While this is already a subject of inter-university [sic, “intra-university” is almost certainly meant here] specialization, a survey course is part of a rounded general offering.

7) Population. Students do not feel that this is ably handled. The suggestion has been made that Professor [Carter] Goodrich’s course in Internal Migration could be expanded to cover this, and also Regionalism (see under (8) below).

8) Economic Geography. The offering in the School of Business is excellent, and needs only to be given graduate economic status. See also under (7) above and “Catalogue” below.

9) Method and Techniques of Research. This includes a thousand little troublesome maters that each professor assumes that the student learns elsewhere. What are the Journals in economics and related fields? How do we keep up with current developments in economics? What are the basic sources in various branches? Where are all these things scattered in the library? How do we begin the investigation of a new topic? How do we prepare a bibliography? And many others.

The suggestions here fell under three heads. First, it is felt that a booklet answering the above and related questions would prove extremely helpful. Second, instructors should keep this need in mind, and clarify the portions of techniques and bibliography that fall in their sphere. Third, careful bibliographies already existing for various courses, and others that may arise, could be assembled and sold at cost.

10) Panel Seminar. This refers to a method of conducting seminars that shows promise of solving the dilemma of the unwieldiness of large numbers on the one hand, and the wastes of exclusiveness on the other. The discussion is conducted by a panel, consisting of one or more instructors and visitors and a carefully selected small group of students. Where student reports are to be presented, the selection is keyed to guaranteeing excellence and pointedness. An “audience” of students interested in the topic may ask occasional questions from the floor, but does not act to lower the tone of the discussion nor to encumber its progress. The “audience” may be regularly enrolled, receiving attendance credit, or may vary with the particular meeting’s content. Large and varying “audiences” are probably too much for this structure to carry.

It is felt that this method would meet the need in several situations. It should operate to raise the quality of the reports, doing away with the boredom and consequent loss of enthusiasm and tempo that so often assails large seminars now. But at the same time, it would avoid the narrow exclusiveness that operates to keep interested students from an organized study of subjects offered only in seminars.

The seating arrangements suggested by the above description seen rather stiff and stilted and disruptive. In point of fact, they are not a necessary corollary of this division of labor. Ordinary seminar seating can be used, the only requirement being that there is a staff of students who are considered capable, intelligible and interesting, and who do the reporting.

The panel seminar method is especially suggested for the discussion of public economic policy advocated in (5) above, where it le felt that side student interest would be aroused and should be encouraged.

11) Doctor’s Oral Examinations. Under existing conditions, orals engender a period of rather heavy strain in most students. This period is of the order of two weeks or so, and is not related to the quantity of work being done, but rather to the crisis quality of the examinations. No useful purpose is served by this strain, in fact it is generally considered a hindrance to efficiency.

The remedy seems to be a removal of some of the critical focus upon orals. This may be accomplished, with no loss of academic standards or relevant rigor, by the process of having the true examination take place informally with each of the professors involved before the formal oral is taken. The formal assembled examination then assumes the character of a more official formality, in which passing is nearly certain barring a strong reason to the contrary. This division between the investigation of proficiency and ability on the one hand, and the ceremonial opportunity to forbid the banns on the other, should not only relieve most of the strain on the candidate, but also afford the faculty a more intensive chance to satisfy itself as to the student’s competence.

There are some indications that the present situation approximates this suggestion more closely than appears on the surface. Insofar as this is true, all that is necessary is to let this true state of affairs become clear to the candidates. In any event, more could be done along these lines with benefit and relief to all concerned.

12) Training for Careers. It is Important periodically to review the types of career for which students in economics at Columbia are acquiring training, and at the same time to survey the curriculum with respect to the kind of training it chiefly affords. The student body is divided in proportions unknown at present [Footnote: One of the questions on this year’s questionnaire will be directed to this problem.] mainly among those preparing for teaching for research, and for government service. The curriculum is skewed in the direction of training research workers. This fundamental educational divergence is worth noting, and worth investigating in its effects upon the value of the Economics offering to the students.

Many of the curricular suggestions above are directed as much to the problem “what kind of work” as to the problem “research in what field”, and are worthy of reconsideration in this light.

13) Catalog. The arrangement of the catalog, and the standing given by it to various courses, can prove a powerful aid in broadening the area of endeavor for which preparation may be secured here, as well as filling many of the lesser holes mentioned above.

In regard to the standing given courses in other departments, particularly in the School of Business, the effort has been made above to mention fields in which benefit would accrue to Master’s candidates if Graduate Economics Standing were given to certain courses. Particularly does this apply to the offerings of [Paul Frederick] Brissenden, [Archibald Herbert] Stockder, perhaps Morgen, and to the advanced courses in Economic Geography. Where this is not feasible, something can be done by way of the advisory committee, see below.

Positive encouragement rather than permission can be given to students to broaden the scope of their studies if the catalog, or if necessary a separate printed or mimeographed announcement, would list as fully as possible all courses in related fields, or isolated courses of interest, that would be profitable to economists. In this way many gaps that the Economics Department cannot hope to fill itself would be plugged, and the benefits of intra-University division of labor would be received.

14) Advisory Committee. This has proved itself useful this year, and should certainly be continued. Its mention here is in connection with the potentialities of cooperation between it and the administration and faculty.

Many of the suggestions in these notes that may prove impossible of fulfillment, particularly those which come together under “Catalog”, may be aided by the unofficial action of the Advisory Committee. If the committee is in possession of information concerning related courses, for instance, then even in the absence of official action the broadening of courses of study can be advanced. In this and many similar cases, the worthwhileness of the Department to new students can be increased.

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 1, Folder “Committee on Instruction”.

Image Source: Alma Mater, Columbia University. Columbia College Today, Winter 2017-18.

Categories
Columbia Exam Questions Germany

Columbia. German language exam to satisfy the economics foreign language requirement. Kullmer, 1966

An economics graduate student hoping to pass the German language exam at Columbia in 1966 was required to translate the following one page selected from an article published in German in 1965. Or perhaps the student was expected to read the article and then answer questions posed by the examiner to test the reading comprehension?

Lore Kullmer (née Poschmann, b. 1919; d. 2011) translated Richard Musgrave’s The Theory of Public Finance into German. Shortly thereafter (1967) she was called to an economics professorship at the University of Regensburg.

Columbia. Allowing math to substitute for second foreign language, 1950

___________________________

GERMAN LANGUAGE EXAM
February 1966

DIE PRAKTISCHE BEDEUTUNG DER
STEUERPROGRESSION FÜR DIE GRÖSSE DER
AUFKOMMENSELASTIZITÄT EINER STEUER

Bemerkungen zu Ausführungen R. A. Musgraves
in seiner „Theory of Public Finance“
von
LORE KULLMER*

Kompensatorische Effekte zur Beseitigung von Störungen des wirtschaftlichen Gleichgewichts im privaten Sektor lassen sich u.a. durch die Anwendung des finanzpolitischen Instrumentariums, d.h. konkret durch Änderung des Steuer- und Ausgabenparameter, erzielen. Allerdings erfordert der Zeitbedarf einer mittels diskretionärer Maßnahmen durchgeführten Stabilisierungspolitik ein genügend langsames Fortschreiten der autonomen Änderungen der zu beeinflussenden Faktoren, wenn die Maßnahmen im gewünschten Sinne wirken sollen. Es sind Situationen denkbar in denen eine wirksame Stabilisierungspolitik mit diskretionären Maßnahmen nicht möglich erscheint und jeder Versuch dazu die Abweichungen von Gleichgewichtseinkommen nur ungenügend verringert oder u.U. sogar verstärkt. Hinzu kommt, dass in bestimmten Fällen die Variation finanzpolitischer Maßnahmen überhaupt nicht (oder nicht im notwendigen Umfang) vorgenommen werden kann und/oder sich aus politisch/psychologischen Gründen die häufige Änderung von Steuer- und Ausgabenparametern verbietet.

Die Erkenntnis dieser Zusammenhänge hat die bei entsprechender Ausgestaltung der Instrumente des Finanzsystems in gewissen Umfang vorhandene automatische und unverzüglich wirkende Reagibilität auf Schwankungen des Volkseinkommens im Sinne einer Milderung dieser Schwankungen in den Mittelpunkt des Interesses gerückt und den Ausbau dieses Instrumentariums attraktiv erscheinen lassen.

Der Umfang dieser als built-in flexibility der Budgetgrößen bezeichneten Reagibilität (d.h. die Größe der Anpassung des Aufkommens bestimmter Steuern und der Adaptierung bestimmter Ausgabenverpflichtungen der öffentlichen Hand) kann — von statistischen Daten ausgehend — als Verhältnis der Schwankungen des Finanzsystems zu den Schwankungen des Volkseinkommens gemessen werden.

[Original Source: Public Finance Vol. 20(1965), 1/2, pp. 137-149]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Columbia University Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials. Box 11, Folder “Economics — Memoranda”.

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard Industrial Organization Transcript

Harvard. Graduate records of Economics PhD, Gardiner Coit Means. 1933

Gardiner Coit Means, Passport application 1919

Gardiner C. Means was awarded his Harvard  Ph.D. in economics  in no small part due to the department’s willingness to relax a binding constraint with respect to a residency requirement for the Ph.D. Professor Harold Burbank’s plea for an exception to the rule is an example of a blind-eye getting turned for the right reason. 

I recommend that Gardiner Coit Means be forgiven whatever deficiencies for residence that may appear on his record.

Means has had a checkered career, characterized by work neglected, I am afraid, and brilliant performances. He is the sort of student who cannot, or should not, be held to the usual formal requirements…

His greatest hit, The Modern Corporation and Private Property  (with Adolf A. Berle, Jr.) scored a Hoover Institution conference on the 50th anniversary of its publication. Not bad for an early “checkered career”.

Fun fact: Gardiner C. Means was an “old bunkmate” of Adolf A. Berle, Jr. at the Army’s officer candidate school at Plattsburg, New York during World War I. Their respective spouses were undergraduate friends at Vassar.

_______________________

Much More Background and Context

William W. Bratton. “The Modern Corporation and Private Property Revisited: Gardiner Means and the Administered Price,” Law Working Paper 443/2019 (January 2020). Published in Seattle University Law Review, Vo. 42, 2019.

Gardiner C. Means, Remarks upon the Receipt of Veblen-Commons Award,  Journal of Economic Issues Vol. 9, No. 2 (June 1975).

Warren J. Samuels & Steven G. Medema, Gardiner C. Means’ Institutionalist and Post Keynesian Economics (1991).

Theodore Rosenof, Chapter 3 “Gardiner C. Means and the Corporate Revolution” in his Economics in the Long Run: New Deal Theorists & Their Legacies, 1933-1993, (1997).

_______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the application; italics used to indicate the handwritten entries]

I. Full Name, with date and place of birth.

Gardiner Coit Means, June 8, 1896. Windham, Conn.

II. Academic Career: (Mention, with dates inclusive, colleges or other higher institutions of learning attended; and teaching positions held.)

Harvard College 1913-18
Harvard University 1925-27
Columbia University 1930-31

III. Degrees already attained. (Mention institutions and dates.)

Harvard College AB 1918
Harvard University MA 1927

IV. General Preparation. (Indicate briefly the range and character of your under-graduate studies in History, Economics, Government, and in such other fields as Ancient and Modern Languages, Philosophy, etc. In case you are a candidate for the degree in History, state the number of years you have studied preparatory and college Latin.)

History I, Economics A, — Specialized in Chemistry.

V. Department of Study. (Do you propose to offer yourself for the Ph.D., “History,” in “Economics,” or in “Political Science”?)

Economics.

VI. Choice of Subjects for the General Examination. (State briefly the nature of your preparation in each subject, as by Harvard courses, courses taken elsewhere, private reading, teaching the subject, etc., etc.)

  1. Economic Theory and its History.
    Ec 11 & Ec 15.
  2. [Economic History since 1750]
    Ec 2 offered for course credit
    Supplementary Reading.
    [NOTE: Brackets added in red pencil later, “offered for course credit” written in pencil and added sometime later]
  3. Money Banking & Crises
    Ec 38
    Ec 37
  4. Economics of Corporations
    Ec 4b
    2 years special study of corporate relationships
  5. International Trade & Tariff Policies
    Ec 33 & Ec 39 offered for course credit
  6. Special Problems in Valuation – Judicial, Commercial, & Accounting.
    Special work with Professor Bonbright of Columbia Univ.
    Ec 36

VII. Special Subject for the special examination.

Special Problems in Valuation

VIII. Thesis Subject. (State the subject and mention the instructor who knows most about your work upon it.)

The Corporate Revolution
[NOTE: added in pencil as substitution for earlier subject]

Accounting Theory and Practice in Relation to Problems of Valuation. — Prof. Bonbright

IX. Examinations. (Indicate any preferences as to the time of the general and special examinations.)

General Examination — Late Fall of 1931 Jan 13/32 [ADDED]
Special Examination — Spring of 1932

X. Remarks

[ALL REMARKS ADDED LATER:]

Professor Williams, chairman
[Professor] Bullock
Dr. O. H. Taylor
[Dr.] A. H. Cole

  Special examination — Professors Mason, Monroe, Chamberlin

Signature of a member of the Division certifying approval of the above outline of subjects.

[signed] H. H. Burbank

*   *   *   [Last page of application] *   *   *

[Not to be filled out by the applicant]

Name: Gardner [sic] Coit Means.

Approved: June 2, 1931.

Ability to use French certified by Dr. A. E. Monroe. March 23, 1927

Ability to use German certified by Dr. A. E. Monroe. March 23, 1927.

Date of general examination Wednesday, January 13, 1932. Passed J.H.W.

Thesis received January 6, 1933 (accepted for Jan. 3 by W.S.F.)

Read by Professor Chamberlin and Mason and Dr. Monroe

Approved January 30, 1933 (with reservations)

Date of special examination January 31, 1931. Passed – E.S.M.

Recommended for the Doctorate Jan. 31, 1933.

Degree conferred Feb. 1933

Remarks.  [left blank]

 

 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Certification of reading knowledge
of French and German for Ph.D.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts
March 23, 1927

Mr. Gardiner C. Means has this day passed a satisfactory examination in the reading of French and German as required of candidates for the doctor’s degree.

[signed]
A. E. Monroe

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Failed General Examination, first try

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 23, 1927

To the Chairman of the Division of
History, Government, and Economics

Dear Sir:

As Chairman of the Committee for the examination of G. C. Means, I have to report that Mr. Means failed to pass his general examination. But the Committee was unanimous in the opinion that he ought to be encouraged to try again. He did better than the average in his theoretical subjects, but was singularly weak in history.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
John H. Williams

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Request to Amend Program
of the General Examinations

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

H.H. Burbank
41 Holyoke House
Cambridge, Massachusetts
December 10, 1931.

Dear Professor Carver:

Gardner C. Means has requested that he be allowed to change his program somewhat. He plans to stand for the General Examinations in January. He wishes to amend his program so that he will be examined on International Trade rather than Economic History and will satisfy the Economic History requirement by offering credit in Economics 2. This course was taken in 1925-26 before our new regulations went into effect and before Economics 25 was offered.

Very sincerely,
[signed]
H. H. Burbank

HHB: BR

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Request to substitute a field for credit
approved

Dec. 15, 1931

Dear Mr. Means:

This is to inform you that at a meeting of the Committee of Seven, Division of History, Government, and Economics, held on December 14, your petition to change your plan of study to offer course credit in Economic History instead of in International Trade and Tariff Problems, was granted.

Very truly yours,
[unsigned copy]
Chairman

Mr. Gardner [sic] Coit Means

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Scheduling 2nd try
General Examination

Columbia University
in the City of New York

School of Law

December 22, 1931

Professor T. N. Carver,
Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dear Professor Carver,

I should like very much to present myself for the General Examination required of candidates for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. I will appear at any time after the first of the year which you indicate though my own convenience would be better served if I were to appear on or about the 13th of January. However, any date within a week of the middle of January would be almost equally convenient.

Very sincerely,
[signed]
Gardiner C. Means.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Scheduling General Examination,
first iteration for second try

Dec. 28, 1931

Mr. Gardiner C. Means
Columbia University
New York

Dear Mr. Means:
Your letter has cone during Dr. Carver’s absence from Cambridge.

I am scheduling your general examination for Wednesday, January 15, at 4 p.m. Your committee will probably consist of
Professors Williams (chairman), A. H. Cole, and Ripley, and Dr.
Haberler. If there is any change in the personnel, I will let you know.

Very truly yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Bullock to Substitute for Ripley
in the General Examination Committee

Jan. 8, 1932

Dear Mr. Means:

I find that Professor Ripley will be in Mexico on the date of your examination, January 13. However, Professor Bullock can take his place on the board. As the committee now stands, it consists of Professors Williams (chairman), A. H. Cole, Bullock, and Dr. O. H. Taylor. If anything further develops, I will let you know.

Very sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary

Mr. Gardner [sic] C. Means

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Time and Place of the
General Examination (2nd try)

Jan. 11, 1932

Dear Professor Williams:

You are chairman of the committee for the general examination of Mr. Gardiner C. Means to be held on Wednesday, January 13, in 42 Holyoke House, at 4 p.m.

The other members of the committee are Professors Bullock and A. H. Cole, and Dr. O. H. Taylor. I enclose Mr. Means’ papers.

In writing the report of the examination, will you please make it somewhat detailed?

Very sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary

Professor John H. Williams

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Passed General Examination, second try

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts
January 15, 1932

Dear Professor Carver:

Mr. Gardiner C. Means passed his general examination in Economics on January 13. It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that the examination itself was rather poor, but that in view of his good course record he ought to be passed. Apparently Mr. Means is constitutionally unable to answer simple questions directly, and tends to run off at length on tangents of his own, so that it is peculiarly difficult in so short a time as two hours to find out what he really knows and thinks in four subjects. The result was that none of us felt sure whether he did or did not have an adequate grasp of the subjects. We felt that in view of the course record he should have the benefit of the doubt.

Very sincerely yours,
[signed]
John H. Williams

[Handwritten] P.S. Next day, in private conversation, I discovered Means has an intimate knowledge of recent writings in monetary theory, which I was entirely unable to uncover in the exam. J.H.W.

Professor T. N. Carver
772 Widener Library
Cambridge, Massachusetts

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Request to Amend Program
of the General Examinations

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

H.H. Burbank
41 Holyoke House
Cambridge, Massachusetts
December 7, 1932

Dear Dean Mayo,

I recommend that Gardiner Coit Means be forgiven whatever deficiencies for residence that may appear on his record.

Means has had a checkered career, characterized by work neglected, I am afraid, and brilliant performances. He is the sort of student who cannot, or should not, be held to the usual formal requirements. As a matter of record, I could secure a grade for him in the research work he did with Professor Williams in 1926-27, but I believe that such details are better left unfulfilled and that Means be allowed his residence credit on the basis of general accomplishment.

He passed his General Examination in January last year.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
H. H. Burbank

Dean Lawrence S. Mayo
24 University Hall

VS

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Division Head Requested to Back the Department Head…please…

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

24 University Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts
December 20, 1932

Dear Professor Ferguson:

At its meeting last evening the Administrative Board considered the application of Gardiner C. Means to become a candidate for the doctorate at the end of the current half-year and took no action because Means has had only one and three-quarters years of resident graduate work. At my suggestion Professor Burbank had recommended that Means be forgiven whatever deficiencies for residence might appear in his record. I had thought that this would suffice, but the Board quite properly felt that a recommendation of this kind should come from you as Chairman of the Division instead of from the Chairman of the Department. I enclose Professor Burbank’s letter for your information. All of Means’s graduate study was done in actual residence at Harvard. Under the circumstances do you feel like making a recommendation in his case?

Yours very truly,
[signed]
Lawrence S. Mayo
Assistant Dean

Professor W. S. Ferguson

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Jan. 4, 1933

Dear Mr. Mayo:

On general principles I feel like upholding the recommendation of the Department of Economics. They have the personal
knowledge of Mr. Means which I lack. Though his record is one course short of the requirement for residence, he has, none
the less, taken two full years of work in the Harvard Graduate School and has passed his general examination for the Doctorate.
Speaking for the Division, I should say that the passing of this
examination is our test. It is, I think, for you to decide whether this compensates for a deficiency in his record of courses completed.

Yours sincerely,
[unsigned]
Chairman

Dean Lawrence S. Mayo

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Summary of Thesis Submitted

Columbia University
in the City of New York

School of Law

January 6, 1933.

Chairman of the Division Committee on Graduate Degrees, Division of History, Government and Economics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Sir:

In sending my thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctors degree in Economics, I failed to enclose the summary descriptive of the thesis. I am enclosing it herewith and I would very much appreciate it if you would have the summary placed with the thesis.

Very sincerely,
[signed]
Gardiner C. Means

GCM/ Z

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Thesis submitted

Jan. 9, 1933

Dear Mr. Means:

Your thesis came to my office Friday afternoon, and although it was three days late, the postmark indicated that it had been mailed in time and should have been delivered before; therefore it is accepted as of January 3rd.

I do not find any summary, which should accompany every thesis. It should not exceed 1200 words in length. If you have not already prepared one, you had better attend to it at once.

Professor Williams, who would ordinarily read the thesis and be on the committee, is in Europe, to be gone until some time in February. In view of this fact, and also that the summary has not been completed, I wonder if you would not be willing to postpone your examination until after February 1st. Of course this would mean waiting for your degree until Commencement, and you may prefer to go ahead with the examination as planned. Please let me know your thought in regard to this suggestion.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary

Mr. Gardiner C. Means

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

John Williams not available for the special examination

Jan. 11, 1933

Dear Mr. Means:

I find that Professor Williams may be abroad indefinitely, so the wisest thing seems to be to go ahead with your examination on January 31st as planned. I will let you know the verdict on the thesis as soon as it is returned to me. I am sorry if I caused you any confusion by my letter of the 9th.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary

Mr. Gardiner C. Means

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Chamberlin asked to read thesis
[carbon copy]

Jan. 12, 1933

Dear Professor Chamberlin:

Will you serve as a member of the committee to read Mr. Gardiner C. Means’ Ph.D. thesis entitled “The Corporate Revolution”?

Professor Mason is the other member of the committee. He has the thesis now, and will hand it to you when he has finished reading it.

The date for Mr. Means’ special examination is Tuesday, January 31. I hope that this time is satisfactory to you. It will be at 4 p.m.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary

Professor E. H. Chamberlin

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Thesis Reports Not Yet Submitted,
Stay Tuned

January 27, 1933

Dear Mr. Means:

The report on your thesis has not yet been returned, and I shall probably not have it before Monday. I will wire you then in time for you to arrange to come on for your special examination on Tuesday afternoon.

Very truly yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary

Mr. Gardner C. Means

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Handwritten Draft for Telegram [?]
to Means from Mason

Gardiner C. Means

Thesis acceptable with omission of Part II [NOTE: Means’ theoretical discussion]. Examination tomorrow if you consent; otherwise revise Part II and take examination later.

(signed) E. S. Mason

Jan. 30 / 33

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

When and Where
of the Special Examination

Special examination of Mr. Gardner [sic] C. Means
Tuesday, January 31, in 42 Holyoke House
at 4 p.m.
Professor Mason (chairman) and Chamberlin,
and Dr. Monroe

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Passed Special Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts
Feb. 1, 1933.

Professor W.S. Ferguson, Chairman, Division of History, Government and Economics.

Dear Professor Ferguson–

As Chairman of the Committee for the special examination of Gardiner C. Means I should like to report that the examiners were satisfied with his performance. In view of the difficulty with his thesis the examination was somewhat more extensive than usual and the Committee were unanimously agreed that Mr Means should be passed.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Edward S. Mason

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

24 University Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts
February 4, 1933

Dear Wilson:

Would you bring the following matter up for formal action by the Division of History, Government, and Economics?

Mr. Gardner [sic] Coit Means was a member of the Graduate School from 1925-27, and his record on the books stands as follows:

1924-25
(2nd half)
Grades
Course
Half-Course

Economics 4b2

A minus

Economics 6b2

C

Economics 322

A

Economics 392

A minus

 

1925-26
Grades
Course
Half-Course

Economics 2

B plus

Economics 11

A

Economics 331

B

Economics 362

B

Economics 38

A minus

 

1926-27
midyears
Grades
Course
Half-Course

Economics 151

B plus

Economics 20 (J.H.W. )(2nd hf.)

absent

Economics 371

A

History 391

B minus

A.M. February 1927.

The Department of Economics recommended that in spite of the fact that this record totals only seven courses Mr. Means be regarded as having satisfied our requirement of two years of work for the Doctor’s degree. Professor Ferguson, as Chairman of the Division, when I consulted him, wrote me as follows:

“On general principles I feel like upholding the recommendation of the Department of Economics. They have the personal knowledge of Mr. Means which I lack. Though his record is one course short of the requirement for residence, he has, none the less, taken two full years of work in the Harvard Graduate School and has passed his general examination for the Doctorate. Speaking for the Division, I should say that the passing of this examination is our test. It is, I think, for you to decide whether this compensates for a deficiency in his record of courses completed.”

When I presented the letter to the Board the members felt that me should have formal action of the Division, not simply recommendation of a Department and more or less informal approval by the Chairman of the Division.

I am afraid this seems like a good deal of letter writing for
a rather simple matter, but I believe it is important to have Division action on the case. If I could have the vote before February 20 I can present the matter at the next meeting of the Board.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
George H. Chase

Professor G. G. Wilson

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia University
in the City of New York

School of Law

August 10, 1933

Secretary
Department of Goverment, History and Economics
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Sir:

Though I took and passed the final examination and had a thesis accepted as a prerequisite to the receipt of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, I have never received an official notice indicating that the degree has been granted to me. I have been told that my name was listed among those receiving the degree some time in February or March and I assume that it has been granted. For my records I would appreciate having a letter from an official source indicating my present status.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Gardiner C. Means

GCM:MB

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government & Economics, PhD. Degrees Conferred, Box 12.

__________________________

Harvard Course Names and Instructors

1924-25 (2d hf)

Economics 4b2. Professor Ripley. – Trade Unionism and Allied Problems.

Economics 6b2. Asst. Professor Meriam. – The Labor Movement in Europe.

Economics 322. Professor Carver. – Economics of Agriculture.

Economics 392. Asst. Professor Williams. – International Finance.

1925-26

Economics 2. Professor Gay. – Economic History from the Industrial Revolution.

Economics 11. Professor Taussig. – Economic Theory.

Economics 331. Professor Taussig. – International Trade.

Economics 362. Professor Bonbright (Columbia University). – Regulation of Public Utilities.

Economics 38. Professor Young. – Principles of Money and of Banking.

1926-27

Economics 151. Professor Young. – Modern Schools of Economic Thought.

Economics 20. J. H. Williams (2d hf.). Course of Research in Economics.

Economics 371. Professor Persons. – Commercial Crises.

History 391. Professor Channing. – History of the United States, 1865 to 1920.

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President of Harvard College for 1924-25, 1925-26 and 1926-27.

__________________________

Gardiner Coit Means
Timeline of his education and career

1896. Born June 8 in Windham, Connecticut.

1912-13. College preparation at the Phillips Exeter Academy.

1913-18. Harvard College, chemistry major.

1917. Enlisted in the Army. Served as 2nd lieutenant in the infantry.

1918-19 Transferred to the Signal Corps, becoming an Army pilot. Survived a plain crash in 1918 while practicing manoeuvres over Long Island.

1918. A.B. awarded by Harvard College.

1919-20. Near East Relief to aid Armenians in Turkey. Supervised a village of 1,000 orphans.

1920-22. Two years sat the Lowell Textile School in Massachusetts.

1922-29. Started and managed a factory that manufactured hand woven fine blankets.

1925-27. Graduate coursework in economics at Harvard University. Commuted to Lowell on classless days to attend to his business.

1927. A.M. in economics awarded by Harvard University.

1927. Married Caroline F. Ware (economist and college professor), June 2.

1927. Adolf A. Berle, Jr., professor at the Columbia University Law School, asks Means to join a Social Science Research Council funded project.

1932. Publication of The Holding Company – Its Public Significance and Its Regulation (with J. C. Bonbright).

1932. Publication of The Modern Corporation and Private Property with Adolf A. Berle, Jr.

1933. Ph.D. degree, Harvard University.

1933-. Adviser to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace.

1935. Became a member of the Consumers’ Advisory Board of the National Rescovery Administration.

1935. Published paper, “Price Inflexibility and the Requirements of a Stabilizing Monetary Policy,” Journal of the American Statistical Association.

1935-39. Means moves to the Industrial Section of the National Resources Committee. Alvin H. Hansen displaces Means.

1938. Published Patterns of Resource Use. With statistical assistance of Dr. Louis Pardiso. National Resources Committee.

1935. Gardiner C. Means and his wife Caroline Ware bought a 74 acre farm near Vienna, Virginia.

1936. Published The Modern Economy in Action together with his wife, Caroline F. Ware.

1940-41. Fiscal Analysis in the U.S. Bureau of the Budget.

1943-58. Research Associate at the Committee for Economic Development.

1951-63. Starts up and then runs a private business raising and selling zoysia grass.

1957-1959. Research at the Fund for the Republic.

1959. Published Administrative Inflation and Public Policy. Anderson Kramer Associates, Washington, D.C.

1962. Publication of Pricing Power and the Public Interest.

1975. Published Roots of Inflation. New York: Lennox Hill Publishers.

1980. Over two thirds of their farm land given to the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, with the house being donated after his death. Now known as Meadowlark Gardens.

1982. Hoover Institution conference on the fiftieth anniversary of Berle and Means.

1988. Died following a stroke February 15 in Vienna, Virginia.

Image Source: Second page of passport application (January 1919) by Gardiner Coit Means  in the “Uniteds States, Passports Applications, 1795-1925” at Family Search.

Categories
Business Cycles Columbia Economists Methodology

Columbia. Wesley Clair Mitchell Reflects on his Personal Research Style. 1928

This post provides a transcription of Wesley Clair Mitchell’s original reply to methodological questions posed to him by his younger Columbia colleague John Maurice Clark in 1928. Clark was so impressed with Mitchell’s reply that he had it published in 1931 and later then reprinted in 1952 (see links below). For autobiographical context I have included a brief statement by Mitchell, one of Decatur, Illinois’ favorite sons, that was written shortly after his methodological reflections.

Fun Fact: Adolph C. Miller, who was one of Mitchell’s teachers at the University of Chicago and later his colleague at Berkeley, was married to Mary Sprague, older sister of Mitchell’s wife, Lucy Sprague.

Coming attraction: We will learn more about Wesley Clair Mitchell’s parents and the Baptist grand-aunt who raised his mother in a later post.

______________________

Decatur Herald (Decatur, Illinois)
7 July 1929, p. 44

Mitchell One of First To Prove Business Cycle

Every business man in the United States is familiar now with the theory of the business cycle. Comparatively few, even in Decatur, probably know that it was a former Decaturian, Dr Wesley C. Mitchell, who did the pioneer work in economic research establishing the theory of a business cycle.

“My father and mother were John Wesley Mitchell and L. Medora McClellan Mitchell.

“After living several years opposite the Stapps Chapel, we moved out to a ten-acre place on what later became Leafland avenue. There were seven children and we all went through Decatur schools. My High school class was 1893; but I dropped out in the fourth year in order to push more rapidly my preparation for taking college entrance examinations. In that way I entered the University of Chicago in the autumn of ’93. From that time forward I returned to Decatur only during vacations until the time when my parents moved to Louisiana about 1902.

Studied In Germany

“My undergraduate work was done at the University of Chicago. Graduating in 1896, I received a fellowship which permitted me to go on immediately with postgraduate work. The year ’97-98 I spent on a traveling fellowship in Germany and Austria. The next year I was back at Chicago receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy summa cum laude in ’99. My chief subjects were economics and philosophy.

“No more congenial opening turning up, I spent 1900 in the Census Office at Washington in a small Division of Analysis and Research presided over by Walter F. Willcox of Cornell. Next year I was appointed instructor at the University of Chicago and taught there in 1900-02. The end of this period I published my first book, “A History of the Greenbacks.”

“One of my teachers at Chicago, Professor A. C. Miller, now a member of the Federal Reserve board, was called to the University of California as head of the Department of Economics. He asked me to go with him. As a result I lived from 1902 to 1912 in Berkeley as an assistant, associate and finally full professor of economics. While there I published a second volume of my monetary studies called “Gold Prices and Wages in the United States”(1908), and also a book called “Business Cycles” (1913). I also spent one of these years lecturing at Harvard.

Helped to Launch School

“In 1912 I married Lucy Sprague a daughter of Otho S. A. Sprague of Chicago. We went to Europe for a year and then came to live in New York city where I became attached to Columbia University. During the war I was chief of the Price Section in the Division of Planning and Statistics in the War Industries board. After the war I helped organize the New School for Social Research in New York and later the National Bureau of Economic Research, with which I am still connected as one of the directors.

“In these later years my investigations have been carried on very largely in conjunction with the National Bureau’s programs. My latest book, “Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting,” was published in 1927, and I am now working upon the supplementary volume to be called “Business Cycles: The Rhythm of Business Activity.”

“It is many years since I have been in Decatur or had an opportunity to talk with any of my old friends, aside from Will Westerman who graduated from the Decatur High school a little before my time, and who is now one of my colleagues at Columbia, where he is a professor of ancient history.

“It will be a great pleasure to get the records of other old friends which your Centenary number will doubtless contain. Accept my congratulations upon this enterprise.

WESLEY C. MITCHELL

______________________

NBER Memorial Volume
for Wesley Clair Mitchell

Wesley Clair Mitchell: The Economic Scientist, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1952.

______________________

Backstory:

Memorial Address
by John Maurice Clark.

“I had undertaken to analyze his methods of studying business cycles, for a volume of such analyses, edited by Stuart Rice; and as part of my preparations I had written to Mitchell, asking him some rather searching questions. In reply, he sent me an autobiographical sketch of his intellectual development, starting with his adolescent arguments over theology with his grandaunt. The letter was close to three thousand words long and so beautifully written as to be fit for publication without the change of a comma. Much against his desires, Mitchell was persuaded to allow this correspondence to be published, as part of the study which had occasioned it.* Its great value, naturally, lay in the fact that it had been written without a thought of publication, merely in a characteristically generous response to my request for inside information. More than anything else I know in print, it gives not only his typical mental attitudes, but the flavor of his genially pungent personality.”

Source: Wesley Clair Mitchell: The Economic Scientist, National Bureau of Economic Research (New York, 1952), p. 142.

*Appendix: “The Author’s Own Account of His Methodological Interests” to John Maurice Clark’s “Preface to Social Economics” in Methods in Social Science: A Case Book. Edited by Stuart A. Rice for the Social Science Research Council, Committee on Scientific Method in the Social Sciences. University of Chicago Press, 1931. Pages 673 ff.

______________________

Typed copy of Wesley Clair Mitchell’s Response to Questions
posed him by John Maurice Clark

[Handwritten note: “Revised Feb 11, 1929”]

Huckleberry Rocks, Greensboro, Vt.
August 9, 1928.

Dear Maurice:

                  I know no reason why you should hesitate to dissect a colleague for the instruction, or amusement, of mankind. Your interest in ideas rather than in personalities will be clear to any intelligent reader. Nor is the admiration I feel for you skill as an analyst likely to grow less warm if you take me apart to see how I work. Indeed, I should like to know myself!

                  Whether I can really help you is doubtful. The questions you put are questions I must answer from rather hazy recollections of what went on inside me thirty and forty and more years ago. Doubtless my present impressions of how I grew up are largely rationalizations. But perhaps you can make something out of the type of rationalizations in which I indulge.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Concerning the inclination you note to prefer concrete problems and methods to abstract ones, my hypothesis is that it got started, perhaps manifested itself would be more accurate, in childish theological discussions with my grand aunt. She was the best of Baptists, and knew exactly how the Lord had planned the world. God is love; he planned salvation; he ordained immersion; his immutable word left no doubt about the inevitable fate of those who did not walk in the path he had marked. Hell is no stain upon his honor, no inconsistency with love. — I adored the logic and thought my grand aunt flinched unworthily when she expressed hopes that some back-stairs method might be found of saving from everlasting flame the ninety and nine who are not properly baptized. But I also read the bible and began to cherish private opinions about the character of the potentate in Heaven. Also I observed that his followers on earth did not seem to get what was promised them here and now. I developed an impish delight in dressing up logical difficulties which my grand aunt could not dispose of. She always slipped back into the logical scheme, and blinked the facts in which I came to take a proprietary interest.

                  I suppose there is nothing better as a teething-ring for a child who likes logic than the garden variety of Christian theology. I cut my eye-teeth on it with gusto and had not entirely lost interest in that exercise when I went to college.

                  There I began studying philosophy and economics about the same time. The similarity of the two disciplines struck me at once, I found no difficulty in grasping the differences between the great philosophical systems as they were presented by our text-books and our teachers. Economic theory was easier still. Indeed, I thought the successive systems of economics were rather crude affairs compared with the subtleties of the metaphysicians. Having run the gamut from Plato to T. H. Green (as undergraduates do) I felt the gamut from Quesnay to Marshall was a minor theme. The technical part of the theory was easy. Give me premises and I could spin speculations by the yard. Also I knew that my “deductions” were futile. It seemed to me that people who took seriously the sort of articles which were then appearing in the Q.J.E. might have a better time if they went in for metaphysics proper.

                  Meanwhile I was finding something really interesting in philosophy and in economics. John Dewey was giving courses under all sorts of titles and every one of them dealt with the same problem — how we think. I was fascinated by his view of the place which logic holds in human behavior. It explained the economic theorists. The thing to do was to find out how they came to attack certain problems; why they took certain premises as a matter of course; why they did not consider all the permutations and variants of those problems which were logically possible; why their contemporaries thought their conclusions were significant. And, if one wanted to try his own hand at constructive theorizing, Dewey’s notion pointed the way. It is a misconception to suppose that consumers guide their course by ratiocination — they don’t think except under stress. There is no way of deducing from certain principles what they will do, just because their behavior is not itself rational. One has to find out what they do. That is a matter of observation, which the economic theorists had taken all too lightly. Economic theory became a fascinating subject — the orthodox types particularly — when one began to take the mental operations of the theorists as the problem, instead of taking their theories seriously.

                  Of course Veblen fitted perfectly into this set of notions. What drew me to him was his artistic side. I had a weakness for paradoxes — Hell set up by the God of love. But Veblen was a master developing beautiful subtleties, while I was a tyro emphasizing the obvious. He did have such a good time with the theory of the leisure class and then with the preconceptions of economic theory! And the economists reacted with such bewildered soberness: There was a man who really could play with ideas! If one wanted to indulge in the game of spinning theories who could match his skill and humor? But if anything were needed to convince me that the standard procedure of orthodox economics could meet no scientific tests, it was that Veblen got nothing more certain by his dazzling performances with another set of premises. His working conceptions of human nature might be a vast improvement: he might have uncanny insights; but he could do no more than make certain conclusions plausible — like the rest. How important were the factors he dealt with and the factors he scamped was never established.

                  That was a sort of problem which was beginning to concern me. William Hill set me a course paper on “Wool Growing and the Tariff.” I read a lot of the tariff speeches and got a new sidelight on the uses to which economic theory is adapted, and the ease with which it is brushed aside on occasion. Also I wanted to find out what really had happened to wool growers as a result of protection. The obvious thing to do was to collect and analyze the statistical data. If at the end I had demonstrated no clear-cut conclusion, I at least knew how superficial were the notions of the gentlemen who merely debated the tariff issue, whether in Congress or in academic quarters. That was my first “Investigation” — I did it in the way which seemed obvious, following up the available materials as far as I could, and reporting what I found to be the “facts.” It’s not easy to see how any student assigned this topic could do much with it in any other way.

                  A brief introduction to English economic history by A. C. Miller, and unsystematic readings in anthropology instigated by Veblen reenforced  the impressions I was getting from other sources. Everything Dewey was saying about how we think, and when we think, made these fresh materials significant, and got fresh significance Itself. Men had always deluded themselves, it appeared, with strictly logical accounts of the world and their own origin; they had always fabricated theories for their spiritual comfort and practical guidance which ran far beyond the realm of fact without straining their powers of belief. My grand aunt’s theology; Plato and Quesnay; Kant, Ricardo and Karl Marx; Cairnes and Jevons, even Marshall were much of a piece. Each system was tolerably self-consistent — as if that were a test of “truth”! There were realms in which speculation on the basis of assumed premises achieved real wonders; but they were realms in which one began frankly by cutting loose from the phenomena we can observe. And the results were enormously useful. But that way of thinking seemed to get good results only with reference to the simplest of problems, such as numbers and spatial relations. Yet men practiced this type of thinking with reference to all types of problems which could not be treated readily on a matter-of-fact basis — creation, God, “just” prices in the middle ages, the Wealth of Nations in Adam Smith’s time, the distribution of incomes in Ricardo’s generation, the theory of equilibrium in my own day.

                  There seemed to be one way of making real progress, slow, very slow, but tolerably sure. That was the way of natural science. I really knew nothing of science and had enormous respect for its achievements. Not the Darwinian type of speculation which was then so much in the ascendant — that was another piece of theology. But chemistry and physics. They had been built up not in grand systems like soap bubbles; but by the patient processes of observation and testing — always critical testing — of the relations between the working hypotheses and the processes observed. There was plenty of need for rigorous thinking, indeed of thinking more precise than Ricardo achieved; but the place for it was inside the investigation so to speak — the place that mathematics occuped in physics as an indispensable tool. The problems one could really do something with in economics were problems in which speculation could be controlled.

                  That’s the best account I can give off hand of my predilection for the concrete. Of course it seems to me rather a predilection for problems one can treat with some approach to scientific method. The abstract is to be made use of at every turn, as a handmaiden to help hew the wood and draw the water. I loved romance — particularly William Morris’ tales of lands that never were — and utopias, and economic systems, of which your father’s when I came to know it seemed the most beautiful; but these were objects of art, and I was a workman who wanted to become a scientific worker, who might enjoy the visions which we see in mountain mists but who trusted only what we see in the light of common day.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Besides the spice of rationalizing which doubtless vitiates my recollections — uncontrolled recollections at that — this account worries me by the time it is taking yours as well as mine. I’ll try to answer the other questions concisely.

                  Business cycles turned up as a problem in the course of the studies which I began with Laughlin. My first book on the greenbacks dealt only with the years of rapid depreciation and spasmodic wartime reaction. I knew that I had not gotten to the bottom of the problems and wanted to go on, so I compiled that frightful second book as an apparatus for a more thorough analysis. By the time it was finished I had learned to see the problems in a larger way. Veblen’s paper on “Industrial and Pecuniary Employments” had a good deal to do with opening my eyes. Presently I found myself working on the system of prices and its place in modern economic life. Then I got hold of Simmel’s Theorie des Geldes — a fascinating book. But Simmel, no more than Veblen, knew the relative importance of the factors he was working with. My manuscript grew — it lies unpublished to this day. As it grew in size it became more speculative. I was working away from any solid foundation — having a good time, but sliding gayly over abysses I had not explored. One of the most formidable was the recurring readjustments of prices, which economists treated apart from their general theories of value, under the caption “Crises.” I had to look into the problem. It proved to be susceptible of attack by methods which I thought reliable. The result was the big California monograph. I thought of it as an introduction to economic theory.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  This conception is responsible for the chapter on “Modern Economic Organization.” I don’t remember precisely at what stage the need of such a discussion dawned upon me. But I have to do everything a dozen times. Doubtless I wrote parts of that chapter fairly early and other parts late as I found omissions in the light of the chapters on “The Rhythm of Business Activity.” Of course, I put nothing in which did not seem to me strictly pertinent to the understanding of the processes with which the volume dealt. That I did not cover the field very intelligently, even from my own viewpoint, appears from a comparison of the books published in 1913 and 1927. Doubtless before I am done with my current volume, I shall be passing a similar verdict upon the chapter as I left it last year.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  As to the relation between my analytic description and “causal” theory I have no clear ideas — though I might develop some at need. To me it seems that I try to follow through the interlacing processes involved in business expansion and contraction by the aid of everything I know, checking my speculations just as far as I can by the data of observation. Among the things I “know” are the way in which economic activity is organized in business enterprises, and the way these enterprises are conducted for money profits. But that is not a simple matter which enables me to deduce certain results — or rather, to deduce results with certainty. There is much in the workings of business technique which I should never think of if I were not always turning back to observation. And I should not trust even my reasoning about what business men will do if I could not check it up. Some unverifiable suggestions do emerge; but I hope it is always clear that they are unverified. Very likely what I try to do is merely carrying out the requirements of John Stuart Mill’s “complete method.” But there is a great deal more passing back and forth between hypotheses and observation, each modifying and enriching the other, than I seem to remember in Mill’s version. Perhaps I do him injustice as a logician through default of memory; but I don’t think I do classical economics injustice when I say that it erred sadly in trying to think out a deductive scheme and then talked of verifying that. Until a science has gotten to the stage of elaborating the details of an established body of theory — say finding a planet from the aberrations of orbits, or filling a gap in the table of elements — it is rash to suppose one can get an hypothesis which stands much chance of holding good except from a process of attempted verification, modification, fresh observation, and so on. (Of course, there is a good deal of commerce between most economic theorizing and personal observation of an irregular sort  — that is what has given our theories their considerable measure of significance. But I must not go off into that issue.)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Finally, about the table of decils. One cannot be sure that a given point on the decil curves represents the relative price of just one commodity or the relative wage of just one industry. For it often happens, particularly near the center of the range covered, that several commodities and industries have identical relatives in a certain year and these identical relatives may happen to be decil points. But I think the criticisms you make of my interpretations of the movements of the decils are valid. Frederick C. Mills makes similar strictures in his Behavior of Prices, pp. 279 following, particularly p. 283 note. The fact is that when writing the first book about business cycles I seem to have had no clear ideas about secular trends. The term does not occur in the index. Seasonal variations appear to be mentioned only in connection with interest rates. Of course certain rough notions along these lines may be inferred; but not such definite ideas as would safeguard me against the errors you point out. What makes matters worse for me, I was behind the times in this respect. J.P. Norton’s Statistical Studies in the New York Money Market had come out in 1902, I ought to have known and made use of his work.

                  That is only one of several serious blemishes upon the statistical work in my 1913 volume. After Hourwich left Chicago, and that was before I got deep into economics, no courses were given on statistics in my time. I was blissfully ignorant of everything except the simplest devices. To this day I have remained an awkward amateur, always ready to invent some crude scheme for looking into anything I want to know about, and quite likely to be betrayed by my own apparatus. I shall die in the same sad state.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  I did not intend to inflict such a screed upon you when I started. Now that I have read it over, I fell compunctions about sending it. Also some hesitations. I don’t like the intellectual arrogances which I developed as a boy, which stuck by me in college, and which I shall never get rid of wholly. My only defense is that I was made on a certain pattern and had to do the best I could — like everybody else. Doubtless I am at bottom as simple a theologian as my grand aunt. The difference is that I have made my view of the world out of the materials which were available in the 1880’s and ’90’s, whereas she built, with less competent help than I had, out of the material available in the farming communities of the 1840’s and ’50’s. Perhaps you have been able to develop an outlook on the world which gives you a juster view than I had of the generations which preceded me and of the generation to which I belong. If I did not think so, I should not be sending you a statement so readily misunderstood.

Ever yours,
Wesley C. Mitchell.
(Copy by J.M.C. )

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Special Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection. Box C8, Ch-Ec. Folder “Clark, John Maurice v.p., 8 Apr 1926 & 21 Apr 1927 to Wesley C. Mitchell 2 a.l.s. (with related material)”.

Image: Wesley Clair Mitchell.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”. Colorized at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.