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 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.

Categories
Columbia Industrial Organization Labor Socialism Syllabus Undergraduate

Columbia. Excerpt from Contemporary Civilization Syllabus. Industrial Problems, 1921

Columbia College’s freshman course on Contemporary Civilization, a.k.a. “CC”, has been a core element in the undergraduate experience for over a century. This is the second post providing an excerpt of the third edition of the course syllabus (1921) that should be of particular interest for economists. Topics include: industrial organization, regulation, organized labor, and alternate systems of economic control. As in the earlier post, links to all the items referenced have been added.

_________________________

Another Post from the Syllabus

Book III, Sections 1-5. Historical background of contemporary civilization, 1400-1870.

_________________________

BOOK VIII. INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS

1. A survey of the prominent features of the modern industrial system.

  1. Private property.
    *Seligman, Principles of Economics, 125-138; *Hamilton, Current Economic Problems, 762-775; R.T. Ely, Property and Contract in their Relation to the Distribution of Wealth, Vol. I, 165-190.
    1. The meaning of the right of private property: the exclusive control over valuable things by private persons.
    2. Theories concerning the basis of property rights
      1. Occupation, or seizure.
      2. Natural rights.
      3. Labor.
      4. Legal theory
      5. Social utility.
    3. Property rights — rights vested in the owner of private property.
      1. Right of gift.
      2. Right of disposition by contract.
      3. Right of use.
      4. Right of bequest.
      5. Right of unlimited acquisition.
      6. Right to exclude.
    4. Limitations on property rights: social considerations limit the extent of private property rights.
      1. Right of use limited by principle of “eminent domain.”
      2. Right of use restricted by laws against “nuisances,” etc.
      3. Right of bequest limited by inheritance tax laws.
      4. Proposed limitations on the right of unlimited acquisition; the modern attitude toward great fortunes.
    5. Property and social authority. In the modern economic system private property is the chief basis of social authority and power.
  1. Competition as an economic principle. (See 3.A. below)

The doctrines of individualism and laissez faire are still regarded by modern business and industry as the basis for economic operation. It is felt that competition stimulates producers and protects both producers and consumers.

  1. The use of machinery and artificial power.
    *Marshall and Lyon, Our Economic Organization, 207-227; *Clay, H., Economics for the General Reader, 21-27; Marshall, Wright & Field, Materials for the Study of Elementary Economics, 158-160, 198-199.
    1. The standardization and mechanization of industrial processes and of industrial labor.
    2. Resulting tendency toward an elaborate technical division of labor, and toward a reduction of human effort to the simple repetition of a single operation. This mechanical character is typical of modern productive processes even where machinery is not employed.
    3. Limitations to the use of machinery.
      1. Unadapted to processes incapable of reduction to routine.
      2. Not applicable where tastes of individual consumers must be considered; the demand for quality and distinction.
  1. The factory system. (See above, p. 29.)
    *Hamilton, 112-113.
  2. The wage system.
    *Hamilton, 121-122; 617-619.
    1. The elaboration of the means of production has rendered ownership of the productive equipment by the laborers impossible under the present system.
    2. Modern industrial workers are thus in large part detached from direct personal control and responsible interest in the production and sale of commodities; dependent for livelihood upon employment as wage-workers by the owners of the means of production. The wage connection (“cash nexus”) the primary bond between the worker and his work. The proletariat.
    3. The mobility of labor under the wage system.
  1. The extensive use of capital and credit in promoting and conducting business and industrial undertakings.
    *Ely, Outlines of Economics, 212-230; *Hamilton, 110-112, 185-195, 206-208, 211-215; Clay, 97-104.
    1. Distinction between business and industrial units.
      1. The business unit: the unit of promotion and management. Types of business units.
        1. The individual business enterpriser.
        2. The partnership. (See (c) below.)
        3. The corporation. (See (c) below.)
      2. The industrial unit: the unit of production; the store, workshop, and factory.
    2. The necessity of capital and credit in industry today.
      1. The use of extensive plants and complicated machinery.
      2. The interval between production and sale may be long. Stock must be carried, workers must be paid, and other business and industrial expenses met in the meantime.
    3. Means of securing capital and credit.
      1. Individual and partnership enterprises.
        1. Use of capital of individual owners of the business.
        2. The use of bank credit.
          1. Banks as depositories of idle capital.
          2. Banks as agencies of credit.
      2. The corporation.
        1. Capital secured by sale of stock.
          1. Types of stock — common and preferred.
          2. The function and rights of stockholders.
        2. Capital secured by borrowing; the issuance of bonds.
          1. Types of bonds.
          2. The function and rights of bondholders.
      3. The use of bank credit.
    4. The relation of the business enterpriser (entrepreneur) to the owners of capital.
      1. The function of the promoter or organizer of a large corporation.
        1. The work of promotion.
        2. The relation of the promoter to the investors.
        3. The rewards of the promoter.
      2. The function of the executive officials of a corporation.
        1. The powers of the board of directors.
        2. The theoretical and actual relation of the directors to the investors and creditors.
      3. The possibility of misuse of power by the business representatives of owners of capital.
    1. The social importance of the separation of the actual ownership of property from direct control of that property.
      1. Corporate type of organization is breaking the direct relation of ownership between men and goods.
      2. Resulting change in the nature of the institution of private property.
  1. The dominance of large-scale enterprise in certain lines of industry.
    *Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I, 49-66; Clay, 123-127. (Note — This section treats only the “legitimate” aspects of large scale production. Monopolies, combinations and “trusts” are treated under 3.B below).
    1. Marked increase in the size of the industrial unit within recent years.
    2. Reasons for the development of large-scale enterprises.
      1. Industrial reasons.
        1. Tendency toward increasing returns in industry.
        2. Advantages of standardization of product.
        3. Utilization of by-products.
        4. Economy of power.
        5. Greater division of labor possible.
        6. Scientific and technical research possible.
      2. Business reasons.
        1. Elimination of cost of competition.
        2. Selling advantages.
        3. Buying advantages.
        4. The stimulus of promoter’s profits.
    3. Restriction of the tendency toward large-scale production to certain industrial fields.
    4. Large scale enterprise and wide markets. As local specialization develops and the size of the productive unit increases, the entrepreneurs are driven to more distant markets to sell their produce. Large-scale enterprise is therefore dependent upon good means of transportation.
      1. Requirements for effective means of transportation.
        1. Speed: the importance of the time element in transportation, especially in the case of perishable goods. Refrigeration cars. Interest on invested capital while goods are in transit.
        2. Regularity: e.g. the milk supply of New York City. Commutation.
        3. Safety: passenger traffic, fragile goods.
        4. Cheapness: high rates reduce the size of the market. “Discriminating rates” in U. S.
          *Marshall, Wright & Field, 259-266.
        5. Elasticity: ability of the transportation systems to meet
          1. the peak-load requirements; e.g., coal in U. S. The after-the-harvest situation.
          2. the needs of the localities off the main lines of communication. The great increase in motor-truck transportation in the U. S.
      2. [Can the economic and social demands for means of transport be met by private companies? See 5.B.f below]
  1. The interdependence of all parts of the industrial structure.
    *Hamilton, 113-115, 204-205, 208-211; L. Alston, How It All Fits Together, 14-49.
    1. Industrial and geographical division of labor; resulting interdependence of different industries and regions. The whole industrial system thus constitutes what is in effect a single productive machine.
    2. The credit structure knits all modern business and industry together. The credit basis typical of modern business.
    3. Modern monetary and banking systems international in their scope.
    4. Manifestations of this interdependence: financial panics and industrial depressions. (Business cycles.) Railway strikes.

2. The organization of production: problems arising from the conflicting interests of certain of the agents of production.

  1. The agents of production.
    *Ely, Outlines of Economics, 116-130; *Clay, 46-63, 92-94; Seligman, Principles of Economics, 283-287; Seager, Principles of Economics (Second Edition), 122-169; Marshall, Wright & Field, Materials, 58-61, 106-108, 204-206.
    1. Natural agents: the basis of all production; the source of raw materials.
      1. Types of natural agents.
        1. Agricultural land.
        2. Urban land, furnishing sites for dwellings, stores, office-buildings, factories, etc.
        3. Forests.
        4. Mines and quarries.
        5. Waterways and harbors.
        6. Sources of natural power: wind, waterfalls, etc.
      2. Certain characteristics of natural agents.
        1. Incapable of material increase in amount.
        2. Different units may vary in productivity.
        3. Varying locations make different units more or less accessible.
    2. Labor: physical and intellectual activities conducing to production.
      1. Labor and natural agents are the two primary factors in production.
      2. The gain in efficiency secured by division of labor. (See above, p. 30.)
      3. Different individuals possess varying degrees of productive ability.
    3. Capital.
      1. Technical meaning of the term “capital”: goods produced by man and used by man to assist him in further production.
      2. The money value of capital goods not to be confused with the concrete capital goods.
      3. The function of capital in production.
        1. Increases the efficiency of man’s labor by enabling labor to be more effectively applied.
        2. Enables labor to be supported during the process of production.
    4. Business enterprise, or organization.
      1. The necessity of an organizer in modern production. In the modern highly complex industrial system natural agents, labor and capital have to be brought together and suitable arrangements made for their cooperation in the production of any desired commodity. The task has become especially important under modern industrial conditions, for the productive factors are in general separately owned.
      2. The function of the business enterpriser in production.
        1. To organize the factors in production.
        2. To evaluate the services rendered by each factor to his undertaking.
        3. To assume, in part, the business risks involved in the enterprise.
      3. The relation of the enterpriser to production under the corporate form of organization. (See above.)
      4. The work of the business enterpriser may involve labor of management, which is separately remunerated. The business enterpriser may invest his own capital, for which service he is also separately remunerated.
  1. The relation of the business enterpriser to labor; conditions underlying the labor problem; the conflict of interests.
    *Hamilton, 615-619, 628-635.
    1. The business interests of the employer.
      1. Maximum profits : ordinarily secured by
        1. Efficient and well-disciplined labor force.
        2. Low labor costs.
        3. Production on basis of market conditions. The process of production is normally subordinated to that of sale, for advantage must be taken of changing market conditions, (e.g., coal.) This may result in irregular production.
        4. Limitation of expenditures on plant to those which will increase profits.
      2. Complete control of his own business and of his working force.
    2. The interests of the laboring force.
      1. High wages.
      2. Short hours.
      3. Protection against industrial accident and disease by elimination of dangerous and insanitary working conditions.
      4. Regular employment.
      5. Participation as responsible agents in the industrial process.
    3. These competing interests, together with the necessity of cooperation in production, give rise to the labor problem.
  1. The machinery of agreement; methods of adjusting the conflict of interests.
    1. Individual versus collective bargaining.
      *Hamilton, 32-37, 636-640. M.R. Beard, A Short History of the American Labor Movement, 19-21; L.C. Marshall, Readings in Industrial Society, 560-569.

      1. The system of individual bargaining.
        1. The meaning of individual bargaining. Separate agreements made between employer and each of his employees as to wages and general conditions of employment; both parties to the contract free and equal agents; laborers free to work for any employer and to leave at will; employers free to employ any one they choose, and to terminate that employment at will.
        2. The assumptions underlying the system of individual bargaining.
          1. Laissez faire; the interests of the whole are advanced by allowing complete freedom to each individual. (See above: Competition, p. 71, and also below, p. 88.)
          2. Bargaining equality of employer and employee.
          3. The rôle of the employer in this concept of the industrial relation: a private individual engaged in a private enterprise, employing private property and subject to no control, except that furnished by business competition.
        3. Advantages claimed for the system of individual bargaining.
          1. Costs kept down and production increased by allowing full liberty to the employer.
          2. A mobile, elastic labor supply is thus secured. The employer is free to increase force when business is good, and to decrease force when business conditions call for limited production. The free and independent laborer, following his own interests will be found where he is wanted and when his labor is needed. Supply and demand given free play.
          3. Domination by organizations of laborers prevented when each man is free to bargain individually with the employer.
          4. Each individual worker secure in the superior advantage of his own efficiency.
        4. Defects charged to the system of individual bargaining.
          1. Fallacies in the assumption of complete equality between the parties to the bargain.
            1. The stakes at issue are not the same: for the employer it is a question of one employee more or less in any individual case; for the worker it is a question of the means of livelihood for himself and his family. He is thus forced to accept employer’s terms, and is not free to bargain in regard to them.
            2. The employee may be a minor, in which case there can be no equality of bargaining power.
          2. The system has resulted in the exploitation of minors and of many classes of male and female workers.
          3. The right of the employer to take on and discharge at will, depending upon business conditions, leads to irregularity of employment and consequent suffering on part of workers.
      2. The system of collective bargaining.
        Different interpretations of “collective bargaining.”

        1. The right of wage-earners within a given industrial unit (e.g., a factory or mine) to organize and to bargain with their employer through representatives elected from their own number.
        2. “The right of wage-earners to organize without discrimination, to bargain collectively, to be represented by representatives of their own choosing in negotiations and adjustments with their employers in respect to wages, hours of labor and conditions of employment.” (Resolution presented to Industrial Conference at Washington, October 22, 1910, by Labor Group.)
        3. The concept of full collective bargaining: bargaining between representatives of organized employees and of organized employers in a given industry. (e.g., New York Garment Workers; English Industrial Conference program.)

(The use of the system of collective bargaining, and its advantages and defects, will be considered in connection with the discussion of labor organizations below.)

    1. Collective bargaining further considered ; the combination movement in labor.
      1. Causes of the movement toward combination.
        *Hamilton, 619-622.
        1. Development of large-scale industry with increased use of capital after the Industrial Revolution led to a sharp differentiation between employers and workers, creating a class of industrial wage-workers divorced from the land. (See III.4.F)
        2. Weakness of the individual employee under a system of individual bargaining.
        3. Desire of workers to escape labor competition in regard to hours, wages, and conditions of employment. “The union organization attempts to cover the industrial field within which there is labor competition with respect to hours, wages, and conditions of employment.” Hoxie.
        4. Development of class consciousness among the permanent wage-workers. (The Communist Manifesto.)
      1. Main types of labor combinations. Labor unionism is complex, many-sided, and opportunistic.
        *Hoxie, Trade Unionism in the United States, 31-53.

        1. Structural division of labor combinations.
          1. The craft or trade union: an organization of wage-workers engaged in a single craft.
          2. The federation of craft unions.
            1. The local trades council.
            2. The state or district federation.
            3. National or international federation. In a federation the constituent organizations retain a large part of their individual independence.
          3. The industrial union: an organization of wage-workers employed in a given industry; attempts to unite skilled and unskilled in a single group. Industrial unions may be plant, local, district, national, or international, (e.g., the I.W.W.; the French syndicates.)
          4. The labor union: an organization of all workers in a given district regardless of craft or industry (e.g., The Knights of Labor).
          5. The “inside union” (employers’ union).
        2. Functional classification of unionism. (Hoxie.)
          1. Business unionism.
            1. Characteristics: trade conscious, conservative, aiming at immediate results, “more.”
            2. Methods: collective bargaining, trade agreements, strikes and boycotts as last resort, (e.g., R.R. brotherhoods.)
          2. Friendly or uplift unionism.
            1. Characteristics: conservative, law-abiding, idealistic.
            2. Methods: collective bargaining, mutual insurance, profit-sharing and cooperation, (e.g., Knights of Labor.)
          3. Revolutionary unionism.
            1. Characteristics: class conscious, radical in view-point and action, repudiating existing institutional order, and refusing to be bound by prevailing morals and laws.
            2. Methods: direct action, sabotage, strikes. Collective bargaining and mutual insurance regarded as conservative. (e.g., the I.W.W.)
          4. Predatory unionism.
            1. Characteristics: opportunistic, selfish and ruthless.
            2. Methods: may be those of open bargaining combined with secret bribery and violence (e.g., those of certain building trades organizations) or a secret “guerilla” warfare (e.g., that carried on by Bridge and Structural Iron Workers a few years ago).
      1. Labor combinations in the United States.
        Hoxie, Trade Unionism in the United States, 89-98, *103-135; Brissenden, The I.W.W.; C. H. Parker, The I.W.W., Atlantic Monthly, November, 1917; Marshall, Wright & Field, Materials for the Study of Elementary Economics, 668-694, 700-704.

        1. The early character of labor combination in both England and U. S. was idealistic, friendly, and altruistic. The members favored political action, cooperation and education. The Knights of Labor in the U. S. is an illustration.
        2. The American Federation of Labor.
          1. General characteristics.
            1. A loose federation of virtually independent unions. Because of the elastic character of the organization room has been found within the A.F. of L. for many diverse types of unions. Originally a federation of craft unions. Recently several industrial unions have been admitted to membership (e.g., United Mine Workers of America).
            2. Non-theoretical and opportunistic. Immediate results sought.
          2. Types of subordinate organizations.
            1. National and international unions.
            2. Local unions.
            3. Local and district councils: organizations of local craft unions in the same or allied industries to govern interrelations and deal with employers.
            4. City central labor unions: composed of delegates from the local unions of the A.F. of L. in a given city.
            5. State federation: organization of A.F. of L. union bodies within a given state.
            6. The departments: federations of allied national and international unions.
          3. Organic character of the A.F. of L.
            1. The annual convention, the sovereign power.
            2. The permanent executive council, to carry out the will of the convention.
          4. General functions of the A.F. of L.
            1. Administration of intercraft union affairs; settling jurisdictional disputes.
            2. Advancing labor’s interests by labor legislation.
            3. Maintenance of a labor press.
            4. Promoting the organization of wage-workers.
            5. Promoting the use of the union label.
            6. Mediation between unions and employers.
            7. Giving financial and moral assistance to unions on strike.
            8. Education and publicity.
          5. Weaknesses charged to the A.F. of L.
            1. Limited membership: less than 10% of workers.
            2. Lacks adherence of several strong unions, (e.g., R.R. brotherhoods.)
            3. Inability to organize laborers in great trust-controlled industries.
            4. Failure to organize and help unskilled labor.
            5. Jurisdictional disputes within A.F. of L.
            6. Tendency to pursue immediate results; opportunistic policy said to have limited its accomplishments.
            7. Craft form of organization not adapted to progressive specialization found in scientifically managed industries.
        3. The Railroad brotherhoods.
          1. General characteristics.
            1. Models of pure craft unions.
            2. Highly centralized control, disciplined membership.
            3. Skilled, specialized and highly paid membership.
            4. Conservative type business union.
            5. Recent tendency to change policy because of problem of government ownership of railroads — The Plumb Plan.
          2. Methods:
            1. Collective bargaining, trade agreements. Avoidance of strikes except as last resort.
            2. Legislation.
            3. Mutual insurance.
            4. Recent movement for Plumb Plan.
        4. The unions in the clothing industry.
          Budish and Soule, The New Unionism, 27-45, 256-273, 191-204.

          1. The nature of the clothing industry.
            1. Seasonal demand and seasonal unemployment.
            2. Highly competitive system and “contracting out” in small producing units.
            3. Prevalence of immigrant labor, large percentage of women.
          2. Union organization of the industry.
            1. Early prevalence of the sweat shop with low wages and bad sanitary conditions.
            2. Early failures to correct these evils by legislation and union organization.
            3. Rapid growth of unionism after 1914.
            4. The establishment of trade agreements and joint boards with impartial chairmen.
          3. Policies of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers as a type.
            1. Belief in industrial unionism.
            2. Ultimate aim to establish self-government and control in industry.
            3. Encouragement of collective bargaining, shop committees and “industrial government.”
            4. Opposition to sabotage as a hindrance to the training of the workers in self-government.
            5. Promotion of workers’ education and cooperative enterprises.
            6. Anti-restrictionist attitude toward immigration.
            7. Promotion of separate political action.
        5. Revolutionary Unionism.
          The types of labor combinations given above stand for the modification and improvement of the status of the laborer under the existing systems of government. Revolutionary unionism is opposed to the existing political as well as economic organization. It believes that no real improvement of the position of labor can take place under the present political regime. It is organized therefore with the expressed purpose of over-throwing the governments as they are, and reorganizing society so that labor will receive its proper share of the national dividend. The Industrial Workers of the World is the most prominent example of this form of labor combination in the U.S. (See 5.B.h.iv below. American Syndicalism: the I.W.W.)
      2. Labor combinations in Great Britain.
        S. & B. Webb, Industrial Democracy; G.D.H. Cole, An Introduction to Trade Unions; G.D.H. Cole, The World of Labor.
        British industry is rather thoroughly organized into unions of many varieties and types. Craft unions, industrial unions and general labor unions are found side by side, often competing for members in the same industry. Since these unions have grown up haphazardly, without control or direction, no common principle of organization is found. In England, as in the United States, there are two rival types at present contending for supremacy: craft unionism and industrial unionism.

        1. The growth in strength of organized labor in Great Britain.
          1. 1892: total population, United Kingdom, 40,000,000; membership of unions, 1,500,000; 4% of population organized; 20% of male manual workers organized; 3% of women workers organized.
          2. 1915: total population, 46,000,000; membership of unions, 4,127,000; 9% of population organized; 45% of male manual workers organized; 10% of women workers organized.
          3. In 1917 the total membership in the unions was 5,287,522.
        2. Types of labor organizations in Great Britain.
          1. The Miners’ Federation of Great Britain: a strong industrial federation.
            S. & B. Webb, Industrial Democracy, 51, 57, 146.
          2. The National Union of Railwaymen: an industrial union.
          3. Transport Workers’ Federation: a federation of unions among dock and vehicle workers.
            Webb, History of Trade Unionism, 499-502.
          4. Cotton, engineering (steel-working), and ship-building industries organized into a great many separate craft unions, of which the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (A.S.E.) is the most powerful.
          5. General labor unions: strong organizations including unskilled and general laborers in many industries. General labor unions have developed comparatively recently, for up to 1890 craft unions of skilled workers dominated the labor movement in Great Britain. The organization of unskilled workers has been carried forward rapidly since that date.
        3. Mechanism of unification and cooperation.
          S. & B. Webb, Industrial Democracy, 265-278.

          1. Trades’ councils; federations of local trade union branches in each particular district; workers in different industries included.
          2. National federations of trade unions: federal combinations of local or of national trade unions. These federations, many of them strongly centralized, add strength and unity to labor organization.
          3. The Triple Alliance: the first great inter-industrial federation in the British labor movement. A general alliance between the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Workers’ Federation to secure joint action in industrial disputes. The disintegration of the Triple Alliance in 1921. S. and B. Webb, History of Trade Unionism (1920), 516-517.
          4. The Trades Union Congress. (Approximately 75% of the membership of British trade unions are included in this Congress.)
            S. and B. Webb, History of Trade Unionism (1920), 561-575, 649-663.

              1. Character of the Congress: an annual conference of delegates from affiliated societies.
              2. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. The central executive authority of the Congress.
                1. Limitation of powers, because it cannot enforce any obligation upon the affiliated unions.
                2. Resemblance to Executive committee of the A.F. of L.
              3. The functions of the Trade Union Congress and its parliamentary committee primarily industrial.
          5. The Labor Party. A federation of trade unions, socialist and other societies organized for purposes of political action. (See below: The use of the political weapon by labor.)
            Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 441-447.
        4. Policies and methods of British unions.
          1. Policies.
            1. Earlier policies: conservative uplift unionism.
            2. Radical character of recent policies: the fight for nationalization and participation in control. (See below.)
            3. The proposed use of the industrial weapon for political purposes.
          2. Methods.
            S. & B. Webb, Industrial Democracy, 796-806.

            1. Mutual insurance and benefits.
            2. Collective bargaining.
            3. Trade agreements; the standard rate.
            4. Legislation.
            5. Combined industrial action: the methods of the Triple Alliance.
    1. Combination among employers.
      *Hoxie, 188-206; Marshall, Wright and Field, Materials, 694-699.

      1. Types of employers’ organizations. There are many structural and functional types, corresponding closely to similar union bodies. In general, two main functional types may be distinguished.
        The conciliatory association, seeking to maintain industrial peace

        1. largely through bargaining and conciliation.
        2. The militant association, one of the chief objects of which is to break union organizations.
      2. Methods of militant employers’ associations.
        1. Effective counter organization, paralleling union structure.
        2. War on closed shop, by action and propaganda; blacklisting.
        3. Mutual aid; assistance given employers in time of strikes.
        4. Establishment of welfare plans, insurance and pension schemes which are subject to forfeiture in case of strike.
        5. Organization of counter-unions.
        6. The use of the law: injunctions and damage suits, etc.
        7. Methods of political action.
      3. Mediatory employers’ associations.
        1. Organization paralleling union structure.
        2. Collective bargaining and conciliation. (See below.)
      4. The employers’ associations and the principle of individualism. Significant departure from strict laissez-faire principles is involved in the formation of strong employers’ organizations.
    2. Relations between labor combinations and employers.
      1. Typical forms of collective bargaining in operation.
        *Hoxie, 254-275; Seager, Principles of Economics, 548-572; Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. 2, 313-322; Hamilton, 638-650, 663-666, 602-605, 731-739, 788-793; Marshall, Wright and Field, Materials, 683-691; Arthur Young, The International Harvester Industrial Council Plan; J. D. Rockefeller, Jr., The Colorado Industrial Plan.

        1. The “inside union”; collective bargaining with Works Committees. The Colorado plan; the Midvale plan; the International Harvester plan.
        2. Negotiation and trade agreements between organized workers and organized employers.
          1. Examples of negotiation in American industry: the bituminous coal situation; the garment workers.
          2. Subjects of negotiation and character of agreements reached. The principle of uniformity; the standard rate; the minimum wage.
          3. The legal character of trade agreements.
        3. Mediation, conciliation and arbitration by outside agencies as modes of securing industrial peace.
          Report of President Wilson’s Second Industrial Conference.

          1. Limited applicability. Questions of recognition of union and of open versus closed shop not usually open to arbitration.
          2. Boards of arbitration, public and private.
        4. Compulsory arbitration: employers and employees must accept decision of a judicial arbitration tribunal; the case of New Zealand.
          1. The object of compulsory arbitration: to prevent industrial stoppage due to strikes and lockouts.
          2. Difficulties of compulsory arbitration.
            1. Difficulty of enforcing findings against labor.
            2. In attempting to determine what are “fair” wages the tribunal must determine what are “fair” profits and “fair” interest. Whole distributive process thus subject to regulation.
          3. The present status of compulsory arbitration: the attitude of labor; the situation in New Zealand and Australia.
        5. Kansas Industrial Relations Court plan.
          Allen, Party of the Third Part.
          Some provisions of the law:

          1. Creation of a tribunal vested with “power, authority and jurisdiction” to hear and determine all controversies which tend to threaten the operation of essential industries.
          2. All essential industries must be operated with reasonable continuity. Permission to discontinue must be given by Court.
          3. Right of collective bargaining is recognized.
          4. Violations of the act are punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
      2. The appeal to force.
        *Hamilton, 650-659, 677-680; Marshall, Wright & Field, Materials, 705-709; Adams and Sumner, Labor Problems, 175-212.

        1. The weapons of the unions.
          1. The strike in relation to collective bargaining.
            1. Definition: The refusal of a number of workingmen to sell their labor for less than a stipulated price or to work under other than specified conditions of employment, coupled with the refusal of the purchaser of that labor to accede to their demands.
            2. The sympathetic strike.
            3. The utility of the strike as a weapon for the attainment of union ends. The right to strike considered by labor to be an essential element in collective bargaining.
            4. Criticisms of the strike. Strikes and violence. Proposed laws prohibiting strikes.
          2. The ostracism of non-union workers.
          3. The boycott and the “unfair list”: means of discouraging the purchase of products of a hostile employer. The law against the boycott; the Danbury Hatters’ case.
        2. The weapons of the employer.
          1. The lockout.
          2. The black-list.
          3. The use of strike-breaking and detective agencies.
          4. The employers’ associations sometimes in a position to use the power of the state in breaking strikes.
      3. The weapons of revolutionary unionism. Disavowal of collective bargaining, conciliation, arbitration, and trade agreements.
        1. The strike.
        2. The general strike: a general stoppage of work in all industries.
          1. Attempts to utilize the weapon of the general strike in the past.
          2. The general strike as the weapon by which the revolutionary unionists hope to achieve their final objects.
        3. Sabotage; “Ca Cannie”; the “strike on the job.” The reduction of output by disabling machinery, working less efficiently, or destroying part of the product.
  1. Points of conflict between labor and capital and proposed solutions.
    *J. B. Andrews, Labor Problems and Labor Legislation, 23-44.
    (The discussion above has been confined largely to a description of the machinery of agreement, the means by which cooperation in production is normally secured. Some of the points at issue, other than that of collective bargaining, are now to be considered.)
    1. The struggle for higher wages.
      Hamilton, 586-602; 591-593; Marshall, Wright and Field, 643-647, 659-669; Seager, 583-590.

      1. Factors in the wage dispute.
        1. Earlier theories of wages according to which the remuneration of the laborer was fixed by agencies not in his control.
          1. Malthus and the subsistence theory of wages.
          2. The wages-fund theory.
        2. Wage levels in the early years of the Industrial Revolution. (See above, p. 30.)
        3. The standard of living and the fight for higher wages.
          1. Education and the standard of living.
          2. The struggle to maintain and to raise the standard of living an ever-present cause of conflict over wages.
          3. The standard of living and rising prices.
        4. The wage question and unionism. The standard rate an essential element in collective bargaining.
      2. Methods of adjusting wage disputes.
        1. Trade agreements as to wages. Such agreements constitute merely temporary solutions.
        2. Profit-sharing: an attempt to eliminate wage disputes, increase efficiency of workers and harmonize the interests of employers and employed by giving the workers a share in the profits.
          1. Types of profit-sharing.
          2. Advantages and defects of profit-sharing.
          3. Failure of profit-sharing to eliminate industrial disputes.
        3. Bonus and premium systems, involving additional rewards to exceptional men for added output.
          1. Object: increase in output without increase in labor cost per unit.
          2. Opposition of organized labor to these systems, based upon
            1. Tendency of such arrangements to weaken collective spirit in laborers.
            2. Danger of pace-making.
            3. Alleged cutting of rates by employers if earnings of men become large.
        4. The legal minimum wage.
          1. Definition: A minimum wage established by the state for work of a certain sort or workers of a certain class.
          2. The argument against the minimum wage: wages are automatically adjusted to the productive ability of the worker, and cannot be set above this point by legal enactment.
          3. The argument for the minimum wage.
            1. Exploitation of workers, especially women and children, must be prevented.
            2. Adequate standard of living must be maintained, and it is the duty of the state to see that this standard is not lowered.
          4. The application of minimum wage laws presents the problem of providing for the inefficient and the unemployable.
    2. The struggle for shorter hours.
      *Andrews, Labor Problems and Labor Legislation, 45-69; Hamilton, 784-787; Seager, 574-583; Goldmark, Fatigue and Efficiency; Marshall, Wright and Field, 716-721; Commons and Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation, 221-286.

      1. The efficiency argument for short hours.
        1. Investigations concerning the relation of fatigue to efficiency.
        2. The experience of the war: the economy of short hours.
      2. Other arguments for short hours.
        1. Necessity of protecting women and children.
        2. Necessity of regulating hours in dangerous occupations.
        3. Short hours and democracy. Necessity of leisure for education and participation in the life of the democracy.
      3. The legal regulation of hours.
        1. Laws regulating hours of labor of children. State and federal legislation in United States.
          1. The federal law of 1916 forbidding interstate traffic in goods produced by children working long hours; set aside by Supreme Court.
          2. The federal tax on the profits of establishments employing children between 14 and 16 at night or for more than 8 hours daily. 1919.
        2. State legislation limiting hours of labor of women.
        3. Recent movements toward legal regulation of men’s hours. The Adamson railroad law establishing 8 hours as the standard for pay.
      4. Limitation of hours through collective bargaining.
        1. The 8-hour day being largely established through direct bargaining.
        2. The movement toward further reduction of hours: the 44-hour week.
      5. Increased productivity versus shorter hours.
        *Hamilton, 700-705.
    3. Conditions of employment.
      Andrews, Labor Problems and Labor Legislation, 69-82, 83-92; Hamilton, 566-570; 577-578, 584-586; Seager, Principles, 583-590; Seager, Social Insurance; Marshall, Wright & Field, 721-723; Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 568-641. Commons and Andrews, 323-382.

      1. Safety.
        1. General nature and causes of industrial accidents. Types of dangerous occupations.
        2. The cost of industrial accidents.
          1. The burden as borne by the workers; the theory that wages are adjusted to risk.
          2. Social results of this system.
        3. Methods of reducing the number of industrial accidents.
          1. Trade union regulations concerning working conditions.
          2. Industrial safety laws.
        4. Workmen’s compensation laws as a means of relieving the worker of the cost of accidents.
      2. Health.
        1. Nature and causes of occupational diseases.
        2. The improvement of working conditions and the reduction in amount of occupational disease through legal and trade union action. Prohibition of dangerous substances and regulation of working conditions.
        3. The movement for social insurance as a method of relieving the worker of the burden of sickness.
      3. Working conditions under the “sweat-shop” system.
        1. The evils of tenement house manufacture: congestion, unsanitary conditions, low wages, long hours, child labor.
        2. The fight against the sweating system.
    4. Scientific management.
      *Hamilton, 705-713; *Hoxie, 296-348; Marshall, Wright & Field, 219-233; Goldmark, Fatigue and Efficiency, 192-210; Marot, Creative Impulse in Industry, 29-55.

      1. The meaning of “scientific management.”
        1. The application to machines and workers of scientifically established laws governing the processes of production and the modes of payment for the purpose of increasing efficiency in industry.
        2. Time and motion study the method by which the facts and laws of efficient production are to be established.
          1. Narrow conception of time and motion study: an instrument for task-setting and efficiency rating merely.
          2. Broader conception: time and motion study as a method of analysis applicable to every feature of the productive and distributive process.
      2. Scientific management and production. Systematic scientific study of productive processes and methods affords possibility of great increase of world’s productive efficiency, a possibility which should be utilized.
      3. Scientific management in the mechanical and in the human sphere.
        1. The unquestioned success of scientific management in dealing with the mechanical, material factor in production; efficient mechanical arrangements and processes have been established.
        2. Inability of scientific management to discover objective laws of universal validity in regard to the human factor.
        3. Danger that scientific management will reduce workers to a little-skilled, interchangeable, unorganized mass.
          1. The tendency to extreme specialization.
          2. Traditional craft knowledge systematized in the hands of the employer; the workers’ skill vested in the foreman and manager.
          3. Established crafts and craftsmanship tend to break down.
      4. The opposition of organized labor to scientific management.
        1. Reasons given for labor opposition.
          1. Danger of narrow specialization and loss of craftsmanship.
          2. Undemocratic character of scientific management, with tendency to break down collective bargaining.
          3. Unfair character of tasks set and wages paid.
          4. Scientific management a device for increasing production and profits.
          5. Scientific management a speeding up and sweating system.
          6. Work under scientific management is monotonous routine.
          7. Continuity and certainty of employment lessened.
        2. Fundamental antagonism of scientific management and dominant type of modern unionism, the essential principle of which is uniformity.
      5. The problem of securing the benefits of increased productivity which scientific management can give, without reducing the status and craftsmanship of the worker.
        1. Antagonism of labor will persist if scientific management is used as an instrument for profit-making and exploiting the workers.
        2. Human defects of scientific management may in part be overcome by
          1. A broad and universally applied system of industrial education.
          2. Fuller and more intelligent participation by labor in the processes of industrial production.
    5. Insecurity of employment.
      Hamilton, 545-566, *547-549, 554-566; Marshall, Wright and Field, 709-715; W.H. Beveridge, Unemployment; Andrews, 7-21; F. C. Mills, Theories of Unemployment and of Unemployment Relief, 118-164.

      1. General causes of insecurity of employment.
        1. Seasonal fluctuations in the demand for labor.
        2. Cyclical fluctuations in the demand for labor.
        3. Necessity of labor reserve due to the casual character of employment in many industries.
        4. Changes in industrial structure resulting in decreased demand for labor of certain types.
        5. Deficiencies of industrial training.
        6. Old age and personal deficiencies.
      2. Results of insecurity of employment.
        1. Decreased productivity of industry.
        2. Evil effects of uncertainty of employment upon the worker.
        3. The evil of under-employment and under-nourishment.
        4. The development of the habit of casual employment.
        5. The migratory laborer a product of seasonal and casual demand for labor. Evil results of a migratory existence.
      3. Proposed methods of remedying insecurity of employment.
        1. The organization of the labor market. Haphazard hawking of labor should be replaced by systematic placing of labor through governmentally organized employment offices.
        2. The regularization of industry.
        3. Diversification of industries and systematic distribution of public work to offset fluctuations in demand for labor.
        4. Adequate industrial training.
        5. Unemployment insurance to protect worker during periods of unavoidable unemployment.
    6. Immigration in its relation to the labor problem.
      Hamilton, 496-527; 496-516; Frances Kellor, Immigration and the Future, 227-258. *See Appendix III, 4 (p. 146).

      1. The character of recent immigration to the United States contrasted with earlier immigration.
        1. Marked predominance of northern and western Europeans prior to 1890.
        2. The influx of southern and eastern Europeans since 1890; the stimulation of immigration by steamship companies and large employers of labor.
      2. Date of change in character of immigration practically corresponds with date of exhaustion of free land in U.S. Immigrants after 1890 thus became definitely laborers, rather than settlers and independent farmers.
      3. Problems arising from the changed character of recent immigration.
        1. Language and educational differences; the necessity of immigrant education today.
        2. Differences in standards of living.
          1. Inability of workers with high standards to compete with some of new arrivals.
          2. The forcing down of wages in unskilled occupations.
        3. Difficulties arising from the congestion of immigrant population in large cities; relation to unemployment and to the sweating system.
        4. Recent immigrants and organized labor.
          1. Occasional use of immigrants as strike-breakers.
          2. Difficulty of organizing immigrants.
          3. Successful organization of immigrants in certain industries within recent years.
      4. The problem of future immigration.
        1. Reasons advanced for curbing immigration.
          1. The alleged racial inferiority of certain types.
          2. The question of “hyphenated” Americans.
          3. The maintenance of the American standard of living.
          4. The danger of over-population and of forcing wages to a subsistence level.
          5. The difficulty of educating and absorbing large numbers of immigrants of a different culture.
        2. Arguments advanced for a continuance of our former immigration policy.
          1. There is no basis for the claim of racial inferiority of certain types.
          2. The United States must continue to furnish a haven for the oppressed of the world.
          3. American industries need a large supply of immigrant labor. More labor, not less, is needed, for overpopulation is a very distant danger.
          4. Immigrants make intellectual and moral contributions which are valuable to American democracy.
          5. Education and absorption will not be difficult if congestion in large cities is prevented.
        3. Proposed policies.
          1. The continuance of a selective immigration policy.
            1. Exclusion of paupers and illiterates.
            2. Prevention of stimulation of immigration.
            3. Perfection of machinery for educating and absorbing immigrants.
          2. Complete exclusion, permanently, or for a term of years.
        4. The recent immigration act, 1921.
    7. Recognition of the Union.
      The closed versus the open shop.

      1. Open shop with no recognition of unions.
      2. The closed shop with the closed union may result in a form of labor monopoly.
      3. The closed shop with the open union.
    8. Participation in management. (The demands of organized labor have in the past been confined in the main to questions of hours, wages and conditions of employment. Within recent years, however, questions of management and control have come within the scope of labor’s interest. In England and, to a lesser extent, in the United States, organized labor is now seeking to secure a share in the control of industrial undertakings, especially the large public service enterprises such as mining and transportation. This question is taken up below, in the section on “The problem of control in industry.”)

3. The organization of production: competition versus combination and monopoly.
*Clay, Economics for General Reader, 107-115; Seligman, 139-150. *Hamilton, 429-478; Seager, Chaps. XXIII, XXV.

  1. The meaning and significance of competition.
    1. The doctrine of laissez-faire in industry; its importance during the nineteenth century. The basis of laissez-faire: the belief that an individual in seeking to advance his own interests is thereby, “as if led by a hidden hand,” advancing the interests of society.
    2. The meaning of modern business competition: the struggle to obtain the largest possible amount of wealth in exchange for commodities produced or services rendered.
    3. Competition the regulating factor by which the flow of economic goods is directed.
    4. Relation between competition and cooperation: both a conflict and a community of interests between individuals and groups in the modern economic system.
    5. The extent of competition today.
      1. Limitations placed on competition by government.
      2. Limitations placed on competition by agreement and combination between competitors.
      3. Inherent limitation because of the unnecessary expenses of competition in advertising; duplication of plant and services.
      4. Ultimate limitation claimed by some, who point out the general waste and social loss resulting from unregulated competition. This loss is illustrated by over-production, unequal, “unfair” and cut-throat competition.
  1. Combination in business and industry.
    (Note — Monopolistic control may be obtained by forcing competitors out of business either by underselling or by taking them into a combination. The latter form has been the more prominent in recent years.)
    1. The movement toward combination in recent years.
      1. Causes of movement toward combination. (See above.)
      2. Forms of combination.
        1. The selling agreement.
        2. The pool.
        3. The trust.
        4. The holding company.
        5. The giant (unified) corporation.
      3. To what extent has the movement toward combination been a natural one and to what extent a forced one?
    2. Advantages of combination.
      1. General advantages of large-scale production. (Cf. above.)
      2. Monopolistic or semi-monopolistic advantages due to limitation of competition and partial or complete control of prices and markets through the complete or partial limitation of the supply of the monopolized commodity.
    3. Disadvantages of combination.
      1. Difficulty of adequate supervision and control.
      2. Tendency toward loss of personal initiative among employees.
      3. Burden of uneconomical charges carried (e.g., promotors’ profits, “water” of various types, etc.).
  1. Competition versus combination in relation to the consumer
    1. Productive advantages of combinations in certain industries and avoidance of competitive charges make possible a lowering of price to consumers.
    2. If a combination secures a monopolistic or semi-monopolistic position extortionate prices may be charged. Thus competitive charges may be in some cases lower and in some cases higher than those of a combination. The problem is: How may the advantages of large-scale production be secured without placing unregulated monopolistic power in the hands of combinations? Governmental action has been found necessary to secure this.
  2. The attitude of the state toward combinations.
    1. The historical development of governmental policy.
      1. The early attempts to enforce competition and to prohibit combination. Anti-trust laws: the Sherman Act, 1890, prohibiting monopolies and combinations “in restraint of trade.”
      2. The recognition of the necessity of permitting combination in certain fields; the problem of regulating combination.
    2. The present situation in the United States.
      1. The Clayton Act; reenforces the Sherman Act and makes illegal
        1. Intercorporate stockholding when the effect may be to lessen competition.
        2. Interlocking directorates.
        3. Discriminatory trade practices.
      2. Federal Trade Commission; vested with wide powers of investigation and supervision.
  1. Proposed solutions of the Trust problem.
    1. Regulatory remedies.
      1. Full publicity.
      2. Strict prohibition of unfair competition.
      3. Prevention of monopolistic practices.
      4. Federal incorporation.
      5. Strict regulation by government commissions.
    2. Remedies involving greater changes in the industrial system. (Government ownership, and socialistic and syndicalistic proposals are discussed below.)

4. Problems connected with the distribution of the annual social income.
King, Wealth and Income of the People of the United States, 154-167; Ely, Outlines of Economics, 384-405; Seager, Chap. XI; Seligman, 352-431; Clay, 279-354. See Appendix, III, 5, (p. 147).

  1. General statement of the problem. The total volume of goods produced each year constitutes an annual flow of consumable commodities and services which are apportioned among the agents of production. A share goes to the owners of the natural agents, a share to the owners of capital, a share to the laborers, and a share to the business organizers of production — the entrepreneurs. Money income is merely a claim to a share in the distribution of commodities and services which constitute the real income of an individual or a group. Many of the current economic problems arise from disputes concerning the right of certain of the agents of production to shares in this distribution, and from attempts of the different agents to increase their own shares. As the organizing factor in production the business enterpriser evaluates the services rendered by each of the other factors. Payment of the shares in distribution to the other agents is made through him. The fundamental question in distribution is: What determines the amount the business enterpriser must pay to each of the other agents and the amount he may keep for himself?
  2. Briefly stated, the following are the principles on which distribution takes place today:
    1. The owners of the natural agents of production receive a share in the social income which is called rent. The amount of the rent paid the owner of any particular piece of land depends upon the relative advantage resulting from the utilization of that piece, as compared with others. This differential advantage may be due to
      1. Favorable location.
      2. Fertility (or richness, as in the case of mines). Payment to the owners of these natural agents is based upon the fact of possession. The question as to whether the owner inherited the site, bought it when it was worth little and held it till its value increased, or bought it at its present value with money earned by his own labor has nothing to do with his receipt of a share in the social income, under the present distributive system.
    1. Interest. The owners of capital receive a return which is called interest. The amount of interest paid at any time for the use of a given amount of capital depends upon the amount of available capital in existence and upon the strength of the demand for the use of it. Business men are willing to pay for the capital borrowed because, by the use of capital, the productiveness of labor is increased (e.g., a man with a plough is more effective in tilling the soil than a man with a pointed stick). It is believed that the stimulus of interest is necessary in order to promote saving. Interest is paid to the owner of capital irrespective of the means by which he may have acquired ownership, whether by personal abstinence, inheritance, gift, or other means.
    2. Wages. The share of the annual income paid for labor, physical or mental, is called wages. In general, those who receive this form of income may be divided into six non-competing groups, set off from each other by differences of education and training, environmental differences, and differences of inborn gifts:
      1. Unskilled day laborers.
      2. Semi-skilled workers.
      3. Skilled workmen.
      4. Clerical workers.
      5. Professional workers.
      6. Salaried business managers.

Within each of these groups wages tend to a rough equality. The wage received by an individual within any group is fixed, in general, somewhere between a lower limit set by the standard of living (a standard of bare physical subsistence in the lowest group) and an upper limit determined by the relative degree of efficiency or indispensability of the labor constituting that group. This degree of indispensability will depend upon his productive ability, upon the number of workers within the group of equal productive ability, and upon the character of the demand for workers of that particular type. The point at which wages will be fixed between these two limits is determined by the relative bargaining power of employers and workers.

    1. Profits. The share in income which the business enterpriser receives is called profits. It is a residual share, left over after the other agents of production have been paid. Profits vary greatly in amount depending upon the degree of risk undertaken, the extent to which competition or monopoly operates in a given industry, and the degree of exceptional efficiency found in a given individual. Competitive profits tend to disappear, insofar as true competition operates, but profits based upon a monopolistic advantage do not.
      Summary. The distribution of the annual social income today is thus, in general, based upon the strategic strength of the position occupied by the owners of the various agents of production. Those individuals or groups which are in a relatively strong position, whose services are indispensable, (or relatively so) for any one of a number of reasons, secure a relatively high return. Those whose services are less indispensable, due to weaker demand for their products, greater number of competitors, lower efficiency, receive a lower return. The degree of indispensability, it is important to note, may depend upon personal efficiency, or upon any one of a number of other factors.
  1. Arguments advanced to justify the present distributive system.
    1. Distribution under the present system is based upon competitive efficiency. Society gains by giving high prizes to the highly efficient.
    2. Inequalities of capacity must be recognized; corresponding inequalities of reward are justified.
    3. The various distributive shares at present criticized, such as interest, rent, profits, high salaries, are necessary to secure the services called forth — thrift necessary for accumulation of capital, effective use of land, and high business ability.
    4. Such payments as do not represent services (as rent) are necessarily involved in the retention of the system of private property, and are therefore legally and economically justifiable.
  1. Arguments advanced against the present system of distribution.
    1. Distribution today is based chiefly upon the power to take, and only secondarily upon productive efficiency. Accordingly not all shares in distribution serve as stimuli to production.
    2. Men would save their surplus money, use their land effectively, and develop their individual capacities to the full without the bribe of a special pecuniary reward.
    3. Rent, in particular, does not arise as a result of personal effort and therefore should belong to the community as a whole.
    4. The stimulus of profits has perverted business enterprise from the production of commodities as the chief end to that of profit-making, with a consequent loss to the consumers. Greater profits may be made in some cases by limiting production than by increasing production.
  1. Proposed changes in the system of distribution.
    *Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 86-110.
    1. Continuance of present system, insofar as payments are based upon efficiency and productive ability, but with state appropriation of unearned increments; limitation of great fortunes and of rights of inheritance; the use of taxation as a means of correcting distributive injustice.
    2. [Socialistic and communistic ideals. (See below, p. 94.)
      1. Distribution on the basis of need; i.e., approximately equal distribution, irrespective of work performed.
      2. Distribution on the basis of sacrifice; payment based on irksomeness of various occupations.]

5. The problem of control in industry.

  1. [The present system of control and management in industry: a brief restatement.
    1. Chief characteristics of modern system
      1. The system of private property.
      2. The four-fold division of function in production.
      3. The status, and degree of initiative, responsibility and control resting in each of the agents of production.
      4. The importance of large-scale industry today.
    2. Advantages claimed for the present system of management.
      1. Strong and efficient leaders reach the top and exercise power.
      2. Scope given for initiative and individual ability.
      3. Quantity production secured.
      4. Prices kept down by rigorous competition for markets.
      5. Compatible with human nature; strong instincts of acquisitiveness and pugnacity satisfied in a competitive system based on private property and survival of the strongest.
    3. Defects charged to the present system.
      1. Characterized by inefficiency in production.
        1. Duplication of services; competitive waste.
        2. Business side of industry over-developed at expense of productive efficiency; production subordinated to profits.
      2. Chaotic system of distribution; lack of order and system in marketing organization.
      3. Periodic breakdowns (financial panics and business depressions) constitute a fundamental weakness.
      4. Many individuals performing no useful service continue to share in the social income, while many productive workers continue to live in poverty.
      5. An autocratic rather than a democratic form of government exists in industry.
      6. Continual labor unrest affords evidence that the present industrial system does violence to human nature.
  1. Proposed solutions of the problem of industrial control.
    1. Competitive individualism: continuance of the nineteenth century system without state interference.
      1. Conditions involved in this type of solution.
        1. Maintenance of full private property rights.
        2. Restoration of complete freedom of competition.
        3. Restoration and maintenance of individual bargaining; denial of right of collective bargaining; refusal to recognize labor organizations.
      2. Advantages claimed for competitive individualism. (Cf. above.)
      3. Difficulties involved in this solution. (Cf. above.)
        1. Recent changes in industrial structure, type and size of modern industrial unit, development of corporate form of organization, large scale enterprise, render impossible the maintenance of such a system.
        2. Return to this individualistic system impossible in view of present unrest.
    2. Continuance of present system of control; amelioration of labor conditions and limited degree of regulation of industry by the State.
      Object: The maintenance of the advantages of the present competitive system and the avoidance of competitive excesses by state protection of labor and state regulation of competition and monopoly. ‘The New Freedom.’
    3. Continuance of present system of management with collective bargaining in matters of wages, hours, and general conditions of employment.
      1. Collective bargaining in the organized trades today. (Cf . above.)
      2. Trade union control under this system.
        1. Negative character of trade union control; union rules and regulations necessarily restrictive, in that direct and positive control is exercised by the employer.
        2. This control, though negative, constitutes an important factor in the management of industry today.
      3. Inability of trade unions and industrial unions as at present organized to take over more effective control.
        1. Faulty organization; jurisdictional disputes.
        2. Lack of effective coordination between unions.
        3. Lack of adequate leadership.
        4. Technical experts and managers not included in union organization.
        5. The difficulty of securing capital.]
    4. Full collective bargaining, with a share in control vested in labor; the English program.
      *Hamilton, 716-729; Memorandum of the Industrial Situation after the War, (Garton Foundation), 158-175.

      1. Recognition and encouragement by the State of organization on the part of employers and workers.
      2. The National Industrial Council: a national council to secure joint action between representative organizations of employers and workers, prevent and adjust industrial disputes, and to serve as official consultative authority to the government upon industrial relations.
      3. Machinery of organization within each industry. The Whitley scheme.
        1. Joint Standing Industrial Councils (National) composed of representatives of employers and employed in each industry.
        2. District Councils: representative of trade unions and employers’ associations in each district.
        3. Works Committees: representative of management and workers in particular plants.
      4. Functions of Works Committees, District Councils and National Councils.
        1. To deal with questions of hours, wages and conditions of employment.
        2. To provide security and continuity of earnings and employment.
        3. To provide for technical education, training, and industrial research.
        4. To deal with proposed legislation affecting the industry.
      5. The advantages and limitations of the Whitley Plan and similar proposals: attitude of organized labor.
    5. The Cooperative system.
      Seager, Chap. XXXI; S. and B. Webb, A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain, 248-263.

      1. The object of cooperation: the elimination of the managing employer and of private profits; general policy settled and risks assumed by cooperators as a body; ownership and control vested in a body of cooperating equals.
      2. Cooperation in retail and wholesale trading; success of the Rochdale stores and the Schulze-Delitzsch societies.
      3. Cooperation in production. Comparative lack of success in this field.
        1. Character of operations fundamentally different from those of retail trading and banking.
        2. Difficulty of carrying on production on large scale, due to lack of capital.
        3. Failure to secure capable leaders.
      4. Cooperative Credit Societies.
    6. Government ownership of great public service industries (nationalization); control by joint boards representing workers, managers, and public.
      1. The proposed organization of the English coal mining industry; the Sankey Report.
        *Coal Industry Commission Act, 1919 — Second Stage, Reports, 5-26.

        1. State purchase of coal royalties and coal mines.
        2. Control by councils of workers, consumers and technical experts, under the general supervision of a Ministry of Mines; the National Mining Council, District Mining Councils, and Local Mining Councils.
      2. The Plumb Plan for railroad re-organization in the U.S. [Plumb Plan Weekly: Vol. I, No. 1; Vol. I, No. 2; Vol. I, No. 3; Vol. I, No. 4; Vol. I, No. 5; Vol. I, No. 6; Vol. I, No. 8; Vol. I, No. 9]
        *The Sims Bill. [Representative Thetus Sims of Tennessee was the ranking Democrat of the House Interstate Commerce Committee]

        1. Government purchase of all railroad systems, on basis of capital invested.
        2. Administration.
          1. Operation of roads by a board of fifteen directors, five representing the public, five the managers, five the classified employees.
          2. Rate-making by Interstate Commerce Commission.
        3. Division of surplus between government and employees, provided that if surplus exceeds a certain percentage of the operating revenues, rates must be reduced; deficits to be met by government.
      3. The present status of the Sankey scheme and the Plumb Plan. Significance of these proposals.
    7. Collectivism: ownership and control of all industrial undertakings by the state; State Socialism.
      *Hamilton, 847-860; *Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 1-31; Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 477-567; Gide and Rist, History of Economic Doctrines, 407-479.

      1. The general principles of Socialism.
        1. Abolition of private property in the means of production (land and capital), with retention of private property in articles of personal use. Collective (State) ownership of means of production.
        2. Administration of collectively owned industrial system through a democratic political organization.
        3. Abolition of wage system as at present constituted.
      2. The basic doctrines of Marxian Socialism.
        1. The materialistic interpretation of history. All human phenomena can be explained in terms of the underlying material facts of life. Irresistible economic forces shape human history.
        2. The law of the concentration of capital. Capitalistic undertakings tend to become larger and larger; small competitive enterprises tend to disappear, and to be replaced by great trusts.
        3. The class war. Increasing concentration of capital leads to division of society into two great classes, the capitalist class and the wage-earning class, bourgeoisie and proletariat. Between these two classes a struggle will go on until all wage earners combine, locally, nationally and internationally, and take over the ownership and control of land and capital for the common good. View of Marx that this process of concentration of capital, increasing misery, class war and ultimate social control is natural and inevitable, a working out of irresistible economic forces. The Communist Manifesto. The great influence of Marx on socialist thought.
      3. Other types of socialistic doctrine; the Fabian policy of securing reforms and collective ownership gradually, by the use of constitutional methods; the Socialist Party in politics.
      4. The Socialist program today; arguments advanced for a Socialistic organization of industry, and objections to it.
    8. Syndicalism: ownership and control by the workers in each industry. (See above: The Industrial Workers of the World.)
      Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 56-85; Kirkaldy, Economics and Syndicalism; Gide and Rist, 479-483; Brissenden, The I.W.W., 155-177, 259-282.

      1. General principles of syndicalism.
        1. Organization of industry by the workers as producers, not as consumers. The industry as the unit of ownership and control; ownership by organized labor.
        2. Substitution of industrial (direct) action for political action; boycott, union label, strike, and sabotage. The general strike the chief weapon.
        3. Destruction of the state.
      2. Syndicalism in practice.
        1. French syndicalism: The C.G.T.
        2. [American syndicalism: The I.W.W] (See iv below.)
      3. Syndicalism as a working principle of industrial organization; advantages claimed for it and objections to it.
      4. The Industrial Workers of the World.
        C. H. Parker, The Casual Laborer.

        1. Their principles.
          1. Class conflict. “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system”: Preamble of the I.W.W. Constitution.
          2. Abolition of the wage system.
          3. Organization on industrial instead of craft lines.
            1. The doctrine of working class solidarity, “One Big Union.”
            2. The organization of the unskilled together with the skilled; opposition to labor aristocracy.
          4. Accomplishment of ends by direct industrial action.
            [Note: A seceding wing of the Industrial Workers of the World (Detroit Branch) favors political action, but the dominant group (Chicago Branch) disavows political organization.]
          5. Ultimate complete control of the industrial system by the workers; control of the political system will necessarily accompany industrial control.
        1. The structure of I.W.W.
          1. The local industrial union.
          2. The District Industrial Council.
          3. The International Industrial Department.
          4. The General Executive Board.
            1. Power originally strongly centralized in the Executive Board.
            2. The movement toward decentralization; present weakness of the central authority.
        2. Method and tactics of the I.W.W.
          1. Direct action; various forms of direct action; sabotage.
          2. Free speech fights as means of propaganda.
          3. The general strike.
        3. The I.W.W. today.
          1. Membership.
            1. Confined to textile, steel, lumber, mining, farming, railroad construction and marine transportation industries.
            2. Majority of members migratory unskilled workers; a radical, militant, relatively unstable group recruited from industries characterized by irregularity of employment and bad working conditions.
            3. Numerical strength: not over 60,000 members at present. Actual influence not measured by paid-up membership.
          2. The I.W.W. as a social phenomenon; conditions and causes of its existence.
          3. Weaknesses of the I.W.W.
            1. Inability to maintain stable membership.
            2. Organic weaknesses due to internal conflict.
              1. Centralization of power versus decentralization.
              2. Constructive industrial unionism versus the revolutionary ideal of uncontrolled agitation, “guerilla” warfare against authority.
            3. Financial weakness.
            4. Membership unfitted for constructive endeavor.
          4. The future of industrial unionism in the United States; the agitation for industrial unionism in the A.F. of L.; dual unionism versus “boring from within.”
    1. Guild Socialism: a compromise type of organization, standing between collectivism and syndicalism.
      *Russell, 80-85; G.D.H. Cole, Self Government in Industry; S.G. Hobson, Guild Principles in War and Peace; *Hamilton, 860-870, G.D.H. Cole, Guild Socialism, 187-195.

      1. General principles of guild organization.
        1. Ownership of the means of production by the State, as trustees for the community.
        2. Management of industrial undertakings by guilds or workers in each industry, acting also as trustees for the community; payment of tax or rent to State.
        3. The Guild Congress: a body consisting of representatives of all National Guilds, and having supreme authority in industrial matters.
        4. Parliament to retain supreme authority in political matters; Parliament to represent consumers.
        5. Joint Committee of Parliament and Guild Congress to deal with conflicts arising between the two bodies; Joint Committee to reconcile interests of producers and consumers.
        6. Adjustment of prices by Joint Committee.
        7. Adjustment of pay within each industry by the National Guild controlling that industry.
      2. Guild socialism as a possible working principle; advantages claimed for it; objections to it.

Source: Columbia University. Introduction to Contemporary Civilization — A Syllabus, (Third edition, 1921), pp. 70-96.

Image Source: Cover of Labor Problems and Labor Legislation by John Bertram Andrews (1919).

 

 

 

Categories
Columbia Economic History History of Economics Philosophy Syllabus

Columbia. Excerpt from Contemporary Civilization Syllabus. Economic History, 1921

Columbia College’s freshman course on Contemporary Civilization, a.k.a. “CC”, has been a core element in the undergraduate experience for over a century. This is the first of two posts that provide portions of the third edition of the course syllabus from 1921 that should be of particular interest for economists. The parts of the syllabus that deal with Western economic history and the history of economics from 1400-1870 together with links to all the items referenced cab be found below.

I dare anyone to try just this subset of this 1921 syllabus for a two-semester course required for first year undergraduates. Maybe only try this from the relative safety of a tenured position. 

____________________________

Introductory Note

The Faculty of Columbia College determined at its meeting in January, 1919, to discontinue the required courses in History and Philosophy and, beginning in September, 1919, to substitute a course on Contemporary Civilization which should meet five times a week and be required of all Freshmen…

…The Syllabus has been prepared by certain of the instructors of the course who include members of the Departments of Economics, Government, History and Philosophy: Wallace E. Caldwell [History], Harry J. Carman [History], John J. Coss [Philosophy], Irwin Edman [Philosophy], Austin P. Evans [History], Horace Leland Friess [Philosophy], Elmer D. Graper [Politics], Adam Leroy Jones [Philosophy], Benjamin B. Kendrick [History], Sterling Power Lamprecht [Philosophy], Robert Devore Leigh [Politics], Frederick Cecil Mills [Economics], Parker T. Moon [History], Herbert W. Schneider [Philosophy], and William Ernest Weld [Economics].

____________________________

SECOND DIVISION
SURVEY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE PRESENT AGE

BOOK III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CONTEMPORARY CIVILIZATION, 1400-1870

Introduction: The fundamental conceptions of the present age.

                  Man’s nature in its original character remains unchanged from the dawn of history, and nature in its basic resources has not altered greatly. But man’s store of knowledge has increased, and in the western world new conceptions have arisen so important as to be considered new tools which human beings use when they attempt to control their situation. These conceptions will be shown in their development in Book III. They are presented here for the sake of preliminary emphasis.

  1. The belief in the value of the scientific study of man and nature — the intellectual revolution.
    1. The early emphasis on knowledge as power — Francis Bacon and the Renaissance scientists.
    2. The exact study of specific activities shows the fashion in which men and things behave, and makes possible the limited control of natural forces and human nature.
      1. Newton and the 18th century conception of nature and natural law.
      2. Belief in human progress through a scientific study of man — psychologists, political philosophers, and economists of the 18th century.
    3. The expansion of the method of inquiry to the place of man in nature — development of biology in the 19th century and the theory of evolution.
    4. The application of scientific knowledge to industrial pursuits, and the present “age of applied science.”
  1. The new developments in agriculture, the factory system of production, and the era of world trade — the economic revolution.
    1. The discovery of the new world and of new routes to the East led to an expansion of commerce, transformed the methods of business, and created a demand for increased manufacture — the commercial revolution.
    2. These changes hastened the decline of the manorial system, the rise of private property in land, and the introduction of new agricultural methods — the agricultural revolution.
    3. The demand for increased manufacture was satisfied by the invention of machinery and the application of science to industry which gave rise to modern “mass production,” the method dominant in industry today, and responsible for many social changes apparent during the past century — the industrial revolution.
    4. These revolutions in commerce, agriculture, and industry tended to link the world together. Products are now manufactured for a world market, and western influence has been extended into every quarter.
  1. The participation of adult citizens in their own government — the political revolution.
    1. The belief in man’s ability (intellectual revolution) and the changes in his economic life (commercial, industrial, and agricultural revolutions) led to a widening of the group participating in government. The American, French, and 19th century revolutions.
    2. In industrialized lands political problems are now generally approached in term of popular determination through some form of democratic control. Development of political democracy during the 19th century.
    3. With the widening of the group participating in political decisions the sentiments of patriotism and of loyalty to the political group have been strengthened — Nationalism.
1. The intellectual outlook of the Renaissance— the birth of modern science, and the rise of national cultural traditions in Western Europe.
  1. Comparatively little progress in natural science had been made during mediaeval times.
    1. Examples of erroneous ideas: the Ptolemaic cosmology, the “four elements,” etc.
    2. Reasons for the backwardness of science.
      1. Lack of instruments.
      2. Reliance upon authority and upon deductive reasoning — scholasticism.
      3. Interest deflected from nature to the supernatural and other worldly.
  1. From the thirteenth century on increasing attention was paid to scientific observation and experimentation.
    1. Decline of scholasticism.
    2. Humanism and the revival of ancient learning.
    3. Fresh interest in nature appears.
    4. Travel and explorations on land and sea.
    5. Remarkable discoveries begin the development of the natural sciences.
      1. Astronomy: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton.
      2. Physics: Galileo, Newton.
    6. Formulation of scientific method.
      1. Experiment and induction advocated by Francis Bacon.
      2. Mathematical analysis advocated by Rene Descartes.
  1. The Protestant revolt.
    *Hayes, Vol. I, 167-169; A. C. McGiffert, Protestant Thought before Kant, 9-20; Taylor [Vol. I; Vol. II].
    1. Protestantism, though not in sympathy with the new science nor inspired by a faith in man’s ability, weakened the authority of the mediaeval tradition over the mind.
    2. Protestantism and the religious controversies which it engendered gave rise to educational movements of an extensive character.
    3. Protestantism championed by many secular princes gave added prestige and power to these governments — “religion nationalized.”
  1. The rise of national culture traditions in western Europe.
    *Hayes, Vol. I, 185-196; Robinson, History of Western Europe, 329-347; F. S. Marvin, The Living Past, 140-193, Taylor [Vol. I; Vol. II].
    1. Decline of mediaeval Latin and the development of the vernaculars.
    2. Rise of national literatures — Dante, Cervantes, Molière, Luther, Shakespeare.
    3. Painting, sculpture, and architecture — DaVinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Rubens, Velasquez, Rembrandt, Dürer, Wren.
    4. The cultural unity of Europe gives way to a group of competing nations, each with its own language, and in many cases with its own government.

2. The Commercial Revolution.

  1. Definition.
    1. It may be defined as that expansive movement by which commerce radiated from Europe as a center to all parts of the world.
    2. This process, which covers the period of geographical discovery and colonization, began in the middle of the 15th century and continued for about 300 years. It may be regarded as the first phase of the Europeanization of the world.
      *Map study — Appendix, II, 1 (page 120).
  1. Influence of Geography on Civilization — Appendix I.
    1. River valleys as highways of migration and commerce.
    2. Mountains, deserts and oceans as barriers.
    3. Social consequences.
  1. Development of mediaeval trade.
    *Hayes, Vol. I, 36-39, 43-49; *Cheyney, Industrial and Social History of England, 75-94.

    1. Rise of fairs, cross-road markets, towns at trade-junctions.
    2. Organizations of commerce largely on a municipal basis.
      1. The merchant guild.
      2. The staple town.
      3. Social consequences.
    3. Trade and trade-routes.
      1. Trade with the East.
        1. Influence of the Crusades in stimulating Eastern trade.
        2. Rôle of the Italian cities.
        3. Influence of geography in determining routes.
      2. Trade in Europe.
        1. Commodities.
        2. Advantageous situation of Italian, German, Dutch and Flemish cities.
  1. European exploration and commercial expansion.
    *Hayes, Vol. I, 49-69; Wallas, The Great Society, 3-19.

    1. Factors which combined to produce this exploration and expansion.
      1. Intellectual curiosity,
      2. Desire of nations on Atlantic seaboard to share in profitable trade with the East.
      3. Religious zeal.
      4. Improvements in the art of navigation.
    2. Consequences.
      1. Decline of Italian and German city-states; rise of national states of Western Europe; impetus to nationalism and dynastic aggrandizement.
      2. New commercial methods: chartered companies; mercantilism; banking and credit.
      3. Stimulation of economic life in general; hence, increased wealth,
      4. Growth of the trading class, the bourgeoisie.
      5. Enrichment and expansion of European culture; progress of science.
      6. Colonization.
      7. Slavery and the slave-trade.
      8. New commodities of commerce; growing interdependence of all parts of world.
      9. Changes in mental outlook, due to increased facilities for communication and broadening of interests.
  2. Remarkable growth of commerce during the 18th century.
    *Hayes, Vol. I, 399-403; Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 73-87.

    1. Continuation of effects of exploration and commercial expansion.
    2. The rising commercial and maritime power of England.
    3. Restrictions and handicaps.
      1. Mercantilism.
      2. Internal tariff and customs barriers.
      3. Wars.
      4. Lack of rapid and cheap transportation.
    4. [The movement to emancipate commerce.]
      1. The Physiocrats (see 5.C.b.i below).
      2. Adam Smith (see 5.C.b.ii below).

3. The Agricultural Revolution.

  1. Relation to the Industrial Revolution.
    1. The Agricultural Revolution occurred almost simultaneously with the Industrial Revolution; the former did for agriculture what the latter did for industry.
    2. The Agricultural Revolution had begun before the Industrial Revolution, and helped to render the latter possible by releasing labor from the land and by providing an increased supply of food and raw materials.
    3. The Industrial Revolution, in turn, promoted the Agricultural Revolution by providing capital and machinery for scientific farming.
  2. Definition.
    1. In general, by the Agricultural Revolution is meant the destruction of the manorial system of agriculture and the introduction of
      1. Modern ideas of absolute ownership of land: Freehold.
      2. Scientific methods of tillage and breeding.
      3. Specialized production for market rather than for local consumption.
    2. Aside from these general features, the Agricultural Revolution meant different things in different parts of Europe (see below).
    3. The Agricultural Revolution might be regarded as a long process, continuing from the 13th to the 19th centuries, and culminating in a series of rapid, revolutionary changes in the period 1760-1845.
  3. General aspects of mediaeval agriculture.
    *Hayes, Vol. I, 28-36, 395-399; *Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 18-44; Cheyney, 31-52, 136-147.

    1. Majority of the population rural.
    2. Organization of agriculture, chiefly manorial.
      1. Significant features of the manorial system (contrast with modern conditions).
        1. Social inequality: serfdom and aristocracy.
        2. Attachment of peasant to soil.
        3. Burdensome obligations of serf.
        4. Inefficiency and self-sufficiency.
    3. Methods.
      1. Persistence of wasteful primitive methods:
        1. The three-field system.
        2. Crudity of implements.
        3. Unscientific cattle-raising.
        4. Connection between primitive methods and manorial organization.
    4. Social consequences of agricultural conditions.
      1. Economic necessity of large rural population.
      2. Relatively low standards of comfort.
      3. Intellectual isolation and conservatism of economically self-sufficient rural Communities.
      4. Lack of effective impetus to invention, enterprise, and improvement.
      5. Discontent of peasantry.
  4. The agricultural transformation.
    *Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 37-44, 117-132, 187-188.

    1. The abolition of serfdom.
      1. In England it had gradually disappeared by 1700.
      2. In France during French Revolution (see p. 33 ff. of syllabus).
      3. In other countries subsequently: Prussia, 1807; Austria, 1848; Russia, 1861, etc.
      4. Manorial system and serfdom never widely or firmly established in the United States.
        Becker, The United States, an Experiment in Democracy, 145-185.

        1. Prevalence of freehold tenures.
        2. Abundance of unoccupied land.
        3. Influence of these economic conditions in promoting spirit of democracy.
    2. Breakdown and partial disappearance of the manorial system.
      1. In England.
        1. Decline of serfdom: contractual labor.
        2. Rapid progress of enclosure.
          1. Increased profitableness of arable farming, due to
            1. Rise of industrialism.
            2. Growth of population.
            3. Enlarged demands for foodstuffs.
            4. Improved transportation.
          2. Ease of obtaining special legislation necessary for enclosures. Parliament dominated by landlords.
          3. Advocacy of enclosures by economists, notably Adam Smith.
          4. Methods by which enclosures were effected.
          5. Approximate area enclosed.
          6. Social consequences.
            1. Decline of the class of small holders, and concentration of landownership in hands of a relatively small class.
            2. Widespread public discontent.
            3. Shift in population from country to town and city. (cf. §4. Industrial Revolution below, p. 28 of syllabus.)
            4. Possibility of introducing new agricultural methods on large scale.
      2. On continent breaking up great estates and increase of small holdings.
        1. Peasant-proprietorship.
        2. Metayage as in France.
        3. Exceptions in East Prussia, Sweden and some other countries.
    3. Improvement of agricultural technique.
      1. Stimulated by
        1. Steady increase in prices of agricultural produce, due to economic and to artificial causes (Corn Laws).
        2. Industrial Revolution.
        3. Napoleonic Wars.
        4. Work of scientific men, inventors, agricultural societies, and “gentlemen farmers.”
      2. Scientific rotation of crops.
      3. Great advance in art of stock-breeding.
      4. Introduction and improvement of agricultural machinery.
      5. Improved methods of fertilization.
      6. Drainage.
    4. Application of capital to agricultural enterprise for
      1. Improvement of soil: fertilization and tillage.
      2. Experimentation with new crops and with fancy stock.
      3. Purchase of machinery.
      4. Development of cooperation and agricultural credit institutions.

4. The Industrial Revolution.

Probably no other event has so profoundly affected the ordinary every-day life of the average man, and, at the same time, exercised so vital an influence in politics and even in the domain of education and culture, as the Industrial Revolution. It is one of the main foundations of Contemporary Civilization. When it occurred, how and why it came about, and how it has affected and is affecting civilization, are questions of first-rate importance for him who would understand present-day civilization.

  1. Definition.
    1. As an historical event: the rapid introduction and development of machine-processes, capitalistic organization, and the factory system into certain English industries, notably the textile and metal industries and transportation, in the period, approximately, between 1770 and 1815 or 1830.
    2. As a continuing process:
      1. Continuing substitution of manufacture by complicated machine processes for manufacture by hand and with simple tools.
      2. Ever-expanding utilization of artificial power: water, steam, gas, oil, electricity.
      3. Ever-expanding application of mass-production, standardization, and subdivision of labor.
      4. Continuous growth of factory system and of capitalistic organization.
      5. Introduction and development of these features of modern industry in other countries besides England: United States since about 1800, in Western Europe since about 1815, in Eastern Europe since about 1850, in Japan since about 1870. The Industrial Revolution still in its infancy in China, India, etc.
  1. Industry prior to 1770.
    *Hayes, Vol. I, 40-42; *Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 45-64
    1. General aspects of medieval industry.
      1. Its relatively small place in economic life.
      2. Lack of machinery and of applied science.
      3. The handicraft system and the craft guilds.
      4. Inter-relation of agriculture and manufacturing.
    2. Gradual decline of the craft guilds; reasons for decline.
    3. Rise of the “domestic system.”
      1. Definition of domestic system.
      2. Conditions favorable to its growth: increase of capital, expansion of markets and of commerce, development of industrial technique, growth of population.
    4. General growth of industry in eighteenth century.
    5. Social consequences.
      1. Rise of industrial classes.
      2. Tendency toward substitution of modern wage-system for medieval guild-system.
      3. Rise of competition and economic individualism (see below, p. 31).
  1. Conditions favorable to the Industrial Revolution in England. Map Study — Appendix II, 2. (p. 123).
    *Hayes, Vol. I, 67-69; Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 133-135.
    1. Prosperous and progressive condition of English industry and commerce in the 18th century.
      1. England the “nation of shopkeepers.”
      2. Thriving commerce; colonial markets; necessity of expanding markets as
        encouragement to expanding industry.
      3. England less embarrassed by wars than Continental nations.
      4. English industries relatively free from regulation.
      5. Abundance of capital; capitalistic system and factories beginning to develop even before the epoch of great inventions.
    2. Possession of basic raw materials: iron, coal, wool; possession of water-power; ease of importing cotton.
    3. Climatic conditions favorable to textile manufacture.
    4. Agricultural progress, releasing cheap labor for industry, and making it more nearly possible to feed a large industrial population. See above §3.D. (p. 27 of syllabus).
  1. The great mechanical inventions.
    *Hayes, Vol. II, 69-75; Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 135-145; Cheyney, 199-212.
    1. Conditions necessary for successful mechanical inventions.
      1. Economic demand.
      2. Sufficiently advanced state of skill in handicrafts to make construction of machines possible.
      3. Application of scientific knowledge.
    2. Inventions in the textile industry.
      1. Hargreaves and the Jenny.
      2. Arkwright’s water-frame.
      3. Crompton’s mule.
      4. Cartwright’s loom.
      5. Whitney’s cotton gin.
    3. The steam-engine and its applications.
      1. Fore-runners of James Watt.
      2. Watt’s achievements.
      3. Application to spinning-mule and to loom.
      4. Use in mining and metallurgy.
      5. The steamboat.
      6. The locomotive.
      7. The steam printing-press.
    4. Other industries rapidly revolutionized by inventions and by application of steam-power.
  1. Capitalism and the factory system.
    *Hayes, Vol. II, 77-80; *Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 145-147.
    1. Effect of the inventions in promoting the factory system and capitalistic control of industry.
      1. Expense of machines.
      2. Necessity of large factories.
      3. Necessity of large-scale buying and selling.
      4. Subdivision of labor.
      5. Utilization of cheap and unskilled labor.
    2. Sir Richard Arkwright as an early type of the factory-owner
    3. Rapid growth of the factory system.
  1. Significant consequences of the Industrial Revolution.
    *Hayes, Vol. II, 75-77. 80-97; Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, 147-152.
    1. Expansion of commerce and industry, hence, increase of wealth and gradual
      rise of standard of living.
    2. Rapid growth and urban concentration of population.
    3. Rise of acute social problems.
      1. Child labor.
      2. Employment of women.
      3. Prevalence of poverty, vice, and disease among factory and mine workers.
      4. Industrial over-production, crises, and unemployment.
      5. Labor agitation; destruction of machines by workingmen; trade-unionism; discontent of “proletariat.”
      6. Growth of slums in cities.
    4. Temporary triumph of “economic individualism” or laissez-faire.
      1. The philosophy of economic individualism.
      2. Gradual emancipation of industry and commerce from governmental restrictions and oppressive tariffs.
      3. Unwillingness of factory-owners in first half of 19th century to permit trade-unionism or to sanction labor-legislation.
      4. Early protests against economic individualism: Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Louis Blanc.
    5. Enrichment and strengthening of bourgeoisie.
      1. Increased numerical and economic power of bourgeoisie.
      2. Demand of bourgeoisie for a voice in the government; hence, tendency of Industrial Revolution universally to stimulate demand for representative government.
      3. Tendency of bourgeoisie to use political power for their own economic interests; illustrations from English and French history, 1830-1848.
    6. Progress of science and education.
      1. Larger leisure class.
      2. Cheap printing: newspapers and books no longer the rich man’s luxury.
      3. Prestige of science, enhanced by economic utility of applied science.
      4. Improved means of communication.
      5. Influence of urbanization.
    7. Greater mobility of civilization; society no longer as static and unchanging as before the Industrial Revolution; spirit of innovation and invention.

5. The development of thought in the 18th century—humanitarianism, rationalism, and romanticism.
*Hayes, Vol. I, 414-426; Robinson and Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, Vol. I, 157-182; Thilly, History of Philosophy, 307-391; A. C. McGiffert, Protestant Thought before Kant, Chap. X; J. B. Bury, History of Freedom of Thought, Home University Library, Chap. VI.

  1. Continuing development of the natural sciences. Sedgwick and Tyler, 304-323.
    1. Experimentation in electricity, chemistry, biology, medicine, and geography.
    2. Popularity of science in the 18th century; patronage by governments, formation of scientific societies, the Encyclopedia.
  1. The conception of nature and of natural law.
    J. Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, 53-76.
    1. Tendency to conceive the world of nature as a mechanism — Newton.
    2. This conception applied to theology by the deists — critique of the miraculous as a violation of the laws of nature.
    3. The emergence of atheism — serious concern with the problem of evil. Voltaire, Candide.
  1. Man conceived as natural, as acting in accordance with natural laws, and as having natural rights.
    1. Application of the mechanistic hypothesis to the psychology of the human mind — Helvetius and Bentham.
    2. Attempt to discover natural laws in economics — rise of the science of political economy.
      H. J. Laski, Political Thought from Locke to Bentham, 290-302; Gide & Rist, History of Economic Doctrines, 1-118; W. A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories from Rousseau to Spencer, 57-65.

      1. Ideas of the physiocrats — Quesnay and Turgot.
        1. The natural order providentially ordained for our happiness by God has three foundations: private property, security, and liberty.
        2. Free trade and free circulation of grain.
        3. Legislation to be reduced to a minimum — laissez faire.
        4. State to be a passive policeman; defend private property, promote education and public works.
      2. Adam Smith developed similar ideas and applied them more broadly to industry and commerce — criticism of the mercantile system. “The Wealth of Nations,” 1776.
    3. Attempt to discover natural laws in politics.
      Laski, 38-55; W. A. Dunning, Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu, 335—435; [W. A. Dunning,] Political Theories from Rousseau to Spencer, 1-129; Merriam, American Political Theories, 38-176; Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws [Volume I; Volume II]; Rousseau, Social Contract.

      1. Locke’s political philosophy: the state of nature, the laws of nature, the social contract, the right of revolution.
        S. P. Lamprecht, The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Locke.
      2. Development of Lockian political philosophy in France: Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau.
      3. Development of Lockian political philosophy in America: Paine, Franklin, Jefferson.
      4. New analyses of government based on historical studies and travels.
        1. Montesquieu, and the separation of governmental powers.
        2. John Adams and James Madison — the faith in a “natural aristocracy.”
    4. The conception of natural rights criticized — Jeremy Bentham.
      W. L. Davidson, Political Thought in England from Bentham to J. S. Mill, 46-113.

      1. Social utility, not nature, the test of human institutions.
      2. This utilitarian theory made the basis of a sweeping criticism of the old ‘ regime,
      3. Far-reaching constructive ideas of Bentham on legislation, administration, jurisprudence, penology, education.
      4. Many of these ideas fruitful in the 19th century.
  1. Violent criticism of established institutions as disutile, unnatural, and unreasonable.
    1. Criticism of ecclesiastic institutions, “divine right” monarchy, the economic and social systems.
    2. Toleration, and respect for the natural man demanded — humanitarianism.
    3. Confidence in the powers of human reason — rationalism.
    4. Trust in the emotions as naturally good — romanticism.
    5. Belief in progress and the perfectibility of man through education — Helvetius, Rousseau, Condorcet.

Source: Columbia University. Introduction to Contemporary Civilization — A Syllabus, (Third edition, 1921), pp. 23-32.

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cowles CUNY Economists Stanford

Stanford. Kenneth Arrow’s mini-cv at age thirty. 1951

This post repackages the information contained in the mini-c.v. for the Social Science Research Council fellow of 1951-52, Kenneth Arrow, then a thirty year old freshly minted Columbia economics Ph.D. and associate professor of economics at Stanford. Fellows were asked to limit their cited publications to ten. It is interesting to note that Arrow could have easily added three other items but didn’t. It is also interesting to see that he gave a citation to the French translation of a chapter he published in English. Does any one have a clue to why Arrow might have made that choice? 

The data below come from the publication Fellows of the Social Science Research Council, 1925-1951  that is simply chock-full of mid-career biographical information for other economists as well

______________________

ARROW, KENNETH (JOSEPH)
Research Training Fellow 1951-52

[Personal:]

b. New York, N. Y. August 23, 1921.
m. Selma Schweitzer 1947.

[Education:]

B.S. 1940, City College, New York;
M.A. in mathematics 1941, Ph.D. 1951, Columbia, economics.

[Employment:]

Actuarial clerk 1941, Guardian Life Insurance Company;

USAAF 1942-46, captain;

Instructor in economics, summer 1946, City College, New York;

Research associate 1947-49, Cowles Commission for Research in Economics;

Assistant professor of economics 1948-49, University of Chicago;

Acting assistant professor 1949, associate professor of economics and statistics 1950—, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.

Home: 4 Aliso Way, Menlo Park, Calif.

Consultant:  Bureau of the Budget 1948;
Rand Corporation 1948-51.

Publications:

“On the Use of Winds in Flight Planning,” J. Meteorology 1949; in Econometrica: (with D. Blackwell and M. A. Girshick) “Bayes and Minimax Solutions of Sequential Decision Problems” 1949; “Homogeneous Functions in Mathematical Economics: Comment” 1950. “A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare,” J. Polit. Econ. 1950; “L’Utilisation des Modèles Mathématiques dans les Sciences Sociales” in Les “Sciences Politiques” aux États-Unis (ed. D. Lerner and H. A. Lasswell) 1951 [Original english version (?) as Chapter 8 in “Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences” in Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell (eds.), The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method (Stanford University Press, 1951)]; “Alternative Proof of the Substitution Theorem for the Leontief Model in the General Case” in Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation (ed. T. C. Koopmans) 1951; Social Choice and Individual Values 1951.

Fellowship program: study in Western Europe of statistical problems arising in economic planning.

Current research: welfare economics; foundation of statistical inference; index number theory; statistical problems in “model building”; theory of economic behavior under conditions of uncertainty.

Source: Fellows of the Social Science Research Council, 1925-1951. pp. 11-12.

Image Source: From the book ad placed by the bookstore La Memoire du Droit (Paris) at the AbeBooks website. As of this posting it is available for US$ 50.30 + shipping cost. Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is here solely for educational and research purposes and provides such information solely to satisfy the pecuniary curiosity of its visitors.

Categories
Berkeley Brown Carnegie Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon Chicago Columbia Cornell Duke Economics Programs Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins Kansas M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Stanford Texas UCLA UWash Vanderbilt Virginia Virginia Tech Washington University Wisconsin Yale

U.S. Economics Graduate Programs Ranked, 1957, 1964 and 1969

Recalling my active days in the rat race of academia, a cold shiver runs down my spine at the thought of departmental rankings in the hands of a Dean contemplating budgeting and merit raise pools or second-guessing departmental hiring decisions. 

But let a half-century go by and now, reborn as a historian of economics, I appreciate having the aggregated opinions of yore to constrain our interpretive structures of what mattered when to whomever. 

Research tip: sign up for a free account at archive.org to be able to borrow items still subject to copyright protection for an hour at a time. Sort of like being in the old reserve book room of your brick-and-mortar college library. This is needed if you wish to use the links for the Keniston, Carter, and Roose/Andersen publications linked in this post.

___________________________

1925 Rankings

R. M. Hughes. A Study of the Graduate Schools of America (Presented before the Association of American Colleges, January, 1925). Published by Miami University at Oxford, Ohio. (See earlier post that provides the economics ranking from the Hughes’ study)

1957 Rankings

Hayward Keniston. Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania (January 1959), pp. 115-119,129.

Tables from Keniston transcribed here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror:
https://www.irwincollier.com/economics-departments-and-university-rankings-by-chairmen-hughes-1925-and-keniston-1957/

1964 Rankings

Allan M. Cartter, An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966.

1969 Rankings

Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen, A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970.

Tables transcribed below.

___________________________

Graduate Programs in Economics
(1957, 1964, 1969)

Percentage of Raters Who Indicate:
Rankings “Quality of Graduate Faculty” Is:
1957 1964 1969 Institution Distiguish-
ed and strong
Good and adequate All other Insufficient Information
Nineteen institutions with scores in the 3.0 to 5.0 range, in rank order
1 1* 1* Harvard 97 – – 3
not ranked 1* 1* M.I.T. 91 – – 9
2 3* 3 Chicago 95 – – 5
3 3* 4 Yale 90 3 – 7
5* 5 5 Berkeley 86 9 – 5
7 7 6 Princeton 82 9 – 10
9 8* 7* Michigan 66 22 – 11
10 11 7* Minnesota 65 19 – 15
14 14* 7* Pennsylvania 62 22 – 15
5* 6 7* Stanford 64 25 – 11
13 8* 11 Wisconsin 63 26 – 11
4 8* 12* Columbia 50 37 – 13
11 12* 12* Northwestern 52 32 – 16
16 16 14* UCLA 41 38 – 21
not ranked 12* 14* Carnegie-Mellon Carnegie-Tech (1964) 39 35 – 26
not ranked not ranked 16 Rochester** 31 39 1 29
8 14* 17 Johns Hopkins 31 56 – 13
not ranked not ranked 18* Brown** 20 52 1 27
15 17 18* Cornell** 21 56 2 21
*Score and rank are shared with another institution.
**Institution’s 1969 score is in a higher range than ist 1964 score.

 

Ten institutions with scores in the 2.5 to 2.9 range, in alphabetical order
(1969)
Duke
Illinois
Iowa State (Ames)
Michigan State
North Carolina
Purdue
Vanderbilt
Virginia
Washington (St. Louis)
Washington (Seattle)

 

Sixteen institutions with scores in the 2.0 to 2.4 range, in alphabetical order
(1969)
Buffalo*
Claremont
Indiana
Iowa (Iowa City)
Kansas
Maryland
N.Y.U.
North Carolina State*
Ohio State
Oregon
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Rice*
Texas
Texas A&M
Virginia Polytech.*
* Not included in the 1964 survey of economics

 

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Columbia Economists Tufts

Columbia. Economics PhD alumnus, Leonard Stott Blakey, 1912

In today’s edition of Meet an Economics Ph.D. alumnus we encounter a 1912 Columbia economics Ph.D. who had fallen through the cracks of my list of Columbia University economics graduates. Leonard Stott Blakey actually did manage to obtain an economics professorship at the Carnegie Institute of Technology for a couple of years. His Columbia thesis adviser was the sociologist Franklin Giddings at a time when the gap between academic economics and sociology was relatively small.

Blakey died at age 38 after a car ran into him in Chicago where he had found a job as economic advisor to the Benjamin Electric Company. So there is not much of a shadow cast into future economic research, but his story still possesses value as a one mosaic tile in the greater sweep of the history of economics. 

________________________

Leonard Stott Blakey
(1881-1919)

1881. Born April 15 in Racine County, Wisconsin. Son of Charles and Ella Apple Blakey.

1883. Family moved to a farm near Spirit Lake, Iowa.

Family later moved to Estherville, Iowa where Leonard attended grade and high school.

1900. Graduated from high school.

1904. B.S. from Beloit College.

Taught in high school at Savanna, Illinois and Memorial University, Mason City, Iowa.

1907-08. University scholarship, Columbia University. Columbia Spectator (June 1, 1907), p. 1.

1908-09. Schiff Fellow, Columbia University.

1910. The Boston Globe (September 18, 1910), p. 56. Tufts hired Leonard Stott Blakey, a graduate of Beloit, as instructor in economics.

Courses taught by Blakey  at Tufts:  From the catalogues 1910-1912

1. Elements of Economics. Ely’s Outlines of Economics will be used as a guide
2. Modern Industrial History of Europe
22. Economic and Industrial History of the United States. Bogart’s Economic History of the United States is used as a guide.
4. Principles of Public Finance. The Elements of Public Finance, by Daniels, is used as a guide.
5. Money, Credit, and Banking. Dewey’s Financial History of the United States is used as a guide.
14. Theory of Statistics.
15. Social Statistics.

1911-12. Annual Report of the President of Tufts College 1911-12.  “The following gentlemen have severed their connection with the ‘College on the Hill,’ either through resignation or the expiration of their terms of office,…Leonard Stott Blakey, B.S., Instructor in Economics and Statistics” p. 4

1912. Ph.D. Thesis: The Sale of Liquor in the South: the History of the Development of Normal Social Restraint in Southern Commonwealths” by Leonard Stott Blakey, A.M., Sometime Schiff Fellow in Columbia University, Associate Professor of Economics and Sociology in Dickinson College
“This work owes its origin to a suggestion which came to the writer from his instructor, Professor Franklin H. Giddings of Columbia University, while pursuing graduate courses of study in that institution.”

1912-13. Assistant Professor of Economics and Sociology
Catalogue of Dickinson College 1912-1913. Carlisle, PA.

1913-14. Professor of Economics and Sociology
Catalogue of Dickinson College 1913-1914
. Carlisle, PA

Dickinson College
ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY

Professor Blakey

In its course of instruction, the chief aim of the department of Economics and Sociology is to give a general view of the most important subject matter in the economic and sociological sciences, beginning with the elements of the science and passing by degrees to courses of an investigative order. In addition to this broad general outline the courses and the methods of study are arranged to give some specialized preparation to students looking forward to business careers.

A. ELEMENTS OF ECONOMICS.

This course will give the student a general survey of the fields of theoretical and practical economics. The first part deals with the principles of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of wealth; the second part, with the present organization of industry and the economic and social problems arising from the relations of employers and employees. Among the problems considered are the labor problem, including the history and policies of trade unions, injunctions, arbitration, co-operation, profit-sharing, child labor, factory legislation, workingmen’s insurance, and socialism. Taussig’s Principles of Economics will be used as a text.

Required of all Sophomores. Three hours per week.

B. MODERN INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF EUROPE.

After a brief survey of the economic conditions in the European countries at the close of the Middle Ages, the course deals with the commercial and industrial development of the chief European countries since the middle of the eighteenth century, with special attention to Great Britain.

Lectures, supplemented by prescribed topical readings. Open to Juniors and Seniors. Three hours per week. First half-year.

C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

A brief survey of the economic life of the colonists will be followed by a study of the factory system, public land policy, transportation facilities, and shipping before the Civil War; export trade, scientific agriculture, and railway extension after the War; recent development of large scale production, industrial combinations, and labor problems.

Lectures, supplemented by prescribed topical readings.

Open to Juniors and Seniors. Three hours per week, second half-year.

D. COURSES B AND C COMBINED.

E. INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT.

This course will include an examination of the human and physical factors in the organization and processes of industry; the internal economies of organization due to the division of labor, etc.; external economies of organization due to the concentration and integration of businesses; and the influences of the modern means of intercommunication on businesses. Special emphasis will be given to the growing size and complexity of modern business structure and to the managerial, financial, and political questions arising from business concentration, and the programs proposed for their solution will be analyzed.

Attention is given to the general nature and the different types of business management, and to the functions of the entrepreneur. The various problems involved in the philosophy, demands, and applicability of scientific management will be examined. The course closes with an analysis of the growing spirit of co-operation in business management, the growing interest in the problems of vocational guidance, and the tendency to interpret industry in terms of human worth.

Lectures, assigned readings, and discussions. Open to Seniors. Three hours per week.

F. PRINCIPLES OF SOCIOLOGY.

Beginning with a study of the biological and psychological bases of human society, this course traces its evolution under the operation of the various forces — physical environment, growth and migration of populations, social institutions, etc. and analyzes social phenomena with the view of arriving at certain laws of social progress and noting their bearing upon present social problems.

Chapin’s Introduction to the Study of Social Evolution will be used as a text. Open to Juniors and Seniors. Three hours per week.

G. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS.

The work of this course will consist largely of practical investigations, by individual members of the class, of some selected problem in economics or sociology, to be assigned by the instructor and pursued under his direction. A paper will be prepared on the assigned topic, the results presented before the class for criticism and discussion. The course will open with an introduction to the principles, theory, and practice in the statistical method. Open to Seniors completing Economics E or Sociology F. Three hours per week.

Source:  Catalogue of Dickinson College, 1913-1914, pp. 31-33.

1914-15.  Professor of Economics and Sociology at Dickinson College (Absent on leave)

1914. Review of H.R. Seager’s Principles of Economics: Being a Revision of Introduction to Economics. In Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (September 1914, pp. 294-296). Identified as “Leonard Stott Blakey, Dickinson College).

1914-16[?]. Worked at the air nitrates plant in Muscle Shoals, Alabama

1916. Assistant Professor of Economics and Business Administration, School of Applied Science, Carnegie Institute of Technology. Pittsburgh.

1918. The Pittsburgh Post (February 21, 1918), p. 14.
Assistant Professor of economics and business administration of the Carnegie Institute of Technology.

End of the WWI, associated with the Bing and Bing Construction Co. of New York.

1919. He had accepted a position as Economics Advisor to the Benjamin Electric Company of Chicago.

1919. “Prof. Leonard Blakey of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, died yesterday in the county hospital. He was struck by an automobile Friday night.” Blakey “had come to Chicago to make arrangements with a. W. Shaw & Co. for the publication of his book, which deals with the high cost of living.” Brother A.R. Blakey lives in Chicago. Chicago Tribune (October 5, 1919), p. 1.

________________________

Other Newspaper Accounts
of Leonard Blakey’s death

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Oct. 6, 1919), p. 20.

“[Leonard Blakey] was not connected with the Carnegie Institute of Technology at the time of his death, according to officials of the institution.
Prof. Blakey, two years ago, was assistant professor of commercial engineering at the Pittsburgh school, but left here to go to Washington, where he entered government service.”

Evening Times-Republican, Marshalltown, Iowa (December 15, 1919), p. 2.

At time of his death in Chicago, Leonard Blakey just completing a book called “Wage Scales and the Living Costs”, a comprehensive survey of the wage question and cost of living put down in a concise and readable form. The book, which is just now making its appearance, following his death, is creating a great amount of interest throughout the country, as it deals with present day conditions. The New York Sun introduced the book, noting Blakey was born in Racine, Wisconsin, educated there and in Iowa, graduated from Beloit College, taking post-graduate course at Columbia University. Instructor in economics in Tufts College and at Dickinson, and Carnegie Institute of Technology. “During the war he was the labor expert at the Mussels Shoals air nitrate enterprise. In January 1919 he began his study. He went to Chicago (as opposed to New York City to get speedy publication”. “He met his death as he was on his way to have his final revision of the last chapter retyped for the printers.

________________________

Obituaries for Leonard Stott Blakey transcribed at the Find-A-Grave Website

Leonard Blakey Hit By Auto
Was In Chicago Attending to Business Matters – Struck By Speeding Car
Just Completed Gov. Book
Was Brought Here for Burial, Was a Son of Chas. Blakey, a Former Resident Here

Estherville Enterprise, Estherville, IA, October 8, 1919.

Friends of Leonard Blakey of the Chas. Blakey family, were greatly shocked on Sunday last to learn of the sudden death by accident of Leonard Blakey in Chicago. He had been connected with a New York firm and was making a change to Chicago. He came there and took rooms with his father, sister and brother Roy, who is in the Rush Medical school. He had been down to the city during the day consulting his new employer and that evening went to the Y.M.C.A. building to get some stenographic work done. It was about 9 o’clock in the evening and it is supposed he was returning from the Y.M.C.A. building when an auto struck him. He was so badly injured he never regained consciousness. He had no Chicago address and the police rushed him to the hospital. On his clothing was his Pittsburg address and they at once endeavored to get in touch with someone there. In the hospital was an Intern who remembered there was a medical student in Rush by that name and after twenty-four hours after the accident they got in touch with Roy Blakey. The Blakey family in the meantime had made an endeavor through the police to locate him.
The remains were brought to this city for burial.

The following is the obituary used by Rev. Voorhies who officiated at the funeral services:

Leonard Stott Blakey was born in Racine County, Wis., April 15, 1881, the son of Charles and Ella Apple Blakey. He attended school near Spirit Lake, Iowa, the family having moved to a farm near there when he was two years old. Later the family moved to Estherville where Leonard attended the grade and high school, graduating in 1900. In the Fall of the same year he entered Beloit College where he graduated in 1904. Following this he taught in the high school at Savanna, Illinois, and Memorial University, Mason City, Iowa. Then he attended Columbia University, New York, receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1911 (sic). He again took up teaching, going first to Tufts College, Boston, and later to Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa. The following year he went to Muscle Shoals, Alabama, to take up employment work with the Air Nitrates plant. At the close of the war he became associated with the Bing and Bing Construction Co., of New York. During the latter period he has been writing a book on the subject: Has Labor Carried Its War Burden,” which is now in the hands of the publishers. He had just accepted a position as Economics Advisor to the Benjamin Electric Company of Chicago. Surviving members of the family are: His father, Charles Blakey, his brother Roy Blakey, and sister Dorothy Blakey, all being residents of Chicago.

Book of A Local Boy is Popular
Leonard Blakey’s Work Now Running in New York Sun Was Recently Killed
Work Has to Do With the Wage Scale and High Cost of Living – Is Authority

Vindicator and Republican, Estherville, IA, December 10, 1919

At the time Leonard Blakey met with his death in Chicago last fall he was just completing a book called “Wage Scales and the Living Costs.” It is a comprehensive survey of the wage question and the cost of living put down in a concise and readable form. The book which is just now making its appearance following his death, is creating a large amount of interest throughout the country as it deals with present day conditions.
Leonard Blakey was an Estherville boy. He was known to the great majority of our people and his career followed with a great deal of interests by local people. His untimely death last fall was deeply mourned by all his former friends. Had he been permitted to live he would have accomplished great things in this world. As it is, he leaves behind this scientific analysis which is being used throughout the country in settling important questions of the day. The Vindicator and Republican has on file a copy of the New York Sun containing the first installment of the book and we will be glad to loan it any former friends who may wish to read it. Following is the tribute paid to the memory of Leonard by that paper at the beginning of the article:
Leonard Blakey, economist and professor, from whose last work the following analysis of Wage Increases and Living Costs was taken, was killed accidentally by an automobile in Chicago recently just as he was to reap the fruits of years of study. He was born thirty-eight years ago in Racine, Wisconsin, was educated in the public schools there and in Iowa, and graduated from Beloit College, taking a post graduate study course at Columbia University in this city.
He was an instructor in economics in Tufts College and at Dickson, and then was attached to the Carnegie Institute of Technology. During the war he was the labor expert at the Mussels Shoals air nitrate enterprise. Last January Mr. Blakey began his study of wage increases and living costs with the idea that the findings might be of value to the nation in its reconstruction problems. When the report was partly completed he was urged to publish it in book form for use as a text book at Columbia and at Carnegie Tech. He also planned to send copies for use of the Industrial conference in session in Washington.
Owing to conditions in the book trade in New York Mr. Blakey went to Chicago to get speedy publication. The A. W. Shaw Company took up the work. He met his death as he was on his way to have his final revision of the last chapter retyped for printers.

Source: Wayback machine archived copy of the Find-A-Grave entry for Leonard Stott Blakey (1881-1919).

Image Source: Carnegie Institute of Technology yearbook, The 1918 Thistle, p. 80. Portrait of Professor Stott Blakey.