Category: Economic History

Categories
Economic History Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. E. E. Lincoln’s final exam in European economic history, 1921

 

The final examination questions for Edmund E. Lincoln’s course on 19th century European economic history taught during the first half-year at Harvard in 1920-21 plus the description of that course from the previous year’s announcement are transcribed below. The corresponding course syllabus and ca. 30 page (!) course bibliography have been posted earlier.

In light of the current U.S. debate about “alternative facts”, question 8 of the exam is particularly interesting!

 

_____________________________

 

Course Announcements and Description [1919-20]

[Economics] 2a 1hf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century. Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 9.
Dr. E. E. Lincoln.

Course 2a undertakes to present the general outlines of the economic history of western Europe since the Industrial Revolution. Such topics as the following will be discussed: the economic aspects of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic régime, the Stein-Hardenberg reforms, the Zollverein, Cobden and free trade in England, nationalism and the recrudescence of protectionism, railways and waterways, the effects of trans-oceanic competition, the rise of industrial Germany.
Since attention will be directed in this course to those phases of the subject which are related to the economic history of the United States, it may be taken usefully before Economics 2b.

 

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics 1919-20 (2nd edition) published in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XVI, No. 45 (October 30, 1919), p. 61.

_____________________________

 

Final Examination
European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century
Dr. E. E. Lincoln

1920-21
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 2a1

  1. “The unsettled question in the matter of the Swiss Federal Railways is that of their financial standing.”
    Summarize Holcombe’s conclusions on this matter.
  2. “What is notable among British consolidations and associations is not their rarity or weakness so much as their unobrusiveness. There is not much display in the window, but there is a good selection inside.”
    Discuss in outline the achievements of combinations and associations of the different sorts in England.
  3. “Although the principle of most-favored-nation treatment has continued in force, the practical effect of favored-nation pledges has been limited very decidedly by increased specialization of tariff schedules.”
    Explain clearly, and indicate the significance of this statement as it bears upon modern European tariff history.
  4. Contrast the social and economic position of the English Agricultural laborer in recent years with the situation of “the peasant under the old system” (as discussed by Prothero).
  5. “Hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being.” (Mill, “Principles of Political Economy” Book 4, Ch. V, 6th)
    Do you agree that this was true about 1860? State your arguments clearly.
  6. Indicate Russia’s relative position in the world’s economic resources, and summarize the causes of her retarded industrial development.
  7. Give the reasons for Germany’s rapid foreign trade development during the generation preceding the war.
  8. In Carlyle’s edition of Cromwell’s letters the following statement is made: “The Irish have never let the Fact tell its own harsh story to them. They have said always to the harsh Fact, ‘Thou art not that way, thou art this way.’” Do you agree or disagree with Carlyle so far as the economic aspects of Irish history are concerned? State your case with care.

 

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28, 63 of 284). Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Papers Set for Final Examinations: History, Church History, … , Economics, … , Fine Arts, Music, June, 1921. pp. 54-5.

Image Source: Edmund E. Lincoln from Harvard Class Album 1920.

 

Categories
Economic History Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Exam Questions for Usher’s European Economic History, 1922

 

Returning to the curatorial work of matching final exams to postings of course syllabi/reading lists for economics at Harvard, I have transcribed the final examination questions below that correspond to the course taught by A. P. Usher “European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century” during the first semester of 1921-22.

 

_____________________________

 

 

Final Examination
European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century
Professor Abbott Payson Usher

1921-22
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 2a1

  1. What problems were created by the Industrial Revolution? To what extent have they been solved?
  2. Compare and give a critical estimate of the ways in which England and Denmark attempted to deal with the problems of the reform of land tenures, field systems, and rural organization?
  3. What were the contributions of Sir Robert Peel and Richard Cobden: (a) to the repeal of the Corn Laws? (b) to the general establishment of the Free Trade policy?
  4. What was meant about 1836 by the phrase “the railway is by nature a monopoly”?
    What was the general policy of the English government on the issue of monopoly of railway facilities? How did this policy affect the development of the railway network in England?
    Discuss the condition of the fundamental industries in England between 1870 and 1914. What are the prospects for the future!
  5. What was the role played by the German banks in industrial combinations?
  6. Comment or explain: chartism; the Newcastle coal vend; the Bradford Conditioning House; multiple tariff schedule; the basic process.

Final. 1922.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28, Box 64 of 284). Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Papers Set for Final Examinations: History, Church History, … , Economics, … , Social Ethics, Education, June, 1922.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1923.

 

Categories
Economic History Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Recent Economic History, Final Exam. 1935

 

 

The course outline and readings for the two-semester graduate course on recent economic history taught at Harvard by Edwin Francis Gay were posted earlier. We can now add the questions from the final examination given at the end of the Spring term.

This is thus far the most recent examination I’ve seen that has matter-of-factly given a quotation in a foreign language.  Exams for Young’s course on modern economic theories taught at Harvard in the mid-1920s sometimes had quotations in French and German.

_____________________________

Final Examination
Recent Economic History
Professor Edwin Francis Gay

1934-35
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 23

Write an essay (not more than half your time) discussing one of the quotations or topics in this paper, and comment concisely on three others.

  1. “It is believed that, had it not been for the free-trade policy of Great Britain, the manufacturing system of America would at the present time have been much more extensive than it is.” (Ellison, 1858.)
    “There is some truth in the view of the cynical British exporter who thanked God for the American tariff, but for which American manufacturers would have driven him out of the world markets.” (London “Economist,” 1912.)
    “In my belief, both Free Trade of the laissez-faire type and Protection of the predatory type are policies of Empire, and both make for War.” (H. J. Mackinder, 1919.)
    Do you find any confirmation for these views in your reading of American tariff history? Illustrate from the cotton or iron industry.
  2. “On voit apparaître chaque jour davantage tout ce que l’Angleterre, depuis cent ans, devait à des circonstances que les contemporains avaient cru permanentes et qui n’étaient que passagères.
    L’hégémonie économique anglaise coïncide dans l’histoire avec le règne de la machine à vapeur; la période victorienne, apogée de prospérité et de puissance, évolue tout entière sous le signe du charbon….C’est ainsi qu’a pu s’édifier, sur la base étroite d’un territoire plus que médiocre, cette paradoxale superstructure manufacturière, e parallèlement s’épanouir cette population aujourd’hui trop dense, si dangereusement dépendante, pour sa subsistance, des produits importés….
    Dans ces conditions, le jeu parfaitement agencé de la doctrine libre-échangiste paraissait avoir été conçu tout exprès pour l’Angleterre, par les soins d’une Providence attentive et partiale.” (Siegfried, 1931.)
  3. The National Banking system is “not only a perfectly safe system of banking, but it is one that is eminently adapted to our political institutions.” (Hugh McCulloch, 1863.)
    “American banking has not yet distinguished between solvency after an interval, and readiness to meet demands at once and without question…. At present the characteristics of the American business man seem to fit him to do most things better than banking.” (Harley Withers, 1909.)
    “Everybody will agree to-day that it would be difficult to imagine a banking system more cruel and inefficient that that prevailing in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century—a system which, instead of scientifically regulating the flow of credit and money so as to secure the greatest possible stability, was designed automatically to produce instability.” (Paul Warburg, 1930.)
  4. “The technological revolution of the last hundred years furnishes the ultimate explanation of agricultural progress and of agrarian discontent both in Europe and America.” (ca. 1925)
    “Though the mechanization of industrial processes is almost universal, the great majority of farmers throughout the world are content with the simple instruments used by their forefathers.” (“World Agriculture,” 1932.)
    “The significant fact is that the periods of prosperity and the great depressions in agriculture have coincided with periods of monetary expansion and monetary contraction. Though other factors must not be ignored, the agricultural history of the last hundred years shows that favorable monetary conditions are essential to recovery.” (“World Agriculture,” 1932.)
  5. “The Merchant Marine of the United States is not a burden upon the tax-payer’s back, but an economy of the first water, keeping millions in the country, giving employment to thousands of persons, aiding in the development of foreign markets and backing up the nation’s forces in any contingency that may arise.” (Senator Royal S. Copeland, 1934.)
    “Our own vessels carry only about 40 per cent of our foreign trade. We are dependent on our competitors to carry 60 per cent of our trade to market. Of course, the result is that they help themselves and hamper us. Parity in merchant ships is only less important than parity in warships. We ought to make the necessary sacrifices to secure it.” (Calvin Coolidge, 1930.)
  6. D. H. Robertson, writing in 1923, concerning the American Railroad Act of 1920 and the increased powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission, says:
    “The home of free enterprise has furnished us with experiments in positive State control on a scale which finds no parallel outside Communist Russia.”
    Louis D. Brandeis in 1912 wrote: “The success of the Interstate Commerce Commission has been invoked as an argument in favor of licensing and regulating monopoly.” This argument, he held, was not valid. Do you agree? Why or why not?
  7. In a period when traditional standards have broken down and when the legal system is supported by laissez-faire theory, the movement toward industrial combination is “a remorseless sort of profit-seeking.” (M. W. Watkins, 1928.)
    “The only argument that has been seriously advanced in favor of private monopoly is that competition involves waste, while the monopoly prevents waste and leads to efficiency. This argument is essentially unsound. The wastes of competition are negligible. The economies of monopoly are superficial and delusive. The efficiency of monopoly is at the best temporary.” (L. D. Brandeis, in Harper’s Weekly, 1913.)
    “Our evidence goes to show that most of the Trusts and Cartels have been, in their origin at any rate, defensive movements.” (D. H. MacGregor, 1912.)
    Industrial combinations must be recognized as “steps in the greater efficiency, the increased economy, and the better organization of industry.” (Minority Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Trusts, 1918.)
  8. Write on the topic which, in your reading for this course, has most interested you.

Final. [May or June] 1935.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Examination Papers—Finals, 1935 (HUC 7000.28, 77 of 284).

Image Source: Edwin Francis Gay in Harvard Class Album 1934.

Categories
Chicago Courses Curriculum Economic History

Chicago. Proposal for interdisciplinary MA courses on Capitalism and Democracy. Hoselitz, 1947

With the election of Donald J. Trump to the U.S. Presidency, it is perhaps time well-spent to yet again reflect upon the relation between capitalism and democracy. Today I post a 1947 proposal for the creation of a complementary pair of interdisciplinary seminars on problems of capitalism and democracy to be taught in the University of Chicago’s Divisional Social Science M.A. program. The proposal was written by a 34 year old Austrian, Berthold Franz Hoselitz ( the future founding editor of the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change), and presumably circulated among the respective departments of the Division of Social Science for approval. The copy transcribed here comes from Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution together with the agenda for the faculty meeting when the proposal was scheduled to be discussed. We see from the course announcements that the proposal was accepted.

The poor image of Hoselitz from 1940 is partially compensated for by the fact that it is (up to now) the only image I have been able to find of him at all.

_____________________________

Fun Fact: Hoselitz taught John Nash

Q. …Did you have any teacher through your period at university which was particularly a role model to you?…

John Nash: I certainly had some good teachers who were very helpful to me and influential. For example, in economics I only took one economics course and I was an undergraduate study in Pittsburgh at what is now called Carnegie Mellon, but by coincidence the person who taught the course, it was a course in international economics, and by coincidence this was someone who came from Austria. So there’s actually to consider Austrian economics is like a different school than typical American or British. So I was by coincidence influenced by an Austrian economist [Bert F. Hoselitz, Associate Professor of Economics appointed October 1, 1947, resigned September 1948, Carnegie Institute of Technology.] which may have been a very good influence.

Source: Interview with Dr. John Nash at the 1st Meeting of Laureates in Economic Sciences in Lindau, Germany, September 1-4, 2004.    Interviewer: Marika Griehsel.

_____________________________

Biographical Note

Bert F. Hoselitz was born Berthold Frank Hoselitz in Vienna, Austria in 1913. He received his doctor of law degree in 1936 from the University of Vienna. He left Austria in 1938, traveling first to England, then to the U.S., where he taught briefly at Manchester College in North Manchester, Indiana. He enrolled in the University of Chicago , receiving an M.A. in Economics in 1945. Hoselitz joined faculty at Chicago as an instructor in 1945, and became emeritus in 1978.

Hoselitz advocated interdisciplinary scholarship and his work pushed the common wisdom within economics at the time by considering the role of cultural and sociological factors on economic development. In pursing this line of inquiry, he developed professional relationships with scholars around the globe, though particularly in Asia, and participated in both a research and advisory capacity for a broad spectrum of academic research projects that spanned traditionally distinct social science disciplines. In 1962, Hoselitz supervised a pair of National Science Foundation sponsored studies examining the social and economic entailments of developments in science and technology within Asia, primarily India. At a broader level, he was also active in efforts to bring diverse social science disciplines into conversation with one another. In 1958 began participating in an editorial and authorial capacity for the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

Hoselitz’s scholarly activities were not confined to academic research and teaching. He was also active and engaged in policy discussions concerning development and the developing world. In the early phase of his career Hoselitz participated in an array of applied research projects, advising work and professional associations related to economic development and development policy more broadly. For example, he wrote for the United Nations on issues related to economic development, beginning with a 1952 technical-assistance mission to El Salvador, and in the late fifties he served on a team of advisors to the government of India concerning the plan for the national capital region.

In addition to his global professional engagements, Hoselitz also remained an active participant and organizer in the scholarly community of his home institution at Chicago. In 1952 Hoselitz founded the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change at Chicago as well as the affiliated interdisciplinary journal Economic Development and Cultural Change, published through the University of Chicago Press. Hoselitz served as editor from the journal’s inception until 1985. He also served on the committee of the Norman Wait Harris Memorial Foundation based at the University of Chicago which focuses on issues of international interest and works to facilitate the exchange of knowledge about the diverse peoples of the world. In this capacity, Hoselitz organized visits by lecturers, funded conferences and facilitated the foundation’s publishing efforts.

Considered an interdisciplinary pioneer and an expert on the social and cultural dimensions of economic development, Professor Emeritus Bert Hoselitz died in Chicago on February 14, 1995.

 

Source: University of Chicago Library. Guide to the Bert F. Hoselitz papers, 1923-1987.

_____________________________

 

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A G E N D A
Tuesday, June 3, 1947, at 1. p.m. in Room SS 424

 

  1. Students’ Business:
    1. Tom, Chiu-Faat Joseph: Petition to take Chinese as second language.
    2. Berkman, Herman G.: Petition to take Planning as major field of specialization; to take intensive examination in French only.
    3. Murphy, J. Carter: Petition to substitute Mathematics for second language.
    4. Schwitzer, Selma: Petition for Mathematics to be one of secondary fields of specialization for A.M. (alternative). Other fields statistics and theory.
    5. Weil, R.A.: Petition to waive residence requirement.
      Recommendation to Candidacy. Tentative approval of thesis topic: “Federal Aid to Achieve State-Local Co-operation in a Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy.”
  2. Weil, R.A.: Petition to waive residence requirement.
    Recommendation to Candidacy.
    Tentative approval of thesis topic: “Federal Aid to Achieve State-Local Co-operation in a Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy.”
  3. Seminar, course and staff for “Problems of Capitalism and Democracy”
  4. Plans for counseling students during summer and next fall.
  5. New business.

_____________________________

 

OUTLINE FOR A PROGRAM ON THE “PROBLEM OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY”

I. Background

Some two years ago the History Department of the University of Chicago discussed the possibility of instituting in their Department so-called “problem-courses”. Instead of subdividing the subject matter of history on the basis of time periods and countries or regions, they felt that major problems, notably those of capitalism and democracy, should be studied in their historical perspective. These plans were thought over for some time but were not put into effect during the war, chiefly because of lack of suitable personnel who could be charged with the preparation and execution of these courses.

When, a few months ago, the Divisional Masters Committee met, and when it was decided that the Divisional Master’s program should provide for a more generalized program than that provided by departmental courses, the suggestion was made that the courses on the history of capitalism and the history of democracy might be worked out in a manner in which not only the historical sweep of the two institutions would be under consideration, but where also the problems arising in the two areas would be studied. The courses were thus conceived by the Divisional Masters Committee as comprising an analysis of historical background as well as the “nature” and problems of capitalism and of democracy.

When these courses were discussed it was the feeling of some members of the Divisional Masters Committee that what was needed to be stressed more and made more explicit than could be done by giving two apparently unrelated courses in isolation, was the problem of the interrelations of capitalism and democracy, or (in different words) the relationship of economic organization and the realization of political values of liberty, equality, and justice. This dilemma was met by the Masters committee by declaring the courses to be long into one “field” of study and by suggesting that the students be asked to take the courses simultaneously, by providing for parallel planning and teaching of the courses, as much as possible, and by providing an examination over the two courses (the field) in which the interrelations between economic organization and political values was stressed.

This plan was submitted to the Executive Committee of the Division of the Social Sciences and accepted as part of a program for the Divisional Masters Degree. At a later meeting between representatives of the Divisional Masters Committee and members of the Department of Economics, Political Science, and History, the problem was discussed again, and reasons for combination of the two courses, as well as reasons against brought forward. In addition the proposal was made and accepted that a faculty seminar be established which concern itself with the whole problem raised by the relationship of economic and political organization, notably the interrelations of capitalist, free enterprise, economic organization and political democracy.

 

II. Some Thoughts on a Program for Studying the Problem of Capitalism and Democracy.

A seminar or a combined course on the problems of capitalism and democracy seem to me to involve two sub-problems which ought to be separated from each other. One is the examination of the relationship of given economic institutions in the particular political framework and the processes which would be set in motion both in the political and economic field by attempts to realize certain aims of human welfare, or other chiefly political values, such as justice, freedom, etc.

The other problem would involve a study of actual processes of the interaction of political and economic institutions, their mutual interrelations in the past under different conditions in their dependence upon it given set of values in the particular hierarchies in which these values were accepted in certain countries and at certain times.

Both approaches may be dynamic but the first would primarily be analytical in that it would study the probable consequences of economic and political policies upon each other and therefore would in part deal with the study of how the existing institutions would be shaped by policies designed to meet social objectives in a more adequate way then is being done at present. In this analysis existing institutions such as constitutional arrangements, legal rules, the whole economic structure and possibly the international power structure as they affect the various countries, would be the starting point of the examination. This analysis would deal with problems which are of the utmost importance in the light of the discussion going on currently. It would have to take up those problems which presently are generally assumed under the heading of the relationship of freedom and planning. I think that it might be well for the Department to arrange the questions of a general and wide character affecting the whole social structure be included as well as more limited problems dealing with very specific economic or political policies in particular fields and their repercussions on the whole social structure.

The historical part could be used, it appears to me, for the following purposes.

(1) It could throw light on the coexistence of particular economic and political institutions especially on the historical coexistence of capitalism and democracy.

(2) It could provide evidence to show how and to what extent changes which either of the two institutions undergo undergoes in industrial civilization, have affected the other, and therefore could provide a basis for making certain analogies which present policies actually in operation or proposed.

(3) It would have to be supplemented by an analysis of the influence of the institutions of industrial capitalism and democratic political organization upon the formation of human personality, and vice versa the influence of human motivations and psychological factors upon the social, economic and political organization of the time.

(4) I am not certain whether an analysis of the origins of capitalism would be fruitful in this connection, but I think that it would be useful in the historical part to provide for a comparison between the social structure of the 19th century in the economic organization which it manifested in political values which it claimed to realize, and other societies, their economic and technological equipment and their political organization. If this can be supplemented by a comparison of the “basic personalities” in the two cultures, this might throw additional light on the question whether industrial capitalism and political democracy are bound up with each other, whether the ties exist in the social field exclusively, what ties are provided by the personality structure of the individuals composing the society and what evidence is provided by the historical incidence of attempts simultaneously to realize certain economic and political aims.

It seems to me, therefore, a defect that in the original planning of the program social psychologists and social anthropologists did not participate and I would think that both of these have important contributions to make.

Although it would be difficult clearly to separate the analytical approach which is concerned with examination of concrete presently existing problems confronting us in America and European countries as well as some of the “backward” countries, from the historical problems, I don’t think that such a separation would be necessary as long as it is logically plain that in the one area we are dealing with the application of generalizations drawn from history and other social sciences on practical policies, whereas in the other field we deal with an attempt to give a comprehensive examination of why particular processes occur, when and where they occurred and what factors were responsible for their occurrence. In other words, the two approaches would complement each other and would give opportunity to representatives of all the social science disciplines to make a contribution.

We frequently talk about the problem of modern society and I think we mean primarily by this the set of problems outlined above. Although as individuals we feel inclined that we must provide answers of what will be the probable effects of concrete policies, all of us attempt to build those answers into a logical framework which comprises the totality of social arrangements in which, therefore, is colored by our conception of political and cultural processes as well as economic ones. Any clarification of the relationships of these processes in present-day society which can be deduced by analytical study or by an examination of historical periods from which analogies for present-day action can be provided might therefore give at least a partial answer. I would like to see both the seminar and a course or combination of courses be carried on on the basis of these thoughts. If a more complete outline is desirable I shall gladly provide one.

Respectfully submitted
Bert Hoselitz

May 22, 1947

Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder “79.1 University of Chicago, Minutes, Economics Department 1946-1949”.

_____________________________

DIVISIONAL COURSES

[…]

Social Science 300A,B,C. The Nature and Problems of Capitalism. A study of the economic institutions of capitalist society in the more critical phases of their development up to the present, with particular emphasis on the social and political context in which economic change occurs. Closely correlated with Social Science 301A, B,C, which is taken concurrently. Enrolment limited to students under the Divisional Master’s Program. Aut, Win, Spr: MWF 10:30; Staff.

Social Science 301A,B,C. The Nature and Problems of Democracy (identical with Political Science 300A,B,C). Examination of the political institutions of Western society, especially in their relation to the development of democratic ideals and practices. Major concern is with American institutions as they operate in the context of both democratic ideals and political reality. Taken concurrently with Social Science 300 A, B, C. Enrolment limited to students under the Divisional Master’s Program. Aut, Win, Spr: MWF 10:30; Staff.

 

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements Vol. XLIX, No. 9 (July 1, 1949). The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1949-1950. p. 10.

Image Source: Declaration of Intention to apply for U.S. citizenship by Bertold Franz Hoselitz (alias Hazlitt), August 8, 1940.

Categories
Economic History Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Economic History of Europe Since 1800. Edmund E. Lincoln, 1920.

_____________________

This post provides a transcription of over thirty printed pages from the List of References in Economics 2 at Harvard published in 1920 by Edmund Earle Lincoln (1888-1958). These pages include all the bibliographic references for the first semester course “Economic History of Europe since 1800” along with an introductory note and a short list of titles recommended for students who wish to build a personal library in European and U.S. economic history. The final examination questions and a course description have also been transcribed. The list of references for Economics 2b, “Economic History of the United States” will be posted sometime in the near future.

Edmund Earle Lincoln was born February 5, 1888 in McCook, Nebraska. He received an A.B. from Ohio Wesleyan in 1909; a B.A. from Oxford in 1910; M. A. from Oxford in 1914; Ph.D. from Harvard in 1917 with the thesis, “The Results of Municipal Electric Lighting in Massachusetts.” He was appointed Instructor in Economics and Tutor at Harvard in 1915 (where he stayed at least until the 1920 U.S. Census). As of the 1930 U.S. Census Lincoln worked as an executive with International Telephone & Telegraph Co. in New York City. From 1931 to his retirement in 1953 Lincoln was an economist with E. I. Du Pont Nemours & Co. He died May 15, 1958 in Wilmington, Delaware.

Apparently his 1950 published translation of Dangers of Inflation: An Address by Pierre Samuel du Pont, 1790, is still available from the Harvard Business School for $20 as Kress Collection Publication No. 7.

_____________________

Economics 2: Course Enrollment, 1920-21

[Economics] 2a 1hf. Dr. E. E. Lincoln, assisted by Mr. Hyde.–European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century

Total 70: 18 Graduates, 8 Seniors, 17 Juniors, 11 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 15 Others.

[Economics] 2b 2hf. Dr. E. E. Lincoln, assisted by Mr. Hyde.–Economic History of the United States.

Total: 148: 13 Graduates, 34 Seniors, 47 Juniors, 26 Sophomores, 3 Freshmen, 25 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College 1920-21, p. 95.

_____________________

LIST OF REFERENCES IN ECONOMICS 2
ECONOMIC HISTORY OF EUROPE SINCE 1800,
AND OF THE UNITED STATES

Revised, Enlarged, and Rearranged

CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
PUBLISHED BY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1920

 

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The following list of readings is a rearrangement, revision and extension of the references originally prepared by Professor E. F. Gay for use in connection with the courses in European and American Economic History at Harvard College. The changes and additions have been such as to make this practically a new list. It in no way purports to be a complete bibliography of the subject, nor is it necessarily definitive in form. It is intended simply to serve as a guide to reading on the topics of the course, especially on those subjects which are not covered by the lectures, and should prove particularly useful to graduate students who wish to pursue their studies independently.

The aim has been to include only the more authoritative readings on a given topic, though on such questions as are admittedly mooted an attempt is made to cite the more representative writers on either side. Occasionally, also, in lieu of any work treating of a given subject in a more satisfactory manner, books have been listed of which the compiler thoroughly disapproves. In such cases, however, there are good reasons for the inclusion: As the list is itself a careful selection, it does not seem necessary for present purposes to add critical comments on the various authors.

Each section (indicated by Roman numerals) maps out a week’s work. The required reading for the present year (tested by means of fortnightly papers) is marked with an asterisk. There has, however, been such an arrangement of topics that the requirements can readily be varied from year to year. The bibliographies cited at the end of each section give further references on the topics under discussion; they are also useful as starting points in the thesis work of the course.

Edmond E. Lincoln, M.A. (Oxon), Ph.D.

 

SUGGESTIONS TO STUDENTS

Although no text-books are required in the course, most of the books in which reading is assigned are recommended for purchase by those who wish to start a library on the subject, and the following titles are suggested for those who desire to purchase a few inexpensive and rather general but thoroughly useful books:

Economics 2a
(European Economic History in the last century.)

Ashley, P., Modern Tariff History (ed. 1910).

Ashley, W. J., Economic Organization of England.

Ashley, W. J., British Industries.

Barker, J. Ellis, Economic Statesmanship (ed. 1920).

Dawson, W. H., The Evolution of Modern Germany.

Day, Clive, History of Commerce. (Useful also in Economics 2b. Good bibliography.)

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

Marshall, A., Industry and Trade.

Morley, Life of Cobden.

Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe. (Bibliography at end of each chapter.)

Perris, G. H., The Industrial History of Modern England.

Prothero, R. E., English Farming, Past and Present.

Raper, Railroad Transportation. (Useful also in Economics 2b.)

Robinson, E. van D., Commercial Geography; or Smith, J. R. Commerce and Industry. (Useful also in Economics 2b.)

Toynbee, Industrial Revolution.

Usher, A. P., Introduction to the Industrial History of England.

Wallace, D. M., Russia (ed. 1912).

 

Economics 2b
(Economic History of the United States.)

Bishop and Keller, Industry and Trade.

Bogart, Economic History of the United States. (“Selected Readings” by Bogart and Thompson is also useful.)

Callender, Economic History of the United States. (Selected readings before 1860.)

Dewey, Financial History of the United States. (Bibliography.)

Jenks and Clark, The Trust Problem.

Johnson and Van Metre, Principles of Railroad Transportation.

Noyes, Forty Years of American Finance.

Taussig, Some Aspects of the Tariff Question.

Taussig, Tariff History (ed. 1914).

 

General Bibliographical Aids in Thesis Writing

American Economic Review (Contains conveniently classified lists of recent books and magazine articles from 1911 to date. Earlier lists are to be found in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1886-1907, and the Economic Bulletin, 1908-1911.

Catalogue of Parliamentary Papers, 1801-1900; and Decennial Supplement, 1901-1910.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th ed.), Bibliographies.

Harvard College Library, Subject Catalogue by names of countries.

Library of Congress, Bibliographies on special topics.

Poole’s Index of Periodical Literature.

Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature (1900-).

University of Chicago, Bibliography of Economics.

_____________________

ECONOMICS 2a
FIRST HALF-YEAR

ECONOMIC HISTORY OF EUROPE SINCE 1800

SUGGESTIONS TO STUDENTS AND AIDS TO THESIS WORK IN ECONOMICS 2a

 

Official Publications

Annuaire Statistique.

Berichte über Handel und Industrie.

Parliamentary Papers, particularly Commercial Reports (annual); Statistical Abstract of Foreign Countries.

Statistisches Jahrbuch.

U. S. Dept. Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Foreign Countries (1909).

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Consular Reports (formerly published by the State Department); Special Agent’s Series, and Bulletins.

 

Periodicals

Annual Register.

Archiv für Socialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik.

Bankers’ Magazine (London).

Economic Journal.

Journal des Économistes.

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.

London Economist. (A weekly financial paper, well indexed, with valuable information on commercial and industrial subjects.)

London Times, with Russian and South American Supplements.

Revue d’ Économie Politique.

Schriften des Vereins fur Socialpolitik.

 

Encyclopedias, Yearbooks, Dictionaries, etc.

Bartholomew, J. G., Atlas of the World’s Commerce.

Dictionary of National Biography.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th ed.).

Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaft.

Jahrbücher fur Nationalökonomie.

McCulloch, Commercial Dictionary (ed. 1856).

Palgrave, Dictionary of Political Economy (including 1909 supplement).

Statesman’s Year-Book.

Wörterbuch der Volkswirtschaft (ed. Elster).

 

General Books

Bland, Brown, and Tawney, English Economic History: Select Documents.

Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Part 2, Vols. II, III. (A carefully arranged, exhaustive bibliography at the end of Vol. III.)

Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany.

Day, History of Commerce. (Useful bibliography with each chapter.)

Levasseur, Histoire des Classes Ouvrières en France depuis 1789; Questions Ouvrières et Industriélles en France sous la Troisième République.

Levi, L., History of British Commerce, 1763-1878.

Macpherson, D., Annals of Commerce, Vol. IV.

Mavor, Economic History of Russia.

Page, Commerce and Industry. (Based on Hansard’s Debates. Vol. II,’ ‘Tables of Statistics for the British Empire from 1815,” is useful.

Porter, Progress of the Nation. (Hirst edition, 1912. Contains some interesting data for Great Britain.)

Smart, Economic Annals of the Nineteenth Century, Vols. I and II, 1801-1830. (A convenient digest of economic materials in annuals and official publications of the time.)

Smith, J. R., Industrial and Commercial Geography.

Sombart, Die deutsche Volkswirtschaft im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert.

Traill, ed., Social England. (Includes contributions by leading authorities on economics and economic history. Vols. V, VI cover the period of this course. Useful bibliography with each chapter.)

Wallace. D. M., Russia (ed. 1912. Still probably the best general book on Russian economic conditions.)

Webb, Trade Unionism (ed. 1911); Industrial Democracy. (These two volumes contain the best bibliographies on English labor problems.)

Williams, J. B., Guide to English Social History, 1750-1850. (Contains some useful though frequently inaccurate bibliographies.)

 

Text-Books

Economic histories of England are legion. Among these may be mentioned the following:

Perris, G. H., The Industrial History of Modern England (covers the period of this course); Rogers, J. E. T., Industrial and Commercial History of England; Tickner, Social and Industrial History of England; Usher, Introduction to the Industrial History of England; Warner, G. T., Landmarks in English Industrial History.

Probably Dawson’s Evolution of Modern Germany and Wallace’s Russia are the most satisfactory books on these countries. Russia: Its Trade and Commerce, by Raffalovich, is a useful recent book on Russia. For more general reading, Ogg’s Economic Development of Modern Europe covers parts of the field of this course and has some useful bibliographies at the end of each chapter. Rand’s Economic History since 1763 (a collection of readings) is still of some service.

Slater, G., Making of Modern England, and Hayes, C. J. H., Political and Social History of Modern Europe, attempt to link up political and economic development.

_____________________

Required reading is indicated by an asterisk (*). Large Roman numerals indicate volumes; Arabic numerals pages. References in brackets [ ] are recommended but not required.

 

I. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

General Reading

*Hobson, Evolution of Modern Capitalism (ed. 1902), 10-82, or ed. 1910 and 1917, 30-102.

*Toynbee, Industrial Revolution (ed. 1908), 22-96.

Ashley, Economic Organization of England, 140-172.

Bücher, Industrial Evolution, 150-184, 282-314.

Cheyney, Readings in English History, 610-616.

Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, III, 620-668.

Lewinski, L’Évolution Industrielle de la Belgique.

Mantoux, Révolution Industrielle, 179-502.

Rappard, La Révolution Industrielle en Suisse.

Traill, ed., Social England, V, 301-357.

Veblen, Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution, 168-270.

Wood, H. T., Industrial England in the Middle of the Eighteenth Century.

 

The Factory System

Bland, Brown, and Tawney, English Economic History: Select Documents, 545-643.

Engels, Condition of the Working Classes in 1844.

Hutchins and Harrison, History of Factory Legislation (ed. 1911), 1-42.

Marx, Das Capital, Vol. I, passim.

Cooke-Taylor, The Modern Factory System, 44-225.

Villermé, L’État Physique et Moral des Ouvriers.

Wallas, Life of Francis Place, 197-240.

Webb, History of Trade Unionism, 24-101.

Woolen Report of 1806; reprinted in Bullock, Selected Readings in Economics, 114-124.

 

Introduction of Textile Machinery

Babbage, The Economy of Machinery and Manufactures.

Chapman, The Lancashire Cotton Industry, 1-112.

Clapham, “Transference of the Worsted Industry,”Economic Journal, XX, 195-210.

Guest, R., Compendious History of the Cotton Manufacture (1823).

Radcliffe, W., Origin of the New System of Manufacture (1828).

Walpole, “The Great Inventions,” in History of England, I, 50-76; reprinted in Bullock, 125-145, and Rand, Selections illustrating Economic History, ch. ii.

 

Bibliographies

Cannon, References for English History, 399-400.

Cunningham, III, 944-946, 990-996.

Hunt, W., Political History of England, 1760-1801 (Hunt and Poole Series, X), 468-469.

Traill, ed., Social England, V, 364-365, 627.

 

II. AGRARIAN MOVEMENT — CONTINENT

Germany

*Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany, 255-294.

*Morier, “Agrarian Legislation of Prussia,” in Probyn, Land Tenure in Various Countries, 267-275; also in Rand, 98-108.

*Seeley, Life and Times of Stein, I, 287-297; in Rand, 86-98.

Brentano, “Agrarian Reform in Prussia,” Econ. Jour., VII, 1-20 (March, 1897).

Knapp, Bauernbefreiung in Preussen.

Preuss, Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Bedeutung der Stein-Hardenbergschen Reform.

Probyn, ed., Land Tenure in Various Countries, 243-287.

Von der Goltz, Agrarwesen und Agrarpolitik, 40-50; also Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft.

 

France

*Dumas, “French Land System,” Econ. Jour., XIX, 32-50 (March, 1909).

*Von Sybel, French Revolution, in Rand, Selections, 55-85.

Cliffe Leslie, The Land System of France, in Carver’s Selected Readings in Rural Economics, 410-432.

De Foville, Le Morcellement, 52-89.

Flour de St. Genis, La Propriété Rurale, 80-164.

Levasseur, Histoire des Classes Ouvrières (ed. 1867), 23-42.

Young, A., Travels in France.

 

Other Countries

Chlapowski, Belgische Landwirtschaft.

Faucher, J., Russian Agrarian Legislation of 1861, in Probyn, Land Tenure in Various Countries, 309-346.

Laveleye, Économie Rurale de la Belgique.

Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire of the Czars, I, 403-580; II, 1-57.

Mavor, Economic History of Russia, I.

Schulze-Gaevernitz, Volkswirtschaftliche Studien aus Russland, 308-383.

Simkhovitch, Feldgemeinschaft in Russland.

 

Bibliographies

Cambridge Modern History, X, 795, 884, 886.

Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, IX, 417, 622; X, 472.

 

III. AGRARIAN MOVEMENT — ENGLAND

General Agricultural Conditions

*Prothero, R. E., English Farming Past and Present, 148-189, 207-252, 290-315.

Caird, English Agriculture in 1850, 473-528.

Curtler, Short History of English Agriculture, 190-270.

Garnier, English Landed Interests.

Levy, H., Large and Small Holdings (1911 transl.), 3-54.

Levy, Entstehung und Rückgang des landwirtschaftlichen Grossbetriebs in England.

Parliamentary Reports: 1816, Committee on Mendicity and Vagrancy; 1821, IX, Committee on Agriculture; 1822, V, Committee on Agricultural Distress.

Smart, Economic Annals of the Nineteenth Century, 1801-20, chs. vi, xx, xxii.; 1821-30, chs. i, v, x, xii.

Young, A., Tour through the Southern Counties (1768).

 

The Small Holder

Broderick, English Land and English Landlords, 65-240.

Colman, European Agriculture (2d ed.), I, 10-109, 133-174.

Green, F. E., The Small Holding.

Hasbach, History of the English Agricultural Labourer, 71-147.

Johnson, A. H., Disappearance of the Small Land Holder in England, 7-17, 107-164.

Prothero, R. E., English Farming, Past and Present, 190-206.

Taylor, Decline of the Land-owning Farmers in England, 1-61.

 

Bibliographies

Cambridge Modern History, X, 884-885.

Garnier, English Landed Interests, II, 536, 553.

Levy, H., Large and Small Holdings, 230-235.

Traill, ed., Social England, V, 513; VI, 110.

 

III. AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION AND RECENT AGRARIAN HISTORY

England and Ireland

*Prothero, R. E., English Farming Past and Present, 316-331, 346-418.

Adams, “Small Holding in the United Kingdom,” Roy. Stat. Soc. Jour., 1907, 412-437.

Arch, Autobiography, 65-144, 300-345.

Barker, E., Ireland in the Last Fifty Years, 69-141.

Bastable, “Economic Movement in Ireland,” Econ. Jour., XI, 31-42.

Besse, P., L’Agriculture en Angleterre de 1875 à nos jours.

Caird, in Ward, Reign of Queen Victoria, II, 129-153.

Caird, English Agriculture in 1850.

Curtler, Short History of English Agriculture, 271-322.

Curtis, C. E., and Gordon, Handbook upon Agricultural Tenancies.

Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Report on Agricultural Credit in Ireland (1915).

Gray, H. L., War Time Control of Industry, 249-269, “Agriculture.”

Green, F. E., History of the English Agricultural Labourer, 1870-1920.

Haggard, Rural England, II, 536-576.

Hasbach, English Agricultural Labourer, 274-353.

Herrick, M. T., Rural Credits, 148-160.

Levy, H., Large and Small Holdings, 55-213.

Parliamentary Tariff Commission, III, Report of the Agricultural Committee, 1906.

Plunkett, Ireland in the New Century (ed. 1905), 175-209.

Royal Commission of 1897, Report on Agricultural Depression, 6-87.

Thompson, “Rent of Agricultural Land in England and Wales,” Roy. Stat. Soc. Jour., 1907, 587-611.

Turner, E. R., Ireland and England, 188-225.

 

Other Countries

Brentano, Die deutschen Getreidezölle (ed. 1911).

Chlapowski, Belgische Landwirtschaft.

Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany, 226-293.

Ely, R. T., “Russian Land Reform,” Am. Econ. Rev., VI, 61-68.

Goulier, Commerce du Blé en France.

Haggard, Rural Denmark and its Lessons.

Herrick, M. T., Rural Credits, 34-147, 161-186.

Imbart de la Tour, Le Crise Agricole, 24-34, 127-223.

King and Okey, Italy To-day, 156-192.

Mavor, Economic History of Russia, II, 251-357.

Méline, J., Return to the Land, 83-144, 185-240.

Morman, J. B., Principles of Rural Credits, 3-141.

Rowntree, Land and Labour, Lessons from Belgium.

Simkhovitch, “Agrarian Movement in Russia,” Yale Rev., XVI, 9-38.

Wallace, D. M., Russia.

 

Bibliographies

Besse, P., L’Agriculture en Angleterre.

Cambridge Modern History, XII, 856-862, 866-867, 872-873.

Levy, Large and Small Holdings, 235-242.

Traill, ed., Social England, VI, 452.

 

V. THE FREE TRADE MOVEMENT — ENGLAND

*Armitage-Smith, G., Free Trade and its Results, (ed. 1898), 39-60, 130-163.

*Morley, Life of Cobden, chs. vi, vii, xvi.

Ashworth, Recollections of Cobden and the League, 32-64, 296-392.

Cambridge Modern History, XI, 1-21.

Cheyney, Readings in English History, 702-716.

Cunningham, Rise and Decline of the Free Trade Movement, 27-99.

Curtler, Short History of English Agriculture, 271-293.

Day, History of Commerce, 354-372.

Levi, History of British Commerce, 218-227, 261-272, 292- 303; in Rand, 207-241.

McCulloch, J. R., Dictionary of Commerce (ed. 1850), 411-449, 1272-1289.

Mongredien, History of the Free Trade Movement.

Morley, Life of Gladstone, I, 247-303, 443-476; II, 18-69.

Nicholson, J. S., History of the English Corn Laws.

Northcote, Twenty Years of Financial Policy.

Parker, Sir Robert Peel from his Private Letters, II, 522-559; III, 220-252.

Parliamentary Reports: 1840, Committee on Import Duties; 1843-1845, Commission on the Health of Towns; 1842-1843, 1863-1868, Committees on Employment of Children, Young Persons, and Women in Mines, Manufactures, and Agriculture.

Prentice, History of the Anti-Corn Law League, I, 49-77.

Schulze-Gaevernitz, Britischer Imperialismus, 243-375.

Tooke, History of Prices, 1839-1847, V, 391-457.

Trevelyan, G. M., Life of John Bright, 45-153.

 

Bibliographies

Arnauné, Le Commerce Extérieur, 199-226, notes.

Cambridge Modern History, X, 868-870; XI, 869, 871-872.

Cannon, References for English History, 423-424.

Morley, Life of Cobden (ed. 1908), II, 495-504.

N. Y. State Library, Bulletin, May, 1902, “Bibliography of the Corn Laws.”

 

VI. TARIFF HISTORY — CONTINENT

General Reading

*Ashley, P., Modern Tariff History (ed. 1910), 3-73, 359-372.

Bastable, Commerce of Nations.

Day, History of Commerce, 342-352, 391-417.

Fisk, G. W., “Middle European Tariff Union” (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, November-December, 1902).

 

Germany

*Bowring, “Report on Prussian Commercial Union,” Parl. Doc., 1840, in Rand, Selections, 170-196.

Bigelow, P., German Struggle for Liberty, III, ch. 17.

Dawson, W. H., Protection in Germany.

Lang, Hundert Jahre Zollpolitik, 168-230.

Weber, W., Der Deutsche Zollverein.

Worms, L’Allemagne Économique, 57-393.

 

France

Amé, Les Tarifs de Douanes, I, 21-34, 219-316.

Arnauné, Le Commerce Extérieur et les Tarifs de Douane, 90-269.

Meredith, H. O., Protection in France.

Morley, Life of Cobden, ch. xxix.

Perigot, Histoire du Commerce Français, 77-185.

 

Bibliographies

Ashley, P., Modern Tariff History (ed. 1910), 165-166, 437-438.

Cambridge Modern History, X, 832; XI, 878.

Lavisse et Rambud, Histoire Générale, X, 472, 668.

 

VII. RECENT TARIFF HISTORY

Return to Protection; France and Germany

*U. S. Tariff Commission, Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, 461-510.

Ashley, P., Modern Tariff History (ed. 1910), 80-121, 145-154, 373-436.

Arnauné, Le Commerce Extérieur, 247-350.

Dawson, Protection in Germany, 26-160.

Dijol, La France sous la Régime Protectionniste de 1892.

Meredith, Protection in France, 54-129.

Zimmermann, Deutsche Handelspolitik, 218-314.

 

English Controversy; Imperial Federation

*Ashley, W. J., Tariff Problem, 114-167.

Armitage-Smith, Free Trade Movement and its Results, 188-203.

Balfour, Economic Notes in Insular Free Trade, 1-32; Fiscal Reform, 71-95, 97-113, 266-280.

Caillard, V. H. P., Imperial Fiscal Reform.

Chamberlain, Imperial Union and Tariff Reform, 19-44.

Coates, G., Tariff Reform Employment and Imperial Unity.

Cunningham, Rise and Decline of the Free Trade Movement, 100-168.

Drage, G., Imperial Organization of Trade.

Marshall, Fiscal Policy of International Trade, 30-82.

Pigou, Protective and Preferential Import Duties, 1-117. (See also his Riddle of the Tariff, 1-107.)

Root, J. W., Trade Relations of British Empire.

Smart, Return to Protection, 27-44, 136-185.

Tariff Reform League, Speakers’ Handbook.

 

Bibliographies

U. S. Library of Congress, Foreign Tariffs (1906); British Tariff Movement (1904).

Cambridge Modern History, XI, 878, 969; XII, 872.

Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XII, 788.

 

VIII. COMMERCE AND SHIPPING

England

*Bowley, England’s Foreign Trade in the Nineteenth Century, (ed. 1905), 55-96, 141-147.

*Grosvenor, G. M., Government Aid to Merchant Shipping, 45-61, 75-86, 135-165.

Bourne, S., Trade, Population, and Food.

Cornewall-Jones, British Merchant Service, 252-260, 306-317.

Ginsburg,”British Shipping,” in Ashley, British Industries, 173-195.

Glover, “Tonnage Statistics of the Decade, 1891-1900,” Roy. Stat. Soc. Jour., 1902, 1-41.

Kirkaldy, British Shipping: its History, Organization, and Importance.

Lindsay, Merchant Shipping, IV.

Meeker, History of Shipping Subsidies, 1-67, 79-95.

Porter, Progress of the Nation (Hirst, ed.), 473-546.

Root, “British Shipping Subsidies,” Atlantic Monthly, LXXXV, 385-394 (1900).

Root, J. W., Trade Relations of the British Empire.

Smith, J. Russell, Influence of the Great War on Shipping, 153-184, 244-265.

Smith, J. R., The Ocean Carrier.

Taylor, “British Merchant Marine,” Forum, XXX, 463-477 (1900-1901).

U- S. Dept. of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Foreign Countries (1909).

Ward, T. H., Reign of Queen Victoria, II, 111-118.

 

Other Countries

Arnauné, Le Commerce Extérieur, 425-460.

Austin, O. P., Effects of the War on World Trade and Industry.

Bracq, J. C., France under the Republic, ch. 3.

Charles-Roux, L’Isthme et le Canal de Suez, II, 287-339.

Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany, 65-74.

Hauser, H., Germany’s Commercial Grip on the World.

Le Roux de Bretagne, Les Primes à la Marine Marchande, 93-224.

Marx, A., Französische Handelsgesetzgebung.

Snow, C. D., Germany’s Foreign Trade Organization (U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, miscellaneous series, no. 57).

Von Halle, Volks-und Seewirtschaft, 136-219.

 

Bibliographies

Cambridge Modern History, XII, 872-873.

Day, History of Commerce, 380, 398, 407-408, 417.

Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X, 472.

Van der Borght, Handel und Handelspolitik.

 

IX. TRANSPORTATION — PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

*Cunningham, W. J., “Characteristics of British Railways,” New Eng. R.R. Club, 8-60.

*Hadley, Railroad Transportation, 187-202.

*Raper, Railway Transportation, 14-60.

 

General Reading

Hendrick, Railway Control by Commissions, chs. ii, vii.

Johnson, American Railway Transportation, 322-334.

Parliamentary Papers, Reports of Board of Trade Railway Conference: 1909, Germany, Austria, and Hungary; 1910, Belgium, France, and Italy.

Sterne, “Railway Systems in Europe,” U. S. Sen. Misc. Doc., 66, II, 1886-1887.

U. S. Industrial Commission, Report, IX, 946-949, 955-957.

 

England

Acworth, Railways of England, 1-56.

Acworth, Elements of Railway Economics, 61-74, 131-159.

Cohn, G., Englische Eisenbahnpolitik.

Dixon, F. H., and Parmelee, War Administration of the Railroads in the United States and Great Britain, 71-127.

Edwards, “Railways and the Trade of Great Britain,” Roy. Stat. Soc. Jour., 1908, 102-131.

Evans, A. D., “British Railways and Goods Traffic,” Econ. Jour., 1905, 37-46.

Forbes and Ashford, Our Waterways, 107-177, 215-252.

Francis, J., History of the English Railway.

Gordon, W. J., Our Railways.

Gray, H. L., War Time Control of Industry, 1-13, “The Railways.”

Grindling, “British Railways as Business Enterprises,” in Ashley, British Industries, 151-172.

Jackman, W. T., The Development of Transportation in Modern England, particularly II.

Johnson and Van Metre, Principles of Railroad Transportation, 385-414.

McDermott, Railways, 1-149.

McLean, “English Railway and Canal Commission of 1888,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XX, 1-55 (1905); also in Ripley, Railway Problems, 602-649 (ed. 1907).

Moulton, Waterways versus Railways, 98-169.

Porter, Progress of the Nation (ed. 1851), 287-339.

Pratt, Railways and their Rates, 1-184.

Protheroe, E., The Railways of the World, 1-528.

Stephens, E. C., English Railways; their Development and their Relation to the State.

Thompson, H. G., Canal System of England, 1-73.

Ward, Reign of Queen Victoria, II, 83-129.

France

Buckler, “Railway Regulation in France,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XX, 279-286 (1906); also in Ripley, Railway Problems, 652-659 (ed. 1907).

Colson, Legislation des Chemins de Fer, 3-20, 133-182.

Colson, Railway Rates and Traffic, 53-111.

Guillamot, L’Organisation des Chemins de Fer, 82-120.

Kaufmann, Die Eisenbahnpolitik Frankreichs, II, 178-284.

Leon, Fleuves, Canaux, et Chemins de Fer, 1-156.

Lucas, F., Voies de Communication de la France.

Monkswell, French Railways.

Picard, A., Traité des Chemins de Fer, 5 vols.

Raper, Railway Transportation, 61-101.

 

Bibliographies

Hadley, Railroad Transportation, 146-202, notes.

Johnson, American Railway Transportation, 334.

Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X, 472; XI, 876-877.

U. S. Library of Congress, Government Regulation of Railways in Foreign Countries (1905-1907).

 

X. TRANSPORTATION — STATE OWNERSHIP

General Reading

*Raper, Railway Transportation, 278-305.

Acworth, W. M., Historical Sketch of Government Ownership of Railways in Foreign Countries.

Acworth, “Relation of Railways to the State,” Econ. Jour., 1908, 501-519.

Archiv fur Eisenbahnwesen. (Best general periodical for all aspects of continental railway problems and history.)

Dunn, Government Ownership of Railways, 14-36.

Hadley, Railroad Transportation, 236-258.

Jevons, The Railways and the State.

Johnson, American Railway Transportation, 336-348.

McPherson, L. G., Transportation in Europe, 149-175.

Pratt, Railways and their Rates, 185-236; Railways and Nationalization, 1-120, 253-293.

 

Germany

*Cunningham, “Administration of the State Railways of Prussia-Hesse,” Proceedings N. Y. Railroad Club, XXIII, 3124-3127, 3146-3155.

*Raper, Railway Transportation, 134-177.

Cohn, G., “State Railway Administration in Prussia,” Jour. Pol. Econ., I, 172-192.

Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany, ch. xi.

Johnson and Van Metre, Principles of Railroad Transportation, 415-434.

Lotz, Verkehrsentwicklung in Deutschland, 2-47, 96-142.

Lenshau, Deutsche Wasserstrassen, 9-56, 95-161.

Mayer, Geschichte und Geographie der deutschen Eisenbahnen, 3-41.

Meyer, B. H.,”Railroad Ownership in Germany, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Sci., X, 399-421, also in Ripley’s Railway Problems (ed. 1913), 803-825.

Meyer, H. R., Government Regulation of Railway Rates, 3-33, 69-92.

Moulton, Waterways versus Railways, 170-323.

 

Other Countries

*Holcombe, A. N., “The First Decade of the Swiss Federal Railways,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XXVI, 341-362.

Cucheval-Clarigny, “Les Chemins de Fer Italiens,” Rev. des Deux Mondes, July 1, 15, 1884.

Hadley, Railroad Transportation, 203-235.

Peschaud, “Belgian State Railways,” in Pratt, State Railways, 57-107.

Raper, Railway Transportation, 102-133.

Tajani, “Railway Situation in Italy,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XXIII, 618-651.

 

Bibliographies

Cambridge Modern History, XII, 872-873, 883-884.

U. S. Library of Congress, Government Ownership of Railroads; Railroads in Foreign Countries.

 

XI. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: ENGLAND

*Ashley, W. J., British Industries, 2-38.

*Clapham, J. H., Woollen and Worsted Industry, 1-24, 125-173.

Ashley, W. J., Adjustment of Wages, 185-229, 268-311.

Chapman, S. J., The Lancashire Cotton Industry.

Cox, British Industries under Free Trade, 2-84, 142-175, 235-276.

Gray, H. L., War Time Control of Industry, 61-100, “The Coal Mines.”

Great Britain: Coal Industry Commission (1919), Interim Report and Final Report (“Sankey Report”).

Great Britain: Final Report of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War, Parl. Doc. 9035 (1918).

Helm, E., “Survey of the Cotton Industry,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XVII, 417-437.

Jeans, J. S., Iron Trade of Great Britain, 1-72, 100-111.

Jevons, H. S., The British Coal Trade.

Jones, J. H., The Tinplate Industry.

Lloyd, Cutlery Trades, 30-63, 171-208.

Macrosty, Trusts and the State.

Marshall, A., Industry and Trade, 32-106.

Pollock, Shipbuilding Industry.

Porter, Progress of the Nation (Hirst, ed.), 213-432.

Schoenhof, History of Money and Prices, 148-173, 215-323.

Spicer, A. D., Paper Trade.

U. S. Dept. Commerce and Labor, English Cotton Industry (1907); British Iron and Steel Industry (1909).

Ward, ed., Reign of Queen Victoria, II, 153-196 (Slagg, Cotton Trade); II, 197-238 (Bell, Iron Trade).

 

XII. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CONTINENT

General Reading

*Copeland, Cotton Manufacturing Industry, 275-332.

Beck, Die Geschichte des Eisens.

Brauns, Samt- und Seiden Industrie.

Marshall, A., Industry and Trade, 107-139.

Schultze, Die Entwicklung der chemischen Industrie.

U. S. Dept. of Commerce and Labor, Special Agents Series, 1909-13; continued in publications of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.

 

Germany

*Helfferich, Germany’s Economic Progress, 1888-1913, 13-85.

Barker, J. E., Modern Germany.

Berglund, A., “The Iron Ore Problem of Lorraine,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XXXIII, 531-554.

Blondel, L’essor industriel et commercial du peuple allemande (3d ed.), 1-114, 272-412.

Dehn, R. M. P., The German Cotton Industry.

Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany, 37-65.

Farrington, F. E., Commercial Education in Germany.

Von Halle, “Die deutsche Volkswirthschaft an der Jahrhundertwende,” Volks- und Seewirthschaft, 13-219.

Haskins and Lord, Some Problems of the Peace Conference, 117-152, “The Rhine and the Saar.”

Hauser, Germany’s Commercial Grip on the World; also Les Méthodes Allemandes d’Expansion Économique.

Howard, Recent Industrial Progress in Germany, 51-109.

Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 56-251.

Laughlin, J. L., Credit of the Nations, 1-38.

Schumacher, H., Die westdeutsche Eisenindustrie.

Sombart, Die deutsche Volkswirthschaft im neunzehnten Jahrhundert.

Sombart, “Industrial Progress of Germany,” Yale Rev., XIV, 6-17, 134-154.

Williams, E. E., “Made in Germany.”

Wolfe, A. J., Commercial Organization in Germany (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Sp. Ag. Ser. No. 98).

 

Other Countries

Aftalion, Le Développement de la Fabrique dans les Industries de l’Habillement.

Fischer, Italien und die Italiener (ed. 1901), 240-267.

The Industries of Russia, prepared by Department of Trade and Manufactures, Ministry of Finance, St. Petersburg, for the Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893.

Kennard, The Russian Year Book (1911- ).

La Belgique, 1830-1905, 397-617.

Levasseur, Questions ouvrières et industrielles en France sous la troisième République, 27-166.

Machat, Le Développement Économique de la Russie, 157-229.

Raffalovich, Russia: its Trade and Commerce.

U. S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Russia: A Handbook of Commercial and Industrial Conditions, (U. S. Consular Report, No. 61, 1913).

Wolfe, A. J., Commercial Organization in France (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Sp. Ag. Ser., No. 98).

 

Bibliographies

Cambridge Modern History, XI, 931; XII, 866, 872, 883, 903, 960.

Howard, Industrial Progress in Germany, x-xiii.

U. S. Library of Congress, Iron and Steel in Commerce (1907).

 

XIII. INDUSTRIAL COMBINATION

*British Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of Committee on Trusts (1919), 15-30.

*Marshall, A., Industry and Trade, 544-635.

Baumgarten und Meszleny, Kartelle und Trusts, 83-152.

Brodnitz, “Betreibskonzentration in der englischen Industrie,” Jahrb. fur Nat. Oek., 1908-1909, XC, 173-218; XCII, 51-86, 145-184.

Carter, G. R., The Tendency toward Industrial Combination.

Chastin, Les Trusts et les Syndicats, 13-127.

Davies, J. E., Trust Laws and Unfair Competition, 529-662.

Deutsches Kartell-Jahrbuch.

Hauser, “La Syndicalisation Obligatoire en Allemagne,” Revue d’Économie Politique, XXXII, 230-265.

Kartell Rundschau.

Liefmann, Kartelle und Trusts (ed. 1910).

Liefmann, Beteiligungs- und Finanzierungsgesellschaften.

Liefmann, R., Die Kartelle in und nach dem Kriege.

Macrosty, Trust Movement in British Industry, 24-56, 81-84, 117-154, 284-307, 329-345.

Macrosty, “Trust Movement in Great Britain,” in Ashley, British Industries, 196-232.

Notz, W., “Kartels during the War,” Jour. Pol. Econ., XXVII, 1-38.

Passama, Formes Nouvelles de Concentration, 1-171.

Paul, L., Histoire du Mouvement Syndical en France (1789-1910).

Tosdal, ” Kartell Movement in the German Potash Industry,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XXVIII, 140-180.

Tosdal, “The German Steel Syndicate,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XXXI. 259-306.

Tschierschky, Kartelle und Trusts.

U. S. Industrial Commission, Report, XVIII, 7-13, 75-88, 101-122, 143-165.

U. S. Federal Trade Commission, Report on Coöperation in the American Export Trade, I, 98-127, 272-279, 285-292.

Utsch, Kartelle und Arbeiter.

Walker, Combinations in the German Coal Industry, 38-111, 175-289, 322-327.

Walker, “German Steel Syndicate,” Quar. Jour. Econ., XX, 353-398.

 

Bibliographies

Cambridge Modern History, XII, 960-961.

Carter, G. R., The Tendency toward Industrial Combination, xi-xv.

Chastin, Les Trusts, 13-127, notes.

Liefmann, Beteiligungs- und Finanzierungsgesellschaften, ix-x.

Passama, Formes Nouvelles de Concentration, xxi-xxiii.

 

XIV. BANKING AND FINANCE IN RELATION TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

*Hobson, C. K., Export of Capital, 95-163.

*Riesser, The German Great Banks and their Concentration, 703-750.

Andréadès, History of the Bank of England, 331-369, 381-388.

Bastable, Public Finance (3d ed.), 629-657.

Bagehot, Lombard Street (ed. 1910).

Burrell, “Historical Survey of the Position Occupied by the Bank of England,” etc., Journal of the Institute of Bankers, XXXVI (1915), 405-425.

Dunbar, History and Theory of Banking (ed. 1917), 132-219.

Giffen, Economic Inquiries, I, 75-97, 121-228.

Giffen, Growth of Capital, 115-134.

Huth, W., Die Entwickelung der deutschen und französischen Grossbanken.

Jevons, Investigations in Currency and Finance, 34-92.

Juglar, Crises Commerciales.

Liesse, Credit and Banks in France (in Nat. Mon. Com. Reports).

McLeod, Theory and Practice of Banking (4th ed.), I, 433-540; II, 1-197.

Patron, Bank of France (in Nat. Mon. Com. Reports).

Powell, E. T., The Evolution of the Money Market, 243-705.

Van Antwerp, The Stock Exchange from Within, 323-412.

Vidal, History and Methods of the Paris Bourse (in Nat. Mon. Com. Reports).

Warburg, P. M., The Discount System in Europe (in Nat. Mon. Com. Reports).

Withers, Meaning of Money, 85-106, 138-172.

Withers, War Time Financial Problems, 15-30, 76-90, 163-179.

 

 

XV. LABOR PROBLEMS

General Reading

*Cole, G. D. H., World of Labor, 101-127.

*Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany, 106-134 [135-169].

*Hammond, M. B., British Labor Conditions and Legislation during the War, 3-21.

*Webb, “Social Movements,” in Cambridge Modern History, XII, 730-765.

Ashley, W. J., German Working Classes, 1-141.

Board of Trade Report, 1909, Cost of Living of the Working Classes in the United Kingdom, Germany, France.

Board of Trade Report, 1911, Cost of Living of the Working Classes in American Towns (comparisons with English conditions).

Booth, Life and Labor of the People in London.

Bowley, Wages in the United Kingdom, 22-57, 81-127.

Cole, “Recent Development in the British Labor Movement,” Am. Econ. Rev., VIII, 485-505.

Cole, G. D. H., The World of Labor.

Dawson, German Workman, 1-245.

Engels, Condition of the Working Class in 1844.

Gray, H. L., War Time Control of Industry, 14-60, “Munitions and Labor.”

Hammond, J. L., and Barbara, The Village Labourer (1760-1832); The Town Labourer (1760-1832); The Skilled Labourer (1760-1832).

Hammond, M. B., British Labor Conditions and Legislation during the War (passim).

Hayes, C., British Social Politics.

Herkner, Arbeiterfrage.

Hutchins, Women in Industry (ed. 1920).

Kirkup, History of Socialism.

Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, II, 224-503.

Levasseur, Questions Ouvrières et Industrielles en France, 523-600.

Macrosty, Trusts and the State (passim).

Nicholls, G., History of the English Poor Law, II, chs. xi-xii; III (supplementary vol., 1834-1898, by Thos. Mackay).

Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (one vol. ed., 1884), 468-575.

Schloss, Methods of Industrial Remuneration.

Shadwell, Industrial Efficiency (ed. 1906), II, 307-350; or in ed. 1909, 533-568.

U. S. Commissioner of Labor, 15th Ann. Report (1900), Wages in Commercial Countries.

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 237, Industrial Unrest in Great Britain.

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, April, 1918, 63-83, “Social Reconstruction Program of the British Labor Party.”

U. S. Commission of Labor, 21st Annual Report (1906), Strikes and Lockouts, 775-916.

Wallas, G., Life of Francis Place, ch. viii.

Ward, ed., Reign of Queen Victoria, II, 43-83 (Mundella and Howell, Industrial Association).

Webb, English Poor Law Policy.

Wood, “Real Wages since 1860,” Roy. Stat. Soc. Jour., 1909, 91-101.

 

Labor Organizations

Ashley, Adjustment of Wages, 160-183.

Kulemann, Die Gewerkschaftsbewegung.

Levasseur, Questions Ouvrières et Industrielles en France sous la Troisième République, 642-741.

Levine, Labor Movement in France.

Webb, S. and B., History of Trade Unionism (ed. 1920).

Webb, Industrial Democracy.

 

Factory Legislation

Barrault, La Réglementation du Travail à Domicile en Angleterre.

Commons and Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation.

Hutchins and Harrison, History of Factory Legislation (ed. 1911).

Pic, Traité Élémentaire de Législation Industrielle (ed. 1912).

Plener, English Factory Legislation.

Taylor, R. W. C., Factory System and Factory Acts.

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 146, Administration of Labor Laws and Factory Inspection in Certain European Countries.

 

Coöperation and Profit-sharing

Aves, E., Coöperative Industry.

Corréard, J., Des Sociétés coopératives.

Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany, 294-307.

Fay, C. R., Cooperation at Home and Abroad (ed. 1920).

Herrick, M. T., Rural Credits, 247-455.

Holyoake, Cooperation in England (ed. 1908), I, 32-162; II, 361-396.

Maxwell, W., History of Cooperation in Scotland, 43-114.

Potter, B. (Mrs. Webb), Cooperative Movement in Great Britain.

Report of U. S. Commission to investigate and study agricultural credit and coöperation in Europe (1914): 63d Cong., 2d Sess., Senate Doc. 380.

Valleroux, La Coopération.

(See also topic no. IV of this list)

 

Workingmen’s Insurance and Unemployment

Beveridge, Unemployment.

Dawson, Social Insurance in Germany.

Frankel and Dawson, Workingmen’s Insurance in Europe.

Gibbon, I. G., Unemployment Insurance.

Willoughby, Workingmen’s Insurance, 29-87.

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 206, The British System of Labor Exchanges.

 

Population and Emigration

Bullock, Selected Readings in Economics, 255-286.

Dawson, Evolution of Modern Germany, chs. xvi, xvii.

Duval, Histoire de L’Émigration au XIXe Siècle.

Foerster, R. F., Italian Emigration of Our Times, 3-202, 415-525.

Godwin, Wm., Of Population.

Gonnard, L’Émigration Européenne au XIXe Siècle.

Leroy-Beaulieu, P., La Question de la Population.

Leroy-Beaulieu, P., De la Colonisation chez les Peuples Modernes, II, 435-522.

Malthus, Essay on Population.

Nitti, Population and the Social System.

Philippovich, “Auswanderung und Auswanderungspolitik in Deutschland,” in Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, LII bd.

Wakefield, E. G., The Art of Colonization.

 

Bibliographies

Adams and Sumner, Labor Problems, references.

Cambridge Modern History, XII, 960-966.

Commons and Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation, 465-488.

Frankel and Dawson, Workingmen’s Insurance, 435-443.

Gibbon, Unemployment Insurance, 337-342.

Harvard University, Dept. of Social Ethics, Guide to Reading in Social Ethics, 68-163, 183-209.

Hutchins and Harrison, Factory Legislation, 279-284.

Ogg, Economic Development of Modern Europe, at the end of chs. xvi-xx, inclusive.

Taylor, F. I., Bibliography of Unemployment.

Webb, Trade Unionism (ed. 1911), 499-543.

Webb, Industrial Democracy, 879-900.

Wright, Practical Sociology, references.

 

Image Source: Edwin Francis Gay and Edmund E. Lincoln from Harvard Class Album 1920.

Categories
Economic History Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. European Economic History, Usher. 1921

________________________

Abbott Payson Usher (1883-1965) first taught his nineteenth century European economic history course at Harvard in the fall semester of 1921-22 at the rank of Lecturer. Usher received his A.B., A.M. and Ph.D. from Harvard in 1904, 1905, 1910, respectively. 

The syllabus for the course is provided in this post and all readings are linked to their respective texts!

Before returning to Harvard, Usher was professor of History of Commerce and Economic History of the College of Business Administration at Boston University for the 1920-21 academic year [possibly 1921-22 too?], coming from Cornell University where he taught as Instructor (1910-14) and then Assistant Professor of Economics (1914-1920).

Material from his Modern Economic History Seminar, 1937-41, was posted earlier.

________________________

Course Announcement for 1921-22

2a 1hf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century
Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 9. Dr. Usher.

 

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1921-22, 3rd edition. p. 109.

________________________

 

READING ASSIGNMENTS
Economics 2a
1921-22

I. The Industrial Revolution

Usher, Industrial History, Chapters 1, 10, 12, 13, 14

II. Agrarian Movement, Continent

Usher, Industrial History, pp. 112-20
Seeley, Life & Times of Stein, Rand [Benjamin Rand, Selections illustrating Economic History Since the Seven Years’ War. 5th ed. New York: Macmillan, 1911], pp. 86-98
Brentano, Agrarian Reform in Prussia – Econ. Jour. 1-20
Von Sybel, – in Rand, pp. 55-85

III. Agrarian Movement, England.

Usher, Industrial History, pp. 225-40
Curtler, Short History of English Agriculture, pp. 190-262

IV. Agricultural Depression

Prothero, R. E. (Baron Ernle) English Farming Past & Present, pp. 316-31, 346-418
Usher, Industrial History, pp. 240-47

V. Free Trade Movement, England

Armitage-Smith, Free Trade & Its Results, 39-60, 130-163
Morley, Life of Cobden, chs. XV & XVI

VI. Tariff History, Continent

Ashley, P. Modern Tariff History, (1910) 3-63, 359-372

VII. Recent Tariff History

U. S. Tariff Commission, Reciprocity & Commercial Treaties, 461-510

VIII. Commerce & Shipping

Bowley, England’s Foreign Trade in the 19th Century, ed. 1905 pp. 55-96
Grosvenor, Gov’t Aid to Merchant Shipping, 45-61, 75-86, 135-65

IX. Transportation – Private Ownership

Cunningham, W. J. Characteristics of British R. R., N. E. R. R. Club 8-60
Usher, Industrial History, chs. 17 and 18

X. Transportation – State Ownership

Raper, Railway Transportation, pp. 134-177, 278-305

XI. Industrial Development: England

Ashley, W. J. ed. British Industries, 2-38 (Jeans, British Iron and Steel/1902)
Clapham, J. H. Woolen & Worsted Industry, 1-24, 125-173

XII. Industrial Development: Continent

Copeland, Cotton Manufacturing Industry, 275-311

XIII. Industrial Combination

British Ministry of Reconstruction, Report on Trusts, 1919, pp. 15-30
Marshall, Industry & Trade, pp. 544-65, 577-98
Usher, Industrial History, ch. 19

XIV. Banking & Finance

Riesser, The German Great Banks, 703-750
Andréadès, History of the Bank of England, 331-69

XV. Labor Problems & Public Health

Usher, Industrial History, chs. 15, 16 & ch. 20 secs. 2 & 3

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 1, Folder “Economics, 1921-1922

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1923.

Categories
Columbia Economic History Economists Yale

Columbia Economics Ph.D. alumnus. John M. Montias, 1958

The history of economics would be duller fare should we fail to add a portion of ancestor worship as seasoning. Since my motto is “Economists are not born but they are made” and that for well over a century economists have been made in graduate schools, I would be remiss in not using Economics in the Rear-View Mirror to erect shrines from time to time to those economists who trained me.

During the academic year 1973-74 while an undergraduate at Yale, I took a graduate course taught by John Michael Montias on comparative economic systems.  Having been born in Paris, he volunteered out of interest in the topic to be the second reader of my senior essay about French mercantilism and the Physiocrats. I recall him as a thoughtful scholar and a kind man. He was one of four professors (the others were Raymond Powell, Abram Bergson and Evsey Domar) who in different courses valiantly tried to teach me the lessons of Richard H. Moorsteen’s article “On Measuring Productive Potential and Relative Efficiency” Quarterly Journal of Economics (1961) 75 (3): 451-467. The teaching efforts of Montias et al. did ignite in me a long professional interest in the economic theory of index numbers though I do not recall them exactly cracking the code in class for us. Montias’ own ambition was less on the bean-counting side of empirical comparative economics as on the theoretical side in pursuit of a formal systematization of a “macro”-institutional economics. We began his course by reading his essay co-authored with Tjalling Koopmans published in Comparison of Economic Systems: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches, Alexander Eckstein (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971. I believe we can all agree that economic outcomes depend jointly on the economic environment, economic system and economic policies within the system. I also believe that the last sentence reads no better when expressed in mathematical notation. 

John Michael Montias’ greatest hits in economics were to appear after I had moved on. He had a passion for Dutch and Flemish art that led to seminal contributions in the history of 17th century Dutch art markets. Tulip bubbles are cool, but I’d say Vermeer is hot.

P.S.  Fun Fact: The U.S. Embassy official in Hungary who had to deal with Montias’ expulsion from Hungary in the early 1960’s, Edward Alexander, was in charge of the Press and Culture department of the U.S. Embassy in East Berlin during my  seven month IREX stay in 1978. There I fell in love and became engaged to an economist at the Central Institute of Economics in the GDR Academy of Sciences. Until my East German fiancée (Kerstin Rüdiger) was allowed to leave East Germany at the end of 1979 (and perhaps afterwards too), Edward Alexander had to deal with any diplomatic fall-out from our case.

_____________________________

 

From the 1989 Survey of AEA Members

Montias, John M.

Fields: 050, 110
Birth Yr: 1928
Degrees: B.A., Columbia U., 1947; M.A., Columbia U., 1950; Ph.D., Columbia U., 1958
Prin. Cur. Position: Prof. of Econs. Yale U., 1964
Concurrent/Past Positions: Assoc. Prof., Yale U., 1963-64; Asst. Prof., Yale U., 1958-63.
Research:  Economic systems

Source: American Economic Association. Biographical Listing of Members, American Economic Review, Vol. 79, No. 6, (Dec. 1989) p. 334.

_____________________________

New York Times obituary

John Montias, 76, Scholar of Economics and of Art, Is Dead
By KATHRYN SHATTUCKAUG. 1, 2005

John Michael Montias, an economist who became one of the foremost scholars on the painter Johannes Vermeer and a pioneer in the economics of art, died on Tuesday at a hospice in Branford, Conn. He was 76 and lived in New Haven.

The cause was complications from melanoma, said his son, John-Luke Montias.

Part of the Annales school of economists and historians, Mr. Montias was among those who, in the early and mid-20th century, promoted a new form of history by replacing the examination of major leaders and events with the microstudy of ordinary people and occurrences.

Through the scrupulous analysis of common documents ranging from notes and letters to receipts and legal papers, Mr. Montias peeled back the layers in the life of Vermeer, one of his favorite artists — and one of the world’s most enigmatic. His work opened the door for a new genre of art history in which artists were analyzed in the context of their societal and economic surroundings and not merely their works.

“I think he was important for all of us,” said Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, the John Langeloth Loeb professor emeritus at New York University’s Institute of Fine Arts. “When he started this in the 1960’s and 70’s, there was no one who approached the history of art from that point of view. His work was pioneering — accurate, extremely convincing, with many novel insights. What was not considered to be relevant to the work of art in the past, we all have subsequently used.”

Mr. Montias’s research was a primary source for Tracy Chevalier’s 2000 novel “Girl With a Pearl Earring,” about Vermeer’s relationship with the model for his iconic work, and for the 2003 film adaptation.

Mr. Montias began teaching at Yale University in the late 50’s, where he specialized in the economic systems of the Soviet bloc during the 1960’s and 70’s and served as a consultant to high-ranking government officials. His analysis of the economies of Eastern European countries at times drew suspicion, perhaps never more so than during his visits to Czechoslovakia and Hungary from 1963 to 1965; he was shadowed and eventually expelled from Hungary on suspicion of espionage. But if his work was economics, his passion was art, particularly that of the 16th- and 17th-century Netherlands.

“I came to Vermeer ‘sideways,”‘ he said in a 2003 interview for the Essential Vermeer Web site (www.essentialvermeer.20m.com), explaining the genesis of his second career. Having won a summer grant in 1975 to write a comparative study of Dutch art guilds, he traveled to Delft, where he discovered that no in-depth study of a guild existed.

“In the course of this research, I realized that, contrary to my expectations, previous scholarship on Vermeer’s life had not exhausted the subject,” he said.

And so began his quest to uncover the life of one of the world’s most mysterious artists, with Mr. Montias unearthing and poring over 454 documents related to Vermeer and his family that lay, long undisturbed, in the archives of no fewer than 17 Dutch and Belgian cities.

In 1989 he published “Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History” (Princeton University Press), in which he revealed secrets of Vermeer’s life: that Vermeer’s grandfather was a convicted counterfeiter; that his grandmother ran illegal lotteries; and that the artist himself fathered 13 children and died at the age of 43, destitute.

Reviewing the book in The New York Times, the art critic John Russell wrote that Mr. Montias had previously “proved that there is a great deal more to art history than shuffling slides in a library.”

“His new book does not crack the code of Vermeer’s personality, let alone the code of his inner experience,” the review continued. “But as detective work, and as a portrait of an era, it ranks high.”

In fact, Mr. Montias’s midlife obsession had adolescent roots. Born on Oct. 3, 1928, in Paris, he was sent in 1940, alone and by ship, by his Jewish parents to the safety of the United States — and an Episcopalian baptism — just as the Germans were preparing to invade France. He boarded at the Nichols School in Buffalo, where as a 14-year-old volunteer in the small library of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, he came across Wilhelm Bode’s gilt-edged folio volume of Rembrandt and was immediately captivated.

Mr. Montias’s curiosity resurfaced in 1954 when, as a Ph.D. candidate in the economics department at Columbia University, he considered writing his dissertation on the prices of Dutch paintings at auction. He failed to get financial support for his project, perhaps thought frivolous during the cold war.

Things changed when Mr. Montias met Mr. Begemann in the mid-1960’s, when they were both at Yale. A specialist in Dutch and Flemish art, Mr. Begemann gave Mr. Montias his first lessons in connoisseurship, and soon after he began to study the genre’s history methodically. His first project in the field — the 1975 summer grant — required Mr. Montias, already a gifted linguist, not only to learn modern Dutch but also to read 17th-century manuscript sources in old Gothic script.

“He decided to attack the archives in Delft, knowing that they had been scoured for information on Vermeer,” recalled Otto Naumann, a Manhattan art dealer who studied under Mr. Montias. “With the confidence that only a true genius can posses, he decided that he could do better, without first learning Dutch.”

It took Mr. Montias one week to find an unpublished document that mentioned Vermeer and but another to decipher it, Mr. Naumann said.

Mr. Montias published three more books about the 17th-century Dutch art market: “Artists, Dealers, Consumers: On the Social World of Art” (Hilversum: Verloren, 1994); “Public and Private Spaces: Works of Art in 17th-Century Dutch Houses” (Zwolle, 2000), with John Loughman; and “Art at Auction in 17th-Century Amsterdam” (Amsterdam University Press, 2003).

In addition to his son, of Manhattan, he is survived by his wife, Marie, of New Haven, and his mother, Giselle de la Maisoneuve, of Paris.

____________________________

Yale Bulletin & Calendar obituary

Yale Bulletin & Calendar. September 2, 2005. Vol. 34, Number 2.

John-Michael Montias, economist and expert on Vermeer

John-Michael Montias, one of the world’s foremost scholars on the life of 17th-century Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer and professor emeritus of economics at Yale, died July 26 of complications from melanoma. He was 76.

Montias, who joined the Yale faculty in the late 1950s, was a specialist in the economic systems of the Soviet bloc. He researched the economies of many Eastern European countries during the 1960s and 1970s. During the Cold War, he served as a consultant to some of the highest officials of the U.S. government. His publications from that period include “Central Planning in Poland” and “The Structure of Economic Systems,” both published by the Yale University Press.

Although his academic work was in the field of economics, Montias’ passion was art, specifically 16th- and 17th-century Dutch painting. While on a fellowship at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Social Studies in 1978, he combined the two interests by writing a comparative study of Dutch art guilds during the 16th century, poring over 16th- and 17th-century archival records in the process of teaching himself gothic Dutch. The result was his 1982 book “Artists and Artisans in Delft, a Study of the 17th Century.”

During the course of his research, Montias was surprised to learn that the scholarship on one of his favorite artists, Vermeer, was far from exhausted. He began a quest to uncover the life of the artist, considered one of the most enigmatic and mysterious. In 1989 he published the critically acclaimed “Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History.” In this book, Montias traced the artist’s life through notary records, discovering that Vermeer’s grandfather was a convicted counterfeiter; that his grandmother ran illegal lotteries; and that the artist himself fathered 13 children and died at the age of 43, completely destitute. Today, it is estimated that there are only about 35 Vermeer paintings still in existence, and the most recent work sold at auction was purchased for $26 million in London last July.

Montias published three more books about the 17th-century Dutch art market: “Artists, Dealers and Consumers: The World of Social Art” (1994), “Public and Private Spaces: Works of Art in 17th-Century Dutch Houses” (2000) and “Art at Auction in 17th-Century Amsterdam” (2002).

Born Oct. 3, 1928 in Paris, France, Montias came to the United States when he was 12. At 16 he matriculated as an undergraduate at Columbia University. After serving in the Army during the Korean War, he returned to Columbia, earning both his M.A. and Ph.D. in economics. He was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1961.

Montias is survived by his wife, Marie, of New Haven; his mother, Giselle de la Maisoneuve, of Paris, France; and his son John-Luke, and his fiancé, Samantha, both of New York City.

The Yale economist was buried in Grove Street Cemetery.

 

Image Source: Montias as Guggenheim Fellow (1961) John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Detail from “Montias at the launching party at Amsterdam University Press of his book Art at auction in 17th-century Amsterdam, 10 September 2002 (Photo: Gary Schwartz)“

Categories
Columbia Economic History Economists

Columbia. Ph.D. Alumnus Isaac Aaronovitch Hourwich, 1893

Some Ph.D.’s in economics go on to contribute to the development of the science, others go on to contribute to the commonwealth outside the ivory tower and others leave you wondering what were they thinking when they decided to write a dissertation anyway. Most of my interest is in the first group but sometimes the lives led by the other two groups are just too interesting to merely mention the title and date of their dissertation without further notice.

Today’s post is dedicated to Columbia Ph.D. alumnus, Isaac Aaronovich Hourwich, whose dissertation was among the first ten economics doctoral dissertations accepted by the Columbia School of Political Science. I decided to look him up after seeing him listed as a Docent in Statistics for the Department of Political Economy at the University of Chicago in 1893/94.

Fun Fact: Isaac’s sister, Jhenya Hourwich, translated Marx’s Das Kapital into Russian, and he later translated Das Kapital into Yiddish in 1919.

__________________________________

The Dissertation

Hourwich, Isaac Aaronovich. The economics of the Russian village. Columbia University Ph.D. dissertation published in Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. Volume II, 1892-1893.

__________________________________

 

Teaching at the University of Chicago

 

Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph.D., Docent in Statistics.

Graduate, Classical Gymnasium, Minsk, Russia, 1877; Candidate of Jursprucence (Master of Law), Demidoff Juridical Lyceum, Yaroslavl, 1887; Member of the Bar, Court of Appeals of Wilno, Russia, 1887-90; Seligman Fellow, Columbia College, 1891-2; Ph.D., ibid., 1893.

Source: University of Chicago. Annual Register July, 1893—July, 1894. Chicago: 1894, p. 18.

 

__________________________________

 

The following biographical note comes from the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, Center for Jewish History, Guide to the Papers of Isaac A. Hourwich (1860-1924).

Isaac A. Hourwich was born April 27, 1860 in Vilna to a middle-class maskilic family. His father, who worked in a bank and knew several European languages, made sure to give his two children a modern secular education. Hourwich graduated in 1877 from the classical gymnasium at Minsk, and later studied medicine and mathematics. As a student, he became interested in nihilistic propaganda. His activities with a revolutionary Socialist circle in St. Petersburg led to his arrest and imprisonment in 1879 on the charges of hostility to the government and of aiding to establish a secret press. He was sent to Siberia as a “dangerous character,” from 1881-1886. While in prison, he studied the settlement of Russian peasants in Siberia, and wrote a book in Russian, The Peasant Immigration to Siberia, which was published in 1888. After his release, he studied law at the Imperial University in St. Petersburg. He earned his legal degree from Demidoff Lyceum of Jurisprudence in Yaroslavl, Russia and was admitted to the Russian bar in 1887. He then practiced law in Minsk and continued his involvement in radical political movements. He helped to found the first secret Socialist circles among the Jewish workers in tsarist Russia, along with his wife Yelena (Kushelevsky) Hourwich and his sister Jhenya Hourwich, who later translated Marx’s Das Kapital into Russian.

In 1890, Hourwich fled Russia, leaving behind his first wife Yelena (Kushelevsky) Hourwich and four children, Nicholas Hourwich (1882-1934), who was later involved in the founding of the Communist Party, Maria (Hourwich) Kravitz (1883-), Rosa Hourwich (ca.1884-), and Vera (Hourwich) Semmens (1890-1976), although Hourwich’s parents continued to support his family. He first went to Paris but he had to leave there as well, at which point he immigrated to the United States. He divorced his first wife and married again, to Louise Elizabeth “Lisa” (Joffe) Hourwich (1866-1947). Lisa Hourwich had taught school in Russia, and, after immigrating to the United States with her family, attended law school, eventually passing the Illinois bar, although she never practiced as a lawyer. They had five children, Iskander “Sasha” Hourwich (1895-1968), Rebecca Hourwich Reyher (1897-1987), who was a prominent suffragist, Olga “Dicky” Hourwich (1902-1977), George Kennan Hourwich (1904-1978), and Ena (Hourwich) Kunzer (1906-1989).

In New York, Hourwich joined the Russian Workers Society for Self-Education, later the Russian Social Democratic Society, which was made up mostly of Jewish immigrants from Minsk. The Society helped to finance the Group for Liberation of Labor (1883-1903), which Georgi Plekhanov, Pavel Axelrod and Lev Deutsch formed in Geneva, Switzerland for the dissemination of Marxist ideas in Russian. From 1891-1892 he was a fellow at Columbia University where he earned a Ph.D. in economics in 1893. His thesis was published under the title The Economics of the Russian Village and a Russian translation was published in Moscow in 1896. He then taught statistics at the University of Chicago from 1892-1893, after which he returned to New York City, where he practiced law while also contributing to Marxist legal magazines in Russia. In 1897-1898, after the creation of the Social Democratic Party by Eugene V. Debs, Hourwich founded the first party branch in New York City with Meyer London. He also edited a Russian Socialist newspaper, Progress, from 1901-1904.

Hourwich moved to Washington, D.C. in 1900, where he worked for the United States government for several years, first as a translator at the Bureau of the Mint in 1900-1902, then at the Census Bureau in 1902-1906 and in 1909-1913 as a statistician and expert on mining. He was a statistician for the New York Public Service Commission, 1908-1909. During this period he developed his knowledge of American politics and economics which he used in his writings in the English and Yiddish press. He briefly wrote for the Forward after it began publication in 1897, even though he did not then know much Yiddish and had to learn it as he went along. For his articles in the Forward and other Yiddish periodicals he used the pseudonyms “Marxist” and “Yitzhok Isaac ben Arye Tzvi Halevi” so as not to bring attention to the fact that a government employee was writing for radical newspapers. His articles about American politics and economic institutions, particularly for the Tog (Day), were important in popularizing Socialism and were often the main source for explaining American economics and politics to a Yiddish-speaking audience in the United States. In addition to various essays in the Yiddish press, Hourwich published: “The Persecutions of the Jews,” in The Forum in August 1901, “Russian Dissenters,” in The Arena in May 1903 and “Religious Sects in Russia,” in The International Quarterly in October 1903, to name only a few.

In the wake of the October 1905 revolution, Tsar Nicholas II declared amnesty for political prisoners and Hourwich took advantage of this to return to Russia where he ran for a seat in the second Duma in Minsk in 1906. He was the nominee of a new Democratic People’s Party. The Jewish Socialist parties resented his intrusion and his non-Socialist campaign, particularly the Bund, which was running its own candidate. He was elected and would most likely have gained the seat in the Duma but the senate in St. Petersburg annulled his election and his name was taken off the final list of candidates. When the Duma was dissolved in June 1907 Hourwich returned to the United States and his government job. He also continued to write for various English magazines. Hourwich was an expert on immigration, and his book Immigration and Labor was published in 1912. In this work, he defends unrestricted immigration by arguing that the influx of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe was beneficial to the American economy. This argument was based upon economic figures and was the first defense of open immigration based on economic, rather than humanitarian, reasons.

Hourwich was active in the garment workers union at the time the agreement known as the “Protocol of Peace” was in effect. Engineered by Louis D. Brandeis following the cloakmakers’ strike of 1910, the Protocol was a system for resolving conflicts between workers and manufacturers in the garment industry without resorting to arbitration. This system was proving difficult to implement when Hourwich was appointed Chief Clerk of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union in early 1913. He was in favor of reforming the Protocol, including a change from conciliation to arbitration, exactly what Brandeis had been against when drafting the Protocol. Hourwich’s position earned him the enmity of other union leaders, of his old friend, Meyer London, and also of Brandeis, who had represented the garment employers in Boston against the union during the 1910 strike. In addition, the heads of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, Abraham Rosenberg and John Dyche, vehemently opposed Hourwich for asserting the power of the local union against its parent organization and were concerned that his actions would lead to another strike. The officers of the ILGWU tried unsuccessfully to force Hourwich out, although the majority of garment workers supported him for his populist views, despite his lack of trade union experience.

In November 1913, the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Association refused to negotiate with Hourwich as the union representative and demanded his resignation. Although the heads of the union were united in their dislike of Hourwich, they supported him in resisting the manufacturers’ pressure. However, in early 1914 when the manufacturers threatened to break off the Protocol and a strike appeared imminent, Hourwich stepped down rather than compromise, despite the protests of many rank-and-file union members. The so-called “Hourwich Affair” showed the weakness of the Protocol as a means of settling disputes and hastened its eventual reform. It also revealed the various power struggles taking place between the International and the local unions, as well as between the union leadership and the mass of garment workers.

Hourwich was an early critic of the totalitarian tendencies of the Bolshevik government. Nevertheless, he maintained some sympathy for the Marxist cause and served as legal advisor to the Soviet ambassador to the United States, Ludwig C.K. Martens. He was also connected with the weekly magazine, Friends of Soviet Russia, published by the Soviet Agency, although he never wrote in support of the Bolsheviks. A visit to the Soviet Union in 1922 disillusioned Hourwich, however, and he returned firmly opposed to the Soviet regime.

Despite his commitment to Socialism, Hourwich did not strictly adhere to party doctrine and often crossed political boundaries in his allegiances. For example, in 1912 he supported Theodore Roosevelt and ran for Congress on the ticket of Roosevelt’s Progressive Party, an unthinkable act for a Jewish radical, although he seems to have been unconcerned with any criticism this raised. He was involved with the Socialist Democratic Party but did not join the Socialist Party of America, despite its Marxist program. He wrote for various Yiddish newspapers of every political affiliation, including the Socialist Jewish Daily Forward, the anarchist Fraye Arbeter Shtimme (Free Workers Voice), where he published his unfinished memoirs Zikhroynes fun an Apikoyres (Memoirs of a Heretic), the Warheit (Truth), the Tog (Day), and the Tsukunft (Future). His non-ideological approach led some to label him a political opportunist. He was an ardent supporter of President Wilson and his advocacy of the New Freedom and social reform until Wilson’s 1916 appointment of Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court. Hourwich was still holding a grudge against Brandeis for his involvement in the “Hourwich Affair.”

In his later years Hourwich became active in the Zionist movement, and in 1917 he helped to organize the American Jewish Congress. Hourwich’s books in Yiddish include Mooted Questions of Socialism (1917), a Yiddish translation of Marx’s Das Kapital (1919), and a four-volume edition of his collected works (1917-1919). Hourwich died of pneumonia on July 9, 1924.

Source: Guide to the Papers of Isaac A. Hourwich (1860-1924).

__________________________________

Personal Notes [1894]

Dr. Isaac Aaronovich Hourwich has been appointed Docent in Statistics at the University of Chicago. He was born April 26, 1860, at Wilno, Russia, and was educated at the Classical Gymnasium, at Minsk, from 1869-77. The year 1877-78 he spent at the Medioc-Chirurgical Academy at St. Petersburg, and 1878-79 at the University of St. Petersburg. Later he became a non-resident student of the Demidor Juridical Lyceum, at Yaroslavl, where in 1887 he graduated with the degree of LL.M. He was admitted to the bar at Minsk, and practiced law from 1887 to 1890. In 1891 he became a student of Columbia College, New York, and received in 1893 the degree of Ph.D. from that institution. Dr. Hourwich has published:

“Peasant Emigralion to Siberia.” Juridichesky Vestnik (Juridical Herald), Moscow, January, 1887.
“The Study of Peasant Emigration to Siberia.” Sibirski Sbornik (Siberian Magazine), 1887.
“Peasant Emigration t0 Siberia.” Pp. 160. Moscow, 1888.
“The Agrarian Question in Russia.” Ur Dagens Krönika. Stockholm, September, 1890.
“The Persecution of the Jews.” The Forum. August, 1891.
“The Russian Judiciary.” Political Science Quarterly, December, 1892.
“The Economics of the Russian Village.” Pp. 184. Columbia College Studies in History, Economics and Public Law.

Source:  The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 4 (Jan., 1894), p. 156.

Image Source: Portrait of Isaac Aaronovich Hourwich from his Oysgeehle shrifn, Vol. I, frontispiece, copyright 1916.

 

 

 

Categories
Economic History Exam Questions M.I.T.

MIT. Final Examinations for European Economic History. Kindleberger, 1970/74

The M.I.T. graduate economics program of my day (mid-1970s) still offered three courses in economic history: Peter Temin‘s American Economic History, Evsey Domar‘s Russian Economic History and Charles Kindleberger‘s European Economic History. I will confess here that little value-added from his lectures has survived the intervening decades for me  (I did read plenty!). That said, my personal take-away from Kindleberger’s class was that he represented the ideal balance of scholar-gentleman-economist. I suspect he felt as much a dinosaur when he taught us in the mid-1970s as I certainly do now when I eavesdrop on the conversation of graduate students when they mimic their elders, who are now sometimes a full generation younger than me. 

I posted a few of his favorite stories from his days at Columbia University. Here an outline biography of Charles Kindleberger at the MIT economics department.

__________________________

December 12, 1974
8:30-10:30

Informal Final Examination
14.733
European Economic History

 

Answer any three questions (forty minutes each), but be certain that not all your answers refer exclusively to Great Britain or the Continent of Europe.

 

  1. It was said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman nor an Empire.
    to what extent was the Industrial Revolution a) Industrial? b) a Revolution?
    Explain at some length, and indicate which Industrial Revolution, if there are more than one, you are referring to.
  1. Compare and contrast one pair, at least twenty-five years apart, from the following list:
    1. financial crises in Europe
    2. economic booms
    3. recoveries from war
    4. reparation transfers
  1. Evaluate the role of tariff policy in the economic growth or the economic development of one or more countries of Europe over some period of time which you specify.
  1. Compare the profiles of economic development over the nineteenth century of one of the pairs of countries below, and account for the major differences:
    1. Netherlands — Britain
    2. Britain — Germany
    3. France — Germany
    4. Italy — other country of your choice

__________________________

14.733 FINAL EXAMINATION
December 23, 1970 9AM
Three hours

 

Answer any four questions […illegible…] but at least one from each group.

 

Group I

  1. Describe the course and causes of the Industrial revolution in one country in Europe.
  2. Compare and contrast Rostow’s Stages and Gerschenkron’s discontinuity in economic growth, illustrating your answer with material from European history.
  3. Discuss the role in the early industrialization of one country of Europe of a) labor; b) capital; or c) technology.

 

Group II

  1. To what do you ascribe the business cycle in the 19th century Europe? Explain.
  2. Argue for or against the advantage of backwardness and the penalty of the head start, illustrating your argument with 19th century economic data from Europe.
  3. How do you account for the limited movement toward free trade in Europe after 1869. what did it accomplish, and why did it end?

 

Group III

  1. Did Europe grow rich on imperialistic exploitation of the rest of the world in the last quarter of the 19th century? Support your answer fully.
  2. Compare German recoveries after World War I and after World War II.
  3. Discuss the role of Europe in the 1929 depression.
  4. Compare and contrast the role of London in world finance before and after 1913.

 

Source: Personal copies of Irwin Collier.

 

Categories
Chicago Economic History M.I.T.

MIT. Search for an Economic Historian. 1942

In this 1942 letter from the head of the Industrial Relations Section of the M.I.T. Department of Economics and Social Science, W. Rupert Maclaurin, to the economic historian Earl J. Hamilton of Duke University, we see that hiring a young economic historian was part of the plan “to build one of the leading departments in the country”. Professor Davis Rich Dewey retired in 1940. Courses in economic history were taught in the late 1940s by Karl Deutsch and then by Walt Rostow beginning in 1950. (See Peter Temin, The Rise and Fall of Economic History at MIT, History of Political Economy, Volume 46, Number suppl. 1: 337-350. Earlier and downloadable at MIT Economics Working Paper 13-11, June 5, 2013.)

____________________________

 

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SECTION

Department of Economics and Social Science
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

APRIL 8, 1942

W. Rupert Maclaurin
Douglas McGregor
Barbara Klingen Hagen
Beatrice A. Rogers

Douglass V. Brown
Dwight L. Palmer
Charles A. Myers
Paul Pigors

Professor Earl J. Hamilton
Department of Economics
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina

Dear Professor Hamilton:

            At the suggestion of Dr. Arthur Cole I am writing to ask if you know a really promising young man in the field of economic history who might be eligible for an opening that we have here at M. I. T.

            Various members of our Department of Economics are initiating a series of studies which are designed to be of assistance in post-war reconstruction in the United States. These studies are being undertaken with the cooperation of industry and the government, as part of a larger program designed to analyze some of the basic, longer-range problems facing this country. Our group at M. I. T. will be concerned particularly with analyses of the opportunities for industrial development in the post-war world and some of the hindrances and restrictions which have been inhibiting development in the past.

            As part of this general research program, and also of our plans for developing this Department, we would like very much to bring in a promising young economic historian who would be interested in making some historical studies in the general field of industrial development. We should like someone who would co-operate with the “Committee on Research in Economic History” of which Dr. Cole is chairman.

            The administration at M. I. T. is anxious to build up the Departments of Economics and History. These two departments now come under Dr. Robert Caldwell, professor of history and dean of humanities. Whoever we brought in would divide his time to some extent between the Department of History and the Department of Economics.

            Our Economics Department is undergoing substantial change and expansion at the present time, and we are attempting to build one of the leading departments in the country. There should therefore be significant opportunities for professional advancement for promising young men. We started last year a graduate program leading to a Ph.D. degree in industrial economics, and by next year we shall have a group of about twenty graduate students in this Department, primarily on a fellowship basis, from all over the country.

            I know this is a hard time to find talent. We should only be interested in some young man who has an attractive personality, energy, and creative imagination. For this particular position here there is no point in our considering anybody who is not A. We are thinking of a young man under thirty-five who would come to us as an instructor or an assistant professor. The teaching load would be light, and we could arrange for travelling expenses and other research facilities.

            The whole problem of selective service is a very difficult one to deal with under present conditions. As an engineering school with a research program in economics that is closely associated with a number of the leading government agencies in Washington, there is at least a good [chance that the local*] draft boards would grant deferment to a promising instructor in economic history here.

            If you have any suggestions to make, I should greatly appreciate hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

[signed]
W. Rupert Maclaurin

[*A fold in the letter here covers all but the very top (sometimes bottoms) of the first four words so that I have suggested an interpolation consistent with what I see.]

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library, Earl J. Hamilton Papers, Box 2, Folder “Correspondence—Misc, 1930’s-1960s and n.d.”.

Image Source: (left) W. Rupert Maclaurin, from MIT Technique, 1944.; (right) Earl J. Hamilton (1937) from John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation website.