Category: Economist Market

Categories
Budgets Chicago Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Economics Department Budget Proposal for 1944-45 by Simeon Leland, Feb 1944

The 1944-45 budget file for the department of economics consists of a three page spreadsheet, is followed by fifteen pages of line item justifications for changes signed by the chairman of the department Simeon E. Leland and a one page budget memorandum by the assistant comptroller (Lincicome) to the Vice President (Filbey). This is an informationally rich document.

For this posting I have converted the item rows of the budget spreadsheet into individual columns for the items. The separate items have then been paired with the line item justifications.

An excerpt from a 1945 development plan by Chairman Leland for the department has been transcribed and posted.

___________________________________

Named in the Instructional Budget, 1944-45

Bloch, Henry S.

Buchanan, Daniel H.

Burns, Robert K.

Douglas, Paul H.

Harbison, Frederick H.

Johnson, Gale

Knight, Frank H.

Krueger, Maynard C.

Leland, Simeon E.

Lange, Oscar

Lewis, H. Gregg

Marschak, Jacob

McGuire, Christine H. (Mrs. Jules Masserman)

Meyer, Gerhard E. O.

Mints, Lloyd W.

Nef, John U.

Schultz, Theodore W.

Simons, Henry C.

Viner, Jacob

Wright, Chester W.

___________________________________

The University of Chicago
Budget and Appointment Recommendations
1944-45

Division of the Social Sciences
Department of Economics

February 21, 1944

Departmental Recommendations

In presenting the Budget for 1944-45, I am transmitting the recommendations of the Professors in the Department of Economics as decided upon at their meeting February 15, 1944. The specific recommendations, save as to dissents where their own welfare was involved, were unanimous. For convenience, the recommendations are presented in two divisions: (I) The college; (II) The Department. An attempt is also made to consider problems of the future development of the Department.

  1. The College

Recommendations concerning those members of the College staff who have status in the Department will be appended hereto when they are received from Dean Faust. As in the past, the Department has no responsibility in connection with the College and hence does not assume responsibility for recommendations in the College. The Department is glad to incorporate in its budget or transmit through customary channels any recommendations Dean Faust desires to make.

  1. The Department

The recommendations of the Professors in the Department can be classified under four convenient headings: (A) Advancements in Rank and Increases in Salaries Related Thereto; (B) Recommendations as to Changes in Salaries; (C) Appointments ;(D) Future Development of the Department; (E) Recommendations as to Service and Equipment.

Instructional Budget Account
Item No. 1-20
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $54,600)
Proposed
Chairman $65,550)
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [….]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Items requiring no change
in rank or salary

Professor Jacob Viner
Item No. 1
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Viner, Jacob, Prof.
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $10,000
Proposed
Chairman $10,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor T. W. Schultz
Item No. 4
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Schultz, T.W., Prof.
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $9,000
Proposed
Chairman $9,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor Jacob Marschak
Item No. 6
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Marschak, Jacob, Prof.
([Paid by] Commission
Tenure
Present Expira. Dec….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3 [in Economics]
4 [in Cowles]
If part-time, approx. % 50% [Economics]
50% [Cowles]
Salary Level
1943-44 $7,500 Total
From Economics $3,750
From  Cowles $3,750
Proposed
Chairman $7,500 Total
From Economics $3,750
From  Cowles, $3,750
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor Paul H. Douglas
Item No. 7
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Douglas, P.H., Prof.
(On leave, 10/1/42—enlisted)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 ($7,000)
Proposed
Chairman ($7,000)
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Assistant Professor Frederick H. Harbison
Item No. 13
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Harbison, F. H., Asst. Prof.
(On leave [to 9/30/44] Government Service)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept. 45
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 ($4,000)
Proposed
Chairman $4,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [4,000]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

  1. Advancements in Rank and Increases in Salaries Related Thereto

[Note: All departmental recommendations for an advancement in rank were rejected by the President’s Office.]

___________________________________

Associate Professor Lloyd W. Mints

[11] The Department recommends that the rank of Lloyd W. Mints be changed from Associate Professor to Professor of Economics. Mr. Mints has been a member of the staff since 1920, rising successively from Instructor to Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. He has earned the respect of students and colleagues for the thoroughness of his teaching and for his insight into economic and monetary theory. He has been a willing worker and has carried a heavy load of administrative routine for many years in connection with the advising of students. The Department has considered this recommendation on several occasions within the last few years and expected to make the recommendation at a time when Mints’ book on A History of Banking Theory would appear. Through no fault of his own the publication of this work — the fruition of several years’ research — has been delayed due to the war and the shortage of paper. Harper and Brothers have the manuscript in their possession and have agreed to publish it, but because of market difficulties plus rationing of paper stocks actual publication will probably be postponed for some time. It does not seem fair to delay this promotion in hope of finding a strategic occasion for its presentation. If one looks ahead to retirement and the possibility of accumulating a satisfactory annuity, the earlier this promotion is given the greater will be its worth to Mr. Mints. On the other hand, delay may tend to impair morale and produce discouragement, especially when the length of Mints’s service to the University is considered. It is recommended that Mr. Mints’s salary be increased $1,000.

Item No. 11
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Mints, L. W., Prof.
(Assoc. Prof.)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept. 45
New appointment
From 10/1/44
Yrs. [Ind]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $4,000
Proposed
Chairman $5,000
Dean Ac. Prof.
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$4,500]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Associate Professor Henry C. Simons

[10] The Department recommends the promotion of Henry C. Simons from Associate Professor to Professor of Economics. Simons has earned the reputation here and among his peers at other institutions of being a brilliant economist. His powers of theoretical analysis are equaled by few men: his scintillating suggestions as to public policy in the fields in which he has written have been widely recognized and favorably quoted; his writings have an originality and style which matches the subjective contributions of his works. Simons’ opinions on many economic subjects are eagerly sought. The Department recommends that his salary be increased $1,500. The recommendations as to advancement in rank and increase in salary will also be supported by the Law School, to which Simons devotes ono-third of his time.

See the Law School recommendations, Item 12. Since the present contract for the Civil Affairs Training Program does not extend throughout the year 1944-45, provision must be made in the regular budget for the salary if a new appointment is to be made from the budget.

Item No. 10
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)

Simons, H.C., Prof.
(Assoc. Prof)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From 10/1/44
Yrs. [Ind]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. % 67 (Econ.)
33 (Law School)
Salary Level
1943-44

$4,500 (Total)

$3,000 (Econ.)
$1,500 (Law School)
Proposed
Chairman $6,000
$4,000 (Econ.)
$2,000 (Law School)
Dean [Ac. Prof]
President’s Recommendation
Rank [Ac. Prof]
Salary Level [$5,000 (Total)]
[$3,333 (Econ.)]
[$1,667 (Law School])
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Instructor H. Gregg Lewis

[14] The Department proposes that H. Gregg Lewis be promoted from Instructor to Assistant Professor and that his salary be increased $500, effective upon his return to the University at the close of the war. His work merits this recognition. By the time he returns, it is believed that Lewis will have received his Ph.D. His dissertation is in final stages of preparation.

The leave must be extended if the salary is not to be included in the budget totals.

Item No. 14
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)

Lewis, H. G. Asst. Prof.

(Instructor)
(On leave, Govt. Serv. To 9-30-44 to be extended to 9/30/45)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept. 44
New appointment
From 10/1/44
Yrs. 3
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 ($3,500)
Proposed
Chairman ($4,000)
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank [Instructor]
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45 [$4,000]

___________________________________

Lecturer Robert K. Burns

[15] The Department desires to recommend the appointment of Robert K. Burns as Assistant Professor, to serve the University on a half-time basis at a stipend of $2,000 per annum. Burns, who holds the title of Lecturer, has carried the bulk of the work of the Department in the field of labor during the past two years. Not only has he carried a heavy instructional load but he has supervised class research, and dissertations as well. Burns has been Regional Director of the War Labor Board in Chicago and has recently been transferred to the Washington office to direct certain new activities of the Board. This promotion came as a recognition of outstanding work. How soon Burns could assume increased responsibilities in the University is not known, but any time his services can be made available the Department is in a position to utilize them effectively. With Harbison and Douglas also in the field of labor, it is believed that a half-time appointment for Burns is all that is now required.

Item No. 15
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Burns, R. E., Asst Prof.
(Lecturer, part time).
Tenure
Present Expira. June, 44
New appointment
From 7/1/44
Yrs. 3
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. % 50
Salary Level
1943-44 $1,400
Proposed
Chairman $2,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank [Lect]
Salary Level [$2000]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

  1. Changes in Salaries

Professor Frank H. Knight

[2] The Department, over the protest of Frank H. Knight, recommends to the Division that Knight’s salary be increased $1,500 so as to place his compensation on the $10,000 level. If a Distinguished Professorship is available, Knight should receive it; if such a Professorship is unavailable, Knight should receive a stipend as though he were so honored. He is known throughout the world as one of its outstanding economists. His reputation and scholarship extend to the fields of philosophy, ethics, religion, and history, to name but a few. His fellow economists have honored him on many occasions; he has represented them for many years on learned societies. He has been tempted with offers from other institutions. He has been made a Professor of the Social Sciences in recognition of the breadth of his competence. Honor is bestowed on him everywhere; only the University can give him the freedom from financial ills he sorely needs and deserves. His present salary is an embarrassment to the Department, even though it is all charged against the Division.

Item No. 2
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Knight, F. H., Prof.
(also Soc.Sci.Div.Instr.
Tenure
Present Expira. June….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $8,500
From Econ. ….
From Soc.Sci.Div. $8,500
Proposed
Chairman $10,000
From Econ. ….
From Soc.Sci.Div. $10,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level From Soc.Sci.Div. [$9,000) 4]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor John U. Nef

[5] The Department would like to recommend an increase in salary of $1,000 for John U. Nef, but Nef says that he will not hear of it nor accept an increase in compensation. The Department believes that such an increase is well deserved and wants its recommendation to be recorded even if Mr. Nef declines to receive what is manifestly his due.

Item No. 5
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Nef, J.H., Prof.
(also History
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From [10/1/44]
Yrs. [Ind]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3 [in Economics and History]
If part-time, approx. % 50% [Economics]
50% [History]
Salary Level
1943-44 $7,500 Total
From Econ. $3,750
From  Hist. $3,750
Proposed
Chairman $8,500 Total
From Econ. $4,750
From  Hist., $3,750
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$8,000 Total]
[From Econ. $4,250]
[From  Hist. $3,750 (4]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor Oscar Lange

[9] The Department recommends an increase in salary of $500 for Oscar Lange. When Lange returned to the University of Chicago after a year’s leave at Columbia, he did so at a distinct financial sacrifice. Any continuation of that disadvantage should be removed. It is the opinion of the Department, too, that Simons and Lange should be treated equally with respect to salary and rank. In view of the salary proposed for Mr. Simons, this increase is doubly appropriate.

Item No. 9
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Lange, Oscar, Prof.
Tenure
Present Expira. June….
New appointment
From [7/1/44]
Yrs. [Ind]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $5,500
Proposed
Chairman $6,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$6000]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

  1. Appointments

Professor Simeon E. Leland

The new appointment information should be inserted for the position of Chairman.

Item No. 3
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Leland, S.E., Prof. and Chairman
(also Political Sci.
Tenure
Present Expira.

June….

[As Chairman Jun 44]
New appointment
From [7-1-44]
[As chairman 7-1-44]
Yrs. Ind [as Prof]
3 yrs [as chairman]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3 [in Economics and Pol. Sci.]
If part-time, approx. % 50% [Economics]
50% [Political Sci.]
Salary Level
1943-44 $8,000 Total
From Econ. $4,000
From  Pol.Sci. $4,000
Proposed
Chairman $8,000 Total
From Econ. $4,000
From  Pol.Sci. $4,000
Dean $9,000 Total
From Econ. $4,500
From  Pol.Sci. $4,500
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$9,000 Total]
[From Econ. $4,500]
[From  Pol.Sci. $4,500 (4]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor Chester W. Wright

[8] At the end of the present year Chester W. Wright becomes Professor Emeritus. Up to the present time the Department has been unable to fill Professor Wright’s post. Outstanding scholars of American Economic History are few; promising young men are scarce. Professor Wright’s health and energy are unimpaired. He is at the peak of his career. His recently completed Economic History of the United States is an outstanding achievement. The Department believes that Professor Wright should be invited to remain at the University during the coming year on a half-time basis. The continuance of his work and his presence here will make easier the finding as well as the appointment of a successor. As long aa Professor Wright is in the city the University will be the beneficiary of his work on Library acquisitions. His painstaking labors in the Library over a period of years is reflected in the excellence of the collections of books in Economics and Social Sciences — collections which include rare books, historic volumes and current issues, making our Library one of the best of university libraries.

The desirability of the renewal of Professor Wright’s appointment is strengthened by the fact that Mr. Harold Innis of the University of Toronto, to whom a Professorship in the Department has been offered, has declined our offer for the duration due to his feeling of responsibility toward his own institution in the present emergency. Innis has indicated that when the war is over he will be glad to reconsider our offer. Due also to his great regard for Professor Wright, the renewal of Wright’s appointment for the duration (on a year-to-year basis, as may be required) will be an important factor in inducing Innis to come to the University of Chicago. Probably more than any one person, Wright may be able eventually to induce Innis to join the staff.

If Innis does come to the University of Chicago, he will doubtless wish to devote his attention to Canadian economic history and only gradually devote his energies to continental developments. It will be necessary, therefore, to bring in a young man to teach United States economic history. As has been indicated, promising candidates are hard to find and the Department is unable to recommend a person for appointment at this time. Both Professors Wright and Nef emphasize the difficulties of this task. And, if a recommendation is to be made, the candidate must enjoy the support of senior professors in this field. All of which strengthens the recommendation of the Department for the continuance of Professor Wright’s teaching.

Is the proposed salary to be in addition to the retiring allowance at $3,000 per year?

Item No. 8
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Wright, C. W., Prof. Emer.
(Prof.)
[(also Retiring Allowance
(Total Salary]
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept. 44
New appointment
From [10/1/44]
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. % 50
Salary Level
1943-44 $6,500
Proposed
Chairman $3,250
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank [Retire 10/1/44]
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45 [$1625]

___________________________________

Instructor Henry S. Bloch

[16] It is recommended that the appointment of Henry S. Bloch as instructor be renewed. Bloch at present is devoting his time exclusively to the CATS program, where his salary is charged. Should that training program be liquidated, Bloch’s services can be transferred immediately to Departmental teaching, research, and assistance in advising students. During the past year such needs have arisen, but because of the demands of the military program Bloch has not been able to assist the Department in its civilian program. Attention is called to the fact that Bloch’s salary is on a four-quarter basis.

Our payroll department states that the present appointment for Mr. Bloch at $2,200 per year is charged to the Economics budget and expires June 30, 1944. There is no record of the appointment chargeable to the Civil Affairs Specialists Training Program. Will you please check your records. Also, since the Training Program contract does not cover 1944-45, it is assumed that any salary for next year must be included in the department totals.

Item No. 16
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Bloch, H. S., Inst.
(also CATS).
Tenure
Present Expira. 9/30/44
New appointment
From 10/1/44
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 4
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $3,600 (CATS)
Proposed
Chairman $3,600 (CATS)
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$3,600 (CATS)]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Visiting Professor D. H. Buchanan

[12] D. H. Buchanan of the University of North Carolina is a Visiting Professor assisting in the military training program of the University. It is our understanding that his appointment is for the duration or during the continuance of the military training program. Mr. Buchanan’s salary has been charged against the CATS budget and I presume his appointment will continue at the same rate and so long as this program continues. Buchanan is included in this budget only for the sake of completeness.

Item No. 12
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Buchanan, D. H., Vis. Prof.
(also CATS
Tenure
Present Expira. Aug. 44
New appointment 9/1/44 (CATS)
From 10/1/44
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 4
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $8,000 (CATS)
Proposed
Chairman $8,000 (CATS)
Dean

[Do not appoint]

[illegible word]
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Research Associate Gale Johnson

[18] The appointment of Gale Johnson as a Research Associate in Agricultural Economics at a four-quarter stipend of $3,700 was recommended during the current year to provide research assistance for Professor T. W. Schultz. Johnson’s appointment will commence as of April 1, 1944.

Item No. 18
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Johnson, Gale, Res.Assoc. in Agri. Economics
Tenure
Present Expira. 6/30/44
New appointment
From 7/1/44
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 4
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $3,700
Proposed
Chairman $3,700
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Lecturer John K. Langum

[17] The Department recommends the appointment of John K. Langum, Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in charge of the Bank’s economic research and statistics, as Lecturer in Banking and Banking Policy. The Department would like to appoint Langum as a Lecturer, with the expectation that the arrangement would continue for many years to the mutual advantage of both institutions. A stipend of $500 is proposed, in return for which Langum would be invited during two Quarters of the academic year to give a seminar or series of evening lectures on current topics in banking and banking policy. These lectures should greatly strengthen the work of the University in the field of banking, a defect in our training and research of which we have long been cognizant. We are anxious to make the appointment at an early date, but will make the expenditure of funds contingent upon adequacy of registrations.

The Langum appointment should bring credit to the University. He is well and favorably known in economic and banking circles. He holds his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. He is the author of numerous articles in his field. Recently he has prepared a monograph which the Committee on Economic Development is to publish.

Item No. 17
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Langum, J.K., Lecturer
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From 1/1/45 (Winter and Spring Quarters)
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 2
If part-time, approx. % Pt.
Salary Level
1943-44
Proposed
Chairman $500
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$500]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Items 12a, 13a, 15, 1, and 16a are inserted since the individuals have appointments extending beyond June 30, 1944.

Professor Maynard C. Krueger
Item No. [12a]
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 [Krueger, M. C. As Prof.
(also College]
Tenure
Present Expira. [Sept. 44]
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 [$4,000]
Proposed
Chairman [$4,000) 4]
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$4,000]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Assistant Prof. Gerhard E.O. Meyer
Item No. [13a]
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 [Meyer, G.E.O. As. Prof.
(also College]
Tenure
Present Expira. [Sept. 44]
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 [$2,700]
Proposed
Chairman [$3,500) 4]
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$4,000]
Amount 1944-45

From the spreadsheet it is not clear about the breakdown of source of funding between the Department of Economics and the College.

___________________________________

Instructor/Dean of Students Christine McGuire Masserman

Note: items 15a and 16a refer to the same person. Christine H. McGuire (who married the psychiatrist Jules H. Masserman).  Christine H. McGuire is listed in the U.S. National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel, 1921-1970 as having received a master’s degree in 1938. She later moved from teaching economics to

Item No. [15a]
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 [McGuire, Christine (Mrs. Jules H. Masserman), Inst.
(also College and Dean of Students]
Tenure
Present Expira. [Sept 44]
New appointment
From
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 4
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 [$2,000
Proposed
Chairman
Dean [$2,000 Total
College (?) $1,500 )4
Economics (?) $500)4]
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$2,000 Total
College (?) $1,500 )4
Economics (?) $500)4]
Amount 1944-45
Instructor C. H. Masserman
Item No. 16a
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 [Masserman, H. H., Inst.]
Tenure
Present Expira. [Sept 44]
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 [$2,000]
Proposed
Chairman
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45


___________________________________

 

  1. The Future Development of the Department

 

From time to time the Department has called attention to its future needs. It has appraised its deficiencies and has projected problems certain to arise with the retirement of its staff. Some of the problems are still unsolved; one has been solved with brilliance and good fortune.

1. Agriculture

During the past year one of the long standing weaknesses of the Department was cured with the appointment of T. W. Schultz as Professor of Agricultural Economics. With his coming, two important developments can be undertaken. First, a plan for joint degrees in Agricultural Economics cooperatively undertaken by a few selected land grant colleges can be developed. Already we are negotiating with Purdue University to see if we can agree on the details and administration of such a plan. Second, we hope to introduce Agricultural Economics as a field to be studied by undergraduates in the typical four-year college program. At the present time economics departments throughout the country do not call the attention of students to the problems of agriculture either in the so-called “applied economics” courses or in their general survey courses. This is partly due to the fact of specialization, in which work in agriculture and in agricultural economics has been developed almost exclusively in the land grant colleges. It is also due to the fact that few students as part of their graduate education have been exposed to courses In Agricultural Economics. The Department is offering courses in Agricultural Economics to students as part of a general educational program and as part of their training for advanced degrees. Eventually this should bring to the student in urban colleges of liberal arts, where our students are employed, a better understanding of the problems of agriculture. Sooner or later the general courses in economics should deal with agricultural questions just as they now give attention, for example, to the problems of labor, capital, transportation, taxation, or business organization. It is believed that our Department is pioneering in this field, thanks to the active support and encouragement of the University.

2. Transportation

In times past the Department has called attention to the need for strengthening the work offered in Railroads and Transportation. Chicago is the strategic place for the development of advanced training and research in these related fields. It is the railroad center of the United States; it is its central airport; it is a dominant market for railroad equipment and supplies, and during the war has become an important airplane parts manufacturing center. Motor bus and truck-line activities teem in and around Chicago. To meet this opportunity, the University boasts of but one professor whose interests are largely centered in railroad freight rates and who in recent years has typically been on leave. More emphasis in the future should be given to transportation by motor vehicles and airplanes. A major professorial appointment should be contemplated in the field of transportation.

3. Trusts and Monopolies

The retirement of Professor Wright raises the question as to what should be done with respect to teaching and research in the field of Trusts, Monopolies and Business Combinations. Once each year Professor Wright has given a course in Trusts which from the point of view of training of graduate students has been adequate. The decrease in student enrollment during the war has not made the problem critical. The renewal of Professor Wright’s appointment will solve the question for another year.

The field of Trusts alone is not one of sufficient importance, It is believed, to justify a full-time staff appointment. It could easily be combined with Public Utilities or the Control of Business, depending upon the interests of possible candidates for appointment, but some provision should be made to cover this field in the near future.

4. Public Utilities and Control of Business

The offerings of the Department in the field of Public Utilities has been scant, if courses and research over the years are listed. This is true even if the offerings of other Departments and Schools are taken into account. Prior to the depression, efforts were made to make a professorial appointment in this field. Unfortunately, the nominees of the Department could not be induced to join the faculty. Visiting professors were employed on several occasions but with the advent of the depression this practice had to be discontinued. It may be doubted whether Public Utilities is as important a field as it was over a decade ago. Emphasis now has shifted to the Control of Business, with the regulation of public utilities, the dissolution of trusts and the reduction of competition as phases of larger general problems. The control of business by government (and perhaps by other institutions) has long been of interest to economists and political scientists, as well as business men. It has likewise been the concern of lawyers.

The field is of increasing importance in the future. An outstanding professorial appointment would greatly strengthen the University as a whole.

5. Advanced Statistical Theory

In proposing a joint professorship with the Mathematics Department for Professor Abraham Wald, the Department gave expression to a long-felt desire to expand the work of the University in the field of advanced mathematical theory as applied to statistics. Such an appointment with mathematical advice and consultation available to the faculty on their own research and teaching problems would be invaluable. On the whole, the training of students is secondary to this need and service. By such an appointment our research could be strengthened greatly. It offers the opportunity, too, to develop graduate work in the field of statistics far beyond present limits. It is believed that this view and this conception is shared by the Mathematics Department.

As a matter of University policy a closer integration of courses, training and research in the field of statistics would seem to be desirable. The Institute of Statistics has made progress in this direction. More and more the foundations and advanced training in the field should center in the Mathematics Department, with applications being taught in other Departments and Schools. A major appointment such as the one proposed for Wald would strengthen and facilitate these developments.

Although Wald declined our offer, the Department hopes to join Mr. Bartky, Professor of Applied Mathematics, Associate Dean and Dean of Students in the Division of the Physical Sciences and Chairman of the Institute of Statistics, and Mr. Lane, Chairman of the Department of Mathematics, in presenting another recommendation for an outstanding appointment in this field. Such an appointment is a University need which the Department of Economics shares. The Department will help in any way it can to bring about a noteworthy appointment.

6. Joint Appointments with Other Departments

In suggesting appointments in the fields of Trusts and Monopolies, Railroads and Transportation, Public Utilities and the Control of Business, Advanced Mathematical and Statistical Theory, the Department is cognizant of the fact that University resources are limited and that at any time only the most urgent or most important things can be done. Other Departments and Schools, as well as our own, have problems and claims for financial support. Without attempting to weigh the importance of alternative claims or uses for funds, the recommendations of the Department have been made because we think they are important. They represent a portion of a program oriented toward the future.

In making the suggestions enumerated, appointments to the Department of Economics are not being urged per se. Most of the problems also concern other Departments and Schools. In these fields joint appointments are in order. Thereby other parts of the University as well as our own Department would be strengthened. An appointment in Trusts and Monopolies concerns both the Law School and the Department of Political Science, as well as Economics; Railroads and Transportation also concerns the School of Business; Public Utilities and Control of Business should involve Law, Political Science, Business, and Economics; Urban Planning involves the Departments of Geography, Political Science, Economics and the Schools of Law and Business; Social Legislation affects Social Service Administration, Law and Economics. If the University is interested in furthering this suggested development, the Department is ready to take the initiative. Joint appointments will help us improve our Department, its research and teaching.

7. Visiting Professors

Whenever a need arises or a deficiency becomes evident, the easy solution is to suggest “an outstanding appointment.” This may also be the most costly solution even though it may temporarily increase the size, the number of course offerings or the ego of particular departments. It tends to increase the emphasis on less important aspects of particular branches of knowledge. It expends the applications, or the applied courses, rather than the basic elements of theory or science. The growth and strength of certain departments may be increased by concentrating on the development of the fundamental aspects of their subject matter by the regular full-time members of their faculty and by funds spent on increasing the eminence of this central group, the requisite diversification of teaching or research being secured by means of visiting professorships, continuously utilized to cover first one peripheral subject and then another. By bringing to the Department various men for one or two quarters a year, the best they have to offer both in instruction of students and stimulation of faculty colleagues can be secured at relatively low cost. As different men are brought to the Department the gains from this policy can be extended first to one field and then to another. If it is pursued regularly, it will soon become a tradition that new people with unique contributions to supplement those of the regular staff are always in residence in the Department of Economies at the University of Chicago. The Visiting Professorships should be chosen quite as much for their ability to stimulate and educate their faculty colleagues as to enrich the graduate program, though it is hard to see how one could take place without the other.

Next year may not be the time to inaugurate this policy due to difficulties connected with the war and the possible decrease in exceptional graduate students who would profit most from it, but it is urged that the plan be given a careful trial over a period of several years, within which the Department be allowed to experiment freely to see what could be accomplished. It is suggested that $5,000 per annum be placed at the disposal of the Department for 3 to 5 years to see what it can do for itself and the University in the execution of this policy. If it can not demonstrate the gains from this policy, it should be held to account for its failure.

8. Departmental Lectures

A similar line of thought prompts the Department to ask in addition for the sum of $600 per annum for expenditure on occasional lectures to be given by individuals doing new and unique things about which staff members and their best students would otherwise remain ignorant. Such lectures would have little popular appeal and would attract few outside of the Department, but they would give the faculty the benefit of discoveries, hypotheses an ideas before they become current in the profession. Such Iectures could find their way into print via the Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, or otherwise, as might be determined. The $600 requested would probably provide only two or three such lectures a year due to the payment of expenses and honoraria.

9. A Special Fund for Student Assistance

The suggestion has been made that there be included among the worthy projects to be submitted to prospective donors proposals for the creation of Departmental Funds for the Assistance of Brilliant Students, such as the Littauer Fund now available at Harvard. This would not be a loan fund but a source of grants-in-aid to supplement fellowships, scholarships, loans and other assistance and would be administered by the respective departments which are close to students, and are, therefore, familiar with their needs. A study of the results attained by the Littauer Center might well justify the search for a similar fund.

  1. Recommendations as to Service and Equipment

The Department is unanimous in recommending an increase in salary of at least $35.00 per month for Mrs. Margaret Finnamore who by vote of the faculty has been acting as Secretary of the Department. If it is possible to have this title confirmed and a new salary classification adopted so as to give effect to the work now being performed by Mrs. Finnamore, the wishes of the Department will be carried out. [“]In running the Department, Mrs. Finnamore is the most essential person.”

The Department feels that it is appropriate to increase the salary of Mrs. Marian Woodyard from $145 to $150 per month.

With the continued increase in members of the Department and the increase in their scholarly output, present clerical and stenographic facilities are inadequate. The situation was eased somewhat last year by the addition of $500 to our Equipment and Expense Account. This sum has been utilized to provide additional typing service for staff members but the need can only be met by the addition of one full-time clerk-stenographer. To provide this assistance and to take care of the salary changes recommended above an increase of $2,040 is needed in our Service Account. (I have reduced our Equipment and Expense Account by $500.)

Item No. 21
Account No. 2624 Service
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $3,960)
Proposed
Chairman $6,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$6,000]
Amount 1944-45

Equipment and Expense

Item No. 22
Account No. 2625 Equipment and Expense
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $1,360
Proposed
Chairman $860
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

An independent check on the present volume of office and stenographic work, as well as its work-program for the future, would be welcomed to test the reasonableness of this recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,
[signed] Simeon E. Leland

___________________________________

Three items crossed out of economics departmental budget by President

Visiting Professors

Item No. 19
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Visiting Professors
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From  
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44
Proposed
Chairman $600
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [….]
Amount 1944-45

Lecturers

Item No. 20
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Lecturers
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44
Proposed
Chairman $5,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [….]
Amount 1944-45

 

Agricultural Economic Research & Development

Item No. 23
Account No. 2626 Agricultural Economic Research & Development
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $5,000
Proposed
Chairman $5,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45 [In Division Budget]

 ___________________________________

Source: University of Chicago Library. Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 284, Folder “Economics, 1943-1947”.

Image Source: Portrait of Simeon E. Leland. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03716, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Image colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Haberler pushes hiring Caves rather than Chenery or Arrow in 1961

 

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has already posted two artifacts revealing Gottfried Haberler’s unfiltered opinions of other economists that he put into writing.

re: John Kenneth Galbraith vs. Paul Samuelson
re: Samuel Bowles

In my reading of the memo transcribed below I get the sense that Haberler was not shy of overstating his case for the  appointment of Richard Caves by diminishing Arrow’s virtues: “I cannot help feeling that some of his [Arrow’s] work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low.”

Personal note: I once paid my Yale mentor William Fellner a courtesy call when he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. in the 1970s. Fellner was a lunch-buddy of Gottfried Haberler and he invited me to join the two of them for lunch at the Mayflower Hotel. I confess (with a combination of understanding for myself and shame) that I hadn’t a clue who the frail old man wolfing down his lunch across the table from me was and he displayed no interest in conversation with me either. And now here I sit, posting a 63 year old Haberler memo for the historical record.

____________________

All three were eventually given
Harvard professorships anyway

Kenneth Arrow (1951 Ph.D. Columbia, Harvard appointment 1968)

Richard Caves (1958 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1962)

Hollis Chenery (1950 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1965)

____________________

Haberler’s Protest:
Preface to his Colleagues

To the Senior Members of the Department:

I am going to send the attached letter to the President unless anybody strongly objects. For the members of the Department I should like to add that I somewhat resent the surprise tactic used in bringing up the name of Arrow in yesterday’s discussion. Let me confess that this was not immediately clear to me — which on reflection causes me to deplore it all the more. I have reason to believe that others too were taken by surprise.

December 13, 1961

____________________

Haberler’s Protest in Full

CONFIDENTIAL.

MEMO TO: The President, the Senior members of the Department of Economics, the Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration

FROM: Gottfried Haberler

In my opinion, the Department of Economics is making a serious mistake in filling up the Department too much with mathematical and econometric economists through the proposal to appoint Arrow and Chenery. May I say by way of introduction that, although I am not myself a mathematical economist, I have a high appreciation of the mathematical and econometric method and have consistently shown that by my votes in the Department.

I do believe, however, that at the present time the Department is well supplied with talent in this field. Five members of the permanent staff belong to that category — Dorfman, Houthakker, Leontief, Meyer, Schelling. True, all of them have developed strong interests in policy problems and have worked on applied problems. None of them is a “pure” theorist in the sense that he works exclusively in the theoretic-mathematical-econometric field, but all of them (with the exception of Schelling) have been appointed for their theoretical, mathematical, econometric skills.

In addition to the permanent members, there are always non-permanent members in that category, at present especially Clopper Almon [Obituary].

No two of these five men are quite alike and Arrow is different from all of them. As far as I know, Arrow has not yet developed an active interest in policy questions. I do not criticise him for that — it may well be an asset. All I want to say is that we are well supplied in his general field of competence. He certainly is a most competent man and he, rightly, has a high reputation in the profession. But I cannot help feeling that some of his work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low. On earlier occasions when he was discussed in the Department, Professor Leontief expressed precisely the same doubts and reservations. Now he thinks that a large department, such as ours, should have men of that type even if — as he still readily concedes — the permanent value of his ideas is problematic. My point is that we are well supplied with this sort of talent and that we are tilting the balance of the Department too strongly in one particular direction.

The fact that we propose to the School of Public Administration the appointment of Chenery fortifies in my opinion the above criticism.

Chenery too is a mathematical-econometric economist of high quality and great energy. His special field is input-output analysis in its application to less developed countries. He is not, of course, a “pure” theorist. On the contrary, application of the theoretical-statistical tools is his strength, especially of input-output analysis. He has also developed administrative talents. At this time, he holds an important position in Washington which makes him look especially attractive to Littauer, I am not in a position to evaluate his suitability for his government assignment. But I should like to say this: I feel strongly that input-output is of no use for the less developed countries, because their basic statistics are woefully inadequate. This does not mean that Chenery will be a poor administrator. It is possible that for him, in his present position, input-output will be a mere ritual. I assume, however, that Littauer does not appoint him for his administrative capabilities, but rather for his scholarly talents, and these latter belong to the same general field — mathematical-econometric analysis — as Arrow’s and the five members of the Department whom I mentioned.

I feel all the more strongly that the Department is making a grave mistake, because we are passing up a rare opportunity to appoint another man who fits into our Department better than either of the two men mentioned and who has other talents which we urgently need, namely, Richard Caves.

The Department has unanimously voted to recommend the appointment of Caves if Arrow is not available. I therefore need not argue his high competence and standing in this profession. Let me only say this: Caves has shown that he not only understands and appreciates the modern mathematical, statistical and econometric methods of analysis, but also — which is a different thing — that he knows how to use them. He has shown himself at the same time to be a master of traditional economic theory and of modern quantitative analysis, a very rare combination indeed. In addition to that he has become a very effective and stimulating undergraduate teacher, which neither one of the other two men is. We are often criticised for neglecting undergraduate teaching. We have tried to remedy this situation, but the difficulty has always been to find a man who measures up to our standards of scholarship and is at the same time an effective undergraduate teacher. Here we have the very rare opportunity, the opportunity of a lifetime, to appoint a man who is both at the same time — an accomplished scholar who is thoroughly familiar with the history of his science and wields modern quantitative methods of analysis effectively, and is also an inspiring undergraduate teacher. It would be inexcusable to let that opportunity pass.

It should be added that Caves is younger than the other two and is being considered by two leading universities for a permanent position. If we do not get him now we will in all probability have lost him forever.

I should also like to say that I disagree with the view that Chenery is better suited for Littauer than Caves. True, being older he has more administrative experience. But this should not be decisive, in my opinion, except that from a superficial public relations standpoint it may look appropriate to appoint someone to Littauer who has held a high position in Washington. Both men are intensely interested in policy problems, but both will always feel that they are primarily economists and neither will want to lecture only on policy problems or only to Littauer students.

December 13, 1961

Source: Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 17, Folder “Economics Department 1960-62”.

Image: Radcliffe Archives. Portrait of Gottfried Haberler. (1965).

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. University Overseer objects to hiring Alvin Hansen. 1937

Harvard’s hiring of Alvin Hansen, the future “American Keynes”, met with disapproval from high up in the U. S. Department of State. The reservations were easily overcome as can be seen in Harvard President Conant’s polite yet firm response to the telegram sent him urging him to block Hansen’s appointment to a tenured professorship.

William Richards Castle Jr. (1878-1963) graduated from Harvard in 1900, was an instructor of English and later Freshman Dean from 1904 to 1913. These Harvard connections helped him later to climb to the top of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Politically he was fiercely anti-New Deal. From 1935 to 1941 he served as a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers which is why he must have felt it to be both his right and his duty to shoot this late torpedo at Dean John William’s candidate.

The quoted source with a negative opinion of Alvin Hansen’s qualifications was Herbert Feis (1893-1972), who likewise was a Harvard man, A.B. (1916) and Ph.D. (1921). Feis was serving as adviser on economic affairs to the Secretary of State, Henry L. Stimson. Herbert Feis is an interesting enough economics Ph.D. alumnus to warrant a dedicated post here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. An unanswered question is what might have accounted for Feis’ low professional esteem regarding Hansen. 

________________________________

WESTERN UNION

1937 MAY 12 PM 12:34
WASHINGTON DC

PRESIDENT CONANT
HARVARD COLLEGE CA

FEIS KNOWS HANSON WELL SAYS HE IS A THOROUGH WORKER WHO TRIES TO BE INDEPENDENT GOOD IN HIS SPECIAL FIELD BUT BY NO MEANS GREAT HE CHOOSES SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS BUT TREATS THEM SOMEWHAT NARROWLY AS HE HAS LITTLE BACKGROUND IN HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES HE GIVES SENSE OF INTELLECTUAL DOGMATISM HAS ABRUPT UNPREPOSSESSING MANNER ANTAGONIZING MANY FEIS THINKS HIM GOOD BET FOR TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT BUT WOULD GREATLY REGRET PERMANENT APPOINTMENT

W R CASTLE.

________________________________

Copy of Conant’s Reply to Castle

June 9, 1937

Mr. W. R. Castle
2200 S Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Castle:

After receiving your information about Professor Hansen, I proceeded to investigate the  whole question very thoroughly, as I was, of course, very much disturbed by what Dr. Feiss [sic] stated to you in confidence. After making this investigation, I was convinced, in spite of Dr. Feiss’ [sic] negative conclusions, that the appointment was one we should make. In this decision Dean Williams and other members of the Department of Economics agree (of course, no one except Dean Williams knows of your inquiry). I have heard excellent reports on Professor Hansen from other people in the State Department and from economists in other institutions. On the basis of all this evidence, therefore, we have proceeded with the appointment.

I am asking Dean Williams to drop in on you in Washington and discuss certain matters connected with the School and, incidentally, tell you a little more about the matter of Professor Hansen, as I am sure you would be interested in the reasons which led us both to go contrary to the advice which we received through your kindness.

I am deeply appreciative of your having taken the trouble to look into this matter and I am sure you will understand that in all such matters it is a question of weighing the pros and cons which one receives fron different sources.

Very sincerely yours,

[stamp] JAMES B. CONANT

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 81, Folder “Economics 1936-37”.

Image Source: Alvin Hansen from the Harvard Class Album 1945. Book in the foreground is The Seven Myths of Housing by Nathan Straus that was published in January 1944. The bits of newspaper one can read  /…Tribune…/…by big R.A.F…./…-Day Breathing…/…Novgorod…” so my guess is that the newspaper is from late January 1944. A large-scale R.A.F. attack on Magdeburg and the Soviets recapture of Novgorod both occurred on  January 21, 1922.

Categories
Economist Market Economists

Harvard. Renewal of Faculty Instructorship. Case of Paul Sweezy, 1940

 

The following records come from the President’s Office at Harvard University involving the terms of the reappointment of Paul Sweezy at the rank of Faculty Instructor in the Harvard economics department. Sweezy joined the army in the fall of 1942, so the debate about a two or five year reappointment turned out to be moot on account of the Second World War. What I found particularly interesting in these records is the last one posted below where we witness a member of the department’s visiting committee trying to scuttle Sweezy’s appointment because of his Keynesian fiscal proclivities.

“Mr. Bigelow presented newspaper and other clippings as evidence that Mr. Sweezy advocated economic doctrines in regard to the utility of government-spending in excess of income, and ways of meeting huge deficits, which characterized Mr. Sweezy in Mr. Bigelow’s opinion as an opponent of capitalism…”

In Sweezy’s defense the two members of the department present at the meeting with the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science felt it necessary to remind the others present that the department itself had nominated John Maynard Keynes to receive an honorary doctorate at the Tercentenary celebrations in 1936 (…but that honor somehow escaped Keynes…).

__________________________

Departmental Recommendation
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 23, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

The Department of Economics has considered the reappointment of Paul Marlor Sweezy whose term as a Faculty Instructor expires in the current year. The Executive Committee voted unanimously that he be reappointed without specification of the term of such reappointment. It then voted to appoint him a Faculty Instructor for a period of five years. As indicated on the detailed record of this ballot, there were two dissenting votes. Letters from Professors Burbank and Slichter will explain in detail their reasons for not approving of the five-year term.

                  Mr. Sweezy’s instruction is in the fields of Industrial Organization and Socialism, and is primarily undergraduate. He is an experienced tutor, and at present is one of the two Examiners in Economics. He would at any time be considered a strong candidate for a Faculty Instructorship, and is especially valuable to the Department now in view of the recent departure of so many of our younger staff.

                  Biographical and bibliographical data are enclosed on separate sheets.

Yours very truly,
(S) E. H. Chamberlin
E. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
Copied by: MEH

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

Departmental Vote
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

Paul Marlor Sweezy

                  At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Department of Economics on February 13, 1940, upon motion of Dean Williams, it was voted unanimously that we favor the reappointment of Paul Sweezy, without specification of term.

Professor Black Yes
Professor Burbank Yes
Professor Chamberlin Yes
Professor Crum Yes
Professor Frickey Yes
Professor Haberler Yes
Professor Hansen Yes
Professor Harris Yes
Professor Leontief Yes
Professor Mason Yes
Dr. Monroe Yes
Professor Schumpeter Yes
Professor Slichter Yes
Dr. Taylor Yes
Professor Usher Yes
Dean Williams Yes
Professor Wilson Yes

Dean Williams then moved that we recommend the appoint of Paul Sweezy as Faculty Instructor for a five-year term. The motion was carried with two dissenting votes.

Professor Black Yes
Professor Burbank No
Professor Chamberlin Yes
Professor Crum Yes
Professor Frickey Yes
Professor Haberler Yes
Professor Hansen Yes
Professor Harris Yes
Professor Leontief Yes
Professor Mason Yes
Dr. Monroe Yes
Professor Schumpeter Yes
Professor Slichter No
Dr. Taylor Yes
Professor Usher Yes
Dean Williams Yes
Professor Wilson Yes

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

Burbank’s Dissent
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 17, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

                  You are familiar with the recommendation of the Executive Committee of the Department of Economics regarding Dr. Paul Sweezy.

                  Since I voted against the recommendation which is in your hands, I should like to state the reasons for my action.

                  I strongly favor continuing the present appointment of Dr. Sweezy for two years, or voting him a five-year appointment from 1937. Either action would give him a full five-year faculty term.

                  I take this position because I believe his status should be reviewed in about two years. The members of the Executive Committee have known Sweezy for a long period. We are, or should be, altogether familiar with his work and his promise for growth and accomplishment. I place two more years rather than four or five as the better time for revision both from Sweezy’s point of view and from the point of view of the Department.

                  I  have had many years of experience in placing men in other institutions. It has been our experience that it is extremely difficult to place the better men advantageously after they have passed the early thirties. In this particular category the matter of a few years is of real significance. If, in 1945, Sweezy should not be advanced, the difficulties in securing an acceptable place for him will be increased. I hope this can be avoided. I believe that the colleagues who are the principal supporters of the motion for the longer term would declare that this argument carries little or no weight. However, the fact that Dr. Sweezy has no invitations from other institutions of high standing carries very considerable weight in its bearing on this problem.

                  I was reluctant to recommend a longer appointment at this time because of my estimate of Dr. Sweezy’s promise.

                  In the immediate past men have not been advanced and have gone elsewhere who were regarded, I believe, by a majority of the members of the Committee as superior to Dr. Sweezy. There are a number of men on the ground whom I regard as more promising.

                  Further, I believe that in our present situation our Instructorships should be well staggered and filled with regard for our long-time development. Considering the urgent needs of the Department in particular areas, I think it unwise to fill too many places immediately. I urge this policy strongly, since I am convinced that in some fields it is likely to be exceedingly difficult to uncover the requisite ability. It may be decidedly to our advantage to develop competition in these areas, — that is, two Instructors in the subjects involved. I would not urge this course for all areas of study and instruction, but in Agriculture and related problems, and in Labor and related problems I believe such competition may be essential.

Very sincerely yours,
(s) H. H. Burbank
H. H. Burbank

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Copied by: MEH

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

Slichter’s Dissent
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 19, 1940

Dean W. S. Ferguson
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Dean Ferguson:

                  At a meeting of the Department of Economics on February 13, I voted for the reappointment of Mr. Paul Sweezy as faculty instructor but against a term of five years. I favor a two-year term.

                  Mr. Sweezy is just completing a three-year term as faculty instructor. Consequently appointment for two more years would convert his three-year term into a five-year term which is more normal. On the other hand, appointment for five years following three would put Mr. Sweezy in a special class among faculty instructors and would easily be interpreted as a stronger endorsement of his work and qualifications than I think we are warranted in giving.

                  No one, of course, knows how rapidly Mr. Sweezy will develop during the next few years but I think that the chances are against our desiring to offer him a permanent place. If that is so, a two-year appointment is fairer than a five-year both to him and to the University.

Sincerely yours,
(S) Sumner H. Slichter

Copied by: MEH

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

Appendix: Sweezy c.v.

Paul Marlor Sweezy

Biography

Born April 10, 1910

A.B., Harvard, 1931
A.M., Harvard, 1934
Ph.D., Harvard, 1937

Married

1934-37 Annual Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics, Harvard.

1937-40 Faculty Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics, Harvard, for three years.

Bibliography

“A Note on Relative Shares,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. I, No. 1, October 1933.

“Pigou’s Theory of Unemployment,” Journal of Political Economy, December, 1934.

“Economics and the Crisis of Capitalism,” The Economic Forum, Spring, 1935.

“John Strachey’s Theory and Practice of Socialism,” review in The Nation, December 5, 1936.

“On the Definition of Monopoly,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1937.

“Review of The United States: A Graphic History, by Louis Hacker et al.,” The Nation, December 11, 1937.

“Review of Economics for Everybody, by Mervyn Crobaugh,” The Nation, December 25, 1937.

“Review of Socialism versus Capitalism, by A. C. Pigou,” The Nation, February 5, 1938; and Plan Age, March 1938.

“Review of The Promises Men Live By, by Harry Schernan,” The Nation, March 26, 1938.

“Review of Socialism, by Ludwig Mises,” Science and Society, Spring, 1938.

“Wage Policies and Investment,” American Economic Review, Supplement, March, 1938.

“Review of On the Economic Theory of Socialism, by Oskar Lange and Fred M. Taylor,” The Nation, June 25, 1938.

“Expectations and the Scope of Economics,” Review of Economic Studies, June, 1938.

“Review of Confessions of an Economic Heretic, by J. A. Hobson,” The Nation, August 27, 1938.

An Economic Program for American Democracy. With R. V. Gilbert, G. H. Hildebrand, Jr., A. W. Stuart, W. Y. Sweezy, L. Tarshis, and J. D. Wilson. The Vanguard Press. 1938.

Monopoly and Competition in the English Coal Trade, 1550-1850. (Wells Prize essay 1937-38.) Harvard Economic Studies Vol. LXIII. Harvard University Press. 1938.

“Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly,” Journal of Political Economy, August 1939.

“The Thinness of the Stock Market,” American Economic Review, December, 1938.

“Review of Full Recovery or Stagnation, by A. H. Hansen,” The Nation, November 19, 1938.

“The Power of the Purse,” The New Republic, February 8, 1939.

“Marx on the Significance of the Corporation,” Science and Society, Spring 1939.

“Review of The Brandeis Way, by A. I. Mason,” Harvard Law Review, April, 1939.

“Review of Jobs for All, by Mordecai Ezekiel,” The New Republic, April 19, 1939.

“Government Spending, its Tasks and Limits,” (discussion), Social Research, May, 1939.

“Is Further Debt Financing Sound?” (symposium), The Business Bulletin, May, 1939.

“Review of Man’s Estate, by Alfred M. Bingham,” The Boston Transcript, July 22, 1939.

“Public Works as an Aid to Private Investment,” The American City, July, 1939.

“Review of Henry George, by Albert Jay Nock,” The Nation, October 28, 1939.

“Review of Ideas are Weapons, by Max Lerner,” The Nation, December 2, 1939.

“Major Interest Groups in the American Economy,” Appendix No. 11 in The Structure of the American Economy, National Resources Committee, 1939.

In preparation:

Lectures on Marxian Economic Theory. Accepted for publication by the Oxford University Press. (Eight chapters completed in first draft.

“A Contribution to the Economic History of the Law of Corporations.” Accepted for publication by The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

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

Dean Signals Green Light
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

C O P Y

February 26, 1940.

Dear Mr. Chamberlin:

                  I confirm herewith the message I gave you by telephone this morning, that we are agreed to have Dr. Paul Sweezy appointed as Faculty Instructor for five years beginning on September 1, 1940. It is part of this transaction that you and we are agreed that Dr. Sweezy should be informed (first) that this appointment involves no commitment for his election to a vacancy on the permanent staff, (second) that he will be considered for election to such a vacancy in competition both with other Faculty Instructors on the staff and with outsiders, and (third) that in all likelihood this competition will be severe.

                  Will you kindly write to him to this effect and send to me both a copy of your letter and of his acknowledgment of its receipt?

                  I am

Yours sincerely,
[unsigned]

Professor E. H. Chamberlin

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

Chairman Informs Sweezy
of the Appointment Decision

COPY

February 29, 1940

Dear Paul:

This letter is to confirm our conversation of several days ago. The Department of Economics has voted for you a five-year appointment as Faculty Instructor dating from September 1940, and this appointment has been approved by both Dean Ferguson and by President Conant. It goes without saying that it is an expression of a belief in your promise as an economist and in your continued usefulness to the Department over the five years to come.

                  The appointment, made during the transition from the old system to the new, in effect continues your tenure on a non-permanent basis over a period of eight years from your Ph.D. which is perfectly normal, but has the unusual result of extending over the entire eight-year period your status as “Faculty Instructor.” For this reason apprehension has been expressed both in the Department and by the University administration lest it be misinterpreted. In fairness to you it should be made perfectly clear that no one regards this appointment as involving any commitment whatever for subsequent election for a permanent position at Harvard. When such a permanent position is to be filled, the competition will include, as well as yourself and other Faculty Instructors on the ground, former members of the Department and still others from the outside. It looks now as if this competition would be severe.

                  I trust that you will understand the importance of avoiding any misunderstanding at this time. Will you please let me have an acknowledgement to this letter.

Sincerely yours,
(s) E. H. Chamberlin

Dr. Paul M. Sweezy
10 Forest Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

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

Sweezy Confirms Understanding
Tenure Review will be Competitive

COPY

March 3, 1940

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin,
Department of Economics,
Littauer Center,
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Professor Chamberlin,

                  I have your letter of February 29th regarding my appointment to a five year term as Faculty Instructor beginning next fall. Needless to say I am happy that the Department and the Administration feel the confidence in my work to date which this appointment implies.

                  I note that both the Department and the Administration are anxious to make it quite clear that this appointment carries with it no implication of further commitments. You may rest assured that I understand the situation in this respect completely; this letter will serve to furnish a formal record of the fact.

Sincerely,
(sgd.) Paul M. Sweezy

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

Official Announcement
of the Appointment Decision

PAUL MARLOR SWEEZY

Recommendation of the Dean of the Faculty:

                  I recommend the appointment of Dr. Paul Sweezy as Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Department of Economics for five years from September 1, 1940. Dr. Sweezy’s three-year term as Faculty Instructor expires this year. Prior to his present appointment he served three years as Annual Instructor before receiving his doctorate. Consequently he is entitled under our rules to the five-year Faculty Instructorship for which he is recommended. He is thirty years of age.

                  The vote of the Department on which this recommendation is based was not unanimous. The two dissenters preferred to have the five-year period divided into two periods, one of two years and the other of three. This division seems to me to conflict with the essential idea on which the new type of Faculty Instructorship rests. It denies him the opportunity of sufficient time, free from the consequences on himself and his work of an intervening judgment, in which to demonstrate his scholarship. On the plan of the dissenters Dr. Sweezy would come up for consideration again a year hence. It is not urged that the Department would be in a better position to reach a definite decision regarding him twelve months from now than it is in at present. The action recommended by the great majority of the Department is best calculated to give Dr. Sweezy a fair chance. The Department has only one other Faculty Instructor on the five-year tenure at present and he has just been appointed. Their quota is six. Hence they could have another man in direct competition with Dr. Sweezy in 1944. Dr. Sweezy is comparatively young. There is, therefore, little risk in keeping him on for five years longer. In a subject like Economics the five years between the ages of 30 and 35 constitute the period in which a man ordinarily comes to maturity.

                  The enclosed letter from me to Professor Chamberlin makes clear to Dr. Sweezy the situation in which he stands on entering on his five-year term.

[signed] W. S. Ferguson

March 20, 1940.

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

Memorandum of the discussion between Mr. Albert Bigelow, Professors Burbank and Chamberlin, and Assistant Dean Buck, and myself [W. S. Ferguson, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences] Thursday, May 9, 1940.
Dramatis Personae

Albert Francis Bigelow. Harvard Class of 1903. Harvard Law Graduate. Member of the Economics Visiting Committee. Republican member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives 1925-1944. [His son, Albert Bigelow, was a prominent pacifist.]

Paul Herman Buck. Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, associate professor in history as of 1939. He received the Pulitzer prize in American History in 1938 for his book on the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War.

William Scott Ferguson. Dean of Faculty of Arts and Sciences, McLean Professor of Ancient and Modern History (Fun fact: Ferguson invented the reading period at Harvard)

Harold Hitchings Burbank, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy. Former chairman of the Department of Economics, chairman of the Board of Tutors in the Division of History, Government and Economics.

Edward Hastings Chamberlin, Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Department of Economics.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Mr. Bigelow presented newspaper and other clippings as evidence that Mr. Sweezy advocated economic doctrines in regard to the utility of government-spending in excess of income, and ways of meeting huge deficits, which characterized Mr. Sweezy in Mr. Bigelow’s opinion as an opponent of capitalism and, on this basis, queried “whether or not he arrived at his views by thorough scholarship and by intellectual processes which command the respect of his peers” — that is to say, met the conditions formulated in the Report of the Visiting Committee of the Economics Department for 193[last digit omitted]. General discussion followed. Professor Chamberlin pointed out that the position taken by Mr. Sweezy was substantially that held by Professor Keynes of Cambridge University, scholar to whom Harvard had tendered an honorary degree at the Tercentenary. Neither Professor Burbank nor Professor Chamberlin was able to define the degree of Mr. Sweezy’s radicalism and affirmed vigorously that in making their recommendation the Department was not actuated for or against him by considerations of his politico-economic opinions. They regarded Mr. Sweezy as a well-trained economist, a man of real ability, and an excellent teacher. Mr. Bigelow raised the question whether the point of view advocated sympathetically by Mr. Sweezy was not considered dispassionately by other members of the Department in their teaching. Professor Burbank affirmed that this was the case, adding that the men who agitated irresponsibly on matters of current controversy were not in the Harvard Department of Economics.

                  Mr. Bigelow also inquired whether Mr. Sweezy was not likely to influence emotionally the opinions of young men predisposed by present conditions to seek, by any or every means, an escape from their immediate troubles. The point was made that individual undergraduates were taught economics not by one man alone but by at least four or five, among them men who were more orthodox than he in their economic theories. Professors Burbank and Chamberlin were clear that it was impossible not to have instruction on socialism in the Economics Department at Harvard and that without the services of Sweezy they would be very hard put to give it. Accordingly somebody else would be needed to replace Mr. Sweezy; and, according to Mr. Burbank, there was only one man in the country whom they regarded as his superior (Lange of Chicago) and whom in his opinion they would prefer to Sweezy when and if they contemplated making a permanent appointment in this field. He is not procurable on an Instructor’s salary. Professor Burbank thought that the needs of the Department on its permanent staff placed Labor, Economic History, and Agricultural Economics prior to the field represented by Mr. Sweezy. It was pointed out by Mr. Buck that with its quota of six Faculty Instructors, the Department could easily provide for these permanent needs and yet retain Mr. Sweezy as a Faculty Instructor of the new type. He pointed out that since the Department would have at best only two Faculty Instructors next year (excluding Sweezy) they had a real need for Sweezy to insure greater continuity in tutoring and to perform other departmental duties such as the conduct of General Final Examinations. This was admitted by both Mr. Burbank and Mr. Chamberlin.

                  I took the point of view that I was recommending Mr. Sweezy’s appointment on the grounds of his training in Economics and his intellectual distinction and his excellence as a teacher, adding that since the question of his opinions had been raised I should like to urge that neither at the present time nor a year from now* could an explanation be given which would seem to Mr. Sweezy or his friends to be at all adequate for our failure to reappoint him: in view of our agreement as to his qualifications he would be entitled to think that he was denied the type of appointment granted to his competitors primarily because of his political opinions, whereas should he be given his five-year appointment and not elected to a permanency at its termination (which Professor Burbank thought highly probable) there would be an explanation for letting him go which he could not contest; namely, the prior needs for men in other fields, the fact that, however good they were, only one Faculty Instructor out of every two would find a vacancy open for him, and the regularity of turn-over at that stage.

                  Mr. Bigelow intimated that he might wish to discuss the matter further with me and with President Conant. (Mr. Bigelow called me up later to say that he would ventilate the problem on Monday but would not press for adverse action.

[signed] W. S. Ferguson

* The date at which a decision would have to be made if he were given a two-year appointment only.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 154, Folder “Economics, 1939-1940”.

Image Source: Paul Sweezy in the Harvard Class Album 1942.

Categories
Chicago Cowles Economist Market Economists Stanford

Cowles Commission. Arrow declines offer for joint appointment of research director and professor of economics. 1953

 

Tjallings Koopmans declared his intention to resign his research directorship of the Cowles Commission for Economic Research at the University of Chicago effective June 30, 1954, having served in that position for six years. This necessitated a search for an economist who could satisfy the needs of both the Cowles Commission and the Chicago Department of Economics. Kenneth Arrow, a Cowles alumnus so-to-speak, was the first target of the search. In this post you will find transcriptions of some of the relevant correspondence in the matter. Arrow was offered a salary of $12,000 (approximately $140,000 at today’s prices) which was equal to that of Koopmans and $1000 less than that of the more senior Jacob Marschak.

For a history of the Cowles Commission and Foundation for Research in Economics, see Robert W. Dimand’s Cowles Working Paper (November 2019).

Plot-spoiler: Arrow declined the offer, “The activity of administration represents for me, I feel, a violation of the principle of comparative advantage, especially if one takes account of my strong subjective preferences,” to which Economics in the Rear-view Mirror can only add, “Good Choice!”

Postscript: Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has appended the September 30 announcement of Arrow’s being appointed executive head of the Stanford economics department. OK, so the comparative advantage argument could have played a role in his Chicago decision, assuming he believed a move would have increased the productivity of both the Stanford and Chicago faculties! Now I’ll  bet that having experienced winters in Chicago and Stanford, the family simply decided to stay in California.

Posted earlier: a mini c.v. for Arrow as of 1951.

________________________

COWLES COMMISSION
FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37, ILLINOIS

July 21, 1953

Professor T. W. Schultz
c/o Hotel Maury
Casilla Correo 1385
Lima, Peru

Dear Mr. Schultz:

                  The Central Administration and the Board of Trustees have now approved our recommendation with respect to Arrow. Please find enclosed a copy of my letter to Arrow. I presume that Dean Tyler will send you a copy of his letter. May I ask you, if you can find time, to write to Arrow to support this offer, and to indicate the participation the Economics Department? In case you have secretarial assistance, may we have a carbon of your letter?

                  It may be winter in South America just now, but here it is mid-summer, with all that that means. Hoping that you find your trip interesting and profitable,

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Tjalling C. Koopmans

TCK:lb

Enclosure

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

[COPY]

July 21, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Ken:

                  In this letter, which will reach you simultaneously with a letter from Dean Tyler, I am writing to express the gratification of the Cowles Commission research staff in general, and of myself in particular, at the action of the University and of the Executive Committee of the Commission, in extending to you an invitation to join our staff as Director of Research. The Executive Committee has acted on the unanimous recommendation of our faculty, which reflects our great confidence in you as an intellectual leader. We believe that, above all others in the field, you are the person capable of giving the Commission the research leadership it needs during the years just ahead. Needless to say, we hope that you will decide to accept.

                  I well remember your statement this April that you wished not to be considered for a position which like this one has administrative aspects. As illustration you mentioned that you did not wish to become chairman of your department at Stanford either.  The fact that you are now taking another view of the latter task gives us the courage to ask you to reconsider your attitude toward the former. The administrative aspects of this position are adjustable in terms of your own preferences. I think you will find Ross Cardwell capable of discharging those administrative functions which you may wish to avoid. He brings to this a real understanding and sympathy for the objectives of the group.

                  Mr. Schultz will write to you concerning the participation of the Economics Department in this offer. Since he is currently in South America, some time will go by before his letter can reach you. Let me say only that the Department is likewise unanimous in its support for a joint offer, and hopes that you will regard participation in its teaching and other activities an compatible with your primary responsibility with regard to the Commission. A tentative ratio, two-thirds Commission, one-third Department, is proposed for your consideration.

                  I am writing to Jascha [Jacob Marschak], who is currently at the Institute for Numerical Analysis, to inform him that this offer has now been approved. Please feel free to discuss the matter with him and to regard him as an additional source of information. We also hope that you will find it possible to visit Chicago some time in September so that you may inform yourself fully with regard to the opportunities and challenge of this position. The best timing of this visit depends somewhat on Mr. Schultz’ plans, on which I am not fully informed.

                  In conclusion, I want you to know that I look forward with great anticipation to the prospect of a reintensified contact with you, both in research and in a personal way. We all hope that our proposal is challenging enough to you to earn your serious consideration and, ultimately, your acceptance.

                  Please give our best regards to Selma. We hope that she will look with sympathy on our trying to get you both back to Chicago.

Cordially yours,

Tjalling C. Koopmans

cc: Executive Committee (A. Cowles, R. L Cardwell, T. W. Schultz, R. W. Tyler)
J. Marschak

________________________

COPY

The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois
The Division of the Social Sciences

Office of the Dean

July 21, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow co The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  I take great pleasure in inviting you to become Professor of Economics of the University of Chicago and Director of Research in the Cowles Commission. This is a regular tenure position as a full professor at a salary of $12,000 per year effective for 1954-55, on a 4-E contract. As you may have heard, the provisions of the 4-E contract have recently been liberalized so that the faculty member retains his earnings from royalties, from occasional lectures, and other occasional short-term assignments.

                  The interest in your appointment is indicated by the fact that you were the unanimous selection of the Executive Committee of the Cowles Commission, as well as the research staff of the Commission and the faculty of the department of economics. We are all anxious to have you join us and feel sure that we can provide you with excellent conditions for making an important intellectual contribution. We hope that you will come to Chicago at our expense sometime in September to look into the situation as fully as you wish and to work out conditions that are satisfactory, including the time when you would be able to join our staff.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
R. W. Tyler
Dean

RWT:rk

________________________

[COPY]

August 24, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  I have returned from my field work in Peru and Mexico and learned with great pleasure from Dean Tyler and Professor Koopmans that the Chancellor has approved our recommendation to invite you to come to the University of Chicago as Professor of Economics and Director of Research in the Cowles Commission. Dean Tyler has already formally extended to you this invitation and Professor Koopmans has written to you at some length. May I convey to you the fact that this invitation is rare in that it is the unanimous view and wish of the members of the Department of Economics. This expresses in the strongest possible terms our own very high regard for your professional achievements as an economist and our firm wish to have you become one of us.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Theodore W. Schultz

TWS:jw

________________________

[COPY]

September 11, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica California

Dear Ken:

                  This is further to my handwritten letter of about a month ago, in which I indicated that I would write again upon returning to Chicago. Let me again express the hope that you may be able to visit us at a time convenient to you. I continue to believe that this is the most effective procedure for you to obtain clarification on points such as those ou have raised in conversation with Jascha. However, in case you should prefer to seek clarification by correspondence, may I suggest that you write to Dean Tyler if you have questions relating to the Cowles Commission (with a carbon copy to me) and to Mr. Schultz for questions relating to the Department.

                  We had an interesting and fruitful meeting at Kingston, in which high temperature and a light program contributed to a relaxed atmosphere.

                  Looking forward to hearing from you.

Cordially,
[unsigned copy]
Tjalling C. Koopmans

TOK:lb

Cc: J. Marschak, T.W. Schultz, R.W. Tyler

________________________

The RAND Corporation
1700 Main St. • Santa Monica • California

15 September 1953

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Professor Schultz:

Thank you very much for your letter of August 24. I am indeed thrilled by the evidence of approbation by my former colleagues at the University of Chicago.

However, for reasons set forth in the enclosed letter to Dean Tyler, I feel that I should not accept the offer. The activity of administration represents for me, I feel, a violation of the principle of comparative advantage, especially if one takes account of my strong subjective preferences.

Best regards to all members of the Department.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Kenneth J. Arrow

KJA: ge
encl.

________________________

[COPY]

15 September 1953

Dean R. W. Tyler
The Division of the Social Sciences
The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Dean Tyler:

I have thought over very seriously the kind and flattering offer to serve as Research Director of the Cowles Comission. It is with a great deal of regret that I feel that I must decline.

The stimulating and vital intellectual atmosphere at the University of Chicago and the high salary offered were very strong inducements, but I feel that I am not temperamentally qualified to assume the administrative responsibilities called for. I would feel strongly the conflict between pursuing my individual research and the responsibilities of leadership, and I do not feel that I would make a satisfactory resolution. I wish to thank you again, not least, for your willingness to wait this long for me to come to a decision.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Kenneth J. Arrow

KJA:ge
cc: Prof. T. C. Koopmans, Prof. T. W. Schultz [checkmark]

________________________

[COPY]

The University of Chicago
The Division of the Social Sciences

Office of the Dean

September 21, 1953

Mr. Kenneth J. Arrow
The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  We are greatly disappointed that you feel it unwise to accept our invitation to become Director of Research for the Cowles Commission. We think you have an important contribution to make to our University. Hence, I hope we can work out some other position here that would appeal to you.

Sincerely yours,
R. W. Tyler
Dean

RWT:rk

cc:  Mr. T. W. Schultz  [checkmark], Mr. T. C. Koopmans

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 4.

________________________

Postscript

New Economics Executive Named

Kenneth J. Arrow, professor of economics and statistics at Stanford, has been appointed executive head of the University’s Department of Economics, President Wallace Sterling announced yesterday.

Nationally known for his work in the analysis of criteria for economic decisions, Dr. Arrow has been on the Stanford faculty since 1949. As department head he replaces Professor Edward S. Shaw, who has resigned to devote full time to teaching and research.

Dr. Arrow heads a project at Stanford supported by the Office of Naval Research to study the efficiency of economic decision-making.

As a post-doctoral fellow of the Social Science Research Council, Dr. Arrow traveled extensively in Western Europe for nine months of 1952, studying statistical problems of national economic planning.

He lectured at Oxford University and the Institute of Applied Economics in Paris and was one of a small group of distinguished American economists invited to participate in a colloquium on the theory of risk. The colloquium was conducted in Paris by the National Center of Scientific Research of the French Ministry of Eduaction.

Professor Arrow was graduated by the College of the City of New York in 1940 with Phi Beta Kappa honors and as winner of the Pell medal for highest scholastic proficiency.
He served as assistant professor at the University of Chicago in 1948-49. Appointed acting assistant professor at Stanford in 1949, he became associate professor in 1950 and this year was promoted to full professor.

[Note: the promotion was announced April 28, effective September 1, 1953.]

Source: The Stanford Daily, 1 October 1953.

Image Source:  Kenneth J. Arrow as Guggenheim Fellow (1972)  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.

Categories
Development Economist Market Economists Harvard Toronto

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus William Edmund Clark, 1974

Ed Clark once a 'Trudeaucrat' and then a Financial Master of the Universe

 

During the 1973-74 academic year Dale Jorgenson served as the placement officer for 34 Harvard economics Ph.D.s (in hand or anticipated) planning to go on the market. A fifth year student offering  the field of economic development with a thesis on government investment planning in Tanzania hoped to spend his first post-doc year at Harvard. Jorgensen apparently offered him a discouraging word, leading William Edmund Clark to approach John Kenneth Galbraith for help. Galbraith’s note to the department chair, James Duesenberry, is transcribed below. Galbraith could not pass up the opportunity to lend a helping hand simultaneously with a discrete back-of-the-hand at Jorgenson. 

Archival artifacts from the feud involving Jorgenson and Galbraith, inter alios, in the Harvard economics department at this time were the subject of an earlier post.

Curatorial due diligence demanded that I track down whatever happened to the Harvard economics Ph.D. alumnus William Edmund Clark. It turns out that he went back to his native Canada where he entered government service. He became much more than another faceless government economist. He rose rapidly through the bureaucratic ranks and within a decade “enjoyed” sufficient notoriety to become a Trudeaucratic target of Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney’s new government in the mid-1980s to be purged from the ranks of the civil service. From there Clark went on to an enormously successful career as a financial mover-and-shaker over the following three decades. “Red Ed” Clark also went on to make his mark in philanthropy.

The details of Clark’s truly remarkable life after his Harvard Ph.D. can be found in his Wikipedia article. John Kenneth Galbraith must have seen something that Dale Jorgenson either failed to see or didn’t want to encourage.

__________________________

Galbraith Tries an End-Run
around Jorgenson

December 20, 1973

Professor James Duesenberry
Littauer M-8
Harvard University

Dear Jim:

W. E. Clark, vitae attached, was in to see me the other day. He would like to stay on at Harvard; he has been told by Jorgenson that, in effect, there isn’t much interest in him. I find it difficult to plead we lack interest in anybody with this kind of record. I continue to suspect Mr. Jorgenson of an influence on our enterprise that is both inimical and evangelical. Couldn’t there be some corrective action without some fuss.

Yours faithfully,
John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG: efd

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

William Edmund Clark
Curriculum Vitae
  1. Born: October 10, 1947
  2. Marriage Status: Married
  3. Children: One Son
  4. Education:

Honors B.A., University of Toronto 1969. Economics
A.M. Harvard University 1971. Economics
Ph.D. Expected Harvard University. 1974 (Summer) Economics

  1. Awards, Grades:
    1. Stood first in class last three years at University of Toronto
    2. Received Excellent Minus on written Theory for Ph.D.
    3. Received Excellent on Orals for Ph.D.
      Topics: Economic Development; Theories of Social Change
    4. Woodrow Wilson Scholar
  2. Thesis. Pattern of Government Controlled Investment in Tanzania
    Thesis Advisors: A. O. Hirschman; A. MacEwan
  3. Teaching Experience:

Summer Course, Acadia University, Nova Scotia 1970
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University 1971/72.

  1. Other Work Experience:

Researcher, Center of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1966 (summer)
Researcher, Ford Foundation Project on Higher Education, University of Toronto, 1968 (summer)
Head, Research Project on Student Aid, Financed by Ontario Government and Ford Foundation, 1969 (summer)
Member, University of Toronto Tanzania Project, 1971-73
Team head, University of Toronto Tanzania Project, 1972-73

  1. Publications:

“Access to Higher Education in Ontario” joint article with D. Cook and G. Fallis

  1. Address: 11 Peabody Terrace Apt. 702 Cambridge, Mass. 02138
    Telephone: 617-492-0416
  2. References:

A.O. Hirschman, Harvard University
A. MacEwan, Harvard University
D. Nowlan, Dept. of Economics, University of Toronto
D.F. Forster, Provost, University of Toronto
A. Sinclair, Chairman, Dept. of Economics, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard Economics Dept. of Economics: General correspondence, 1967-74 (1 of 3)”.

Image Source: “Turbulence follows former ‘Trudeaucrat”,  National Post (Toronto), Aug 9, 1999.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard Michigan

Harvard. Department recommends promotion of James Duesenberry to associate professor with tenure, 1952

Thanks to Milton Friedman’s filing habits, we are able to catch a glimpse into the tenure and promotion process at Harvard for the case of James S. Duesenberry in 1952. Friedman was invited to serve on the ad hoc committee to review the case for promoting Duesenberry from assistant professor to associate professor of economics with tenure in Harvard’s economics department. A typed copy of the department’s two-page recommendation submitted by the chairman Arthur Smithies, a one page c.v. for Duesenberry, and additional letters of support by Wassily Leontief and Gottfried Haberler from Milton Friedman’s file are transcribed below .

What strikes me most is just how short this written record appears when compared to the paper steeplechase of university hiring and promotion procedures of the present day.

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the Provost

April 4, 1952

Confidential

Professor Milton Friedman
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Professor Friedman:

I am happy to learn from President Conant that you have kindly consented to serve on the ad hoc committee to consider an appointment in our Department of Economics. The committee will hold its meeting on Friday, April 18, at ten o’clock in the Perkins Room in Massachusetts Hall.

The position to be filled is that of Associate Professor of Economics. This rank carries permanency of tenure, and an assured progress toward a full professorship provided the man appointed lives up to expectations. For this reason we are seeking as good a young man as we can find in the age bracket under approximately forty years.

The Department of Economics has recommended Dr. James B. Duesenberry. I enclose for your scrutiny a copy of the Department’s recommendation, which, like all the material presented to the ad hoc committee, is strictly confidential. The next step in procedure is for the specially appointed ad hoc committee to advise the President and the Provost. In this connection not merely should the qualifications of Dr. Duesenberry be assessed, but he should also be compared with other men of his age group in the same field.

If there are any questions I can answer before the meeting of the committee, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am also enclosing a special travel voucher for your convenience in reporting your travel expenses in connection with the meeting of the ad hoc committee.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Paul H. Buck
Paul H. Buck
Provost

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

COPY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

February 18, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Dear Provost Buck:

At its meeting of February 12th, the Department of Economics unanimously decided to recommend Assistant Professor James S. Duesenberry for promotion to an Associate Professorship beginning in the academic year 1952-1953.

The meeting was attended by Professors Black, Chamberlin, Dunlop, Galbraith, Hansen, Harris, Leontief, Mason, Slichter, and Smithies, all of whom voted in favor of the promotion. Professors Gerschenkron, Haberler, and Williams and Dr. Taylor who were unavoidably absent from the meeting have all indicated their approval.

I am attaching a brief curriculum vitae of Duesenberry and a list of his publications and papers.

We make this recommendation after a careful survey of all the economists in the country whom we felt might be qualified or available for an Associate Professorship. Altogether we considered about twenty young economists, both in the United States and abroad. It is our judgment that none of them could serve this faculty better than Duesenberry and very few if any of them are on a par with Duesenberry.

He is undoubtedly one of the very few outstanding young economists in the country. I know that if he were to indicate his availability he would be flooded with offers from many leading universities. To illustrate, the University of California has just lost Fellner to Yale and they have told me that they would gladly take Duesenberry as one of their two leading economists in Economic Theory.

When we had narrowed our list down, it included Baumol at Princeton, Dorfman at California, Tobin at Yale, Goodwin who is now in Cambridge, England, and Robert Rosa of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Rosa appealed to many of us particularly. He has had a brilliant career in the Bank which has merely been an extension of the brilliance he has shown throughout his professional career. I knew him as an undergraduate at Michigan, and he has fulfilled all the promise he showed at that time. Unfortunately, he finally decided that he was not available. Otherwise, we might have recommended Rosa’s appointment in conjunction to that of Duesenberry since we have two vacancies that we can fill.

Where Rosa would have been largely complementary to Duesenberry in view of his specific banking experience, the others on the list are more competitive with him. We were particularly impressed with Baumol who some of us know and Tobin who all of us have known for some years. Both these men are undoubtedly first class intellectually, and it would be difficult to rate them below Duesenberry. However, Duesenberry has shown a breadth of interest and a willingness to relate economics to other disciplines that the others have not yet demonstrated to the same extent. Goodwin and Dorfman are also of first-class intellectual ability, but we felt that they too were more specialized in their interests than Duesenberry.

In the last few years, Duesenberry has shown a remarkable capacity to bring together the fruits of theoretical and empirical research. His interests are now leading him in the direction of an historical study of the problem of economic development, and he has been cooperating on an experimental course on economic motivation with a member of the Social Relations Department. I believe that economies has suffered seriously in recent years from over-specialization. In particular, the theorists and the statisticians have tended to feel that the truth has been revealed only to them. History until recently has attracted far too little interest. I am confident that Duesenberry will be an important influence in reversing these tendencies.

Duesenberry made a name for himself nationally and internationally with his first book, Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. His new hypothesis of “ratchet effects” has helped to avoid many of the mistakes that had previously been made in attempting to predict consumer behavior and has wide general implications for economic analysis. In this and his other work, he has already helped to rescue economies from the straight-jacket of static analysis, and I am sure he will do much more.

In view of the present needs of the Department, I wish we could have found a man who combined all Duesenberry’s other qualities with striking performance on the lecture platform. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. However, while not a striking lecturer, Duesenberry has been and will continue to be a very effective part of our undergraduate teaching. He has been a tutor in Dunster House for some years and as such has been a conspicuous success. He has also proved to be the member of the Department best equipped to teach the senior course in economic analysis for honors students. In these respects he will prove to be an important addition to the permanent staff from the point of view of undergraduate teaching.

On personal grounds, the Department looks forward very much to having Duesenberry as a permanent member. He will combine a thoroughly independent point of view with an understanding attitude towards differences of opinion with his colleagues. In general, it is the unanimous view of the Department that we could hardly make a recommendation in which we had greater confidence.

Yours Sincerely,
/s/ Arthur Smithies
Chairman

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

JAMES STEMBLE DUESENBERRY

Born July 18, 1918

B.A., University of Michigan, 1939
M.A., ibid., 1941
Ph.D., ibid., 1948
Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan, 1939-1941
U.S.A.A.F., 1942-1946.
Instructor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1946.
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University, 1946-1948.
Assistant Professor, Harvard University, 1948 to present

Publications

Books:

Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Harvard University Press, 1949.

Business Cycles and Economic Development, to be published in the fall of 1952 by McGraw-Hill Company.

Articles:

“Income Consumption Relations”, Income, Employment and Public Policy, Norton, 1948.

“The Mechanics of Inflation”, Review of Economics and Statistics, May, 1950.

“Mr. Hicks and the Trade Cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, September, 1950.

“The Role of Demand in the Economic Structure”, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, in press.

“Some Aspects or the Theory of Economic Development”, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, December 1950.

“The Leontief Input-Output System”, (ditto); to be published in a volume on Linear Programming by Paul Samuelson.

Papers Read but not Published:

“Some New Income-Consumption Relationships and Their Implications”, Econometric Society, January, 1947.

“Induction Evidence of the Propensity to Consume”, American Economic Association and the Econometric Society, December, 1947.

The Present Status of the Consumption Function” Conference on Income and Wealth, June, 1950.

“Theory of Economic Development”, Econometric Society, December, 1951.

“Needed Revisions in the Theory of Consumer Expenditures”, Econometric Society, September, 1950.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Gottfried Haberler
Professor of Economics

325 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 20, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Mr. Buck:

If you permit, I should like to add my personal views on the proposed appointment of James Duesenberry as Associate Professor. May I say that I know Duesenberry intimately and that I have been increasingly impressed by his work. The little book, INCOME, SAVING AND THE THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR, which he published with the Harvard University Press, is generally regarded as one of the most important and original contributions to the widely discussed and extremely important subject of the relations of national income, saving and consumption. It has been much and favorably commented upon. Duesenberry displays the rare talent of combining theoretical analysis, statistical analysis and sociological insight in a most illuminating and successful manner. He is also a very inspiring teacher.

In recent years he has turned his attention to the also much discussed problems of economic development. The parts of his forthcoming book which I have seen display a mastery of combining different approaches in a most fruitful way. His eminence in this particular field, which in a very welcome way rounds out the field covered by members of our department, is widely recognized in the economic profession at large. He was asked to address the convention of the American Economic Association last December, and Professor Innis of Toronto, the new president of the American Economic Association, has asked him to speak again on the problem of economic development at the next annual meeting of the Association.

To sum up, in my opinion the appointment of Duesenberry will greatly strengthen the Economics Department, enhance its reputation and help attract first rate students.

Very sincerely yours,
/s/ G. Haberler
G. Haberler

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 24, 1952

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

In anticipation of my appearance before the ad hoc committee, I would like to state my reasons for having vote [sic] in support of the departmental recommendation for appointment of Assistant Professor Duesenberry as associate professor. I have followed Jim’s development from the time he became, on my recommendation, an economics instructor and assistant in my undergraduate course on economic theory.

Duesenberry is one of the few outstanding young economists who established their reputation in the post war years. Baumol, Arrow, Goodwin and not more than one or two others, could be named as belonging to the same group. Among these, Duesenberry distinguished himself through his notable breadth of interest and what is in a sense more important, his remarkably productive scientific imagination. His well known contributions to the theory of consumption and the not yet published equally original work in the field of economic development, reveal a singular combination of intuitive insight, practical sense and theoretical “know-how”.

Duesenberry has already taken an important part in the work of the Harvard Economic Research Project, and I have no doubt that he will play a leading role in the development of economic and general social science research at Harvard.

Although not typically a smooth lecturer, Duesenberry is very effective in a classroom. His enthusiasm and real interest in students makes him an excellent tutor and undergraduate advisor.

If in its subsequent recommendations for permanent appointments we succeed in keeping our sights as high as in the present choice the future prospects of the Economics Department would be very bright indeed.

With best regards.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Wassily Leontief
Wassily Leontief

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the President

April 19, 1952

Dear Professor Friedman:

I am returning herewith material which I believe you left in the Perkins Room at the time of the ad hoc committee meeting yesterday.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Virginia Proctor
Virginia Proctor
Secretary to the President

Professor Milton Friedman
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 24, Folder “25.29 Correspondence. Duesenberry, James S.”

Image Source: Harvard College. Classbook 1957.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Gender

Chicago. Notes on conversation with U Chicago president Colwell by T.W. Schultz, 1946

Biblical Greek Scholar/Theologian Ernest Cadman Colwell served under Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins as the president of the University of Chicago from 1945 to 1951. Theodore W. Schultz was the relatively new head of the Department of Economics who met with Colwell in late September 1946 to brief the president on developments in the economics department, especially with respect to efforts being made in pursuit of several economists needed to fill the gaps left by Henry Simons’ death (1946), Chester W. Wright’s retirement (1944), resignations by Jacob Viner (1946) and Simeon E. Leland (1946), and Oskar Lange’s leave of absence (1945-).

We see in the memorandum of conversation transcribed below that John and Ursula Hicks posed a spousal hire issue needing a creative solution before an actual offer could be made and that sixty year old Frank Knight was due some sort of a “senatorial courtesy” to get him on board with the majority of the department who badly wanted to extend an offer to thirty-one year old Paul Samuelson. 

_________________________

Chicago Economics in 1946

Mitch, David. “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946.” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (2016): 1714–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549915. Especially the online supplemental materials, where the following memo is quoted in part.

_________________________

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

Harro Maas, “Making Things Technical: Samuelson at MIT” in E. Roy Weintraub (ed.) MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014), pp. 272-294.

Roger Backhouse. Founder of Modern Economics: Paul A. Samuelson. Vol. I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948 (Oxford University Press, 2017), Chapter 28 “Commitment to MIT.”

_________________________

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

This discussion with President Colwell was highly satisfactory in that we considered in some detail and carefully, a number of important developments affecting the Department of Economics as follows:

1. I indicated to Mr. Colwell that the role of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago should be reviewed, with the view of achieving a better division of labor among universities within the U. S. and internationally. An increasing number of universities can do creditable undergraduate work in economics, and also satisfactory graduate work up to and beyond the master’s. There are upwards of two score of such institutions in the U. S. Meanwhile, the number of students seeking training at the undergraduate level, and also in graduate work, has increased rapidly, and the post war promises further growth in numbers. Meanwhile, many Western countries are looking to the U.S. for some of their advanced education in other fields as well as in economics), this along with the development that is taking place within the U. S., suggests that the time has come for the University of Chicago to allocate its resources even more largely to the most advanced reaches of economics. I proposed that we examine carefully the implications of this kind of refocusing of our program. I was pleased that Mr. Colwell found himself drawn to the kind of analysis I was presenting. He made several contributions to it and concurred with the analysis itself. He very cordially urged the Department to examine this thesis and reconstitute itself to serve more effectively, taking full account of the division of labor within American academic institutions.

2. I reviewed in some detail the state of the Department, pointing out the losses that have come as the result of the death of Simons, the retirement of Wright, the resignations of Viner and Leland, and the leave of absence of Lange. I expressed our pleasure in achieving the appointment of Friedman and Blough, and reaffirmed my confidence in our judgment in seeking these appointments.

With regard to additional appointments, the following individuals were discussed.

(1) Mr. and Mrs. Hicks. I reviewed the agreements we had with Mr. Hutchins, which were the foundation of negotiations last spring. I indicated that the Hicks would arrive this week to be with us the fore-part of the fall quarter. If as a result of this opportunity of being together during part of the fall quarter, the Hicks see a real opportunity for their professional efforts at the University of Chicago, and we continue to be genuinely interested in bringing them to this University, would we be permitted to offer Mr. and Mrs. Hicks the salaries and positions that we had discussed last spring realizing we might have to go higher in the case of Mr. Hicks, for I was convinced his standing warranted our paying the maximum. Mr. Colwell said he was willing to authorize an offer of $10,000 to Mr. Hicks, and probed with me for a while the merit of making it higher instead of offering a position to both individuals. It was my judgment that our bargaining power would be at a maximum if we would offer both individuals a position, but that we could escape the liability of dual membership in one family by making the offer to Mrs. Hicks a term appointment — perhaps that of a Lecturer or Research Associate, say for three years at $3,000, and then reconsider at the end of three years, where she would have the privilege of withdrawing or redefining her relationship, and the Department would likewise have that privilege. Thus, the commitment would be permanent in the case of Mr. Hicks, but meaningful in terms of time turned into professional task to Mrs. Hicks and yet allowing flexibility in her case. Mr. Colwell accepted my proposal to proceed with an offer to both Mr. and Mrs. Hicks along the lines I have outlined.

(2) I reported Mr. Viner’s observations that it was not likely Mr. Robbins would leave the London School of Economics, and that, at least for a year, there was no point in making an indirect approach again to see whether or not he might feel free to accept an appointment in this country. Mr. Colwell fully concurred.

(3) I reviewed our offer to Mr. Colin Clark to come to the University of Chicago as guest professor for a year. I also pointed out we had included in the offer $1000 for travel expenses. I Indicated further that several of my colleagues were disposed to feel that we should now make an offer of a permanent appointment to Mr. Clark, since he is not able to obtain leave of absence to come as visiting professor. I then indicated why I felt, although tentatively, that it was unwise to make this move for a permanent relationship with the Department until we had a chance to become personally acquainted with Mr. Clark, although I continue to have a high regard for his professional work as evidenced by his major writings. Mr. Colwell concurred with the view I expressed, namely, we should not make an appointment on a permanent basis, but should try to get Mr. Clark to come as a visiting professor, if not this year, perhaps next year.

(4) I reviewed the case of Albert G. Hart, indicating that he had accepted a position at Columbia before we could approach him with an offer, and that it was important to his own growth to take the position at Columbia for a year. My plan is to approach him at the end of the year, let him weigh alternatives, including the opportunities as he sees them at Columbia. My proposal to Mr. Colwell was that we approach Hart along in February or March in order to induce him to come to Chicago. We discussed Hart’s background in some detail, Mr. Colwell concurred in the procedure I outlined to him.

(5) I then outlined at some length the case of Paul Samuelson of M.I.T. Mr. Colwell had not had the privilege of visiting with Samuelson at the time he was here. Samuelson visited with Hutchins and Gustavson, as far as Central Administration was concerned. I stated it was my judgment that Samuelson is one of the younger men in economics who has a high probability of achieving a distinguished career as an economist, and that in this respect his promise is most outstanding; that I had no doubt of the merits of the case intellectually and would press for an appointment, were that the only consideration, without delay, but that I had to achieve, however, an acceptance of Mr. Samuelson in the Department, not that a majority was lacking; a mandate existed satisfying the University administrative requirements. But the obstacle lies in what in substance is a matter of “senatorial courtesy” in behalf of the most distinguished and senior member of the Department, Professor Frank Knight. I expressed the hope it would be possible to have Professor Knight concur in the appointment and feel it was being made without any discourtesy to him and his professional role and standing in this University and in the profession. I felt this end must and could be achieved and that I was going to give a great deal of effort to it in the coming months. Pending the full exploration of what can be done in this connection I wanted to reserve decision as to whether or not to recommend the appointment of Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Colwell discussed at some length his own appraisal of the problem I had presented. He seemed to be pleased with the approach that was implicit in what I was relating to him. He made the point, and made it explicitly, that if the intellectual stature of Samuelson is as high as my judgment indicated, that it was exceedingly important the University move toward an appointment. I felt sure, though, that he was disposed to await the wishes of the Department, weighing carefully the factors I had tried to describe to him.

  1. At this point Mr. Colwell took me back to my general thesis, namely, the refocusing of the goals of the Department and the use of its resources, urging me to give active attention to this task. Whereupon I suggested the achievement of this role might well mean the setting up of 5 to 7 positions in the Department for individuals to spend 2 to 5 years at this university in what would be essentially a post-doctoral role as scholars, then accept positions elsewhere consistent with their accomplishments and promise. Mr. Colwell was drawn to the proposal as I had put it and referred briefly to similar planning and developments in other fields.

T. W. Schultz.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder “3”.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard and Columbia. President of Harvard headhunting conversation regarding economists. Mitchell and Mills, 1936

The following typed notes were based on a conversation that took place on February 21, 1936 regarding possible future hires for the Harvard economics department. President James B. Conant (or someone on his behalf) met with Columbia university professors Wesley C. Mitchell and his NBER sidekick, Frederick C. Mills. This artifact comes from President Conant’s administrative records in the Harvard Archives.

In the memo we find a few frank impressions of members of the Harvard economics departments together with head-hunting tips for established and up-and-coming economists of the day.

An observation that jumps from the paper is the identification pinned to the name Arthur F. Burns, namely, “(Jew)”. Interestingly enough this was not added to Arthur William Marget (see the earlier post Harvard Alumnus. A.W. Marget. Too Jewish for Chicago? 1927.) nor to Seymour Harris.  

________________________

[stamp] FEB 25, 1936

ECONOMICS

Confidential Memorandum of a Conversation on Friday, February 21, with Wesley [Clair] Mitchell and his colleague, Professor [Frederick Cecil] Mills (?) of Columbia

General impression is that the Department of Economics at Harvard is in a better state today than these gentlemen would have thought possible a few years ago. The group from 35-50 which now faces the future is about as good as any in the country. [Edward Hastings] Chamberlin, [John Henry] Williams,[Gottfried] Haberler and Schlichter [sic, [Sumner Slichter] are certainly quite outstanding. Very little known about [Edward Sagendorph] Mason;  he seems to have made a favorable impression but no writings. [Seymour Edwin] Harris slightly known, favorable but not exciting.

[John Ulric] Neff admitted to be the best man in economic history if we could get him. Names of other people in this country mentioned included:

[Robert Alexander] Brady — University of California, now working on Carnegie grant on bureaucracy; under 40.

Arthur [F.] Burns at Rutgers (Jew) now working with the Bureau of Economic Research and not available for 3 or 4 years. Said by them to be excellent.

Henry Schultz of Chicago, about in Chamberlin’s class and age, or perhaps a little better.

[Arthur William] Marget of Minnesota, Harvard Ph.D., I believe; well known, perhaps better than Chamberlin. Flashy and perhaps unsound. (Mitchell and Mills disagree to some extent on their estimate of his permanent value but agree on his present high visibility).

Winfield Riffler [sic, Winfield William Riefler], recently called to the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, probably one of the most if not the most outstanding of the younger men.

Morris [Albert] Copeland of Washington; good man but not so good as Chamberlin.

Giddons [sic, Harry David Gideonse?] of Chicago, very highly thought of by Chicago people but has not written a great deal; supposed to be an excellent organizer.

C. E. [Clarence Edwin] Ayres, University of Texas, about 40; in N.R.A. at Washington. Mitchell thinks very highly of him.

England

[Theodore Emmanuel Gugenheim] Gregory, at London School of Economics, about 50, same field as Williams but not so good. Mills more favorable than Mitchell.

Other outstanding young Englishmen:

[Richard F.] Kahn, Kings College, Cambridge

F. Colin [sic, Colin Grant] Clark, of Cambridge

Lionel Robins [sic, Lionel Charles Robbins] of London, age 35, rated very highly by both Mills and Mitchell

F. A. Hayek, another Viennese now in London; spoken of very highly by both Mills and Mitchell.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 54, Folder Economics, “1935-1936”.

Image Sources: Wesley Clair Mitchell (left) from the “Original Founders” page at the website of the Foundation for the Study of Business Cycles; Frederick C. Mills (right) from the Columbia Daily Spectator, Vol. CVIII, No. 68, 11 February 1964.

Categories
CUNY Curriculum Economics Programs Economist Market LipseyR Placement Undergraduate

Queens College, NYC. Memo on Responses of Graduates about Department. Lipsey, 1974

The 1974 memo by Professor Robert E. Lipsey that summarizes the responses of recent graduates of Queens College, City University of New York to a questionnaire sent out by the department is included below. It follows a brief timeline for Lipsey’s life and career and a link to a 2001 oral history interview with him about his NBER life conducted by Claudia Goldin. 

Bottom line of the Queens graduates: not every economics major goes to graduate school in economics so please add more business electives, especially accounting, to the curriculum.

__________________________

Robert Edward Lipsey

1926. Born August 14 in New York City.

1944. B.A. Columbia University.

1946. M.A. Columbia University

1945-53. Research Assistant, NBER

1953-60. Research Associate, NBER

1960-. Senior Research Staff, NBER

1961. Ph.D. Columbia University

1961-64. Lecturer, economics, Columbia University

1967-1995. Professor at Queens College and Graduate Center, CUNY

1975-78. Director of international studies, NBER

1978-. Director of the New York Office, NBER

1995-. Professor emeritus, Queens College and Graduate Center, CUNY

2011. Died August 11, New York City.

Source: Prabook website entry: Robert Edward Lipsey.

__________________________

Bonus Links

Claudia Goldin’s interview with Robert Lipsey
(8 August, 2001)

Obituary/Tribute to Robert Lipsey by J. Devereux and Z.M. Feliciano, (2013), Robert E. Lipsey. Review of Income and Wealth, 59: 375-380.

__________________________

QUEENS COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

MEMO TO: Economics Department
FROM: R. Lipsey
RE: Graduates Comments on Queens College Economics Program
DATE: October 25, 1974

There has been a great change in the last few years in the comments on the economics program made by graduates in response to our questionnaire. The graduates of the 1960’s, particularly graduate students, most frequently complained of their lack of mathematical and quantitative training, which they felt left them unprepared for graduate school. There are still some comments of this nature, made now from business students, but the bulk of complaints now, by far is from graduates who have gone to work directly from school, or tried to. They seem to feel that there were too few business-oriented courses, and even more, that they were not told of the importance of some training in accounting for those looking for jobs.

One indication of graduates’ feelings is that of about 160 respondents, among whom only a minority answered the questions about courses that had been especially helpful and courses they had not taken, but wished they had, 33 listed accounting in one category or the other. The other subjects with more than a few listings were:

Statistics 22 (mainly helpful in graduate school)
Business Law 14
Finance 12
Computer Science 8
Marketing 7

To give the flavor of graduates’ views I have put down the main comments on this issue by those who took the trouble to write at some length. My own reaction to the comments was to wonder whether we should consider offering a Business Economics specialization, geared to those planning to work immediately after graduation and, to a smaller extent, to those aiming at business school. Such a specialization would include the present requirements (Eco. 1, 2, 5, 6, 49) but require also at least 6 credits of accounting and 6 credits chosen from Business Law, Computer Science, Corporation Finance, Business Organization, Money and Banking, Business Cycles, Econometrics or Statistics.

February 1974

“For all economics majors accounting is virtually a necessity in order to obtain a career oriented position.”

“Unfortunately I did not receive enough information with regards to the importance of accounting courses.”

September 1973

“Economics graduates from Queens College get a decent background for further graduate work. However, there is no preparation or placement efforts to speak of for the Q.C. economies graduate with a B.A.

“All economics students should be required to take at least 6 credits in accounting. I have found this to be a major stumbling block on job applications.

Many business related jobs do require that you have at least 6 hours of accounting, and without it your job choice is cut considerably.”

“…School and education should work more with the outside than straight academia.”

“…the economics department is not meeting the needs of all its students. Approximately two thirds of those who attend graduate school go to business and law schools; the economics department does not meet the need of those students.

A course as basic as Econ. 43 (marketing) was not offered once at the day school during my 4 years. This course is a prerequisite for most MBA programs – not offering it during the day is a shame!

“I had to go to night school for my marketing courses. I feel that they should be offered during the day session also.”

“I feel more emphasis should be placed on areas relative to business. These courses should help to prepare one for the business world. As it is now, my degree in economics is of no use to me. Without my background in accounting I would not have been able to find a job. This I feel is a waste of an education.”

“Economics program should be refined to include courses of a more practical nature, i.e., those with a definite business application. Perhaps more diversification in programs offered would be appropriate.

“I regret not having gone into and majoring in accounting. I’d be making more money and would have had my choice of jobs.”

“Economics majors not planning on graduate school should be advised to take accounting courses and should be persuaded to stay away from courses with no value in the ‘real’ world.”

“Queens should offer more economics courses geared towards Marketing and Banking.”

June 1972

“…advanced courses in math and accounting should be required to get the degree.”

“I suggest all economics majors who plan to go to work directly from college have at least 12 credits in accounting. The number of accounting credits I have was a frequently asked question by employment agencies.”

January 1972

“The economics major should be geared to meet the demands of business. Accounting should be permitted to be incorporated in the economies major. The major should also incorporate one or more courses in computer sciences, marketing, merchandising, business administration and a mathematics background. Unless one pursued a master’s degree in economics, the major as previously structured did not help to prepare one to meet the demands of industry.”

“Queens should have more courses relating to business.”

“Some business courses should be required of economies majors.”

“Students who plan to work directly after graduation should take 9-12 credits in Accounting. Most entry level jobs that would interest an Economics major require a basic knowledge of Accounting.”

Source: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. The Papers of Abba P. Lerner. Box 17, Folder 3 “Queens College of the City University of New York, New York, N.Y.: Correspondence 1939-1941, 1963-78”.