Categories
Berkeley Chicago Economists

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus Henry Rand Hatfield, 1897

Henry Rand Hatfield (1866-1945) was among the first four Ph.D.’s in Political Economy at the University of Chicago in 1897. The following items present a reasonably complete picture of the life and career of this scholar. Numbers people can be sorted into accountants and statisticians. In the early years of graduate economics education they shared the same tidal pool on the eve of their respective evolutionary development paths. Hatfield had a long and distinguished career in accounting. Of particular interest to historians of economics is his paper “An Historical Defense of Bookkeeping,” originally published in The Journal of Accountancy, April 1924.

For an appreciation of his contributions to accounting, see the biographical note  from S.A. Zeff and T.F. Keller, eds. Financial Accounting Theory I: Issues and Controversies, Second edition. McGraw Hill, p. 502 (posted at the website Accounting Hall of Fame). 

____________________________________

 

660. HENRY RAND HATFIELD.

Brother of Nos. 368 [Emily Marcia Hatfield (Hobart)]  and 389 [James Taft Hatfield].

            Born 27 Nov. 1866, in Chicago. Prepared in Northwestern University Academy. A.B. [Northwestern, 1892]. Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1897. Adelphic. Beta Theta Pi; Phi Beta Kappa. Kirk contestant. Graduate student University of Chicago, 1892-94. Fellow in Political Economy, University of Chicago. Instructor, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., 1894-96 and 1897-98; Instructor in Political Economy, University of Chicago, 1898-1902; Assistant Professor of Political Economy, and Dean of College of Commerce and Administration, 1902 . Contributor to Journal of Political Economy.

Married Ethel A. Glover, 15 June 1898, at Washington, D. C.

Children—      John Glover, born 24 Jan. 1900.

                       Robert Miller, born 16 Aug. 1902.

Residence, 5825 Kimbark Ave., Chicago, 111.

 

Source: Northwestern University. Alumni Record of the College of Liberal Arts, 1903 (Charles B. Atwell ed.). Chicago: Lakeside Press, 1903, p. 225.

____________________________________

 

Henry Rand Hatfield, Accounting: Berkeley and Systemwide

Henry Rand Hatfield was born in Chicago, Illinois, on November 27, 1866, son of Reverend Robert Miller Hatfield and Elizabeth Taft Hatfield; and died on December 25, 1945 in Berkeley, California. He was married to Ethel Adelia Glover in 1898, and is survived by his widow and two children, John Glover Hatfield and Elizabeth Glover, and six grandchildren. A second son, Robert Miller Hatfield, died in 1927 at the age of twenty-five.

Professor Hatfield attended school in Evanston, Illinois and here, in 1884, he entered Northwestern University. After two years of college he withdrew to take employment in a bond house; but five years later he returned to complete work for a bachelor’s degree. Following this he enrolled at the University of Chicago where he received, in 1897, the degree of Ph.D. His chief college interest was in the classics. He studied economics and political science, however, at Northwestern and Chicago and these studies enabled him to accept an instructorship at Washington University, St. Louis, in 1893. In 1898 he was appointed instructor at the University of Chicago. Two years later, at the suggestion of the University but not at its expense, he visited Germany to observe the organization of business teaching in that country. The University of Chicago had established its College of Commerce and Administration in 1898, the same year in which he had joined its staff, and the survey of German practice was undertaken in the interest of this technical program. In 1902 he was appointed assistant professor and dean of the new college, serving until 1904.

His connection with the University of California began in 1904, when he was appointed Associate Professor of Accounting. Five years later, he was appointed Professor of Accounting and Secretary of the College of Commerce. In 1916 his title was changed to Dean of the College of Commerce–a position which he held until 1920. From December, 1915 to June, 1916; from May, 1917 to July, 1918; and from 1920 to 1923, he was Dean, Acting Dean, and Dean of the Faculties. As Dean of the Faculties he served as the principal administrative officer under the President of the University. As Secretary and Dean of the College of Commerce, he was able, during eleven years, to guide the development of the expanding College of Commerce. Emphasis upon sound fundamental training, broad, rather than highly specialized instruction, and insistence upon intellectual discipline were characteristics of his plans. In his capacity as teacher, he conducted classes in geography, economics, banking, international trade, and business organization, as well as in accounting and finance; but after 1917 he confined himself to accounting and finance. Perhaps his greatest interest was in the elementary course in accounting, in his advanced seminars in accounting problems, and in the history of accounting. In all he achieved more than ordinary results.

During World War I Professor Hatfield was on leave from the University of California from July, 1918 to June, 1919. For most of this time he was Director of the Division of Planning and Statistics of the War Industries Board–a responsible position in which his technical competence, his administrative ability, and his skill in establishing friendly relations with his associates, were displayed. After the War Industries Board ceased operations he remained in Washington for a few months as expert with the Advisory Tax Board, discussing the formulation of government policy during the period immediately following the war.

His friends and associates will always remember him as a shrewd, witty, and affectionate person, endowed with a breadth of interest which caused him to be helpful to many people in many ways. This was true of community and church matters to which he gave his time, and of University affairs in which he played a significant and sometimes a very influential role. His permanent reputation will, however, rest upon his contributions to accounting and to the accounting profession.

His contribution to the profession includes organization work of the first quality assisting in the reorganization of the State Board of Accountancy, and in the formation of the California State Society of Certified Accountants soon after he arrived in California. These new or revived institutions introduced new methods into local practice at a time when the morale of California accountants was at its lowest ebb.

His ideas upon accounting were even more significantly expressed in written form. Here his major work was the volume Modern Accounting, published in 1908, repeatedly reprinted, and in 1927 rewritten and enlarged under the title of Accounting, its Principles and Problems. Before 1908, when Modern Accounting was first issued, almost nothing above the level of discussion of technical rules and perfunctory procedures had been written on the subject for many years; Hatfield’s original and systematic discussion has been described as a white light in a previously rather dark landscape. By 1927 the situation had changed somewhat; but his fuller treatment was again welcomed with appreciation and respect, and the later volume has preserved its significance during the following years. In 1938 and 1940 he rounded out his contribution by preparing considered statements of accounting principles in collaboration with other writers.

Besides these major works, Professor Hatfield exerted influence through a long succession of reviews and articles providing selective, constructive, and critical discussion of accounting principles as they were stated and restated in England and in the United States over more than two decades. His concise and vigorous style, his clarity of thought and tinge of humor, and his practice of restricting each article to the consideration of a few points enlarged the impact of his ideas upon the accounting and legal professions for which he wrote.

Finally, and this amounted to more than a diversion in his long career, Professor Hatfield maintained a consistent interest in the history of his subject, which resulted in the accumulation of a substantial body of little-known material and in the publication of many articles. In this work he benefited from the classical training of his early days. It is probably safe to say that he was the best informed scholar on the history of accounting in the United States and perhaps in any country. His persistent historical studies and his sound general knowledge enabled him to trace the beginnings of practice and of theories upon which modern systems have been built. It is a loss to economic and to cultural history that the fruits of his research were never gathered together and comprehensively set forth.

Professor Hatfield, at one time or another, was president of the American Association of University Instructors in Accounting, vice president of the American Economic Association, delegate of the United States Government to the International Congress on Commercial Education, and Honorary Member of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants. From 1923 to 1928 he was Senator of Phi Beta Kappa. In 1928 Beta Alpha Psi, the national accounting fraternity, gave him an award for the most outstanding contribution to the literature of accountancy for that year. He was Dickinson lecturer at Harvard in 1942. He received the LL.D. degree from Northwestern University in 1923 and from the University of California in 1940. In conferring this last degree President Sproul referred to him as a “constant champion of the logical approach, the sane view, and the clear disclosure of the essential facts of goods and proprietorship; discoverer of scientific principles and sound philosophy in a field obscured by dogma and convention; one able to find life and even humor in the dust of ledgers.” The essential modesty of the man was a quality which endeared him to his friends, but it will be pleasant to remember that he received during his life some of the recognition which he so richly deserved.

Academic Senate Committee Stuart Daggett Ira B. Cross Lucy Ward Stebbins

 

Source: 1945, University of California: In Memoriam, pp. 98-102.

 

Image Source: Website Berkeley Heritage, Henry Rand Hatfield house (Berkeley’s Northside), 2695 Le Conte Ave. at La Loma, 1908.

 

Categories
Columbia Economic History Economists

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

The Dissertation

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

__________________________________

 

Teaching at the University of Chicago

 

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

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

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

 

__________________________________

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

Personal Notes [1894]

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. List of 114 economics dissertations 1875-1926

Economics in the Rear-View Mirror now has a page dedicated to the authors of 114 doctoral dissertations in economics written at Harvard during the period 1875-1926. Perhaps a half-dozen are judgment calls, but if anything I have erred on the side of inclusion for the list. It was not until 1904-05 that “Economics” was even listed as a Ph.D. subject at Harvard and the boundary between historians interested in economic history and economists interested in history is pretty fuzzy anyway up to the last third of the 20th century. Further complicating matters is the fact that sociology was a part of economics at Harvard (and often elsewhere) for most of this period. 

The page will be corrected, augmented and linked as time goes on. But for now we have the names, years and titles of the dissertations along with educational background and some early career information for almost all 114 cases.

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business M.I.T. Undergraduate

Chicago. Paul Samuelson’s 50th Class Reunion Questionnaire, 1985

For his 50th class reunion Paul A. Samuelson filled out the following one page questionnaire. Besides revealing the youthful musical taste of this Chicago educated Wunderkind, Samuelson’s responses sometimes even illustrate his writing style (e.g. 7 8/9 grandchildren). I was most struck by his declared favorite professor during these formative years. Guess, then read.

____________________________________

CLASS OF 1935 SURVEY

Your former classmates are interested in what you’re doing.

 

Name Paul A. Samuelson                Maiden Name [blank]

Address MIT E52-383

City/State/Zip Code Cambridge, MA 02139

Your past and present occupation and employer Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Anything you wish to mention about your job Overpaid/underworked

Spouse’s name and occupation Risha Samuelson, Painter

No. of children 6       No. of grandchildren 7 8/9            No. of great-grandchildren [blank]

Degrees received and institutions attended AB U of C 1935; AM 1936, Ph.D. Harvard 1941, 2 dozen honorary degrees, including Chicago

Favorite class and professor at the University, and why Henry Simons, Economics! Great economist, great person.

Most rewarding, exciting, or unusual experience as a student Being reborn as a scientist-scholar

Most memorable moments since graduation Nobel Prize, 1970; birth of triplets, 1953; first-born, 1946

Favorite song or band of the ‘30s Wayne King, Hal Kemp, Paul Whiteman

Other affiliations (clubs, professional associations, political parities) [blank]

Have you received any civic, community, or academic honors? Yes

Accomplishments, interests, hobbies that you find especially significant Tennis

Future plans Economic writing

Please share any other information that your classmates may find interest I was given a great education, in the Midway’s golden age

 

Please return this form by April 15, 1985. You may attach an additional sheet if needed. Mail to: Reunion ’85 Network, 5757 S. Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637

[pencil note: Sent 2/22-85]

 

Source: David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University. Paul A. Samuelson Papers, Box 4, Folder “Personal”.

Image Source:  Henry Calvert Simons. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07614, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Memorandum on a Fiscal Stimulus, 1932

Today’s post is a jewel of fiscal policy thought in a memorandum from the University of Chicago written in 1932 at the trough of the Great Depression in the United States. Looking at the signers of the memorandum that argues for aggressive fiscal stimulus (economists covering the ideological spectrum from Aaron Director through Paul Douglas), one is reminded of Ben Bernanke’s bon mot from the last big financial crisis: “There are no atheists in foxholes or ideologues in a financial crisis”.

Note: Bernanke’s crack appears to be a minor variation on Jeffrey Frankel’s twist.

Backstory

After WWI, veterans lobbied for “adjusted compensation” to partially make up the difference between their combat pay and the significantly higher wages that had been paid to workers at home during the War. Veterans preferred the term “adjusted compensation” to the term “bonus” (the latter term being construed as implying something that goes beyond full and fair compensation). In 1924 veterans were finally granted “adjusted universal compensation” in the form of certificates that credited $1.25 for each day served abroad plus $1.00 for those days served in the U.S. These certificates were essentially 20-year insurance policies equal to 125% of the service credit to be redeemed in full on the veteran’s birthday in 1945. (Exceptions for immediate cash payments were granted for amounts less than $50 and in order to settle estates of deceased veterans for payments of less than $500). More details can be found at this link

In 1932 the question arose whether an early payout of these certificates would be a prudent and effective fiscal stimulus and Congressman Samuel Barrett Pettengill (Democrat) of Indiana sent the questionnaire that follows to academic economists across the country to solicit their advice in the matter.

A month later protesting “Bonus Marchers” (ca 20,000 veterans) set up camps in Washington, D.C. that they were evicted from by regular troops of the U.S. Army let by General Douglas MacArthur. It wasn’t until 1936 that the WWI veterans were paid their adjusted compensation.

Responses to Congressman Pettengill’s inquiry were published in the Hearings of the House Committee on Ways and Means for:

Edwin Walter Kemmerer,  Princeton University
Frank Whitson Fetter, Assistant Professor of Economics, Princeton University
Thomas Nixon Carver, Professor of Economics, Harvard University
S. J. Coon, Dean of the College of Business Administration, University of Washington
Harry E. Miller, Professor of Economics, Brown University
C. W. Hasek, Head of the Department of Economics and Sociology, Pennsylvania State College
Walter W. McLaren, Department of Economics, Williams College
Harry L. Severson, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics and Sociology, Indiana University
Hiram L. Jome, Professor of Economics, DePauw University
Warren B. Catlin, Department of Economics and Sociology, Boudoin College
E. E. Agger, Professor of Economics and head of the Department of Economics, Rutgers University
Edwin R. A. Seligman, Columbia University
H. A. Millis et al., Department of Political Economy, University of Chicago
Jacob H. Hollander, Johns Hopkins University
William C. Schleter, University of Pennsylvania
Albert Bushnell Hart, Harvard University (historian)

 Today’s post begins with the cover statement of the memorandum found with the copy in the Papers of the President of the University of Chicago, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Box 72.  It is followed by Congressman Pettengill’s list of questions, as well as the Chicago memorandum submitted by H. A. Millis and eleven of his University of Chicago colleagues.

A cursory sweep of the web discovered that this Chicago memorandum has been reprinted as Appendix B in J. Ronnie Davis’s 1967 Virginia Ph.D. dissertation, “Pre-Keynesian economic policy proposals in the United States during the Great Depression.” A scanned version of the Congressional Hearings in which the Chicago memorandum was published can be found at Hathitrust.org. I have compared the published version from the House Ways and Means Committee Hearings with the typed copy filed with the papers of President Hutchins at the University of Chicago Archives. Other than minor differences in spelling (e.g. the capitalized form “Federal” is used in the published version), the memorandum was published by the House Ways and Means Committee exactly as received.

__________________________________

 

A MEMORANDUM PRESENTED TO A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, APRIL 26, 1932.

Two members of the staff of the Department of economics, at the University of Chicago, received letters from a member of the House Committee on Military Affairs, requesting answers to certain questions. Inasmuch as the views of a large number of economists were desired, the letter was circulated among and read by twelve men of the Chicago faculty; and steps were taken to prepare a memorandum covering the points raised….The memorandum, with the names of the twelve professors participating in its formulation, is reproduced in its entirety. Because of the character of the issues raised, it seemed better to prepare the memorandum in the form it has taken than to answer the specific questions, the one after the other.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Hutchins Box 72. Folder 6 “Economics Department, 1932-1933”.

__________________________________

 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL B. PETTENGILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. Pettengill. Mr. Chairman, I am not on the calendar this morning and therefore in justice to those who are here I have asked for only one minute.

Some time ago, before I knew when the Ways and Means Committee was to have hearings on this matter, on my own initiative I sent a questionnaire to 50 of the leading economists of the country on the Patman and the Thomas bills; also with reference to the benefit of “reflation” and the danger of inflation.

I have a very interesting file here, including letters from Mr. Kemmerer and Mr. King who have appeared before the committee.

In order to shorten the record as much as possible, I have briefed the replies somewhat. The entire letters, of course, are available.

[…]

Mr. Pettengill. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, I endeavored to get the benefit of the best and most disinterested economic thought of the country with reference to the advisability of either borrowing money or printing money with which to liquidate the adjusted service certificates. In the main, I sent my letters to the economics department of our leading colleges and universities. In order to make their replies more intelligible to you, as many of them answered numbered questions in my letter, I attach, first, my original letter.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Dear Sir: I am writing you and other leading economists in the country with reference to the problem confronting Congress with regard to the proposed payment of the soldiers’ bonus. I trust that I will be able to secure a symposium of opinion by authorities such as yourself which will be of real value to Congress.

As you know, at the end of this fiscal year we will have an accumulated deficit of some $3,000,000,000. It is, I think, the largest peace-time deficit of any country in the world. It is rapidly getting larger. We are going into the red now $7,000,000 a day. United States obligations have recently sold below 85.

On the other hand, commodity, wage, land, and security prices are slowly drifting to levels so disastrous that they threaten the most widespread repudiation of debts and tax defaults, which may wipe out, along with the debtors, classes holding the obligations of individuals, corporations, States, and municipalities now totaling some one hundred fifty to two hundred billion dollars, which is about one-half the Nation’s wealth. For example, the conservative Washington Post, April 11, said:

“The dollar increases in value every day … unless this vicious movement is checked it will result in panic. The extension of credit will not be sufficient. Heroic emergency measures that will arrest the fall of prices seem to be in order. … This economic malady has reached a point where it can not be expected to cure itself without leaving horrible scars. … Some powerful agency must be thrown into the breach to restore the value of goods and services against this exaggerated value of money. … Emergencies of this kind call for drastic action. … It is time for the leaders in Government and financial circles to focus their minds upon realignment of values. The people would not countenance the manufacture of fiat money to make prices rise, But some method of currency expansion on a sound gold basis may be necessary.”

            The question is the advisability of paying the so-called soldiers’ bonus as an antideflationary, inflationary, “reflationary” or stabilizing measure. The name, of course, is not important.

A number of different bills have been proposed. H. R. 1, introduced by Mr. Patman, of Texas, calls for borrowing the $2,400,000,000 necessary to make payment.

  1. Do you think we can, or should, borrow this?

Sentiment here, however, is crystallizing around (for or against) Mr. Patman’s substitute, H. R. 7726; I inclose copy.
This bill simply proposes to print money to pay the debt. Is this sound, advisable, or defensible, in view of the existing emergency? And in the light of present gold reserves?

 It has been suggested that it could be strengthened as follows:
Call in the outstanding adjusted-service certificates now redeemable in 1945. Collateralize them together with 40 per cent gold which is said to be now available over and above the amount necessary for circulation now outstanding. Issue currency against this hypothecation and pay the veterans off. Then set up a sinking fund to retire the currency (together with the certificates) in whole or in part in 1945, or gradually before that time.

With reference to “excess reserves” see Federal Reserve Bulletin, March, 1932, page 143: “On the basis of these excess reserves, the Federal reserve banks could issue $3,500,000,000 of credit if the demand were for currency and $4,000,000,000 if it were for deposits at the reserve banks.”

  1. What credit do you give this statement as a basis for the proposed bonus payment?

There are, of course, all sorts of social and political features around this problem, but I direct your attention to its economic and fiscal aspects. It is a problem of the most tremendous consequences and Members here who are patriotically trying to do their best to cut the present vicious circle for the good of the entire country (not the veterans alone) need, and will appreciate, the advice of men like yourself, whose life study makes your judgment so valuable.

  1. Is the suggested alternative sound?
  1. Does it in reality add any element of safety to H. R. 7726, the outright issue of nonretirable currency?
  1. Can it be improved? If so, how?
  1. It is said the Europe holds $2,000,000,000 of deposits in this country. With their experience with “printing-press” money, would they become frightened for the solvency of the dollar, and cause disastrous liquidation and withdrawals here in America? Could such liquidation of foreign-held obligations be stopped unless we “went off gold,” or had available the precautionary device of authorizing the Treasury to change the amount of gold in our dollar along the lines advocated by Irving Fisher? If foreign exchange began to go against us, would it help Europe pay us her public and private debts, as an offset against our investment and deposit obligations held by Europeans?
  1. Would the introduction of $2,400,000,000 new currency into the pockets of the people necessarily result in the rise of commodity and other levels thus causing merchants to place orders for the products of farm and factory, thus starting production and accelerating employment?
  1. The Glass-Steagall bill, as you know, for the period of one year, authorized placing 60 per cent Government bonds plus 40 per cent gold behind Federal reserve money. This, of course, as I understand it, is 60 per cent “greenbackism,” placing one promise to pay (Government bond) behind another promise to pay (currency) to the extent of 60 per cent. Assuming that the adjusted-service certificates are also promises to pay, can the Glass-Steagall bill and the suggested method of handling the payment of the bonus be distinguished, from the standpoint of soundness?

The Glass-Steagall bill, as it appears to me, does not seem to have stopped the deflationary trend, for the reason that its potential currency expansion is based upon borrowing, and banks and individuals are not borrowing (or lending).
Recently I have heard Willford I. King, professor of economics, New York University, testify before the House Banking and Currency Committee. Although not directing his particular attention to the “bonus” he was quite clear that the currency must be expanded at the present time in order to start commodity prices upward and permit debts and taxes to be paid, as well as to start buying, and employment. However, he was equally clear that for such currency something of equal value should be taken in by the Government, e. g., Government bonds, thus temporarily substituting noncirculating certificates of indebtedness (bonds) for circulating certificates (currency). Then, he said, when commodity prices reach the desired level, e. g., 1926 commodity index, the process would be reversed, the bonds resold, and the currency retired. It was his opinion that such a device is necessary in order to stop the elevator at the right floor—i. e., prevent inflation beyond a certain point.
Neither the Patman nor the suggested alternative plan seems to me to contain this safeguard. That is, the adjusted-compensation certificates when once taken in would not be available for reissue.

            I need not state that every member here is anxious to solve the problem, not from the standpoint of helping the needy veteran and his family at the expense of the rest of the community, but only from the standpoint of benefiting the entire Nation, on the theory that a distribution to the veteran would, of course, be passed on at once in the payment of taxes, interest, land contracts, doctors’ and merchants’ bills, etc., and with the expectation that this would stop and reverse the trend of values. If the plan or any other conceivable plan at this time would bring only disaster to the Nation and thus to the veteran and his family we have no alternative except to wait until the present economic storm blows over.

Your thoughtful consideration of this matter is most earnestly requested. Your prompt reply will be a distinct public service.

I desire, of course, to use the substance of your reply, but will not quote you, by name, without your permission. Please let me know if you do give this permission.

Sincerely yours,

Samuel B. Pettengill, Member of Congress.

 

Source:  U. S. Congress (Seventy-Second Congress, First Session). Payment of Adjusted-Compensation Certificates in Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (April 11 to 29, and May 2 and 3, 1932),pp. 508, 511-513

______________________________

 

The University of Chicago,
Department of Economics,
April 26, 1932.

Hon. Samuel. B. Pettengill,
            House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

My Dear Mr. Pettengill: The inclosed memorandum has been prepared in an attempt to answer the questions put in your letter of April 13. It has been developed in a committee of two, in conference, and in round table. It is approved by all of the University of Chicago economists who participated in the discussion and formulation; their names appear at the end of the memorandum.

It has seemed better to answer your questions in a memorandum divided into five sections rather than to answer them specifically, the one after the other. I think all of your questions, save that relating to Professor King’s testimony, are answered. No direct reference is made to King’s position because it has seemed better to take a positive stand rather than to criticize.

You ask permission to use the replies to your questions. This is, of course, granted, but our preference would be to have the whole rather than a part of the memorandum given publicity.

Trusting that the memorandum will be of some assistance to you, I am

Very truly yours,

H. A. Millis.

 

(The memorandum referred to follows:)

I.

Severe depression and deflation can be checked, and recovery initiated, either by virtue of automatic adjustments, or by deliberate governmental action. The automatic process involves tremendous losses, in wastage of productive capacity, and in acute suffering. It requires drastic reduction of wage rates, rents, and other “sticky” prices, notably those in industries where readjustments are impeded by monopoly and exceeding politeness of competition. It must also involve widespread insolvency and financial reorganization, with consequent reduction of fixed charges, in order that firms may be placed in position to obtain necessary working capital when and where expansion of output becomes profitable. Given drastic deflation of costs and elimination of fixed charges, business will discover opportunities for profitably increasing employment, firms will become anxious to borrow, and banks will be more willing to lend.

As long as wage cutting is evaded by reducing employment, and as long as monopolies, including public utilities, resist pressure for lower prices, deflation may continue indefinitely. The more intractable the “sticky” prices, the further credit contraction will go, and the more drastic must be the ultimate readjustment. We have developed an economy in which the volume and velocity of credit is exceedingly flexible and sensitive, while wages and pegged prices are highly resistant to downward pressure. This is at once the explanation of our plight and the ground on which governmental action may be justified. Recovery can be brought about, either by reduction of costs to a level consistent with existing commodity prices, or by injecting enough new purchasing power so that much larger production will be profitable at existing costs. The first method is conveniently automatic but dreadfully slow; and it admits hardly at all of being facilitated by political measures. The second method, while readily amenable to abuse, only requires a courageous fiscal policy on the part of the central government.

(We agree entirely with your remarks as to the inadequacy of the Glass-Steagall bill and similar expedients. Little is to be gained merely by easing the circumstances of banks, in a situation where, by virtue of cost-price relations, everyone, including the banks, is anxious to get out of debt. Such measures may retard deflation and prepare the way for recovery; but they cannot much mitigate the fundamental maladjustments between prices and costs.)

II.

If action is needed to raise prices (and we believe it is), it should take the form of generous Federal expenditures, financed without resort to taxes on commodities or transactions. For the effect on prices, the direction of expenditure is not crucially important. Heavy Federal contribution toward relief of distress is the most urgent and, for reflation, perhaps the most effective measure. Large appropriations for public and semipublic improvements are also an attractive expedient, provided projects are chosen which can be started quickly and opportunely stopped. Generous bonus legislation would be the most objectionable of all available devices for releasing purchasing power. Purchase of the certificates at their present value, instead of at maturity value, is perhaps relatively unobjectionable.

Bonus legislation invites comparison with a program of Federal subsidy to agencies engaged in administering emergency relief. Both measures involve a sort of outright gift, the provision of funds to individuals or for their support. One involves allocation according to need, when need is dreadfully acute; the other ignores this criterion completely. Furthermore, funds spent for relief would certainly be spent for commodities, and very promptly, while less needy veterans might only use additional cash further to increase hoarded savings. Of the possible consequences of bonus concessions for the future of pension legislation, mere reminder should suffice. Congress has already capitulated to the veterans and their votes on the grounds that the Treasury was full, and the community prosperous. It is now on the verge of capitulating again, on the grounds that the Treasury is empty, and the community impoverished.

III.

It is impossible to estimate in advance how much Federal expenditure might be required to bring genuine revival of business. We are persuaded, however, that the automatic adjustments have already proceeded to a stage where the necessary inflationary expenditures would be handsomely rewarded, in greater production, larger employment, and higher tax revenues.

One should recognize at the outset a danger that any measures of fiscal inflation may be too meager and too short lived. Inadequate, temporary stimulation might well leave conditions worse than it found them. We might experience temporary revival and then serious relapse, followed by more drastic deflation than would otherwise have been necessary. If we indorse inflation, we should be prepared to administer heavy doses of stimulant if necessary, to continue them until recovery is firmly established, and to discontinue them when the emergency is ended. It is obvious that the bonus measures fail utterly to provide this necessary flexibility.

IV.

The question of how emergency expenditures, for whatever purposes, should be financed, is difficult and highly controversial. The wisest policy for the present, however, would seem to be one guided largely by psychological considerations. It is likely that adequate stimulus could be imparted, and recovery assured, without creating an excessive drain upon our gold reserves. Inflationary measures, in whatever form, will probably accelerate for a time the export of gold; but this strain we may well be able to endure until revival of business is assured. Domestic hoarding of gold, on the other hand, might force us to suspension of our currency laws; and this possibility dictates caution as to the technique of inflation. The problem is simply that of selecting the procedure which will be least alarming.

On other grounds, the issue of greenbacks seems most expedient; but this method must be ruled out unless one is ready to abandon gold immediately, for it would create the greatest danger of domestic drain. Large sales of Federal bonds in the open market would be much less alarming; but the probable effect upon the prices of such bonds must give us pause, especially since a marked decline might jeopardize the position of many banks. It would certainly be better for the Government to sell new issues directly to the reserve banks or, in effect, to exchange bonds for bank deposits and Federal Reserve notes. Much may be said, indeed, for issuing the bonds with the circulation privilege, thus permitting the Reserve Banks to issue Federal Reserve Bank notes in exchange; for this procedure does not much invite suspicion, has supporting precedent, and would greatly reduce the legal requirements with respect to gold.

It is well to face the possibility, though it seems remote, that adequate fiscal inflation might force us to abandon gold for a time. We must be prepared to see a sort of race between depletion of the gold holdings of the reserve banks and improvement of business. If definite business revival is attained before the gold position becomes acute, the hoarders will have missed some great investment bargains; if inflation must be carried beyond the limits tolerated by gold, the hoarders will reap a profit. Moreover, if other gold-standard countries follow our example, as is quite probable, the threat to our adherence to the gold standard will prove negligible.

But we would insist again that, once deliberate reflation is undertaken, it must be carried through, whatever that policy may mean for gold. To withdraw artificial support before genuine recovery is achieved, might create a situation worse than that which would have obtained in the absence of remedial efforts. If the time comes, as it probably will not, when we must choose between recovery and convertibility, we must then abandon gold, pending the not distant time when world recovery will permit our returning to the old standard on the old terms. The remote possibility of our being forced to this step, however, should not influence our decision now. The supposedly awful consequences of departure from gold are, as England has shown us so clearly, nothing but fantastic illusions.

V.

It is easy to be too greatly alarmed about the possibility of extreme and uncontrolled inflation. With improvement of business, Federal revenues will automatically increase. Expenditures may then be financed to a lesser extent by borrowing, and thus with less inflationary influence. Indeed, one might maintain that temporary inflation is the most promising means to restore a balanced Budget. Moreover, with proper precautions, it should not be difficult to effect drastic reduction of expenditures at the appropriate time. The emergency character of inflationary appropriations should be emphasized in the acts themselves; and Congress should record the intention of balancing expenditures and revenues over a period of, say four or five years. Incidentally, no emergency expenditures would permit of more opportune retrenchment than those for relief of distress.

We find it difficult, at the present juncture, to give due attention to the problem of preventing or modifying the next boom. Obviously, we should attend to getting out of the present emergency first. It demands emphasis, however, that successful resort to fiscal methods for terminating deflation will present the very serious problem of keeping recovery within safe bounds. A merely salutary inflation treatment will fail to satisfy many groups. There will certainly be demand for more inflation and more “prosperity” than we can afford or sanely endure. Fiscal inflation must be regarded as a means for meeting an acute emergency for industry as a whole. It should not be viewed as a means of solving the agricultural problem, nor as a method for deflating the rentier. It is properly a most temporary expedient, to be abandoned (and reversed) long before many individual industries and classes have obtained the measure of relief which justice might prescribe.

We have suggested that for the period of the ensuing five years all Federal expenditures, including those of an emergency character, should be covered by tax revenues. To minimize the total necessary outlay, outlays should be very generous now; parsimonious inflation is an illusory economy. It would also be eminently wise to avoid now any new taxes which fall at the producer’s (or dealer’s) margin. The levies on income, however, should be advanced immediately to the maximum levels which an imperfect, but improving, administrative system can support. While such levies will be rather unproductive for a time, they will have no very deterrent effect upon business; and, having gotten them into the statutes during a period of least political resistance, we may be assured of large revenues at the appropriate time. Even after recovery, additional commodity taxes should be resorted to only if more equitable levies prove inadequate to full completion of the “5-year plan.” Indeed, by 1940, our Federal debt should stand at a figure far below that contemplated by existing legislation. We should have high income taxes when incomes are high.

Sound fiscal management during the next few years should give close attention to indexes of production, employment, and wholesale prices. We shall not undertake at this time to indicate any definite rules. There is no immediate problem of excessive inflation—rather, a danger of doing nothing or of a too modest beginning. For the not distant future, however, most careful and intelligent management will be imperative. Once there is clear evidence of revival, of increased and profitable production, the mechanism of credit expansion will begin to operate, and to carry on the task which fiscal inflation has begun. As soon as this happens, retrenchment must be started; emergency expenditures must be reduced as rapidly as is possible without undermining recovery. We should not attempt, by deliberate inflation, to bring prices to any level which we choose to regard as normal; nor should artificial stimulus be continued until production and employment attain really satisfactory levels. Fiscal measures should only be used to give to recovery a sure start. When this is done, the real task will be that of preventing the recovery from becoming a boom; and a beginning must be made in this task long before any alarming signs appear. The seeds of booms are sown by innocent expansion of credit during years of seemingly wholesome revival. The task of control is easily neglected at such times; and there is grave danger that both the Reserve Board and the Treasury will adopt inadequately deflationary tactics in this period when it is so easy to have no policy at all.

In summary, it is our unequivocal position that drastic but temporary fiscal inflation can now be productive of tremendous gains, with no possible losses of compensating magnitude; further, that after genuine revival of business has occurred, and especially if it is attained by artificial stimulation, there will soon be urgent need for prompt and decisive action of a deflationary character.

Garfield V. Cox.         Lloyd W. Mints.
Aaron Director.         Henry Schultz.
Paul H. Douglas.       Henry C. Simons.
Harry D. Gideonse.   Jacob Viner.
Frank H. Knight.       Chester W. Wright.
Harry A. Millis.          Theodore O. Yntem.[sic]

 

Source: U. S. Congress (Seventy-Second Congress, First Session). Payment of Adjusted-Compensation Certificates in Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (April 11 to 29, and May 2 and 3, 1932), pp. 524-527.

Image Source:  Authentic History Center website: Page “Hoover & the Depression: The Bonus Army.”

Categories
Curriculum Economists Michigan

Michigan. History of the Department of Economics through 1940

In preparing the previous post about the Harvard trained economist, Zenas Clark Dickinson (Ph.D., 1920), I ran across his history of the University of Michigan economics department that was published in 1951. The first volume of the Encyclopedic Survey of the University of Michigan was published in 1941 and it is clear from the text of Dickinson’s chapter itself (published in the second volume) that this history only goes up through the academic year 1939-40.

According to Hathitrust, the book in which the chapter appears is now in the Creative Commons for non-commercial purposes only requiring attribution. Economics in the Rear-View Mirror is a non-commercial endeavor and much of its charm comes from the correct attribution of words to people, so I presume there is no rights problem in providing the text of Dickinson’s history here. Bravo Creative Commons!

One fact from this history that I find of particular interest is the announcement that the University of Michigan Library had 22,000 volumes in 1871 before it acquired “about four thousand volumes and from two thousand to three thousand pamphlets” from the library of Prof. Karl Heinrich Rau of Heidelberg, i.e. it grew by about one-fifth from this one major acquisition “especially rich in European works on the Science of Government, Statistics, Political Economy, and cognate subjects.” Also of interest: “In 1912 the department collected some thirty-one photographs and prints of leading economists”…maybe still in the University of Michigan archives? (They appear to have been framed and hung on the walls of the office of chairman Sharfman). [The building was destroyed by an arson fire Christmas Eve 1981, and the Sharfman library and its contents were destroyed.]

_____________________________

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Z. Clark Dickinson

EARLY HISTORY.—The specialized teaching of political economy began at Michigan pursuant to the following resolution of the Regents, dated April 14,1880:

That, to provide for the instruction heretofore given by President Angell, Henry Carter Adams …. be appointed Lecturer upon Political Economy for one semester, at a salary of $800. (R.P., 1876-81, p. 497.)

President Angell, who had been teaching classes in this subject during one semester and in international law the other half year, had just been granted leave to become United States Minister to China. Adams (Iowa College ’74, Ph.D. Johns Hopkins ’78, LL.D. ibid. ’15) continued to teach in Ann Arbor only one semester of each year, the other semester at Cornell, until 1887. Then he was appointed to a full professorship at Michigan, a post he held until his death in 1921.

Instruction in political economy, however, was provided in the University from its very inception. The “Catholepistemiad” scheme, drawn up by Judge Woodward in 1817 (see Part I: Early History and Regents), proposed a “didaxia, or professorship,” of “economical sciences” among the twelve subjects of instruction. And, at the Regents’ third meeting (June 21,1837), a resolution was passed “that until otherwise ordained the Professor of Political Economy shall be also Professor of the Ancient and English Languages.” Actually, political economy was taught, until President Angell’s time, by the current professor of moral and intellectual philosophy, who was nearly always the president of the University or the senior member of the faculty. Thus, the early teachers of political economy were Ten Brook, Tappan, Haven, and Cocker. Indeed, President Haven’s chair from 1865 to 1868 was known as the professorship of logic and political economy. As early as 1845 political economy was required during the third term of the senior year in the “Department of Arts and Sciences.” In the later fifties President Tappan’s growing interest in philosophy pushed economics entirely out of the announcements of courses, but it reappeared as an elective study in Haven’s administration and was made a prominent part of the curriculum by President Angell.

A few further details may be gleaned from the annual catalogues-—all with reference to the liberal arts department or college. In 1843-44, for example, seniors apparently were required, during the last term, to study Wayland’s Political Economy. Similar announcements recurred for more than a decade, except that this subject was sometimes taught in the junior year; in 1850-51 Wayland’s text was still used. Juniors of 1852-53, in both classical and scientific courses, were instructed in economics “by the use of text books, accompanied with lectures and by references to the standard works on political economy. The students are here also required to read original essays on subjects connected with the course” (Cat., 1852-53, p. 30).

President Angell, in his first year at Ann Arbor, reported to the Regents:

We should have also, at an early day, a Professor to give instruction in Political Economy, Political Philosophy, and International Law. The very brief course in Political Economy has been conducted by the Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy [Cocker], who would prefer to confine himself to his own special work, and it has not been offered at all to the classical students. I have this year given twenty familiar lectures on International Law to about two-thirds of the senior class. But provision should be made by which every student should be able to take a generous course in the Political Sciences. (P.R., 1871-72, p. 16.)

Dr. Angell proceeded in the following years to develop such courses himself, teaching political economy one semester, international law the other. By 1879-80, the year before Adams came here, Angell was responsible for three classes in economics: two sections of an elementary course and one in “advanced political economy”—all meeting twice a week.

 

Buildings and special facilities.— The first acquisition of special facilities for political economy was announced through the University Calendar (1871-72, p. 10) in the first year of Dr. Angell’s presidency:

The University Library contains about twenty-two thousand volumes. During the past year it has been enlarged by the addition of the library of the late Prof. [Karl Heinrich] Rau, the distinguished Professor of Political Economy in the University of Heidelberg, Germany …. purchased and presented to the University by Philo Parsons, Esq., of Detroit. It contains about four thousand volumes and from two thousand to three thousand pamphlets. It is especially rich in European works on the Science of Government, Statistics, Political Economy, and cognate subjects.

Adams’ earliest activities at Ann Arbor were naturally carried on in University Hall, which was then relatively new. Soon after Tappan Hall was built (in 1894), Adams and his colleague Taylor were transferred there. The department’s work developed in Tappan Hall until about 1910, when the south part of the old Chemistry Building became designated as the Economics Building. This building has been so patched over from time to time that now only its numerous chimneys suggest its former uses. The larger lecture rooms are still fitted with shades and screens for lantern projections, which have not been used for many years. The northern parts of the whole structure (first used in 1857), now known as the Pharmacology Building, usually harbor some animals used for experimental purposes. Also, an additional large basement room was equipped before 1920 as an accounting laboratory, with desk-tables and adding machines. It is overcrowded, and has been for some years, by the large classes in that subject.

Another large room on the second floor became the departmental library about 1914. When Angell Hall was completed, in 1924, the economics and mathematics libraries were combined on its third floor, and the room thus vacated in the Economics Building has served as a statistical laboratory as well as a general classroom. For some years, in the time of Adams and Taylor, virtually all book accessions in economics and sociology were purchased directly by the department for the economics library; since the middle 1920’s most single copies of economics literature have gone into the General Library, and additions to the economics reading room are mainly multiple copies for the larger classes. In 1912 the department collected some thirty-one photographs and prints of leading economists. If funds for the purpose become available, this collection may be extended and suitably displayed.

 

Persons and policies; programs of undergraduate studies. The most obvious divisions of the department’s history are the terms of the three administrative heads—Adams (1880-1921), Day (1923-27), and Sharfman (since 1927).

In Adams’ term several significant phases may be discerned, each phase lasting approximately a decade. For about twelve years after he began lecturing here, Adams conducted the teaching in economics almost single-handed, and until 1887 during only one-half of the year. In 1892 Fred M. Taylor joined him, and soon thereafter Charles H. Cooley became a full-time instructor and began to give courses in sociology. The third decade of Adams’ regime saw the establishment of new courses in industry and commerce and in public control of railways and other industries, taught in part by Edward D. Jones and Harrison S. Smalley. In the fourth decade (after 1912), public control of industry was further developed by I. L. Sharfman, and in this period students, teachers, and courses in business administration and sociology all became more numerous. The School of Business Administration (see Part VI: School of Business Administration) was created in 1924, three years after Adams’ death. The Dean of the new school, Edmund E. Day, continued to be Chairman of the Department of Economics in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts until his resignation from the University in 1927, since which year the School and the department have been headed respectively by Dean Griffin and Professor Sharfman. The group teaching sociology (see Part IV: Department of Sociology) remained administratively a wing of the Department of Economics until 1931, two years after Cooley’s death; and a year or two later sociology offices and classes were removed to the old Law Building (Haven Hall).

The roster of persons who have taught economics and business in the Department of Economics (or Political Economy), from the beginning of such instruction at the University through the year 1939-40, includes 183 names. This count excludes eight nonresident lecturers in political economy, also Cooley and other sociologists, and appointees in the School of Business Administration in 1924 and later years. Classified by highest rank attained up to 1940, this roster includes eighteen full professors, four visiting professors, six associate professors, fourteen assistant professors, seven lecturers, ninety-four instructors, and forty teaching fellows.

Henry Carter Adams, 1880-1921.— Adams was called to Michigan in 1880, as stated above, to take over President Angell’s one-semester offerings in political economy. Within a few years, under the stimulus of the School of Political Science (see Part IV: Department of Political Science) , various other courses were announced under the heading “Political Economy.” These announcements signify the beginnings of Adams’ instruction at the University of Michigan in public finance and industrial history, and they also show how early he developed alliances with other departments and with people and organizations outside the University. For 1882-83, for example, the following courses were announced in connection with the economics offering: Public Scientific Surveys, Relations of Government to Scientific Progress; and Economic Development of Mineral Resources. These two courses were taught respectively by the professors of geology and of mineralogy and mining engineering.

During the first year of his full professorship here (1887-88) Adams introduced a course designated Principles of the Science of Statistics. At about the same time he became chief statistician for the Interstate Commerce Commission, which post he held until 1912. In this period also appeared germs of other types of instruction which grew to great importance—notably advanced economic theory, international trade, and social and industrial reform. The classes had already attained such size that Adams was allowed an assistant. This assistant, Frederick C. Hicks (’86, Ph.D. ’90), later president of the University of Cincinnati, became Instructor in Economics in 1890-91. During the latter academic year Adams was absent, doing work with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and his place was temporarily filled by Fred Manville Taylor (Northwestern ’76, Ph.D. Michigan ’88), who was then teaching history and political economy at Albion College.

By 1892, the year when Taylor came here permanently as Assistant Professor of Political Economy and Finance, ten courses in political economy were announced for each semester—”classified,” according to the Calendar of 1892-93, “as undergraduate, intermediate, and graduate courses.” Frank Haigh Dixon (’92, Ph.D. ’95), later Professor of Economics at Dartmouth and at Princeton, assisted Adams in his course (for which five sections were listed) on industrial history; and Charles Horton Cooley (’87, Ph.D. 94) taught Theory of Statistics and History of Political Economy, as well as an elementary course in economics. Taylor was giving two or three one- or two-hour courses each semester in currency and banking, American industrial history, agrarian, socialist, and communist movements, and social philosophy with reference to economic relations, and he was also assisting Adams in a course announced as Problems in Political Economy. The problems studied, according to the Calendar, were “the railroad problem; industrial crises; free trade and protection; industrial reforms; labor legislation; taxation.” Taylor, moreover, was already launched on his own introductory course in principles (Elements of Political Economy—three lectures a week and one quiz hour for each of the four sections). The four teachers collaborated, each semester, in a weekly two-hour seminar, Current Economic Legislation and Literature.

This 1892-93 offering was typical of its decade, except that within a few years Cooley was beginning his career in sociology, and Taylor took over the history of political economy. The Calendar for 1888-89 had announced a seminar “designed for candidates for advanced degrees,” and in 1895-96 Adams, Taylor, and Cooley were listed for a course of three credit hours on “critical studies in economics and sociology, intended especially for graduate students but open to seniors specializing in political economy, who satisfy their instructors of their fitness for the work.”

Not until 1910 did the curriculums in business administration, which developed into a separate School in 1924 (see Part VI: School of Business Administration), become as prominent as economics and sociology were in the departmental announcements; but the year 1901 was marked by two significant appointments—those of Edward David Jones (Ohio Wesleyan ’92, Ph.D. Wisconsin ’95) as Assistant Professor of Commerce and Industry and of Durand William Springer (Albion ’86, A.M. Michigan ’24) as Lecturer on Accounts. The Calendar of that year refers to “those who wish to combine the study of political economy and finance with history, political science, and law for the purpose of preparing themselves for some one of the several professions or careers to which this group of studies naturally leads.” (This is reminiscent of the similar aims of the School of Political Science about twenty years earlier.) And, in the Calendar for 1902-3, the following paragraph first appeared:

Industry and Commerce. The courses in industry and commerce have for their special object the study of organization and processes of modern business. They are closely related to economics, both as a study of wealth production and as an account of economic principles in industrial society. Some of them are technical in character and are intended to rank as semi-professional courses.

In the new courses which Jones taught relating to industrial development and organization appeared professors from the Departments of Geology and of Law. There was also a revival of nonresident lectureships, one of them “on the industrial significance of ship canals.”

The teachings of Adams in governmental control of railways and of other industries were supplemented, at first by those of Harrison Standish Smalley (’00, Ph.D. ’03), who in 1903 was appointed Instructor in Political Economy. In the year of Smalley’s death (1912) the services of Isaiah Leo Sharfman (Harvard ’07, LL.B. ibid. ’10) in the University were begun. Sharfman, who advanced to a full professorship in 1914 and has been Chairman of the Department of Economics since 1927, applied his training in law and his experience in teaching and research to the elaboration of courses on corporations, railways, and public utilities, from the standpoint of public policy and social control.

Edmund Ezra Day, 1923-27.—Edmund E. Day (Dartmouth ’05, Ph.D. Harvard ’09, LL.D. Vermont ’31), who left Michigan in 1927 to join the Rockefeller Foundation and is now president of Cornell University, began his teaching and chairmanship here in February, 1923. The total enrollment in the department had been growing very rapidly, as will be shown below. This growth, and the difficulty of even maintaining the upper staff during Adams’ last illness and the interregnum, had thrown the teaching of the numerous students in economics, sociology, and business administration into the hands of less than a dozen men of professorial rank, assisted by a crew of instructors working toward their doctor’s degrees. Day was enabled to enlarge the upper staff and to set up a professional school of business administration, including its Bureau of Business Research, which has been of assistance in some economic studies and publications. (The teachers of sociology already had practical autonomy, though they were formally within the Department of Economics until 1931.) From Day’s time also dates continuous existence of the present Economics Club, which arranges evening meetings at irregular intervals, where faculty members and graduate students of economics and business administration present findings from their researches and have discussions with visiting scholars in these fields.

Soon after his advent, Day urged upon the faculty of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts the development of a scheme of majors or concentration, to be part of the requirements for the bachelor’s degree. (This College at the University of Michigan was one of the last academic strongholds of the “free elective system.”) His committee’s plan was rejected, but within a few years (1931) another committee secured adoption of the present concentration plan.

Isaiah Leo Sharfman, 1927 to date.— In the department’s latest decade, enrollments have continued to grow, and the undergraduate concentration program has received increasing attention.

 

Enrollments.—In the academic year 1912-13, when available records were begun (Professor Sharfman soon thereafter became Secretary of the Department), there were 793 enrollments in introductory courses, 822 in more advanced economics, 434 in business administration, and 457 in sociology; a total of 2,506 student class-members within the department, averaging some 1,250 each semester. By 1916-17 the corresponding total for both semesters had grown to 4,426. The war reduced this index to 2,834 1n 1918-19; then came a deluge of 6,712 enrollments (elections) in 1919-20 and still more (7,626) in 1920-21. Thus, in the autumn of 1920 Taylor had the task of organizing instruction of more than 1,000 students in his introductory course; and great upswings had occurred in all the other categories of courses in the department. This heavy tide subsided somewhat within a few years. Elections in courses then in the department but now given in the School of Business Administration reached their peak of 1,891 in 1921-22; while elections in sociology rose to nearly 2,100 just before the separate Department of Sociology was organized (1931). The total elections in elementary and advanced economics courses remained close to 3,000 from 1925 to 1929, fluctuated near 3,300 until 1934, and between 1937 and 1940 have run above 4,700. This last rise is attributable in part to new requirements and recommendations in various curriculums of the College of Engineering. Already in 1912-13 there were 141 elections in special economics courses for students in other colleges, and nowadays the similar courses draw more than 700 elections a year. The introductory courses in accounting (with several hundreds of elections each year) and some advanced work in this field have remained in this department and are patronized in part by students working toward degrees in engineering and law, as well as by those contemplating business and other professional degrees.

Further analysis of trends within the introductory courses shows that the largest number of enrollments in the introductory courses is always in the two semesters of the year’s work on the sophomore level, which serve as a foundation for the more advanced courses in the department. Before 1921 there was only one full semester (four or five hours credit) of elementary principles. At one time, at least (1909-10), six weeks of the second-semester course were devoted to “distribution” theory, the remainder to “problems.” Since 1921 the year’s introductory work—usually for three hours’ credit each semester (one lecture and two or three quiz meetings a week) —has been organized with reference to a framework of principles. Another course provides an introductory survey of economics through one semester for seniors and graduate students whose main interests lie elsewhere.

The percentage of D and E grades in all the department’s courses (including business administration and sociology) in 1912-13 was slightly lower than the corresponding percentage in other courses in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, but by 1924 the percentage of D’s and E’s in economics courses had risen well above the general level for the College, though no economics courses have been open to freshmen.

 

Concentration.—The foregoing survey of trends in course elections leads to a historical view of specialization in economics and allied subjects in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts. For some years before the business and sociology courses were split off there were curriculums within this College leading to certificates in business administration and in social work (with the bachelor’s degree; see Part IV: Department of Sociology). Since 1924 the former of these has been supplanted, in part, by the combined curriculum in letters and business administration—a five-year course, open only to students with a B — or better average of scholarship. This group of students, in their junior year, is supervised by the Department of Economics, which, since the concentration plan of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts became effective, has also been responsible for upperclassmen concentrating in economics.

Table I shows that usually 10 per cent or more of the juniors and seniors in this College not enrolled in the combined curriculums are specializing in economics. Actually, for most years, this has been the largest single group. The table also shows numbers of juniors, each autumn semester, in the combined letters and business administration curriculum. Availability of this type of combination (in letters and law also, for example) enables the better students to expedite their academic work, and it also distorts, somewhat, statistical comparisons as to numbers and abilities of concentrating groups at the University of Michigan and elsewhere. (At Harvard College, for instance, where concentration has been required over a much longer period and where there are no combined curriculums for undergraduates, about 16 to 17 per cent of all concentrators, in the decade 1926-36, were in economics.)

 

TABLE I
Upperclassmen in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts Specializing in Economics and Business

First Semester of Academic Year

Juniors in Combined Curriculum in Letters and Business Administration

Junior and Senior Concentrators

In Economics

In the College

Per Cent in Economics

1933-34

40 53 . .   . . . .   . .

1934-35

54 140 . .   . . . .   . .

1935-36

45 166 1,576 10.5

1936-37

52 196 1,670

11.7

1937-38 33 269

1,711

15.1
1938-39 27 279 1,761

15.8

1939-40 41 207 1,870

11.0

A survey was made several years ago which traced the students who made B or better in the elementary economics courses, Economics 51 and 52, in 1932- 33 and 1933-34, to ascertain their later fields of specialization. The largest percentages (26.3 for 1932-33 and 19.6 for 1933-34) went into the combined curriculum in letters and law. Corresponding percentages of these superior students were, for the same years: concentrating in economics, 13.2 per cent and 17.6 per cent; entering the letters and business administration curriculum, 21.2 per cent and 7.8 per cent. These three fields together, therefore, appear to attract about half of the students who show most aptitude in the earlier economic studies.

The full-year course in economic principles, available in the sophomore year, is required before entrance upon the economics concentration program in the junior year is permitted. As an upperclassman this concentrator must take not less than twenty-four nor more than thirty-four hours of credit in economics courses, including a course in accounting or statistics and sequences of two and three courses respectively in two other economic fields—such as theory, money and credit, labor, public control of industry, international economic relations, economic history, and public finance. Certain courses in advanced economic theory are counted in any of the other sequences.

 

Graduate program.—Graduate studies have long been highly important in the program of the Department of Economics.

The count of higher degrees in economics appears to begin with the doctor of philosophy degree awarded in 1890 to Frederick C. Hicks, whose dissertation was entitled “The Foreign Trade of the United States.” In the decade ending in 1900, twelve master’s and seven doctor’s degrees were awarded in this field— among the latter being the doctorate of Charles Horton Cooley (“A Theory of Transportation”). From 1900 to 1910, advanced degrees continued to be few— ten master’s, seven doctor’s. After 1910 the pace quickened. In the next three decades (ending in 1920, 1930, and 1940) the numbers of master’s degrees awarded in economics were, respectively, 34, 87, and 159; and of doctor’s, 7, 19, and 24. The total, 1889 to 1940, is 302 master’s, 65 doctor’s.

The preceding data are believed to be accurate for the period since 1910, but for the earlier years it is not always possible to classify advanced degrees according to field of specialization. Fred M. Taylor, for example, received this University’s doctor of philosophy degree in 1888, his dissertation being entitled “The Right of the State to Be.” His graduate study appears to have been more largely in philosophy and politics than in political economy; his degree therefore is not included in the above count. For three decades after doctorates in economics began to be given here, the subjects of dissertations were usually in Adams’ fields, transportation and public finance, or in Taylor’s fields, money and general theory. Several types of master’s degrees were formerly given in political economy (masters of arts, of philosophy, of laws, and of science; see Part II: Degrees).

Thoroughly capable graduate students with previous training in economics have usually been able to earn the master’s degree in about one academic year and the doctor’s degree in perhaps three or four years of full-time work (beyond the bachelor’s degree). When the School of Business Administration was organized in 1924, it provided for the master’s degree in business administration, based upon two years of study in a specialized and largely prescribed curriculum additional to four years of undergraduate work, except (as noted above) for students in the combined letters and business administration curriculum. More recently programs leading to the degree of doctor of philosophy in business administration have been established in the Graduate School.

Questioning has been heard for some time, in the field of economics as elsewhere, as to what trends should be favored with reference to the master’s degree. The increasing disposition of state and local educational authorities to put a premium on the possession of this degree by high school teachers is, of course, an important part of the general story; but this particular demand has not affected the Department of Economics as much as it has affected many other departments, inasmuch as there has been little demand for high-school teachers offering economics as their major subject. No quantitative studies are available to show the statistical distribution of holders of the master’s degree in economics by occupations and employers, but most of them who do not pursue studies further toward the doctorate appear to find employment readily, notably in secondary teaching of commercial and social studies, in college and university teaching, and in government and business. In addition to the requirements for undergraduate concentration mentioned above, candidates for the master’s degree are required to do a year’s work in advanced economic theory and to write at least one substantial paper, normally in a research seminar.

A somewhat special problem has been presented to the University of Michigan by rather large numbers of graduates of foreign universities seeking advanced degrees. Our list shows that between 1890 and 1902, out of ten persons who received the degree of doctor of philosophy in economics, three bore Japanese names. Since the latter of those dates only one Chinese and one Japanese have earned the doctor of philosophy degree in this department, and from 1902 until 1916 no Oriental names appeared anywhere in the department’s lists of higher degrees. After 1916 they occurred with increasing frequency. Of the ninety-nine recipients of the master’s degree from 1930 to 1936, no less than twenty-six were Orientals— mostly Chinese. Naturally these Oriental students usually have to work here longer than do American college graduates to earn the master’s degree, and a number of them leave without completing the work for it. Variations in studies and standards among the foreign colleges, of course, are still greater than among the numerous American institutions from which we draw graduate students, and such wide differences in background have thus far made it seem inadvisable to require a more nearly uniform curriculum for the degree of master of arts in economics.

In Adams’ time there was no general reckoning between the faculty and the doctoral candidate until, his course and language requirements fulfilled and his dissertation accepted, he stood a long oral examination in which emphasis was placed on the dissertation, the special field, and general economic theory. Candidates were accustomed to prepare themselves in the field of theory by long attendance in Taylor’s advanced courses, which treated new examples of theoretical literature every year.

Within a year after Edmund E. Day came, in February, 1923, the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy were modified into a system much like that which prevails at present (1939-40). Before he is well launched on his dissertation, the candidate must now take a preliminary general examination, the major part of which consists of four three-hour written examinations in fields selected by himself out of the principal divisions of economics, always including economic theory and its history. And before these examinations may be written, various preliminaries must be completed, notably foreign-language tests, courses in eight specified economics fields, and preparation in some cognate field. The general examination ends with an oral conference. When these hurdles are cleared, the candidate devotes himself to his dissertation; and after the latter is accepted, he must stand an oral examination on it and his special field.

 

Financial aid.—An important factor in graduate studies everywhere is financial aid to students. A majority of those who have taken the doctorate in this department have been at some stage quizmasters in the elementary courses—a condition which is perhaps normal among the American universities. Frederick C. Hicks, for example, began quizzing for Professor Adams within a year or two after the latter became a full-time member of the faculty, and Hicks earned his doctor’s degree in 1890. By 1895 Charles H. Cooley and Frank H. Dixon had secured doctorates in economics in similar fashion. Such predoctoral instructors in many cases were paid on a full-time teaching basis. In recent years the University’s policy has been modified, so that persons without the doctorate or equivalent attainments are no longer acceptable for the title “instructor.” Graduate student quizmasters are still employed in the economics and other departments, but they are now designated as teaching fellows, and they receive stipends based upon less than full-time service.

Graduate study in economics at the University of Michigan has also been assisted by other fellowships and scholarships. Adams, for example, secured gifts from Messrs. Frank H. Hecker and Joseph Boyer of Detroit, in 1913 and 1914, aggregating $2,500, which funds were employed primarily for the support of two fellows in transportation for two years or more. Probably these fellows had some instructional duties. For some years of late, moreover, the State College fellowships, administered by the Graduate School, have brought alumni and alumnae from Michigan colleges to the department at the rate of one or more almost every year. Other aids for graduate students include or have included the University fellowships and scholarships, the Michigan-Brookings fellowship, maintained jointly by the University and the Brookings Institution at Washington, D.C., the Earhart fellowships and scholarships (see Part IV: Department of Sociology), the Rackham fellowships, and the Taylor fellowship, for which funds are accumulating as mentioned below.

 

Research and publications.—Adams was a pioneer among American economists in the development of syllabi and texts in various political economy courses. The General Library contains, for example, his Outline of Lectures on Political Economy (seventy-six pages, dated 1881), used for instruction at Johns Hopkins, Cornell, and the University of Michigan. And in Adams’ private library is a volume of mimeographed lectures on “The Labor Problem” and other subjects, used in a course which he gave in the Department of Law in the early nineties. By 1902-3 Taylor’s lectures on “Elements of Political Economy” were sold in mimeographed form by Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor. Taylor’s Chapters on Money—a preliminary textbook for his students—appeared in 1906, and his source book, Some Readings in Economics, in 1907.

About 1915 the following passage appeared in the Preface to the third edition of Taylor’s Principles:

In view of the increased expense to the students due to the frequency of new editions, I shall permit myself to explain that this text, like Professor [Walton H.] Hamilton’s Readings, Professor [George W.] Dowrie’s Syllabus, and other books or pamphlets published by the University for the use of the classes in Economics, brings no pecuniary profit to the instructor immediately concerned or to the University. Any surplus which may emerge is to go into a departmental Printing Fund to be used for the revision and expansion of these texts and for the printing of other class helps.

The printing fund derived from the sale of these texts was drawn upon as indicated, notably for the syllabus used by advanced theory classes, which went through four editions and was distributed gratis to the students. After Taylor’s retirement in 1929, the Regents set aside the $3,638.88 remaining in the fund to accumulate for a fellowship in his memory.

The works just referred to were textbooks, though they embodied a great deal of scholarly research. Taylor’s Principles, for example, was prepared and used as an elementary text; it is nevertheless a profound work in economic theory. Similar observations might be made concerning other texts prepared by Michigan teachers, such as Adams’ Science of Finance.

Rather comprehensive compilations have been made of publications of present and past members of the teaching staff, but it would be impossible to cite precisely even the chief publications of scholarly work done in the Department of Economics. The works of Charles H. Cooley, for instance, are much more relevant to the origins of the Department of Sociology; yet most of them came to fruition while he and his group were closely associated with the economics staff. In some degree a parallel comment would apply to the writings of some teachers in the School of Business Administration, such as Day’s Statistical Analysis, Griffin’s Foreign Trade, and Rodkey’s Banking Process. Jones’s Administration of Industrial Enterprises was a pioneering, widely influential manual on general principles and practices in business organization; its author resigned from this department and University in 1918, six years before the School of Business Administration was established. Friday’s Wages, Prices, and Profits appeared near the end of this economist’s work in Ann Arbor. Some books, such as Goodrich’s The Miner s Freedom, Reiner’s Foreign Investments in China, and Hoover’s Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries, were published after the authors had joined the staff but had been partly prepared previously; others, like Van Sickle’s Direct Taxation in Austria and Ellis’ Exchange Control, were largely prepared during the authors’ connection with the department, but appeared later. Remer’s Chinese Boycotts, Ellis’ German Monetary Theory, and Dickinson’s Compensating Industrial Effort are examples of work carried through to publication during the authors’ teaching here. Associate Professor Robert S. Ford has been senior author of several of the Michigan Governmental Studies, issued by the University’s Bureau of Government, of which he has been Director since 1938 (see Part VI: Bureau of Government).

An important type of scholarship, of course, grows out of doctoral dissertations. Among publications arising out of dissertations in economics accepted by this University may be cited Paton’s Accounting Theory, Dewey’s Long and Short Haul Principle of Rate Regulation, Yang’s Good Will and Other Intangibles, and significant articles by Shorey Peterson on economic problems of highway transport. Three of our dissertations have secured publication in full through winning national prize competitions— Watkins’ Bankers’ Balances, Seltzer’s Financial History of the American Automobile Industry, and Nelson Lee Smith’s Fair Rate of Return in Public Utility Regulation. No funds have been provided here for subsidizing publication of researches in economics as such, but the monographs and dissertations published by our University’s Bureau of Business Research (see Part VI: School of Business Administration) have included several works by members of the economics teaching staff and several dissertations for the doctor of philosophy degree in economics. Economics dissertations thus published, in whole or in part, are those of Wyngarden, Taggart, Phelps, Waterman, Woodworth, and Daniels.

The foregoing retrospect may be supplemented by an attempt to indicate further the significance of the events recounted, with special reference to the structure founded by Adams and Taylor. The interests and abilities of these men, although not always completely harmonious, interacted to produce substantial intellectual achievements and to develop the abilities of many able students and colleagues.

Taylor wrote, shortly before his death, in response to an inquiry from Professor F. A. Hayek (of the London School of Economics, and formerly of Vienna):

…. I greatly appreciated your kind comments on my Principles. As my very limited working capacity made it quite certain that I should do relatively little writing, I early determined to limit myself to doing one or two things and doing them as well as I could. My particular capacities and tastes, added to earlier training in philosophy, made it natural for me, as a teacher of Economics, to devote myself to theory, with only so much attention to the concrete as was necessary to furnish the background for theoretic analysis.

Actually, he did not limit himself so narrowly as is here suggested, in his earlier years, for he labored assiduously in the field of money, banking, and currency. In this province, through his teaching and publications, he was a national intellectual leader by the beginning of the present century. He later became absorbed in problems concerning the elementary course in economic principles and advanced instruction in economic theory. His theoretical publications are based upon somewhat narrow and designedly abstract premises. Although he was always much interested in history and belles-lettres—subjects which he taught at Albion College—he made natural science texts his model for his economic writings, deliberately forswearing literary graces of exposition and making much use of italicized “principles” and “corollaries” as well as of numerical problems. His classroom cabinets stuffed with blueprint charts remain in our buildings as relics, as do a few dictaphone cylinders containing his dictation. The quality of Taylor’s theory slowly obtained widespread recognition, as his disciples spread over wider fields, but in reference to his pedagogical methods (especially as applied to the general run of students in elementary principles) many contemporary observers would agree with the following remark in a private letter from a former colleague:

The defect of the elementary course under Professor Taylor was that it was a course in theory and an exercise in logic, rather than instruction in the practice of the scientific method of determining premises. The result was to make young students who had been exercised in the artificially simplified cases used in the course unduly sure of themselves.

Taylor, however, fully recognized this danger, and uttered many warnings. In his second mimeographed lecture of 1902-3, for instance, appears the following passage, typical of the caveats he was wont to give out:

Doubtless if I would ask you what was your purpose in studying Political Economy many of you would say that you wished to be prepared to have an opinion on certain questions before the country and that you would like to be able to discuss them Intelligently if the occasion arose; and others that they intended to pursue political careers. THE RIGID APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO PRACTICAL CASES IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, AND IS APT TO BE A MISTAKEN APPLICATION IN NINE CASES OUT OF TEN [capitals in original].

This teacher was also a lifelong student of socialist literature, and his surviving writings are full of penetrating discussions of its problems. The “Critique of the Existing System,” with which his Principles ends, is distinctly conservative in tone and indicates the general position which he always held. His last publication—an address as president of the American Economic Association in 1928 —on “Guidance of Production in a Socialist State” is now cited approvingly by both socialist and nonsocialist economists. This publication amply testifies to the persistence of his interest in these theoretical issues; but it is clear that he was never optimistic as to the immediate practical possibilities of economic collectivism.

The department’s present courses in elementary economics, money and credit, and social reform are still influenced by Taylor, in that the teachers in charge were his students or colleagues, or both. His favorite field of economic theory, since his retirement, has been divided and cultivated simultaneously by a number of successors, of whom Ellis, Peterson, and Dickinson were for some years personally associated with Taylor.

Different in many ways were the genius and development of Adams. While on the threshold of his career, he boldly jeopardized his worldly prospects by defending labor unions, collective bargaining, and liberal principles in general. Later, his preoccupation with work outside Ann Arbor, especially at Washington, was occasionally considered rather excessive by a few of his Ann Arbor associates; but these labors nevertheless enriched his teaching. He will long be remembered for his work in the field of government finance; other studies which he persistently carried on form a complex composed of principles and administration of transportation, accounting, statistics, and public regulation of industry. Judge Cooley selected Adams to be chief statistician of the Interstate Commerce Commission, not merely because he was Cooley’s colleague in Ann Arbor, but because the younger man had already given such convincing evidences of his fitness as may be found in his classical paper of 1887, The Relation of the State to Industrial Action.

By 1906 statistical reports under oath from the railways to the Interstate Commerce Commission, based on a standard accounting system approved by the Commission, were made mandatory by federal legislation. Adams assisted the railway officials to work out such a system, and later (in 1913) he spent a year in China as special adviser to the Chinese government on railway accounts. These experiences and responsibilities were reflected not only in the courses in railway and transportation problems and in public control of business—which courses were given in both the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts and in the Law Department—but also in the proliferation of instruction after 1909 in railway organization, operation, and finance. The Hecker and Boyer gifts, referred to above, belong to this epoch; part of the money was used to buy books on transportation for the General Library. Perhaps the most significant innovation of the period was a course in the year 1909-10, entitled Railway Statistics and Accounts. This course is symbolic of the great constructive achievements of Adams and his school toward basing governmental regulation of industry on that foundation which is now generally realized to be quite indispensable —regular statistical reports, made possible by standardized accounting. In this manner and in other ways the Michigan economist developed practical means which the state may use in its efforts to safeguard industry from shortsighted and antisocial actions.

Adams’ work has been carried forward in the department, especially by the two present members of the staff who were his colleagues during his later years— Sharfman (assisted by Shorey Peterson) and Paton. The latter is distinguished both as an accountant and as an economist; his many publications include several texts in accounting, a research monograph on Corporate Profits as Shown by Audit Reports, and his major contributions to the Accountant’s Handbook, of which he is editor. Sharfman, whose teaching and other public service have dealt especially with government regulation of transportation and other public utilities, in Adams’ time published Railroad Regulation and The American Railway Problem; and the year 1937 saw publication of the fifth and final volume of his authoritative Interstate Commerce Commission.

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calendar, Univ. Mich., 1871-1914.
Catalogue . . . . , Univ. Mich., 1844-71, 1914-23.
Catalogue and Register, Univ. Mich., 1923-27.
General Register Issue, Univ. Mich., 1927-40.
Lange, Oscar, and Fred M. Taylor. On the Economic Theory of Socialism. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press, 1938.
President’s Report, Univ. Mich., 1853-1940. (P.R.)
Proceedings of the Board of Regents . . . . , 1864- 1940. (R.P.)
University of Michigan Regents’ Proceedings …., 1837-1864. Ed. by Isaac N. Demmon. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1915. (R.P., 1837-64.)

 

 

Source: The University of Michigan—An Encyclopedic Survey, edited by Wilfred B. Shaw, Vol. II, Part III. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1951), pp. 532-545. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.49015003100477

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial: This work is protected by copyright law (which includes certain exceptions to the rights of the copyright holder that users may make, such as fair use where applicable under U.S. law), but made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license. You must attribute this work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). This work may be copied, distributed, displayed, and performed – and derivative works based upon it – but for non-commercial purposes only (if you are unsure where a use is non-commercial, contact the rights holder for clarification). Please check the terms of the specific Creative Commons license as indicated at the item level. For details, see the full license deed http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.

Categories
Economists Harvard Michigan

Harvard Alumnus. Zenas Clark Dickinson, Ph.D.1920.

The David A. Wells Prize for 1919-20 was awarded to Zenas Clark Dickinson (Harvard Ph.D., 1920) for his dissertation Economic Motives: A Study in the Psychological Foundations of Economic Theory, with some Reference to Other Social Sciences (Harvard University Press, 1922). In this posting we have the Ph.D. General Examination subjects for Dickinson along with biographical material from memorial minutes at the University of Michigan, where Dickinson had a long and distinguished career. 

__________________________

ZENAS CLARK DICKINSON
Ph.D. Examinations, Harvard

General Examination in Economics, Monday, May 15, 1916.

Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Gay, Yerkes, Day, and Dr. Burbank.

Academic History: University of Nebraska, 1910-14; Harvard Graduate School, 1914-. A.B., Nebraska, 1914.

General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Statistical Method and its Application. 4. Public Finance. 5. Psychology. 6. Suitable Field in Economic Theory and its History, with special reference to Psychology.

Special Subject: Suitable Field in Economic Theory.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Box: “Examinations for the Ph.D.” (HUC 7000.70). Division of History, Government, and Economics. Examinations for the Degree of Ph.D., 1915-16.

__________________________

Memorial

Zenas Clark Dickinson
LSA Minutes
Clark Dickinson (1889-1966)

Zenas Clark Dickinson, Professor Emeritus of Economics, died on March 22, 1966, in his seventy-seventh year. His had been a rounded career of varied and notably faithful service to the University, of recognized research and publication, and of considerable public activity. He retired in 1958.

He was born August 9, 1889, on a farm near Atkinson, Nebraska, the eldest son of Zenas and Nellie Bungor Dickinson. After a schooling interrupted by four years of job-holding in Lincoln, he finished high school in that city in 1910, and in 1914 received his A. B. from the University of Nebraska, with Phi Beta Kappa key. Fellowships at Harvard, with service as assistant in Economics and tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, together with wartime connections in Massachusetts, carried him through his graduate years, with a doctorate in 1920. He had already joined the Economics staff at the University of Minnesota as assistant professor in 1919, and he came to Michigan as associate professor in 1923. His professorship followed in 1929.

He had married Jean Sullivan of Broken Bow, Nebraska, in 1916, and two sons were born to this union, Philip Clark, now of Groose Pointe Farms, and Thomas Lynn of Ann Arbor. There are six grandchildren. Mrs Dickinson died in 1946, and in 1949 he married Dr. Eleanor Smith of Ann Arbor, who survives.

Professor Dickinson’s first main scholarly interest was in the application of psychology to economics, and he pioneered in this area. His doctoral thesis, which won the David A. Wells prize at Harvard, was published in 1922 under the title Economic Motives, which he described as “a study in the psychological foundations of economics, with some reference to the other social sciences.” In negotiating with Chairman Edmund E. Day respecting his Michigan appointment, he wrote that he was interested in teaching economic theory, with attention to its psychological facets, and labor economics, with emphasis on the “psychological problems of work.” Somewhat later, in responding to an inquiry about him from a manufacturer who was seeking an industrial psychologist, Professor Day described him as “one of the very ablest men in the field of his specialization. I know of no one,” he wrote, “who brings such a combination of interests to our subject.” Articles and pamphlets in this area dealt variously with psychological developments in economics, educational guidance and vocational placement, suggestion systems in industry, quantitative research methods, and industrial research in general. His substantial volume Compensating Industrial Effort appeared in 1937.

Even before his graduate studies he had written on the Nebraska scheme of guaranteeing bank deposits, and one article appeared as early as 1914 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. His work during his graduate years with the Massachusetts Commission on Public Safety and the United States Food Administration involved considerable writing and editing. At a later stage his interest turned to the evolving labor movement of the 1930’s and to related problems and policies, and in 1941 he completed his large study Collective Wage Determination, written “with special reference to American collective bargaining, arbitration, and legislation.” His other writing at this time dealt particularly with wage theory and policy.

In substantial degree he became a practitioner also in this area. In 1939 and 1943, under the Wages and Hours Administration, he carried out assignments in setting standards in various industries. During 1943-45 he was active under the War Labor Board in the settlement of industrial disputes in the Detroit district, and he continued in mediation and arbitration work for a number of years. Later he estimated that he had written the reports in forty to fifty cases in which he had acted.

In the Department’s teaching program Professor Dickinson’s activity reflected his range of interests. At the outset he handled the large undergraduate course in labor problems, but he turned shortly to teaching of a more specialized and advanced character, He taught courses in economic theory and, over a long period, in the history of economic doctrine; in the development of economic institutions and in economic reform and the features of different systems, an early interest of his; likewise in consumer economics, with parallel participation in a local cooperative enterprise. He turned easily to a variety of fields, and he did so willingly as need arose, even adding courses to a normal program. He was at his best with small groups; and a number of graduate students were privileged to work closely with him in his research, With his students his relationship was personal and close.

In unusual degree he was interested in the Economics Department and its people, and his devotion to it was manifest in many ways. When a history of the Department was needed for Wilfred Shaw’s The University of Michigan, An Encyclopedic Survey (1941), he was naturally the one to do it; and his great admiration during his early years here for Professor F. M. Taylor, the Department’s distinguished economic theorist, led him much later to undertake an extensive study of Taylor’s life and work, chapters of which appeared in the Michigan Alumnus’s Quarterly Review. The I. L. Sharfman Fellowship Fund might almost be viewed as a memorial to his promotional effort, and contributions to it at his death were generous.

Within the University but outside the Department, Professor Dickinson had his share of assignments. He served on the Administrative Board of the College, on the Executive Board of the Graduate School, on the University Council, on the Committee on Scholarly Publications, on the Lecture Committee, His notable erudition gave him special value in library matters; and, beside his long handling of Department acquisitions, he served on committees both for the General and the Clements libraries. In 1944 he prepared a report for the Senate Advisory Committee on “Living Costs in Relation to Faculty Salaries,” He was active in the Michigan Academy and the AAUP, He belonged to the University’s Research Club.

Repeated coronary illness slowed his effort after 1950, and few will now remember how active he had been. But that effort was seldom conspicuous, and never directed toward applause. Always he was a gentle man, and even his firmness, which was considerable, was manifest in gentle ways. He was kindly and warm, and these qualities in him were infectious. Family menat much to him, and he made it his role to tend the ties of a scattered clan. His manner in approaching situations or ideas often seemed casual, reflecting perhaps his liberal, undogmatic outlook and a not-too-solemn view of human affairs. Humor pervaded his attitude, and recurrent chuckles followed each amusing encounter, of which, for him, there were many. His wide outlook and reading, his sharp memory, his gift for anecdote made him a fine companion, as he was for many a gracious host. As was fitting, death came gently, with brief warning of its approach.

William B. Palmer
I. L. Sharfman
Shorey Peterson, Chm.

Source: University of Michigan, Faculty History Project.

 

__________________________

Zenas Clark Dickinson
The Michigan Alumnus, June 4, 1932

Nebraska Alumnus Is Economics Professor

Although ranking as Professor of Economics, Zenas Clark
 Dickinson, A.B. (Nebraska) ’14, Ph.D. (Harvard) ’20, might
 as correctly be classified as economist-psychologist-sociologist. During his nine years on the faculty, he has specialized in the study of 
certain labor problems and the psychological phases of general economic theory. At present he also is concerned with the assembling
 of materials on the progress and publications of the Department of 
Economics.

After completing the tenth grade, he was forced to abandon his schooling for four years, during which he became so profici
ent at secretarial work that later it aided in financing his college education. He held an Edward Austin Fellowship at Harvard in 1916-17 
and in 1919, serving also on the newly created tutorial staff in the 
Division of History, Government and Economics.

During the War
 he served with the Massachusetts Food Administration. Some years
 ago he succeeded to Professor-Emeritus Fred M. Taylor’s place on 
the Administrative Board of the Literary College. Not a hobbyist, in
 the ordinary sense of the word, he enjoys greatly the occasional chats
 with former students who visit the Campus.

Source: University of Michigan, The Michigan Alumnus, vol. 38 (June 4, 1932), p. 631.

 

Image Source: Senior Year photo of Zenas Clark Dickinson from University of Nebraska yearbook The Cornhusker (1914), p. 61.

Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. 24 Ph.D. candidates examined 1926-27

In one box at the Harvard Archives (Harvard University/Examinations for the Ph.D. [HUC7000.70]), I found an incomplete run of published Ph.D. examination announcements for the Division of History and Political Science [later Division of History, Government, and Economics] from 1903-04 through 1926-27. Earlier I transcribed the announcement for 1915-16. Today’s posting gives us (1) the date of the scheduled general or special Ph.D. examinations (2) the names of the examination committee (3) the subjects of the general examination, and (4) the academic history of the examinees for two dozen economics Ph.D. candidates examined during the academic year 1926-27.

The largest shadows cast by members of this cohort belong to the (later) Harvard economics professor Edward H. Chamberlin and the co-author of The Modern Corporation and Private Property, Gardiner C. MeansLaughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White also belonged to this cohort of examinees.

Fun fact: Richard Vincent Gilbert was the father of Walter Myron Gilbert, Nobel laureate in Chemistry, 1980.

________________________________________

 

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D.
1926-27

Notice of hour and place will be sent out three days in advance of each examination.
The hour will ordinarily be 4 p.m.

James Ackley Maxwell.

Special Examination in Economics, Monday, October 25, 1926.
General Examination passed, October 30, 1923.
Academic History: Dalhousie University, 1919-21; Harvard College, 1921-23; Harvard Graduate School, 1923-27. B.A., Dalhousie, 1921; A.M., Harvard, 1923. Assistant Professor of Economics, Clark University, 1925-.
General Subjects: 1. Money and Banking. 2. Economic Theory and its History. 3. Economic History to 1750. 4. Statistics. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. Public Finance.
Special Subject: Public Finance.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Burbank, A. H. Cole, and Usher.
Thesis Subject: A Financial History of Nova Scotia, 1848-99. (With Professor Bullock.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Bullock, Burbank, and Usher.

Kan Lee.

Special Examination in Economics, Thursday, October 28, 1926.
General Examination passed, January 6, 1926.
Academic History: Tsing Hua College, China, 1917-20; University of Missouri, 1920-22; University of Chicago, summer of 1921; Harvard Graduate School, 1922-27. B.J., Missouri, 1922; A.B., ibid., 1922; A.M., Harvard, 1924
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory. 2. Money, Banking, and Crises. 3. Public Finance. 4. International Trade and Tariff Problems. 5. History of the Far East. 6. Socialism and Social Reconstruction.
Special Subject: Socialism and Social Reconstruction.
Committee: Professors Carver (chairman), James Ford, Mason, and Young.
Thesis Subject: British Socialists: Their Concept of Capital. (With Professor Carver.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Carver, Mason, and Young.

Donald Wood Gilbert.

General Examination in Economics, Friday, October 29, 1926.
Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Crum, Gay, McIlwain, and Williams.
Academic History: University of Rochester, 1917-21; Harvard Graduate School, 1923-25. A.B., Rochester, 1921; M.A., ibid., 1923. Assistant in Economics, Harvard, 1924-25; Instructor in Economics, Rochester, 1925-.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Statistical Method and its Application. 4. History of Political Theory. 5. International Trade and Tariff Policy. 6. Commercial Crises.
Special Subject: Commercial Crises.
Thesis Subject: Undecided.

Arthur William Marget.

Special Examination in Economics, Thursday, January 20, 1927.
General Examination passed, May 24, 1923..
Academic History: Harvard College, 1916-20; Cambridge University, England, fall term, 1920; London School of Economics, winter term 1920-21, University of Berlin, summer term 1921; Harvard Graduate School, 1921-27 A.B., Harvard, 1920; A.M., ibid., 1921. Assistant in Economics, Harvard, 1923-27.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Socialism and Social Reform. 3. Public Finance. 4. Statistical Method and its Application. 5. American History since 1789. 6. Money, Banking, and Crises.
Special Subject: Money and Banking.
Committee: Professors Young (chairman), A.H. Cole, Taussig, and Williams.
Thesis Subject: The Loan Fund: A pecuniary approach to the problem of the determination of the rate of interest.. (With Professor Young.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Young, Taussig, and Williams.

Richard Vincent Gilbert.

General Examination in Economics, Wednesday, February 9, 1927.
Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Crum, Monroe, Usher, and Woods.
Academic History: University of Pennsylvania, 1919-20; Harvard College, 1920-23; Harvard Graduate School, 1923-. B.S., Harvard, 1923; M.A., Harvard, 1925. Assistant in Economics, Harvard, 1923-.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Money and Banking. 3. Statistics. 4. Economic History since 1776. 5. History of Ancient Philosophy. 6. Theory of International Trade.
Special Subject: Theory of International Trade.
Thesis Subject: Theory of International Trade. (With Professor Taussig.)

Melvin Gardner deChazeau.

General Examination in Economics, Monday, February 21, 1927.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), A.H. Cole, Crum, Demos, and Young.
Academic History: University of Washington, 1921-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-. A.B., Washington, 1924; M.A., ibid., 1925. Instructor and Tutor, Harvard, 1926-27.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Statistics. 4. Money and Banking. 5. Ethics. 6. Regulation of Public Utilities.
Special Subject: Regulation of Public Utilities.
Thesis Subject: Undecided.

Donald Milton Erb.

General Examination in Economics, Friday, February 25, 1927.
Committee: Professors Carver (chairman), Burbank, Gay, Morison, and Williams.
Academic History: University of Illinois, 1918-22, 1923-25; Harvard Graduate School. 1925-. S.B., Illinois, 1922; S.M., ibid., 1924. Assistant in Economics, Illinois, 1923-25.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Sociology. 4. Public Finance. 5. American History since 1789. 6. Transportation.
Special Subject: Transportation.
Thesis Subject: Railroad Abandonments and Additions in the United States since 1920. (With Professor Ripley.)

Douglass Vincent Brown.

General Examination in Economics, Wednesday, March 2, 1927.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Bullock, Ford, Persons and Schlesinger.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1921-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-. A.B., Harvard, 1925; A.M., ibid., 1926.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Statistics. 3. Sociology. 4. Money, Banking, and Crises. 5. American History since 1789. 6. Labor Problems.
Special Subject: Labor Problems.
Thesis Subject: Restriction of Output. (With Professors Taussig and Ripley.)

Mark Anson Smith.

Special Examination in Economics, Friday, April 8, 1927.
General Examination passed, May 11, 1916.
Academic History: Dartmouth College, 1906-10; University of Wisconsin, 1911-14; Harvard Graduate School, 1915-17. A.B., Dartmouth, 1910; A.M., Wisconsin, 1913. Instructor in Economics at Simmons College, 1916-17.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Money, Banking, and Crises. 4. Economics of Corporations. 5. American Government and Constitutional Law.
Special Subject: Public Finance.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Bullock, Usher, and Williams.
Thesis Subject: Economic Aspects of the Duties on Wool, with special reference to the period, 1912-1924. (With Professor Bullock.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Taussig, A. H. Cole, and Usher.

Lauchlin Bernard Currie.

General Examination in Economics, Monday, April 11, 1927.
Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Burbank, A.H. Cole, Usher, and Wright.
Academic History: St. Francis Zavier College, 1921-22; London School of Economics, 1922-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-. B.Sc., London, 1925.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Public Finance. 4. International Trade and Tariff Policy. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. Money, Banking, and Crises.
Special Subject: Money, Banking, and Crises.
Thesis Subject: Monetary History of Canada, 1914-26. (With Professor Young.)

Harry Dexter White.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, April 14, 1927.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Dewing, Elliott, Monroe, and Usher.
Academic History: Columbia University, 1921-23; Stanford University, 1924-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-. A.B., Stanford, 1924; A.M., ibid., 1925. Instructor in Economics, Harvard, 1926-.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Money, Banking, and Crises. 3. Economic History since 1750. 4. Economics of Corporations. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. International Trade .
Special Subject: International Trade.
Thesis Subject: Foreign Trade of France. (With Professor Taussig.)

Margaret Randolph Gay.

General Examination in Economics, Friday, April 15, 1927.
Committee: Professors Usher (chairman), A.H. Cole, McIlwain, Taussig, and Young.
Academic History: Radcliffe College, 1918-22, 1922-23, 1925-. A.B., Radcliffe, 1922; A.M., ibid., 1923.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory. 2. Money, Banking, and Crises. 3. International Trade. 4. Economic History after 1750. 5. Political Theory. 6. English Economic History before 1750.
Special Subject: English Economic History, 1485-1750.
Thesis Subject: The Statute of Artificers, 1563-1811. (With Professor Gay.)

(Mary) Gertrude Brown.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, April 28, 1927.
Committee: Professors Gay (chairman), Elliott, Taussig, Williams, and Young.
Academic History: Mount Holyoke College, 1920-24; Columbia University, summer of 1924; Radcliffe College, 1924-. A.B., Mount Holyoke, 1924; A.M., Radcliffe, 1926. Assistant in Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1924-26. Tutor, Bryn Mawr Summer School, 1926.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory. 2. International Trade and Tariff Policy. 3. Money, Banking, and Crises. 4. Comparative Modern Government. 5. Labor Problems. 6. Economic History since 1750.
Special Subject: Economic History since 1750.
Thesis Subject: The History of the American Silk Industry. (With Professor Gay.)

Eric Englund.

General Examination in Economics, Monday, May 2, 1927.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Black, Dickinson, Usher, and Young.
Academic History: Oregon Agricultural College, 1914-18; University of Oregon, summers of 1915, 1916, and 1917; University of Wisconsin, 1919-21; University of Chicago, summer of 1920; Harvard Graduate School, 1926-. B.S., Oregon Agricultural College, 1918; A.B., University of Oregon, 1919; M.S., Wisconsin, 1920. Professor of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State Agricultural College, 1921-26.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Money, Banking, and Crises. 3. Economics of Agriculture. 4. Economic History since 1750. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. Public Finance.
Special Subject: Public Finance.
Thesis Subject: Studies in Taxation in Kansas. (With Professor Bullock.)

Walter Edwards Beach.

General Examination in Economics, Wednesday, May 4, 1927.
Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Baxter, A.H. Cole, Dewing, and Williams.
Academic History: State College of Washington, 1919-20; Stanford University, 1920-22; 1923-24, Harvard Graduate School, 1925-26. A.B., Stanford, 1922; A.M., Harvard, 1926. Instructor in Economics, Bowdoin, 1926-.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economics of Corporations. 3. International Trade and Tariff Policy. 4. Economic History since 1750. 5. American History since 1789. 6. Money, Banking, and Crises.
Special Subject: Money, Banking, and Crises.
Thesis Subject: International Gold Movements in Relation to Business Cycles. (With Professor Young.)

Ram Ganesh Deshmukh.

Special Examination in Economics, Thursday, May 5, 1927.
General Examination passed, May 13, 1926.
Academic History: Wilson College, India, 1912-17; Bombay University Law School, 1917-20; Harvard Graduate School, 1922-27. B.A., Bombay University, 1917; LL.B., ibid., 1920; A.M., Harvard, 1924.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Economics of Agriculture. 4. Sociology. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. Public Finance.
Special Subject: Public Finance.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Burbank, A.H. Cole, and Williams.
Thesis Subject: State Highways in Massachusetts. (With Professor Bullock.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Bullock (chairman), Burbank, and A.H. Cole.

Charles Donald Jackson.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, May 5, 1927.
Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Black, Crum, Merk, and Taussig.
Academic History: Leland Stanford Junior University, 1915-16; Northwestern University, 1916-17, 1919-21; University of Wisconsin, summer of 1920 and 1921; Harvard Graduate School, 1921-22, 1924-. S.B., Northwestern, 1920; M.B.A., ibid., 1921; A.M., Harvard, 1925.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Agricultural Economics. 3. International Trade and Tariff Policy. 4. Statistics. 5. American History since 1789. 6. Money, Banking, and Crises.
Special Subject: Money, Banking, and Crises.
Thesis Subject: Agricultural Credit. (With Professor Young.)

Elmer Joseph Working.

General Examination in Economics, Friday, May 6, 1927.
Committee: Professors Carver (chairman), Crum, Morison, Williams, and Young.
Academic History: University of Denver, 1916-17, 1918-19; George Washington University, 1917-18; University of Arizona, 1919-21; Iowa State College, 1921-23; University of Minnesota, 1922-23, second half-year; Brookings Graduate School, 1924-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-26. B.S., Arizona, 1921; M.S., Iowa, 1922. Assistant professor of Economics, University of Minnesota, 1926-27.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Statistical Method and its Application. 3. Money, Banking, and Crises. 4. International Trade and Tariff Policy. 5. American History since 1789. 6. Economics of Agriculture.
Special Subject: Economics of Agriculture.
Thesis Subject: The Orderly Marketing of Grain. (With Professor Taussig.)

Gardiner Coit Means.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, May 12, 1927.
Committee: Professors Williams (chairman), Baxter, A.H. Cole, Dewing, and Gay.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1914-18; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-. A.B., Harvard, 1918.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory. 2. International Trade and Tariff Policy. 3. Economics of Corporations. 4. Economic History since 1750. 5. American History since 1789. 6. Money, Banking, and Crises.
Special Subject: Money, Banking, and Crises.
Thesis Subject: Fluctuations in New England’s Balance of Trade. (With Professor Williams.)

Bishop Carleton Hunt.

Special Examination in Economics, Friday, May 13, 1927.
Committee: Professors Young (chairman), W.M. Cole, Gay, McIlwain, and Williams.
Academic History: Boston University, 1916-20; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-27, summers of 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925. B.B.A., Boston University, 1920; A.M., Harvard, 1926. Professor of Commerce, Dalhousie University, 1920-; Lecturer in Economics, Nova Scotia Technical College, 1920-23.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. International Trade. 4. Accounting. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. Money and Banking.
Special Subject: Money and Banking.
Thesis Subject: Underwriting Syndicates and the Supply of Capital. (With Professor Young.)

Edward Hastings Chamberlin.

Special Examination in Economics, Friday, May 20, 1927.
General Examination passed, May 22, 1924.
Academic History: State University of Iowa, 1916-20; University of Michigan, 1920-22; Harvard Graduate School, 1922-27. B.S., Iowa, 1920; M.A., Michigan, 1922. Instructor in Economics, Iowa, summer of 1921. Assistant in economics, Harvard, 1922-. Tutor in Economics, ibid., 1924-27.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Statistics. 3. Accounting. 4. Economic History. 5. History of Political Theory. 6. Modern Theories of Value and Distribution.
Special Subject: Modern Theories of Value and Distribution.
Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Monroe, Taussig, and Williams.
Thesis Subject: The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. (With Professor Young.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Young, Carver, and Taussig.

Christopher Roberts.

Special Examination in Economics, Monday, May 23, 1927.
General Examination passed, April 3, 1925.
Academic History: Haverford College, 1916-18, 1919-21; Harvard Graduate School, 1921-27. S.B., Haverford, 1921; A.M., Harvard, 1922. Assistant in Economics, Harvard 1922-25; Tutor in Economics, ibid., 1925-27.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. International Trade and Finance. 3. Statistics. 4. International Law. 5. Public Finance. 6. Economic History since 1750.
Special Subject: Economic History since 1750.
Committee: Professors Gay (chairman), Burbank, A.H. Cole, and Usher.
Thesis Subject: The History of the Middlesex Canal. (With Professor Gay.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Gay, A.H. Cole, and Cunningham.

Clayton Crowell Bayard.

General Examination in Economics, Wednesday, May 25, 1927.
Committee: Professors Carver (chairman), James Ford, Hanford, Taussig, and Usher.
Academic History: University of Maine, 1918-22; Harvard Graduate School, 1924-. A.B., Maine, 1922; A.M., Harvard, 1925. Assistant in Social Ethics, Harvard, 1925-26; Tutor in Social Ethics, ibid., 1926-27.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History before 1750. 3. Socialism and Social Reform. 4. American Labor Problems. 5. Municipal Government. 6. Sociology.
Special Subject: Sociology and Social Problems.
Thesis Subject: Undecided.

Dorothy Carolin Bacon.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, May 26, 1927.
Committee: Professors Persons (chairman), Carver, Crum, Gay and Holcombe.
Academic History: Simmons College, 1918-19; Radcliffe College, 1919-22, 1923-24, 1926-. A.B., Radcliffe, 1922; A.M., ibid., 1924. Assistant in Economics, Vassar College, 1924-25. Instructor in Economics, ibid., 1925-26.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory. 2. Sociology. 3. History of Political Theory. 4. Statistics. 5. Economic History. 6., Money, Banking and Crises.
Special Subject: Money, Banking and Crises.
Thesis Subject: A Study of the Dispersion of Wholesale Commodity Prices, 1890-1896.  (With Professor Persons.)

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. (HUC 7000.70), Folder “Examinations for the Ph.D., 1926-1927”.

Image Source:  Photo of Emerson Hall (1905). Harvard Album, 1920. 

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. History of Economics Department. Luncheon Talk by Arthur R. Burns, 1954

The main entry of this posting is a transcription of the historical overview of economics at Columbia provided by Professor Arthur R. Burns at a reunion luncheon for Columbia economics Ph.D. graduates [Note: Arthur Robert Burns was the “other” Arthur Burns of the Columbia University economics department, as opposed to Arthur F. Burns, who was the mentor/friend of Milton Friedman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, etc.]. He acknowledges his reliance on the definitive research of his colleague, Joseph Dorfman, that was published in the following year:

Joseph Dorfman, “The Department of Economics”, Chapt IX in R. Gordon Hoxie et al., A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.

The cost of the luncheon was $2.15 per person. 36 members of the economics faculty attended, who paid for themselves, and some 144 attending guests (includes about one hundred Columbia economics Ph.D.’s) had their lunches paid for by the university.

_____________________________

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

March 25, 1954

 

Dear Doctor _________________

On behalf of the Department of Economics, I am writing to invite you to attend a Homecoming Luncheon of Columbia Ph.D.’s in Economics. This will be held on Saturday, May 29, at 12:30 sharp, in the Men’s Faculty Club, Morningside Drive and West 117th Street.

This Luncheon is planned as a part of Columbia University’s Bicentennial Celebration, of which, as you know, the theme is “Man’s Right to Knowledge and the free Use Thereof”. The date of May 29 is chosen in relation to the Bicentennial Conference on “National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad” in which distinguished scholars and men of affairs from the United States and other countries will take part. The final session of this Conference, to be held at three p.m. on May 29 in McMillin Academic Theater, will have as its principal speaker our own Professor John Maurice Clark. The guests at the Luncheon are cordially invited to attend the afternoon meeting.

The Luncheon itself and brief after-luncheon speeches will be devoted to reunion, reminiscence and reacquaintance with the continuing work of the Department. At the close President Grayson Kirk will present medals on behalf of the University to the principal participants in the Bicentennial Conference.

We shall be happy to welcome to the Luncheon as guests of the University all of our Ph.D.’s, wherever their homes may be, who can arrange to be in New York on May 29. We very much hope you can be with us on that day. Please reply on the form below.

Cordially yours,

[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Chairman of the Committee

*   *   *   *   *   *

Professor Carter Goodrich
Box #22, Fayerweather Hall
Columbia University
New York 27, New York

I shall be glad…
I shall be unable… to attend the Homecoming Luncheon on May 29.

(signed) ___________

Note: Please reply promptly, not later than April 20 in the case of Ph.D.’s residing in the United States, and not later than May 5 in the case of others.

_____________________________

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

May 6, 1954

 

TO:                 Departments of History, Math. Stat., Public and Sociology
FROM:            Helen Harwell, secretary, Graduate Department of Economics

 

Will you please bring the following notice to the attention of the students in your Department:

            A feature of Columbia’s Bicentennial celebration will be a Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad, to be held May 27, 28 and 29.

            The final session of the Conference will take place in McMillin Theatre at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 29. The session topic is “Economic Welfare in a Free Society”. The program is:

Session paper.

John M. Clark, John Bates Clark Professor. Emeritus of Economics, Columbia University.

Discussants:

Frank H. Knight, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
David E. Lilienthal, Industrial Consultant and Executive
Wilhelm Roepke, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute of International Studies, University of Geneva

 

Students in the Faculty of Political Science are cordially invited to attend this session and to bring their wives or husbands and friends who may be interested.

Tickets can be secured from Miss Helen Harwell, 505 Fayer.

_____________________________

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29th, 1954

President Kirk, Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Department of Economics I welcome you all to celebrate Columbia’s completion of its first two hundred years as one of the great universities. We are gratified that so many distinguished guests have come, some from afar, to participate in the Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad. We accept their presence as testimony of their esteem for the place of Columbia in the world of scholarship. Also, we welcome among us again many of the intellectual offspring of the department. We like to believe that the department is among their warmer memories. We also greet most pleasurably some past members of the department, namely Professors Vladimir G. Simkhovitch, Eugene Agger, Eveline M. Burns and Rexford Tugwell. Finally, but not least, we are pleased to have with us the administrative staff of the department who are ceaselessly ground between the oddity and irascibility of the faculty and the personal and academic tribulations of the students. Gertrude D. Stewart who is here is evidence that this burden can be graciously carried for thirty-five years without loss of charm or cheer.

We are today concerned with the place of economics within the larger scope of Columbia University. When the bell tolls the passing of so long a period of intellectual endeavor one casts an appraising eye over the past, and I am impelled to say a few retrospective words about the faculty and the students. I have been greatly assisted in this direction by the researches of our colleague, Professor Dorfman, who has been probing into our past.

On the side of the faculty, there have been many changes, but there are also many continuities. First let me note some of the changes. As in Europe, economics made its way into the university through moral philosophy, and our College students were reading the works of Frances Hutcheson in 1763. But at the end of the 18th century, there seems to have been an atmosphere of unhurried certainty and comprehensiveness of view that has now passed away. For instance, it is difficult to imagine a colleague of today launching a work entitled “Natural Principles of Rectitude for the Conduct of Man in All States and Situations in Life Demonstrated and Explained in a Systematic Treatise on Moral Philosophy”. But one of early predecessors, Professor Gross, published such a work in 1795.

The field of professorial vision has also change. The professor Gross whom I have just mentioned occupied no narrow chair but what might better be called a sofa—that of “Moral Philosophy, German Language and Geography”. Professor McVickar, early in the nineteenth century, reclined on the even more generous sofa of “Moral and Intellectual Philosophy, Rhetoric, Belles Lettres and Political Economy”. By now, however, political economy at least existed officially and, in 1821, the College gave its undergraduates a parting touch of materialist sophistication in some twenty lectures on political economy during the last two months of their senior year.

But by the middle of the century, integration was giving way to specialization. McVickar’s sofa was cut into three parts, one of which was a still spacious chair of “History and Political Science”, into which Francis Lieber sank for a brief uneasy period. His successor, John W. Burgess, pushed specialization further. He asked for an assistant to take over the work in political economy. Moreover, his request was granted and Richmond Mayo Smith, then appointed, later became Professor of Political Economy, which, however, included Economics, Anthropology and Sociology. The staff of the department was doubled in 1885 by the appointment of E. R. A. Seligman to a three-year lectureship, and by 1891 he had become a professor of Political Economy and Finance. Subsequent fission has separated Sociology and Anthropology and now we are professors of economics, and the days when political economy was covered in twenty lectures seem long ago.

Other changes stand out in our history. The speed of promotion of the faculty has markedly slowed down. Richmond Mayo Smith started as an instructor in 1877 but was a professor after seven years of teaching at the age of 27. E. R. A. Seligman even speeded matters a little and became a professor after six years of teaching. But the University has since turned from this headlong progression to a more stately gait. One last change I mention for the benefit of President Kirk, although without expectation of warm appreciation from him. President Low paid J. B. Clark’s salary out of his own pocket for the first three years of the appointment.

I turn now to some of the continuities in the history of the department. Professor McVickar displayed a concern for public affairs that has continued since his time early in the nineteenth century. He was interested in the tariff and banking but, notably, also in what he called “economic convulsions”, a term aptly suggesting an economy afflicted with the “falling sickness”. Somewhat less than a century later the subject had been rechristened “business cycles” to remove some of the nastiness of the earlier name, and professor Wesley Mitchell was focusing attention on this same subject.

The Columbia department has also shown a persistent interest in economic measurement. Professor Lieber campaigned for a government statistical bureau in the middle of the 19th century and Richmond Mayo Smith continued this interest in statistics and in the Census. Henry L. Moore, who came to the department in 1902, promoted with great devotion Mathematical Economics and Statistics with particular reference to the statistical verification of theory. This interest in quantification remains vigorous among us.

There is also a long continuity in the department’s interest in the historical and institutional setting of economic problems and in their public policy aspect. E. R. A. Seligman did not introduce, but he emphasized this approach. He began teaching the History of Theory and proceeded to Railroad Problems and the Financial and Tariff History of the United States, and of course, Public Finance. John Bates Clark, who joined the department in 1895 to provide advanced training in economics to women who were excluded from the faculty of Political Science, became keenly interested in government policy towards monopolies and in the problem of war. Henry R. Seager, in 1902, brought his warm and genial personality to add to the empirical work in the department in labor and trust problems. Vladimir G. Simkhovitch began to teach economic history in 1905 at the same time pursuing many and varied other interests, and we greet him here today. And our lately deceased colleague, Robert Murray Haig, continued the work in Public Finance both as teacher and advisor to governments.

Lastly, among these continuities is an interest in theory. E. R. A. Seligman focused attention on the history of theory. John Bates Clark was an outstanding figure in the field too well known to all of us for it to be necessary to particularize as to his work. Wesley C. Mitchell developed his course on “Current Types of Economic Theory” after 1913 and continued to give it almost continuously until 1945. The Clark dynasty was continued when John Maurice Clark joined the department as research professor in 1926. He became emeritus in 1952, but fortunately he still teaches, and neither students nor faculty are denied the stimulation of his gentle inquiring mind. He was the first appointee to the John Bates Clark professorship in 1952 and succeeded Wesley Mitchell as the second recipient of the Francis A. Walker medal of the American Economic Association in the same year.

Much of this development of the department was guided by that gracious patriarch E. R. A. Seligman who was Executive Officer of the Department for about 30 years from 1901. With benign affection and pride he smiled upon his growing academic family creating a high standard of leadership for his successors. But the period of his tenure set too high a standard and executive Officers now come and go like fireflies emitting as many gleams of light as they can in but three years of service. Seligman and J. B. Clark actively participated in the formation of the American Economic Association in which J. B. Clark hoped to include “younger men who do not believe implicitly in laisser faire doctrines nor the use of the deductive method exclusively”.

Among other members of the department I must mention Eugene Agger, Edward Van Dyke Robinson, William E. Weld, and Rexford Tugwell, who were active in College teaching, and Alvin Johnson, Benjamin Anderson and Joseph Schumpeter, who were with the department for short periods. Discretion dictates that I list none of my contemporaries, but I leave them for such mention as subsequent speakers may care to make.

When one turns to the students who are responsible for so much of the history of the department, one is faced by an embarrassment of riches. Alexander Hamilton is one of the most distinguished political economists among the alumni of the College. Richard T. Ely was the first to achieve academic reputation. In the 1880’s, he was giving economics a more humane and historical flavor. Walter F. Wilcox, a student of Mayo Smith, obtained his Ph.D. in 1891 and contributed notably to statistical measurement after he became Chief Statistician of the Census in 1891, and we extend a special welcome to him here today. Herman Hollerith (Ph.D. 1890) contributed in another way to statistics by his development of tabulating machinery. Alvin Johnson was a student as well as teacher. It is recorded that he opened his paper on rent at J. B. Clark’s seminar with the characteristically wry comment that all the things worth saying about rent had been said by J. B. Clark and his own paper was concerned with “some of the other things”. Among other past students are W. Z. Ripley, B. M. Anderson, Willard Thorp, John Maurice Clark, Senator Paul Douglas, Henry Schultz and Simon Kuznets. The last of these we greet as the present President of the American Economic Association. But the list grows too long. It should include many more of those here present as well as many who are absent, but I am going to invite two past students and one present student to fill some of the gaps in my story of the department.

I have heard that a notorious American educator some years ago told the students at Commencement that he hoped he would never see them again. They were going out into the world with the clear minds and lofty ideals which were the gift of university life. Thenceforward they would be distorted by economic interest, political pressure, and family concerns and would never again be the same pellucid and beautiful beings as at that time. I confess that the thought is troubling. But in inviting our students back we have overcome our doubts and we now confidently call upon a few of them. The first of these is George W. Stocking who, after successfully defending a dissertation on “The Oil Industry and the Competitive System” in 1925, has continued to pursue his interest in competition and monopoly as you all know. He is now at Vanderbilt University.

The second of our offspring whom I will call upon is Paul Strayer. He is one of the best pre-war vintages—full bodied, if I may borrow from the jargon of the vintner without offense to our speaker. Or I might say fruity, but again not without danger of misunderstanding. Perhaps I had better leave him to speak for himself. Paul Strayer, now of Princeton University, graduated in 1939, having completed a dissertation on the painful topic of “The Taxation of Small Incomes”.

The third speaker is Rodney H. Mills, a contemporary student and past president of the Graduate Economics Students Association. He has not yet decided on his future presidencies, but we shall watch his career with warm interest. He has a past, not a pluperfect, but certainly a future. Just now, however, no distance lends enchantment to his view of the department. And I now call upon him to share his view with us.

So far we have been egocentric and appropriately so. But many other centres of economic learning are represented here, and among them the London School of Economics of which I am proud as my own Alma Mater. I now call upon Professor Lionel Robbins of Polecon (as it used sometimes to be known) to respond briefly on behalf of our guests at the Conference. His nature and significance are or shall I say, is, too well known to you to need elaboration.

[in pencil]
A.R. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Bicentennial Celebration”.

_____________________________

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

 

BURNS, Arthur Robert, Columbia Univ., New York 27, N.Y. (1938) Columbia Univ., prof. of econ., teach., res.; b. 1895; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1920, Ph.D. (Econ.), 1926, London Sch. of Econ. Fields 5a, 3bc, 12b. Doc. dis. Money and monetary policy in early times (Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co., London, 1926). Pub. Decline of competition (McGraw-Hill 1936); Comparative economic organization (Prentice-Hall, 1955); Electric power and government policy (dir. of res.) (Twentieth Century Fund, 1948) . Res. General studies in economic development. Dir. Amer. Men of Sci., III, Dir. of Amer. Schol.

Source: Handbook of the American Economic Association, American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4 (July, 1957), p. 40.

 

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Chicago Economists Harvard

Harvard Alumnus. A.W. Marget. Too Jewish for Chicago? 1927.

Harvard economics Ph.D. (1927), Arthur William Marget (1899-1962), went on to teach at the University of Minnesota (ca 1927-1941) after which he began his second career as an economist at the Fed in Washington, D.C. Of particular interest in this posting is the reference letter sent by Allyn Young to the University of Chicago that is both glowing and explicit about his assistant’s handicap—“one of the chosen people”, i.e. a Jew.

________________________________________

From the AEA 1957 Handbook of Members

Marget, Arthur William, Bd. of Gov. Fed. Res. System, Washington 25, D.C. (1926 [began membership in AEA]) Bd. of Gov. of Fed. Res. System, dir., Div. of Int. Fin.; b. 1899; A.B., 1920, A.M., 1921, Ph.D., 1927, Harvard; 1920, Univ. of Cambridge; 1921, Univ. of London; 1921, Univ. of Berlin. Fields 7a [Money, Credit, and Banking: Monetary Theory and Policy], 9b [International Economics: Foreign Exchange, International Finance], 2c [History of Economic Thought]. Doc. dis. Loan fund: pecuniary approach to problem of determination of rate of interest. Pub. Theory of prices (Prentice-Hall, 1938, 1942); “Leon Walras and ‘Cash balance approach’ to problem of value of money,” J. P. E., 1931; “Monetary aspects of Schumpeterian system,” Rev. of Econ. and Statis., 1951. Dir. W. W. in Amer., Dir. of Amer. Schol.

 

Source: American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4. Handbook of the American Economic Association (July, 1957), p. 189.

________________________________________

 

[ALLYN ABBOTT] YOUNG’S COMMENTS ON A. W. MARGET

[undated, Either 1926 or 1927. A typed copy of an excerpt from a letter by Young]

“The man who has been my assistant for the past three years is taking his degree this year. He has written a very brilliant thesis on “The Loan Fund: A Pecuniary Theory of Interest.” In erudition and cleverness he is as good as any man I have ever had, although I do not think he strikes as deeply in his thinking as the best of them. He graduated at the head of his class at Harvard, and was Phi Beta Kappa Marshal. Harvard sent him abroad on a traveling fellowship for a year, and he has been here for five subsequent years. He writes well and teaches well. All in all he is easily the best product we are turning out this year, and with the exception of James Angell he is as good as we have turned out in years. Now you will ask, ‘What’s wrong?’ His name is A. W. Marget and he is one of the chosen people. More than that he looks it. He is brilliant, loyal, and so good a teacher that he is quite popular among the Harvard undergraduates. The only thing that stands between him and success is his race. If you don’t fill your place next year, you might do worse than to take him on for a year’s trial.”

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 38, Folder 1.

________________________________________

 

PRICE GREENLEAF AWARDS MADE
Fifty-Four Freshmen Received Benefits From Endowment Fund.

Fifty-four members of the Freshman Class have been awarded Price Greenleaf aid assignments for 1916-17. These awards represent part of an annual appropriation of $16,000 given to the University by the bequest of Ezekiel Price Greenleaf, of Quincy, who is also the founder of ten Price Greenleaf scholarships.

The income of the Price Greenleaf fund is distributed in sums from $100 to $250 a year, to undergraduates in the first year of their residence and to deserving students who have not succeeded in the competition for scholarships.

A subsequent award will be made in February to some other first year students of high standing. Following are those who have received the awards:

…Arthur William Marget…

 

Source: The Harvard Crimson, November 1, 1916.

________________________________________

ADMISSION EXAMINATION HONOR LIST ANNOUNCED
Boston Latin School Leads Number With Exeter Second and St. Paul’s and Newton Third.

The Committee on Admission has issued a list of the Freshmen whose entire entrance examination records have attained an average grade of work worthy of honorable mention. This is published in accordance with a vote of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, June 2, 1914, authorizing the Committee on Admission to publish each year after the September examinations, a list of those candidates for admission who passed this examination with high grades. This list also gives the names of the students’ schools and the titles of any scholarships they may have received. Boston Latin School leads this year with nine representatives on the list. Exeter is second with seven, and St. Paul’s School, of Concord, N. H., and Newton High School come next with four apiece….

… Arthur William Marget, Boston Latin, (Price Greenleaf Aid)…

 

Source: The Harvard Crimson, November 25, 1916.

________________________________________

Marget Elected Marshal of Scholars

Arthur William Marget 1G, of Roxbury, has been elected First Marshal of the Phi Beta Kappa Society at the University, an office which each year goes to the student ranking highest in his studies. Marget completed the College course in three years, graduated with the class of 1919, and is now attending the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

Source: The Harvard Crimson, November 12, 1919.

________________________________________

 

Image Source: Arthur William Marget in Harvard Album 1928.