Category: Harvard

Categories
Cambridge Chicago Columbia Economists Germany Harvard History of Economics Johns Hopkins LSE Oxford Teaching Undergraduate Wisconsin Yale

Survey of Economics Education. Colleges and Universities (Seligman), Schools (Sullivan), 1911

 

In V. Orval Watt’s papers at the Hoover Institution archives (Box 8) one finds notes from his Harvard graduate economics courses (early 1920s). There I found the bibliographic reference to the article transcribed below. The first two parts of this encyclopedia entry were written by Columbia’s E.R.A. Seligman who briefly sketched the history of economics and then presented a survey of the development of economics education at  colleges and universities in Europe and the United States. Appended to Seligman’s contribution was a much shorter discussion of economics education in the high schools of the United States by the high-school principal,  James Sullivan, Ph.D.

_________________________

 

ECONOMICS
— History —

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University

The science now known as Economics was for a long time called Political Economy. This term is due to a Frenchman — Montchrétien, Sieur de Watteville — who wrote in 1615 a book with that title, employing a term which had been used in a slightly different sense by Aristotle. During the Middle Ages economic questions were regarded very largely from the moral and theological point of view, so that the discussions of the day were directed rather to a consideration of what ought to be, than of what is.

The revolution of prices in the sixteenth century and the growth of capital led to great economic changes, which brought into the foreground, as of fundamental importance, questions of commerce and industry. Above all, the breakdown of the feudal system and the formation of national states emphasized the considerations of national wealth and laid stress on the possibility of governmental action in furthering national interests. This led to a discussion of economic problems on a somewhat broader scale, — a discussion now carried on, not by theologians and canonists, but by practical business men and by philosophers interested in the newer political and social questions. The emphasis laid upon the action of the State also explains the name Political Economy. Most of the discussions, however, turned on the analysis of particular problems, and what was slowly built up was a body of practical precepts rather than of theoretic principles, although, of course, both the rules of action and the legislation which embodied them rested at bottom on theories which were not yet adequately formulated.

The origin of the modern science of economics, which may be traced back to the third quarter of the eighteenth century, is due to three fundamental causes. In the first place, the development of capitalistic enterprise and the differentiation between the laborer and the capitalist brought into prominence the various shares in distribution, notably the wages of the laborer, the profits of the capitalist, and the rent of the landowner. The attempt to analyze the meaning of these different shares and their relation to national wealth was the chief concern of the body of thinkers in France known as Physiocrats, who also called themselves Philosophes-Économistes, or simply Économistes, of whom the court physician of Louis XVI, Quesnay, was the head, and who published their books in 1757-1780.

The second step in the evolution of economic science was taken by Adam Smith (q.v.). In the chair of philosophy at the University of Glasgow, to which Adam Smith was appointed in 1754, and in which he succeeded Hutcheson, it was customary to lecture on natural law in some of its applications to politics. Gradually, with the emergence of the more important economic problems, the same attempt to find an underlying natural explanation for existing phenomena was extended to the sphere of industry and trade; and during the early sixties Adam Smith discussed these problems before his classes under the head of “police.” Finally, after a sojourn in France and an acquaintance with the French ideas, Adam Smith developed his general doctrines in his immortal work. The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. When the industrial revolution, which was just beginning as Adam Smith wrote, had made its influence felt in the early decades of the nineteenth century, Ricardo attempted to give the first thorough analysis of our modern factory system of industrial life, and this completed the framework of the structure of economic science which is now being gradually filled out.

The third element in the formation of modern economics was the need of elaborating an administrative system in managing the government property of the smaller German and Italian rulers, toward the end of the eighteenth century. This was the period of the so-called police state when the government conducted many enterprises which are now left in private hands. In some of the German principalities, for instance, the management of the government lands, mines, industries, etc., was assigned to groups of officials known as chambers. In their endeavor to elaborate proper methods of administration these chamber officials and their advisors gradually worked out a system of principles to explain the administrative rules. The books written, as well as the teaching chairs founded, to expound these principles came under the designation of the Chamber sciences (Camiralia or Cameral-Wissenschaften) — a term still employed to-day at the University of Heidelberg. As Adam Smith’s work became known in Germany and Italy by translations, the chamber sciences gradually merged into the science of political economy.

Finally, with the development of the last few decades, which has relegated to the background the administrative and political side of the discipline, and has brought forward the purely scientific character of the subject, the term Political Economy has gradually given way to Economics.

Development of Economic Teaching

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University

— Europe —

As has been intimated in the preceding section, the first attempts to teach what we to-day would call economics were found in the European universities which taught natural law, and in some of the Continental countries where the chamber sciences were pursued. The first independent chairs of political economy were those of Naples in 1753, of which the first incumbent was (Genovesi, and the professorship of cameral science at Vienna in 1763, of which the first incumbent was Sonnenfels. It was not, however, until the nineteenth century that political economy was generally introduced as a university discipline. When the new University of Berlin was created in 1810, provision was made for teaching in economics, and this gradually spread to the other German universities. In France a chair of economics was established in 1830 in the Collège de France, and later on in some of the technical schools; but economics did not become a part of the regular university curriculum until the close of the seventies, when chairs of political economy were created in the faculties of law, and not, as was customary in the other Continental countries, in the faculties of philosophy. In England the first professorship of political economy was that instituted in 1805 at Haileybury College, which trained the students for the East India service. The first incumbent of this chair was Malthus. At University College, London, a chair of economics was established in 1828, with McCulloch as the first incumbent; and at Dublin a chair was founded in Trinity College in 1832 by Archbishop Whately; at Oxford a professorship was established in 1825, with Nassau W. Senior as the first incumbent. His successors were Richard Whately (1830), W. F. Lloyd (1836), H. Merivale (1838), Travers Twiss (1842), Senior (1847), G. K. Richards (1852), Charles Neate (1857), Thorold Rogers (1862), Bonamy Price (1868), Thorold Rogers (1888). and F. Y. Edgeworth (1891). At Cambridge the professorship dates from 1863, the first incumbent being Henry Fawcett, who was followed by Alfred Marshall in 1884 and by A. C. Pigou in 1908. In all these places, however, comparatively little attention was paid at first to the teaching of economics, and it was not until the close of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth that any marked progress was made, although the professorship at King’s College, London, dates back to 1859, and that at the University of Edinburgh to 1871. Toward the close of the nineteenth century, chairs in economics were created in the provincial universities, especially at Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Bristol, Durham, and the like, as well as in Scotland and Wales; and a great impetus to the teaching of economics was given by the foundation, in 1895, of the London School of Economics, which has recently been made a part of the University of London.

— United States —

Economics was taught at first in the United States, as in England, by incumbents of the chair of philosophy; but no especial attention was paid to the study, and no differentiation of the subject matter was made. The first professorship in the title of which the subject is distinctively mentioned was that instituted at Columbia College, New York, where John McVickar, who had previously lectured on the subject under the head of philosophy, was made professor of moral philosophy and political economy in 1819. In order to commemorate this fact, Columbia University established some years ago the McVickar professorship of political economy. The second professorship in the United States was instituted at South Carolina College, Columbia, S. C, where Thomas Cooper, professor of chemistry, had the subject of political economy added to the title of his chair in 1826. A professorship of similar sectional influence was that in political economy, history, and metaphysics filled in the College of William and Mary in 1827, by Thomas Roderick Dew (1802-1846). The separate professorships of political economy, however, did not come until after the Civil War. Harvard established a professorship of political economy in 1871; Yale in 1872; and Johns Hopkins in 1876.

The real development of economic teaching on a large scale began at the close of the seventies and during the early eighties. The newer problems bequeathed to the country by the Civil War were primarily economic in character. The rapid growth of industrial capitalism brought to the front a multitude of questions, whereas before the war well-nigh the only economic problems had been those of free trade and of banking, which were treated primarily from the point of view of partisan politics. The newer problems that confronted the country led to the exodus of a number of young men to Germany, and with their return at the end of the seventies and beginning of the eighties, chairs were rapidly multiplied in all the larger universities. Among these younger men were Patten and James, who went to the University of Pennsylvania; Clark, of Amherst and later of Columbia; Farnam and Hadley of Yale; Taussig of Harvard; H. C. Adams of Michigan; Mayo-Smith and Seligman of Columbia; and Ely of Johns Hopkins. The teaching of economics on a university basis at Johns Hopkins under General Francis A. Walker helped to create a group of younger scholars who soon filled the chairs of economics throughout the country. In 1879 the School of Political Science at Columbia was inaugurated on a university basis, and did its share in training the future teachers of the country. Gradually the teaching force was increased in all the larger universities, and chairs were started in the colleges throughout the length and breadth of the land.

At the present time, most of the several hundred colleges in the United States offer instruction in the subject, and each of the larger institutions has a staff of instructors devoted to it. At institutions like Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, and Wisconsin there are from six to ten professors of economics and social science, together with a corps of lecturers, instructors, and tutors.

Teaching of Economics in the American Universities. — The present-day problems of the teaching of economics in higher institutions of learning are seriously affected by the transition stage through which these institutions are passing. In the old American college, when economics was introduced it was taught as a part of the curriculum designed to instill general culture. As the graduate courses were added, the more distinctly professional and technical phases of the subject were naturally emphasized. As a consequence, both the content of the course and the method employed tended to differentiate. But the unequal development of our various institutions has brought great unclearness into the whole pedagogical problem. Even the nomenclature is uncertain. In one sense graduate courses may be opposed to undergraduate courses; and if the undergraduate courses are called the college courses, then the graduate courses should be called the university courses. The term “university,” however, is coming more and more, in America at least, to be applied to the entire complex of the institutional activities, and the college proper or undergraduate department is considered a part of the university. Furthermore, if by university courses as opposed to college courses we mean advanced, professional, or technical courses, a difficulty arises from the fact that the latter year or years of the college course are tending to become advanced or professional in character. Some institutions have introduced the combined course, that is, a combination of so-called college and professional courses; other institutions permit students to secure their baccalaureate degree at the end of three or even two and a half years. In both cases, the last year of the college will then cover advanced work, although in the one case it may be called undergraduate, and in the other graduate, work.

The confusion consequent upon this unequal development has had a deleterious influence on the teaching of economics, as it has in many other subjects. In all our institutions we find a preliminary or beginners’ course in economics, and in our largest institutions we find some courses reserved expressly for advanced or graduate students. In between these, however, there is a broad field, which, in some institutions, is cultivated primarily from the point of view of graduates, in others from the point of view of undergraduates, and in most cases is declared to be open to both graduates and undergraduates. This is manifestly unfortunate. For, if the courses, are treated according to advanced or graduate methods, they do not fulfill their proper function as college studies. On the other hand, if they are treated as undergraduate courses, they are more or less unsuitable for advanced or graduate students. In almost all of the American institutions the same professors conduct both kinds of courses. In only one institution, namely, at Columbia University, is the distinction between graduate and undergraduate courses in economics at all clearly drawn, although even there not with precision. At Columbia University, of the ten professors who are conducting courses in economics and social science, one half have seats only in the graduate faculties, and do no work at all in the college or undergraduate department; but even there, these professors give a few courses, which, while frequented to an overwhelming extent by graduate students, are open to such undergraduates as may be declared to be advanced students.

It is necessary, therefore, to distinguish, in principle at least, between the undergraduate or college courses properly so-called, and the university or graduate courses. For it is everywhere conceded that at the extremes, at least, different pedagogical methods are appropriate.

The College or Undergraduate Instruction. — Almost everywhere in the American colleges there is a general or preliminary or foundation course in economics. This ordinarily occupies three hours a week for the entire year, or five hours a week for the semester, or half year, although the three-hour course in the fundamental principles occasionally continues only for a semester. The foundation of such a course is everywhere textbook work, with oral discussion, or quizzes, and frequent tests. Where the number of students is small, this method can be effectively employed; but where, as in our larger institutions, the students attending this preliminary course are numbered by the hundreds, the difficulties multiply. Various methods are employed to solve these difficulties. In some cases the class attends as a whole at a lecture which is given once a week by the professor, while at the other two weekly sessions the class is divided into small sections of from twenty to thirty, each of them in charge of an instructor who carries on the drill work. In a few instances, these sections are conducted in part by the same professor who gives the lecture, in part by other professors of equal grade. In other cases where this forms too great a drain upon the strength of the faculty, the sections are put in the hands of younger instructors or drill masters. In other cases, again, the whole class meets for lecture purposes twice a week, and the sections meet for quiz work only once a week. Finally, the instruction is sometime carried on entirely by lectures to the whole class, supplemented by numerous written tests.

While it cannot be said that any fixed method has yet been determined, there is a growing consensus of opinion that the best results can be reached by the combination of one general lecture and two quiz hours in sections. The object of the general lecture is to present a point of view from which the problems may be taken up, and to awaken a general interest in the subject among the students. The object of the section work is to drill the students thoroughly in the principles of the science; and for this purpose it is important in a subject like economics to put the sections as far as possible in the hands of skilled instructors rather than of recent graduates.

Where additional courses are offered to the Undergraduates, they deal with special subjects in the domain of economic history, statistics, and practical economics. In many such courses good textbooks are now available, and especially in the last class of subject is an attempt is being made here and there to introduce the case system as utilized in the law schools. This method is, however, attended by some difficulties, arising from the fact that the materials used so quickly become antiquated and do not have the compelling force of precedent, as is the case in law. In the ordinary college course, therefore, chief reliance must still be put upon the independent work and the fresh illustrations that are brought to the classroom by the instructor.

In some American colleges the mistake has been made of introducing into the college curriculum methods that are suitable only to the university. Prominent among these are the exclusive use of the lecture system, and the employment of the so-called seminar. This, however, only tends to confusion. On the other hand, in some of the larger colleges the classroom work is advantageously supplemented by discussions and debates in the economics club, and by practical exercises in dealing with the current economic problems as they are presented in the daily press.

In most institutions the study of economics is not begun until the sophomore or the junior year, it being deemed desirable to have a certain maturity of judgment and a certain preparation in history and logic. In some instances, however, the study of economics is undertaken at the very beginning of the college course, with the resulting difficulty of inadequately distinguishing between graduate and undergraduate work.

Another pedagogical question which has given rise to some difficulty is the sequence of courses. Since the historical method in economics became prominent, it is everywhere recognized that some training in the historical development of economic institutions is necessary to a comprehension of existing facts. We can know what is very much better by grasping what has been and how it has come to be. The point of difference, however, is as to whether the elementary course in the principles should come first and be supplemented by a course in economic history, or whether, on the contrary, the course in economic history should precede that in the principles. Some institutions follow one method, others the second; and there are good arguments on both sides. It is the belief of the writer, founded on a long experience, that on the whole the best results can be reached by giving as introductory to the study of economic principles a short survey of the leading points of economic history. In a few of the modem textbooks this plan is intentionally followed. Taking it all in all, it may be said that college instruction in economics is now not only exceedingly widespread in the United States, but continually improving in character and methods.

University or Graduate Instruction. — The university courses in economics are designed primarily for those who either wish to prepare themselves for the teaching of economics or who desire such technical training in methods or such an intimate acquaintance with the more developed matter as is usually required by advanced or professional students in any discipline. The university courses in the larger American institutions which now take up every important subject in the discipline, and which are conducted by a corps of professors, comprise three elements: first, the lectures of the professor; second, the seminar or periodical meeting between the professor and a group of advanced students; third, the economics club, or meeting of the students without the professor.

(1) The Lectures: In the university lectures the method is different from that in the college courses. The object is not to discipline the student, but to give him an opportunity of coming into contact with the leaders of thought and with the latest results of scientific advance on the subject. Thus no roll of attendance is called, and no quizzes are enforced and no periodical tests of scholarship are expected. In the case of candidates for the Ph.D. degree, for instance, there is usually no examination until the final oral examination, when the student is expected to display a proper acquaintance with the whole subject. The lectures, moreover, do not attempt to present the subject in a dogmatic way, as is more or less necessary in the college courses, but, on the contrary, are designed to present primarily the unsettled problems and to stimulate the students to independent thinking. The university lecture, in short, is expected to give to the student what cannot be found in the books on the subject.

(2) The Seminar: Even with the best of will, however, the necessary limitations prevent the lecturer from going into the minute details of the subject. In order to provide opportunity for this, as well as for a systematic training of the advanced students in the method of attacking this problem, periodical meetings between the professor and the students have now become customary under the name of the seminar, introduced from Germany. In most of our advanced universities the seminar is restricted to those students who are candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, although in some cases a preliminary seminar is arranged for graduate students who are candidates for the degree of Master of Arts. Almost everywhere a reading knowledge of French and German is required. In the United States, as on the European continent generally, there are minor variations in the conduct of the seminar. Some professors restrict the attendance to a small group of most advanced students, of from fifteen to twenty-five; others virtually take in all those who apply. Manifestly the personal contact and the “give and take,” which are so important a feature of the seminar, become more difficult as the numbers increase. Again, in some institutions each professor has a seminar of his own; but this is possible only where the number of graduate students is large. In other cases the seminar consists of the students meeting with a whole group of professors. While this has a certain advantage of its own, it labors under the serious difficulty that the individual professor is not able to impress his own ideas and his own personality so effectively on the students; and in our modern universities students are coming more and more to attend the institution for the sake of some one man with whom they wish to study. Finally, the method of conducting the seminar differs in that in some cases only one general subject is assigned to the members for the whole term, each session being taken up by discussion of a different phase of the general subject. In other cases a new subject is taken up at every meeting of the seminar. The advantage of the latter method is to permit a greater range of topics, and to enable each student to report on the topic in which he is especially interested, and which, perhaps, he may be taking up for his doctor’s dissertation. The advantage of the former method is that it enables the seminar to enter into the more minute details of the general subject, and thus to emphasize with more precision the methods of work. The best plan would seem to be to devote half the year to the former method, and half the year to the latter method.

In certain branches of the subject, as, for instance, statistics, the seminar becomes a laboratory exercise. In the largest universities the statistical laboratory is equipped with all manner of mechanical devices, and the practical exercises take up a considerable part of the time. The statistical laboratories are especially designed to train the advanced student in the methods of handling statistical material.

(3) The Economics Club: The lecture work and the seminar are now frequently supplemented by the economics club, a more informal meeting of the advanced students, where they are free from the constraint that is necessarily present in the seminar, and where they have a chance to debate, perhaps more unreservedly, some of the topics taken up in the lectures and in the seminar, and especially the points where some of the students dissent from the lecturer. Reports on the latest periodical literature are sometimes made in the seminar and sometimes in the economics club; and the club also provides an opportunity for inviting distinguished outsiders in the various subjects. In one way or another, the economics club serves as a useful supplement to the lectures and the seminar, and is now found in almost all the leading universities.

In reviewing the whole subject we may say that the teaching of economics in American institutions has never been in so satisfactory condition as at present. Both the instructors and the students are everywhere increasing in numbers; and the growing recognition of the fact that law and politics are so closely interrelated with, and so largely based on, economics, has led to a remarkable increase in the interest taken in the subject and in the facilities for instruction.


Economics
— In the Schools —

James Sullivan, Ph.D., Principal of Boys’ High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.

This subject has been defined as the study of that which pertains to the satisfaction of man’s material needs, — the production, preservation, and distribution of wealth. As such it would seem fundamental that the study of economics should find a place in those institutions which prepare children to become citizens, — the elementary and high schools. Some of the truths of economics are so simple that even the youngest of school children may be taught to understand them. As a school study, however, economics up to the present time has made far less headway than civics (q.v.). Its introduction as a study even in the colleges was so gradual and so retarded that it could scarcely be expected that educators would favor its introduction in the high schools.

Previous to the appearance, in 1894, of the Report of the Committee of Ten of the National Educational Association on Secondary Education, there had been much discussion on the educational value of the study of economics. In that year Professor Patten had written a paper on Economics in Elementary Schools, not as a plea for its study there, but as an attempt to show how the ethical value of the subject could be made use of by teachers. The Report, however, came out emphatically against formal instruction in political economy in the secondary school, and recommended “that, in connection particularly with United States history, civil government, and commercial geography instruction be given in those economic topics, a knowledge of which is essential to the understanding of our economic life and development” (pp. 181-183). This view met with the disapproval of many teachers. In 1895 President Thwing of Western Reserve University, in an address before the National Educational Association on The Teaching of Political Economy in the Secondary Schools, maintained that the subject could easily be made intelligible to the young. Articles or addresses of similar import followed by Commons (1895), James (1897), Haynes (1897), Stewart (1898), and Taussig (1899). Occasionally a voice was raised against its formal study in the high schools. In the School Review for January, 1898, Professor Dixon of Dartmouth said that its teaching in the secondary schools was “unsatisfactory and unwise.” On the other hand, Professor Stewart of the Central Manual Training School of Philadelphia, in an address in April, 1898, declared the Report of the Committee of Ten “decidedly reactionary,” and prophesied that political economy as a study would he put to the front in the high school. In 1899 Professor Clow of the Oshkosh State Normal School published an exhaustive study of the subject of Economics as a School Study, going into the questions of its educational value, its place in the schools, the forms of the study, and the methods of teaching. His researches serve to show that the subject was more commonly taught in the high schools of the Middle West than in the East. (Compare with the article on Civics.)

Since the publication of his work the subject of economics has gradually made its appearance in the curricula of many Eastern high schools. It has been made an elective subject of examination for graduation from high schools by the Regents of New York State, and for admission to college by Harvard University. Its position as an elective study, however, has not led many students to take it except in commercial high schools, because in general it may not be used for admission to the colleges.

Its great educational value, its close touch with the pupils’ everyday life, and the possibility of teaching it to pupils of high school age are now generally recognized. A series of articles in the National Educational Association’s Proceedings for 1901, by Spiers, Gunton, Halleck, and Vincent bear witness to this. The October, 1910, meeting of the New England History Teachers’ Association was entirely devoted to a discussion of the Teaching of Economics in Secondary Schools, and Professors Taussig and Haynes reiterated views already expressed. Representatives of the recently developed commercial and trade schools expressed themselves in its favor.

Suitable textbooks in the subject for secondary schools have not kept pace with its spread in the schools. Laughlin, Macvane, and Walker published books somewhat simply expressed; but later texts have been too collegiate in character. There is still needed a text written with the secondary school student constantly in mind, and preferably by an author who has been dealing with students of secondary school age. The methods of teaching, mutatis mutandis, have been much the same as those pursued in civics (q.v.). The mere cramming of the text found in the poorest schools gives way in the best schools to a study and observation of actual conditions in the world of to-day. In the latter schools the teacher has been well trained in the subject, whereas in the former it is given over only too frequently to teachers who know little more about it than that which is in the text.

See also Commercial Education.

 

References: —

In Colleges and Universities: —

A Symposium on the Teaching of Elementary Economics. Jour. of Pol. Econ., Vol. XVIIl, June, 1910.

Cossa, L. Introduction to the Study of Political Economy: tr. by L. Dyer. (London, 1893.)

Mussey, H. R. Economies in the College Course. Educ. Rev. Vol. XL, 1910, pp. 239-249.

Second Conference on the Teaching of Economics, Proceedings. (Chicago, 1911.)

Seligman, E. R. A. The Seminarium — Its Advantages and Limitations. Convocation of the University of the State of New York, Proceedings. (1892.)

In Schools: —

Clow, F. R. Economics as a School Study, in the Economic Studies of the American Economic Association for 1899. An excellent bibliography is given. It may be supplemented by articles or addresses since 1899 which have been mentioned above. (New York, 1899.)

Haynes, John. Economics in Secondary Schools. Education, February, 1897.

 

Source: Paul Monroe (ed.), A Cyclopedia of Education, Vol. II. New York: Macmillan, pp. 387-392.

Source: E.R.A. Seligman in Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2 (1899), pp. 484-6.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard M.I.T. Yale

Yale. Transportation economist and railroad expert. Prof. Kent T. Healy (1902-1985)

 

Personal backstory to this post.

During my freshman year at Yale (1969-70) I took a double-credit seminar course “Early Concentration Economics”. The idea, I suppose, was to give me an accelerated start into an economics major. At least that is why I enrolled in the course. The first semester covered microeconomics and was taught by Professor Merton J. (“Joe”) Peck and a visiting graduate student from Harvard (Ph.D., 1971), Joseph Persky (now a distinguished historian of economics). We used the intermediate price theory textbook by Richard H. Leftwich and we were assigned the “Simple Analytics of Welfare Maximization” by Francis Bator. I loved the course. It also led to Joe Peck becoming one of my mentors in economics.

The second semester was not so successful. Now, with nearly a half-century of university life behind me, it is pretty obvious what the problem with that course was. Basically, a double-credit course is going to be incredibly hard to staff, I mean what professor is going to let himself/herself be tied down to double sessions with first year students? I believe Kent T. Healy (in his last year of teaching)  allowed himself to be drafted into covering the macroeconomics semester for us early concentrators. As you will see from the biographical and career information below, Professor Healy was a railroad expert from the old school of transportation economics. I vaguely recall an anecdote or two having to do with him travelling in a caboose.

Complicating matters, the second semester of 1969-70 was marked by academic strikes and disruption (the Black Panther Bobby Seale was on trial in New Haven, there were the Kent State shootings etc.) so that many course meetings were canceled and academic credit was fudged all around. We were assigned two of the short volumes in Otto Eckstein’s Prentice-Hall series “Foundations of Modern Economics” (Charles Schultze’s National Income Analysis and Eckstein’s own Public Finance).  I recall Myrdal’s Asian Drama was part of the original course plan, but I don’t think we did much with it.  

I do want to give Healy some credit, he took on the burden of teaching far outside his lane during the last semester of his service. It’s what a loyal, long-time colleague in a department does (yeah, right). Still, there was no infectious enthusiasm for macroeconomics coming from him during the Spring of 1970 and I feel Yale should have been held liable for charging tuition but only providing academic day-care with that course.

Besides being something of an academic anachronism as far as the discipline of economics goes, Healy was also one of the few people I have encountered who attained the rank of professor without having a Ph.D. degree. From the career information provided below, we see that Kent Tenney Healy lived a very rich and active life that combined elements of business and engineering experience, public policy, teaching, and public service. I have also been told by Gustav Ranis that Healy was a kind, thoughtful man. I do regret never having met the man in his true realm of distinction. 

______________________

Biographical Note

Kent Tenney Healy was born in Chicago, Illinois on February 2, 1902, the son of William and Mary Sylvia (Tenney) Healy. He received an A.B. [cum laude, in Physics] from Harvard College in 1921 and a B.S. in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1923. From 1923 to 1924, he was a student at the Harvard Law School.

On November 3, 1928, he married Ruth Emily Allen. His four children were Ruth Tenney, William Kent, Kent Allen and Sylvia Kent.

Associated with transportation and economics all his life, he began as a switchboard operator on the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad in 1922. From 1924 to 1925, he was an inspector and from 1925 to 1926, a cost engineer.

After studying transportation in Europe during the years of 1926 and 1927, he became an assistant professor of transportation at Yale University. From 1934 to 1940, he was an assistant professor of economics, becoming an associate professor in 1940. In 1945, he received an M.A., and was appointed as the T. Dewitt Cuyler Professor of transportation, a position he held until 1970.

As a recognized expert in transportation economics, he served as member or consultant with many United States Government agencies from 1940 to 1945, participated in local government planning and financial management in Killingworth, Connecticut, circa 1957 to 1970, and was a director of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company (1947-1948) and the Connecticut Company (1947-1964).

He died on January 9, 1985 at the age of 82 [in West Haven, Conn.].

Source: Connecticut State Library. Healy (Kent T.) Papers, 1935-1963. Inventory. Additions from obituary in the New York Times, January 12, 1985.

______________________

Books by Kent T. Healy

  • Electrification of steam railroads.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1929.
  • Cases on railroad economics, supplemented by selected statistics, (1938).
  • The Economics of Transportation in America: The Dynamic Forces in Development, Organization, Functioning and Regulation. New York: Ronald Press, 1946.
  • Performance of the U.S. railroads since World War II: A quarter century of private operation. New York: Vantage Press, 1985.

______________________

Yale Career from the Yale Archives.

Kent T. Healy was born in Chicago on February 2, 1902. He received his B.A. from Harvard in 1921, and his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from M.I.T. in 1923. Healey was an assistant professor of transportation at Yale from 1928-1937, an assistant professor of political economy from 1937-1938, an assistant professor of economics from 1938-1940, an associate professor from 1940-1945, and the Thomas DeWitt Cuyler Professor of Transportation from 1945-1970.

Source: Yale University Archives. Kent Tenney Healy papers.

______________________

Extra-academic career

Kent Tenney Healy was born in Chicago, IL on February 2, 1902. A recognized expert in transportation economics, he taught at Yale University from 1934-1970. Due to his expertise, he often served as a consultant to many United States government agencies or as a member of various commissions from 1940-45. He also participated in state and local government planning and financial management especially in Killingworth, CT. Mr. Healy served as a director of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Co., 1947-48 and the Connecticut Co., 1947-64.

Commission on Reorganization of State Departments, 1935-1937. Special Act No. 242 of 1935 established a five member commission appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the General Assembly to study the “organization, powers and duties, personnel and expenditures” of each agency and prepare recommendations and propose legislation. The commission held its first meeting in Governor Wilber Cross’ office on June 21, 1935. Col. Thomas Hewes served as chairman. The commission appointed Benjamin P. Whitaker, Research Director, on July 1, 1935. A small staff and a number of expert consultants prepared the report, approved by the commission, for submittal to the governor on January 25, 1937. The General Assembly extended the commission authorization to March 30, 1937. Even after that date, the commission members and the Research Director provided advice and assistance to the governor and the General Assembly.

State Planning Board. Advisory Committee on Transportation, ?-1936. The State Planning Board adopted a policy of appointing advisory committees to assist the board and its staff in developing research studies. The Transportation Committee consisted of the Highway Commissioner, the Motor Vehicle Commissioner, and a member of the Public Utilities Commissioner. The committee was to make the state’s transportation program more definite and practical, review past accomplishments, draw up plans for further work and prepare and interpret a report for the State Planning Board. On April 10, 1935, the committee issued “Transportation in Connecticut. Part I: Passenger Transportation.” There is no evidence that it issued any other parts.

Highway Advisory Committee, 1943-1945. Special Act 456 of 1943 directed the governor to appoint a five member committee to study and advise the highway commissioner concerning post-World War II highway improvements, the problem of just and equitable distribution of highway funds for cities and towns, problems with the system, the departments procedures and practices and existing laws to determine what is desirable for an efficient highway program. Highway Commissioner William J. Cox, first mentioned such a committee in his biennial report to the governor for 1939-1940. He again recommended the committee to Governor Baldwin in December 1942. Baldwin put the recommendations into his inaugural speech and saw it through the General Assembly. After hearing testimony from the Highway, Motor Vehicle and State Police departments and inspecting the new Fairfield County route (I-95) to replace Route 1, the committee submitted its report to the governor in December 1944.

Savings Banks’ Railroad Investment Committee, 1945-1963. The General Assembly created a six member committee to certify railroad company bonds as eligible for investment by savings banks for the banking commissioner. The governor appointed members to three-year terms from nominations given him by the Executive Committee of the Savings Banks’ Association of Connecticut, the Banking Commissioner, the Executive Committee of the Connecticut Bankers Association, and the Executive Committee of the Savings Banks’ Deposit Guaranty Fund of Connecticut. A nominee had to be either a bank officer or director or trustee of one of the above organizations or its members. The statute allowed reimbursement of travel expenses only to be paid by the Savings Banks’ Association. In 1961, the General Assembly changed the committee’s name to the Railroad Legal Investment Commission. In 1963, it disbanded the committee and placed its responsibilities solely with the banking commissioner.

Source: Social Networks and Archival Context website.

______________________

Report to the 25th Reunion of the Harvard Class of 1922

KENT TENNEY HEALY

HOME ADDRESS: 245 Lawrence St., New Haven 11, Conn.

OFFICE ADDRESS: Strathcona Hall, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

BORN: Feb. 2, 1902, Chicago, Ill. PARENTS: William Healy, ‘97, Mary Sylvia Tenney.

PREPARED AT: Evanston Academy, Evanston, Ill.; Browne and Nichols School, Cambridge, Mass.; Wellesley High School, Wellesley, Mass.

YEARS IN COLLEGE: 1918-1921. DEGREES: A.B. cum laude, 1922 (21); S.B. (Massachusetts Inst. of Technology), 1923; A.M. hon. (Yale Univ.), 1945.

MARRIED: Ruth Emily Allen, Nov. 3, 1928, Cheshire, Conn. CHILDREN: Ruth Tenney, Aug. 4, 1929; William Kent, July 5, 1930; Kent Allen, Sept. 30, 1932; Sylvia Kent, Dec. 3, 1941.

OCCUPATION: T. DeWitt Cuyler Professor of Transportation; chairman, Economics Department; chairman, Committee on Transportation, Yale University.

WARTIME GOVERNMENT POSTS: Transportation consultant, Bituminous Coal Division, Department of Interior, Office of Defense Transportation, Administrator of Lend Lease and Office of Strategic Services.

OFFICES HELD: Public utility consultant, Commission of Reorganization of State Departments, Connecticut, 1935-36; member, Connecticut Highway Advisory Commission, 1943-45, New Haven Traffic Commission, since 1946; chairman, Savings Bank Railroad Investment Committee, since 1945; president, Family Service of New Haven, since 1944; treasurer, The Foote School Association, Incorporated, 1937-46.

MEMBER OF: Graduate Club; Delta Psi.

PUBLICATIONS: Steam Railroad Electrification, McGraw-Hill, 1929; Cases on Railroad Economics (private), 1938; The Economics of Transportation in America, Ronald, 1940; numerous articles.

 

THE twenty-five years since graduation have slipped by awfully fast and I don’t feel a day older than I did when I left Cambridge. Certainly the years have been full of interest and enjoyment.

One of the things that has made the years particularly challenging has been that I have consciously changed my course on several occasions. Starting out with a career of electrical engineer in the public-utility field, I fairly quickly shifted over to transportation and joined the Operating Department of the New Haven Railroad. If anybody had told me at this point that I was going to become a teacher, I would have been thoroughly dismayed. But when I left the New Haven to broaden myself by studying transportation operation in Europe, I started a sequence which was to lead to the doors of good old Eli.

If one writes a book, it apparently can easily lead to a college post. My first one, built around what I learned in Europe, led to an appointment in transportation at Yale. The teaching part of this job has been a continuous challenge because every year has given me a chance to introduce new ideas and methods. Further, the satisfaction of helping to develop the intellectual process of a loyal group of students cannot be matched by anything else. Along with the teaching has been research and consulting, which are some of the ways in which one can sharpen one’s thinking. help the world at large, and also keep abreast of the practicalities of life.

Along with all this, I was fortunate enough to team up with the ideal girl, and together we’ve gone through all the pains and pleasures of bringing up four children.

When the war came along, I naturally put what talents I have to work for the country, starting with the Bituminous Coal Division of the Department of Interior on coal transportation problems, working with the O.S.S. particularly on the North African problem, and with Lend Lease and the Office of Defense Transportation. Not the least interesting part of all this was the chance to compare the different government agencies in war time as well as contrast them with the peace-time agencies I had seen something of before.

In the meantime my work at Yale was shifting from just transportation to a combination of that and economics. Finally, by the end of the war, I found myself chairman of the Economics Department as well as head of the transportation group. I am not so sure that the administrative responsibilities, challenging though they are, are quite as worth while as the teaching and research.

Along with all this, I have always felt that one should play a part in the local community in which one lives, and I have for a goodly number of years maintained an association with various social agencies. More recently my contribution has been as president of the largest family casework agency in New Haven. At the same time I have done my stint in both state and city government, ranging from being a member of the State Highway Advisory Commission to now being chairman of the State Savings Bank Railroad Investment Committee and a member of the City Traffic Commission (trying to solve the unsolvable in this latter).

This all adds up to a full and happy existence and, I hope, a useful one.

 

Source: Harvard Class of 1922. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report (Cambridge, Mass.: 1947), pp. 427-429.

Image Source:Kent T. Healy (1922 and 1947). Harvard Class of 1922. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report, Portraits of the Class (Cambridge, Mass.: 1947), p. 97.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. General Examination in Macroeconomic Theory. Spring, 1991

 

We turn our attention now to relatively recent Macroeconomic Theory. The immediately preceding post provides a transcription of the Spring 1991 General Examination in Microeconomic Theory at Harvard.

This post represents the second artifact from the Abigail Wozniak collection of Harvard graduate economics general examinations from Spring 1991 through Spring 1999. Future installments will be posted, though not on a regular schedule. 

 From the different formatting and fonts seen in the original copies, we can conclude that Part I (questions 1-3), Part II (questions 4-6), Part III (questions 7-9) were each written by different sets of examiner(s). 

___________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
ECONOMICS 2010d: FINAL EXAMINATION and
GENERAL EXAMINATION IN MACROECONOMIC THEORY
SPRING, 1991

Instructions for all Economics Department graduate students:

The examination will last four hours.

Answer all three parts of the examination (Parts I, II and III).
Within each part, answer any two of the three questions given (so that, in all, you will answer six questions).

Use a separate bluebook for each question. Clearly indicate the question number and your identification number on the front of each bluebook.

Do not indicate your name on any bluebook you submit.

 

Instructions for all other students:

The examination will last three hours.

Answer Parts II and III only. Within each part, answer any two of the three questions given (so that, in all, you will answer four questions).

Use a separate bluebook for each question. Clearly indicate the question number and your name on the front of each bluebook.

 

PART I

Question 1

“Old Keynesian” models were often criticized by their detractors for their apparent reliance on counter-cyclical real wages to generate fluctuations in output. Write a well crafted essay giving several examples of how more modern models (both Keynesian and non-Keynesian) have dealt with this issue. Explain the mechanism by which each model yields output fluctuations without counter-cyclical real wage fluctuations.

 

Question 2

Suppose that the simplest Lucas model describes the economy:

(1) {{y}_{t}}={{m}_{t}}-{{p}_{t}}+{{\nu }_{t}} , quantity theory in logs

(2) {{y}_{t}}=\alpha \left( {{p}_{t}}-{}_{t-1}{{p}_{t}} \right)+{{\varepsilon }_{t}} , Lucas supply function.

where t-1pt  represents the mathematical expectation as of period t-1 of the price in period t, and {{\nu }_{t}} and {{\varepsilon }_{t}} are i.i.d. disturbances.

Suppose, however, that private agents, in their ignorance, believe that the economy is described by (1) and:

(3) {{y}_{t}}=\beta \left( {{p}_{t}}-{}_{t-1}{{p}_{t}} \right)+{{\varepsilon }_{t}} , bogus supply function

where \beta \ne \alpha .

(a) Will this ignorance lead to any real effects of anticipated money under any of the following monetary policies? “Where relevant, assume the central bank knows that (2) is true but that people believe (3).)

(4.1)  {{m}_{t}}=\bar{m}+{{u}_{t}} , constant money supply

(4.2) {{m}_{t}}=\rho \left( {{m}_{t-1}} \right)+{{u}_{t}} , gradual adjustment

(4.3) {{m}_{t}}=-c\left( {{y}_{t-1}} \right)+{{u}_{t}} , lagged feedback rule

Here ut  is a random error, and 0<\rho <1.

(b) Now suppose agents make a different mistake. They think the supply function is

(5) {{y}_{t}}=\alpha \left( {{p}_{t}}-{}_{t-2}{{p}_{t}} \right)+{{\varepsilon }_{t}}

That is, they know the parameter, but get the lag structure wrong. Answer the same question again.

(c) Give a brief intuitive explanation of why you obtain different answers in parts (a) and (b).

 

Question 3

Consider the following simple growth model:

The economy is comprised of a single representative agent, who divides his labor between two activities. A fraction {{\theta }_{t}}  of labor is spent producing goods for consumption at time t, while a fraction 1-{{\theta }_{t}}  of labor is spent producing capital goods at time t.

Suppose that the production function for consumer goods is.

{{c}_{t}}={{\theta }_{t}}k_{t}^{\alpha },

where kt denotes the capital stock as of time t.

The evolution of the capital stock is given by,

{{k}_{t+1}}=\left( 1-\delta \right){{k}_{t}}+\left( 1-{{\theta }_{t}} \right)k_{t}^{\alpha }

where \delta  is the constant rate of depreciation, and 0<\alpha <1.

(a) If \theta   is constant for all t, what happens to kt as t\to \infty ? What happens to ct in the long-run equilibrium?

(b) Suppose that consumer preferences are given by,

\sum\limits_{t=0}^{\infty }{{{\beta }^{t}}}\ln {{c}_{t}},

Where 0<\beta <1 is the discount factor. What is the path for \left\{ {{\theta }_{t}} \right\} which maximizes utility?

Before calculating this algebraically, explain the basic trade-offs involved in selecting and optimal \theta . What must happen to {{\lim }_{t\to \infty }}{{k}_{t}}  under the optimal policy? Now using the first order conditions, derive an expression for the optimal time path of the ratio {{{\theta }_{t}}}/{{{\theta }_{t-1}}}\; . What happens to this ratio as t\to \infty .

(c) How does an increase in the depreciation rate \delta  or an increase in the discount factor \beta affect the long-run equilibrium fraction of labor engaged in consumer goods production. Interpret your answers.

 

PART II

Answer any two of the following three questions. Be sure to use a separate bluebook for each answer.

  1. Suppose that a nation’s government seeks to influence its level of aggregate demand so as to keep it as close as possible to the “full employment” level of output, which is determined independently of government actions. Suppose also that the government has two ways of affecting aggregate demand. Government spending closely and reliably influences aggregate demand; money growth also influences aggregate demand, but in a highly unpredictable manner. At the same time, there is a specific level of government spending that is deemed appropriate for reasons having nothing to do with its effect on aggregate demand; by contrast, the rate of money growth is of no consequence except insofar as it causes aggregate demand to be above or below “full employment” output. How can the government take account of these considerations in its conduct of fiscal and monetary policy?

 

  1. What aspects of economic behavior determine whether monetary policy should tighten, ease, or remain unchanged when the economy experiences an adverse shock affecting its aggregate ability to supply goods and services on the basis of given labor and capital inputs? Be specific about the policy objective that your answer assumes.

 

  1. Under what circumstances will a tax-and-transfer system intended to buffer the economy against shocks (of whatever origin) be unable to affect the distribution describing real economic outcomes? Show clearly that the set of assumptions you posit is sufficient for this “ineffectiveness” result. What are the major correspondences and contrasts between this set of assumptions and the conditions under which actual tax-and-transfer systems typically function in most industrialized economies? What conclusions do you draw from any contrasts?

 

Part III

Question 7

Consider the following model of a small open economy under flexible exchange rates:

I = I0 – r,
S = r,
X = R,
M = –R,
F = –\alpha  r, \alpha ≥ 0
[S– (G– T)] – I = X – M,
F = X – M,

Where I = domestic investment, S = domestic private saving, X = exports, M = imports, F = capital outflow, G = government spending, T = tax revenues, r = domestic real interest rate, and R = real exchange rate. I0 is a shift variable representing investment demand shocks, and \alpha  indexes the degree of international capital mobility (when \alpha =0 , capital is completely immobile; when \alpha =\infty , capital is perfectly mobile). In order to eliminate problems related to the negativity of some variables, think of all magnitudes as deviations from some unspecified values. The world interest rate is equal to zero. Domestic and foreign assets are perfect substitutes.

 

  1. Suppose that fiscal policy is exogenous, in the sense that

G – T = G0 – T0,   G0, T0 given.

What are the equilibrium effects of an investment shock (a change in I0) on national saving and investment? Is a positive investment-national saving relation an indicator of a lack of perfect capital mobility? Explain.

  1. Suppose now that fiscal policy is endogenous, in the sense that

G – T = [G0 + \beta(S – I)] – T0,   G0, T0 given.

where 0 < \beta  ≤ 1. Answer the same questions as in 1. Explain.

 

  1. Can the presence or lack of a crowding out effect of fiscal policy (resulting from changes in G0) be used to empirically discriminate between the exogeneous and endogenous policy hypotheses? Why or why not?

 

  1. Comment on the potential theoretical and empirical implications of this exercise.

 

Question 8

The “twin deficits” hypothesis asserts that U.S. Federal budget deficits are responsible for U.S. trade deficits.

  1. Present two models, one which supports and one which invalidates, this hypothesis.
  2. How could a proponent of the model which does not support the twin deficit hypothesis account for the recent coincidence of budget and trade deficits?
  3. How would you test empirically each of your proposed models?

 

Question 9

What are the effects on consumption and capital accumulation of i) a proportional labor income tax, and ii) a proportional capital income tax in:

  1. A life-cycle (overlapping generations) model;
  2. An economy with infinitely-lived consumers.

 

Source: Department of Economics, Harvard University. Past General Exams, Spring 1991-Spring 1999, pp. 89-94. Private copy of Abigail Waggoner Wozniak.

Image Source: View of Widener Library from Harvard Campus, Cambridge, Mass. from Boston Public Library, Tichnor Brothers Collection of Massachusetts Postcards.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. General Examination in Microeconomic Theory. Spring, 1991

 

 

The following general examination in microeconomic theory (Spring 1991) comes from a collection of nine years’ worth of general exams at Harvard from the last decade of the 20th century shared by Abigail Waggoner Wozniak (Harvard economics Ph.D., 2005). Abigail Wozniak was an associate professor of economics at Notre Dame before she was appointed senior research economist and the first director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis’ Opportunity & Inclusive Growth Institute. Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is grateful for her generosity in having a copy sent here for eventual transcription. 

The “Wozniak collection” is over 90 pages long, so it will take some time for all the exams to appear. But for now I can at least promise that the Spring 1991 macroeconomics examination will be posted soon.

______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
GENERAL EXAMINATION IN MICROECONOMIC THEORY
SPRING, 1991

Instructions:

For those taking the generals in microeconomic theory:

  1. You have FOUR hours.
  2. Answer a total of five questions subject to the following constraints:
    at least two from Part A;
    at least one from Part B;
    exactly one from Part C.

For those taking the final exam in Economics 2010B, but not the generals:

  1. You have three hours and ten minutes
  2. Answer a total of four questions subject to the following constraints:
    at least two from Part A;
    do not answer any questions from Part B;
    at least one from Part C.

Please use a separate blue book for each question, and please put your name (or number) on each book.

Unless otherwise specified, the parts within each question will be equally weighted.

 

PART A (questions 1, 2,3)

  1. Consider an economy composed of a large number of consumers who differ in their tastes and endowment. The preferences of each individual are described by u={{x}^{\alpha }}{{y}^{\beta }}{{z}^{\left( 1-\alpha -\beta \right)}}, where \alpha ,\beta >0,\,\,\,\,\,\alpha +\beta <1 and endowments are \omega =\left( {{\omega }_{x}},{{\omega }_{y}},{{\omega }_{z}} \right)
    1. Write the excess demand function for good x and y as a function of the prices of the goods p= (px, py, pz), using a knowledge of the statistics of the distribution F.
    2. Find an expression for the equilibrium price system.
    3. Show that it is unique.
    4. Suppose that the price system p is out of equilibrium at time t = 0 and that for each commodity price adjusts proportionately to excess demand. The constant of proportionality dk>0 for k= x, y, z is known to be positive but is not known to you. Can you nevertheless be sure that the price system will converge to the equilibrium found in b)? Explain
  2. Consider a firm with production function f(x) which is uncertain about the price of its product p. This uncertainty is summarized in the distribution function G(p). The firm wants to maximize its expected profits. The workers of this firm, represented by their union, want to make a contract with the firm that will guarantee them a certain level of expected utility. The union’s von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function is u(c,x), where c is the total payment received by the union and x is the quantity of labor provided by the union to the firm.
    1. Show that a contract in which c and x are specified in advance of the firm’s learning p is worse than one in which c and x can be chosen after p.
    2. Assume that the realization of p from the distribution G is observable to both the firm and the union and that contracts c(p), x(p) specifying the payment and employment as a function of p are possible. Describe an optimal contract mathematically as it depends on f, u and G.
    3. Now suppose that only the firm can observe p and that it must propose a contract c(x) which gives the compensation level as a function of labor demanded, and that the firm retains the right to choose x (and hence c) after the value of p is known. Write the problem of finding an optimal contract. What are the constraints?
    4. Now suppose that there are only two possible prices p, call them pH,pL. Moreover, assume that x is a normal good in the union’s utility function. Show that the constraints found in part c are binding. Relative to an efficient situation, compare the value of the marginal product of labor to the marginal rate of substitution between x and c in the union’s utility function.
  3. Consider a region consisting of three towns in which a jail must be built. The towns are configured as shown below:

1

2

3
    1. The towns do not want the jail located in their borders. Moreover they do not want it in the town adjacent to themselves. Assume that utilities are quasi-linear, so that we can speak of the willingness to pay to avoid having the jail in or near a given town in units of money, which is transferable among the towns. Each town has a willingness to pay for avoiding having the jail in its borders of 10. Their willingness to pay for having it in an adjacent town are:
Town Willingness to pay to avoid jail in a neighbor
1 5
2 3
3 0

Where should the jail be located on efficiency grounds?  (.15)

    1. Assume that the towns could freely bargain about the location of the jail, and that they can make deals involving monetary compensation among themselves. Describe the set of such arrangements that are robust against defection or recontracting. (.60)
    2. Now assume that each town is populated by an identical number of citizens with identical utility functions such that their individual willingnesses to pay sum up to the town willingness to pay as given in part a. Could some type of competitive market be arranged to produce an efficient outcome? How would you organize it? (.25)

 

PART B (questions 4 and 5)

  1. There are two firms, an incumbent and a potential entrant. To produce at all, a firm must install at least ko units of capacity. The cost of capacity is q (>0) per unit. A firm that installs k units of capacity (k ≧ko) can produce up to k units of output. The marginal cost of output is c. Inverse demand is given by p = a – bx, where x is total output (the sum of the two firms’ outputs). The incumbent moves in period 1 and selects its capacity level kI. The entrant then moves in period 2 and either chooses not to enter or else selects a capacity kE. Finally, the two firms select output levels simultaneously in period 3. Subgame-perfect equilibrium is the solution concept.
    1. What level of capacity must the incumbent install in order to deter entry? (Note: you need just set up the equation; it is not necessary to solve it explicitly). Will the incumbent ever choose to install capacity that it does not use in equilibrium?
    2. If the incumbent chooses to accommodate entry, how much capacity will it install? Again, just set up the maximization).
    3. Under what conditions on the parameter values will the incumbent act to deter entry rather than accommodate it?
    4. Now suppose that demand is random and that the uncertainty is not resolved until the beginning of period 3.
      Specifically, suppose that inverse demand is a-bx+\varepsilon  or  a-bx-\varepsilon with equal likelihood where \varepsilon is “small”. Assume that firms are risk neutral. Does the uncertainty increase or decrease the capacity needed to deter entry? (It should not be necessary to perform any computations to answer this question).
  2. Suppose we are in a three commodity market. Good 3 is a numeraire and the demand functions for the other two goods are:

x1(p,w)= a1+ b1p1+ c1p2+ d1p1p2
x2(p,w)= a2+ b2p1+ c2p2+ d2p1p2

    1. Note that the demand for goods x1, x2 does not depend on wealth. Write down the most general class of utility functions whose demand has this property.
    2. Argue that if the above demand functions are generated from utility maximization then the values of the parameters cannot be arbitrary. Write down as exhaustive a list as you can of the restrictions implied by utility maximization. Justify your answer.
    3. Suppose that the conditions identified in (ii) hold. The initial price situation is
      p= (p1, p2) and we consider a change to p´= (p´1, p´2). Define the concept of consumer surplus generated in going from p to p´.
    4. Let the value of the parameters be
      a1= a2= ½ , b1= c2= -1, c1= b2= ½, d1= d2= 0. Suppose the initial price situation is p= (1,1). Compute the consumer surplus for a move to p´ for each of the following three cases: (1) p´= (2,1), (2) p´= (1,2), (3) p´= (2,2). Denote by CS1, CS2, CS3 the respective answers. Under which condition will you have CS3= CS1+ CS2. Discuss.

 

PART C  (questions 6 and 7)

  1. In both neo-Marxian and neo-Keynesian theories there is, to paraphrase Schumpeter, no growth without profit and no profit without growth. But the interaction between profit and growth is different in the two theories. What are the most important differences?
  2. Consider the problem of predicting the shots made by an expert billiard player. It seems not at all unreasonable that excellent predictions would be yielded by the hypothesis that the billiard player made his shots as if he knew the complicated mathematical formulas that would give the optimum directions of travel, could estimate accurately by eye the angles, etc., describing the location of the balls, could make lightning calculations from the formulas, and could then make the balls travel in the direction indicated by the formulas.
    It is only a short step from these examples to the economic hypothesis that under a wide range of circumstances individual firms behave as if they were seeking rationally to maximize their expect returns (generally if misleading called “profits”) and had full knowledge of the data needed to succeed in this attempt; as if, that is, they knew the relevant cost and demand functions, calculated marginal costs and marginal revenue from all actions open to them, and pushed each line of action to the point at which the relevant marginal coast and marginal revenue were equal. (Milton Friedman, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics, pp. 21-22).

What are the most important criticisms of Friedman’s position? What would be lost for economics, normative as well as positive, if the maximization hypothesis were abandoned?

 

Source: Department of Economics, Harvard University. Past General Exams, Spring 1991-Spring 1999, pp. 84-88. Private copy of Abigail Waggoner Wozniak.

Image Source: Abigail Wozniak webpage at the University of Notre Dame.

Categories
Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Radcliffe. Economics Course Offerings, 1920-1925

 

 

The following lists of courses available to Radcliffe women for the academic years running from 1920/21 through 1924/25 differ from earlier postings at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror in two respects: (i) I did not find course enrollment numbers in the annual Radcliffe presidential reports for these years, and (ii) I list both the courses offered to the Radcliffe women together with those graduate economics courses that “competent students in Radcliffe College” were allowed to attend. There is a self-own in these double daggers (‡), because one might just conclude that some incompetent (ahem, male) Harvard students had been allowed to attend the courses. Not all Harvard economics graduate courses were open to Radcliffe students.

The annual Radcliffe course catalogues have been corrected according to information provided in the Report of the President of Radcliffe College. Those courses listed in the catalogue that were not offered in a given year without being officially announced as [“bracketed”] have been crossed out below. There were actually very few such corrections needed.

___________________

Here are seven previous installments in the series “Economics course offerings at Radcliffe College”:

Pre-Radcliffe economics course offerings and Radcliffe courses for 1893-94,  1894-1900, 1900-1905, 1905-1910, 1910-1915, 1915-20.

__________________

The courses marked with a double dagger (‡) are Graduate courses in Harvard University which are open to competent students in Radcliffe College. No student will be admitted to any one of these courses unless she can satisfy the instructor that she is entirely qualified to do the work of the course.

__________________

1920-21
ECONOMICS

Primarily for Undergraduates

Economics A. Principles of Economics

Tu., Th., Sat., at 9. Asst. Professor Burbank.

Course A cannot be taken by Freshmen without the consent of the instructor.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates

The Courses for Undergraduates and Graduates, unless otherwise stated, are open only to students who have passed in Course A. Economics 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b may be taken, with the consent of the instructor, by students who take Course A at the same time. Economics 8 is open to Juniors and Seniors of good standing who are taking Course A. Other courses in the group can be taken at the same time with Economics A only by special vote of the Department.

 

Economics 1a 1hf. Accounting

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Mr. Shaulis.

 

Economics 1b 2hf. Statistics

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Asst. Professor J. S. Davis.

Laboratory work I the solution of problems and preparation of charts and diagrams will be required.

 

Economics 2a 1hf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10. Dr. E. E. Lincoln.

 

Economics 2b 2hf. Economic History of the United States

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10. Dr. E. E. Lincoln.

 

Economics 6a 1hf. Trade-Unionism and Allied Problems

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 10. Mr. ____.

 

Economics 8. Principles of Sociology

Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Professor Carver.

 

Economics 10 1hf. Economic Thought and Institutions

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Th., at 2.30. Dr. A. E. Monroe.

 

Primarily for Graduates

ECONOMIC THEORY AND METHOD

‡Economics 11. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Professor Taussig.

 

‡Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 11. Professor Bullock.

 

APPLIED ECONOMICS

‡Economics 31. Public Finance

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 10. Professor Bullock.

 

‡Economics 32 2hf. Economics of Agriculture

With special reference to American conditions. Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 12. Professor Carver.

 

‡Economics 33 1hf. International Trade and Tariff Problems

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., at 2.30. Professor Taussig.

 

‡Economics 34. Problems of Labor

Tu., Th., at 1.30. Professor Ripley.

 

‡Economics 35a 1hf. Business Corporations

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Asst. Professor J. S. Davis.

 

‡Economics 35b 2hf. Business Combinations

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Asst. Professor J. S. Davis.

 

STATISTICS

‡Economics 41. Statistical Theory and Analysis

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professor Day.

 

‡Economics 42a 1hf. Statistical Tabulation

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 1.30. Professor Day.

 

‡Economics 42b 2hf. Statistical Graphics

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 1.30. Professor Day.

 

Course of Research in Economics for Graduates

Graduate students pursuing research may register in the following course, which has the same status as any of the other graduate courses in Economics. Such research will be under the direction of members of the Department, and may lie within any of the fields recognized as appropriate for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:—

 

‡Economics 20. Economic Research

Professors Taussig, Carver, Ripley, Bullock, Young, Persons, Day, Sprague, and Cole.

Source: Catalogue of Radcliffe College, 1920-1921, pp. 56-58  with corrections from Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1920-1921, p. 23.

__________________

1921-22
ECONOMICS

Primarily for Undergraduates

Economics A. Principles of Economics

Tu., Th., Sat., at 9. Professor Day and Mr. Meriam.

Course A cannot be taken by Freshmen without the consent of the instructor.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates

The Courses for Undergraduates and Graduates, unless otherwise stated, are open only to students who have passed in Course A. Economics 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b may be taken, with the consent of the instructor, by students who take Course A at the same time. Economics 8 is open to Juniors and Seniors of good standing who are taking Course A. Other courses in the group can be taken at the same time with Economics A only by special vote of the Department.

 

Economics 1a 1hf. Statistics

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 1.30. Mr. Berridge.

 

Economics 1b 2hf. Accounting

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Professor Cole.

 

Economics 2a 1hf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10.Dr. Lincoln.
Omitted in 1921-22.

 

Economics 2b 2hf. Economic History of the United States

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10. Dr. Lincoln.
Omitted in 1921-22.

 

Economics 6. Labor Problems

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 9. Mr. Meriam.

 

Economics 8. Principles of Sociology

Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Professor Carver.

 

Economics 10 1hf. Economic Thought and Institutions

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Th., at 2.30. Dr. A. E. Monroe.
Course 10 is open to undergraduates who have passed in Economics A and are concentrating in the Division of History, Government, and Economics; and to others with the consent of the instructor.

 

Primarily for Graduates

ECONOMIC THEORY AND METHOD

‡Economics 11. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Professors Taussig and Young.

 

‡Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 11. Professor Bullock.

 

APPLIED ECONOMICS

‡Economics 31. Public Finance

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 10. Professor Bullock.

 

‡Economics 32 2hf. Economics of Agriculture

With special reference to American conditions. Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 12. Professor Carver.

 

‡Economics 34. Problems of Labor

Tu., Th., at 1.30, or by arrangement. Professor Ripley.

 

‡Economics 35a 1hf. Business Corporations

Half-course ( first half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Asst. Professor J. S. Davis.

 

‡Economics 35b 2hf.Business Combinations

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Asst. Professor J. S. Davis.

 

STATISTICS

‡Economics 41. Statistical Theory and Analysis

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professor Day.

 

‡Economics 43a 1hf.Statistical Graphics

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 3.30. Professor Day.

 

Course of Research in Economics for Graduates

Graduate students pursuing research may register in the following course, which has the same status as any of the other graduate courses in Economics. Such research will be under the direction of members of the Department, and may lie within any of the fields recognized as appropriate for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:—

 

‡Economics 20. Economic Research

Professors Taussig, Carver, Ripley, Bullock, Young, Persons, Day.

 

Source: Catalogue of Radcliffe College, 1921-1922, pp. 60-62 with corrections from Report of the President of Radcliffe College 1921-1922, p. 57.

__________________

1922-23
ECONOMICS

Primarily for Undergraduates

Economics A. Principles of Economics

Tu., Th., Sat., at 9. Mr. Meriam.

Course A cannot be taken by Freshmen without the consent of the instructor.

 

Economics B 1hf. Economic Thought and Institutions

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Th., at 2.30. Dr. A. E. Monroe.
Given in alternate years. To be omitted in 1923-24.

Course B is open to undergraduates who have passed in Economics A and are concentrating in the Division of History, Government, and Economics; and to others with the consent of the instructor.

 

Economics C hf. Theses for Distinction

Half-course (throughout the year). Hours to be arranged. Members of the Department.

Economics C is open only to students in their last year in College who are candidates for the degree with distinction in Economics. Students wishing to enroll in the course should consult with Dr. A. E. Monroe.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates

The Courses for Undergraduates and Graduates, unless otherwise stated, are open only to students who have passed in Course A. Economics 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b may be taken, with the consent of the instructor, by students who take Course A at the same time. Economics 8 is open to Juniors and Seniors of good standing who are taking Course A. Other courses in the group can be taken at the same time with Economics A only by special vote of the Department.

 

Economics 1a 1hf. Statistics

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 1.30. Professor Day.

 

Economics 1b 2hf. Accounting

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Professor Cole.

 

Economics 2a 1hf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10. Dr. A. P. Usher.

 

Economics 2b 2hf. Economic History of the United States

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10. Dr. A. P. Usher.

 

Economics 6. Labor Problems

Mon., Wed.,and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 9. Dr. Meriam.

 

Economics 7b 2hf. Programs of Social Reconstruction

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 9. Professor Carver.

 

Economics 8. Principles of Sociology

Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Professor Carver.

 

Primarily for Graduates

Except by special vote of the Department the courses for graduates are open to those undergraduates only who are in their last year of work and are candidates for the degree with distinction in the Division of History, Government, and Economics; but students of good standing may, in their last year of study, be admitted to Course 32, if they can show that they have special need of the subject.

 

ECONOMIC THEORY AND METHOD

‡Economics 11. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Professor Taussig.

 

‡Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 11. Professor Bullock.

 

‡Economics 15. Modern Schools of Economic Thought

Mon., Wed., at 3.30, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor. Professor Young.

 

APPLIED ECONOMICS

‡Economics 31. Public Finance

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 10. Professor Bullock.

 

‡Economics 32 2hf. Economics of Agriculture

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 12. Professor Carver.

 

‡Economics 33 1hf. International Trade and Tariff Problems

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., at 2.30. Professor Taussig.

 

‡Economics 34. Problems of Labor

Tu., Th., at 1.30, or by arrangement. Professor Ripley.

 

STATISTICS

‡Economics 41. Statistical Theory and Analysis

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professors Day and Young.

 

Course of Research in Economics for Graduates

Graduate students pursuing research may register in the following course, which has the same status as any of the other graduate courses in Economics. Such research will be under the direction of members of the Department, and may lie within any of the fields recognized as appropriate for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:—

 

‡Economics 20. Economic Research

Professors Taussig, Carver, Ripley, Bullock, Young, Persons, and Day.

 

Source: Catalogue of Radcliffe College, 1922-1923, pp. 60-62 with corrections from Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1922-1923, pp. 89-90.

__________________

1923-24
ECONOMICS

Primarily for Undergraduates

Economics A. Principles of Economics

Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Mr. Remer.

Course A cannot be taken by Freshmen without the consent of the instructor.

 

[Economics B 1hf. Economic Thought and Institutions]

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Th., at 2. Dr. A. E. Monroe.
Given in alternate years. Omitted in 1923-24.

Course B is open to undergraduates who have passed in Economics A and are concentrating in the Division of History, Government, and Economics; and to others with the consent of the instructor.

 

Economics C hf. Theses for Distinction

Half-course (throughout the year). Hours to be arranged. Members of the Department.

Economics C is open only to students in their last year in College who are candidates for the degree with distinction in Economics. Students wishing to enroll in the course should consult with Dr. R. S. Meriam.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates

The Courses for Undergraduates and Graduates, unless otherwise stated, are open only to students who have passed in Course A. Economics 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b may be taken, with the consent of the instructor, by students who take Course A at the same time. Economics 8 is open to Juniors and Seniors of good standing who are taking Course A. Other courses in the group can be taken at the same time with Economics A only by special vote of the Department.

Economics 1a 1hf. Statistics

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2. Mr. Blackett.

 

Economics 1b 1hf. Accounting

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2. Mr. A. W. Hanson.

 

Economics 2a 1hf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10.Asst. Professor Usher.

 

Economics 2b 2hf. Economic History of the United States

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10. Asst. Professor Usher.

 

Economics 3 1hf. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises

Assistant Professor Williams.

 

Economics 4b 2hf. Economics of Corporations

Mr. A. V. Woodworth.

 

Economics 6. Labor Problems

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 12. Dr. Meriam.

 

Economics 7b 2hf. Programs of Social Reconstruction

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 9. Professor Carver.

 

Economics 8. Principles of Sociology

Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Professor Carver.

 

 

Primarily for Graduates

Except by special vote of the Department the courses for graduates are open to those undergraduates only who are in their last year of work and are candidates for the degree with distinction in the Division of History, Government, and Economics; but students of good standing may, in their last year of study, be admitted to Course 32, if they can show that they have special need of the subject.

 

ECONOMIC THEORY AND METHOD

‡Economics 11. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 3. Professor Taussig.

 

‡Economics 12a 1hf.Problems in Sociology and Social Reform

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 10. Professor Carver.

 

‡Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 11. Professor Bullock.

 

‡Economics 15 1hf.Modern Schools of Economic Thought

Half-course (first half-year) Tu., Th., at 10, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor. Professor Young.

 

APPLIED ECONOMICS

‡Economics 31. Public Finance

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 10. Professor Bullock.

 

‡Economics 32 2hf.Economics of Agriculture

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., and( at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 12. Professor Carver.

 

[‡Economics 33 1hf.International Trade and Tariff Problems]

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., at 2.30. Professor Taussig.
Omitted in 1923-24.

 

‡Economics 34. Problems of Labor

Full course (first half-year) Tu., Th., 2-4, or by arrangement. Professor Ripley.

 

‡Economics 37 1hf.Commercial Crises

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., at 9, or by arrangement. Professor Persons.

 

‡Economics 38. The Principles of Money and Banking

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Friday at 4. Professor Young.

 

STATISTICS 

‡Economics 41. Statistical Theory and Analysis

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Asst. Professor Crum.

 

Course of Research in Economics for Graduates

Graduate students pursuing research may register in the following course, which has the same status as any of the other graduate courses in Economics. Such research will be under the direction of members of the Department, and may lie within any of the fields recognized as appropriate for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:—

 

‡Economics 20. Economic Research

Professors Taussig, Carver, Ripley, Bullock, Young, and Persons.

 

Source: Catalogue of Radcliffe College, 1923-1924, pp. 62-65 with corrections from Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1923-1924, p. 34.

__________________

1924-25
ECONOMICS

Primarily for Undergraduates

Economics A. Principles of Economics

Tu., Th., Sat., at 9. Mr. Bober.

Course A cannot be taken by Freshmen without the consent of the instructor.

 

Economics B 1hf. Economic Thought and Institutions

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Th., at 2. Asst. Professor A. E. Monroe.
Given in alternate years.

Course B is open to undergraduates who have passed in Economics A and are concentrating in the Division of History, Government, and Economics; and to others with the consent of the instructor.

 

Economics C hf. Theses for Distinction

Half-course (throughout the year). Hours to be arranged. Members of the Department.

Economics C is open only to students in their last year in College who are candidates for the degree with distinction in Economics. Students wishing to enroll in the course should consult with Asst. Professor R. S. Meriam.

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates

The Courses for Undergraduates and Graduates, unless otherwise stated, are open only to students who have passed in Course A. Economics 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b may be taken, with the consent of the instructor, by students who take Course A at the same time. Economics 8 is open to Juniors and Seniors of good standing who are taking Course A. Other courses in the group can be taken at the same time with Economics A only by special vote of the Department.

 

Economics 1a 1hf. Statistics

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2. Mr. D. W. Gilbert.

 

Economics 1b 1hf. Accounting

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2. Professor W. M. Cole.

 

Economics 2a 1hf. European Industry and Commerce since 1750

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10.Asst. Professor Usher.

 

Economics 2b 2hf. Economic History of the United States

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10. Asst. Professor Usher.

 

Economics 3 1hf. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 11. Assistant Professor Williams.

 

Economics 4b 2hf. Economics of Corporations

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 11. Dr. Woodworth.

 

Economics 6. Labor Problems

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 12. Asst. Professor Meriam.

 

Economics 7b 2hf. Programs of Social Reconstruction

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 9. Professor Carver.

 

Economics 8. Principles of Sociology

Tu., Th., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 10. Professor Carver.

 

Primarily for Graduates

Except by special vote of the Department the courses for graduates are open to those undergraduates only who are in their last year of work and are candidates for the degree with distinction in the Division of History, Government, and Economics; but students of good standing may, in their last year of study, be admitted to Course 32, if they can show that they have special need of the subject.

 

ECONOMIC THEORY AND METHOD

 

‡Economics 11. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2. Professor Taussig.

 

‡Economics 12a 1hf.Problems in Sociology and Social Reform

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 10. Professor Carver.

 

‡Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 11. Professor Bullock.

 

‡Economics 15 1hf.Modern Schools of Economic Thought

Half-course (first half-year) Tu., Th., at 10, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor. Professor Young.

 

ECONOMIC HISTORY

‡Economics 23. European and American Economic History

Wed., Fri., at 3, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor. Asst. Professor Usher.
With the consent of the instructor Course 23 may be taken as a half-course in either half-year.

 

‡Economics 24. Topics in Modern Economic History

Two consecutive evening hours a week, to be arranged. Professor Gay.

 

APPLIED ECONOMICS

‡Economics 31. Public Finance

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 10. Professor Bullock.

 

‡Economics 32 2hf.Economics of Agriculture

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 12. Professor Carver.

 

‡Economics 33 1hf.International Trade and Tariff Problems

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., at 2. Professor Taussig.

 

‡Economics 34. Problems of Labor

Tu., Th., 2-4, and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 2. Professor Ripley.

 

‡Economics 37 1hf.Commercial Crises

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., at 9, or by arrangement. Professor Persons.

 

‡Economics 38. The Principles of Money and Banking

Mon., Wed., Fri., at 4. Professor Young.

 

‡Economics 39 2hf.International Finance

Half-course (second half-year) Tu., Th., at 3. Asst. Professor Williams.

 

STATISTICS

‡Economics 41 2hf.Statistical Theory and Analysis

Half-course (second half-year) Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Asst. Professor Crum.

 

Course of Research in Economics for Graduates

Graduate students pursuing research may register in the following course, which has the same status as any of the other graduate courses in Economics. Such research will be under the direction of members of the Department, and may lie within any of the fields recognized as appropriate for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:—

 

‡Economics 20. Economic Research

Professors Taussig, Carver, Ripley, Bullock, Young, and Persons.

 

Source: Catalogue of Radcliffe College, 1924-1925, pp. 66-68  with corrections from Report of the President of Radcliffe College 1924-1925, p. 27.

Image Source: From the cover of the Radcliffe Book of the Class of 1916.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Harvard Radical

Harvard/Chicago. Gottfried Haberler and Milton Friedman on Samuel Bowles, 1970

 

The following exchange between Gottfried Haberler and Milton Friedman is really quite remarkable. It is the second observation by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror of Gottfried Haberler trashing a liberal/radical economist on the q.t. The first instance involved John Kenneth Galbraith in 1948 (though I cannot say that I would personally fault Haberler for his having ranked Paul Samuelson above John Kenneth Galbraith as an economist). It will come as a surprise to some people that Milton Friedman defended the scholarly honor of one of the leading, if not the leading, radical economists in 1970. As we see below Friedman in no uncertain terms let Haberler know that he still considered his earlier support of Samuel Bowles for an untenured appointment at the University of Chicago to have been based solely on the analytical merits displayed by Bowles. 

You do not want to miss the Harvard anecdote relayed by Roy Weintraub that is posted below as a comment!

__________________

PERSONAL

May 14, 1970

Professor Milton Friedman
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois 60637

Dear Milton:

I was told that Chicago has made an offer to Sam Bowles and that you supported it warmly. Frankly, I am somewhat surprised. He has certainly some analytic abilities but in general he is very radical, almost as wild as Arthur MacEwan, and thoroughly demagogic in his interventions in faculty meetings and talks to students. I would really like to know whether it is true that Chicago offered him a job.

Sincerely yours,

Gottfried Haberler

H:w

__________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1126 EAST 59THSTREET
CHICAGO—ILLINOIS 60637

May 19, 1970

Professor Gottfried Haberler
Department of Economics
Harvard University
326 Littauer Center
Cambridge, Masachusetts 02138

Dear Gottfried:

Some years back I had occasion to read some of the work which Bowles had done in connection with our consideration of him at that time. I was very favorably impressed indeed by the intellectual quality of the work and the command that it displayed of analytical economics. At that time I was very much in accord with our decision to make him an offer of a position. He turned us down to stay at Harvard.

I have very vague recollections about what has happened this year. I do not know for certain whether or not we did make an offer to him this year. We may have done so; and if so, I would not have objected since the only consideration I would have considered relevant would have been his intellectual qualities.

I will try to find out more definitely and let you know.

Sincerely yours,
[signed, “Milton”]
Milton Friedman

ah

[Handwritten addition: P.S. I have checked. No offer was made to him this year. We made an offer some years ago at the Ass’t Prof level when he first went to Harvard. We made a later offer a couple of years ago again on a term basis. There is no offer outstanding now.]

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives. Gottfried Haberler Papers. Box 12, Folder “GH—Milton Friedman”.

Image Source: University of Massachusetts Amherst . Police Department, “Board of Trustees fee increase demonstration: Economics professor Samuel Bowles speaking to protesters, April 15, 1976“, University Photograph Collection (RG 110-176). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

Categories
Economists Gender Harvard Socialism

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. alumnus, later collector of Soviet nonconformist art. Norton T. Dodge, 1960

 

That John Maynard Keynes was an art collector/investor is well-known. Economics in the Rear-view mirror has earlier posted about the Columbia economic historian Vladimir Simkhovich, one of Milton Friedman’s professors, who turned out to be quite the collector himself. My old professor of comparative economic systems, John Michael Montias of Yale, later became a well-renowned authority on Vermeer as well as the art market in Amsterdam in the 17th century.

This post is another in the series “Get to know a Ph.D. economist”. Norton Dodge was one of the legion of young scholars who launched their research careers at the Harvard Russian Research Center. Somehow Dodge went from being a mild-mannered economist who wrote a doctoral dissertation on labor productivity in the Soviet tractor industry (don’t try that at home unless you are a professional) to the passionate collector of Soviet nonconformist art. Apparently Dodge was able to fly under the radar long enough to establish a network to help satisfy his urge to collect, often discretely sometimes openly, and to assemble an enormous collection. According to John McPhee’s 1994 book (see below), Norton Dodge spent $3 million dollars of his personal fortune buying Soviet underground art. Dodge inherited a bundle from his father, Homer Levi Dodge, physicist who also became dean of the graduate school at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. Homer Dodge was an early Warren Buffett investor.

In 1995 the Norton and Nancy Dodge Collection of Soviet Nonconformist Art was donated to Rutgers University.

________________

Norton Townshend Dodge

1927 June 15. Born in Oklahoma City.

Began his studies at Deep Springs College.

1948. Graduated from Cornell University.

1951. A.M. in Russian studies at Harvard

1955. First trip to USSR. Dissertation research.

1960. Harvard economics Ph.D. Thesis: Trends in Labor Productivity in the Soviet Tractor Industry; a Case Study in Industrial Development.

1962. Second visit to Soviet Union. Meets dissident artists.

1966. Women in the Soviet Economy: Their Role in Economic, Scientific, and Technical Development(Johns Hopkins University Press).

1976. Following death of artist Evgeny Rukhin under suspicious circumstances, Dodge ceased his travel to the Soviet Union, relying on his personal network

1980. Retired from University of Maryland, College Park, begins teaching at St. Mary’s College, Maryland.

1989. Retired from St. Mary’s College, Maryland.

1995. Opening of the Norton and Nancy Dodge Collection of Soviet Nonconformist Art to Rutgers University [17,000 items donated valued at $34 Million] (permanent display at Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum)

From Gulag to Glasnost: Nonconformist Art in the Soviet Union, edited with Alla Rosenfield.

2011 November 5. Died in Washington, D.C.

________________

For more, especially about Dodge’s art collecting

John McPhee. The Ransom of Russian Art (1994).

Andrew Solomon. “Produced in the Soviet Dark, Collected by a Secret Admirer”. New York Time, October 15, 1995.

Emily Langer, Norton T. Dodge, U-Md. Economics professor and Soviet art collector, dies at 84. Washington Post, November 10, 2011.

Margalit Fox, “Norton Dodge Dies at 84; Stored Soviet Dissident Art. New York Times, November 11, 2011.

Image Source: US Post News, Deaths November 2011.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Completion rates for economics graduate students, 1947-57

 

 

Here is an interesting summary of the spectrum of completion from drop-out through award of the Ph.D. in economics for Harvard University 1947-1957.  Note the labels  “desperate, doubtful, better, safe” for the forecasted prospects of students who had left the gravitational pull of residency.

____________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1947-57

Comment:

The attached survey shows the history of graduate students in the Department of Economics from 1947-57. The details by years are available in Littauer M-8, but we are not duplicating that part of the report.

You will note that of 525 students (378 Arts and Sciences, 50 Radcliffe and 97 Graduate School of Public Administrations) in these ten years, there were a total of 113 withdrawals, about 55% because of poor grades and 45% despite good grades. Of the remaining 412 students, 40 have had but one year’s residence and have not yet taken the General Examination, while 372 have taken and passed the General Examination for an advanced degree. Of these, 69, or about 16%, were awarded a terminal A.M. largely because they passed for the A.M. only. This leaves 303 who have passed the General Examination for the Ph.D., but so far only 152, or roughly 50% have received their Ph.D. There are 50 students still in residence working on their thesis. Of 101 students no longer in residence, 69 have thesis overdue and 39 have not yet written their thesis but are still within the five year limit.

Further details may be had by glancing at the attached sheet.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1947-57
SUMMARY

1.

 Enrollment 1947-57:
(Arts and Sciences 378, Radcliffe 50, Graduate School of Public Administration 97)

525

2.

 Withdrawn

a)

 with poor grades, in discontent or upon request:

after one term

20

after two terms

36

after four terms

_6_

62

b)

 despite good grades:

after two terms

48

after four terms

3

after more than four terms

_0_

51
Total Withdrawals

113

3.

 Now in residence before General Examination

40
Forecast:

Prospects for withdrawal

6

Prospects for terminal A.M.

14

Prospects for Ph.D.

20

4.

 Passed General Examination for advanced degree

372

5.

 A.M. Awarded as terminal degree 69

6.

 A.M. expected as terminal degree

5

7.

 A.M. awarded in course toward Ph.D. degree

188

8.

 Candidates for the Ph.D. degree

343

9.

 Ph.D. degree awarded

152

10.

 Students still in residence working on thesis
(29 of these, 3 yrs residence; 2, less than 3 yrs)

50
Forecasts:

Prospects for completion safe

40

Prospects for completion doubtful

10

11.

 No longer in residence, thesis overdue

62
Forecasts:

Prospects for completion desperate
(Poor record: thesis overdue 2-5 yrs.)

26

Prospects for completion doubtful
(Fair record; thesis overdue 1-4 yrs.)

13

Prospects for completion better
(Good record; thesis overdue 1-4 yrs.)

23

12.

 No longer in residence, thesis within 5 yr. limit

39
Forecasts:

Prospects for completion doubtful

5

Prospects for completion safe

34

___

525

Summary:

Ph.D. prospects safe

117

Ph.D. awarded

152

Ph.D. awarded or safely expected

269

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961. General-Exams-Haberler.(UAV.349.11), Box 13.

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1946.

 

 

Categories
Curriculum Fields Harvard

Harvard. Mathematical Economics Recognized as Subfield of Theory. E.B. Wilson, Crum, and Schumpeter, 1933

 

What I find particularly striking in the following report of the Committee on Instruction in Mathematical Economics at Harvard (note the  first named of the trio is E. B. Wilson) is the forecast that economics graduate students will need to acquire tools of mathematical economics and statistics already in the mid 1930s because they will need them later, 1953-63, when they will be “at the height of their activity” and by which time (implicitly) the “rapidly increasing importance of theoretical and statistical work involving higher mathematics” will have caught up with them. I have appended the course names for the statistics and mathematics courses referred to by number in the report.

Related postings: 

_____________________

Meeting of the Committee (Wilson, Crum, Schumpeter) on
Instruction in the Mathematical Economics
Tuesday, May 9 [1933]

In view of the rapidly increasing importance of theoretical and statistical work involving higher mathematics, and of the possibility that a considerable number of economists may have to be adequately familiar with both mathematical theory and statistical procedure twenty to thirty years from now, that is, when many of our present students will be at the height of their activity, the Committee (Wilson, Crum, Schumpeter) agreed on the following recommendations to be submitted to the Department which they believe to be both necessary and sufficient in order to provide facilities for events to work in mathematical theory as applied to economics:

(1) Any student who may wish to do so should be allowed to offer mathematical economics as his special field within the requirements for the Ph.D. This would involve but a slight alteration of existing practice which permits students to choose some branch of economic theory as a special field. The committee’s suggestion is merely that mathematical economics should be added to the other special subjects in economic theory which a student may select.

It seems desirable, moreover, to permit that any such student may select mathematics or rather some branch of pure or applied mathematics in place of one of the two remaining fields he has to offer.

(2) Advanced work in mathematical economics should conform to modern tendencies by stressing equally the mathematical side of economic theory and mathematical statistics. No student who elects mathematical economics as his special field should be allowed to do the one without the other. Especially courses 31a and 32b should be required also from students mainly interested in pure theory.

(3) Work in the Department of Mathematics through Math 5 should be considered as the minimum requirement as to mathematical training. Credit should be given only for Math 5, but not for any of the still more elementary course preparatory to it, which most of the students taking up mathematical economics will have had anyhow in their undergraduate period.

(4) No further steps should be taken at present. It seems best to see what the response will be before attempting to organize a special graduate course. The mathematical aspect of our subject is being dealt with in some courses already, and any Ph.D. candidates who may present themselves in case the rules be altered as recommended could easily be taken care of individually.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Copy of Letter from Harold H. Burbank to Joseph Schumpeter

October 3, 1933

Dear Joe,

I have read and approved without qualification the report of the Committee on Instruction in Mathematical Economics.

I think this report should be brought before the Department on the evening of Tuesday, October 10.

Very sincerely yours,

Prof. J. A. Schumpeter
2 Scott Street

HHB:VS

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Graduate Instruction in the Mathematical Economics
Department Vote, October 10, 1933

In view of the rapidly increasing importance of theoretical and statistical work involving higher mathematics, and of the possibility that a considerable number of economists may have to be adequately familiar with both mathematical theory and statistical procedure twenty to thirty years from now, that is, when many of our present students will be at the height of their activity, the Committee (Wilson, Crum, Schumpeter) agreed on the following recommendations to be submitted to the Department which they believe to be both necessary and sufficient in order to provide facilities for events to work in mathematical theory as applied to economics.

The Department voted to accept the recommendations stated as follows:

(1) Any student who may wish to do so should be allowed to offer mathematical economics as his special field within the requirements for the Ph.D. This would involve no alteration of existing practice, which permits students to choose some branch of economic theory as a special field. The committee’s suggestion is that mathematical economics should be admissible.

(2) Any students using mathematical economics as his special field should be allowed to offer some branch of pure or applied mathematics as an allied field.

Work in the Department of Mathematics through Math 5, or the equivalent, should be considered as the minimum requirement as to mathematical training. Credit should be given only for Math 5, but not for any more elementary course preparatory to it.

(3) Advanced work in mathematical economics should conform to modern tendencies by stressing equally the mathematical side of economic theory and mathematical statistics. Therefore courses 31a and 32b should be required of anyone in electing mathematical theory as his special field.

(4) No further steps need be taken at present. It seems best to see what the response will be before attempting to organize a special graduate course. Any individual cases calling for special attention can be dealt with, under the proposed regulation, as our courses now stand.

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and papers 1930-1961. (UAV349.11), Box 13.

_____________________

Statistics Courses offered in the Department of Economics
at Harvard, 1934-35

Economics 31a 1hf (formerly Economics 41a). Theory of Economic Statistics, I

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professor Crum and Asst. Professor Frickey.
Economics 1a, or its equivalent, is a prerequisite for this course.

Economics 31b 2hf (formerly Economics 41b). Theory of Economic Statistics, II

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professor Crum and Asst. Professor Frickey.
Economics 1a, or its equivalent, is a prerequisite for this course.

Economics 32b 2hf (formerly Economics 42). Foundations of Statistical Theory

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., 3 to 4.30. Professor E. B. Wilson.
Economics 31a and one year of Calculus are prerequisites for this course.

Source: Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1933-34(second edition), Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXX, No. 39 (September 20, 1933), p. 128.

_____________________

Undergraduate Mathematics Courses
at Harvard, 1934-35

Mostly Freshmen

[Mathematics] A. Professors J. L Coolidge et al. — Analytic Geometry; Introduction to the Calculus.

Mostly Sophomores

[Mathematics] 2. Professors Graustein et al. — Differential and Integral Calculus; Analytic Geometry.

Mostly Juniors

[Mathematics] 5a1hf. Professor Morse. — Differential and Integral Calculus (advanced course), Part I

[Mathematics] 5a2hf. Professor Morse. — Differential and Integral Calculus (advanced course), Part II

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1934-35, p. 86.

 

Images:  Left to right: William Leonard Crum, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Edwin Bidwell Wilson. From the 1934 (Crum) and 1939 (Schumpeter and Wilson) Harvard Class Albums.

 

 

Categories
Harvard Seminar Speakers Sociology Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Social Influences on Economic Actions, outline and readings. Musgrave and Spechler, 1973

 

The outline below for an ambitious Harvard course organized jointly by Richard Musgrave and Martin C. Spechler in 1973 comes from John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers. Galbraith was invited to give a lecture on institutional economics and a couple of pages of keywords in the folder would appear to confirm that Galbraith indeed lectured on the topic.

Biographical information for Richard Musgrave was provided a few blog postings ago. Martin Spechler too was a Harvard alumnus (indeed all three of his academic degrees come from that institution) and so I’ll first insert the chronology of his academic jobs so one can meet another economic Ph.D. alumnus. Spechler’s main research field was comparative economic systems complemented by a strong interest in the history of economics (see the link to his 2007 c.v. below). 

______________________

Martin C. Spechler (b. January 25, 1943, New York City)

A.B. in Social Studies (1964), A.M. in Economics (1967), Ph.D. in Economics (1971). Harvard

1965-1971. Harvard. Teaching fellow in economics and social studies.
1971-1973. Harvard. Lecturer on economics and on social studies.
1971-1974. Harvard. Head tutor in economics.
1973-1975. Harvard. Assistant professor of economics.
1974-1980. Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Department of Economics, lecturer.
1980-1982. Tel Aviv University. Department of Economics and School of General History. Senior lecturer (acting).
1982-1983. University of Washington, Seattle. School  of International Studies. Visiting associate professor.
1983-1984. University Iowa, Iowa City. Visiting associate professor.
1984-1986. Indiana University, Bloomington. Visiting associate professor of economics and research associate, West European Studies.
1986-1990. Indiana University, Indianapolis. Associate professor of economics
1990-. Indiana University, Purdue University, Indianapolis. Professor of economics.

Source:  Martin C. Spechler c.v. (December 2007).

______________________

ECONOMICS 2080
Tentative Lecture Schedule
[1973]

1. September 27 Spechler on Marxism
2. October 4 Unger on Weber
3. October 9 (Tues.) Galbraith on institutionalism
4. October 18 Duesenberry on consumer behavior
5. October 25 (?) on entrepreneurs
6. November 1 M. Roberts on government bureaucracy
7. November 8 J. Bower on corporate organization
8. November 15 Doeringer on workers and unions
9. November 20 (Tuesday) Bowles (?) on Marxian theory of the state
10. November 29 D. Bell (?) on elite theory
11. December 6 J. Q. Wilson on pluralism
12. December 13 Hirschman on trade policy
13. December 20 Musgrave on objectivity in economics and social science

 

Harvard University
Economics 2080

Social Influences on Economic Action
Fall Term, Thursday 4-6

Martin C. Spechler
Holyoke 833, Office; 10-12 (daily)

Richard Musgrave
Littauer 326

            Designed to be taken in one semester to be followed by a seminar, this course examines the social context of economic activity. It covers theoretic and applied writings in several significant traditions: Marxist, Weberian, institutionalist, and liberal. The list includes a more thorough reading of Marx and Weber than is usually available elsewhere and articles reporting contemporary research of a scale suitable for dissertations. Since certain topics of interest, such as stratification, are treated elsewhere in the Economics or allied departments, the range of topics is intentionally incomplete. But each topic includes competing paradigms and case studies making use of them. Each topic takes off from the limits of conventional economics to show that different assumptions and procedures show promise of answering important questions about economic life.

It is envisioned that the course will be taught during the first year in a conference format, with guest lecturers but with one or two Department members responsible for the entire course and always present in class. The course will culminate in the writing of a long (30-40 pages) case study, employing some or all of the theoretical perspectives which have been presented. There will also be a shorter paper early on to fix the theoretical perspectives in mind.

The course is intended for graduate students with some preparation in economics. To facilitate discussion, one might have to limit enrollment, though a diverse group would be highly desirable.

Works marked (*) are assumed as background; those marked (**) are supplementary.

A. The Content and Limits of Modern Economics: A Point of Departure

*Lord Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (2nd ed. 1935).

Emile Gruenberg, “The Meaning of Scope and External Boundaries of Economics.”

Kenneth E. Boulding, “The Verifiability of Economic Images.” Both in Sherman Roy Krupp, The Structure of Economic Science. (Prentice Hall, 1966), pp. 129-165.

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Analytical Economics (Harvard University Press, 1966), Part I (especially pp. 92-129).

B. Three Social Perspectives on Economic Action

What are the hallmarks of “modern” — now misleadingly termed “Western” — society? What changes in productive relations, in ethos, and in political arrangements favored its development? This section examines in depth three major interdisciplinary systems which undertake to define, explain, and analyze the working of modern society, particularly the limits placed on the market by social forces.

Week 1 (September 27) Marxism

Karl Marx, “Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”

________, “Estranged Labor”

________, “Private Property and Communism”

________, “The Power of Money in Bourgeois Society”

________, “The German Ideology”, Part I

________, “Wage Labor and Capital”

________, “Capital”, Vol. 1 (selections) all in The Marx-Engels Reader (ed. By Robert C. Tucker), Norton Publ., pp. 306 [30-36 intended?], 56-83, 110-164, 167-317, 577-588.

Friedrich Engels, “Letters on Historical Materialism” in Tucker, ed., pp. 640-651 and 661-664.  OR

Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, Vol. I, chapters 5, 11; Vol. II, 12-14.

Week 2 (October 4) Weber

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, entire.

________, The Religion of China, IV, V, and VIII.

________, *General Economic History, Part IV

“Power, Capitalism and Rural Society in Germany,” and “National Character and the Junkers,” all in Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, pp. 159-195, 363-395.

Week 3 (October 11) Institutionalism

Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, in Max Lerner, The Portable Veblen (Viking pb) chapters IV, VI.

________, “On the Merits of Borrowing,” from Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution, pp. 349-363 in M. Lerner, The Portable Veblen, op. cit.

________, The Theory of Business Enterprise, chapters III, IV, VII.

John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics and the Public Purpose (Houghton-Mifflin, 1973), chapters V, IX-XIV, and XIX.

Possible paper topics (illustrative only) for section B. Due October 18:

Paper: What do Marxist, Weberian, and Historical-institutional theories have to say about kinds of modern economies which have developed in the world?

**England, 1642-1851

David Landes, The Unbound Prometheus, introduction and chapter 1.

Barrington, Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, chapters I and VI.

E.J. Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire, chapters 1-7.

**Japan and China Compared

M. J. Levy, “Contrasting Factors in the Modernization of China and Japan,” in Simon Kuznets, Economic Growth: Brazil, India, Japan (Duke, 1955), pp. 496-536.

Henry Rosovsky, “Japan’s Transition to Modern Economic Growth, 1868-1885,” in Henry Rosovsky (ed.) Industrialization in Two Systems: Essays in Honor of Alexander Gerschenkron (Wiley, 1966). Bobbs-Merrill Reprint No. Econom-264.

Thomas C. Smith, “Japan’s Aristocratic Revolution,” Yale Review V (50), 1960-61, pp. 370-83, reprinted in R. Bendix and S.M. Lipset, Class, Status and Power (2nd ed.), pp. 135-40. The samurai class as modernizers.

Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins, op. cit., IV, V, VIII, IX. Particular attention to feudal land patterns as an obstacle to economic and political modernization.

or R.H. Tawney, Land and Labour in China (Octagon, 1964)

or Johannes Hirschmeier, The Origins of Entrepreneurship in Meiji Japan (Harvard, 1964).

**Indonesia, 1945-

Clifford Geertz, Peddlers and Princes (Chicago, 1963). An excellent example of economic anthropology in the Weberian tradition.
[Other suggestions and bibliography available from the instructors.]

C. How do Consumers, Workers, and Entrepreneurs form their Preferences for Market Activities?

This section examines the empirical evidence to date on the relative role of material incentives and job characteristics on productivity, on the effects of advertising on consumer attitudes, and on the relationship between historical experience and decisions about the future.

Week 4 (October 18) Consumer Behavior

*Robert Ferber, “Research on Household Behavior,” American Economic Review, Vol. 52 (1962), pp. 19-63. Reprinted in A.S.C. Ehrenburg and F.G. Pyatt, Consumer Behavior (Penguin, 1971).

*Karl Marx, “Alienated Labor,” and “Needs, Production, and the Division of Labor,” from Early Writings, ed. J. B. Bottomore, pp. 120-134.

*James S. Duesenberry, Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, chapters I-IV.

J.K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society, (Revised edition), chapter 11.

Lester Telser, “Advertising and Cigarettes,” Journal of Political Economy (October, 1962), pp. 471-99).

Tony McGuiness and Keith Cowling, “Advertising and the Aggregate Demand for Cigarettes: An Empirical Analysis of a U.K. Market,” paper no. 31, Centre for Industrial Economic and Business Research, University of Warwick, England. On reserve in Littauer.

Lester D. Taylor and Daniel Weiserbs, “Advertising and the Aggregate Production Function,” American Economic Review, (September 1972), pp. 642-55.

George Katona, Burkhard Strumpel and Ernest Zahn, Aspirations and Affluence (McGraw-Hill, 1971), chapters 6-12. The effects and causes of consumer attitudes in the United States and Western Europe.

Week 5 (October 25) Entrepreneurs

Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, (Harper Torchbook, 1962), chapter XI-XIV.

Thomas C. Cochran, “Cultural Factors in Economic Growth,” and David Landes, “French Business and the Business Man: a Social and Cultural Analysis,” in Hugh G.J. Aitken, Explorations in Enterprise (Harvard University Press, 1965), pp, 122-38, 184-209.

Alexander Gerschenkron, “Social Attitudes, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Development,” in Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Harvard, 1962), pp. 52-71. [note: workers’ attitudes will be discussed in week 8.]

D. How Do Large Organizations Behave?

The opportunities created by market power and the size of the hierarchy in modern economic bureaucracies probably allowed behavior far from the competitive norm. What are the elements of structure, control, and attitudes which influence corporate behavior? The readings include the Weberian, and the “bureaucratic politics” points of view; and the case comparisons include the U.S. Navy, French enterprise, the Society of Jesus, the Soviet industrial planning system, and the most important American public enterprise.

Week 6 (November 1) Government Bureaucracy

Max Weber, “Bureaucracy,” in Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber, pp. 196-244.

Charles Lindblom, “The Politics of Muddling Through,” Bobbs-Merrill Reprint, Public Administration Review XIX (Spring, 1959), pp.79-88: why strict means-end rationality is impossible in government bureaucracies.

A. Wildavsky, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, (Little, Brown, 1964) chapter 2.

Stanley Surrey, “Congress and the Tax Lobbyist: How Tax Provisions Get Enacted,” Harvard Law Review (1957), pp. 1145-70.

Sandford F. Borins, “The Political Economy of ‘The Fed,’” Public Policy (Spring, 1972), pp. 175-98.

Sanford Weiner, “Resource Allocation in Basic Research and Organizational Design,” Public Policy (Spring, 1972), pp. 227-55.

Benjamin Ward, The Socialist Economy: A Study of Organizational Alternatives, chapters 5 and 6.

The latter considers whether socialization, such as occurs in the Jesuits and the Navy, would overcome some of the control anomalies which have frustrated Soviet planning.

**Joseph Berliner, Factory and Manager in the U.S.S.R. (Harvard, 1957); a classic on informal organizations versus system goals.

Week 7 (November 8) Corporate Organization

A Harvard Business School case will be distributed for discussion.

*R.H. Coase, “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica, (1937) reprinted in G. J. Stigler and Kenneth Boulding,Readings in Price Theory (AEA, 1952), pp. 331-351.

Armen A. Alchian and Harold Demsetz, “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization,” American Economic Review (December, 1972), pp. 777-95.

Philip Selznick, Leadership in Administration (Row Peterson, 1957), chapter 4.

David Granick, Managerial Comparisons of Four Developed Countries (MIT, 1972), chapters 1-5, 9-13.

**Alfred Chandler, Jr. Strategy and Structure, chapters 1-3, 5-7, conclusion.

**Philip Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots (Harper pb, 1966).

**Michelle Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Phoenix pb, 1964).

**Alfred Chandler. Pierre Dupont and the Modern Corporation.

Joseph L. Bower, “The Amoral Organization,” in R. Marris and E. G. Mesthene, Technology, the Corporation, and the State (forthcoming) or Harvard Business School 4-372-285.

Week 8 (November 15) Workers and Unions

Victor Vroom,”Industrial Social Psychology,” in Gardner B. Lindzey and Elliott Aronson, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. V. (2nd ed.), 1969, pp. 196-248.

Work in America, report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (MIT Press, 1973), chapters 1, 2, 4, 5.
Mancur Olsen, Logic of Collective Goods (paperback, rev. ed., 1971), chapter III, pp. 66-97.

Suggested:

**John Goldthorpe et al., The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure, Cambridge University Press, 1969, pb).

**Andre Gorz, A Strategy for Labor (Beacon pb., 1968), chapter 4.
Leonard Goodwin, Do the Poor Want to Work? (Brookings, 1972).

E. Does Economic Power Give Rise to Political Power?

            Marxist, elite and pluralist theorists all answer differently as to under what circumstances market power and material privilege are translated into political power and what sorts of groups (classes, corporations, trade associations, ideological coalitions, parties) contend for ascendancy. The readings examine such mechanisms as control of mass media, the common training and outlook of American and European elites, pressure group influence on Congressional elections, and the weakening of countervailing interests.

*Otto Eckstein, Public Finance (2nd ed.), chapters 1-2.

Week 9 (November 20, Tuesday) Marxian Theory of the State

Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society (Basic Books), entire.

Week 10 (November 29) Elite Theory

C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, chapters 1-13.

G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? (Spectrum pb. 1967), 1-5, 7.

Week 11 (December 6) Pluralism

Arnold M. Rose, The Power Structure, (Oxford pb, 1967), pp. 1-10, 15-24, 26-39, 70-78, 89-127, 131-133.

**J.K. Galbraith, The New Industrial State, chapters I-IX, XXV, and XXXV: A strong statement of the technological impetus towards convergence.

**Walter Adams, “The Military-Industrial Complex and the New Industrial State,” American Economic Review (May, 1968), pp. 652-665.

Stanley Lieberson, “An Empirical Study of Military-Industrial Linkages,” American Journal of Sociology, (1971), pp. 562-82.

George J. Stigler, “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” Bell Journal of Economic and Manag. Sci., (Spring, 1971), pp. 3-17.

Joseph C. Palamountain, Jr., The Politics of Distribution (Harvard University Press, 1955), II, IV, VII, VIII.

J.Q. Wilson, “Politics of Business Regulation” (revised ed.), mimeographed.

Week 12 (December 13) Trade Policy

Raymond A. Bauer, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis Anthony Dexter, American Business and Public Policy, The Politics of Foreign Trade (Aldine, 2nded., 1972), Parts II, IV-VI.

F. Validation of Theories about Economic Action

Week 13 (December 20) Objectivity in Economics and Social Science

*Milton Friedman, “The Methodology of Positive Economics.”

Max Weber, “The Meaning of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in Sociology and Economics,” and “’Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy,” in Max Weber, The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Free Press, 1949), pp. 1-112.

Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge Cambridge University Press pb. (Essays by T.S. Kuhn, S.E. Toulmin, K.R. Popper, and I. Lakatos), pp. 1-24, 39-59, 91-196.

Term papers due by January 17.

Source:  John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5 Harvard University File, 1949-1990, Box 521, Folder “[courses]: Economics 280: Musgrave Lecture. 9 October 1973”.

Image Source: Martin C. Spechler from the Department of Economics webpage, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis archived at the Wayback Machine (February 18, 2003).