Categories
Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. International Economic Relations Seminar. Haberler and Harris, 1940-45

 

The most famous economics seminar at Harvard University in the history of economics is undoubtedly the fiscal policy seminar run by John Williams and Alvin Hansen. A list of that seminar’s speakers and their topics was included in an earlier post. Below I provide the reported speaker’s and topics for the “younger” international economic relations seminar jointly organized by Gottfried Haberler and Seymour Harris during the War years.

___________________________________

EXPANSION OF THE SEMINAR PROGRAM

Several additions have been made in the seminar program of the School [of Public Administration] for the year 1940-1941. Professors Haberler and Harris are presenting a seminar on international economic relations. We planned our seminar program in 1937 on the assumption that it was wise to begin with domestic problems despite the fact that a number of the Faculty had special interests in the international field. In view of the events of the last few years, it seems highly important to develop these interests. The seminar given by Professors Haberler and Harris deals with the application of the principles of international trade to current problems…

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1939-40, p. 306.

___________________________________

1940-41
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
[partial list]

[Seven of the meetings of the Fiscal Policy Seminar were held jointly with other seminars – four with the International Economic Relations Seminar and three with the Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Policy Seminar.]

 

October 11. SVEND LAURSEN, Student, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University.

Subject: International Trade and the Multiplier. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

February 21. HARRY D. WHITE, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United States Treasury Department.

Subject: Blocked Balances. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

March 21. RICHARD V. GILBERT, National Defense Advisory Commission.

Subject: The American Defense Program. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

May 2. GUSTAV STOLPER, Financial Adviser.

Subject: Financing the American Defense Program. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1940-41, p. 323 ff.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR:
1941-1942. Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Harris

In 1941-42 the seminar devoted its attention to war and post-war problems in the field of International Economic Relations. A few meetings were spent on the discussion of fundamental theoretical problems. During the first semester all meetings were taken up by papers of outside consultants and their discussion. In the second semester student reports were presented and discussed, and a few extra meetings were arranged for outside speakers. The consultants and their topics were as follows:

 

October 1. EUGENE STALEY, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Economic Warfare.

October 8.[**] CHARLES P. KINDLEBERGER, Federal Reserve Board. Canadian-American Economic Relations in the War and Post-War Period.

October 15.[**] A. F. W. PLUMPTRE, University of Toronto. International Economic Position of Canada in the Present Emergency.

October 22. HEINRICH HEUSER, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Exchange Control.

October 29. FRITZ MACHLUP, University of Buffalo. The Foreign Trade Multiplier.

November 5. HENRY CHALMERS, United States Department of Commerce. Trade Restrictions in Wartime.

November 12. ARTHUR R. UPGREN, United States Department of Commerce. International Economic Interest of the United States and the Post-War Situation.

November 19. OSKAR MORGENSTERN, Princeton University. International Aspects of the Business Cycle.

November 28.[*] NOEL F. HALL, British Embassy. Economic Warfare.

December 5.[*] ROBERT BRYCE, Department of Finance, Canada. International Economic Relations with Special Reference to the Post-War Situation.

January 26.[*] PER JACOBSSEN, Bank for International Settlements. The Problem of Post-War Reconstruction.

February 13.[*] JACOB VINER, University of Chicago. Monopolistic Trading and International Relations.

February 18. H. D. FONG, Director, Nankai Institute of Economics, Chungking, China. Industrialization of China.

February 25. MICHAEL HEILPERIN, Hamilton College. International Aspects of the Present and Future Economic Situation.

March 11. JACOB MARSCHAK, New School for Social Research. The Theory of International Disequilibria.

March 14.[*] RICHARD M. BISSELL, JR., Yale University and the United States Department of Commerce. Post-War Domestic and International Investment.

March 18. ANTONIN BASCH, Brown University. International Economic Problems of Central and Southeastern Europe.

March 20.[*] ALBERT G. HART, University of Iowa. The Present Fiscal Situation.

April 10. ABBA P. LERNER, University of Kansas City. Post-War Problems.

May 8. HORST MENDERSHAUSEN, Bennington College. International Trade and Trade Policy in the Post-War Period.

 

Six of these were joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy Seminar [*] and two were joint meetings with the Government Control of Industry Seminar[**].

Student reports were presented on the following subjects:

Argentine International Trade.
Exchange Control in Argentina.
Some Aspects of Sino-Japanese Trade.
International Effects of Price Ceilings.
Location Theory and the Reconstruction of World Trade.
Some Post-War Politico-Economic Problems of the Western Hemisphere.
Economic Problems and Possibilities of a Pan Europe, Pan America and Similar Schemes.
The Balance of Payments of China.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1941-42, pp. 344-346.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
1942-43. Professor Haberler

A larger portion of the time of the seminar than usual was devoted to the discussion of fundamental principles of international trade and finance. This was due to the fact that the graduate course on international trade (Economics 143) was not offered, and the seminar had to take over to some extent the functions of the graduate course.

There were eleven meetings with outside consultants, of which eight were joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy seminar. The smaller number of students made it advisable to combine the two seminars more frequently than usual. The consultants and the topics discussed with them were as follows:

 

November 13. Professor FRITZ MACHLUP, University of Buffalo. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: National Income, Employment and International Relations; the Foreign Multiplier.

November 18. Dr. THEODORE KREPS, Economic Adviser, Board of Economic Warfare, Office of Imports.

Subject: Some Problems of Economic Warfare.

November 27. Hon. GRAHAM F. TOWERS, Governor, Bank of Canada. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Canadian War Economic Measures.

December 4. LYNN R. EDMINSTER, Vice-Chairman, U. S. Tariff Commission. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Post-War Reconstruction of International Trade.

December 11. Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, Director, Office of Export-Import Price Control, Office of Price Administration. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Trade Policy in Wartimes.

February 12. THOMAS MCKITTRICK, President, Bank for International Settlements. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: The Bank for International Settlements.

February 24. Dr. LEO PASVOLSKY, State Department. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Post-War Problems in International Trade.

March 3. P. T. ELLSWORTH, War Trade Staff, Board of Economic Warfare.

Subject: The Administration of Export Control.

April 12. EMILE DESPRES, Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D. C. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: The Transfer Problem and the Over-Saving Problem in the Pre-War and Post-War Worlds.

April 16. Dr. ALBERT HAHN. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Planned or Adjusted Post-War Economy.

April 20. Dr. ALEXANDER LOVEDAY, League of Nations.

Subject: European Post-War Reconstruction.

 

Student reports were presented on the following subjects among others: practice and theory of an international bank; post-war industrialization of China; coordination of fiscal policy in different countries; international position of the Brazilian economy; international commodity agreements; international implications for fiscal policy; British exchange equalization account; and Argentine exchange control.

Twelve students were enrolled in the seminar of which four were Littauer fellows, seven graduate students from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and one from the College.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1942-43, pp. 246-247.

 

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
1943-44. Associate Professor Harris

A new approach was tried in the International Economic Relations Seminar this year. We paid particular attention to the international economic problems of Latin America and especially to the problems raised by the great demand for Latin American products for war, the expansion of exports and of money, and the resulting inflation. Attention was also given to the transitional problems in the postwar period, particularly to the adjustments that will be required in exports, imports, capital movements, exchange rates, and the allocation of economic factors. In the course of the year leading government authorities on Latin American economic problems were invited to address meetings of the seminar, which were frequently joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy Seminar or the students of the graduate course in international organization.

The schedule of meetings for 1943-44 was as follows:

 

November 12. Professor HARRIS.

Subject: Inflation in Latin America.

December 9. Dr. CORWIN EDWARDS, Chairman, Policy Board of the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice and Chief of Staff of the Presidential Cooke Commission to Brazil.

Subject: Brazilian Economy.

December 17. Dr. HARRY WHITE, Director of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

January 6. Professor HARRIS.

Subject: International Economic Problems of the War and Postwar Period.

January 10. Professor HABERLER.

Subject: Reparations.

January 14. Dr. N. NESS, Member, Mexican-U. S. Economic Commission.

Subject: Mexico.

January 17. Dr. BEARDSLEY RUML, Chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Subject: Economic Budget and Fiscal Budget.

January 21. Dr. P. T. ELLSWORTH, Economic Studies Division, Department of State.

Subject: Chile.

January 24. Dr. DON HUMPHREY, Special Advisor on Price Control to Haitian Government; Chief, Price Section, O.P.A.

Subject: Haiti.

January 31. Dr. ROBERT TRIFFIN, Member, U. S. Economic Commission to Paraguay.

Subject: Money, Banking, and Foreign Exchanges in Latin America.

February 4. Dr. MIRON BURGIN, Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.

Subject: Argentina.

February 9. Dr. FRANK WARING, Director, Research Division, Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.

Subject: Broad Aspects of Latin-American Economics.

February 10. Dr. BEN LEWIS, Head of Price Control Mission to Colombia, Special Assistant to the Price Administrator.

Subject: Colombia.

March 9. Dr. HENRY CHALMERS, Department of Commerce.

Subject: Inter-American Trade Practices.

March 31. Mr. HENRY WALLICH.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and International Equilibrium.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1943-44, pp. 271-2.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Harris

The seminar meetings in the year 1944-1945 may be arranged under the following headings:

  1. Exchanges, Controls, and International Trade (8 meetings)
  2. Regional Problems (8 meetings).
  3. Regional and International Aspects of Domestic Problems (8 meetings).
  4. Lectures and Discussions on International Trade by Professors Haberler and Harris (8 meetings).

Four of the papers presented at these meetings were subsequently published in economic journals.

The schedule of meetings for 1944-1945 was as follows:

November 16. Dr. RANDALL HINSHAW, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: American Prosperity and the British Balance-of-Payments Problem. (Published in the Review of Economic Statistics, February 1945.)

December 11. EDWARD M. BERNSTEIN, Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: The Scarcity of Dollars. (Published in The Journal of Political Economy, March 1945.)

December 15. Dr. FRANCIS MCINTYRE, Representative of the Foreign Economic Exchange on Requirements Board of the War Production Board.

Subject: International Distribution of Supplies in Wartime.

December 21. Dr. ALEXANDER GERSCHENKRON, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Some Problems of the Economic Collaboration with Russia.

January 11. Dr. WOLFGANG STOLPER, Swarthmore College.

Subject: British Balance-of-Payments Problem After World War I.

January 22. Dr. WALTER GARDNER, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Some Aspects of the Bretton Woods Program.

January 26. Dr. WILLIAM FELLNER, University of California.

Subject: Types of Expansionary Policies and the Rate of Interest.

January 29. Professor WALTER F. BOGNER, Dr. CHARLES R. CHERINGTON, Professors CARL J. FRIEDRICH, SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, TALCOTT PARSONS, ALFRED D. SIMPSON, and Mr. GEORGE B. WALKER.

Subject: The Boston Urban Development Plan.

March 5. Dr. ROBERT TRIFFIN, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: International Economic Problems of South America.

March 19. Dr. LOUIS RASMINSKY, Foreign Exchange Control Board, Ottawa, Canada.

Subject: British-American Trade Problems from the Canadian Point of View. (Published in the British Economic Journal, September I945.)

March 22. Dr. ROBERT A. GORDON, War Production Board.

Subject: International Raw Materials Control: War and Postwar.

March 26. Dr. HERBERT FURTH, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Monetary and Financial Problems in the Liberated Countries.

April 2. Dr. LLOYD METZLER, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Postwar Economic Policies of the United Kingdom. (An article based on this paper and written in collaboration with Dr. RANDALL HINSHAW was published in The Review of Economic Statistics, November 1945.)

April 16. Professor EDWARD S. MASON, State Department, Washington.

Subject: Commodity Agreements.

April 23. Dr. ABBA P. LERNER, New School for Social Research, N. Y.

Subject: Postwar Policies.

April 27. Professor JOHN VAN SICKLE, Vanderbilt University.

Subject: Wages and Employment: A Regional Approach.

May 14. Dr. E. M. H. LLOYD, United Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, British Treasury.

Subject: Inflation in Europe.

May 28. Professor LEON DUPRIEZ, University of Louvain, Belgium.

Subject: Problem of Full Employment in View of Recent European Experience.

May 29. Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, Professor WASSILY W. LEONTIEF, Professor GOTTFRIED HABERLER, Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: The Shorter Work Week and Full Employment.

 

Source:   Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1944-45, pp. 285-6.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. International Trade and Commercial Policy. Haberler, Harris, Leontief 1940

 

Of the fields with a deep bench at Harvard in the immediate pre-WWII era, international trade could boast three faculty members and two post-docs of great distinction: Gottfried Haberler, Wassily Leontief, Seymour Harris; and Wolfgang Stolper and Heinrich (a.k.a. “Henry”) Heuser. This post has the course outlines with assigned readings for both the trade theory and commercial policy semesters and the final examination questions for commercial policy. 

______________________________

Henry Heuser from AEA List of Members 1948

HEUSER, HENRY KARL-MARIA, 1747 F St., N.W., Washington, D.C. (1942) Int. Monetary Fund, econ., res., govt serv.; b. 1911; B.A., 1932, McGill; M.A., 1933, Ecole des Science Economiques et Politiques (Paris); Ph.D., 1938, Univ. of London. Fields 10, 1a, 7. Doc. dis.  Economics of exchange control. Pub. Control of international trade (Rutledge, London, 1938; Blakiston, Philadephia, 1939).

Source:  Alphabetical List of Members (as of June 15, 1948) in the 1948 Directory of the American Economic Association (Jan., 1949). American Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 1.p. 85.

 

Obituary for Henry Heuser (1911-95) from the Washington Post
April 21, 1995

Henry K. Heuser, 83, an economist who retired in the early 1970s from the Agency for International Development, died of cancer April 18 at the Washington Hospice.

Mr. Heuser was born in Berlin. In the mid-1920s, he immigrated to Canada. He graduated from McGill University and also studied at Ecole des Sciences Economiques in Paris and at the London School of Economics, where he received a doctorate.

In the late 1930s, he taught economics and international trade at the University of Minnesota, Harvard University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He was author of a book, “Control of International Trade,” which was published in 1939.

During World War II, he was an intelligence officer with the Office of Strategic Services, then after the war he worked in Paris on the Marshall Plan for the economic rehabilitation of postwar Europe.

In the late 1940s, he worked for the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund, then joined U.S. foreign assistance programs. He served in Italy, Korea, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and the Ivory Coast.

On retiring from AID, Mr. Heuser lived in the Tuscany region of Italy, where he restored a 16th-century monastery and grew grapes for Chianti wine. He returned to Washington about 1987.

Survivors include his wife of 48 years, Maria Heuser of Washington; five children, Chilla Heuser-Rousselle of Paris, Alice Heuser of Potomac, Stephen Heuser of London, Tayo Heuser Shore of Narragansett, R.I., and Michael Heuser of Beverly Hills, Calif.; and 13 grandchildren. MARK LEE PATTEN Carpenter

______________________________

Course Enrollment
1940-41

[Economics] 43a 1hf. Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Leontief.—International Economic Relations, I. Theory of International Trade.

Total 22: 1 Graduate, 13 Seniors, 3 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 3 Others.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1940-41, p. 63.

______________________________

Course Description
1940-41

Economics 43a 1hf. International Economic Relations, I. Theory of International Trade. Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructors) Fri., at 9. Professor Haberler and Dr. Stolper.

The course will deal with the following subjects: Monetary problems of international trade; the pure theory of international trade.

 

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics Containing an Announcement for 1940-41. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVII, No. 51 (August 15, 1940), p. 56.

______________________________

Economics 43a
International Trade and Commercial Relations
[1939-40]

During the first half of the term the monetary problems of International Trade will be discussed in the following order:

The theory and measurement of the balance of payments
Gold Standard
Paper standard and purchasing power parity theory
Exchange Depreciation
The transfer problem and capital movements
The present gold problem
Problems of exchange control

Assignments of the first six weeks:

Haberler, Theory of International Trade, pp. 1-117.
Whale, International Trade, Chs. 17-19, 21-23
Department of Commerce, The Balance of International Indebtedness of the United States for 1938.
Graham and Whittlesey, “The Gold Problem,” Foreign Affairs, January, 1938.
Meade and Hitch, Economic Analysis, Part V, pp. 307-355.

 

The second half of the term will be devoted to the pure theory of international trade and to some of its applications. The classical theory will be discussed and confronted with Ohlin’s approach. The concept of the terms of trade will be taken up and some applications of monopoly theory, especially to the problem of dumping, will be treated.

Assignments for the second half of the term:

Meade and Hitch, Economic Analysis, Part V, pp. 356-408.
Haberler, International Trade, Chs. IX-XII, and Ch. XVIII.
Ohlin, Interregional and International trade, Parts I and II.
Viner, J., Memorandum on Dumping (League of Nations).

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1) Box 2, Folder “Economics, 1940-1941”.

______________________________

Final Examination
Economics 43a 1hf.
1940-41

[Not found (yet).]

______________________________

Course Enrollment
1939-40

[Economics] 43b 2hf. Associate Professor Harris , Drs. Heuser and Stolper.—International Economic Relations, II. Commercial Policy.

Total 18: 11 Seniors, 6 Juniors, 1 Other.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1939-40, p. 99.

______________________________

Course Description
1940-41

[Economics 43b 1hf. International Economic Relations, II. Commercial Policy.] Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., at 12, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructors. Professor Haberler, Associate Professor Harris, and Dr. Stolper.

Omitted in 1940-41.

 

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics Containing an Announcement for 1940-41. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVII, No. 51 (August 15, 1940), p. 56.

______________________________

Economics 43b
1939-40

Week Subject Reading
Feb. 5-10 General case for free trade and criticism
(Dr. Stolper)
Haberler, Chs. 13, 14.
Robertson, “The Future of International Trade,” Economic Journal, March, 1938.
Feb. 12-17 General effect of tariffs, partial analysis. Preferential tariffs.
(Dr. Stolper)
Haberler, Ch. 15
Feb. 19-March 9 Special tariff arguments. Discussion of some of the Hutchins Committee Report. Schüler and Keynes arguments. Foreign Trade Multiplier.
(Dr. Stolper)
Beveridge, Tariffs, the Case Examined, Chs. 5, 9, 10, 13.
Haberler, Chs. 16, 17, and Ch. 12, §4 review Macmillan Report, Addendum I.
Copland, D.B., “A Neglected Phase of Tariff Controversy,” Q.J.E., 1931.
Anderson, Karl, “Protection and the Historical Situation,” Q.J.E., 1938.
Samuelson, Marion Crawford, “The Australian Case for Protection Re-examined,” Q.J.E., 1939.
Taussig, Chs. 13 and 16.
Suggested reading: Taussig, Chs. 14, 15.
March 11-16 Dumping, anti-dumping duties
(Dr. Stolper)
Haberler, Ch. 18, omitting the graphs.
Robinson, J., Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch. 15, sec. 1-4.
Viner, J., Memorandum on Dumping (League of Nations).
March 18-April 20 Other measures, particularly quotas. Exchange Control and Clearing. Exchange Agreements, etc.
(Dr. Heuser)
Haberler, Chs. 19, 20, 21.
Heuser, Control of International Trade, Ch. VI.
Ellis, Exchange Control, Supplement to Q.J.E., 1939, Ch. I.
Ellsworth, Chs. IX, X.
April 22-27 Tariff History: The glass industry.
(Dr. Davis)
Probably Taussig, Tariff History.
April 29-May 4 Reciprocal Trade Agreements
(Dr. Stolper)
Tasca, Reciprocal Trade Policy, selected chapters.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1) Box 2, Both in Folders “Economics, 1939-1940 (2 of 2)” and “Economics, 1940-1941”.

______________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 43b2
1939-1940

Part I
(One hour and a half)

Take both questions. Write one hour on one of them and one-half hour on the other.

  1. “Territorial jurisdiction over a particular area can never be of economic advantage as long as there is free trade in commodities.” Do you agree?
  2. Discuss the relative merits of general depreciation, discriminating exchange rates, and export subsidies as means of restoring equilibrium after a period of strict exchange control.

Part II
(One hour and a half)

Answer question 3 and two other questions.

  1. Take (a), (b), (c), or (d) only.
    1. Do you think that Marshall’s argument for free trade are applicable to the United States of to-day?
    2. Outline the reciprocal trade agreements program of the U. S. A. and its probable effects on various sectors of the American economy. Do you think the program leads towards increased bilateralism or towards greater free trade?
    3. “Increased competition from newly industrialised countries compels the older industrial countries to choose between higher tariffs or lower standards of living.”
    4. It has been claimed that the protective effect of an import quota and a tariff combined are cumulative. Discuss with regard to the effects in the importing country as well as in the exporting countries.
  2. If a country’s exports are subject to foreign tariffs it cannot improve its position by levying tariffs on its imports. Give your considered opinion of this assertion.
  3. Under conditions conducive to a flight of capital [,] restrictions on capital exports may fail completely to bring about a permanent improvement in the balance of payments. Discuss.
  4. The total volume of trade between two countries under exchange clearing is just as likely to increase as to decrease. Discuss with respect to clearings between (a) a free country and a control country, (b) two control countries.
  5. “The operation of the foreign trade multiplier necessitates reconsideration of the proposition that employment and national income can never be increased by the introduction of tariffs.” Discuss.

Final. 1940.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions,…Economics,…Military Science, Naval Science (June, 1940) in Harvard University. Final examinations, 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28) Box 5.

Image:  Haberler, Leontief and Harris from Harvard Album 1942.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Final Examinations. Chamberlin, 1936-37

 

Having recently published his magnum opus in 1933, Harvard economist Edward H. Chamberlin taught a one semester graduate economic theory course devoted to the theory of monopolistic competition three successive years (1935/6 through 1937/8) before going on to teach the core graduate theory course. In the Harvard archives I have been able to find copies of the final examination questions for the first two years which along with course enrollment data are transcribed below.

Chamberlin, Edward Hastings. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition–A Re-orientation of the Theory of Value. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1933.

_____________________________

Course Announcement
1935-36

Economics 12 1hf. Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems in Value Theory

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., at 3, and a third hour to be arranged
Associate Professor Chamberlin

 

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Course of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1935-36 (Second Edition), p. 139.

_____________________________

Course Enrollment
1935-36

[Economics] 12 1hf. Associate Professor Chamberlin.—Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems in Value Theory.

Total 8: 8 Graduates.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1935-1936, p. 83.

_____________________________

1935-36
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 121
[Final exam]

Answer either four or five questions.

  1. Discuss the influence of the number of producers in an industry upon the elasticity of demand for the product of the individual firm.
  2. Discuss the difficulties inherent in the concept of a “group equilibrium.” In what degree do you regard the concept as valid? useful?
  3. Discuss either (a) excess capacity, or (b) “product” variation under imperfect knowledge.
  4. Discuss alternative methods of treating selling costs, giving your preference and the reasons for it.
  5. In what respects do the theories of monopolistic and imperfect competition alter the case both for and against interfering with the “free play of competitive forces,” as developed by traditional economic theory?

Mid-Year. 1936.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers Finals, 1936 (HUC 7000.28 vol. 78 of 284)

_____________________________

Course Enrollment
1936-37

[Economics] 102a 1hf. (formery 12). Associate Professor Chamberlin.—Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems in Value Theory.

Total 6: 4 Graduates, 1 Senior, 1 Radcliffe.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1936-1937, p. 93.

_____________________________

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 102a1
[Final exam]

  1. Discuss the question of “free entry” into an industry and its significance for the theory of monopolistic competition.
  2. “The problem of the individual demand curve bears on the questions whether we can discuss the competitive position of an isolated firm at all; a demand curve of a single firm is drawn, which presupposes that the other firms do not change their supply, or change it in a distinct way…Must we not make it clear that such a curve is valid only for a short interval?” Discuss.
  3. To what extent do you regard the standardization of products as a remedy for the ignorance of buyers as to their qualities? Discuss briefly any other remedies you might wish to propose.
  4. “The production cost curve and the selling cost curve are really nothing more than alternative techniques for treating what is essentially the same problem.” Discuss.
  5. “Value productivity, and nothing but value productivity, is what matters in distribution theory.” Discuss.
  6. Discuss one of the following:
    1. Monopsony.
    2. Monopolistic competition and the theory of profits.
    3. Monopolistic competition and the business cycle.
    4. The definition of a “commodity.” 

Final. 1937. 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers Finals, 1937 (HUC 7000.28 vol. 79 of 284)

_____________________________

Course Enrollment
1937-38

[Economics] 102a 1hf. (formerly 12). Professor Chamberlin.—Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems in Value Theory.

Total 6: 2 Graduates, 2 School of Public Administration, 1 Radcliffe.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1937-1938, p. 86.

_____________________________

1937-38
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 102a1
[Final exam]

[Not (yet) found.]

 

Image Source: Edward H. Chamberlin from the Harvard Class Album, 1939.

Categories
Curriculum Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Report on the Tutorial System in History, Government and Economics. Burbank, 1922

 

Harold Hitchings Burbank (1913-1951) will probably best be remembered in the history of economics for topping Paul Samuelson’s “Dishonor Roll” for antisemitism in the Harvard economics department ca. 1939 (the list is reproduced on p. 281 of Roger E. Backhouse’s first volume Becoming Samuelson, OUP 2017) as well as for being an all around bête noire in matters regarding mathematical economics at Harvard, though Backhouse (pp. 421-2) has at least been able to acquit Burbank of the charge of the premeditated “killing of the type” for Foundations of Economic Analysis [Plot spoiler: the printer did it (metal shortage)].

Burbank has in fact left a fundamental institutional legacy at Harvard College, having played a major role in the establishment and running management of the tutorial system that was set up to prepare undergraduates for the general examinations in their respective divisions of study. Many a Harvard economics graduate student, instructor, and  faculty member have served as economics tutors so that no study of the education of economists would be complete without a serious examination of Harvard’s tutorial system in which economists have been active from the very beginning.

________________________________

Harvard College President Lowell on the undergraduate general examination for divisions and the Tutorial System (1922)

The effect of the general examination upon the choice of subjects for concentration is interesting. When first introduced for History, Government, and Economics it diminished the number of students electing those studies as their main field of work, presumably frightening away the faint-hearted. But the dread soon passed off, and at present seems to have little influence.

[…]

The framing of general examination papers which shall be comprehensive enough to cover the subject, at the same time shall be fair, and which give the student a chance to show his knowledge or ignorance, his comprehension or vacuity, demands much skill, ingenuity and labor. Moreover, a great deal of time is required to read the books, or conduct the oral examinations, in any department where the candidates are numerous. Clearly members of the instructing staff cannot be expected to do this in addition to their ordinary work. Some provision ought, therefore, be made in such cases for relieving them of a part of their teaching; and in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, where the plan has been in operation much longer than in any other, the examiners are relieved of about half their courses, either by reducing these throughout the year, or by exemption from course instruction in the second half-year, that being the period when by far the heaviest burden of the examinations falls. In conducting them the committee in charge is really examining not only the candidates, but also the instructors in courses and the tutors if any, because they can hardly avoid forming some impression of the thoroughness with which teaching is done by the different members of the staff; and although they make no report upon the matter, the opinions they form cannot fail in the long run to have an effect upon the instruction in the departments of which they are members. Moreover, their examinations determine the requirements for a degree in the various subjects of concentration, and the standard of attainment on the part of undergraduates. Their selection is therefore a matter of the utmost importance. In those departments that have recently adopted the plan, and where the number of candidates is too large to be examined by the instructors as a whole, a committee is appointed by the department itself; but in the Division of History, Government, and Economics it is appointed by the Corporation. The first members of this committee, Professors G. G. Wilson, R. B. Merriman, and E. E. Day, were the pathfinders, and to their wisdom and labor is due from the outset the success of the project.

When the general examination was introduced for History, Government, and Economics, it was perceived that in these subjects it could not work well unless the students were provided with the assistance of tutors in correlating what they had learned in their courses, and in mastering the parts of the field which courses do not cover. At first it was difficult to find men qualified for this task, quite unknown as it was in American college education, since no one had any experience in doing it. A new form of instruction had to be devised; new men had to teach themselves a new art. They have done so, until at present an excellent corps of tutors is working systematically in this division. No doubt experience will still farther perfect their methods, and by frequent conferences they are seeking constant improvement. A tutor, who by the way may be of any academic grade, is by no means wholly confined to tutorial work. A number of them are also conducting courses, and that is a distinct advantage. The only college work which they cannot do is obvious. They should not be on the committee in charge of the examinations. There is no better way of stating what they strive to do, and what they have accomplished, than by inserting as an appendix hereto the report of Assistant Professor H. H. Burbank, the Chairman of the Board of Tutors for the division.

Source: President’s Report in Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1921-1922, p. 13-4.

________________________________

Report on the Tutorial System in the Division of History, Government and Economics at Harvard University, 1922

To THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY:

SIR, — I have the honor to submit a report on the Tutorial System in the Division of History, Government and Economics.

The tutorial system of the Division of History, Government and Economics was made possible and necessary by the introduction of the general examinations. When this Division accepted the principle of these examinations it declared that they could be made effective and, at the same time, just to the student only by the development of a system of individual guidance. Tutorial instruction began in 1914 with a staff of six tutors supervising the work of some one hundred and fifty students. At that time the Division expected the number of concentrators would not at any time exceed four hundred. During the present academic year sixteen tutors have given instruction to six hundred and forty-eight students.

When provision was made for tutors, the Division contemplated only indefinitely their functions and the scope of their work. There were no examples to be followed; no system of like nature had been established in any American university and the precedents afforded by Oxford and Cambridge could give little guidance. During the first three years many experiments were necessary. The place of the tutor’s work in the general system of instruction had to be found, methods of work had to be developed. These problems could be met only by a process of trial and selection. At first there were many false starts; undoubtedly there was some lost effort, but there was also appreciable growth and development. The War brought an abrupt cessation of activities. With the resumption of normal academic conditions in 1919-20, tutorial work was reorganized, and it is from this time that the more important growth of the system is to be recorded.

Different methods of tutorial instruction are still being tried and probably will continue for some time, but the experience of the years since 1914 has been sufficient to give a definite indication of the processes which are best suited to our needs. Because of the several experiments which different tutors are undertaking, all generalizations regarding tutorial work are open to some exceptions.

Each tutor has under his supervision approximately forty students, selected in about equal proportions from the senior, junior and sophomore concentrators. The tutor meets his students regularly, usually once each week, in individual conferences. In some few instances, especially with sophomores, groups of two or, at the most, three students are found advantageous, but such group conferences are used sparingly; the characteristic method is the individual conference. Usually the conference lasts for about half an hour, but here the exceptions are many. The student is never limited in the matter of time. If he wishes to see his tutor with greater frequency it is his privilege to do so and he is encouraged to take full advantage of the unusual opportunities offered to him by individual instruction. The unwilling students — and they are so few that they leave no mark on the system — are obliged to do a minimum amount of work and to give a minimum amount of time to the tutor. The interested students can have about all they desire in time and instruction.

The introduction of the tutorial system was not accompanied by any change in course requirements. The student who elects to concentrate in History, Government or Economics, and thereby comes under the direction of the tutor, carries the usual number of courses from which he secures the groundwork for his general and special concentration. But courses are not synonymous with subjects; they cut through or across subjects. The first work of the tutor is to help the student organize and correlate this course material so that his chosen field of study appears to him as continuous and homogeneous rather than as groups of data or ideas with little or no relation. For seven years the tutors proceeded on the principle that class instruction could be taken for granted, that the material offered in courses had been accepted and assimilated by the students. The results of the examinations lessened confidence in the validity of this position and pointed directly to the need for further instruction along the same line. Many of the courses in this Division have very large numbers; the majority of those which are elected by undergraduates are conducted by the lecture method with little or no opportunity for discussion or for a thorough test of the student’s grasp of the subject matter. Further study and emphasis in the tutorial conference of material already presented in courses is proving of inestimable value. The data frequently is the same, — an historical period, a theory of government, a principle of economics, — the point of view is different, the stimulus is different. In the tutorial conference there is no question of marks or discipline; the one important object is to understand something which appears to be important.

Thus the tutor’s work deals in part with the materials already presented in class instruction — correlating it, focusing it, teaching it. But to arrive at the standards imposed by the general examinations requires a very considerable amount of additional reading. The tutor must and does expand the field of study by assigning and discussing problems not within the limits of courses now offered. In this connection as well as in the reconsideration of course material the tutor strives to interest his students in general reading. This is a very great opportunity. The student at Harvard as well as at the other colleges of this country has been so beset with textbooks, books of selected readings, page assignments and the like, that the reading habit not only has gone undeveloped but has tended to become stultified. Through conferences with his tutor and by means of his reading, the student gains a familiarity with his subjects of study that courses alone cannot impart. Furthermore, if he responds adequately to tutorial direction, he forms, largely unconsciously, a reading habit, a critical judgment and a discriminating taste that the established system of college education seldom produces. Another phase of this subject, or perhaps a by-product of this tendency, is found in the matter of general reading during the vacations. Ten years ago the student was rarely found who did not regard the final examinations in June as the terminus of his educational effort for that year. By small degrees this is changing. With the inauguration of tutorial instruction students were urged to continue their reading during the vacations, especially during the summer months. The cumulative effect has been important. Students in sufficient numbers are undertaking this work, to call for facilities to direct their reading between June and September. A plan is now under consideration whereby tutors will be in Cambridge during the summer either to take personal charge of students or to direct their work by correspondence. The significance of this development is apparent when the reader is reminded that such work is not only voluntary but receives no credit in terms of grades or courses.

The tutor has still another function, less tangible perhaps, but no less important than those already mentioned. A cursory study of the college records of undergraduates is sufficient to indicate that a relatively small proportion achieve anything above mediocrity — that is, above a “C” grade. This is not because of limitation of capacity. Undergraduates are capable of accomplishment far beyond that registered in courses. But they have many interests other than those which find their expression in the class-room. Their interests and their efforts are scattered; much time and energy are wasted. A tutor of the type sought by this Division has the power and capacity to stimulate the undergraduate to real intellectual achievement. When a student comes to him with a predominating intellectual curiosity — the type of student who is usually a candidate for distinction — he has but to mould the material into finished form. The more difficult, but possibly the more important, task is to stimulate the less eager student, to make his subject of study real and alive, to make it attractive, to inspire the student to want to learn not because of the record that may be involved nor because of any particular honors that may be granted, but for the sake of the achievement itself. To do this on an increasingly larger scale is one of the main objects of the tutorial system. During the last three years there has been perceptible progress in this direction. A great deal remains to be done, but very definite limitations are imposed by the inflexible requirements of university instruction. Without any substantial change in these requirements considerably more can be accomplished. It depends upon securing the unusual type of tutor. With more flexibility and perhaps with some reasonable reduction of the requirements in terms of courses, progress is possible and probable that will be significant in the trend of American college education.

One might expect that the improvement in academic interest which the tutorial system has been able to stimulate would express itself in an increase in the number of candidates for distinction. To some extent such an increase has appeared; students have become candidates who would not have done so without the stimulation of individual direction and instruction. But there has been a concurrent counter effect. Candidacy for distinction is dependent upon grades in courses. Unfortunately, intellectual interest, sustained work and broad accomplishment are not always synonymous with a high grade in the particular course which covers a part of the field of study. Undergraduates in appreciable numbers are showing a distinct preference for tutorial rather than for class work — less effort is given to courses, more is devoted to the more intimate work with the tutor. No attempt is being made to pass upon the desirability of this tendency. It is simply presented as a tendency which is showing increasing strength.

Among the various experiments which the tutors have made in the effort to secure broader and better preparation for the general examinations have been those connected with written work. For some time it has been clear to the tutors that one of the most effective methods of instruction is found in the construction and repeated criticism of written reports, essays and theses. Incidentally, very few of the students do not need the added instruction in composition and expression that written work entails. Recently this Division, recognizing and emphasizing the value of written work, has voted that a satisfactory thesis shall be required of all candidates. To provide more adequate opportunity for writing of this character, each Department is now offering a course in thesis work.

The most significant development in connection with the tutorial system has been the very favorable response of the students. Tutorial instruction is an addition to the usual requirements for the degree. At the minimum this increase is equivalent, in terms of courses, to about one course a year or, during the three years of concentration, it approaches an additional requirement of a year’s work. At the maximum the only limitations are those set by the available time of the student and the tutor. Each year there are some students who give considerably more time to their tutorial instruction than to their more formal requirements. These, however, are exceptional instances. Yet, as a group, the majority of concentrators accept tutorial instruction as an educational opportunity rather than as a demand for additional hours of study. In spite of the very considerable increase in the work involved, concentration in this Division has increased steadily. When the system of general examinations and tutorial instruction was announced, concentration in the Division, especially in Economics, declined heavily. Almost immediately, however, the Division proceeded to win back the numbers it had lost through the additional requirements. In part, this may be explained by the introduction of general examinations in other Divisions, but there is reason to believe that concentration in this Division would have approximated its present position if the examinations had been confined to History, Government and Economics. Although this increase in numbers has been gratifying, a more pronounced reason for satisfaction is found in the distinct improvement in the quality of the student and in the level of accomplishment. To a large degree this is due to the failure of the unwilling or the less capable student to choose this Division as the field for his special study. In part, also, it is due to the increasingly effective work of the tutor. Indifferent students still choose this field, but in decreasing numbers, and as the sophomore and junior years pass by they are weeded out in considerable proportions or, responding to the efforts of the tutor, their work improves. After a trial, more or less prolonged, the indifferent student seeks other Departments, but during the last two years transfers to this Division have more than filled these vacancies.

Another aspect of tutorial work is indicative of the attitude of the student. Attendance at the conferences is not compulsory. There is no system of monitoring or reports of absences to the college office. The fear of disciplinary action cannot serve as a stimulus to meet appointments or to prepare assignments. It is true that the authority to employ disciplinary measures can be invoked if the occasion arises, but in eight years no resort to such measures has been necessary. Yet the cutting of tutorial appointments is comparatively rare, far less than the cutting of courses. The majority of concentrators, well over ninety per cent, seldom fail to meet their engagements. The tradition of tutorial work has become firmly established.

H. H. BURBANK.

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1921-22, pp. 34-38.

Image Source: Assistant Professor of Economics Harold Hitchings Burbank in Harvard Class Album, 1920.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Graduate Core Economic Theory Examinations. Mostly Taussig, some Young, 1920-22

 

 

Examination questions spanning just over a half-century can be found in Frank Taussig’s personal scrapbook of cut-and-pasted semester examinations for his entire Harvard career. Until Schumpeter took over the core economic theory course from Taussig in 1935, Taussig’s course covering economic theory and its history was a part of almost every properly educated Harvard economist’s basic training. Taussig’s exam questions have been previously posted for the academic years 1886/87 through 1889/90 along with enrollment data for the course;  material for this course (including semesters when taught with/by other instructors) from 1890/91 through 1893/94; 1897-1900 ; 1904-1909 ; 1911-14 ; 1915-1917; 1918-1919 have been posted as well.  

This post provides the examination questions and enrollments for the academic years 1919/20 through 1921/22. There are two points worthy of note regarding the 1921-22 academic year. The first is that a complete set of student notes have been edited and published by Marianne Johnson and Warren J. Samuels and a link to the relevant webpage at Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology is provided below. The second point is that further archival material confirms that the course was indeed taught by Frank W. Taussig and Allyn A. Young in 1921/22.

________________________________

Student notes for Economics 11 from 1921-22 have been transcribed and published

“According to the Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XVII, December 20, 1921, No. 51, Frank William Taussig was the only instructor of record for Economic Theory (EC 11). The initial notes seem to confirm that what is reproduced here is solely Taussig’s teaching, with frequent mention of his views recorded (e.g., “Taussig says”). However, in the ‘Supplementary Notes,’ attributed to both Taussig and Allyn A. Young, frequent mention is made of Young’s views. Whether these notes are from lecture, recitation, or are Hexter’s personal notes is unknown.”

 Source:  Marianne Johnson and Warren J. Samuels (eds.) Maurice Beck Hexter’s Notes from Harvard University, 1921-22. Economic Theory by Taussig, Young, and Carver at Harvard. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, Vol. 28-C, Part II. 2010.

 

Additional Information from the Archives.

In the third edition of Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offfered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year, 1921-22 (p. 110), both Professors Taussig and Young were announced as the instructors for Economics 11.

Taussig’s scrapbook of his examination questions (the source for the other examinations except for the second semester of 1921/22) does not include the year-end final examination for Economics 11 that semester. The June 1922 examination questions are however available in the Harvard University Archive’s collection of final examination papers and match the content of Baxter’s Supplementary Notes for Young so it appears a reasonable presumption that Taussig was responsible for the first semester exam and Young was responsible for the second semester exam in 1921/22.

________________________________

 

Course Enrollment
1919-20

[Economics] 11. Professor Taussig.—Economic Theory

Total 47: 36 Graduates, 2 Graduate Business, 3 Seniors, 5 Radcliffe, 1 Other

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1919-20, p. 90.

 

 

1919-20
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Mid-year. 1920.

Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.

  1. “On the ranches of Montana cattle are breeding, among the forests of Pennsylvania hides are tanning, in the mills of Brockton shoes are finishing; and, if the series of goods in all stages of advancement is only kept intact, the cowboy may have today the shoes that he virtually creates by his effort. . . With sheep in the pastures, wool in the mills, cloth in the tailoring shops, and ready-made garments on the retailers’ counters, the labor of the people can, as it were, instantaneously cloth the people.”
    Do you agree? Whom do you believe to be the writer of the passage?
  2. What element in distribution was regarded as “residual” by F. A. Walker? By Ricardo? By Mill?
  3. Can Mill’s conclusions regarding the effects of free trade in corn on wages and laborers’ welfare, be reconciled with Ricardo’s teachings?
  4. State the objections which have been made to the doctrine of consumer’s surplus on the score of

(a) inequalities in income;
(b) articles catering to the love of distinction;
(c) the latent assumption that, while the price of the given article   changes, other articles remain the same in price.

Can these objections be met in such way as to leave the doctrine still significant?

  1. Explain in what sense the term “increase of demand” is used when it is said that an increase of demand may cause increasing returns (diminishing cost); and in what sense when it is said that an increase of demand is a result of diminishing cost.
  2. “We might as reasonably dispute whether it is the upper or the under blade of a pair of scissors that cuts a piece of paper, as whether value is governed by utility or cost of production.”
    Explain, illustrate, qualify.
  3. Under what conditions, if under any, is the demand curve positively inclined?
    Under what conditions, if under any, is the supply curve negatively inclined?
  4. A factory building yields a net rental, over all expenses and taxes, of $10,000 a year. The land on which it stands, if let as a site not built on, would yield $5,000 a year. The cost of the building was $100,000; the rate of interest is 5%.
    What is the nature of the return (rental), according to Marshall? In your own opinion?
    Suppose the net rental to decline to $6,000 a year; would your answers be the same?

 

1919-20
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Final. 1920.

  1. Explain briefly:

Joint Demand,
Derived Supply Price,
Law of Substitution.

  1. “The United States already possesses a much larger population than Great Britain, a population moreover, as a whole, on a somewhat higher level of comfort, and therefore furnishing a more intense ‘effectual demand.’ Even supposing the same amount of concentration of capital, relatively, to be brought about in Great Britain as in America, the average size of concerns would be less than in the United States, because the market to be divided is smaller. As a result the cost of production in America per unit would necessarily be less.” Do you agree?
  2. “When the artisan or professional man has once obtained the skill required for his work, a part of his earnings are for the future really a quasi-rent of the capital and labor invested in fitting him for his work, in obtaining his start in life, his business connections, and generally his opportunity for turning his faculties to good account; and only the remainder of his income is true earnings of effort. But this remainder is generally a large part of the whole. And here lies the contrast. For when a similar analysis is made of the profits of the business man, the proportions are found to be different: in his case the greater part is quasi-rent.”
    Is this distinction tenable? And is quasi-rent not to be regarded as true earnings of effort?
  3. “At the present day, in those parts of England where custom and sentiment count for least, and free competition and enterprise for most in the bargaining for the use of land, it is commonly understood that the landlord supplies, and in some measure maintains, those improvements which are slowly made and slowly worn out. That being done, he requires of his tenant the whole producer’s surplus which the land thus equipped is estimated to afford in a year of normal harvests and normal prices. . . . In other words, that part of the income derived from the land which the landlord obtains, is governed, for all periods of moderate length, mainly by the market for the produce, with but little reference to the cost of providing the various agents employed in raising it; and it therefore is of the nature of a rent. . . The more fully therefore the distinctively English features of land tenure are developed, the more nearly is it true that the line of division between the tenant’s and the landlord’s share coincides with the deepest and most important line of cleavage in economic theory.”
    What is the line of cleavage here described by Marshall? And do you consider it the deepest and most important?
  4. “The last three chapters examined the relation in which cost of production stands to the income derived from the ownership of the ‘original powers’ of land and other free gifts of nature, and also to that which is directly due to the investment of private capital. There is a third class holding an intermediate position between these two, which consists of those incomes, or rather those parts of incomes, which are the indirect result of the general progress of society, rather than the direct result of the investment of capital and labor by individuals for the sake of gain.”
    Explain what is the third class; and what is the relation of cost of production to income in each of the three classes.
  5. Do the earnings of great business ability represent a “cost” according to Walker? Marshall? Fetter?
  6. Explain what Hobson means by economic cost and by human cost; and which kind of cost he believes to be incurred in connection with (a) economic rent, (b) the savings of the working classes, (c) the earnings of exceptional ability.
  7. “We have in the theories of usance and of rent all that is essential and fundamental to theories of labor-value and of wages. Man’s services and wealth’s uses move in parallel lines and are of parallel nature in contributing to the securing of income. Human actions directed toward some desired end constitute a usance of human beings; they are valuable services just as the work of domestic animals, the uses of tools, and the motions of machinery are valuable uses of wealth. These valuable services, partly rendered directly to persons and partly embodied in goods, constitute labor-incomes, comparable to the usance of wealth, the wealth-incomes.”
    What would Fisher say to this? Hobson? What is your own view?
  8. Wherein is there resemblance, wherein difference, between the views of Fetter and of Clark as regards:

(a) Waiting and abstinence,
(b) The productivity of capital,
(c) Interest.

________________________________

Course Enrollment
1920-21

[Economics] 11. Professor Taussig.—Economic Theory

Total 39: 26 Graduates, 1 Graduate Business, 1 Senior, 10 Radcliffe, 1 Other.

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1920-21, p. 96.

 

1920-21
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Mid-Year. 1921.

Arrange your answers in the order of the questions

  1. “Adam Smith says ‘that the difference between the real and the nominal price of commodities and labour is not a matter of mere speculation, but may sometimes be of considerable use in practice.’ I agree with him; but the real price of labour and commodities is no more to be ascertained by their price in goods, Adam Smith’s real measure, than by their price in gold and silver, his nominal measure. The labourer is only paid a really high price for his labour when”, —
    Complete the closing sentence, as you conceive that Ricardo would have completed it. Explain also how Ricardo would ascertain the real price of commodities, and how Adam Smith would have done so.
  2. “The fundamental truth, that in all economic reasoning must be firmly grasped and never let go, is that society in its most highly developed form is but an elaboration of society in its rudest beginnings, and that principles obvious in the simpler relations of men are merely disguised and not abrogated or reversed by the more intricate relations that result from the division of labor and the use of complex tools and methods.”
    — H. George.
    “The minor premise [in Ricardo’s reasoning on value and prices] is the assumption that it is natural that in a tribe of savages things should exchange in proportion to the labor required to produce them. The major premise is, that what is natural in the earliest must be natural in the most advanced states of society.” — Cliffe-Leslie.
    Can it be said that Ricardo’s method of reasoning on value is substantially different from George’s on wages? If so, wherein?
  3. Compare concisely the treatment by (a) Ricardo, (b) J. S. Mill, (c) Cairnes, of the differences of wages in different employments, and the relation between such differences and the values of commodities.
  4. “Mr. Longe puts the case of a capitalist who, by taking advantage of the necessities of his workmen, effects a reduction in their wages, and succeeds in withdrawing so much, call it £1000, from the Wages-fund; and ask how is the sum, thus withdrawn, to be restored to the fund? On Mr. Longe’s principles the answer is single, — ‘by being spent on commodities’; for it may be assumed that the sum so withdrawn will, in any case, not be hoarded. . . . The answer, therefore, to the case put by Mr. Longe is easy on his principles; and I am disposed to flatter myself that the reader who has gone with me in the foregoing discussion will not have much difficulty in replying to it upon mine.”
    What is the answer on Cairnes’ principles? Would Mill have given the same answer?
  5. Is Cairnes’ doctrine concerning the causes determining the rate of profits the same as Mill’s? as Ricardo’s?
  6. What does Mill mean by the equation of supply and demand; what does Marshall mean by the equilibrium of supply and demand?
    Which method of analysis is preferable, if either, in case of (a) wheat after a very abundant harvest; (b) an increase in the demand for a commodity made with much fixed plant under competitive conditions; (c) a patented article.
  7. (a) “In regard to production in general, a dominant difference between machines and land is that the supply of land is fixed (though in a new country, the supply of land utilized in man’s service may be increased); while the supply of machines may be increased without limit. For if no great invention renders his machines obsolete, while there is a steady demand for the things made by them, they will be constantly on sale at about their cost of production; and his machines will generally yield him normal profits on that cost of production, with deductions corresponding to their wear and tear.”
    (b) “The deepest and most important line of cleavage in economic theory . . . is the distinction between the quasi-rents which do not, and the profits which do, directly enter into the normal supply prices of produce for periods of moderate length.”
    Are these two statements consistent with each other?
  8. Explain:

internal economies,
external economies,
law of increasing return,
successive costs curve.

  1. It has been argued that a protective duty is advantageous in that, by causing the domestic output to be greater, it brings into operation the tendency to increasing returns and thus causes prices to become lower. Is the argument sound?

 

1920-21
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Final. 1921

Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. One question may be omitted.

  1. It has been maintained that Walker’s analysis of the relation between business profits and wages involves reasoning in a circle. In answer it has been said that in speaking of “wages” as the residual constituent, wages at large are had in mind; whereas when defining the no-profits men, the wages of a particular limited class are referred to. Do you believe that, with this explanation, there is circular reasoning? without it?
  2. “The simplest and clearest mode of stating the theory of general wages is, in my judgment, to say that wages are determined by the discounted marginal product of labor. Let attention be given to the two elements in this somewhat cumbrous formula: ‘margin’ and ‘discount.’. . .
    “It has been assumed [in intervening passages, here omitted] that the discounting takes place at the current rate of interest. Here we must be on our guard against reasoning in a circle. In previous chapters, interest has been accounted for, in part at least, by the fact that there is a ‘productivity’ of capital; it results from the application of labor in more productive ways. If this were the whole of the theory of interest, we should reason in a circle in saying that wages are determined by a process of discount.”
    Would the reasoning appear to be open to the charge? and if so, how can it be met?
  3. “In the classical political economy, the relation of the rate of interest to distribution was entirely misconceived. Distribution was erroneously regarded as a separation of the income of society into ‘interest, rent, wages, and profits.’ By ‘interest’ of course was meant, not the rate of interest, but the rate of interest multiplied by the value of the capital ‘yielding interest.’ But we have seen that the value of the capital is found by taking the income which it yields and capitalizing it by means of the rate of interest. To reverse this process, and obtain the income by multiplying the capital by the rate of interest, is proceeding in a circle.”
    Was there such a circle in the classical reasoning, e.g., as you find it in Mill? Whom do you suppose to be the writer of this passage?
  4. “Each capital good, before it is sold or worn out, produces a sum of value that enables the owner of the good to purchase or make another good of the same character, which in its turn possesses the power of replacing itself by a successor of equal value. The capital goods of this year are, therefore, not merely the successors in time of those of last year, now mostly destroyed; they are, economically, the offspring of the capital goods of the earlier period, and they have the same power of replacing themselves with other goods having the power of self-replacement.
    “It is, of course, to be understood that this self-replacement is neither automatic nor inevitable. We may say that under certain conditions a particular capital good will add something to the total product of an industry, but not enough to keep itself in repair and replace itself when worn out. Under other conditions a capital good will just do this; under still other conditions a capital good will add to the product of an establishment not only enough for its own repair and replacement, but a surplus besides. . . . Intelligent action on the part of the owner of such goods is essential to the truth of this proposition; but such action may generally be taken for granted.”
    What do you say? Whom do you suppose to be the author of the passage? [Hand-written note: A. S. Johnson]
  5. State the reasoning by which Clark supports the proposition that interest is the specific product of capital; and the grounds on which Böhm-Bawerk dissents from that proposition.
  6. Would Marshall admit that “there is an element of true rent in the composite product that is commonly called wages, an element of true earnings in what is commonly called rent”? Your own view?
  7. “The ‘law of distribution’ which emerges is that every owner of any factor of production ‘tends to receive as remuneration’ exactly what it is ‘worth.’ Now this ‘law’ is doubly defective. Its first defect arises from the fact that economic science assigns no other meaning to the ‘worth’ or ‘value’ of anything than what it actually gets in the market. To say, therefore, that anybody ‘gets what he is worth,’ is merely an identical proposition, and conveys no knowledge.”
    Is this criticism of “marginalism” valid?
  8. “If the peers and millionaires who are now preaching the duty of production to miners and dock laborers desire that more wealth, not more waste, should be produced, the simplest way in which they can achieve their aim is to transfer to the public their whole incomes over (say) $5000 a year, in order that it may be spent in setting to work, not gardeners, chauffeurs, domestic servants, and shopkeepers in the West End of London, but builders, mechanics, and teachers.”
    Explain what you conceive to be meant by “waste” and “wealth” in this passage; what Hobson might be expected to say to it; and what is your own view.

________________________________

Course Enrollment 1921-22 not published

The Annual Report of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College 1921-22 does not include enrollment statistics by course for some reason.

Source: http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/427018645?n=1&s=4&printThumbnails=no&oldpds

 

Course Description
1921-22

 

[Economics] 11. Economic Theory. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Professors TAUSSIG and YOUNG.

Course 11 is intended to acquaint the student with the development of economic thought since the beginning of the nineteenth century, and at the same time to train him in the critical consideration of economic principles. The exercises are conducted mainly by the discussion of selected passages from the leading writers; and in this discussion the students are expected to take an active part. Attention will be given to the writings of Ricardo and J. S. Mill, and to representative modern economists.

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics, 1921-22. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XVIII, No. 20 (April 21, 1921), p. 68.

 

1921-22
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Mid-Year. 1922.

Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions.

  1. Does Walker’s analysis of the relation between wages and business profits involve reasoning in a circle?
    Suppose that the “no profits” business man were defined by Walker in the same terms as those used by Marshall in describing the representative firm; would your answer be different?
  1. “We might find, for example, that though the absolute quantity of commodities had been doubled, they were the produce of precisely the former quantity of labor. Of every hundred hats, coats, and quarters of corn produced, if
The labourers had before

25

The landlords

25

And the capitalists

50

100

And if, after these commodities were double the quantity,
of every 100

The labourers had only

22

The landlords

22

And the capitalists

56

100

In that case I should say that wages and rent had fallen and profits risen; though, in consequence of the abundance of commodities, the quantity paid to the labourer and landlord would have increased in the proportion of 25 to 44.”
What is the precise ground on which Ricardo would say that under these conditions wages and rent had fallen, profits risen?

  1. (a) “The cause of profit is that labor produces more than is required for its support.”
    (b) “The capitalist may be assumed to make all the advances and receive all the produce. His profit consists in the excess of the produce above the advances.”
    (c) “We thus arrive at the conclusion of Ricardo and others, that the rate of profits depends on wages; rising as wages fall, and falling as wages rise. In adopting, however, this doctrine, I must insist upon a most necessary alteration in its wording. Instead of saying that profits depend on wages, let us say (what Ricardo really meant) that they depend on the cost of labour.”
    Consider which of these statements of Mill’s, if any, is in strict accord with Ricardo’s doctrines.
  2. It has been said, —

(a) that rent is due to the niggardliness of nature, not to her bounty;
(b) that the law of diminishing returns refers to the quantity of produce obtained from land, not to its value;
(c) that intensive cultivation is profitable only when the prices of agricultural products are high;
(d) that if all land were equally advantageous and all were occupied, the income derived from it would partake of the nature of a monopoly return.

Which of these statements would you accept, which reject?

  1. “The latent influence by which the values of things are made to conform in the long run to the cost of production is the variation that would otherwise take place in the supply of the commodity. The supply would be increased if the thing continued to sell above the ratio of its cost of production, and would be diminished if it fell below that ratio. But we must not therefore suppose it to be necessary that the supply should actually be either diminished or increased. . . . Many persons suppose that . . . the value cannot fall through a diminution of the cost of production, unless the supply is permanently increased; nor rise, unless the supply is permanently diminished. But this is not the fact; there is no need that there should be any actual alteration of supply; and when there is, the alteration, if permanent, is not the cause, but the consequence of the alteration in value.”
    What would you expect J. S. Mill to say to this? Marshall? your instructor?
  2. (a) England’s agriculture in case of a war not expected to last long;
    (b) the gradual accretion in the value of land settled by pioneers;
    (c) the earning power of farm-buildings;
    (d) the incidence of a tax on printing presses.
    What link of connection do you find in Marshall’s discussion of these several topics?
  3. Explain, with the utmost brevity and precision of which you are capable:

diminishing returns,
increasing returns,
increase of demand,
standard of living.

  1. It is suggested that a protective duty, by enlarging the total output of a given product within a country, brings into play increasing returns and thereby leads to prices of the product lower than would have been in effect but for the duty. Do you agree?
    Canadian manufacturers maintain that the larger total output of the competing manufacturers in the United States enables the Americans to conduct on a larger scale the operation of their plants and thereby enables them to produce at lower cost than the Canadians. Are there good grounds for the contention?

 

ECONOMICS 11
Final. 1922.
[Questions presumably by A. A. Young and not F. W. Taussig]

  1. “In all countries, and all times, profits depend on the quantity of labor requisite to provide necessaries for the laborers, on that land or with that capital which yields no rent. The effects then of accumulation will be different in different countries, and will depend chiefly on the fertility of the land.”
    What other of Ricardo’s doctrines are implied in the foregoing statement?
  2. “Let us consider whether, and in what cases, the property of those who live on the interest of what they possess, without being personally engaged in production, can be regarded as capital. It is not so called in common language, and, with reference to the individual, not improperly. All funds from which the possessor derives an income, which income he can use without sinking and dissipating the fund itself, are to him equivalent to capital. But to transfer hastily and inconsiderately to the general point of view propositions which are true of the individual has been a source of innumerable errors in political economy. In the present instance, that which is virtually capital to the individual, is or is not capital to the nation, according as the fund which by the supposition he has not dissipated, has or has not been dissipated by somebody else.”—J.S. Mill
  3. In what way, according to Taussig, are nations and non-competing groups of laborers analogous? According to Cairnes?
  4. Are business profits wages or a return on capital, or neither? What would Ricardo say? Marshall? Walker? Taussig? Knight? Your opinion?
  5. Define concisely consumers’ surplus, increasing returns, quasi-rent, uncertainty (as distinguished from risk).
  6. Marshall holds that “a business man working with borrowed capital is at a disadvantage in some trades.” In what sort, and why?
  7. “In the statements that are current, it is said that the final increments of different commodities purchased for consumption at the same cost are, with certain allowances, of the same utility to the purchaser. With the last hundred dollars of the year’s income, the man in the illustration will buy some particular things that he did not have before, and he will add quantitatively to his supply of things of which he has already had a certain amount. If each distinct article on the list costs a dollar, they are all supposed to be of equal utility; but their degrees of utility are, in fact, very unequal. If the modern theory of value, as it is commonly stated, were literally true, most articles of high quality would sell for three times as much as they actually bring. It is well, at this point in the discussion, to make the needed correction of the law of value, inasmuch as group incomes depend on that law, and inasmuch as the distinction on which the correction rests is of cardinal importance in connection with wages and interest.”
    To whom do you attribute the foregoing opinion? What is the “needed correction in the law of value”?
  8. On what grounds does Davenport include land with capital and on what grounds does Marshall exclude it?

Sources:

Harvard University Archives. Prof. F. W. Taussig, Examination Papers in Economics 1882-1935(Scrapbook).

Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers, 1922 (HUC 7000.28, 64 of 284), Papers Set for Examinations: History, Church History,…,Government, Economics, Philosophy,…, Social Ethics, Education (June 1922).

Image Source:  Harvard Class Album:  Taussig (1915), Young (1925).

 

Categories
Curriculum Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate Fields of Distribution. Economics Second, 1920

 

 

Economics served as a pioneer for the introduction of the division examination in a major field as a degree requirement. It is interesting to note that this additional requirement appears to have reduced the number of economics majors. “Beginning in 1914, all students “concentrating” in the division of history, government, and economics, have been obliged to take a general examination in their senior year. This requirement has been confined to that division, and has doubtless had the effect of turning away many men who otherwise would “concentrate” in economics.”

____________________

FIELDS OF “CONCENTRATION”

More students in Harvard College are specializing in English literature this year than in any other subject. Economics ranks second; and chemistry, third. Every student is now required to take during his four years in College at least six courses in some one field of study. Three hundred sixty-two men have chosen English literature as their field of “concentration”; 314, economics; 200, chemistry; 178, romance languages; 126, history; 87, government; and 63, mathematics.

In 1914 more students “concentrated” in economics than in any other subject; and English literature ranked second. In that year nearly four men were specializing in economics for every three in English. But since that time English has taken the lead. Beginning in 1914, all students “concentrating” in the division of history, government, and economics, have been obliged to take a general examination in their senior year. This requirement has been confined to that division, and has doubtless had the effect of turning away many men who otherwise would “concentrate” in economics.

Beginning with the class of 1922, however, the general examination, will be required of practically every student in Harvard College; and those who specialize in English and other subjects will be subject to a test similar to that which has been in force in the economics group for four years. There are already signs of a drift back to economics, though English is still in the lead.

Other changes in the past few years have been a decline in the number of men specializing in German, an increase in those specializing in Romance Languages, and an increase in the popularity of chemistry.

The figures for this year are as follows:

SUBJECT NUMBER OF MEN CONCENTRATING IN IT.
English

362

Economics

314

Chemistry

200

Romance Languages

178

History

126

Government

87

Mathematics

63

Engineering Sciences

53*

Geology

33

History and Literature

31

Biology

30

Classics

29

Fine Arts

29

Philosophy and Psychology

29

Physics

16

German

14

Music

10

Other Subjects

17

*This figure does not represent the entire enrollment in engineering, for most men whose tastes and abilities lie in this direction are registered in the Harvard Engineering School rather than in Harvard College.

 

Source:     Harvard Alumni Bulletin,   Vol. XXIII, No. 12 (December 16, 1920), p. 276.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Introductory Economics. Exam questions, 1959-60

 

 

In 1948-49 Economics 1 replaced Economics A as the introductory course at Harvard. Really quite striking from today’s perspective are the economic history and history of economics questions from the first term and the Soviet planning questions in the second terms. You really have to be an old comparative economics researcher (or native Russian speaker) to know what “Blat” was.  [See J. Berliner, ‘Blat is higher than Stalin’, Problems of Communism, 3(1), 1954.]

__________________________

1959-60
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
Hour Examination.
October 30, 1959

  1. (10 minutes) Discuss briefly.
    1. Law of diminishing returns.
    2. “Favorable balance of trade.”
    3. English “enclosures.”
    4. Mercantilism
  2. (20 minutes)
    “The concept of a price system is as foreign to the economics of manorialism as the medieval doctrine of usury would be to the money markets of the modern world.”
  3. (20 minutes)
    How did the classical economists attempt to prove that there were economic gains in free trade? By what means did they translate their argument from “real” to “monetary” terms?

__________________________

1959-60
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS I
Midyear Examination.
January 1960.

(Three hours)

Answer all questions

  1. (45 minutes)
    “The victory of the ‘classical economics’ over mercantilist doctrine in England, was more than anything else, an indication of the appropriateness of the new analysis to the conditions of the Industrial Revolution.”
    Discuss critically, with reference to the following:

    1. an analysis of the “classical” doctrines of growth and distribution;
    2. the areas of conflict between “classical” and mercantilist ideology;
    3. the degree of relevance of the “classical economics” to conditions in the late 18th and early 19th century England.
  2. a) Define briefly the following terms: (15 minutes)

1. The demand curve for a product
2. elasticity
3. marginal cost
4. market control or power
5. workable competition

b) Utilizing these and any other relevant concepts, discuss: (60 minutes)

1.  Price and output policy of the firm under pure competition, oligopoly, and monopoly;
2.  Government intervention in the market as exemplified in U.S. agricultural programs and proposals;
3.  The use of government anti-trust policies in improving the functioning of the market system in a less than perfectly competitive economy such as that of the U.S. today.

  1. (60 minutes) The Logic of Say’s Law (supply creates its own demand) led many economists for over 100 years to the conclusion that a general glut was impossible.
    1. How does modern macroeconomic analysis attempt to demonstrate the possibility of a general glut or depression?
    2. Can this modern analysis be used to explain the opposite situation of general excess demand? If so, how?
    3. What explanation can you give of the Great Depression by applying this analysis to specific developments in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s?
    4. What fiscal measures would you have suggested to cure the depression? Explain carefully your reason for each proposal.

 

__________________________

Economics I
Midyear Examination Make-up
April 22,1960

(Time: Three hours. Answer ALL questions.)

Question I (60 minutes)

“Markets, whether they be exchanges between primitive tribes where objects are dropped casually on the ground, or the exciting traveling affairs of the Middle Ages, are not the same as ‘the modern market system’.”

  1. What are the major economic differences between a medieval market and a modern market mechanism?
  2. How did the Mercantilist and the classical economists differ in their concepts of the role of the state with respect to the market mechanism and its operation?
  3. To what extent was the “Industrial Revolution” in England related to particular developments in the evolution of a market system?

 

Question 2 (60 minutes)

Briefly but clearly distinguish between the following pairs of concepts:

  1. marginal propensity to consume and elasticity of demand
  2. national income and national expenditure
  3. savings and investment
  4. market equilibrium and market control
  5. marginal productivity and economic rent
  6. normal profit and monopoly profit
  7. countervailing power and collective bargaining
  8. transfer payments and factor payments
  9. differentiated product and free entry
  10. perfect competition and workable competition

 

Question 3 (60 minutes)

Compare the characteristics of market structures as seen by Adam Smith with those distinguished by modern economic analysis, in relation to the following:

  1. The specific types of market structure which have developed, and the nature of the control of the individual firm with respect to its price, output, and profit.
  2. The case for intervention, by the present-day U.S. government, in
    1. particular industrial markets
    2. the agricultural market
    3. the labor market.

PLEASE RETURN THIS EXAMINATION PAPER WITH YOUR TEST BLUEBOOK

__________________________

ECONOMICS I
Section 4H [or 4II?]

Hour Examination
April 29, 1960

Answer:

Question 1;
Question 2, or Question 3; and
Question 4, or Question 5, or Question 6. A TOTAL OF THREE

  1. Comment briefly on:
    1. International Monetary Fund
    2. the marginal propensity to import and the foreign trade multiplier
    3. Gosplan
    4. Blat
    5. balance of payments deficit
    6. Soviet turnover tax
  2. Western Germany has in the past been a persistent creditor country. It has been suggested that the resulting imbalance should be remedied by an appreciation of the D-Mark.
    1. Under what circumstances would this policy decision have effective results?
    2. What set of circumstances would make such a decision undesirable?
  3. “Playing the rules of the gold standard involves a loss of freedom to monetary and fiscal authorities.” Explain.
  4. “Although prices may be used in both a planned economy and a price-directed economy, the sharpest distinction between the two can be expressed in terms of the role of prices.” Discuss.
  5. a. What is the essence of central planning? Which are the principal administrative authorities responsible for the various steps in planning in the Soviet Union?
    b. What are the principal sources of inefficiency of Soviet planning?
  6. What are some accelerating and some retarding factors affecting future Soviet Growth?

__________________________

1959-60
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
Final Examination.
May 25, 1960.

(Three hours)
Answer all questions

  1. (30 minutes)
    Explain what is meant by “the problem of creeping inflation.” What is the scope, and what are the limitations, of Federal Reserve policy in its attempt to meet this problem? Are there reasons for believing that mild inflation might be desirable in some respects?
  2. (30 minutes)
    The President’s Report of January 1959 gave the general fiscal objective and expectation of the Federal Government, for the fiscal year 1958-59, as a balanced budget at a level of $77 billion.
    The President’s Report of January 1960 reported that, for the fiscal year 1958-59, the Federal Government had run a deficit of approximately $12.4 billion, tax receipts being $68.3 billion and expenditures being $80.7 billion.

    1. Give a critical analysis of the major factors which tend to make budgetary planning, and fiscal policy, difficult in general, and give an account of some of the influences which threw out the predictions for the 1958-59 period in particular.
    2. What general effect, in your judgment, did the fiscal operations of government have in this period? To what extent was this effect related to deliberate policy decisions taken during the period?
  3. (30 minutes)
    The major alternatives open to the public authorities of a country experiencing a balance of payments deficit include: (a) devaluation, (b) internal deflationary policy, (c) the imposition of tariffs and import quotas.
    What are the principal economic effects associated with each of the above policies? Do you consider any of these policies appropriate for the United States in meeting its present balance of payments difficulties? Explain your answer.
  4. (45 minutes)
    In terms of achieving a rapid rate of growth of priority sectors of its economy, the U.S.S.R. has obtained what, to western economists, is a remarkable degree of success. Most of these economists, however, would distinguish this achievement from “economic efficiency.”

    1. Indicate possible sources of inefficient resource use in the Soviet system, both at the level of the firm and at the level of the higher planning authorities.
    2. Discuss the role of prices in the Soviet system in relation to the problem of an efficient allocation of resources.
  5. (45 minutes)
    “Most of mankind is caught in a vicious circle, in which poverty prevents growth and lack of growth causes poverty. Only by simultaneous, dramatic expansion of all branches of economic activity can an underdeveloped country hope to break out of this vicious circle.”
    Discuss the following, with illustrations taken from one or more underdeveloped countries:

    1. the process by which poverty and lack of growth inter-act to create a vicious circle,
    2. the validity of the contention that, to be effective, growth must be “balanced.”

 

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Course reading lists, syllabi, and exams 1913-1992 (UA V 349.295.6). Economics 1-Ec 10 exams. Box 1 of 2, Folder “Economics I, Exams 1939-1962”.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Core Economic Theory. Bullock and Carver, 1917/18 and 1918/19

 

While Frank Taussig was off serving the country as the chairman of the United States Tariff Commission, his advanced economic theory course (Economics 11) was jointly taught by his colleagues Charles Bullock and Thomas Nixon Carver. The Harvard Archives collection of final examinations only has the June final examinations that are transcribed below, i.e., the first semester examinations from January have not been included (at least for now). It is also not clear whether the course was jointly taught both semesters or whether each colleague took a semester.  The semester by semester exams for this course up to these years can be found in a series of earlier posts. Here is the most recent of the posts for Economics 11 à la Taussig up to the first term of 1916.

______________________

COURSE DESCRIPTION
(Identical for 1917/18 and 1918/19)

Primarily for Graduates
I
ECONOMIC THEORY AND METHODS

[Economics] 11. Economic Theory. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Professors Carver and Bullock

Course 11 is intended to acquaint the student with the development of economic thought since the beginning of the nineteenth century, and at the same time to train him in the critical consideration of economic principles. The exercises are conducted mainly by the discussion of selected passages from the leading writers; and in this discussion the students are expected to take an active part. Special attention will be given to the writings of Ricardo, J.S. Mill, Cairnes, and among modern economists to F.A. Walker, Clark, Marshall, and Böhm-Bawerk.

 

Source: Official Register of Harvard University (Vol. XV, No. 23), May 10, 1918. Division of History, Government, and Economics 1918-19, p. 63.

______________________

Course Enrollment
1917-18

[Economics] 11. Professors Carver and Bullock.—Economic Theory

Total 11: 8 Graduates, 2 Graduate Business, 1 Radcliffe

 

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1917-1918, p. 54.

______________________

Final examination
(Second semester 1917-18)
ECONOMICS 11

 

  1. What elements in the economic system of Adam Smith were derived from previous systems of economic thought?
  2. What were the principal new contributions which were made by the Wealth of Nations?
  3. Trace the history of theories of business profits in the writings of Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Walker, and Marshall.
  4. Compare the theories of value presented by Smith, Ricardo, and Mill.
  5. What ideas concerning the probably future of the laboring classes were entertained by Smith, Ricardo, and Mill?
  6. Compare Smith’s views concerning rent with those of Ricardo, and then compare Mill’s statement of the theory of rent with Ricardo’s statement.
  7. What old and what new elements are found in the economic theories of Mill?
  8. From your own point of view, criticize Mill’s theory of value.

 

Source:   Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers 1918 (HU 7000.28, 60). Harvard University Examinations. Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, History of Religions, History of Science, Government, Economics,…, Fine Arts, Music in Harvard College, June, 1918, pp. 49-50.

______________________

Course Enrollment
1918-19

[Economics] 11. Professors Carver and Bullock.—Economic Theory

Total 7: 6 Civ., 1 Mil.

II, III. Total 11: 9 Graduates, 1 Senior, 1 Other.

 

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1918-1919, p. 52.

______________________

Final examination
(Second semester 1918-19)
ECONOMICS 11

Omit any one question

  1. Compare Smith’s views concerning the importance of different industries with those of the Mercantilists.
  2. What elements in the economic thought of Adam Smith were derived from earlier writers?
  3. What were Smith’s distinctive contributions to economic thought?
  4. Compare Smith’s theory of value with that of Ricardo.
  5. Compare Smith’s theory of distribution with that of Ricardo.
  6. Compare Mill’s theories of production and distribution with those of Ricardo and Smith.
  7. Give an account of the historical development of the law of diminishing returns.
  8. Compare Smith’s and Ricardo’s theories of international trade.

 

Source:   Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers 1919 (HU 7000.28, 61). Harvard University Examinations. Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, History of Science, Government, Economics,…, Fine Arts, Music in Harvard College, June, 1919, pp. 29-30.

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Economic History Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Radcliffe. Economics courses offered by Harvard professors with descriptions, 1893-94

 

Information about economics courses offered for women by Harvard professors before Radcliffe College officially came into existence (1879-1893) were included in an earlier post. Today’s post provides course descriptions for the four course offerings in economics in Radcliffe’s first year of existence. Besides the obvious interest for the intersection of gender and history of economics, the course descriptions turn out to be more detailed in these Radcliffe Presidential Reports at this time than what I can find in the corresponding Harvard catalogues.

__________________________

Radcliffe College, 1893-94
Economics

(Primarily for Undergraduates.)

PROFESSOR [EDWARD] CUMMINGS. — Outlines of Economics. — Mill’s Principles of Political Economy. — Lectures on Economic Development, Distribution, Social Questions, and Financial Legislation. This course gave a general introduction to Economic study, and a general view of Economics sufficient for those who had not further time to give to the subject. It was designed also to give intellectual discipline by the careful discussion of principles and reasoning.

The instruction was given by question and discussion. J. S. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy formed the basis of the work. At intervals lectures were given which served to illustrate and supplement the class-room instruction. In connection with the lectures, a course of reading was prescribed. The work of students was tested from time to time by examinations and other written work. — 16 students.

 

PROFESSOR [WILLIAM JAMES] ASHLEY. — The Elements of Economic History from the Middle Ages to Modern Times. The object of this course was to give a general view of the economic development of society from the Middle Ages to the present time. It dealt, among others, with the following topics: the manorial system and serfdom; the merchant gilds and mediaeval trade; the craft gilds and mediaeval industry; the commercial supremacy of the Italian and Hanseatic merchants; the merchant adventurers and the great trading companies; the agrarian changes of the sixteenth century; domestic industry; the struggle of England with Holland and France for commercial supremacy; the beginning of modern finance; the progress of farming; the great inventions and the factory system; modern business methods; and recent financial history.

During the earlier part of the course attention was devoted chiefly to England, but that country was treated as illustrating the broader features of the economic evolution of the whole of western Europe. Arrived at the 17th century, it was shown how English conditions were modified by transference to America; and from that point an attempt was made to trace the parallel movement of English and American affairs and their mutual influence. — 8 students.

 

(For Graduates and Undergraduates.)

PROFESSOR [EDWARD] CUMMINGS. — The Principles of Sociology. — Development of Modern State, and of its Social Functions. An introductory course in sociology, intended to give a comprehensive view of the structure and development of society in relation to some of the more characteristic ethical and industrial tendencies of the present day. The course began with a theoretical consideration of the relation of the individual to society and to the state, — with a view to pointing out some theoretical misconceptions and practical errors traceable to an illegitimate use of the fundamental analogies and metaphysical formulas found in Comte, Spencer, P. Leroy Beaulieu, Schaeffle, and other writers.

The second part followed more in detail the ethical and economic growth of society. Beginning with the development of social instincts manifested in voluntary organization, it considered the genesis and theory of natural rights, the function of legislation, the sociological significance of the status of women and of the family and other institutions, — with a view to tracing the evolution of certain types of society based upon a more or less complete recognition of the social ideas already considered.

The last part dealt with certain tendencies of the modern state, discussing especially the province and limits of state activity, with some comparison of the Anglo-Saxon and the continental theory and practice in regard to private initiative and state intervention in relation to public works, industrial development, philanthrophy, education, labor organization, and the like.

Each student selected for special investigation some question closely related to the theoretical or practical aspects of the course; and a certain amount of systematic reading was expected. — 4 students.

 

(Primarily for Graduates.)

PROFESSOR [WILLIAM JAMES] ASHLEY. — Seminary in Economic History. Two students were engaged in investigations under the guidance of the Professor. Of these, one was occupied in the study of the English Poor Law and its administration, and especially of the various attempts in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to deal with the “unemployed.” The other was studying the original materials for English manorial and agrarian history in the Middle Ages; and has prepared what is believed to be a fairly exhaustive list of such materials as are already in print, classified and arranged both chronologically and topographically. This list has been published by Messrs. Ginn & Co., under the authority of Radcliffe College, as Radcliffe College Monograph. No. 6. [Frances Gardiner Davenport, A. B., A Classified List of Printed Original Materials for English Manorial And Agrarian history during the Middle Ages, prepared under the direction of W. J. Ashley, M. A., Professor of Economic History in Harvard University.]

 

Source: Radcliffe College. Reports of the President, Regent, and Treasurer 1894, pp. 49-51.

Image Source: From the cover of the 1893 Radcliffe Yearbook.

 

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Core Advanced Economic Theory. Taussig (and Day), 1915-1917

 

 

Examination questions spanning just over a half-century can be found in Frank Taussig’s personal scrapbook of cut-and-pasted semester examinations for his entire Harvard career. Until Schumpeter took over the core economic theory course from Taussig in 1935, Taussig’s course covering economic theory and its history was a part of almost every properly educated Harvard economist’s basic training. Taussig’s exam questions were posted for the academic years 1886/87 through 1889/90 along with enrollment data for the course;  material from 1890/91 through 1893/94; 1897-1900 ; 1904-1909 ; 1911-14 have been posted as well.  

The course was taught by Taussig up through the Winter term of 1916/17. Early in 1917 Taussig was appointed chairman of the newly created United States Tariff Commission. He also was appointed a member of the Advisory Committee on the Peace (sub-committee on tariffs and commercial treaties) and he went to Europe for the economic sessions of the peace negotiations. His resignation from the Tariff Commission was  effective August 1, 1919 after which he returned to Harvard.

U.S. Tariff Commission Reports under Taussig 1917-1919:

First Annual Report (Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1917)
Second Annual Report (Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1918)
Third Annual Report (1919). 

________________________________

1914-15
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Mid-year Examination
[F. W. Taussig]

Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.

  1. “Given machinery, raw materials, and a year’s subsistence for 1000 laborers, does it make no difference with the annual product whether those laborers are Englishmen or East Indians?
    . . . The differences in the industrial quality of distinct communities of laborers are so great as to prohibit us from making use of capital to determine the amount that can be expended in any year or series of years in the purchase of labor.”
    Under what further suppositions, if under any, does this hypothetical case tell in favor of those holding that wages are paid from a wages fund? Under what suppositions, if under any, in favor of those holding views like Walker’s?
  2. (a)“The labourer is only paid a really high price for his labour when his wages will purchase the produce of a great deal of labour.”
    (b) “If I have to hire a labourer for a week, and instead of ten shillings I pay him eight, no variation having taken place in the value of money, the labourer can probably obtain more food and necessaries with his eight shillings than he before obtained for ten.”
    Explain concisely what Ricardo meant.
  3. What, according to Ricardo, would be the effects of a general rise of wages on profits? on the prices of commodities? on rents? the well-being of laborers?
  4. “The component elements of Cost of Production have been set forth in the first part of this enquiry. The principal of them, and so much the principal as to be nearly the sole, we found to be Labour. What the production of a thing costs to its producer, or its series of producers, is the labour expended in producing it. If we consider as the producer the capitalist who makes the advances, the word Labour may be replaced by the word Wages: what the produce costs to him, is the wages which he has had to pay.”   J.S. Mill.
    What would Ricardo say to the proposed substitution [of “Wages” for “Labour”]? Cairnes? Marshall?
  5. “Suppose that society is divided into a number of horizontal grades, each of which is recruited from the children of its own members, and each of which has its own standard of comfort, and increases in number rapidly when the earnings to be got in it rise above, and shrinks rapidly when they fall below that standard. Suppose, then, that parents can bring up their children to any trade in their own grade, but cannot easily raise them above it and will not consent to sink them below it. . . .
    On these suppositions the normal wage in any trade is that which is sufficient to enable a laborer, who has normal regularity of employment, to support himself and a family of normal size according to the standard of comfort that is normal in the grade to which his trade belongs. In other words the normal wage represents the expenses of production of the labor according to the ruling standard of comfort.” Marshall.
    On these suppositions, would value depend in the last analysis on cost or utility?
  6. (a)“Were it not for the tendency [to diminishing returns] every farmer could save nearly the whole of his rent by giving up all but a small piece of his land, and bestowing all his labor and capital on that. If all the labor and capital which he would in that case apply to it gave as good a return in proportion as that he now applies to it, he would get from that plot as large a produce as he now gets from his whole farm; and he would make a net gain of all his rent save that of the little plot that he retained.”
    (b) “The return to additional labour and capital [applied to land] diminishes sooner or later; the return is here measured by the quantity of the produce, not by its value.”
    (c) “Ricardo, and the economists of his time generally were too hasty in deducing this inference [tendency to increased pressure] from the law of diminishing return; and they did not allow enough for the increase of strength that comes from organization. But in fact every farmer is aided by the presence of neighbours, whether agriculturists or townspeople. . . . If the neighbouring market town expands into a large industrial centre, all his produce is worth more; some things which he used to throw away fetch a good price. He finds new openings in dairy farming and market gardening, and with a larger range of produce he makes use of rotations that keep his land always active without denuding it of any one of the elements that are necessary for its fertility.”
    Have you any criticisms or qualifications to suggest on these passages from Marshall?
  7. “When the artisan or professional man has once obtained the skill required for his work, a part of his earnings are for the future really a quasi-rent. The remainder of his income is true earnings of effort. But this remainder is generally a large part of the whole. And herein lies the contrast. When a similar analysis is made of the profits of the undertaker of business, the proportions are found to be different: in this case nearly all is quasi-rent.”
    Explain what you believe to be Marshall’s meaning, and why he considers undertaker’s profits not to be “true earnings of effort.”

________________________________

1914-15
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Final Examination
[F. W. Taussig]

Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.

  1. Explain briefly what Walker meant by the “no-profits” business man; what Marshall means by the “representative firm”; what your instructor means by the “marginal product of labor.” How are the three related?
  2. Explain briefly whether anything in the nature of a producer’s surplus or a consumer’s surplus appears as regards (a) instruments made by man and the return secured by their owners; (b) unskilled labor and the wages paid for it; (c) business management and business profits.
  3. “ Wages are paid by the ordinary employer as the equivalent of the discounted future benefits which the laborer’s work will bring him — the employer — and the rate he is willing to pay is equal to the marginal desirability of the laborer’s services measured in present money. We wish to emphasize the fact that the employer’s valuation is (1) marginal, and (2) discounted. The employer pays for all his workmen’s services on the basis of the services least desirable to him, just as the purchaser of coal buys it all on the basis of the ton least desirable to him; he watches the ‘marginal’ benefits he gets exactly as does the purchaser of coal. At a given rate of wages he ‘buys labor’ up to the point where the last or marginal man’s work is barely worth paying for. . . . If, say, he decides on one hundred men as the number he will employ, this is because the hundredth or marginal man he employs is believed to be barely worth his wages, while the man just beyond this margin, the one hundred and first man, is not taken on because the additional work he would do is believed to be not quite worth his wages.”
    Does this seem to you in essentials like the doctrine of Clark? of your instructor?
    [Hand-written note: The author is I. Fisher.]
  4. An urban site is leased at a ground rental of $2,000 a year; a building is erected on it costing $50,000; the current rate of interest is 4%.
    Suppose the net rental of the property (after deduction of expenses and taxes) to be $8,000. What is the nature of this return, according to J. S. Mill? Marshall? Clark?
    Suppose the net rental to be $3,000; answer the same questions.
  5. “That capital is productive has often been questioned, but no one would deny that tools and other materials of production are useful; yet these two propositions mean exactly the same when correctly understood. Capital consists primarily of tools and other materials of production, and such things are useful only in so far as they add something to the product of the community. Find out how much can be produced without any particular tool or machine, and then how much can be produced with it, and in the difference you have the measure of its productiveness.”
    What would Böhm-Bawerk say to this? What is your own view?
    [Hand-written note: The author is Carver.]
  6. “ Wages bear the same relation to man’s services that rent does to the material uses of wealth. . . . While rent is the value of the uses of things, wages is the value of the services of men. . . . The resemblance is very close between rent and wages.”
    “The principles governing the rate of wages are, in a general way, similar to those governing the rate of rent. The rate of a man’s wages per unit of time is the product of the price per piece of the work he turns out multiplied by the rate of output. His productivity depends on technical conditions, including his size, strength, skill, and cleverness.”
    Explain what is meant by “rent” in these passages and by what writers it is used in this sense; and give your opinion on the resemblance between such “rent” and wages.
    [Hand-written note: The authors are Fetter and Fisher, respectively.]
  7. Böhm-Bawerk remarks that the theory which he has put forward bears “a certain resemblance” to the wages fund theory of the older English school, but differs from it in various ways, one of which is “the most important” What are the points of resemblance? and what is this most important difference?
  8. “While the slowness of Nature is a sufficient cause for interest, her productivity is an additional cause. . . . Nature is reproductive and tends to multiply. Growing crops and animals make it possible to endow the future more richly than the present. By waiting, man can obtain from the forest or farm more than he can by premature cutting or the exhaustion of the soil. In other words, not only the slowness of Nature, but also her productivity or growth, has a strong tendency to keep up the rate of interest. Nature offers man, as one of her optional income-streams, the possibility of great future abundance at trifling present sacrifice. This option acts as a bribe to man to sacrifice present income for future, and this tends to make present income scarce and future income abundant, and hence also to create in his mind a preference for a unit of present over a unit of future income.”
    What would Böhm-Bawerk say to this? What is your own view?
    Whom do you believe to be the writer of the passage?
    [Hand-written note: The author is I. Fisher]

________________________________

1915-16
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Mid-year Examination
[F. W. Taussig]

Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions.

  1. On what grounds is it contended that there is a circle in Walker’s reasoning on the relation between wages and business profits? What is your opinion on this rejoinder: that Walker, in speaking of the causes determining wages, has in mind the general rate of wages, whereas in speaking of profits he has in mind the wages of a particular grade of labor?
  2. According to Ricardo, neither profits of capital nor rent of land are contained in the price of exchangeable commodities, but labor only.” — Thünen.
    Is there justification for this interpretation of Ricardo?
  3. “Instead of saying that profits depend on wages, let us say (what Ricardo really meant) that they depend on the cost of labour. . . . The cost of labour is, in the language of mathematics, a function of three variables: the efficiency of labor; the wages of labour (meaning thereby the real reward of the labourer); and the greater or less cost at which the articles composing that real reward can be produced or procured.”   — J. S. Mill.
    Is this what Ricardo really meant? Why the different form of statement by Mill? What comment have you to make on Mill’s statement?
  4. State resemblances and differences in the methods of analysis, and in the conclusions reached, between (a) the temporary equilibrium of supply and demand (e.g. in a grain market), as explained by Marshall; (b) “two-sided competition,” as explained by Böhm-Bawerk; (c) equilibrium under barter, as explained by Marshall.
  5. Explain concisely what is meant in the Austrian terminology by “value,” “subjective value,” “subjective exchange value,” “objective exchange value.”
    Does the introduction of “subjective exchange value” into the analysis of two-sided competition lead to reasoning in a circle?
  6. “Suppose a poor man receives every day two pieces of bread, while one is enough to allay the pangs of positive hunger, what value will one of the two pieces of bread have for him? The answer is easy enough. If he gives away the piece of bread, he will lose, and if he keeps it he will secure, provision for that degree of want which makes itself felt whenever positive hunger has been allayed. We may call this the second degree of utility. One of two entirely similar goods is, therefore, equal in value to the second degree in the scale of utility of that particular class of goods. . . . Not only has one of two goods the value of the second degree of utility, but either of them has it, whichever one may choose. And three pieces have together three times the value of the third degree of utility, and four pieces have four times the value of the fourth degree. In a word, the value of a supply of similar goods is equal to the sum of the items multiplied by the marginal utility.” — Wieser.
    Do you think this analysis tenable? and do you think it inconsistent with the doctrine of total utility and consumer’s surplus?
  7. “If the modern theory of value, as it is commonly stated, were literally true, most articles of high quality would sell for three times as much as they actually bring.” What leads Clark to this conclusion? and do you accept it?

________________________________

1915-16
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Final Examination
[F. W. Taussig]

Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions. Allow time for careful revision of your answers.

  1. “The productivity of capital is, like that of land and labor, subject to the principle of marginal productivity, which is, as we have seen, a part of the general law of diminishing returns. Increase the number of instruments of a given kind in any industrial establishment, leaving everything else in the establishment the same as before , and you will probably increase the total product of the establishment somewhat, but you will not increase the product as much as you have the instruments in question. Introduce a few more looms into a cotton factory without increasing the labor or the other forms of machinery, and you will add a certain small amount to the total output. . . . That which is true of looms in this particular is also true of ploughs on a farm, of locomotives on a railway, of floor space in a store, and of every other form of capital used in industry.” Is this in accord with Clark’s view? Böhm-Bawerk’s? Marshall’s? Your own?
  2. What is the significance of the principle of quasi-rent for
    1. the “single tax” proposal;
    2. Clark’s doctrine concerning the specific product of capital;
    3. the theory of business profits.
  3. Explain what writers use the following terms and in what senses: Composite quasi-rent; usance; implicit interest; joint demand.
  4. On Cairnes’ reasoning, are high wages of a particular group of laborers the cause of the result of high value (price) of the commodities made by them? On the reasoning of the Austrian school, what is the relation between cost and value? Consider differences or resemblances between the two trains of reasoning.
  5. “This ‘exploitation of interest’ consists virtually of two propositions: first, that the value of any product usually exceeds its cost of production; and, secondly, that the value of any product ought to be exactly equal to its cost of production. The first of these propositions is true, but the second is false. Economists have usually pursued a wrong method in answering the socialists, for they have attacked the first proposition instead of the second. The socialist is quite right in his contention that the value of the product exceeds the cost. In fact, this proposition is fundamental in the whole theory of capital and interest. Ricardo here, as in many other places in economics, has been partly right and partly wrong. He was one of the first to fall into the fallacy that the value of the product was normally equal to its cost, but he also noted certain apparent ‘exceptions,’ as for instance, that wine increased in value with years.” Is this a just statement of Ricardo’s view? Of the views of economists generally? In what sense is it true, in in any, that value usually exceeds cost?
  6. Explain carefully what Böhm-Bawerk means by
    1. social capital;
    2. the general subsistence fund;
    3. the average production period;
    4. usurious interest.
  7. In what way does he analyze the relation between (b) and (c)?
  8. Suppose ability of the highest kind in the organization and management of industry became as common as ability to do unskilled manual labor is now; what consequences would you expect as regards the national dividend? the remuneration of the business manager and of the unskilled laborer? Would you consider the readjusted scale of remuneration more or less equitable that that now obtaining?
  9. What grounds are there for maintaining or denying that “profits” are (a) essentially a differential gain, (b) ordinarily capitalized as “common stock,” (c) secured through “pecuniary,” not “industrial” activity? What method of investigation would you suggest as the best for answering these questions?

________________________________

Course Enrollment
1916-17

[Economics] 11. Asst. Professor Day.—Economic Theory

Total 28: 21 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 1 Radcliffe, 3 Others

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1916-1917, p. 57.

________________________________

1916-17
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Midyear Examination
[F. W. Taussig]

Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions.

  1. “Is it not true, in any normal condition of things, that consumption is supported by contemporaneous production?
    . . . Just as the subsistence of the laborers who built the Pyramids was drawn not from a previously hoarded stock, but from the constantly recurring crops of the Nile Valley; just as a modern government when it undertakes a great work of years does not appropriate to it wealth already produced, but wealth yet to be produced, which is taken from producers in taxes as the work progresses; so is it that the subsistence of the laborers engaged in production which does not directly yield subsistence, comes from the production of subsistence in which others are simultaneously engaged.”
    Consider, as regards contemporaneous production in general and also as regards the example of the Pyramids.
  2. “Our [British] commodities would not sell abroad for more or less in consequence of a free trade and a cheap price of corn; but the cost of production to our manufacturers would be very different if the price of corn was eighty or was sixty shillings per quarter; and consequently profits would be augmented by all the cost saved in the production of exported commodities.” — Ricardo.
    Explain what Ricardo meant here by “cost of production”; why he thought cost would be different in consequence of free trade in corn; and whether he believed cost (in this sense) to be the regulator of value.
  3. In what sense is the term “demand” used by Mill when speaking of (a) the equation of demand and supply, (b) demand and supply in relation to labor, (c) the demand for money?
  4. “The one universal rule to which the demand curve conforms is that it is inclined negatively throughout the whole of its length.” Can you mention exceptions as regards the demand curve for short periods? for long periods? In what sense is the term “demand” here used?
  5. It has been said that Marshall’s discussion of demand and utility is “an elementary analysis of an almost purely formal kind.” Does this seem to you a just comment?
  6. Explain “subjective value” and “subjective exchange value.” Under what conditions is subjective value to sellers of substantial influence in the determination of “objective exchange value”? Under what conditions, if under any, is subjective exchange value effective in such determination?
  7. “He [Longe] puts the case of a capitalist who, by taking advantage of the necessities of his workmen, effects a reduction in their wages, and succeeds in withdrawing so much, call it £1000, from the wages-fund; and asks how is the sum, thus withdrawn, to be restored to the fund? On Mr. Longe’s principles the answer is simple — ‘by being spent on commodities;’ for it may be assumed that the sum so withdrawn will, in any case, not be hoarded. . . . And I am disposed to flatter myself that the reader who has gone with me in the foregoing discussion will not have much difficulty in replying to it [the question] upon mine.”
    What is the answer on Cairnes’s principles? and is this the answer to be expected on the basis of a wages-fund doctrine?
  8. Explain in what way the relation between cost and value is analyzed by Cairnes and by the Austrian School. Would Cairnes’s analysis differ in essentials from the Austrian, if he were to assume complete mobility of labor? What significance do the Austrians attach to mobility of labor?

________________________________

1916-17
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 11
Final Examination
[E. E. Day]

  1. “The ultimate determinant of value…is marginal utility, not cost in the sense of labor of effort.” What would Marshall say of this? Böhm-Bawerk? Taussig?
  2. “The forces which make for Increasing Return are not of the same order as those that make for Diminishing Return…The two ‘laws’ are in no sense coordinate….The two ‘laws’ hold united, not divided, sway over industry.” Comment critically.
  3. Suppose the Federal government imposes a tax of 10 cents a bushel on all wheat grown in the United States. Upon whom will the burden of the tax fall? What conditions determine the final incidence of the tax? Illustrate, where possible, by diagram.
  4. “Rent forms no part of the expenses of production….Rent is not one of the factors bearing on price, but is the result of price.” Carefully analyze this contention.
  5. “The differences in the productive power of men due to their heredity or social position give to certain individuals the same kind of an advantage over others that the owner of a corner lot in the center of a city has over one in the suburbs. If the income from a corner lot is a surplus and can therefore be described as unearned, the income of a man of better heredity, education or opportunity must also be regarded as a surplus income and therefore unearned.” Discuss this statement with reference to your general theory of distribution.
  6. Contrast briefly the definitions of “capital” advanced by (a) Böhm-Bawerk; (b) Clark; (c) Taussig; (d) Fetter; (e) Veblen.
  7. Discuss the place of abstinence (or the sacrifice of saving) in the interest theories of (a) Böhm-Bawerk, (b) Clark; (c) Fetter; (d) Taussig.
  8. “In previous chapters, interest has been accounted for, in part at least, by the fact that there is productivity of capital; it results from the application of labor in more productive ways. If this were the whole of the theory of interest, we should reason in a circle in saying that wages are determined by a process of discount.” Do you agree as to the circle? Why or why not?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers (HUC 7000.28, vol. 59). Harvard University Examinations. Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, History of Religions, History of Science, Government, Economics,…, Fine Arts, Music in Harvard College, June 1917. p. 61.

Image Source: Frank Taussig’s 1919 passport application.

________________________________