Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has already posted two artifacts revealing Gottfried Haberler’s unfiltered opinions of other economists that he put into writing.
re: John Kenneth Galbraith vs. Paul Samuelson
re: Samuel Bowles
In my reading of the memo transcribed below I get the sense that Haberler was not shy of overstating his case for the appointment of Richard Caves by diminishing Arrow’s virtues: “I cannot help feeling that some of his [Arrow’s] work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low.”
Personal note: I once paid my Yale mentor William Fellner a courtesy call when he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. in the 1970s. Fellner was a lunch-buddy of Gottfried Haberler and he invited me to join the two of them for lunch at the Mayflower Hotel. I confess (with a combination of understanding for myself and shame) that I hadn’t a clue who the frail old man wolfing down his lunch across the table from me was and he displayed no interest in conversation with me either. And now here I sit, posting a 63 year old Haberler memo for the historical record.
____________________
All three were eventually given
Harvard professorships anyway
Kenneth Arrow (1951 Ph.D. Columbia, Harvard appointment 1968)
Richard Caves (1958 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1962)
Hollis Chenery (1950 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1965)
____________________
Haberler’s Protest:
Preface to his Colleagues
To the Senior Members of the Department:
I am going to send the attached letter to the President unless anybody strongly objects. For the members of the Department I should like to add that I somewhat resent the surprise tactic used in bringing up the name of Arrow in yesterday’s discussion. Let me confess that this was not immediately clear to me — which on reflection causes me to deplore it all the more. I have reason to believe that others too were taken by surprise.
December 13, 1961
____________________
Haberler’s Protest in Full
CONFIDENTIAL.
MEMO TO: The President, the Senior members of the Department of Economics, the Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration
FROM: Gottfried Haberler
In my opinion, the Department of Economics is making a serious mistake in filling up the Department too much with mathematical and econometric economists through the proposal to appoint Arrow and Chenery. May I say by way of introduction that, although I am not myself a mathematical economist, I have a high appreciation of the mathematical and econometric method and have consistently shown that by my votes in the Department.
I do believe, however, that at the present time the Department is well supplied with talent in this field. Five members of the permanent staff belong to that category — Dorfman, Houthakker, Leontief, Meyer, Schelling. True, all of them have developed strong interests in policy problems and have worked on applied problems. None of them is a “pure” theorist in the sense that he works exclusively in the theoretic-mathematical-econometric field, but all of them (with the exception of Schelling) have been appointed for their theoretical, mathematical, econometric skills.
In addition to the permanent members, there are always non-permanent members in that category, at present especially Clopper Almon [Obituary].
No two of these five men are quite alike and Arrow is different from all of them. As far as I know, Arrow has not yet developed an active interest in policy questions. I do not criticise him for that — it may well be an asset. All I want to say is that we are well supplied in his general field of competence. He certainly is a most competent man and he, rightly, has a high reputation in the profession. But I cannot help feeling that some of his work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low. On earlier occasions when he was discussed in the Department, Professor Leontief expressed precisely the same doubts and reservations. Now he thinks that a large department, such as ours, should have men of that type even if — as he still readily concedes — the permanent value of his ideas is problematic. My point is that we are well supplied with this sort of talent and that we are tilting the balance of the Department too strongly in one particular direction.
The fact that we propose to the School of Public Administration the appointment of Chenery fortifies in my opinion the above criticism.
Chenery too is a mathematical-econometric economist of high quality and great energy. His special field is input-output analysis in its application to less developed countries. He is not, of course, a “pure” theorist. On the contrary, application of the theoretical-statistical tools is his strength, especially of input-output analysis. He has also developed administrative talents. At this time, he holds an important position in Washington which makes him look especially attractive to Littauer, I am not in a position to evaluate his suitability for his government assignment. But I should like to say this: I feel strongly that input-output is of no use for the less developed countries, because their basic statistics are woefully inadequate. This does not mean that Chenery will be a poor administrator. It is possible that for him, in his present position, input-output will be a mere ritual. I assume, however, that Littauer does not appoint him for his administrative capabilities, but rather for his scholarly talents, and these latter belong to the same general field — mathematical-econometric analysis — as Arrow’s and the five members of the Department whom I mentioned.
I feel all the more strongly that the Department is making a grave mistake, because we are passing up a rare opportunity to appoint another man who fits into our Department better than either of the two men mentioned and who has other talents which we urgently need, namely, Richard Caves.
The Department has unanimously voted to recommend the appointment of Caves if Arrow is not available. I therefore need not argue his high competence and standing in this profession. Let me only say this: Caves has shown that he not only understands and appreciates the modern mathematical, statistical and econometric methods of analysis, but also — which is a different thing — that he knows how to use them. He has shown himself at the same time to be a master of traditional economic theory and of modern quantitative analysis, a very rare combination indeed. In addition to that he has become a very effective and stimulating undergraduate teacher, which neither one of the other two men is. We are often criticised for neglecting undergraduate teaching. We have tried to remedy this situation, but the difficulty has always been to find a man who measures up to our standards of scholarship and is at the same time an effective undergraduate teacher. Here we have the very rare opportunity, the opportunity of a lifetime, to appoint a man who is both at the same time — an accomplished scholar who is thoroughly familiar with the history of his science and wields modern quantitative methods of analysis effectively, and is also an inspiring undergraduate teacher. It would be inexcusable to let that opportunity pass.
It should be added that Caves is younger than the other two and is being considered by two leading universities for a permanent position. If we do not get him now we will in all probability have lost him forever.
I should also like to say that I disagree with the view that Chenery is better suited for Littauer than Caves. True, being older he has more administrative experience. But this should not be decisive, in my opinion, except that from a superficial public relations standpoint it may look appropriate to appoint someone to Littauer who has held a high position in Washington. Both men are intensely interested in policy problems, but both will always feel that they are primarily economists and neither will want to lecture only on policy problems or only to Littauer students.
December 13, 1961
Source: Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 17, Folder “Economics Department 1960-62”.
Image: Radcliffe Archives. Portrait of Gottfried Haberler. (1965).