Tag: Bullock

Maybe attending to the routine business of the Harvard economics department was seen as a welcome respite amidst the Sturm und Drang of the Second World War. Maybe the consensus was simply shared that the transistory shock of the war would soon be over and it was time to worry again about the core missions of Harvard and its economics department. In any event, the following report outlines a “Research Program for the Department of Economics” presented to the visiting committee by the chair of the department’s Committee on Research Program, Professor John D. Black. 

____________________________

Visiting Committee Reports available at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror

Visiting Committee Report 1915

Visiting Committee Report 1974

____________________________

Meeting of the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics with the Department, on Monday, January 10, 1944.

The Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics met with the Department at seven o’clock on Monday, January 10, 1944, at the Harvard Club in Boston. There were present for the Visiting Committee: Roger N. Baldwin, Albert F. Bigelow, Paul M. Herzog, George Rublee (chairman), Charles E. Spencer, and Orrin G. Wood. For the Department: John D. Black, H. H. Burbank, W. L. Crum, John T. Dunlop, Edwin Frickey, Seymour E. Harris, Arthur E. Monroe, Wassily Leontief, Abbott P. Usher, John H. Williams, and Edwin B. Wilson. Mr. Rublee presided.

Mr. Rublee called on Professor Burbank, the chairman of the Department of Economics, to make an opening statement.

Professor Burbank said that in previous years we had at these dinners talked about our teaching difficulties, especially those connected with the junior staff. Last year we discussed Professor Slichter’s experiment with the labor-union representatives. This year the Department had suggested to Mr. Rublee that we consider our most pressing problem of the present, as well as the immediate and long-run future. Fundamentally, this problem is concerned with the Department’s research. We must have a vigorous and effective program of research if we are to have a dominant Department of Economic in the University or, indeed, if the University itself is to maintain its high standing. The Department of Economics has recently appointed a Committee on Research Program. Professor Black is the chairman of this committee.

Professor Black then presented the following report:

RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A department of economics in a large university has three functions to perform:

1. To teach and train students,
2. To contribute to an understanding of the current problems of private enterprise and public affairs,
3. To help develop the science of economics.

In a small college a good job of teaching is about all that can be expected of a department of economics. In a great university the second and third functions are as important as the first.

Fortunately those three functions not only need not interfere with each other, but in a large university can be performed in such a way that each strengthens the other. This does not mean that all can be performed in the same time, but rather that each is better done if the other two are also being strongly carried. As a matter of fact, however, much time and energy is saved if all three are combined. Thus what is learned from the study of current problems can be used very effectively in the classroom and at the same time furnishes needed and valuable inductive material for the development of economic science. One’s teaching, in turn, especially one’s graduate instruction, is a constant source of ideas and suggestions to be developed in research. Only, therefore, if the staff of a department of economics is large enough and well enough financed so that it can work along all three of these lines, is it able to yield a large return upon the investment in it. Only if thus set up and thus functioning is it able to realize the possible economies of combination of these functions.

The Department of Economics of Harvard University has been performing on all of these fronts ever since it was organized. But in the period while the members of this committee have been associated with it, it has by no means measured up to its opportunities on the last two of them, and what is more important, unless some action is taken in the near future, it will miss out still more on its opportunities after the war. It will not only do less well the job it has been trying to do, for reasons to be indicated presently, but also will not reach out and encompass the larger needs of the years ahead. Needless to state, society and the nation are going to be faced with major tasks of adjustment in the years just ahead and over the next decade or two and likewise breath-taking possibilities for social advancement. So important is the role of economies in these developments that if the Department of Economies of Harvard University does not contribute its part to them, this alone will almost be enough to shrink Harvard University in toto into a second- rate institution. This, therefore, is a moment for stock-taking and laying out plans.

It is not part of the assignment of this committee to consider the teaching function of the Department. But some reference must be made to it for the reasons just given. the present course offerings and methods of instruction are not well fitted to the present and the impending future. The function of teaching in a field like ours is primarily to train students to apply economics, and the methods of economic analysis, to the situations which confront them after they leave college. For Harvard undergraduates, most of these situations are situations in private enterprise, although having important public relations. A limited proportion are assignments in the public service itself. The program of teaching needs to be organized in anticipation of the kinds of jobs, mostly private, that the graduates of Harvard University get to do. The graduate teaching program needs to envisage e wide range of working assignments, a large fraction of them in the public service. Training teachers of economics is only one of the functions of graduate teaching. Because the teaching is not organized as needed, there are some large gaps in the present program, and these gaps, it will appear presently, coincide with gaps in the research activities of the department.

The other two functions, contributing directly to an understanding of current situations, and developing economic science, are orginarily considered as research. There is considerably more to the first of these than just research, but since good research is basic to it, we will here consider them both as research and treat them under one head from this point on.

The deficiencies in the research activities of the Department of Economics, considered especially from the standpoint of the postwar can be designated under the following heads:

1. Not enough research is being done
2. There are gaps in it
3. Some of it is not of enough significance.

The reasons for these deficiencies are as follows:

1. Lack of resources to carry on the needed volume of research.
2. This includes resources in research personnel as well as in the expenses of clerical assistants, field study, publication, and the like.
3. Inadequate staff, or none at all, in some important fields.
4. Very little in the way of leadership. Staff not organized in such a way as to promote research.

Let us now consider briefly these four reasons. When an economist does not have financial resources with which to do significant research, he may put in his spare energy on library work on the writings of his predecessors, the Congressional Record, and the like. For this he needs only someone to type his manuscript. If in addition, he has a little money to hire a computer, he may go to work on the census records and other official statistics. Those two descriptions about cover all the research now being done by the Harvard Department of Economics as such.

Lacking funds for anything more, two developments have followed. First, a goodly number of the staff members have taken on research or related assignments with other agencies. Merely to list these agencies tells the story. (We are purposely omitting the wartime agencies), the Treasury Department, the State Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Resources Planning Board, the Food and Nutrition Board, the Bureau of Economic Research, the League of Nations, the Twentieth Century Fund, the National Planning Association, the National Industrial Conference Board, etc. While most of those assignments are important, to have as many of them disorganizes the research and teaching of the Department. Also the Department as such does not get adequate recognition for work done under other auspices. Finally, there is great need for having research done that is largely independent of government agencies. This point cannot be too strongly emphasized.

The second development has been that several members of the Department have started projects that they have not been able to complete thus far. They have learned by sad experience that they cannot swing ambitious projects without the help of trained younger associates who can direct the detail of the analysis and help with the writing. As a result, a number of important projects are now left suspended.

If the Department is to have a vigorous research program of its own, there must be funds with which to employ a dozen or two of these younger research associates, as well as funds for computers, clerical help, drafting, travel and field study.

The Committee is also disposed to think that a clearer recognition should be given to research duties in the total program of the Department. It would suggest that consideration be given to a plan which would differentiate teaching loads according to research carried. Staff members who do very little research, because not inclined that way, or having small capacity for it, would handle more classes under such a plan.

The nature of the gaps in the present program may be judged from a following incomplete survey of fields of research and teaching and the needs of each.

1. Money and credit. Staff ample, but research associates, clerical and other help much needed. High time that a research showing be made.
2. Business cycles. Staff ample. Funds to continue the program that was under way before the war.
3. International economic relationship. Staff probably not entirely adequate and great need of developing a well-rounded research program suited to the postwar world. This program should include work on Inter-American relationships, development of resources of Latin America, international food supply and distribution and related population problems. Research associates and other financial help.
4. Public finance. Staff ample. Research associates and other help needed.
5. Economic history. A teaching as well as research associate needed. One professor now working alone in the field.
6. Labor and industrial relations. The principle problem is to develop a workable program for using the research funds now available.
7. Agriculture. A teaching associate needed, and probably two research associates with necessary supplementary funds.
8. Commodity distribution. Needs complete staffing. An undergraduate and a graduate course are now being given on a makeshift basis. No research under way.
9. Production economics. Courses now bracketed. Needs complete staffing.
10. Forestry economies. A slight beginning has been made on a program in this field in collaboration with the Harvard Forest. An opportunity for an important contribution here. Needs a man to develop teaching and research with such financial support as required.
11. Concerning the several other present fields of teaching and research in the Department, no statement is being made at this time.

The present research funds available for the Department are:

1. A share with three other departments in the remnants of grant that will expire in June 1946. (About $40,000 left, most of which must be reserved for publication expenses.)
2. Remnants of three other small grants, totaling about $6000, for special projects.
3. The Wertheim fund, yielding about $3000 a year, for research in industrial relations, to be shared with other divisions of the University.

The committee suggests as a method of approach to the situation outlined that the Department set up a committee to draft a research program for the Department, and another one to develop a procedure for securing the necessary support for the program.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Professor Black added that in the natural sciences the idea of large laboratories is well established. In Economics also we need extensive laboratories and personnel therefor. Further, we need funds for field workers and for traveling expenses.

Mr. Bigelow asked whether there were any project being worked on in the School of Public Administration which could be coordinated with the research of the Economics Department. Professor Black answered that the idea of combining has already been carried as far as possible. The School of Public Administration funds are sufficient only to take care of the assembling of materials and other routine connected with the seminars.

Mr. Baldwin asked what the Department did with its research funds in the past when such funds were available. Professor Black answered that we made small grants to individual professors to help them finish projects in which they were engaged. These grants covered such activities as preliminary research, computing, and typing, but in general not much was available for field work or for traveling. Some eight or ten books have been published as a result of these projects. The publication of these books, as well as the research behind them, depended largely on research grants. Our research funds are now almost exhausted; we have very little money available for the future.

Professor Usher pointed out that in these earlier grants the modes and procedures were laid down by the donors. The Department did not have a free hand in organizing and planning research.

Mr. Baldwin asked whether the Economics Department today has a claim for research funds superior to that of other departments. Professor Burbank urged that a very strong case can be made out for such a position.

Professor Wilson observed that in days gone by great emphasis was laid on “inter-disciplinary” research. A second-rate “interdisciplinary” project would be given preference over a first-rate piece of restricted research. Professor Wilson further remarked that the research programs of the natural sciences were well set up thirty or forty years ago. Our social sciences, on the other hand, were for a long time treated as mere teaching departments. The movement away from this stand received a great impetus from an article by the late Professor Charles J. Bullock, in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for June 1915. This article called attention to the need of more generous and systematic provision for economic research. Our research program for Economics needs to be extended to a scale comparable with that of the natural sciences—unless, indeed, the United States government is to handle all the economic research in this country!

There was some discussion regarding the relation of university research in Economics to governmental research. Professor Usher pointed out that university research can be the basis for developing techniques of analysis which government bureaus can later put into “mass production.” Mr. Bigelow suggested that the development of techniques is more difficult in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. Professor Leontief predicted that the Economies Department’s research will set the direction for larger-scale governmental or “foundation” research, and emphasized that independent research, especially in its earlier stages, can never be reproduced in the “rough and tumble” conditions of governmental work. Dean Williams supported this view: a situation has been developing for some time—not just in connection with the War emergency—in which men are pulled out of university work to become mere administrators, to “run” projects; furthermore, working under governmental supervision may mean a certain loss of independence of thought, for consciously or unconsciously a men may be affected by considerations of “official policy.” Dr. Dunlop declared that you simply cannot do fundamental research under governmental auspices, there are always too many pressing current problems.

Mr. Herzog urged that the Department’s next step is to present cogent arguments to support its contentions regarding research needs. In this connection, it will be quite important to show people what contributions the Department has made in the past with the research grants allotted to it—what, for example, has resulted for practical use of the Government. Professor Burbank responded that we might take as an example the history of the statistical work on the Balance of International Payments. At the end of the last war the government and business men were vitally interested in this subject. Dean Williams was a pioneer in the field. Dean Williams briefly outlined the record. He began with an examination of the balance of payments for Argentina. Then, under the auspices of the Harvard Economics Society he, together with Professor Bullock and Mr. Tucker, made and presented a historical study of the Balance of Payments of the United States from 1789 to 1920. He kept this study up to date for several years and then turned it over to the Department of Commerce, working with them for a transition period of one year. The Department of Commerce has subsequently carried on the study currently.

As a suggestion regarding further possibilities of this sort, Professor Burbank referred to the problems connected with the incidence of taxation; these are most certainly current issues of the utmost importance. The country needs evidence for the formulation of governmental policy. We have in the Department a young man of high ability who has made a start on the investigation of these problems. We have no funds to help him, not even money for clerical and mechanical assistance.

Professor Burbank indicated that the Department would work a report along the lines of Mr. Herzog’s suggestion.

Mr. Wood urged that the Department visualize its projects and lay them out fully, with an indication of minimum and maximum amounts of money needed. Very little will be gained by talking in generalizations; the program must be concrete. Incidentally, with the Federal tax situation as it is, the present is a propitious time to obtain money for research—with reference both to individuals and to corporations.

Mr. Rublee raised question as to the exact significance of the title “Research Associate.” Professor Black answered that we have something in mind beyond a mere statistical clerk. Between the man in charge of a project and those doing the mechanical work, we need trained young economists who can assume the burden of direct supervision and also can help in writing up the results. Other Research Associates are needed to do traveling and field work. Professor Leontief suggested that the appointment of Research Associates is important for still another reason. Many of the young men thus appointed will become leaders in the economic developments of the future. The experience gained on our projects will be extremely valuable to them.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Mr. Rublee asked Dr. Dunlop to say a few words about the progress of the trade-union experiment which was described by Professor Slichter in this meeting last year. Dr. Dunlop said that this year we have gone ahead with the program, although of necessity on a reduced scale because of man power shortage in the various unions. We have six union representatives who, on the whole, are superior to the group we had last year. We have continued the development of techniques of instruction and we have widened our range of contacts with the unions. The unions are supporting the program and we are establishing new connections with certain important unions. In spite of the fact that the teaching staff has been somewhat depleted and we have had to furnish instruction on the basis of special arrangements, we feel that the year has been decidedly profitable and worth while, both for the union representatives and for us.

Mr. Herzog urged that by all means the work should continue, even though it had to be on a reduced scale. It is much easier to keep on with a going concern than to start afresh. He confirmed Dr. Dunlop’s impressions as to the high quality of the union personnel. He also reported the sincere testimony of a leading member of the labor-union group that the work at Harvard was felt to be highly worth while—to be a vital and crucial experience.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The meeting closed with general expressions of appreciation for Mr. Rublee’s work as chairman of the visiting Committee during the past few years and of the deep indebtedness which the Department feels to him for this work.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 25. Folder: “Visiting Committee Correspondence, 1943-45.”

Image Source: Cropped image of  John D. Black (1938). Harvard Library, Digital Collections.