Categories
Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Junior Honors Reading Lists. Conrad and Henderson, 1958-1959

 

Before the 1958-59 academic year began, tragedy struck the Harvard economics department. Assistant professor of economics Stefan Valavanis (31 years old) was found shot in his tent near Mt. Olympus. He was to be the lead instructor for the Junior year honors course in economics during the up-coming year. With his loss the course was left to his assistant professor colleagues, Alfred Haskell Conrad and James Mitchell Henderson.

Alfred Haskell Conrad, Ph.D. 1954. The Redistribution of Incomes and the Matrix Multiplier: The Impact of Fiscal Policy on the Distribution of Income in 1950. Advisors: W.W. Leontief and John S. Chipman. (Mathematics Genealogy Project)

James Mitchell Henderson, Ph.D. 1955. The Efficiency of the Coal Industry: An Application of Linear Programming. Advisors: W.W. Leontief and Elizabeth Waterman Gilboy. (Mathematics Genealogy Project)

James M. Henderson was co-author with Richard Quandt of Microeconomic Theory: A Mathematical Approach, the leading graduate microeconomics text in its day and (fun fact) married Anne O. Krueger in July 1981 when they both were professors at the University of Minnesota. The two of them moved on to become professors at Duke University. Henderson died in 1992.

_____________________

Course Announcement

Economics 100. Junior Honors Course

Full course. M., 4-6. Assistant Professors [Stefan] Valavanis (in charge), [Alfred Haskell] Conrad and (spring term) [James Mitchell] Henderson.

Permission required of Assistant Professor Valavanis.

Required course for Economics concentrators who are candidates for honors. This course will deal with the theory of wages and prices; problems of public policy in the fields of Industrial Organization and Labor; the relation between descriptive material and theoretical analysis; methods of testing hypotheses. One two-hour group meeting each week organized as a seminar with papers by students. Additional papers and individual conferences with staff members.

Source: Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1958-1959. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. LV, No. 20 (September 3, 1958), p. 89.

_____________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 100. Junior Honors Course. Assistant Professors Conrad and (S) Henderson. Full course.

(F) Total 49: 3 Seniors, 40 Juniors, 3 Sophomores, 3 Radcliffe
(S) Total 46: 4 Seniors, 37 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 3 Radcliffe

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1958-59, p. 70.

_____________________

Final Reading List and Course Outline
Economies 100
Fall, 1958

I. Introduction: Some background and material on the nature and setting of American industrial enterprise. The market mechanism.

W. Adams (ed.), The Structure of American Industry, Chs. 5, 6, 7, 11, 13.

A.B. Jack, “The Channels of Distribution for an Innovation,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, IX, p. 113.

K.E. Boulding, Economic Analysis, Part I (any edition).

II. The Empirical Measurement of Economic Functions.

M.J. Moroney, Facts from Figures, Ch. 2, 4; (probability and central tendency).

R.E. Freund, Modern Elementary Statistics, Ch. 12, 13.

Jan Tinbergen, Econometrics, Chs. 1, 2, 5.

R. G. D. Allen, Mathematical Analysis for Economists, Ch. 2; Ch. 6 (recommended) (functions and derivatives).

III. Factors Determining Industry Structure.

A. Production Theory

E. A. G. Robinson, The Structure of Competitive Industry, Chs. 1-5.

T. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, Chs. 6,7.

V. E. Smith, “The Statistical Production Function,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1944-45, pp. 543-62.

R. G. Bressler, Jr. “Research Determination of Economies of Scale,” Journal of Farm Economics, 1945, p. 526.

B. Cost Curves

Committee on Price Determination for the Conference on Price Research, Cost Behavior and Price Policy, pp. 80-115, 291-301, 219-263, 321-329.

J. Viner, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” Readings in Price Theory. Ch. 10, p. 198.

M. Colberg, et al, Business Economics, Ch. 4, 5.

C. Barriers to entry other than economies of scale

J. Bain, Barriers to New Competition, Ch. 6.

IV. Markets and Pricing:

A. Indifference Curves and Consumer Theory

George J. Stigler, The Theory of Price (any edition) Ch. 5.

Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, Chs. 2, 3, 4.

Boulding, Economic Analysis, Ch. 34 (revised edition).

B. Pure Competition and Pure Monopoly

E. H. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Chs. 1, 2.

T. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, Chs. 8, 16.

C. Oligopoly

Chamberlin, Monopolistic Competition, Chs. 3, 4, 5.

Readings in Price Theory, Chs. 20, 21.

T. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, Ch. 20.

R. M. Alt, “Statistical Measurement of Price Flexibility,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1949, p. 92.

J. Bain, Barriers, Ch. 7.

J. Vanek, “The Nature of Equilibrium in Monopolistic Competition,” Mimeographed.

V. Investment Theory

A. An outline of formal theory

Samuelson, Economics, Ch. 29.

Boulding, Chs. 35-37 (revised edition).

Joel Dean, Capital Budgeting, Chs. 1-3.

J. M. Clark, “Business Acceleration and the Law of Demand,” Readings in Business Cycle Theory.

J. Meyer and E. Kuh, The Investment Decision, Ch. 11 (2).

B. Uncertainty

R. Weckstein, “On the Use of the Theory of Probability in Economics,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 1953, pp. 191-198.

Ward Edwards, “The Theory of Decision Making,” Psychological Bulletin, 1954.

A. G. Hart, Anticipation, Uncertainty, and Dynamic Planning.

C. Financial Considerations

J. Meyer and E. Kuh, The Investment Decision, Chs. 9, 12.

R. Mack, The Flow of Business Funds and Consumer Purchasing Power, Ch. VIII.

W. Heller, “The Anatomy of Investment Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, March 1951.

Fortune, “The Fine Art of Raising Capital,” u, July 1956 and ”How Much Can Business Borrow?” June 1956.

D. The Influence of Market Structure on the Investment Decision and Innovation.

W. Fellner,” The Influence of Market Structure on Technological Progress,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1951, pp. 556-577.

C. Kaysen, “A Dynamic Aspect of the Monopoly Problem,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1949, pp. 109-113.

Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Ch. VIIl, pp. 87-106.

_____________________

Economics 100
Reading List
Spring, 1959

I. General Equilibrium.

E. Phelps Brown, The Framework of the Pricing System, Chaps. II-IV.

F. Zeuthen, Economic Theory and Method, Chaps. 10-12 and pp. 194-197.

J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Part II.

W. W. Leontief, “Input-Output Economics,” Scientific American, October, 1951.

W. W. Leontief, “Input-Output Analysis and the General Equilibrium Theory,” in T. Barna, ed., The Structural Interdependence of the Economy, pp. 42-49.

Selected Applications

(The material listed under this heading may be used as the basis for tutorial papers and discussion. Specific assignments will be made by the instructor.)

W. W. Leontief, “Factor Proportions and the Structure of American Trade,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov., 1956.

R. S. Eckaus, “The Factor Proportions Problem in Underdeveloped Areas,” American Economic Review, September, 1955.

II. Welfare Economics.

T. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, Chaps. 4, 8, 16. (for review).

J. de V. Graaff, Theoretical Welfare Economics. Chaps. I-V, X, XI. (omit the appendices)

K. Boulding, “Welfare Economics,” in Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. II, B. F. Haley, ed.

A. P. Lerner, The Economics of Control, Chaps. 3, 4.

Selected Applications

M. Friedman, in R. Solo, ed., Economics and the Public Interest, Chap. 9.

W. S. Vickey, The Revision of the Rapid Transit Fare Structure of the City of New York, (hectographed; in Littauer Library).

J. V. Krutilla and O. Eckstein, Multi-Purpose River Development, 1958.

N. Kaldor, The Expenditure Tax.

III. Macro ModelsCycles, Growth, Money.

G. Haberler, Prosperity and Depression, Chaps. 2, 3, 5.

A. Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income, Part Il.

A. Hansen, Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Chaps. 3-6.

J. S. Duesenberry, Business Cycles and Economic Growth, Chaps. 2-5, 9-12.

C. Christ, “Aggregate Econometric Models,” American Economic Review, June, 1956

H. Makower and J. Marschak, “Assets, Prices and Monetary Theory,” in G. Stigler and K. Boulding, eds., Readings in Price Theory. Chap. 14.

J. Gurley and E. Shaw, “Financial Aspects of Economic Development,” American Economic Review, September, 1955.

Selected applications from the fields of wage and price policy, inflation, international trade and development will be assigned by the instructors.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University: Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 7, Folder “Economics, 1958-59 (1 of 2).”

Image Sources:

Left. 1959 Alfred Haksell Conrad, John Simon Guggeheim Memorial Foundation.
Right:  1959, James M. Henderson, University of Minnesota Archives.

Categories
Economics Programs Graduate Student Support Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Chairman’s Report to the Dean. Harris, 1956

 

The previous post provided transcriptions of the annual reports to the Dean by the chairman of the economics department from 1932 through 1941. This post skips ahead to the middle of the 1950s to give us a glimpse of the post-war Harvard economics department. Seymour Harris’ big take-aways from his 45 year survey of undergraduate and graduate economics courses taught by Harvard economics faculty: (i) “the proportion of undergraduate courses given by full professors has fallen from 75 to 35 percent” and (ii) “graduate courses are relatively 5 times as numerous as they were in 1909-10.” (from July 3, 1956 cover letter to Dean McGeorge Bundy that accompanied the report transcribed below).

It is also interesting to note that the economics department’s continues to plead for more funds to compensate it for “…about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account[ing] for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis)…”. Harris wrote this report two decades after the Graduate School of Public Administration had opened for business.

____________________________

CONFIDENTIAL

June 30, 1956

Report to the Dean of the Faculty for the Academic Year 1955-56
by Seymour E. Harris, Chairman of the Department of Economics

Contents

Undergraduate Instruction

  1. More Mature Staff for Economics 1.
  2. Contents of Economics 1.
  3. Staff Meetings of Economics 1.
  4. Lectures in Economics 1.
  5. Economics Tutorial.
  6. High Honors Concentrators.
  7. Seminars for Honors Graduates.

Allocation of Resources

  1. Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa.
  2. Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  3. Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  4. Table 1 – Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  5. Table 2 – Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank.
  6. Table 3 – Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate.
  7. The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction.
  8. Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members of Faculty.
  9. Ibid., Statistical Summary.
  10. Number of Faculty by Rank.

Relations with G.S.P.A.

  1. Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A.
  2. Contributions of G.S.P.A. to Economics Department.
  3. Overall Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars.

Library Problems

  1. Library Problems.

Fellowships

  1. Inadequate Fellowships.
  2. Campaign for Additional Money.
  3. Outside Fellowships.

Research and Personnel Problems

  1. Competition of Research Fellowships for Potential Teachers.
  2. Research Projects.
  3. Financing of Pay of Director of Research Projects.
  4. Small Research Grants.
  5. Secretarial Help.
  6. Personnel Changes.
  7. Honors, etc.

 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Undergraduate Instruction

The Department is especially concerned with the problem of undergraduate instruction. Confronted with a trend away from economics the country over (see my Memo to the Alumni of the Harvard Graduate School in Economics, May, 1956, p. 4) and the competition of an unusually able corps of undergraduate teachers in competing fields at Harvard and notably in history and government we are paying increased attention to our undergraduate instruction. In the last year we have taken the following steps:

  1. More Mature Staff for Economics 1. We are using a larger proportion of instructors and assistant professors in Economics 1. We expect that half the Economics 1 staff will consist of instructors and assistant professors in 1956-57 as compared with 20 per cent in 1955-56.
  2. Contents of Economics 1. We are revising Economics 1 for 1956-57. Economics 1 has become too technical. One advantage of increasing the average age of the staff is that the older men are less inclined to teach the highly technical economics they get in graduate courses. Probably less than 20 per cent of those enrolled in Economics 1 are, or are likely to become, concentrators in economics; and no more than 1-2 per cent will become economists. Our major responsibility is to give the student in Economics 1 relatively simple economic theory and relate it to the major issues of public policy. We intend to devote more time to integrating our economics with history and political science. Macroeconomics will continue to receive a major part of our attention, but less time will be given to the economics of the firm.
  3. Staff Meetings of Economics 1. The Chairman now meets with the Economics 1 staff for 1½ hours every 2 weeks and in every possible way is trying to make the teaching fellow and other junior members, who contribute so much time and enthusiasm to our teaching program, feel as though they are an important part of our department staff.
  4. Lectures in Economics 1. This year we doubled our lectures in Economics 1 — a lecture every other week. In these lectures we try to go over ground not covered in the readings and also incidentally to give the undergraduate an opportunity to listen to some of the top economists in the country. We are now not disposed to increase the number of lectures further but we shall continue the experiment. Of this I am convinced — lectures are not likely to be as important in Economics 1 as in the elementary course in government and history (Social Science). The undergraduate probably gets much more from discussions of economics in small sections than from lectures.
  1. Economics Tutorial. Tutorial in economics is not as good as it ought to be. We are wrestling with this problem. We intend to have more meetings of tutors and to impress upon them the importance of tutorial. At one of our Executive Committee meetings, we had a frank discussion with the seven masters and several senior tutors concerning our tutorial work. Our Junior tests, tied to house tutorial, seem to be working well. This year we prepared an extensive reading list for Sophomore tutorial; and next year we intend to integrate tutorial and Economics 1 more than in the past. We hope that tutorial in the second half of the Sophomore year will deal with some of the theoretical problems that will be excluded from Economics 1.
  1. High Honors Concentrators. This year we had periodic meetings with all first and second group men in economics. At these meetings (one evening every two weeks) we try to encourage discussions of important problems in the seminar manner.
  1. Seminars for Honor Graduates. Economics 100 and 102 are two new courses (to be introduced in 1956-57 and 1957-58) to be open to Junior and Senior honors students. They will be run on a seminar basis, limited in enrollment, and will be integrated with tutorial. The student will get an opportunity to deal with theoretical problems and their empirical counterpart.

Allocation of Resources

  1. Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa. Here are some tables which throw some light on the allocation of resources between undergraduate and graduate courses. Generally courses for undergraduates and graduates are taken primarily by undergraduates, and courses for graduates primarily by graduates. Hence, we assume that the courses for undergraduates and graduates are in fact courses for undergraduates and courses for graduates are in fact courses for graduates. (In the spring term 1956 the percentage of Arts and Science graduate enrollment in courses for undergraduates and graduates was 14 or 1 per cent of the 1181 enrolled in these courses; the enrollment of undergraduates in courses primarily for graduates was 10 of 482, or 2 per cent).
  2. Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. Table 1 reveals relatively unimportant changes in the number of courses for undergraduates; and the net change in the number of courses for undergraduates and graduates (in fact undergraduate courses) in the last 40-50 years has not been large. In 1909-10, there were 10½ undergraduate courses (inclusive of half courses for undergraduates and graduates and exclusive of bracketed courses); in 1955-56, there were 14½ of such courses.
  3. Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. It is especially in graduate courses that the rise has been spectacular. In 1909-10 there were 1½ graduate courses in Economics (exclusive of bracketed ones); by 1929-30, there were 11; by 1939-40, there were 12½ courses; by 1949-50, there were 21½ courses; and by 1955-56, there were 24. All these totals include half courses.
  1. Table 1 — Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56*
    (Refers to Units of Full Courses)
  1909-10 1919-20 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Rank U G U G U G U G U G U G
Full Prof. 8 1 3 7 4 ½ 7 7 ¼ 16 ¾ 8 15 ¼ 5 18
Assoc. Prof. 3 3 3 ¼ 1 ¾ 1 3 ¼ 3 2 ½
Asst. Prof. 1 ½ ½ 3 ½ 2 ½ 1 ½ 2 ½ 4 2
Instructor & Lecturer 1 3 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 3 3 2 ½ 1 ½
Total 10 ½ 1 ½ 9 ½ 10 ½ 10 11 12 ½ 19 ½ 14 ½ 21 ½ 14 ½ 24
  1. Table 2 — Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank*
    (Refers to Nearest Decimal point)
  1909-10 1919-20 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Rank U G U G U G U G U G U G
Full Prof. 76 66 32 67 45 64 58 86 55 73 35 75
Assoc. Prof. 30 27 26 9 7 14 21 10
Asst. Prof. 14 36 24 10 4 17 27 8
Instructor & Lecturer 10 34 32 9 15 9 12 5 21 13 17 7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

* U = “undergraduate” and “undergraduate and graduate”;  G = “graduate”.
Source: Compiled from Course of Study Volumes.

  1. Table 3 — Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate
Total No. of Courses % of Total Courses
(Exclusive of Bracketed Courses)
“Undergraduate” and
“Undergraduate & Graduate”
Graduate
(Inclusive of G.S.P.A. Economics Courses)
1909-10 12 88 12
1929-30 21 56 44
1939-40 32 39 61
1949-50 36 41 59
1955-56 38½ 38 62

From 1909 to 1929-30 the percentage of graduate courses was up from 12 to 44 per cent; but since 1929-30 the rise has been less spectacular. In Table 2, we note the courses, both undergraduate and graduate, given by men of various rank, from 1909-10 to 1955-56. The following points should be noted.

  1. The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction. In 1909-10 there were but 1½ out of 12 courses, or 12 per cent, graduate courses. By 1929-30 courses were roughly evenly divided between graduate and undergraduate. By 1939-40 and 1949-50 the ratio was about 60 per cent graduate courses; and by 1955-56, 62 per cent of all courses were graduate courses, or 5 times as much relatively as in 1909-10.
  2. Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members Faculty. Whereas in 1909-10 full professors accounted for 76 per cent of undergraduate course work, by 1955-56 they gave only 35 per cent of these courses; and there has been a marked decline since 1949-50. The total of undergraduate courses taught by them dropped from 1949-50 to 1955-56 by 3, or 37 per cent, and of graduate courses rose by 2¾ or 18 per cent. A similar trend is evident for associate professors, though from 1949-50 to 1955-56, the percentage of undergraduate courses taught by associate professors rose. It is a striking fact that in 1955-56, full professors taught 37 per cent less undergraduate courses and 1700 per cent more graduate courses than in 1909-10. In the former year there were 4 full professors, each responsible on the average for 2 full undergraduate courses and ¼ graduate courses. In 1955-56, 13 full professors averaged 1/3 of 1 undergraduate course and 1.4 graduate courses. (All 13 were not on full time). It is clear that the trend is away from undergraduate teaching for permanent members of the Department.
  3. Ibid., Statistical Summary. As might be expected, the percentage of all graduate courses taught by full professors tends to rise and of undergraduate courses to fall — the latter courses taught by professors declined from 76 per cent in 1909-10 to 45 per cent in 1929-30, and to 35 per cent by 1955-56.
  4. Number of Faculty by Rank. In this connection, the number at different ranks is of some interest. The full professors account for a somewhat larger proportion (teaching fellows omitted) than 50 years ago; but permanent appointments are an increased percentage.
  1909-10 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Professors 4 5 12 13 13
Assoc. Professors 3 3 2 4
Asst. Professors 1 2 1 4 4
Lecturers and Instructors 3 2 3 4 3
Visiting, etc. Professors 2
(part-time)
3
(part-time)
1
Total (excl. Visiting) 8 12 19 23 24
———— ———— ———— ———— ———— ————
% Full Prof. (excl. Visiting) 50 42 63 57 54
% Permanent (incl. Permanent Lecturers) 50 67 89 74 75

Relations with the Graduate School of Public Administration

  1. Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A. Our relations with the G.S.P.A. are of great importance. It is now close to 20 years since the G.S.P.A. was founded and yet the Department of Economics has never taken a long look at our relations. The Economics Department accounts for about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis).
  2. Contributions of G.S.P.A to Economics Department. The G.S.P.A. has made an important contribution towards the Economics Department. It provides some research and secretarial help, good physical facilities, useful library, central facilities for students and faculty, an opportunity to give our students excellent seminars, and to meet outstanding scholars and practical men in government.
  3. Over-all Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars. It may be that a decision should be made concerning the number of seminars. We tend to add one at a time, and the numbers now are at such a level that we may be putting a disproportionate amount of energy into these seminars. At any rate, net additions should be considered with care, given our available manpower. At present only 6 of the 18 permanent members of our faculty are not associated with the G.S.P.A.; and of the 6, Professors Dorfman and Duesenberry are about to participate. Of 27 courses to be given by permanent members of the Department, 7¼ will be as seminars in the G.S.P.A.

Library Problems

  1. Library Problems. Professor Arthur Cole retires this year. He has for many years been responsible for the acquisition of books in economics. Unless this responsibility is assumed by another, our economic collection will deteriorate. So far we have not been able to work out an arrangement acceptable to the Dean and the Director of the library. In my opinion, there is need for a central responsibility for library acquisitions in economics.

Fellowships

  1. Inadequate Fellowships. One of our most serious problems is fellowships. A study of fellowship funds announced as available to students suggested that Harvard was falling way behind. In a recent period of 5 years, five institution which are our strongest competitors had 30, 23, 20, 10, and 5 times as much money available for fellowships per Ph.D. granted in these five years. Increasingly we are losing the best students to rival institutions.
  2. Campaign for Additional Money. We have discussed this problem with Dean Bundy and Dean Elder, and also with our Visiting Committee. We have set up a committee consisting of Dean Mason, Professors Slichter, Dunlop and Harris to seek aggressively more fellowship funds. We are seeking these funds in the expectation that the major part of new funds will be available as additional funds for the Economics Department. Our goal is 6 fellowships at $2500 per year, or $15,000 per year additional. We discovered last year that by offering large fellowships to a limited number, we were more successful than in the past in attracting the more able candidates.
  3. Outside Fellowships. Our fellowship problem is eased by the availability of fellowships given by outside groups — governments, foundations etc. For example, Harvard received 5 of the 15 Wilson National fellowships for 1956-57. But it should be observed that there is often pressure to deny applicants access to the major universities and especially to Harvard. There is pressure to distribute widely, Moreover, a large proportion of these fellowship holders are often below our usual fellowship standards.

Research and Personnel Problems

  1. Competition of Research Fellowship Money for Potential Teachers. It is becoming increasingly easy for graduate students writing theses to receive fellowships that generally pay at least as much as a teaching fellowship. This year we lost 10 potential teachers as a result of these lucrative fellowships.
  2. Research Projects. Many of the Senior members of the staff are associated with large research projects, some of them of great significance. At least 9 of these projects may be classified as giant projects, three of them involving outlays of one half million or more dollars in the next 3-5 years. In 1955-56, Professor Leontief received almost one half million dollars to continue the projects of the Harvard Economic Group, and Dean Mason received $450,000 for a study of the New York Metropolitan area.
  3. Financing of Pay of Directors of Projects. It has always seemed to the Chairman, at least, that the foundations ought to pay part of the salary of the faculty members who direct these projects. When these projects are the major interest of those responsible for them, a case could be made for the foundation paying part of the salary of the relevant members of the faculty.
  4. Small Research Grants. It would be helpful to get some help from the Ford Foundation for small research projects especially for those who do not participate in the giant projects. I have had some preliminary discussion with the Ford Foundation, and I believe they would look with favor on an application for $25,000-30,000 per year for research help. Grants might vary from a few hundred dollars to $1,000-2,000 and be tied with specific projects. The great danger here is abuse of the privileges. Hence any such grant would have to be carefully administered – with some representation of outside economists on the committee.
  5. Secretarial Help. A related problem is that of secretarial help. Most of the Senior members, through administrative posts, control of seminars, editorial work, and research grants, manage to get the minimum amount of secretarial help. But 5 of our permanent members have virtually no access to secretaries and this is also true of most of our assistant professors. It would be helpful if some provision could be made for secretarial help for those without it. We realize this raises serious problems of finance.
  6. Personnel Changes. Professor Hansen retires this year and Professor Williams next year. We thus lose the best combination in money, cycles, and fiscal policy available anywhere. It is going to be difficult to fill this gap. Professor Black’s departure has also left a serious gap. We have added 2 very able assistant professors, Drs. J. Henderson and Valavanis, aside from two appointments (Drs. Moses and Conrad) in which the Economics Department shares one quarter of the cost. For 1957-58 and 1958-59, the Economics Department will have the services of Dr. E. Hoover for 3/7 of his time. We probably have the most able group of assistant professors in our history. It is not going to be easy to fill the gaps noted above, and make the most effective use of the young talent now in the Department. The Visiting Committee is again raising the question of a Professor of Business Enterprise, a matter to which we should give earnest attention. President Conant and Provost Buck were apparently prepared at the last discussion of this problem to provide an additional appointment for this purpose.
  7. Honors, etc. Dean Mason received an honorary degree from Harvard, and was a United States Representative at the United Nations Conference in Geneva on Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy.

Professor Hansen gave the Walgreen lectures at the University of Chicago.

Professor Harris served as Chairman of the Nor England Governors” Textile Committee,

Professor Galbraith advised the Indian Government on their Five Year Plan.

Professor Smithies was a Visiting Professor at Oxford and Professor

Kaysen at the London School of Economics.

 

Books:

Galbraith and Holton: Marketing Efficiency in Puerto Rico.

Harris: Keynes: Economist and Policy Maker.

Harris: New England Textiles and the New England Economy: Report to the Conference of New England Governors.

Kaysen: United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation: An Economic Analysis of an Anti-Trust Case.

Kaysen and Harris were two of the four co-authors of the American Business Creed.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2,  Folder: “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean, 1955-”.

Image Source: Seymour E. Harris in The Harvard Class Album 1957.

 

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Economist Market Economists Harvard M.I.T.

Chicago. Three casual letters from Cambridge, Mass. regarding young talent, 1957-59

 

In the three letters to Theodore W. Schultz transcribed for this post we witness the old-boy network at work in Chicago’s search for young talent.  Mason and Harris from Harvard share the enormous respect that Harvard Junior Fellow Frank Fisher had won from the senior professors there.  Evsey Domar hedges somewhat in his assessment of Robert L. Slighton but more or less places him in a spectrum running between Marc Nerlove and Martin Bailey closer to the latter. Other now familiar (and less familiar) names are tossed in for good measure.

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Office of the Dean

Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

December 27, 1957

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Ted:

In addition to [John] Meyer, [James] Henderson and [Otto] Eckstein, I would also name Franklin Fisher and Daniel Ellsberg as among our really promising young men. Fisher and Ellsberg are, at present, both junior fellows. Fisher is something of a wunderkind, having graduated summa cum laude from Harvard at the age of 18. He published a mathematical article on Welfare Economics when he was a senior, and those who can understand it say it’s good. He is only 20 now, and, of course, it is difficult to say how he is going to turn out. He may be another Paul Samuelson, and on the other hand he may not. Ellsberg is another one of our summas and a very good man, indeed. I don’t think he measures up to John Meyer, but is probably in the Henderson and Eckstein category. Since I promised you six names, I will add that of [???] Miller who came to us this year from California. I have really seen nothing of him, and consequently, can no give you a first-hand judgement. My colleagues, however, think he is very good.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Ed
Edward S. Mason
Dean

ESM:rrl

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

January 5, 1959

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

It was good to see you even though it was for a very short period. As you know, we include on our list of available men only those who have requested to be put on the list or who have given us their permission to have their name included in the list. It represents men who are either already Ph.D.’s or will receive their Ph.D. within the year, and who are actually available for the coming year.

[Daniel] Ellsberg will be getting his Ph.D. this year, but he is going to Rand at a salary of about $10,000. [Franklin] Fisher will not have his Ph.D. until June 1960. He is just out of college three years and has been offered an assistant professorship at Carnegie Tech. We have now promised him a similar appointment, and in fact he said he would prefer to be at Harvard.

Among other young men of talent who are now here but are not on our permanent roster are the following: Leon Moses who teaches half time in the department and does research with the [Wassily] Leontief project half time. There is a good chance that Moses will go to Pittsburgh, particularly in order to work on the metropolitan project with [Edgar M.] Hoover. Moses is an excellent man in every way and certainly of permanent quality: the same holds for Alfred Conrad who is in somewhat the same position as Moses. Incidentally, both of them have a leave for next year: There is also André Daniere who will be an assistant professor next year and who works primarily with Leontief. Daniere is another good man, though probably not quite as good as the others.

Then there are Otto Eckstein, James Henderson, Jaroslav Vanek and Louis Lefeber. They are all excellent men and in the running for a permanent appointment. Actually, during the next few years we will have but one or two openings and obviously we cannot keep all these men. There is little to choose among them and we will have a tough time making a decision. Please keep this in the highest confidence.

With kind regard, I am,

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SHE/jw

____________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

January 14, 1959

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

Your letter of January 6, regarding [Robert L.] Slighton is not quite easy to answer. I do not know [Daniel] Elsberg [sic] or [Franklin] Fisher well enough to make comparisons, but I will try to compare Slighton with [Martin J.] Bailey and [Marc] Nerlove. From the point of view of statistical and mathematical ability, Nerlove stands in a class all by himself, and I do not think that Slighton’s comparative advantage is in those fields. As far as Bailey is concerned, he may have flashes of ideas at times superior to Slighton’s. On the other hand, I would credit Slighton with greater solidity, more common sense and better judgment. As far as long-run contributions are concerned, I don’t know on whom of the two I would bet at the moment, but Slighton would be a serious contender in any such betting.

Lloyd [Metzler]’s session went quite well. He was greeted by the audience most warmly and was pleased about the whole works very much. I am very happy that that meeting was arranged and that I could participate in it.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Evsey D
Evsey D. Domar

EDD:jr

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 9.

Categories
Economists Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Undergraduate

Harvard. Syllabus and final exam for National Income and its Distribution. Conrad, 1958

 

 

For this post I have transcribed the syllabus with reading assignments together with the final exam questions for Alfred H. Conrad’s undergraduate semester course, “National Income and its Distribution,” taught at Harvard during the 1958-59 academic year. As utterly important as the national income accounts have proven themselves to be, the data from these accounts are generally just taken for granted by the overwhelming majority of economists and woe be the instructor who tries to introduce such material in more than one or two sessions in their macroeconomics course. But I have always liked the stuff and so this course enters the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror collection.

While I can recall having heard of his pioneering econometric work on American slavery with John R. Meyer in an American economic history course I took many decades ago at Yale, I really knew nothing about Conrad’s career, other work, or his personal life. The biographical data from the members’ survey of the American Economic Association are undoubtedly the truth, but not the whole truth, which is why I have provided the link to his New York Times obituary and a story about his wife, the poet Adrienne Rich. Suicide sadly cut his career short but I am happy to enter these few artifacts into the historical record in his memory.

_______________

On Alfred H. Conrad and his wife, poet, Adrienne Rich

New York Times obituary for Alfred H. Conrad: October 20, 1970.

The Guardian article “Poet and Pioneer” by John O’Mahoney (15 June 2002) that provides a review of the work of Conrad’s wife, the poet Adrienne Rich, with a dozen paragraphs about their lives together.

_______________

American Economic Association
Member Biographic Entry, 1969

CONRAD, Alfred Haskell, academic; b. New York City, 1924; A.B., Harvard, 1947, M.A., 1949, Ph,D., 1954.

DOC. DIS. The Redistribution of Income and the Matrix Multiplier, 1953.

FIELDS 2ab, 3ab, Ic.

PUB. The Economics of Slavery and other studies in econometric history (with John R. Meyer), 1964; The Impact of Education and Research on Efficiency in CES Production Relations (with Murray Brown), 1967; Econometric Models and Development Planning, 1968.

RES. The Diffusion of Technological Innovations.

Asst. prof., Northwestern, 1955-56; asst. prof. econ., Harvard, high, 1956-59, mem. sr. research staff, Econ. Research Project, 1952-59, lectr. bus. adm., 1959-61, asso. prof. bus. adm., Grad. Sch., 1962-66; vis. prof., Netherlands Sch. Econ., 1961-62; prof. econs., City Coll., City U. of New York since 1966, exec. officer of Grad. Program since 1969.

Source: American Economic Association. Biographical Listings of Members. The American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No. 6, 1969. Handbook of the American Economic Association (Jan., 1970), p. 84.

_______________

Course Description

Economics 124. National Income and its Distribution

Half course (fall term). M., W., F., at 10. Assistant Professor Conrad.

Measurement of national income and income inequality; theories of distribution among factors and individuals; factor-shares and inequality in a general equilibrium explanation; inequality and growth in mature and in underdeveloped economies; government redistribution; testing the hypotheses.

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. LV, No. 24 (November 28, 1958), General Catalogue Issue, 1958-1959, p. 123.

_______________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 124. National Income and its Distribution. Assistant Professor Conrad. Half course (Fall).

Total, 12: 3 Seniors, 7 Juniors, 1 Sophomores, 1 Other.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1958-59. Page 71.

_______________

Economics 124
NATIONAL INCOME AND ITS DISTRIBUTION
Fall, 1958

  1. National Income and Social Accounting.
    1. Introduction; conceptual framework for income accounting.

The definition and measurement of national income. Income inequality, growth, and ethical norms. The production accounts of the firm and the income accounts of the economy.

Readings:

Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, Kuznets, “National Income,” pp. 3-33.
Ruggles and Ruggles, National Income Accounts and Income Analysis, Chs. 1-4, pp. 3-68.
Hicks, Hart, and Ford, Social Framework of the American Economy, Chs. 16, 17, pp. 209-234.

    1. The construction of the national income accounts.

The problems of valuation and aggregation.

Readings:

Ruggles and Ruggles, Chs. 5-8, pp. 69-186.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Income, 1954 Edition, pp. 30-60, 160-165.
Hicks, Hart, and Ford, Ch. 15, pp. 198-208.

    1. Two special problems.

Maintaining capital intact.
The product of government.

Readings:

Hicks, Hart, and Ford, Ch. 10 and Appendix Note C, pp. 117-130, 296-300, and Ch. 13, pp. 173-185.

Reference:

Income and Wealth, Series I, ed. E. Lundberg, “Government Product and National Income” (Kuznets), pp. 178-245.

    1. A review of aggregate income trends and analysis.

Readings:

Ruggles and Ruggles, Chs. 10-12, pp. 213-303.
Income and Wealth, Series II, ed. S. Kuznets, “Long-Term Changes in the National Income of the United States Since 1870” (Kuznets), pp. 29-241. This study should be read by the time we reach section 8, below—not later than November 14.

  1. The Theory of Income Distribution.
    1. Introduction; income distribution in economic analysis.

Readings:

Readings, J. M. Clark, “Distribution,” pp. 58-71.
M. A. Copeland, “Social and Economic Determinants of the Distribution of Income,” AER, March 1947, pp. 56-75.

    1. The distribution of the product among the factors of production.

The classical descriptions and Marx.
The marginalists.
Market position and monopoly; the effectiveness of unions.
General equilibrium and employment theories.

Readings:

Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy, Chs. 4, 5, 6, pp. 88-127 (Sraffa edition).
Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, Chs. 4, 5, pp. 56-95.
Hicks, Theory of Wages, Chs. 1-5, pp. 1-111.
The Impact of the Union (ed. Wright), Samuelson, Ch. 15, pp. 312-342, and Friedman, Ch. 10, pp. 204-234.
Readings, R.A. Gordon, “Enterprise, Profits, and the Modern Corporation,” pp. 558-570.
L. C. Reynolds, “Impact of Collective Bargaining on Wage Structure,” Theory of Wage Determination, ed. J. T. Dunlop, pp. 194-221.

Reference:

Dalton, The Inequality of Incomes, esp. Parts II and III.
Douglas, Theory of Wages, esp. Part I and Ch. 8.
Wootton, The Social Foundations of Wage Policy.
Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution.

    1. The distribution of income among individuals.

The possession of skills and property.
Normal curves, Pareto’s Law, and chance.

Readings:

Studies in Income and Wealth, Volume XV, Garvy, “Inequality of Income; Causes and Measurement,” pp. 25-47.
A. D. Roy, “The Distribution of Earnings and of Individual Output,” Econ Journal, Sept. 1950, pp. 489-505.
A. D. Roy, “Some Thoughts on the Distribution of Earnings,” Oxford Econ Papers, 1951, pp. 135-

Reference:

Dalton, Part IV.

    1. The data on functional and personal distribution of income in the U.S.

Readings:

D. G. Johnson, “Functional Distribution of Income in the U.S.,” RES, May 1954, pp. 175-183.
G. H. Moore, “Secular Changes in the Distribution of Income,” AER, Papers and Proceedings, May 1952, pp. 527-544.
E. F. Denison, “Income Types and the Size Distribution,” AER, Papers and Proceedings, May 1954, pp. 254-269.
S. Goldsmith, et al, “Size Distribution of Income since the Mid-Thirties,” RES, February 1954, pp. 1-32.
H. Miller, Income of the American People, Chs. 3, 8, 9, pp. 16-33, 97-123.

References:

U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Income Distribution in the United States, Washington, 1953.
Kuznets, Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings.
M. J. Bowman, “A Graphical Analysis of Personal Income Distribution in the United States,” Readings, pp. 72-99.

III. [No section title]

    1. Income Inequality and Growth

Income, consumption and investment.
Technical change, capital formation, and income shares.
Income shares and industrial structure.

Readings:

Baumol, Economic Dynamics, Chs. 2, 3, pp. 11-35.
Duesenberry, “Income-Consumption Relations and their Implications,” in Income, Employment, and Public Policy, pp. 54-81.
Kurihara, “Distribution, Employment, and Secular Growth,” in Post-Keynesian Economics, Ch. 10, pp 251-273.
Kuznets, “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,” AER, March 1955, pp. 1-28.
Hicks, Theory of Wages, Ch. 6, pp. 112-135.
E. H. Phelps-Brown, “The Long-Term Movement of Real Wages,” in Theory of Wage Determination, ed. J. T. Dunlop, pp. 48-65.

Reference:

F. A. Hanna, “Contribution of Manufacturing Wages to Regional Differences in Per-Capita Income,” RES, February 1951.

    1. Inflation and Income Inequality.

Readings:

Keynes, “Social Consequences of Changes in the Value of Money,” Essays in Persuasion, pp. 80-104.
Bach and Ando, “Redistributional Effects of Inflation,” RES, February 1957, pp. 1-13.

Reference:

D. Seers, Changes in the Cost of Living and the Distribution of Income, Oxford, 1949.
Joint Committee on the Economic Report, Low-Income Families and Economic Stability, 1949.

    1. The State and the Distribution.

Who pays the taxes?
Redistribution through public expenditures.

Readings:

Conrad, “Redistribution through Government Budgets in the U.S.,” in Income Redistribution and Public Policy, pp. 178-267.
Conrad, “On the Calculation of Tax Burdens,” Economica, November 1955, pp. 342-348.

    1. Conclusion.

Readings:

Kuznets, in Studies in Income and Wealth, Volume XV, pp. 203-213.
Tinbergen, “Welfare Economics and Income Distribution,” AER, Papers and Proceedings, May 1957, pp. 490-503.

Reference:

Lampman, “Recent Thoughts on Egalitarianism,” QJE, May 1957, pp. 234-266.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 7. Folder “Economics, 1958-1959 (1 of 2)”.

_______________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 124
FINAL EXAMINATION
January 16, 1959

Answer Question 1 and any four others.

  1. (a) or (b):

(a) The Council of Economic Advisers, in their report to the President in January, 1953, stated:

“…the preferable general formula—once wages, prices and profits are in a workable relationship—is for money wages to increase with productivity trends in the whole economy.”

Discuss this suggestion in the light of your reading period assignment, bringing in relevant recent data on the effect of inflation upon factor shares to illustrate your argument.

(b) Describe briefly the law of proportional effect and discuss its application to the income generating process. Be careful to consider the economic relevance of the conditions and results of the statistical model.

  1. Describe the tendencies toward a falling rate of profit in (1) the “classical”, (2) the Marxian, and (3) neo-classical description of capital accumulation. How would the possibility of technological change affect this tendency?
  2. Who are the poor in the post-World War II United States?
  3. You are hired as a technical expert on national income accounts to advise a country in which economists, among other basic resources, are in short supply. In detail, discuss the statistics you will need to answer the following questions: (1) who saves? (2) what has been the trend the savings/income ratio?
  4. “One might thus assume a long swing in the inequality characterizing the secular income structure: widening in the early phases of economic growth when the transition from the pre-industrial to the industrial civilization was most rapid; becoming stabilized for awhile; and then narrowing in the later phases.” Write a concise explanation, in outline form if you like, for the declining inequality suggested here.
  5. How would you reconcile the marginal productivity theory of wages (as presented, say, by Hicks) with the collective bargaining explanation of Lloyd Reynolds or the inertia-displacement theory of Phelps Brown? You may include in your argument any other readings that seem to be relevant.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Social Sciences. Final Examinations, January 1959. (HUC7000.28, 122 of 284). Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, Government, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. January, 1959.

Image Source: Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Fellows page for Alfred Haskell Conrad.